Co-Opting An Account And Removing The "Mormon" Details

[Kenngo1969]

http://www.snopes.com/glurge/birdies.asp

In the first version of this account, the uniquely-Mormon details of this youngster having visited LDS temples and being charged to tell people about temples and the need to do work for those who have passed beyond the veil have been (conveniently?) removed. However, those details feature prominently in the actual account of this LDS father.

Yes, yes; I get that it's unrealistic to expect anyone who is not Mormon or is not sympathetic to Mormons to relate this account with the "Mormon" details included. Have you ever heard of any instance in which a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has coopted such an account and removed details specific to the faith of the person(s) involved (I'm sure someone has probably done it, but I have to think it's pretty rare)? Does it speak to a paucity of spiritual experience in another person's faith that s/he has co-opted this account and promulgated it with the Mormon details removed? Is there much difference between doing that and removing the labels from relief goods provided by the Church of Jesus Christ so as to obscure the true source of the aid, as was reported by the Salt Lake Tribune a month or two ago? In both cases, aren't the persons responsible bearing false witness? Would it be a fairly good bet (if you were a betting man or woman ) that the person who co-opted the account and removed the Mormon details is a non-LDS Christian, or is that a wholly unreasonable assumption? What say you?

[Mudcat]

http://www.snopes.co...rge/birdies.asp

In the first version of this account, the uniquely-Mormon details of this youngster having visited LDS temples and being charged to tell people about temples and the need to do work for those who have passed beyond the veil have been (conveniently?) removed. However, those details feature prominently in the actual account of this LDS father.

Yes, yes; I get that it's unrealistic to expect anyone who is not Mormon or is not sympathetic to Mormons to relate this account with the "Mormon" details included. Have you ever heard of any instance in which a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has coopted such an account and removed details specific to the faith of the person(s) involved (I'm sure someone has probably done it, but I have to think it's pretty rare)? Does it speak to a paucity of spiritual experience in another person's faith that s/he has co-opted this account and promulgated it with the Mormon details removed? Is there much difference between doing that and removing the labels from relief goods provided by the Church of Jesus Christ so as to obscure the true source of the aid, as was reported by the Salt Lake Tribune a month or two ago? In both cases, aren't the persons responsible bearing false witness? Would it be a fairly good bet (if you were a betting man or woman ) that the person who co-opted the account and removed the Mormon details is a non-LDS Christian, or is that a wholly unreasonable assumption? What say you?

I think it could go either way.

A non-LDS may have read it, felt benefited from the story and wanted to share it with a non-LDS audience but removed details that would likely make the story better received from a differing faith group.

An LDS could have done the same thing for similar reasons.

Whoever did it I think had an ecumenical and positive intention. I know personally I may relay something to a person of another faith in a way that focuses on the heart of the point and avoid extraneous facts that could detract.

LDS are generaly more ecumenical to other faiths than the other way round, so if I were to venture a guess I would say it seems more plausible that the story was "doctored" a bit by an LDS to be a benefit to others of differing faiths but either is plausible.

I don't think suppression of information is bearing false witness in any direct sense. I think the scope of that changes if some sort of harm or limitation of agency to others is caused by such suppression though. edit add - In example, when my son was 4 his puppy got out of the fence and was killed by a car. I discovered it and it was quite a mess. I informed him about the puppies death and let him know it was very quick... however I did not give him the very gory conditions I discovered the animal in.

Regards,

Mudcat

Edited April 19, 2012 by Mudcat

[Kenngo1969]

I think it could go either way.

OK. Are you aware of any instance in which a Latter-day Saint has encountered an account such as this, the original audience for such an account being a mainstream Christian group, and has then proceeded to alter that account so as to improve receptivity among Latter-day Saints? I'm not. As I say, I don't discount the possibility, but I think it's far more likely that the reverse is true. I'd be interested in anyone's opinions as to why that might be the case.

A non-LDS may have read it, felt benefited from the story and wanted to share it with a non-LDS audience but removed details that would likely make the story better received from a differing faith group.

You've read enough of what I've written to know that, if a mainstream Christian were to share an account with me about how a member of his family had, upon returning to this side of the veil following an incident such as this, said that angels had ministered to him in a manner similar to the way in which they ministered to Brian in this account, excepting a few uniquely-LDS details, I wouldn't dismiss such a story out-of-hand by making the preposterous claim that no such thing happens only to members of my faith. I hope that such occurrences would be frequent enough that non-LDS Christians could share their own accounts similar to this one without having to co-opt the account of a Mormon's experience and remove some of the details.

