Mortal Man Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 Although this will infuriate most of the apologists here, I feel compelled to proclaim that .All human beings—male and female—are created with the unalienable right to use their own minds to search out truth for themselves. Intellect is an essential characteristic of individual identity and purpose. I call upon responsible Sunday school teachers and RS/EQ instructors everywhere to show this video and promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen families and friendships.
bluebell Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 As a responsible RS teacher, I'm not going to show that video. Not because it may not be beneficial to watch but because responsible RS/EQ and GD teachers in the church do not set their own curriculum. As a responsible RS instructor i understand that it's not MY class to teach whatever i feel is beneficial. It's the church's class which i have been asked to teach and the church has provided material for their class so that i can do such.
consiglieri Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 As a responsible RS instructor i understand that it's not MY class to teach whatever i feel is beneficial. It's the church's class which i have been asked to teach and the church has provided material for their class so that i can do such.And here I keep thinking we are the Church. Seriously, though, is this position just an example of, "When the Church leaders speak, the thinking has been done"?All the Best!--Consiglieri
Whiskeypete Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 I think this is kind of silly.He brings up all these things about Joseph Smith and Church history that he was never taught and how the difference between what he was taught and what the actual history is can lead people away from the Church.First, almost all of the sources he mentions for the new, surprising history seem to be from Church Magazines and manuals. I don't care if he is a 6th generation Mormon descended from Ezra T. Benson, just because HE didn't pay attention in class or read his Ensign each month doesn't mean that the Church is lying about it's history.Second, I'll concede the point that the Church doesn't go out of it's way to make sure every member is informed on every detail of Church History. There is also a tendency to whitewash things that might seem "peculiar" when you don't know the whole story. I don't expect the missionaries to start a door approach with "Can I tell you about Joseph Smith's multiple accounts of the First Vision" any more than I expect the Catholic Catechism to start with an explanation of the great schism or Lucria Borgia. But my guess is that when people learn this "new" information and then leave the church, they are only completing an apostasy that they have already begun in their hearts. If they were in tune at all with the Spirit, they would be prompted to understand the context and it wouldn't be a faith-destroying-revelation. Most of the posters on this board who are LDS are aware of all of this shocking information and it doesn't challenge their testimonies.Third, one of the key words that tipped me off to his motives is the use of the word "ONLY" when referring to the multiple accounts of the first vision. An accurate statement is that in the 1832 version, Joseph spoke of seeing Christ. In the 1838 version, he gave more details, stating that there were two personages... When ever an anti-mormon uses that argument, they alway insert the word "only" in there: "In 1832 Joseph said he ONLY saw Jesus."This brother backs off slightly, by stating that Joseph ONLY said that he saw Jesus. Subtle difference: the first is an anti-mormon distortion, the second is technically correct but you can see what direction his ship is sailing. He's already picking up the anti-mormon lingo.
thesometimesaint Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 cinepro:Just the opposite. When the Church leadership speaks it is just the beginning of thinking on your own dime.
Avatar4321 Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 I think this is kind of silly.He brings up all these things about Joseph Smith and Church history that he was never taught and how the difference between what he was taught and what the actual history is can lead people away from the Church.First, almost all of the sources he mentions for the new, surprising history seem to be from Church Magazines and manuals. I don't care if he is a 6th generation Mormon descended from Ezra T. Benson, just because HE didn't pay attention in class or read his Ensign each month doesn't mean that the Church is lying about it's history.Second, I'll concede the point that the Church doesn't go out of it's way to make sure every member is informed on every detail of Church History. There is also a tendency to whitewash things that might seem "peculiar" when you don't know the whole story. I don't expect the missionaries to start a door approach with "Can I tell you about Joseph Smith's multiple accounts of the First Vision" any more than I expect the Catholic Catechism to start with an explanation of the great schism or Lucria Borgia. But my guess is that when people learn this "new" information and then leave the church, they are only completing an apostasy that they have already begun in their hearts. If they were in tune at all with the Spirit, they would be prompted to understand the context and it wouldn't be a faith-destroying-revelation. Most of the posters on this board who are LDS are aware of all of this shocking information and it doesn't challenge their testimonies.Third, one of the key words that tipped me off to his motives is the use of the word "ONLY" when referring to the multiple accounts of the first vision. An accurate statement is that in the 1832 version, Joseph spoke of seeing Christ. In the 1838 version, he gave more details, stating that there were two personages... When ever an anti-mormon uses that argument, they alway insert the word "only" in there: "In 1832 Joseph said he ONLY saw Jesus."This brother backs off slightly, by stating that Joseph ONLY said that he saw Jesus. Subtle difference: the first is an anti-mormon distortion, the second is technically correct but you can see what direction his ship is sailing. He's already picking up the anti-mormon lingo.I've never understood that argument myself. The Church is lying about history and they try to prove it by quoting Church publications. If they are lying, they are doing a pretty bad job at the attempt.
