consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: To study it. It is not an admission of authenticity to buy it. To all but the most obtuse, it strongly suggests Church leadership thought it was authentic. I think that's why they posed for the famous newspaper photo with Hofmann pointing toward the letter where it lay on a desk in the COB.
JLHPROF Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 8 minutes ago, ttribe said: How did you leap from one person (CA Steve) suggesting he would give thought to mental illness as the source of the vision to the entire Church defaulting to that line of thought? Because that is what I observe. Even on this site we have many members who doubt revelation is ever the literal word of God. The idea of heavenly visitation must strike them as absurd.
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Critics always throw this out when they think they are losing. So predictably dull. I suppose that depends on the 14-year old girl . . .
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said: Can you cite in the scriptures where an age limitation is established for how old someone needs to be before they can be married? What law of God is broken when a 14 year old gets married? The Law of the Gospel. Heard of it?
JLHPROF Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) Just now, consiglieri said: The Law of the Gospel. Heard of it? Nope (well, yes, but not in this context). Please enlighten us. Where does God set a marrying age? Edited December 31, 2015 by JLHPROF
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 hour ago, salgare said: Believe and certain are contradictory right? I would suggest there would only be one way to be certain and that would be for an embodied Angel of Light appeared to you and was proven per the scriptural and Temple taught method. Do you agree? Ah, yes. The old "pull my finger" method.
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: It would certainly be one of the most accurate, especially in our day when revelation has been replaced by "inspired confirmation". Why the replacement, I wonder?
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: When did we as a Church cease to believe in heavenly manifestation? We still believe in them. They just don't happen anymore.
JLHPROF Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 Just now, consiglieri said: Why the replacement, I wonder? Ah, now THAT is an interesting question. Worthy of its own thread were it not for the fact that most members don't see a change and most critics don't believe either form came from God. Curse that middle ground...
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Nope (well, yes, but not in this context). Please enlighten us. Where does God set a marrying age? It's in the CHI-1. Right after it says straight kids of gay parents can't be baptized at age 8.
JLHPROF Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 Just now, consiglieri said: It's in the CHI-1. Right after it says straight kids of gay parents can't be baptized at age 8. Yeah, don't know about other members but the law of the Gospel I covenanted concerning was NOT the CHI. 1
CA Steve Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 21 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: Those with schizophrenia have a history of it. It is not something that comes suddenly for a moment and then does not come back. That might occur with drug use but one knows if they took drugs or not. In the case of Joseph Smith, one more than one occasion that he had a visitation, there was someone else with him to witness it as well so it would not apply to him. As to whether one being told to do something wrong, I guess one would have to take the message and look in the scriptures to see how morally wrong it is before acting on it or rejecting it. 40% of those with schizophrenia go untreated and the reality is, until it is diagnosed one does not even know that they have it. The person I know struggling with it did not manifest until he was 27 and it took a year to actually figure out what the problem was. As far as history goes, neither he nor his family had any history of diagnosed mental illness and he had no history of drug use. There is however a very strong link between religious experiences and psychotic episodes. About 24% of hospitalized schizophrenic patients have had religious delusions.
bluebell Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 5 minutes ago, consiglieri said: We still believe in them. They just don't happen anymore. If they don't, it's our fault. Only a lack of faith can cause miracles to cease. 1
CA Steve Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: The idea that we as a society are more inclined to believe a heavenly manifestation that contradicted our traditions would indicate that "my first thought of an Angel commanding me to do something I knew to be morally wrong would be I was suffering from a mental illness." Our first thought in instance of Heavenly appearances now goes to mental illness, not divine intervention. That's very sad. You have changed what I said. I said if a heavenly messenger was commanding me to do something wrong, my first thought would be mental illness. What is really sad is undiagnosed mental illness.
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 11 minutes ago, bluebell said: If they don't, it's our fault. Only a lack of faith can cause miracles to cease. Hi, Bluebell! Something the Church has down to a science is blaming the members for its own inadequacies. Anything wrong with the Church or the way it does things is chalked up to being the fault of the member. Joseph Smith sought to lead the members to spiritual experiences through setting the example for them and inviting them to come along for the ride. Those days are long gone, I fear.
