Has your opinion of the LDS church

[BYU Alterego]

BYUalterego,

[The Dude]

Daniel, BYUAlterego, et al.

Did everyone see Simon Southerton's rebuttal to FARMS expert Ryan Parr?

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/Losing3.htm

In his review of my book, Losing a Lost Tribe, Dr. Ryan Parr suggests that studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) inheritance in the fish species Poeciliopsis, a minnow from the Sonora Desert of Northwestern Mexico, has some relevance for understanding human population genetics.1 Due to a quirk of sex determination, the hybrid offspring of crosses between P. monacha females and P. lucida males are always female. The major findings of the paper were (1) that the frequency of paternal

[BYU Alterego]

One last thought to Daniel.

You've been arguing that Joseph didn't know with certainty the details of the BOM geography correct? I for one would have no problem if we were talking about him not know the exact location of the River Sidon, or which city was Zarahemla.

It's not what Joseph professed to not know that concerns me, it's the opposite. Joseph's Plural wife Missouri comment should worry you because it's a positive assertion that is now certifiably false. Even worse is that the D&C refers to the territory west of the Mississippi as the "borders by the Lamanites."

DC 28:9

The Lord was apparently not ready to give the exact location of Zion yet, but he did reveal that it would be by this "border" that I mentioned. We now know that area is Independence Missouri.

Never mind that Oliver was to go preach to the Lamanites, I'm fairly certain he didn't travel to Mexico ....ever.

So did the Lord get it wrong too? That would be a problem. He ordered his missionaries to go teach the Lamanites, how much more obvious can this get?

Now, back to the root of this whole thread. Do apologetics help or hinder? Well, if you make a statement along the lines, "It is patently untrue that Joseph believed in the hemispheric model, there is no evidence of that," yet that evidence abounds. And the only way to make your line of reasoning work is through a great deal of qualification and ambiguity in your argument, then you're certainly going to turn some people off.

The Gospel is supposed to be about clarity, light, knowledge, intelligence. Not the muddy waters of endless FARMS hypotheticals. Frankly I'm just surprised at how many are comfortable with the ever shifting, uncertain canon of Mormonism.

It's a miracle apologetic efforts haven't done more damage. When and if your audience increases, I think there will be a linearly related amount of lost testimonies.

[BYU Alterego]

Daniel, BYUAlterego, et al.

Did everyone see Simon Southerton's rebuttal to FARMS expert Ryan Parr?

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/Losing3.htm

Yes I've read it. It's withering, and accurate.

[Ammon310]

Not being LDS, I wouldn't characterize myself as having a testimony of the church (though I do have a testimony of the Restoration movement generally, which I suppose could be vicariously extended to include the LDS church). What I can say is this: when I came to FAIR, I had a good opinion of the church. I respected Pres. Hinckley, and was impressed by what the church and its members stood for vis a vis the world. I had already begun investigating, so FAIR seemed like a good place to continue, where I could interact and have points of doctrine that were unfamiliar to me (as an RLDS individual) cleared up. Fast forward to today: I feel like FAIR has increased both my level of familiarity with the LDS movement and the level of my positive feelings towards the church. Certainly, it hasn't given me a testimony, but I would say that FAIR has contributed towards removing impediments that possibly stood in the way of eventually acquiring one.

[BYU Alterego]

Moderator:  Thank you for understanding.  When we have a high profile expert who attracts attention and does not send in post reports we will be more vigorous in monitoring interactions.  Also, a clash of opinion quickly comes to a stalemate and lowers the tone of the board.  Some posters are an authority in their own right.  But if not we do expect to see documentation consisting of quotes, references, etc.,  if the debate is to proceed.  Credentials and expertise matter here.   

Citations will now = on

[Dill Pickles]

ROFL...Pseudoscience?? Of course the real gripe is false prophecy, did I try to hide that? I have no gripe against science... The whole DNA issue shows that what Joseph said was false.

from the Pickle jar: I certainly don't want to detract from the fascinating exchange of ideas between BYU Alterego and Dr Peterson, but I have one small quibble: use of the word "false" implies a deliberate attempt to deceive people away from truth. Why is it that some folks can't cut Joseph some slack, and assume he might simply have been speculating, or maybe he was reaching beyond the mark, or he might have been *gasp* simply wrong?