Mortal Man Posted April 7, 2011 Author Posted April 7, 2011 As a responsible RS teacher, I'm not going to show that video. Not because it may not be beneficial to watch but because responsible RS/EQ and GD teachers in the church do not set their own curriculum. As a responsible RS instructor i understand that it's not MY class to teach whatever i feel is beneficial. It's the church's class which i have been asked to teach and the church has provided material for their class so that i can do such.The Correlation Committee is too paralyzed by fear and denial to act responsibly in this matter. The deny/obfuscate/whitewash approach has failed. The more they tighten their grip, the more members will slip through their fingers. The rank-and-file must take matters into their own hands before thousands more families are destroyed.
BCSpace Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 Although this will infuriate most of the apologists here, I feel compelled to proclaim that John Dehlin gets it.All human beings—male and female—are created with the unalienable right to use their own minds to search out truth for themselves. Intellect is an essential characteristic of individual identity and purpose.I am not infuriated and I agree that everyone can and should use their own minds in searching for the truth. Such is exactly what the Church teaches. I felt no need to watch the video.
Mortal Man Posted April 7, 2011 Author Posted April 7, 2011 I think this is kind of silly.I'm sure you do.He brings up all these things about Joseph Smith and Church history that he was never taught and how the difference between what he was taught and what the actual history is can lead people away from the Church.First, almost all of the sources he mentions for the new, surprising history seem to be from Church Magazines and manuals. I don't care if he is a 6th generation Mormon descended from Ezra T. Benson, just because HE didn't pay attention in class or read his Ensign each month doesn't mean that the Church is lying about it's history....when people learn this "new" information and then leave the church, they are only completing an apostasy that they have already begun in their hearts. If they were in tune at all with the Spirit, they would be prompted to understand the context and it wouldn't be a faith-destroying-revelation.This is called, "blaming the victim."Most of the posters on this board who are LDS are aware of all of this shocking information and it doesn't challenge their testimonies.Except for the BoA, what Dehlin presents in his video is actually rather superficial. There are far more problematic issues for those who study the texts in depth.Third, one of the key words that tipped me off to his motives is the use of the word "ONLY" when referring to the multiple accounts of the first vision. An accurate statement is that in the 1832 version, Joseph spoke of seeing Christ. In the 1838 version, he gave more details, stating that there were two personages... When ever an anti-mormon uses that argument, they alway insert the word "only" in there: "In 1832 Joseph said he ONLY saw Jesus."This brother backs off slightly, by stating that Joseph ONLY said that he saw Jesus. Subtle difference: the first is an anti-mormon distortion, the second is technically correct but you can see what direction his ship is sailing. He's already picking up the anti-mormon lingo.It's pretty easy to call someone an "anti-Mormon" isn't it?
Avatar4321 Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 The Correlation Committee is too paralyzed by fear and denial to act responsibly in this matter. The deny/obfuscate/whitewash approach has failed. The more they tighten their grip, the more members will slip through their fingers. The rank-and-file must take matters into their own hands before thousands more families are destroyed.I think you are kind of paranoid...