salgare Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 hour ago, CA Steve said: Sorry to intrude in an interesting discussion between you and JLHPROF but for me even such an appearance would be not be proof. Having witnessed first hand how firmly someone dealing with schizophrenia believes what he is seeing is real, my first thought of an Angel commanding me to do something I knew to be morally wrong would be I was suffering from a mental illness. About 1% of the American population (or 2.5 million people) are affected by this disease. So if I think an angel has appeared to me and is telling me to do something wrong, which is a greater likelihood, that it really is an angel or I am one of those 2.5 million people? no intrusion ... so you reject D&C 129? http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66694-these-are-three-grand-keys/
bluebell Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 2 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Hi, Bluebell! Something the Church has down to a science is blaming the members for its own inadequacies. Anything wrong with the Church or the way it does things is chalked up to being the fault of the member. Joseph Smith sought to lead the members to spiritual experiences through setting the example for them and inviting them to come along for the ride. Those days are long gone, I fear. Well, in this regard it has nothing to do with what the church does. The sentiments in my post came out of the Book of Mormon. I disagree though with what you've said. I don't believe the church does that. General conference seems to be full of our leaders desperately trying to get us to live up to our privileges as people who are in a covenant relationship with Christ. To quote a book, "we have set our gods very low." We expect very little of them and give very little of ourselves to them. 2
salgare Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 hour ago, CA Steve said: What has that got to do with my comment about a personal manifestation commanding me to do something I would otherwise consider morally wrong? oh my, what has happened to the oath and covenant? 23 Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God; 24 But they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory. 25 Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also; 26 And the lesser priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel; Have we not even reached the Aaronic level and yet are so sure of our priesthood power? 2
Jeanne Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 55 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I may be going to a meeting with Sandra speaking, any questions for her you'd like me to ask? Of course, as polite as possible ones please. Lucky you.! I would love to be there.
juliann Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 2 hours ago, Calm said: there are some serious claims; not really comfortable with using "most likely" as a reason to accept them as firsthand. Perhaps a summary of the podcast's claims for Brent's sources would be in order. I don't think pointing to a podcast works any more than pointing to a book and saying go read it rather than presenting quotes. That is why we have CFR requirements here. BB came up with a really, really good question. I'm not questioning Brent's recollections. But knowing if Hoffman was a source is a very necessary question. She should get a straight answer. BTW, this incident was a pivotal moment for me. I was a bit of a rebel and was sure the Church had been caught. I thought Oaks was pandering when he urged members to wait for it all to play out before making a judgement. After it did play out, I was struck by his assurance and calm. That is when I learned to give the Church the benefit of the doubt no matter how bad it looked through the hype. And Consig, I do find it beyond ironic that you are praising the Tanners when they are well known for their creative use of ellipses....while at the same time deriding the Church for not including what you consider to be necessary context in another thread. Consistency is a wonderful thing. 1
juliann Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 Quote I may be going to a meeting with Sandra speaking, any questions for her you'd like me to ask? Of course, as polite as possible ones please. Ask her how rewarding it is to have your name memorialized on the losing side of 10th circuit case law that will be cited in perpetuity. Her frivolous lawsuit will be her ultimate contribution. Everyone who uses the internet gained protection because of her. 1
CA Steve Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) 49 minutes ago, salgare said: no intrusion ... so you reject D&C 129? http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66694-these-are-three-grand-keys/ If you are asking me if I think a mentally ill person would not be able to distinguish the difference between what is required in D&C 129 and a psychotic event, then my answer is they would not. Whether or not I reject D&C 129 has nothing do do with what I am saying. Edited December 31, 2015 by CA Steve
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 49 minutes ago, bluebell said: Well, in this regard it has nothing to do with what the church does. The sentiments in my post came out of the Book of Mormon. I disagree though with what you've said. I don't believe the church does that. General conference seems to be full of our leaders desperately trying to get us to live up to our privileges as people who are in a covenant relationship with Christ. To quote a book, "we have set our gods very low." We expect very little of them and give very little of ourselves to them. One of the things I like about you, Bluebell, is how you can disagree without being disagreeable. I like the quote. What book is it from? 1
bluebell Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 Just now, consiglieri said: One of the things I like about you, Bluebell, is how you can disagree without being disagreeable. I like the quote. What book is it from? I try. ☺️ The book is Levi's Will by W. Dale Cramer.
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 21 minutes ago, juliann said: And Consig, I do find it beyond ironic that you are praising the Tanners when they are well known for their creative use of ellipses....while at the same time deriding the Church for not including what you consider to be necessary context in another thread. Consistency is a wonderful thing. Well, I am certainly not above irony, Juliann. What I recall about the Tanners and Ed Decker back in my heyday of apologetics was that the Tanners were generally considered to be more concerned with accuracy, whereas Decker would throw anything he could against the wall. Wasn't it Decker who came up with some kind of allegation about homosexual parties at a GA's residence? I always thought the Tanners were the ones who were mainly interested in reproducing older materials from Church sources. I never read their magnum opus, though I did look at it once. There was a great deal of caps and bold-face and stuff, if I recall. I do remember a few times catching some anti-Mormons in the creative use of ellipses. But it was never the Tanners whom I caught. Doesn't mean they didn't do it, though. Does anyone have any examples of this?
Recommended Posts