All Activity

We don't have eye witness testimony to that effect. That comes from John, written last in the 90s CE, the least historical of the four gospels. We have no eye witness testimony in regards to any of the teachings of Jesus, but the self-exalting sayings in John are the least likely to be historical. Otherwise one has to explain why that kind of language doesn't appear in our earliest gospels. If the authors of Mark/Matthew/Luke knew that Jesus was saying those kinds of things, why didn't they report it? And why do the sayings in John match the writing style of the author of John's gospel? By historical standards only a small percentage of the reported sayings of Jesus are likely to have been something Jesus actually said in life. Those historically likely sayings include some of the memorable aphorisms and parables, and other sayings that align with historical criteria.

I agree with you as long as you accept oral tradition as historically valuable to the researcher. All history is spun through a degree of belief and desire. That doesn't mean we reject it. If it did, we would have no history, not even of yesterday!

Hmmmm. I would suggest it is from a historical and linguistic studies perspective (view), correlating the Hebrew concept of truth with that of the Greek. There is eyewitness testimony (primary source material) to the exclamation of Jesus that he claimed to be "the way the truth and the life." One can believe that in so doing he spoke the truth or not; his was a revealed truth that he in turn revealed to others. It was, in the the modern concept of truth he was correct or incorrect. His claim is knowledge by the rules of what we accept as first century history. Whether it is truth by modern standards is obviously debatable. But that is applying presentism to the event, not the historiography of first century history which does not require belief to be accurate in the context.

I suppose if the desire to be harmless is not sufficient, there is always the argument from self-interest.

The Book of Mormon does not explicitly say Sam was disqualified from leadership or priesthood because he was less righteous than Nephi. There is a difference between saying that leadership was associated with Nephi's line and asserting that every subsequent leader was his biological descendant. The text does not establish an unbroken genealogical succession of rulers or priests. Nor does it clearly state that priesthood authority was exclusively hereditary. Jacob 1:9–11 says that the people wanted to preserve Nephi's name, so his successors were called Second Nephi, Third Nephi, and so forth. It does not identify the second king's personal name or whether he was a biological son of Nephi. See Val Larsen's discussion in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, which proposes Nephi's unnamed successor may have been Sam or Sam's oldest son. In 2 Nephi 3:23–24, Lehi promises that Joseph's descendants will not be destroyed, that they will hearken to the words of a book, and that a mighty person will arise among them to accomplish a great work and help restore the house of Israel. In the Church's interpretation, the passage points to Joseph Smith and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. So Joseph, Lehi's youngest son, received the greater blessing.

That's a Christian theological view. From a historical perspective Jesus was a law-observant apocalyptic Jewish wisdom teacher who, like many other Jewish thinkers, had his own interpretation of Torah.

Nope, It is likely that the writers of the Gospels were relying on each other and oral traditions or scattered written documents that relied on oral tradition. Did they spin what Jesus said to match their own beliefs? Sure, hence you have Matthew saying that the Law of Moses will continue until the End of Days while the other gospel writers do now. That is not fraud though. It is the normal human impulse to read things through the lens of your own beliefs and desires combined with not having much in the way of hard data on the life of Jesus. Also the gospel writers don’t all agree on what the meaning of Jesus even was. It takes a lot of tortured rationalizations to make them match up. Particular trying to make the Gospel attributed to John have the same message as the synoptic gospels. Not fraud.

Somebody can claim revelation and not be lying. My mother-in-law had a revelation that I was supposed to have another baby. According to her anyway. I believe wholeheartedly that she believed it. She just wanted it so bad.

And Blacks being not blessed with the priesthood because they weren’t as righteous in the preexistence is true or not in your belief? Because it was taught by many, including Bruce R. McConkie. If somehow in the future the original Mormon Doctrine was mistaken for scripture and canonized by future church members, would that make that belief truth or fraud?

1) Just because God lifted the ban doesn’t require he put it into place. Why he left it in place is unknown. Whether it was because he approved of it or because we had rejected the higher law for the lesser like the ancient Israelites at Sinai or something else, it will be interesting to find out. 2) lots of teachings attached to the ban…such as Blacks are the Children of Cain…that were taught as doctrine. I was referring to those. The fan fiction mistaken for canon more or less.