We don't believe in inerrancy for our prophets. We allow them to be wrong. We allow God to make any necessary corrections, until we humans get it right. If science shows a change in direction (as it continually does), why can we not allow our prophets the same? The communication between God and the prophets is not always crystal clear, yet we behave as if it is. What use is continuing revelation, if we can never get beyond the original seeing through a glass darkly?

Can we agree that unless one can prove an intent to deceive (always difficult to do, 150 yrs after the fact), using the word "false" is counterproductive and inaccurate? Joseph may have been wrong, but there is no evidence that he intended to deceive anyone, so declaring him false seems like overkill.

[Confidential Informant]

So the argument is that because they never officially defined it, though an obvious "unofficial" view, that's we're not to question the brethen's gift of prophesy over this? Come on.

I love your phrasing "doctrinally binding." What you're really saying is that Joseph taught this, but he wasn't sure about it, so don't get too attached.

Joseph taught that the brethren at some point might take Lamanite plural wives. He referred to the Indians just over the Missouri border. That is actually not Mexico, in case you didn't know.

Joseph taught that in "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" that the Whole of North and South America were to be part of the new Zion and would be an inheritance to the Lost tribes (aka Lamanites). Joseph believed Zelph was Nephite? What was he doing so far north then?

Your characterization is weak attempt to rephrase Joseph's teachings into a framework that can agree with what science tells us. Obviously what the prophet teaches in general is "binding" or you wouldn't go to so much effort to cast his words in such a different light.

And thus we have the quintessential example of the type of member of the Church that Joseph Smith feared the most:

"At other times and places, Smith similarly hinted that he was constrained by a world and even a following unwilling or incapable of countenancing his process for revealing truth. To one of his friends he lamented he did not enjoy the right vouchsafed to every American citizen, that of free speech. He said when he ventured to give his private opinion on any subject of importance, his words were often garbled and their meaning twisted and then given out as the word of the Lord because they came from him. His insistence that his pronouncements did not always carry prophetic weight was not just a safety net or convenient means of prudent retreat if things didn't work out. It meant that the process, the ongoing

dynamic engagement; the exploring, questing, provoking, dialectical  encounter with tradition, with boundaries and with normative thinking should not be trammeled or impeded with clerks and scribes looking for a final word, interrupting a productive process of reflection, contestation and creation. Sometimes I think the man just wanted the privilege of thinking out loud, but that's hard to do when court stenographers are all around you with sharpened pencils. I imagine in this regard he would have seconded the memorable protest of Virgina Woolfe: "I should never be able to  fulfill what is, I understand, the first duty of a lecturer--to hand you after an hour's discourse a nugget of pure truth to wrap up between the pages of your notebooks and keep upon the mantlepiece forever." -- Teryl Givens "Joseph Smith: Prophecy, Process and Plentitude" presented at The Worlds of Joseph Smith An International Academic Conference at the Library of Congress Washington, D.C.

May 6–7, 2005

Seldom do you see such a concern so plainly exemplified. Juliann is correct in that you are a fundamentalist. Then again, to your credit, you accept that even if you don't understand it.

C.I.

[BYU Alterego]

ROFL...Pseudoscience??

[BYU Alterego]

To confidential informant,

Glad to know I'm to be feared. Never though of myself that way before.

Your quote states that people misunderstand and twist the words of the prophet, and then attribute them to the Lord. This is not what's happening here.

This duplicity inherit in the calling of a prophet is a whole other issue, that while logically repugnant, is not something I'm going to spend any time on in this thread.

If you'll notice I referenced a direct quote from the Lord from the D&C that discusses the border of the Lamanites and sends Oliver Cowdery to preach to them.

If you can point out where I've misquoted, or taken a quote out of context, then that's one thing. But just because my interpretation is different than yours is another completely.

