sethpayne

I would also think the potential for being disruptive to others' meetings would be an issue as well as what Scott referred to.

Hmmmm.... what if you are the only, or last ward to use a building?

Seems like this would be a local matter in places like Utah, Idaho, and Arizona.

Just from memory...I'll try and remember where I heard or read it.

What's the concern? The consumption of more Sunday family time?

Personally one of the best things I like about Sunday is the chance to be in the company of my fellow Latter-day Saints -- both in worship and socially. The more opportunities to do that seem like a pretty good thing to me.

As I recall he is currently an agnostic. He used to be LDS (in practice), I think he even attends still. I recall that he currently does not believe in the truth claims of the LDS or really any church or religious organization.

Just a nitpik to add some clarity: I am a theist, not an agnostic. I firmly believe in God.

I also attend LDS Church services regularly and hold church callings from time to time.

As to the LDS Church's truth claims? On those I am very much agnostic.

Like you I'm only going from memory, but I believe the fax did reference the EoM and quote a short passage therefrom.

Makes sense. I think the claim is that Bill took the EoM and created the fax out of thin air. I haven't been convinced of this argument, however. Seems pretty risky to create a fax from the First Presidency's office. The other option is that there was some type of coordination between Bill and the FP office to use the EoM and then produce the fax -- this clami seems a little too 9/11-trutherish to me and just seems a bit. Makes more sense that the FP secretary took the EoM ,by direction or on his own (who knows/cares) and used it as the basis of his response to a question on Camorah.

(We agreed on something! It's a miracle!)

With God, all things are possible my son.

In case anyone is wondering what MM is referring to: for a long time, anti-Mormons made merry over a purloined letter from the Secretary to the First Presidency. (Some of them still do.) That letter was addressed to a Church member who had asked about the location of Cumorah, and said that the traditional view was that the hill in New York was the one. Lions 1, Christians nil.

In a subsequent article, Bill Hamblin quoted from a fax he had received from the same office, affirming that the Church had no official position on any question of Book of Mormon geography, including the location of Mormon's Cumorah. Lions 1, Christians 2.

However, when asked to produce this fax, he was unable to do so. He said that the state of his office was such that he simply couldn't find it any more. The anti's pounced on this, and virtually accused him of making it up, an accusation to which he had no defence. Lions 3, Christians 2.

But then a new development: a subsequent inquiry to the same office produced a reply that was, verbatim, exactly as Bill Hamblin had quoted. Thus, he was vindicated, and his point was proven.

The score at the final whistle: Lions 3, Christians 5.

Now all the naysayers can do is make snarky remarks about it.

Regards,

Pahoran

Wasn't the text of the fax taken straight from the Encycopedia of Mormonism? Or am I misremembering something here.....

FWIW, I have had 2 of my kids serve missions in the deep South. Both have had convert baptisms, the majority of whom were Black.

Before they left on missions I was positive that the "Blacks in the Priesthood" issue would be huge. In fact it was virtually a non-issue in both their missions because de facto segregation in Southern churches is still quite prevalent. According to what they have told me, the Southern LDS churches tend to be the most integrated in the areas.

Now I know there are probably Black southern members on this board reading this- and I would love to hear from them to see if that is true in their perception.

The other side of it was that for most Blacks in that area it would have been inconceivable that they would have been in a leadership position in a "white church" anyway, so that to a large extent the priesthood issue was and is non-existent in the South. In other words, discrimination was unfortunately expected and a "normal" fact of life down there.

If your experience was different- go ahead and post- I am not saying I am necessarily right, just that that is what I have heard.

I lived in Baton Rouge for a while and I can certainly imagine this being the case based on my own experience. Unfortunately, a lot of Churches are still "self segregated" in parts of the South.

In any case, I too would love to hear anyone's experience ....

Nobody is trying to "stand or support this ban or discrimination of past against blacks any more." I have at last found Mister Reed a valid target for one of his cliche-ridden "Don Quixote" speeches. You are whining about something that no longer exists.

What Pahoran fails to grasp is that no one is claiming the ban is still around. Everyone knows this. What does still exist, however, is a set of cultural teachings that are offensive to some members and unfortunately, are considered by some -- both inside and outside the Church -- as *true* Church doctrine. Top Church leaders, in particular JFS, BRM, and MP, were HUGE proponents of the "cursed because of the pre-existence" nonsense.

