Kenngo1969 Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 1 hour ago, rockpond said: No, that's not what I am positing. OK.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 52 minutes ago, James Tunney said: This is why it is sometimes maddening in attempting to have a conversation on this board - the endless changing of definitions. Maybe we should start out by having an agreement to define words a certain way prior to engaging? How about we define "translation" for starters? Anyway, one person i know was threatened with a church court for inviting members to look at the essays on LDS.org. The bishop asked him to stop speaking about the issue (obviously not silencing?) and then he was referred to the stake president for several meetings where the subject of a church court was broached - i mean court of love, right? Maybe it's just a rogue stake president and rogue bishop doing this but there are other anecdotes of which i am aware. But of course this would never happen in the first place and i must be mistaken, right? No. Your explanation makes it clear that the person in question was not simply recommending that members look at the essays on LDS.org. That would never be a problem in the LDS Church I know. However, if that person was arguing some heretical nonsense (which happens regularly on this board) and then accompanying it with the false claim that certain LDS.org essays supported that heresy, then of course a bishop and stake president are likely to get involved. And, yes, even fervid ex-Mormons have confessed to me that the courts which excommunicated them were indeed very considerate courts of love. Those being tried on heretical claims are not always so generous in their evaluation of what took place, but simple fairness demands that the truth be told. 2
mfbukowski Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I'd like to challenge some of your points here. How do you judge the intentions of the author and distinguish between a fictional writing for entertainment or for fraud? I propose that there is no distinguishable difference between the two. Look at the bible, you say that in many cases we have no clue who the actual author of a book may be. We have lots of evidence of pseudepigraphical works in both the new and old testaments. Many of the authors were intentionally writing things to assert their theological beliefs and to get the authoritative weight that another author's name brings. Also many books have been altered over time to have different meanings than the original author intended. How can you distinguish between the intentions of the multiple different authors who wrote using pseudonyms? We call all of it scripture today, just because the passage of time and the fact that these writings were canonized. Does this make their works any more "inspired" than works of authors that haven't been canonized? Have you ever read an account of a modern author that described their experience writing literature as a mystical process? I've heard multiple authors talk about how they weren't making up a character in their work, but how the character actually existed and that they were giving voice to the words of a person that they felt was real inside their mind. I just attended a play, written by Sting titled The Last Ship, its a story about the town he grew up in. He talked about his process writing this play and how at times it felt like the story itself was coming out of him so fast he likened the experience to projectile vomiting. These kinds of inspirational moments I don't think are different from the ways that prophets experience the writing of scripture. They sounds nearly identical to me, and I can't clearly distinguish between the two experiences. After interacting with you quite a bit in the past few months, I finally understand the nuance with which you speak much better. But I have to ask a question here. Why use the term history, when you describe your position towards these things? History is a specific discipline with well defined practices and rules. The way you describe why you see things as history, really has no relationship to history as a academic discipline. I think your use of that term is confusing to people that don't understand your position about spiritual truth. Definitely some misunderstandings here. Quote I'd like to challenge some of your points here. How do you judge the intentions of the author and distinguish between a fictional writing for entertainment or for fraud? I propose that there is no distinguishable difference between the two. I never said I could judge anyones intentions. I am not sure where you got that. I usually try to say exactly what I mean. Perhaps the point was too nuanced. What I said was that the VIEW that the scriptures were "inspired fiction" is FALSE DOCTRINE- "by definition" since "fiction" is by definition consciously concocted stories and scripture is NOT defined the same way Suppose Isaiah IS a concocted story deliberately fashioned by some nefarious character with the intent to write fictitious material and pass it off as scripture. Suppose others then with similar intent wrote the whole story of Jesus with the intent to match Isaiah's false and fictitious "prophecies" and that Jesus never actually existed. Perhaps this was done in the first century. None of it ever happened. If that is the case then the bible would not be "inspired" fiction- it would be pure fiction. The definition of "fiction" does not match the definition of "scripture". Yet still some may be inspired by that and regard it as "scripture". What I am saying is that the definition and the way we think about "fiction" is NOT COMPATIBLE with the idea of "scripture" and what that means to us How we would know that the bible is fiction is an entirely different matter. In short, that is UNKNOWABLE, and thus irrelevant to its spiritual content. I suppose that is the nuance that is confusing you and perhaps others, but crucial to my point that inspired fiction is not scripture What is the only way we can know that scripture is "true"? By testimony. The definition of truth is different for historical statements than it is for what is taken to be "scripture". This is what you never quite seem to get. You are still stuck in the correspondence theory of truth which is based on the ability to step out of our perceptions and check the perceptions against "reality" (Rorty quote below) What you have not learned is that "truth" is a property of sentences and logic, simply and purely. In other words what one person thinks is "scripture" and "true" for them may not be "true" for someone else. Truth is always within a given context as accepted by a given community. One man's "inspired fiction" could be another mans "scripture". Within the Mormon community, the Book of Mormon is scripture. Outside the community, it is not scripture. Inside the community it is not "fiction" There is no source outside both communities to judge the truth or falsity of the issue. It is exactly like the problem with the "correspondence" theory of truth- one cannot get outside of our experiences to judge whether or not our experiences "correspond to reality" because the only reality we can know IS the experiences. But by definition, as far as I know, no one defines "scripture" as equal in meaning with "fiction"- inspired or otherwise. While reading a James Bond novel, no one I have ever heard of will say they are reading "scripture". We have the same problem with history, if one thinks of it as a direct report of "what really happened". Again, the Rorty quote below refutes that. History is NOT a "report of what really happened" any more than any observation is a "report of what really happened"- all we can have is REPORTS. There is no way to know "what really happened" independent of our UNDERSTANDING of "what really happened". This is true in history, it is true in science, it is true in religion, it is true in every field of human endeavor. We must stop thinking in absolute terms. A report that some statement or work of literature is "FICTION" is not consistent with a report that the same work of literature is "SCRIPTURE" by any definition I can imagine. The words are not synonymous. Adding "inspired" to the mix does not change it. And that is why BELIEF in the historicity of scripture- that the events of scripture "really happened"- is CRUCIAL to the religious belief and itself a RELIGIOUS belief. You cannot think the atonement is "fiction" and still get spiritual power out of it- yet we cannot prove it as a historical event!! Religious statements about being saved by faith in Christ, for example, are not synonymous with statements about alleged historical events like "Jesus died on the cross" The contexts are not the same. History alleges to speak about "what really happened" and religion alleges to speak about our place in the spiritual universe, and what kinds of beliefs give our spirits peace and joy. What really happened has nothing to do with what gives us peace and joy- one can be peaceful and joyful in the most horrible of circumstances. Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" is a book, parts of which, I personally take to be scriptural. It was written by an individual who had survived life in a Nazi concentration camp. Here is a quote from wikipedia- quoting the book Quote -- the truth—that love is the ultimate and the highest goal to which man can aspire. Then I grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and belief have to impart: The salvation of man is through love and in love. I understood how a man who has nothing left in this world still may know bliss, be it only for a brief moment, in the contemplation of his beloved. In a position of utter desolation, when man cannot express himself in positive action, when his only achievement may consist in enduring his sufferings in the right way—an honorable way—in such a position man can, through loving contemplation of the image he carries of his beloved, achieve fulfillment. For the first time in my life I was able to understand the meaning of the words, "The angels are lost in perpetual contemplation of an infinite glory...."[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man's_Search_for_Meaning 2
James Tunney Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: No. Your explanation makes it clear that the person in question was not simply recommending that members look at the essays on LDS.org. That would never be a problem in the LDS Church I know. However, if that person was arguing some heretical nonsense (which happens regularly on this board) and then accompanying it with the false claim that certain LDS.org essays supported that heresy, then of course a bishop and stake president are likely to get involved. And, yes, even fervid ex-Mormons have confessed to me that the courts which excommunicated them were indeed very considerate courts of love. Those being tried on heretical claims are not always so generous in their evaluation of what took place, but simple fairness demands that the truth be told. Well with all due respect, i know the person really well and i know the stake president really well. I also know the situation well and it seems to me this is a case of not wanting to have the essays be broadcast to members that dont know the issues raised therein. Edited October 11, 2016 by James Tunney
Johnnie Cake Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 4 hours ago, cdowis said: Yawn. Interesting contribution to the discussion... cdowis, I'm not the enemy...how about doing a reset and engaging in the subject
cdowis Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Interesting contribution to the discussion... cdowis, I'm not the enemy...how about doing a reset and engaging in the subject Sigh. If I were to tell you what I think of your post, I would be permanently banned. This is obviously a trap. Edited October 11, 2016 by cdowis
