mfbukowski Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 Yes, actually in March you can see it from Turtle Bay (about half way up the coast of Baja.)WOW I had no idea! Great info!
Damien the Leper Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 Nobody said that there was; but honesty is not censorship.Sunstone and Signature Books aren't in the business of publishing orthodox or mainstream LDS thoughts. They publish, at best, marginal fringe views, and at worst, outright apostate and anti-Mormon views. It is only honest to admit this fact. It is egregiously dishonest to try to pretend that their offerings represent the views of "believing Latter-day Saints."Please note that I don't point this out in order to scare anyone off reading Metcalfe's tome; I merely say this to refute the falsehood with which it was introduced. I repeat: whatever its strengths or weaknesses, whatever it says or does not say, whatever it gets right or wrong, it does so entirely from a non-believing perspective.Mr Vogel posts on this forum occasionally. He has never seemed anything remotely like an LDS believer to me.Assignment no. 1: Look up the word "canard."B. H. Roberts was in no sense a "canard;" he was a person. A person who, BTW, explicitly said that his 1922 "study" was an attempt to anticipate possible future lines of attack against the Book of Mormon. The notion that the impeccably faithful B. H. Roberts was "within that camp," i.e. the camp of the apostate revisionists who want to throw the Book of Mormon out as an ancient scripture, but reintroduce it as a modern fable of some kind, is the "notorious and utterly discredited canard" mentioned.A few years ago, an attempt was made, by loudly publicising portions of his "study" while at the same time suppressing the accompanying letter that explained what it was really about, to pretend that Roberts had abandoned faith in the Book of Mormon as scripture. That attempt was a failure. It is a notorious and utterly discredited canard.Just so you know.Regards,PahoranWhat believing Latter-day Saints believe today is different from the Saints of the past. Generations differ.I'm rather fond of the LDS reconstructionists B.H. Roberts, John Widtsoe and James Talmage even if they are 'apostates' and 'heretics'. But to each their own.This is a great article...but I know you don't favor Sunstone.http://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/115-6-15-29.pdf
Pahoran Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 What believing Latter-day Saints believe today is different from the Saints of the past. Generations differ.Perhaps in some instances, but that needs to be established on a case by case basis. Merely waving a hand is not evidence of anything.I'm rather fond of the LDS reconstructionists B.H. Roberts, John Widtsoe and James Talmage even if they are 'apostates' and 'heretics'. But to each their own.I have not referred to them as "apostates" and "heretics."B. H. Roberts was a staunch defender of the faith and a believer in the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon.John A. Widtsoe was a staunch defender of the faith and a believer in the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon.James E. Talmage was a staunch defender of the faith and a believer in the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon.This is a great article...but I know you don't favor Sunstone.http://www.sunstonem...115-6-15-29.pdfIt's an interesting article, and I don't dismiss it merely because Sunstroke published it. They weren't always as revisionist as they are now.But the development of LDS pneumatology is quite irrelevant to the question of the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon.The notion that B. H. Roberts ever abandoned that belief is a notorious, utterly discredited anti-Mormon canard. The article in question Is simply talking about another subject altogether.Regards,Pahoran
Damien the Leper Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 Perhaps in some instances, but that needs to be established on a case by case basis. Merely waving a hand is not evidence of anything.Agreed. A 'general consensus' would not be appropriate.It's an interesting article, and I don't dismiss it merely because Sunstroke published it. They weren't always as revisionist as they are now.What is worse, not for the sake of argument but asking for your opinion, reconstructing or revising? I'm not sure if I could really weigh one against the other.The notion that B. H. Roberts ever abandoned that belief is a notorious, utterly discredited anti-Mormon canard. The article in question Is simply talking about another subject altogether.Regards,PahoranIf I suggested that B.H. Roberts abandoned his belief...that was not my intent. If I did so, please provide a reference for it so that I may correct myself.