I can only speak to my experience only but I am in my mid-30s and growing up I was taught that the ban existed because people from africa were not valiant in the pre-existence and were thus sent to earth as part of Cain's lineage. When teaching some families on my mission I asked my Mission Pres. how to respond and he essentially confirmed what had been taught to me by my parents, sunday school teachers, seminary teachers, etc... Indeed, it wasn't until my Sr. year at BYU before I even knew there were academic/historical papers that had debunked the ban a long time ago (Lester Bush, Armand Mauss). I'm a late bloomer, I suppose.

There are several times I have seen the Church come out and condemn certain rougue/fad teachings. I believe the frustration is that these offensive teachings are still out there, some (if not a lot) of LDS Church members have been taught these things and believe them, but the Church hasn't deemed them offensive enough to condemn these teachings.

It condemns Adam-God -- why not the priesthood ban? Same man, same absurd invention of doctrine.

The Priesthood ban was ended 33½ years ago, all over the world and on a single day. The ordinations literally followed the sun around the earth, so that by the time that Sunday ended, the ban had ended with it.

Mega huge CFR on that one. I'm not doubting you but you are making a strong point and I would love to see how you have come to that conclusion. From what I have heard anecdotely (so unreliable at best) there were some wards/branches in the southern US who had some trouble with the lift of the ban. I would love to have evidence to prove this was not the case.

That was a miraculous achievement that no other church on earth could ever hope to match. If you want to keep on living in the past, we won't stop you; but kindly stop whinging at us about it.

Wait, what was the achievement, exactly?

It's over, Bob.

So I suggest you do two things: (1) build a bridge, and (2) get over it.

Interesting way to speak to a convert to the Church who expresses a sincere concern/question.

Your boundless Christ-like love is a wonder to behold! Amen!

1. Let us oft speak kind words to each other

At home or where’er we may be;

Like the warblings of birds on the heather,

The tones will be welcome and free.

They’ll gladden the heart that’s repining,

Give courage and hope from above,

And where the dark clouds hide the shining,

Let in the bright sunlight of love.

[Chorus]

Oh, the kind words we give shall in memory live

And sunshine forever impart.

Let us oft speak kind words to each other;

Kind words are sweet tones of the heart.

2. Like the sunbeams of morn on the mountains,

The soul they awake to good cheer;

Like the murmur of cool, pleasant fountains,

They fall in sweet cadences near.

Let’s oft, then, in kindly toned voices,

Our mutual friendship renew,

Till heart meets with heart and rejoices

In friendship that ever is true.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=c4db8ceb1ec20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Pahoran,

I've had enough of your attitude. Please dial it back.

You wrote:

You were the one who introduced the phrase "the interpretive community" in the context of viewing a text as "authoritative." Why would this language be arrogant if I were to use it of my community but not when you use it of yours?

There are numerous sects that claim to regard the Book of Mormon as authoritative. Is it arrogant for you to claim that your sect is "the interpretive community" that decides what the text means? Is it because yours is the biggest?

I don't arrogantly claim that evangelicals have exclusive interpretive rights over the Bible. I don't make that claim at all. That is your mistake. I was reflecting back your words in a hypothetical claim to show you why it is an objectionable stance.

You wrote:

You are just displaying your ignorance. Evangelicals have written numerous commentaries and other careful studies of every book of the Bible. We vigorously promote the reading of the whole Bible through in a year (many of us do so every year). My online work, The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity: An Outline Study, cites roughly 1,000 references drawn from well over 300 different chapters of the Bible, including references from all 27 books of the New Testament. My book Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ likewise cites every book in the New Testament as well as 36 of the 39 books of the Old Testament. It cites all but 5 of the 117 chapters in the four Gospels and Acts, all but 15 of the 87 chapters in Paul's epistles, all but one of the 34 chapters from the non-Pauline epistles, and all but 5 of the 22 chapters in Revelation. (It would appear that Paul gets somewhat less thorough use in that book than does the rest of the New Testament!) Sense and Nonsense about Heaven and Hell cites every New Testament book except Philemon, 2 John, and 3 John. The Word-Faith Controversy cites every New Testament book except Philemon.

Facts, sir. Facts are inconvenient to rash accusations and unfounded caricatures.

