Thoughts On Church History, Theology, And Faith Crisis

[Cobalt-70]

If you read the lds bible dictionary dictionary on GRACE it says we must expend all our own effort.... which is false. I understand the dictionary is not scripture but it is trusted as scripture by most saints. many quotes from LDS leaders that we must use our works in combination with god's grace... that our works have merit. I will provide quotes if I am doubted.

After the Bible Dictionary passages notes that it is through grace that individuals "receive strength and assistance to do good works that they otherwise would not be able to maintain if left to their own means," the entry states, "This grace is the enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts."

Thus, the Bible Dictionary defines grace as something that helps "men and women lay hold on eternal life" through their works. This is problematic. It is a distortion, I think, of 2 Nephi 25:23, which means that, regardless of what we can do for ourselves, it is by grace we are saved. And saving grace is supposed to be an unmerited gift of God to those who are truly born again, rather than a "push" to help men and women earn their salvation through their own efforts.

Also, the part that says "grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient" is problematic. God is supposed to be almighty, and I'm not aware of any scriptural passage that says God's grace is ever insufficient.

[Cobalt-70]

Paul himself, the champion of grace also said this:Philippians 2:12 "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

Among major Christian faiths, only Mormons take this passage as evidence that both grace and works are the cause of our salvation. Everyone else, Paul and the Book of Mormon included, makes a distinction between the cause of salvation, and the incidents or requirements of salvation. Even Catholics, who believe that original sin is not a complete fall into depravity, and that therefore it is possible to do some good works independently of grace, do not believe that salvation is caused, even a little, by works.

Thus, it is perfectly consistent for Paul, who believed that it is impossible for anyone to merit salvation through their works, to call for the Philippians, who were already within a state of grace, to humbly let God work within them to do the works expected of people to whom salvation is to be given. That this is the meaning of Philippians 2:12 is verified by verse 13, which says, "for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good pleasure."

[Log]

Where Log goes off the rail, IMO, is that the faithful here have been less-than-fair to ReelMormon's quest for knowledge.

Less-than-charitable, Selek1, if charitable means something other than, in part, fair.

There has been too much unwarranted defensiveness, too much apportioning of blame, too many baseless accusations. If you wish, I can quote mine the thread to illustrate the point that language and attitudes have been leveraged here by various posters which is not in harmony with the spirit of love that ought to characterize brothers and sisters in Christ.

[wenglund]

Ok I will try to spell it out...

Very Little advise given here related to the heart of the issue when one percieves the problem of what they are taught be ing very different from the historical account and one needs to be acknowleged how one could see how they got there and take the time to help them see a better paradigm with which to see the issue of this contradiction through. Log did that, Peppermint Patty's comments were helpful, Elder Jenson was helpful, Teryl Givens in an interview was helpful.... most of you... your approach wasn't. I thought originally psoting on here, there would be several folks who took their approach but could help me in a one on one coversation better understand this paradigm of missed expectations and realistic expectations of True and Living Church. one person did that here. they know who they are. But I keep telling you that for others sake you have to handle this strufggle differently. I do in actuality have a real faith crisis, but it is not with Joseph, or with the Book of Mormon. IT is with the above issue first stated in this reply. We could defend any church with the some of methods and reasoning used to defend this one and yet the True church must have more rigidness (true and Living, Prophets and Apostles, keys, Priesthood, ect...) and I struggle with fitting all my round pegs (even if you say they are square and I am just not looking at them from the right angle) in the square holes. I can shelf a couple things but my mind doesn't shelf a lot. I don't see the world the way you do... so be it

I can accept different ways of seeing the world. I am even capable of accepting different views to the point that I don't experience a crisis of faith because of those differing views.

More importantly, I am not so concerned with differing views as I am with discerning, with the help of God, which of the differing views will work best for me and those I love. And, as such, this means being open to views that may not at first, or from my limited vantage point, seem all that helpful or pleasant to my eyes and ears.

Be that as it may, I hope you will consider and act on my proposal above. I think it has the potential of being educational for the both of us.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Less-than-charitable, Selek1, if charitable means something other than, in part, fair.

There has been too much unwarranted defensiveness, too much apportioning of blame, too many baseless accusations. If you wish, I can quote mine the thread to illustrate the point that language and attitudes have been leveraged here by various posters which is not in harmony with the spirit of love that ought to characterize brothers and sisters in Christ.

Here is one of my favorite examples from this thread. It has a nice mote/beam ring to it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Log]

Here is one of my favorite examples from this thread. It has a nice mote/beam ring to it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If you think so. Did you perchance catch what it was in reference to? Or is your purpose in presenting it without context ... less than charitable?

Would you like me to return the favor?

Edited April 18, 2012 by Log

[DBMormon]

Ironically- you did.

And then you saw ReelMormon dismiss those answers with an airy wave of his hand- and by vomiting up another plagiarized talking point.

The Saints on these boards went out of his way to answer his "questions"- right up to and beyond the point it became clear he wasn't interested in answers.

By the way, the first not-so-subtle clue was his screenname.

