Atheist Mormon Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 1 hour ago, JAHS said: I have studied the other religions and there are none better that this (warts and all). Jaws, do you think this is about the best religion? They are all built upon somebody's fantasy & packaged & sold.....If you were in Japan you'd be a shintoisty, if you were born in Greece you'd be a Greek othodox or worst of all you would be a hasidic Jew or even more terrible.....a Moslem in Saudi Arabia...... You are almost an atheist, just short of one God you believe among fifty thousand.....
Kevin Christensen Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 42 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I agree, Kevin. My issue is that the LDS Church has an established history of doing everything it can to prevent its members from learning anything other than the correlated curriculum. In other words, the reason I have been able to "seek out and explore" is because I went against Star Fleet's directives; not because I followed them. What Star Fleet directives though? I never saw any armed guards at the BYU Library or bookstore, let alone Deseret Book or Sam Wellers or Cosmic Areoplane. The church does not filter my Amazon searches, or my use of bookfinder.com, let alone Google. And I've never had any officials coming around to burn my books and magazines. The presence of a few people who operate at Position Two of the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth does not negate the presence of a veritable Aladdin's Cave of Wonders there for the seeking nor the presence of many other people who have been sharing and encouraging more exploration. And the presence of the Tanners and Brodie claiming that my explorations would only destroy my faith has does not account for the cool stuff I have gotten from others who have been deep into the cave, nor does it account for what I find. The notion of Church = No More and No Less Than Suppressors and Lies does not explain or predict my life long experience of something more like Church = a gathering of all kinds The result of one's seeking and finding, of course, depends on how and where one goes about it. And the maps we draw depend on what samples we select as the most significant landmarks, and how we generalize about the whole. Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA 3
Calm Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: I think it was Scott Gordon, the President of FAIRMormon, who said on a recent podcast interview that the Church had asked his help in gathering information on internet activities of certain persons. No, it wasn't. Consig, if a friend came up to you and said "I have been hearing a lot about this guy in the news. It sounds like someone you share interests with, any chance you can tell me something about him?" would you share what you know, assuming your knowledge did not come through confidential sources, happily giving of your time and experience to help a friend out? If anyone is curious about what FairMormon members might do if asked by a friend, whether they are a church leader or not, they can look at my history on the board when people have made various requests of me. Edited June 13, 2016 by Calm 2
juliann Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 On 6/10/2016 at 2:07 PM, Johnnie Cake said: Thanks for the admission....I hope we can now bury the apologetic lie that the church never willfully hid information from its own membership Yet those evil apologists have explained why the history was missing all along. Like the rather unsurprising idea that they only wanted faith promoting material in Church curriculum? (See? That requires a starting point of missing history.) We can all see the havoc that is causing. But that does not make it beyond understanding. I am reading the book. It is disappointing to see that such a small number of individuals...or individual... could make such far reaching decisions without interference. Is it happening now? I get the feeling that the damaging decisions about history are now made by middle management. But if you want to put it in the most inflammatory terms possible, yeah, I guess we have used the lie that they hid stuff. 2
Calm Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 Stem, would you prefer church management remain unaware of the criticisms against the Church or educate themselves, perhaps in an effort to see what can be improved (a strategy that has worked very well imo for FairMormon). There seems to be a strange paradox where the Church leadership is chided for staying in a bubble and then chided for wasting its time and resources when leaving it (asking FairMormon for occasional input is a rather cost efficient way of keeping up on the criticism, btw) 3
JAHS Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 38 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: Jaws, do you think this is about the best religion? They are all built upon somebody's fantasy & packaged & sold.....If you were in Japan you'd be a shintoisty, if you were born in Greece you'd be a Greek othodox or worst of all you would be a hasidic Jew or even more terrible.....a Moslem in Saudi Arabia...... You are almost an atheist, just short of one God you believe among fifty thousand..... I am lucky to be living in America; a country where the true gospel could be restored and practiced.
