John Dehlin Responds By Podcast

[wayfarer]

In your view, can those with a mature faith, who have come to know the scriptures and not just about them...can those individuals have a literalistic view of the BoM, believe it is founded in history though meant to be a religious script by its authors and not a modern day history text?

With the last clauses in your statement, I absolutely agree. the common religious narrative is vitally important, far more important than the historicity.

What I really like obout the BoM is that what we teach in it must come directly from the text. Therefore, we teach what it says, no more, no less. With the Bible, a familiarity with greek and hebrew, plus archaeological and contemporaneous history can divert us from te message. while this is fun and can add color, the gospel is not to be found in the historical account, but the message. to me, the BoM is simply the message.

[wayfarer]

You haven't left the fold. You are still very much in. But what about those who now rationalize all their spiritual experiences away over an historical issue or issues? According to John, bishops, elders quorum presidents, relief society presidents have all left the church over lds history. So, all their experiences have been put to the curb and all their validations with blessing and prayers have come to naught. Seems to be nothing but sand out there.

Technically, people don't leave because of history, but rather, their inability to reconcile newly discovered (to them, at least) facts of history with the standard promoted account. They often had a flawed and idealized understanding of church history and doctrine, and rather than carefully correcting false positive narratives, the church lets the false positive narrative stand as "faith promoting". When CES leadership is told not to teach a balanced view of history, then those who link history to testimony are shaken in faith when credible information shows 'tain't necessarily so...

i think these stories of people leaving for the reasons they state are profoundly tragic. so much pain and anguish...for what? a total and complete misunderstanding...promoted and let stand by both sides. many here have, in my impression, sorted out how to have faith in the presence of the same information that drives many away. the paths vary significantly. i can assure you that the issue isn't that the testimonies are on sand, but rather, the opposite: rigidity of belief often precipitates faith crisis.

we need a more meaningful dialogue... one that doesn't start by telling people they are wrong or weak because they struggle. the trial of faith is a scriptural necessity. everyone will have one, and if it hasn't yet occured in one's life, it will. and you can CFR on this: the scriptures are repleat with references. a trial of faith is a necessary step to progress. this may even mean, for a time, walking through the wilderness. each person's trial is unique -- we can only observe on the outside and love them back.

Edited February 10, 2013 by wayfarer

[why me]

Technically, people don't leave because of history, but rather, their inability to reconcile newly discovered (to them, at least) facts of history with the standard promoted account. They often had a flawed and idealized understanding of church history and doctrine, and rather than carefully correcting false positive narratives, the church lets the false positive narrative stand as "faith promoting". When CES leadership is told not to teach a balanced view of history, then those who link history to testimony are shaken in faith when credible information shows 'tain't necessarily so...

Most churches give an idolized version of their history. There is nothing new in this. However, with the lds it becomes one of disappointment to discover something in church history that was unknown, especially if it can have a negative connotation. And how should the church manage this? First of all, if the church publishes its history with all the so called warts and gives it interpretation to these events, the critics will come out with their own interpretation and run with it. And since doubt can be stronger than faith, members will still succumb to critic interpretations. A testimony should not be built on history since history is always flawed. But a testimony should be built on spiritual experiences and spiritual confirmations of the truth. And no history should be able to take that away from the person and yet, it does.

[why me]

we need a more meaningful dialogue... one that doesn't start by telling people they are wrong or weak because they struggle.

Many have family members who have family who have left the church or who are inactive. And I don't think that most of these family members view their inactive or exmormon family members as weak. And what I have discovered is that dialogue works both ways. On exmormon boards I have read posts of exmormons preaching to their active family members why they also should leave the church. It is a two way street without dialogue at times.

[wayfarer]

Most churches give an idolized version of their history. There is nothing new in this. However, with the lds it becomes one of disappointment to discover something in church history that was unknown, especially if it can have a negative connotation.

most long-term mainstream denominations have a far more open book at this point. people don't get excommunicated from catholicism, today, for a scholarly approach to catholic history. your argument is true only if we compare today's LDS church with the Catholic church of Gallileo's time...