My first reaction on reading it was to flash back to an old parody medicine commercial- "I'm not a real doctor, but I play one on TV."

Reel's behavior has screamed loud and clear, "I'm not a real Mormon, but I play one on the Internets".

Wow again, dismissing me by assuming I am not LDS.... and oddly I am ... and very active... weird..... that whole judging thing

alright so most of you feel you have answered my questions so well...

maybe if I spell each question out that takes care of the whole post and narrows it down to a couple broader issues though I may use a specific instance to illustrate. Please recognize the broader issue though as you answer, but I would love answers to the specific question as well

1.) why do a large portion of members think the only tool Joseph translated with was a device discovered with the plates? Why do missionaries teach that the urim and thummin was used to translate? and when asked what the urim and thummim is they like the others members mentioned here fall back on it being a device found with the plates? Do we owe it to our history and faith to dispell this understanding? and if not is that dishonest? if it is not dishonest explain to me why it is useful to tell the story about the device included with the plates but appropriate to leave out a better historical explanation. Why does the church resources (specifically LDS.ORG and Sunday manuals) not tell us much about Jospeh's treasure hunting and seer stone use as that would be unuseful and un-nessacary meanwhile discussing Joseph's leg surgery in multiple times in church when in reality the treasure hunting and finding the seer stone likely played a larger role in Joseph's prophet mantle?

2.) We discuss at length Moroni's faults judging Pahoran in his writings, Corianton's problems with the harlot Isabel, Paul's thorn in the flesh, Nephi psalm declaring he is wicked, noah's drunkeness, thomas doubting, ect.... but at least in several instances we seem reluctant to allow modern leaders to be seen as anything other then near perfect. we do that by the material not facillitating a discussion on prophets being men who make mistakes or having weaknesses. For example the current George Albert Smith manual briefly touches on his physical ailment but never comes out and tells us that a severe lifetime battle with depression was at the root of his physical problems. That would have been a blessing for others with depression to know a even a prophet had too deal with depression and it overcame him at times. the other example was the hesitantcy to let the general church membership know just how debilitated President Benson was in the last years of his life. Critics point out this was done in order to keep the members thinking the prophet was in charge, regardless if we are going to be less fundamental and less rigid we should be able to handle knowing the Lord's mouthpiece was in late stages of dimensia and no longer functioning in leadership. Why do you think this was done? and what paradigm should I see this through?

3.) I find it difficult within the Lord's true and Living church where we have all the nessacary doctrines and ordinances for salvation that we find a large discrepancy among the words of leaders about the role of works and the role of grace. The new testament (especially Paul) and Book of mormon discuss Grace and it's sanctifying power as the central message of the Book of Mormon ( again in my opinion). Yet Grace is spoken of, it seems to me, very little in the framework of our leader's messages during the early 1900's up till about 1990 or slightly before. Yes it is spoken of but it doesn't have the emphasis or role it has in the New testament and Book of Mormon. To me Grace and understanding it is crucial to the gospel and yet we have menay members who think they are participating in a works righteousness plan of salvation. the third article of faith and 2nd nephi 25:23 lead credence to that yet both are taken at times out of theological context and historical context. EX: read joseph's writing in the original articles of faith before it was changed and see how #3 rolls right into #4. it better helps us to undersatnd it is not obedience....but obedience to a small group of particular things. I am glad to see us slowly get back to Grace having it proper place but it is slow in what seems to me an effort to reconcile it with the words of other leaders who placed much more importance on works even assuming they had merit in our redemption or helped to pay the debt.

Why when the gospel at least at it's basic principles needed for salvation is discussed so differently seeming at odds with other side of the spectrum?

[DBMormon]

Some final (short) comments, and I think I will bow out of this thread and leave to the discussion to everyone else.

For Log, this is not the first time I have had some discussion with reelmormon. So I do in fact have some additional insight.

For me the issue is about the demands and the assumptions. When did the issue of a seer stone become an essential element in understanding the gospel? Reelmormon isn't just presenting us with conflicting accounts and asking us what to do about it. In fact he tells us he has already made up his own mind. He is instead using the conflict to illustrate the point he wants to make. So when he asks if the church has been keeping things from us, it is kind of a rhetorical question in some ways.

There is a certain irony in the claim that he shouldn't have to read Bushman to get these "facts". And then, he goes right out to google (which is exactly what Elder Jensen mentioned) to look for this or that bit of information - completely uncaring about the source he found. Perhaps he is an example of what the leadership is most concerned about and not simply the herald that he claims to be.

At any rate, what is fascinating to me about the whole seer stone issue is that reelmormon hasn't just found a few historical facts, he found an entire interpretation and a narrative and he accepted them. The church can present these issues all they want - they might, for example, teach my version of what seer stones are - my narrative account. And then we will still have two very different narrative accounts. Mine, which suggests that we should recognize that they played a role for a short while in the early church but were eventually rejected as being a necessary thing, and this other narrative which is championed by John Dehlin (whom reelmormon seems to be a fan of) in which the seer stones are of supreme importance in understanding the gospel, and the church's hiding them and keeping them from us, including all of these terribly inaccurate portrayals of the event in art and so on, constitutes some gross breach of trust. There will still be these two narratives, and reelmormon will still encounter another version of that history. And in fact, it will the one he most likely encounters first, as he turns to google as his guide. Reelmormon's message is inconsistent. He tells us "Anyone who thinks that might want to read more from ..." and provides a list while at the same time he earlier suggests he shouldn't need to read from Bushman.

