Letter To A Ces Director

[Anteojito]

There is a lot of apologetic material out there that doesn't require new revelation, but does need historical details and locating the relevant doctrine for those in need.

Some controversies will need to wait for revelation, but even there one can see obvious gradations between trivial and life changing implications. I don't see the 15 having much to say on the first. And IMO I believe that God allows us to struggle on our own for quite sometime before revealing the answer...perhaps to make clear what man made confusion looks like in contrast to God revealed truth so that we will someday be not so fond of our own mind creations and be more willing to set it aside when gifted with God's words or Spirit.

Authority is very important in the Church. There is only on Prophet in the church, only one SP in a Stake and only one Bishop in a Ward. No one else can speak for these men. Apologists try to answer some difficult gospel questions yet they do not have the authority to do so. As far as I know, they are not called and are not set apart to do so. People read their statements and some believe their opinions to be the official church stance. If the 15 men in the FP and Qof12 are set apart as prophet, seers, and revelators, why don't they stand as Abinadi did and tell it like it is? 

Edited February 28, 2014 by Anteojito

[guerreiro9]

My point is that Apologists try to

Authority is very important in the Church. There is only on Prophet in the church, only one SP in a Stake and only one Bishop in a Ward. No one else can speak for these men. Apologists try to answer some difficult gospel questions yet they do not have the authority to do so. As far as I know, they are not called and are not set apart to do so. People read their statements and some believe their opinions to be the official church stance. If the 15 men in the FP and Qof12 are set apart as prophet, seers, and revelators, why don't they stand as Abinadi did and tell it like it is?

They have many times. They just don't feel the same subjects are important that you think are important. What did Abinadi speak on? The ten commandments and Jesus Christ primarily. Certainly you have heard the general authorities speak on this subject?

-guerreiro9

[Calm]

My point is that Apologists try to 

 

Try to what?

[Anteojito]

Try to what?

Typo. sorry

[Anteojito]

They have many times. They just don't feel the same subjects are important that you think are important. What did Abinadi speak on? The ten commandments and Jesus Christ primarily. Certainly you have heard the general authorities speak on this subject?

-guerreiro9

So one of the 15 got up in general conference and explained the issues with the BOA? A while ago I did a search of general conference talks and could not find any GA that talked about the BOA except with they just lumped it together with the other scriptures. Granted I only went back about 20-25 years. If they don't think the subjects are important then maybe they should rethink it. A lot of people are leaving the church due to those unimportant topics.

[cinepro]

It does however affect my personal belief, which is what I stated. Not wanting something to be true impedes belief in that something, regardless of whether that something is true or not.

 

 

You keep stating it as if it were some objective principle of the human experience.  It isn't.  It's actually a flaw in the way you formulate your beliefs, and while it's brave of you to admit it, I wouldn't be so insistent that others adopt it.

 

I would also point out that this isn't a necessary premise to maintaining a testimony of the LDS Church.  To borrow the New Testament analogy, I would say that the way you have linked "belief" to something so subjective is building your "house" upon "sand".  

[cinepro]

 

Take for instance the geography issue.  Apologists simply try to destroy it saying the geographical names have similarities but since they are in the wrong places it must be false.  This ignores the idea that Joseph borrowed the names but didn't put them in the same geographic places so as to not be seen as a fraud.  This same concept applies to view of the hebres, in that we want to say since he didn't copy concepts exactly, then he didn't borrow at all.  I think that's bad reasoning and leaves the doubter feeling like we are nopt taking these criticisms seriously.  

 

One thing I think apologists are good at is seeing the "cost" of giving up certain ground, and only doing so when absolutely forced to.

 

In the examples you mention, admitting that Joseph Smith "borrowed" BoM place names from 19th century sources would give too much ground on the origin story of the Book of Mormon, and would lead to fatal questions regarding the translation process and other aspects of the book.  Until the evidence becomes overwhelming, it's best for apologists to stand fast on this issue.

[Kevin Christensen]

My point is that Apologists try to 

 

Authority is very important in the Church. There is only on Prophet in the church, only one SP in a Stake and only one Bishop in a Ward. No one else can speak for these men. Apologists try to answer some difficult gospel questions yet they do not have the authority to do so. As far as I know, they are not called and are not set apart to do so. People read their statements and some believe their opinions to be the official church stance. If the 15 men in the FP and Qof12 are set apart as prophet, seers, and revelators, why don't they stand as Abinadi did and tell it like it is?