juliann Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: I think it was Scott Gordon, the President of FAIRMormon, who said on a recent podcast interview that the Church had asked his help in gathering information on internet activities of certain persons. Help Scott Gordon was happy to provide. No he didn't. A member of the Board said something.... we had some fun with it on a thread after which Cal changed her avatar to a mole. And "the Church" doesn't ask anything. What does that even mean? If anybody asked me, whether here or a friend who works at church headquarters, to name critics' sites or apologetic sites I'd have no problem whatsoever doing that (and have) so I don't quite get the concern here unless you think we have a dedicated phone line to the First Prez or something. But I doubt they are happy with some of the stuff FM says, either. And quite frankly, it would be really stupid to not have some church employees tracking what goes on online. Edited June 13, 2016 by juliann 4
Atheist Mormon Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 13 minutes ago, JAHS said: I am lucky to be living in America; a country where the true gospel could be restored and practiced. Exactly, you know it! And I know it, I am lucky too...twice as you, because I was born one of those intolerant countries.... In fact you do not realize how lucky you are...There are trillions of atoms which made up your body probably came couple different supernovas...And yet you attribute it to Jesus, I do attribute to Universe and Darwin's explanation..... No big deal...End of the day we live in a country, can happily exist with our cultural/religious differences.
Johnnie Cake Posted June 13, 2016 Author Posted June 13, 2016 18 minutes ago, juliann said: Yet those evil apologists have explained why the history was missing all along. Like the rather unsurprising idea that they only wanted faith promoting material in Church curriculum? (See? That requires a starting point of missing history.) We can all see the havoc that is causing. But that does not make it beyond understanding. I am reading the book. It is disappointing to see that such a small number of individuals...or individual... could make such far reaching decisions without interference. Is it happening now? I get the feeling that the damaging decisions about history are now made by middle management. But if you want to put it in the most inflammatory terms possible, yeah, I guess we have used the lie that they hid stuff. Thanks for weighting in on this subject Juliann. I have great respect for you. Now back to the subject at hand, over the years when expressing frustration that pertinent information has been withheld, I personally have been accused of laziness or not looking hard enough in the past or having not read everything ever publish cuz if I had I would have found the answers. In other words, it was all my fault. So when Arrington admits that the church has sequestered information from its members...yes it is reassuring and confirming that I wasn't as crazy or lazy as some believing posters have accused me of being in the past 1
smac97 Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Thanks for weighting in on this subject Juliann. I have great respect for you. Now back to the subject at hand, over the years when expressing frustration that pertinent information has been withheld, I personally have been accused of laziness or not looking hard enough in the past or having not read everything ever publish cuz if I had I would have found the answers. In other words, it was all my fault. So when Arrington admits that the church has sequestered information from its members...yes it is reassuring and confirming that I wasn't as crazy or lazy as some believing posters have accused me of being in the past I am curious. If the following request is too personal, or if you'd simply rather not respond to it, I will understand and not draw any inferences therefrom. Here's my inquiry: Several other posters have stated - correctly, i think - that there has long been huge amounts of information about the Church readily available to members of the Church, both in the Church's official curricula and in sources published by non-Church imprints ("the best books," in scriptural parlance). So... Question No. 1: What "information" was "sequestered" from the members of the Church? That is to say, what "information" did the Church A) which was in the Church's exclusive control, such that it could "sequester" it from members of the Church, and B) which was actually "sequestered?" Perhaps you could provide a "Top 5" or "Top 10" list of such pieces of information. Question No. 2: What was it about each item of information responsive to the foregoing question that made these items material? That is to say, how did the purported nondisclosure of each item and/or its absence from your gray matter or have an adverse effect on your perspective toward the Church and its truth claims? Thanks, -Smac Edited June 13, 2016 by smac97 2
