Uncle Dale On The Book Of Mormon

[why me]

The book of mormon has experienced much speculation since its conception. And I am afraid it will always be so. The bible can be verified by archeology. But it cannot prove that Christ is the son of God. It takes faith to believe so. However, the book of mormon is a book brought forth by JS with witnesses to testify of its existence on gold plates. However, it cannot as yet, be verified absolutely by archeology. It takes faith.

Thus, both books are united by faith. And it is here that we have a similiarity. And likewise the problem. And so, the debate continues and continues and so it will always be until the sign seekers receive their sign.

[structurecop]

Am curious as to why you've reached this belief that it was God and not Moroni who transported the plates (since the plates Moroni had were ones taken from the "'real' Hill Cumorah" according to the scriptures and there is no indication scripturally that he put them back into the same spot).

I'm not advancing this as a personal belief of mine. It's an explanation I've heard members of the Church use. You could just as well insert any miracle there.

[auteur55]

That old fantasy" is Mormonism. The LDS church can no more extricate itself from a literally "true" Book of Mormon than it can divorce itself from the notion that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. If the BoM is just a fable, it makes Joseph Smith a conman, and no religion can willfully acknowledge that it based on a con. If the LDS church pulls the same trick as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it will meet the same fate. ("But there's no Reorganized LDS church anymore. They're the Community of Christ" Exactly.)

MC I love it when were in agreement. I can't see how anyone can possibly see this any other way.

Believe me I am trying.

[Risingtide]

"That old fantasy" is Mormonism. The LDS church can no more extricate itself from a literally "true" Book of Mormon than it can divorce itself from the notion that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. If the BoM is just a fable, it makes Joseph Smith a conman, and no religion can willfully acknowledge that it based on a con. If the LDS church pulls the same trick as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it will meet the same fate. ("But there's no Reorganized LDS church anymore. They're the Community of Christ" Exactly.)

Wow, I can't believe I my thoughts could be in such perfect harmony with MC. The BOM is literal or the church is built on lies by a con man, no way around it for me. It is imposable for the church to disavow the keystone and remain standing.

[Uncle Dale]

there's no Reorganized LDS church anymore. They're the Community of Christ" ...

Seems you have not been in a RLDS chapel or meetng in recent years. Many thousands have

abandoned the CoC leaders and continued their branches, under the previous name.

I've been considering helping others to set up an RLDS "restoration branch" where I live, but it would

be better to try and convince the local CoC members to pull out of CoC control and do it themselves.

UD

[YH8]

Yes, and this is the lds mindset that I was referring to. And hopefully, Uncle Dale can understand it. [bold added]

Along the lines of the idea that UD mixes speculation and fact and appears "convincing," I think part of the problem here is that UD doesn't really understand things LDS. That is, he may understand things Latter Day Saint, but not quite so with things Latter-day Saint, even though, at times, he appears convincing.

[Uncle Dale]

Along the lines of the idea that UD mixes speculation and fact and appears "convincing," I think part of the problem here is that UD doesn't really understand things LDS. That is, he may understand things Latter Day Saint, but not quite so with things Latter-day Saint, even though, at times, he appears convincing.

I believe that I understand the church fairly well, up through the Reformation in Utah -- after that,

I begin to lose track of how Mormons think and how they see the non-LDS world.

I believe I have a fair understanding of most of the splinter groups, up through the Civil War -- and the

Reorganites and Church of Christ Temple Lot for several decades after that. But I lose track of the CoC

leaders' weird theologizing (and their supporters' reason for following it) after about 2000.

What I do NOT understand is LDS "group-think," although I have spent decades with them and attended

their meetings for years on end, both in the Intermountain West and far away from Utah culture.

An old writer, speaking of the period soon after the arrival of Johnston's army in 1858, says that

Brigham gave the word, and the entire LDS "turned on a dime," and changed from hating and fighting

the Americans, to tolerating and cooperating with them, overnight. How can human beings act like that?

I honestly think, that if the topmost LDS leaders issued a divine proclamation, saying that all Mormons

must shave their heads, don sackcloth and ashes, and mourn intensely for forty days, that the members

would all immediately "follow counsel," and do just that, without even stopping to question the command.

