Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
churchistrue

David Ostler's book Bridges on LDS faith crisis

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Well thank you Stargazer. I respect you as well, and enjoy reading your posts. How else can we receive progression without agreeing to go through the process again? Otherwise many will be stuck as angels forever - or elohim forever. Not that that is terrible. I'm sure being elohim is pretty good in the celestial kingdom. I am not going to rehash the many scriptures which speak to this subject. but there is also what JS said in the King Follet discourse which got forgotten under BY in favor of promoting polygamy as the necessary exalting ingredient. Did Yeshua do what He saw the Father do or not? What implications does that have for Yeshua? For the Father?

I'm fully onboard for the KFD.  One hopes that it was transcribed accurately, however.

Quote

How do you know the Sumerians spoke about rivers the same way we do? I do believe they knew which end of the river was the head. Flowing out of Eden into four heads simply means that the river which fed Eden divided into four heads when one followed it out of Eden. Many rivers can fit that description.

If you can find even one such river (bold), I'd be interested to see it. River deltas do not count, and neither do their near equivalents on land with little slope.

Lake Victoria, the second largest lake on the planet in terms of volume of water, has many inputs (mostly rainfall), but only one river as its outlet, which is the Nile.  The Nile does not divide into two. Neither do the Amazon, the Mississippi/Missouri, the Rhine, the Columbia, nor the Yangtze Rivers split into two, three or four heads. They all have tributaries, and this is the general way of rivers: they have tributaries. They do not divide, as a general rule.

Quote

Don't make a simple translation issue an insurmountable mountain. It's just a little molehill. Was there gold in the direction of those wadis you speak of? How much water was in the area 6000 years ago? Hint: was the Sahara a dessert then?

It's not a matter of translation; I'm not sure why you mention it.  The wadis were brought up because geographers were looking for rivers that conformed to the Genesis 2:10 description, and different geographers had different ideas which ones might be the Havilah. I'm not advocating them.  Given that I don't believe the Tigris/Euphrates system has anything to do with the Eden River system, why would I? 

If the modern Tigris and Euphrates are two of the Eden River system rivers, then they would rise in approximately the same area.  Which they do, actually.  But the Pishon and Havilah rivers don't seem to be involved.  

Quote

As I have already discussed. Ethiopia is a red herring. It's a late English gloss. The Hebrew reads Cush. Was there a Cush/Kush to the east?

You seem to be unaware that Cush is Ethiopia.  Or, at least the land of Cush (or Kush) is at least partially within modern Ethiopia -- at the time of the compilation of the Hebrew Bible, and throughout classical antiquity, the Nubian kingdom (the name of which in Egyptian was Kash, which is where the Hebrew word Cush came from) was centered at Meroë in the modern-day nation of Sudan, which is just west of Ethiopia.  Surely you're aware than many lands in antiquity were known by different names at different times and under different governments?

Quote

Place names are in flux. The Sumerians or Babylonians apparently called the Tigris Hiddekel. Euphrates too is a later Greek gloss. 

Yes, I am aware of this.  In fact, I wrote that Hiddekel is taken to be the Tigris.  Euphrates was known as Buranuna in the earliest known reference to the river

Why are you making a point of this?  I'm well aware that different peoples at different times have different names for the same places.  We use the names in current usage in our language, which is English.  What of it?

Quote

I don't believe in a world wide flood in Noah's day. The world was once a water world like Genesis seems to imply, and the land was brought forth out of the water. Since that time there has always been land. There have been world wide floods in the sense that all the oceans have risen and lowered. When you read Genesis pay attention to the description of how high the water got. It washed everyone off the plain. "All the earth" is a common descriptor in the Bible which never means the whole world in the OT.

I have a problem with it, too.

Quote

The Book of Moses describes itself as what the Lord told Moses more accurately than our current Genesis. It is using a name for a place Moses would recognize, but wasn't named that in the days of Eden. 

