Elder Oaks Settles The Matter Of The History Presented

[J Green]

Dude,

The mistake Mormons often make is to confuse history . . .

This naturally brings us back to the discussions we've had about whether a priesthood manual on BY can be "real history" if it leaves out "true facts" that are not pertinent to the instructive purpose of the text. But I don't think the philosophy of history is as simple as you portray it. The post-WWII landscape of history, philosphy, and intellectual history in general has become rather complex, and there is certainly room for differing positions in terms of what history is and isn't. From my short time here, it doesn't seem like you to simplify something that is bigger than that. If history is instructive at its root, from Cicero to Freud, and it necessarily entails choosing which "truths" to package for that instructive end, then to characterize what the Church publishes as "pseudo" history or as not "real" history is not really accurate--or if it is, then it is only from the perspective of one splintered opinion among a floor littered with other shards. The "wart's and all" history you advocate is not "all" of the truth either--it can't possbily be--just a different packaging of truths. What would be more characteristic of you (one man's view) is to argue why those set of truths (warts and all) would be more germaine to the reason the Church publishes the "historical" material for religious pedagogy. I think that is what YME and MMS are advocating as well--that it would be in the Church's best interest to make it part of their curriculum, so to speak. I just don't happen to agree.

Regards

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

This is what I meant when I said

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.]

Rather than focusing on the topic we get derailed by nonsense. I encourage you to simply ignore those whom you feel are attacking you personally and stick to the topic at hand, and again refer you to this post:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208230778

[selek]

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.

As you did with Elder Oaks, you are picking and choosing those parts of the quotes which serve your purpose and ignoring the rest.

This is what I said:

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.

And this is what you pretended I said:

Finally, for at least the third time (though not all on this thread) it is ... your doubts or questions which spur our suspicions.....

...

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.

Again, it is not your doubts that disturb us, it is your antagonism.

Now, since you are using our history as a smokescreen to avoid answering the flaws in your position, I will place you on IGNORE, and bow out of the conversation.

I will leave you with one, final, inflammatory challenge:

Either address the substance of the criticisms made against your arguments or prove my suspicions (and those of the others who doubt you) correct.

[The Dude]

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."

Elder Oaks used the word "adore". What do you think he meant by it?

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.

Elder Oaks used the word "warts". What do you think he meant by it?

The "wart's and all" history you advocate is not "all" of the truth either--it can't possbily be--just a different packaging of truths.

Eh, you can look at it that way if you want. But Elder Oaks said we are coming into a period of "warts and all". He, at least, didn't fall back on relativism to level the playing field for traditonal LDS history versus what he sees happening now. Maybe that's why his comments are noteworthy. A change of routine.

Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things â?? there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now.

Quite an admission IMO, if you've been following the standard routine played out on this message board. Not worth making too much out of it, but OTOH I think your extreme relativist stance is a mite unconvincing.

[gtaggart]

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.

If I've written something unkind to you, I apologize. My intent from the begining was simply to call you on your overly rigid reading of Elder Oaks' statement. By the way, you are not the first person to make the argument you are making on this board about the supression of history by the Church. If anyone has been a bit short with you, it's probably because they're tired of responding to the same argument.

By the way, did anyone find this footnote in Seth Payne's paper more than a bit ironic, given his thesis?

35 It is important to note that Quinn did not intend these remarks to be available for wide distribution. Unfortunately, the Tanners obtained a copy of the presentation and printed it in as part of their anti-Mormon efforts. Subsequently, Quinn did allow these remarks to be published and an edited and revised version has been included here: D. Michael Quinn, "On Being a Mormon Historian (and Its Aftermath)," in Faithful History, ed. George D. Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992).

Or how about this footnote?

51 Substantial Evidence indicates that Elder Packer was directly involved in Quinnâ??s excommunication. This fact has even been confirmed by Elder Dallin H. Oaks.

Since Seth gives us no source for this "fact," we're left to wonder. I'm wondering if Steve Benson is his source. And I'm wondering if there is any evidence contra.

