Jump to content

First vision accounts getting detailed attention in CES devotional


Recommended Posts

On 5/9/2016 at 0:48 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I can understand that; such a thing has happened to me.

In this case, though, a rebuttal to HJW's post did appear on the self same page, just a few posts prior to it.

And HJW has a history of this sort of thing. He and I have gone the rounds about his repeated assertion that there is no statement in the Church that homosexuality is a condition of mortality only. I have repeatedly contradicted his claim with documentation only to find him repeating it later as though there had been no rebuttal made.

 

On 5/17/2016 at 8:53 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

CFR that I have a "history" of this. Provide examples that reflect this "history" or retract with an apology for your subtle ad hominem aimed at poisoning the well against my participation here. 

Unless you've never missed previous posts (which would be truly miraculous) maybe you should knock off the false accusations.

Why are you requiring that I provide examples when the examples are already at hand?

First, you repeatedly claim the Church has no doctrinal position pertaining to homosexual orientation not existing beyond mortality. Each time, I have responded with documentation that the Church does hold that position. In the latest occurrence, I took you to task for ignoring what I had said previously. You then repeated your claim. I chided you for ignoring what I had written in that very thread. Only then did you acknowledge my rebuttal. That's two separate repetitions of the same claim without acknowledging an answer that had already been given.

Now, on this thread, you make a claim of inconsistency in Joseph Smith's written accounts of his experience, despite the fact that Wiki Wonka had already given an explanation resolving this matter.

So that's three separate instances of you repeating a claim while neglecting or ignoring a rebuttal that had already been made. That, to me, is quite enough to establish a pattern, or a "history."

What is it you're issuing the CFR for? Do you want a link? OK, here's a link to the last thread where you twice repeated your demand for authoritative Church statements about homosexuality not existing past mortality. You might have to scroll up and down the page a bit to see all the posts in the conversation, but they are there.

Maybe you're not doing this intentionally; maybe you are beset with attention deficit disorder and long-term memory disability. We'll know, I suppose, if you come back on a future occasion claiming yet again that the Church has never made any authoritative statement about homosexuality not persisting beyond mortality.

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, cinepro said:

It's not just "different times, in different circumstances".

It's like this.

18 years ago, I worked at an electronics store in Los Angeles.  I sold a lot of TVs, VCRs and DVD players to different people, including some celebrities (and "celebrities").  Suppose you meet me in 2002 and we become friends.  I don't talk a lot about my time selling VCRs, but I have told you some stories, including the times I sold stuff to Bill Pullman and Sinbad the comedian.

Now, in 2016, I've changed interests and am applying for a prestigious job as a curator at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.  I'm nervous for my first interview, so I ask you to accompany me.  After the interview, you ask how it went, and I say "It went well.  I told them about the time Ronald Reagan came in to the electronics store and I sold him a DVD player.  They really liked that story."

You might be a little surprised that I had never mentioned it until that point.

The next day, I have a follow up interview with the head of the museum.  After the interview, you ask how it went.  I say, "Well, when I got to the president's office, I was surprised to see a bunch of Beatles memorabilia in their office.  It turns out they were a huge Beatles fan.  So I told them about that time I sold Paul McCartney a VCR back in the late 1990s and asked him some questions about what it was like to be in the Beatles.  Boy, the President of the museum really liked that story!"

You express further shock that not only had I never mentioned selling a DVD player to Ronald Reagan, I also had never mentioned Paul McCartney.  "Well,", I say, "It was a different story for a different audience.  If you were a Beatles fan, I might have mentioned it.  Also, it's only as time has gone on that I've been able to remember the stories about Ronald Reagan and Paul McCartney.  Back in the early 2000s, I would usually just tell the stories about Bill Pullman and Sinbad."

If this would make perfect sense to you, then fine.  On the other hand, if you would get a little suspicious about the timing of my recalling those stories, then you can understand why some people have reservations about the timing and details in the different versions of the First Vision stories.

:PI love how you explained this...but your employment in any of these areas are not deemed to be a foundation for a restoration of gospel.  We've been taught that the vision and B of M is the foundation/cornerstone of a religion.  Do missionaries still start out with the first vision story?  Should they? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Why are you requiring that I provide examples when the examples are already at hand?

First, you repeatedly claim the Church has no doctrinal position pertaining to homosexual orientation not existing beyond mortality. Each time, I have responded with documentation that the Church does hold that position. In the latest occurrence, I took you to task for ignoring what I had said previously. You then repeated your claim. I chided you for ignoring what I had written in that very thread. Only then did you acknowledge my rebuttal. That's two separate repetitions of the same claim without acknowledging an answer that had already been given.

