Elder Oaks Settles The Matter Of The History Presented

[LifeOnaPlate]

You make some interesting points. I think one of the biggest flaws in our Mormon thinking is clearly reiterated in your statement above about feeling that the gospel is true or not feeling that it is true. We often try to link things together where rightfully that link may not exist. For example, I might go to a wonderful meeting/fireside and feel the spirit strongly or perform and ordinance for one of my children such as a baby blessing and likewise be overcome with the spirit and my own emotions. However, to then make the sweeping conclusion that this means that Joseph Smith was a true prophet or that the practice of polygamy was of God just doesn't make logical sense. As LDS we tend to make these sorts of illogical connections, honestly I don't know why, maybe it is a part of our culture.

We say things like we know that church is true. For many this means that everything about the church is without flaw, our history is perfect, no gray areas exist or should exist. Since it is God's church then naturally it should be like unto God himself, without flaw and perfect in doctrine and practice. It is no wonder than many LDS, myself included, find it very difficult when we do encounter the "warts", our mormon culture emphasizes that the restored gospel is now in its fullness and that all other religions are inferiour to our own. Our expectations are high, almost too high.

Some good points here. I would also add I've had the strong spiritual confirmation not only at times you mention, like baby blessings or baptisms, but also when reading the Book of Mormon, or learning about Joseph Smith, etc. So the conclusions can also be made on the merit of individual principles as well.

mms- we got sidetracked a bit with other posters, can we call back to my questions? They are in this post. Thanks, I appreciate the candor.

[jwhitlock]

Hmmmm. So you think I left out the first part of the sentence to mislead? Does this part of the sentence --"One element is that" -- change the meaning of the sentence. I understand your embarrassment for accusing me of misleading because of your lack of understanding what brackets around the "w" indicated, but why not admit your mistake rather than making another ridiculous allegation.

Second, DHO left whatever "impression" he left with his statement. I just read it for what it was. Furthermore, DHO admitted that some history is not told because it could create doubts. I know that most here want to provide other reasons for not telling some history, but he admitted a significant reason-- the history could cause doubts. Deal with it. Or are you going to say I am "spin[ning]" what he said in this regard, also?

And you dodged my question about what impression you were trying to leave with the way you phrased it. You are trying to spin it. The fact that you don't quote Dallin Oaks further about that history being available to anyone who wanted to read it indicates further that you were trying to isolate a single quote out of context to tell us what Dallin Oaks really meant.

I find it interesting that someone who bleats about the Church not providing its whole history, dirty laundry and all, doesn't see anything wrong with leaving out parts of a quote that have impact on its meaning. The first part of the sentence is a qualifier, requiring one to read further for fuller understanding. And you left it out because it might raise doubts about the impression you were trying to make. Brackets or not, you tried to give the impression with your capitalized "W" that there wasn't anything else to the sentence. You don't study the methods of the Tanners, do you? Just including "brackets" or "..." doesn't make the quote accurate in its context. And you were out of context, especially since you bolded a particular portion you wanted to emphasize.

Please don't insult me with claiming you read it for what it is. You read with a preconceived notion. Your other comments on this thread give us a taste of what you think is dirty laundry that ought to be included in missionary teaching. Try to understand that conversion is by the Spirit, not intellect. That's what missionaries do, and its the most effective way of understanding what the Church is all about.

[cdowis]

"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… "

-Boyd K. Packer

So, I ask you, did the Church advocate "keeping the truth away from its members" to some degree?

1. Elder Packer is not "the Church". He is a member of the Q12.

2. He is giving counsel that LDS teachers and writers of church history should focus on promoting faith. He is not talking to the members of the church. He does not say that members should avoid sources outside the church publications. He is giving friendly advice and counsel to LDS teachers and writers who have a special responsibility in what they write and teach.

3. It appears that Elder Oaks, also a member of the Q12, disagrees with him to some degree.

So, the answer to your question is "no".