And what about this ending quote?

Quinnâ??s faith should be the envy of every Latter-day Saint.

Every? And is that statment a call for every Latter-day Saint to publically criticize the Brethren and call them dishonest?

Finally, it is not the "culture of Mormonism . . . [that] discourages "speaking evil of the Lord's anointed" (page 24 of Payne's paper). It's the Lord.

[cdowis]

Elder Oaks used the word "adore". What do you think he meant by it?

In the same sense that atheists adore evolution.

Elder Oaks used the word "warts". What do you think he meant by it?

The same way that the theory of evolution has warts.

[HiJolly]

"Adoring" history is what I would say to describe George Q. Cannon's approach to history. I don't appreciate what he did for the sake of 'testimony', but at the same time it does not offend me, nor cause me grief of any sort. Removing from the History of the Church Joseph's enjoying of a beer is not a big problem, it's just that I personally would have appreciated it still being in there.

HiJolly

[mms]

As you did with Elder Oaks, you are picking and choosing those parts of the quotes which serve your purpose and ignoring the rest.

This is what I said:

And this is what you pretended I said:

Again, it is not your doubts that disturb us, it is your antagonism.

Now, since you are using our history as a smokescreen to avoid answering the flaws in your position, I will place you on IGNORE, and bow out of the conversation.

I will leave you with one, final, inflammatory challenge:

Either address the substance of the criticisms made against your arguments or prove my suspicions (and those of the others who doubt you) correct.

The problem with this "inlammatory challenge" is that you have rarely made substantive criticisms of my ARGUMENTS but rather criticize ME--so to what do I respond? I do not think you want me to pull together all of the things you have said about ME (as opposed to my arguments/comments) on this board and put them here, as you would be--rightly--embarrassed (or let's say any reasonable person would be).

[mms]

This is what I meant when I said

Rather than focusing on the topic we get derailed by nonsense. I encourage you to simply ignore those whom you feel are attacking you personally and stick to the topic at hand, and again refer you to this post:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208230778

You seem to be very interested in my testimony and what I believe to be its source. I think I have made clear that I would rather not have this thread be about me, but about what DHO actually said. I understand you think it is relevant, but is it fair (so to speak) for me to be a little uncomfortable with stating my testimony and its origins at this point, here. Quite frankly, there are other boards that would cause me less concern, as people are quite open, but this place does not seem the place to lay it out there (I tried that once).

As far as being offended, I have been offended (by choice) by some of the things said to me and about me here. But I have also been fascinated in some sense by the manner in which people engage, here. Above, I asked for opinions here on why DHO has not called doubters "whiners" and "silly." Of course, I have not received a response. That is clearly a result of the fact that those here who engage in such name calling know that it is not even close to the manner in which the Savior would respond, which is why it is not the manner in which DHO responds. Indeed, you seem to understand that and have tried hard to respond in a manner consistent with what you believe.

One of the things I learned while serving in a particular leadership position was that although those offended "choose" to be offended, such is no excuse for acting in a manner that we know will likely lead to such a choice. We are responsible and accountable for doing so, just as much as one who is offended is responsible and accountable for choosing to be so.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The problem with this "inlammatory challenge" is that you have rarely made substantive criticisms of my ARGUMENTS but rather criticize ME--so to what do I respond? I do not think you want me to pull together all of the things you have said about ME (as opposed to my arguments/comments) on this board and put them here, as you would be--rightly--embarrassed (or let's say any reasonable person would be).

mms- should I give up on the discussion with you, then?

[karl61]

at my old job I wrote countless (hundreds to a thousand) reports to judges and made a recommendation regarding a family. One time one of the County lawyers told me that one of the parents attorneys started to rip on me after I testified and left the courtroom. She told that the judge had come to my defense and said that she always felt that when I testified that I was telling the truth. When I knew something I said it and if I didn't know then I said I didn't know. I had high credibility when I testified.