When you said that I [Calm] “just can't and therefore don't believe He believes in me [Navidad] as the same”…”a true believer in Christ” in the here and now and/or the future to God as I believe I am, you are requiring me to deny part of the core of my own faith, which has mostly to do with the relationship of God to each of us and the eternal relationship we have to each other. It reminds me of another here using “definitely” to categorize another community’s beliefs. Draws in walls that aren’t actually there. And since how God accepts us is the largest part of my conceptualization of God, you saying “can’t believe…” is probably pretty close to me saying “Navidad can’t believe in God given he is evangelical and believes…”…which I would never do because it’s absolute nonsense. My point with my leaders not correcting me (and I have lived in 3 countries and lost count of the number of wards and stakes where they rotate through leaders every few years with temple recommend interviews every year since I was married until a few years ago when it switched to every other year, so that’s a lot of leaders of all different types, experiences and personalities) is that there is no official doctrine that requires me to believe other than I do on this…even if there are members or leaders out there who judge you in that way because they have chosen to infer from scriptures and teachings those beliefs. Their choice, not mine (some may have been taught that and not yet have a clue it isn’t something they have to believe, speaking generally here). “The little one thing”…are you seeing me thinking I am older and wiser than you spiritually speaking (as in “you are 16 going on 17…I am 17, going on 18”; what a patronizing song, btw)? If so, you need to go back and reread what I wrote because as far as I am concerned every last mortal is currently a very little one of indeterminate age playing in the sandbox and we must all be vastly more mature to receive all the gifts God has prepared. I cannot somehow judge who is more or less mature than the other just because I am familiar with some of the gifts some of us have received because there are plenty of other gifts I will not be familiar with or even if I am, would need to be a soul reader to know if something was received and how much understood and put to use (the latter being much more important for maturity than simple possession). There are no doubt members out there who spend their time creating hierarchies of who is more saved, more progressed than the others. I have seen them do it with members as much as nonmembers, maybe even more; but I think such systems are a load of crap and the only thing they show to me is that person needs a lot of spiritual maturing. Iow, such judgment is juvenile and worthless imo. I am not going to waste a moment of my time on such meaningless efforts. The idea that I frame my beliefs with that idea embedded somewhere in it is laughable to me and to be told repeatedly that it’s there (and you are not the only one in my experience, either nonLDS or LDS, who appears to believe LDS must think that way if they are devout members and believe in covenants and ordinances, but it’s a baggaged understanding of the purpose of such imo, attaching a lot of ideas that are not official doctrine and don’t belong there) and I view nonmembers as spiritually less mature, gifted, or somehow deprived simply because they haven’t received some ordinances….that person hasn’t been listening to me. And it’s frustrating. I can understand why nonLDS might believe that way if they first encountered members and/or leaders who promoted such, but why stay locked into that view when one doesn’t have to? How does it help in understanding who we are to generalize behaviour and beliefs that are not general. I am not asking you in the least to change your views of the local members or their interactions with you. You know them and I don’t. I am simply asking you don’t burden me with their hangups and sins. I have enough of my own to carry, I don’t need extra. Let me be me. I am not a stand in for the local members. You won’t hear all the same words and beliefs from me as you would from them…and that is not contrary to official doctrine as there is a pretty limited set of doctrines one must believe to be considered a member in good standing. As far as the family analogy…I used it because treating the Christian community as family is not uncommon. And since we in the analogy are the children, I thought you would understand it even if it didn’t resonate with you. Perhaps you are an only child and your parents never gave gifts and you don’t view God as having any similar behaviour. Most of us are part of an extended family and even if we are not, there are so many around I assumed it was behaviour all would be acquainted with. If it leaves you mystified, not sure how I can come up with a better one since I don’t know what your life is like outside of what you shared here. I am not demanding you understand me, but I would appreciate less certainty expressed about my necessary beliefs and views and judgement of others.

Given your past includes zealous support for Tim Ballard, setting yourself up as the right-divider of what constitutes "fraud" is a non-starter.