Now, on this thread, you make a claim of inconsistency in Joseph Smith's written accounts of his experience, despite the fact that Wiki Wonka had already given an explanation resolving this matter.

So that's three separate instances of you repeating a claim while neglecting or ignoring a rebuttal that had already been made. That, to me, is quite enough to establish a pattern, or a "history."

What is it you're issuing the CFR for? Do you want a link? OK, here's a link to the last thread where you twice repeated your demand for authoritative Church statements about homosexuality not existing past mortality. You might have to scroll up and down the page a bit to see all the posts in the conversation, but they are there.

Maybe you're not doing this intentionally; maybe you are beset with attention deficit disorder and long-term memory disability. We'll know, I suppose, if you come back on a future occasion claiming yet again that the Church has never made any authoritative statement about homosexuality not persisting beyond mortality.

 

You crack me up. Thanks for providing the link to that whole "Lance Wickman declares church doctrine" thread. I think what you fail to realize is that your argument just isn't credible. So if I ask a question and you give a weak sauce answer (not your fault because no good answer exists to support your side), then I will ask the question again. It's funny that you think just because you say something I should accept it as gospel truth. Despite your best attempts to board nanny, you simply don't have the power to direct me to accept your answer. I'll also note that there were many others who did not accept your attempts to claim doctrine as declared by Lance Wickman.

I see you're as classy as usual by trying to mock me for ADD and poor long-term memory.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe you're not doing this intentionally; maybe you are beset with attention deficit disorder and long-term memory disability.

I think you are probably not in a good position to question the motives of others, Scott.

For example, here is the post you made a couple of days ago and the comment I made in response on a thread that is now closed.

Since you didn't see fit to respond to it there, even though I posted it twice, maybe you would like to take a crack at it here.

Thanks in advance.  ;)

_________________________________________

 

 

On ‎5‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 5:16 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

As far as I can tell, the only one to have made a fuss over it was Sister Okazaki, and that was years after the fact, when she had long since been released and was well into her book-writing and speech-making career.  . . . I earnestly disapprove of her publicly second-guessing the Brethren about the manner in which the family proclamation was created and introduced, and I think it unseemly for one having held the position she did. 

I can't believe you actually wrote that, Scott!

First, you have just let everybody know why it is impossible to have an honest discussion with you about Mormonism--because you disapprove of anybody "publicly second-guessing the Brethren."

This means that no matter how you may actually feel, you are never going to spout anything other than the party line.  You have no intention of saying what you really think, but only what you think you ought to say.

How does this square with being a journalist, I wonder?

And nice job smearing Sister Okazaki with the implication the only reason she said this was for profit; i.e., she "was well into her book-writing and speech-making career."

Classy move, Scott.

 

(Reposted so Scott won't miss it.)  ;)

 

__________________________________________

 

 

Link to post
33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You crack me up. Thanks for providing the link to that whole "Lance Wickman declares church doctrine" thread. I think what you fail to realize is that your argument just isn't credible. So if I ask a question and you give a weak sauce answer (not your fault because no good answer exists to support your side), then I will ask the question again. It's funny that you think just because you say something I should accept it as gospel truth. Despite your best attempts to board nanny, you simply don't have the power to direct me to accept your answer. I'll also note that there were many others who did not accept your attempts to claim doctrine as declared by Lance Wickman.

I see you're as classy as usual by trying to mock me for ADD and poor long-term memory.

Blithely waving off statements given on official Church venues by an apostle (Dallin H. Oaks) and another General Authority (Lance V. Wickman) is one thing; acting as though they had never been cited in the first place is quite another. The one is a weak response, but it is a response, at least; the other merely shows that you're not paying attention -- or in bad faith intentionally ignoring responses.

Ignoring rebuttals as though they had never been made is modus operandi for typical anti-Mormons, HJW. Do you really want to be classed with that crowd?

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I think you are probably not in a good position to question the motives of others, Scott.

For example, here is the post you made a couple of days ago and the comment I made in response on a thread that is now closed.

Since you didn't see fit to respond to it there, even though I posted it twice, maybe you would like to take a crack at it here.

Thanks in advance.  ;)

_________________________________________

 

 

I can't believe you actually wrote that, Scott!

First, you have just let everybody know why it is impossible to have an honest discussion with you about Mormonism--because you disapprove of anybody "publicly second-guessing the Brethren."

This means that no matter how you may actually feel, you are never going to spout anything other than the party line.  You have no intention of saying what you really think, but only what you think you ought to say.

How does this square with being a journalist, I wonder?

And nice job smearing Sister Okazaki with the implication the only reason she said this was for profit; i.e., she "was well into her book-writing and speech-making career."

Classy move, Scott.