Something that @clarkgoble pointed out to me might be interest in this context.  To my statement, 

What is the Book of Moses anyway?  It's clearly a faithful retransmission of Genesis.

he wrote:

"I don't think that's accurate. Some people think that one the basis of Moses 1. But I don't think Moses 1 should be treated as part of say Moses 2 but a relatively independent revelation. The rest is Joseph working out fixes to the texts. That is they are explicitly an inspired revision of Genesis but not a retransmission of the original of Genesis. That's doubly true now that we see part of Joseph's studying the text out involved consulting the popular Biblical commentary of the time - particularly with the NT. Treating Moses differently from the rest of the JST simply because it's its own book in the Pearl of Great Price is a mistake."

I was thinking, as you do apparently, that the Book of Moses is a direct revelation like the Book of Mormon. The similarities (with respect to the mention of Assyria for instance) are therefore due to the fact that Joseph was using Genesis as a source text as he was "correcting" it.

Quote

There are still three rivers now - not two. The Karun actually has more flow than the Tigris or the Euphrates.

The Karun does not rise anywhere near the place where the Tigris or Euphrates rise.  It is arguably a tributary to them, or at least it flows into the gulf at the same outlet.

Quote

The fourth is still there in parts, but no longer reaches out of the mountains into Iraq because in the last 6000 years the earth has turned on its axis in its 20,000 year cycle. At the time the Sahara area was full of giant lakes. You say you are not a famous hydrologist, but this is easy to look up. There was a fourth river.

I looked, but I don't see a fourth river.  Can you identify it for me?  Not sure what the Sahara has anything to do with this.

As for the 20K year precessional cycle, Milankovich cycles, solar illuminance cycles, and so on, there's nothing constant except change!

Quote

Well an interpolation which got added from a side  note. I believe it is harmless even if read as being original. What is harmful about it? I don't see it really supporting the doctrines of the trinity. It is just speaking of the godhead.

Well, it's been used to support the doctrine of the Trinity, which is clearly why it was interpolated.  Which you say below, so there we are.

Quote

My guess is the Coma was added after the harm was already done by the Nicene Creed. The doctrine of the trinity would still have developed like it did. The Coma was just to help justify it, but doesn't really.

The Assyrian Empire brought about the final demise of Sumeria as independent city states, and was definitely around in Moses' day, but not as such. The powers then were Egypt and the Hittite Empire. Nevertheless, Moses would have recognized the name Assur. 

I simply do not believe the garden of Eden was in the Americas. It is an error. I believe BY and other church members are responsible for it rather than Joseph, but it is possible Joseph misinterpreted the situation as well. He did believe fifty six years should wind up the scene....

It is an error which will be corrected. It matters not to me whether this Church believes it, because it is not important to its salvation and exaltation. It simply matters to understanding the hidden things of God. One cannot understand the deeper things if the foundation is not good. That is why it is important. The Lord loves His Church and will lead it along. There is nothing to fear. You shall rise up with the saints Stargazer. :) 

I'm not arguing these points because I feel there's any danger you're going to go astray from the Gospel, Rev!  I'm doing it because it's fun!  You make me think about these things and I get educated as a result.  I love learning stuff.

I do understand your points and why you believe in your incorrect idea ( 😄 ), though, and so it's all good!

Edited by Stargazer

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I'm fully onboard for the KFD.  One hopes that it was transcribed accurately, however.

Even if it wasn't transcribed correctly we can still see a lot of truth in the words we can read in what is called the KFD as long as we have the power of the Holy Ghost to help us.  Without that power we could have the right words and still get the wrong meaning.

 

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

If you can find even one such river (bold), I'd be interested to see it. River deltas do not count, and neither do their near equivalents on land with little slope.

Lake Victoria, the second largest lake on the planet in terms of volume of water, has many inputs (mostly rainfall), but only one river as its outlet, which is the Nile.  The Nile does not divide into two. Neither do the Amazon, the Mississippi/Missouri, the Rhine, the Columbia, nor the Yangtze Rivers split into two, three or four heads. They all have tributaries, and this is the general way of rivers: they have tributaries. They do not divide, as a general rule.