And yet, it appears that this account has, indeed, been co-opted and the details changed by other Christians. Entering the search terms "Brian" and "birdies" into Google, the first search result returned contains this account and some of its variations (with the uniquely-LDS details removed) as they appear on Snopes.com (which is where I got it from). The second result returned leads to the page Texasbobsworld.com, where the account is recounted, likewise with the uniquely-LDS details removed. To be clear, I'm not questioning "Texas Bob's" motives, nor am I accusing him of removing those details. It's impossible to know who first promulgated this account with those details removed. I am, however, chagrined that whoever is first responsible for promulgating this account with the details removed apparently has not had enough experience with the Divine himself or herself to be able to share his or her own story rather than resorting to "borrowing" the story of another faith and changing it in what members of that faith would consider to be fundamental ways.

An LDS could have done the same thing for similar reasons.

OK, but again, are you aware of any instance in which a Latter-day Saint has encountered an account such as this, the original audience for such an account being a mainstream Christian group, and has then proceeded to alter that account so as to improve receptivity among Latter-day Saints? And again, I would hope that mainstream Christians are having enough of their own experiences with the Divine to be able to tell us their own stories rather than "borrowing" ours and leaving out what we think are important details.

Whoever did it I think had an ecumenical and positive intention. I know personally I may relay something to a person of another faith in a way that focuses on the heart of the point and avoid extraneous facts that could detract.

That may be, but doesn't it speak to a certain level of "spiritual poverty" that, instead of sharing his or her own accounts (or accounts of those close to him or her) of encounters with the Divine, he or she had to "borrow" this one?

LDS are generaly more ecumenical to other faiths than the other way round, so if I were to venture a guess I would say it seems more plausible that the story was "doctored" a bit by an LDS to be a benefit to others of differing faiths but either is plausible.

That's possible, but the whole point of the account is that this youngster was given a mission to return to this side of the veil and to bear witness specifically of tenets and practices unique to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I would hope that any Latter-day Saint who might conisider altering the account in the manner you suggest would realize this, and would avoid doing so. Having read some of what I've written previously, I'm sure you realize that I'm all for ecumenism: we should find common ground wherever possible and act accordingly, but for Latter-day Saints, that doesn't include watering down our unique message simply to make it more palatable to non-LDS Christians.

I don't think suppression of information is bearing false witness in any direct sense. I think the scope of that changes if some sort of harm or limitation of agency to others is caused by such suppression though.

Arguably, the agency of others is potentially limited by omitting the "Mormon" details from this account. Who's to say that what this account, with those details included, wouldn't touch its non-LDS hearers' hearts to such an extent that they might be moved upon to hear the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ? (Sorry, Mudcat; I couldn't resist that one, but you opened the door ...)

... In example, when my son was 4 his puppy got out of the fence and was killed by a car. I discovered it and it was quite a mess. I informed him about the puppies death and let him know it was very quick... however I did not give him the very gory conditions I discovered the animal in.

Fair enough, but your attempt at analogy, I think, is somewhat inapposite. There are reasons, good and sound, for you to limit the information you share with your son about the unfortunate demise of his puppy. (Just tell him that Don Bluth, who is a Mormon, I believe, was right: All dogs do go to heaven. ) (Not sure how old your son is now, but if he's still mourning that loss, please extend my condolences, and, if you're so inclined, tell him that I think Don Bluth is right. ) In the Church of Jesus Christ, while there may be rare exceptions, generally, if we wish to share a non-Latter-day-Saint's experience with the Divine, we let that person and his or her experience speak for him- or herself, and for itself, respectively. We don't try to fit those experiences into a paradigm different from that in which they were experienced. We might seek parallels between that paradigm and an LDS paradigm, but we don't confuse the two.

[cinepro]

OK. Are you aware of any instance in which a Latter-day Saint has encountered an account such as this, the original audience for such an account being a mainstream Christian group, and has then proceeded to alter that account so as to improve receptivity among Latter-day Saints?

Other the the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, I can't think of anything.

[Log]

Other the the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, I can't think of anything.

That was almost clever. On first sight I kinda smiled a bit, thought about it for a few more seconds, realized that it was exactly backwards, and so stopped smiling.

[cinepro]

But seriously, I think you're reading way to much into this. People just love inspirational stories, and based on what I find in my email inbox, there is no shortage of this stuff.

[Kenngo1969]

But seriously, I think you're reading way to much into this. People just love inspirational stories, and based on what I find in my email inbox, there is no shortage of this stuff.

Well, you know. I just wonder why people can't share their own such stories, rather than "borrowing" ours and altering them in fundamental ways. You may find that question insignificant. To each his own. You're free to ponder something else.

[cinepro]

Well, you know. I just wonder why people can't share their own such stories, rather than "borrowing" ours and altering them in fundamental ways. You may find that question insignificant. To each his own. You're free to ponder something else.

But to keep it in perspective, you're talking about a single person. One person edited the story and sent it to someone. Everyone after that probably didn't know it had been altered.

It would be fascinating to know what was going through their mind as they edited it (could they have even been LDS themselves?), but we'll probably never know.