I understand what being a "fundamentalist" is. And LDS apologists use it inappropriately. Juliann is simply borderline incoherent, I can't help not be able to follow her line of reasoning therefore.

The American Heritage dictionary defines it as:

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

2.

a. Often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.

b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

The disaffected generally want to leave Mormonism altogether, not move to Colorado City. Being disillusioned because of disparity you find in LDS theology does not equate rigid adherence to fundamental principles. It's a rejection of the whole thing.

Maybe you say, well your rejecting because the the incongruity is with the "New" understanding we've gained in the last years. That would be incomplete. I'm rejecting Mormonism, because knowledge, both old and new, secular and spiritual denies the reality of LDS theology.

Because I wasn't aware of this information until a couple of years ago doesn't make me a fundamentalist.

Fundamentalists blow up stuff.

[Serious]

It is abundantly apparent talent is not lacking in knowledge, but wisdom and understanding are totally gone out the window. With all your getting sir~

[hondo]

I have always though that the Sagan quotation tells me that "extaordinary evidence" in terms of the gospel is having a revelation from God indicating that yes Joseph is a prophet, Jesus is the Christ, The truths in the Book of Mormon and Bible are true and should be followed.

[Dill Pickles]

I think you're making too big a deal over the word false.  False is perfectly accurate while leaving a person's intent open to debate. 

By the way, Joseph often lied.  One can argue that he was misinforming with piety, or in other words, doing for a higher reason, but he certainly lied about a great deal.

I love this quote by Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence." 

Joseph Smith claimed to be the gatekeeper to the restored path of Salvation for all humanity.  So no, sorry, no slack for him.

I know that members of the Joseph have very strong emotional ties to the prophet, but that doesn't excuse him scrutiny.

from the ham sandwich: your predeliction for putting Joseph on a pedestal to which you apply assorted labels (inerrant, extraordinary, dispensation opener, among others) shows a refusal to accept the doctrine of continuing revelation, and therefore, puts you in the fundamentalist camp. Are you sure you want to be counted with those who place Joseph on a pedestal and do not allow him the vagarities of any other mortal?

False is half of the true/false dichotomy. Unless you can prove the intent behind your accusation of "false", false is not, as you claim, perfectly accurate in this situation. I'm not disputing that Joseph lied on occasion. Joseph was also wrong on occasion. Joseph was a man, and like other men, was subject to temptation and occasionally made poor choices. CI's quote shows that Joseph himself knew that he was sometimes wrong. And I'm certainly not saying he can be excused from scrutiny. But in order to call Joseph "false" in this instance, one needs to first show that his intent was to deceive. You haven't done that. If you can, show your references. If you can't, you'll have to settle for the possibility that Joseph was simply "wrong". "False" places him in an incorrect dichotomy of true or false, and does not allow for the possibility that the more correct dichotomy would be correct (right) or incorrect (wrong).

edited to correct spelling

[The Dude]

It is abundantly apparent talent is not lacking in knowledge, but wisdom and understanding are totally gone out the window. With all your getting sir~

Does Morpheus say that in the first or the second Matrix movie? I never could follow his mumbo-jumbo.

[BYU Alterego]

Dill pickles,

The word false doesn't require any component of dishonesty to be applicable. I can have false teeth, put "false" on a form indicating whether I'm allegic to a medicine, an illegal immigrant or intend to misuse a prescription.

Seriously friend, there's no fire here. Let it go.

[Confidential Informant]

Glad to know I'm to be feared.  Never though of myself that way before. 

Blatent ignorance is always scary.

Your quote states that people misunderstand and twist the words of the prophet, and then attribute them to the Lord.  This is not what's happening here.

That's exactly what's happening here, especially in regards to the prophets purported comments about BoM geography. He never said it was a divine revelation, you supplied that part yourself.

This duplicity inherit in the calling of a prophet is a whole other issue, that while logically repugnant, is not something I'm going to spend any time on in this thread.

