Being And Becoming A "well Read Member

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

I liken you to the character played by Kevin Bacon in Animal House.   I know, you haven't seen that movie because it's rated R and the church has warned against rated R movies as well.   In the final scene, Kevin is repeatedly screaming, "All is Well, Remain Calm" over and over while the mass of people begin to run over him.  It's actually pretty funny.

Never saw it. Don't care.

And no, I'm not obtuse.  You love to throw out claims and then run from them when someone calls you out.   You said, "if two, then...."   You were pretty clear.

And as everyone with an IQ above room temperature (in Celsius) can figure out, it is "pretty clear" that it had nothing to do with a unique historical event like the First Vision, but with how the Church imparts information and advice to its members.

So what does the number have to be?  3?  3000?  300000? before it is legitimate.  Or does it have to be written down and notarized before you will believe?   You don't have to believe but to say it never happened is to call me a liar.  If you wish to get into name calling, we can do that as well.

Perhaps you should learn to read instead of leaping to unsupported conclusions.

Evidently your favourite form of exercise.

Regards,

Pahoran

[why me]

It is not uncommon for members of the Church to accuse others of not reading enough to learn both sides of the story regarding events of early Church members.

 

Prior to the Gospel Topic essays, what could have a member have read to gain a balanced insight into the plural marriages of Joseph Smith?  Brian Hales volumes on Joseph Smith are not even 2 years old. 

 

Prior to the Gospel Topic essays and without encountering what would deemed "anti-Mormon" materials, what Church materials should should have caused an average member to realize Joseph Smith was a polygamist?

I think that the problem comes from what the critics believe that mormons should know about church history. It seems that mormons need to be experts on their history according to what the critics belleve that they should know. For example, where do catholics go to learn the history of the catholic church? They certainly would not go to the vatican. Rather, they go to books written by historians who may be catholic or who may not be catholic. Likewise for people who are protestants. What do they know about Calvin? Knox? or Luther? Probably not much. And where would they go to learn more about these men? Most likely they would read books written by historians who may be protestant or not.

 

The solution to the mormon problem is simple. Mormons need more historians interested in mormon history who would write books on mormon history. However, the problem is simple. Not many nonMormon historians are interested in writting such histories. Why should the mormon church be different from the vatican? Or from other protestant faiths who do not teach their own history?

[why me]

I don't blame you for thinking he had been disciplined, several years ago I remember trying to find the book "In Sacred Loneliness" at the Deseret Bookstore, the gal there said it was no longer on the shelves, but she did point me to "Mormon Enigma" to read if I was interested, but I didn't taker her up on it, wish I had now, now both are cleared off the shelves. 

Sadly,  books do go out of print. It happens. Also, how much shelve space becomes important too. New books can take precedence over books that were published years ago. The point is that such books were on the shelves. Nothing hidden. However, the basic problem is simple: critics expect the church to teach members church history. And then after a year of study of church history written by a critic there should be an exam for the members. And then begin the process again in studying church history. It should be a 24 hour study. Nothing else should be studied on a sunday. All must be indoctrinated in church history from a critic point of view.

 

Such is the critic logic.

[Calm]

In the last 15 years or so it is my experience that Deseretbook is offering less and less of the scholarly nonfiction type of books no matter what the topic. The few stores I have gone into the majority of shelf space is inspirational, fiction or crafty with lots of decorative figures, etc. I don't bother going in any more in fact save when a new James Christensen book or puzzle is available.

There are tons of more positive history books that are out of print or just not carried any more (if they ever were) as well. I don't think it really says anything that ISL or ME are no longer offered save it is par for the course for any history book.

[JLHPROF]

In the last 15 years or so it is my experience that Deseretbook is offering less and less of the scholarly nonfiction type of books no matter what the topic. The few stores I have gone into the majority of shelf space is inspirational, fiction or crafty with lots of decorative figures, etc. I don't bother going in any more in fact save when a new James Christensen book or puzzle is available.

There are tons of more positive history books that are out of print or just not carried any more (if they ever were) as well. I don't think it really says anything that ISL or ME are no longer offered save it is par for the course for any history book.

 

This is true, and there are so many more scholarly alternatives out there.  Deseret Book is usually where we go for a nice birthday present for someone (or Seagull Book because they're cheaper).

