Jump to content

cinepro

Contributor
  • Content count

    9,241
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7,109 Excellent

About cinepro

  • Rank
    It's pronounced "cinepro"

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Southern California

Recent Profile Visitors

10,120 profile views
  1. As others have pointed out, that is a monumental assumption (and impossible to prove).
  2. First, Ed Kimball notes that "some" people understood McConkie's comment as referring to an audible voice, not "everyone." That's great that you didn't. Second, President Hinckley's quote is from 1988, so President Kimball never would have had a chance to express his thoughts about it as he did with McConkie's. And third, President Hinckley's quote also includes this: So I'm pretty sure President Kimball would have been okay with it, although I would be more curious why the excerpt you quoted omits the "no voice audible to our physical ears" part. That's a little suspicious...
  3. Scott Woodward needs to put that McConkie quote out to pasture:
  4. The First Vision and "Hiding History"

    I think in principle that sounds good, and it worked up until the internet was invented. But in 2017, we need to decide whether Church is going to be the first place that LDS go to learn the history and have invigorating discussion about Church stuff, or the last. Because with all due respect, focusing on giving people warm, spiritual feelings for three hours to the exclusion of "Church history" isn't working anymore.
  5. The First Vision and "Hiding History"

    Instead of saying "you should have known", the correct response would probably be "the reason you didn't know is because you didn't care."
  6. As for the fireside itself, I didn't expect much from it but even then I was a little surprised at how facile it was. I acknowledge I have tunnel vision from my time on the internet and from the personal experience I see with my family members and others of that age, but I expected this to be a more solid approach to dealing with doubt and stemming the tide of disaffection. But instead, it felt like the captain of the Titanic getting everyone together on deck and talking about picking up their towels in the gymnasium and not being late for dinner as the lifeboats are being loaded behind him.
  7. I'm comparing an LDS article written in the past few years with LDS policy and culture of the past few years.
  8. The discussion about the "Face to Face" with Elders Oaks and Ballard has reinvigorated the discussion about the Church "hiding" the history (both here and on boards more critical to the Church). If you'll indulge me, I've just got to get something off my chest. First, I have a posting history on this forum going back to 2003. I have pointed out many times where the Church has, in my view, legitimately "hidden" the history. Usually, this has to do with polygamy. Articles are published that reshape the story, or quotes are changed in ways that change their meaning to conceal the original references to multiple wives. Second, let me say that this observation does not address the actual "truth claims" of the Church, or the "truthfulness" of the Church itself. Nothing in this post actually touches on whether or not the Church is "true", and I'll explain why at the end. But since 2003, as a new generation of LDS have grown up and become disaffected, there seems to be a new millennial strain of critics and ex-Mormons that, for lack of a better term, are basing their disaffection on being ignorant and lazy and blaming their ignorance and laziness on the Church itself. This was brought home to me most forcefully when one of my children, now in college in Utah, became themselves disaffected from the Church (although that term implies they were ever "affected" to begin with, which is debatable). In talking with them, they expressed frustration and/or surprise over The Book of Abraham and the other usual topics, and criticized the Church for "hiding" this info from them. But here's the thing. I've been a critic of Church claims since before my participation here (let's say 2002), and part of my study has been to buy books that talk about Church history. I already had a pretty good collection of the usual "LDS library" that would be expected for a voracious LDS reader, but starting around 2002 I began buying the popular books from Signature and other more critical presses. So I've got "New Approaches to the Book of Mormon" and "An Insider's Guide to Mormon Origins" and "Rough Stone Rolling" and "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" and "Early Mormonism and the Magic Worldview" etc. And these books are kept in our "TV room"/ home theater, in large book cases along the wall. So by my rough estimate, this TV and video-game loving child has spent between 1000 - 2000 hours over their teenage years sitting in that room, with these books about 10 feet away, and they