So your fundie view is that a prophet is always a prophet in every time and place? Maybe you ought to start this discussion by providing us with your definition of a prophet, then we could all know what your are using as a baseline.

If you'll notice I referenced a direct quote from the Lord from the D&C that discusses the border of the Lamanites and sends Oliver Cowdery to preach to them. 

I'm well aware of that verse. Are you aware that the D&C also gives a definition of "Lamanite" that has absolutely nothing to do with genetic or lineal descent and everything to do with acceptance/rejection of the covenant?

D&C 10: 48 "Yea, and this was their faith—that my gospel, which I gave unto them that they might preach in their days, might come unto their brethren the Lamanites, and also all that had become Lamanites because of their dissensions.

Using that definition which the D&C itself provides, it's not hard to see why the Indians were considered "Lamanites" even if they weren't lineal descendants of Lehi. Once again you have provided nothing more than your own fundamentalist interpretation of the scripture and nothing more.

If you can point out where I've misquoted, or taken a quote out of context, then that's one thing.  But just because my interpretation is different than yours is another completely.

Then you admit that most of this is simply a matter of interpretation, so you need to show why you think your interpretation is fundamentally superior to that of others. You need to show me why I should consider Joseph's ponderings to be anything more than his own speculations rathan declarations of divine knowledge. So far, no one has been able to show that.

I understand what being a "fundamentalist" is.  And LDS apologists use it inappropriately.

No actually we aren't. You are insisting on a form of inerrancy. Such an insistence is a sine quo non of fundamentalism.

Juliann is simply borderline incoherent, I can't help not be able to follow her line of reasoning therefore.

This argument is silly in light of the fact that Juliann is (as always) providing documentational support for her assertion and usage of the term. IOW, she's not the only one using the terminology in that manner, other experts in the field are doing so also, and your behavior and attitudes fits quite comfortably within the paradigm they've identified.

The American Heritage dictionary defines it as:

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

2.

a. Often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement  originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.

   

b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

Are you Brent Metcalfe posting under an alias?

The disaffected generally want to leave Mormonism altogether, not move to Colorado City.

You're showing your ignorance of the topic. What you've cited is simply one iteration of fundamentalism. However, that being said you've shown the same tendency that the folks in Colorado City have shown: a resistance to change, another identifier of fundamentalism. You've already noted your distress at the changes in the Temple ceremony and other issue you have. How is that different from what the fundies in Colorado City believe? They merely took issue with a different change than you did (i.e. the cessation of polygamous practices) but their reasoning is the exact same: inerrancy.

Being disillusioned because of disparity you find in LDS theology does not equate rigid adherence to fundamental principles.  It's a rejection of the whole thing.

Again, the discomfort with ambiguity: another indicator of fundamentalism. The only difference is how you chose to deal with the ambiguity.

Maybe you say, well your rejecting because the the incongruity is with the "New" understanding we've gained in the last years.  That would be incomplete.  I'm rejecting Mormonism, because knowledge, both old and new, secular and spiritual denies the reality of LDS theology.

Really? What "knowledge" has done that? The DNA evidence? If anything all that did was confirm what many LDS theolgians/scholars had suspected for a long time: a limited incursion into a pre-existing population. Archeology? Nope. In fact, that keeps confirming many of the fundamental issues we debate here. And new "spiritual knowledge" are you referring to? Talk about incoherence.

Because I wasn't aware of this information until a couple of years ago doesn't make me a fundamentalist.

Nope, just uninformed and possibly lazy. The fundamentalist part appears when you were confronted w/ new information and rather than re-examine your own presumptions you simply rejected the data.

Fundamentalists blow up stuff.

Or make unwarranted generalizations.

C.I.

[BYU Alterego]

I have always though that the Sagan quotation tells me that "extaordinary evidence" in terms of the gospel is having a revelation from God indicating that yes Joseph is a prophet, Jesus is the Christ, The truths in the Book of Mormon and Bible are true and should be followed.

I feel pretty confident that if Sagan were here, he'd tell you that by definition evidence that you can't share, can't quantify, can't repeat isn't evidence at all. Let alone extraordinary.