But not for any doctrinal or scholarly works.

[Tacenda]

What signal is sent, then, when Deseret Book not only carries but actually publishes a book that mentions Fanny Alger, possible children, and polyandry?

• "[E]vidence suggests that before his incarceration in Liberty, Missouri, the Prophet accepted the Lord's direction and took his own first hesitant step as a signal of his obedience. His first plural wife was Fanny Alger. Her uncle Levi Hancock, an Ohio builder and furniture maker, performed the marriage, probably in 1835 when Fanny was nineteen, by repeating back words spoken by the Prophet."
• "Joseph's second plural marriage took place under an elm tree in Nauvoo on the evening of April 5, 1841. Joseph Bates Noble performed the marriage of his wife's sister, Louisa Beaman, to the Prophet. The twenty-six-year-old bride was the first of twenty-eight women married to Joseph Smith at Nauvoo, some as connubial wives, others sealed to him only for eternity."
• "From the marriages consummated, family traditions identify three to five children born to Joseph Smith's plural wives. Because the Prophet's paternity was not openly acknowledged at the time, proof of the relationship for most of them is unclear."
• "In some instances, the invitation [JS's offer of marriage to already-married women] moved beyond a theoretical proposal. In these few cases, about which little is known, the woman's husband was not a church member or was a Latter-day Saint who agreed to allow his wife to be sealed for eternity to Joseph Smith. This ordinance ensure the woman a marriage that would be valid in the resurrection no matter what became of her temporary, civil agreement. For some, it may have seemed the only way to gain that sacred promise."

  – Glen M. Leonard, Nauvoo: A Place of Peace, a People of Promise (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2002), 344–349.

I'm sorry to dredge this older thread up for convenience. But can't hold back at what I saw today! When I went to my friend's house for a hair appt., she is a hair dresser. I saw Glen M. Leonard walking out with his wife and helping her into the car. She was walking very slowly and the way she walked reminded me of my Mom when she had Alzheimer's. When I went into my friend's home salon I asked if that was my former SP, Pres. Leonard, and she said yes. I asked about his wife, and she verified that his wife was having memory problems. Then after my appt. I went to the mall for something, and there they were. I noticed how gentle and kind he was with his wife. I didn't approach them because it was so long ago that he was my Stake President, and we only met once for my recommend interview. Just wanted to mention this, and my friend also told me how patient he was with his wife because I guess she was struggling with her coat or with the right words to say. My friend has been their hairdresser for years and I had no idea! Edited December 5, 2014 by Tacenda

[Stone holm]

No, that is not my reasoning. Nor does it even begin to resemble my reasoning.Are you really that obtuse, or was the misrepresentation intentional? What is "babycenter" and why should I care?The Church does not do things via "whisper campaigns." We leave that to the apostates and anti-Mormons. Every informed Latter-day Saint knows how prone to distortion the rumour mill is, which is why the Church doesn't rely upon it; and for exactly the same reasons, why your shower would be lost without it.If the Church wants a message to get out to the members, it has much more reliable channels which it uses. And those channels always leave a record. Your failure to document your claim that the Church warned its members against reading Todd Compton's work is sufficient to demonstrate that that claim is false.Regards,Pahoran

Ah, know nothing of Compton, and care less, but saying that there is always a record of what Authority's may say, that I find very questionable. Now I suppose just because a General Authority may say something at an unrecorded meeting, of which there are many, does not mean it's the Church doing it. Course not sure why we bother calling them General Authorities if we trot out that excuse.

[Calm]

"saying that there is always a record of what Authority's may say"

I don't think he is claiming there is a record for everything ever said by GAs in their wiork, but rather if the Church leadership want to get a message out to the membership, it will not use inefficient word of mouth/email chains to do so and there will be a record of that message that one will be able to refer to.

Edited December 15, 2014 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

"saying that there is always a record of what Authority's may say"

I don't think he is claiming there is a record for everything ever said by GAs in their wiork, but rather if the Church leadership want to get a message out to the membership, it will not use inefficient word of mouth/email chains to do so and there will be a record of that message that one will be able to refer to.

