Dishonesty

[Danzo]

 

That's good... you covered all the points:

1. Blame the doubter.
2. The Brethren knew... they were just following a "milk before meat" model.
3. The Brethren didn't know because history is not always clear.

 

good way to duck the issues.

[rockpond]

I was really describing my own experiences with Saints who oppose the church and blame the organization as an excuse.  Not all apostates are that way, but many not only buy, but turn and recycle the blame game when it comes to their own reasoning.  These are those who go beyond doubt and seek to blame others when the information was not handed to them in Sunday School.

 

On the other thread about our Historians comments he as much admitted to the brethren not having as good a grasp of the details of our history in the past as they do now.  

 

Prophets who were once doctors, lawyers and businessmen, are not historians by nature.  Their education in church history is not what got them leadership positions.  

 

That is a far cry from the caricature of a monolithic all knowing quorum who intentionally hide the deep dark secrets of their religion in order to retain gullible members.

 

At some point the individual member who has questions should inquire as an adult, not just the what, but the why.  Going in with the most negative interpretation or the most Pollyanna interpretation is likely to fail to grasp the reality of our own inheritance.

 

So you are saying that they didn't know?  Because earlier you said that it was taught in institute.  You also said the following:

 

"Except the history was published.  I learned of much of it myself from Institute prior to the internet age.  There are few churches in the world with so many clear source documents, museum exhibits, publications, and lessons in public view as the LDS Church."

 

I'm struggling to follow your position on this.

[Danzo]

So you are saying that they didn't know?  Because earlier you said that it was taught in institute.  You also said the following:

 

"Except the history was published.  I learned of much of it myself from Institute prior to the internet age.  There are few churches in the world with so many clear source documents, museum exhibits, publications, and lessons in public view as the LDS Church."

 

I'm struggling to follow your position on this.

 

If it was published, how were they being dishonest?

[rockpond]

CFR that they "purposely" promulgated a false narrative.

 

I think it is clear that a false narrative was promulgated. But I am not sure you can attach "purposely" to it.

 

We're told on another thread that Brother Otterson doesn't say a word without approval from a committee which includes two apostles.

 

But you think that church curriculum is produced without the knowledge of the Brethren?

[thesometimesaint]

Yeah, I have to keep reminding my kids that back when I was young, I had to actually read books to get information. I couldn't just type questions into google.  

People these days cringe in horror at the thought of having to read through an entire book to get information. It requires a superhuman attention span.

 

I'm not some old foggie, though I swear sometimes I feel older than dirt.

[Danzo]

We're told on another thread that Brother Otterson doesn't say a word without approval from a committee which includes two apostles.

 

But you think that church curriculum is produced without the knowledge of the Brethren?

 

Just for clarity, can you give examples of the official lying and dishonesty that we are discussing?

[Danzo]

 

WHY did the church purposely promulgate a false narrative about the BoM translation?

 

 

Examples please?

[ALarson]

CFR that they "purposely" promulgated a false narrative.

 

I think it is clear that a false narrative was promulgated. But I am not sure you can attach "purposely" to it.

I have a couple of questions for you (and I'm being sincere here):

 

Do you believe that the leaders did not know the true history of the church prior to now (regarding polygamy, the Book of Mormon translation and so on)?

 

Or do you believe that they did know the history, but just accidentally left it out of lesson material, approved illustrations, etc.?

[rockpond]

Just for clarity, can you give examples of the official lying and dishonesty that we are discussing?

 

I don't know if there was lying and dishonesty involved.  I'm discussing the question posed in the OP.

[ALarson]

Examples please?

Have you seen the common illustrations (in lesson material, visitor centers and more)?

 

Now the leaders seem to be blaming the artists for these being inaccurate representations of how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.

[stemelbow]

I don't know what's up with me. I expect lies to have come through, and perhaps stubbornly maintained. Religious belief and dogma are in play here, after all. It's a shame but it happens and it'll continue to happen.

[Danzo]

Have you seen the common illustrations (in lesson material, visitor centers and more)?

 

Now the leaders seem to be blaming the artists for these being inaccurate representations of how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.

 

Can you provide an example?