And how should the church manage this? First of all, if the church publishes its history with all the so called warts and gives it interpretation to these events, the critics will come out with their own interpretation and run with it. And since doubt can be stronger than faith, members will still succumb to critic interpretations. A testimony should not be built on history since history is always flawed. But a testimony should be built on spiritual experiences and spiritual confirmations of the truth. And no history should be able to take that away from the person and yet, it does.

i had a chance to observe desmond tutu's truth and reconciliation process in south africa. honesty and candor tend to render critics complaints moot.

the problem is that when members link spiritual experience to empirical claims. when the claims prive false, the spiritual experience is called in question.

Many have family members who have family who have left the church or who are inactive. And I don't think that most of these family members view their inactive or exmormon family members as weak. And what I have discovered is that dialogue works both ways. On exmormon boards I have read posts of exmormons preaching to their active family members why they also should leave the church. It is a two way street without dialogue at times.

that the other side fails to respect boundaries is no excuse for us. we can do better.

Edited February 10, 2013 by wayfarer

[why me]

most long-term mainstream denominations have a far more open book at this point. people don't get excommunicated from catholicism, today, for a scholarly approach to catholic history. your argument is true only if we compare today's LDS church with the Catholic church of Gallileo's time...

General notions and historical summary

Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion — exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence. Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Christian society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society. Undoubtedly there can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights; among them are other censures, e.g. suspension for clerics, interdict for clerics and laymen, irregularity ex delicto, etc. Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all rights resulting from the social status of the Christian as such. The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments. Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.

http://www.newadvent...then/05678a.htm

The catholic church does excommunicate people. Usually for these cases:

Apostasy,

Heresy,

Schism,

Desecration of the Eucharist,

Physical force against the Pope,

Attempted sacramental absolution of a partner in adultery,

Ordination of a bishop without a Papal mandate (e.g. all bishops in the government-run Chinese Patriotic Church),

Violation of the sacramental seal of confession by a priest or bishop, and

Procurement of a completed abortion.

http://en.wikipedia....Excommunication

And then we have this:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072

The nun was excommunicated.

Edited February 10, 2013 by why me

[why me]

that the other side fails to respect boundaries is no excuse for us. we can do better.

We all can do better. But the other side seems to forget the missionary work that they do to get family members to follow them out of the church. And this is something that john overlooked: The power of an exmember to influence the spouse and children to follow their lead out.

[juliann]

Technically, people don't leave because of history, but rather, their inability to reconcile newly discovered (to them, at least) facts of history with the standard promoted account. They often had a flawed and idealized understanding of church history and doctrine, and rather than carefully correcting false positive narratives, the church lets the false positive narrative stand as "faith promoting". When CES leadership is told not to teach a balanced view of history, then those who link history to testimony are shaken in faith when credible information shows 'tain't necessarily so...

i think these stories of people leaving for the reasons they state are profoundly tragic. so much pain and anguish...for what? a total and complete misunderstanding...promoted and let stand by both sides. many here have, in my impression, sorted out how to have faith in the presence of the same information that drives many away. the paths vary significantly. i can assure you that the issue isn't that the testimonies are on sand, but rather, the opposite: rigidity of belief often precipitates faith crisis.

we need a more meaningful dialogue... one that doesn't start by telling people they are wrong or weak because they struggle. the trial of faith is a scriptural necessity. everyone will have one, and if it hasn't yet occured in one's life, it will. and you can CFR on this: the scriptures are repleat with references. a trial of faith is a necessary step to progress. this may even mean, for a time, walking through the wilderness. each person's trial is unique -- we can only observe on the outside and love them back.

Beautifully stated.

