Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Daniel Peterson

Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

Recommended Posts

I think we both argee, it is not as "obvious" as the OP starts with.

It's obvious to me.

Share this post


Link to post

I know specifics in this case. What you have said is a misrepresentation of the facts in the case. There were only a specific selection of the papers which Arrington had no right to donate as they were not his to give away. He was supposed to return these certain papers to the Church but died before he remembered to do so. All the rest were no problem whatsoever and were not part of the situation.

Well that certainly helps to shed some more light on this issue!

So, basically, the Church took aggressive legal action to claim only a portion of the property Arrington donated to USU because that portion of property actually belonged to the Church?

What claim did the Church have on them? Do you know how Arrington got them in the first place?

I wonder why the Church didn't just send a few delegates to USU to take back those papers, as some people do by checking out library materials without ever returning them. :P

Hmm. But, then again, that wouldn't show our true colors, would it. From reading Church history, I think it's apparent that the Church usually prefers to appeal to the courts for relief, even if the courts may not rule in our favor.

Share this post


Link to post

John Larson's silence in this thread is as loud and substantive as anything he could have possible typed here.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... at least not always, in a certain sense.

John may simply be absenting himself from this thread because he doesn't want to argue anymore about his opinion.

I can relate to that.

Sometimes I simply get tired of arguing... and all the while I still have my own opinion.

Beware of assumptions, LOaP. They can be deadly.

John's silence simply shows that John has been silent. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Share this post


Link to post

After reading through this, and seeing all the debates, one has to ask: "If it is so obviously false, why did Packer have to give such a monumental speech to those who would have already had a grasp for the obvious"? Perhaps it was not really that "obvious" after all?

Some people need help with seeing the obvious, or at least some people think people need help.

What is obvious to one person isn't always obvious to everyone.

Share this post


Link to post

Some people need help with seeing the obvious, or at least some people think people need help.

What is obvious to one person isn't always obvious to everyone.

No need to explain this, though; he's just stating his opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

No need to explain this, though; he's just stating his opinion.

I said what I said in response to his question about why Elder Packer said what he said.

Responding to questions is my favorite form of dialogue. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Are you aware of the fact that not even Joseph claimed to have written that book by himself?

Joseph claimed to write that book through the power of God, and even then he was only translating what had already been written by the people who originally wrote it.

Think about that, and then think about how misunderstandings can cloud our judgment.

... which is why we all need help with knowing what is true, through the power of God.

Just so I don't misunderstand your meaning, when you said:

After I read the Book of Mormon I was convinced that Joseph didn't write that book by himself. I didn't have any harsh feelings against Joseph, but I knew he didn't write that book by himself.

you meant that Josesph had help writing the Book of Mormon, but only from God and prophets like Nephi and Moroni. And you did not mean to imply that someone like Sidney Rigdon was at his side or that he had a copy of View of the Hebrews or some such at hand. Is that correct?

And thus it's fair to count you among all those who fervently believe that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, that it was given to Joseph in the form of gold plates by Moroni, and that Joseph translated the plates using the Urim and Thumim and a seer stone. Is that correct?

I would never want to misrepresent you, so feel free to correct me again.

Share this post


Link to post

gtag: Paul Ray is a very firm believer in the divine authenticity of the Book or Mormon and the prophetic work of Joseph Smith.

Share this post


Link to post

Just so I don't misunderstand your meaning, when you said:

you meant that Josesph had help writing the Book of Mormon, but only from God and prophets like Nephi and Moroni.

Not only them. There were also others who acted as scribes for Joseph who dictated what was to be written.

And you did not mean to imply that someone like Sidney Rigdon was at his side or that he had a copy of View of the Hebrews or some such at hand. Is that correct?

I believe Sidney Rigdon was at his side for a time as one of Joseph's scribes, and they both might have had a Bible or some such book at hand, but no, I'm not trying to insinuate that the Book of Mormon is anything other than what the book itself claims that it is in the introductory pages. The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. The Book of Mormon is true.

And thus it's fair to count you among all those who fervently believe that the Book of Mormon is the word of God,...

I believe I am in agreement with what most people mean when they say that. The words of God are those words which proceed from God's mouth, whether those words are spoken personally by God or written down as men are inspired to write what God reveals through the power of the Holy Ghost.

And yes, I believe the Book of Mormon was written by men who wrote what God inspired them to write.

... that it was given to Joseph in the form of gold plates by Moroni, and that Joseph translated the plates using the Urim and Thumim and a seer stone. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct, but there was also a little more to it. It wasn't written just through the use of those tools. God was also a witness to Joseph and others as Joseph dictated what was to be written, and all of the persons who were involved in the writing of that book were very involved in the writing of it. For example, the language into which the original writings were translated was the language of Joseph, and possibly also the language of the scribes who wrote for Joseph... for example, the word "adieu" was familiar to Joseph and possibly also the scribe who wrote that word for Joseph, even though it wasn't used in the original writings.

I would never want to misrepresent you, so feel free to correct me again.

I think you represented me fairly well. I just wanted to add a little more detail to what you said.

:P

Share this post


Link to post

gtag: Paul Ray is a very firm believer in the divine authenticity of the Book or Mormon and the prophetic work of Joseph Smith.

I'm happy to hear that you know me that well, LOaP.

I can also say the same thing for you.

... and it's a pleasure for me to know you that well. :P

Share this post


Link to post

I believe Sidney Rigdon was at his side for a time as one of Joseph's scribes, and they both might have had a Bible or some such book at hand, but no, I'm not trying to insinuate that the Book of Mormon is anything other than what the book itself claims that it is in the introductory pages. The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. The Book of Mormon is true.

So that we're clear, from the accounts we have Joseph and Sidney didn't meet until after the BoM was published.

Share this post


Link to post

I have nothing at all to add. However, this is an epic thread, and I'd feel left out if I didn't post *something.*

The Church is true!

-Dave

Share this post


Link to post

So that we're clear, from the accounts we have Joseph and Sidney didn't meet until after the BoM was published.

Okay, I can accept that as a mistake on my part. I sometimes get Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery confused, when going only from my memory. I'm still trying to learn more about our history. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry about the slow response, I wasn't following this thread. Here is my complete response on the "other" board:

What exactly is it you find objectionable?

Why is the fact that Turley was originally a lawyer such a big deal? Arrington himself was originally an economist.

Share this post


Link to post
Why is the fact that Turley was originally a lawyer such a big deal? Arrington himself was originally an economist.

I suspect that it's intended as a shorthand way of discrediting everything he's written and everything that he will write (unless, of course, he apostatizes at some point) without actually having to do any historiographical heavy lifting.

Share this post


Link to post

I suspect that it's intended as a shorthand way of discrediting everything he's written and everything that he will write (unless, of course, he apostatizes at some point) without actually having to do any historiographical heavy lifting.

Pretty much. His Turley comments are completely unsubstantiated. It speaks much to his credibility, not because he was mistaken, we can all be mistaken, but because he tried shifting the goal posts when he was asked about his original assertions, and now he has completely slipped out of the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...