My opinion? The church has certainly created some of this issue as it constantly reminds us of the history of the church. And if the church wants to continue to do so, then it needs to continue to work at removing faith promoting myths and introducing real history. But, the kinds of issues that reelmormon is asking for won't in my personal opinion correct the problems that he is illustrating, or that Elder Jensen was really talking about. Personally, I don't know the best way to do this. I wish that every member of the church was interested in reading, and in forming opinions for themselves. I wish that our members were better able (as a whole) to deal with ambiguity and uncertainty in life. I don't know how to teach these things, because my own path to where I am was uniquely my own.

What I do know is that what reelmormon is doing here in this thread is counterproductive to his cause.

Ben M.

Ben,

Minus a few of the snaring comments you make in this post, this was the very well written and one that I took a lot from. This spoke to me on my level and seemed to address some of this at an angle I am coming from.

Thank you

[selek1]

Less-than-charitable, Selek1, if charitable means something other than, in part, fair.

I accept the correction.

I do, however, stand by my assertion that Reel made his own bed, and now must lie in it.

There has been too much unwarranted defensiveness, too much apportioning of blame, too many baseless accusations.

I take issue with the qualifier "unwarranted". I disagree that there has been too much apportioning of blame- it seems to me that the charges have been right on the mark. As to baseless accusation, one can readily point out that ReelMormon has been far more active in that regard than any of the faithful.

If you wish, I can quote mine the thread to illustrate the point that language and attitudes have been leveraged here by various posters which is not in harmony with the spirit of love that ought to characterize brothers and sisters in Christ.

If you wish to do so, that is your right- though I see no profit in it.

The tendency to board nanny only one side of a disagreement is understandable when one favors the underdog- but what is inescapable is this simple fact: ReelMormon picked this fight and is now crying victim.

He "sowed the wind", and is now crying about how unfair it is that he has reapt the whirlwind.

Neither charity, humility, or patience (nor the rules of the board) require us to stand silent while a poster trolls us, throws bombs, misrepresents himself, plagiarizes anti-Mormon sites, and denigrates our faith, our leaders, or our theology.

We are not required to stand idly by while our faith and our Church are lied about, insulted, and our sacred doctrines are misrepresented.

We are not required by faith or charity to enage in pointless debates with an enfant terrible who ignores all answers which do not meet his preconceptions and who complains endlessly that "an answer he doesn't want to hear" is "no answer at all."

As I stated above, should ReelMormon show any interest in genuine, good-faith dialogue, I'll welcome him with open arms.

Until then, he's just a faceless troll trying to score points on the Internet.

Edited April 18, 2012 by selek1

[DBMormon]

In response to a profound post by Ben McGuire, Log had this to say:

While this is worthy of consideration, to me, Ben's point isn't just that different people have different problems, but rather that there are reasons why only certain people are having certain problems, and this needs to be taken into consideration when formulating solutions.

More particularly, it is wise to consider what is the best way to deal with those certain problems that only certain people are having?

According to reelmormon: "What has always been the focus of my struggles at times has been what felt to me like lack of full disclosure. Like no one really wants to go out of their way to tell the full story...While I am active and have been aware of these issues for many many years it is the lack of info from church sources especially those we use on Sunday that seems to bother me." (see HERE)

Clearly, this is a problem that reelmormon and others have had, though it isn't a problem for all members, if not by far most members.

What, then, is the best way to deal with reelmormon's problem?

Well, presumably in his mind the problem can be solved by the Church fully disclosing things.

However, as Ben astutely pointed out, this really won't solve the problem because reelmormon's problem isn't just with the lack of disclosure, it is also likely with the lack of disclosure of things in a certain expected way.

I would go on to suggest that reelmormon's presumed solution is premature.

One of the first steps of effective problem-solving techniques would be to identify the core cause of the problem, and this is where Ben's point comes into play. A good question to ask at this point would be why is reelmormon is having this problem and other members are not. Could it be that reelmormon's problem may actually be a byproduct or symptom of some other core issue, like a lack of trust or false beliefs and expectations or some other things? And, if so, then were the Church to now fully disclose things in way satisfactory to reelmormon, it may take care of or mask the symptoms, in part or whole, but the core issue may still remain, and may manifest itself through some other symptom.

Also, it is wise to consider solutions to the problem in terms of everyone's interest and in terms of priorities. It wouldn't be wise to propose a solution that may fix one problem while inadvertently creating a number of other problems. And, it wouldn't be wise to give the highest priority to lower priority problems and solutions.

Furthermore, it would be wise to make sure the solution not only solves the specific problem, but it fits the over-all functionality and purpose of the things being fixed. For example, while making a wheel for a race car out of cement might fix the problem of tires going flat, it may not fit the race car's purpose of going fast.

