Bishop's letter 2003

[Pahoran]

If you've been paying close attention, this thread was started because of controversy. I have not assumed that the 1824 dating of the first vision is a "fact":

Really? Then why did you, in post #22, say this?

For instance: how many know that the 1820 date for the "first vision" is impossible? It could not have occurred any earlier than 1824...

The answer to your question, just BTW, is zero. There are exactly zero people anywhere who "know that the 1820 date for the First Vision is impossible." None.

Not even one.

You certainly don't know that; although if it comforts you to believe it, I don't want to be the one to disabuse you.

the facts are the church records, the newspaper articles, the statements/recollections of other Smith family members and acquaintances, the same from neighbors of the Smiths (many of them in affidavit form): i.e. the TOTAL evidence to date.

And if you really think "the TOTAL evidence to date" tells just one story -- the one you just happen to have swallowed -- then you are woefully underinformed.

The fact is that the 1824 First Vision theory, which you announced with such gleeful Schadenfreude, as if you were dropping some mighty bombshell, is rather pass

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

McCue's claim that "Threats of discipline accompany any efforts of members to bring these other historical sources into the light" is a brazen falsehood. Genuine LDS scholars regularly publish on "these other historical sources" without ever so much as hearing of any "threats of discipline." I'm not surprised that McCue didn't know that, but I am surprised that you don't.

Regards,

Pahoran

Did you know.... That JS had a gun at Carthage Jail.......Gasp!!!! I heard that the guy that printed that in the Ensign got exed??

[Deborah]

The anti-Mormon myth is that the Church selects material solely on its "faith promoting" value. This is, of course, false. That is not to say that the promulgation of the faith is not an important consideration -- of course it is, and I am astounded that anyone could imagine that there is something wrong with that -- but that there are other criteria of equal importance.

This is such an important point and one the critics miss. Even in writing the Joseph Smith manual for Priesthood and RS, those responsible looked at everything. However, they only put in the manual that which was documented and corroborated by other sources or confirmed to be from the Prophet's own hand. The historical documentation of many events is simply not there, only hearsay, second and third hand accounts and perjured affidavits. Critics are content to take any quote, no matter how unsupported or how out of context and use it to serve their agenda.

Context is so critical but for those who don't care about accuracy, only making their point, context is the first thing to go.

[MorningStar]

This thread is only 6 pages long - 74 pages less than Bob's letter to Elder Holland. That's a really, really long letter. Did he have it bound into a book?

[Pahoran]

Did you know.... That JS had a gun at Carthage Jail.......Gasp!!!! I heard that the guy that printed that in the Ensign got exed??

Exed? Ha! I heard that Porter Rockwell's ghost took him "over the rim of the basin." Excommunication is for wimps!

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Exed? Ha! I heard that Porter Rockwell's ghost took him "over the rim of the basin." Excommunication is for wimps!

Regards,

Pahoran

Ha.

[Questing Beast]

Pahoran said:

The anti-Mormon myth is that the Church selects material solely on its "faith promoting" value. This is, of course, false. That is not to say that the promulgation of the faith is not an important consideration -- of course it is, and I am astounded that anyone could imagine that there is something wrong with that -- but that there are other criteria of equal importance.

This is such an important point and one the critics miss. Even in writing the Joseph Smith manual for Priesthood and RS, those responsible looked at everything. However, they only put in the manual that which was documented and corroborated by other sources or confirmed to be from the Prophet's own hand. The historical documentation of many events is simply not there, only hearsay, second and third hand accounts and perjured affidavits. Critics are content to take any quote, no matter how unsupported or how out of context and use it to serve their agenda.

Context is so critical but for those who don't care about accuracy, only making their point, context is the first thing to go.

Pahoran's response to me was lengthy, and I was working through it and managed to lose it.

But this bit will suffice to make the main point I was driving at:

You are making a broad assertion here, regarding "both camps". Would you assign Compton, Palmer, et al. the Mormon scholars of the larger view, in this category you've made? Are they operating from a position of context and corroboration, or are they just out to publish a new book? I will answer my own question: no they are not interested in publishing above context and corroboration. The "new Mormon history" scholars arose out of the criticism of such disaffected Mormons as Fawn Brodie. But Compton, Palmer, Wagner, Newell and Avery et al. are not out to paint the history of the Church black and white; they are after facts and their meaning. The reason why this matters is precisely because the anti Mormon books had dug into sources that NO Church-educated historian had even heard of. That these sources could be used BY antis doesn't invalidate the sources. The "new Mormon history" scholars have been all about pointing out the flawed reasoning of the antis: but at the same time, the scholars have been willing to alter their own beliefs if the sources cause a reinterpretation of the history - which is what is happening increasingly.

That I have been shown facts that predate the scholarship that introduced them doesn't mean they are outmoded or invalidated; not so long as the issues raised remain unaddressed and unresolved.

I wanted to know what effect McCue had on this Net community. And I am finding out. The rest of it is just time spent preaching to the choir; you to yours, me to mine (even though it is probably largely absent)....

[Deborah]

The reason why this matters is precisely because the anti Mormon books had dug into sources that NO Church-educated historian had even heard of. That these sources could be used BY antis doesn't invalidate the sources.

The problem with the sources they dug into is that they weren't corroborated and weren't in context. Understand that context is more than using the whole paragraph rather than a sentence. In involves time frames and events and who said what and when. It involves checking other records to see for example if Joseph could have been where witnesses said he was, which in some cases corroborating evidence showed he wasn't. One reason church scholars were silent on so much is because they didn't have all the facts. They may have had the same information but they were more careful about how it was used. And yes part of this was because they didn't want to rock a person's faith based in incomplete information. Critics don't care about this.

The reason later scholars have been able to write more is because they have had access to documents others haven't as documents long held in storage began to be released. Even before the Joseph Smith Papers project Truman Madsen and other church scholars had access to diaries and letters that non-LDS scholars didn't have and in his lectures Br. Madsen addressed many of the issues the antis love to spout as hidden information. Except Br. Madsen put it in context and looked at the big picture.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran's response to me was lengthy, and I was working through it and managed to lose it.

That happens from time to time. What you lose is in no way your fault.

But this bit will suffice to make the main point I was driving at:

You are making a broad assertion here, regarding "both camps".

And you wrote that with no sense of irony at all?

Wasn't it you who previously wrote this?

One side (the Church) discounts all evidence that refutes Joseph Smiths LAST version of his personal history (including the earliest in his own hand); the other side gathers ALL of the extant versions and ALL connected evidence and compares them to arrive at as complete a picture of the history as possible.

That was you, wasn't it?

Isn't that quite "broad" enough to be going on with?

Would you assign Compton, Palmer, et al.

Pardon me for interrupting, but whatever problems Todd Compton may have, he does not deserve to be lumped in with Grant Palmer. Compton has drawn some poor conclusions in a few places; Palmer, who is not a scholar, has brazenly misrepresented the real state of LDS scholarship in his ridiculous book. Nobody who knows anything takes him seriously.

the Mormon scholars of the larger view, in this category you've made?

Are you really unaware of the value-laden presuppositions you bring to the table?

Are they operating from a position of context and corroboration, or are they just out to publish a new book? I will answer my own question: no they are not interested in publishing above context and corroboration. The "new Mormon history" scholars arose out of the criticism of such disaffected Mormons as Fawn Brodie. But Compton, Palmer, Wagner, Newell and Avery et al. are not out to paint the history of the Church black and white; they are after facts and their meaning.

