Long time, no see.
Sure, I still think Smoot is snot-nosed, possibly bratty; but I'm glad he's back from his mission intact. And I liked the turns of phrase in this article enough to highlight it, despite my own long absence.
Good stuff.
0
2 votes
Joseph Smith’S First Vision Accounts: More Mormon Church Suppression And Cover-Up
Started by
cksalmon
, Jun 11 2012 08:35 PM
By Stephen Smoot
148 replies to this topic
#1
cksalmon
-
- Contributor
-
- 5,259 posts
Places Sun, Moon & Stars In The Sky
Posted 11 June 2012 - 08:35 PM
#2
thesometimesaint
-
- Contributor
-
- 28,865 posts
Rules Universe
Posted 11 June 2012 - 08:54 PM
Darn sneaky of us too. 
#3
CASteinman
-
- Contributor
-
- 3,884 posts
Gone
Posted 11 June 2012 - 09:20 PM
Mormons are crafty.... hiding secrets in plain sight. Its an old trick....
#4
blackstrap
-
- Members
-
- 2,484 posts
Separates Water & Dry Land
Posted 11 June 2012 - 10:23 PM
The comments even had a few good points,wow!
#5
Scott Lloyd
-
- Contributor
-
- 14,871 posts
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Posted 11 June 2012 - 11:51 PM
As I've indicated on another thread, the earliest written account of the First Vision is part of the latest content just added to the Joseph Smith Papers website.
How wily the Church is! Covering up alternate accounts of the First Vision by publishing or talking about them in these sources.
How wily the Church is! Covering up alternate accounts of the First Vision by publishing or talking about them in these sources.
Edited by Scott Lloyd, 12 June 2012 - 10:40 AM.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#6
Log
-
- Banned
-
- 4,286 posts
Everyone loves Log!
Posted 11 June 2012 - 11:52 PM
I personally prefer the "pillar of fire" reading myself.
Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme. - Karl Popper
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
#7
Darth_Bill
-
- Members
-
- 874 posts
Arbiter of All Truth
Posted 12 June 2012 - 07:27 AM
I've never thought the church hid it, but doesn't teach them...and maybe they shouldn't, since only one is canon. It sometimes depends on the narrative. One possiblity is what Smoot presents, that Joseph wanted to highlight certain aspects at different times. Another is one of a con-man developing his story to gain more respect and authority from others. What narrative you choose is up to you.
And yes, they don't contradict any worse than Paul's vision...which contradict each other. I'm not sure what traction that gives unless you hold the writer of acts as authoritative. A contradiction is a contradiction. It took me a long time to see that in religion.
And yes, they don't contradict any worse than Paul's vision...which contradict each other. I'm not sure what traction that gives unless you hold the writer of acts as authoritative. A contradiction is a contradiction. It took me a long time to see that in religion.
#8
thesometimesaint
-
- Contributor
-
- 28,865 posts
Rules Universe
Posted 12 June 2012 - 07:56 AM
Darth_Bill:
We all choose to highlight different aspects of the same event depending on circumstances. In fact it is a cause for suspicion of memorization if they are exactly the same. But in any event I see no ill will in either Paul or Joseph. So I'm willing to cut both some slack.
Darth_Bill, on 12 June 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:
I've never thought the church hid it, but doesn't teach them...and maybe they shouldn't, since only one is canon. It sometimes depends on the narrative. One possiblity is what Smoot presents, that Joseph wanted to highlight certain aspects at different times. Another is one of a con-man developing his story to gain more respect and authority from others. What narrative you choose is up to you.
And yes, they don't contradict any worse than Paul's vision...which contradict each other. I'm not sure what traction that gives unless you hold the writer of acts as authoritative. A contradiction is a contradiction. It took me a long time to see that in religion.
And yes, they don't contradict any worse than Paul's vision...which contradict each other. I'm not sure what traction that gives unless you hold the writer of acts as authoritative. A contradiction is a contradiction. It took me a long time to see that in religion.
We all choose to highlight different aspects of the same event depending on circumstances. In fact it is a cause for suspicion of memorization if they are exactly the same. But in any event I see no ill will in either Paul or Joseph. So I'm willing to cut both some slack.
