Grant Hardy's Presentation on The Book of Mormon

[salgare]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

FYI, the board was down for roughly 48 hours over the weekend. That seems to be happening quite often lately. Is that why you think you were banned? Maybe you are flattering yourself into thinking a general board glitch is all about you.

Finally, are you trying to say censored with your repeated use of the term "censured" as in "I am not willing to be censored"? They are different words with quite separate and distinct meanings. Look them up. (This is another of my pet peeves with popular but incorrect use of English.)

 

I had login failures that reflected a ban from Thursday the 4th.  So did CountryBoy.  I'm not clear on Jeanne first notice shortly after Thursday evening or during the weekend downtime. The 37 page thread did not vanish until the timing of 48 hour weekend down time, which was 48hrs later than CountryBoy and my initial banning. My attempts to login did switch over to those 522 errors to reflect the week-end downtime.  That was not my original error.

 

cen·sure

ˈsen(t)SHər/

verb

past tense: censured; past participle: censured

1. express severe disapproval of (someone or something), typically in a formal statement.

   "a judge was censured in 1983 for a variety of types of injudicious conduct"

 

We'll I got it half right.  What could express more "severe disapproval" than being banned?

I apologize for my ignorance, I'm uneducated as Robert so apply pointed out up thread.  Thank you for the notification of my error.  If I understand this correctly I should be saying:

Critics here are censored by a fear of being censured by the admin gods who give no reason for their censuring, but strike as lightning from a cloudless sky.

Is that correct?

 

And for shinning a light on my darkness, feel free to open this discussion up.  I'm ready to standby anything I said there concerning the Thursday banning of CountryBoy and myself.

Edited August 10, 2016 by salgare

[Nevo]

On 8/8/2016 at 9:47 PM, carbon dioxide said:

I wonder how they deal with Moroni.  How does a real Moroni come from a non-historical book?

 

12 hours ago, Peppermint Patty said:

Probably the same way they deal with Noah, Job or any of the other countless non-historical stories in our scriptures.

I don't think the analogy to Noah or Job fits very well here. They are legendary figures from the distant past. Their historical existence or non-existence has little bearing on the authority of the OT.

In the case of a non-historical Book of Mormon, there are no Nephites. If there are no Nephites, there are no resurrected Nephites (Moroni) or Nephite records (gold plates). If there was no angel Moroni or gold plates, Joseph Smith and the 11 witnesses were either lying or deluded. If there was no angel Moroni or gold plates, it is also difficult to imagine that there were real visits from a resurrected John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John (not to mention Elijah, Moses, and others), so priesthood authority and keys also pretty much go out the window. As does Joseph Smith's credibility.

Even if we take Ann Taves's suggestion that Joseph Smith believed there were ancient gold plates and "materialized" them by creating his own set of plates, Joseph's honesty is preserved but he still comes across as pretty deluded. 

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, Nevo said:

 

I don't think the analogy to Noah or Job fits very well here. They are legendary figures from the distant past. Their historical existence or non-existence has little bearing on the authority of the OT.

In the case of a non-historical Book of Mormon, there are no Nephites. If there are no Nephites, there are no resurrected Nephites (Moroni) or Nephite records (gold plates). If there was no angel Moroni or gold plates, Joseph Smith and the 11 witnesses were either lying or deluded. If there was no angel Moroni or gold plates, it is also difficult to imagine that there were real visits from a resurrected John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John (not to mention Elijah, Moses, and others), so priesthood authority and keys also pretty much go out the window. As does Joseph Smith's credibility.

Even if we take Ann Taves's suggestion that Joseph Smith believed there were ancient gold plates and "materialized" them by creating his own set of plates, Joseph's honesty is preserved but he still comes across as pretty deluded. 

In the end I don't think Joseph Smith's credibility is important. We don't have to live next door to him. All we have of Joseph Smith are the teachings he produced, which stand or fall on their own merits. 

[Nevo]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

In the end I don't think Joseph Smith's credibility is important. We don't have to live next door to him. All we have of Joseph Smith are the teachings he produced, which stand or fall on their own merits. 

It's not just an issue of teachings. If Joseph Smith had no priesthood authority or keys, then LDS ordinances have no efficacy either. I take it you're okay with that—and I would assume with a non-divine, non-atoning Jesus too—but I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around it.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Nevo

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, juliann said:

FM's been quite transparent about this.. It is one thing and one thing only....calling those who won't believe the Heartlanders "apostates." Including prophets, BTW. If there was not something else going on besides geography, FM would have the same reaction to all theories outside of MesoAmerica. But they don't. Because geography isn't a deal breaker. And Meldrum using hoaxes is an issue, too, of course.

