Stone Box

[mrmendoza]

What if all of lost, that is to say dead, history is more or less a "fairy tale"? What if pounding on the block of "literal history" is arguing competing phantasms?

Some subjects are copiously covered with evidence, some are almost bereft of any evidence at all. For instance, taking two secular examples, the American Civil War, and the Norman Conquest (two interests of mine): the ACW is so blessed with a wealth of written documentation that no single person can ever sift through all there is; whereas the Norman Conquest is so meagerly supplied with written, that is to say original, documentation, that anyone can read all there is in an afternoon, not hurrying. And if memory serves, we have (maybe) three extant, medieval copies of Julius Caesar's history, well over a thousand years after the purported events, and a handful of Homer's Illiad and Odyssey, also copies many hundreds of years after the related events. Put a collection of witnesses on the stand and have them relate a shared event from memory; no two will ever agree in details. Nobody remembers what actually happened, they only remember what they noticed and what their brain chooses to remember and how it chooses to remember it: this is all based on a subconscious determination of a complex of what is needful, desirable and inescapable, i.e. impressive or troubling, etc. So anyone writing down what they "saw and heard" is at best going to provide only what they remember, which is first of all incomplete, and secondly colored by HOW they remember it. If you take the Book of Mormon to be literally an ancient record from the members of an ancient culture, you still have what? Mormon transcribing and abridging and Moroni adding a bit at the end: and what are they setting down? The written perceptions of individuals, whose collective memories are those of other individuals. In short, "history" is mostly distorted and imaginative, it can't be otherwise.

This reality puts contemporary life into a different perspective, vis-a-vis written history, or that which lies beyond living memory. All such (sic) is equally accessible to interpretation by all now living, and equally valid as interpreted, if "they" say it is. The only issue, then, is to restrict and remove what is unjust. If belief does not produce injustice (and it rarely does so), then believing what you want is okay, go for it.

Arguing religion based on "historical veracity" is pointless. I just didn't know that for many, many, many years....

I think I agree with much of what your saying here. (If of course I'm interpretating it correctly!)

I believe that this is a problem that I've heard expressed many times when I 've had people tell me that "The Bible has been "proved" by manuscript documentation, or archiology, and the BOM has not! While i can accept that in Mormans abridgement

& Moroni's ad endum, was not only their Interpretation of events, only some of which,they had first hand knowledge of, but mostly what they believed was most important to inscribe!

Did they make mistakes in the cronology? were some of the of the events listed within the text their preception and subject to their biases? Possibly and Probably!

Mormon himself admits as much in the title page. "And now, if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men; werefore, condem not the things of God..."

What he is saying IMO is that the most important things - I.E the Atonement Of Christ- are preserved and the history of his people while greatly abridged is mostly accurate.

But as you've pointed out the historical veracity of its religious concepts cannot be "proved" even if archiologocol evedence for the story could be established.

Of course, in my mind,the fact that we're accepting Mormon and Moroni as authors, would indicate that we are also accepting the Book of Mormon, as a valid testiment to what they are saying!

Mike

Edited May 22, 2013 by mrmendoza

[why me]

When I was in AZ. I occasionaly wore a light cream colored shirt with my suit. When I was called into the Bishopric I was rather strongly informed that, (to quote the Stake councelor who was in attendance) "we are a white shirt stake". He didn't need to say more.

However, if you would have worn your favorite cream colored shirt, nothing would have happened to you. No one can dictate what one's wears to church or to meetings.

[MormonMason]

When I was in AZ. I occasionaly wore a light cream colored shirt with my suit. When I was called into the Bishopric I was rather strongly informed that, (to quote the Stake councelor who was in attendance) "we are a white shirt stake". He didn't need to say more.

Your Stake Counselor was wrong...end of story. Being called into the Bishopric would have given you a copy of what you needed from the CHI to ask him relative to such a policy when the CHI (or, back in the old days, General Handbook of Instructions) says otherwise. Back in the day I wore a yellow shirt, a blue shirt, a gray shirt, as well as a white shirt, and never had a problem one. But I was prepared for a potential problem had it arisen.