It's not a matter of translation; I'm not sure why you mention it.  The wadis were brought up because geographers were looking for rivers that conformed to the Genesis 2:10 description, and different geographers had different ideas which ones might be the Havilah. I'm not advocating them.  Given that I don't believe the Tigris/Euphrates system has anything to do with the Eden River system, why would I? 

If the modern Tigris and Euphrates are two of the Eden River system rivers, then they would rise in approximately the same area.  Which they do, actually.  But the Pishon and Havilah rivers don't seem to be involved.  

You seem to be unaware that Cush is Ethiopia.  Or, at least the land of Cush (or Kush) is at least partially within modern Ethiopia -- at the time of the compilation of the Hebrew Bible, and throughout classical antiquity, the Nubian kingdom (the name of which in Egyptian was Kash, which is where the Hebrew word Cush came from) was centered at Meroë in the modern-day nation of Sudan, which is just west of Ethiopia.  Surely you're aware than many lands in antiquity were known by different names at different times and under different governments?

Yes, I am aware of this.  In fact, I wrote that Hiddekel is taken to be the Tigris.  Euphrates was known as Buranuna in the earliest known reference to the river

Why are you making a point of this?  I'm well aware that different peoples at different times have different names for the same places.  We use the names in current usage in our language, which is English.  What of it?

I have a problem with it, too.

Something that @clarkgoble pointed out to me might be interest in this context.  To my statement, 

What is the Book of Moses anyway?  It's clearly a faithful retransmission of Genesis.

he wrote:

"I don't think that's accurate. Some people think that one the basis of Moses 1. But I don't think Moses 1 should be treated as part of say Moses 2 but a relatively independent revelation. The rest is Joseph working out fixes to the texts. That is they are explicitly an inspired revision of Genesis but not a retransmission of the original of Genesis. That's doubly true now that we see part of Joseph's studying the text out involved consulting the popular Biblical commentary of the time - particularly with the NT. Treating Moses differently from the rest of the JST simply because it's its own book in the Pearl of Great Price is a mistake."

I was thinking, as you do apparently, that the Book of Moses is a direct revelation like the Book of Mormon. The similarities (with respect to the mention of Assyria for instance) are therefore due to the fact that Joseph was using Genesis as a source text as he was "correcting" it.

The Karun does not rise anywhere near the place where the Tigris or Euphrates rise.  It is arguably a tributary to them, or at least it flows into the gulf at the same outlet.

I looked, but I don't see a fourth river.  Can you identify it for me?  Not sure what the Sahara has anything to do with this.

As for the 20K year precessional cycle, Milankovich cycles, solar illuminance cycles, and so on, there's nothing constant except change!

Well, it's been used to support the doctrine of the Trinity, which is clearly why it was interpolated.  Which you say below, so there we are.

I'm not arguing these points because I feel there's any danger you're going to go astray from the Gospel, Rev!  I'm doing it because it's fun!  You make me think about these things and I get educated as a result.  I love learning stuff.

I do understand your points and why you believe in your incorrect idea ( 😄 ), though, and so it's all good!

I'm enjoying reading your discussion with Rev but please include more comments on the fact that the land was not divided in Adam's day and it was divided in the days of Abraham.  Looking at the world now we can see how the land which is now the American continent is divided from the African continent near modern day Israel and we have enough historical documents to show that current day Israel is in pretty much the same place as that land in the days of Abraham, and likely going back as far as Noah too.  So the issue is more about where Adam was before the land was divided and where would it be now if that land had not been divided.  I think we have the answer, just not sure about which way the land went when it was divided.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Even if it wasn't transcribed correctly we can still see a lot of truth in the words we can read in what is called the KFD as long as we have the power of the Holy Ghost to help us.  Without that power we could have the right words and still get the wrong meaning.