 

(Reposted so Scott won't miss it.)  ;)

 

__________________________________________

 

 

With you, I'm inclined to adopt the practice of smac97, who has taken lately to declining to enter into a substantive discussion with you. I agree with him that you are little more than a provocateur.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

With you, I'm inclined to adopt the practice of smac97, who has taken lately to declining to enter into a substantive discussion with you. I agree with him that you are little more than a provocateur.

 

Caught with your pants down, I see.

Link to post
46 minutes ago, california boy said:

Scott, are you willing to state that church doctrine can be declared by any apostle of the church if he so wishes something to be doctrinal?  

Let me chime in and say:  "YES!"  Especially when the various General Authorities can base their statements on the authority of scriptures.  There are hundreds of passages in both the OT and NT that IRREVOCABLY condemn homosexuality (and acts related to it, such as the "unnatural use of the body").  Why would ANYONE hope or think they can carry "this condition" into the Celestial Kingdom in the next life?  You cannot convey SIN into the Presence of God.

If there is a new doctrine, then of course there would have to be unanimity among the top 2 bodies of the Church.  But certain people hope that by continued "agitation" they can wear down the Church into making compromises.  Not going to happen.  However, what will happen is this issue (plus many others) will cause the Tares to separate from the Wheat.  Where do you want to be?  With the Tares or with the Wheat?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
10 minutes ago, longview said:

Let me chime in and say:  "YES!"  Especially when the various General Authorities can base their statements on the authority of scriptures.  There are hundreds of passages in both the OT and NT that IRREVOCABLY condemn homosexuality (and acts related to it, such as the "unnatural use of the body").  Why would ANYONE hope or think they can carry "this condition" into the Celestial Kingdom in the next life?  You cannot convey SIN into the Presence of God.

If there is a new doctrine, then of course there would have to be unanimity among the top 2 bodies of the Church.  But certain people hope that by continued "agitation" they can wear down the Church into making compromises.  Not going to happen.  However, what will happen is this issue (plus many others) will cause the Tares to separate from the Wheat.  Where do you want to be?  With the Tares or with the Wheat?

I'm not going to call for a CFR cause that would just be mean, but "hundreds of passages"? Come on.

So as long as any general authority is basing his new doctrine on scripture (even though it is his own interpretation) then we should accept that as doctrine? Again...come on. The church would be pure chaos. Statements of various leaders have often been contradictory. I guess both versions of conflicting views are doctrine. The church both makes an absolute doctrinal claim against evolution and also that they don't know. Adam/God theory is both doctrine and it's a heresy. Sorry, guys. That doesn't work.

Quote
  1. Elder B.H. Roberts explained what Official Doctrine is:

    The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.

     

  2. President Harold B. Lee explains,

    “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works.”

     

  3. May 4, 2007 First Presidency Statement-

    Not every statement made by a church leader – past or present – necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal though well-considered opinion but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publication. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.”

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On May 21, 2016 at 8:56 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

No, because I'm not anti-Mormon. However, your judgment is unimportant to me.

According to the 14 Fundamentals of following the Prophet, THE prophet is the only one who speaks for the church as a whole. With that in mind, I find it hard to accept that an answer by a 70 during a Q&A session is binding on the church as doctrine. I view it as his opinion. As you point out, Elder Oaks seems to affirm Wickman's opinion by sharing his opinion about it. Again, this would constitute a new doctrine. Elder Oaks does not have authority to create doctrine either. True doctrine will be taught repeatedly. True doctrine will come through the appropriate source. Your citations of WIckman and Oaks don't qualify and your reference to Mormons and Gays doesn't say anything definitive either. You are merely reading into it what you want to see. That's fine. I'll stop arguing the point because I don't think it will matter to you anyway.

But your continued attack, attempting to influence others to believe I have bad, is irritating, irrational, and mean spirited. It's what people do when they're losing an argument.

 

Perhaps the reason you are going to "stop arguing the point" is that you can no longer claim with blissful ignorance that there has never been any expression by the Church regarding it. 

If either Elder Oaks or Elder Wickman were off the beam on this, wouldn't their statements have been removed from this official Church web site by now?  What about mormonsandgays.org? That's the go-to source these days for the Church's positions on this subject. Would something be perpetuated there if it were not solid doctrinally? With the Internet, it is easy to fix errors; you just go in and do it. It's not like the old days when a statement published in error remained in print indefinitey. 

Doesn't it tell you something that there is absolutely no indication of ambiguity or equivocation or uncertainty on the part of the Brethren on this point? That the only statements at all that can be found by them are to the effect that homosexuality is a malady that pertains only to mortality?

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Perhaps the reason you are going to "stop arguing the point" is that you can no longer claim with blissful ignorance that there has never been any expression by the Church regarding it. 

