The Nehor Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 41 minutes ago, canard78 said: Shouldn't the first ever documented account of the first vision be considered fairly fundamental? Given it gives a far more personal account of the event wouldn't it be fairly important class material? Nibley reported that he was excited when it was found and expected a lot of excitement in the Church members about it when it was announced that it had been found. He reported the response to be lukewarm at best and was a little shocked at how little members cared. If they want to care now I think that is great. Sadly I find a lot of the interest comes from our enemies who think it is a weapon. That interest I am much less interested in. On 5/15/2016 at 5:03 PM, Tacenda said: Agree, if there is nothing to fear or be ashamed of...why not post like it really happened. It's as if there is something to hide because the prophets didn't believe in it themselves. That is where it gets tricky to me. I think some people imagine that our apostles spend their days locked in their offices with musty tomes digging through old church archives finding secrets and then suppressing them. I find it more likely they just did not think they were hiding anything. In the 70s there was an attempt to bring a lot more Church History to light in Church magazines and they also received a lukewarm reception from most so they stopped. I think the outpouring of information about Church History is coming because more people want it. This is a good thing. I expect it will take time to bring more documents to public view but I view the trend as generally positive. I don't think the apostles thought they were hiding anything (except perhaps information that is privileged or deliberately withheld because it is specifically not intended for the world. 3
rodheadlee Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 On 5/14/2016 at 3:37 PM, VideoGameJunkie said: The internet is the biggest cause of members leaving. I don't think prophets in the 1880s and 1920s could predict the internet. The internet caused me to return. 1
theplains Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 On 22/05/2016 at 4:12 AM, The Nehor said: I think the outpouring of information about Church History is coming because more people want it. This is a good thing. I expect it will take time to bring more documents to public view but I view the trend as generally positive. I don't think the apostles thought they were hiding anything (except perhaps information that is privileged or deliberately withheld because it is specifically not intended for the world. Maybe they will canonize the Journal of Discourses some day. Jim
USU78 Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 On 5/14/2016 at 4:37 PM, VideoGameJunkie said: The internet is the biggest cause of members leaving. I don't think prophets in the 1880s and 1920s could predict the internet. I agree to this extent: any fool can post any distortion, misrepresentation, over simplification or out and out lie he wants. Truth gets obscured 2
Thinking Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 On 5/14/2016 at 5:15 PM, carbon dioxide said: I think much of what people get upset over today the people back then probably did not think was that big of a deal. If people back then didn't think it was a big deal, then why all the secrecy back then? 1
rodheadlee Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 25 minutes ago, Thinking said: If people back then didn't think it was a big deal, then why all the secrecy back then? Seriously? People were trying to kill them. 1
The Nehor Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 6 hours ago, theplains said: Maybe they will canonize the Journal of Discourses some day. Jim Not likely. While valuable its length and specific intention for another generation means that canonizing it would take time away from other scripture. You would be better off canonizing General Conference for ten years after that session and then dropping it from the canon. 1
The Nehor Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 On May 14, 2016 at 5:37 PM, VideoGameJunkie said: The internet is the biggest cause of members leaving. I don't think prophets in the 1880s and 1920s could predict the internet. I really doubt it is the biggest cause unless maybe if you add in porn use.
canard78 Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: I really doubt it is the biggest cause unless maybe if you add in porn use. If porn use caused members to leave then there would be far fewer active members than the circa 5million there are today. 2
cinepro Posted May 29, 2016 Posted May 29, 2016 On 5/28/2016 at 6:51 PM, USU78 said: I agree to this extent: any fool can post any distortion, misrepresentation, over simplification or out and out lie he wants. Truth gets obscured The Church has always dealt with fools and distortions, misrepresentations and over-simplifications. In fact, I would guess that the vast majority of anti-mormon tracts consisted mostly of such things since that's what would sell. And church members were pretty good at ignoring and dealing with such things. The danger of the internet is the degree to which the truth about Church history and doctrines can be shared. That seems to have been much harder for the Church and many members to deal with. 1
James Tunney Posted May 29, 2016 Posted May 29, 2016 6 hours ago, cinepro said: The Church has always dealt with fools and distortions, misrepresentations and over-simplifications. In fact, I would guess that the vast majority of anti-mormon tracts consisted mostly of such things since that's what would sell. And church members were pretty good at ignoring and dealing with such things. The danger of the internet is the degree to which the truth about Church history and doctrines can be shared. That seems to have been much harder for the Church and many members to deal with. The church hasn't helped itself in this either. For a long time it has sought to obscure the past. Joseph Smith himself sought to change his story early on when he allowed stories about a urim and thummin to circulate instead of the rock he used for the book of mormon composition. And it continues to this day with the official artwork that depicts the plates being there with Joseph Smith during his composition when the plates clearly weren't.