So, if reelmormon is interested, I would be willing to walk him through the process of effective problem resolution for his stated problem, and see if in the end he is still of the opinion that full disclosure by the Church is what is best. Deal?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I appreciated this post, my answer to your thoughts would be that I feel it a perogative to ensure the next generation doesn't have the same hurdles or atleast percieved hurdles to jump. for those who see it my way... less mental gymnastics

thank you... I truly and I mean it, enjoyed this post

[DBMormon]

After the Bible Dictionary passages notes that it is through grace that individuals "receive strength and assistance to do good works that they otherwise would not be able to maintain if left to their own means," the entry states, "This grace is the enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts."

Thus, the Bible Dictionary defines grace as something that helps "men and women lay hold on eternal life" through their works. This is problematic. It is a distortion, I think, of 2 Nephi 25:23, which means that, regardless of what we can do for ourselves, it is by grace we are saved. And saving grace is supposed to be an unmerited gift of God to those who are truly born again, rather than a "push" to help men and women earn their salvation through their own efforts.

Also, the part that says "grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient" is problematic. God is supposed to be almighty, and I'm not aware of any scriptural passage that says God's grace is ever insufficient.

Cobalt........ AMEN

[wenglund]

If you think so. Did you perchance catch what it was in reference to? Or is your purpose in presenting it without context ... less than charitable?

Yes, I caught what it was in reference to, and I also charitably supplied a link so that people could read it in context--your uncharitably false dichotomy notwithstanding. LOL

Would you like me to return the favor?

Only if you think it would be the charitable thing to do. We wouldn't want your lovely sermon on charity to be marred by hypocrisy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DBMormon]

Ironically- you did.

And then you saw ReelMormon dismiss those answers with an airy wave of his hand- and by vomiting up another plagiarized talking point.

The Saints on these boards went out of his way to answer his "questions"- right up to and beyond the point it became clear he wasn't interested in answers.

By the way, the first not-so-subtle clue was his screenname.

My first reaction on reading it was to flash back to an old parody medicine commercial- "I'm not a real doctor, but I play one on TV."

Reel's behavior has screamed loud and clear, "I'm not a real Mormon, but I play one on the Internets".

Edit: I am informed by a plausibly reliable source that "Reel" is a pun on one aspect of said poster's life, rather than "I play one on TV".

I happily concede that my "hunch" on the matter was wrong.

That having been said, I find far too many red flags in his behavior to take his complaints at face value.

Log is right in one respect: quote-mining anti-Mormon sites does not- in and of itself undermine a poster's claims to be a faithful Mormon."

Had that been Reel's only "transgression", his reception here would have been far different.

Where Log goes off the rail, IMO, is that the faithful here have been less-than-fair to ReelMormon's quest for knowledge.

Numerous Saints have tried diligently to answer honestly,humbly, and in good faith- only to have our faith and our leaders mocked, derided, and willfully misrepresented.

The faithful are under no obligation to stand idly while someone slings flaming bags of poo at either ourselves or the Church.

Any distrust, disdain, or hostility that ReelMormon has received has been the harvest of his own diligent labor.

I, for one, would welcome him with open arms and be more than happy to dialogue with him on any subject- provided he showed any evidence of good faith in such interactions.

If he likes, Reel may consider that both an invitation and a challenge.

I am happy to do that, but I have to be able to share what I think are damaging events to illustrate my points.... I have used sarcasm as a way to try and get you guys to see this differently as your way of addressing my issues then what you trying as it isn't working. If that was an apology... I accept. And if you will talk to me as your brother in Christ, I will use less sarcasm in the events I share but you will need to try and understand that your answers aren't working for me and try to take a step back and better understand my paradigm

[Log]

We wouldn't want your lovely sermon on charity to be marred by hypocrisy.

Wade, if you have done unto me that which, if I were to do it to you, would earn me the title of "hypocrite" from you, then that is an interesting bit of self-condemnation you have engaged in.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Log

[wenglund]

I appreciated this post, my answer to your thoughts would be that I feel it a perogative to ensure the next generation doesn't have the same hurdles or atleast percieved hurdles to jump. for those who see it my way... less mental gymnastics thank you... I truly and I mean it, enjoyed this post.

I can't tell if you are willing to accept my good-faith proposal or not. Are you willing to examine your stated problem using proven methods of problem resolution?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

Call for references, please. Apart from the fact that we have already done this dance, and it was clearly established that the Book of Mormon doctrine of the "natural man" is not the same as the false sectarian doctrine of "total depravity," where does the Book of Mormon equate being good with being born again?

Mosiah 27:25 states that being born again means that someone is "changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness."

Mosiah 3:19 and 16:3-5 state that one who persists in their carnal and fallen state (i.e., is not born again) is "an enemy to God" and a servant of the devil.

Moroni 7:11 states that "a man being a servant of the devil cannot follow Christ."

[wenglund]

Wade, if you have done unto me that which, if I were to do it to you, would earn me the title of "hypocrite" from you, then that is an interesting bit of self-condemnation you have engaged in.

