CA Steve Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 10 minutes ago, bluebell said: 11 minutes ago, bluebell said: Yes, but you are referencing something that Hofmann told Brent Metcalfe. Hoffmann is Metcalfe's source, right? Yes, but you are referencing something that Hofmann told Brent Metcalfe. Hoffmann is Metcalfe's source, right? Metcalfe is giving a first hand account.
bluebell Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 2 minutes ago, CA Steve said: Metcalfe is giving a first hand account. So Metcalfe talked to Hinckley and the LA times and that's how he knew that Hinckley bought it and that Hofmann leaked it to the press? 1
JLHPROF Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 5 minutes ago, ttribe said: Where would you draw the line? Do you have a line that you wouldn't cross, where you would question the validity of what you perceived to be revelation? Murder of innocents, or anything else that God has already specifically called a grievous sin. God doesn't violate eternal principles. God often violates mortal traditions.
ttribe Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 minute ago, JLHPROF said: Murder of innocents, or anything else that God has already specifically called a grievous sin. God doesn't violate eternal principles. God often violates mortal traditions. How do you reconcile that with the Old Testament account of Joshua being commanded to spare no living thing (including innocent children) in Israel's attack on the Promised Land?
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: What makes your spirit discerning right from wrong more correct than Joseph's or mine or anyone else? The age old question - who has the more valid spiritual witness? I am accountable for my spiritual witness because of one thing, and one thing only. Because it is mine.
CA Steve Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 3 minutes ago, bluebell said: So Metcalfe talked to Hinckley and the LA times and that's how he knew that Hinckley bought it and that Hofmann leaked it to the press? You asked if how we could trust Metcalfe's description of what went on if Hoffman was his source. Feel free to listen to the interview to see how Metcalfe describes his first hand experience in the Hoffman affair. There are also several good books on the incident.
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) 8 minutes ago, bluebell said: So Metcalfe talked to Hinckley and the LA times and that's how he knew that Hinckley bought it and that Hofmann leaked it to the press? If I recall correctly, Brent Metcalfe was in a position to observe things firsthand. If you listen to his interview, I imagine he will source it. It has been a while since I listened to it, so I don't remember exactly. P.S. Also, Metcalfe is a distinguished and reputable historian of Mormonism. He also started a podcast recently called Mormon Studies. http://www.mormonstudiespodcast.com/ Edited December 31, 2015 by consiglieri
Sanpitch Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 Re my claim of the $185,000 involved in a Hoffman transaction: "Mark Hofmann's web of lies began closing in on him when he raised capital, including a loan for $185,000.00 secured by Hugh Pinnock, a General Authority of the Church, to purchase "the McLellin collection." This consisted of a number of papers, letters, and journals written by William E. McLellin, former Apostle under Joseph Smith Jr., who later left the Church. McLellin was on very intimate terms with Joseph and knew his character well, which caused LDS leaders to be very concerned should the collection come to light. This time, however, Hofmann hadn't forged the collection (which would have been a truly monumental task). Not only that, he wasn't actually in a position to purchase it, as he himself was unaware of its whereabouts." From a random web site, available on request.
JLHPROF Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 2 minutes ago, ttribe said: How do you reconcile that with the Old Testament account of Joshua being commanded to spare no living thing (including innocent children) in Israel's attack on the Promised Land? When it comes to that story there are a lot of assumptions. God can end any mortal life he chooses, even using Joshua as a tool. Would it make us feel any better if God had used a plague or lightning or famine to end the lives of those children? We are also assuming innocence (and continued innocence). We are also ignoring the principle set down in Nephi killing Laban (it is better...) I am not excusing the troubling act of Joshua. I am merely saying we don't have all the answers so applying our modern sensibilities and mortal perspectives doesn't always yield the best result.
ttribe Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 minute ago, JLHPROF said: When it comes to that story there are a lot of assumptions. God can end any mortal life he chooses, even using Joshua as a tool. Would it make us feel any better if God had used a plague or lightning or famine to end the lives of those children? We are also assuming innocence (and continued innocence). We are also ignoring the principle set down in Nephi killing Laban (it is better...) I am not excusing the troubling act of Joshua. I am merely saying we don't have all the answers so applying our modern sensibilities and mortal perspectives doesn't always yield the best result. I'm assuming you see the loophole(s) you've left in your own line-in-the-sand position. From your interaction in this thread with Consig on the issue of marrying young teenage girls, I see he has drawn a hard line at a higher level of morality than you would (by your own admission). I see no reason to criticize him for that. In fact, I find myself in agreement with him on the issue. If I felt like God was asking me to do something that was such an affront to what I believe to be right, I believe I would prefer to be damned than to do something so grievously wrong.