I agree.

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

 

I'm enjoying reading your discussion with Rev but please include more comments on the fact that the land was not divided in Adam's day and it was divided in the days of Abraham.  Looking at the world now we can see how the land which is now the American continent is divided from the African continent near modern day Israel and we have enough historical documents to show that current day Israel is in pretty much the same place as that land in the days of Abraham, and likely going back as far as Noah too.  So the issue is more about where Adam was before the land was divided and where would it be now if that land had not been divided.  I think we have the answer, just not sure about which way the land went when it was divided.

Wellllllll, the problem is I am not sure we have complete information about all that.  Just because Archbishop Ussher thought he had calculated the date of the Creation as around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC, does not mean that that is the correct date.  I think we have the correct time period when Israel entered the Holy Land, but when exactly were Adam and Eve ejected from the Garden?  Could have been many thousands of years further back than we think.  

Also, many folks think that during the time of Peleg the earth was divided, but in what way was it divided?  I used to think that this meant that continental drift divided North America from Pangaea over a very short time from some 4,000 years ago.  I'm not on board with this any longer.  I don't know how to understand this idea, but I'm pretty sure that Moses was told a lot of things that glossed over an enormous amount of detail that the Lord did not see fit to burden him with.  The Lord also did not give him a Physics 101 course involving the basics of quantum mechanics, for the same reason: he didn't need it.  

I look forward to the day when the Lord explains to me how all this came to be.  Or gives me the book to read. I suspect there will be plenty of surprises.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

  I used to think that this meant that continental drift divided North America from Pangaea over a very short time from some 4,000 years ago.  I'm not on board with this any longer.

This was not how it was understood prior to the theory of continents moving/continental drift got going as far as I can tell (maybe those better read can contribute).  From what I have read (granted not much on this in particular) it was interpreted in the past to mean divided into nations/tribes...a sociopolitical division rather than a geological one.  This is a logical result of confusion of languages....pairing off with others who speak the same way you do, so it naturally follows from the story.

Otoh, an one or two sentence reference randomly referring to the most shattering experience the world had ever had since Creation (a splitting up of massive continents across the planet makes the Flood even in its extreme version seem like a Sunday drift in the local lake imo, think filling a local reservoir compared to moving the mountains around it....which is more impressive? Difficult?) seems so out of place and character to the biblical scriptures.

The reverse could also be true, a growing awareness of the many political divisions outside local tribes could lead to a myth about how those divisions came into being....some history mixed with religious paradigms and you have the various myths explaining how the world came to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Otoh, an one or two sentence reference randomly referring to the most shattering experience the world had ever had since Creation (a splitting up of massive continents across the planet makes the Flood even in its extreme version seem like a Sunday drift in the local lake imo, think filling a local reservoir compared to moving the mountains around it....which is more impressive? Difficult?) seems so out of place and character to the biblical scriptures.[/quote]

Do you believe Enoch was able to move actual mountains, as the scriptures say he did?  All you need is just a little bit of faith.  I have moved some but I had the advantage of being able to use modern equipment.  Still a lot of work, though.

Edited by Ahab

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Ahab said:

Do you believe Enoch was able to move actual mountains, as the scriptures say he did?  All you need is just a little bit of faith.  I have moved some but I had the advantage of being able to use modern equipment.  Still a lot of work, though.

Marthin Luther moved a mountain as did Joseph Smith.

Oh, btw, it's good to see you Ahab ;)

Edited by RevTestament

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Ahab said:

Do you believe Enoch was able to move actual mountains, as the scriptures say he did?  All you need is just a little bit of faith.  I have moved some but I had the advantage of being able to use modern equipment.  Still a lot of work, though.

It is not possibility of the act I am questioning, but the fact of the minimal description of it in the Bible and nothing elsewhere.  We are talking about the most massive physical disruption the world has ever experienced, much greater than what happened at Christ’s death in the Americas or even the Flood and yet no mention in the Bible besides something got divided and nothing in the Jaredite section in the BoM which is usually connected to the Tower period. 