[Orpheus]

Why make something so simple so complicated? Because it suits your desire to label new doubters morons for having read the scriptures and institute manuals instead of the five books you mentioned.

Knock it off. If you come blazing into a thread you are going to get responses in kind which means that this thread will likely be closed. You expressed your opinion so start saying something new and civil. If you really want a discussion about your topic then get started but if you want to snarl and sneer for pages you are on the wrong board.

[Deborah]

Yes, we receive it in our house. But as i asked before, where does one go or where does the Lds Church claim it as the official magazine? Can you answer that??

You aren't serious, are you? How can you have it in your home and not know that it is published by the church and is part of its curriculum.

The Ensign, along with two other magazinesâ??the New Era for the young people of the Church and the Friend for the childrenâ??which are also making their appearance this month, make up a family of correlated Church publications, initiated and published under the direction of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve. Thus, they are official Church organs, priesthood directed and controlled. Subscription responsibility has been given to stake and mission presidencies, bishoprics, and branch presidencies. (Doyle L. Green, â??The Church and Its Magazines,â? Ensign, Jan 1971, 12)

The â??Church magazines are essential tools in our gospel teaching program.â? (First Presidency Letter, Oct. 2, 1972.)....Church publications (the Ensign, the New Era, the Friend, and the International Magazines) are referred to as the voices of the Church and the official line of communication from the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve to the members of the Church. Each month a First Presidency message appears in the Ensign. Home teachers are expected to discuss this article with all assigned families. Quite obviously, the curriculum would become stagnant and lose its relevance if we failed to hear the voices of living prophets. (Carlos E. Asay, â??â??For the Perfecting of the Saintsâ??: A Look at Church Curriculum,â? Ensign, Jan 1986, 14)

[The Dude]

I was pleased to see Elder Oaks settle the matter as far as responsibility for Church members not being aware of non-faith-promoting history. He stated, in his PBS interview,

"[W]eâ??re emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesnâ??t deal with anything thatâ??s unfavorable, and weâ??re coming into a period of â??warts and allâ? kind of history....

Mormons practice adoration of God and his son Jesus, but also of many other things, as part of their religion. They adore Joseph Smith and a portion of LDS church history that they know about: the heroic pioneer crossing of the great plains, the persecutions and martyrdoms, the coming forth of the book of Mormon, to name three. They adore temples, and geneology, and their families.

The mistake Mormons often make is to confuse history, as the object of their adoration, with scholarly history. Mormons instead have a set of facts to make up a useful pseudohistory of some true things. Other true things are not so useful for the goals of the pseudohistory, and so they are not included. A real history would strive to include all of the true facts, yes warts and all.

It's okay that many Mormons only know of the pseudohistory, and not of a more complete history of all true facts (or as many as is feasible). It's okay that some LDS don't even know the difference, right?

It's okay, I guess, if you say so....

So is Oaks speaking for himself or for the Church when he says "We're coming into a period..."?

[mms]

And you dodged my question about what impression you were trying to leave with the way you phrased it. You are trying to spin it. The fact that you don't quote Dallin Oaks further about that history being available to anyone who wanted to read it indicates further that you were trying to isolate a single quote out of context to tell us what Dallin Oaks really meant.

I find it interesting that someone who bleats about the Church not providing its whole history, dirty laundry and all, doesn't see anything wrong with leaving out parts of a quote that have impact on its meaning. The first part of the sentence is a qualifier, requiring one to read further for fuller understanding. And you left it out because it might raise doubts about the impression you were trying to make. Brackets or not, you tried to give the impression with your capitalized "W" that there wasn't anything else to the sentence. You don't study the methods of the Tanners, do you? Just including "brackets" or "..." doesn't make the quote accurate in its context. And you were out of context, especially since you bolded a particular portion you wanted to emphasize.

Please don't insult me with claiming you read it for what it is. You read with a preconceived notion. Your other comments on this thread give us a taste of what you think is dirty laundry that ought to be included in missionary teaching. Try to understand that conversion is by the Spirit, not intellect. That's what missionaries do, and its the most effective way of understanding what the Church is all about.

