Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,144 Excellent


About stemelbow

  • Rank
    Creates Beasts Of The Earth

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,360 profile views
  1. I think i'll continue to advise me and mine to go to the police when they know of illegal activity that needs be reported. They can surely talk to the Bishop, I suppose, but there's no need to let him handle it through the attorneys who are trying to protect the Church. If I were the bishop and some member was intent on telling me about something illegal rather than the police, I'd say, "go tell the police" and leave the Church's attorneys out of it.
  2. Gross..oh wait you don't mean....nevermind. Ok. It very well could be an effective resource. But then again someone back in the day could have had a bishop who handled allegations of the stripe we talking about much better than it was handled. Fair enough. I'm not sure it matters who first. It matters though if one reports to a bishop and is made to feel like that the bishop will follow up and does not. Well he could. He admits to far more than showing a young woman porn. He even admits it would not surprise him if he did rape someone. I'm leaving the courts to decide. You may be right. it may be thrown out. That certainly doesn't mean there are not inherent problems in the system that need fixing. This story highlights for me problems. You seem tot hink they are all fixed. I'm not so sure. Not even close to cute. If you ever joke about another poster committing sexual abuse again you will be banned.
  3. I'm with Julie M on this. I think you were exaggerating quite a bit so I challenged your phrase. But even this seems like an exaggeration. I don't think they have concerns about people talking to their bishops. They just want members to know going to a bishop should not replace going to the law when it comes to reporting illegal activity. But with that said, I stand behind the movement to say kids should stop sitting one on one with bishops and talking about their sexual lives and feelings. That continues to disturb me.
  4. I'm not sure that's true. I don't know that the helpline helps victims as much as tries to make sure the liability in regards to Church is covered. Are you saying in every respect that Bishops since this helpline have not tried to coverup abuse (Rob Porter case, allegations of ex-wives)? I'm not saying the helpline isn't a positive step in some way, I might suggest though, that it is not nearly enough. But, that jury is still out for me. Surely a possibility. But perhaps not. The step of the representative of the Church calling the helpline in the first place needs to be made. The next step is the helpline advising to call the police and then the Bishop actually has to do that. It's probably best if the Church stops the presses and calls the police right away and in such a spirit reports upfront that members should go to the police before the Bishop on illegal activity. In 1987 when McKenna told her bishop, what failed? Was it just him or was he advised to do what he did, or didn't do? What was broken decades ago that you say this helpline fixes? Apparently others were privy to the notion that Elder Asay and she met. If it comes out that this is verified by others, then it would be possible the Bishop Leavitt guy is lying--not only about not doing anything, as he claimed, but about what was told him. To me it seems he's already hard to trust because he supported her, sent his child to live with her, granted her a temple recommend--all of that. If as he claimed she was making up crap about a leader of the Church, it's hard to imagine he'd do that. The curiousity gets piqued for me when you consider Bishop Leavitt was contacted multiple times by the Church before this story broke, about this incident. If it was true that he did nothing, did not see anything credible in her allegations, I'd imagine there'd be very little reason for them to reach out beyond once. He said very little and his story does not fit well with McKenna's (about the contents of what was said then). He seemed to pull this watching pornography out of nowhere. Yet the church apparently already knew about his secret room, and his tv and vcr. That makes this all very suspicious to me. It's possible that Josehp Bishop showed her pornography and that was part of her initial allegations, but I haven't seen that. I don't see how so, at all. Indeed, his story doesn't fit well. Why would he trust her after this if he was so sure she was making up crap about an LDS leader? "well, she seems completely incredible, unreliable, and a bit looney...I might as well send my own kid to live with her in a far away country and give her a temple