You discredit your argument by trying to smuggle Palmer into that list. Try not to do it again.

The reason why this matters is precisely because the anti Mormon books had dug into sources that NO Church-educated historian had even heard of.

Really?

Call for references, please.

You try to pass yourself off as a clever fellow who's read just a few too many books to remain a believing Latter-day Saint. Quite apart from the fact that this is the bog-standard RfM apostasy narrative, the fact remains that many people have read a lot more books than you, and find that what they learn only strengthens their testimony of the restored gospel. You look to me like a victim of Nibley's "Gas Law of Learning." But apart from that, you keep letting down your carefully-cultivated image by coming out with these sweeping assertions that really only betray your attitude to Mormon things.

That these sources could be used BY antis doesn't invalidate the sources.

Who says that it does?

The Chases, Ingersolls, Staffords, Lewises, Hales, Harrises, Tuckers et al discredit themselves; it is the anti-Mormon reliance upon discredited sources that in turn discredits the anti-Mormon books that rely upon them. You've got it just backwards.

The "new Mormon history" scholars have been all about pointing out the flawed reasoning of the antis: but at the same time, the scholars have been willing to alter their own beliefs if the sources cause a reinterpretation of the history - which is what is happening increasingly.

Wake me up when you've reached the end of your testimony-bearing.

That I have been shown facts that predate the scholarship that introduced them doesn't mean they are outmoded or invalidated; not so long as the issues raised remain unaddressed and unresolved.

What, if anything, I wrote that this addresses, I fail entirely to see.

Now Questing, you currently have three (3) unanswered CFR's before you. I look forward to seeing your responses.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Questing Beast]

That happens from time to time. What you lose is in no way your fault.

I don't like this forum's reply feature; it deletes the original quotes and only displays the responses. That's the source of my difficulty. I am forced to scroll down through the posts to the one I am responding to, copy and paste; it's inefficient and annoying; I was trying to get around that and somehow deleted my response content, I don't know how.

And you wrote that with no sense of irony at all?

Irony is such a personal thing. I won't address yours.

Wasn't it you who previously wrote this?

That was you, wasn't it?

Isn't that quite "broad" enough to be going on with?

One side (the Church) discounts all evidence that refutes Joseph Smiths LAST version of his personal history (including the earliest in his own hand); the other side gathers ALL of the extant versions and ALL connected evidence and compares them to arrive at as complete a picture of the history as possible.

Yes it is a broad statement. I am referring to a Church policy; obviously you can find individuals who are not included. The policy is what is being addressed and objected to. Elder Packer's 1981 talk to the CES at BYU is typical of the policy: keep "faithful history" separate from the wider view of history; because not all truth is useful, and much of it is too dangerous for growing testimonies, and the student who pursues all truth without the Spirit is endangering his/her salvation, etc. It was like the keynote address for the policy which remains in place; more entrenched than ever.

Pardon me for interrupting, but whatever problems Todd Compton may have, he does not deserve to be lumped in with Grant Palmer. Compton has drawn some poor conclusions in a few places; Palmer, who is not a scholar, has brazenly misrepresented the real state of LDS scholarship in his ridiculous book. Nobody who knows anything takes him seriously.

Palmer is not a scholar in the same degree that Compton is, true. But he beats the socks off of me. I find your opinion unwarranted. Palmer copiously cited his sources; most of which ARE the works of scholars, inside and outside of the Church. He lacks "papers", and you seem wedded to the requirement before you will give someone the time of day.

Are you really unaware of the value-laden presuppositions you bring to the table?

It isn't a presupposition if I developed the observation through reading. How else does one arrive at a supposition? Often we study with presuppositions, in fact always, before we learn what we are doing and take conscious steps to study after laying down our presuppositions. I entered study of the Church out of a need to know if Jesus Christ was real or a 2,000 year-old religious myth. My focus was on Joseph Smith and secondarily Brigham Young: for I PRESUPPOSED they they would be men "after the Lord's own heart": and what better way to read to get insight into Jesus Christ's character than to study the lives and teachings of men he had chosen? I was disappointed in my "quest", or its original purpose at any rate. I "arrived" at a metaphorical cliff edge, and was given two choices: turn back to where I had already been and go back "down", or jump off. I jumped. And the final straw was Joseph Smith's polyandry (thank you Todd Merlin Compton, for that one). How, exactly am I then guilty of presupposition? I have observed, through many years of study, that the Church does in fact have a policy of deliberately lying for the Lord; the end justifies the means. And ALL Churches are manmade and have always been.

The reason why this matters is precisely because the anti Mormon books had dug into sources that NO Church-educated historian had even heard of.

Really?

Call for references, please.

Are you going to tell me that a Church educated history major gets all the stuff that "No Man Knows My History" drags out? Maybe NOW those sources are acknowledged, but back in the day (40s and 50s) none of that stuff was pointed out. And then we have non Mormon (but not anti) scholars like Jan Ships who are constantly finding new evidence, such as the 1818 to 1825 Protestant membership records that Palmer cited. There was no reason/motive for Mormon historians to even go looking for such factual evidence, ditto the court records that some worthy digger turned up that proved Joseph Smith to have in fact been brought up for treasure digging, via his "gift" with his seer stone, etc.

You try to pass yourself off as a clever fellow who's read just a few too many books to remain a believing Latter-day Saint.

You are disparaging what I've read without even knowing what that is beyond the few sources I've referred to. And how, exactly, is my reading to arrive at a hypothesis any different than the "system" that the Church requires? Read, ponder, pray; "study it out in your own mind", etc. If I use the very same "system" of inquiry that the Church recommends then how is it fair to disparage the way I arrived at my conclusions? I am no scholar of the scriptures, I am a student. That is asserted to be sufficient "study" (reading) to arrive at a testimony/knowledge of the truth: so how can applying this to the works of Mormon scholars be in any way deficient?

I have merely applied myself as I have always done. That I arrive at a different conclusion than I tried for with decades of scripture study and prayer is no fault of mine. Of course, at first, one must doubt: what went wrong? But pondering (questioning myself) shows that the methodology, if sound enough as asserted by the Church, has been validly applied: resulting in a complete revision of religious faith and my religious world view. As proof that I was not presupposing any such "arrival", I offer the testimony of my life, my subsequent life to exact: I remain committed to the "Mormon lifestyle"; pay tithing and other offerings; live worthy to "enter the temple", etc. So I had and have NO ulterior motive to disprove the Church's dogmatic claims and historical assertions.

Quite apart from the fact that this is the bog-standard RfM apostasy narrative, the fact remains that many people have read a lot more books than you, and find that what they learn only strengthens their testimony of the restored gospel.

I read the entire Hugh Nibley collection, as I said; and numerous other church history books and "teachings of" books, etc. Not to mention the actual scriptures (the Book of Mormon well over two dozen times cover to cover, and innumerable times in part - just last night in fact). "Bog standard" mopoligist rhetoric (repetition) is quite as predictable as your assertion that some knee-jerk learned response is all that is behind a critic of the Mormon religion.

You look to me like a victim of Nibley's "Gas Law of Learning."

LOL, in light of what I just wrote about reading Nibley.

But apart from that, you keep letting down your carefully-cultivated image by coming out with these sweeping assertions that really only betray your attitude to Mormon things.

You are mistaken. I have no carefully cultivated anything except what I think I know - which is practically nothing about almost everything; but I do the best I can with what I have been given.