There is some irony in your unwillingness to take responsibility for going and reading the full quote while claiming that I should hahve gone and read the full history of the Church, rather than relying on the "adoring" part provided by the Church.

Look, I believe when I cite a source, a reader on this board can quite easily go read it for themselves. When Selek asked for it, I posted several more paragraphs, which did nothing but strengthen the initial point. I believe you and anyone else on this board can come to whatever conclusion they want, which they obviously have.

Your allegations that there was a qualifier before what I quoted is simply false, as there was no "qualifier." The words "One element that" do not qualify the statement in any way.

Re the brackets, most educated people know what brackets around a capitalized letter indicate and your claim that I was trying to mislead by using them is absurd.

Also, I did not intend to insult you by my statement that I simply read DHO's statement. But how can you deny what the statement says? Remember, I am not the one trying to change DHO's words, here.

Note: I understand the origin of this board, but I think it would serve the board's interest if the moderators were a bit more even handed in their approach. I have seen "defenders" get away with calling me and others names over and over again without moderator comment. Then I make some innocuous comment and the moderators step in. I got suspended for a day for asking, sincerely, that Selek and others who think I am a "troll" pray about the matter so that we could move past it in our discussion. What was so wrong with that? In that same thread, someone (of course, a non-Mormon) was called an incoherant "twit" without consequence. I am trying to understand the rules, here, but the moderators seem to have one set of rules for "defenders" and another for those deemed enemies (for whatever reason).

[LifeOnaPlate]

mms, I realize you're getting questions from many sides but I digress:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208230526

[mms]

mms, I realize you're getting questions from many sides but I digress:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208230526

Is this the question?

"Again, Whom do men say this Church is? But whom do you say this Church is, and more importantly, how do you know it?"

How is this question relevant to this thread? You want my testimony and its source? Although I have shared this elsewhere on this board, I do not see its relevance, here.

[mms]

Knock it off. If you come blazing into a thread you are going to get responses in kind which means that this thread will likely be closed. You expressed your opinion so start saying something new and civil. If you really want a discussion about your topic then get started but if you want to snarl and sneer for pages you are on the wrong board.

I understand the origin of this board, but I think it would serve the board's interest if the moderators were a bit more even handed in their approach. I have seen "defenders" get away with calling me and others names over and over again without moderator comment. Then I make some innocuous comment and the moderators step in. I got suspended for a day for asking, sincerely, that Selek and others who think I am a "troll" pray about the matter so that we could move past it in our discussion. What was so wrong with that? In that same thread, someone (of course, a non-Mormon) was called an incoherant "twit" without consequence. I am trying to understand the rules, here, but the moderators seem to have one set of rules for "defenders" and another for those deemed enemies (for whatever reason).

[karl61]

Knock it off. If you come blazing into a thread you are going to get responses in kind which means that this thread will likely be closed. You expressed your opinion so start saying something new and civil. If you really want a discussion about your topic then get started but if you want to snarl and sneer for pages you are on the wrong board.

I was keeping an eye on this thread and I thought the OP was being very patient with people responding as the responses were clearly more aggressive at the beginning. You can try to be kind at the beginning but you can only take so much. Just because you have the right to be aggressive doesn't mean it's right to be aggressive.

[Deborah]

The mistake Mormons often make is to confuse history, as the object of their adoration, with scholarly history. Mormons instead have a set of facts to make up a useful pseudohistory of some true things. Other true things are not so useful for the goals of the pseudohistory, and so they are not included. A real history would strive to include all of the true facts, yes warts and all.

A real history would also take everything in context and not color facts with an anti-mormon bias from the outset. I've read and heard of the real history from real scholars and I do not consider many of the leading voices of the critics real scholars. They pick and chose just as selectively as you accuse LDS of doing. It is amazing how even hearing the "warts and all" parts of history can take on a different appearance depending on who is presenting it. That I think is the point of Oaks' comments and of many on this forum. The warts and all of Joseph Smith and the early leaders and pioneers gives them a humanity that makes their accomplishments even more amazing.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Is this the question?

