Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,081 Excellent

About hope_for_things

  • Rank
    Brings Forth Plants

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,576 profile views
  1. New Narrative History - Chapter 1

    Thanks, I didn’t look at all the footnotes yet, but I’ll check it out. And I’m by no means expecting a warts and all history, but somewhere marginally more realistic and honest than in the past.
  2. One true church - Virtue or Vice?

    The point I was trying to make is that the Hebrew word that was translated into English as husband in the KJV in those specific verses was also translated differently in other parts of the Bible. I’m not disregarding Genesis, I’m just pointing out the translation difference. If you consider that the authors in Hebrew may have intended those verses to mean “man” instead of “husband”, they you take away all evidence for any kind of official marriage relationship between Adam and Eve in the Bible.
  3. One true church - Virtue or Vice?

    Thanks Carbon for the reply, appreciate your engagement with the question. I think your perspectives here are very illustrative of many orthodox Mormons, and I can understand your reasoning as I had similar reasoning at one point in time. I’m pretty far apart from you on these individual perspectives though, so I’m not sure it would be helpful for me to comment, but did want to that you for adding your points to the discussion.
  4. Thanks to you and Bob commenting on this, as this is what I’ve experienced as well and I believe most members view the JST additions the same way. I think perception is reality in this case, and the JST footnotes and integrated materials in the trenches of every Sunday Mormonism, are definitely treated like canon from my experience.
  5. New Narrative History - Chapter 1

    So just a couple comments on this new narrative history. There is a different style to the writing which is interesting and engaging and I really like that. I like that they brought the year without a summer context into this narrative and the poor conditions that the Smiths were brought into, I think that sets an important stage. However, I’m concerned after reading this first chapter that the overall narrative will intentionally avoid all the warts and try to present a very crafted tale. A couple things I saw here, one is the mentioning of Joseph not taking any alcohol during his leg surgery and then later when Mr. Howard took advantage of the Smiths, Lucy finds him in a bar. I get the impression that these selected elements are no coincidence, that they are already trying to present a very polished picture of the Smiths and leaving out the falures. For example, no discussion of Joseph Sr’s failure with the ginseng investment sceme that brought them to this poor financial situation. Also, when mentioning alcohol and the bar, they might also mention Joseph Sr’s troubles with alcohol himself? I hate to sound this suspicious, but I was looking forward to more responsible telling of the complicated history, and after chapter one I’m sensing a much more whitewashed approach. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong in future chapters, I can only hope. What do others think about this?
  6. I think we should just be done at this point. I’ve asked you multiple times to answer my questions about why you think Rigdon’s involvement in the JST or Lectures on faith or his background as a minister matters in this conversation about the legitimacy of the JST, and you continue to deflect and distract. And in this response you’re even turning the accusation around on me saying that I’m the one discounting Rigdon. Wow, I’m guessing that you’re feeling like you won some debating points. I wanted to have a thoughtful discussion and try to understand your point of view on this issue because I think its important and its obviously different than mine. Unfortunately you’ve demonstrated that you don’t want to have a back and forth exchange on a mutually respectful playing field.
  7. New Narrative History - Chapter 1

    The church has posted chapter one of their new narrative history that was announced last year. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2018/02/chapter-1-ask-in-faith?lang=eng
  8. Divine Love Is Conditional