[KevinG]

So you are saying that they didn't know?  Because earlier you said that it was taught in institute.  You also said the following:

 

"Except the history was published.  I learned of much of it myself from Institute prior to the internet age.  There are few churches in the world with so many clear source documents, museum exhibits, publications, and lessons in public view as the LDS Church."

 

I'm struggling to follow your position on this.

 

It depends on the subject.  We're discussing things with a very broad brush.  Some times people lose faith over a misunderstanding.  Sometimes they lose faith over something that was true, but wasn't revealed to them.  There are as many reasons for not knowing, publishing, interpreting historical items as there are historical items to be understood. 

 

Things like Joseph's using a pepper box pistol and translating using a seer stone were available publicly for years.  When people accuse the church of hiding the pistol it amuses me because it has been displayed in a case in the Church history museum, and pictured in an institute manual for decades.

 

Those things are often not the core reason for loss of faith.  They can be a catalyst or the final straw.  But in most cases where I personally knew someone struggling it was those items on top of more heavy burdens, sometimes sin, sometimes a heavy load, sometimes non-Christian actions of other Saints, that accompanied the back breaking information that finally pushed someone away from the Gospel.

 

I admire Bushman's approach for taking as many source materials as he could, presenting all sides of an argument, sorting through the credibility of the sources and stories when he could, then allowing the reader to draw conclusions about what really happened.

 

In the end we are all responsible for what we do with the information we are given.  I choose to have faith in the Gospel plan, even though I know the brethren who lead us are human.  Inspired but not perfect.  I also choose as a free agent, to do the best I can with the information I'm given, not ever make an excuse to quit because someone acted in a way that disillusioned me.

[KevinG]

So many of these examples we are asking for have been discussed in other threads.  Head in Hat vs. through a curtain translation... Seer Stones and divining vs. spiritual purposes... Emma's acknowledgement of polygamy vs. her later denial...

 

There are 1000 specific examples and discussions here, at FAIR Mormon, etc.

 

Throwing a generalization out like "Were the brethren lying or telling the truth?" is not useful or intellectually honest.  

 

Provide one example of an intentional or accidental falsehood, or faith promoting but false story propagated by the Brethren (and or the curricula department) and we can discuss the possible reasons/origins/veracity of the claim.

 

Otherwise this is too broad a brush to be painting with.

[Danzo]

So many of these examples we are asking for have been discussed in other threads.  Head in Hat vs. through a curtain translation... Seer Stones and divining vs. spiritual purposes... Emma's acknowledgement of polygamy vs. her later denial...

 

There are 1000 specific examples and discussions here, at FAIR Mormon, etc.

 

Throwing a generalization out like "Were the brethren lying or telling the truth?" is not useful or intellectually honest.  

 

Provide one example of an intentional or accidental falsehood, or faith promoting but false story propagated by the Brethren (and or the curricula department) and we can discuss the possible reasons/origins/veracity of the claim.

 

Otherwise this is too broad a brush to be painting with.

 

The problem with the OP is that it assumes the premise that Brother Correlation was intentionally deceiving us without providing evidence the he was.

[KevinG]

The problem with the OP is that it assumes the premise that Brother Correlation was intentionally deceiving us without providing evidence the he was.

 

Bingo!  I have yet to find any evidence for this grand conspiracy theory about the church and its leadership.  It would be nice if someone provided some credible evidence of any conspiracy to deceive at all before assuming such and building a straw man to tear down.

[ALarson]

Can you provide an example?

https://www.lds.org/media-library/images/translating-plates-82841?lang=eng

[rockpond]

It depends on the subject.  We're discussing things with a very broad brush.  Some times people lose faith over a misunderstanding.  Sometimes they lose faith over something that was true, but wasn't revealed to them.  There are as many reasons for not knowing, publishing, interpreting historical items as there are historical items to be understood. 

 

Things like Joseph's using a pepper box pistol and translating using a seer stone were available publicly for years.  When people accuse the church of hiding the pistol it amuses me because it has been displayed in a case in the Church history museum, and pictured in an institute manual for decades.

 

Those things are often not the core reason for loss of faith.  They can be a catalyst or the final straw.  But in most cases where I personally knew someone struggling it was those items on top of more heavy burdens, sometimes sin, sometimes a heavy load, sometimes non-Christian actions of other Saints, that accompanied the back breaking information that finally pushed someone away from the Gospel.

