Are The Essays Backfiring?

[Bobbieaware]

Well sure ok.

And if it turns our the Evangelicals are correct Mormons are going to burn in hell for worshiping a false Jesus.

It's has always been unimaginable to me that anyone with a modicum of reason could imagine a God of perfect love could simultaneously be so callous and unspeakably cruel. And who can imagine a truly just God would condemn some of his creatures to the horrors of an endless hell just because some of them dared to believe he was at least more merciful and magnanimous than a sadistic earthly tyrant. If the universe is actually presided over by such a being, all of us, both LDS and Evangelical, are already existing in an endless hell, for who could genuinely respect, love and have confidence in such a being?

Edited June 25, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Teancum]

It's has always been unimaginable to me that anyone with a modicum of reason could imagine a God of perfect love could simultaneously be so callous and unspeakably cruel. And who can imagine a truly just God would condemn some of his creatures to the horrors of an endless hell just because some of them dared to believe he was at least more merciful and magnanimous than a sadistic earthly tyrant. If the universe is actually presided over by such a being, all of us, both LDS and Evangelical, are already existing in an endless hell, for who could genuinely respect, love and have confidence in such a being?

 

 

My comment was based on this:

 

Teancum, on 23 Jun 2015 - 9:43 PM, said :

 

Why do we all have to go through some so called Abrahamic test? Who says this? Who lose believes this beside those inundated with LDS doctrine? Maybe those who no longer use faith to rule their lives are enlightened and the so called faithful are shackled with false dogma.

 

Carbon Dioxide said:

Perhaps but if everything turns out as LDS expect, those "enlightened" individuals can glory in their enlightenment in a lower kingdom.

 

So how is what I suggested all that different from what CD said really?

[Russell C McGregor]

Well Robert let's discuss this.

Well, that'll make a change from hysterical street-corner rants about "spin" and "a total reaction to the abundant problematic issues" and "control the message" and "pitifully reactionary."

And yes, if anyone lacking your superb TBM credentials were to produce that outburst, they'd be sounding exactly like an anti-Mormon.

 

[Teancum]

Well, that'll make a change from hysterical street-corner rants about "spin" and "a total reaction to the abundant problematic issues" and "control the message" and "pitifully reactionary."

And yes, if anyone lacking your superb TBM credentials were to produce that outburst, they'd be sounding exactly like an anti-Mormon.

This from the king of rants and hysteria.

So let's call it like it is Russell. If I am an anti Mormon you are dogmatic apologist who starts with a priori assumptions for their claims of truth. Your responses typically lack evidence and reason and you simply attack the poster.

feel free to critique my original post rather than bloviate about it. Where are the openess these essays show five, ten or fifteen years ago? Why do you think the church published them just in the past few years?

And to clarify, my comment about being pitifully reactionary was how some view it if you read what I wrote in context.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Teancum

[Tacenda]

It's has always been unimaginable to me that anyone with a modicum of reason could imagine a God of perfect love could simultaneously be so callous and unspeakably cruel. And who can imagine a truly just God would condemn some of his creatures to the horrors of an endless hell just because some of them dared to believe he was at least more merciful and magnanimous than a sadistic earthly tyrant. If the universe is actually presided over by such a being, all of us, both LDS and Evangelical, are already existing in an endless hell, for who could genuinely respect, love and have confidence in such a being?

Why does the Book of Mormon mention the same hell the Evangelicals speak of then?  And I agree with your last statement or question!  

[Gray]

It's has always been unimaginable to me that anyone with a modicum of reason could imagine a God of perfect love could simultaneously be so callous and unspeakably cruel. And who can imagine a truly just God would condemn some of his creatures to the horrors of an endless hell just because some of them dared to believe he was at least more merciful and magnanimous than a sadistic earthly tyrant. If the universe is actually presided over by such a being, all of us, both LDS and Evangelical, are already existing in an endless hell, for who could genuinely respect, love and have confidence in such a being?

 

On the other hand, we're often told that such exercises ("I can't imagine that a loving God would do X") make us guilty of forming God after our own image.