recommend....why not?" That doesn't make sense to me at all. I'm not sure a helpline fixes it. It seems like a big ol' coverup took place. If the Church continues to cover things up, even as the Rob Porter stuff seems to indicate, then I'm not sure it's all fixed and all is well in zion. I'm the opposite. His story doesn't add up, as explained. Her's fits in well. If I did something as Joseph Bishop admitted to have done 34 years ago, I'd hope I'd have some level of integrity and not sing a different tune. Of course I couldn't have possibly done anything of the sort 34 years ago. I was but a wee lad, so we won't know how I'd be singing 34 years later until I get old enough to have done something so heinous 34 years ago. I dont' care if I'm speaking from ignorance. I made a point of breaking this down in simple terms. I'm sticking by it. Thanks. I'm glad I see it the way I do. I hope you change your tune, but I ain't counting on it. We've already been over most of this months ago. We probably didn't need to rehash it. But, what are we to do but express our disagreement and see if we can suss out why the other disagrees. Take care.
  5. You really think they don't want any LDS bishops to have conversations with anyone at all? They are trying to get bishop's wives and kids not talking to them? They are trying to get no one in the ward to ever say a word to a bishop? Seems completely silly for you to accuse them of that, but I'm sure you have something that says that is what they are doing, right?
  6. I'd be interested to know if Bishop had confessed as he claimed previous to being MTC president to his indiscretions. If so, putting him in a position of power and influence over younger women, even letting him set up a room wherein he took women to be one on one with is pretty problematic. I would hope the law has something to say to that. If not, if the law can't interfere at all because it's the Church, well, then, we have a problem that needs resolved. It appears in this case the Church could have done something to protect Bishop's victims by simply not putting him in a position wherein he could take advantage of women. I realize the complaint to this point would be that we don't know all that Bishop confessed previous to being in the MTC. But that's why I said "if". There is plenty to this that is unanswered. Uh...having a help line doesn't really address the problem, at least not to the degree of saying the Church has worked very hard to formulate and implement policies. The help line is designed for bishop's to make calls...not victims. I don't see how it has accomplished what they want the Church to do. If she told her bishop and he did nothing, it could happen the same now as it did then. And if the Church knew about Joseph BIshop's behavior, at least to some extent, before or after something was reported to her bishop in the 80s, then this is more about a coverup than it is about that former Bishop doing nothing. How is telling her bishop something about it after her mission doing nothing about it until decades later? Also, a pattern of lifelong suggests clearly that the Church might have known about his behavior and yet still gave him a position of authority, capable of hurting more people. That seems wholly relevant. She did. She told her bishop. That bishop allegedly set up a meeting with a high level Church person who apparently did nothing about it. She was told they would look into it and get back to her. She never heard more, but assumed they must have done something. The Church was told. The very representative fo the Church was her bishop who claims to have done absolutely nothing about it. Thus, the Church did nothing. It appears though that bishop did do something and the higher level Church did nothing after having been informed...unfortunately. Joseph Bishop told McKenna he heard nothing from the Church on these matters. I'm far more repulsed by heinous crimes that cause such victims I guess. I'd be all for it. Mount a defense for confessed crimes? Not a chance. I'd say the system failed this poor lady for decades. The system needs to be fixed. The Church was informed--her bishop was a Church representative. I guess we'll see. They certainly have a steep hill to climb, but in truth this sounds more and more fishy for Bishop and the Church the more these pieces are considered, in my estimation. Also, this problem is easily resolved when you toss out the complexities. It's pretty simple really. He victimized people, self-admittedly. that's awful. All the complexities do is give him a way to get away with it. That's awful. The whole point of fraud, as they call it, against the Church is that the church handled it poorly. Indeed, the representative of the Church, the one who she would most likely go to at the time she did, was her bishop. She went to him and he did nothing as he claimed.
