Rob Bowman Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Can anyone supply the omitted material from the following quotation?"Joseph knew, as no other soul living, these absolutes:He knew that God lives, that He is a [glorified] person with flesh and bones and personality, like us or we like Him, in His image.He knew that the long-heralded trinity of three Gods in one was a myth, a deception. He knew that the Father and the Son were two distinct beings with form, voices, and … personalities.He knew that the gospel was not on the earth, for by the Deities he had learned it, and the true Church was absent from the earth, for the God of heaven and earth had so informed him."“The Prophet Joseph Smith and the First Vision,” Annual Joseph Smith Memorial Sermon, Utah State University, Dec. 13, 1970, 7, quoted, for example, in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball (2006), 230, emphasis added.
LeSellers Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Can anyone supply the omitted material from the following quotation?Yes, but, for the record, why do you want to know?Lehi Edited January 12, 2012 by LeSellers
Duncan Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 The Church Archives is your best bethttp://lds.org/churchhistory/library
Rob Bowman Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 Duncan,Thanks, but since I don't live in Utah and am not LDS it doesn't seem likely that I would be able to access those archives personally. The online index yields no result for the sermon.The Church Archives is your best bethttp://lds.org/churchhistory/library
Rob Bowman Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 Lehi,You wrote:Yes, but, for the record, why do you want to know?As a professional scholar, researcher, and writer, I always want to know what the primary sources exactly say. Thus, whenever I see a quotation with an ellipsis, I want to find the primary source if possible and get the exact quotation in full.
LeSellers Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 As a professional scholar, researcher, and writer, I always want to know what the primary sources exactly say. Thus, whenever I see a quotation with an ellipsis, I want to find the primary source if possible and get the exact quotation in full.That's all nice and such, but what do you want to do with the information in the first place? What brought you to see this as important?Lehi
aleph Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Lehi,why is his explanation of how he would like the primary source to further his understanding of the statement not sufficient? 4
Popular Post LeSellers Posted January 12, 2012 Popular Post Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) why is his explanation of how he would like the primary source to further his understanding of the statement not sufficient?I'm sure you are familiar with the term "agenda" and the phrase "ulterior motive".I hope this answers your question.Mr. Bowman has a history here (and elsewhere) that makes me extraordinarily wary of his intentions.Lehi Edited January 12, 2012 by LeSellers 5
Duncan Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Duncan,Thanks, but since I don't live in Utah and am not LDS it doesn't seem likely that I would be able to access those archives personally. The online index yields no result for the sermon.Neither am I! I don't even live in the United States. All you need to do is email them and ask them for what you are looking for or just have them email you a copy, (sometimes they charge .50c per page) You don't need to give your religious affliation, they don't ask.
Rob Bowman Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 Lehi,You wrote:That's all nice and such, but what do you want to do with the information in the first place? What brought you to see this as important?I am considering using the quotation--which I found on the LDS Church's official website, lds.org--to illustrate what the LDS Church says about the doctrine of the Trinity and how it contrasts that doctrine with its own theology.Is there something awful that you think I might be able to do if you supplied the missing words of the quotation? Is there something embarrassing about the omitted words? I am simply doing my due diligence to secure the full quotation. My "agenda" is to be as accurate as possible in stating LDS beliefs (Prov. 18:13). There is no "ulterior motive." I am candid about the fact that I disagree with LDS theology, and everyone here knows that I have written and am writing material that expresses those disagreements. I have nothing to hide. How about you? 1
LeSellers Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Is there something awful that you think I might be able to do if you supplied the missing words of the quotation?Yes, but my mind is not devious enough to figure out what.Is there something embarrassing about the omitted words?No, but my mind is not devious enough to figure out how someone could distort the words so as to make them appear embarrassing.I have nothing to hide. How about you?I doubt the first, and reject the second.Lehi 2
Pahoran Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Can anyone supply the omitted material from the following quotation?"Joseph knew, as no other soul living, these absolutes:He knew that God lives, that He is a [glorified] person with flesh and bones and personality, like us or we like Him, in His image.He knew that the long-heralded trinity of three Gods in one was a myth, a deception. He knew that the Father and the Son were two distinct beings with form, voices, and … personalities.He knew that the gospel was not on the earth, for by the Deities he had learned it, and the true Church was absent from the earth, for the God of heaven and earth had so informed him."“The Prophet Joseph Smith and the First Vision,” Annual Joseph Smith Memorial Sermon, Utah State University, Dec. 13, 1970, 7, quoted, for example, in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball (2006), 230, emphasis added.I've got no idea what the missing words are, but no doubt they are something scandalous.Regards,Pahoran 2