 

Personally I think everyone who believes in a personal God does that to some extent. I'm not sure it's even avoidable. 

Edited June 25, 2015 by Gray

[Mystery Meat]

Definitely... the issues are already there and we can't just avoid them.  I didn't intend to make it seem that we should (although I think I may have).

 

As I mentioned earlier, I think it's good that the church published the essays.  I just think that they don't completely resolve the issues at hand and thus have had the side effect of causing faith crises for some.

 

For many issues, there is nothing the Church can do to resolve the issues as there are no answers. Only the Spirit will be able to speak peace. I think the essays have done a good job of providing context and answers that are available. They have also said "we don't know." I imagine that folks (at least some) who aren't satisfied with the "don't know" answers are so dissatisfied because they want the Church to speculate in their favor. For example, the Church said we don't know if the priesthood ban was inspired or not. I think that wasn't far enough for many because they wanted the Church to speculate (and that is all it would be without divine revelation) that the ban originated from BY's racist opinions. The Church did not seem willing to do that, and that makes people angry or at least causes them to see deficiency when their wasn't any. 

[Mystery Meat]

What kind of endowed power do these other agencies possess? Can they perform saving ordinances?

 

Nope.

[Mystery Meat]

My comment was based on this:

 

Teancum, on 23 Jun 2015 - 9:43 PM, said :

 

Why do we all have to go through some so called Abrahamic test? Who says this? Who lose believes this beside those inundated with LDS doctrine? Maybe those who no longer use faith to rule their lives are enlightened and the so called faithful are shackled with false dogma.

 

Carbon Dioxide said:

Perhaps but if everything turns out as LDS expect, those "enlightened" individuals can glory in their enlightenment in a lower kingdom.

 

So how is what I suggested all that different from what CD said really?

 

My comment was based on this:

 

Teancum, on 23 Jun 2015 - 9:43 PM, said :

 

Why do we all have to go through some so called Abrahamic test? Who says this? Who lose believes this beside those inundated with LDS doctrine? Maybe those who no longer use faith to rule their lives are enlightened and the so called faithful are shackled with false dogma.

 

Carbon Dioxide said:

Perhaps but if everything turns out as LDS expect, those "enlightened" individuals can glory in their enlightenment in a lower kingdom.

 

So how is what I suggested all that different from what CD said really?

 

Because in Mormon theology there is no hell. There is an outer darkness but those who qualify are few and far between (like maybe a few handful of people here and there). But the Mormon God (the One, True God, mind you) is so merciful that even if some do not qualify for the highest degree of exaltation, they will still enter into a state of glory, as opposed to the evangelical god who will condemn a group of people to eternal fire and brimstone for not quite getting it.

[Robert F. Smith]

...............................................................................

Follow-up question: Since the Restoration, is HF raising prophets outside of the LDS Church? Certainly, they wouldn't have priesthood power, but none of the prophets above had it either. Just curious ...

I don't know, but I often hear that people who do have priesthood power don't actually have it (women for example, regularly exercise priesthood power in our temples, and the Relief Society once exercised it), so the issue has been rather murky for some time.

 

I believe that there have always been the holders of priesthood power on the Earth, but not necessarily with all the keys for particular purposes.

 

I also believe that the Levites (and the Aaronides among them) hold authentic priesthood power at present, and have continuously held it by lineage since the time of Moses.  They exercise that power regularly, and I believe that God fully recognizes their actions/ordinances and prayers.  In the case of rabbis (who are not Jewish priests, even though they are ordained), I have seen a rabbinic blessing gain the intended result, and am aware of rabbis doing exorcisms.

 

Does God call people outside the LDS Church structure?  Yes.  Do they have priesthood power?  In some cases, manifestly.  Must they always have it?  Probably not.

[Mystery Meat]

This from the king of rants and hysteria.

So let's call it like it is Russell. If I am an anti Mormon you are dogmatic apologist who starts with a priori assumptions for their claims of truth. Your responses typically lack evidence and reason and you simply attack the poster.

feel free to critique my original post rather than bloviate about it. Where are the openess these essays show five, ten or fifteen years ago? Why do you think the church published them just in the past few years?