The Chases, Ingersolls, Staffords, Lewises, Hales, Harrises, Tuckers et al discredit themselves; it is the anti-Mormon reliance upon discredited sources that in turn discredits the anti-Mormon books that rely upon them. You've got it just backwards.

I haven't read a single one of those infamous anti Mormon authors; the closest I got was Nibley's deconstructions in "Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass". I was well steeped in mopologist tactics long before I ever learned enough to question the historicity of the Bible and by connection the BofM. And I do not have it bassendackwards.

That I have been shown facts that predate the scholarship that introduced them doesn't mean they are outmoded or invalidated; not so long as the issues raised remain unaddressed and unresolved.

What, if anything, I wrote that this addresses, I fail entirely to see.

It probably was you who disparaged my "gleefully pointing out" the impossibility of the 1820 first vision dating (which IS impossible, if the church membership records are reliable - show that they are not if you want to discount them - and the memories of the other Smith family members are accurate - ditto); and asserted that this was old information, thus by implication discounting that there is any discrepancy any more. It should be you who shows by CFR that the discrepancy is dead in the water (resolved). You have not....

[LeSellers]

I don't like this forum's reply feature; it deletes the original quotes and only displays the responses. That's the source of my difficulty. I am forced to scroll down through the posts to the one I am responding to, copy and paste; it's inefficient and annoying; I was trying to get around that and somehow deleted my response content, I don't know how.

It is a bit clumsy, but there is a way to get the train of thought into your post:

For each message you want to include, click the "Multiquote" button (in order). Then click the "Add Reply" button at the bottom of the page. All the messages you selected will appear.

Unfortunately, they are self-contained, so, if you want to show the original nesting, you'll need to move the close quote tag to the end of the nested quotes. It looks like this:

[quote name='xxx' timestamp='1298667828' post='1208978172']First msg[/quote]

[quote name='yyy' timestamp='1298667828' post='1208978172'']Second msg[/quote]

[quote name='zzz' timestamp='1298667828' post='1208978172']Third  msg[/quote]

You would end up with this:

First msg

Second msg

Third msg

Then you modify it to look like this:

[quote name='xxx' timestamp='1298667828' post='1208978172']First msg

[quote name='yyy' timestamp='1298667828' post='1208978172']Second msg 

[quote name='zzz' timestamp='1298667828' post='1208978172']Third msg[/quote][/quote][/quote]

This will give you the following:

First msg

Second msg

Third msg

Enjoy,

Lehi

[kitmarlow]

I think that after a thorough study of the history of the church and its unique scriptures--I think that after all of this it is just as easy to arrive at the conclusions Questing Beast has arrived at as to arrive at the opposite. Personally I find Questing Beast's arguments to be entirely credible (he is certainly more moderate and respectful in tone than some of the posters here who differ from him). Why then do I continue to believe? For the simple reason that I choose to.

[Pahoran]

Yes it is a broad statement. I am referring to a Church policy; obviously you can find individuals who are not included. The policy is what is being addressed and objected to. Elder Packer's 1981 talk to the CES at BYU is typical of the policy: keep "faithful history" separate from the wider view of history; because not all truth is useful, and much of it is too dangerous for growing testimonies, and the student who pursues all truth without the Spirit is endangering his/her salvation, etc. It was like the keynote address for the policy which remains in place; more entrenched than ever.

Either you have completely misunderstood Elder Packer's talk, and it's just a coincidence that your misunderstanding so exactly resembles the bog-standard anti-Mormon spin thereof, or there is some other explanation that is less far-fetched. Either way, that you may understand him correctly now, if you did not do so before: Elder Packer, himself a trained teacher, was addressing CES educators -- i.e. Seminary and Institute teachers -- on the subject of how sacred history should be taught. Taught where? In Seminary and Institute classes, of course.

I like that talk. It's a great talk. I know it well. And I am here to tell you that whoever told you that it was about "suppressing information," or some such garbage, has most shamelessly lied to you, and you should never trust them again. It was not about "suppressing information" at all; it was about the proper perspective. Of course it isn't news that any given prophet was a man. Of course we knew that already. Of course anyone breathlessly announcing that as the LDS historical discovery of the decade is wasting our time with trivia. What's far more important is to know that that man was a prophet. The common trivia about his status as a fallen mortal just isn't important enough to waste the few and precious hours of Seminary and Institute instruction upon.

Palmer is not a scholar in the same degree that Compton is, true. But he beats the socks off of me. I find your opinion unwarranted. Palmer copiously cited his sources; most of which ARE the works of scholars, inside and outside of the Church. He lacks "papers", and you seem wedded to the requirement before you will give someone the time of day.

That's false. I am not wedded to any such requirement. The mere fact that Mister Palmer cited his sources, when he could not possibly have gotten away with not doing so, is neither here nor there. The fact is that his sources do not support the conclusions he draws from them; his one and only original contribution to Mormon letters is to attempt to link E. T. A. Hoffmann's Der Goldne Topf with Joseph Smith's story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. But he had actually made that link almost a quarter of a century earlier, and the link had actually collapsed when the "Salamander Letter," written by that other Hofmann, was proven to be a forgery. Furthermore, Mister Palmer seriously misrepresented the current state of Mormon scholarship when he represented his radically revisionist opinions as representing some kind of emerging consensus, when of course they do no such thing. He specifically named the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute as sharing his views, when it emphatically does not. I grant that Mister Palmer's general view -- the part that is not original to himself -- is popular among adherents to a particular school of thought; but it is in nowise a "larger view," and it is certainly not what anything like "all genuinely scholarly Mormon historians" believe, and never will be.

It isn't a presupposition if I developed the observation through reading. How else does one arrive at a supposition? Often we study with presuppositions, in fact always, before we learn what we are doing and take conscious steps to study after laying down our presuppositions. I entered study of the Church out of a need to know if Jesus Christ was real or a 2,000 year-old religious myth. My focus was on Joseph Smith and secondarily Brigham Young: for I PRESUPPOSED they they would be men "after the Lord's own heart": and what better way to read to get insight into Jesus Christ's character than to study the lives and teachings of men he had chosen?

Oh, come on; that's an obvious setup, and in you know a fraction of what you represent yourself as knowing, you certainly know that. In all your reading, did you ever actually read the Bible? If you had, you'd know that the Bible applies that descriptor -- a man "after the Lord's own heart" -- to king David; the same David who first lusted after, then committed adultery with, Bathsheba and finally murdered her husband to cover up his crime. What sort of "insight into Jesus Christ's character" do you hope to get from him?

I was disappointed in my "quest", or its original purpose at any rate. I "arrived" at a metaphorical cliff edge, and was given two choices: turn back to where I had already been and go back "down", or jump off. I jumped. And the final straw was Joseph Smith's polyandry (thank you Todd Merlin Compton, for that one).

I'm not certain that Compton would regard himself as having done you a favour. However, should he happen to read this exchange, I'll offer my reassurance to him: if you hadn't regarded his writing as having furnished you with an excuse, I'm 100% confident you would have kept looking until you found one.

At which point, you would have stopped looking. Exactly as you did.

How, exactly am I then guilty of presupposition? I have observed, through many years of study, that the Church does in fact have a policy of deliberately lying for the Lord;

Since the Church has no such policy, you have "observed" no such thing. That is a dishonest polemic, and a bog-standard point of anti-Mormon propaganda.

Another complete coincidence, no doubt.

the end justifies the means. And ALL Churches are manmade and have always been.