cinepro Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) I've got no idea what the missing words are, but no doubt they are something scandalous.Regards,PahoranIn a world where this: 19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.becomes this:“If a man marry a wife by … the new and everlasting covenant … by him who is anointed, … and if [they] abide in [the Lord’s] covenant, … it … shall be of full force when they are out of the world” (D&C 132:19)....anything is possible. Edited January 12, 2012 by cinepro 4
Rob Bowman Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 Lehi,Let me get this straight. You know what the missing words are, and you don't find them embarrassing, but you won't tell us because you're afraid I'll do something sinister with them.I hate to break it to you, but LDS General Authorities have provided plenty of words that can be cited as embarrassing to the LDS Church without distorting them at all. The words that we do have in the very quotation in question are bad enough. There are two demonstrable falsehoods in that one quotation alone, even without the omitted words, whatever they might be. Distortion is not necessary and from my point of view counterproductive. Even if I were a devious person, which I am not, I would not be stupid enough to distort deliberately what LDS leaders have said when anyone can go online and read their words for themselves and when there is an army of Mormon apologists ready to pounce on anything that might be the slightest bit off in anything critics say about the LDS religion.Let me appeal to your legitimate self-interest and put it this way. There are three possible outcomes here. (1) You provide the missing words, I deliberately distort them for some nefarious purpose and expose myself as a deceiver, while you look good for having been forthcoming. (2) You provide the missing words, I do nothing evil with them, and you look good for having been forthcoming. (3) You refuse to provide the missing words, and you look bad for having suppressed information that was reasonably requested. The choice is yours. I sincerely hope you don't choose the last of these options.
LeSellers Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) You provide the missing words, I deliberately distort them for some nefarious purpose and expose myself as a deceiverThat's been established to my satisfaction.Are the Temple Ordinances still on line chez vous? Even if not (which I doubt), how long did it take to get them removed?LehiP.S.: I don't know the missing words. I answered the question you asked: "Can anyone supply the omitted material from the following quotation?" I am 100% certain "[someone could] supply the omitted material". The fact that this someone is not me does not make my answer incorrect. LS Edited January 12, 2012 by LeSellers 2
Pahoran Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 I hate to break it to you, but LDS General Authorities have provided plenty of words that can be cited as embarrassing to the LDS Church without distorting them at all.Absolutely boilerplate anti-Mormon propaganda.Which is, of course, what you are paid to produce.The words that we do have in the very quotation in question are bad enough. There are two demonstrable falsehoods in that one quotation alone, even without the omitted words, whatever they might be.Really? What are they?Yes, this is a call for references. Put up or shut up, please.Regards,Pahoran, who'll take President Kimball's word over an anti-Mormon hate propagandist's any day of the week. 3
Lachoneus Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 The 1970 issue of "Annual Joseph Smith Memorial Sermons" (vol 28) is available at the Harold B. Lee Library on the BYU campus, 2nd floor, call number BX 8608 .J774. Their web contact page is http://lib.byu.edu/contact/ , or you can call them (801) 422-2927, or send an email email_reference@byu.edu.
Rob Bowman Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 Pahoran,You wrote:Absolutely boilerplate anti-Mormon propaganda.Which is, of course, what you are paid to produce.To use your own words -- and more accurately -- your comment is an absolutely boiler-plate anti-anti-Mormon handbook response. Instead of focusing on substantive issues, you are trying to make me the subject. Doing so is a violation of the board guidelines and of the moderators' recent call for civility in this forum.You wrote:Really? What are they?Yes, this is a call for references. Put up or shut up, please.1. It is a demonstrable falsehood that Joseph Smith after his supposed First Vision in 1820 knew that God the Father had a body of flesh and bones. Lectures on Faith documents that 15 years later Joseph still believed that the Father was a personage of spirit.2. It is a demonstrable falsehood that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches "three Gods in one." The doctrine is that there is one God in three persons, not three Gods in one.You wrote:Regards,Pahoran, who'll take President Kimball's word over an anti-Mormon hate propagandist's any day of the week.That's your second violation in one post of the moderators' call for civility in this forum.