It does remind me of the First Discussion on my mission. We would read the account of the First Vision from the Joseph Smith History, but we were supposed to omit the part about Satan coming to stop him. It's just a matter of "speaking to your audience", and I don't think it's being intentionally dishonest.

[Kenngo1969]

But to keep it in perspective, you're talking about a single person. One person edited the story and sent it to someone. Everyone after that probably didn't know it had been altered.

A point I conceded to Mudcat, above.

It would be fascinating to know what was going through their mind as they edited it (could they have even been LDS themselves?), but we'll probably never know.

It could have been, but the whole point of the account is that this youngster was given a mission to return to this side of the veil and to bear witness specifically of tenets and practices unique to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I would hope that any Latter-day Saint who might conisider altering the account in the manner you suggest would realize this, and would avoid doing so.

It does remind me of the First Discussion on my mission. We would read the account of the First Vision from the Joseph Smith History, but we were supposed to omit the part about Satan coming to stop him. It's just a matter of "speaking to your audience", and I don't think it's being intentionally dishonest.

The appearance of Satan to Joseph Smith is not fundamental to his account of the First Vision in the same way that temples and spirits who are waiting to have ordinances performed for them therein are fundamental to this youngster's account of his visit beyond the veil.

[Mudcat]

OK. Are you aware of any instance in which a Latter-day Saint has encountered an account such as this, the original audience for such an account being a mainstream Christian group, and has then proceeded to alter that account so as to improve receptivity among Latter-day Saints? I'm not. As I say, I don't discount the possibility, but I think it's far more likely that the reverse is true. I'd be interested in anyone's opinions as to why that might be the case.

I am not aware of either actually. All we have got is a story by an LDS that seems to have been tampered with a bit and we don't know who did it.

Periphery but I think a relevant example would be the usage of CS Lewis snippets by LDS.

In general, I think chief complaint is the suppression of facts by whomever. On a personal level I have experienced such suppression, and in a harmful way I might add. But one doesn't have to look at my own life experiences. One could look at how the CoJCoLDS has suppressed information to it's membership.. http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=fdf6c106dac20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

12th image down with JS, the plates and translator at hand seems to be a misrepresentation of the known facts.

I have heard talk of "baseball baptisms" but don't know much about them other than to say that what I have heard seems to point towards similar things.

You've read enough of what I've written to know that, if a mainstream Christian were to share an account with me about how a member of his family had, upon returning to this side of the veil following an incident such as this, said that angels had ministered to him in a manner similar to the way in which they ministered to Brian in this account, excepting a few uniquely-LDS details, I wouldn't dismiss such a story out-of-hand by making the preposterous claim that no such thing happens only to members of my faith. I hope that such occurrences would be frequent enough that non-LDS Christians could share their own accounts similar to this one without having to co-opt the account of a Mormon's experience and remove some of the details.

Which is why my leaning is toward an LDS speaking to non-LDS.

And yet, it appears that this account has, indeed, been co-opted and the details changed by other Christians. Entering the search terms "Brian" and "birdies" into Google, the first search result returned contains this account and some of its variations (with the uniquely-LDS details removed) as they appear on Snopes.com (which is where I got it from). The second result returned leads to the page Texasbobsworld.com, where the account is recounted, likewise with the uniquely-LDS details removed. To be clear, I'm not questioning "Texas Bob's" motives, nor am I accusing him of removing those details. It's impossible to know who first promulgated this account with those details removed. I am, however, chagrined that whoever is first responsible for promulgating this account with the details removed apparently has not had enough experience with the Divine himself or herself to be able to share his or her own story rather than resorting to "borrowing" the story of another faith and changing it in what members of that faith would consider to be fundamental ways.

Bold mine. I think that is a forgone conclusion. Your conclusion seems to be based on the notion that the culprit is the next most popular site on your web search. This doesn't really prove anything in that regard I think.

OK, but again, are you aware of any instance in which a Latter-day Saint has encountered an account such as this, the original audience for such an account being a mainstream Christian group, and has then proceeded to alter that account so as to improve receptivity among Latter-day Saints? And again, I would hope that mainstream Christians are having enough of their own experiences with the Divine to be able to tell us their own stories rather than "borrowing" ours and leaving out what we think are important details.

This seems to be the same question backwards. I don't really know of either actually.

That may be, but doesn't it speak to a certain level of "spiritual poverty" that, instead of sharing his or her own accounts (or accounts of those close to him or her) of encounters with the Divine, he or she had to "borrow" this one?

Well no I don't think that at all. Take the story of the blindmen and the elephant in example. The origin of it is Jainist or Hindu or something like that. No telling how many times I have had LDS missionaries repeat that story to make their particular point.

More directly, in missionary work, LDS borrow from JS accounts (sacred grove, first vision and so on) to establish things.

