Why Is Revelation So Offensive To The World?

[Vance]

Not only that, but Lucy's account is entirely dependent on the official account (quoted from Times & Seasons). In fact, the statement you quoted follows a lengthy passage in which Lucy simply quotes the official account instead of giving her own.

And she is quoting it because it accurately reflects her recollections. So she is seconding JS witness.

Thus she is a second witness to the persecution mention.

[bookofmormontruth]

No good deed goes unpunished. Your website home page included a quotation (used affirmatively) from A Course in Miracles, a New Age book supposedly dictated by Jesus Christ to Helen Schucman. The book denies that sin and evil exist and teaches a number of other obviously false doctrines that any Mormon would instantly reject. I politely suggested to you that such a quotation was not in keeping with your LDS beliefs and that if I were you I would remove it, as it could prove an embarrassment to you. You did remove it, which shows you recognized that what I was saying was correct. I could just as easily have posted something here exposing your lack of discernment in quoting such a book, but instead I communicated with you privately to save you the embarrassment.

CFR that this New Age book was "dictated by the Lord" to Helen Schucman and had "other obviously false doctrines".

Now you have forced me to expose not only your lack of discernment but your utter lack of honesty about what happened.

My lack of honesty? Really?

Rob, you have desperately gone too far and have forced me to reveal the truth to clear myself from your pathetic and unfounded accusations. You also wouldn't know what discernment was all about even if it hit you with a bag of bricks!

Rob Bowman, on 30 May 2011 - 07:38 PM, said:

Doc,

It wasn't about what was acceptable to me. I thought I was doing you a courtesy by privately bringing the matter to your attention, rather than publicly embarrassing you by posting something online about your lack of discernment (which would have been very easy to do). This, despite the fact that you have repeatedly questioned my sincerity and integrity publicly.

Don't expect a second occurrence.

--Rob Bowman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nice try Rob, I know you were just being petty.

Even knowing you were being petty for bringing up your dirty laundry and offensive material on your own website, I wanted to show you how it was done and removed the material that you found questionable (which we both know was very weak). I understand you can't do the same, I hone$tly do.

If there is a need of a "second occurrence", please do bring it up publicly - no problems there for the website is just for entertainment purposes, not my livelihood.

And I (a non-apologist / average day young LDS member) apologize for embarrassing you, not my intentions.

Doc

As the world can see from our unneeded conversation:

I removed the quote to show you how it should be done (as an honest and honorable critic should do) and removed the material that you found "questionable". Not because I found it "embarrassing" (your own projections for what I exposed on your sad of an excuse website) or that I found it "controversial" (another projection of your website endorsing sacred Temple material) which I would have no problem putting the same quote up today.

In fact, to teach you again that you are wrong on all accounts (imagine that!), I will put back up the quote. "No evidence will convince you of the truth of what you do no want" Hellen Schucman. A Course In Miracles, 202. Wow! what a "questionable" quote.

In complete contrast of my honesty and real integrity in being concerned with those who feel my website material is "objectionable", you blatantly leave up the sacred Temple material to mock the legitimate concerns of faithful LDS members who are offended by it. You have lost all credibility, period.

I would rather deal with ravenous wolves and foam drooling anti-Mormons with pitchforks than deal with Rob Bowman. But I will have to admit, it is entertaining getting under his thin skin as shown by his petty private messages.

[bookofmormontruth]

Oh sure Rob, just because you quote one line from a book must mean you endorse the entire book! Hogwash plain and simple. How many lines have you quoted from the Book of Mormon? I doubt you would call that any kind of an endorsement from the great and irrelevant Rob Bowman!

You were clearly indicating that it was somehow dishonest of him to be reading books which might be considered heretical in some LDS circles.

Dance all you want.

Even though I haven't read the book in its entirety (would rather read correct doctrines), I don't agree with everything that is said in the the "Course of Miracles. Just loved one quote that was relevant for my personal website.

I received the book from my fiance before she was baptized last year into the Lord's Church. She absolutely loved the book and couldn't put it down until I gave her the Book of Mormon. Now, she can't put the Book of Mormon down and probably can't even remember the Course of Miracles book.

The book symbolizes a lot for me and in a way it brought my fiance to the truth of all things. Just another thing that Rob wants to focu$ on, criticize and mock.

[cinepro]

Even though I haven't read the book in its entirety (would rather read correct doctrines), I don't agree with everything that is said in the the "Course of Miracles. Just loved one quote that was relevant for my personal website.

As far as I can tell, you can use a specific quote from a book, play or movie that illustrates a certain point without having to agree with absolutely everything else in the book, play or movie (or other works of the author of the work).