"Again, Whom do men say this Church is? But whom do you say this Church is, and more importantly, how do you know it?"

How is this question relevant to this thread? You want my testimony and its source? Although I have shared this elsewhere on this board, I do not see its relevance, here.

It is critical to the discussion; it is at the root of it.

[cdowis]

Mormons practice adoration of God and his son Jesus, but also of many other things, as part of their religion. They adore Joseph Smith and a portion of LDS church history that they know about: the heroic pioneer crossing of the great plains, the persecutions and martyrdoms, the coming forth of the book of Mormon, to name three. They adore temples, and geneology, and their families.

Off topic, but I find your use of the word "adore" interesting. I assume that you use it in the sense as, "Athiests adore evolution."

[LifeOnaPlate]

I feel when people like The Dude, etc. want a "warts and all" history, what they are really raising a hue and cry for is a "warts are all" history.

Don't bring any of that angel, gold bible, miracle, translation, vision, healing, nonsense into the history. Unless, of course, they can also be presented as warts.

[Yme]

If the history never took place, if the people(ie the hebrew tribes of Nephites, Lamanites, Jaredites etc...), places and cultures described in the BOM never existed on the north american continent during the 1000 years claimed, should we place any faith in it's teachings?

Is it unfair, unreasonable or illogical for one first to determine if the historical setting ever existed before placing ones faith in a supposed record of such history and its teachings?

Should the existence of any historical setting be determined on evidence or faith? If based on faith, how does one differentiate between "faith" and "blind faith"?

[LifeOnaPlate]

If the history never took place, if the people(ie the hebrew tribes of Nephites, Lamanites, Jaredites etc...), places and cultures described in the BOM never existed on the north american continent during the 1000 years claimed, should we place any faith in it's teachings?

Is it unfair, unreasonable or illogical for one first to determine if the historical setting ever existed before placing ones faith in a supposed record of such history and its teachings?

Should the existence of any historical setting be determined on evidence or faith? If based on faith, how does one differentiate between "faith" and "blind faith"?

Truth is revealed from God directly to the spirit of man. That is what Christ was talking about when he said "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father in heaven" Revelation is the key. Historical proof of the Book of Mormon wouldn't move us any closer to finding God. So there was an ancient American society with a religion that resembled Christianity. Big deal. Their superstitious writings are their own religion, they prove nothing. They say they saw God, well, so did Joseph Smith. Smith said he literally saw God. If we would take the Nephites word for it, should the BoM be unequivocally proven true by archeological evidence alone, why wouldn't we take Joseph Smith's word for it, when we have unequivocal proof that he existed?

[mms]

It is critical to the discussion; it is at the root of it.

Why can we not have a discussion about something (started by me on this board) without ultimately judging my testimony? Why is it always about me. It's a little frustrating to have the discussion always turn to me and my motivations. Deal with the words of DHO, comment on the words of DHO, try to avoid commenting about me. Maybe we can avoid it by me making this statement:

I understand that many of you believe that either I am an anti-Mormon troll or that I am on my way to the Telestial Kingdom or something worse for having the doubts I have been having due to reading JS: Rough Stone Rolling and then reading FAIR and FARMS articles and rebuttals, and posting the posts I have on this board. I also understand that you think I do not "identify with the Latter-day Saints" and am not a "true Mormon" and all of the other things you have said about me. I also know that many of you believe that my motivation for posting here is to antagonize or attack (even though the threads I have started, if read, in no way reflect this). I kow that many of you do not believe that I am a High Priest who is active in the Church, who served an honorable mission, who continues to pay tithing and generous fast offerings, who had an investigator taught in his home and baptized in the last month (while you were busy attacking doubters on this board, possibly pushing them out the door of the Church by telling them they do not identify with the Latter-day Saints, etc. (some irony, eh?)). Okay? I know. Can we leave it there and move forward with discussions of actual posts and relevant topics? That would be great.