Calm Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) It should be satisfying unless it was information that was not sequestered and only took some effort to find (not saying anything that concerned you was in this category). When I have been able to find info from past years that were the same time that someone was complaining it was hidden, I don't think it is fair to blame the Church (and that has happened a lot). In most of those cases I do not believe it was laziness and definitely not craziness, just limited resources of time and money so people need to choose what they want to pay attention to. The internet is making that resource investment much cheaper and I rejoice the Church is taking advantage of the opportunity to present excellent documentation as well as beginning level exploration (such as in the essays) that has direction for those who want to dig in deeper. Edited June 13, 2016 by Calm 2
Popular Post juliann Posted June 13, 2016 Popular Post Posted June 13, 2016 33 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Thanks for weighting in on this subject Juliann. I have great respect for you. Now back to the subject at hand, over the years when expressing frustration that pertinent information has been withheld, I personally have been accused of laziness or not looking hard enough in the past or having not read everything ever publish cuz if I had I would have found the answers. In other words, it was all my fault. So when Arrington admits that the church has sequestered information from its members...yes it is reassuring and confirming that I wasn't as crazy or lazy as some believing posters have accused me of being in the past Nice to talk to you, JC. There can be no disputing that the church withheld information. I think the dispute is over the motives. Lazy is a really bad inflammatory word and very unfair. That is why it is so important that neither side use trigger words when there are others that do not put people on the defensive from the get go. I think what happens is that those who tend to hang around places discussing scholarship know darn well the information is available and it is very frustrating to continually hear "they didn't tell me!" when the person they are talking to cut to the chase and went out and found it. So again, there are two issues here. The information is there, obviously....people got excommunicated over it when they approached it with an unchurchy style. So here I am, having spent huge amounts of money and massive amounts of time (which I did as a single mom with a job and a kid so I don't buy the time thing though I understand it. When you are interested enough you make it the priority. I didn't watch TV for a few years. I still run across shows I had no idea existed then.) So anyway, the issues need to be separated. What is lazy is using trigger words to avoid doing that. Even church leadership has come out against the sinner/lazy insults....although I still hear it on occasion. I don't think people give those they are angry at enough credit for being able to see the obvious and respond appropriately. FM has dramatically changed its approach, for instance. But I still see the apologist slurs instead of recognition. Good will goes a long way for everybody. 5
Tacenda Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: I am curious. If the following request is too personal, or if you'd simply rather not respond to it, I will understand and not draw any inferences therefrom. Here's my inquiry: Several other posters have stated - correctly, i think - that there has long been huge amounts of information about the Church readily available to members of the Church, both in the Church's official curricula and in sources published by non-Church imprints ("the best books," in scriptural parlance). So... Question No. 1: What "information" was "sequestered" from the members of the Church? That is to say, what "information" did the Church A) which was in the Church's exclusive control, such that it could "sequester" it from members of the Church, and B) which was actually "sequestered?" Perhaps you could provide a "Top 5" or "Top 10" list of such pieces of information. Question No. 2: What was it about each item of information responsive to the foregoing question that made these items material? That is to say, how did the purported nondisclosure of each item have an adverse effect on your perspective toward the Church and its truth claims? Thanks, -Smac I know this wasn't for me. But can I take a stab at a few? And I've included my answers for your question #2. 1. Evolution...this hasn't bothered me. But can see how it won't work in how our church has taught it's members. 2. Masonry in our church and temple...this was difficult, when reading the critical viewpoints because I thought it was satanic. But not when reading the faith promoting viewpoints. It actually helps me understand the temple much better. And I don't understand why the church tries to distant themselves from it IMO, or they don't line them up. 3. Polyandry....this one was difficult but not as much as the young ages the women were that Joseph and others married. 4. Adam God theory...this one hasn't bothered me, since it goes hand in hand with being Gods and Goddesses. Where in church authorized books are these subjects mentioned, minus Evolution.