If either Elder Oaks or Elder Wickman were off the beam on this, wouldn't their statements have been removed from this official Church web site by now?  With the Internet, it is easy to fix errors; you just go in and do it. It's not like the old days when a statement published in error remained in print indefinitey. 

Doesn't it tell you something that there is absolutely no indication of ambiguity or equivocation or uncertainty on the part of the Brethren on this point? That the only statements at all that can be found by them are to the effect that homosexuality is a malady that pertains only to mortality?

I'm gay in this life and I'll be gay in the next. If a god thinks that's going to change then he is unworthy of love, devotion and worship. I'll happily escort myself to Outer Darkness than live with an insufferable ignoramus.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

I'm gay in this life and I'll be gay in the next. If a god thinks that's going to change then he is unworthy of love, devotion and worship. I'll happily escort myself to Outer Darkness than live with an insufferable ignoramus.

You are entitled to choose your own beliefs. But I worry about those who suffer in silence, yearning to live in accordance with the laws of God but fearful that they are stuck forever with homosexual tendencies. It is not fair to make them think the Church has no position on this matter when in fact the opposite is true. They are as entitled to whatever assurance can be offered as you are to choose your own beliefs. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I'm gay in this life and I'll be gay in the next. If a god thinks that's going to change then he is unworthy of love, devotion and worship. I'll happily escort myself to Outer Darkness than live with an insufferable ignoramus.

You are so worthy of love.  I believe God will look at your life and your service to others and welcome you home.

Edited by Jeanne
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
23 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

With you, I'm inclined to adopt the practice of smac97, who has taken lately to declining to enter into a substantive discussion with you. I agree with him that you are little more than a provocateur.

 

Darn!  I have waited and waited for your reply to Consig. 

Link to post
4 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I'm gay in this life and I'll be gay in the next. If a god thinks that's going to change then he is unworthy of love, devotion and worship. I'll happily escort myself to Outer Darkness than live with an insufferable ignoramus.

I do not condemn anyone who struggle with same sex attractions.  However, I have three questions for you:

1- Do you believe you existed as a spirit child of God before being born into this world?

2- Do you believe that there were ONLY two sexes in the pre-existence?

3- Do you believe that spirit beings could have homosexual tendencies?

Link to post
8 hours ago, cinepro said:

I'm sorry, but do you really think there are "hundreds" of passages in the scriptures that IRREVOCABLY condemn homosexuality?  I'll make this easy and just ask for the first hundred. 

And you can even include scriptures from the Mosaic law, even though we don't adhere to them in our day.

I have been reading the Bible thru this past two months (after having read the BoM several times for the past few years).  I am now in Deuteronomy.  Abraham and Lot (Book of Genesis) were taught by the Lord that homosexuality in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah was a grievous abomination.  I would count each individual homosexuals for my totals.  B:)

I agree with you and HJW that it would take a considerable amount of time to list every passage.  So maybe I should have said "MANY" instead of hundreds.  :wacko:

Edit to add:

Pres. Kimball in the November 1977 Ensign:

We hear more and more each day about the sins of adultery, homosexuality, and lesbianism. Homosexuality is an ugly sin, but because of its prevalence, the need to warn the uninitiated, and the desire to help those who may already be involved with it, it must be brought into the open.

It is the sin of the ages. It was present in Israel’s wandering as well as after and before. It was tolerated by the Greeks. It was prevalent in decaying Rome. The ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are symbols of wretched wickedness more especially related to this perversion, as the incident of Lot’s visitors indicates.

There is today a strong clamor to make such practices legal by passing legislation. Some would also legislate to legalize prostitution. They have legalized abortion, seeking to remove from this heinous crime the stigma of sin.

We do not hesitate to tell the world that the cure for these evils is not in surrender.

“But let us emphasize that right and wrong, righteousness and sin, are not dependent upon man’s interpretations, conventions and attitudes. Social acceptance does not change the status of an act, making wrong into right. If all the people in the world were to accept homosexuality, … the practice would still be a deep, dark sin.” (The Miracle of Forgiveness, Bookcraft, p. 79.)

Edited by longview
Link to post
1 hour ago, longview said:

I do not condemn anyone who struggle with same sex attractions.  However, I have three questions for you:

1- Do you believe you existed as a spirit child of God before being born into this world?

2- Do you believe that there were ONLY two sexes in the pre-existence?

3- Do you believe that spirit beings could have homosexual tendencies?

I don't struggle with it. I'm actually really good at being attracted to men. Shaved head, beard, full tattoo sleeves and intelligence...my kryptonite.