And to clarify, my comment about being pitifully reactionary was how some view it if you read what I wrote in context.

 

Not Robert, but I will take a stab at the timing of the essays. First, I concede that I think you are right in part. I think the Church released the essays now as a response to the bloggernacle and the internet age of readily available information. So point for you. However, and this where I think you go way to far in your criticism, to say that the Church was intentionally hiding its history is, being the most generous to you, nothing more than speculation, and at worst willful ignorance. Either way, such an assertion is not supported by the evidence.

 

As has been shown on this very thread already and elsewhere on this board there has been plenty of information available to historians (even if they refused it) for quiet a long while now. There are countless anecdotal stories of folks who were taught many of the sticky issues in their youth from Church sources (Ensign, Seminary, etc.). That doesn't sound like a Church that is intentionally trying to hide anything.

 

You do, however, bring up a fair point/question when you asked, and I am paraphrasing, if because Broadie and Arrington were given access to the information does that mean that an average member of the Church could find it. The answer is probably yes and no. Some clearly were. Some knew about a lot of this decades ago. But I think you would be right to say that more (just about all in fact) members have access to this information now, than ever before. But was that lack of access do to intentional deception, manipulation or white-washing, or was it simply a product of the technology of its day not being what it is now?

 

I would argue, at least in part, it was the latter. And here is why: there is a not so popular quote among the anti's from President Packer that essentially says not all truth matters. I would have said it a bit differently, but I think that statement might be evidence number one that the Church was not engaged in some big conspiracy or cover-up. When you have truly been converted by the Spirit, there are truly some things that no longer affect your testimony or cannot shake your belief. I know because I am there. I haven't always been. I went from "I know" to "I hope" to "I believe" and back to "I know." But when you are there I could see how it would be easy to focus on the truths that do matter. The truths that bring people to Christ. Focusing on those has more power for good then focusing on truth's concerning Joseph Smith's polygamy, polyandry, the Danites, or the Kinderhook plates. All of those things are way out in the weeds. And if I were in a position of leadership I could totally see why they might decide to minimize attention (hint: not to try to conceal or hide).

 

What you are basically doing, however, is implying a very nasty motive to a group of men and women who by all accounts are genuine in their belief and desire to help others come unto Christ. I don't think you can say there was a concerted effort to hide the unflattering parts of LDS history from members without also accusing the leadership of the Church of some pretty heinous things (deceit, lying, fraud).

 

Sadly, it seems that people are more willing to just throw out accusations, and pretty heavy ones at that, rather than take the time to use their rational brains to think things through.  

Edited June 25, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[rockpond]

However, and this where I think you go way to far in your criticism, to say that the Church was intentionally hiding its history is, being the most generous to you, nothing more than speculation, and at worst willful ignorance. Either way, such an assertion is not supported by the evidence.

 

It probably depends on what one means by "intentionally hiding".  The Church clearly made the decision to not teach much of polygamy to the general membership.  Was that decision made because they thought it wasn't important?  Or because they were ashamed?  Couldn't think of how to put it in a faith-promoting light?  I don't know.  But the decision to leave it out of the general curriculum was intentional (ref:  Teachings of the Living Prophets:  Brigham Young).

[rockpond]

For many issues, there is nothing the Church can do to resolve the issues as there are no answers. Only the Spirit will be able to speak peace. I think the essays have done a good job of providing context and answers that are available. They have also said "we don't know." I imagine that folks (at least some) who aren't satisfied with the "don't know" answers are so dissatisfied because they want the Church to speculate in their favor. For example, the Church said we don't know if the priesthood ban was inspired or not. I think that wasn't far enough for many because they wanted the Church to speculate (and that is all it would be without divine revelation) that the ban originated from BY's racist opinions. The Church did not seem willing to do that, and that makes people angry or at least causes them to see deficiency when their wasn't any. 