JLHPROF Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 35 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I know this wasn't for me. But can I take a stab at a few? And I've included my answers for your question #2. 1. Evolution...this hasn't bothered me. But can see how it won't work in how our church has taught it's members. 2. Masonry in our church and temple...this was difficult, when reading the critical viewpoints because I thought it was satanic. But not when reading the faith promoting viewpoints. It actually helps me understand the temple much better. And I don't understand why the church tries to distant themselves from it IMO, or they don't line them up. 3. Polyandry....this one was difficult but not as much as the young ages the women were that Joseph and others married. 4. Adam God theory...this one hasn't bothered me, since it goes hand in hand with being Gods and Goddesses. Where in church authorized books are these subjects mentioned, minus Evolution. "Church authorized books" is a bit of a wide category. If you mean the manuals I agree, they weren't. But they were in many places. But for example in 1976 Apostle Mark Peterson published a book against Adam-God through Deseret Book. —— (1976). Adam, Who is He?. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book. ISBN 0-87747-592-X. Does that count as a church authorized book addressing Adam-God? In 1934 Deseret News Press published Apostle Anthony W. Ivin's book "Relationship of Mormonism and Freemasonry". 1
JAHS Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: Adam God theory...this one hasn't bothered me, since it goes hand in hand with being Gods and Goddesses. I have a first edition copy of the Journal of Discourses where Brigham Young talked about this in the mid 1850's. Is that authorized enough. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 11 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: CFR that I made an incorrect statement. CFR that I claimed Mormon scholars claimed the LDS church did not hide historical materials. If you want to call for precision I suggest you start with yourself. I kept my statements general and didn't even make the specific statements you're railing against here. Your made your attack specific about me. So back it up. Give me examples of how I play fast and lose with "any issue". Show me where I made incorrect statements. Regarding "winning", perhaps it was a poor choice of words since I was only using a common phrase. When you are unable to fulfill the CFR I'll happily accept an apology. I am both willing to give and seek apologies. You said: Quote On 6/11/2016 at 9:24 AM, HappyJackWagon said: It's impossible to win with some of you guys. CFR's are called for, accusations made, names like anti are bandied about no matter what we say. If I say something like "the church willfully hid information from its membership" there will be feigned shock and dismay. I will be labeled a critic, a dissenter, an anti-Mormon. But simultaneously we'll get CFR's from apologists saying "of course items were hidden". CFR that anyone would ever say other wise. This stuff is absurd. Apologists continue to play both sides because otherwise they'd be required to admit they and/or the church are/were wrong. Mormonism seems incapable of agreeing on the wetness of water. Who is playing both sides? You want to have your cake and eat it too, HappyJack. Any sort of false statement is O.K. against the horrid "apologists." Why not just play it straight? Or does that make it "impossible to win"? Just too much to ask, I guess. 2
Johnnie Cake Posted June 14, 2016 Author Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, smac97 said: I am curious. If the following request is too personal, or if you'd simply rather not respond to it, I will understand and not draw any inferences therefrom. Here's my inquiry: Several other posters have stated - correctly, i think - that there has long been huge amounts of information about the Church readily available to members of the Church, both in the Church's official curricula and in sources published by non-Church imprints ("the best books," in scriptural parlance). So... Question No. 1: What "information" was "sequestered" from the members of the Church? That is to say, what "information" did the Church A) which was in the Church's exclusive control, such that it could "sequester" it from members of the Church, and B) which was actually "sequestered?" Perhaps you could provide a "Top 5" or "Top 10" list of such pieces of information. Question No. 2: What was it about each item of information responsive to the foregoing question that made these items material? That is to say, how did the purported nondisclosure of each item and/or its absence from your gray matter or have an adverse effect on your perspective toward the Church and its truth claims? Thanks, -Smac The wonderful thing about sequestering, as claimed by Arrington, it's that we don't know what was sequestered...cuz wait for it, wait for it...it was sequestered. All I ever knew when I went through my faith crises is that I was discovering I information that I had never heard of in my life despite 4 years of seminary ( I graduated) 3 years of institute ( I graduated) Sunday school, a 2 year mission (AP), serving as EQ pres, the bishopric and on the high council. Edited June 14, 2016 by Johnnie Cake 2
James Tunney Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 8 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: The wonderful thing about sequestering, as claimed by Arrington, it's that we don't know what was sequestered...cuz wait for it, wait for it...it was sequestered. All I ever knew when I went through my faith crises is that I was discovering I information that I had never heard of in my life despite 4 years of seminary ( I graduated) 3 years of institute ( I graduated) Sunday school, a 2 year mission (AP), serving as EQ pres, the bishopric and on the high council. We don't know what's in the church history vault because it is still guarded. Even though the Joseph Smith papers project is a welcome change with respect to openness, however, what's being edited out of the various volumes, if anything? What's still being hidden from view? Anything? How would we know given the past obfuscations? 1