[juliann]

Dehlin, I, and others object to the methods of the apologists because rather than embracing that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham (for examples) are inspired human products, we are encouraged by apologists to hold on to our naive, literalist mindset through a creative relationship with the facts. And, to some (not all), if we don't accept the literalism, our faith is deficient and our reasoning incoherent. Instead of helping one's faith to mature, these tactics simply push off the day of reckoning and tend to overload the faith shelf. These tactics can harm those who are questioning, although some find benefit through a stronger shelf.

Well, they wouldn't be apologists for the church if they didn't support the church's position so that is nonsensical. There is no greater naivety in accepting the ancient authenticity of scripture than in a pious fraud theory that makes God complicit in trickery. The minute you descend into making either side a smart people thing you have a weak premise... even though I agree with a good deal of what you say.

Edited February 11, 2013 by juliann

[Darren10]

With the last clauses in your statement, I absolutely agree. the common religious narrative is vitally important, far more important than the historicity.

What I really like obout the BoM is that what we teach in it must come directly from the text. Therefore, we teach what it says, no more, no less. With the Bible, a familiarity with greek and hebrew, plus archaeological and contemporaneous history can divert us from te message. while this is fun and can add color, the gospel is not to be found in the historical account, but the message. to me, the BoM is simply the message.

You're crazy if you think that history, Hebrew, and Greek cannot add to the Book of Mormon's story. Of course ther message of the Book of Mormon in and of itself is what's important and that one can and should receive a witness by the Spirit that it's true but that can also serve as a basis to explore the Book of mormon's historicity, and relation to Hebrew dialect(s).

Abstract: General historical consensus holds that synagogues originated before the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70, and therefore probably originated during the Babylonian captivity. The suggestion in Philo and Josephus that synagogues may have originated during the exodus was discredited by some historians in the 17th century, yet the Book of Mormon speaks of synagogues, sanctuaries, and places of worship in a manner which suggests that Lehi and his party brought some form of synagogal worship with them when they left Jerusalem around 600 BC. This essay revisits the most up to date scholarship regarding the origin of the synagogue and suggests that the Book of Mormon record provides ample reason to look for the origins of the synagogue much earlier that has become the academic custom.

Nephite insights into Israelite Worship Practices before the Babylonian Captivity

Abstract: Nephite apostates turned away from true worship in consistent and predictable ways throughout the Book of Mormon. Their beliefs and practices may have been the result of influence from the larger socioreligious context in which the Nephites lived. A Mesoamerican setting provides a plausible cultural background that explains why Nephite apostasy took the particular form it did and may help us gain a deeper understanding of some specific references that Nephite prophets used when combating that apostasy. We propose that apostate Nephite religion resulted from the syncretization of certain beliefs and practices from normative Nephite religion with those attested in ancient Mesoamerica. We suggest that orthodox Nephite expectations of the “heavenly king” were supplanted by the more present and tangible “divine king.”

The Cultural Context of Nephite Apostasy

Abstract: John 17 contains a richly symbolic Last Discourse by Jesus, in which the disciples are assured a place in the Father’s celestial house or temple. To fulfill this promise Christ reveals both the Father’s name and his glory to his disciples. Jesus’s discourse concludes with the promise of sanctification of the disciples, and their unification—or deification—with Christ and the Father. This paper explores how each of these ideas reflects the temple theology of the Bible and contemporary first-century Judaism.

“I Have Revealed Your Name”: The Hidden Temple in John 17

Abstract: In August 2011 John Dehlin conducted a three-part interview with famed Mesoamericanist Michael Coe.¹ Dehlin operates the podcast series Mormon Stories, which features interviews discussing the faith and culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This article examines a large number of dubious claims made in those interviews, providing clarifications, responses, and references to numerous sources dealing with those issues. Much more detail will be forthcoming in Dr. Sorenson’s new book, Mormon’s Codex.