 

That's definitely one reaction I've seen.  Another is friends/relatives of mine who have read the priesthood/race essay and found that they no longer understand the role of prophets if they can promote false teachings for decades as if those teachings are doctrine.  That has become very troubling for some people I know (and more that I don't know on social media).  It's problematic in a church where fealty to the Brethren is being taught as a top priority.

Edited June 25, 2015 by rockpond

[sethpayne]

 

I also believe that the Levites (and the Aaronides among them) hold authentic priesthood power at present, and have continuously held it by lineage since the time of Moses.  They exercise that power regularly, and I believe that God fully recognizes their actions/ordinances and prayers.  In the case of rabbis (who are not Jewish priests, even though they are ordained), I have seen a rabbinic blessing gain the intended result, and am aware of rabbis doing exorcisms.

 

 

Robert -- How do you meld this view with some of Jesus' statements in the New Testament?  The old law had been fulfilled.  I'm just curious to know more about your view.  Or, perhaps, the basis for it.

[SmileyMcGee]

What are the metrics for determining whether the essays are backfiring? Even if a large chunk of members were leaving as a result of the essays it could be proposed that a sifting of the wheat and tares is occurring. Since there are no rules, the church can't lose. It's like adding "according to your faith and/or the will of God" at the end of a priesthood blessing. It just shrouds all outcomes under the blanket of "God's will" so that no effectiveness (or lack thereof) can really be determined.

Edited June 25, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Teancum]

Not Robert, but I will take a stab at the timing of the essays. First, I concede that I think you are right in part. I think the Church released the essays now as a response to the bloggernacle and the internet age of readily available information. So point for you. However, and this where I think you go way to far in your criticism, to say that the Church was intentionally hiding its history is, being the most generous to you, nothing more than speculation, and at worst willful ignorance. Either way, such an assertion is not supported by the evidence.

 

As has been shown on this very thread already and elsewhere on this board there has been plenty of information available to historians (even if they refused it) for quiet a long while now. There are countless anecdotal stories of folks who were taught many of the sticky issues in their youth from Church sources (Ensign, Seminary, etc.). That doesn't sound like a Church that is intentionally trying to hide anything.

 

You do, however, bring up a fair point/question when you asked, and I am paraphrasing, if because Broadie and Arrington were given access to the information does that mean that an average member of the Church could find it. The answer is probably yes and no. Some clearly were. Some knew about a lot of this decades ago. But I think you would be right to say that more (just about all in fact) members have access to this information now, than ever before. But was that lack of access do to intentional deception, manipulation or white-washing, or was it simply a product of the technology of its day not being what it is now?

 

I would argue, at least in part, it was the latter. And here is why: there is a not so popular quote among the anti's from President Packer that essentially says not all truth matters. I would have said it a bit differently, but I think that statement might be evidence number one that the Church was not engaged in some big conspiracy or cover-up. When you have truly been converted by the Spirit, there are truly some things that no longer affect your testimony or cannot shake your belief. I know because I am there. I haven't always been. I went from "I know" to "I hope" to "I believe" and back to "I know." But when you are there I could see how it would be easy to focus on the truths that do matter. The truths that bring people to Christ. Focusing on those has more power for good then focusing on truth's concerning Joseph Smith's polygamy, polyandry, the Danites, or the Kinderhook plates. All of those things are way out in the weeds. And if I were in a position of leadership I could totally see why they might decide to minimize attention (hint: not to try to conceal or hide).

 

What you are basically doing, however, is implying a very nasty motive to a group of men and women who by all accounts are genuine in their belief and desire to help others come unto Christ. I don't think you can say there was a concerted effort to hide the unflattering parts of LDS history from members without also accusing the leadership of the Church of some pretty heinous things (deceit, lying, fraud).

 

Sadly, it seems that people are more willing to just throw out accusations, and pretty heavy ones at that, rather than take the time to use their rational brains to think things through.

Thank you for your comments. I don't have time to respond in depth now nor am I sure I want to or if there is a point to. It seems more and more these discussion boards are a waste of time and sometimes I let them bring out my ornery side. I am thinking the time I spend here may be better used in other pursuits. We will see.

