The Roof Falls In On Martha

[Rollo Tomasi]

So if that is your view, I take it you'll no longer be trying to exploit various anti-Mormon books to attack the Church of Jesus Christ, since they clearly don't say anything of relevance?

I neither "exploit" nor "attack." I simply review all the evidence and offer my opinions and observations as to what I believe is correct and true. I cannot see how anything that is truth could be considered "anti" anything.

[urroner]

So if that is your view, I take it you'll no longer be trying to exploit various anti-Mormon books to attack the Church of Jesus Christ, since they clearly don't say anything of relevance?

I neither "exploit" nor "attack." I simply review all the evidence and offer my opinions and observations as to what I believe is correct and true. I cannot see how anything that is truth could be considered "anti" anything.

If I tell the truth, but only part of it, leaving out any part that doesn't support my postion, but I don't tell any lies, can this be considered an "anti-something"?

[Pahoran]

So if that is your view, I take it you'll no longer be trying to exploit various anti-Mormon books to attack the Church of Jesus Christ, since they clearly don't say anything of relevance?

I neither "exploit" nor "attack." I simply review all the evidence and offer my opinions and observations as to what I believe is correct and true. I cannot see how anything that is truth could be considered "anti" anything.

Funny how perception and reality can be so unlike each other.

Your Heroic, Unflinching, Selfless and Disinterested Commitment to Absolute Truth really should be declared with stirring movie music, don't you think?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rollo Tomasi]

If I tell the truth, but only part of it, leaving out any part that doesn't support my postion, but I don't tell any lies, can this be considered an "anti-something"?

Certainly, if done with the intent to manipulate what you know to be truth. A good example is where someone is counseled to withhold historical fact or truth that some may view as embarrassing because "not all truth is helpful."

[Zakuska]

If I tell the truth, but only part of it, leaving out any part that doesn't support my postion, but I don't tell any lies, can this be considered an "anti-something"?

Certainly, if done with the intent to manipulate what you know to be truth. A good example is where someone is counseled to withhold historical fact or truth that some may view as embarrassing because "not all truth is helpful."

What like not letting the King Know your sister is your wife?

[Rollo Tomasi]

Your Heroic, Unflinching, Selfless and Disinterested Commitment to Absolute Truth really should be declared with stirring movie music, don't you think?

If it makes you feel any better, I have the theme music from "Rocky" going through my head whenever I post.

[Rollo Tomasi]

What like not letting the King Know your sister is your wife?

I was thinking more along the lines of counseling historians "not [to] spread disease germs."

[Anna]

I have not read this book, and frankly, this book, its content and the whole controversy did not make enough wind down here in Texas to blow out a birthday candle. But what was the "roof" that fell on her book.

Did this book sell well or is this Jackson review having an impact on it?

How well is the Jackson work selling?

[gtaggart]

If I tell the truth, but only part of it, leaving out any part that doesn't support my postion, but I don't tell any lies, can this be considered an "anti-something"?

Certainly, if done with the intent to manipulate what you know to be truth. A good example is where someone is counseled to withhold historical fact or truth that some may view as embarrassing because "not all truth is helpful."

Elder Packer's actual statement--if you want to be accurate--is:

Some things that are true are not very useful.

And your interpretation of that statement is as wrong-headed as your version of it.

In fact, Packer hits on the precise reason you can't be trusted as a source of historical truth: Context. You rarely, if ever, provide context. Further, you refuse to grant a revelatory or spiritual side to the "history" you discuss on this board. Packer had you (and others like you) pegged: The prophets you rail against have no discernment. They dissemble. They make up books of scripture. They never speak with God face to face. They make up and modify their visionary experiences. They are, in short, mere men rather than the Lord's chosen mouthpiece.

[Pahoran]

What amazes me is that it is simply fine for those who oppose Martha to have their mind made up and be convinced and to know that there is nothing more to be said on the matter.

While those who believe Martha - even when some unimportant book reviewers give her a negative review - are disparaged for their "closed-mindedness".

I haven't read the book and I probably won't read the reviews. I don't really care what some irrelevant daughter wrote about some irrelevant apologist and his mostly irrelevant (to the rest of the world) church.

Hacedor

So Hacedor, since you think the Church of Jesus Christ is "irrelevant," why do you waste your time trying to trash it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Baeth_Ku]

gtaggart:

Since your review is one of the subjects addressed in this thread, I was wondering if you would enlighten me on a matter I found a little confusing.