That's possible, but the whole point of the account is that this youngster was given a mission to return to this side of the veil and to bear witness specifically of tenets and practices unique to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I would hope that any Latter-day Saint who might conisider altering the account in the manner you suggest would realize this, and would avoid doing so. Having read some of what I've written previously, I'm sure you realize that I'm all for ecumenism: we should find common ground wherever possible and act accordingly, but for Latter-day Saints, that doesn't include watering down our unique message simply to make it more palatable to non-LDS Christians.

No were cool and I get your point here. But I would think you have seen LDS do things that are inconsistent with what you feel is the correct way of doing things?

That aside, take into consideration this whole "milk before meat" thing. LDS press it much more than EV's do for sure. I think it potentially likely that an LDS offered a "meat" free version for those they felt couldn't withstand it.

Arguably, the agency of others is potentially limited by omitting the "Mormon" details from this account. Who's to say that what this account, with those details included, wouldn't touch its non-LDS hearers' hearts to such an extent that they might be moved upon to hear the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ? (Sorry, Mudcat; I couldn't resist that one, but you opened the door ...)

No worries there, I have already put a bit on your plate. But I think the "watered" down version leaves you with the impression that God is real, so are His angels, God has a plan for us and His angels help us carry it out.

Fair enough, but your attempt at analogy, I think, is somewhat inapposite. There are reasons, good and sound, for you to limit the information you share with your son about the unfortunate demise of his puppy. (Just tell him that Don Bluth, who is a Mormon, I believe, was right: All dogs do go to heaven. ) (Not sure how old your son is now, but if he's still mourning that loss, please extend my condolences, and, if you're so inclined, tell him that I think Don Bluth is right. ) In the Church of Jesus Christ, while there may be rare exceptions, generally, if we wish to share a non-Latter-day-Saint's experience with the Divine, we let that person and his or her experience speak for him- or herself, and for itself, respectively. We don't try to fit those experiences into a paradigm different from that in which they were experienced. We might seek parallels between that paradigm and an LDS paradigm, but we don't confuse the two.

That story is 8 years old now. It was the first time I was confronted with the option of deceiving my child to save them pain or being honest with them and causing pain. I am glad I chose the latter. In general he has gotten well past Peter Dog, which was the pups name.

But let me reposit the question of your OP to you. Do you think it possible that an LDS might have revealed a story to non-LDS and rather than giving them what they percieved as both the milk and meat of such, they thought the milk was sufficient given the audience?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Calm]

Eons ago I came across reports of the origin of two popular stories among LDS that turned out to be from nonLDS sources, one of which was an Evangelical woman (Johnny Lingo might have been one of them). While I can't remember if any details were changed, I do know the general assumption was that they were 'LDS made' among my friends at least.

yep, JL was one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Lingo_(1969_film)

[Kenngo1969]

I am not aware of either actually. All we have got is a story by an LDS that seems to have been tampered with a bit and we don't know who did it.

OK. Fair enough. If a Latter-day Saint altered the account, though, s/he removed details which are (from an LDS perspective) fundamental to it. If the point the "alterer" was trying to make is simply that there are such things as angels and an afterlife, there are plenty of accounts (both from an LDS origin and from a non-Mormon Christian origin) to which s/he can resort to make that point without having to leave out any details.

Periphery but I think a relevant example would be the usage of CS Lewis snippets by LDS.

So ... you're positing that LDS have resorted to Lewis's writings and have altered them in fundamental ways to press them into service to the cause of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I'd have to see a comparison of Lewis's original writings with the alleged LDS alterations/omissions in order to be able to respond to this.

In general, I think chief complaint is the suppression of facts by whomever. On a personal level I have experienced such suppression, and in a harmful way I might add.

No, actually, I would have no complaints about (for example) your "suppressing facts" about the unfortunate demise of your son's beloved pet. Such "facts" weren't fundamental to the information you needed to convey. As for your being the victim of such suppression, if this occurred at the hands of a Latter-day Saint in service of what that LDS perceived to be some "higher cause," you have my apologies, and I can assure you that's not typical of the way missionary work ... or anything in the Church in general ... is done (nor of how it is taught to be done). And you're right; I don't think that whoever first altered the account of Brian's experience to make it more palatable to a non-LDS audience intended harm, but I do think it altered the account in a fundamental way.

But one doesn't have to look at my own life experiences. One could look at how the CoJCoLDS has suppressed information to it's membership.. http://www.lds.org/l...0003a94610aRCRD

12th image down with JS, the plates and translator at hand seems to be a misrepresentation of the known facts.

How the translation process was done is not fundamental to the Book of Mormon's existence. (If Joseph Smith dictated all or part of the Book of Mormon to his scribes while standing on his head, rubbing his tummy counterclockwise, and clucking like a chicken, one still has to account for the book's existence in some way). By contrast, the fact that this then-youngster was given a specific commission to witness of the importance of temples and of the ordinances performed therein is fundamental to the account under discussion.