1. No

2. No

3. No. I reject the idea of premortality.

Edited by Valentinus
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are entitled to choose your own beliefs. But I worry about those who suffer in silence, yearning to live in accordance with the laws of God but fearful that they are stuck forever with homosexual tendencies. It is not fair to make them think the Church has no position on this matter when in fact the opposite is true. They are as entitled to whatever assurance can be offered as you are to choose your own beliefs. 

You really should clarify that these are the  laws of God according to the LDS church and are in no way "catholic" or "universal" and binding on every human being. 

Link to post
7 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I'm gay in this life and I'll be gay in the next. If a god thinks that's going to change then he is unworthy of love, devotion and worship.

There is some truth to this.  The next life is the spirit world and we enter the spirit world the same way as we leave this world minus a physical body.  So yes a gay person will still be gay in the spirit world.  A smoker will still crave the nicotine in the spirit world but will not be able to satisfy that craving by smoking.  After the resurrection that is probably a different story.  God will not change you.  It is up to you to change yourself.  God will only help if you want it.

Edited by carbon dioxide
Link to post
1 hour ago, longview said:

I have been reading the Bible thru this past two months (after having read the BoM several times for the past few years).  I am now in Deuteronomy.  Abraham and Lot (Book of Genesis) were taught by the Lord that homosexuality in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah was a grievous abomination.  I would count each individual homosexuals for my totals.  B:)

I agree with you and HJW that it would take a considerable amount of time to list every passage.  So maybe I should have said "MANY" instead of hundreds.  :wacko:

Edit to add:

Pres. Kimball in the November 1977 Ensign:

We hear more and more each day about the sins of adultery, homosexuality, and lesbianism. Homosexuality is an ugly sin, but because of its prevalence, the need to warn the uninitiated, and the desire to help those who may already be involved with it, it must be brought into the open.

It is the sin of the ages. It was present in Israel’s wandering as well as after and before. It was tolerated by the Greeks. It was prevalent in decaying Rome. The ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are symbols of wretched wickedness more especially related to this perversion, as the incident of Lot’s visitors indicates.

There is today a strong clamor to make such practices legal by passing legislation. Some would also legislate to legalize prostitution. They have legalized abortion, seeking to remove from this heinous crime the stigma of sin.

We do not hesitate to tell the world that the cure for these evils is not in surrender.

“But let us emphasize that right and wrong, righteousness and sin, are not dependent upon man’s interpretations, conventions and attitudes. Social acceptance does not change the status of an act, making wrong into right. If all the people in the world were to accept homosexuality, … the practice would still be a deep, dark sin.” (The Miracle of Forgiveness, Bookcraft, p. 79.)

It should be noted that the scriptures do not single out homosexuality as the reason Sodom was destroyed.   Yes it does play a role in the story of Lot but Sodom was targeted for destruction before that event happened and God was not going to destroy the city based on one event.  Sodom was destroyed because it was so wicked that God could not even find 10 righteous people.  Wickedness breeds wickedness.  Far more was going on in Sodom than homosexual acts.  The basic premise is this.  When a people ripen in sin, they will reach a point that God will not look away any longer.  God destroyed cities in the Book of Mormon for the same principle as he did Sodom.  Eventually the mercy and patience of God runs out and the time to repent has passed.  The people have to be destroyed.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
19 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

There is some truth to this.  The next life is the spirit world and we enter the spirit world the same way as we leave this world minus a physical body.  So yes a gay person will still be gay in the spirit world.  A smoker will still crave the nicotine in the spirit world but will not be able to satisfy that craving by smoking.  After the resurrection that is probably a different story.  God will not change you.  It is up to you to change yourself.  God will only help if you want it.

I don't want to not be gay. If that were the case then I may as well wish I'd never been born. I'm done drinking the religion kool-aid.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

There is some truth to this.  The next life is the spirit world and we enter the spirit world the same way as we leave this world minus a physical body.  So yes a gay person will still be gay in the spirit world.  A smoker will still crave the nicotine in the spirit world but will not be able to satisfy that craving by smoking.  After the resurrection that is probably a different story.  God will not change you.  It is up to you to change yourself.  God will only help if you want it.

I disagree with this. It is based on a traditional but, in my view, erroneous interpretation of scripture. Cravings to which a physical body is subject cannot continue if there is no physical body. 