You wrote:

You're quite correct. The Bible is indeed "the sacred text of a much larger intepretive community than just conservative North American Protestants." Did you think I would disagree with you? Perhaps you thought this was a nice rhetorical zinger. It sounds like a nice patronizing put-down, implying (without actually saying) that I have a narrowly ethnocentric notion of the Christian community. I assure you that you are once again simply displaying your ignorance. I not only am aware of the fact that most Christians are not in North America, I actually have relationships with Christians in many other parts of the world. Just two years ago I spoke to gatherings of Christians in England and in Uganda; the believers I met in Uganda were from some five or six countries in Africa as well as from other parts of the world. My colleague at IRR has ministered alongside and to Christians in almost every country in Latin America as well as in other nations such as Madagascar. Our organization has literature in 30 different languages and has shipped such resources to at least 84 different nations.

Facts. They can be downright inconvenient, can't they?

Your comments on the issue of modalism ignored the point I made -- again -- that I don't claim, and don't think, that the Book of Mormon is consistently modalist. Everything you said on that issue is made irrelevant by that one simple point.

Rob,

I disagree with about 90% of what you write/say but I have to give credit when it's due. You just totally PWNED Pahoran. Well done.

Seth

I think we both understand where each of us is coming from-

Do you think that if the church made a move toward a more pragmatic/ social constructivist theology- which I think we both agree is not inconsistent with present Mormon theology (insofar as there is such a thing!) do you think that would help?

Howdy Bishop!

I have to be honest, I worry about the Church "losing it's soul" and it's vibrancy so I am very hesitant to suggest any dramatic institutional changes. The Church, after all, is the Church -- because it's the Church.

Having said that, I do think a pragmatic/social constructivist approach is highly appropriate and desirable in a pastoral setting as it helps individuals stay centered and moderate even the face of difficult challenges and shifts in worldview. My Bishop approaches me, and others like me, in this manner and I know that my brother, who has served as Bishop, approaches things in a similar way.

I once knew of a fella in a similar situation. I personally don't get it. the lessons in classes are all geared towards the existence of God and having a spiritual world. So I asked, "what do you do when the lesson focuses on the existence of God, or other teachings that you don't except". his answer was to basically fake it, but his words were more along the lines of just stickign to what the manual says and gloss over it a bit. I dont' know, maybe its just me, but it seems that if he was interested in participating even if he doesn't believe, then for the sake of honesty and those in his ward he shouldn't be a teacher.

I can only speak for myself, of course. I am a theist without question so discussing God or the divine is something I relish.

I do not, however, agree with "faking it." Such faking is not honest. I can understand why people may fake it, but I can't accept it as right.

In my case, if I teach a lesson out of the D&C or BOM, I testify of things I *do* believe. I believe in God, in the Christian ethics taught in the Scriptures etc...

Now, I also respect the lesson plan and if the lesson is on the BOM translation process, it is my responsibility -- as someone who was invited and agreed to teach -- to present the as the Church would like it to be presented. Am I going to bring up Spaulding, View of the Hebrews etc.... absolutely not. It's not my place, nor my platform. If I want to talk about those things (I don't), I'll writing something on my blog not over the pulpit or in the church classroom.

EDIT: big difference between "is not" and "is" ...

I'm glad you are a member, but I'm curious to know what draws you to the LDS Church, while not believing in many of its fundamental truth claims.

I'll turn the question around. Why should I walk away from my rich Mormon heritage and the Church that gave me so much over the years?

When it comes right down to it the Church is in the business of making people more capable human beings. It teaches them a sense of morality, a great work ethic, and instills a desire for education. Everything regarding Mormon (and more broadly, Christian) ethics centers on increasing kindness and compassion; creating a desire for moderation. Now, the Church believes there is much more to it that what I have stated. Great. I'm unsure about many things metaphysical. I'm not going to let a disagreement over metaphysics blind me to the fact that the LDS Church and culture are, on the aggregage, forces for good in the world. The overwhelming number of Latter-day Saints I have met over my lifetime have been incredible people. I've met some not-so-nice ones too but that is the exception, and not the rule.

When you have an organization that consistently produces high quality, moral, self-reliant, productive members of society, you must admit that the organization is doing something right.