[selek]

QUOTE(Yme @ Jul 31 2007, 09:18 AM)

If the history never took place, if the people(ie the hebrew tribes of Nephites, Lamanites, Jaredites etc...), places and cultures described in the BOM never existed on the north american continent during the 1000 years claimed, should we place any faith in it's teachings?

Is it unfair, unreasonable or illogical for one first to determine if the historical setting ever existed before placing ones faith in a supposed record of such history and its teachings?

Should the existence of any historical setting be determined on evidence or faith? If based on faith, how does one differentiate between "faith" and "blind faith"?

The Southern Baptist Convention, The Dude, and the Tanners notwithstanding, Yme- the evidence is not fully in yet. You are correct- if the history described in the Bible never took place, then the Church is a fraud and should be condemned accordingly.

Unfortunately, the evidence is not as clear cut as most of our critics are wont to claim. There are many, many reasons why evidence for or against the Book of Mormon is problematic for both sides. The matter is not as cut and dry as most of our critics are wont to claim.

Yes, one should have a reasoned faith rather than a blind one, but the opposite extreme is to be avoided as well.

And in answer to your question, the Scriptures are replete with warnings about putting our faith in the learning of men and against leaning too heavily on the arm of flesh. The wisdom of men is frequently foolishness before God (and because of our limited understanding, vice-versa).

It is the science and wisdom of man that brought us alchemy (the forerunner of modern chemistry), astrology, and phrenology. We've seen too much turnover and contention in our own scientific understanding to rest fully complacent in its arms. There is much even in science that is still taken in faith and trust, rather than from absolute understanding or knowledge.

Also, all religious belief is ultimately a matter of faith. As beleivers, we are commanded to trust God first, as our own understanding is necessarily limited.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Why can we not have a discussion about something (started by me on this board) without ultimately judging my testimony? Why is it always about me. It's a little frustrating to have the discussion always turn to me and my motivations. Deal with the words of DHO, comment on the words of DHO, try to avoid commenting about me. Maybe we can avoid it by me making this statement:

I understand that many of you believe that either I am an anti-Mormon troll or that I am on my way to the Telestial Kingdom or something worse for having the doubts I have been having due to reading JS: Rough Stone Rolling and then reading FAIR and FARMS articles and rebuttals, and posting the posts I have on this board. I also understand that you think I do not "identify with the Latter-day Saints" and am not a "true Mormon" and all of the other things you have said about me. I also know that many of you believe that my motivation for posting here is to antagonize or attack (even though the threads I have started, if read, in no way reflect this). I kow that many of you do not believe that I am a High Priest who is active in the Church, who served an honorable mission, who continues to pay tithing and generous fast offerings, who had an investigator taught in his home and baptized in the last month (while you were busy attacking doubters on this board, possibly pushing them out the door of the Church by telling them they do not identify with the Latter-day Saints, etc. (some irony, eh?)). Okay? I know. Can we leave it there and move forward with discussions of actual posts and relevant topics? That would be great.

I think one of your problems, mms, is you seem to judge the motive behind the question, rather than just answering the question honestly without fear. I realize some posters here have been antagonistic towards you. I have made an effort specifically to avoid doing so, [no offense intended, but the reason I have been treading lightly is you may have a tendency to focus on the insults or crass comments, almost eager to take offense. Again, please don't take offense, I am just stating my observation.]

By attributing a motive to my question you have missed my point, and not answered the question. I am not trying to "judge your testimony," or anything in that regard. I am trying to determine what the proper, scripturally based, spirit-based way to develop a testimony is, and then the proper way to share that testimony. The status or quality of your testimony is irrelavent, but how you reached that testimony is relevant to the conversation. So again, I advance the same questions with no ulterior motives.

PS- I recently finished and enjoyed Rough Stone Rolling.

