Ellipsis In Spencer W. Kimball Quote On The First Vision

[Pahoran]

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".

Ah-ha! So now we see it. The Church is nefariously trying to "suppress" the fact that then-Elder Kimball said "individualities."

I knew there had to be a "godless conspiracy of error" in there somewhere.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

Ignoring the artificial indignation....

It is regrettable that you refuse to take responsibility for your offensive comments.

You wrote:

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.

Joseph was definitely involved in producing the Lectures and preparing them for publication, and he headed the committee that recommended their inclusion in D&C, where they remained for the next nine years of his life (and for 75 years thereafter). It is absurd to claim that they did not reflect his own beliefs in 1834-1835.

With regard to the erroneous description of the Trinity as "three Gods in one," you replied:

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.

No. Not a quibble over word order, but an observation of a false description ("three Gods") that anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the orthodox doctrine should have known was inaccurate.

You wrote:

I will leave others to determine how "civil" it is to accuse a beloved LDS prophet of lying upon such flimsy grounds.

Appeal to emotion alert! Your "beloved LDS prophet" accused the people of my faith of believing and propagating "a myth, a deception," based on a false description of our doctrine. How would you respond if one of our "beloved" teachers did that to Mormonism (see Matthew 7:12)? And I did not accuse him of "lying," but only said that his statements were demonstrably false.

I expect this will be my last reply to you for a while, Pahoran, since you do not appear interested in civil discussion.

[Rob Bowman]

cinepro,

Thanks so much. Interesting, the quotation using an ellipsis for just one word, and a seemingly inconsequential omission at that.

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".

[selek1]

It is regrettable that you refuse to take responsibility for your offensive comments.

Given the long- often interminable- wait that Mormons have faced in seeing corrections to often egregious falsehoods posted by your "ministry", you have absolutely no standing to make such an accusation.

Indeed, given your blatant unwillingness to retract obvious falsehoods on the flimsy excuse "I'm just sharing what someone else wrote", you are morally disqualified from correcting any one else's statements.

Your "beloved LDS prophet" accused the people of my faith of believing and propagating "a myth, a deception,"

And he was absolutely correct to do so- just as we are absolutely justified in questioning both your motives and methods.

The Scorpion and the Frog

A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the

scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back.

The frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?"

The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too."

The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream,

the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of

paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown,

but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"

Replies the scorpion: "Its my nature..."

http://www.aesopfabl...rpionandtheFrog

We have- through long-suffering patience and bitter experience learned that any assistance, any discussion, any dialogue with you will ultimately be twisted and used to advance a partisan, hyper-sectarian agenda.

Why?

Because that is the nature of your "ministry".

I expect this will be my last reply to you for a while, Pahoran, since you do not appear interested in civil discussion.

Isn't it interesting how Evangelicals define "civility" as "supine obesiance to my agenda" and redefine "contradiction" as "persecution"? Edited January 13, 2012 by selek1

[Calm]

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.

Since the reality is that this was not for cinepro, but for Mr. Bowman who is not known for having long service given to the Church, perhaps Mr. Bowman will not take advantage of the Library's generosity and compensate them for the work they did for him.

[Pahoran]

It is regrettable that you refuse to take responsibility for your offensive comments.

I see no value in continuing this back-and-forth.

Joseph was definitely involved in producing the Lectures and preparing them for publication, and he headed the committee that recommended their inclusion in D&C, where they remained for the next nine years of his life (and for 75 years thereafter). It is absurd to claim that they did not reflect his own beliefs in 1834-1835.

It has already been pointed out to you that Joseph's own statements demonstrate that he believed that God the Father was at least corporeal in appearance both before and after 1834-5. It seems to me that a genuine, non-polemical attempt to recover Joseph's actual beliefs at that period would not only take such statements into account, but would actually give them more weight than a document with which he had an arm's-length association at best.

But if a genuine, non-polemical attempt to recover Joseph's actual beliefs seems "absurd" to you, all I can say to that is, "Oh."

With regard to the erroneous description of the Trinity as "three Gods in one," you replied:

No. Not a quibble over word order, but an observation of a false description ("three Gods") that anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the orthodox doctrine should have known was inaccurate.

Yes. "Three Gods in one" versus "One God in three [persons]" is a quibble over word order. And to whatever minimal extent that then-Elder Kimball's honest misstatement really made the "Incomprehensible mystery" of the Trinity any harder to understand, it falls far short of the threshold for calling it a "falsehood."

Appeal to emotion alert! Your "beloved LDS prophet" accused the people of my faith of believing and propagating "a myth, a deception," based on a false description of our doctrine. How would you respond if one of our "beloved" teachers did that to Mormonism (see Matthew 7:12)? And I did not accuse him of "lying," but only said that his statements were demonstrably false.

Actually your phrasing was "demonstrable falsehood." You repeated that construction not once, but several times. The primary meaning of "falsehood" is "A lie," not merely something factually incorrect.