#9
Scott Lloyd
-
- Contributor
-
- 14,871 posts
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Posted 12 June 2012 - 08:12 AM
Darth_Bill, on 12 June 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:
I've never thought the church hid it, but doesn't teach them...and maybe they shouldn't, since only one is canon. It sometimes depends on the narrative. One possiblity is what Smoot presents, that Joseph wanted to highlight certain aspects at different times. Another is one of a con-man developing his story to gain more respect and authority from others. What narrative you choose is up to you.
And yes, they don't contradict any worse than Paul's vision...which contradict each other. I'm not sure what traction that gives unless you hold the writer of acts as authoritative. A contradiction is a contradiction. It took me a long time to see that in religion.
And yes, they don't contradict any worse than Paul's vision...which contradict each other. I'm not sure what traction that gives unless you hold the writer of acts as authoritative. A contradiction is a contradiction. It took me a long time to see that in religion.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#10
cinepro
-
- Contributor
-
- 12,534 posts
It's pronounced "cinepro"
Posted 12 June 2012 - 10:20 AM
thesometimesaint, on 11 June 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:
Darn sneaky of us too.
The First Vision happened in 1820, with the "official" version published in 1838. And when did the alternate versions become known? I think it was the early 1970s.
While it's wonderful that the Church published an article in 1996 acknowledging the other versions, methinks thou doth gloat too much.
Edited by cinepro, 12 June 2012 - 10:23 AM.
The LDS Stake Medium Council Blog
In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.
The Flood and the Tower of Babel, by Donald W. Parry, assistant professor of Hebrew at BYU, Ensign, Jan 1998, 35
In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.
The Flood and the Tower of Babel, by Donald W. Parry, assistant professor of Hebrew at BYU, Ensign, Jan 1998, 35
#11
cinepro
-
- Contributor
-
- 12,534 posts
It's pronounced "cinepro"
Posted 12 June 2012 - 10:26 AM
Scott Lloyd, on 12 June 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:
There is no contradiction in the First Vision narratives.
Even Star Wars fans have to acknowledge that the prequels contradict the original trilogy.
The LDS Stake Medium Council Blog
In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.
The Flood and the Tower of Babel, by Donald W. Parry, assistant professor of Hebrew at BYU, Ensign, Jan 1998, 35
In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.
The Flood and the Tower of Babel, by Donald W. Parry, assistant professor of Hebrew at BYU, Ensign, Jan 1998, 35
#12
altersteve
-
- Members
-
- 2,544 posts
Legen... wait for it...
Posted 12 June 2012 - 10:27 AM
I'd love if we canonized all of Joseph's First Vision accounts. They're all beautiful and they all testify of Jesus Christ and the truthfulness of the event.
"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."
—Mahatma Ghandi
#13
DBMormon
-
- Members
-
- 1,996 posts
Book Of Mormon Answerman
Posted 12 June 2012 - 10:29 AM
My previous views were from a uncredible source. Until I find further info to validat My first thoughts they shall be considered false. I have deleted my post
Edited by reelmormon, 12 June 2012 - 10:52 AM.
#14
Scott Lloyd
-
- Contributor
-
- 14,871 posts
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Posted 12 June 2012 - 10:32 AM
cinepro, on 12 June 2012 - 10:20 AM, said:
The First Vision happened in 1820, with the "official" version published in 1838. And when did the alternate versions become known? I think it was the early 1970s.
While it's wonderful that the Church published an article in 1996 acknowledging the other versions, methinks thou doth gloat too much.
While it's wonderful that the Church published an article in 1996 acknowledging the other versions, methinks thou doth gloat too much.
Quote
Here is a brief listing of eight of the narratives:
- An 1832 account written by a 26-year-old Joseph Smith 12 years after the experience. It emphasized his remorse and forgiveness for personal sins and the guidance he received from the Savior.
- An 1835 account given by the Prophet to a visitor and recorded by a scribe. It referred to the appearance of two heavenly beings, one coming after the other, and mentioned "many angels."
- The familiar 1838-39 account that today is part of the Pearl of Great Price. As such, it is canonized scripture and the Church's official account of the vision.
- An 1840 account written by apostle Orson Pratt and published in England. It elaborated on some details of the 1838-39 version.
- An 1842 account by another apostle, Orson Hyde, published in a missionary tract in Germany, similar to Elder Pratt's account.
- An 1842 account, part of the letter Joseph wrote to John Wentworth, editor of the Chicago Democrat newspaper.
