Facsimile 3, figures 2, 4, and 5

[Nofear]

I think the mods should sticky-link Approaching Mormon Doctrine or something like that.

[Expose]

Mfbukowski responded with a 'are you serious' when I previously suggested that letters from the 1st presidency's office to bishops in responds to doctrinal questions were official doctrine of the church. I'm not sure why that is controversial, do you expect the prophet himself to write and sign all these letters? Or is the signor of that letter completely without any authority to speak on behalf of the presidency? If so why send out the letter then?

I think the mods should sticky-link Approaching Mormon Doctrine or something like that.

Their statement doesn't make any sense to me, nor does it clear up what exactly is and is not doctrine.

quoting from that page...

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four standard works of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

So are statements by the first presidency without the 12 doctrine? How about statements from their office? Also, the saying that the 1st pres. and 12 "counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications" is pretty meaningless, does that mean anything by the 1st presidency & 12 is doctrine? Does that mean anything this is "proclaimed in official church publications" is doctrine? Or are they just saying that doctrine ONLY comes from "the four standard works of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith" and anything outside that is not doctrine? I have a hard time accepting that, because if that is the case there are a lot of things they'd have to add. Word of Wisdom maybe? This also doesn't cover the letters they read over the pulpit in sacrament meeting. How about the church's stand on Prop 8 and encouraging members, is that doctrinal? Are those letters not official doctrine either? If they are not, then what is the point? If they are, then members really need to be better educated about what is and is not "official doctrine" see, e.g., the attached letter that was read in sacrament meeting to church members. I attach this NOT to "shock" because it condemn oral sex, but rather to demonstrate that the members are fundamentally unsure of exactly what constitutes doctrine, and I believe the church willfully deceives members on this point by making statements such as the above quote which are completely open-ended and ambiguous.

[ttribe]

Their statement doesn't make any sense to me, nor does it clear up what exactly is and is not doctrine.

Since you continue on this rant, and you never responded to me in another thread where you brought this up, I'll provide a link to my post: Post Link

Furthermore, I'll go on record saying that I don't believe the Church should be providing the level of doctrinal guidance you appear to be advocating if, in fact, part of our purpose here on Earth is to learn how to communicate with God directly. Are we the children of Israel fleeing Egypt (and complaining about every last thing we want God to do for us), or are we trying to follow the example of the people of Enoch and learn to have God walk among us? That, to me, is the critical question.

[Mortal Man]

However in 1951 BH Roberts later changed his mind on that theory

B. H. Roberts died on 27 September 1933.

[Expose]

Since you continue on this rant, and you never responded to me in another thread where you brought this up, I'll provide a link to my post: Post Link

Furthermore, I'll go on record saying that I don't believe the Church should be providing the level of doctrinal guidance you appear to be advocating if, in fact, part of our purpose here on Earth is to learn how to communicate with God directly. Are we the children of Israel fleeing Egypt (and complaining about every last thing we want God to do for us), or are we trying to follow the example of the people of Enoch and learn to have God walk among us? That, to me, is the critical question.

A little preachy. I'm not asking for a definition of every point of doctrine, I'm asking for what the definition of doctrine is. I'm critiquing the church's supposed definition of that, which is obscure and ignores huge points of doctrine not contained within them. See the above.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So first a letter from the office of the first presidency directly on point written to a bishop isn't good enough, so you ask for something stated in general conference. When that is given then it doesn't "appear to be doctrinal pronouncements" and you imply that the brethren have to state "we know through revelation..." before anything they say can be anything but their own personal belief. Respectfully, I reject that, I think you're hiding the ball, and making a moving target for what is official, reliable church source. If GAs general conference talks are just their personal opinion and can't be relied on, why do we always rehash them in church? Why do we give talks on those talks? I think the fact that they are GENERAL AUTHORITIES means that their authority is applied generally to everything said in the conference of the church. Unless, of course, they tell us something is their opinion, etc.

Oh boy. Were to begin.

I don't think I am going to bother with this, it is a waste of time. At least MM came up with something taht I asked for. I did move the goal posts a little after he came up with what I asked for as there was room (quite a bit I might add) for interpretation in those comments.

[ttribe]

A little preachy. I'm not asking for a definition of every point of doctrine, I'm asking for what the definition of doctrine is. I'm critiquing the church's supposed definition of that, which is obscure and ignores huge points of doctrine not contained within them. See the above.