I expect this will be my last reply to you for a while, Pahoran, since you do not appear interested in civil discussion.

Well that explains why you've chosen not to respond to me on the Biblical Christianity thread. It's a good thing you explained that; some readers might have supposed that it was because you couldn't actually answer what I wrote.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

How would you respond if one of our "beloved" teachers did that to Mormonism (see Matthew 7:12)?

How you can say this is just utterly shocking. There is exactly one person on this thread who's whole purpose is doing just this. Of course this is not a personal comment- one must draw their own conclusions about to whom I am referring.

[mfbukowski]

Well that explains why you've chosen not to respond to me on the Biblical Christianity thread. It's a good thing you explained that; some readers might have supposed that it was because you couldn't actually answer what I wrote.

Join the club.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

In response to my statement that the Lectures on Faith in 1834-1835 show that Joseph Smith at the time did not believe that the Father had a body of flesh and bones, you offered the following citation:

http://en.fairmormon...ge_of_spirit%22

I was already familiar with the arguments presented there. Much of the article argues that Joseph Smith in the 1830s believed that the Father and the Son were different persons. By sometime in 1831 if not before, this certainly is so, but it doesn't mean he believed that the Father had a body of flesh and bones; thus, this point is irrelevant. The article also proffers McConkie's explanation that the term personage means a being possessing a physical body. This theory runs into obvious trouble in D&C 130:22 (which the article has just cited!) where we are told that the Holy Ghost "is a personage of Spirit." The article also asserts, "Each is a personage of spirit; each is a personage of tabernacle." The problem with this claim is obvious: Lectures on Faith differentiates the Father and the Son by saying that the Father is a personage of spirit while the Son is a personage of tabernacle. After a lot of verbiage, the article concludes by quoting Paulsen's assessment that "the lectures affirm that God the Son has a flesh-and-bones body, humanlike in form, while God the Father has a spirit body, also humanlike in form," and that "Joseph later knew that the Father, as well as the Son, has a glorious, incorruptible body of flesh and bone. No doubt, his understanding of the mode of the Father’s embodiment was enlarged and refined as he continued to receive and reflect on revelation" (emphasis added). In short, Paulsen concedes that in 1834-35 Joseph did not know that the Father had a body of flesh and bones; this is something he came to believe "later" as his thinking "was enlarged and refined" (i.e., changed). The FAIR article finishes by expressing uncertainty as to whether Paulsen or McConkie is correct. I have just explained why McConkie's view is untenable. The facts clearly show that Joseph did not believe that the Father had a physical body of flesh and bones in 1834-35. Therefore, Kimball's claim that he knew this as an absolute truth in 1820 is reasonably viewed as demonstrably false.

[Rob Bowman]

selek,

You wrote:

Given the long- often interminable- wait that Mormons have faced in seeing corrections to often egregious falsehoods posted by your "ministry", you have absolutely no standing to make such an accusation.

CFR. You can meet this CFR by citing a thread in this forum where I have been confronted with an egregious falsehood that I refused to correct or retract.

You wrote:

Indeed, given your blatant unwillingness to retract obvious falsehoods on the flimsy excuse "I'm just sharing what someone else wrote", you are morally disqualified from correcting any one else's statements.

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. CFR.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

Since the reality is that this was not for cinepro, but for Mr. Bowman who is not known for having long service given to the Church, perhaps Mr. Bowman will not take advantage of the Library's generosity and compensate them for the work they did for him.

I submitted my own request and a librarian graciously sent me the same information gratis; I have already sent an email back offering to pay a fee for the service.

[Rob Bowman]

Duncan,

You wrote:

all that balloon juice over "individualities"? I wonder what's on the Tele?

Indeed. I see nothing in the omission with which to find fault and certainly nothing to suggest any devious or misleading intentions. All I wanted was the complete quotation because obtaining it is SOP in what I do.

[Duncan]

Duncan,

You wrote:

Indeed. I see nothing in the omission with which to find fault and certainly nothing to suggest any devious or misleading intentions. All I wanted was the complete quotation because obtaining it is SOP in what I do.

nuts, I ran out of rep. points! tell you what, i'll give you one tomorrow or shortly thereafter!

[orion88]

I read that passage at http://lds.org/manua...ter-21?lang=eng

but it doesn't indicate who held the wrong idea that the long-heralded trinity consisted of 3 Gods

in one.

[Rob Bowman]

Citing Lectures on Faith as indicative of Joseph Smith's beliefs at the time is common in LDS teaching. Consider the following statements as examples, all found on LDS.org:

"The Prophet Joseph Smith prepared this remarkable statement on the principle of sacrifice for the Lectures on Faith" (Ezra Taft Benson).

"The Prophet Joseph Smith taught in the Lectures on Faith that it was necessary to have “an acquaintance” (that’s his phrase) with the divine attributes of the Father and the Son in order to have faith in them" (Jeffrey R. Holland).