    I’d prefer to believe in an unconditionally loving God. That’s the kind of aspirational belief I can aspire to. However for all practical purposes it seems this scripture in Matthew 5:45 has the most relevance. “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” So regardless of how we act or what kind of a loving God we envision, good and evil is part of this life’s journey for everyone.
  9. Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking for here. I don't have data readily available that would allow me to accurately compare the amount of time spent on different revelations. I think its clear when someone came to Joseph for an answer to a question, that he often gave them an answer on the spot and we have canonized many of those answers in the D&C. I also think its clear that his work on the JST which took a couple years, involved much more time and effort. But doing a side by side data comparison, I don't have the information available to do that. For how the process has worked, I think each time that the canon has changed and there haven't been very many times, the criteria has been different and has been highly influenced by the personalities involved. This simple process I imagine was much more complex in the example I gave where it was in the late 1800s and Orson Pratt introduced multiple new sections for canonization, yet there were many revelations they had access to that weren't canonized at this time. I'm not aware of a detailed study of this event, and I'd be interested if anyone knows of essays or books that have researched the history of this, as I think it would be very interesting. What is interesting to me is that you just assume that whatever happened must have been simple or that it must have been correct (presided over by key-holders). Yet we have countless examples of mistakes from the past in our history. Why make assumptions without any consideration that they could have been mistakes? You seem unwilling to objectively consider that just because something has been canonized in the past, that we should accept it as correct and the best thing for the church. Curious, but did you know that James Talmage was pushing for a change to the D&C that would have eliminated the majority of the sections, and shorted the D&C into a best of compilation of sorts. Yet, if I make the assertion that some of the canon might be worthy of decanonization today, it seems like I get all kinds of push back from the orthodox.
  10. So what? Large portions of the BoM, and the book of Moses, and BoA, and the D&C are all highly dependent on the same 1828 Phinney Bible. Does this make those portions of Joseph's other scriptural creations somehow less valid? I don't understand your reasoning. Do you have the discernment to distinguish which creations of Joseph Smith are of worth and which ones we should discount? This is honestly mind boggling to me, the implications of what you're saying. I never said the Encyclopedia of Mormonism was canon, its published by the church so it has some authoritative clout. You're throwing out a lot of facts about Rigdon that are obvious and at the same time you're avoiding my question. Why are you discounting Rigdon's influence on Mormonism? Do you have an axe to grind against Rigdon, some kind of prejudice that makes it so you consider things he was involved with somehow less legitimate? I don't understand. If you could just answer my questions about Rigdon, and also about how you determine what is revelation it would help me understand your perspective. Obviously we have a difference of opinion, I just want to understand yours better. I've tried to explain mine too, and hopefully I've make some headway.
  11. Evidence that Joseph's scriptural innovations were in many cases collaborative efforts = non sequitur? Pointing out that your opinions are on an equal footing with my opinions = invincible ignorance?
  12. Interesting, why wouldn't time and effort be factors in determining what is worthy of canonization? Maybe the fact that we have canonized scripture talking about the commandment to Joseph to translate the bible, should also be considered. If not, what factors would you use? We have many revelations that Joseph made that were never canonized. We also have revelations that are canonized that were never intended for canonization by Joseph. When they canonized multiple D&C sections in the late 1800s, what criteria did they use to canonize these sections and who determined what would be included and what would be left out? I know Orson Pratt was heavily involved in that project, but I don't know specifics about criteria used.
  13. I think this is a good point. I'm too young to have been privy to the back and forth disagreements between the two groups. (I'm in my early 40s). There is some historical baggage that I've read about, but haven't experienced. I wonder if this would influence any poll about whether members would consider the JST to be canon or not. I perhaps older members would have a lower percentage than younger members.
  14. Interesting, thanks for sharing this. Sounds like the introduction is calling the JST revelation. I think thats interesting and certainly illustrative of how average members would also characterize the JST.
  15. Of course it is. D&C 76 was a joint vision. The BoC was edited by an assigned committed as they prepared to publish the 1835 D&C. Oliver was intimately involved in many texts, and so were others throughout the early church. Many people were involved. Its your opinion against mine. At least I'm not pretending that my opinion is superior while also maligning yours. The condescending tone can get a little tiresome. My personal belief here is not erroneous. Its my observation based on personal experience. Its also not backed up by any empirical data (I never claimed it was), and neither is your opinion backed up by any data. I didn't understand why you used it, which is why I asked what your point is. Sounds like you don't want to answer, which is your prerogative.