In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[beastie]

beastie,

well said.

If there is bitterness in you, you have shown great control in your written words in this thread. In contrast to others, you have stuck to an intellectual debate and presented your thoughts clearly, without the need for any negative aspects of typical apologetic debate.

Thank you, rockslider. I do not harbor bitterness towards the LDS church or its members. I will admit that I harbor some antipathy towards certain apologists who have tended towards ridicule and personal attacks. Note - that does not include all apologists- I have had very interesting and generally positive interactions some other apologists here and elswhere. Nor am I a saint (pun intended). There are definitely times when I also attack in a personal way, but that usually occurs after what feels like a great deal of provocation,and I usually regret my behavior. I'm a pretty calm person by temperament.

[beastie]

Can anyone provide any reference to the supposed UR text OR to a 1985 communication from the FP prior to the EoM?

[wenglund]

Unless you actually provide support for your accusation that I've constructed a strawman, I will just view your response as noise with no substance.

It doesn't get any more ironic than this.

So you see no reason that insisting that the One Cumorah is the "real" church teaching on the matter could cause future problems regarding belief in the BoM?

For reasonable-minded members who actually understand the intent of the gospel and the purpose of the BoM in relation thereto, their learning that the Church has no doctrinal stance on the number of "Cumorah's", will have no delitarious effect on their salvific and exalting faith.

Interesting, given the efforts apologists have gone to to demonstrate that the One Cumorah is not official church teaching. One might be forgiven for thinking that the involved apologists actually think the matter is of some significance. Perhaps they need some sort of counseling as well.

Counseling may only be needed for those, such as yourself, who can't seem to distinguish between mountainous issues and mole-hill issues.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[beastie]

It doesn't get any more ironic than this.

Just to be clear

[Calm]

Some believers, like BH Roberts, get to the point where they really think that some issues can only be resolved through revelation from God to the prophet. When that doesn

[beastie]

I'll come back to the rest of your post later today, cal, but wanted to quickly comment on this:

I am actually surprised at the level of "antipathy" you read into Scott's comments.

Are you seriously suggesting that Scott's pejorative description of folk mormons did not demonstrate antipathy towards that group? He called them lazy, ingorant, and intransigent.

[Calm]

Are you seriously suggesting that Scott's pejorative description of folk mormons did not demonstrate antipathy towards that group? He called them lazy, ingorant, and intransigent.

I will let Scott answer to how much "antipathy" he holds toward the "group". I prefer to let people speak for themselves when it comes to internal experiences rather than engage in mindreading.

edited to adjust a sloppy phrasing

[beastie]

I will let Scott answer to how much "antipathy" he holds toward the "group". I prefer to let people speak for themselves when it comes to internal experiences rather than engage in mindreading.

I don't think mind-reading is required to ascertain that someone who calls an entire group of people lazy, ignorant, and intransigent harbors antipathy towards that group. Words have meaning.

BTW, many of your CFRs can be found in my earlier posts. For example, you may want to reread the long section from BH Robert's book I shared earlier. That is a clear example of someone who wanted the brethren to address troubling issues, and was uncomfortable when the brethren deferred the question to the intellectuals in the group. I will come back with more details later, but really need a break from this chair for a bit.

[Calm]

For example, you may want to reread the long section from BH Robert's book I shared earlier. That is a clear example of someone who wanted the brethren to address troubling issues, and was uncomfortable when the brethren deferred the question to the intellectuals in the group.

Unfortunately these are not BH Roberts' own words, but a secondhand account. They may or may not be accurate. Some problems that exist with Bro. Lloyd's report of the conversation are discussed here: http://www.fairlds.o..._Testimony.html

One thing we know for sure from his own actions was that he was not hesitant to take up an intellectual study of the BoM and to attempt to answer any troubling issues himself even to the point of desiring to publish his own intellectual work when the Brethren declined to so so (which is a strange way of "deferring" to intellectuals imo).

Hopefully you have more evidence to support your conclusions than this one possible event.

[beastie]

Cal,

I must admit I find some of your CFRs a bit confusing, but will do my best to accommodate you. I

[Calm]

Note in particular: Bro. Roberts could not criticize them for not being able to answer it or to assist him, but said that in a Church which claimed continuous revelation, a crisis had arisen where revelation was necessary. Obviously Bro. Roberts wanted the prophet to resolve this via revelation and was disappointed when the prophet did not.

To be honest I can't remember my reasoning behind the one CFR though it was not to simply prove that some members are concerned about "intellectual" influences. I apologize for the time you've invested in coming up with references for this. If I remember when my blood sugars go back up, I'll try to address this but it won't happen for at least two days as today is the semi-fast and tomorrow is the medical procedure (which gory details I will refrain from subjecting the board to save to say it's routine).

I do remember that I'd like a demonstration of your claim that the Church leadership is making a practice of deferring to intellectuals and that requires more than just one example that may or may not support your conclusion.

In the very case that you cite, the committee they form includes "Bros. Talmage, Ballard, Roberts and one other Apostle". While some at least here can be described as "intellectuals" they also were church leaders, Roberts himself was a seventy president at the time, I believe. To assume it was primarily their "intellectual" skills that were wanted and not their spiritual wisdom as a tool to examine intellectual claims is a jump imo.

There is also a problem for your conclusion that when Bro. Roberts himself presents an intellectual solution, it was rejected.