But one point. I do not think I ever said the church was intentionally hiding history or anything like that. If I did it was not what I meant. There have been a lot of resources available for a long time. But not to the masses and the church in its historical narrative never offered on its own any presentation of the more difficult issues. Not at least until the essays. I think this is a simple fact.

[Kenngo1969]

Perhaps this has already been mentioned (forgive me, but I lack the patience to wade through the thread in its entirety), but, if the essays are backfiring, as another thread has pointed out, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has really shot itself in the foot by incorporating them into Church Educational System curriculum.

[tonie]

I do not believe there is a real metric by which to measure "backfiring".  Information is part of establishing beliefs - this is not limited to spiritual beliefs.  New information can cause changes to our current beliefs.

 

I think the essays are a good step. I also think the non-Doctrine aspects of the essays should be prefaced with "The following are learned opinions based on indepth research."  While we do claim Prophets, I do not think we can expect that every question will be answered with absolute surety; some things we just do not know, and that is ok.  I think focusing on what the Church teaches, and not making up our own "why's" goes a long way.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

I also believe that the Levites (and the Aaronides among them) hold authentic priesthood power at present, and have continuously held it by lineage since the time of Moses.  They exercise that power regularly, and I believe that God fully recognizes their actions/ordinances and prayers.  In the case of rabbis (who are not Jewish priests, even though they are ordained), I have seen a rabbinic blessing gain the intended result, and am aware of rabbis doing exorcisms.

Robert -- How do you meld this view with some of Jesus' statements in the New Testament?  The old law had been fulfilled.  I'm just curious to know more about your view.  Or, perhaps, the basis for it.

The Brethren have been saying for years that not only Mormons are called to the work.  I have cited some of them.  We have discussed the matter on this board before, but I will repeat here some aspects of the issue:

 

Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses all right.  He was the sacrificial embodiment of it as the Lamb of God the Father offered as the ultimate Passover Sacrifice.  However, Jesus also stated emphatically that he did not come to do away with the Law (Matt 5:17-18, Romans 11, Jacob 5 - 6, III Ne 12:17-18), many aspects of which remain in full force (or do you believe that the Ten Commandments have suddenly lost their authority?).

 

As evidence of the authoritative status of the Jews and of their priesthood, one need only consult the relevant passages of the D&C which directly address the right of direct descendants of Aaron to the Aaronic Priesthood in formal LDS settings.  In addition, in 1841, the LDS Church formally rededicated the land of Palestine for the gathering of the Jews and for the rebuilding of their temple in Jerusalem.  This is the Latter Days, Bro.  Everything is coming to a head.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I do not believe there is a real metric by which to measure "backfiring".  Information is part of establishing beliefs - this is not limited to spiritual beliefs.  New information can cause changes to our current beliefs.

 

I think the essays are a good step. I also think the non-Doctrine aspects of the essays should be prefaced with "The following are learned opinions based on indepth research."  While we do claim Prophets, I do not think we can expect that every question will be answered with absolute surety; some things we just do not know, and that is ok.  I think focusing on what the Church teaches, and not making up our own "why's" goes a long way.

I couldn't agree more, tonie.

[Robert F. Smith]

What kind of endowed power do these other agencies possess? Can they perform saving ordinances?

Good questions, the answers to which I do not know.

[Robert F. Smith]

Well Robert let's discuss this.

 

First are you calling me an anti Mormon? If so this is much different than what i see as mostly your reasonable approach to discussion here.

 

Next based on your comments it seems you think that the information that is now readily accessible to almost anybody these days has been for a long time because "the Church has been doing for a long time, is just putting spin on it.  When Fawn Brodie was offered access to the Church Archives in the early 1940s, she refused.  When Leonard Arrington and a large group of professional historians began looking at everything in the 1970s..."

 

So you really equate this to all the controversial issues and the details behind them to being available to the average member of the Church anywhere they lived?  If so I have misjudged you and I would classify you as a typical apologist who thinks anyone anytime could have easily found all the difficult issues had they just not been so damn lazy. 

 

Oh and what happened to the early writers that brought up the difficult issues like Brodie, Brooks and Quinn? 