Question, because it isn't clear to me.  Are you saying that FM is against Heartlanders because the Heartlanders are calling the FM people apostates?  It seems to me like the FM crowd is calling the Heartlanders apostate as well, the John Lynch recent talk as case in point example of this.  

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, Nevo said:

It's not just an issue of teachings. If Joseph Smith had no priesthood authority or keys, then LDS ordinances have no efficacy either. I take it you're okay with that—and I would assume with a non-divine, non-atoning Jesus too—but I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around it.

Yes, I'm okay with that. I don't find questions of divine authority to be of any real importance - I think authority is an entirely human/earthly obsession. I realize that's a very foreign attitude in the church, though. 

Edited August 10, 2016 by Gray

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If I were to declare that the Church ought to include in its Sunday School classes and other venues a discussion and advocacy of the "heartlander" theory of Book of Mormon geography, I'm fairly certain I would get some rather vehement pushback -- and rightly so. Questioning the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon is, in my view, far more at odds with the position of the Church than is anything promulgated by the Meldrumites.

The historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon is the established doctrine and official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Has been from the beginning, always will be.

It is one thing to express tolerance for Church members who harbor erroneous views pertaining to the origin of the Book of Mormon. It is quite another to entertain in its classes, meetings and worship services the advocacy and promulgation of what, in the final analysis, is false doctrine.

Maintaining the purity of the doctrine is one of the responsibilities of Church leaders on every level. And, if I remember correctly, the persistent teaching of false doctrine after one has been corrected is one of the things that warrant the administration of discipline in the Church.

I read this as justification for not being tolerant of discussions by your fellow saints at the local level who may see the BoM differently.  Its unfortunate, because I think that some statements by church leaders in the past few years have been trying to create a space for those that don't see the BoM or other doctrinal issues in the same paradigm.  There is a tension here, and the correct way of resolving this issue in my opinion is to allow for different perspectives to be expressed and to let individuals make up their mind about what resonates with them.  

As long as members like yourself take a position that they need to correct and even protect Sunday School discussions from "false doctrine", then the sentiments expressed by Brother Hardy and other thoughtful progressive thinking individuals won't effectively make a difference.  This saddens me, and I think we can do better.  

 

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Neither should the Mesoamerican theory be taught in Sunday School, the oneI am biased to and believes can bring great insights into the book that naturally flow as opposed as insights that get imposed upon thr book due to too much expectations.

I don't think seminary and institute should not automatically exclude discussion, but it needs to be done as 'these are geography theories and not tests of our faith, so we should examine them as we would geography theories on the paths, if any, of Marco Polo's travels, theories that may or may not match to the text and the text is all important since it is the primary evidence and if you, the students, are interested in examining the theories for plausability and accuracy, be sure not to confuse what you are doing for religious practice and treat the theories not with faith, but the tools of the academic field those questions belong in and don't assume by demonstrating their lack that has any correlation to inherent lack in one's faith.

Why can't we change things up at the Sunday School level.  If we took the focus away from teaching "correct doctrine", and focused on the baptismal covenants of mourning with those who mourn, and comforting those who stand in need of comfort.  We could have a unday School class where individuals share what works for them, and everyone is tolerant of differing opinions without feeling like they have to agree on everything.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

Since Scott has opened this thread to cross board comments, perhaps he/you saw what I had to say about you?  I said something to the effect that I used to have a lot of respect for you, but there was just something that I could not put my finger on.  I suppose it was exactly what you have done here, turn to intellectual/polite insults instead of sticking to your vast intellectual experience.  Perhaps you have also seen heard the sour names I have for Kevin Christensen?

Please, let me gain that respect for you once again.  See Kevin's posts for what that might look like.

If anybody "opened this thread to cross-board comments" it was you -- by going over to the Mormon Defamation Board to complaln about several individuals as well as the moderation here. As well as to announce your intent to "push the limits."

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Question, because it isn't clear to me.  Are you saying that FM is against Heartlanders because the Heartlanders are calling the FM people apostates?  It seems to me like the FM crowd is calling the Heartlanders apostate as well, the John Lynch recent talk as case in point example of this.  