  7. Excellent point. Its not just that there are dings and scrapes, but the Church continually tells us God is putting those there for his own purposes. "well yeah...ok. so that big old gash on the side of the boat looks ugly, but God put it there, so we're good. Jump back in here. It's still floating"
  8. oh serious? you can't see the little gif thing I put there? hmm... https://gph.is/2bDOokj
  9. Stay in the boat everyone! what you see are small dings and a few paint chips...nothing more.
  10. I'm not sure I'm seeing change here overall. Years ago in Stake conference we had Elder someone come and basically tell us to acknowledge the difficulties in church history and doctrine when confronted. I don't recall anyone ever doing so. But if it is becoming more of a push then great. Fair point. I say any acknowledgement is a step forward but I do realize just acknowledging vague possible dings and paint being chipped does seem to say everything is fine...all is well in zion. no need to doubt. Relativism is all we have. We're just us, individually stuck in our own worlds with our own perspectives--seeing what we individually see and feeling what we individually feel. If Someone can't be saved outside of the Church, then God is a monster it seems to me. It can't be wrong for one to travel a path that leads to the highest end if that one never joins the Church--not for that one. It must be if that is ever the case, that is exactly what God needed or wanted for that one. "the Church is true" mantra is a big problem on this front, if you ask me. The meaning fo the phrase is convoluted and seeing as no one sees clearly, it is just a plainly wrong mantra. Well, we're all different, so it'd be easy to say one person who has doubts is different than another person who has doubts. But then again, we all doubt something. Eveyr person I've ever seen relies as heavily on doubts as faith. Doubt on the Church's perspective, it seems to me, only means doubt if someone questions certain proposition put forth by the Church. If a Church member doubts the leaders are wrong, then doubt in this case is a good thing and can't be used as the awful "perpetual doubter" motif in their address. President Oaks doubting the leaders regarding the reasons for the priesthood ban, even though the reasons were claimed to have come from God, is a good thing now because they want to deny it was ever "doctrine" or paint it as it never was; but back then, he couldn't have so doubted without being labeled something akin to perpetual doubter.
  11. I've gone back and read the whole thing. I think the whole of their address was very binary, very black and white, moreso than I thought when I read the summary above.
  12. I appreciate the acknowledgement of chips and peeling paint, but what if the damage is worse than that and these two simply don't have eyes to see? That is more of my concern. They seem to equate really big issues (as they list a, b, and c later) with paint being chipped after many years. But as to your first question, I think it means the church is feeling the necessity to acknowledge that which typically they have not. Very much, I'd say. I'm really disappointed by the summarized story above. It seems rather judgmental. Whose to say that Stephen ever felt any of the issues were resolved? As many have learned just because someone has addressed a certain issue it hardly means it's resolved. Questions about the 4 versions of the first vision can be many things. And certainly in my mind, for instance, those many things are not resolved, as far as I've seen, even though I've read and explored plenty about the vision. I'd have to just accept that most of the issues related to the vision are unresolvable. What is likely about Stephen's perspective and what he/she seems to fail to realize is doubt goes many ways, because belief does. doubting from one perspective can often be believing from another. If they realized that, then they would not feel the need to call people names, like perpetual doubter. Because as it comes off here, everyone is a perpetual doubter, and no doubt they are suggesting anyone who is doing that is really bad. Obviously Stephen inquired and hardly seemed stagnant (indeed those who see resolve to the unresolvable seem stagnant in their doubts because they just ignore them and forget the inquiry), so this feels irrelevant to the whole point they were trying to make. Faith in the Church is what they seem to prefer, faith itself is likely had by Stephen and others. They simply doubt his faith, just as he likely doubts theirs.
  13. stemelbow