Pahoran Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 What is worse, not for the sake of argument but asking for your opinion, reconstructing or revising? I'm not sure if I could really weigh one against the other.Again, that would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. A minor "revision" may merely clarify something previously ambiguous, while a major one may throw out both the baby and the bathwater. Ditto with "reconstructing."If I suggested that B.H. Roberts abandoned his belief...that was not my intent. If I did so, please provide a reference for it so that I may correct myself.It wasn't you:If you read the book, you'd see articles by, and discussions about, LDS Mormons who read the Book of Mormon as modern scripture. Nine of the 10 contributors to that book were (at least at the time of the writing--I don't know about now) believing Mormons. Then, you can also count none other than B.H. Roberts as apparently within that camp as well.Well, no. You can't.Question: What is a Latter-day Saint? Answer: A Christian who believes in the Restoration of the Gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith, and whose belief is manifested in action, including but not limited to denominational allegiance.Question: What does it mean to believe in the Restoration? Answer: To believe the Book of Mormon to be literally true, the Priesthood to be actually restored, and the Church organised as part of that operation to be divinely authorised.It's not in any way my intention to provide any actual "Mormon catechism." The passion to systematize stuff and draw boundaries is a human one that we need to be cautious about. But at the end of the day, if words actually mean anything, then to say that someone is a believing Latter-day Saint really ought to convey some actual information about what they actually believe. I think that what I have offered above is a fairly minimal statement of what that information might entail. If someone wants to believe that the Book of Mormon, the Qur'an, the Bible and all the other sacred books in the world are vaguely nice parables that might make people feel good, then they are at all times free to believe that; but let's not pretend that that is in any regard a Latter-day Saint belief.Regards,Pahoran
Cobalt-70 Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 Question: What is a Latter-day Saint? Answer: A Christian who believes in the Restoration of the Gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith, and whose belief is manifested in action, including but not limited to denominational allegiance.Question: What does it mean to believe in the Restoration? Answer: To believe the Book of Mormon to be literally true, the Priesthood to be actually restored, and the Church organised as part of that operation to be divinely authorised.It's not in any way my intention to provide any actual "Mormon catechism." The passion to systematize stuff and draw boundaries is a human one that we need to be cautious about. But at the end of the day, if words actually mean anything, then to say that someone is a believing Latter-day Saint really ought to convey some actual information about what they actually believe. I think that what I have offered above is a fairly minimal statement of what that information might entail. If someone wants to believe that the Book of Mormon, the Qur'an, the Bible and all the other sacred books in the world are vaguely nice parables that might make people feel good, then they are at all times free to believe that; but let's not pretend that that is in any regard a Latter-day Saint belief.No, a Latter-day Saint is someone who identifies as a Latter-day Saint. Why would you want to try to exclude people from the faith who want to be part of it? Doing so is just creedalism revisited. We complain about how traditional Christians try to define us out of Christianity.
Damien the Leper Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 No, a Latter-day Saint is someone who identifies as a Latter-day Saint. Why would you want to try to exclude people from the faith who want to be part of it? Doing so is just creedalism revisited. We complain about how traditional Christians try to define us out of Christianity.I know a member of the Strangite movement aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who does not believe in the historicity or truth claims of his church's origins but still identifies as a Latter Day Saint. Same goes for a friend who is a member of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Community of Christ). Then again, there is a difference between a Latter Day Saint and a Latter-day Saint.IMO, no one church within the Restoration holds the standard mold of what a Latter Day Saint should be and what they should believe.
Pahoran Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 No, a Latter-day Saint is someone who identifies as a Latter-day Saint. Why would you want to try to exclude people from the faith who want to be part of it? Doing so is just creedalism revisited. We complain about how traditional Christians try to define us out of Christianity.I'm not trying to exclude anyone who wants to be part of the faith. But you need to understand that you become part of the faith by believing what the Latter-day Saints believe, not by trying to make over our beliefs to match yours.So if you want to be part of our faith: Welcome. We are a community of shared belief, which is a very minimalist definition of a church. One of the things our Church teaches, and which we accept, is that the Book of Mormon is "the word of God," which means that it is (1) the authentic writings (2) of actual ancient prophets, (3) miraculously translated. You don't have to believe any of that, and you can still come to Church if you want; but believing Latter-day Saints do believe it. That's what makes us actual, believing Latter-day Saints.But if you want to proselyte for the notion of the Book of Mormon as some kind of cotton-candy, feel-good, warm-'n-mushy "parable," then you might want to look for a more receptive audience.Regards,Pahoran
Damien the Leper Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 I'm not trying to exclude anyone who wants to be part of the faith. But you need to understand that you become part of the faith by believing what the Latter-day Saints believe, not by trying to make over our beliefs to match yours.So if you want to be part of our faith: Welcome. We are a community of shared belief, which is a very minimalist definition of a church. One of the things our Church teaches, and which we accept, is that the Book of Mormon is "the word of God," which means that it is (1) the authentic writings (2) of actual ancient prophets, (3) miraculously translated. You don't have to believe any of that, and you can still come to Church if you want; but believing Latter-day Saints do believe it. That's what makes us actual, believing Latter-day Saints.But if you want to proselyte for the notion of the Book of Mormon as some kind of cotton-candy, feel-good, warm-'n-mushy "parable," then you might want to look for a more receptive audience.Regards,PahoranHow would you like to be in the same ward as Seth Payne?