GA's do it all the time in their conference talks.

[bookofmormontruth]

As far as I can tell, you can use a specific quote from a book, play or movie that illustrates a certain point without having to agree with absolutely everything else in the book, play or movie (or other works of the author of the work).

GA's do it all the time in their conference talks.

Well of course.

But I appreciate you pointing it out to Rob Bowman.

[Rob Bowman]

BOMT,

You wrote:

Just another thing that Rob wants to focu$ on, criticize and mock.

I have not mocked anything. You, on the other hand, continue to mock me (as in your obnoxious use of the dollar sign). That, sir, is hypocritical.

[Rob Bowman]

cinepro,

You wrote:

As far as I can tell, you can use a specific quote from a book, play or movie that illustrates a certain point without having to agree with absolutely everything else in the book, play or movie (or other works of the author of the work).

Of course. I never said that BOMT endorsed A Course in Miracles! That is simply not the issue here.

[bookofmormontruth]

BOMT,

You wrote:

I have not mocked anything. You, on the other hand, continue to mock me (as in your obnoxious use of the dollar sign). That, sir, is hypocritical.

I am mocking what is very $acred to you?

[Rob Bowman]

I see that my CFR remains unanswered, as does my report to the moderators of the unanswered CFR. I hope that they respond to that report soon. A CFR must be answered with a specific reference that actually contains the statement quoted, not merely an assertion that some guy whose name appears on a website made the statement in a video for which no reference or link has been given.

[Walden]

Rob Bowman has stated in another thread: It'S Too Sacred

.

As faithful members, we can understand Rob's desperate desire to speak for our own doctrines and to be the "expert" in on our own history, but regardless of Rob's myopic views, the Reed Smoot Hearings prove that Rob's distorted perception is completely wrong.

In 1903, Robert W. Tayler, attorney chief counsel led the hearings against Reed Smoot to allow him into the senate because Smoot was a Mormon and that he believed that Joseph Smith received revelation from God. In Robert W. Tayler's own words:

The real "danger" wasn’t plural marriage or the “Oath of vengeance”, but revelation. Persecution as its finest!

In addition, Joseph Smith's own testimony of why he was persecuted definitively proves that Rob Bowman needs a new profession. Joseph Smith.

So then with the persecution examples of Joseph Smith and Reed Smooth, why is revelation so offensive to the world?

I think that Questing Beast is right on the money when he stated, "It removes total control of our own decisions and puts the metaphysical into potential ascendency. That is why JFK's candidacy was abhorrent to many: the pope might intervene with "infallibility" in American affairs. It is why Romney went down and will continue to go down, no matter what a great guy he otherwise is: the Mormon prophet might intervene in American Gov't affairs. The risk is too great: put in a president who believes that "God" talks to him (even via an oracle) and you have introduced that uncontrollable influence that can use personal religion to subvert the Constitution."

I think that you have framed the wrong question in your original post. Revelation is not "offensive to the world" per se, but it is offensive to those who hold dear the values of separation of church and state.

[ELF1024]

I think that you have framed the wrong question in your original post. Revelation is not "offensive to the world" per se, but it is offensive to those who hold dear the values of separation of church and state.

LOL!! I guess you've never been down south where all the political candidates rally their voters from behind the Church pew pulpit...

The LDS Church does no such thing, anywhere in the world.

And that whole separation of Church and State was so important it never made it into the Constitution....

[bookofmormontruth]

I see that my CFR remains unanswered, as does my report to the moderators of the unanswered CFR. I hope that they respond to that report soon. A CFR must be answered with a specific reference that actually contains the statement quoted, not merely an assertion that some guy whose name appears on a website made the statement in a video for which no reference or link has been given.

I stand by my source. You are just being petty because you were embarrassed.

The moderators can do their job, they don't need to be lectured. For if they had to respond to all your countless unanswered CFRs in the last 2 months, they would have to hire two new people.

[bookofmormontruth]

I think that Questing Beast is right on the money when he stated, "It removes total control of our own decisions and puts the metaphysical into potential ascendency. That is why JFK's candidacy was abhorrent to many: the pope might intervene with "infallibility" in American affairs. It is why Romney went down and will continue to go down, no matter what a great guy he otherwise is: the Mormon prophet might intervene in American Gov't affairs. The risk is too great: put in a president who believes that "God" talks to him (even via an oracle) and you have introduced that uncontrollable influence that can use personal religion to subvert the Constitution."

I think that you have framed the wrong question in your original post. Revelation is not "offensive to the world" per se, but it is offensive to those who hold dear the values of separation of church and state.

Which you clearly display your lack of knowledge in what separation of Church and State actually means.