Popular Post cinepro Posted May 29, 2016 Popular Post Posted May 29, 2016 (edited) On 5/28/2016 at 1:01 AM, canard78 said: If porn use caused members to leave then there would be far fewer active members than the circa 5million there are today. I've never understood the idea that "people leave the Church because they want to sin." Uh, newsflash people. People can sin and stay in the Church. They do it all the time. I've been in wards with pathological adulterers, epic fraudsters , drug addicts, alcoholics, porn addicts and who knows what else, and all of them were more than happy to stay Mormon while they sinned. Sure, people who leave the Church might start doing stuff that was previously verboten when they were believing LDS, but that's not the same as someone saying "Gee, I really believe the Church is true, but I just really want to look at pictures of naked women, so I guess I have to leave first." Edited May 29, 2016 by cinepro 5
Jeanne Posted May 29, 2016 Posted May 29, 2016 On 5/28/2016 at 11:44 PM, rodheadlee said: Seriously? People were trying to kill them. Yes, but they had made covenants too..at least in the 1840's. I can understand being careful not to come out with some things..but they were in an off hand way discounting their own testimonies.
rodheadlee Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Jeanne said: Yes, but they had made covenants too..at least in the 1840's. I can understand being careful not to come out with some things..but they were in an off hand way discounting their own testimonies. Could you clarify that or expound on it for me, please. Edited May 30, 2016 by rodheadlee
Jeanne Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 (edited) 31 minutes ago, rodheadlee said: Could you clarify that or expound on it for me, please. I am sorry it was not explained ..I came home during lunch and just checked in for a bit. I took Thinking's" back then" a step further into the early days of the church. There were plenty of secrets that were kept (IMO) within he confines of he newly formed Mormon communities. The mob mentality of those against the Mormons would have contributed to some fear of some things that were being taught even "back then". What I was trying to portray was that God's people were called upon to be strong and not ashamed. When the Temple's were built..covenants made, where was the strength of those testimonies in relating to the principle they were being taught? Why all the secrets..secrets even among the brethren then? Edited May 30, 2016 by Jeanne
USU78 Posted May 31, 2016 Posted May 31, 2016 On 5/28/2016 at 11:07 PM, cinepro said: The Church has always dealt with fools and distortions, misrepresentations and over-simplifications. In fact, I would guess that the vast majority of anti-mormon tracts consisted mostly of such things since that's what would sell. And church members were pretty good at ignoring and dealing with such things. The danger of the internet is the degree to which the truth about Church history and doctrines can be shared. That seems to have been much harder for the Church and many members to deal with. If it were possible for cinepro to demonstrate that the assertions in the 2nd paragraph, above, were true, I'd CFR him. As it's impossible to prove or disprove such facile assertions, I won't ... especially given the "many members," "can be shared," and "degree to which" waffles. Just what's that supposed to mean?
SeekerB Posted May 31, 2016 Posted May 31, 2016 On 5/14/2016 at 11:12 PM, carbon dioxide said: I don't blame the Church for not teaching it on Sunday. They would have to increase the meetings from 3 to 5 or 6 hours to teach all this stuff. Perhaps even longer. It should however have made resources available for people to learn from home. Cover some things in seminary or institute class or have Ensign articles. It does not have to cover everything but at least cover enough of it to lessen the effect. I bought something at Deseret Book back in 1997. I believe it was called the Gospel Library, a program with several CDs. It was readily available and had a tremendous amount of content that people claim had been hidden. I read most all of it. It was updated in 2000, adding much more content. I also bought the 7 volume Church History set in 1978 and read it cover to cover.
