Jump to content

Bede

Members
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

22 Excellent

About Bede

  • Rank
    Newbie: Without form, and void

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. LOL, and I graduated from the Ministry of Silly Walks.
  2. Trolling is usually meant to upset multiple people (casting multiple fishing lines into the sea). This is a discussion post regarding something a member of this form said publicly on his Facebook page. You are oversimplifying what I have said in order to reduce it to absurdity. Let me put your mind at ease: I think you should read the OP again. What I said was "not true" was that 1) Bill has not studied *every* problematic issue in Mormonism 2) It is not true that 99% of problematic issues are not shared with general membership. I care because the truth matters, HappyJackWagon. A pawn shop manager can certainly be knowledgeable about church history and doctrine. That isn't what I was disputing. I think you should more carefully read the OP. What I object to is Bill claiming to be 100% absolutely certain about his claim while there are many who are far more knowledgeable than Bill yet remain believers. Why is Bill, a layperson, the expert on Mormonism with 100% accuracy? Thanks, but the truth matters to me.
  3. Please see my correction/edit on post #6 (in green). It does not affect my position as stated in the OP.
  4. I posted that while on my phone and didn’t get the quote right. Let’s not quibble over it: yes Bill actually said that 99% of the secret stuff he knows is not shared with the general membership.
  5. The whole comment about “99%” of the material he has read being unavailable to members is untrue. In fact, @DBMormon is probably aware of that, so it’s therefore a deliberately deceptive thing to say. Edit: This is the misquote, which is not misquoted in the OP. Bill actually said 99% of the material is not shared with the general membership. The OP contains a direct quote and that is the topic of this thread.
  6. @DBMormon in a recent Facebook post you tell a story about a former ward member who contacted you and claimed that you “both know the truth.” While I agree with you that claiming to know what someone else believes is insensitive, your response is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Bill, this is such an insufferably arrogant thing to claim, and it’s not true. But even if it were, many people have read, studied, and even dedicated their lives to the academic study or Mormonism—in other words, far exceeding your “vast” Quinn and Vogel book collection—and yet still remain believers. So here is where people like you usually make excuses “well, they aren’t really believers.” That, of course, is the same arrogant take you attribute to your friend, claiming to know what others believe. So how do you reconcile this? A pawn shop manager who has read a bunch of Quinn and Vogel books and becomes an unbeliever vs. university professors and scholars who have dedicated their lives to these topics and still remain believers?
  7. Are you joking? Turley couldn’t even answer the most basic historical questions when confronted with them in Sweden.
  8. Then we should not be calling them historians. We should be calling them church recorders.
  9. He essentially redacted them. That's bad.
  10. And I did not say I was an expert on anything. But I have read enough about JFS to know that he was not the appropriate person to hold that office. You don't destroy essential historical records if you are a historian.
  11. Of course. But they don't all hold the office of official church historian.
  12. Oh, please! You don't have to read every book and article that a person produced in order to understand the topic or the person. You are probably an authority on speaking/writing English. Do you know everything there is to know about the language? Do you know every noun?
  13. This is really quite simple. Should a church historian be an actual historian, or should they not? If not, why call it church historian? Why not call it "managing director of the church history department?" I just finished the Leonard Arrington book by Greg Prince. Arrington is an example of a professional historian who brought the real discipline of history to the church history department. A really bad example of a church historian who had no business being in that office is Joseph Fielding Smith. He literally cut one of the most important historical artifacts out of Joseph Smith's journal. Another is Turley and Jensen and the Swedish rescue. They gave a bunch of non-answers, tap dances, and misdirection to sincerely troubled and questioning members. To claim the environment was "hostile" is silly--we don't know that; we have no evidence of that. Serious, sure. Earnest, yes. Hostile? Hardly. Being in the position of official historian for any organization requires that you actually know and study its history. Jensen and Turley clearly do and did not. Yes, there are historical questions for which we don't have an answer. The correct approach is not to tip-toe around the question with misdirection and obfuscation, it is to say "I'm not aware of a good answer for that, but I will research it and get back to you."
  14. Yeah, well, here's the thing: I know there are answers on FAIRMormon. But official church historians should be able to answer any questions about church history at any time. Being a historian of church history is their full time job. I can answer any questions about my full time job at any time. Instead, what do we see? Church historians who are not trained historians fumbling about, making excuses, changing the subject, and giving non-answers. This looks terrible for the church.
×
×
  • Create New...