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Fair Dinkum
      While I'll assume no one in this board is unfamiliar with this subject, I'll still offer a short synopsis just in case. Back Story:  In 1985 the family of B.H. Roberts allowed a collection of his personal papers, still in the private hands of family members, to be published into book form.  The collection was published as "Studies of The Book of Mormon"
      In his papers were discovered notes of a special meeting that was held in early 1922 involving all member's of the First Presidency, The Quorum of the Twelve as well as the 7 Presidents of the Seventy, of which Robert's was a member.  Robert's had been given the assignment by Heber J. Grant to answer questions that had been sent in a letter to the church from a member seeking answers. 
      The questions were quite straight forward:
      when the Jews landed in the New World (600 B.C.) is not enough time to explain the diversity of native Indian languages. Horses were introduced to the Americas by the Spaniards, thus their appearance in the Book of Mormon is an anachronisms. The use of steel in the Book of Mormon is an anachronism. The use of scimitars (an arabian sword) in an anachronism. The use of silk was unknown to the Americas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_of_the_Book_of_Mormon
      Roberts concerns went unanswered by church authorities which caused him to try and resolve the difficulties himself.  The book represents his attempt to resolve those questions, he was unsuccessful in doing so. 
      Now a new master thesis has been written exploring secret meetings that took place following Robert's failed attempt to find satisfaction from his fellow church authorities.  Robert's formed this band of LDS intelligentsia in a further attempt to resolve his concerns and find answers to Book of Mormon problems.  While I've only just started to read it, this thesis is a fascinating behind the scenes look into the pre-correlation church.
      https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/6712
      Despite his failures to resolve his concerns, we owe much to Roberts attempt, for it was from many of these questions that much of today's apologetic theories of a limited footprint, duel Cumorah's and acknowledgement of a pre-populated Asian immigrant America, to name just a few, have emerged.  Since the emergence of the internet, modern day apologetics has completely re-framed how the Book of Mormon is viewed from how it was interpreted in 1922. The problem is that much of the church still views the book in much the same way as it was seen in 1922.
      Mormon historians have debated whether the manuscript/book reflects Roberts's doubts or was a case of his playing a devils advocate. One interesting fact remains, per his instructions, his headstone has a Christian Cross on it, which was even unusual for that time and even more so for a former General Authority of the Church.
       