"The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that 'faith [is] the first principle in revealed religion, and the foundation of all righteousness' and that it is also 'the principle of action in all intelligent beings' (Lectures on Faith [1985], 1)" (David A. Bednar).

Read the following statement from the Lectures on Faith, compiled under the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith" (New Testament Teacher Resource Manual).

"In the sixth Lecture on Faith, the Prophet Joseph Smith said we need to know 'that the course of life' we are pursuing 'is according to the will of God, in order to … exercise faith in him unto life and salvation'" (Neal A. Maxwell).

"Joseph Smith said that 'faith [is] the principle of action and of power' (Lectures on Faith [1985], 72)" (Richard G. Scott).

This last quotation is from a 2010 General Conference. Such quotations can easily be multiplied.

[Pahoran]

Citing Lectures on Faith as indicative of Joseph Smith's beliefs at the time is common in LDS teaching. Consider the following statements as examples, all found on LDS.org:

[snip]

This last quotation is from a 2010 General Conference. Such quotations can easily be multiplied.

And manipulated.

It is not for you(!) to tell us(!) what our(!) important texts mean.

None of the brethren whose statements you have exploited in the service of your polemical agenda are or were historians doing historiography; they were preachers preaching the Gospel. You are abusing their statements.

In the interests of the civil discourse that seems so important to you, and to avoid the rather obvious conclusions that flow from your polemical misuse of such sources, it might be a good idea for you to try to reduce your reliance upon this tactic in the future.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited January 13, 2012 by Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Join the club.

Indeed. Since he has managed to respond to my arguments in this thread (after loftily refusing to even notice my posts any more) without actually mentioning me by name, it seems that he ought to be able to do the same thing WRT the question of "Biblical Christianity."

But only if he has an answer.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

It's clear he is only hear to gather information which he can distort.

Eventually we will all learn that and stop responding.

[Rob Bowman]

Sigh.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[mfbukowski]

Citing Lectures on Faith as indicative of Joseph Smith's beliefs at the time is common in LDS teaching.

Good.

I think we should therfore ascribe to you all the quotes "common in Evangelical teaching".

I think we will find there is a little conflict there. You are known for many conflicts in Evangelical circles yourself.

See page 197 for more about "orthodoxy" problems

Edited January 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Sigh.

You know by now this is not personal.

[mfbukowski]

It is evident even in Bowman's own writings, that it is not at all clear what "Christian Orthodoxy" is precisely for Evangelicals.

Read especially the first couple of paragraphs and then the last third of the article

http://www.iclnet.or...nl/crj0041a.txt

Edited January 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Nominee]

It is evident even in Bowman's own writings, that it is not at all clear what "Christian Orthodoxy" is precisely for Evangelicals.

Read especially the first couple of paragraphs and then the last third of the article

http://www.iclnet.or...nl/crj0041a.txt

According to the definitions he has listed, LDS are both biblical and orthodoxy. We should clearly be accepted as Christians as well.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Nominee

[Bernard Gui]

CFR. You can meet this CFR by citing a thread in this forum where I have been confronted with an egregious falsehood that I refused to correct or retract.

Here's one:

It is definitely not our intention to mock Mormons or their practices; our intention is simply to make information available to those who are looking for it. We encourage readers to be circumspect about bringing up these things when engaged in discussion with practicing Mormons.

Obtaining and publishing a dishonestly produced copy of the temple ceremony and highlighting its most sacred element and then claiming it's only for informational purposes is the most egregious falsehood an anti-Mormon can commit. You have refused to

retract it. This puts you and your ministry on the same level as Ed Decker and his ilk.

Bernard

Edited January 13, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[zerinus]

And manipulated.

It is not for you(!) to tell us(!) what our(!) important texts mean.

I have to come to the defense of Rob on this one. He makes a perfectly valid point. It is absurd to suggest that his quotes are "manipulated". How were they manipulated? If he quoted out of context, provide the context. If he altered the quotes, explain how. But don't just accuse people of "manipulation" without providing evidence.

None of the brethren whose statements you have exploited in the service of your polemical agenda are or were historians doing historiography; they were preachers preaching the Gospel. You are abusing their statements.

He is doing no such thing. I think it is very presumptuous of you to suggest that you know more abuot the origin of the Lectures on Faith than such great men as Ezra Taft Benson, Jeffrey R. Holland, David A. Bednar, Neal A. Maxwell, and Richard G. Scott, all of whom are or have been prophets, Apostles, and astute gospel scholars. You reckon you know Church history better than they do? On what basis? Why should anyone believe you?

In the interests of the civil discourse that seems so important to you, and to avoid the rather obvious conclusions that flow from your polemical misuse of such sources, it might be a good idea for you to try to reduce your reliance upon this tactic in the future.

That is a preposterous and absurd comment to make. If you cannot engage in civil discourse, go and find something better to do with your time.