 

I admire Bushman's approach for taking as many source materials as he could, presenting all sides of an argument, sorting through the credibility of the sources and stories when he could, then allowing the reader to draw conclusions about what really happened.

 

In the end we are all responsible for what we do with the information we are given.  I choose to have faith in the Gospel plan, even though I know the brethren who lead us are human.  Inspired but not perfect.  I also choose as a free agent, to do the best I can with the information I'm given, not ever make an excuse to quit because someone acted in a way that disillusioned me.

 

Amen.

[ALarson]

Bingo!  I have yet to find any evidence for this grand conspiracy theory about the church and its leadership. 

I don't know if anyone is calling this a conspiracy 

 

But either material was written and approved that was inaccurate and known facts were left out of the curriculum (in the great majority of it over the last 30 or more years), or the leaders just did not know the true history or the details regarding polygamy, the head in the hat translation and much more.

 

Or do you believe it was something else?

Edited August 10, 2015 by ALarson

[KevinG]

https://www.lds.org/media-library/images/translating-plates-82841?lang=eng

 

Church resources going back to 1982 that discuss the use of the Hat and Seer Stones in the translation process:  http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_What_Church_sources_discuss_either_the_use_of_the_seer_stone_or_the_stone_and_the_hat_as_part_of_the_Book_of_Mormon_translation_process%3F along with a citation of a 1960 publication that mentions that method.

 

 

Edited August 10, 2015 by KevinG

[KevinG]

I don't know if anyone is calling this a conspiracy 

 

 

Or do you believe it was something else?

 

I am calling it a conspiracy theory.  An accurate description of what I've heard described by critics who believe there was an organized deception on the part of the church.

[Danzo]

https://www.lds.org/media-library/images/translating-plates-82841?lang=eng

 

An artist rendition, hardly a lie.  Maybe the artist was interpreting this description from the pearl of great price

 

"Oliver Cowdery describes these events thus: “These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’'

 

Maybe it happened differently some times but hardly a lie.  Are you saying that some people think that this illustration was supposed to be by someone who was an eyewitness?

[CV75]

WHY did the church purposely promulgate a false narrative about the BoM translation?

WHY the church leadership would purposely deceive.

It is impossible to offer the "WHY" of something that did not happen! Are these trick questions?

 

I think it perfectly honest for the servants of God, in their ministry, to give that which is spiritually revealed priority over that which is ascertained through mortal/temporal evidence alone. The former is taught by way of testimony; the latter taught by way of explanation according to the understanding of the teacher and the tolerance of the hearers.

 

For example, the Book of Mormon came “forth by the gift and power of God” (Book of Mormon title page), and, “God had prepared [the Urim and Thummim) for the purpose of translating the book” (JS-H 1:35; D&C 10:1). The use of other stones are not mentioned in LDS canon. To testify and to teach these truths as LDS leaders understand them in alignment with scripture is honest.

 

However, in describing the interpretation of historical evidence, it is more honest to use terms such as “apparently” and “seem” (https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng): “Apparently for convenience, Joseph often translated with the single seer stone rather than the two stones bound together to form the interpreters. These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable and worked in much the same way such that, in the course of time, Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters. …Latter-day Saints later understood the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer exclusively to the interpreters. Joseph Smith and others, however, seem to have understood the term more as a descriptive category of instruments for obtaining divine revelations and less as the name of a specific instrument.”

 

It is also honest to convey a message in the “language” of the hearers, a practice used by Joseph Smith and his successors (https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng): “In their proselyting efforts, Joseph and other early members chose not to focus on the influence of folk culture, as many prospective converts were experiencing a transformation in how they understood religion in the Age of Reason. In what became canonized revelations, however, Joseph continued to teach that seer stones and other seeric devices, as well as the ability to work with them, were important and sacred gifts from God.”

[CA Steve]

I think there is an inverse relationship between the standard for evidence one sets as proof of the Church hiding its history and the standard the same person sets for accepting evidence of the historicity Book of Mormon and vice versa.

 

[Danzo]

https://www.lds.org/media-library/images/translating-plates-82841?lang=eng

 

Art is so ambiguous, how about text?