Saying that the church has disavowed a previously accepted belief isn’t the same thing as asserting that the former belief isn’t actually true. From Google: “To disavow something is to deny responsibility for, connection to, or approval of something. It is an act of repudiation or alignment, not a factual verification. Whether the disavowed statement, action, or belief is true or false depends entirely on the context. For instance, a politician might disavow a controversial statement made by a supporter to protect their reputation, even if the statement contains factual truths.” (Google AI) In this regard, a perfect case in point is how the Prophet Joseph Smith continued to publicly disavow his practice plural marriage throughput his lifetime. The practice of disavowing a belief or doctrine that’s actually true is a way of preventing the casting of pearls before swine. And disavowing something is also a way to assert that the thing in question has not yet been factually proven, which is not the same thing as saying it’s not true. Again, it’s inaccurate to equate a disavowal with an official assertion that something isn’t true. And unless you’re willing to call President Spencer W Kimball a liar, why would he solemnly testify the Lord revealed to him that the long promised day of the lifting of the ban had finally arrived? The problem with modern sensibilities is that many of today’s church members refuse to believe that God often asks us to do very hard and unpopular things, and that his curses often prove to be great blessings in disguise. “Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance. He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.” (Official Declaration 2) P.S. Wouldn’t it be interesting if someday some of the inheritors of the telestial kingdom of glory begin to assert that the claim that they were relegated to a lower kingdom as a direct consequence of their actions while on earth is a false and unjust doctrine? As the scriptures teach, our works in the pre-earth life followed us here, and our works while here on this fallen world will follow us into eternity. There’s nothing at all controversial about this perfectly reasonable example of the law of the harvest in action.

Do you believe it was fraud when our church leaders shared from the pulpit their ideas about the priesthood ban that turned out not to be accurate?

Whether it was the actual writers of the books of the New Testament who perpetrated the fraud, or if it was the creators of the original source material who’s dishonest narratives deceived the writers into reporting a fantastic pack of lies as solemn truth, fraud would necessarily have to have been involved in the creation of a New Testament that totally misrepresents the supposed actual beliefs, teachings and acts of Eschaton’s Jesus who didn’t believe that he was the atoning Savior of the world.

Of note, John's (who's life had a few parallels to those of the Essene's) preaching of baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins wasn't done in Jesus' name (or in the name of a triune deity/godhead, for that matter). While not the overwhelming standard practice, proselyte baptism for Judaic conversion wasn't unheard of in 1st Century CE, and the utilization of immersion (or other water purification rituals) to cleanse away sin or to signify a rebirth wasn't exactly innovative in Judea or within the overall sphere of places touched by Roman/Greek influence (Pythagoreans and Eleusinians [sp?] come to mind).

"Why should they be virgins and how young would these virgins be?" The first part of that question still makes no sense to me. "Why should they be virgins?" Are you asking about why D&C 132 talks about virgins? What does this have to do with the Joseph F Smith's talk? I don't see any thing in there about him using the term virgin. The second part of that question is weird. There's no mention in Joseph F. Smith about youth. He says "Young men" but that isn't the same term we use today in the church. It wasn't until 1906 before it became normal for boys to be regularly ordained to the Aaronic priesthood (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/adjustments-to-priesthood-organization?lang=eng). Before then, it was sporadic. Most holders of the Aaronic priesthood would be 20+. So, the "young men" would probably be men in the 20s or 30s (Joseph F Smith would be ~50 at this time so someone in their 20s and 30s would be young to him). I would assume the wives that these young men would marry would also be in the 20s. That was the average age. It sometimes went lower (usually when the husband was also young).

You do know that something can be inaccurate without being deliberately fraudulent right? The Essenes had a baptism ritual. It is a fair bet other Jewish groups did too. It was not something Christians invented or rediscovered.