Thank you for your fervent testimony-bearing. I should point out that at some point the mods are likely to grow tired of it.

Are you going to tell me that a Church educated history major gets all the stuff that "No Man Knows My History" drags out?

You mean the Chases, Ingersolls, Staffords, Lewises, Hales, Harrises, Tuckers et al that you deny reading anywhere except in Nibley, an LDS source? You should watch how you overdo your protests, you know.

The answer is that there are good reasons why bad historical sources generally disappear over time. The Palmyra gossips didn't disappear because of some evil Mormon conspiracy, whatever your thoroughly ideological demonology might lead you to believe. Rather, they disappeared because they were bad; consequently, good historians did not rely upon them. Mrs Brodie's discoveries simply disinterred a great deal of garbage that had appeal to those of a certain ideology (sorry -- "larger view" ) without regard to their actual quality.

But I should point out that I don't actually know what you mean by "a Church educated history major." The Church is not an institution of secular learning, so the expression looks to me like an oxymoron. I wouldn't expect any serious history program in any reputable tertiary institution to rake over the embers of old gossip towards any historical figures, but I would expect a competent graduate of such a serious history program to know how to go about finding such things, if for some reason they thought they were important.

Maybe NOW those sources are acknowledged, but back in the day (40s and 50s) none of that stuff was pointed out. And then we have non Mormon (but not anti) scholars like Jan Ships who are constantly finding new evidence, such as the 1818 to 1825 Protestant membership records that Palmer cited. There was no reason/motive for Mormon historians to even go looking for such factual evidence, ditto the court records that some worthy digger turned up that proved Joseph Smith to have in fact been brought up for treasure digging, via his "gift" with his seer stone, etc.

I see you have completely garbled your mythology. Wesley P. Walters, a Presbyterian minister who was far more zealous about digging up dirt on the Mormons than he ever was about ministering to his flock, did not "turn up" any court records at all. He "turned up" -- and subsequently badly mishandled -- a JP's bill for his time.

Now, as vitally important as you no doubt are, I have no interest into derailing this thread into a discussion of your heroic impartiality. I would prefer to stick to the topic of the thread as originally stated.

It probably was you who disparaged my "gleefully pointing out" the impossibility of the 1820 first vision dating (which IS impossible, if the church membership records are reliable - show that they are not if you want to discount them - and the memories of the other Smith family members are accurate - ditto); and asserted that this was old information, thus by implication discounting that there is any discrepancy any more. It should be you who shows by CFR that the discrepancy is dead in the water (resolved). You have not....

You first. Sorry.

Bring out your "strong arguments," and I will show you where each one of them fails.

Now: you called this thread "Bishop's letter 2003." That title was a generous misrepresentation of fact. Bob McCue was an ex-bishop when he turned out that ridiculously self-serving, self-important tome. He is also -- and has been for some years -- a prominent internet anti-Mormon. That you should use his long harangue as a proselyting tool without knowing that bit of common knowledge is, to put it mildly, rather incredible.

How do we account for it?

BTW: you do know that a Mormon bishop is the unpaid leader of a local congregation, don't you? And that he doesn't wear a mitre?

I just wanted to be clear on that point.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Maybe NOW those sources are acknowledged, but back in the day (40s and 50s) none of that stuff was pointed out.

Do you know this from personal experience? Were you alive 'back in the day'? If not, how have you been made aware of this?

[Questing Beast]

Either you have completely misunderstood Elder Packer's talk, and it's just a coincidence that your misunderstanding so exactly resembles the bog-standard anti-Mormon spin thereof, or there is some other explanation that is less far-fetched. Either way, that you may understand him correctly now, if you did not do so before: Elder Packer, himself a trained teacher, was addressing CES educators -- i.e. Seminary and Institute teachers -- on the subject of how sacred history should be taught. Taught where? In Seminary and Institute classes, of course.

I like that talk. It's a great talk. I know it well. And I am here to tell you that whoever told you that it was about "suppressing information," or some such garbage, has most shamelessly lied to you, and you should never trust them again. It was not about "suppressing information" at all; it was about the proper perspective. Of course it isn't news that any given prophet was a man. Of course we knew that already. Of course anyone breathlessly announcing that as the LDS historical discovery of the decade is wasting our time with trivia. What's far more important is to know that that man was a prophet. The common trivia about his status as a fallen mortal just isn't important enough to waste the few and precious hours of Seminary and Institute instruction upon.

I read it back in the day. Why do you assume that I am going by what someone told me it means? I had no problem with it, back in the day; and thought it was a "great talk" too. Packer was for decades my favorite GA speaker; in fact, his talks were the first ones I started paying attention to. I just reread that talk a couple weeks ago, and I disagree with about half of it. The Church's policy of "faith-promoting history" has built on it since then. And yes it is suppression of non faith-promoting material. Dallin Oaks said: "Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors." Suppression.

The mere fact that Mister Palmer cited his sources, when he could not possibly have gotten away with not doing so, is neither here nor there. The fact is that his sources do not support the conclusions he draws from them;

I must have missed all that.

his one and only original contribution to Mormon letters is to attempt to link E. T. A. Hoffmann's Der Goldne Topf with Joseph Smith's story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. But he had actually made that link almost a quarter of a century earlier, and the link had actually collapsed when the "Salamander Letter," written by that other Hofmann, was proven to be a forgery.

Ooo, "originality" is a necessary requirement now for making a valid point? Dang, I am one redundant dude myself!

Furthermore, Mister Palmer seriously misrepresented the current state of Mormon scholarship when he represented his radically revisionist opinions as representing some kind of emerging consensus, when of course they do no such thing.

I must have missed that point of his too.

He specifically named the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute as sharing his views, when it emphatically does not.

So, either he's a liar, or else you're reading more into what he said than he meant, or something similar.

I grant [ ] that Mister Palmer's general view -- the part that is not original to himself -- is popular among adherents to a particular school of thought; but it is in nowise a "larger view," and it is certainly not what anything like "all genuinely scholarly Mormon historians" believe, and never will be.

Ah, this I can address: "larger view" has nothing to do with number of adherents: it is interpretation of the evidence. And I can recognize something that is presented factually, honestly and logically. His book is crammed with this kind of observation and conclusion.

In all your reading, did you ever actually read the Bible? If you had, you'd know that the Bible applies that descriptor -- a man "after the Lord's own heart" -- to king David; the same David who first lusted after, then committed adultery with, Bathsheba and finally murdered her husband to cover up his crime. What sort of "insight into Jesus Christ's character" do you hope to get from him?

I don't care for your condescending approach (if that observation goes anywhere with you). Of course I have read the Bible. Do you disbelieve my pointing out that I have read the BofM cover to cover well over two-dozen times too? Maybe you missed the vast irony here, by observing David's character flaw: it exactly matches Joseph Smith's. Does that mean I discovered what I was looking for in studying Joseph Smith's life? Not a bit. David's "fate" is that his wives are lost to him and he's a ministering angel after the last judgment: Joseph Smith taught that somewhere, iirc. So by his own judgment of David ("A man after the Lord's own heart" - that is a fact, if Paul wasn't up in the night) shall Joseph Smith be judged? I was barely okay with polygamy in heaven before I "discovered" Joseph Smith's polyandry: but after that, D&C 132's "under a vow" passages finally became clear enough and I was (and am) utterly unable to accept it.