I have heard talk of "baseball baptisms" but don't know much about them other than to say that what I have heard seems to point towards similar things.

To the extent they occurred they were wrong, and they're not typical of how missionary work was done then, nor, certainly, are they typical of how it is done now. But you're correct. They are an example of fundamentally altering the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (by severely watering them down, apparently) in the service of a focus on numbers rather than on true conversion. (And no, by no means am I attempting to suggest that it's in any way "typical" for non-LDS to fundamentally alter accounts such as this to make them more palatable to a non-LDS audience ...)

Which is why my leaning is toward an LDS speaking to non-LDS.

And, if so, I think that would be unfortunate, because the details excised are fundamental to the account from an LDS perspective. Again, if the point is merely to provide support for the existence of angels and of an afterlife, there are plenty of accounts which do that from both an LDS Christian and a non-LDS Christian perspective.

Bold mine. I think that is a forgone conclusion. Your conclusion seems to be based on the notion that the culprit is the next most popular site on your web search. This doesn't really prove anything in that regard I think.

I wasn't really focusing on the order in which the results of my search were returned. I should've just said, "another search result" rather than saying that it was the second one down. I was merely trying to indicate which of the results I found significant.

This seems to be the same question backwards. I don't really know of either actually.

Is it possible an LDS removed details from this account to make it palatable to a non-LDS audience? Sure, it's possible. But again, those details are, from an LDS perspective, fundamental to the account.

Well no I don't think that at all. Take the story of the blindmen and the elephant in example. The origin of it is Jainist or Hindu or something like that. No telling how many times I have had LDS missionaries repeat that story to make their particular point.

Use of parables is one thing. Whether the parable actually happened is secondary to the point being conveyed. Use of purportedly-true accounts, and altering them by removing fundamental details (whoever is responsible) is quite another. Again, your analogy is inapposite, I think. Were details which were fundamental to the account removed from the "blind man and the elephant" story?

More directly, in missionary work, LDS borrow from JS accounts (sacred grove, first vision and so on) to establish things.

Wouldn't it miss the point of using those accounts if LDS were to alter them in fundamental ways?

No were cool and I get your point here. But I would think you have seen LDS do things that are inconsistent with what you feel is the correct way of doing things?

Of course. No one is perfect, and more than that, we're all more successful at some times than at other times "putting off the natural man (see Mosiah 3:19, Book of Mormon).

That aside, take into consideration this whole "milk before meat" thing. LDS press it much more than EV's do for sure. I think it potentially likely that an LDS offered a "meat" free version for those they felt couldn't withstand it.

Perhaps, but there are resources one can use which don't involve altering them in fundamental ways in order to do that. One needn't use a resource one must alter in a fundamental way in order to do that.

No worries there, I have already put a bit on your plate. But I think the "watered" down version leaves you with the impression that God is real, so are His angels, God has a plan for us and His angels help us carry it out.

Agreed, but I think there are other accounts to which one can resort which convey that same message without having to alter them in fundamental ways.

That story is 8 years old now. It was the first time I was confronted with the option of deceiving my child to save them pain or being honest with them and causing pain. I am glad I chose the latter. In general he has gotten well past Peter Dog, which was the pups name.

And, of course, leaving out the gory details didn't frustrate your purpose of conveying the essential information.

But let me reposit the question of your OP to you. Do you think it possible that an LDS might have revealed a story to non-LDS and rather than giving them what they percieved as both the milk and meat of such, they thought the milk was sufficient given the audience?

Sure. It's possible. But I think most LDS would choose an account which is better suited for that limited purpose over fundamentally altering one which, as written/related, is ill-suited to that limited purpose. I believe most LDS would agree that the power of this account lies in the uniquely LDS details.

[Calm]

I believe it was Betty Eadie, Embraced by the Light, who tended to alter her own NDE to meet the 'needs' of the audience. She was LDS, but that fact was suppressed by her publicist when going outside of Utah with her story.

[Kenngo1969]

Eons ago I came across reports of the origin of two popular stories among LDS that turned out to be from nonLDS sources, one of which was an Evangelical woman (Johnny Lingo might have been one of them). While I can't remember if any details were changed, I do know the general assumption was that they were 'LDS made' among my friends at least. yep, JL was one: http://en.wikipedia....ingo_(1969_film)

Fair enough. If you ever run across someone who delivers an account you know has been fundamentally altered, please tell him or her to stop it, will you? There are enough powerful accounts among religious people of all stripes that we/they can use our/their own, without having to fundamentally alter someone else's of another faith.