Johnnie Cake Posted June 14, 2016 Author Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, juliann said: Nice to talk to you, JC. There can be no disputing that the church withheld information. I think the dispute is over the motives. Lazy is a really bad inflammatory word and very unfair. That is why it is so important that neither side use trigger words when there are others that do not put people on the defensive from the get go. I think what happens is that those who tend to hang around places discussing scholarship know darn well the information is available and it is very frustrating to continually hear "they didn't tell me!" when the person they are talking to cut to the chase and went out and found it. So again, there are two issues here. The information is there, obviously....people got excommunicated over it when they approached it with an unchurchy style. So here I am, having spent huge amounts of money and massive amounts of time (which I did as a single mom with a job and a kid so I don't buy the time thing though I understand it. When you are interested enough you make it the priority. I didn't watch TV for a few years. I still run across shows I had no idea existed then.) So anyway, the issues need to be separated. What is lazy is using trigger words to avoid doing that. Even church leadership has come out against the sinner/lazy insults....although I still hear it on occasion. I don't think people give those they are angry at enough credit for being able to see the obvious and respond appropriately. FM has dramatically changed its approach, for instance. But I still see the apologist slurs instead of recognition. Good will goes a long way for everybody. No question things are moving in a more open direction...which can only be good. I still remember the days when Bill and I would go at each other...he frustrated me to no end Edited June 14, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
JAHS Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 1 hour ago, James Tunney said: We don't know what's in the church history vault because it is still guarded. Even though the Joseph Smith papers project is a welcome change with respect to openness, however, what's being edited out of the various volumes, if anything? What's still being hidden from view? Anything? How would we know given the past obfuscations? d----d if they do d----d if they don't. No matter what they do it will never be enough or believed by some people.
Popular Post Nevo Posted June 14, 2016 Popular Post Posted June 14, 2016 4 hours ago, smac97 said: Question No. 1: What "information" was "sequestered" from the members of the Church? That is to say, what "information" did the Church A) which was in the Church's exclusive control, such that it could "sequester" it from members of the Church, and B) which was actually "sequestered?" Perhaps you could provide a "Top 5" or "Top 10" list of such pieces of information. 1832 First Vision account William Clayton Nauvoo Journal Council of Fifty Minutes Nauvoo High Council Minutes Joseph Smith's seer stone The papers of every apostle and church president since the time of Brigham Young 7
James Tunney Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 2 hours ago, JAHS said: d----d if they do d----d if they don't. No matter what they do it will never be enough or believed by some people. Whose fault is that? Didn't Joseph Fielding Smith hide the 1832 first vision account? Hasn't the church refused historians access to its vaults? Hasn't the church admitted it wasn't as open on these "troubling" issues? Also, they wouldn't be d@#d if there weren't issues to begin with. 2
smac97 Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, Nevo said: 1832 First Vision account William Clayton Nauvoo Journal Council of Fifty Minutes Nauvoo High Council Minutes Joseph Smith's seer stone The papers of every apostle and church president since the time of Brigham Young Thanks! Okay, so we have some specific things here which I will get to later today. For this morning, however, I have a few thoughts: First, you provided a response to my first question, but not the second: "What was it about each item of information responsive to the foregoing question that made these items material? That is to say, how did the purported nondisclosure of each item and/or its absence from your gray matter or have an adverse effect on your perspective toward the Church and its truth claims?" Could you provide a response to this question relative to each of the above items? Second, the first question had to do with the issue of the Church "sequestering" information. "Sequester," as I understand it, means "1. to remove or withdraw into solitude or retirement; seclude / 2. to remove or separate; banish; exile." I don't have a lot of time this morning, but I wanted to address the first item above: the 1832 account of The First Vision, which according to you A) was in the Church's exclusive control, such that it could "sequester" it from members of the Church, and B) which was actually "sequestered." I did a quick boolean search on LDS.org to see if there were any references to this account (mostly, but not exclusively, in the Church's magazines) during the last few years. I found many, many references to it. A few examples: There are several references to Dean Jesse's "The Earliest Documented Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision," which he published in 1969 in BYU Studies, and which was subsequently republished as a part of other collections on the subject in 2005 (John