Repressed Church History?

[Uncle Dale]

It certainly has. The final authority is the printed texts. They are what they are.

They say what they say, and they don't say what they don't say. Period.

Danke. Gleichfalls.

hmmmmm.....

I thought that the "final authority" is the guy who gets to revise the texts.

Uncle "he has the strength of ten, because his heart is white, er, ah, ... pure" Dale

[Hawkmoon]

That would be more .. calling the kettle black..

Ah! So that would mean you're the pot-- I get it.

[Daniel Peterson]

I thought that the "final authority" is the guy who gets to revise the texts.

They're already published. TAK is trying to revise them, but, for that very reason, quite ineffectually.

P.S. -- Incidentally, John Murphy of BYU Special Collections tells me that he's been trying to get in touch with you, without success.

[Uncle Dale]

They're already published. TAK is trying to revise them, but, for that very reason, quite ineffectually.

P.S. -- Incidentally, John Murphy of BYU Special Collections tells me that he's been trying to get in touch with you, without success.

Had a nice talk with the good fellow. Seems he has a storage spot and I have some junk I need to store.

Sounds like a marriage made in heaven.

Uncle "Or, at least made in the Terrestrial Kingdom of Utah County" Dale

.

[solomarineris]

You will find most Anti-Mormon book's repeat the same information, and Anti-Mormon commentary over and over. The Tanner stuff seem's to me to be the most prolific of Anti-Mormons. Every other critic's book is mostly just a summary of what they say. And I even suspected that many Anti-Mormon writers actually do not alway's buy LDS book's but borrow quotes from other critic's books.

Be cautious with the Tanners as they twist issues and can leave out parts of quotations. I have learned quotes in Anti-Mormon book's isn't the problem as much as the commentary that goes with the quote. The Anti-Mormon interpretation, and explanation makes LDS history worse than it is. Some matters of history have different explanations and interpretations.

Dale,

Even if Tanners were to leave out 90% of quotations, the 10% should shake any hard core believing to the bone to ask some serious Q's.

How can you dismiss hard-core information from the "church history"?

[Pahoran]

Dale,

Even if Tanners were to leave out 90% of quotations, the 10% should shake any hard core believing to the bone to ask some serious Q's.

Spoken like someone who's never had a testimony.

How can you dismiss hard-core information from the "church history"?

Let's be clear: stuff from the Tanners is not "hard-core information from the 'church history'," and it is less than candid to call it that. It is edited, eviscerated, folded, spindled, mutilated and spun to say what the Tanners want it to say.

And you are quite wrong to say that the 10% should "shake" anyone. The only "serious Q" that anyone really needs to ask is, "what does that actually say in context?"

At which point, things have a way of becoming clear.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Uncle Dale]

How can you dismiss hard-core information from the "church history"?

!

Uncle "resist temptation to jump in... resist temptation to jump in.... resist... resist..." Dale

[Dale]

Dale,

Even if Tanners were to leave out 90% of quotations, the 10% should shake any hard core believing to the bone to ask some serious Q's.

How can you dismiss hard-core information from the "church history"?

I have the Tanner big book and was only concerned about what they had written at the time. I have since found from time to time online resources that give different views from them. I developed different views from her and her late husband. They have a smaller Mojor Problems In Mormonism book, and I am not aware of any issues in it that do not atleast have a propsed solution.

I asked some serious questions. What 10% bothers you most?

Dale

PS-I am the other Dale on the board. Dale is my middle name and I post under it instead of my first name Robert.

[Thinking]

...it is a fact that anti-Mormons frequently accuse Mormon apologists of "attacking the person." It is likewise a fact that this accusation is usually, if not always, unfounded.

Pahoran,

You're the king of "attacking the person."

Is that clear now? Just in case it isn't, I teach early morning Seminary, Oracle. I can simplify it as much as you need me to.

But I'm sure that, having had that explained to you, you will blithely ignore it in about fifteen minutes' time. It's what your lot do.

I think you are confused, Brent. That is what we regularly get from you.

Is English, perhaps, not your first language?

You (collectively) ASSume...

It's because you're too bigoted, small-minded, fanatical and ignorant to grasp the very simple fact that people can disagree with you without being either wicked or stupid.

[sunstoned]

I have an ipaq; but there's just something about the sweet papery paper of a sweet book.

I agree totally. That is why regardless of the advances in technology, there will IMHO always be a strong market for good old books

[Dale]

I have seen persons cite the same quotes the Tanners do without coming to a negative conclusion about the Restoration. I just see more responsible materials on Mormonism than they mostly ever put out.

[rickg]

QUOTEI

s that clear now? Just in case it isn't, I teach early morning Seminary, Oracle. I can simplify it as much as you need me to.

QUOTE

But I'm sure that, having had that explained to you, you will blithely ignore it in about fifteen minutes' time. It's what your lot do.

QUOTE

I think you are confused, Brent. That is what we regularly get from you.

QUOTE

Is English, perhaps, not your first language?

QUOTE

You (collectively) ASSume...

QUOTE

It's because you're too bigoted, small-minded, fanatical and ignorant to grasp the very simple fact that people can disagree with you without being either wicked or stupid.

Sheesh! And I got my hand slapped for posting about the John Birch society. These kind of comments would get you banned at other forums I'm active on!

From the forum guidlines:

"While posting here please follow these quidelines:

- Do post respectful comments. Name calling, ad-hominem, insults, flaming, badgering, revealing......... are forbidden. "

Hmmm........

[Dale]

The Tanner's method was to throw everything at the reader in an attempt to overwhelm them. Some do get permanantly overwhelmed, and others do not.