I'm not certain that Compton would regard himself as having done you a favour. However, should he happen to read this exchange, I'll offer my reassurance to him: if you hadn't regarded his writing as having furnished you with an excuse, I'm 100% confident you would have kept looking until you found one.

At which point, you would have stopped looking. Exactly as you did.

What makes you think I've stopped looking? What does my moniker signify to you? Hubris or dishonesty? Compton's book was just the first instance of polyandry that I saw. I've nothing but admiration for Compton. His exposure of the truth is a favor to me, not an unwelcome revelation.

And what exactly am I in need of an excuse for? I told you that I haven't changed anything in my lifestyle: I even pay tithes and offerings. I can honestly answer the last temple recommend interview question with "Yes". The other answers are qualified by my personal theology and cosmology: but I keep that separate from the intent of church doctrine: I am not fighting the church or crusading to change it. All changes will occur without my puny presence being involved.

Since the Church has no such policy, you have "observed" no such thing. That is a dishonest polemic, and a bog-standard point of anti-Mormon propaganda.

Another complete coincidence, no doubt.

There is no coincidence about your mindset. I'm sure you have worked on reinforcing it for a long time. I recognize the earmarks. Intimately.

Mormons "lying for the Lord" began with Joseph Smith over his sexual liaisons and translating ability. It continued through the polygamy "wars" vs. the SCOTUS and the local Fed authorities. Abraham lied to Pharaoh. The Church keeps everything close to its chest. I maintain to my "apostate" brother that this is neither unique or unexpected, but it was "lying for the Lord" which was most paramount in his taking offense: his altruism is stronger than mine: I expect people to behave less than perfectly, and that includes telling the truth. I defend the Church's decision to keep the truth concealed when it would just be used to attack innocent people. I have no problem with lying under oath to defend polygamous marriages, etc. The Gov't would just abuse the truth. My problem wasn't human imperfection. It was pretending to one moral standard - even when forced to allow polygany for Nauvoos's elite "inner circle". To hold a completely different "standard" for himself makes Joseph Smith into something worse than a dishonest man at times: it totally changes sexual morality into a foreign concept, and makes a total mockery of his doctrine of "patriarchal marriage" as "the order of heaven".

Thank you for your fervent testimony-bearing. I should point out that at some point the mods are likely to grow tired of it.

How do you know that? I have seen blatant, disaffected apostates on here, and non Mormons. Is there something I've said that is forbidden?

You mean the Chases, Ingersolls, Staffords, Lewises, Hales, Harrises, Tuckers et al that you deny reading anywhere except in Nibley, an LDS source? You should watch how you overdo your protests, you know.

You still don't understand: I NEVER gave the time of day to blatantly anti-Mormon works. And I could usually spot them on the first or second page. They typically begin with something I am familiar with, and the moment they twist it to their agenda they've given themselves away. The books I have studied that inform are all written by LDS authors "in good standing" at the time.

... Mrs Brodie's discoveries simply disinterred a great deal of garbage that had appeal to those of a certain ideology (sorry -- "larger view" ) without regard to their actual quality.

I see. The same sources referred to again for information by other LDS historians of the Nauvoo period, for instance? Or Joseph Smith's early history? The affidavits in "Mormonism unveiled" for instance? A good historian never dismisses a source out of hand permanently. S/he does not close the door on future significance in the light of further discovery. Thus the affidavits are compared, still, to each other and other sources of the period.

But I should point out that I don't actually know what you mean by "a Church educated history major." The Church is not an institution of secular learning, so the expression looks to me like an oxymoron

I wasn't talking about secular history.

Now, as vitally important as you no doubt are, I have no interest into derailing this thread into a discussion of your heroic impartiality. I would prefer to stick to the topic of the thread as originally stated.

...

Now: you called this thread "Bishop's letter 2003." That title was a generous misrepresentation of fact. Bob McCue was an ex-bishop when he turned out that ridiculously self-serving, self-important tome. He is also -- and has been for some years -- a prominent internet anti-Mormon. That you should use his long harangue as a proselyting tool without knowing that bit of common knowledge is, to put it mildly, rather incredible.

How do we account for it?

I explained how I came across it, and why his name "sounded" familiar. I also just (reexplained) that I don't give anti-Mormon works the time of day: which means that I also have not been in the habit of searching for or looking over anti-Mormon Websites. I've tried talking on exmo fora and find the denizens incoherent, angry and shrill.

But you have difficulty believing what I say. So why are you bothering here?

You are apparently a very smart, educated person. "Besting" me or anyone else in a point-by-point refutation will not strengthen your testimony very much or for very long....

[Questing Beast]

Questing Beast, on 25 February 2011 - 11:23 AM, said: Maybe NOW those sources are acknowledged, but back in the day (40s and 50s) none of that stuff was pointed out.

Do you know this from personal experience? Were you alive 'back in the day'? If not, how have you been made aware of this?

I gave a "for instance", e.g. the illustration of Joseph Smith's 1823 visitation by Moroni in his bedroom: how back in my days growing up he was always shown alone; but even now the Church history museum shows a picture of the event with Joseph's brothers asleep in the same bed: this is all because of inescapable evidence by some of the Church's most eminent founding personalities attesting to that sleeping arrangement. It is historically factual and accurate: the pictures of Joseph alone in his own bedroom are not. And in similar fashion, the "face in his hat" facts are equally attested; the Church will reluctantly admit this and allow accurate picturing of it, despite how silly it looks. It is accurate, the most credible witnesses do not say anything about the plates being there behind a curtain, as shown in all the Church-approved illos going back generations. So the face in the hat will finally have its day in the sun. "Wait for iiiiiiiit..."

I've read much newer (LDS) responses to the earlier Fawn Brodie-style expos

[Pahoran]

I'm having to break this post in two.

I read it back in the day. Why do you assume that I am going by what someone told me it means?

There's an old Jewish saying to the effect that if you ask the same question to three scholars, you'll get four opinions. Ask the same question to three anti-Mormons, and you'll get just one opinion; and by a remarkable coincidence, they'll all chant, in unison, that they reached that opinion entirely by their own independent study. This phenomenon has been described as a "herd of independent thinkers."

The explanation for this phenomenon is simple. They didn't reach that opinion by means of "independent study" at all; that's just the PR spin around it. The reality is that they all get it from each other.

I had no problem with it, back in the day; and thought it was a "great talk" too. Packer was for decades my favorite GA speaker; in fact, his talks were the first ones I started paying attention to. I just reread that talk a couple weeks ago, and I disagree with about half of it.

It's not surprising that you should revise your view of it to fall in line with your new ideology.

The Church's policy of "faith-promoting history" has built on it since then. And yes it is suppression of non faith-promoting material. Dallin Oaks said: "Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors." Suppression.

Thank you for that very useful definition of "suppression." It describes exactly what those who embrace your ideology are trying to do to those who defend the Church of Jesus Christ.

Ooo, "originality" is a necessary requirement now for making a valid point? Dang, I am one redundant dude myself!

You are remarkably skilled at missing the point. As long as Mister Palmer tamely toes the party line, you all love him; the minute he does indulge in some "independent thinking," he makes rather a fool of himself.

I must have missed that point of his too.

That's hardly surprising.

So, either he's a liar, or else you're reading more into what he said than he meant, or something similar.

I would advise you against bringing Mister Palmer's personal veracity into the discussion. It will not help your cause.

As to his claims about the state of Mormon historical scholarship, I quote this statement from the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History:

In the preface to his book, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, Grant Palmer speaks approvingly of historical work done by the faculty of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History (pp. vii

[Pahoran]

Post part 2.