W. Welch and Erick B. Carlson, eds., Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844 (Provo, UT: BYU Studies; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2005)) and 2012 ("The Earliest Documented Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision," in Exploring the First Vision, ed. Samuel Alonzo Dodge and Steven C. Harper (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, 2012), 1–40). Jesse's article quotes pretty much the entire 1832 account verbatim. These references to Jesse's article come from articles published in Church magazines in 1971, 1973, 1976, 1985, and 2002. The 1976 article was by Richard L. Anderson and relies primarily on the 1832 account. The 1985 article was by Milton Backman, Jr. and discusses the 1832 account in detail, including the fact that "{a} few concepts were included in Joseph’s later recitals of the First Vision that were not mentioned in the 1832 autobiography." In 1996 Richard L. Anderson wrote another Ensign article on this subject, "Joseph Smith’s Testimony of the First Vision," which also discusses the 1832 account in extensive detail (in a "FAQ"-style format): Quote How many First Vision reports were made while the Prophet was alive? It is better to ask how many independent accounts came from contact with the Prophet. Some vision narratives were republished and are really copies of an original record. We now know of nine contemporary reports from the Prophet himself or from those who personally heard him relate his first vision: (1) the Prophet’s handwritten description in 1832... ... Which of the nine contemporary accounts are of chief interest? Pay most attention to the well-prepared records that come directly from the Prophet. Handwriting expert Dean Jessee found that the 1832 manuscript history was penned by Joseph Smith... What was the Lord’s message to Joseph in the Prophet’s 1832 history? ... What did those words of Christ mean to young Joseph Smith? The above announcement by the Savior is part of Joseph Smith’s 1832 story of his intense search for the truth... ... What do the vision accounts say about young Joseph Smith’s faith? Together they expand shallow concepts of how long the youth sought religious truth, how many scriptures he studied, and the depth of his commitment. There was no answer without a search, which appears in some form in each vision account. And God gave no quick response, for in 1832 the Prophet wrote... ... Why did Joseph Smith describe only one divine being in the 1832 record? ... Why did Joseph Smith stress forgiveness in 1832 but not in later publications? ... Were there local revivals in the early spring of 1820? This is a loaded question because it narrows geography as well as the Prophet’s own time limits. His 1832 record says his religious investigations began... I think we should keep in mind that these are only references to the 1832 account of the First Vision in the Church's magazines. I suspect that we would find many more references to it in the Church's instruction manuals published over the years. And then there are all sorts of publications that were not published by the Church, but which address the various accounts of The First Vision. FAIR has helpfully compiled a rather extensive list of such publications here: LDS-authored publications which discuss various accounts of the First Vision (1910-1968) LDS-authored publications which discuss various accounts of the First Vision (1969-1978) LDS-authored publications which discuss various accounts of the First Vision(1979-1983) LDS-authored publications which discuss various accounts of the First Vision (1984-1989) LDS-authored publications which discuss various accounts of the First Vision (1990-1997) LDS-authored publications which discuss various accounts of the First Vision (1998-2003) LDS-authored publications which discuss various accounts of the First Vision (2004-Present) So let me close by reiterating my earlier two questions: Question No. 1: What "information" was "sequestered" from the members of the Church? That is to say, what "information" did the Church A) which was in the Church's exclusive control, such that it could "sequester" it from members of the Church, and B) which was actually "sequestered?" Perhaps you could provide a "Top 5" or "Top 10" list of such pieces of information. Question No. 2: What was it about each item of information responsive to the foregoing question that made these items material? That is to say, how did the purported nondisclosure of each item and/or its absence from your gray matter or have an adverse effect on your perspective toward the Church and its truth claims? Given the references noted above, can it be fairly said that the 1832 account of the First Vision was "sequestered" by the Church? From my perspective, the answer is "no." What are your thoughts? Thanks, -Smac Edited June 14, 2016 by smac97
HappyJackWagon Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You said: Who is playing both sides? You want to have your cake and eat it too, HappyJack. Any sort of false statement is O.K. against the horrid "apologists." Why not just play it straight? Or does that make it "impossible to win"? Just too much to ask, I guess. Nice try. I know what I said, but previously you were attributing things to me that I didn't say. You asked me to be precise at precisely the moment you were making unfounded accusations. Don't worry, I didn't really expect you would apologize or answer the CFR.
Nevo Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 45 minutes ago, smac97 said: Given the references noted above, can it be fairly said that the 1832 account of the First Vision was "sequestered" by the Church? Yes, it can. The 1832 account was sequestered for decades. I thought you already knew that. It has been mentioned several times already in this thread. But you're correct that it has been available since the late 1960s. 3
Recommended Posts