At the beginning of your review, you quote Hugh Nibley commenting on how it is understandable that so many Mormon expose[/]s are written by women. I was wondering what function this quote was intended to serve in the context you use it.

Thanks in advance.

[Rollo Tomasi]

In fact, Packer hits on the precise reason you can't be trusted as a source of historical truth: Context.

I suspect any man who counsels historians to bury "unhelpful" (i.e., embarrassing) Church history. Boyd Packer was not telling historians it's ok to publish any history so long as they provide "context." He was instructing that they NOT publish any history that may harm tender testimonies (regardless of context).

Further, you refuse to grant a revelatory or spiritual side to the "history" you discuss on this board.  Packer had you (and others like you) pegged: The prophets you rail against have no discernment. They dissemble.  They make up books of scripture.  They never speak with God face to face.  They make up and modify their visionary experiences.  They are, in short, mere men rather than the Lord's chosen mouthpiece.

I have never said this. In fact, I have always said they are entitled to discernment and inspiration from God like we all are, but that they don't enjoy it in any greater degree simply because of Church title or office. Nor are they infallible, but are just as likely as all of us to make mistakes. They are "mere men" (I'd include "women," too, but for obvious reasons must withhold this "not very useful" truth), but are viewed and treated by many TBM's as near diety.

[gtaggart]

gtaggart:

Since your review is one of the subjects addressed in this thread, I was wondering if you would enlighten me on a matter I found a little confusing.

At the beginning of your review, you quote Hugh Nibley commenting on how it is understandable that so many Mormon expose[/]s are written by women. I was wondering what function this quote was intended to serve in the context you use it.

Thanks in advance.

The quote comes from the same "handbook" as the 36 rules. It's her father's quote. Martha's a woman. And her book is an anti-Mormon book. Seemed fitting to me. Oh, and she is one of the "ladies" he refers to under rule 35.

Hope that helps.

[Cowpie]

Martha starts early and controls often, putting words in the mouths... of an unnamed adviser on the proper way to advertise for a babysitter in Utah County (

[gtaggart]

In fact, Packer hits on the precise reason you can't be trusted as a source of historical truth: Context.

I suspect any man who counsels historians to bury "unhelpful" (i.e., embarrassing) Church history. Boyd Packer was not telling historians it's ok to publish any history so long as they provide "context." He was instructing that they NOT publish any history that may harm tender testimonies (regardless of context).

Further, you refuse to grant a revelatory or spiritual side to the "history" you discuss on this board.  Packer had you (and others like you) pegged: The prophets you rail against have no discernment. They dissemble.  They make up books of scripture.  They never speak with God face to face.  They make up and modify their visionary experiences.  They are, in short, mere men rather than the Lord's chosen mouthpiece.

I have never said this. In fact, I have always said they are entitled to discernment and inspiration from God like we all are, but that they don't enjoy it in any greater degree simply because of Church title or office. Nor are they infallible, but are just as likely as all of us to make mistakes. They are "mere men" (I'd include "women," too, but for obvious reasons must withhold this "not very useful" truth), but are viewed and treated by many TBM's as near diety.

Maybe you could point to where Packer counseled to "bury embarassing" history. Like I said, you never provide context. Never.

And your strawman "near diety" argument is growing tiresome.

[Pahoran]

In fact, Packer hits on the precise reason you can't be trusted as a source of historical truth: Context.

I suspect any man who counsels historians to bury "unhelpful" (i.e., embarrassing) Church history. Boyd Packer was not telling historians it's ok to publish any history so long as they provide "context." He was instructing that they NOT publish any history that may harm tender testimonies (regardless of context).

Further, you refuse to grant a revelatory or spiritual side to the "history" you discuss on this board.

[Pahoran]

Martha starts early and controls often, putting words in the mouths... of an unnamed adviser on the proper way to advertise for a babysitter in Utah County (

[Zakuska]

Martha starts early and controls often, putting words in the mouths... of an unnamed adviser on the proper way to advertise for a babysitter in Utah County (

[Rollo Tomasi]

Maybe you could point to where Packer counseled to "bury embarassing" history.

Boyd K. Packer gave a talk entitled "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect" on August 22, 1981 at a BYU symposium for CES and other educators. The entire text of the talk can be read here:

http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/mantle.htm

Here are some quotes from that talk:

"There is no such thing as an accurate, objective history of the Church without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend this work. There is no such thing as a scholarly, objective study of the office of bishop without consideration of spiritual guidance, of discernment, and of revelation. That is not scholarship. Accordingly, I repeat, there is no such thing as an accurate or objective history of the Church which ignores the Spirit."