Pahoran Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 I know a member of the Strangite movement aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who does not believe in the historicity or truth claims of his church's origins but still identifies as a Latter Day Saint. Same goes for a friend who is a member of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Community of Christ). Then again, there is a difference between a Latter Day Saint and a Latter-day Saint.IMO, no one church within the Restoration holds the standard mold of what a Latter Day Saint should be and what they should believe.You and your CofC "friend" are entitled to whatever opinion you choose to hold.But just so you know, the simple fact is that "the Restoration" consists of the Church that was organised on April 6, 1830, that continued its Priesthood authority without interruption through the Twelve Apostles, and is now headquartered in the CAB and the COB in Salt Lake City. The other groups are splinters that cut themselves off from the tree.How would you like to be in the same ward as Seth Payne?Actually, I've always wondered: is his middle name "Royal?"Regards,Pahoran
Mike Reed Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 Actually, I've always wondered: is his middle name "Royal?"Regards,PahoranYou are such a class act, Pahoran. Your religion should be proud.
Pahoran Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 You are such a class act, Pahoran. Your religion should be proud.Actually I have a lot of time for Seth, and I was merely having a little fun with him.I'm sure your religion is proud of you, if solipsism counts as a religion.Regards,Pahoran
mfbukowski Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 How would you like to be in the same ward as Seth Payne?I like Seth a lot!
ERayR Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 How would you like to be in the same ward as Seth Payne?I am sure we could have some very good discussions as he seems to be courtious.
Damien the Leper Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 Actually, I've always wondered: is his middle name "Royal?"Regards,PahoranHa! I doubt it...lol
Damien the Leper Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 I like Seth a lot!I have read quite a bit of his blog and I enjoy what he writes. I see myself more in his category of Mormon.
Cobalt-70 Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 But just so you know, the simple fact is that "the Restoration" consists of the Church that was organised on April 6, 1830, that continued its Priesthood authority without interruption through the Twelve Apostles, and is now headquartered in the CAB and the COB in Salt Lake City. The other groups are splinters that cut themselves off from the tree.Most Mormons consider the "the Restoration" to have begun with Joseph Smith's first vision, about a decade before the organization of the Church of Christ. So "the Restoration" is broader than the church.
Cobalt-70 Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) I'm not trying to exclude anyone who wants to be part of the faith. But you need to understand that you become part of the faith by believing what the Latter-day Saints believe, not by trying to make over our beliefs to match yours.Pretend I'm a Trinitarian for a moment: I'm not trying to exclude anyone who wants to be Christian. But you need to understand that you become part of the faith by believing in the Trinity, not by trying to make over our beliefs to match your fuzzy brand of polytheism. Edited February 14, 2012 by Cobalt-70
mfbukowski Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 Pretend I'm a Trinitarian for a moment: I'm not trying to include anyone who wants to be Christian. But you need to understand that you become part of the faith by believing in the Trinity, not by trying to make over our beliefs to match your fuzzy brand of polytheism.See, now it's comments like this that just make your credibility as a believing LDS totally go out the window. For all I know you ARE a trinitarian. What is the point of this comment?
Damien the Leper Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 Didn't Daniel Peterson write an article on Trinitarianism and LDS in a Chicago forum?
mfbukowski Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 Didn't Daniel Peterson write an article on Trinitarianism and LDS in a Chicago forum?I don't exactly recall him criticizing the LDS position as "fuzzy polytheism". Did I miss something?
Damien the Leper Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 I don't exactly recall him criticizing the LDS position as "fuzzy polytheism". Did I miss something?I didn't say anything about criticism. I just thought Dr. Peterson had an article on LDS and Trinitarianism.
Cobalt-70 Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 See, now it's comments like this that just make your credibility as a believing LDS totally go out the window. For all I know you ARE a trinitarian. What is the point of this comment?I'm saying what a Trinitarian would say. I'm not a Trinitarian, except in the sense that I think that Trinitarianism is one legitimate Mormon way of looking at the Mormon gods in which I believe.
mfbukowski Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) Nevermind. It's pointless. Mormons are not Trinitarians. Period. Edited February 14, 2012 by mfbukowski
Cobalt-70 Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 Nevermind. It's pointless. Mormons are not Trinitarians. Period.Comma, except for pre-1840s Mormons, some neo-orthodox Mormons, and thousands of new converts.
Recommended Posts