kolipoki09 Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 I think this is kind of silly.He brings up all these things about Joseph Smith and Church history that he was never taught and how the difference between what he was taught and what the actual history is can lead people away from the Church.First, almost all of the sources he mentions for the new, surprising history seem to be from Church Magazines and manuals. I don't care if he is a 6th generation Mormon descended from Ezra T. Benson, just because HE didn't pay attention in class or read his Ensign each month doesn't mean that the Church is lying about it's history.Second, I'll concede the point that the Church doesn't go out of it's way to make sure every member is informed on every detail of Church History. There is also a tendency to whitewash things that might seem "peculiar" when you don't know the whole story. I don't expect the missionaries to start a door approach with "Can I tell you about Joseph Smith's multiple accounts of the First Vision" any more than I expect the Catholic Catechism to start with an explanation of the great schism or Lucria Borgia. But my guess is that when people learn this "new" information and then leave the church, they are only completing an apostasy that they have already begun in their hearts. If they were in tune at all with the Spirit, they would be prompted to understand the context and it wouldn't be a faith-destroying-revelation. Most of the posters on this board who are LDS are aware of all of this shocking information and it doesn't challenge their testimonies.Third, one of the key words that tipped me off to his motives is the use of the word "ONLY" when referring to the multiple accounts of the first vision. An accurate statement is that in the 1832 version, Joseph spoke of seeing Christ. In the 1838 version, he gave more details, stating that there were two personages... When ever an anti-mormon uses that argument, they alway insert the word "only" in there: "In 1832 Joseph said he ONLY saw Jesus."This brother backs off slightly, by stating that Joseph ONLY said that he saw Jesus. Subtle difference: the first is an anti-mormon distortion, the second is technically correct but you can see what direction his ship is sailing. He's already picking up the anti-mormon lingo.John is a nice guy, but most of the time I find myself disagreeing with him. No one is free from their own biases and misunderstandings. John tends to view early Church history through the lenses of Grant Palmer's "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins." I've found this perspective to be dramatically problematic for a number of reasons, but that's me. John has a fan club of 3,000+ liberal, cultural, and ex-Mormons. By and large I've found John dismissive of most of the faith claims of the Church. Perhaps that's why MM regards John's message as a breath of fresh air.
bluebell Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 And here I keep thinking we are the Church. Seriously, though, is this position just an example of, "When the Church leaders speak, the thinking has been done"?All the Best!--ConsiglieriNo, it's an example of 'the church has given me topics to teach, which i have agreed to teach, so therefore, i will do what i agreed to do'I'm a member of the church, i'm not the church.
bluebell Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 The Correlation Committee is too paralyzed by fear and denial to act responsibly in this matter. The deny/obfuscate/whitewash approach has failed. The more they tighten their grip, the more members will slip through their fingers. The rank-and-file must take matters into their own hands before thousands more families are destroyed.I disagree.I have no doubt that the Cor. Com. is not perfect. But the answer isn't member vigilanteism.
Mortal Man Posted April 7, 2011 Author Posted April 7, 2011 I think you are kind of paranoid...It's not being paranoid if they really are out to get you.
Monster Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 Whether the church whitewashes its history or not is not as relevant as the fact that the history is full of problems for logically thinking peoples. The church can deny or expose the scandals in the early history, but it does not change the fact that they happened. Each individual is going to have to decide whether they are deal breakers or not.For me personally it is difficult to adapt my thinking to believe that polygamy was instructed of God considering how it was rolled out. The Book of Abraham a translation of ancient text I do not think so. The Kirtland bank scandal swept under the rug? Not for me. These are just a few examples that I find problematic. I just can not rationalize them away. For others this is not an issue and they can maintain their belief in the church. It is just a matter of which straw is going to break the proverbial camels back. I can say the more you study the actual history the more likely its seems you will walk away. I am not sure how but the church will have to address it at some point. Maybe not for years but at some point it will have to adapt or wither. IMHO
Mortal Man Posted April 7, 2011 Author Posted April 7, 2011 John is a nice guy, but most of the time I find myself disagreeing with him. No one is free from their own biases and misunderstandings. John tends to view early Church history through the lenses of Grant Palmer's "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins." I've found this perspective to be dramatically problematic for a number of reasons, but that's me. John has a fan club of 3,000+ liberal, cultural, and ex-Mormons. By and large I've found John dismissive of most of the faith claims of the Church. Perhaps that's why MM regards John's message as a breath of fresh air.John is simply a guy who would have said, "Hey, maybe there's an alternative to imprisoning Galileo."And FWIW, I'm a conservative Mormon.