But, I didn't give you a sermon on charity, and in that regard I didn't do unto you what you did unto me, and so I don't see how I could be self-condemned even were I to think you may yet earn the title of "hypocrite," hypothetically speaking.

Be that as it may, your point about improving the charitableness of our post is well taken.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 19, 2012 by wenglund

[DBMormon]

In response to a profound post by Ben McGuire, Log had this to say:

While this is worthy of consideration, to me, Ben's point isn't just that different people have different problems, but rather that there are reasons why only certain people are having certain problems, and this needs to be taken into consideration when formulating solutions.

More particularly, it is wise to consider what is the best way to deal with those certain problems that only certain people are having?

According to reelmormon: "What has always been the focus of my struggles at times has been what felt to me like lack of full disclosure. Like no one really wants to go out of their way to tell the full story...While I am active and have been aware of these issues for many many years it is the lack of info from church sources especially those we use on Sunday that seems to bother me." (see HERE)

Clearly, this is a problem that reelmormon and others have had, though it isn't a problem for all members, if not by far most members.

What, then, is the best way to deal with reelmormon's problem?

Well, presumably in his mind the problem can be solved by the Church fully disclosing things.

However, as Ben astutely pointed out, this really won't solve the problem because reelmormon's problem isn't just with the lack of disclosure, it is also likely with the lack of disclosure of things in a certain expected way.

I would go on to suggest that reelmormon's presumed solution is premature.

One of the first steps of effective problem-solving techniques would be to identify the core cause of the problem, and this is where Ben's point comes into play. A good question to ask at this point would be why is reelmormon is having this problem and other members are not. Could it be that reelmormon's problem may actually be a byproduct or symptom of some other core issue, like a lack of trust or false beliefs and expectations or some other things? And, if so, then were the Church to now fully disclose things in way satisfactory to reelmormon, it may take care of or mask the symptoms, in part or whole, but the core issue may still remain, and may manifest itself through some other symptom.

Also, it is wise to consider solutions to the problem in terms of everyone's interest and in terms of priorities. It wouldn't be wise to propose a solution that may fix one problem while inadvertently creating a number of other problems. And, it wouldn't be wise to give the highest priority to lower priority problems and solutions.

Furthermore, it would be wise to make sure the solution not only solves the specific problem, but it fits the over-all functionality and purpose of the things being fixed. For example, while making a wheel for a race car out of cement might fix the problem of tires going flat, it may not fit the race car's purpose of going fast.

So, if reelmormon is interested, I would be willing to walk him through the process of effective problem resolution for his stated problem, and see if in the end he is still of the opinion that full disclosure by the Church is what is best. Deal?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Deal - what format do you see this occuring in

[DBMormon]

I can't tell if you are willing to accept my good-faith proposal or not. Are you willing to examine your stated problem using proven methods of problem resolution?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sorry, I am dealing with dozens of post, tough to keep going back and reading older ones meanwhile newer ones keep popping up. but as you can see I answered yes to this already but read this after that reply.

[DBMormon]

Also, before two days ago I didn't know LOG from Adam, but he has been nothing but kind in the way he has treated me. Christlike if I may say. So please cut him some slack for sticking up for me. He took the time to understand me better and truly has simply sought to look after the one. so leave him out of this, otherwise you will make it difficult for this friendly wave of discussion to continue. If I amde the bed, I am happy to lie in, I am neither bitter nor hurt

[selek1]

Part One:

Wow again, dismissing me by assuming I am not LDS

Incorrect.

I dismiss you because you have proven combatative, insulting, dismissive, and impervious to reason, logic, and the English language.

I do not dismiss you because you claim to be LDS, I dismiss you because you have shown zero interest in real dialogue and have contented yourself with sneering and throwing bombs.

maybe if I spell each question out that takes care of the whole post and narrows it down to a couple broader issues though I may use a specific instance to illustrate. Please recognize the broader issue though as you answer, but I would love answers to the specific question as well

Against my better judgement, we'll do this dance just once more.

1.) why do a large portion of members think the only tool Joseph translated with was a device discovered with the plates?

Ironically, I don't think this accurately characterizes what "most members" believe- nor have you given us any reason to accept it. You have provided no evidence to support your premise. It is, at best, a self-selecting and likely unrepresentative sample.

On the contrary, it has been my experience (again, a self-selecting and likely unrepresentative sample) that regardless of what the lessons actually say, most Mormons will respond with "Joseph translated through the gift and power of the Holy Ghost" and leave it at that.

They are not concerned with the how-to's and why-for's of spectacles, rocks, hats, dictionaries, and curtains. They believe it was translated through the power of God and are content with that explanation.

More importantly, your question begs the premise that it is incumbent upon the Church to force-feed ideas to the members. That is not the case. As with all things in life, what you learn is your responsibility and no one else's.

Yes, the state insisted (by law) that I attend at least ten years of standardized training courses. Yes, the teachers sent home annual, quarterly, weekly, and sometimes daily reports of my progress for parental review.

Yes, my parents encouraged, insisted, bullied, and occasionally punished me to ensure that I completed (most) of the requisite course work at an acceptable level.