hope_for_things Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 17 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Fiction is a deliberately concocted story known by the author, spun completely from whole cloth, either for purposes of entertainment, like say "Star Wars" or "War and Peace" or straight out fraud. 17 hours ago, mfbukowski said: It cannot be "scripture" if it is concocted by the author to be passed off AS scripture because it is clearly not inspired. The above two quotes are where I'm getting this idea of intent from. Perhaps I didn't understand you, but it sounds like you're saying if the purpose of the author is to deliberately concoct a story, this rules out the possibility of inspiration. I disagree with this premise and gave some examples of authors who write narratives (and lets just leave the word fiction alone, I don't like it for the purposes of religious discussions and you don't seem to like it either) and who felt very inspired in the process. 48 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: If that is the case then the bible would not be "inspired" fiction- it would be pure fiction. The definition of "fiction" does not match the definition of "scripture". Yet still some may be inspired by that and regard it as "scripture". What I am saying is that the definition and the way we think about "fiction" is NOT COMPATIBLE with the idea of "scripture" and what that means to us I agree with the bolded section and just say that whatever any group of people wants to call scripture, it is scripture to them. There is no external measuring stick for defining scripture. If people say something is scripture, then it is. 51 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: How we would know that the bible is fiction is an entirely different matter. In short, that is UNKNOWABLE, and thus irrelevant to its spiritual content. I suppose that is the nuance that is confusing you and perhaps others, but crucial to my point that inspired fiction is not scripture Here is where I begin to differ with you. The history of the biblical record is not entirely unknowable. There is a trail of evidence, there is biblical criticism, there is an academic model for determining the likelihood of historicity or events, or authorship of books. This entire discipline is not a waste of time. It seems like you're unwilling to acknowledge the validity of scientific inquiry sometimes, because you are so stuck on the limitations that we have with perceptions and language and mental states. But that doesn't completely discount all the work that these disciplines do to hone their crafts, and the value of these disciplines. Are you saying that its all a worthless cause, and not worthy of any study? I don't get it. 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: What is the only way we can know that scripture is "true"? By testimony. The definition of truth is different for historical statements than it is for what is taken to be "scripture". This is what you never quite seem to get. You are still stuck in the correspondence theory of truth which is based on the ability to step out of our perceptions and check the perceptions against "reality" (Rorty quote below) I didn't mention anything about defining the truth of scripture, I've learned a lot from you over the past few months, give me some credit. Its not been easy. I did talk about your definition of inspiration. Actually, I'm thinking that you're violating the Rorty principle with your construction of inspiration as being tied to whether the author is concocting a story, or whether the story has some basis in reality. Sounds to me like you've got this one out of alignment with Rorty and not me. 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: There is no source outside both communities to judge the truth or falsity of the issue. It is exactly like the problem with the "correspondence" theory of truth- one cannot get outside of our experiences to judge whether or not our experiences "correspond to reality" because the only reality we can know IS the experiences. Now we're talking, I totally agree and didn't say anything in my post that would disagree with this. 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: But by definition, as far as I know, no one defines "scripture" as equal in meaning with "fiction"- inspired or otherwise. While reading a James Bond novel, no one I have ever heard of will say they are reading "scripture". I don't like calling anyone's scripture fiction, thats not my term, I dislike it as it has a negative connotation and has too narrow a definition. I wouldn't put Little Red Riding Hood in the same category as The Scarlet Letter, both are broadly defined as fiction, but very different. 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: And that is why BELIEF in the historicity of scripture- that the events of scripture "really happened"- is CRUCIAL to the religious belief and itself a RELIGIOUS belief. You cannot think the atonement is "fiction" and still get spiritual power out of it- yet we cannot prove it as a historical event!! You're losing me here. Belief is in a person's mind, so why does historicity have anything to do with whether a person can get spiritual power from from a story? The parables of Jesus, The Prodigal's Son, The Good Samaritan. These stories had power for me when I was a literal believer in the gospel, and still do now I've shifted to being a metaphorical believer. They are stories and they are powerful to me. 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Religious statements about being saved by faith in Christ, for example, are not synonymous with statements about alleged historical events like "Jesus died on the cross" The contexts are not the same. History alleges to speak about "what really happened" and religion alleges to speak about our place in the spiritual universe, and what kinds of beliefs give our spirits peace and joy. What really happened has nothing to do with what gives us peace and joy- one can be peaceful and joyful in the most horrible of circumstances. I agree with all of this. So it sounds like we don't disagree about that much. I still don't understand your statements about inspiration, and the narrow limits you seem to be placing on what can be considered inspiration. You admitted that people can define scripture however they want, but then you seem to say that this definition of scripture has no power if its not connected to historical events. Which ironically seems to violate what you're harping on me about with the correspondence theory. Care to clarify?