P.S.: The "borrowing" of Johnny Lingo must entail that story being altered in fundamental ways in order for that instance to be compared appropriately to this one. It would be one thing if those responsible for its production had distorted the story by inserting uniquely-LDS details or by removing any details not consistent with an LDS worldview. To the best of my knowledge, neither one of those things occurred.

P.P.S.: I haven't seen Johnny Lingo or its credits in ages, but if BYU or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints never gave credit where its due ("Based on a short story by Patricia McGerr") or never received her approval to proceed, that raises potential copyright concerns. Both accounts, however, the short story and the movie, are fiction.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

I believe it was Betty Eadie, Embraced by the Light, who tended to alter her own NDE to meet the 'needs' of the audience. She was LDS, but that fact was suppressed by her publicist when going outside of Utah with her story.

Fine. I'll concede the point, to you and to Mudcat, that such alteration occurs among people of all religious stripes in order best to suit one's audience. The difference, though, is that it's Ms. Eadie's experience. She has the right to relate it however she wishes to best suit her audience. Not having read Ms. Eadie's account, I'm not sure how many of the details are unique to the Mormon concept of the afterlife. From what little I've read/heard, Ms. Eadie's message has always been a more general assurance of God's love. Mudcat, I'm absolutely certain that God' loves you, Mrs. Mudcat, and all the Little Mudkittens, and I don't need to borrow, nor to fundamentally alter, Ms. Eadie's account to convey that message to you.

[cinepro]

Eons ago I came across reports of the origin of two popular stories among LDS that turned out to be from nonLDS sources, one of which was an Evangelical woman (Johnny Lingo might have been one of them). While I can't remember if any details were changed, I do know the general assumption was that they were 'LDS made' among my friends at least.

yep, JL was one: http://en.wikipedia....ingo_(1969_film)

But it should be pointed out that, if my memory serves me correctly, "Johnny Lingo" doesn't actually have any "LDS" elements. There are no specific religions or doctrines mentioned.

Edited April 20, 2012 by cinepro

[Calm]

I've never seen the movie or filmstrip myself.....

I dont' see either of my examples as parallel to the one Ken gave, but they are the closest thing I can come up with.

Edited April 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Kenngo1969]

I've never seen the movie or filmstrip myself.....

I dont' see either of my examples as parallel to the one Ken gave, but they are the closest thing I can come up with.

I thought that watching Johnny Lingo at some point as a youth, or as a youth leader, was a rite of passage in the Church!

[Calm]

I thought that watching Johnny Lingo at some point as a youth, or as a youth leader, was a rite of passage in the Church!

And whoever claimed I ever chose to grow up?

[Peppermint Patty]

And whoever claimed I ever chose to grow up?

Cal,

Here is Johnny Lingo in its entirety. Please watch it and tell us what you think. Your thoughts will probably be worthy of their own OP.

[Mudcat]

OK. Fair enough. If a Latter-day Saint altered the account, though, s/he removed details which are (from an LDS perspective) fundamental to it. If the point the "alterer" was trying to make is simply that there are such things as angels and an afterlife, there are plenty of accounts (both from an LDS origin and from a non-Mormon Christian origin) to which s/he can resort to make that point without having to leave out any details.

This assumes the availability of such stories were readily at hand. I have heard lot's of stories that enforce my own viewpoints, the viewpoints of others and so forth but I only remember a handful of them. Perhaps this particular story had struck a note with a particular person and they hung on to it.

So ... you're positing that LDS have resorted to Lewis's writings and have altered them in fundamental ways to press them into service to the cause of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I'd have to see a comparison of Lewis's original writings with the alleged LDS alterations/omissions in order to be able to respond to this.

Not really positing that at all. You might want to reread my statement. I just realize that many LDS often quote Lewis. I think mostly because he was a good writer that naturally appealed to many. Like any good story teller we all seek to fit ourselves into the narrative. However Lewis' views weren't consistent with LDS thought.There is no good analogy.. but take Bishop T.D. Jakes, who is a well known modalist pastor, would LDS feel Jakes was in line the BoM if he borrowed the snippets of verses in his messages that seem to promote a modalistic view of the Godhead?

No, actually, I would have no complaints about (for example) your "suppressing facts" about the unfortunate demise of your son's beloved pet. Such "facts" weren't fundamental to the information you needed to convey. As for your being the victim of such suppression, if this occurred at the hands of a Latter-day Saint in service of what that LDS perceived to be some "higher cause," you have my apologies, and I can assure you that's not typical of the way missionary work ... or anything in the Church in general ... is done (nor of how it is taught to be done). And you're right; I don't think that whoever first altered the account of Brian's experience to make it more palatable to a non-LDS audience intended harm, but I do think it altered the account in a fundamental way.