Cfr please where any FMer called or hinted a heartlander or heartlanders were apostate.  This would surprise me.  FM is not against someone who believes the Heartland theory, we have had them in our membership in the past and may now (I haven't been as involved socially the past few years due to family stuff).

Meldrum is the only one I know of who publicly calls out others as apostates if one rejects his claims.  It used to be more popular for his supporters to come to us and label us apostates, but I haven't noticed it for awhile.  

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Why can't we change things up at the Sunday School level.  If we took the focus away from teaching "correct doctrine", and focused on the baptismal covenants of mourning with those who mourn, and comforting those who stand in need of comfort.  We could have a unday School class where individuals share what works for them, and everyone is tolerant of differing opinions without feeling like they have to agree on everything.  

Because purity of doctrine has always been an essential part of administering the gospel of Jesus Christ.

And, as Nevo has pointed out, a fictional Book of Mormon pretty much eviscerates the concept of priesthood authority and would sever it from Him Who founded it and would thus make it a stench in His nostrils.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I read this as justification for not being tolerant of discussions by your fellow saints at the local level who may see the BoM differently.  Its unfortunate, because I think that some statements by church leaders in the past few years have been trying to create a space for those that don't see the BoM or other doctrinal issues in the same paradigm.  There is a tension here, and the correct way of resolving this issue in my opinion is to allow for different perspectives to be expressed and to let individuals make up their mind about what resonates with them.  

As long as members like yourself take a position that they need to correct and even protect Sunday School discussions from "false doctrine", then the sentiments expressed by Brother Hardy and other thoughtful progressive thinking individuals won't effectively make a difference.  This saddens me, and I think we can do better.  

 

Review what Brother Hardy said. It was about being tolerant for those who harbor an erroneous belief. It wasn't about giving them free rein to promulgate and advocate that error in Church classes, meetings and worship services. At least that's not what I understood him to say (and I was there, on the first row).

[salgare]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If anybody "opened this thread to cross-board comments" it was you -- by going over to the Mormon Defamation Board to complaln about several individuals as well as the moderation here. As well as to announce your intent to "push the limits."

If you would like to get back to my civil posts in this thread with questions to Robert and you, before you two went very personal on this I would be glad to continue there.  Of course I have been censured with limited status and likely approach my limit and/or possible banning for being outspoken and yet honest on this and the other thread.

This is what I mean by pushing the limits ... being outspoken but honest.

CFR from Robert where I have been name calling.

CFR from you on my complaining about several individual as well as the moderation team.

Edited August 10, 2016 by salgare

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Cfr please where any FMer called or hinted a heartlander or heartlanders were apostate.  This would surprise me.  FM is not against someone who believes the Heartland theory, we have had them in our membership in the past and may now (I haven't been as involved socially the past few years due to family stuff).

Meldrum is the only one I know of who publicly calls out others as apostates if one rejects his claims.  It used to be more popular for his supporters to come to us and label us apostates, but I haven't noticed it for awhile.  

It was Scott Gordon, not John Lynch, so my mistake on that.  I was referring to his FAIR talk that was discussed at length about 1 month ago in threads on this board.  

I just re-listened to the section where he talks about Meldrum (17minute timeframe) and he never uses the word Apostate.  He definitely is disparaging of Mr. Meldrum's perspectives in the talk, calling his ideas "dangerous" to himself and others.  

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Cfr please where any FMer called or hinted a heartlander or heartlanders were apostate.  This would surprise me.  FM is not against someone who believes the Heartland theory, we have had them in our membership in the past and may now (I haven't been as involved socially the past few years due to family stuff).

Meldrum is the only one I know of who publicly calls out others as apostates if one rejects his claims.  It used to be more popular for his supporters to come to us and label us apostates, but I haven't noticed it for awhile.  

My only real beef with heartlanders is their almost uniform propensity to question the spirituality and loyalty of those who disagree with them. I don't recall anyone from FairMormon engaging in like behavior toward Meldrum or his devotees.

HFT refers to a "recent John Lynch talk." I wonder if that is a mistaken reference to the video of Scott Gordon speaking in Sweden. If so, that's a bad rap. Scott, from what I saw, did not accuse Meldrum of apostasy.

 

Edited August 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Review what Brother Hardy said. It was about being tolerant for those who harbor an erroneous belief. It wasn't about giving them free rein to promulgate and advocate that error in Church classes, meetings and worship services. At least that's not what I understood him to say (and I was there, on the first row).