An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Coe

These are four articles which collectively show the benefits of the historicity of the Book of Mormon and its connection with the ancient Israeli worship. furthermore, the historical accuracy as per recent discoveries regarding the Book of Abraham also stand as a physical testimony for Joseph Smith's spiritual connection to God. I think you're denying yourself significant spiritual insights by rejecting the importance of the literal regarding LDS scripture. I also think you take pot shots at certain apologists (I kept my links to one site ran by some of your, well, "favoirte" apologists) without giving a fair background as to how they detriment your testimony. I think if you revealed the background honestly and openly than others would come to a different conclusion than yours over the affect of LDS apologists. While they are not by any means the source fo my testimony, they have added to it and in unique ways.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Darren10

[wayfarer]

Well, they wouldn't be apologists for the church if they didn't support the church's position so that is nonsensical. There is no greater naivety in accepting the ancient authenticity of scripture than in a pious fraud theory that makes God complicit in trickery. The minute you descend into making this either side a smart people thing you have a weak premise... even though I agree with a good deal of what you say.

I'm not sure it is possible to avoid pious fraud entirely. the word "fraud" is problematic, but the fictitious ascribing of authority/authorship to scriptural work is everywhere. Prophets and kings frequently ascribed ancient authorship to works that would lend legitimacy to the scripture.

there is, i believe, a profound fallacy in saying "god wouldn't allow x", where x includes mild things like trickery. god has indeed allowed genocide in his name, sanctioned by scripture. after an open investigation of scripture, it is clear that god did not have a hand in everymword we accept as scripture, else god would be a monster unworthy of worship. moreover, any indepth investigation of how scripture evolves shows very human processes at work, and even a fair bit of deception.

There is evidence that Joseph changed his story somewhat to accommodate his evolving understanding of god and the divine. i have no issue with this: in fact "all scripture is given by inspiration of god" (2 Tim 3:16), through the mind and heart of the prophet (D&C 8:2-3). This is necessarily an imprecise, non-dictational process. The best we know of book of mormon translation is that Joseph literally pulled the words out of a hat, not looking at the plates. that he pulled the words out of a hat explains why the isaiah and NT quotes incorporate translational nuances of the KJV far better than if he were actually translating material that went the route of hebrew-->reformed egyptian-->english. he copied, either actually, or more likely, from memory, direct quotes from his KJV text. Yet he claimed ancient origin... i have no problem with this...the spirit may well have said, "go get this section from isaiah", and he did. He believed he was inspired, and so do I. The book was a work of god. he may even have thought that the words were what was written on the gold plates, but he did go directly from the plates. somewhere in this convoluded story is a degree of deception, either of joseph smith to himself, or hiw he represented his reality. in this case, do the ends justify the means? yes, because the book IS. it exists, and it fulfills its mission extremely well.

i choose not to ignore that the book has a human origin, while still accepting its divinity. this is incoherent to the apologists, and so be it.

[wayfarer]

You're crazy if you think that history, Hebrew, and Greek cannot add to the Book of Mormon's story. Of course ther message of the Book of Mormon in and of itself is what's important and that one can and should receive a witness by the Spirit that it's true but that can also serve as a basis to explore the Book of mormon's historicity, and relation to Hebrew dialect(s).

hmmm. i would use the term "objective" rather than "crazy". And, yes, i do disagree. i think such efforts are a complete waste of time. if anything, i believe that the divine reason for the non-historicity of the book of mormon is to focus on the message and learn faith thereby.

Nephite insights into Israelite Worship Practices before the Babylonian Captivity

i have come to the impression that nothing in the "mormoninterpreter.com" is of any credibility whatsoever. i consider the site and genre to be mentally destructive, and serves to do nothing but postpone inevitable faith crisis.

what will happen to your faith should you discover that there is no historicity to the book of mormon?

Edited February 11, 2013 by wayfarer

[juliann]

http://mormonstories...ave-the-church/

It is interesting to hear his explanation and his critique of FAIR which begins 30 minutes into the podcast especially the tone of some FAIR members.