I come out of a religious tradition, where, were such an order were given out, the members would tell

the "prophet" to get down on his knees and pray to God again -- and get that revelation "right."

Oh well....

UD

[why me]

Along the lines of the idea that UD mixes speculation and fact and appears "convincing," I think part of the problem here is that UD doesn't really understand things LDS. That is, he may understand things Latter Day Saint, but not quite so with things Latter-day Saint, even though, at times, he appears convincing.

This can be true. However, I do believe that Uncle Dale has a good heart about it all. In the past I wished him luck with his research because if he can find good evidence that the lds church is a fraud, then it does deserve to die a natural death. But so far, he hasn't done it.

I consider Uncle Dale to be honory lds because of his interest in the lds church. However, he will never get the mindset since he has always been on the outside looking in. What he doesn't seem to realize is that the Rlds and the Lds are two different pea pods from the same pea pod plant.

[Severian]

I honestly think, that if the topmost LDS leaders issued a divine proclamation, saying that all Mormons must shave their heads, don sackcloth and ashes, and mourn intensely for forty days, that the members would all immediately "follow counsel," and do just that, without even stopping to question the command.

Oh well....

UD

I suspect that more than a few of the sackcloth mourners would take their laptop computers with them, just to defend the new proclamation on this forum.

But there seems to be this "black and white" mentality holding them back. By that I do not mean racism (for that seems to have melted away), but a failure to comprehend gradations of literal views.

An example: "let the dead bury their dead" can mean:

1. that all burials must be conducted by dead people

2. that dead people should bury themselves

3. that people who are near death should do the burying

4. that people "dead" to the gospel should be undertakers

5. that people "dead" to the gospel should bury other people "dead" to the gospel

6. that we should use this as a symbolic representation for faith vs non-faith

7. that when we are "alive" in the gospel, it will all make sense as symbolism

So far as I can tell, some people on the MB are stuck at step #1, when it comes to the BoM, etc.

UD

Uncle Dale, would the Church be stronger and the members more well adjusted if they were able to progress to step #7.

[Doctor Steuss]

But the BoM rests on the literal existence of characters and events in the Hebrew bible. I'm not sure what Uncle Dale's goals would be with a decreased emphasis on the BoM, but all I want is for members to understand that it's okay to focus the same critical faculties we use on the Bible onto the BoM as well. In general, members seem okay with scholars pointing out improbable events in the Hebrew bible but when we make a similar list of BoM events suddenly it becomes apostasy. The BoM has become the Mormon version of the Koran -- no faithful investigation other than to prove its truthfulness is allowed.

I like the cut of your jib here my brother. The Book of Mormon readily admits in the very introduction that perfection is not guaranteed within the text. And this was before it was even translated into English (maybe). The authors (and translator) of the Book of Mormon shouldnâ??t necessarily be given more credence than those of the Bible. Thereâ??s probably a good deal (or maybe only a small amount) of redaction, politicization, mythoi, and error within the pages, and it would be a shame if those qualified to do so didnâ??t have the freedom to squirrel them out much like they are currently doing with the Biblical text.

This is why I like how people (such as Kevin Christensen) are taking new looks at our existing scriptures and paradigms and seeing if maybe... just maybe we need some things to be tweaked.

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale, would the Church be stronger and the members more well adjusted if they were able

to progress to step #7.

The Church is (theoretically, at least), the Body of Christ -- and in the body each member has different

functions. Not every member need be the "eyes," or the "tongue," or the "brain" of that Body of Christ.

But I would expect the leaders to be "more well adjusted if they were able to progress to step #7."

The leaders have their role in the Body of Christ, just like everybody else -- and they should be out

ahead of the masses, doing more than the usual "progressing" in such spiritual gifts as discernment.

Am I hoping for too much, when it comes to the BoM? Surely GAs like Oaks and Holland are "out ahead

of the masses," in terms of education, experience, spirituality, etc. I would expect much from them.

UD

[YH8]

I believe I have a fair understanding of most of the splinter groups, . . .

Here's a test of your mettle . . . which is the splinter group, LDS or RLDS?

[i'm gonna be gone for awhile, so let me just say this . . . I think the "R" says it all; particularly if one understands the intent and spirit of the Restoration.]