I always wrote the good and the bad in my report and then a a recommondation based on the information I listed. The judge just read my recommondation and the judges made the orders.

During a few years I worked as an investigator and had to go out after kids were placed in shelter care or with a relative and do an independent investigation. I spoke with the orginal worker who went out, the parents, the kids, doctors if they were involved, police, neighbors. I wrote the good and the bad.

If the kids said there parents never hit them I put that in.

If a police officer responded and the kids told him something at the time of the incident I put that in.

If the parents admitted it I put that in and if they didn't I put that in.

If the kids said that their parents never hit them and I left that out it would be a big mistake.

I was very comfortable with putting in everthing and then make a small recommondation and then letting the judge make the call.

One time my supervisior asked me why I was putting in the positive as she only wanted me to put in the evidence that supported the allegations/petitions and leave out the good and let the parents attorneys present that (one of the reasons I left). But I was writing a very special report that was suppose to be independent, could actually allow hearsay because my report was independent.

If I left out good or bad and it was shown that I did infront of the judge my credibility would be gone. My report would be useless and when the judge saw me walking into the court room they would likely just roll their eyes.

credibility is a big thing and in my view you are credible when you put in the good and the bad.

[jwhitlock]

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.

I read the full quote. I read the full PBS interview. I never claimed that you should have gone and read the full history of the Church; you seem to not be able to be particularly exact in quoting what I said; it doesn't engender a lot of confidence in your ability to interpret what Elder Oaks said.. And you still insist on saying that Elder Oaks claimed that ALL official and LDS-originated Church history has been "adoring". He doesn't. The qualifiers further on in his statement, along with examples of BH Roberts and others presented here indicate that you have not bothered to really understand Elder Oaks' statement and what was meant by it. Your interpretation of what Elder Oaks said is what is being questioned here, along with your denial of being out of context. You seem strangely reticent to discuss particulars when called on this.

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.

And our conclusions bother you. Your unwillingness to address specifics and answer questions bothers me. Let me ask again - do you still claim that Elder Oaks meant that ALL Church history written before his quote has been "adoring", etc.?

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.

Pure fantasy on your part. Shall I educate you? If Elder Oaks makes the point in the beginning of the sentence that this is "one element" of the history, would it not mean that there are other elements of the history that he is also going to talk about that we need to consider in the context of his statement? And when he makes other statements further on about the history being available, shouldn't we consider those as **GASP** qualifying statements to the quote you took out of context? It was a qualifier, yet you continue to defend your deletion of that qualifying statement in your narrow, preconceived interpretation of Elder Oaks' quote. Disturbing, indeed.

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.

And the Tanners also know how many people don't really go back and look at the original source to see what's been left out. Ingenious.

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.

You don't have to change them. Quoting them out of context and giving your preconceived interpretation that it refers to ALL official LDS and LDS-source history should do the trick. How many times do I have to keep repeating that before you will respond specifically to it?

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).

And your reference to me that I was embarrassing myself wasn't name calling? Indeed.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You seem to be very interested in my testimony and what I believe to be its source. I think I have made clear that I would rather not have this thread be about me, but about what DHO actually said. I understand you think it is relevant, but is it fair (so to speak) for me to be a little uncomfortable with stating my testimony and its origins at this point, here. Quite frankly, there are other boards that would cause me less concern, as people are quite open, but this place does not seem the place to lay it out there (I tried that once).

As far as being offended, I have been offended (by choice) by some of the things said to me and about me here. But I have also been fascinated in some sense by the manner in which people engage, here. Above, I asked for opinions here on why DHO has not called doubters "whiners" and "silly." Of course, I have not received a response. That is clearly a result of the fact that those here who engage in such name calling know that it is not even close to the manner in which the Savior would respond, which is why it is not the manner in which DHO responds. Indeed, you seem to understand that and have tried hard to respond in a manner consistent with what you believe.