By no means am I claiming the LDS Church is the only organization to do this; that would be absurd. However, it is the organization I know, the organization of which my family are believing members, and the organization to which I am proud to be a member.

Is the Church perfect? No -- it is a human institution. Nothing run by men and women can be perfect. If I chose to only affiliate with organizations or people who were perfect I would be a very lonely man indeed!

It is a delicate balance. Many people do not know that there are callings you can perform in our Church that do not require membership. Heck you do not even have to be an Apostle to serve in the First Presidency. I am glad you are there.

Thanks Pa Pa.

Just to clarify: I am, and plan on always being, a member of the LDS Church. I'm proud to be LDS.

I think people could be like my Bishop. He knows my personal beliefs and, out of what I know is sincere concern and chartity, has expressed that he hopes my "orthodox" beliefs return. Regardless, he puts me to work in the ward! I do home teaching, teach the HP group occassionally, and get involved in service projects. It's great.

I should say I think this is a two way street. Those who have lost their belief should not expect the Church, nor its members, to bend to their new worldview. I think mutual respect is the key -- even when there is a fundamental disagreement. Focus on common ground. Even if you are an ex-Mormon athiest you can recognize the good cultural values the Church promotes (hard work, self reliance, education, etc...) and could benefit from participating in the community. A buddy of mine is an athiest in Utah County but teaches priesthood, goes home teaching etc.... He doesn't expect the Church to change but he loves participating.

Kindly confine yourself to commenting on the content of the posts in this thread, or feel free to remove yourself therefrom.

Regards,

Pahoran

I think I'll respond to your posts as I like, thank you. If the mods want to remove me, they will.

You are dripping with irony.

Which is worse, a murderer of mortal life or a murderer of eternal life?

And we have a vote for AS/anti-Mormonism > genocidal anti-Semitism.

Seth, your opinion is noted. Your arrogance in presuming to board-nanny me in my own thread is likewise noted.

I'm not board-nannying you at all. If anything I'm commenting on you as a person. On or off the board

But I don't expect you to be offended by the Shafavaloffs of this world. After all, it's not as if they are attacking anything you value.

Regards,

Pahoran

$10 says my home teaching % was higher than yours last year.

You know what happens when you assume, RM.

The fact is that I have had a number of interactions with Aaron Shafavaloff. I have found him to be a hater and a fanatic. He crashes LDS public events, spouting his hate propaganda. He vilifies the Church and its leaders on the internet and elsewhere. He drums up deliberately deceitful mischaracterisations of LDS teachings, then ambushes unwary Mormons with them.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

Yep. AS' anti-Mormon ministry = Genocidal anti-Semitism.

Right.

Either way, it is valid for anyone encountering his opinions for the first time to know that his view of the Church of Jesus Christ is approximately comparable to Yasser Arafat's view of Israel.

Regards,

Pahoran

This statement is absolutely out of line. To compare evangelical anti-Mormons to a know terror organization that kills innocent women and children, is incredibly offensive. You are essentially claiming that anti-Mormon evangelicals are in favor of genocide -- against Mormons.

When someone launches a missle from the SBC into Temple Square then, and only then, should we possibly mention Yassar Arafat's genocidal views of Israel and anti-Mormonism in the same sentence.

Pahoran,

You wrote:

I was not aware of the discussion you mention here. However, for the record -- "just so readers know" -- Aaron Shafavaloff is not a full-time professional evangelical anti-Mormon. He is a full-time professional, but at a different, non-religious profession. His pursuits with regard to Mormonism are his avocation, not his profession.

And..... while I disagree with 99% of what AS says, he does seem to be a sincere and truly nice guy.

I am not familiar with the search engines, but I would suggest looking up how he justified attacks on the church in CA for prop 8

So no response to the CFR.

As I said, I have no memory of CB being boorish.

Everyone know who you are here California Boy. You will get no apology for your boorish posts attacking the church.

Hi Jeff,

Can you give us a link of two? I've never remembered CB as being boorish .... but my memory isn't great and I could most certainly be wrong.

CFR -- out of genuine curiousity.

Seth

Is there a political party that is best suited to match the values of the LDS Church?

I don't believe so, no. President Hinckley was a Democrat. I know several stake presidents and bishops who are Democrats. I also know many who are Republicans.