never had the interest or energy to walk across the room and crack open one of the books and start reading. So their feigned frustration at the Church having "hidden" this stuff isn't because of any personal experience. It's more likely a parroted talking point that they've picked up from various forums and repeated without giving it even the slightest thought. In another forum, when I pointed out that in addition to the 1970 article on multiple accounts of the first vision there were articles in the 1980s and 1990s, one participant said (sarcastically): But doesn't that lead to the question "If it isn't your fault, whose fault is it?" At some point, isn't the implication that you didn't know because you didn't care? Like I said before, this point doesn't actually speak to the actual truthfulness of the Church's claims. The Church didn't become more or less "true" when it published the first article in 1970, or the second in 1985. The Church didn't become more "true" when it published the Gospel Topics essays a few years ago. Whether or not the Church is "true" hasn't changed. And a last observation. It has become more apparent to me that there are stupid people in the world, and smart people in the world. And there are Mormons in the world of both types, and ex-Mormons of both types. But the thing is, you don't change your type from "stupid" to "smart" when you change from "Mormon" to "ex-Mormon" (or vice versa in any combination). But it's easy to think you did. But Mormons who only had a superficial and shallow knowledge of the scriptures, doctrines and history of the Church don't suddenly become wise and deep-thinking ex-Mormons when they read the CES Letter and stop believing. They just become ex-Mormons with a superficial and shallow knowledge of Mormonism but now with a few dozen bits of trivia added on top that make them thing they're smart. And the Mormons that had a deeper understanding of Mormonism tend to have a deeper and more measured take as ex-Mormons. I should probably post this on the ex-Mormon forums, because this means that when an ex-Mormon "brags" about how little they know about the Church when they were members, they're not illuminating something about the Church. They're just signaling that they were stupid as an LDS, and that would indicate that they're probably still just a stupid. And experience would seem to bear this out.
  9. There are also these other articles from the 1980s and 90s: 1985: Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision 1986: Confirming Witnesses of the First Vision 1996: Joseph Smith’s Testimony of the First Vision
  10. That works in the real world, but in Mormonism, there is no "almost 13." If you were having a huge family reunion with 150 aunts, uncles, cousins and brothers and sisters, and the reunion was ending on Sunday but one of the kids was turning 8 on Monday and they wanted to get baptized on Sunday so all of their family could see it, you could petition the 1st Presidency and the answer would be "no." They have to wait until Monday when they turn 8. If you had a son who was turning 12 on Friday, but his grandfather was on life support and most certainly was going to pass away by Wednesday, and his dying wish was to lay his hands on his grandson's head and ordain him to the Preisthood, you could petition the 1st Presidency and the answer would be "no, he has to be 12." Every year in SoCal, they have a huge multi-stake "Mormon Prom" where youth from all over go to a fancy and memorable evening at a notable location. If a girl or boy is turning 16 on Sunday and the dance is the night before, and they really want to go to the dance with all their friends from their stake, the answer is still "no", because they aren't 16 yet at the time of the dance. So to have the Church pretend that there is such a thing as being "almost 15", especially in the context of a plural marriage, is a little absurd.
  11. The emphasis was on the Gospel Topics essay (and if I recall, the last thing they did was encourage anyone who still had questions to read that essay first.) I guess I should have explained that she put up all the papers on the wall at the start of the lesson and not all of them were discussed. Honestly, there just wasn't enough time to do it justice; there were a ton of comments and the teacher did a great job allowing people to share their thoughts without letting them ramble on. The most frustrating thing were some of the older people who presented their comments as if they were the wise one coming down from the mountain, ready to blow our minds with their deep insight, but then just gave some version of "The black people in the 1960s just weren't ready for the Preisthood" (i.e. we were doing them a favor by protecting them from the responsibility of priesthood service or Temple covenants) or "The Church members weren't ready for it, so it was our fault..."
  12. Results of BYUs climate survey