[Calm]

Growing up in the church seemed like an endless array of "Hey we've got a new program" for this or that. When I was in the mission field we went through three different sets of discussions, each trying to come up with a new approach or program to bring people into the church. I get tired thinking about it.............

And your point?

[Calm]

Hence his "progress" in the church was hindered.

Anyone who thinks that progression comes within the church through getting callings that are higher in authority doesn't understand the gospel and true spiritual progression.

[Storm Rider]

It is interesting how an individual can take an action - everyone must wear white shirts - and that person then becomes the entire Church on a global level. Nothing could be further from the truth. Look boys and girls, leaders are just people; no better or worse than others. They were given a calling and they accepted, but their calling does not make them more righteous or more worthy; it makes them more accountable. Sometimes they make poor choices and sometimes they make great choices, but never, not ever, does being a leader mean that everything they say and do is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Some bozos like short hair; some like white shirts; some like long sleeves; some want 100% home teaching; some have wild hairs; and some are as docile as a lamb. Regardless, they are just people. If you want to be offended, you will find ample opportunity when dealing with humanity, if you look for it. You will also not find it if you realize that the vast majority of the time, it is not personal.

[cdowis]

Your Stake Counselor was wrong...end of story. Being called into the Bishopric would have given you a copy of what you needed from the CHI to ask him relative to such a policy when the CHI (or, back in the old days, General Handbook of Instructions) says otherwise.

Could you give us that citation. I apologize if I missed it.

[canard78]

As to the reason for why the box washed down the hill, it was because one of the farmers in the area dug out the stone box and broke it up while looking for other treasures. A heavy rain indeed washed the remnants of it down the hill. I know I read that information in a book written by a critic of the Church but I do not recall which one. If I were with my books I could have looked through my collection of anti-Mormon books going back to the 1800s. But, alas, I am not with my books.

Someone please buy MormonMason a Kindle. If I had £1 for every time you made a statement but couldn't answer a CFR because you weren't 'with your books' then I'd have at least £32. Maybe £37.

So to clarify, when a single critic writes a statement that contradicts your view of the world they're talking nonsense. But when a single critic says something that supports your position you're happy to accept it?

I've learned long ago to not accept any critical (or supportive) assertions without being able to read the source in full. Given this definitive claim is only based on the distant memory of your infamous but distant 'books' I'll hold off on accepting this until I can see the reference for myself and appraise accordingly.

[canard78]

I was half way through reading a thread on a stone box when I replied to MM which 'leapfrogged' me to the last page.

I see the usual delightful MDDB entropy has occurred and we're now discussing. Umm... ?? White shirts and polygamy?

[bubbachen]

I think there is sufficient knowledge and information available in the Bible to lead anyone to salvation, who sincerely desires it and is willing to seek, ask, knock...

Thanks for taking the time to reply, Palerider. I agree with your above quote completely with one caveat, one must read the Bible using "the lamp of obedience", per George MacDonald. The Bible is a book, THE book I love the most, but it is only a book. If one "sincerely desires" salvation, one would seek the Spirit of God speaking through that book, and I would contest that at least beginning to obey, or in other words beginning to follow the Savior, is the one requirement the Father has to allow one to gain understanding through His Spirit. Plenty of theologians and biblical scholars hold vast amounts of academic knowledge about the Bible and its history, but they cannot understand the way the Lord intends because they will not follow. I speak from my own experience as well.

From the little I know of you, I think you are in a great place spiritually. You've rejected hypocrisy and LDS cultural baggage and seemed to have "cleaned house". I don't think God would find fault in anyone who is sincerely seeking Him.

[Palerider]

However, if you would have worn your favorite cream colored shirt, nothing would have happened to you. No one can dictate what one's wears to church or to meetings.

Possibly nothing overt would have happened. But there definitely would have been a subtle "mental marking" that this fellow doesn't follow counsel. And that would effect how one is viewed for future callings and assignments in the church.