I wasn't there, but from what others have reported on in this thread, I don't think you're characterizing his position correctly.  I don't think he ever characterized these beliefs as erroneous.  Maybe someone else who attended could comment on that, but I think you're very wrong on that point. 

The thesis of the whole talk was about how to effectively and lovingly interact with all different kinds of beliefs about the BoM.  I think you're missing the central thesis.  Still waiting on a transcript, but that's what I took from the postings of others.  

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Because purity of doctrine has always been an essential part of administering the gospel of Jesus Christ.

And, as Nevo has pointed out, a fictional Book of Mormon pretty much eviscerates the concept of priesthood authority and would make the Church a stench in the nostrils of Him Who founded it.

I disagree. I think Jesus was pushing back against those who focused on doctrine as being central.  I think the message of Jesus is a focus on the individual, the oppressed, the outcast, the underprivileged, the minority.  Exactly the opposite of your proposition.  

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, salgare said:

If you would like to get back to my civil posts in this thread with questions to Robert and you, before you two went very personal on this I would be glad to continue there.  Of course I have been censured with limited status and likely approach my limit and/or possible banning for being outspoken and yet honest on this and the other thread.

This is what I mean by pushing the limits ... being outspoken but honest.

CFR from Robert where I have been name calling.

CFR from you on my complaining about several individual as well as the moderation team.

Well, you have complained about being put on "limited" and allegedly being banned. That much is self-evident.

As far as complaining about the several individuals, maybe that wasn't you in particular, but the pack you were part of and assenting to. I really don't have the stomach to go back there and review it.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I wasn't there, but from what others have reported on in this thread, I don't think you're characterizing his position correctly.  I don't think he ever characterized these beliefs as erroneous.  Maybe someone else who attended could comment on that, but I think you're very wrong on that point. 

The thesis of the whole talk was about how to effectively and lovingly interact with all different kinds of beliefs about the BoM.  I think you're missing the central thesis.  Still waiting on a transcript, but that's what I took from the postings of others.  

"Erroneous" was my term.

What he did do was to come down decidedly on the side of a historic Book of Mormon, to the extent that he said he expected to meet the Book of Mormon prophets in the hereafter.

So Grant Hardy and the fictitious-Book-of-Mormon promulgators can't both be right. And since I agree with his view, that makes theirs erroneous, in my mind.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[salgare]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, you have complained about being put on "limited" and allegedly being banned. That much is self-evident.

As far as complaining about the several individuals, maybe that wasn't you in particular, but the pack you were part of and assenting to. I really don't have the stomach to go back there and review it.

Thank you Scott, I really do appreciate this.  Anymore, I just view this site as the unfortunate way things are, no hard feelings to anyone.  Having been put on limited because MFB felt pestered left me not worrying about a ban here anymore.  Truly, I believe I have been civil here.  An obvious critic but other than being outspoken and pursuing touchy subjects (i.e. Nuanced Mormonism) having given no reason from the MFB ban and the following limited status.

As I've made my opinion clear there and hopefully here, I intend to be civil.  I hope for some good conversation, however IMO at this time this board has nothing to offer me, being the marked, limited enemy and so I'm going to push aside the fear of banning (pushing the limits) and speak my mind.

Once again thank you for the acknowledgement.

[juliann]

Quote

I just re-listened to the section where he talks about Meldrum (17minute timeframe) and he never uses the word Apostate.  He definitely is disparaging of Mr. Meldrum's perspectives in the talk, calling his ideas "dangerous" to himself and others.  

I think FM's (and not all FMers even agree on geography) perspectives are far more fine tuned than you are allowing for. The danger is that Meldrum makes believing Joseph Smith and being a worthy Mormon dependent on Heartlander belief. You have to start there when describing FM. So the danger is that when people discover they have been shown hoaxes to "prove" the Heartland theory they then question whether the prophets are reliable. Same stuff we go through with the Priesthood ban being a mistake and all. 

You don't even need to be an expert to watch Meldrum's "proofs" unravel. I was talking to a degreed expert at the conference, however. Meldrum advertised buying a large plot of land that was filled with artifacts, again proving his theory. Only it wasn't. He had evidently taken the word of the owner who turns out to claiming all sorts of things. BUT....he has not informed his followers who are surely waiting for the discoveries that there is nothing remarkable there. 