Do issues like:

Abortion

Self-Reliance vs Welfare

Immigration

Capital Punishment

Capitalism vs Socialism

Constitutional Literacy vs Constitutional "Living Document" mentality

And so forth factor in?

Things are not generally that black and white. We have many good LDS people in Europe where a mixture of socialism and capitalism seems to work out OK.

A person can support some social programs and oppose others. For example, I think Federal Student Loans are one of the best things this country has ever done for its citizens. Is it a form of socialism? Sure. Does BYU accept Pell Grants and Perkins loans? Absolutely. I don't think it has anything to do with someone's "standing" in the Church, to use your phrase.

I used to be incredibly to the right on the issue of immigration until I lived in a ward where a member of the Bishopric was an illegal from South America. He came here to provide for his family because he had no options in his home country. Obviously the Church didn't have an issue calling him into a priesthood calling. There were several families in the ward in this situation. They come here to work hard and better their families. Since meeting these wonderful people I have taken a softer view of the immigration issue.

Can someone really be pro-Abortion and a good standing member of the Church?

I can't say I've ever met anyone who is pro-Abortion. I've seen some radicals on TV who may fall into that camp but I don't think any normal human being would actually actively advocate abortion.

The question is really: Should abortions be safe/legal for those women who chose to have them?

My person feeling is, yes. Why? Not because I like seeing babies being aborted but rather, I recognize that whether its legal or not, women will pursue abortions. My academic advisor at grad school was at Vanderbilt during and after Roe. V. Wade and shared with me and interesting anecdote. He said that he was good friends with the dean of the medical school and that prior to Roe v. Wade the most commmon emergency room issue seen was internal bleeding from botched abortions. After Roe v. Wade this problem virtually dissapeared overnight. The fact is that people will choose to do things I find morally wrong. I can't control them. I'd rather see them make it through the process safely. Having said that I think things like mandatory counseling prior to an abortion or a 3 day waiting period etc.... are perfectly reasonable regulations. Again, it's not black/white. Even the Church's official position isn't black/white and allows for abortion in the case of rape/incest and wisely states that the decision is one for the woman and her family in counsel with priesthood leaders.

My $.02

for what it's worth, I don't understand why your link was removed either. I have linked to quite a few articles.

Hey guys....

There is an unseen dynamic at play here that motivated the Mods actions. It was done for my benefit and I appreciate the Moderators actions, although I am completely comfortable with this link being "out there" and I'm happy to have my name on the post .... I did write it after all.

If you want to know more details feel free to PM me but rest assured, the mods did the right thing. I promise.

Seth

If you really want to see me whine, challenge me to a game of backgammon and win. I've been called much worse, and your post made me laugh. I'm hoping that was the spirit in which it was intended. My point was really about clarification about why the title was changed and the link deleted. I'd never had that happen. No need to be nasty about it.

Part of why I participate in this board is the high level of scholarship and the enlightenment of personal views I can get from people who I would otherwise not have a chance to hear from, Seth being one, Dr. Peterson certainly being another, as well as several other posters whose posts I routinely look for.

My thoughts on Seth's blog (that were entirely deleted along with the link) were that he was speaking directly to some of the criticism I have heard from my own family and friends about my conversion…. that Mormonism is "weird", and how could I possibly join a church like that? It helps me, and I make the assumption that it helps others, to hear these points of view in gaining better insight into my own faith and belief system. I also raised the point that it makes me a little fearful of what other criticisms I'm going to have directed towards me, as a member, as Mitt Romney get's closer and eventually achieves the nomination (which I believe is likely).

My intention was NEVER to offend Seth or create negative feelings on the board.

No offense intended and certainly none taken. I'm very glad you enjoyed my post. I had fun writing it.

As to Robert's point: my post had nothing "special" in it but was intended to point out the irony of EVs not voting for Mitt and the hypocrisy of the left in critisizing Mormonism.

Thanks!

Seth

Hi Everyone,

I know why the mods deleted the link and my name and there was no malice behind it whatsoever. The mods here have always treated me with respect and I have done my best to return the favor.

If anyone would like to read my blog post on what I see as the absurd criticisms of Mitt Romney and Mormonism simply visit the link in my signature. I'll be posting a number of things in the coming weeks in response to some of the nonsense being put out there by critics of the LDS Church on both the left and right.

Thanks!

Seth