bluebell Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 11 minutes ago, CA Steve said: You asked if how we could trust Metcalfe's description of what went on if Hoffman was his source. Feel free to listen to the interview to see how Metcalfe describes his first hand experience in the Hoffman affair. There are also several good books on the incident. Is there a transcript? I don't listen to podcasts. With a house full of kids (two of them toddlers), it's impossible to listen to anything and actually hear it.
bluebell Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: When it comes to that story there are a lot of assumptions. God can end any mortal life he chooses, even using Joshua as a tool. Would it make us feel any better if God had used a plague or lightning or famine to end the lives of those children? Speaking for myself, yes, it would make me feel more comfortable. I can't imagine anyone being able to kill babies and children and not be emotionally harmed by it or turn into a monster themselves.
CA Steve Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Sanpitch said: Re my claim of the $185,000 involved in a Hoffman transaction: "Mark Hofmann's web of lies began closing in on him when he raised capital, including a loan for $185,000.00 secured by Hugh Pinnock, a General Authority of the Church, to purchase "the McLellin collection." This consisted of a number of papers, letters, and journals written by William E. McLellin, former Apostle under Joseph Smith Jr., who later left the Church. McLellin was on very intimate terms with Joseph and knew his character well, which caused LDS leaders to be very concerned should the collection come to light. This time, however, Hofmann hadn't forged the collection (which would have been a truly monumental task). Not only that, he wasn't actually in a position to purchase it, as he himself was unaware of its whereabouts." From a random web site, available on request. Ironically the actual McLellin collection was already in the Church's possession at the time Hoffman was trying to sell the Church a bogus version. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705279446/McLellin-journal-finally-is-located.html?pg=all Edited December 31, 2015 by CA Steve
bluebell Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 14 minutes ago, consiglieri said: If I recall correctly, Brent Metcalfe was in a position to observe things firsthand. If you listen to his interview, I imagine he will source it. It has been a while since I listened to it, so I don't remember exactly. P.S. Also, Metcalfe is a distinguished and reputable historian of Mormonism. He also started a podcast recently called Mormon Studies. http://www.mormonstudiespodcast.com/ If there's a transcript i'll read it. Your use of "Brent Metcalfe was a close friend of Mark Hofmann at the time and he gives the following account on his interview on Mormon Stories:" is what led me to believe that Hofmann was Metcalfe's source. Otherwise, i'm not sure what I was supposed to get out of that statement. 1
ttribe Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 minute ago, bluebell said: If there's a transcript i'll read it. Your use of "Brent Metcalfe was a close friend of Mark Hofmann at the time and he gives the following account on his interview on Mormon Stories:" is what led me to believe that Hofmann was Metcalfe's source. Otherwise, i'm not sure what I was supposed to get out of that statement. Most likely that Metcalfe was in a unique position - 1) he worked for Church Security and saw many of the events from his position of working various General Authorities involved in the matter; and 2) he allegedly knew Hofman quite well also.
bluebell Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 2 minutes ago, ttribe said: Most likely that Metcalfe was in a unique position - 1) he worked for Church Security and saw many of the events from his position of working various General Authorities involved in the matter; and 2) he allegedly knew Hofman quite well also. Could be.
Ahab Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 The term critic is usually applied to those who are negatively critical of something, like how critics of the Church are negatively critical of something about the Church. The flip side to a critic is someone who praises the Church or says positive things about the Church while trying not to say anything negative. What we need are more people like me in the middle, more people who can share a more balanced perspective, more people who can see that the Church is filled with fallible people but that God is still somehow doing positive things with us/them and through us/them. Unfortunately some people are easily offended though and think that the Church is God or should always be as perfect as God instead of realizing the Church is still filled with people who are fallible and not perfect, yet.
JLHPROF Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 16 minutes ago, ttribe said: If I felt like God was asking me to do something that was such an affront to what I believe to be right, I believe I would prefer to be damned than to do something so grievously wrong. God cannot ask us to do anything wrong. If you feel something God asks is wrong, you are wrong. Just that simple. Assuming of course you are positive it comes from God (which is the really tricky part).