There has to be a bad guy in the narrative, he is weaving nameless "apologists" and FAIR together to create a shadowy entity so he can't be questioned because his creation can't really be identified. FAIR doesn't even have a forum for interaction (aside from the Ask the Apologist). It is good to hear he approves of the quality of what FAIR actually does, though.

He also doesn't talk about the wiki (or acknowledge it but I only listened to a few minutes) and that is now pretty much what FAIR is now. So I would say he is building a bit of a strawman to create an unChristlike "other" for a convincing narrative. I'm gratified that he is convinced that we are working to fix our unChristlike behavior, though! LOL

[juliann]

i have come to the impression that nothing in the "mormoninterpreter.com" is of any credibility whatsoever.

That is unfortunate. One of the advantages of being an apologist is that in having to respond to critics, one must read what they write. There would be no defense if the criticism is not addressed. To simply criticize, that is not necessary. It gives apologists a built in advantage. That the response has degenerated into mere demonization of nameless "apologists" is witness to that.

[Wiki Wonka]

There has to be a bad guy in the narrative, he is weaving nameless "apologists" and FAIR together to create a shadowy entity so he can't be questioned because his creation can't really be identified. FAIR doesn't even have a forum for interaction (aside from the Ask the Apologist). It is good to hear he approves of the quality of what FAIR actually does, though.

He also doesn't talk about the wiki (or acknowledge it but I only listened to a few minutes) and that is now pretty much what FAIR is now. So I would say he is building a bit of a strawman to create an unChristlike "other" for a convincing narrative. I'm gratified that he is convinced that we are working to fix our unChristlike behavior, though! LOL

I've listened to the entire thing, and I get the impression that he is unaware that the FAIR Wiki exists, or that it is by far more popular than the FAIR Website. The Wiki and the Ask the Apologist function have been FAIR's main focus for at least five years now.

WW

[Darren10]

there is, i believe, a profound fallacy in saying "god wouldn't allow x", where x includes mild things like trickery. god has indeed allowed genocide in his name, sanctioned by scripture. after an open investigation of scripture, it is clear that god did not have a hand in everymword we accept as scripture, else god would be a monster unworthy of worship. moreover, any indepth investigation of how scripture evolves shows very human processes at work, and even a fair bit of deception.

Nonesense. If God tells His people to enter into a new land and kill every native man woman and child than killing every man woman and child is the right thing to do. You don't necessarily have to enjoy doing it but it is the morally right thing to do. When God says to do something, you do it. Period. Attempting to declare God unworthy of worship because you do not fully accept His command is blashpemous. You using that which is Ceasar's to dictate that which God should do. Though I think you avoid that dilema by simply saying that killing the Canaanites was man's scripture; not God's. But, by doing so you're actually embracing a literal history to authenticate your position and give your position some kind of real authority yet when we speak of the Book of Mormon you declare that it is not important to know if it was literally true in a physical / historical sense. What gives?

There is evidence that Joseph changed his story somewhat to accommodate his evolving understanding of god and the divine.

Again, you're embracing history in a literal sense to authenticate your position. How can you do so when you're adamany about there being no need to know if the history of the Book of Mormon is necessary? It's the story and the spiritual edification which is important, you say. It seems to me that you embrace history when it serves your purposes and dis it when it doesn't.

[Darren10]

hmmm. i would use the term "objective" rather than "crazy". And, yes, i do disagree. i think such efforts are a complete waste of time. if anything, i believe that the divine reason for the non-historicity of the book of mormon is to focus on the message and learn faith thereby.

No, you cannot say "objective" when so much evidence is ready for you to see that associating the Book of Mormon with history, Hebrew, and Greek does help bring out the Book of Mormon message.

i have come to the impression that nothing in the "mormoninterpreter.com" is of any credibility whatsoever. i consider the site and genre to be mentally destructive, and serves to do nothing but postpone inevitable faith crisis.

Doesn't surprise me. Did you come to that conclusion after a whole two minutes of reading its content or did you actually endure to a full three minutes of intense reading and research?

what will happen to your faith should you discover that there is no historicity to the book of mormon?