hope_for_things Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 5 minutes ago, cdowis said: Sigh. If I were to tell you what I think of your post, I would be permanently banned. This is obviously a trap. No offense, but you sound paranoid.
Johnnie Cake Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 29 minutes ago, cdowis said: Sigh. If I were to tell you what I think of your post, I would be permanently banned. This is obviously a trap. Fair enough...at least I tried...have a good day
mfbukowski Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 52 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: The above two quotes are where I'm getting this idea of intent from. Perhaps I didn't understand you, but it sounds like you're saying if the purpose of the author is to deliberately concoct a story, this rules out the possibility of inspiration. I disagree with this premise and gave some examples of authors who write narratives (and lets just leave the word fiction alone, I don't like it for the purposes of religious discussions and you don't seem to like it either) and who felt very inspired in the process. I agree with the bolded section and just say that whatever any group of people wants to call scripture, it is scripture to them. There is no external measuring stick for defining scripture. If people say something is scripture, then it is. Here is where I begin to differ with you. The history of the biblical record is not entirely unknowable. There is a trail of evidence, there is biblical criticism, there is an academic model for determining the likelihood of historicity or events, or authorship of books. This entire discipline is not a waste of time. It seems like you're unwilling to acknowledge the validity of scientific inquiry sometimes, because you are so stuck on the limitations that we have with perceptions and language and mental states. But that doesn't completely discount all the work that these disciplines do to hone their crafts, and the value of these disciplines. Are you saying that its all a worthless cause, and not worthy of any study? I don't get it. I didn't mention anything about defining the truth of scripture, I've learned a lot from you over the past few months, give me some credit. Its not been easy. I did talk about your definition of inspiration. Actually, I'm thinking that you're violating the Rorty principle with your construction of inspiration as being tied to whether the author is concocting a story, or whether the story has some basis in reality. Sounds to me like you've got this one out of alignment with Rorty and not me. Now we're talking, I totally agree and didn't say anything in my post that would disagree with this. I don't like calling anyone's scripture fiction, thats not my term, I dislike it as it has a negative connotation and has too narrow a definition. I wouldn't put Little Red Riding Hood in the same category as The Scarlet Letter, both are broadly defined as fiction, but very different. You're losing me here. Belief is in a person's mind, so why does historicity have anything to do with whether a person can get spiritual power from from a story? The parables of Jesus, The Prodigal's Son, The Good Samaritan. These stories had power for me when I was a literal believer in the gospel, and still do now I've shifted to being a metaphorical believer. They are stories and they are powerful to me. I agree with all of this. So it sounds like we don't disagree about that much. I still don't understand your statements about inspiration, and the narrow limits you seem to be placing on what can be considered inspiration. You admitted that people can define scripture however they want, but then you seem to say that this definition of scripture has no power if its not connected to historical events. Which ironically seems to violate what you're harping on me about with the correspondence theory. Care to clarify? Not so much. Getting a tad burned out on this all. I am placing no limits on inspiration but what people themselves put on it, but I think it is logically contradictory for someone to say something is "scripture" AND "fiction". To me that is a category error. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake It's like saying that a balance sheet is poetry. Some may say that, and believe that, but not me. Quote You're losing me here. Belief is in a person's mind, so why does historicity have anything to do with whether a person can get spiritual power from from a story? Belief in historicity is just as much in a person's mind. You are not getting that. You can get spiritual power from history I suppose but that would be odd. Rapture and peace from the correct date for the Battle of Gettysburg? Whatever turns you on. Quote It seems like you're unwilling to acknowledge the validity of scientific inquiry sometimes, because you are so stuck on the limitations that we have with perceptions and language and mental states. It seems like you are unwilling to acknowledge the difference between the pragmatic "make it go" difference between science and achieving peace in our lives. You still want to make "truth" the same as "correspondence to facts". In religious matters there ain't any facts. Quote I still don't understand your statements about inspiration, and the narrow limits you seem to be placing on what can be considered inspiration I never defined inspiration or placed limits on it. Quote You admitted that people can define scripture however they want, but then you seem to say that this definition of scripture has no power if its not connected to historical events. All these are based on what you think "I seem to say" Just look at what I say, not what it "seems" to you that I say.