    In Utah (emphasis added): 76-5-406. Sexual offenses against the victim without consent of victim -- Circumstances. An act of sexual intercourse, rape, attempted rape, rape of a child, attempted rape of a child, object rape, attempted object rape, object rape of a child, attempted object rape of a child, sodomy, attempted sodomy, forcible sodomy, attempted forcible sodomy, sodomy on a child, attempted sodomy on a child, forcible sexual abuse, attempted forcible sexual abuse, sexual abuse of a child, attempted sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, attempted aggravated sexual abuse of a child, or simple sexual abuse is without consent of the victim under any of the following circumstances: (1) the victim expresses lack of consent through words or conduct; (2) the actor overcomes the victim through the actual application of physical force or violence; (3) the actor is able to overcome the victim through concealment or by the element of surprise; (4) (a) (i) the actor coerces the victim to submit by threatening to retaliate in the immediate future against the victim or any other person, and the victim perceives at the time that the actor has the ability to execute this threat; or (ii) the actor coerces the victim to submit by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person, and the victim believes at the time that the actor has the ability to execute this threat; (b) as used in this Subsection (4), "to retaliate" includes threats of physical force, kidnapping, or extortion; (5) the actor knows the victim is unconscious, unaware that the act is occurring, or physically unable to resist; (6) the actor knows that as a result of mental disease or defect, or for any other reason the victim is at the time of the act incapable either of appraising the nature of the act or of resisting it; (7) the actor knows that the victim submits or participates because the victim erroneously believes that the actor is the victim's spouse; (8) the actor intentionally impaired the power of the victim to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering any substance without the victim's knowledge; (9) the victim is younger than 14 years of age; (10) the victim is younger than 18 years of age and at the time of the offense the actor was the victim's parent, stepparent, adoptive parent, or legal guardian or occupied a position of special trust in relation to the victim as defined in Section 76-5-404.1; (11) the victim is 14 years of age or older, but younger than 18 years of age, and the actor is more than three years older than the victim and entices or coerces the victim to submit or participate, under circumstances not amounting to the force or threat required under Subsection (2) or (4); or (12) the actor is a health professional or religious counselor, as those terms are defined in this Subsection (12), the act is committed under the guise of providing professional diagnosis, counseling, or treatment, and at the time of the act the victim reasonably believed that the act was for medically or professionally appropriate diagnosis, counseling, or treatment to the extent that resistance by the victim could not reasonably be expected to have been manifested; for purposes of this Subsection (12): (a) "health professional" means an individual who is licensed or who holds himself or herself out to be licensed, or who otherwise provides professional physical or mental health services, diagnosis, treatment, or counseling including, but not limited to, a physician, osteopathic physician, nurse, dentist, physical therapist, chiropractor, mental health therapist, social service worker, clinical social worker, certified social worker, marriage and family therapist, professional counselor, psychiatrist, psychologist, psychiatric mental health nurse specialist, or substance abuse counselor; and (b) "religious counselor" means a minister, priest, rabbi, bishop, or other recognized member of the clergy. https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter5/76-5-S406.html
  13. Obviously, if the lesson focuses on the revelatory aspects of the end of the ban, I can see moments where the Spirit might burn in the hearts of the class. But as you can see, this lesson focused on helping class members try and understand how much we know (and don't know) about why we had the ban in the first place, and about how mistaken Church leaders and members were about why there was a ban. We were discussing things that were taught in the Church for decades as policy and doctrine that weren't true (or at least are disavowed by the current leadership). I also might not be the best gauge for whether or not the Spirit was felt. There may have been some raging racists in the room* who found the subject matter quite uplifting. *obviously referring to remarks in the talk about racists in the Church, not the person giving the talk
  14. Frankly, if anyone in the Church finds a discussion of the Priesthood Ban "faith increasing", then either they're in the wrong Church or I am.
  15. It's a fair point (and when I teach, I'm always very aware of those goals.) I certainly don't think we need 48 lessons each year that go into this kind of depth. But maybe it's not a bad thing to cover this specific subject with a little more rigor once every four years in the class about "Church History". In the past, it may have been well and good to give the Hallmark-card version of this lesson, but based on the comments from different class members, this is a subject that continues to be brought up by non-LDS in conversations about the Church, and it might not be a bad thing for LDS to be prepared with the best information.
×