Do you agree with that? Or do you suspect that on occasion the GA are instructed to slip little comments into their leadership talks at Stake Conferences? If Bishops here something from a GA at a Stake Leadership meeting, they aren't going to wait until it is recorded somewhere before they act on it.

[Calm]

Wouldn't know.  Not held any calling that have been included in any training meetings where a GA was present.  I don't particularly remember any such thing happening at Stake Conferences I used to go to across the pulpit, haven't made too many of them in recent years due to not being functional before noon most days.

[Stone holm]

Wouldn't know.  Not held any calling that have been included in any training meetings where a GA was present.  I don't particularly remember any such thing happening at Stake Conferences I used to go to across the pulpit, haven't made too many of them in recent years due to not being functional before noon most days.

I haven't been to a Stake Leadership session in decades, but when I was involved, there was plenty said by GAs in those meetings that never was said in open meeting, and even more said to the Stake Leadership. So no, I don't buy into the idea that the Church would be above that type of approach. I am obviously cynical, while I support the GAs as such, there are some I do not trust.

[ERayR]

I haven't been to a Stake Leadership session in decades, but when I was involved, there was plenty said by GAs in those meetings that never was said in open meeting, and even more said to the Stake Leadership. So no, I don't buy into the idea that the Church would be above that type of approach. I am obviously cynical, while I support the GAs as such, there are some I do not trust.

 

Your stake leadership meetings must have been more interesting than the ones I attended.  There was not any speculative or "secret" doctrine taught in the meetings I attended.  In fact the attending GA's would refuse to answer questions pertaining to such.

[Pahoran]

I haven't been to a Stake Leadership session in decades, but when I was involved, there was plenty said by GAs in those meetings that never was said in open meeting, and even more said to the Stake Leadership. So no, I don't buy into the idea that the Church would be above that type of approach. I am obviously cynical, while I support the GAs as such, there are some I do not trust.

 

Okay, so let's see if we can connect the dots, shall we?

 

If stuff is being said in Stake Leadership meetings that isn't being said across the pulpit to the general membership, then that means that the general membership aren't getting those instructions, doesn't it?

 

And as far as "trust" is concerned: I find the General Authorities far more trustworthy than anonymous internet opiners.

 

No offence intended.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[HappyJackWagon]

I haven't been to a Stake Leadership session in decades, but when I was involved, there was plenty said by GAs in those meetings that never was said in open meeting, and even more said to the Stake Leadership. So no, I don't buy into the idea that the Church would be above that type of approach. I am obviously cynical, while I support the GAs as such, there are some I do not trust.

GA's speak differently and about different things depending on their audience. We all do. But there is an understanding that GA's should not be quoted by membership because their words are meant for the specific audience and not for the general church membership.

[tonie]

GA's speak differently and about different things depending on their audience. We all do. But there is an understanding that GA's should not be quoted by membership because their words are meant for the specific audience and not for the general church membership.

 

Nope, Nope, Nope, never; under no circustance can a TBM or anyone who calls themself a Saint give any degree of credibility to Stone Holms vicious attack against the Church and its leadership.

[HappyJackWagon]

Nope, Nope, Nope, never; under no circustance can a TBM or anyone who calls themself a Saint give any degree of credibility to Stone Holms vicious attack against the Church and its leadership.

Tonie, thanks for the emoticon because I couldn't tell if you were joking or not.

[VideoGameJunkie]

The Old Testament is too long and weird so I haven't fully read all the scriptures. Is that bad that I only mainly focus on the Book of Mormon, D and C and New Testament and Pearl of Great Price. I lose interest in the Old Testament and it's older stuff. What should matter today are General Conference talks from General Authorities and modern prophets.

[Tacenda]

The Old Testament is too long and weird so I haven't fully read all the scriptures. Is that bad that I only mainly focus on the Book of Mormon, D and C and New Testament and Pearl of Great Price. I lose interest in the Old Testament and it's older stuff. What should matter today are General Conference talks from General Authorities and modern prophets.

I was always an Ensign reader, not so much a scripture reader, especially not an Old Testament reader. In fact the first thing I'd like to read is the real life stories of people and they were really short, not the people, the story.