salgare Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Really? They may not say it as I phrased it but that has always been the methodology. I have yet to see a critic of the Church that didn't reveal their criticisms in the hope of people losing testimony over them. And as Robert said there is nothing they hate more when their criticisms don't bother members. My over simplified, bullet item level take on this. Church - I don't think many critics attend church, thus they are not taking it to the member, throwing it in their face and being disappointed if there is no shock value. ex-mo - left the church and angry? come join our angry group therapy and let your anger flow. Not expecting the uninitiated1 TBM to even take notice. post-mo - left the church not so angry? come join our group therapy and let your stories flow. Not expecting uninitiated1 TBM to even take notice. NOM - stuck in the church and don't know what to do? come join our group therapy with others in your position. Your observations may apply as some percentage of newcomers to the group maybe just starting their initiation2 http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66700-do-apostates-go-to-spirit-prison/?do=findComment&comment=1209573077 MDB - wanna do some hating on Mormon Apologetics? come join our group therapy with others in your position. the initiated1 need only apply. MDDB - your observations may apply ... the one group that critics come into a TBM environment, doing their day job of trolling for possible lurkers that might be shocked (uninitiated1 beware). Blogs - typically more in-depth and often interesting/educational information on focused topics. Typically only followed by the initiated2 (no shock value intended nor expected). Podcasts - same as blogs. Dedicated "information sites" say Mormon Think - your observations likely applies in the case of unintended google hits bringing the uninitiated1 to the question tree. notes: 1. chapel Mormon 2. internet Mormon Edited December 31, 2015 by salgare forgot mdb
Walden Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 minute ago, Ahab said: The term critic is usually applied to those who are negatively critical of something, like how critics of the Church are negatively critical of something about the Church. The flip side to a critic is someone who praises the Church or says positive things about the Church while trying not to say anything negative. What we need are more people like me in the middle, more people who can share a more balanced perspective, more people who can see that the Church is filled with fallible people but that God is still somehow doing positive things with us/them and through us/them. Unfortunately some people are easily offended though and think that the Church is God or should always be as perfect as God instead of realizing the Church is still filled with people who are fallible and not perfect, yet. Yes, I agree for the most part. However, the church has participated in some institutionalized deception over the years, a calculated plan, at the very least, of lying by omission. This was not the work of a few fallible individuals, but a calculated, institutional-scale plan to whitewash the more unsavory aspects of LDS church history (whether it be MMM, Joseph Smith polygamy, various, differing versions of the First Vision, etc., etc.). This is no different than other large institutions with large followings, whether they be political, religious, etc. I think that every church could argue that they are "filled with fallible people but that God is still somehow doing positive things with us/them and through us/them." What then makes the LDS church exceptional in this regard? I think that the actual truth is somewhere between the folds of the critics sharp remarks and the LDS church's version of history. 1
salgare Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: God cannot ask us to do anything wrong. If you feel something God asks is wrong, you are wrong. Just that simple. Assuming of course you are positive it comes from God (which is the really tricky part). Or, you are following a false or immoral god
salgare Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: What makes your spirit discerning right from wrong more correct than Joseph's or mine or anyone else? The age old question - who has the more valid spiritual witness? And yet many here argue that this is the only way for you to discern a prophet in the first place??? .. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66694-these-are-three-grand-keys/ Edited December 31, 2015 by salgare
Ahab Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Walden said: Yes, I agree for the most part. However, the church has participated in some institutionalized deception over the years, a calculated plan, at the very least, of lying by omission. This was not the work of a few fallible individuals, but a calculated, institutional-scale plan to whitewash the more unsavory aspects of LDS church history (whether it be MMM, Joseph Smith polygamy, various, differing versions of the First Vision, etc., etc.). This is no different than other large institutions with large followings, whether they be political, religious, etc. I think that every church could argue that they are "filled with fallible people but that God is still somehow doing positive things with us/them and through us/them." What then makes the LDS church exceptional in this regard? I think that the actual truth is somewhere between the folds of the critics sharp remarks and the LDS church's version of history. Yes that's what I meant. Instead of being overly negative like a critic of the Church, or overly positive like someone who says nothing but positive things about the Church, we need to hear from more people who share a more balanced perspective. Being extreme either way is not good. The Church is filled with fallible people who with God's help do a lot of good things. Finding fault is easy but we also need to be able to see the good things the Church is doing with God's help and priesthood. Edited December 31, 2015 by Ahab
Teancum Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: What makes your spirit discerning right from wrong more correct than Joseph's or mine or anyone else? The age old question - who has the more valid spiritual witness? Thus you demonstrate why spiritual witnesses are a poor way for determining the truth.
salgare Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) Bluebell, I well may be biased and a bad judge of character, but I remember being very impressed with Brent watching that interface ... it was video recorded not just audio. There is something about watching and listening to a person, the inflections etc. that might give a deeper feel for where a person is coming from. I hope that some day you might get/take the opportunity of watching it. I should go review. Edited December 31, 2015 by salgare 1
Recommended Posts