[selek]

Why can we not have a discussion about something (started by me on this board) without ultimately judging my testimony? Why is it always about me. It's a little frustrating to have the discussion always turn to me and my motivations. Deal with the words of DHO, comment on the words of DHO, try to avoid commenting about me. Maybe we can avoid it by me making this statement:

I understand that many of you believe that either I am an anti-Mormon troll or that I am on my way to the Telestial Kingdom or something worse for having the doubts I have been having due to reading JS: Rough Stone Rolling and then reading FAIR and FARMS articles and rebuttals, and posting the posts I have on this board. I also understand that you think I do not "identify with the Latter-day Saints" and am not a "true Mormon" and all of the other things you have said about me. I also know that many of you believe that my motivation for posting here is to antagonize or attack (even though the threads I have started, if read, in no way reflect this). I kow that many of you do not believe that I am a High Priest who is active in the Church, who served an honorable mission, who continues to pay tithing and generous fast offerings, who had an investigator taught in his home and baptized in the last month (while you were busy attacking doubters on this board, possibly pushing them out the door of the Church by telling them they do not identify with the Latter-day Saints, etc. (some irony, eh?)). Okay? I know. Can we leave it there and move forward with discussions of actual posts and relevant topics? That would be great.

Because your internal bias and spin are at the heart of the contentions you make, mms.

Good and thoughtful people have looked at your interpretations, assertions and conclusions and found them wanting. The factors which skew your conclusion must, therefore originate in your own slant, and that seriously affects your credibility.

Your determined efforts to avoid exploring (let alone admitting) those biases- while at the same time trying to paint yourself as an innocent and misunderstood victim- looks suspicious and merely fans the flames.

Finally, for at least the third time (though not all on this thread) it is not your doubts or questions which spur our suspicions, but your antagonism and inflammatory characterizations of the Church.

Whether you intend to or not, you come across as someone eager to be offended, and as someone eager to find fault with the Church and its leaders.

Most of us find such a position to be inexplicable and foreign to mindset of a faithful Latter-day Saint.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, we'd be foolish to accept its solemn word when it cries, "Behold, I am an orangutan!"

You may well be everything you claim to be, but your behavior constantly screams otherwise.

[Deborah]

Should the existence of any historical setting be determined on evidence or faith? If based on faith, how does one differentiate between "faith" and "blind faith"?

I think you are confusing the term context as it is intended. The context we are referring to when we say facts in their context are not whether the historical setting of the BOM is true. It refers rather to the quotes one uses to prove a point, what proceeded and followed, and the times and places in which the quotes are made. It is not just taking one sentence and building one's case on it but in looking at all the evidence. This is something I do not think the critics do, though that is what they accuse us of doing. However, on the contrary we are looking at the "facts" as they exist (and part of the context is knowing that we do not have all the facts) as well as the spiritual "facts" that many of us have relating to our personal experiences and testimonies.

[mms]

Because your internal bias and spin are at the heart of the contentions you make, mms.

Good and thoughtful people have looked at your interpretations, assertions and conclusions and found them wanting. The factors which skew your conclusion must, therefore originate in your own slant, and that seriously affects your credibility.

Your determined efforts to avoid exploring (let alone admitting) those biases- while at the same time trying to paint yourself as an innocent and misunderstood victim- looks suspicious and merely fans the flames.

Finally, for at least the third time (though not all on this thread) it is not your doubts or questions which spur our suspicions, but your antagonism and inflammatory characterizations of the Church.

Whether you intend to or not, you come across as someone eager to be offended, and as someone eager to find fault with the Church and its leaders.

Most of us find such a position to be inexplicable and foreign to mindset of a faithful Latter-day Saint.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, we'd be foolish to accept its solemn word when it cries, "Behold, I am an orangutan!"

You may well be everything you claim to be, but your behavior constantly screams otherwise.

So your response is to just say it all over again. I told you, I know what you think, no reason to restate it. Geez.

By the way, more irony in your comment that "internal bias and spin are at the heart of the contentions you make." What's good for the goose, ur. . . duck . . .