Mormons "lying for the Lord" began with Joseph Smith

Who said anything about "lying for the Lord?" Don't you know that that particular slogan is orthodox, canonical anti-Mormonism, and a dead giveaway as to your real position?

over his sexual liaisons

That's an unusual way to spell "plural marriage."

and translating ability.

Joseph explicitly claimed to have no ability to translate anything except by the gift and power of God. You of course reject that claim; but your ideology has not been established as a fact, and therefore you cannot describe his claims as "lying."

It continued through the polygamy "wars" vs. the SCOTUS and the local Fed authorities.

Call for references, please.

Abraham lied to Pharaoh.

Do you dispute that?

The Church keeps everything close to its chest. I maintain to my "apostate" brother that this is neither unique or unexpected, but it was "lying for the Lord" which was most paramount in his taking offense: his altruism is stronger than mine: I expect people to behave less than perfectly, and that includes telling the truth. I defend the Church's decision to keep the truth concealed when it would just be used to attack innocent people. I have no problem with lying under oath to defend polygamous marriages, etc. The Gov't would just abuse the truth. My problem wasn't human imperfection. It was pretending to one moral standard - even when forced to allow polygany for Nauvoos's elite "inner circle". To hold a completely different "standard" for himself makes Joseph Smith into something worse than a dishonest man at times: it totally changes sexual morality into a foreign concept, and makes a total mockery of his doctrine of "patriarchal marriage" as "the order of heaven".

Ooh, an "elite 'inner circle'." You know, if you tried just for a moment to suspend your pertinacious disbelief, it just might occur to you that teaching the principle on a confidential basis to the Church's leaders was necessary, while Joseph was still alive, to ensure that it would be carried on correctly after his death.

You still don't understand: I NEVER gave the time of day to blatantly anti-Mormon works. And I could usually spot them on the first or second page. They typically begin with something I am familiar with, and the moment they twist it to their agenda they've given themselves away. The books I have studied that inform are all written by LDS authors "in good standing" at the time.

And yet, you not only reach orthodox anti-Mormon conclusions, you even express them in exactly the same words as the writers you affect to despise. Even the slogan that "I relied upon exclusively Mormon sources" is a well-known anti-Mormon one, and has been a standard since at least the mid 1970's.

And the coincidences keep on piling up.

I see. The same sources referred to again for information by other LDS historians of the Nauvoo period, for instance? Or Joseph Smith's early history? The affidavits in "Mormonism unveiled" for instance? A good historian never dismisses a source out of hand permanently. S/he does not close the door on future significance in the light of further discovery. Thus the affidavits are compared, still, to each other and other sources of the period.

It doesn't matter how long you keep comparing them, they're still garbage.

I wasn't talking about secular history.

Then what were you talking about? Putting faith under the microscope? A moment's serious reflection demonstrates that that can never work.

I explained how I came across it, and why his name "sounded" familiar. I also just (reexplained) that I don't give anti-Mormon works the time of day: which means that I also have not been in the habit of searching for or looking over anti-Mormon Websites. I've tried talking on exmo fora and find the denizens incoherent, angry and shrill.

But you have difficulty believing what I say. So why are you bothering here?

There seems, frankly, to be something odd about someone who supposedly never bothers with anti-Mormon lit, enthusiastically promoting a well-known bit of anti-Mormon propaganda. I'm trying to resolve the "cognitive dissonance" this creates.

You are apparently a very smart, educated person. "Besting" me or anyone else in a point-by-point refutation will not strengthen your testimony very much or for very long....

Permit me to return the compliment: you seem far too intelligent to really believe that any large, complex body of historical data can ever yield just one interpretation that all scholars must inevitably accept; especially when key parts of it have to do with supernatural claims that are beyond the reach of secular scholarship. Either you have a real blind spot covering an apparently naive faith that the Church is about to roll over for some revisionist view of its founding events, or that's just a slogan you've adopted for proselyting purposes.

Now: remember those CFR's? You really ought to get onto them.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Questing Beast]

I'm having to break this post in two.

There's an old Jewish saying to the effect that if you ask the same question to three scholars, you'll get four opinions. Ask the same question to three Mormons, and you'll get just one opinion; and by a remarkable coincidence, they'll all chant, in unison, that they reached that opinion entirely by their own independent study. This phenomenon has been described as a "herd of independent thinkers."

The explanation for this phenomenon is simple. They didn't reach that opinion by means of "independent study" at all; that's just the PR spin around it. The reality is that they all get it from each other.

I omitted four letters is all. Interestingly, what you said (omitting "anti" only) applies precisely to the same "herd" mentality that you mock.

In fact, since I did not acquire what I accept as my current hypothesis from any anti-Mormon works, your asserted "Old Jewish" proverb applied to antis does not fit me, or my brother; or quite a number of other disaffected Mormons that I have met.

...

I won't discuss Palmer any further with you. I know what I read; and accept and reject or question that book like I do any other book I've read. Palmer's foibles and gaffs notwithstanding: his attempt to show the discrepancies, differences, or deliberate dismissal of the more copious sources of Joseph Smith's work (not just the simplified, selective, less reasonable or less logical history promoted by the Church), is an honest effort by a truth seeker. That remains my opinion, in spite of the criticism that he and his book have received from apologists.

"Exactly?" Let us pretend for just a moment that Joseph's sexual morality was what you wish to project upon him. How many people did he have killed to cover that up?

David did not have Uriah killed: he ordered a retreat without letting Uriah know so that he would be exposed to extreme danger and possibly killed. As believing Israelites, David and his sub-commanders would see Uriah's death as the Lord's will. As testing the Lord had apparently given David and Bathsheba what they wanted, he probably saw in Uriah's death the Lord's approval of his taking her to wife. Only Nathan the prophet knew the back story and got the confession out of David. None of this has anything to do with what I was pointing out: that David's sexual behavior was taken up by Joseph Smith (in spite of the BofM condemnation of it), and then made worse by polyandry. Even David did not try to get away with that.

Doctrine and Covenants 132:39; the section you know so well.

How very self-righteous of you. ...

No. D&C 132:41-43, 51. Joseph Smith's polyandry makes sense out of these otherwise cryptic verses. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander". But that's admittedly supposition on my part. The "official" exegesis on these verses is not related to polyandry, which the Church has never admitted or taught. And that's the problem addressed by this thread (McCue's letters).

What makes you think I've stopped looking? What does my moniker signify to you?

The same old schtick whereby every propagandist who comes here with the sure-fire "proof" that the Church is false describes themselves as an open-minded seeker after truth with on little question they'd like to discuss. The absurd Spalding-Rigdon theory enjoyed a brief resurgence here under that very banner.

I'm not attacking THE Church. I am pointing out the evidence that ALL dogmatic, organized religion is "false": in the sense that any one of them really has a legitimate, exclusive claim on "authority from God". Mormonism for the Mormons; Catholicism for the Catholics; Protestantism in all its variable denominations for the denominationalists; Judasim for the Jews; Islam for the Muslims (of various sects); and so on and so forth. And, let's not leave out the non religious: they are justified in tossing out the whole mess if they wish, and no one has the "authority" to judge them remiss in living justly without any religious affiliation whatsoever.

So then, you won't be too bitterly disappointed when the "changes" you so droolingly anticipate don't materialise?

Nope. I don't even anticipate any dramatic changes in my lifetime, should I live another c. 30 years....