That should give you an idea of the objections.

[Calm]

HFT, I believe Meldrum's approach is dangerous for a variety of reasons.

The biggest reason is it appears to create a brittle, antagonistic faith approach.  I base this on the numerous interactions with his followers I have observed.  Combine that with his poor use of science...as in using it when it agrees with him but condemning it as a faulty process when it doesn't even if the process used for both results is the same, his dependency on hoaxes and his linking it in people's mind at least (and probably more) with any fringe or pseudoscience sales program as long as they have money to contribute to his cause (check out the conferences he puts on that have tons of practioners that have nothing to do with locating BoM lands....the combination of build up because of the claims of absolute proof with the eventual for most people realizing it lacks the certainty and then they look around to see the circus he has created...it is going to be hard for many of those disillusioned to separate their experience of the BoM with the promotions of Meldrum, imo.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"Erroneous" was my term.

What he did do was to come down decidedly on the side of a historic Book of Mormon, to the extent that he said he expected to meet the Book of Mormon prophets in the hereafter.

So Grant Hardy and the fictitious-Book-of-Mormon promulgators can't both be right. And since I agree with his view, that makes theirs erroneous, in my mind.

I'm no Hardy expert, but I have listened to a couple podcasts where he was interviewed and read one of his books on the BoM, and I've not gotten this impression whatsoever.  He seems very sympathetic to those who don't believe in the historicity, thats part of the point of his message is to accept that people have this position and not be critical of them.  

Your intolerance towards those with differing approaches with respect to the BoM is completely different than Hardy's approach.  

[hope_for_things]

47 minutes ago, juliann said:

I think FM's (and not all FMers even agree on geography) perspectives are far more fine tuned than you are allowing for. The danger is that Meldrum makes believing Joseph Smith and being a worthy Mormon dependent on Heartlander belief. You have to start there when describing FM. So the danger is that when people discover they have been shown hoaxes to "prove" the Heartland theory they then question whether the prophets are reliable. Same stuff we go through with the Priesthood ban being a mistake and all. 

You don't even need to be an expert to watch Meldrum's "proofs" unravel. I was talking to a degreed expert at the conference, however. Meldrum advertised buying a large plot of land that was filled with artifacts, again proving his theory. Only it wasn't. He had evidently taken the word of the owner who turns out to claiming all sorts of things. BUT....he has not informed his followers who are surely waiting for the discoveries that there is nothing remarkable there. 

That should give you an idea of the objections.

FM has been around for much longer than the Meldrumites(seems to work), so I agree with you that their approaches are more sophisticated.  I was really pointing out that there is a *** for tat going on between FM and the Meldrumites, at least from my perspective as I don't tend to align with either crowd.  

I also find it funny that FM believers seem to miss the irony that many of the criticisms they aim at the Meldrumites, are emblematic of the same kind of apologetic reasoning that FM uses, and that critics of the church often find the FM apologetic arguments to be fallacious for the same reasons that FM finds the Meldrumite arguments to be incorrect.   

[hope_for_things]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

HFT, I believe Meldrum's approach is dangerous for a variety of reasons.

The biggest reason is it appears to create a brittle, antagonistic faith approach.  I base this on the numerous interactions with his followers I have observed.  Combine that with his poor use of science...as in using it when it agrees with him but condemning it as a faulty process when it doesn't even if the process used for both results is the same, his dependency on hoaxes and his linking it in people's mind at least (and probably more) with any fringe or pseudoscience sales program as long as they have money to contribute to his cause (check out the conferences he puts on that have tons of practioners that have nothing to do with locating BoM lands....the combination of build up because of the claims of absolute proof with the eventual for most people realizing it lacks the certainty and then they look around to see the circus he has created...it is going to be hard for many of those disillusioned to separate their experience of the BoM with the promotions of Meldrum, imo.  

I get what you're saying, and I think you make some good points.  Its the same kind of reasoning that I was raised on, not the current heartland model specifically, but the binary world view with a lack of using critical thinking skills.  Also the fear of some scientific disciplines, etc.  I see all of these ways of thinking as very common in fundamentalist churches.  But I would also point out that the majority of the active Mormons that I know, have been trained to think this way.  

FM apologists are outside the bubble of typical Mormon orthodoxy.  They are in their own bubble in my opinion, but they might think I'm in a bubble for that matter too.  :-)