Jeff K. Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Jeff K., on 10 March 2011 - 09:50 AM, said:I haven't seen anyone attempting to cover anything up in this discussion. I have however seen people attempt to explain what was and was not pertinent.BCSpace, on 05 March 2011 - 12:37 PM, said:I don't know about that, but the evidence does not suggest he taught Adam-God but rather Adam Sr./Jr.Here's one.Funny, to me it was a suggestion of evidence, not a cover up. A cover up entails knowing something is inconsistent and then actively hiding it. Not suggesting that the inconsistency itself may be a question of interpretation. The former tends to lend itself to paranoia and conspiracy theories.
consiglieri Posted March 10, 2011 Author Posted March 10, 2011 Consig,I am having a hard time figuring out this line. So if Pahoran knew about all 22 of these quotes, and lets say he does indeed obfuscates, how is that the "Church covering up it's past"?The Church is covering up its past by poo-pooing the idea that Brigham Young ever taught such a thing, and then saying it is false doctrine. (See 1976 Ensign quote from President Kimball above.)Pahoran is an accomplice because he is fully aware of the fact that Brigham Young did teach such a thing, but tries to hide it from people under a pile of obfuscation a yard deep.All the Best!--Consiglieri
consiglieri Posted March 10, 2011 Author Posted March 10, 2011 The reality is that Pahoran new about them, that alone does not suggest a cover up. Now, if Pahoran indeed obfuscates then one might be able to claim that "Pahoran is covering up the churches past".Looks like you edited your post at the same time I was typing my response, Mola."If Pahoran indeed obfuscates . . ."Seriously.Look up the word "obfuscate" in the dictionary.You'll find Pahoran's picture.All the Best!--Consiglieri
consiglieri Posted March 10, 2011 Author Posted March 10, 2011 Yes, that is the sole motivating factor in their cursade. It is that they will sleep better at night defending something they don't really believe.I think you are telling more truth than you may intend, Mola!But they sleep better not because they are defending something they don't really believe, but because they have successfully steadied the ark against the attempts of "anti-Mormons" to shine a little truth on their constricted and overcast world view.Nothing keeps you from sleeping like a bright light in the face . . .All the Best!--Consiglieri
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Looks like you edited your post at the same time I was typing my response, Mola."If Pahoran indeed obfuscates . . ."Seriously.Look up the word "obfuscate" in the dictionary.You'll find Pahoran's picture.All the Best!--ConsiglieriLol.Any way to your other post.This is what I say about the quote. I am not sure I agree with your interpretation. That is ok (I hope).Why do I say that? Lets say I agree completely with your interpretation that President Kimball denies that it was ever taught and is false. The fact that so many people knew about it before and after his statement suggest to me that he just did not know what he was talking about. It hardly suggest a cover up. I mean people could get their hands on the 26 volume set before he said this. And they could get it after he said this.You should know Consig, that I don't hold you as an anti-mormon. I think you have some very intersting points. Some of these other threads have caused me to pause a bit.Are you really upset you got released? FYI you can come to my ward and take my new calling if you want. You might like it.SSP.
Jeff K. Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 ConsigYou are presuming a great deal. You presume for instance that differing opinions cannot at times be dismissed by other people of differing opinions. This is not a conspiracy to cover things up. It is merely the dismissal of different opinions. I recall McConkies view of evolution and how he held the theory in low esteem and yet that does not ascertain a "cover up" of others who felt evolution to be a stronger theory.My question would be wondering why you feel the need to magnify something in order to create the flavor of conspiracy rather than understand that distinct theories that aren't doctrine often come and go in favor and out of favor with the church. Will some consig in the future claim alternatively that various Book of Mormon theories espoused by different apostles and prophets were somehow covered up? Or do we understand as we do now, that those self same theories may be advanced based on popular views as well as dismissed (and then perhaps advanced again when more evidence comes to light)?
consiglieri Posted March 10, 2011 Author Posted March 10, 2011 A cover up entails knowing something is inconsistent and then actively hiding it. As semlogo observed earlier, coming up with a crackpot theory (like Adam Jr. and Adam Sr.) to "make sense" of the evidence is its own form of cover-up.
Deborah Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 The Church is covering up its past by poo-pooing the idea that Brigham Young ever taught such a thing, and then saying it is false doctrine. (See 1976 Ensign quote from President Kimball above.)I am failing to see how saying it's false doctrine in the church magazine is a cover-up when the fact that it's being openly discussed in a church magazine is evidence it's in the open.