[Jeff K.]

I'm not attacking THE Church. I am pointing out the evidence that ALL dogmatic, organized religion is "false": in the sense that any one of them really has a legitimate, exclusive claim on "authority from God". Mormonism for the Mormons; Catholicism for the Catholics; Protestantism in all its variable denominations for the denominationalists; Judasim for the Jews; Islam for the Muslims (of various sects); and so on and so forth. And, let's not leave out the non religious: they are justified in tossing out the whole mess if they wish, and no one has the "authority" to judge them remiss in living justly without any religious affiliation whatsoever.

In other words there is no authority to say what is right or wrong, and therefore all things are right, and all things are wrong, it is merely how you feel about the act at the time. Nor does God then imbue the idea of authority to declare right and wrong, but instead receives all those who "felt right" about certian acts regardless of the commandment He has given. God has not control, is not in control and the lunatics run the asylum. An interesting view of religion but one that I must reject because it makes a mockery of the atonement where Christ's suffering is dependent upon relativistic means where murder and rape are acceptable in one case and unacceptable in another. It also denies justice, which by its nature must be objective to the parties involved, and justice made the atonement necessary.

So there is no real repentence, there no real justice, and there is no atonement?

So the complete rejection of any and all religious precepts (at least among Christians) seems to be your point, or rather you seem to champion the idea that religion as a means to the next life is pointless. I find that to be almost comical in its falseness. Korihor would agree with you, I do not.

[Questing Beast]

Post part 2.

Who said anything about "lying for the Lord?" Don't you know that that particular slogan is orthodox, canonical anti-Mormonism, and a dead giveaway as to your real position?

I've only been focused on that from the getgo. Now you sound disingenuous. Of course it's ALL about "lying for the Lord"; from Joseph Smith's coverup/lying about polygamy (his adultery, let's call it what it is). The term is more Mormon-specific but predates any attack on Mormonism. Lying for the Lord" has been going on since religion began; oh, that would mean since recorded history began.

Joseph explicitly claimed to have no ability to translate anything except by the gift and power of God. You of course reject that claim; but your ideology has not been established as a fact, and therefore you cannot describe his claims as "lying."

He couldn't translate under any empirical "test" conditions.

Call for references, please.

Van Wagner's, "Mormon Polygamy".

Do you dispute that?

No, I'm saying "lying for the Lord" has been going on since the dawn of recorded history. And Abrahams grandson cheated his older brother out of the birthright. Maybe it's a "family affair" for the "chosen people".

Ooh, an "elite 'inner circle'." You know, if you tried just for a moment to suspend your pertinacious disbelief, it just might occur to you that teaching the principle on a confidential basis to the Church's leaders was necessary, while Joseph was still alive, to ensure that it would be carried on correctly after his death.

The term is Compton's, not mine.

And yet, you not only reach orthodox anti-Mormon conclusions, you even express them in exactly the same words as the writers you affect to despise. Even the slogan that "I relied upon exclusively Mormon sources" is a well-known anti-Mormon one, and has been a standard since at least the mid 1970's.

And the coincidences keep on piling up.

If I am using "anti speak", then it must be that the Mormon scholars have injected it into their books. E.g. "elite inner circle", is not complimentary from a TBM perspective; but it is accurate.

I wasn't talking about secular history.

Then what were you talking about? Putting faith under the microscope? A moment's serious reflection demonstrates that that can never work.

Students who take Church history courses do not get the information/sources that the critics have dragged out; that the Mormon scholars have subsequently examined and addressed in their books that have shed a broader light on Church history. None of that would be known to the students if it were not for these independent histories that are increasing in number. The Church has to face them and what their sources imply and say about the "faithful history" approach of the Church.

There seems, frankly, to be something odd about someone who supposedly never bothers with anti-Mormon lit, enthusiastically promoting a well-known bit of anti-Mormon propaganda. I'm trying to resolve the "cognitive dissonance" this creates.

As Hinckley, Packer, Oaks, et al. the GAs repeatedly say: the truth can be used by the devil too. So what you perceive as anti Mormon propaganda is probably the same written factual evidence twisted to a semblance of the truth. Yet what I believe is a lot closer to the truth than either the anti or pro Mormon slant. The "middle road" in learning is less likely to be blind-sided by extremist views.

...you seem far too intelligent to really believe that any large, complex body of historical data can ever yield just one interpretation that all scholars must inevitably accept; especially when key parts of it have to do with supernatural claims that are beyond the reach of secular scholarship. Either you have a real blind spot covering an apparently naive faith that the Church is about to roll over for some revisionist view of its founding events, or that's just a slogan you've adopted for proselyting purposes.

I've considered the metaphysical possibilities to explain away the inconsistencies. I keep coming back to the empirical evidence, and the lack of it where evidence should be found. I cannot explain away the well researched consideration that the Bible is a manmade book dating to the 8th century BCE; that scripture revisionism has been going on from the getgo; that religions are coercive and controlling monoliths when they go on long enough; that Mormonism is like watching a replay of the rise of primitive Christianity in the midst of paganism (with ironically Christianity as fragmented/varied now as paganism was back then, yet virtually the "state religion" now as paganism was back then); that Joseph Smith's visions and revelations are duplicated everywhere that religion springs up, and there is no method for separating one brand of metaphysical claims from the rest; and most specifically: that Joseph Smith IS the flawed religious genius I accept. He will seem thoroughly dishonest and fraudulent to some and a prophet of God to some. And to me, he is a product of his times, his religious motivation, his physical weakness/temptations, and his opportunities. My missionary son accepts him as "God's instrument" with full knowledge of what his excesses would cause to happen: a religion marginalized over "patriarchal marriage" and driven into the wilderness to thrive and grow strong. Whereas I see Joseph Smith as a religious genius only; the fourth great author of the "Abrahamic religions". But religion to my mind is just men seeking "God" by other means: dogmatic, assertive, controlling, even tyrannical in its worst forms. My personal religion wants nothing to do with any of it, and makes sense out of my childhood reservations and even repugnance - which I did my best to overcome by decades of adult compliance and study, hoping for that "testimony" that never came. And for years, I accepted that it was just not my lot to "know": I had to rely on the testimonies of those who do "know". I wasn't resentful, just disappointed. Now I am no longer disappointed, just a bit more wise than I was. And, my "vision" is much wider: to borrow a Joseph Smith phrase: "wide as eternity". I jumped off the cliff rather than retrace my steps back to where I have been. And the vista is often mist-shrouded, but never frightening or wrong. I accept my ignorance as natural, and I live in the moment, as true to my inner light (authentic self) as I can manage. I expect this to continue after I die; because I believe I have always been this way.

Now: remember those CFR's? You really ought to get onto them.

Regards,

Pahoran

I don't even recall what you are talking about....

[Pahoran]

I omitted four letters is all. Interestingly, what you said (omitting "anti" only) applies precisely to the same "herd" mentality that you mock.

You seem remarkably unobservant. On almost any thread where multiple LDS posters participate, you'll see multiple opinions.

In fact, since I did not acquire what I accept as my current hypothesis from any anti-Mormon works, your asserted "Old Jewish" proverb applied to antis does not fit me, or my brother; or quite a number of other disaffected Mormons that I have met.

They all say that.

I won't discuss Palmer any further with you.

Then you probably shouldn't have brought him up.