Since the discussion was locked...I'm responding to the whole thing:

You are giving me examples of what I asked for or what you think is sufficient? My original post was to say what I think the church should do, youâ??re trying to say the church already has done it, which it hasnâ??t. Iâ??m not sure why youâ??re arguing with me about what my opinion is anyway. Well thatâ??s a silly response.

Your civility, once again, overwhelms me. I also believe you are stating something more than your opinion.

Bushman isnâ??t the church, and nothing he wrote is official, nor is it the church being open, itâ??s his interpretation of JSâ??s history.

And you don't sense even the tiniest bit of tacit approval?

Iâ??m surprised you canâ??t see that.

I seem to be full of surprises.

I could just as easily point out scholars who have been excommunicated for educating people about things the church remains silent on.

Let me help you here - it wasn't the data, it was the conclusions that got those people excommunicated.

Also, Bushmanâ??s book isnâ??t the church displaying and being upfront about things like the peepstone that JS used to translate the BoM, which is still in their possession.

I disagree...but that seems to be pointless since I've not seen one time where you gave an opposing viewpoint a fair shake. Nevertheless, it wasn't difficult for me to find this: Ensign Article

Well did you read what I said?

There's that trademark civility of yours again...and yes, I read what you said.

Are those available for free on the church website?

That's your criterion for "openness"?

Are the KEP going to be included in The Joseph Smith Papers?

Actually, I don't think so. I believe there's a separate publication forthcoming regarding the KEP...it's been a while since I looked into it.

Are the Joseph Smith Papers the only doctrinally relevant church document ever produced?

What's your point? You said you wanted the Church to publish JS writings and personal papers. They are. Still not happy? Shocking.

Yes, I do. I donâ??t have a problem with auditors or auditing, my problem is the second half of that sentence...

Oh do tell...what, exactly, is your knowledge of Generally Accepted Auditing Standards? Because, it seems you are ignoring the gravity of issuing a clean attestation opinion relative to financial disclosure.

Continued below...

[ttribe]

I didnt say it was inaccurate I said it was totally misleading and it is. They get the money for things like the $2 billion mall out of profits made from tithing money.

And you know that how?

Why does it matter which church bank account the money comes out of?

Actually, it matters A LOT, both legally and ethically.

Tithing in and tithing out, all the church has is because it was given to it by the members,...

And you know that how?

...and I think it misleads members to say Oh were going to spend a lot of money building this mall but dont let it bother you because were not using tithing money.

Apparently, you're willing to buy into just about every single shallow criticism out there. Let's see, the Church is the largest organization in SLC. It has an inherent interest in maintaining the integrity of the area of one of its centerpiece sites. Economics play a role in maintaining that integrity. Revitalizing the economics of the area might be accomplished through some substantial remodeling, etc. The Church is willing to put forth the resources to do just that. The residents of SLC will benefit. The Church will benefit. Yep...I see your point now...those nasty Church leaders...trying to add to the community.

Its like you hear a different version of everything I say.

Oh the irony.

Would my ward clerk have access to the church-wide statistics?

No...but you acted like there was NOTHING available. I pointed out the transparency available to the area of the world that does actually impact you.

Weak, weak, weak, youre not even addressing my point.

I feel so warm and fuzzy at your considerate demeanor and displays of mutual respect.

A metric I would use is the same as whatever the church records, not very hard.

You said you wanted to know who was "active" and "inactive"...newsflash - no such thing is tracked in the records. You wanted information, I'm telling you the information doesn't exist; I asked you for your solution.

Its a matter of disclosure, not recording, they already are recording, just not disclosing.

Care to provide the point of the disclosure? BTW, if the Church was so concerned about non-disclosure of membership statistics, why is it that when I was a membership clerk, and now as a ward clerk, I've never received any training on said non-disclosure, obfuscation, concealment, etc.?

Were discussing this in another forum, found here

Wasn't much of a discussion...you waved your hand and called me preachy. That was useful.

Im just stating in my opinion that if the church is what it claims, I dont understand why it cant be transparent.

No...it's not just your opinion. You are, once again, using something that is "easy" to demonize, like a hammer to criticize the Church, its leaders, and anyone who would defend it.

[Chris Smith]

Are the KEP going to be included in The Joseph Smith Papers?

They've said no in interviews and the like, but I chatted with Robin Jensen recently and it sounded like the jury's still out. At the very least, the documents with Joseph's handwriting will be included.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran, as usual, your remarks carry an offensive tone, which is not only uncalled for, but diminishes any respect I might have for your ideas.