But through it all, what I learned- or didn't was my choice and responsibility and no one else's.

Why do missionaries teach that the urim and thummin was used to translate?

Because- according to the surviving records- it was. Was it the only means? No. But it was used. The missionaries use this account in order to teach the concept of translation in a way that is understandable to converts who may (or may not) have any grasp of the idea.

Is this explantion comprehensive? No.

Is it false? Not even close.

and when asked what the urim and thummim is they like the others members mentioned here fall back on it being a device found with the plates?

Because that is an honest answer consistent with the lesson being presented.

Do we owe it to our history and faith to dispell this understanding?

No- why would we? The understanding is honest and accurate. Moreover, the lesson is intended to teach the concept of translation and the (general) means by which it was accomplished.

It fulfills its purpose in an honest and easy-to-understand fashion.

and if not is that dishonest?

Is the lesson taught with an intent to deceive? Hardly. The lesson is factually accurate and educationally functional. There is no intent or means to deceive, mislead, or defraud.

if it is not dishonest explain to me why it is useful to tell the story about the device included with the plates but appropriate to leave out a better historical explanation.

"Better" is a subjective judgement. As written, the lesson is honest, accurate, forthright, and fulfills its designed function- teaching people the basic lesson of how the Book of Mormon was translated.

Why does the church resources (specifically LDS.ORG and Sunday manuals) not tell us much about Jospeh's treasure hunting and seer stone use as that would be unuseful and un-nessacary meanwhile discussing Joseph's leg surgery in multiple times in church when in reality the treasure hunting and finding the seer stone likely played a larger role in Joseph's prophet mantle?

Parsing the above sentence into some semblance of English, one must again point out that your use of "likely" is a subjective and unfalsifiable assumption for which no evidence has been provided.

Your alleged "reality" is nothing more than a subjective preference on emphasis. While the Church does not emphasize this facet of Joseph's life, neither does it hide the evidence or deny it.

Joseph's treasure seeking and seer stone use is irrelevant to the lesson being taught- one (IIRC) of paitence and faith in the Lord.

2.) We discuss at length Moroni's faults judging Pahoran in his writings, Corianton's problems with the harlot Isabel, Paul's thorn in the flesh, Nephi psalm declaring he is wicked, noah's drunkeness, thomas doubting, ect.... but at least in several instances we seem reluctant to allow modern leaders to be seen as anything other then near perfect.

This charge is both spurious and has been laid to rest at least once in this thread.

Our leaders have gone to great lengths to declare their own mortality and fallibility where the venue is appropriate. But one must once again look at the lessons being taught: each and every Conference talk, each and every article published in the Ensign, at the Church website, in our published manuals- in short, everywhere that the Latter-day Saints speak- we are emphasizing Christ and drawing people towards him.

Contrary to your insinuation, we are not lifting up our leaders, but lifting up Christ. That is the mission of the Church- and it is one that we fulfill very well.

Where you hear the names of Thomas Monson, Gordon Hinckley, or Brigham Young mentioned with reverence, it is almost exlusively in terms of their mission as servants of Christ. Not in their own right. Not on their own merit- but in how they reflect Christ in their countenance.

we do that by the material not facillitating a discussion on prophets being men who make mistakes or having weaknesses.

Again- this is a matter of your subjective taste and preference rather than any sort of objective proof. One need only look so far as the recent flap over the Priesthood Ban or the unwarranted sneering over McConkie's Mormon Doctrine.

We cheerfully and freely admit that our leaders can, do, and have made mistakes- and that they are flawed, often foolish human beings.

Gordon B. Hinckley's entire tenure as an Apostle, Assistant to the First Presidency, Counselor, and finally as President of the Church stands in flat refutation to your premise. It was Hinckley's humor (most often self-deprecating) warmth, and- above all- humanity that made him so beloved.

He talked freely of his weaknesses and struggles where it was appropriate- but his every public word and deed served only one purpose: to draw people to Christ.

Hinckley's mission was always to glorify his master and redeemer, rather than himself.

[selek1]

Part Two:

For example the current George Albert Smith manual briefly touches on his physical ailment but never comes out and tells us that a severe lifetime battle with depression was at the root of his physical problems. That would have been a blessing for others with depression to know a even a prophet had too deal with depression and it overcame him at times.

So...what's stopping you from telling them? Again- your complaint boils down to one of personal preference. It's not that the Church is doing it wrong- it's that their not doing it YOUR way.

I'm sorry- but that's not a good enough reason to condemn the Church.

the other example was the hesitantcy to let the general church membership know just how debilitated President Benson was in the last years of his life. Critics point out this was done in order to keep the members thinking the prophet was in charge,

Critics- as a subspecies- can be counted upon to vomit up the least charitable and most damaging spin on any given topic.

That doesn't- not for a moment- mean that their spin is accurate, and I simply refuse to accept their premise- let alone argue from it.

regardless if we are going to be less fundamental and less rigid we should be able to handle knowing the Lord's mouthpiece was in late stages of dimensia and no longer functioning in leadership. Why do you think this was done? and what paradigm should I see this through?