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I'm fully onboard for the KFD.  One hopes that it was transcribed accurately, however.

There were at least 4(I think 5 transcribers) and iirc at least 3 of them got the gist of this comment by Joseph. Of course Joseph didn't come up with it on his own. He was just more fully understanding Yeshua's comment in John. I would add also His comment "that the time will shortly come and now is when I will show you plainly of the Father." It was so plain that the world didn't see it.

Quote

You seem to be unaware that Cush is Ethiopia.  Or, at least the land of Cush (or Kush) is at least partially within modern Ethiopia -- at the time of the compilation of the Hebrew Bible, and throughout classical antiquity, the Nubian kingdom (the name of which in Egyptian was Kash, which is where the Hebrew word Cush came from) was centered at Meroë in the modern-day nation of Sudan, which is just west of Ethiopia.  Surely you're aware than many lands in antiquity were known by different names at different times and under different governments?

I'm fully aware that Cush became Ethiopia. That is why I call it a red herring.

Quote

I looked, but I don't see a fourth river.  Can you identify it for me? 

It is still there, but like I said it doesn't flow across the desert anymore. But the old river basin still has water in it in the spring which flows down to groves... Per Wikipedia:
"The Hejaz includes both the Mahd adh-Dhahab ("Cradle of the Gold") (23°30′13″N 40°51′35″E) and a water source, now dried out, that used to flow 600 miles (970 km) north east to the Persian Gulf via the Wadi Al-Rummah and Wadi Al-Batin system. Archaeological research led by of Boston University and the University of Qassim indicates that the river system was active in 8000  BCE[citation needed] and 2500–3000 BCE.[15]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hejaz

Quote

Not sure what the Sahara has anything to do with this. As for the 20K year precessional cycle, Milankovich cycles, solar illuminance cycles, and so on, there's nothing constant except change!

https://phys.org/news/2016-12-years-sahara-tropicalwhat.html (6,000 years ago, the Sahara desert was tropical—what happened?)

If the Sahara had all that water, how much did the Hejaz have? Enough for a perennial river.

Edited by RevTestament

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/8/2019 at 7:41 PM, Storm Rider said:

You use the phrase, "dark night of the soul". This particular phrase was first used by St. John of the Cross in Roman Catholic spirituality. It describes a spiritual journey toward union with God, but not seen as a crisis, but rather a deepening of faith in God while recognizing that the individual does not feel spiritually led. In other words, those that experience this do not turn from God or the Church. 

A few examples of those individuals that have experienced this dark night are St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus and the Holy Face, OCD, a 19th-century French nun and Doctor of the Catholic Church,. She wrote of her experience. Another would be St. Paul of the Cross in the 18th century. His experience endured 45 years - he never left the faith, but persevered and endured to the end. The most recent individual revealed in our day was St. Teresa of Calcutta who endured from 1948 almost until her death in 1997. Again, never left the Catholic Church and a life of faith.

A person who has a faith crisis and walks away, is not have a dark night of the soul. Quite the contrary, their faith has been abandoned and they are on a wholly different path. 

I almost made this post a few days ago. It sounds better coming from you. :)

To be fair to the opening post, I decided to do a google search on "dark night of the soul." It would seem that the expression has begun to be used by non-Catholics to describe a much wider range of experience. It seems probable that the author of the book which prompted the post used it, not as one who understands the great Carmelite mystic and poet, but in a different way.

I am truly impressed with your succinct and accurate explanation. Thanks.

Rory 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Ahab said:

I'm enjoying reading your discussion with Rev but please include more comments on the fact that the land was not divided in Adam's day and it was divided in the days of Abraham.  Looking at the world now we can see how the land which is now the American continent is divided from the African continent near modern day Israel and we have enough historical documents to show that current day Israel is in pretty much the same place as that land in the days of Abraham, and likely going back as far as Noah too.  So the issue is more about where Adam was before the land was divided and where would it be now if that land had not been divided.  I think we have the answer, just not sure about which way the land went when it was divided.