While your tone is simply exemplary in its contrast from the way you describe mine...?

If you yourself were whiter than the driven snow on this point, you might have a leg to stand on. As it is, your incessant whining sounds like nothing so much as a bully complaining because his own nose got bloodied.

Why the mods on this board havenâ??t taken care of this already, I donâ??t understand.

Perhaps because this place would be pretty dull if there were no critics left.

Iâ??m not inclined to argue about references for something that Iâ??m rejecting,

Which doesn't let you off the hook when what you are "rejecting" is something you appear to have made up for the purpose. This is called "the straw man fallacy."

First CFR, thatâ??s not what I said.

What you said was "BoA wasn't at all what JS said." You are asserting an entire contradiction of what Joseph said the Book of Abraham is. Well, Joseph said the Book of Abraham was an authentic record of Abraham. Whatever he may or may not have thought about the papyri, he said the Book of Abraham was an authentic record of Abraham. So if there is some "apologist" somewhere saying that the "BoA wasn't at all what JS said," then they are contradicting him on that point.

Inasmuch as JS said it was a translation of the papyrus he had

I'm sorry, "the papyrus?" You wouldn't be trying to sneak in the discredited falsehood that he only had one, would you?

and many apologists have made the argument that it was actually just a revelation given to him and not a translation of the papyrus in his possession, thus, apologists make arguments that the BoA is something other than what JS said. See, e.g., my previous comments regarding the John Gee article in post #36.

Now, if Joseph had in fact ever said that the Book of Abraham was a recognisable translation, duplicatable by scholarly means, of the text found on J.S.Pap. XI and X, then there would be a number of LDS apologists who say otherwise. But even then that would be a long way short of "BoA wasn't at all what JS said."

The single most important thing that Joseph said about the nature of the Book of Abraham is that it was an authentic record of Abraham. If he ever said anything contrary to what any LDS apologist has said about the origin of the book, then that would indeed be something, but it would still be way beyond the bounds of exaggeration--all the way to brazen dishonesty, in fact--to assert that those apologists have entirely contradicted Joseph about what that book is.

Because they have not.

And when "many apologists have made the argument that it was actually... a revelation given to him," those "apologists" are merely affirming what Joseph himself always claimed.

If you can find an apologist who actually asserts that, since it is a revelation, the Book of Abraham is therefore not a translation in any meaningful sense, I'd like to see it.

That's a CFR, please.

Second CFR, thatâ??s not what I said either.

Isn't it?

What were you saying, then?

Here is an example of the wood windows discussion Wood windows

At last you've actually provided a reference instead of merely reneging. Thank you.

It discusses windows made of wood as if they were mere port-holes that could be opened and closed, and not transparent windows as is clearly contemplated by the verse Ether 2:23. It is talking about the problem of providing light into the vessel! This explanation is absurd to anyone who actually reads the verse itself (instead of relying on the straw-man set up of the argument in the FAIR materials, which conveniently neglects the fact that the verse is talking about windows which would allow light into the vessel, not just a covering that would open and close).

Okay, I've read the article. Question: if a shuttered window is opened, doesn't that let in the light?

I agree that your interpretation is a reasonable one on its face. I congratulate you for (for once) adopting a reasonable interpretation instead of stretching something to create an absurdity, and then triumphantly pointing to it as if the absurdity is intrinsic instead of artificial.

However, Tvedtnes' interpretation does not contradict the verse; it merely contradicts a popular interpretation of it. It is not possible for a person who has any degree of conviction about the Book of Mormon to lose that just because one scholar's interpretation of one verse is not what he expects.

Therefore it is manifest that anyone who claims that it did so is actually "prooftexting" in support of an a priori position.

Also, as a side note, the explanation is really stupid for another reason because itâ??s saying that the Lord meant there would be structural issues if holes were put into the vessels. The vessel ended up having the exact kind of holes the apologists are trying to say the Lord meant, but they were used to provide air.

Actually they were different kinds of holes, would not need to be nearly as large, and would thus not compromise the structural integrity of the vessel to so great a degree.

Absurd, because the apologists themselves give the explanation that completely defies the very clear context of the verse itself.

I'm sorry, but that is not the case.

The weakness of this, and other positions accelerated the loss of my testimony. I don't care if you believe me or not.

It's just as well that you don't care about that.

Because the only way the "absurdity" of a John Tvedtnes argument could "destroy" anyone's testimony is if their testimony was based upon John Tvedtnes arguments in the first place.

So, was it?

Regards,

Pahoran