Something worth thinking about is that there is more than one view at play. Certainly if we assume the original story is a fact then it seems a given that Brian's "mission" is to spread the details of his story explicitly. Does this necessarily mean that another person who, after hearing the details, feels moved to follow Brian's explicit mission or is it possible they feel inclined to something else but consider Brian's story a vehicle to their own ends?

How the translation process was done is not fundamental to the Book of Mormon's existence. (If Joseph Smith dictated all or part of the Book of Mormon to his scribes while standing on his head, rubbing his tummy counterclockwise, and clucking like a chicken, one still has to account for the book's existence in some way). By contrast, the fact that this then-youngster was given a specific commission to witness of the importance of temples and of the ordinances performed therein is fundamental to the account under discussion.

My issue was not with the translation process, but rather the false depiction of the translation process given the known facts.

If the facts pointed towards JS dictating the BoM standing on his head, rubbing his tummy counterclockwise, and clucking like a chicken, I would imagine we wouldn't see any change in the picture offered in my cited example. Your hyperbole and the actual seem both to equally be far flung from what was presented.

To the extent they occurred they were wrong, and they're not typical of how missionary work was done then, nor, certainly, are they typical of how it is done now. But you're correct. They are an example of fundamentally altering the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (by severely watering them down, apparently) in the service of a focus on numbers rather than on true conversion. (And no, by no means am I attempting to suggest that it's in any way "typical" for non-LDS to fundamentally alter accounts such as this to make them more palatable to a non-LDS audience ...) And, if so, I think that would be unfortunate, because the details excised are fundamental to the account from an LDS perspective. Again, if the point is merely to provide support for the existence of angels and of an afterlife, there are plenty of accounts which do that from both an LDS Christian and a non-LDS Christian perspective.

No intent to focus on this. I am regretful I mentioned my own struggles. I will say that missionaries were not the issue on this point and may send you a PM at some future time on the matter.

I wasn't really focusing on the order in which the results of my search were returned. I should've just said, "another search result" rather than saying that it was the second one down. I was merely trying to indicate which of the results I found significant. Is it possible an LDS removed details from this account to make it palatable to a non-LDS audience? Sure, it's possible. But again, those details are, from an LDS perspective, fundamental to the account.

Just a thought here, but you ought to consider the NT Gospels and the resurrection narrative. Details differ from one to another. Perhaps it isn't so much the removal of details but rather the significance of particular details in the retelling of a story.

Use of parables is one thing. Whether the parable actually happened is secondary to the point being conveyed. Use of purportedly-true accounts, and altering them by removing fundamental details (whoever is responsible) is quite another. Again, your analogy is inapposite, I think. Were details which were fundamental to the account removed from the "blind man and the elephant" story? Wouldn't it miss the point of using those accounts if LDS were to alter them in fundamental ways?

I was just responding to the idea of borrowing things from other faith groups from your statment... "That may be, but doesn't it speak to a certain level of "spiritual poverty" that, instead of sharing his or her accounts (or accounts of those close to him or her) of encounters with the Divine, he or she had to borrow this one?"

snipped a bit because I am a bit tired

Sure. It's possible. But I think most LDS would choose an account which is better suited for that limited purpose over fundamentally altering one which, as written/related, is ill-suited to that limited purpose. I believe most LDS would agree that the power of this account lies in the uniquely LDS details.

I appreciate that you think it's possibly conceivable. Your a wonderfully affable fellow and I have a great deal of respect for your thoughts. We just don't know who did it nor what there motivations were. I am sure there are countless permutations as to motivation that neither of us have even considered. I'd just as soon keep the jury out on this one unless further evidence forwards itself.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Edited April 21, 2012 by Mudcat

[Calm]

Sorry, it is a point of pride of mine never to have seen it. Can't make me, nyah, nyah, nyah.....told you I hadn't grown up.

[Peppermint Patty]

Sorry, it is a point of pride of mine never to have seen it. Can't make me, nyah, nyah, nyah.....told you I hadn't grown up.

I respect, and applaud you for your decision never to watch. After watching Johnny Lingo many times in my youth, I can tell you that you are making the right choice.

[Kenngo1969]

This assumes the availability of such stories were readily at hand. I have heard lot's of stories that enforce my own viewpoints, the viewpoints of others and so forth but I only remember a handful of them. Perhaps this particular story had struck a note with a particular person and they hung on to it.

Perhaps. Here's to more people, of all religious persuasions, having firsthand experience with the Divine and being moved upon (when it wouldn't be casting pearls before swine) to share that experience.

... I just realize that many LDS often quote Lewis. I think mostly because he was a good writer that naturally appealed to many. ...

Yes, he is, and yes, he did.

Like any good story teller we all seek to fit ourselves into the narrative.

I don't know that it's necessarily trying to fit ourselves into the narrative in the case of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as much as it is attempting to act in accordance with the view among Latter-day Saints that "If it's true (whatever the source), we believe it," and that "all truth may be circumscribed into a single, unified whole."