Jeanne Posted May 31, 2016 Posted May 31, 2016 (edited) 58 minutes ago, SeekerB said: I bought something at Deseret Book back in 1997. I believe it was called the Gospel Library, a program with several CDs. It was readily available and had a tremendous amount of content that people claim had been hidden. I read most all of it. It was updated in 2000, adding much more content. I also bought the 7 volume Church History set in 1978 and read it cover to cover. Did you share it? Did you mention it to anyone...was it taught? Is it now in the church library? Did Seminary teachers take a look? Is anything in these CD"s in the manuals now? Edited May 31, 2016 by Jeanne
Nevo Posted May 31, 2016 Posted May 31, 2016 1 hour ago, SeekerB said: I bought something at Deseret Book back in 1997. I believe it was called the Gospel Library, a program with several CDs. It was readily available and had a tremendous amount of content that people claim had been hidden. Yeah, I had GospeLink too (and LDS Collectors Library) and it definitely didn't have "a tremendous amount of content that people claim had been hidden." It consisted almost entirely of faith-promoting church books and LDS and world classics. Nothing edgy there at all. Signature Books' New Mormon Studies CD-ROM (1998) on the other hand . . . 2
JLHPROF Posted May 31, 2016 Posted May 31, 2016 Very little was actively hidden. It just wasn't actively taught. There were a few things that were a little hidden through the use of bad explanations. There still are.
James Tunney Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Very little was actively hidden. It just wasn't actively taught. There were a few things that were a little hidden through the use of bad explanations. There still are. What about the misleading art concerning the translation of the BofM? The art depicts the plates being present and JS looking at them when in reality his head was always buried in his hat looking at his rock.
JLHPROF Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 1 hour ago, James Tunney said: What about the misleading art concerning the translation of the BofM? The art depicts the plates being present and JS looking at them when in reality his head was always buried in his hat looking at his rock. Your statement is as inaccurate as the misleading art you refer to. 2
rodheadlee Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 On 5/29/2016 at 9:45 PM, Jeanne said: I am sorry it was not explained ..I came home during lunch and just checked in for a bit. I took Thinking's" back then" a step further into the early days of the church. There were plenty of secrets that were kept (IMO) within he confines of he newly formed Mormon communities. The mob mentality of those against the Mormons would have contributed to some fear of some things that were being taught even "back then". What I was trying to portray was that God's people were called upon to be strong and not ashamed. When the Temple's were built..covenants made, where was the strength of those testimonies in relating to the principle they were being taught? Why all the secrets..secrets even among the brethren then? Well, they were strong enough to make the March to Utah. How many times were they robbed of their belongings and land? How many states were they ran out of? Put yourself in their shoes. How many times could you lose everything and still have faith? Would you have time to keep an accurate journal? Would you put your needs secondary to the growth of the Church?
Jeanne Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 8 minutes ago, rodheadlee said: Well, they were strong enough to make the March to Utah. How many times were they robbed of their belongings and land? How many states were they ran out of? Put yourself in their shoes. How many times could you lose everything and still have faith? Would you have time to keep an accurate journal? Would you put your needs secondary to the growth of the Church? I so agree with you their on their courage and strength across the plains. I have tried to put myself in their shoes because my great-great grandparents wore those shoe. They had to have had faith..this is what breaks my heart. Their faith was in place without knowing some truths. They had a right to know and in their knowledge of things, speak for the truth; not secrets or being kept hushed. Granted, fear is an incredible and real force. I don't blame anyone..but even in the beginnings there were things hidden. We could start with Emma.
rodheadlee Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 9 minutes ago, Jeanne said: I so agree with you their on their courage and strength across the plains. I have tried to put myself in their shoes because my great-great grandparents wore those shoe. They had to have had faith..this is what breaks my heart. Their faith was in place without knowing some truths. They had a right to know and in their knowledge of things, speak for the truth; not secrets or being kept hushed. Granted, fear is an incredible and real force. I don't blame anyone..but even in the beginnings there were things hidden. We could start with Emma. Put yourself in Joseph Smith 's shoes. What would you do if you were commanded to start plural marriages?
Recommended Posts