What I do NOT understand is LDS "group-think," . . .

. . .

I honestly think, that if the topmost LDS leaders issued a divine proclamation, . . .

. . .

I come out of a religious tradition, where, were such an order were given out, the members would tell

the "prophet" to get down on his knees and pray to God again -- and get that revelation "right."

There is a big difference between group think and following a prophet. It appears your religious tradition may not be used to following a prophet. There is also a big differenece between seeking personal spiritual confirmation of a prophet's guidance and telling the prophet to go back and get the right answer.

[volvoman]

I come out of a religious tradition, where, were such an order were given out, the members would tell

the "prophet" to get down on his knees and pray to God again -- and get that revelation "right."

Oh well....

UD

Uncle Dale,

I hate to bring this up to you but.... the reason you can say that you come from a tradition in which the "prophet" [needs] to get down on his knees and pray to God again -- and get that revelation "right." IS because your tradition is an apostate tradition.

Where in the OT, the NT or the BOM has it ever been postulated that members of the Kingdom had the authority to direct the Prophet ? You have the same voice and reasoning that characterizes the conditions under which the prophets were stoned and martyred. Your voice is the same voice that set Sodom and Gomorrah ablaze. If I were you, I would start saying to the Prophets, "What was your advice ?" Try that tradition and then wait to see how your life can positvely change for the better. Resistance to what the prophets say to you is futile to quote the Borg.

Volvoman

[John Williams]

I come out of a religious tradition, where, were such an order were given out, the members would tell

the "prophet" to get down on his knees and pray to God again -- and get that revelation "right."

Oh well....

UD

Uncle Dale,

I hate to bring this up to you but.... the reason you can say that you come from a tradition in which the "prophet" [needs] to get down on his knees and pray to God again -- and get that revelation "right." IS because your tradition is an apostate tradition.

Where in the OT, the NT or the BOM has it ever been postulated that members of the Kingdom had the authority to direct the Prophet ? You have the same voice and reasoning that characterizes the conditions under which the prophets were stoned and martyred. Your voice is the same voice that set Sodom and Gomorrah ablaze. If I were you, I would start saying to the Prophets, "What was your advice ?" Try that tradition and then wait to see how your life can positvely change for the better. Resistance to what the prophets say to you is futile to quote the Borg.

Volvoman

Technically, the LDS church is ruled by common consent, meaning that the membership can decline to accept a revelation or refuse to sustain a calling (see, for example, Frederick G. Williams's rejection as counselor in the First Presidency). Why do you suppose it's a sign of apostasy that Dale's religion has done just that more than the LDS church has?

[volvoman]

Technically, the LDS church is ruled by common consent, meaning that the membership can decline to accept a revelation or refuse to sustain a calling (see, for example, Frederick G. Williams's rejection as counselor in the First Presidency). Why do you suppose it's a sign of apostasy that Dale's religion has done just that more than the LDS church has?

John W,

Come on man......the Law of Common Consent never means that the members can change what the prophet says or commands. It is an opportunity for members to signal their consent or dissent with what is said but without any impact on what happens to be the Word of the Lord. When you raise your hand in support or non-support of the General Authorities in Conference, you are not ever going to see the non-support vote change anything. It just simply seals you up to either follow the Prophet or not to follow the prophet and then reap the blessings or the lack of blessings based on your decision - that is what the Law of CC means. It is much like a temple recommend interview....do you support the Prophet as a prophet, seer and revelator ? If you say no, it just declares your position....it doesn't change the fact that the Prophet is still the Prophet !!!

Volvoman

[John Williams]

John W,

Come on man......the Law of Common Consent never means that the members can change what the prophet says or commands. It is an opportunity for members to signal their consent or dissent with what is said but without any impact on what happens to be the Word of the Lord. When you raise your hand in support or non-support of the General Authorities in Conference, you are not ever going to see the non-support vote change anything. It just simply seals you up to either follow the Prophet or not to follow the prophet and then reap the blessings or the lack of blessings based on your decision - that is what the Law of CC means. It is much like a temple recommend interview....do you support the Prophet as a prophet, seer and revelator ? If you say no, it just declares your position....it doesn't change the fact that the Prophet is still the Prophet !!!