To answer that hypothetical I'll say that hypothetically nothing in terms of liking irts message but it would throw me into serious doubt about about things like Christ visiting other sheep, the resurrection, which the Book of mormon connects as a necessity to stand to be judged before the Father, Joseph Smith's authenticty (the increasing amount of historical data which validate Joseph Smith's claims since the first publication of the Book of Mormon is very insiring), the necessaity of baptism since the BOM makes it clear it was always necessary while the Bible only explicitly teaches it in the New Testament, and also that there was always the view of a Father ruling the universe through His Son, Jesus Christ. I'd probably go trinitarian were the BOM "proved" to be historically false.

What would you do if you found out that you were never married or had kids? That God implanted those happy thoughts in your brain? Would you still have the same hope as you do now? And here's the irony of your question: to would take an act of God to "prove" to me that the Book of Mormon is not historically true. The fact that archeologists and historians do not hold the Book of Mormon as historically true only shows me the limitations of man's understandings regarding the works of God. And I'm OK with that. The things of Ceasar are inhenretly inferior to the things of God. That includes wiping out the Canaanites in Israel to not accepting the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Darren10

[wayfarer]

Nonesense. If God tells His people to enter into a new land and kill every native man woman and child than killing every man woman and child is the right thing to do. You don't necessarily have to enjoy doing it but it is the morally right thing to do. When God says to do something, you do it. Period.

I'm sorry. I will stand in permanent opposition vocally, publicly, and in every venue i can and oppose your kind of thinking. genocide in the name of god is evil: always, absolutely, and forever evil.

Perhaps this is the kind of scripture that fits your view of god:

Psalm 137:8-9

O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

i hardly think dialogue between us is even remotely possible, but who knows?

Edited February 11, 2013 by wayfarer

[Darren10]

I'm sorry. I will stand in permanent opposition vocally, publicly, and in every venue i can and oppose your kind of thinking. genocide in the name of god is evil: always, absolutely, and forever evil.

Again, if God says to do it, than that's the right thing to do. Period. you're dictating to God what He should do by telling Himn, "no, God. That's morally wrong". There's nothing wrong with addressing your concerns to the Almighty but His commands stand. He has infinitely more knowledge as to what is morally right and wrong than all of humanity combined ever will while in mortality. We are on thisd earth to serve God with all our might, mind, and strength, not to tell God no and that what God says is not morally correct.

Perhaps this is the kind of scripture that fits your view of god:

Quote

Psalm 137:8-9

O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

If God says to do something, than that is the correct thing to do.

i hardly think dialogue between us is even remotely possible, but who knows?

I'm game if you're game.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

And isn't Psalms poetry, not necessarily doctrine or history?

Edited February 11, 2013 by Darren10

[Teancum]

Nonesense. If God tells His people to enter into a new land and kill every native man woman and child than killing every man woman and child is the right thing to do. You don't necessarily have to enjoy doing it but it is the morally right thing to do. When God says to do something, you do it. Period. Attempting to declare God unworthy of worship because you do not fully accept His command is blashpemous. You using that which is Ceasar's to dictate that which God should do. Though I think you avoid that dilema by simply saying that killing the Canaanites was man's scripture; not God's. But, by doing so you're actually embracing a literal history to authenticate your position and give your position some kind of real authority yet when we speak of the Book of Mormon you declare that it is not important to know if it was literally true in a physical / historical sense. What gives?

Yea when God tells someones to fly planes into buildings they better do that now moral task. And when he tells someone to blow themselves to bits on a bus of people they should to that too I guess. And you see there is the problem. Lots of people think God is telling them to do lots of things they would not normally do. And lots of humans over the years have told us that God is telling them to do something or another. So here is the deal, if someome tells me God is telling them to tell me or us to do something that we would normally view as repugnant we better be very sure God is really telling them this. Problem is it is really hard to know for sure if God is telling them that something or another. Better course of actions in such cases is to ignore the immoral now allegedly moral command and run away, really fast.