I know what I read; and accept and reject or question that book like I do any other book I've read. Palmer's foibles and gaffs notwithstanding: his attempt to show the discrepancies, differences, or deliberate dismissal of the more copious sources of Joseph Smith's work (not just the simplified, selective, less reasonable or less logical history promoted by the Church), is an honest effort by a truth seeker. That remains my opinion, in spite of the criticism that he and his book have received from apologists.

Oh, I'm sure that a disloyal sneak who pretended to discard his anti-Mormon activity, while continuing to work against his employer's interests while still accepting a salary from them, and who spent two decades working over a failed polemic to try to make it hold water, exactly matches your idea of "an honest effort by a truth seeker."

David did not have Uriah killed: he ordered a retreat without letting Uriah know so that he would be exposed to extreme danger and possibly killed.

I can just imagine what you would say if a Mormon apologist said something like that about something one of our leaders did. I wonder how long it would take you to trot out your utterly predictable anti-Mormon "lying for the Lord" slogan?

Now you might be interested to read this article. While the whole article is well worth a read, I'd particularly like to draw your attention to the section titled "The 'Myth of Objectivity' Revisited

[Questing Beast]

In other words there is no authority to say what is right or wrong, and therefore all things are right, and all things are wrong, it is merely how you feel about the act at the time.

"Never lie to yourself". That will get you (collective for all of us) in the end.

Nor does God then imbue the idea of authority to declare right and wrong, but instead receives all those who "felt right" about certian acts regardless of the commandment He has given.

Yes, basically. It is complicated and at the same time supremely simple: complicated because no two situations are alike, yet simple because your inner self KNOWS if you are acting justly or lying to yourself. (Those infamous and extremely rare individuals who seem to operate without conscience are possibly far from the light yet, or are "role-playing" for our benefit; helping to create the opposition through their heinous actions. This is part of the complication.)

God has not control, is not in control and the lunatics run the asylum.

Now you're just being emotional. Maybe the concept is somewhat frightening and you are reacting with anger.

An interesting view of religion but one that I must reject because it makes a mockery of the atonement where Christ's suffering is dependent upon relativistic means where murder and rape are acceptable in one case and unacceptable in another. It also denies justice, which by its nature must be objective to the parties involved, and justice made the atonement necessary.

The atonement is the fundamental difficulty in defining "God" as all powerful and all knowledgeable. Christ is redundant. "God" can save alone. Perhaps "Christian salvation" is a concept for conveying the eternal truth: that "God" never lacks the power to "save", and will go to any means or extreme necessary in order to save anyone. As "time is measured only to man", "God" has no time limit in which to accomplish the redemption of every soul. We learn what misery is by being here. Our immortal selves are not in misery or Joy without these contrasts. So we come here to discover that one state is infinitely preferred over the opposite.

But I believe that the "Jesus Story" is literally real, and it is a myth. Just ask any two people and you will get one or the other; or neither, because most of us simply don't know.

So there is no real repentence, there no real justice, and there is no atonement?

Justice is real: perfect mercy is perfectly just. And there is no statute of limitations or time limit on justice. "God" overrules all.

There is redemption, which is what the atonement causes. I do not believe in a historically real Jesus Christ as the same person in the NT. I believe that the religion manufactured his persona, role, Godhood, miracles, etc. Everything grows with the retelling - just listen to Hinckley's panegyrics over our Pioneer ancestors for an early stage in the process of myth-making. Early Christian scriptures are all long after the fact of the events they describe. And it has been 2K years ferpetesakes! There is no evidence to separate out the fact from the mythology. Joseph Smith's clarity is good for Mormons, but fails to be substantive enough to convince anyone else.

So the complete rejection of any and all religious precepts (at least among Christians) seems to be your point, or rather you seem to champion the idea that religion as a means to the next life is pointless. I find that to be almost comical in its falseness. Korihor would agree with you, I do not.

Hah! Korihor has been invoked against me for the first time. Amazing, and funny! I am not promoting his philosophy one iota. Find anywhere that I am doing so, if you can, out of anything I've said.

Korihor was disbelieving for the stock reason that causes dogmatic authority to arise: he was advocating that he could do as he pleased because there is no "God" to overrule the affairs of men: Korihor wanted license to pursue his carnal desires, and dispensed with "God" as the first means to that end. By getting rid of "God", some people are then free of justice. They "prosper according to the strength/management of the creature". The strongest conquer. To alleviate this feared tendency in men who give into their darkness/injustice, the "church" has always held forth that the afterlife will judge wickedness and administer eternal punishment: if you die (are "cut off in the very thought") while unredeemed, then you are damned forever, etc. By using fear-mongering, SOME otherwise fearless souls toss religion, "God", justice, to the winds and pursue their own selfish and destructive way. That is why the axiom is true, that: "Religion makes bad men good, and good men better". But the means to convince the wicked to behave good instead of bad is often coercive even immoral in the methodology: "lying for the Lord" is essential to convince the worst of men to behave. Korihor was offended by that approach, denied it, and fought to achieve his own agenda which was totally self-serving. The story illustrates what it was intended to teach: "wickedness never was happiness", again and again.

In contrast to Korihor, I do believe in justice above all; because, as I said, Justice is perfect mercy. Or say it the other way, both ways are equally true. But it's complicated "down here" by the imperfections of our nature. And so we have this "laboratory" in which to learn opposition, so that we can determine just what Joy is and how to grow it. Korihor wasn't about Joy: he was all about physical pleasure, feeding "the creature", at the expense of anyone in its way.

(And BTW, I have never met a "Korihor" in my life. Everyone I've met and known appears to me to be largely "light" instead of "darkness". I've read or heard of a handful of such beings; but they are as inconceivable as the boogieman or mythological evildoers, like Korihor....)

[Kevin Christensen]

Questing Beast's comment here:

I do not believe in a historically real Jesus Christ as the same person in the NT. I believe that the religion manufactured his persona, role, Godhood, miracles, etc. Everything grows with the retelling - just listen to Hinckley's panegyrics over our Pioneer ancestors for an early stage in the process of myth-making. Early Christian scriptures are all long after the fact of the events they describe. And it has been 2K years ferpetesakes! There is no evidence to separate out the fact from the mythology.

This reminds me of the rather different perspectives that support why I believe in a historically real Jesus, and that the Jesus of History is the Christ of Faith. In a recent essay (Temple Theology, 2009, at her website) Margaret Barker discusses how scholars whose ideas QB echoes here have dealt with evidence:

Or ask what prophecy Jesus had in mind on the road to Emmaus when he

explained to the disciples that the Messiah had to suffer and then enter his glory.

There is no such text in our present Old Testament. But there is in the Qumran

Isaiah: one extra letter in Isaiah 52.14, and three extra letters in Isaiah 53.11 give

an entirely different meaning to the passage. It becomes the text Jesus knew, about

the anointed one who suffers and then sees the light of the glory.

These suggestions - and the evidence shows that they are actually far more

than just suggestions - are disturbing to people have a sceptical view of the

origin of Christianity, and are confident in their scepticism. Prof. Thiede

challenged this negative attitude to Christian origins, and so provoked strong

reactions with his interpretation of the finds in Cave 7, and with his

arguments that the gospels were early and reliable texts. The controversy

over the use of the Sacred Name in the Magdalen papyrus also drew strong

criticism from supporters of the prevailing scepticism. Did the use of Kurios as

13

a title for Jesus mean that the disciples thought he was divine, as Prof. Thiede

suggested?

[WalkerW]

The article referenced by Kevin can be found here.