Sagan's "Demon Haunted World" discusses phenomenon such as histeria (the 19th century definition) and group dynamics in the realm of belief.

It's a great book, you should read it.

[Nighthawke]

Frankly I'm just surprised at how many are comfortable with the ever shifting, uncertain canon of Mormonism.

um, it says right up front in bold lettering: Continuing revelation... Open canon. Frankly I would be uncomfortable if it didn't shift.

[The Dude]

I feel pretty confident that if Sagan were here, he'd tell you that by definition evidence that you can't share, can't quantify, can't repeat isn't evidence at all.  Let alone extraordinary.

Sagan's "Demon Haunted World" discusses phenomenon such as histeria (the 19th century definition) and group dynamics in the realm of belief.

It's a great book, you should read it.

Beating Daniel Peterson to the punch: did you know there is a review of "The Demon Haunted World" in the latest FARMS review of books? Where do they get the time? I wonder when they will review Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel," or maybe I just missed it.

To CI: This fundamentalist criticism is really worn out. I remember Karen Armstrong once saying that fundamentalism is having a belief in a personal God. Ouch! How 'bout we all just admit that Fundamentalis/Liberal is a false dichotomy, just like Dr. Shades' Chapel/Internet Mormons, and there are in fact beliefs that YOU hold that appear as fundamentalism to people who don't hold them. It's about as useful, now, as calling Mormonism a "cult."

[Boy Named Sue]

Frankly I'm just surprised at how many are comfortable with the ever shifting, uncertain canon of Mormonism. 

um, it says right up front in bold lettering: Continuing revelation... Open canon. Frankly I would be uncomfortable if it didn't shift.

maybe its kind of like that really really really big shift. the one right after the apostles were killed.

[Nighthawke]

I feel pretty confident that if Sagan were here, he'd tell you that by definition evidence that you can't share, can't quantify, can't repeat isn't evidence at all.

[BYU Alterego]

Confidential,

Take a breath man. I'm not Metcalf, nor have I ever once mentioned the Temple ceremonies in this forum. And rarely have anywhere for that matter.

Ambiguity is not the same as disparity first of all. I tolerated ambiguity my whole life before I left the Church, though I was wrong to do so. It's the disparity that's the real corrosive.

So yes, do I want limited ambiguity in what I hold to be "true?" Yes.

Do I want consistency in my system of belief at a higher standard than Mormonism provides? Yes.

Is belief up for personal interpretation? Of course, I never said otherwise. But too often apologists mischaracterize the facts to protect their beliefs, and that's different.

My referring to the words of Joseph was actually to support my argument that Daniel's statement that there was no evidence that Joseph supported the Hemispheric model was wrong.

You have taken but one slice of that discussion and tried to make a fire where there is none.

By the way it's sine qua non not "quo" and this insistence on continuity that you mention is not just a fundamentalist trait. Any journalist, attorney, Senator who often are in the business of getting at truth generally look for a consistent story, without need of revision.

For you to call someone a "fundie" just because they want a straight story is like calling Bob Woodward Pat Robertson.

Therefore my confident belief that you misuse a very loaded word.

[Nighthawke]

To CI: This fundamentalist criticism is really worn out. I remember Karen Armstrong once saying that fundamentalism is having a belief in a personal God. Ouch! How 'bout we all just admit that Fundamentalis/Liberal is a false dichotomy, just like Dr. Shades' Chapel/Internet Mormons, and there are in fact beliefs that YOU hold that appear as fundamentalism to people who don't hold them. It's about as useful, now, as calling Mormonism a "cult."

Are you familiar with Juliann's article Critics in Wonderland: Through the Liberal Looking Glass ?

[BYU Alterego]

I feel pretty confident that if Sagan were here, he'd tell you that by definition evidence that you can't share, can't quantify, can't repeat isn't evidence at all.

[Daniel Peterson]

Did everyone see Simon Southerton's rebuttal to FARMS expert Ryan Parr?

Yes. It would be overhasty to regard it as the last word.

does FARMS ever do retractions?