[Ariarates]

To get back on topic, I checked a few first vision stories and found the following:

• The 1832 account merely states that nobody believed Joseph's heavenly vision;
• The 1835 account doesn't mention anything about the reception of Joseph's vision;
• The 1838/39 version is, of course, the canonized version and is quite detailed about the persecution.
• Pratt's 1840 "Interesting account" doesn't mention any persecution;
• Joseph's 1842 Wentoworth letter doesn't mention persecution in connection with the first vision, only with the deiscovery of the gold plates (including being shot at muliple times);
• Hyde's 1842 German account doesn't mention any persecution (it leans heavily on Pratt's "Interesting account");
• Joseph's 1843 interview with the Pittsburgh Gazette mentions that they persecuted him after he shared his vision like they persecuted him ever since (paraphrasing here).

So there is some mention of persecution, but Joseph seems to have taken it in stride and didn't dwell on it much. I think the canonized version is the most interesting one because one would expect to find evidence of a coordinated, sustained effort by men of high standing of all sects as described in verse 22. Maybe the history buffs can chime in at this point, because I know nothing about it.

[Walden]

LOL!! I guess you've never been down south where all the political candidates rally their voters from behind the Church pew pulpit...

The LDS Church does no such thing, anywhere in the world.

And that whole separation of Church and State was so important it never made it into the Constitution....

There are a lot of things that are "important" to civic and political life, and even the framework of our Republic, that are not included in the Constitution. Many here speak to the importance of "god's hand" in the formation of our great nation and god's continuing guidance of this great nation, and our forefathers acknowledgement of such, but the Constitution makes no such mention of god, divinity, etc. Yet, this fact generally fails to nullify the arguments of many here who speak to god's providence in our country's formation.

And while it may be true that "political candidates" do not use the LDS pulpit as a rallying platform for their base, to imply that the LDS church is apolitical is laughable.

While I do deplore those who would toss aside a candidate, such as Romney, based solely on his religious affiliation, I do believe it is a ***-for-tat sort of thing. I don't know that Mormons would be lining up to vote for a candidate belonging to a church whose leader receives direct revelation from god, some of which may condemn their own LDS faith....would you vote for a politician who states that his religious leader, who is in direct communication with god, condemns some of the practices of the LDS church?

[ELF1024]

would you vote for a politician who states that his religious leader, who is in direct communication with god, condemns some of the practices of the LDS church?

I don't pay much attention to the religion of political candidates, unless they go out of their way to make them relevant to my decision. So, unless that political candidate went out of his way to make that kind of a statement on the campaign trail, such as Mike Huckabee, then I likely wouldn't even know about it. Would I vote for Huckabee? No.

However, I don't particularly agree with the political stances of Huntsman or Romney at the moment either. I don't vote for someone because they are LDS, I vote for them based on the issues.

Lets try not to make this political... I don't feel like getting the thread closed based on politics.

[Rob Bowman]

BOMT,

You wrote:

I stand by my source. You are just being petty because you were embarrassed.

I was not and am not embarrassed one bit. Nor do I see anything petty about what I have said.

You wrote:

The moderators can do their job, they don't need to be lectured. For if they had to respond to all your countless unanswered CFRs in the last 2 months, they would have to hire two new people.

That's baloney. I don't think I have alleged that someone failed to answer my CFR more than a couple of times, if that. This is the first and only time I have reported such a failure to the moderators. In this case your failure to answer the CFR is obvious, egregious, and undeniable, which is why I reported it.

I sincerely hope the moderators do their duty and deal with your refusal to answer the CFR. It would be a shame for them to give the appearance of partiality in the administration of the forum's rules. I assume for the moment that they have either been too busy to respond yet or are contemplating how to handle the matter.

[ELF1024]

I assume for the moment that they have either been too busy to respond yet or are contemplating how to handle the matter.

I'll take door number 3... that the mods are ignoring you because the CFR has been asked and answered by both BOMT and Cinepro...

And while you're casting stones...

CFR that this New Age book was "dictated by the Lord" to Helen Schucman and had "other obviously false doctrines".

[LeSellers]

Revelation is offensive to the world because, if there actually is revelation, it means that there actually is a God. Not only that He exists (most people acknowledge that there is Something out there), but that He is now meddling in their business.

It's all so inconvenient, having a meddlesome God, One Who expects certain things, One Who dares command me to do His will.

It's much easier to have a God Who doesn't care enough to bother with me, for Him to be satisfied that whatever I'm doing doesn't matter, as long as I believe He is there, and (again, no matter what I do) will make everything fine with no effort on my part at all.

That's why revelation is so offensive: The God Who reveals Himself to mankind is not the God so many people want.