- An 1843 account given by Joseph to the editor of the Pittsburgh Gazette, which appeared in the New York Spectator on Sept. 23.
- An 1844 entry in the diary of German immigrant Alexander Neibaur endeavoring to retell the story after hearing it from the Prophet.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#15
Scott Lloyd
-
- Contributor
-
- 14,871 posts
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Posted 12 June 2012 - 10:33 AM
cinepro, on 12 June 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:
Even Star Wars fans have to acknowledge that the prequels contradict the original trilogy.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#16
Scott Lloyd
-
- Contributor
-
- 14,871 posts
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Posted 12 June 2012 - 10:38 AM
reelmormon, on 12 June 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:
My take
Within the 7 accounts there is a lot of crossover.
Within the 7 accounts there is a lot of crossover.
There are at least eight accounts; see my post above.
Quote
Most of these can be easily fit into the official story. There are also info in 2-3 of the accounts that is troubling and difficult to reconcile with the official version.
I, on the other hand, see nothing that is troubling or difficult to reconcile in them.
Quote
the church is happy to mention all these accounts and talk about places that can be reconciled but they do not touch with a 10' pole those parts of the couple versions that can not be reconciled.
If, by "the church," you include historians and others employed by the Church, this is false. Church historians have written about the different versions in depth. And as I've mentioned, it is your own subjective judgment that they "cannot be reconciled."
For my part, I hold with James Allen, retired professor of history at BYU, who wrote in the Improvement Era (forerunner to the Ensign) in April 1970:
Quote
"Although each narrative emphasizes different ideas and events, none is incompatible with other accounts. There is a striking consistency throughout all the narratives, and if one wishes he may combine them into an impressive report that in no way contradicts any of the individual accounts. Moreover, the descriptions given of events related to the vision but that happened outside the grove are consistent with our knowledge of contemporary events."
Edited by Scott Lloyd, 12 June 2012 - 10:46 AM.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#17
Darth_Bill
-
- Members
-
- 874 posts
Arbiter of All Truth
Posted 12 June 2012 - 10:47 AM
From your article
Criticism: Some have pointed to a possible discrepancy between the 1832 account and later versions. In 1832, Joseph said he had decided after studying the scriptures that no denomination was built upon the New Testament gospel. Yet in the original 1838 account is the parenthetical statement that "at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong."
Response: In a January 1985 Ensign article, Milton V. Backman, BYU professor of Church history, reasoned: "Perhaps the statements are not contradictory. Through a study of the Bible (an intellectual analysis) Joseph Smith may have decided that all the churches he knew of were wrong. At the time he entered the grove, however, and at other times, he may have believed in his heart that God's true church existed somewhere — he just didn't know where."
The response is a "perhaps" and "may have" which is speculation on what would take away the contradiction. Regardless of the mindreading going on, you state the contradiction. That there may be a way to force, and I think that is what it is, a resolution, doesn't take away the contradiction.
Explain away. This is one of the reasons I am not part of apologetics anymore. The solutions are all "maybe" or "perhaps".
And Acts gives contradictory accounts of Paul's vision. That some explain it away with handwaving does not take away the fact. Not enough to leave the faith, but I'm so darn sick of the misdirection.
Criticism: Some have pointed to a possible discrepancy between the 1832 account and later versions. In 1832, Joseph said he had decided after studying the scriptures that no denomination was built upon the New Testament gospel. Yet in the original 1838 account is the parenthetical statement that "at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong."
Response: In a January 1985 Ensign article, Milton V. Backman, BYU professor of Church history, reasoned: "Perhaps the statements are not contradictory. Through a study of the Bible (an intellectual analysis) Joseph Smith may have decided that all the churches he knew of were wrong. At the time he entered the grove, however, and at other times, he may have believed in his heart that God's true church existed somewhere — he just didn't know where."
The response is a "perhaps" and "may have" which is speculation on what would take away the contradiction. Regardless of the mindreading going on, you state the contradiction. That there may be a way to force, and I think that is what it is, a resolution, doesn't take away the contradiction.
Explain away. This is one of the reasons I am not part of apologetics anymore. The solutions are all "maybe" or "perhaps".
And Acts gives contradictory accounts of Paul's vision. That some explain it away with handwaving does not take away the fact. Not enough to leave the faith, but I'm so darn sick of the misdirection.