FARMS publishes the work of individual authors. It is a publishing operation. If an author wishes to issue a retraction, that's up to the author. Does the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology issue a retraction if the work of one author is rejected by another author, or even by all other authors? Does Oxford University Press issue a retraction if the thesis of one of its books fails to gain widespread acceptance, or even if it is subsequently demonstrated wrong?

the D&C refers to the territory west of the Mississippi as the "borders by the Lamanites." 

The Lord was apparently not ready to give the exact location of Zion yet, but he did reveal that it would be by this "border" that I mentioned.  We now know that area is Independence Missouri.

Never mind that Oliver was to go preach to the Lamanites, I'm fairly certain he didn't travel to Mexico ....ever.

I assume that you have a point. Can you please indicate what it might be? I'm not troubled in any way at all by these references to Lamanites. Nor do I know anybody who is.

Do you have even the foggiest idea why that might be? You might try, before triumphantly citing passages to us of which we are already well aware and on which we have already published materials, actually to understand our position.

So did the Lord get it wrong too?  That would be a problem.

Are you saying that there's some kind of a problem here? I don't see it.

You appear to be making assumptions about my views, and the views of those who are associated with me, that are simply false. I suspect that this comes from your unfamiliarity with what we've published on this subject.

He ordered his missionaries to go teach the Lamanites, how much more obvious can this get?

Not much more, I reckon.

Nor could its complete irrelevance possibly be more obvious to anybody who's actually been following the discussion.

Well, if you make a statement along the lines, "It is patently untrue that Joseph believed in the hemispheric model, there is no evidence of that," yet that evidence abounds.  And the only way to make your line of reasoning work is through a great deal of qualification and ambiguity in your argument.

Well, it's pretty clear that Joseph leaned toward a hemispheric view, as did virtually everybody in the Church until roughly 1950 or so. (At that point, closer analysis of the geographically relevant data in the Book of Mormon text, which had commenced at least three decades earlier, began to take hold among academics like M. Wells Jakeman, Milton R. Hunter, Ross Christensen, Bruce Warren, and the young John Sorenson, and even with interested amateurs like John A. Widstoe, Howard. W. Hunter, and Thomas Stuart Ferguson -- leading to the establishment of the New World Archaeological Foundation [with its focus on the Chiapas Depression]. It was in the early 1950s, Elder Dallin Oaks says, that he first heard of the limited geographical approach as a student, and accepted it.)

However, Joseph never claimed revelatory authority for any view of Book of Mormon geography, and the church he founded has continued to deny that it has received any revelation authorizing a particular view. Joseph manifestly felt quite free to speculate about geographical matters, and he was clearly excited when he heard about John Lloyd Stephens's classic 1841 book Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and the Yucatan. The scattered comments that we have from him on the subject after that make it clear that he was leaning toward a Mesoamerican location for the principal portions of the Book of Mormon. Matthew Roper has written fairly extensively on this sort of thing, as, for example, in his "Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004), which is on line, along with a link to a much more readable PDF version, at

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=555

The Gospel is supposed to be about clarity, light, knowledge, intelligence.  Not the muddy waters of endless FARMS hypotheticals.  Frankly I'm just surprised at how many are comfortable with the ever shifting, uncertain canon of Mormonism.

The Gospel is clear, and full of light, knowledge, and intelligence. The Church teaches the Gospel.

FARMS deals with the world of scholarship. Archaeology and ancient history require intelligence and knowledge precisely because they are murky, muddy, ambiguous, and difficult to navigate. Such ambiguities are anathema to the fundamentalist mind.

Incidentally, it's a microscopically tiny proportion of fundamentalists (in any faith, even Islam) who "blow things up." The overwhelming majority of them are entirely peaceful. And many of the leading fundamentalist figures, including the violent ones, are in medicine (e.g., Ayman al-Zawahiri, Usama b. Ladin's deputy), engineering (e.g., Usama b. Ladin himself), and various technical fields. I personally agree that you sound very much like a fundamentalist of a certain stripe. And that's too bad.