Expedience is an interesting word that appears several times in the Doctrine and Covenants. It has to do with appropriate action for both long term and short term priorities. God's priorities, I notice, not being the same as human priorities, owing to his perspective being rather different. See Isaiah 55 on that.

Anomaly emerges against a background of expectation. (Thomas Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

What makes something observed seem wrong, then, is expectation. But what happens if you change your expectations? You can make the same observation and enjoy a sense of harmony. All by changing expectations. Expectations are built via paradigms, and those come via the standard examples we choose to generalize from. What if you build your paradigm on non-representative examples? You get faulty expectations, and thereby generate lots of anomalies. Take the Letter to a CES director, for instance. Is the root and source of the material gathered and contextualized in a thoroughly generic fashion a matter of a discerning eye, or simply due to matter of faulty expectations?

I did a long and detailed study on what I should expect from prophets. That is up at the FAIR Wiki. I've also done quite a lot of consideration of what I should expect from people. MBTI, the Perry Scheme, and that includes things like D&C 1 that carefully spells out "my authority and the authority of my servants." Read carefully, that can generate a very specific set of quite realistic expectations.

What about two or many different people looking at the same subject and noticing very different things about it? Or as Jesus tells it, why is it that the same words (seeds in the parable) can produce such vastly different harvests? Context and nurture make a huge difference.

The Letter to a CES director strikes me as quite generic. Like stuff I read decades ago in Changing World of Mormonism, and again in other derivative works, like in Abanes ten years ago, and numerous other breathless, troubled, or indignant recyclers of the same material. I just cannot get excited about it at this late date. Been there, done that, moved on. What is behind the totally generic treatment of the same material? What expectations and paradigms produce such generic thought in some people, and which someone like me finds so inherently uninvolving?

I also can't help but notice that none of the information about LDS resources and experience that I find the most exciting make appearances. Paradigms affect what a person is able to notice and value. Insist on here and now perfection, and as an inevitable consequence, the only things noticed and valued are apparent imperfections. And they all seem huge because against a demand for perfection, any imperfection is decisive. So a long list of questions, any one of which is enough to demolish an expectation of perfection, can seem overwhelming. Unless, as happens in my own case, I have a different expectation. Is Joseph Smith's inspiration real? Not perfect. Real. Where can I find evidence of that? I notice that this approach changes everything that I notice and that I value. It directs my attention in a completely different way than would an expectation of perfection. I still see all the kinds of issues raised in the CES letter... none of it bothers me. I've read up on it years ago. The information just appears against a different set of expectations. And I find that I go looking for information on a wide range of other topics and approaches that don't appear here.

Say the stereotypical fixation on Masons. I know about that stuff, but I find the fact that the Book of Mormon already has everything about temples far more interesting. See Jack Welch's work on Benjamin's discourse, and 3 Nephi as a temple text. The Book of Mormon has everything. Nauvoo Mormonism was just catching up.

The fixation on "italicized words".. I know about that stuff. But with a different set of expectations, I'm far more interested in things like Welch's observation that the 3 Nephi account leaves out the phrase "without a cause", something that affects meaning far more than the various italicized words. It's a matter of looking for evidence of "real inspiration" or "any apparent imperfection."

What is authority anyway? There is more than one kind. It's not all prophetic authority. Medical, musical, literary, academic, linguistic, theraputic... any topic, any realm of human experience a person can imagine. If I happen to know something about a topic, I have authority within that sphere to the extent of my knowledge. I don't need to be a prophet, or a stake president, or a bishop. I've been called to positions by Stake Presidents and Bishops and others, on occasion, because my expertise in some realm of experience was noticed and valued by such persons.

What makes a person an authority on the nature of the Book of Mormon translation is not transferable by means of a church calling, but rather the extent of their knowledge and experience with the source material, the history, the people, the means, and the results. Priesthood authority has it's own realm and function.