Jeff K. Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 As semlogo observed earlier, coming up with a crackpot theory (like Adam Jr. and Adam Sr.) to "make sense" of the evidence is its own form of cover-up.Are you sure you aren't engaging in some conspiracy acts by poo pooing a theory and calling it crack pot? Aren't you suffering from what you accuse others?
consiglieri Posted March 10, 2011 Author Posted March 10, 2011 I am failing to see how saying it's false doctrine in the church magazine is a cover-up when the fact that it's being openly discussed in a church magazine is evidence it's in the open."alleged to have been taught by past presidents . . ."
consiglieri Posted March 10, 2011 Author Posted March 10, 2011 Are you sure you aren't engaging in some conspiracy acts by poo pooing a theory and calling it crack pot? Aren't you suffering from what you accuse others?You are so far through the looking glass on this one, we are now speaking different languages.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 As semlogo observed earlier, coming up with a crackpot theory (like Adam Jr. and Adam Sr.) to "make sense" of the evidence is its own form of cover-up.Um.... THe church has never offically tried to make sense of it. Other independant people have tried to make sense. The only thing they (The church) have maintained is that it is not offical doctrine. BTW you can still buy the 26 volume set that contains BY sermons on the matter.
Jeff K. Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 You are so far through the looking glass on this one, we are now speaking different languages.Sorry, but a casual dismissal from you means that you have lost the argument and are merely attempting to save face. Try to do better next time.
Jeff K. Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Um.... THe church has never offically tried to make sense of it. Other independant people have tried to make sense. The only thing they (The church) have maintained is that it is not offical doctrine. BTW you can still buy the 26 volume set that contains BY sermons on the matter.Which speaks volumes to the lack of a "cover up" as Consig so desperately want to fan the flames for. In a way it reminds me of the neighborhood gossip on a slow day.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 "alleged to have been taught by past presidents . . ."You know what they say,THat a leader of the church saying something on an isolated event seems to indicate his opinion of the matter and does not represent offical doctrine.
consiglieri Posted March 10, 2011 Author Posted March 10, 2011 Sorry, but a casual dismissal from you means that you have lost the argument and are merely attempting to save face. Try to do better next time.I cannot argue constructively with somebody who believes Jews flew airplanes into the Twin Towers on September 11th.Like the Two-Adam Nonsense, it is an alternate theory to explain away an indisputable fact.It is also a cover-up to avoid the reality of what happened.Hence even an alternate theory can constitute a cover-up.All the Best!--Consiglieri
consiglieri Posted March 10, 2011 Author Posted March 10, 2011 THat a leader of the church saying something on an isolated event seems to indicate his opinion of the matter and does not represent offical doctrine.Only if they're dead and aren't in a position to argue about it.Brigham Young's statements were not isolated but repeated over and over and ultimately made part of the temple endowment.People who know better and say it was an isolated event are also part of the cover-up.(I don't mean you by this, Mola. But I expect others to whom it applies will figure it out.)All the Best!--Consiglieri
consiglieri Posted March 10, 2011 Author Posted March 10, 2011 Which speaks volumes to the lack of a "cover up" as Consig so desperately want to fan the flames for. In a way it reminds me of the neighborhood gossip on a slow day.This strategy is also part of the cover-up.Thanks for the illustration, Jeff.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Only if they're dead and aren't in a position to argue about it.Brigham Young's statements were not isolated but repeated over and over and ultimately made part of the temple endowment.I think you have mis-understood who I was talking about. I was not talking about BY but SWK with regards to no one teaching it.People who know better and say it was an isolated event are also part of the cover-up.(I don't mean you by this, Mola. But I expect others to whom it applies will figure it out.)All the Best!--ConsiglieriNo worries. I need to go get some over priced ice cream.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 This strategy is also part of the cover-up.Thanks for the illustration, Jeff.Hmmmm. For some reason I can't take this seriously. Any way carry on.
consiglieri Posted March 10, 2011 Author Posted March 10, 2011 Hmmmm. For some reason I can't take this seriously. I know what you mean.I'm starting to sound paranoid even to me.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 I know what you mean.I'm starting to sound paranoid even to me.Hahahahha. I think I get what is going on. Even if I don't it has been fun.
consiglieri Posted March 10, 2011 Author Posted March 10, 2011 Hahahahha. I think I get what is going on. Even if I don't it has been fun.Get me some overpriced ice cream, too, will ya?
sjdawg Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 I don't think the question should be does the LDS Church "cover up" their past. I think perhaps a more appropriate question would be "Should the LDS Church be more forthcoming about what they know about their history and more willing to openly recognize their mistakes (past and future)?
Deborah Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 I don't think the question should be does the LDS Church "cover up" their past. I think perhaps a more appropriate question would be "Should the LDS Church be more forthcoming about what they know about their history and more willing to openly recognize their mistakes (past and future)?I think the fact that the Joseph Smith Papers project is going on with the church's approval shows they are being more forthcoming. But saying that I don't think that means they were necessarily "covering up" anything in the past. "Recognizing mistakes" depends on whether you think there were mistakes.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.