[LifeOnaPlate]

QUOTE(Yme @ Jul 31 2007, 09:18 AM)

The Southern Baptist Convention, The Dude, and the Tanners notwithstanding, Yme- the evidence is not fully in yet. You are correct- if the history described in the Bible never took place, then the Church is a fraud and should be condemned accordingly.

Unfortunately, the evidence is not as clear cut as most of our critics are wont to claim. There are many, many reasons why evidence for or against the Book of Mormon is problematic for both sides. The matter is not as cut and dry as most of our critics are wont to claim.

Yes, one should have a reasoned faith rather than a blind one, but the opposite extreme is to be avoided as well.

And in answer to your question, the Scriptures are replete with warnings about putting our faith in the learning of men and against leaning too heavily on the arm of flesh. The wisdom of men is frequently foolishness before God (and because of our limited understanding, vice-versa).

It is the science and wisdom of man that brought us alchemy (the forerunner of modern chemistry), astrology, and phrenology. We've seen too much turnover and contention in our own scientific understanding to rest fully complacent in its arms. There is much even in science that is still taken in faith and trust, rather than from absolute understanding or knowledge.

Also, all religious belief is ultimately a matter of faith. As beleivers, we are commanded to trust God first, as our own understanding is necessarily limited.

A few interesting points in line with this post:

Brigham Young put it in this wise:

â??Language, to convey all the truth, does not exist. Even in the Bible, and all books that have been revealed from heaven unto man, the language fails to convey all the truth as it is," (JoD 1:112).

I feel like the compilers of the Book of Mormon drew the line between history and religion, they included history in the record, of course, but I wonder if we had all the records they kept how "white washed" their account was.

Brigham earlier said:

"Nothing short of the power of the Almighty, nothing short of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ, can prove to you that this is the work of God. Men uninspired of God cannot by their worldly wisdom disprove it, or prevail against it; neither can they by wisdom alone prove it to be true, neither to themselves or to others. Their not being able to prevail against it does not prove it to be the kingdom of God, for there are many theories and systems on the earth, incontrovertible by the wisdom of the world, which are nevertheless false. Nothing less than the power of the Almighty, enlightening the understanding of men, can demonstrate this glorious truth to the human mind...

"If you are deceived, who will deceive you? If you are wronged, who wrongs you? If you are cheated out of your crown at last, who has cheated you?...Who has influence over any one of you, to cause you to miss salvation in the celestial kingdom of God? I will answer these questions for myself. If brother Brigham and I shall take a wrong track, and be shut out of the kingdom of heaven, no person will be to blame but brother Brigham and I. I am the only being in heaven, earth, or hell, that can be blamed. This will equally apply to every Latter-day Saint. Salvation is an individual operation." (JoD 1:309-316)

And again:

"Jesus said to his disciples, to them it was given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them that were without, it was not given. If we were to examine the subject closely, we should learn that a very scanty portion of the things of the kingdom were ever revealed, even to the disciples. If we were prepared to gaze upon the mysteries of the kingdom, as they are with God, we should then know that only very small portion of them has been handed out here and there. God, by His Spirit, has revealed many things to His people, but, in almost all cases, He has straightway shut up the vision of the mind. He will let His servants gaze upon eternal things for a moment, but straightway the vision is closed, and they are left as they were, that they may learn to act by faith, or as the Apostle has it, not walking by sight, but by faith." (JoD 1:264)

mms- can you respond to my previous post? Thanks. I know you've got a lot coming at you.

[mms]

Finally, for at least the third time (though not all on this thread) it is not your doubts or questions which spur our suspicions, but your antagonism and inflammatory characterizations of the Church.

Note that I stated that you have drawn your conclusions based on my "posting the posts I have on this board." Read the whole statement again and you will see that I did not say that you attack me solely because of my doubts, but clearly such is part of the reason for your attack as you and others have made clear how ridiculous you think it is to have doubts in the face of learing the history that I had not known before.