cdowis Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Fair enough...at least I tried.. According to David Whitmer, each of the Three Witnesses added their signatures to the original Book of Mormon manuscript: In September, 1878, in company with Apostle Orson Pratt, the writer visited David Whitmer, at Richmond, Ray County, Missouri. In the presence of David. C. Whitmer, the son of Jacob, Philander Page, David J. Whitmer, son of David Whitmer, George Scheweich, Col. James W. Black, J. R. B. Van Cleave and some others, Father David Whitmer was asked if the three witnesses signed their own names to their testimony to the Book of Mormon? Father Whitmer unhesitatingly replied with emphasis: "Yes, we each signed his own name." "Then," said the questioner, "how is it that the names of all the witnesses are found here, (in D. W's manuscript) written in the same hand writing?" This question seemed to startle Father Whitmer, and, after examining the signatures he replied: "Oliver must have copied them." "Then, where are the original documents?" was asked. He replied, "I don't know."[1] See further details http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Signatures_on_their_testimonies The printer's manuscript is a copy of the original Book of Mormon manuscript. This copy was made by Oliver Cowdery and taken to the printer. Therefore, the entire document is in Oliver's handwriting. The original manuscript was placed in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House.[1] Years later, it was removed and found to have been mostly destroyed by water damage. As a result of this, we do not have the portion of the original Book of Mormon manuscript containing the witness statementshttp://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_Did_the_witnesses_disagree_with_their_testimony_after_it_was_printed_in_the_Book_of_Mormon%3F I have now responded to your post. Edited October 12, 2016 by cdowis
hope_for_things Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Not so much. Getting a tad burned out on this all. I am placing no limits on inspiration but what people themselves put on it, but I think it is logically contradictory for someone to say something is "scripture" AND "fiction". To me that is a category error. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake It's like saying that a balance sheet is poetry. Some may say that, and believe that, but not me. Belief in historicity is just as much in a person's mind. You are not getting that. You can get spiritual power from history I suppose but that would be odd. Rapture and peace from the correct date for the Battle of Gettysburg? Whatever turns you on. It seems like you are unwilling to acknowledge the difference between the pragmatic "make it go" difference between science and achieving peace in our lives. You still want to make "truth" the same as "correspondence to facts". In religious matters there ain't any facts. I never defined inspiration or placed limits on it. All these are based on what you think "I seem to say" Just look at what I say, not what it "seems" to you that I say. Thanks for the reply and the discussion. I don't want to burn you out so I'll make my response brief. I do get that historicity is in our minds, but I still see great value in the craft and the things we can learn from good history, it has enriched my life and informed my outlook on so many things, religion, society, morality even. I am grateful for good history, but I don't worship it. I don't think I'm still stuck on truth needing correspondence to the facts, I think the way I'm expressing things might be getting in the way and my limitations with language. I was trying to read what you say, and also understand, that's why I spend more time reading your posts than anyone else, I read and re-read because I value your opinion and I'm trying to learn as much as I can. Sorry if I didn't grasp exactly what you meant, and thanks again for the interaction. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 3 hours ago, James Tunney said: Well with all due respect, i know the person really well and i know the stake president really well. I also know the situation well and it seems to me this is a case of not wanting to have the essays be broadcast to members that dont know the issues raised therein. Inevitably, when I personally investigate such claims and interview the parties involved, it turns out that it is never so simple: An errant and incompetent bishop is not impossible, but to suggest that both bishop and stake president are out of control, and not being checked by able members of the ward and stake is beyond belief. There is something you are not telling us that is germane. For example, which essays are in question, and what claims is your friend making about the subject? I have already encountered several people on this board who did not understand the nature of certain essays, and were making entirely false claims about them, so that I would not be surprised if that is what we have here. How can you assure us that such is not the case herewith? You need to come clean.