Mortal Man Posted April 7, 2011 Author Posted April 7, 2011 I have no doubt that the Cor. Com. is not perfect. But the answer isn't member vigilanteism.Yes, member vigilantism! I like the sound of that! consiglieri, could I get you to head that up?
volgadon Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 John is a nice guy, but most of the time I find myself disagreeing with him. No one is free from their own biases and misunderstandings. John tends to view early Church history through the lenses of Grant Palmer's "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins." I've found this perspective to be dramatically problematic for a number of reasons, but that's me. John has a fan club of 3,000+ liberal, cultural, and ex-Mormons. By and large I've found John dismissive of most of the faith claims of the Church. Perhaps that's why MM regards John's message as a breath of fresh air.I think your assesment is on the money. John is indeed a nice guy, and he did an excellent job of explaining to me why someone would want to be a cultural Mormon, as opposed to just leaving. Coming from a country where the LDS community is an extremely tiny numbers-wise, the idea of sticking in the church without believing the core-doctrines or faith claims struck me as very odd indeed.However, when it comes to LDS history, you are right, he does seem to view it through a Palmerian lens.
Sargon Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 I can say the more you study the actual history the more likely its seems you will walk away. I am not sure how but the church will have to address it at some point. Maybe not for years but at some point it will have to adapt or wither. IMHOExcept of course for the thousands of LDS who have studied the "actual history" and did not walk away. It is a curious thing that two individuals faced with the same set of facts can arrive at completely opposite conclusions about those facts. Religion is one such area in which that happens all the time, and Mormonism is but one relatively minor example of it. As for Dehlin, I know he is sincere and that he thinks is helping, but it is difficult to help someone with spiritual issues when you yourself are not well grounded spiritually. He doesn't believe the supernatural claims of the LDS Church, he doesn't keep his Temple covenants, and he takes every opportunity to poke the Church in the eye. It can't be said that he is a "friend" of the LDS Church. His reassurances that he is an "active" LDS is disingenuous and about as clever as those who claim that Thomas Murphy is a "Mormon" scientist.The best place, outside of the Church, for people with doubts about LDS Church history and doctrine is FAIR.
Hamba Tuhan Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 I can say the more you study the actual history the more likely its seems you will walk away. I am not sure how but the church will have to address it at some point. Maybe not for years but at some point it will have to adapt or wither. IMHOInterestingly, amongst the thousands of Latter-day Saints who actually experienced firsthand some of what you claim has broken your back (polygamy, the Kirtland bank failure, etc.), a certain percentage walked away whilst many, many others did not, suggesting that the difference has nothing whatsoever to do with one's closeness to events/issues you just mentioned.
Mortal Man Posted April 7, 2011 Author Posted April 7, 2011 Except of course for the thousands of LDS who have studied the "actual history" and did not walk away.Those whose desire to believe exceeds their desire for the truth "walk away." Those who crave truth like they crave air stay and ponder.It is a curious thing that two individuals faced with the same set of facts can arrive at completely opposite conclusions about those facts. Religion is one such area in which that happens all the time, and Mormonism is but one relatively minor example of it.Some are content to glance at the mouth of the cave and declare spiritual victory in surviving it. Others are compelled to spelunk their way down into its deepest bowels.As for Dehlin, I know he is sincere and that he thinks is helping, but it is difficult to help someone with spiritual issues when you yourself are not well grounded spiritually. He doesn't believe the supernatural claims of the LDS Church, he doesn't keep his Temple covenants, and he takes every opportunity to poke the Church in the eye. It can't be said that he is a "friend" of the LDS Church. His reassurances that he is an "active" LDS is disingenuous and about as clever as those who claim that Thomas Murphy is a "Mormon" scientist."Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."The best place, outside of the Church, for people with doubts about LDS Church history and doctrine is FAIR.FAIR is a bandaid for those who've just had their legs blown off.
TAO Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 FAIR is a bandaid for those who've just had their legs blown off.Hehe, it works pretty well. It must be better than a med-pack XD.Super-FAIR-bandaid to the rescue!
kolipoki09 Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 MM, I hope I'm not being too presumptuous in asking you this, but why do you stay in the Church? What motivates you to remain a Latter-day Saint in spite of what appears (IMO) to be a fairly cynical attitude toward Mormonism?
kolipoki09 Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 FAIR is a bandaid for those who've just had their legs blown off.Or perhaps, chopped off. Have at you!
blackstrap Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 And yet,despite an enormous amount of "history" , there are still millions of Catholics,Muslims,Jews,Protestants, Hindus,etc. Mass hysteria is rampant.Will it never end? Please,God( oops,sorry) let rationality prevail !!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.