Lehi

[Walden]

Revelation is offensive to the world because, if there actually is revelation, it means that there actually is a God. Not only that He exists (most people acknowledge that there is Something out there), but that He is now meddling in their business.

It's all so inconvenient, having a meddlesome God, One Who expects certain things, One Who dares command me to do His will.

It's much easier to have a God Who doesn't care enough to bother with me, for Him to be satisfied that whatever I'm doing doesn't matter, as long as I believe He is there, and (again, no matter what I do) will make everything fine with no effort on my part at all.

That's why revelation is so offensive: The God Who reveals Himself to mankind is not the God so many people want.

Lehi

Talk about a straw man. Revelation is not offensive merely because it may be "so inconvenient, having a meddlesome God, One Who expects certain things, One Who dares command me to do His will," as you suggest. Nor is it offensive to consider that "if there actually is revelation, it means that there actually is a God." Heck, I am an atheist and I am not offended by such.

In the political realm (not trying to turn this into a political debate, just referring to the OPs example using the Reed Smoot hearings), the offense comes when there is a valid concern that a politician may adhere to a "revelation" and thus respond according to his religious dictates, which potentially override his duty to our country, or that may not be in the best interests of our country.

Outside of politics and in reference to other religions, revelation as practiced by the LDS faith is offensive because it goes against the basic tenets of mainstream Christianity.

[zerinus]

BOMT,

You wrote:

I was not and am not embarrassed one bit. Nor do I see anything petty about what I have said.

You wrote:

That's baloney. I don't think I have alleged that someone failed to answer my CFR more than a couple of times, if that. This is the first and only time I have reported such a failure to the moderators. In this case your failure to answer the CFR is obvious, egregious, and undeniable, which is why I reported it.

I sincerely hope the moderators do their duty and deal with your refusal to answer the CFR. It would be a shame for them to give the appearance of partiality in the administration of the forum's rules. I assume for the moment that they have either been too busy to respond yet or are contemplating how to handle the matter.

Or it could be that they don't like people like you telling them what to do and what not to do.

[Rob Bowman]

ELF1024,

You wrote:

I'll take door number 3... that the mods are ignoring you because the CFR has been asked and answered by both BOMT and Cinepro...

Perhaps you are confused. My unanswered CFR has nothing to do with cinepro, who was answering a different CFR having to do with what evidence there is outside JS-H that Joseph was persecuted in the 1820s for his First Vision story. My unanswered CFR has to do with a sentence that BOMT tacked onto a statement made by Robert Tayler in the Reed Smoot hearings. You can search this thread for yourself and see that BOMT has made no effort to provide documentation for that sentence. Instead he claimed it was made by a guy in a video he saw, and he provided nothing except a link to a webpage that listed the guy's name but gave no information about the supposed video. I also pointed out that according to BOMT the video was about the Joseph Smith Papers, which proves it has no relevance to the issue at hand, since Joseph Smith died sixty years before the Reed Smoot hearing!

You wrote:

And while you're casting stones...

CFR that this New Age book was "dictated by the Lord" to Helen Schucman and had "other obviously false doctrines".

Your quotation above was from BOMT. Here is another example of his disingenuousness. In response to my private message to him informing him of the nature of A Course in Miracles, BOMT asked me privately for a reference documenting the above facts. I wrote him back privately and provided the documentation. So his asking for it here is simply a dishonest diversion from his own blatant refusal to answer my CFR.

Here are the links I provided to BOMT in that private message five days ago:

http://www.probe.org...In_Miracles.htm

http://www.apologeti...ex.org/c03.html

If you were a person of integrity, you would contact the moderators and urge them to call BOMT on his refusal to answer the CFR, instead of falsely accusing me of casting stones.

[ELF1024]

Outside of politics and in reference to other religions, revelation as practiced by the LDS faith is offensive because it goes against the basic tenets of mainstream Christianity.

Mainstream Christianity sure, but Mainstream Christianity would be unrecognizable to the Apostles and Christ. So saying that Mormonism is offensive to Mainstream Christianity is a compliment, not an insult.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

Or it could be that they don't like people like you telling them what to do and what not to do.

I haven't "told" them to do anything. I asked them to address BOMT's refusal to answer the CFR, in keeping with forum rules. Is there anything wrong with that?

[ELF1024]

If you were a person of integrity, you would contact the moderators and urge them to call BOMT on his refusal to answer the CFR, instead of falsely accusing me of casting stones.

If I was a person of integrity... 'eh... cute... IRRational, IRRelevant, and IRReverent as always.

I forgot that it was only your opinion if a CFR was answered that mattered...