    • By blueglass
      Here is the 2019 end of year seminary assessment my kids received yesterday. Would love to hear your thoughts on the questions, the probable answers, and the doctrine taught.  Don't forget the last 4 questions pertaining to the Explain Doctrine section.  
      https://ibb.co/Dfz4JNr
      Read instructions before you start the test:
      Exam code: 8
      If you have difficulty taking the learning assessment in the traditional way, please talk with your teacher to figure out the best way to help you succeed.
      Use a no. 2 or HB pencil. Indicate your response by completely filling in the bubble on your answer sheet.
      Section name: Multiple Choice
        1.  Who will receive a place in a kingdom of glory? (1 mark)
      a) Every individual born into mortality
      b) All of God's children except the sons of perdition
      c) Only individuals who are worthy of exaltation
        2. Which of the following is a specific responsibility mentioned in the oath and covenant of the priesthood? (1 mar)
      a) To magnify their callings
      b) To pay a generous fast offering
      c) To not be idle
        3. Because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, in the Resurrection all individuals will receive ____ (1 mark)
      a) at least a terrestrial glory
      b) celestial glory
      c) glory according to the law they obeyed
        4. Which of the following blessings does God offer to those who keep the Word of Wisdom? (1 mark)
      a) They will not be burned at the Second Coming.
      b) Their bodies will be protected from all illness.
      c) They will receive wisdom and great treasures of knowledge.
        5. To be endowed in the temple means to receive ____ (1 mark)
      a) a guarantee of eternal life
      b) spiritual power and knowledge
      c) unique physical gifts from the Lord
        6. What does the existence of the precious truths in the Pearl of Great Pric teach us about the Prophet Joseph Smith? (1 mark)
      a) He no longer needed the power of God to help him translate.
      b) He was a prophet, seer, and revelator.
      c) He is the only prophet of this dispensation that can receive new scripture.
        7. As watchmen on the tower, modern prophets have a responsibility to ____ (1 mark)
      a) warn us of coming dangers
      b) stop Satan from tempting members of the Church
      c) change truth to fit modern times
        8. What is a bishop's or branch president's main responsibility when a teenager confesses sin to him? (1 mark)
      a) To prevent the person from being part of the Church
      b) To help the person receive forgiveness of the sins and regain peace of mind
      c) To inflict severe consequences and punishments from sinning
        9. Who visited the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple to restore priesthood keys? (1 mark)
      a) Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Malachi
      b) Moses, Elias, and Elijah
      c) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
        10. According to the Doctrine and Covenants, what are tithing funds used for? (1 mark)
      a) They are the main fund the Church uses to support the poor and the needy.
      b) They are used to build temples and to accomplish the work of the Lord.
      c) They are used to pay ward and branch members for serving in the Church.
        11. While the Prophet Joseph Smith was falsely imprisoned in Liberty Jail, the Lord taught him that adversity and affliction
      (1 mark)
      a) will not occur if we trust in God
      b) are always a consequence of our poor choices
      c) can give us experience and be for our good
        12. Which of the following is a true statement about Relief Society? (1 mark)
      a) It was divinely organized to assist in the work of salvation.
      b) It was established during the trek west to help Saints who were suffering.
      c) It did not exist during the lifetime of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
        13. A man and a woman will receive eternal life and glory if _____ (1 mark)
      a) they love each other more than they love themselves
      b) they keep the new and everlasting covenant of marriage they made in the temple
      c) they are married in the temple
        14. Why do our ancestors who die without having a knowledge of the gospel need us to perform ordinances for them in the temple?
      a) Without these ordinances, our ancestors cannot progress toward eternal life. (1 mark)
      b) Without these ordinances, our ancestors cannot be saved in any kingdom of glory.
      c} Without these ordinances, our ancestors will not be resurrected.
        15. Marriage between one man and one woman is the Lord's standing law. Wen is the only time plural marriage is justified?
      a) Wen there are more women than men in the Church (1 mark)
      b) Whenever local laws and traditions allow members to practice it without breaking the law
      c) When the Lord authorizes it through the priesthood keys given to the President of the Church
        16. When the President of the Church dies, which quorum becomes the presiding quorum of the Church? (1 mark)
      a) The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
      b) The Quorum of the First Presidency
      c) The Presiding Bishopric
        17. Which of the following shows the correct chronological order (first to last) of places the Saints were told to gather to? (1 mark}
      a) A stake in their homeland; Nauvoo, Illinois; Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Salt Lake City, Utah
      b) Nauvoo, Illinois; Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Salt Lake City, Utah; a stake in their homeland
      c) Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Nauvoo, Illinois; Salt Lake City, Utah; a stake in their homeland
        18. After the Savior visited the spirit world, what did righteous spirits there begin to do?
      a} They were all resurrected and began entering the highest kingdom of glory.
      b) They began performing ordinances for those who had not received them.
      c) They began teaching the gospel to those in spirit prison.
      (1 mark)
        19. According to Official Declaration 2, the Lord revealed that all worthy male Church members may ___ _ (1 mark)
      a) receive the ordinance of baptism
      b) serve a mission at age 18
      c) receive the priesthood and enjoy temple blessings
        20. What principle is emphasized in Doctrine and Covenants 121:36, 41-2? (1 mark)
      a) Priesthood holders can draw upon the powers of heaven only if they live righteously.
      b) lf we actively seek to learn through study and faith, our faith in Jesus Christ will increase.
      c) If we obey the Lord, He will always keep His promises to bless us.
        21. Which of the following accurately describes Heavenly Father? (1 mark)
      a) He is without feelings or emotions.
      b) He is a personage of Spirit and can dwell in us.
      c) He has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's.
        22. Which of the following is a requirement for receiving exaltation in the celestial kingdom? (1 mark)
      a) Bearing testimony of the Savior is all that is needed.
      b) Receiving a patriarchal blessing
      c) Receiving and being valiant in the testimony of Jesus Christ
        23. Of the following groups, who will inherit the celestial kingdom? (1 mark)
      a) All children who die before they reach the age of accountability
      b) All members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
      c) All individuals who have been baptized
        24. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "God doesn't care how marriage is defined"? (1 mark)
      a) Ever individual born into morality is a child of God, and God loves each of us.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God changes truth to meet the circumstances and needs of His children.
        25. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "It isn't as important for couples to have children today as it used to