rockpond Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Inevitably, when I personally investigate such claims and interview the parties involved, it turns out that it is never so simple: An errant and incompetent bishop is not impossible, but to suggest that both bishop and stake president are out of control, and not being checked by able members of the ward and stake is beyond belief. There is something you are not telling us that is germane. For example, which essays are in question, and what claims is your friend making about the subject? I have already encountered several people on this board who did not understand the nature of certain essays, and were making entirely false claims about them, so that I would not be surprised if that is what we have here. How can you assure us that such is not the case herewith? You need to come clean. James has already responded to this and told you what happened. You don't have to accept it but it's inappropriate to tell him that he needs to "come clean" as if he isn't being honest.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 1 minute ago, rockpond said: James has already responded to this and told you what happened. You don't have to accept it but it's inappropriate to tell him that he needs to "come clean" as if he isn't being honest. I am asking for the details. Without them what is being claimed sounds like blatant fiction. James has yet to come forth with the details.
rockpond Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I am asking for the details. Without them what is being claimed sounds like blatant fiction. James has yet to come forth with the details. You didn't just ask for details, you said that his account was false. I didn't think that kind of behavior was acceptable here. 1
James Tunney Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: Inevitably, when I personally investigate such claims and interview the parties involved, it turns out that it is never so simple: An errant and incompetent bishop is not impossible, but to suggest that both bishop and stake president are out of control, and not being checked by able members of the ward and stake is beyond belief. There is something you are not telling us that is germane. For example, which essays are in question, and what claims is your friend making about the subject? I have already encountered several people on this board who did not understand the nature of certain essays, and were making entirely false claims about them, so that I would not be surprised if that is what we have here. How can you assure us that such is not the case herewith? You need to come clean. Im not saying that the bishop and stake president are "out of control." They are frankly uninformed about the essays and viewed it as heresy. (I know the stake pres and he is a good guy but i dont think he is into apologetics) 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 12 hours ago, James Tunney said: Im not saying that the bishop and stake president are "out of control." They are frankly uninformed about the essays and viewed it as heresy. (I know the stake pres and he is a good guy but i dont think he is into apologetics) Maybe I'm a complete idiot, but it just seems to me that believing that essays put out by the LDS Church on lds.org are heresy, or considered heresy by both bishop and stake president smacks of the kind of madness which led bishop John Koyle to start the Nephite Dream Mine. Something is definitely amiss, and it has nothing to do with the stake prexy being a nice guy, or not being into apologetics -- most stake presidents are not into apologetics, nor should they be . . . There is far more going on here than being "uninformed."
Robert F. Smith Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 (edited) 13 hours ago, rockpond said: You didn't just ask for details, you said that his account was false. I didn't think that kind of behavior was acceptable here. Here is what I said: Quote 13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Inevitably, when I personally investigate such claims and interview the parties involved, it turns out that it is never so simple: An errant and incompetent bishop is not impossible, but to suggest that both bishop and stake president are out of control, and not being checked by able members of the ward and stake is beyond belief. There is something you are not telling us that is germane. For example, which essays are in question, and what claims is your friend making about the subject? I have already encountered several people on this board who did not understand the nature of certain essays, and were making entirely false claims about them, so that I would not be surprised if that is what we have here. How can you assure us that such is not the case herewith? You need to come clean. Tu quoque. You might try quoting the source, rather than falsifying what someone says. Edited October 12, 2016 by Robert F. Smith
rockpond Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Here is what I said: Tu quoque. You might try quoting the source, rather than falsifying what someone says. I think your quote substantiates what I said. Let's review the terminology you used: beyond belief something you are not telling us entirely false claims... not be surprised if that is what we have here you need to come clean
James Tunney Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: Maybe I'm a complete idiot, but it just seems to me that believing that essays put out by the LDS Church on lds.org are heresy, or considered heresy by both bishop and stake president smacks of the kind of madness which led bishop John Koyle to start the Nephite Dream Mine. Something is definitely amiss, and it has nothing to do with the stake prexy being a nice guy, or not being into apologetics -- most stake presidents are not into apologetics, nor should they be . . . There is far more going on here than being "uninformed." Ok. I guess you can believe whatever. Nevertheless, it corresponds to the problems the church has had with those who claim the manuals and missionary lessons, etc. dont agree with the actual history. Anyway, my friend made an agreement with the leaders to not bring up the controversies any more. And my guess is that the leaders had a chance to read the essays and probably realized my friend had a point.