Rob Bowman Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Lachoneus,Thank you. I have submitted a request for the information.The 1970 issue of "Annual Joseph Smith Memorial Sermons" (vol 28) is available at the Harold B. Lee Library on the BYU campus, 2nd floor, call number BX 8608 .J774. Their web contact page is http://lib.byu.edu/contact/ , or you can call them (801) 422-2927, or send an email email_reference@byu.edu. Edited January 12, 2012 by Rob Bowman
Minos Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 One more personal hit post and the thread will be closed.
Pahoran Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Rob,Ignoring the artificial indignation, you wrote:1. It is a demonstrable falsehood that Joseph Smith after his supposed First Vision in 1820 knew that God the Father had a body of flesh and bones. Lectures on Faith documents that 15 years later Joseph still believed that the Father was a personage of spirit.Since the authorship of the Lectures has not, to my knowledge, been determined with any certainty, and since Joseph is not the most likely candidate author, the extent to which they reflected his beliefs, or any of them, at any time, is not clear. Thus, your claim that this is a "demonstrable falsehood" is a false accusation.2. It is a demonstrable falsehood that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches "three Gods in one." The doctrine is that there is one God in three persons, not three Gods in one.So your second "demonstrable falsehood" comes down to a mere quibble over word order in a very short reference to a concept that the most erudite commentators describe as a "mystery" that no-one really understands.So far, no "falsehood" has been demonstrated.That's your second violation in one post of the moderators' call for civility in this forum.I will leave others to determine how "civil" it is to accuse a beloved LDS prophet of lying upon such flimsy grounds.Regards,Pahoran 4
Lachoneus Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 1. It is a demonstrable falsehood that Joseph Smith after his supposed First Vision in 1820 knew that God the Father had a body of flesh and bones. Lectures on Faith documents that 15 years later Joseph still believed that the Father was a personage of spirit. It is not "a demonstrable falsehood" that after the First Vision Joseph Smith knew The Father had a body of flesh and bones. It is merely your prefered interpretation of the fifth Lecture on Faith. Elder McConkie gave a different interpretation in A New Witness for the Articles of Faith 72-76 (1985). When it comes to LDS doctrine, I prefer the explanations of those who hold the keys and not of those whose purpose is to contend and dispute. 3
altersteve Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 1. It is a demonstrable falsehood that Joseph Smith after his supposed First Vision in 1820 knew that God the Father had a body of flesh and bones. Lectures on Faith documents that 15 years later Joseph still believed that the Father was a personage of spirit.http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/God_is_a_Spirit/Lecture_of_Faith_5_teaches_the_Father_is_%22a_personage_of_spirit%22
cinepro Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) Can anyone supply the omitted material from the following quotation?"Joseph knew, as no other soul living, these absolutes:He knew that God lives, that He is a [glorified] person with flesh and bones and personality, like us or we like Him, in His image.He knew that the long-heralded trinity of three Gods in one was a myth, a deception. He knew that the Father and the Son were two distinct beings with form, voices, and … personalities.He knew that the gospel was not on the earth, for by the Deities he had learned it, and the true Church was absent from the earth, for the God of heaven and earth had so informed him."“The Prophet Joseph Smith and the First Vision,” Annual Joseph Smith Memorial Sermon, Utah State University, Dec. 13, 1970, 7, quoted, for example, in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball (2006), 230, emphasis added.Well here ya' go. I contacted the Church History Library via their web page, asked if they had a copy of the article, and within a few hours I was sent a scanned copy. There's usually a $.50 charge, but I mentioned my long service in my ward's Cub Scout program and they waived it.So the answer to your question would be "individualites". Edited January 13, 2012 by cinepro
Duncan Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 all that balloon juice over "individualities"? I wonder what's on the Tele?
Recommended Posts