It's rather easy to tell that the land masses moved over millions of years. Time frames not relevant for the current discussion. See Pangea. Humans have existed for around 200,000 years tops and probably not in a cognitive similar form (i.e. language) for around 100,000 years or less. How Adam fits into that isn't clear. If one takes the dates in Genesis as accurate in either our calendar or even a Babylonian one then he's not that long ago. (I tend to see Genesis as among the most corrupt of scriptures so I don't trust the dates/descriptions there) 

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 8/9/2019 at 10:32 PM, Calm said:

This was not how it was understood prior to the theory of continents moving/continental drift got going as far as I can tell (maybe those better read can contribute).

I had actually never heard of this Peleg thing until I heard it being mentioned in reference to continental drift, in a talk given by Cleon Skousen -- I had a tape of the talk in which he suggested it -- that I listened to in the 1980s or so.  The talk might have been given not long after the geoscientific community accepted plate-tectonic theory after seafloor spreading was validated in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

After this I heard "live" talk in a Sunday School lesson or two -- not taught by an instructor, but being brought up in discussion.

So I guess I thought it was more prevalent than it actually was, then.

 

Edited by Stargazer

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently there was some speculation back in the 1500’s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Ortelius

but plenty of creationists see the continents having had to split during the flood and read the Peleg verse in context with the surrounding verses to indicate social divisions (for example Ken Ham)

Share this post


Link to post

You are right the idea was/is? prevalent. From the OT manual (hopefully not the current one) published in 90s iirc:

Quote

) Genesis 10:25. Was the Earth Divided in the Days of Peleg?
“The dividing of the earth was not an act of division by the inhabitants of the earth by tribes and peoples, but a breaking asunder of the continents, thus dividing the land surface and creating the Eastern Hemisphere and Western Hemisphere. By looking at a wall map of the world, you will discover how the land surface along the northern and southern coast of the American Hemisphere and Europe and Africa has the appearance of having been together at one time. Of course, there have been many changes on the earth’s surface since the beginning. We are informed by revelation that the time will come when this condition will be changed and that the land surface of the earth will come back again as it was
in the beginning and all be in one place. This is definitely stated in the Doctrine and Covenants. [D&C 133:18–20 is then cited.]” (Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5:73–74.)

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Came into see what people had to say about Ostler's book.

Oh boy did this thread derail.

Edited by the narrator

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, the narrator said:

Came into see what people had to say about Ostler's book.

Oh boy did this thread derail.

It happens. I checked after being out of town and saw several new pages of comments and come to find out most all are tangential. I was hoping to see more discussion of the book or my review of it. Oh well. It's also interesting to see the tangents.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, the narrator said:

Came into see what people had to say about Ostler's book.

Oh boy did this thread derail.

Partially my fault. Next time I'll create a new thread when things get too tangental.

More or less the issue is how literal one has to be in ones testimony. I'd say that "literalness" is usually not the proper way to describe this. Rather the issue is whether one reads the text (usually the KJV and not the original language) as if it were written to you by one of your friends in your community. i.e. how acontextually you read. While there were reasons JFS took the readings he did - largely he was reacting to the first generation of college goers many of whom came home with what we'd call extremely liberal or even atheistic presumptions of scripture. That caused him to overreact largely adopting fundamentalist Seventh Day Adventist apologetics particularly towards creationism. Hopefully we can avoid that false dichotomy. Say what one will about FARMS and its successors but they've mostly adopted a scientific worldview while maintaining a belief in real angels and divine communications - the more successful third way.

The question relative to Ostler is to what degree "unorthodox testimonies" really are just traditional liberal Protestantism and how one should react to that in Church. That is how open publicly should the Church be in order to keep people in the Church.