View of the Hebrews as an explanation of the Book of Mormon? Really? And yes I have read that too. And I cannot get excited. How about Jack Welch's 1985 essay, "Answering B. H. Roberts' Questions and 'An Unparallel'". How about Nibley's work, and the Aston's work, and Sorenson and Gardner and others. How about what is really cool about the Book of Mormon? Does that weigh in the balance at all? Mormon and Moroni as Survivor Witnesses? Barker's Temple Theology. Goff's work on Type Scenes. Ben McGuire on the allusions to only one of two different Goliath stories that have been interlaced in the Old Testament? How about Larry Poulson on the implications of a Grijalva setting for the story of Limhi's explorers? Mormon's Codex. Welch on the Legal Cases of the Book of Mormon. Goff and others on close readings.

I keep my eyes open. I give things time. I re-examine my assumptions now and then. The alternative is to not even try to keep up with current scholarship, insist on final officially endorsed answers now, and to refuse to question my own expectations.

Underneath all the fuss of the Letter to a CES Director, I don't see a huge amount of complexity. But rather an over-simplicity in unrealistic expectation that always generates the same kind of result. A demand for perfection tends to focus on and see only imperfection. These can be got "off-the shelf" just about anywhere.

My own expectations are not over-simplified. As a result, I don't generate the same kind of irreconcilable complexities for myself. And rather than Letter to a CES director, I write things like "Paradigms Crossed" and "Night Unto Death: NDE Research and the Book of Mormon" and "Paradigms Regained."

As a direct consequence, I am frequently rewarded with observations that strengthen my conviction that Joseph Smith's inspiration is real.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited March 1, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[Anteojito]

Expedience is an interesting word that appears several times in the Doctrine and Covenants. It has to do with appropriate action for both long term and short term priorities. God's priorities, I notice, not being the same as human priorities, owing to his perspective being rather different. See Isaiah 55 on that.

Anomaly emerges against a background of expectation. (Thomas Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

What makes something observed seem wrong, then, is expectation. But what happens if you change your expectations? You can make the same observation and enjoy a sense of harmony. All by changing expectations. Expectations are built via paradigms, and those come via the standard examples we choose to generalize from. What if you build your paradigm on non-representative examples? You get faulty expectations, and thereby generate lots of anomalies. Take the Letter to a CES director, for instance. Is the root and source of the material gathered and contextualized in a thoroughly generic fashion a matter of a discerning eye, or simply due to matter of faulty expectations?

I did a long and detailed study on what I should expect from prophets. That is up at the FAIR Wiki. I've also done quite a lot of consideration of what I should expect from people. MBTI, the Perry Scheme, and that includes things like D&C 1 that carefully spells out "my authority and the authority of my servants." Read carefully, that can generate a very specific set of quite realistic expectations.

What about two or many different people looking at the same subject and noticing very different things about it? Or as Jesus tells it, why is it that the same words (seeds in the parable) can produce such vastly different harvests? Context and nurture make a huge difference.

The Letter to a CES director strikes me as quite generic. Like stuff I read decades ago in Changing World of Mormonism, and again in other derivative works, like in Abanes ten years ago, and numerous other breathless, troubled, or indignant recyclers of the same material. I just cannot get excited about it at this late date. Been there, done that, moved on. What is behind the totally generic treatment of the same material? What expectations and paradigms produce such generic thought in some people, and which someone like me finds so inherently uninvolving?

I also can't help but notice that none of the information about LDS resources and experience that I find the most exciting make appearances. Paradigms affect what a person is able to notice and value. Insist on here and now perfection, and as an inevitable consequence, the only things noticed and valued are apparent imperfections. And they all seem huge because against a demand for perfection, any imperfection is decisive. So a long list of questions, any one of which is enough to demolish an expectation of perfection, can seem overwhelming. Unless, as happens in my own case, I have a different expectation. Is Joseph Smith's inspiration real? Not perfect. Real. Where can I find evidence of that? I notice that this approach changes everything that I notice and that I value. It directs my attention in a completely different way than would an expectation of perfection. I still see all the kinds of issues raised in the CES letter... none of it bothers me. I've read up on in years ago. The information just appears against a different set of expectations. And I find that I go looking for information on a wide range of other topics and approaches that don't appear here.

Say the stereotypical fixation on Masons. I know about that stuff, but I find the fact that the Book of Mormon already has everything about temples far more interesting. See Jack Welch's work on Benjamin's discourse, and 3 Nephi as a temple text. The Book of Mormon has everything. Nauvoo Mormonism was just catching up.

