Vote On The First Vision At Sunstone

[treehugger]

Minors don't work that way. They aren't like Eagle Palms after you've earned your Eagle. They are awarded with the bachelor's degree. Just get another bachelor's degree.

Seems to me the fair et al v sunstone et al, is all just an exercise in relying on the arm of flesh in a vain attempt at supporting the things of God. Both groups seem to me to lack the spirit in their works.

A vote though, at the end of a presentation on how to gauge the historical accuracy of an event, is simple an act designed for self-fulling prophecy, especially given that much of those in attendance already have bias against the claims of the Church, so any presentation alledging the LDS Church is wrong, is simply the piper playing to itchy ears and handing out hot irons.

are the presentors at Sunstone religious or consider themselves followers of Biblical teachings?

Edited July 11, 2012 by treehugger

[KevinG]

Seems to me the fair et al v sunstone et al, is all just an exercise in relying on the arm of flesh in a vain attempt at supporting the things of God. Both groups seem to me to lack the spirit in their works

Which brings to mind the best way to find out the accuracy of the first vision. Read and pray.

[treehugger]

Which brings to mind the best way to find out the accuracy of the first vision. Read and pray.

I agree. I have never understood, what appears to me, the aversion of Christians to personal prayer for direction .

[ERayR]

Forgive me for my cynicism, but I am having an extremely difficult time understanding what exactly a vote on the First Vision is supposed to accomplish.

I don't either but I propose we accept it as reported by Joseph Smith Jr.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't either but I propose we accept it as reported by Joseph Smith Jr.

Second.

And I call the question.

Those in favor say "aye".

Edited July 11, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

You do realize, of course, that "the Sunstone leadership" doesn't assign the topics. People design their own sessions, and Sunstone just says yes or no. Being the good-natured folk they are, they almost never say no. Especially to a group as distinguished as the presenters on this panel. If TBMs aren't proposing faith-promoting sessions, they have only themselves to blame for missing a tailor-made missionary opportunity with a captive audience.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Forgive my skepticism, but ...

.

[Kenngo1969]

Second.

And I call the question.

Those in favor say "aye".

Aye!

[MAsh]

I just want to say, for the record, that the bigotry on display in this thread is an embarrassment to the Church, the board, and the entire enterprise of Mormon Dialogue & Discussion. It's a helpful reminder of why I stopped posting here. I think I'll return to that policy starting right now.

Wow. I don't post here much either (mostly because I don't have the time), but this caught my eye. You know I like you Chris and I think you are one of the more objective and intelligent critics, but I thought this comment was really ironic... (and personally I usually have fun at Sunstone-- when I'm able to attend-- and I'm not really bothered by a mock vote for fun for an audience that undoubtedly doesn't accept the basic premise of the FV as historical)...

... (here comes the big "BUT") .... but, you don't want to post here anymore because you find this thread to be biggoted and an embarassemet to the Church and this board, but you'll post on that other board which is in ... no way?... biggoted and an embarrassment to critics and the board-that-shall-not-be-named?

[ERayR]

You do realize, of course, that "the Sunstone leadership" doesn't assign the topics. People design their own sessions, and Sunstone just says yes or no. Being the good-natured folk they are, they almost never say no. Especially to a group as distinguished as the presenters on this panel. If TBMs aren't proposing faith-promoting sessions, they have only themselves to blame for missing a tailor-made missionary opportunity with a captive audience.

Distinguished in whose eyes? Speaking as one who has a little bit of alphabet soup trailing my name, I find that it is not an uncommon occurrence for those that have achieved this status to tend to over rate the importance of their own contributions. I am not saying they are unimportant but just not essential to anybodies salvation. For those of us who like to ponder and pontificate and quibble over a word, it is fun but to the majority who are raising their families and making a living, in other words the ones who really keep the world working, it just does not affect their relationship with Christ. In fact the majority of the real people have not even heard of them. Dan Who?

Edited July 11, 2012 by ERayR

[KevinG]

... (here comes the big "BUT") .... but, you don't want to post here anymore because you find this thread to be biggoted and an embarassemet to the Church and this board, but you'll post on that other board which is in ... no way?... biggoted and an embarrassment to critics and the board-that-shall-not-be-named?

You don't get it. That other board is for recovery and support. This one is just for eeeeevil apologetics.

[why me]

I just want to say, for the record, that the bigotry on display in this thread is an embarrassment to the Church, the board, and the entire enterprise of Mormon Dialogue & Discussion. It's a helpful reminder of why I stopped posting here. I think I'll return to that policy starting right now.

Okay, here we go again. The behavior or opinions here are an embarrassment to the church? Really? This is an extremely passive aggressive response. We are human beings here and because of that we are multi dimensional.

[why me]

.

... (here comes the big "BUT") .... but, you don't want to post here anymore because you find this thread to be biggoted and an embarassemet to the Church and this board, but you'll post on that other board which is in ... no way?... biggoted and an embarrassment to critics and the board-that-shall-not-be-named?

It is amazing, isn't it? Chris just showed his passive aggressive side to his personality.

You and everybody else stop applying labels to posters. Thread bans will start after the next insult.

[Scott Lloyd]

Okay, here we go again. The behavior or opinions here are an embarrassment to the church? Really? This is an extremely passive aggressive response. We are human beings here and because of that we are multi dimensional.

There seems to be this endemic sentiment of late that to vigorously defend the Church and its doctrines is to embarrass it. The notion is not in the least self-evident to me. In fact, it strikes me as extremely weird.