#18
Scott Lloyd
-
- Contributor
-
- 14,871 posts
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Posted 12 June 2012 - 11:00 AM
Darth_Bill, on 12 June 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:
From your article
Criticism: Some have pointed to a possible discrepancy between the 1832 account and later versions. In 1832, Joseph said he had decided after studying the scriptures that no denomination was built upon the New Testament gospel. Yet in the original 1838 account is the parenthetical statement that "at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong."
Response: In a January 1985 Ensign article, Milton V. Backman, BYU professor of Church history, reasoned: "Perhaps the statements are not contradictory. Through a study of the Bible (an intellectual analysis) Joseph Smith may have decided that all the churches he knew of were wrong. At the time he entered the grove, however, and at other times, he may have believed in his heart that God's true church existed somewhere — he just didn't know where."
The response is a "perhaps" and "may have" which is speculation on what would take away the contradiction. Regardless of the mindreading going on, you state the contradiction. That there may be a way to force, and I think that is what it is, a resolution, doesn't take away the contradiction.
Criticism: Some have pointed to a possible discrepancy between the 1832 account and later versions. In 1832, Joseph said he had decided after studying the scriptures that no denomination was built upon the New Testament gospel. Yet in the original 1838 account is the parenthetical statement that "at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong."
Response: In a January 1985 Ensign article, Milton V. Backman, BYU professor of Church history, reasoned: "Perhaps the statements are not contradictory. Through a study of the Bible (an intellectual analysis) Joseph Smith may have decided that all the churches he knew of were wrong. At the time he entered the grove, however, and at other times, he may have believed in his heart that God's true church existed somewhere — he just didn't know where."
The response is a "perhaps" and "may have" which is speculation on what would take away the contradiction. Regardless of the mindreading going on, you state the contradiction. That there may be a way to force, and I think that is what it is, a resolution, doesn't take away the contradiction.
If there is a plausible and rational way to interpret the quotations from Joseph so that they can be reconciled, then there is no contradiction.
Quote
Explain away. This is one of the reasons I am not part of apologetics anymore. The solutions are all "maybe" or "perhaps".
Detractors hate it when I point this out, but it is they who bear the burden of proof. So long as the Church's defenders can keep the question open by establishing plausibility, a sincere truth seeker can go to God in prayer and ask for personal revelation regarding the gospel and the Restoration.
Quote
And Acts gives contradictory accounts of Paul's vision. That some explain it away with handwaving does not take away the fact. Not enough to leave the faith, but I'm so darn sick of the misdirection.
Edited by Scott Lloyd, 12 June 2012 - 12:34 PM.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#19
Mola Ram Suda Ram
-
- Contributor
-
- 14,286 posts
Ax Slinger after the order of RR
Posted 12 June 2012 - 11:20 AM
cksalmon, on 11 June 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:
Long time, no see.
Sure, I still think Smoot is snot-nosed, possibly bratty; but I'm glad he's back from his mission intact. And I liked the turns of phrase in this article enough to highlight it, despite my own long absence.
Good stuff.
Sure, I still think Smoot is snot-nosed, possibly bratty; but I'm glad he's back from his mission intact. And I liked the turns of phrase in this article enough to highlight it, despite my own long absence.
Good stuff.
Good times.
"Mola Ram.... Mola Ram.... Mola Ram Suda Ram. Mola Ram.... Mola Ram.... Mola Ram Suda Ram." Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
Dogs have more in common with mammals than they have in common with wolves.
Dogs have more in common with mammals than they have in common with wolves.
#20
cinepro
-
- Contributor
-
- 12,534 posts
It's pronounced "cinepro"
Posted 12 June 2012 - 11:44 AM
For those who feel the Church didn't "cover up" the different accounts of the First Vision, is there anything that you do feel that the Church has "covered up" in the past?
I'll assume we all agree that the Mountain Meadows Massacre was a legitimate cover up. But other than that...?
I'll assume we all agree that the Mountain Meadows Massacre was a legitimate cover up. But other than that...?
The LDS Stake Medium Council Blog
In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.
The Flood and the Tower of Babel, by Donald W. Parry, assistant professor of Hebrew at BYU, Ensign, Jan 1998, 35
In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.
The Flood and the Tower of Babel, by Donald W. Parry, assistant professor of Hebrew at BYU, Ensign, Jan 1998, 35
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
-
Google