The fixation on "italicized words".. I know about that stuff. But with a different set of expectations, I'm far more interest in things like Welch's observation that the 3 Nephi account leaves out the phrase "without a cause", something that affects meaning far more than the various italicized words. It's a matter of looking for evidence of "real inspiration" or "any apparent imperfection."

What is authority anyway? There is more than one kind. It's not all prophetic authority. Medical, musical, literary, academic, linguistic, theraputic... any topic, any realm of human experience a person can imagine. If I happen to know something about a topic, I have authority within that sphere to the extent of my knowledge. I don't need to be a prophet, or a stake president, or a bishop. I've been called to positions by Stake Presidents and Bishops and others, on occasion, because my expertise in some realm of experience was noticed and valued by such persons.

What makes a person an authority on the nature of the Book of Mormon translation is not transferable by means of a church calling, but rather the extent of their knowledge and experience with the source material, the history, the people, the means, and the results. Priesthood authority has it's own realm and function.

View of the Hebrews as an explanation of the Book of Mormon? Really? And yes I have read that too. And I cannot get excited. How about Jack Welch's 1985 essay, "Answering B. H. Roberts' Questions and 'An Unparallel'". How about Nibley's work, and the Aston's work, and Sorenson and Gardner and others. How about what is really cool about the Book of Mormon? Does that weigh in the balance at all? Mormon and Moroni as Survivor Witnesses? Barker's Temple Theology. Goff's work on Type Scenes. Ben McGuire on the allusions only one of two different Goliath stories that have been interlaced in the Old Testament? How about Larry Poulson on the implications of a Grijalva setting for the story of Limhi's explorers? Mormon's Codex. Welch on the Legal Cases of the Book of Mormon. Goff and others on close readings.

I keep my eyes open. I give things time. I re-examine my assumptions not and then. The alternative is to not even try to keep up with current scholarship, insist on final officially endorsed answers now, and to refuse to question my own expectations.

Underneath all the fuss of the Letter to a CES Director, I don't see a huge amount of complexity. But rather an over-simplicity in unrealistic expectation that always generates the same kind of result. A demand for perfection tends to focus and see only imperfection. These can be got "off-the shelf" just about anywhere.

My own expectations are not over-simplified. As a result, I don't generate the same kind of irreconcilable complexities for myself. And rather than Letter to a CES director, I write things like "Paradigms Crossed" and "Night Unto Death: NDE Research and the Book of Mormon" and "Paradigms Regained."

As a direct consequence, I am frequently rewarded with observations that strengthen my conviction that Joseph Smith's inspiration is real.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin,

 

  Thanks for the lengthy and well thought out reply, but to me it just proves my point. Who are any of these guys that I should listen to them? I am sure they are all sincere, intelligent, and well intentioned, but do they have the express authority from God to speak on his behalf about topics that affect the whole church? Were they called and set apart by those in authority to do so? if not, their explanations of gospel issue carry no more weight  (to me) than the know-it-all guy in Gospel Doctrine class. In a sense you aren't advocating "trusting in the arm of the flesh"?

 

Thanks again for you comments

[DBMormon]

One thing I think apologists are good at is seeing the "cost" of giving up certain ground, and only doing so when absolutely forced to.

 

In the examples you mention, admitting that Joseph Smith "borrowed" BoM place names from 19th century sources would give too much ground on the origin story of the Book of Mormon, and would lead to fatal questions regarding the translation process and other aspects of the book.  Until the evidence becomes overwhelming, it's best for apologists to stand fast on this issue.

I am not suggesting they admit he borrowed names but rather that it is one possible conclusion as the names are similar regardless of where they are located on "Mormon's map" compared to upstate NY.  By saying with a wave of the hand that "they are in different places geographically, so we dismiss them outright"  seems weak and a strawman in my opinion.  Simply being placed in different geographic spots alone does not negate plagarism, does it?

[DBMormon]

Kevin,

 

  Thanks for the lengthy and well thought out reply, but to me it just proves my point. Who are any of these guys that I should listen to them? I am sure they are all sincere, intelligent, and well intentioned, but do they have the express authority from God to speak on his behalf about topics that affect the whole church? Were they called and set apart by those in authority to do so? if not, their explanations of gospel issue carry no more weight  (to me) than the know-it-all guy in Gospel Doctrine class. In a sense you aren't advocating "trusting in the arm of the flesh"?