    Evidence #1: Hebrew and Egyptian Wordplays

    It feels to me each one of these listed are tenuous connections at best. But it seems Dahle would say all of them added together makes them more powerful. On that I'd disagree. If they are all tenuous at best, then the sum of them are tenuous at best. Breaking each one down it seems each is an effort to say some word and name in the BoM could possibly have ancient connections, in part, to some word or concept found anciently. And yet, to even make the match from the BoM to the ancient terms is a stretch. mr(I), for instance, being meaningful to both Mary and Mormon feels like someone's connecting any two letters in any word to make the word mean something similar to what those two letters might represent. It's a whole bunch of "ifs" and "mights" and "possiblies" trying to be turned into evidence. It's circumstantial if anything. But these feels more tenuous than that.
  14. stemelbow

    Evidence #1: Hebrew and Egyptian Wordplays

    I'm not expert in any sense on this stuff. For sure. But I see nothing in this that provides any evidence for Joseph Smith's story. As is quoted from Nibley "If EGYPTIAN may be appealed to, dšr.t, “red (land),” the name of Upper EGYPT, of which the symbol was the bee, and the king’s crown (the dšr.t-crown) was an elongated beehive shape (and peasant houses were similarly shaped). So we start off with a big "If" and then by assuming that we get an Egyptian allusion to a king's crown that was shaped like a beehive? I would definitely invoke Wright's statement on this. It is no wonder there are possible connections to make...such would always be the case. from Bowen: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/swearing-by-their-everlasting-maker-some-notes-on-paanchi-and-giddianhi/ So in Lehi's day there is evidence in Egyptian that 'nh' could in some cases at least, say something about "to swear" "oath" and "to live"/ I can't connect in my head how that has anything to do with names given to people who made oaths hundreds of years later? So this is the abridger of the work had in mind Egyptian meaning for a sound from perhaps a thousand years earlier and made up names for people who also lived some couple hundred years before the abridger so their names could provide some allusion to the story which their lives exhibited? That feels like more of a tenuous connection then the first one to me. again from Bowen: I'm not saying that there's nothing interesting in this. What I am saying though is that this can't possible constitute evidence for Joseph's claim that the bom was written anciently in the americas https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/why-would-nephi-call-the-ocean-irreantum So we found an Egyptian name for a river that can loosely look like a word that means "many waters" in the BoM? Did Lehi know about this river? If so, why did he change the name of the river to name this place they happened upon? http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/most-desirable-above-all-things-onomastic-play-on-mary-and-mormon-in-the-book-of-mormon/ Another big "if" we have to assume that there was Egyptian meaning to the name Mary that was in Joseph's day already identified as Christ's mother. I'm not sure how any believer is to take this as a serious piece of evidence for the BoM on such grounds. A lady named Mary is said to have been Christ's mother, not because of the anachronism found in the BoM. That seems silly. I'm really struggling to see how this is evidence of anything at all. This is exactly backwards from what evidence is. Saying mr(I) is plausibly the first element...is suggesting that we are taking a BoM name and trying to figure out why and how it's used in the BoM what sound element in Egyptian might possibly have been in consideration when the name was given. That is only evidence that we can try our best to find any additional meaning to any words ever used, if you ask me. I would continue but this is tiring at this point. And, having been previously read up on some of this, I'm not sure there is anything in the rest that is worth debating. But I gave what I did above. It is likely as dismissed by a believer as the pieces describing these evidences are non-beleivers.
  15. stemelbow

    Why Not Engage the Evidence for Historicity?

    I think you raise a fair point in that no matter how hard we try we're going to be misled and we're going to misrepresent ancient civilizations and cultures. THat's the fallible nature of humanity and the sometimes subjective nature of historical analysis. But that doesn't take away the notion that the parallels are only significant if one assumes first the ancient source of the Book of Mormon story. I'm more of the opinion that parallels aren't very helpful unless there is an explainable connection. I would call that a far bigger challenge to the apologist. Each and every parallel is possibly created in the modern world. Guesswork still happens, or source material can still guide. We already know, for instance, that Joseph used a bible commentary to compose much of his translation of the Bible. And we really didn't seem to learn that until approximately 2 years ago when it was discovered to the be case. That is quite a challenge for the defender. It could be rather convenient to say they saw our day therefore wrote for our needs, when all it really could be was it was written in our day, or closer to our day, addressing the concerns of Joseph's day. Every thing you are calling a problem for the critics is really, in my estimation, a problem for the apologist. Have a dynamic translation, but the burden to prove historicity still remains. It seems to me you are only preferring one set of parallels (ancient ones) over another (modern ones). If there is good reason the text was written to address the modern audience, that does not vindicate the claim that ancients saw our day and magically wrote it to address our audience. That's just a matter of convenience written into the text. We still have yet to see good reason to accept that it was written anciently. The burden, as it were, still remains. THe level of likelihood could be argued though. No matter how likely if it was written in the modern day, then it was as unlikely an event it might have been. This remains a pretty debatable point. Because parallels exist does not mean anachronism, or other elements of non fitting don't exist. Weighing in the balance the two sides might drop any soul on either side of the debate, I suppose. But, we're still left concluding based on our own subjective positions. I honestly don't mind the point that it is unlikely Joseph wrote it. But there remains so many possibilities to counteract that that using this to support historicity seems meaningless. The text could be inspired by some higher power and yet not directly tell the history of an ancient people at all. the story itself could still be made up. Same as above. Ok. Great. But that doesn't mean this point support historicity, even if one grants the point itself. The presence of EmodE doesn't seem to argue for or against historicity. How did the presence of such features get in there? Any number of possibilities...but claiming this supports it was written a couple thousand years ago, seems silly and it undercuts the point of hebraisms, it seems to me. Critics don't need to prove the 19th century origin of it. That it seems most likely from whence it came is a valid conclusion though. The burden remains for those who claim it was written anciently. Thanks. Cinepro's pretty sharp, moreso than I, so I doubt I've taken anything form his response. But I figured I had a few minutes and wanted to continue the discussion a bit. Appreciate your willingness to this point.