[Ham Clam]

The Old Testament is too long and weird so I haven't fully read all the scriptures. Is that bad that I only mainly focus on the Book of Mormon, D and C and New Testament and Pearl of Great Price. I lose interest in the Old Testament and it's older stuff. What should matter today are General Conference talks from General Authorities and modern prophets.

I got the 'Jewish Study Bible' (a modern version) otherwise it's impossible for me to read. I am attempting to read it all the way through for the first time and am in Joshua currently. If the Jews can spend so much time learning for it then there must be something very good there.

I guess you'd have to find a good modern translation and decide what your purpose in reading it would be to motivate you to get through it. I'm learning a lot (the supplementary material in the Bible I choose helps a lot too).

[Stone holm]

Happy Jack Wagon, quote mechanism doesn't work on this computer.  I can remember a fair number of times when it wasn't particularly a local issue.  Back in the 80's the GAs were a little more loose at their meetings with Bishops and Stake Leaders than they may be at this point.  I am not saying this is a bad thing, I was just questioning the proposition that everything is published, etc. -- it wasn't true back then, and I sincerely doubt it is now.  Sometimes the comments have stuck with me permanently, most haven't.  I remember Boyd K Packer indicating the policy on appointing additional counselors to the First Presidency, and saying that it was not done when the President was no longer "vigorous".  The implication in the context was that Pres. Kimball had deteriorated to the extent that no more counselors would be appointed.  Another memorable one was a comment by Elder Faust in response to a complaint by a RS President about the curtailing of Stake auxiliary meetings because the Church was curtailing meetings due to the economic hardship during the deep recession which occurred at that time.  He said in his gentle grandfatherly voice that the Brethren had reviewed the subject, and came to the conclusion that "Unnecessary sacrifice was of Satan" -- I remember the incident well because we were eating lunch in the HC room and her husband was in mid-bite and I thought he would choke, and Stake President took a very deep and intense interest in the bottom of his soup bowl.  Lol...

[VideoGameJunkie]

Ham Clam, my motivation for reading through the OT would be so I could know that I read through ALL the scriptures that LDS follow.

[Calm]

My suggestion---use an online program that will send you a daily or weekly email of what you need to read that day/week to keep up.  If you get behind, see if you can start over from where you were or begin from the beginning again if that is the only way and either read on your own something each day to keep up the habit at least or have them send you the New Testament and read that daily until they are up to where you fell behind and start again into the Old Testament.

 

Here is one, you can choose your prefer translation:

 

http://www.bibleplan.org

Edited December 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

Odd, I have found the OT fascinating, especially its impact on modern day fundamentalists.

[SamIam]

It is not uncommon for members of the Church to accuse others of not reading enough to learn both sides of the story regarding events of early Church members.

 

Prior to the Gospel Topic essays, what could have a member have read to gain a balanced insight into the plural marriages of Joseph Smith?  Brian Hales volumes on Joseph Smith are not even 2 years old. 

 

Prior to the Gospel Topic essays and without encountering what would deemed "anti-Mormon" materials, what Church materials should should have caused an average member to realize Joseph Smith was a polygamist?

Some of the material that I read within the past 40 years:

 

Spencers Letters

Multiple and Various BYU Studies

Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,-Roberts

History of the Church - Joseph Smith

Journal of Discourses

Doctrine and Covenants

Times and Seasons

 

Each of the above had varying degrees of information and presentation style.  One did need to be well read but it was available.  I did add some anti material as well...No Man Knows my History some Jerald and Sandra Tanner material etc.  I do not advocate this type of material but for myself it has been indespensible to my testimony of the gospel and Joseph Smith's prophetic calling. 

[cursor]

  I don't take great offense if Joseph was not totally forthright in how polygamy was revealed.  I ask myself the question, "Would I have done any better?"  If you truly believe the principle was inspired, how do you approach your wife and others and broach this subject?  We place Joseph in a sphere of almost god-like existence, yet he was a 30-something farmboy leading a group of thousands in city planning, state building and instruction that boggles the mind.  I am not looking to excuse Joseph in misleading publicly on the topic of plural marriage, but could any of us do better?  

 

Since I'm not a God-selected Prophet who should restore the lost Gospel ... it'd be tough to say. On the other hand, rank requires serious accountability. Forthrightness is key to reasonable credibility.