 

Thanks again for you comments

 

 

I think I hear you.  For example on the flood.  All LDS leaders teach a global flood.  Since this is the accepted teaching and understanding, you are asking what right do Apologists have to cast away the problem of a global flood, simply because it doesn't work?  right

 

This applies to Jesus born on April 6th

location of the hill cumorah

Book of Abraham issues

ect....

 

Is this the overall question?

 

If it is, then my answer is this. I reserve the right, at my own peril perhaps, to have my interaction with the Holyghost trump that of the words of the prophets.  While I am not free to push those differences as truth, I am free to offer it as a possible alternative in reconciling such issues.

Edited February 28, 2014 by DBMormon

[cinepro]

I am not suggesting they admit he borrowed names but rather that it is one possible conclusion as the names are similar regardless of where they are located on "Mormon's map" compared to upstate NY.  By saying with a wave of the hand that "they are in different places geographically, so we dismiss them outright"  seems weak and a strawman in my opinion.  Simply being placed in different geographic spots alone does not negate plagarism, does it?

 

But if plagiarism is an untenable option, then they use whatever explanations they can come up with, no matter how weak.

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin,

 

  Thanks for the lengthy and well thought out reply, but to me it just proves my point. Who are any of these guys that I should listen to them? I am sure they are all sincere, intelligent, and well intentioned, but do they have the express authority from God to speak on his behalf about topics that affect the whole church? Were they called and set apart by those in authority to do so? if not, their explanations of gospel issue carry no more weight  (to me) than the know-it-all guy in Gospel Doctrine class. In a sense you aren't advocating "trusting in the arm of the flesh"?

 

Thanks again for you comments

You are welcome. Though, I think, much about the points proved or not depends on definitions.

What do you mean by a prophet? I do have a pretty good idea of why I should listen to them that also lets me not multiply personal anxieties over institutional conservativism that shows up in predictable ways, due to predictable social mechanisms and tendencies. Wisdom starts when I worry first about removing the beam from my own eye before deciding I know what I'm doing when I judge them. I actually spent a long time exploring the question.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

So I worry as much about myself as an arm of the flesh. If I can get what is expedient from a prophet, I don't need perfection from them, or from CES. And that is good news because then I don't need to condemn myself for falling short either. I don't have to take myself seriously if my own imperfections don't signify the end of all hope and meaning.

My focus in my spiritual life is not on the wine skin, but on carrying capacity. What does mine hold? My actually holds quite a lot. I see lots of broken wine skins about. That's a problem, but no reflection on the reality or the quality of the wine. A more tolerant and robust container works wonders.

As Joseph Smith says, "I want the liberty of believing as I please, and I grant all mean the same privilege. It feels good not to be trammeled." There are always those around, of course, who treat Mormonism as though it were, or has been, or could be, all codified in a Big Book of What to Think. By me, they're missing the point of what Mormonism is. A fountain flows with living waters. D&C 1 is very clear, very enlightening and liberating, if you read it carefully, and do not lapse into proof-texting in isolation from context. Given time and enough experience, the mind-binders will get over it, all, I trust, as God wills.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited March 1, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[Anteojito]

I think I hear you.  For example on the flood.  All LDS leaders teach a global flood.  Since this is the accepted teaching and understanding, you are asking what right do Apologists have to cast away the problem of a global flood, simply because it doesn't work?  right

 

This applies to Jesus born on April 6th

location of the hill cumorah

Book of Abraham issues

ect....

 

Is this the overall question?

 

If it is, then my answer is this. I reserve the right, at my own peril perhaps, to have my interaction with the Holyghost trump that of the words of the prophets.  While I am not free to push those differences as truth, I am free to offer it as a possible alternative in reconciling such issues.

Yes. Thank you. 

[DBMormon]

But if plagiarism is an untenable option, then they use whatever explanations they can come up with, no matter how weak.