One of the things I learned while serving in a particular leadership position was that although those offended "choose" to be offended, such is no excuse for acting in a manner that we know will likely lead to such a choice. We are responsible and accountable for doing so, just as much as one who is offended is responsible and accountable for choosing to be so.

mms- I already explained the fact that I am not attempting to make the thread personal. I will copy and paste my former explanation so there be no confusion. I have to say I am somewhat frustrated in this discussion with you because you fail to address my key points. [Here we go, the fact that I mention you not addressing the key points may provide the entire crux of your response. Please, disregard and respond to the following, thanks:]

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.

[mms]

mms- should I give up on the discussion with you, then?

See my response, above.

[LifeOnaPlate]

See my response, above.

I did, and responded to it. [see my response above ]

[J Green]

Hi, Dude

Intriguing, but not a response (more like a "pseudo" response). Regardless of whether or not I like "openness" (I do within certain limitations articulated well by DCP and others), I simply object to your use of terms like "pseudo" as a opposed to a "real" history to describe what the Church has produced. The nature of history is more complex than you portray and can easily accomodate what their body of work-- regardless of what era they are entering or leaving--in the definition. To me the sort of definition by exclusion (you're not a Chrisitian because . . .) didn't seem to be the normal MO for you. Seems beneath you, almost, so I asked. Your reply?

Eh, you can look at it that way if you want. But Elder Oaks said we are coming into a period of "warts and all". He, at least, didn't fall back on relativism to level the playing field for traditonal LDS history versus what he sees happening now. Maybe that's why his comments are noteworthy. A change of routine.

Then you quote Elder Oaks and add:

Quite an admission IMO, if you've been following the standard routine played out on this message board. Not worth making too much out of it, but OTOH I think your extreme relativist stance is a mite unconvincing.

Quite humerous in its avoidance of the issue. I especially liked the "extreme relativist stance" bit, given your usual take on LDS positions vis-a-vis current science. However, instead of engaging the observation, you ducked. Do you really think Elder Oaks would agree that the "era" you think he says the Church is leaving is actually "not real" or is "pseudo" history? I'll give you a hint: If you answer no, then your post never responded to my point. We can discuss the "openness" separately, but it's just that--separate.

Regards

[mms]

mms- I already explained the fact that I am not attempting to make the thread personal. I will copy and paste my former explanation so there be no confusion. I have to say I am somewhat frustrated in this discussion with you because you fail to address my key points. [Here we go, the fact that I mention you not addressing the key points may provide the entire crux of your response. Please, disregard and respond to the following, thanks:]

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.

I see no question in the post; just your suppositions re my missing your point. The only question you have asked relates to my testimony, which, as I have stated unequivocally, is not the subject of this thread. There have been multiple threads about how a testimony is obtained and what "the Spirit" feels like, etc.

It is clear here that you want me to make some admission so that you can then make some point you want to make. Just stop the games and tell me what you want me to admit and there is a good chance I will, so you can then make your point.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I see no question in the post; just your suppositions re my missing your point. The only question you have asked relates to my testimony, which, as I have stated unequivocally, is not the subject of this thread. There have been multiple threads about how a testimony is obtained and what "the Spirit" feels like, etc.

It is clear here that you want me to make some admission so that you can then make some point you want to make. Just stop the games and tell me what you want me to admit and there is a good chance I will, so you can then make your point.

Maybe if I bold it this time you'll see what I'm getting at, yeesh, this is like pulling teeth from a sabertooth tiger.

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 [or, I add, how you think that testimony ought to be gained] is relevant to the conversation.

[mms]

Shall I educate you?

I am thinking you are probably not in a position to do that based on your prior statements, but I could be wrong. If you read my posts, above, you will find my view of what Oaks said. We disagree. That's okay. But all the "Tanner" garbage is a little over the top, isn't it? Tanner this, Tanner that, get over it, buddy. It's not good for the blood pressure.