"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful."

"Historians seem to take great pride in publishing something new, particularly if it illustrates a weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure. For some reason, historians and novelists seem to savor such things. If it related to a living person it would come under the heading of gossip. History can be as misleading as gossip and much more difficult--often impossible--to verify. The writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment."

"Teaching some things that are true, prematurely or at the wrong time, can invite sorrow and heartbreak instead of the joy intended to accompany learning."

"The scriptures teach emphatically that we must give milk before meat. The Lord made it very clear that some things are to be taught selectively and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy."

"It matters very much not only what we are told but when we are told it. Be careful that you build faith rather than destroy it."

"That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith--A destroyer of faith--particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith--places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities."

"One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for "advanced history," is himself in spiritual jeopardy. If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be accountable. After all of the tomorrows of mortality have been finished, he will not stand where be might have stood."

"In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on and we are engaged in it. It is the war between good and evil, and we are belligerents defending the good. We are therefore obliged to give preference to and protect all that is represented in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and we have made covenants to do it."

"Do not spread disease germs."

"Those are the cautions I give to you who teach and write Church history. There are qualifications to teach or to write the history of this church. If one is lacking in any one of these qualifications, he cannot properly teach the history of the Church. He can recite facts and give a point of view, but he cannot properly teach the history of the Church."

"It may be that you will lay your scholarly reputation and the acclaim of your colleagues in the world as a sacrifice upon the altar of service. They may never understand the things of the Spirit as you have a right to do. They may not regard you as an authority or as a scholar. Just remember, when the test came to Abraham, he didn't really have to sacrifice Isaac. He just had to be willing to."

And your strawman "near diety" argument is growing tiresome.

Truth hurts, eh?

[juliann]

Boyd K. Packer gave a talk entitled "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect" on August 22, 1981 at a BYU symposium for CES and other educators. The entire text of the talk can be read here:

Quarter of a century ago and you still can't get over it, eh? How do you explain the church annexing FARMS and its work? Co-sponsoring conferences? Airing videos about JS and his treasure digging between conference sessions?

Ah, the sad life of a counter-Mormon stuck in the 20th century....

[charity]

And you disagree with Elder Packer, Rollo?

[Rollo Tomasi]

So Rollo, you deny exploiting and attacking, even while you continue to exploit and attack.

I deny that I exploit and attack even while denying that I exploit and attack.

Just as you deny being an anti-Mormon, even while continuing to advance textbook anti-Mormon arguments in the service of your obviously anti-Mormon agenda.

I deny being an anti-Mormon even while I continue to advance truth in the service of my truthful agenda.

In standard anti-Mormon fashion, you are consciously and intentionally misrepresenting President Packer's remarks in order to manufacture an accusation against him which you know to be false; and you are doing so to try to deceive the uninformed into thinking that the Church is opposed to the truth.

All I'm doing is quoting from Boyd Packer; the reader can interpret Bro. Packer's own words however he/she wishes. I never said the Church is opposed to all truth -- just embarrassing truth.

Now back to the subject of this thread: have you read the reviews, and do you have any responses thereto?

I have not, but once I have read them I will post my review of those reviews.

Or are you prepared to ditch Martha now that she's outlived her usefulness?

Apparently FARMS doesn't think Martha has "outlived her usefulness;" otherwise, they wouldn't continue to publish scathing reviews of her book.

[Rollo Tomasi]

And you disagree with Elder Packer, Rollo?

Yes, to the extent he is asking educators and historians to bury embarrassing Church history.

[charity]

Are you some kind of secret apostle with special knowledge and you just can't tell the rest of us why you can speak to the issue of eternal progression of God's children better than Elder Packer?

[Rollo Tomasi]

Quarter of a century ago and you still can't get over it, eh? How do you explain the church annexing FARMS and its work? Co-sponsoring conferences? Airing videos about JS and his treasure digging between conference sessions?

Are you agreeing with me that Bro. Packer was wrong to instruct that embarrassing LDS history be effectively buried?

And, yes, progress has been made on this front (albeit begrudgingly, imo), but there is still quite a ways to go. Internet bb's like this (and many others), I think, are helping bring about positive change in this regard.