 

you seem to imply that they are avoiding plagarism, but I am simply asking them to acknowledge that plagarism is one "viable" conclusion based on the information even though they make a different viable conclusion.  If we fail to acknowledge the ground gained by critics we will be seen as too one sided and many we disregard us as blind to the facts.  I would rather show the doubter I completely understand how he could see XYZ that way, acknowledge that is one viable way to see it, but here is the position I take that acknowleges the facts and still lets me lead with faith. 

 

It is this sort of thing Richard Bushman speaks of when he says

"Rather than destroy the critics, we want to loosen their grip."

 

[guerreiro9]

You keep stating it as if it were some objective principle of the human experience. It isn't. It's actually a flaw in the way you formulate your beliefs, and while it's brave of you to admit it, I wouldn't be so insistent that others adopt it.

I would also point out that this isn't a necessary premise to maintaining a testimony of the LDS Church. To borrow the New Testament analogy, I would say that the way you have linked "belief" to something so subjective is building your "house" upon "sand".

Are you trying to tell me that we as humans do not find it easier to believe in things we want to be true than we do in things that we don't want to be true?

Yes, I am stating this as a given fact. I am stating this as a scientist, who although scientists claim to be completely rational and dispassionate has seen other scientists nearly come to blows over denunciations of their pet theory. Are you telling me that religious belief is entirely dispassionate and isolated from emotional wants and desires?

-guerreiro9

Edited February 28, 2014 by guerreiro9

[guerreiro9]

So one of the 15 got up in general conference and explained the issues with the BOA? A while ago I did a search of general conference talks and could not find any GA that talked about the BOA except with they just lumped it together with the other scriptures. Granted I only went back about 20-25 years. If they don't think the subjects are important then maybe they should rethink it. A lot of people are leaving the church due to those unimportant topics.

No, all of the 15 have gotten up in general conference and spoken about Jesus Christ and the 10 commandments as Abinadi did.

They don't seem all that interested in talking about the translation of the Book of Abraham, although they do discuss the scripture contained within.

It seems obvious that you seem to find this subject to be one of great importance, but that doesn't mean they do. I'm sure King Noah would have preferred that Abinadi speak about something else. In the end that didn't turn out too well for either of them.

-guerreiro9

Edited February 28, 2014 by guerreiro9

[ALarson]

They don't seem all that interested in talking about the translation of the Book of Abraham, although they do discuss the scripture contained within.

It seems obvious that you seem to find this subject to be one of great importance, but that doesn't mean they do.

-guerreiro9

And yet members are leaving the church over this and other issues that are also not addressed by the Prophet or 15.  I would think that should catch their interest and make it important to them to help struggling members with the answers to their questions instead of leaving it up to apologists.  I am speaking from experience here and I know it would have helped me a great deal to hear from the 15 on these topics.  I know we have the essays now....so that's at least a start, but how many members will even see them?

[Analytics]

Wanting something to be true does not make anything more true than wanting something to be false makes it untrue. I never said it did. My desire for the LDS church to be true has no effect on its truth claims.

It does however affect my personal belief, which is what I stated. Not wanting something to be true impedes belief in that something, regardless of whether that something is true or not.

There aren't any truth claims the Church makes that can be proven in the same manner as the financial example you gave. There are very few promises given by the Church that pertain to the here and now.

If I get to the other side and find out my belief is misplaced then I suppose I will deal with it at that point. Until then I'll enjoy the temporal aspects of being a member of the Church. I live a better life than most people who have ever walked this Earth. Almost none of it is of my doing, but is a reflection of the hard work and values of the people who built the community I live in, most of whom were and are LDS. Maybe their belief is mistaken, but after seeing many parts of this world most people can only dream that their ancestors made the same mistake.

-guerreiro9

 

I get it that it is easier to believe in something if you want to believe in it.  But there are lines that can be crossed when wanting to believe something isn’t enough to actually succeed in believing it.  If you don’t believe me, interview some children who have been disabused of belief in Santa.  Why don’t they believe?  Because they don’t want to badly enough?  If they wanted to believe more, could they muster belief?

 

If you don’t believe the church teaches much that is falsifiable, I’d suggest you reread the letter to the CES director.

 

ETA: Let me add one more comment.  Wade Cook’s wife sincerely believed in the wisdom of her husband, and for a stretch lived a life of ludicrous wealth.  Perhaps she would have said the same thing—following Wade has made me fabulously wealthy, I choose to believe, and it’s working out quite well so far.