However Lewis' views weren't consistent with LDS thought.

I admit, I haven't read enough of him to know, but I'm wary of blanket statements such as this. I think it more likely that some of Lewis's views were consistent with LDS thought, and some (perhaps many) of them weren't (unless one going to argue that either Latter-day Saints aren't Christian or that Lewis wasn't ... which I seriously, seriously doubt you would do). Total agreement between non-LDS sources and LDS doctrine isn't a sine qua non for use of the former by Latter-day Saints. Our quoting Lewis isn't intended to turn him into a Latter-day Saint any more than our quoting of the Christian reformers (or of Roman Catholic sources, for that matter) is intended to turn them into Latter-day Saints. That's what baptism by proxy is for. (Just kidding, of course. I'm sure you know, but in case you don't, or in case there's some question in the mind of anyone who might read this, proxy ordinances provide the opportunity: those for whom they're performed retain free will to accept or to reject them).

There is no good analogy.. but take Bishop T.D. Jakes, who is a well known modalist pastor, would LDS feel Jakes was in line the BoM if he borrowed the snippets of verses in his messages that seem to promote a modalistic view of the Godhead?

Something tells me that there would be no small hue and cry among the good pastor's parishioners if he were to do that.

Something worth thinking about is that there is more than one view at play. Certainly if we assume the original story is a fact then it seems a given that Brian's "mission" is to spread the details of his story explicitly. Does this necessarily mean that another person who, after hearing the details, feels moved to follow Brian's explicit mission or is it possible they feel inclined to something else but consider Brian's story a vehicle to their own ends?

You're right about one thing: once an account such as this is out there, it's impossible to prevent that from happening in any event, no matter how one might wish to do so (if, indeed, s/he does). I suppose it's like the game in which one person whispers something to another person, who in turn whispers it to another, and so on, until the final person is asked to relate what s/he was told outloud, and it bears little (if any) resemblance to what the first person whispered to the second. There was no conscious attempt to alter details, to omit them, or to include details which weren't part of what the first person told the second, but such a thing happening is inevitable.

My issue was not with the translation process, but rather the false depiction of the translation process given the known facts. If the facts pointed towards JS dictating the BoM standing on his head, rubbing his tummy counterclockwise, and clucking like a chicken, I would imagine we wouldn't see any change in the picture offered in my cited example. Your hyperbole and the actual seem both to equally be far flung from what was presented.

To each his own, then, because for me, the important fact that must be dealt with in order to come to any definitive decision about the Book of Mormon is the mere fact of its existence. From an LDS perspective, God could have chosen any means (or any number of means) to bring forth the Book of Mormon. Why He chose the means He did is beyond me: Isaiah 55:8-9.

No intent to focus on this. I am regretful I mentioned my own struggles. I will say that missionaries were not the issue on this point and may send you a PM at some future time on the matter.

I hope you don't feel you've "cast your pearls before swine" in sharing as much as you did with me. I would never intentionally make light of your struggles. I've told you before that you're one of my favorite posters on the Board; I don't ever see that changing, whatever disagreements we might have. (Someone once said that if two people are of absolutely the same mind on absolutely everything, one of them is unnecessary. I certainly don't think you're unnecessary ... to say the very least! )

Just a thought here, but you ought to consider the NT Gospels and the resurrection narrative. Details differ from one to another. Perhaps it isn't so much the removal of details but rather the significance of particular details in the retelling of a story.

I think the resurrection narratives are, for the most part, remarkably consistent in their details, particularly the details that are fundamental to the accounts. Of course, the ramifications of the Resurrection are so all-encompassing that I think it's inevitable that there would be some variation in the accounts.

I was just responding to the idea of borrowing things from other faith groups from your statment... "That may be, but doesn't it speak to a certain level of "spiritual poverty" that, instead of sharing his or her accounts (or accounts of those close to him or her) of encounters with the Divine, he or she had to borrow this one?"

Again, here's to more people having more firsthand experience with the Divine, and to their sharing of those experiences when doing so doesn't amount to "casting pearls before swine."

I appreciate that you think it's possibly conceivable. Your a wonderfully affable fellow and I have a great deal of respect for your thoughts. We just don't know who did it nor what there motivations were. I am sure there are countless permutations as to motivation that neither of us have even considered. I'd just as soon keep the jury out on this one unless further evidence forwards itself.

That's fair enough. I believe I'll put your "wonderfully affable" descriptor in my signature line, lest anyone be tempted to conclude that I'm "three steps left of Godzilla," should my interaction with him or her leave a different impression! As I said before in analogizing this situation to the "whispered story" game above, details may be added, changed, or omitted even absent the slightest intent to do so (whatever one's motive). Once an account gets out there, it's out there, and there's no controlling the narrative from that point.