[Tacenda]

Yea when God tells someones to fly planes into buildings they better do that now moral task. And when he tells someone to blow themselves to bits on a bus of people they should to that too I guess. And you see there is the problem. Lots of people think God is telling them to do lots of things they would not normally do. And lots of humans over the years have told us that God is telling them to do something or another. So here is the deal, if someome tells me God is telling them to tell me or us to do something that we would normally view as repugnant we better be very sure God is really telling them this. Problem is it is really hard to know for sure if God is telling them that something or another. Better course of actions in such cases is to ignore the immoral now allegedly moral command and run away, really fast.

Agree wholeheartedly, and find it difficult to believe in that kind of God. There have been too many nut jobs in our day and age who say God tells them what to do. Edited February 11, 2013 by Tacenda

[cinepro]

The January Ensign talks about the seer stone translation, and mentions the fact that multiple instruments (both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stones) were referred to by the Biblical term "Urim and Thummim." The same article discusses how revelations were edited and updated.

WW

For those who were wondering, this is the article:

Joseph Smith Received Revelations through the Power of God

Those who believed that Joseph Smith’s revelations contained the voice of the Lord speaking to them also accepted the miraculous ways in which the revelations were received. Some of the Prophet Joseph’s earliest revelations came through the same means by which he translated the Book of Mormon from the gold plates. In the stone box containing the gold plates, Joseph found what Book of Mormon prophets referred to as “interpreters,” or a “stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light” (Alma 37:23–24). He described the instrument as “spectacles” and referred to it using an Old Testament term, Urim and Thummim (see Exodus 28:30).²

He also sometimes applied the term to other stones he possessed, called “seer stones” because they aided him in receiving revelations as a seer. The Prophet received some early revelations through the use of these seer stones. For example, shortly after Oliver Cowdery came to serve as a scribe for Joseph Smith as he translated the plates, Oliver and Joseph debated the meaning of a biblical passage and sought an answer through revelation. Joseph explained: “A difference of opinion arising between us about the account of John the Apostle … whether he died, or whether he continued; we mutually agreed to settle it by the Urim and Thummim.”³ In response, Joseph Smith received the revelation now known as section 7 of the Doctrine and Covenants, which informed them that Jesus had told the Apostle John, “Thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory” (D&C 7:3).

Records indicate that soon after the founding of the Church in 1830, the Prophet stopped using the seer stones as a regular means of receiving revelations. Instead, he dictated the revelations after inquiring of the Lord without employing an external instrument. One of his scribes explained that process: “The scribe seats himself at a desk or table, with pen, ink, and paper. The subject of inquiry being understood, the Prophet and Revelator inquires of God. He spiritually sees, hears, and feels, and then speaks as he is moved upon by the Holy Ghost.”⁴

I would say that the article is a step forward, but it's actually more of a step backward to the 1970's when the Ensign seemed to regularly publish stuff like this.

Edited February 11, 2013 by cinepro

[Wiki Wonka]

For those who were wondering, this is the article:

I would say that the article is a step forward, but it's actually more of a step backward to the 1970's when the Ensign seemed to regularly publish stuff like this.

I'll agree with you there. I recently told some folks who asked me that I thought that the Ensign has become utterly boring apart from the First Presidency message and the Conference issues (the only parts that I have been regularly reading, until the January issue came out).

Now the Improvement Era had a ton of interesting stuff...

WW

Edited February 11, 2013 by Wiki Wonka

[why me]

I would say that the article is a step forward, but it's actually more of a step backward to the 1970's when the Ensign seemed to regularly publish stuff like this.

I was thinking the same thing. I remember such articles in the Ensign a long with many other articles about controversial things in church history. The question and answer section of the Ensign was a gold mine of information. But then, something happened to the magazine and such articles stopped. And now we have a problem. Good to have the good ol' days back.