[jwhitlock]

I am thinking you are probably not in a position to do that based on your prior statements, but I could be wrong. If you read my posts, above, you will find my view of what Oaks said. We disagree. That's okay. But all the "Tanner" garbage is a little over the top, isn't it? Tanner this, Tanner that, get over it, buddy. It's not good for the blood pressure.

Still not answering my questions directly? You really like to spin things, don't you. I gave you some very specific things to respond to and you still didn't want to do it.

So, I'll have to assume the following since you won't respond directly:

- You claim / infer that Dallin Oaks said that ALL official LDS and and LDS oriented history before the PBS interview was "adoring" and avoided touching on controversial subjects.

If you would like to correct the above assumption, feel free. But please do so with some specific statements instead of coyly referring to "previous posts" that are purposely vague about your views. Otherwise, I have been responding based on what I assumed above (and you haven't denied). You have been shown how that view is wrong in this thread. If you would like to address some specifics, such as how I educated you previously, then feel free. Otherwise, you're just wasting electrons.

The Tanners don't respond either to concerns about how they emphasize and cut things out of context. And evidently it's not my blood pressure that's going through the roof.

To address another issue in your approach on this whole thread, how about this. You claim to be an active high priest that has held leadership positions, and yet you seem strangely unfamiliar with how the missionary program works and why missionaries teach the way they do. Again, feel free to correct me specifically if I assume wrong, but you appear to think that the missionary approach to new members should include airing some or much of what you consider dirty laundry in the history of the Church. And you appear to think that laundry should be defined and presented in the way critics of the Church present it.

The whole purpose of the missionary program of the Church is to do the following:

- Identify people who are interested in the gospel message.

- Teach them the basics of the restoration and present them with the Book of Mormon.

- Teach them to pray to Heavenly Father concerning the truth of the basic principles of the restoration and of the Book of Mormon.

- Help them to obtain an understandable witness of the Holy Spirit about those truths.

- Help them commit to baptism so they can make the initial covenant with the Lord and obtain the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Once they have done those basic things, they are in a much better position WITH THE SPIRIT and HAVING MADE COMMITMENTS WITH THE LORD to seek and understand the history and doctrines of the Church. The basic missionary program of the Church is designed to help the convert be as successful as possible in gaining the Spirit to best understand the truth.

Despite inferences of critics that this is somehow dishonest if we don't air all of our dirty laundry up front, the basic missionary program of the Church gives a person the right tools (the Spirit!) to further his / her research and to properly understand the leaders, doctrines, and history of the Church. And you will note that there is no one standing between them in the process; the understanding is between them and the Lord. It is not the responsibility of the Church, as has been clearly stated elsewhere on this thread, to present the member with all the facts. It is the individual's responsibility, once the covenant has been made and the Spirit received, to search and study according to their desire and ability.

Those who claim that they have been deceived because the Church doesn't air its dirty laundry, and then leave the Church are only partially correct. They have, indeed been deceived - but it isn't by the Church.

I don't know how I can express the importance of having the Spirit and why the Church approaches converts the way it does any more clearly than that. It's not the history of the Church, but the revisionist history presented by critics that can be damaging to a person without the Spirit of discernment.

And the Church strives to provide that Spirit. For that, I am grateful.

[mms]

To address another issue in your approach on this whole thread, how about this. You claim to be an active high priest that has held leadership positions, and yet you seem strangely unfamiliar with how the missionary program works and why missionaries teach the way they do. Again, feel free to correct me specifically if I assume wrong, but you appear to think that the missionary approach to new members should include airing some or much of what you consider dirty laundry in the history of the Church. And you appear to think that laundry should be defined and presented in the way critics of the Church present it.

Please cite to where I indicate a lack of familiarity with the missionary program (having served as an assistant to my mission president and having just invited someone to be taught in my home (who was taught in my home and baptized a few weeks ago), I think I have a pretty good understanding of it. What you may see, above, is a desire to prepare (read: innoculate) new members in a more thorough fashion, which certainly fits into the program. It's nice to believe that someone can be baptized in a few weeks, then read everythign at exmormon.org and simnply get back on his or her knees and obtain peace without thinking about it for another second, but it appears that this is not how things work in the real world.