Apparently- you've already picked one. Why should I quibble with your choice?

For my own perspective, I suspect that President Benson's illness was 1) both less severe than the critics insist, and 2) would have provided and unnecessary and unproductive distraction to the membership at large. Rather than advancing the mission of the Church and glorifying Christ, it would have served only to inflame the chattering classes.

And, as you yourself have so nobly demonstrated, the conspiracy theorists and nay-sayers are not bound by anything so pedestrian as facts or reason. They have their preferred outcome/narrative, and will make any necessary rationalizations to reach it.

3.) I find it difficult within the Lord's true and Living church where we have all the nessacary doctrines and ordinances for salvation that we find a large discrepancy among the words of leaders about the role of works and the role of grace.

And yet so many others do not.

Could it be that the discrepancy- like beauty- lies in the eye of the beholder?

The new testament (especially Paul) and Book of mormon discuss Grace and it's sanctifying power as the central message of the Book of Mormon ( again in my opinion). Yet Grace is spoken of, it seems to me, very little in the framework of our leader's messages during the early 1900's up till about 1990 or slightly before. Yes it is spoken of but it doesn't have the emphasis or role it has in the New testament and Book of Mormon.

The key words there are, "in my opinion" and "it seems to me". You have offered us your subjective opinion- but nothing substantive to back it up.

More to the point- very few people have notices the same alleged "dichotomy",

Until you can demonstrate that there is a problem, why should we assume such a mirage exists?

Or to be more blunt- Do we really do justice to a hypochrondiac by playing along with his latest self-diagnosis? Or would we be better and wiser friends to take him to the doctor for a professional and credible assessment of his condition?

To me Grace and understanding it is crucial to the gospel and yet we have menay members who think they are participating in a works righteousness plan of salvation.

Critics and evangelists love this caricature- but I've yet to see any evidence that is more than an uncharitable fabrication.

Every Saint of my acquaintance- online, in person, through mail, letter, video, audio, and even occasionally handwritten notes- acknowledges that it is grace that redeems us, rather than work.

We believe that we are required to be profitable servants of the Lord and develop our talents as outlined in the parables- but I have never encountered a single faithful Latter-day Saint who believes that he or she is sanctified by anything other than Grace.

As such, unless and until you can demonstrate that this belief is held by the Latter-day Saints, you are asking us to join you in hunting down and destroying a mirage.

Ultimately, your complaints boil down to two issues:

1) the Church isn't doing things the way you prefer.

and

2) demanding that we repudiate doctrines and ideas which we don't actually believe to begin with.

In the case of the former, I can only say "tough luck." So long as the Church is in harmony with the Lord, then things will ultimately be well with Zion." If we are not right with the Lord, then no amount of ark-steadying can save us.

As to the latter, I see the quest as a waste of time.

No matter how often we tell the paranoiac that no one is out to get him, he will not believe us.

Once he has his fixation, only he can overcome it.

[selek1]

I am happy to do that, but I have to be able to share what I think are damaging events to illustrate my points....

It is not your "sharing of damaging events" that is problematic- it is your consistent, insistent refusal to engage any sort of reasoning or counter examples. You haven't acknowledged a single instance in which your characterizations were exposed as incomplete or inaccurate.

Nor have you acknowledged a single explanation given to you.

You simply rehash the same talking points over and over.

I have used sarcasm as a way to try and get you guys to see this differently as your way of addressing my issues then what

you trying as it isn't working.

No- you've been hitting us for reactions- also known as trolling.

This statement is also a tacit admission that our answers aren't the problem- but rather than we don't share your bias. The problem isn't that we lack sound reasons or explanations- but that we don't see the problem the way you do.

And that merely reinforces that the problem lies not with the Church, but with your fixation on a specific set of minutia.

If that was an apology... I accept.

Don't kid yourself. I only apologize when I'm wrong. It was, however, an earnest and sincere invitation.

And if you will talk to me as your brother in Christ, I will use less sarcasm...

We tried that once, and you spit in out eyes. Now it's your turn to show good faith. You burned us once- now the ball's in your court.

... but you will need to try and understand that your answers aren't working for me and try to take a step back and better understand my paradigm

Once again, the ball is in your court, not ours.

And we do understand "your paradigm"- we've seen it vomited up a thousand times before by people with less-than-honest agendas.

The problem you're having is that we don't accept your paradigm- and likely never will.

Unless and until you can accept that there might be a reality outside of your assumptions, then we cannot help you.

Until you can accept that there might not be a monster under your bed, you will never be convinced no matter how many times we get down on hands and knees and lift the blankets for you.

Edited April 19, 2012 by selek1

[DBMormon]

Part One:

Incorrect.

I dismiss you because you have proven combatative, insulting, dismissive, and impervious to reason, logic, and the English language.

I do not dismiss you because you claim to be LDS, I dismiss you because you have shown zero interest in real dialogue and have contented yourself with sneering and throwing bombs.

Against my better judgement, we'll do this dance just once more.

Ironically, I don't think this accurately characterizes what "most members" believe- nor have you given us any reason to accept it. You have provided no evidence to support your premise. It is, at best, a self-selecting and likely unrepresentative sample.