Johnnie Cake Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 16 hours ago, cdowis said: According to David Whitmer, each of the Three Witnesses added their signatures to the original Book of Mormon manuscript: In September, 1878, in company with Apostle Orson Pratt, the writer visited David Whitmer, at Richmond, Ray County, Missouri. In the presence of David. C. Whitmer, the son of Jacob, Philander Page, David J. Whitmer, son of David Whitmer, George Scheweich, Col. James W. Black, J. R. B. Van Cleave and some others, Father David Whitmer was asked if the three witnesses signed their own names to their testimony to the Book of Mormon? Father Whitmer unhesitatingly replied with emphasis: "Yes, we each signed his own name." "Then," said the questioner, "how is it that the names of all the witnesses are found here, (in D. W's manuscript) written in the same hand writing?" This question seemed to startle Father Whitmer, and, after examining the signatures he replied: "Oliver must have copied them." "Then, where are the original documents?" was asked. He replied, "I don't know."[1] See further details http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Signatures_on_their_testimonies The printer's manuscript is a copy of the original Book of Mormon manuscript. This copy was made by Oliver Cowdery and taken to the printer. Therefore, the entire document is in Oliver's handwriting. The original manuscript was placed in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House.[1] Years later, it was removed and found to have been mostly destroyed by water damage. As a result of this, we do not have the portion of the original Book of Mormon manuscript containing the witness statementshttp://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_Did_the_witnesses_disagree_with_their_testimony_after_it_was_printed_in_the_Book_of_Mormon%3F I have now responded to your post. See now that wasn't so hard was it? Sometimes casting stereotypes of who we think someone else is aside can lead to constructive conversations. Thanks for posting this
cdowis Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 (edited) You don't get it, do you. It does not matter WHO wrote the eyewitness statement, or whether they physically signed it. Your post was based on a rhetorical trick, a fake argument, garbage logic. Instead of openly asserting that the witnesses retracted their testimony, you use clever rhetoric. OK, you can now boast that you got me to respond, and the result is that we have ended any future discussion. I sincerely wish you all the best. Edited October 12, 2016 by cdowis
Robert F. Smith Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 5 hours ago, rockpond said: I think your quote substantiates what I said. Let's review the terminology you used: beyond belief something you are not telling us entirely false claims... not be surprised if that is what we have here you need to come clean Yes, of course, you can make your false claim seem true when you deliberately take my statement out of context. For example, you knew I was referring to other people on this board (not James) when I said "I have already encountered several people on this board who did not understand the nature of certain essays, and were making entirely false claims about them." Yet you took that out of context and applied it to James for it's propaganda effect. You claimed that I "said that his account was false." In your call for honesty, you might try it yourself. Honest people always quote in context.
rockpond Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said: Yes, of course, you can make your false claim seem true when you deliberately take my statement out of context. For example, you knew I was referring to other people on this board (not James) when I said "I have already encountered several people on this board who did not understand the nature of certain essays, and were making entirely false claims about them." Yet you took that out of context and applied it to James for it's propaganda effect. You claimed that I "said that his account was false." In your call for honesty, you might try it yourself. Honest people always quote in context. You had already provided the entire quote. I had read it - twice. You had posted it in the comment I replied to. What seemed relevant was to highlight the phrases on which I based my conclusion. Obviously you were referring to other people making false claims but then you said that you wouldn't be surprised if that is what we have here (as I noted). You claimed that what he wrote was "beyond belief", there was something he wasn't telling us, and that he needed to "come clean".
Recommended Posts