On 8/10/2019 at 5:28 PM, Calm said:

You are right the idea was/is? prevalent. From the OT manual (hopefully not the current one) published in 90s iirc:

Sadly many of the old manuals are still in use although they have newer ones (which I've not read) So your quote is still in print.

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

On the thread that was closed about Runnells, PacMan CFR'd me that members leave over the church essays. I messaged him about this interview with Elder Snow to answer the CFR. I thought I'd post here as well. Listen around the 5 minute mark.

Also, there is an interview with Anthony Miller on Mormon Stories where it lists that his faith unraveled after reading the essays, so it is happening.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's more from Elder Steven E. Snow speaking of the essays and how it affected members. https://www.sltrib.com/podcasts/mormonland/

General authority talks about race, Joseph Smith’s polygamy, the LGBTQ policy and more | Episode 93

For nearly two decades, Elder Steven E. Snow has served as a general authority for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.The past seven or so years, he has been the church historian, overseeing the faith’s history department. During that time, he has led the release of “Saints,” the first in a planned four-volume narrative history of the church, and the production of landmark essays that tackle some of the pricklier points of Latter-day Saint history and teachings.Snow, who is poised to receive official emeritus status in the coming fall General Conference, talks about his tenure and some of the issues he confronted, including:• How to explain Brigham Young’s role in the former race-based priesthood ban.• How to detail the early days of Mormon polygamy and Joseph Smith’s plural wives, including one who was 14.• The much-publicized news conference showcasing the so-called “seer stone” that historians say Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Mormon, the faith’s signature scripture.• His reaction to the controversial 2015 policy on LGBTQ couples and their children, and the subsequent reversal.• His relationship with former Church Historian Marlin Jensen, a fellow Democrat in a religion dominated by Republicans.• His commitment to the environment and his hopes for more eco-friendly policies from the faith.• His excitement over the dynamic changes taking place under church President Russell M. Nelson.Listen here.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Do you have minute references to the comments? I don't like to play video at work and it's a lot of work to scrub through the video hoping to hear the relevant claim. This is why video/audio is often a poor reference. Further when interviews are conducted they force people to speak off the top of their heads. Typically that leads to distorted figures and facts.

I don't doubt some have left over the essays. They've created a kind of weird doppelgänger of what Mormonism actually is in their minds. That, rather than the real thing, is what they view as "truth." Especially if they also have a rather black/white quasi-fundamentalist approach to religion that'll pose problems. I think the bigger question is how much that is happening. My impressions is that it's not as big as some exmormons claim.

Of course surveys of religious belief will tell the tale. It's been a few years since the last Mormon oriented ones. I think the PRRI is the most recent and shows Mormons as one of the few religions growing in some religions and relatively static in terms of our relative population. 

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Do you have minute references to the comments? I don't like to play video at work and it's a lot of work to scrub through the video hoping to hear the relevant claim. This is why video/audio is often a poor reference. Further when interviews are conducted they force people to speak off the top of their heads. Typically that leads to distorted figures and facts.

I don't doubt some have left over the essays. They've created a kind of weird doppelgänger of what Mormonism actually is in their minds. That, rather than the real thing, is what they view as "truth." Especially if they also have a rather black/white quasi-fundamentalist approach to religion that'll pose problems. I think the bigger question is how much that is happening. My impressions is that it's not as big as some exmormons claim.

Of course surveys of religious belief will tell the tale. It's been a few years since the last Mormon oriented ones. I think the PRRI is the most recent and shows Mormons as one of the few religions growing in some religions and relatively static in terms of our relative population. 

In the first one I mentioned around the 5 min. mark. Not sure the mark on the second one with Mormon Land. I listened to it on my Alexa. All I know is that they mentioned members having some cog dis over reading this for the first time, and Elder Snow said that's why they didn't announce much about it. It was intentionally put up in a soft way. I think that's the word. I'll listen for you and figure out the minute mark. 

ETA: Start at 11:00 mark.

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...