If by that you mean you didn’t understand the need to be there with someone rather than observing from a distance while deciding how to help, I don’t think it’s uncommon for people not to realize that all their lives, so good on you for figuring that out. Sympathy isn’t just telling someone how sorry you are without action. It can also be action, very well intended charity and love and important and meaningful. Too often we are treating sympathy as empty and meaningless, but it isn’t always that way…but even in exercising love and charity, it’s not empathy unless we try to understand from the other’s POV and address their needs from that standpoint rather than from our own perspective alone. In one sense, treating or loving another as we would want to be treated or loved could end up just as sympathy in that we give someone the charity and support we would want to get….which may not be what they actually need or want. I think it is more likely that we want to be loved with empathy, the other taking the time to learn who we are so we are given what we need and not what they think we need before they make the effort to know us. In that sense, the treating the other as we would be treated is treating them with empathy. God’s love is inherently empathetic since he knows us and our needs better than we know ourselves, so if we are trying to emulate godly love, using empathy is an important part of that.

I appreciate your honest opinion Calm. As always you are a lot like my mother, very wise. So I think of her with some of your comments. It was several years ago when I found out about the differences of empathy and sympathy, I was most likely in my 40's before knowing the difference. Sad huh? So I appreciate any insight because I'm learning every day!

I might suggest that Christ was the consummate Christian in that he was the "truth," the revelator or one who first revealed the plan of the Father for humanity on earth. He took the lid or cover off the Father's plan for us. He revealed what had been hidden, which is the very core of truth in a New Testament sense. The concept of truth as correct or incorrect was foreign in both OT and NT times. In that sense, Christ was the first Christian with the true truth.

That portion of the Welsh Saints Project had this section: The "Parable of the ten talents" means wives. ... Joseph F. Smith said that young men who hold the Lesser Priesthood an [and] aspire to the Higher should be put under covenant to adopt Plural marriage or forfeit all right to the High Priesthood, said this time would soon come. Young men had better be married by the Bishop than go into the House of God and make covenants they do not intend to keep. I associated female "virgins" to my question based on what was written in Doctrine and Covenants 132:61-63. One can conclude these "young men" would naturally be seeking virgins for their plural marriage. Why should they be virgins and how young would these virgins be?

I agree with the silliness of gatekeeping. I would simply suggest that dechristianizing is indeed cruel, causes soul wounds, and as in the case of many members of the LDS Church has created epigenetic wounds, down through generations. It has created an identity for them as a persecuted people, as it has for the Mennonites. I am unsure what you mean by "it" in your last sentence, but if the "it" you refer to in your last phrase is physical violence, I agree with you. The challenge with the violence perpetrated today is that while it is less physically violent, that does not mean "it" is less violent in other ways. The anger in some in this forum over having had Fundamentalists - or Evangelicals, if you must, strip LDS folks of the validity and genuineness of their faith is indeed palpable. I have great empathy (to tie it into this thread) in me, as I know what it is like to be dechristianized by the LDS, however subtly and smilingly delivered. Today the language is much more subtle than in decades past, but it is equally as palpable for the recipient (whether LDS or non-LDS), regardless of the source. The Hopi remind us that the wounds also apply to the perpetrator as well as the recipient, especially over time. Speaking of the Cathars or Albigenses, there are those, rightly or wrongly, who identify them as precursors to both the primitive and magesterial reformations. That could certainly be debated; however the Albigense regions of Europe, especially in France were the same regions where centuries later the reformers flourished. The correlation may not suggest causation, but it is interesting that you mention them. Best wishes.

not in any sense? You missed the part where Jesus insisted on being baptized - - - 2 Ne 31:5.And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water! 6.And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water? Matt 3:40.Thus came John, preaching and baptizing in the river of Jordan; bearing record that he who was coming after him had power to baptize with the Holy Ghost and fire. 41.And then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan, unto John, to be baptized of him; 42.But John refused him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and why comest thou to me? 43.And Jesus, answering, said unto him, Suffer me to be baptized of thee, for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 44.And John went down into the water and baptized him. 45.And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water; and John saw, and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon Jesus. 46.And lo, he heard a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear ye him.

Are you asserting that Jesus was not in any sense a worshipping Christian because he himself was the Christ and therefore the object of Christian worship, or are you saying that in spite of the fact that the teachings of Jesus establish the very justification for and doctrinal foundation of Christianity that he somehow didn’t actually believe what he was teaching? Or is your claim based on the belief that Jesus is inaccurately quoted in the New Testament and that New Testament is therefore fraudulent?