P.S. It wasn't my favorite..........just a nice shirt........

Edited May 22, 2013 by Palerider

[Palerider]

Your Stake Counselor was wrong...end of story. Being called into the Bishopric would have given you a copy of what you needed from the CHI to ask him relative to such a policy when the CHI (or, back in the old days, General Handbook of Instructions) says otherwise. Back in the day I wore a yellow shirt, a blue shirt, a gray shirt, as well as a white shirt, and never had a problem one. But I was prepared for a potential problem had it arisen.

This would have been about 12 years ago. I don't know how much the handbook has changed since then regarding dress. I know it went through a change a couple of years back, but regardless, the point is, I didn't want to rock the boat. In general I'm inclined to "get in line" more than create controversy (unlike some here might think).

But when I do see something that really smells bad.......watch out.

[Palerider]

Thanks for taking the time to reply, Palerider. I agree with your above quote completely with one caveat, one must read the Bible using "the lamp of obedience", per George MacDonald. The Bible is a book, THE book I love the most, but it is only a book. If one "sincerely desires" salvation, one would seek the Spirit of God speaking through that book, and I would contest that at least beginning to obey, or in other words beginning to follow the Savior, is the one requirement the Father has to allow one to gain understanding through His Spirit. Plenty of theologians and biblical scholars hold vast amounts of academic knowledge about the Bible and its history, but they cannot understand the way the Lord intends because they will not follow. I speak from my own experience as well.

From the little I know of you, I think you are in a great place spiritually. You've rejected hypocrisy and LDS cultural baggage and seemed to have "cleaned house". I don't think God would find fault in anyone who is sincerely seeking Him.

Obedience would be a given. With limited time and space here, I'm not trying to write my Articles of Faith.

Thanks for your input!

[Palerider]

And your point?

The church in my estimation equates following the "program" with spiritual growth. Just as in a similar way the Pharisees connected living the mindless minutia of the law (which they had expanded) with a person's righteousness and status in the community.

It gives them a measuring stick to evaluate the member's righteousness.

[Palerider]

Anyone who thinks that progression comes within the church through getting callings that are higher in authority doesn't understand the gospel and true spiritual progression.

Anyone who thinks those holding leadership positions aren't held in higher esteem as having made good spritual progress doesn't understand the church (or spent enough time in priesthood meetings).........

[ERayR]

The church in my estimation equates following the "program" with spiritual growth. Just as in a similar way the Pharisees connected living the mindless minutia of the law (which they had expanded) with a person's righteousness and status in the community.

It gives them a measuring stick to evaluate the member's righteousness.

I would say that that is probably true for any church you would like to name. However, I would not compare them to Pharisees after all a group needs something to measure the dedication of it professed adherants.

[ERayR]

Anyone who thinks those holding leadership positions aren't held in higher esteem as having made good spritual progress doesn't understand the church (or spent enough time in priesthood meetings).........

See post # 166.

[bubbachen]

Obedience would be a given. With limited time and space here, I'm not trying to write my Articles of Faith.

Preaching the necessity of obedience is anathema to the "doctrine of grace" espoused by mainline evangelicals. On the other end, you get the new Calvinists, or Reformed church, who claim obedience is a necessary fruit but that it is God Himself who makes us obey, that the very act of saving us is performed by God without our participation in any way. At least within the evangelical community, you would be a rare bird if you believe obedience to be a given.

[Palerider]

It is interesting how an individual can take an action - everyone must wear white shirts - and that person then becomes the entire Church on a global level. Nothing could be further from the truth. Look boys and girls, leaders are just people; no better or worse than others. They were given a calling and they accepted, but their calling does not make them more righteous or more worthy; it makes them more accountable. Sometimes they make poor choices and sometimes they make great choices, but never, not ever, does being a leader mean that everything they say and do is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Some bozos like short hair; some like white shirts; some like long sleeves; some want 100% home teaching; some have wild hairs; and some are as docile as a lamb. Regardless, they are just people. If you want to be offended, you will find ample opportunity when dealing with humanity, if you look for it. You will also not find it if you realize that the vast majority of the time, it is not personal.