[Jerubaal]

Pahoran,

You're the king of "attacking the person."

While I don't think anyone will deny Pahoran's aggressiveness on these boards (I doubt even he would), in his defense I would like to mention that in almost every instance I have seen him make a pointed statement at a person, he then continues on to make substantive points independent of the personalities involved. Here is a prime example from him that I have saved to my hard drive (unfortunately I do not know the link to the original post, I'll have to find it):

Evidently they are.

Before my mission, I became acquainted with anti-Mormon "literature," reading Brodie and Martin, among various others. The Priesthood ban was a favourite angle of attack among anti-Mormons; not that these pious souls cared for black Latter-day Saints any more than a pinch of owl dung, but because it was available for them to exploit.

Of course, their favoured explanation for the ban was "racism, pure and simple." In response to us saying that we were observing this as a matter of religious principle, they would appeal to what they were pleased to call "common sense." That is, they knew that no-one was ever motivated to do anything by religious principle, therefore we could not be. How did they know this? Well, they didn't know anyone--including themselves--who was or had ever been so motivated. Hence, "common sense."

I was on my mission when the ban was lifted. To us, being very much in the trenches and in daily contact with non-members, the revelation came as a delightful surprise. It was very much "out of the blue" as far as we were concerned. I had seen the articles in Time and other places, and was aware of the declining student whingeing as well as the silly Wallace and Marchant stunts. The feedback I got from non-members who heard of these things gave little reason to suppose that they were feeding any kind of groundswell of negative public opinion. This is not mere "book history" for me: I was there; and the "unbearable social pressure," not to put too fine a point on it, wasn't.

However, because of my knowledge of anti-Mormon techniques and thoughtforms, I was able to anticipate--and write in my journal at the time--that anti-Mormons would try to claim that the change had been made under pressure, and that the alleged pressure would appear to increase as a function of elapsed time. When I mentioned this to an anti-Mormon recently, he responded by accusing me of anticipating that because there really was pressure. His response was natural enough--lying was as effortless to him as breathing, so naturally he assumed that it was the same for everyone else--but he was quite wrong. I knew that the accusation of caving in under pressure would be made, because anti-Mormons are simply too malicious to give us credit for anything but the meanest possible motives. I also knew that they would bitterly resent us taking away one of their favourite cudgels, and would want to punish us for it.

Perhaps you may notice that my prediction has been fulfilled to the letter.

While he makes several generalizations about anti-Mormons, the substance of his post (the stuff about whether or not there was "pressure" on the church to make the change), is quite well done.

[Uncle Dale]

While I don't think anyone will deny Pahoran's aggressiveness on these boards

(I doubt even he would), in his defense I would like to mention that in almost

every instance I have seen him make a pointed statement at a person,

he then continues on to make substantive points independent of the

personalities involved...

I have always been puzzled by the "contra" reaction to posters like Bro. Pahoran.

If anti-Mormons cannot accept back just a little onto their own plates, of the "hot hash"

they continually dish out to the Saints, well --- then that's just too bad, in my book.

Pahoran and I have disagreed on many things, at the most basic, bare-bones level.

But in his responses to me (going back almost a decade) he has been a constant

gentleman and notable defender of the "latter day work."

Maybe a little kindness is in order here..... and the "aggressiveness" will begin to fade.

Uncle "just one anti-Mormon's personal experience and advice" Dale

[Daniel Peterson]

I've spent a fair amount of time with Pahoran, on more than one occasion, in his native haunts. This is going to shock and disappoint a number here, but he has consistently shown himself to be witty, well-informed, pleasant, and kind.

Of course, to at least some of my non-acquaintances, I'm a moral obscenity, so I'm not sure what value my testimonial is likely to have in certain quarters.

[Calm]

(unfortunately I do not know the link to the original post, I'll have to find it)

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...entry1207986000

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

You're the king of "attacking the person."

Indeed I may be. And if we take your collection of context-free snippets as examples of "attacking the person," why is it the case that nothing comparable can be found in such venues as the FARMS Review?

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thinking, how old are you?

[moriancamur]

At which point, things have a way of becoming clear.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Dale]

I am not convinced Joseph Smith every married Fanny Alger. I am aware of the type of citations used to say Joseph Smith married Fanny Alger, but remain unimpressed.

[moriancamur]

I am not convinced Joseph Smith every married Fanny Alger. I am aware of the type of citations used to say Joseph Smith married Fanny Alger, but remain unimpressed.

I agree the evidence is unimpressive. I will however accept the possibility that such a marriage took place. It would not be inconsistent.

[LifeOnaPlate]

From this:

Like its clear Joseph commited adultery then married Fanny Alger, that clear, or a different clear, like he was a prophet of God so anything that doesn't fit with total honesty must either not be true or he was commanded to be an exception kind of clear? Which is your kind of clear?

To this:

I agree the evidence is unimpressive. I will however accept the possibility that such a marriage took place. It would not be inconsistent.

Tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, etc...

[LifeOnaPlate]

Like its clear Joseph commited adultery then married Fanny Alger, that clear, or a different clear, like he was a prophet of God so anything that doesn't fit with total honesty must either not be true or he was commanded to be an exception kind of clear? Which is your kind of clear?

CFR [Call for reference]

[moriancamur]

From this:

To this:

Tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, etc...

LoL VL, Thanks for the compliment. Rational argument too difficult? No denial of adultery then. Interesting. New doctrine announced. Adultery is not as important as admitting evidence of marriage scanty!!! Where are your priorities?