On the contrary, it has been my experience (again, a self-selecting and likely unrepresentative sample) that regardless of what the lessons actually say, most Mormons will respond with "Joseph translated through the gift and power of the Holy Ghost" and leave it at that.

They are not concerned with the how-to's and why-for's of spectacles, rocks, hats, dictionaries, and curtains. They believe it was translated through the power of God and are content with that explanation.

More importantly, your question begs the premise that it is incumbent upon the Church to force-feed ideas to the members. That is not the case. As with all things in life, what you learn is your responsibility and no one else's.

Yes, the state insisted (by law) that I attend at least ten years of standardized training courses. Yes, the teachers sent home annual, quarterly, weekly, and sometimes daily reports of my progress for parental review.

Yes, my parents encouraged, insisted, bullied, and occasionally punished me to ensure that I completed (most) of the requisite course work at an acceptable level.

But through it all, what I learned- or didn't was my choice and responsibility and no one else's.

Because- according to the surviving records- it was. Was it the only means? No. But it was used. The missionaries use this account in order to teach the concept of translation in a way that is understandable to converts who may (or may not) have any grasp of the idea.

Is this explantion comprehensive? No.

Is it false? Not even close.

Because that is an honest answer consistent with the lesson being presented.

No- why would we? The understanding is honest and accurate. Moreover, the lesson is intended to teach the concept of translation and the (general) means by which it was accomplished.

It fulfills its purpose in an honest and easy-to-understand fashion.

Is the lesson taught with an intent to deceive? Hardly. The lesson is factually accurate and educationally functional. There is no intent or means to deceive, mislead, or defraud.

"Better" is a subjective judgement. As written, the lesson is honest, accurate, forthright, and fulfills its designed function- teaching people the basic lesson of how the Book of Mormon was translated.

Parsing the above sentence into some semblance of English, one must again point out that your use of "likely" is a subjective and unfalsifiable assumption for which no evidence has been provided.

Your alleged "reality" is nothing more than a subjective preference on emphasis. While the Church does not emphasize this facet of Joseph's life, neither does it hide the evidence or deny it.

Joseph's treasure seeking and seer stone use is irrelevant to the lesson being taught- one (IIRC) of paitence and faith in the Lord.

This charge is both spurious and has been laid to rest at least once in this thread.

Our leaders have gone to great lengths to declare their own mortality and fallibility where the venue is appropriate. But one must once again look at the lessons being taught: each and every Conference talk, each and every article published in the Ensign, at the Church website, in our published manuals- in short, everywhere that the Latter-day Saints speak- we are emphasizing Christ and drawing people towards him.

Contrary to your insinuation, we are not lifting up our leaders, but lifting up Christ. That is the mission of the Church- and it is one that we fulfill very well.

Where you hear the names of Thomas Monson, Gordon Hinckley, or Brigham Young mentioned with reverence, it is almost exlusively in terms of their mission as servants of Christ. Not in their own right. Not on their own merit- but in how they reflect Christ in their countenance.

Again- this is a matter of your subjective taste and preference rather than any sort of objective proof. One need only look so far as the recent flap over the Priesthood Ban or the unwarranted sneering over McConkie's Mormon Doctrine.

We cheerfully and freely admit that our leaders can, do, and have made mistakes- and that they are flawed, often foolish human beings.

Gordon B. Hinckley's entire tenure as an Apostle, Assistant to the First Presidency, Counselor, and finally as President of the Church stands in flat refutation to your premise. It was Hinckley's humor (most often self-deprecating) warmth, and- above all- humanity that made him so beloved.

He talked freely of his weaknesses and struggles where it was appropriate- but his every public word and deed served only one purpose: to draw people to Christ.

Hinckley's mission was always to glorify his master and redeemer, rather than himself.

Thank you for the long answer. Other then your tone I appreciate your answers. They explain to me better how you see things though while it helps it doesn't make me go ohhhhh.... ok that's how I need to see it so I'll keep trying to better understand your paradigm as well.

In regards to your tone......

A couple things about me. I am not a trained typer, so I peck and I make mistakes. I understand English well and Know how to spell well. for the sake of you knowing me better, I have an IQ over 130, but in an effort to not be sterotyped, I am very social and not introverted. I have a college education. In an effort to keep up with you guys as a group I have had to peck (type) quickly. and mistakes are made... is there a spell check on here? If so I'll try to remeber to use it. Otherwise please do not talk down to me. I have never in all my sarcasm called anyone on her dumb or made references to the intelligence, ability, or education of any of you. Only your understanding of my issue.... perhaps my sarcasm has called for yours but don't ever allow that to get personal... it comes through

[selek1]

Thank you for the long answer. Other then your tone I appreciate your answers. They explain to me better how you see things though while it helps it doesn't make me go ohhhhh.... ok that's how I need to see it so I'll keep trying to better understand your paradigm as well.

Thank you.

To be honest, I don't expect anyone to accept my opinion simply at face value. I know me and my sense of humor all too well....

In regards to your tone......

Tell ya what- clean slate all around?