I also quoted from Boyd K. Packer

[beastie]

Beastie:

I have revised my opinion on the matter due to this event, thanks to 007

[beastie]

Cal

Are you claiming this as evidence that the church leadership was actually "heeding 'so-called intellectuals'"?

I have no idea if that was happening at the time or not. I was simply sharing information that shows that some members would be concerned were it to happen.

As I

[beastie]

Whoops, forgot this part

Cal

I do remember that I'd like a demonstration of your claim that the Church leadership is making a practice of deferring to intellectuals and that requires more than just one example that may or may not support your conclusion.

In the very case that you cite, the committee they form includes "Bros. Talmage, Ballard, Roberts and one other Apostle". While some at least here can be described as "intellectuals" they also were church leaders, Roberts himself was a seventy president at the time, I believe. To assume it was primarily their "intellectual" skills that were wanted and not their spiritual wisdom as a tool to examine intellectual claims is a jump imo.

There is also a problem for your conclusion that when Bro. Roberts himself presents an intellectual solution, it was rejected.

First, good luck on your procedure and don

[Calm]

They were able to make a phone call and get a correction issued. That sounds like influence to me.

If the content was in existence prior to the "phone call" it is another jump to think the phone call is what triggered the "correction", especially if one allows for the possibility that Dr. Hamblin's claim is accurate and a previous letter was sent out with the "boilerplate" language and thus the fax was nothing new.

Soory for addressing the stuff in piecemeal, I can only keep one thought in my brain at a time right now. Feel free to respond piecemeal as well or wait for a day or two to respond to my comments in total (whatever that "total" may end up being I have no clue because every few minutes I get up from the computer and swear I'm just going to go to bed and then my restlessness drives me back to something that can engage my mind and therefore distract me from all those Christmas leftovers in the refrigerator including one massively delicious cheesecake).

[rodheadlee]

Just to be clear

[Calm]

But what do you mean when you say that Bro. Roberts presented an intellectual solution that was rejected?

Re The Truth, the Way, the Life.

[Calm]

You either believe the Church is His Church or you don't, you either believe the ordinances are true or you don't. It doesn't matter who thinks what about how many Hill Cumorahs there are. It matters if you treasure your Endowment, your sealing ordinances and have faith that what is bound on earth is bound in heaven. My faith will depend on my relationship with God, the study of HIS words and the discernment of truth through personal revelation, ultimately I am responsible for my own salvation.

Well said.

[Calm]

I have no idea if that was happening at the time or not. I was simply sharing information that shows that some members would be concerned were it to happen.

But did Bro. Packer think that it might happen or did he think that was just the wishes of some others, including perhaps some disaffected or "weak" (IIRC he used this term) members. I may be missing your point here, sorry. Not the best of readers at the moment, but you are providing distraction so thank you.

I think there is a difference between being concerned if it were to happen and being concerned that it might happen.

I would be very concerned if my mother turned out to be my aunt. I also have no doubt that it will not happen.

[beastie]

cal

The Truth, the Way, the Life

I haven't read it so don't know which part shows that the intellectual solution was rejected, but I am fairly certain that the prophet never did receive revelation that settled any of these questions the way Roberts wanted him to. I can't help but think that, if he had, I would have read about it somewhere.

rod

I was rather amused when I stumbled upon this website and aghast when I discovered how many were letting themselves be led astray from His church by the precepts of men.

Can you clarify this?

[Calm]

I think it

[Calm]

I haven't read it so don't know which part shows that the intellectual solution was rejected, but I am fairly certain that the prophet never did receive revelation that settled any of these questions the way Roberts wanted him to. I can't help but think that, if he had, I would have read about it somewhere.

Roberts sought to have the Church publish his work. They refused to do so (thus the rejection of his intellectual attempts, his "theological treatise"). He attempted to get it published himself IIRC, but that did not happen until long after his death.

I can see why they refused, but it's too bad it wasn't published at the time independently.

An excellent argument against the claim that B.H. Roberts abandoned the Book of Mormon can be found in his last book, which he considered his masterwork. [b. H. Roberts, The Truth, the Way, the Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology, edited by John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Studies, 1994).] Given Roberts' clear respect for the Book of Mormon in this volume, there can be little doubt that he continued to believe in and treasure it.

http://en.fairmormon...ts%27_testimony (I am looking for a more complete review of this work with some of the backstory of it included. Perhaps someone else has a link....

[wenglund]

Just to be clear

[Calm]

There does seem to be plenty of other "changes" during the periods of time covered in this thread, that would fuel this same question.

And a great deal, imo, would depend on whether or not one defined the changes as contradictory at a fundamental level of understanding (as opposed to simply engaging or ceasing a practice such as animal sacrifice because of anticipated change) or more along the lines of "eternal progression" (the church being made up of mortal human beings, surely if individuals are eternally progressing, the organization composed of them would be as well), something that is doctrinally taught in the scriptures as "line upon line" (and the doctrines and practices of sealing and baptism are great examples here, imo).

[beastie]

But did Bro. Packer think that it might happen or did he think that was just the wishes of some others, including perhaps some disaffected or "weak" (IIRC he used this term) members. I may be missing your point here, sorry. Not the best of readers at the moment, but you are providing distraction so thank you.

I think there is a difference between being concerned if it were to happen and being concerned that it might happen.

I would be very concerned if my mother turned out to be my aunt. I also have no doubt that it will not happen.

Yes, I think you