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      c) God's commandment fr husbands and wives to have children remains in force today.
        26. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "As long as two individuals love each other, physical intimacy is
      acceptable"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
        27. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "As governments continue to redefine marriage, God's definition of
      marriage will change to reflect the values of modern society"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      b) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      c) Changes in the civil law do not change the moral law that God has established.
        28. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "The only purpose of marriage is for adults to find fulfillment and
      happiness"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      Section name: Explain Doctrine _
      Instructions: Write your answer on a piece of paper. Compare your response with the correct answer received from your teacher. After self-grading the explain-doctrine question, bubble in your answer sheet.
      Self-grade your answer for each question:
      a. Yes, I explained this in my response.
      b. No, I left this out of my response.
        29. What is an example of a truth that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why the truth you chose can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        30. What is an example of an ordinance that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why the ordinance you chose can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        31. What is an example of priesthood authority that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why this authority of the priesthood can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        32. Share your personal thoughts on the importance of the Prophet Joseph Smith. (1 mark)
    • By blueglass
      Really impressed with Kate Holbrook's interview with Terryl Givens.  She's thoughtful, candid, and inspiring as she speaks about her persistence to get a PhD and work full time for the church as a manger of church history.  She's working on a project with Lisa Tate on the history of the young women's organization.  
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2G7k1ggz7k&feature=em-uploademail
      One thing I caught that I hadn't heard before was when Terryl asks her about whether she felt a sense of loss and a sense of jubilation when studying the history of the RS.  Joseph envisioned a more collaborative relationship with the male priesthood, more autonomy, abundance of spiritual gifts, authority to administer ordinances including healing by the laying of hands.  Kate responds that she understands the hyperfocus on this time period, but she feels there is a lost opportunity in recognizing the accomplishments of the women of the 20th century - she then backtracks a bit and says:
      "I don't want to say that their isn't a difference, between - a time when a woman was able to say I have this terrific idea she's say the General RS president and she goes and talks to the president of the church about it.  That is certainly different than now, when she goes and talks to someone in the presiding bishopric, and it has to go through several levels to even get to the president.  There is a loss, and there is a difference."
      I had no idea that the General RS president did not have direct access to the quorum of the 12, and first presidency?  Why in 3 heavens does the general RS president still have such an auxiliary level of access to the presiding apostolic quorum, access to financial influence through Pres Bishopric perhaps, but no real budget to work with?  No seat on the correlation committee?  
      Kate has a great story about how Ardeth Greene Kapp (General YW president 84-92') while receiving a downpour of revelation would use innovative, clever ways and technology to push the ideas upward through the hierarchy.  
    • By blueglass
      A number of church historians recently published a book through Oxford entitled "Foundational Texts of Mormonism: Examining Major Early Sources” (Oxford University Press, $74, 448 pages.)
      In the last chapter (13) pg 390 the historian Ronald Barney quotes Donald Enders, the senior curator at the Museum of Church History and Art in Salt Lake City where he states, "There is no evidence, that Joseph told his mother that he had talked face-to-face with God. Certainly his mother never claimed to have heard such a declaration."
      I knew that very few had heard about Joseph's first vision in the earliest days of the church, I didn't know his own mother was unaware. Then I was digging through the JSP where they have Lucy Mack's original 1844 - 1845 history draft, and I found a first vision account similar to the 1835 account in which the unnamed personage testifies that Jesus is the Christ in the 3rd person.  Also compare with Lucy Mack Smith's letter to her brother Solomon Mack, Waterloo, New York, 6 January 1831
      https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/40
      "our sons were actively employed in assisting their Father to cut down the grain and storing it away in order, for winter One evening we were sitting till quite late conversing upon the subject of the diversity of churches that had risen up in the world and the many thousand opinions in existence as to the truths contained in scripture Joseph who never said many words upon any subject but always seemed to reflect more deeply than common persons of his age upon everything of a religious nature This After we ceased conversation he went to bed <and was pondering in his mind which of the churches were the true one.> an but he had not laid there long till <he saw> a bright <light> entered the room where he lay he looked up and saw an angel of the Lord stood <standing> by him The angel spoke, "I perceive that you are enquiring in your mind which is the true church there is not a true church on Earth No not one Nor <and> has not been since Peter took the Keys <of the Melchesidec priesthood after the order of God> into the Kingdom of Heaven the churches that are now upon the Earth are all man made churches."
    • By mfbukowski
      There is a fascinating podcast recently published by Interpreter of an interview with Sharalyn D. Howcraft about early foundational documents of Mormonism in which the difference between "what really happened" and how history is recorded.
      For those like me who do not like podcasts, there is also a transcript which is a pretty short and totally fascinating read.
      I highly recommend both.
      "What really happened" as I have said forever is virtually unknowable, so all we are stuck with are historical accounts which may or may not be "true representations"
      I say this often to underscore the necessity of being guided by the Spirit in all matters, regarding virtually every document we read as "HIS-STORY" rather than necessarily "what really happened" which in a historical sense is unknowable in most cases.  Observed recorded events like the assassination of Lincoln of course are "facts" and those are another case.
      But when it comes to hearsay, questions of motivation, how ideas evolved or what ideas were developed by whomever, we just have to be cautious and in my opinion,  regard everything as a story written by a human being and all human beings have a point to make, prejudices to expose or hide, and in some cases the "truth" is simply impossible to know.
      So especially in religious matters, we must follow our "gut" or in more regular Mormon parlance, "follow the Spirit".
      This podcast and transcription illustrate these points extremely well.
      http://interpreterfoundation.org/a-closer-look-at-the-foundational-texts-of-mormonism-with-sharalyn-d-howcroft/
      This link goes directly to the transcript
      http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/6/d/c/6dcfab4b17c23c6a/LDSP_Sharalyn_D._Howcroft.pdf?c_id=20782383&expiration=1525899791&hwt=88c7d8ed9c3cfaf190629e1f5f8ac493
       
×
×
  • Create New...