 

Then she found herself in federal prison.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Analytics

[Anteojito]

No, all of the 15 have gotten up in general conference and spoken about Jesus Christ and the 10 commandments as Abinadi did.

They don't seem all that interested in talking about the translation of the Book of Abraham, although they do discuss the scripture contained within.

It seems obvious that you seem to find this subject to be one of great importance, but that doesn't mean they do. I'm sure King Noah would have preferred that Abinadi speak about something else. In the end that didn't turn out too well for either of them.

-guerreiro9

I wasn't talking about them talking about the problems with the BOA. I couldn't find anyone who referred to the BOA in anything but a passing comment. One might think that they know about the problems so they stay away from the BOA altogether.

[guerreiro9]

And yet members are leaving the church over this and other issues that are also not addressed by the Prophet or 15. I would think that should catch their interest and make it important to them to help struggling members with the answers to their questions instead of leaving it up to apologists. I am speaking from experience here and I know it would have helped me a great deal to hear from the 15 on these topics. I know we have the essays now....so that's at least a start, but how many members will even see them?

I am sure their interest in the subject is growing.

-guerreiro9

[Calm]

I am not suggesting they admit he borrowed names but rather that it is one possible conclusion as the names are similar regardless of where they are located on "Mormon's map" compared to upstate NY.  By saying with a wave of the hand that "they are in different places geographically, so we dismiss them outright"  seems weak and a strawman in my opinion.  Simply being placed in different geographic spots alone does not negate plagarism, does it?

I do not know what apologists you are speaking of but the apologists at FairMormon do not use only the idea that the names are in the wrong place to dismiss the idea he borrowed them even in the most simplified form of the argument:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Plagiarism_accusations/Place_names_from_North_America

[rodheadlee]

Alright I've got to ask you, what is your profession that allows you to travel the world in your own personal boat?  I have to admit to being just a little bit jealous.  PM me if it's personal.

I'm a carpenter. I'm not wealthy, my wife is retired and she has a pension. We sacrifice many things to own a boat and live on it. I drove a 20 year old truck and stored it at my Mom's until recently. Our first cruising boat was 29K about the price of a used BMW wagon. We worked on it and put our wages into it for 6 years before we took off. We have wind power, solar power and a desal machine that makes 6 gal per hour fresh water on 12 amps , 12v electricity.  We used 26 gallons of diesel to sail 2600 miles, mostly to charge our batteries. We park the boat and work when we need to refill the cruising kitty. I have built homes in Cal, Nevada, AZ, Idaho and Mexico. I had a chance to build one in Hiva Oa but our last boat was too small to carry all of my tools. Our second boat is larger, carries more water and actually has a shower and running water. We use to use a bug sprayer to shower on the other boat. We never stay in marinas unless we have to. it's becoming harder to anchor out as everyone wants money from you because they think you are rich.

 

We had to outstretch our budget and hurry back to California to be near my Mom so now we live on the river, I work on boats and I had to sell the truck. It only got 10 mpg and I bought a station wagon. Unfortunately it'll be at least 2 years to get the bills paid and get the kitty back to useable so we'll be in one spot for a while. We need 3 more solar panels and a better dinghy. Your dinghy is your station wagon when you're anchored out.. We used to be self insured but now we have every dime we had wrapped up in this boat so we have an insurance payment to make. But she is a true world cruiser. The trick is to never be in a hurry, the wind is free but it cost a 1.00 a mile to motor. All of our belongings fit in a 43 foot boat of which about 30'x10' is usable to live in, a 6'x4' storage unit and a 2006 BMW station wagon. The beemer was a budget buster but my back is toast, the seats are heaven, it gets 27mpg hi-way and it has a warranty forever. I can carry the tools I need in the wagon or the boat.

Edited March 1, 2014 by rodheadlee

[Monster]

Lots of ad hominem attacks. Attack the messenger or minimize him by attacking  his motives. Yet to see someone address  and refute the actual contents of the letter in this thread. This is why those in faith crisis get frustrated. No one can answer the questions. Lots of hand waiving and apologetic gibberish. Have faith, ignore the man behind the curtain.

[Damien the Leper]

Have you read the FairMormon response, Val or just the rebuttal to the response?

I've read a great deal from the FAIR site over the years. They just don't cut it for me.