[why me]

There seems to be this endemic sentiment of late that to vigorously defend the Church and its doctrines is to embarrass it. The notion is not in the least self-evident to me. In fact, it strikes me as extremely weird.

It is becoming pathetic. However, I believe that it comes from the fact that if a group repeats it enough it must be true. And if the doubting lurker is reading such thoughts over and over again, it must be true. We can see this on critic boards where information or should I say hypotheticals are repeated over and over again. And doubting members reading such information can be affected by it. We see this happening to some of our own recent posters who are doubting the church because of what they have read on critics sites.

Now of course, if one defends the church with a certain tone, they are embarrassing the church. How often has this now been repeated by critics? Quite often.

Edited July 11, 2012 by why me

[wenglund]

There seems to be this endemic sentiment of late that to vigorously defend the Church and its doctrines is to embarrass it.

Another propaganda technique?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

I find it disgustingly disturbing that only a 'true' scholar of Mormonism is based on how TBM that scholar is or how 'liberally objective' another scholar is.

I'm rather fond of those who fit in neither category such as:

Laurie Maffly-Kipp; UNC Chapel Hill (Mormonism and the American Experience

Keith Crudup; Mesa Community College (Religion in America)

David Hall; Harvard Divinity (Religion in America)

Laurel Ulrich; Harvard University

They may not all specialize in Mormon Studies but seem neutral.

[ERayR]

I find it disgustingly disturbing that only a 'true' scholar of Mormonism is based on how TBM that scholar is or how 'liberally objective' another scholar is.

I'm rather fond of those who fit in neither category such as:

Laurie Maffly-Kipp; UNC Chapel Hill (Mormonism and the American Experience

Keith Crudup; Mesa Community College (Religion in America)

David Hall; Harvard Divinity (Religion in America)

Laurel Ulrich; Harvard University

They may not all specialize in Mormon Studies but seem neutral.

There is no neutral work when it comes to politics and religion. Anytime an author writes especially on these topics their own knowledge, understanding and biases are included. Nobody can cover Catholicism as well as a believing, practicing catholic. Nobody can do a study on Mormon issues as well as a believing, practicing Mormon, etc. It just stand to reason that somebody from the outside can not understand as well as from someone from the inside. If they could they would be members. That being said outsiders can offer their perspective as discussion points.

[treehugger]

Post 41, top of page 3

I just want to say, for the record, that the bigotry on display in this thread is an embarrassment to the Church, the board, and the entire enterprise of Mormon Dialogue & Discussion. It's a helpful reminder of why I stopped posting here. I think I'll return to that policy starting right now.

Post 61

Okay, here we go again. The behavior or opinions here are an embarrassment to the church? Really? This is an extremely passive aggressive response. We are human beings here and because of that we are multi dimensional.

Post 63

There seems to be this endemic sentiment of late that to vigorously defend the Church and its doctrines is to embarrass it. The notion is not in the least self-evident to me. In fact, it strikes me as extremely weird.

Whyme & Scott Llyod, up to post 41 less than a handful of the posts are attempts at legitimate discussions of the topic. Most of the posts up to post 41 are mockery. I agree with Chris assessment up that many of the post prior to post 41 are an embarrassment. There is little "vigorous defend[ing]" going on up to post 41.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I almost made a joke about the (IMO) jokey nature of the Jesus Seminar, then it was made known that the similarity was deliberate. Heh.

[why me]

Post 41, top of page 3

Post 61

Post 63

Whyme & Scott Llyod, up to post 41 less than a handful of the posts are attempts at legitimate discussions of the topic. Most of the posts up to post 41 are mockery. I agree with Chris assessment up that many of the post prior to post 41 are an embarrassment. There is little "vigorous defend[ing]" going on up to post 41.

There is nothing to defend. What is there to defend? I think that what is implied is that the panel is rigged and no fair result can be had. And since that is the case, what can be said about it? Also, for chris to take his position as he did when he said he was leaving the board and then head on over to a rabid antimormon board where mockery against mormonism is rampant is hypocritical.

Edited July 11, 2012 by why me

[rodheadlee]

Post 41, top of page 3

Post 61

Post 63

Whyme & Scott Llyod, up to post 41 less than a handful of the posts are attempts at legitimate discussions of the topic. Most of the posts up to post 41 are mockery. I agree with Chris assessment up that many of the post prior to post 41 are an embarrassment. There is little "vigorous defend[ing]" going on up to post 41.

The whole vote thing is a mockery.

[KevinG]

What do you want to bet that during this exercise no one will stop to ponder the wonder of God appearing to His children and instructing them?

That is what I got when the missionaries first shared the JS History with me.

[CASteinman]

I just want to say, for the record, that the bigotry on display in this thread is an embarrassment to the Church, the board, and the entire enterprise of Mormon Dialogue & Discussion. It's a helpful reminder of why I stopped posting here. I think I'll return to that policy starting right now.

Hmmm.. I guess its good to get such things on "the record".

Incidentally, the word "bigot" refers to "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

For the record.

Edited July 11, 2012 by CASteinman

[LifeOnaPlate]

It would be interesting if it was serious, and was approached like Meier approached elements from the Gospels in his Marginal Jew series from his theoretical 'Unpapal Conclave'. Highly respectful and thoughtful, and very insightful, IMHO. And highly regarded.

Meier's project rules.

[CASteinman]

I find it disgustingly disturbing ....

Could be much worse. Could be disturbingly disgusting instead. Time to count blessings!

Edited July 11, 2012 by CASteinman