 

So no Robert I do not think the LDS Church was open about its history in general nor would it have been had the new info age forced it to be be because the Church has never ever offered up anything like the essays. 

 

Now I understand why the Church is going to portray the issues in the essays in as favorable and faithful light as the Church can.  I would do the same.  I think though, as noted, they have entered the fray a bit too late and clearly because their hand was forced.  Just my opinion. 

So, if you are so innocent, Teancum, why do you always put the most negative spin on any issue dealing with the LDS Church?  If the essays were written and published, according to you it must only be because the Church was forced to, not due to simple honesty.  For you it just has to be that way.

 

To me, none of these issues are new and I was writing about them before Mike Quinn (whom I greatly respect; and he cites me in his book, but in another place he used my work without attribution).  There is literally nothing new in the essays you are referring to, except that they have been formally published and placed on the Church website -- a website which could not exist back in the day.  Perhaps you are too young to realize that, or to realize where LDS scholarship has been all these years.  Your habit of casting aspersions is absurd in light of what we actually know and have seen over the years.  Particularly when Leonard Arrington was Church Historian (and when Richard Howard was RLDS Historian).  No one was hiding the stuff, even though the general public actually had no idea that it existed.

 

You imagine that Fawn Brodie wrote real history?  She did not, and was not trained in History.  She was an English teacher, and a very good novelist when it came to Joseph Smith and Thomas Jefferson (she made the same unprofessional errors writing about Jefferson that she made writing about Joseph, and non-Mormon historians took her to task for it; her factual errors are legion).

 

Juanita Brooks was a lifelong faithful, temple-endowed Mormon who told the truth about the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  She was never disciplined for it and continued to hold her temple recommend till the day she died.

 

Mike Quinn continues to bear his testimony of the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  He was not excommunicated for apostasy.  He was among the great crew of historians working under Arrington back in the 1970s.  According to Mike, Fawn Brodie was very bitter toward the LDS Church, and that was the true source of her view of Joseph Smith.

[Calm]

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2667419-155/memo-to-mormons-those-essays-have
 

Sure, the LDS Church gets praise for tackling tough historical and theological issues in its recent essays, but many Mormons don't take the effort seriously because the articles are unsigned.

They ignore them despite the fact the headline-making pieces are posted on the Utah-based faith's official website. In addition, a memo last September from LDS officials to the church's all-male local lay leaders urged members to read and study the "Gospel Topics" essays — which discuss polygamy, race relations, revelation, scripture and translation, among other issues. 
Some Mormons — if they are aware of the essays at all — are waiting for that all-important stamp of approval from the governing First Presidency.

Well, it's always been there, according to a video featuring LDS Church Historian Steven E. Snow posted on the church's newly designed Web page, where the essays are collected.

The articles were "approved by the presiding brethren of the church," Snow says. "I think that will give many of our members confidence that they can rely on [the essays'] answers."

[cinepro]

Perhaps this has already been mentioned (forgive me, but I lack the patience to wade through the thread in its entirety), but, if the essays are backfiring, as another thread has pointed out, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has really shot itself in the foot by incorporating them into Church Educational System curriculum.

 

Based on what I've seen regarding student attention and retention in CES seminary and institute courses, that may be the best place to hide them.

[carbon dioxide]

It probably depends on what one means by "intentionally hiding".  The Church clearly made the decision to not teach much of polygamy to the general membership.  Was that decision made because they thought it wasn't important?  Or because they were ashamed?  Couldn't think of how to put it in a faith-promoting light?  I don't know.  But the decision to leave it out of the general curriculum was intentional (ref:  Teachings of the Living Prophets:  Brigham Young).

It is one thing I have not figured out regarding many issues. The Church has made statements in the past of many false accusations being made against the Church but the Church has done little to address them.  There is many ways to address them like having articles in the Ensign or some other monthly publication.  This should have been done decades ago and then it would not have to play catch up.  Instead of addressing small wounds, they let the wound fester and now there is a serious infection.  Things can be turned around but a lot of this was needlessly caused by inaction.

Edited June 27, 2015 by carbon dioxide