Volvoman

Well, of course that assumes that we're actually dealing with a prophet. But I believe you're wrong, anyway. What you are outlining above sounds like prophetic infallibility.

[Uncle Dale]

What you are outlining above sounds like prophetic infallibility.

I believe that there are many people in this world who are seeking just that --- a voice to tell them

exactly what to think, say and do. So they can all be the same and be certain of mutual acceptance.

Which, I suppose is OK -- so long as those people allow my kind to live on the same planet with

them, (and to preach diversity and individualism into their ears, day and night).

Uncle Dale

The thinking Mormon's anti-Mormon

[John Williams]

I believe that there are many people in this world who are seeking just that --- a voice to tell them

exactly what to think, say and do. So they can all be the same and be certain of mutual acceptance.

Which, I suppose is OK -- so long as those people allow my kind to live on the same planet with

them, (and to preach diversity and individualism into their ears, day and night).

Uncle Dale

The thinking Mormon's anti-Mormon

I think you may be right. I'm perfectly happy to let such people believe as they choose, as long as they afford me the same right.

[YH8]

I believe that there are many people in this world who are seeking just that --- a voice to tell them

exactly what to think, say and do. So they can all be the same and be certain of mutual acceptance.

Which, I suppose is OK -- so long as those people allow my kind to live on the same planet with

them, (and to preach diversity and individualism into their ears, day and night).

Uncle Dale

The thinking Mormon's anti-Mormon

Uncle "don't forget that people who disagree with you just might still be thinking" Dale,

And let me guess . . . you are seeking to be that "voice to tell them exactly what to think, say and do." Yes, even non-conformists have rules.

Later,

YH "oops, Uncle Dale admited he's an anti-mormon [don't look now, but it was clear enough already]" 8

[why me]

Uncle "don't forget that people who disagree with you just might still be thinking" Dale,

And let me guess . . . you are seeking to be that "voice to tell them exactly what to think, say and do." Yes, even non-conformists have rules.

Later,

YH "oops, Uncle Dale admited he's an anti-mormon [don't look now, but it was clear enough already]" 8

Uncle Dale admitted this a long time ago. But I just don't understand him considering joining the lds, if I understood him correctly. I do believe if Uncle Dale fizzles in proving the book false, he just may say: 'What the heck, what do I got to loose. If I can't beat them, I might as well join them'.

[John Williams]

Uncle Dale admitted this a long time ago. But I just don't understand him considering joining the lds, if I understood him correctly. I do believe if Uncle Dale fizzles in proving the book false, he just may say: 'What the heck, what do I got to loose. If I can't beat them, I might as well join them'.

I've known Dale a long time. If he's "anti-Mormon" then you guys will do just fine. That he finds something spiritually valuable in Mormonism (something he's told me many times), why do you consider him an enemy? Surely the tent is big enough for those who may not be "orthodox" in their belief, but still find inspiration in the restoration movement.

[why me]

I've known Dale a long time. If he's "anti-Mormon" then you guys will do just fine. That he finds something spiritually valuable in Mormonism (something he's told me many times), why do you consider him an enemy? Surely the tent is big enough for those who may not be "orthodox" in their belief, but still find inspiration in the restoration movement.

He is no enemy of mine. I like him. I must confess when he came to FAIR his posts blindsided me. I needed to analyse them very carefully. I am a much better individual for his early posts as a Ridgonite. I would welcome him into the lds church as others do on this thread.

[John Williams]

He is no enemy of mine. I like him. I must confess when he came to FAIR his posts blindsided me. I needed to analyse them very carefully. I am a much better individual for his early posts as a Ridgonite. I would welcome him into the lds church as others do on this thread.

Well, I wasn't talking specifically about you. The ironically named YH8 seems to consider him an enemy. If I'm misreading him, I'm sure he'll correct me.

[YH8]

The ironically named YH8 seems to consider him an enemy.

Ah yes . . . with a moniker like YH8 how could I ever disagree with anyone?

Disagreement = hate? Oh my.

[John Williams]

Ah yes . . . with a moniker like YH8 how could I ever disagree with anyone?

Disagreement = hate? Oh my.

Who said disagreement was hate?