The councelor who made the statement was flanked by the Stake President and first councelor at the time. They were both supportive.

I have found this (this small issue of the white shirt) to be the case throughout the church wherever I have traveled.

I certainly didn't take offense at it, for none was intended. It's their church they can run it however they want. It's similar to the long hair, beards and mustache issues that used to be more prevelant. It's not a big deal until it becomes a measuring stick for righteousness or a manifestation of whether one will follow or obey the counsel of the brethren. Why, because they are seen as speaking for God.

Therefore, one's relationship with the brethren is tantamount to ones relationship with the Savior.

[go_utes01]

The councelor who made the statement was flanked by the Stake President and first councelor at the time. They were both supportive.

I have found this (this small issue of the white shirt) to be the case throughout the church wherever I have traveled.

I certainly didn't take offense at it, for none was intended. It's their church they can run it however they want. It's similar to the long hair, beards and mustache issues that used to be more prevelant. It's not a big deal until it becomes a measuring stick for righteousness or a manifestation of whether one will follow or obey the counsel of the brethren. Why, because they are seen as speaking for God.

Therefore, one's relationship with the brethren is tantamount to ones relationship with the Savior.

Even if you are correct, and I am sure you are, that some members may unrighteously judge other members' level of righteousness based on inconsequential things such as hair length, facial hair, or color of a shirt, I do not see how that unrighteous judgment can act as a barrier to one's personal relationship with Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ - unless, of course, we allow it to.

[Palerider]

Preaching the necessity of obedience is anathema to the "doctrine of grace" espoused by mainline evangelicals. On the other end, you get the new Calvinists, or Reformed church, who claim obedience is a necessary fruit but that it is God Himself who makes us obey, that the very act of saving us is performed by God without our participation in any way. At least within the evangelical community, you would be a rare bird if you believe obedience to be a given.

It seems obvious to me that when the woman who was taken in adultery was told by the Savior to go and sin no more, that the option to obey or not, was implicit in the directive.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Palerider

[Palerider]

Even if you are correct, and I am sure you are, that some members may unrighteously judge other members' level of righteousness based on inconsequential things such as hair length, facial hair, or color of a shirt, I do not see how that unrighteous judgment can act as a barrier to one's personal relationship with Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ - unless, of course, we allow it to.

I agree, but keep in mind that one of the amenities of being a follower of Christ should be the blessings of love and fellowship in His congregation. Therefore if the congregation is "programmed" to see certain elements as frowned upon by the brethren/Lord, (take for instance two piercings instead of one per ear) then the full fellowship of the congregation can be subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) withdrawn from that individual who is percieved as out of order or not following the program.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Palerider

[Palerider]

See post # 166.

I don't see that post #166 speaks to this.

[bubbachen]

It seems obvious to me that when the woman who was taken in adultery was told by the Savior to go and sin no more, that the option to obey or not was implicit in the directive.

Exactly. Free will, grace/works - you'd find widely varying opinions regarding these topics within the EV community, because some have worshiped the words in the Bible instead of the living God. IMO, LDS theology, at its core, represents the will of God and the meaning of the biblical narrative most correctly. By core, I don't refer to shirt color preference...

[go_utes01]

I agree, but keep in mind that one of the amenities of being a follower of Christ should be the blessings of love and fellowship in His congregation. Therefore if the congregation is "programmed" to see certain elements as frowned upon by the brethren/Lord, (take for instance two piercings instead of one per ear) then the full fellowship of the congregation can be subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) withdrawn from that individual who is percieved as out of order or not following the program.

Your perceptions of the congregation of the followers of Christ is much different than mine. I do not perceive the majority or even a large minority of members of the LDS faith as the self-righteous judgmental people that you apparently experienced/perceived. I have found members of the LDS faith to be some of the most accepting, kind, loving, and truly Christlike people that I have ever had the good fortune of meeting.

Edited May 22, 2013 by go_utes01