I made a suggestion, you do not agree. No surprise. But for crying outloud, stop the attacks on my statement that I am a High Priest--no need to call it a "claim" over and over again. As I said above, I know what you think about me and I do not need you to tell me again. I jsut hope my actual judge does not ask your advice on whether I should be sent to outer darkness for the apparent sins found in my acts of posting on this board.

[jwhitlock]

Please cite to where I indicate a lack of familiarity with the missionary program (having served as an assistant to my mission president and having just invited someone to be taught in my home (who was taught in my home and baptized a few weeks ago), I think I have a pretty good understanding of it. What you may see, above, is a desire to prepare (read: innoculate) new members in a more thorough fashion, which certainly fits into the program. It's nice to believe that someone can be baptized in a few weeks, then read everythign at exmormon.org and simnply get back on his or her knees and obtain peace without thinking about it for another second, but it appears that this is not how things work in the real world.

I explained in my post how the missionary program works and why I felt that you were not familiar with it. The fact that you again aren't responding to specifics about how I described it, but dismiss it with an "It's nice to believe... but..." confirms that you really don't understand it. Read exmormon.org? Peace without thinking? Interesting spin, but I don't remember describing it working that way.

Your statement that "this is not how things work in the real world" concerning having the Spirit as part of the conversion process is indicative of your perspective on its own merits.

I made a suggestion, you do not agree. No surprise. But for crying outloud, stop the attacks on my statement that I am a High Priest--no need to call it a "claim" over and over again. As I said above, I know what you think about me and I do not need you to tell me again. I jsut hope my actual judge does not ask your advice on whether I should be sent to outer darkness for the apparent sins found in my acts of posting on this board.

Attacks? Over and over again? I believe that this is the first time I even referred to that. You seem to be rather hyper-sensitive about that particular subject; terming the use of the word "claim" in that context as an attack seems to be a little strained. Perhaps since you know what I think about you, you can enlighten me with those facts. But remember - please try to be specific. Referring to what I actually posted without misstating it might help.

Nice hype with the "judge" comment. Please feel free to comment again!

[mms]

I explained in my post how the missionary program works and why I felt that you were not familiar with it. The fact that you again aren't responding to specifics about how I described it, but dismiss it with an "It's nice to believe... but..." confirms that you really don't understand it. Read exmormon.org? Peace without thinking? Interesting spin, but I don't remember describing it working that way.

Your statement that "this is not how things work in the real world" concerning having the Spirit as part of the conversion process is indicative of your perspective on its own merits.

Attacks? Over and over again? I believe that this is the first time I even referred to that. You seem to be rather hyper-sensitive about that particular subject; terming the use of the word "claim" in that context as an attack seems to be a little strained. Perhaps since you know what I think about you, you can enlighten me with those facts. But remember - please try to be specific. Referring to what I actually posted without misstating it might help.

Nice hype with the "judge" comment. Please feel free to comment again!

You might want to choose something other than a "humility" quote for your signature.

[jwhitlock]

You might want to choose something other than a "humility" quote for your signature.

Still no specifics, huh? Sorry that you feel so backed into a corner that all you can do is call names, but that comes with an untenable position.

Any time you'd like to respond with specifics, please feel free. I've given you plenty to respond to.

[selek]

Still no specifics, huh? Sorry that you feel so backed into a corner that all you can do is call names, but that comes with an untenable position.

Any time you'd like to respond with specifics, please feel free. I've given you plenty to respond to.

I'm not quite sure, but I believe we have live audio of mms's response being formulated.

The sound isn't the best, and the whole thing seems (like most of his posts) to be vaguely choreographed from the outset, but you never know.

MMS's response

And his general opinion of MAD&B:

MAD&B

Don't fan the fire with personal remarks. ~ Mods