Robert F. Smith Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 4 hours ago, James Tunney said: 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. This puts a whole new face on the matter, James, in that your friend was apparently using the essays in an effort to prove that the manuals and missionary lessons don't agree with actual history (and they probably don't) -- a claim we frequently find on this board. No wonder the bishop and stake president (and likely others) got exercised about the matter. These are the kinds of details which clarify the controversy, and there are indeed those who place nearly absolute faith and status in the regular lesson manuals -- despite the fact that the manuals are written by various professors and staff, and despite the fact that they change over time. 4 hours ago, James Tunney said: 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. Makes a lot of sense to me now, and it is unsurprising that this was the agreed upon modus vivendi. Your guess about the ultimate conclusions drawn by the leaders is also likely correct. No surprise in any case. No one got tried for his membership, and everyone has cooled down. I personally try not to create hubbub and controversy in church when I teach or respond to members' off-the-wall comments in class. Some things I save for a personal aside after class. Sometimes it's best to just let it go. Milk before meat, James.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 11 minutes ago, rockpond said: 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". In the end, James provided crucial details which clarified the true nature of the controversy. Otherwise, none of it made any sense -- the circumstances as they were first described were "beyond belief." Plain and simple.
Teancum Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 On 10/10/2016 at 5:26 PM, rockpond said: I understand not wanting to go through 4 hours of audio if it isn't something that interests you. But I wish you would consider that the tone, delivery, and context of his "hill they wish to die on" comment is possibly quite different than how you are interpreting it in written, excerpted form. As for the rest, I simply disagree with your characterization of the interview. And I've listened to it. You have not. Why should SMAC listen to it? It may mean he actually has to deal with what Prince says rather than a synopsis of it. And yes this was a cynical post.
Teancum Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 (edited) On 10/10/2016 at 6:14 PM, smac97 said: I'm not sure what that means. Perhaps you could clarify. Joseph Smith said this about the First Vision in 1820 (JS-H 1:25): "I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision." "I had actually seen..." "...they did in reality speak to me..." Can Latter-day Saints ignore this stuff? Can they attribute it to Joseph Smith being mentally infirm/insane/deluded? Under the influence of alcohol or some other mind-altering substance? Can they say that Joseph Smith fabricated it with the intent to deceive? Can the Saints substantially re-define Joseph Smith's recitation of events so that it contravenes the plain words set forth above? That Joseph "had an encounter with the divine, but that encounter was not an actual visitation from Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, because that never actually happened"? Moving on... Joseph then described the following events which took place in 1823: The "Inspired Fiction" theory appears to require that the Saints reject these statements. "Fiction" means that there was no Lehi, hence no Nephites/Lamanites, hence no thousand-year record kept by prophets, hence no abridgment of that record by Mormon (who never existed), hence no plates buried by Moroni (who never existed, either), hence no angel Moroni to visit Joseph or lead him to the Plates. So how do the "Inspired Fiction" folks account for these verses? Was Joseph deluded in writing about these things? Insane? Lying? What about following verses?... Were there ancient artifacts "delivered ... up to" Joseph by an angel, or not? How do the "Inspired Fiction" folks account for these verses (and the subsequent ones where Joseph actually obtained physical objection of the above-described artifacts)? Was Joseph deluded in writing about these things? Insane? Lying? And what about the Plates? Other people saw them. The Three Witnesses. The Eight. How do the "Inspired Fiction" folks account for their statements? Were these testators deluded? Insane? Lying? Drugged? Threatened/coerced? And what about the text of what we now have and call "The Book of Mormon?" Where did it come from, according to the "Inspired Fiction" folks? "Joseph had an encounter with the divine" just doesn't cut it with me. I'd like to get down to brass tacks, as far as possible, to understand what this means. "Left to create symbols?" What does that mean? Is Prince saying that Joseph fabricated a sham artifact (the Plates) and then lied to everyone by passing them off to the witnesses as an ancient record which he had been led to uncover by an angel? Are you saying that? Did an angel named Moroni visit Joseph, or not? If Joseph Smith fabricated the Plates, why did he to that? Was he lying? Deluded/insane/drugged? Are you (or Prince) suggesting that God told him to fabricate an artifact and then lie to everyone by claiming it was an ancient artifact buried in a hill for centuries until an angel appeared to Joseph and told him where to find it? If so, why would God do that? And what is the point of this "interaction" if it centers on a lie? Joseph Smith claimed The Book of Mormon is a translation of a real ancient record describing real people and real events. Why would God "interact" with Joseph and tell him to construct a massive fraud about fictional records, fictional peoples, fictional events, etc.? Let's put aside the issues of "need{ing} ... to match up with actual, verifiable history and sicence," and instead focus on factual assertions apparently being made by Prinece (and/or you). We can come back to the "need" later. Again, let's focus on factual assertions. The New Testament presents a number of amazing claims about Jesus Christ, such as miracles attending His birth, miracles performed by Him, His declarations about being the Son of God, His death and resurrection, His physical ascension into heaven, and so on. Are Latter-day Saints at liberty to reject the "historicity" of these things? Are Latter-day Saints at liberty to deny that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? Or that He was resurrected? "Naturalistic explanations" is a rather unenlightening euphemism. What does it mean? What "brief 'encounters'" does Prince find legitimate / historical / real / yes-it-really-objectively-happened? I've presented a bunch of questions above about some of the founding events of the Restoration. It sounds like you are saying that Prince is publicly stating that the Latter-day Saints should reject many/most of the claims made by Joseph Smith, and instead adopt "naturalistic explanations for everything." But why should we do such things? And where does that leave Joseph? I can't see how this is so. The position you are describing requires us to reject virtually everything Joseph Smith declared as a prophet, and to brand him as a liar, a madman, or some combination thereof. To the extent "Mormonism excels," it has done so because it has embraced the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's admittedly amazing narrative, not rejected it (as Prince would apparently have us do). Thanks, -Smac So you quote extensively from the 1838 account. This account is 18 years after the claimed FV and there are early accounts which are inconsistent. Also it adds other things which were not in Joseph's initial history. You want to cling to this all being literal and that is fine. You think the burden of proof that the BoM is not historical and what it claims to be is on the critic which is utter nonsense. But hold to it if you wish. I think the lack of evidence speaks loudly. So I will close with one question. You think the BoM is historical and the gold plates were real? Then where are the plates so we can test this...oh wait.... the angel Moroni took them back. How utterly convenient. Edited October 13, 2016 by Teancum 1
Teancum Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 On 10/10/2016 at 9:13 PM, Robert F. Smith said: To an extent, yes, and there is a Restoration church which is doing just that: The Community of Christ (formerly RLDS Church), and they not only allow for religion as a metaphor or myth, but they also ordain women, and accept all sexually active LGBTQ persons as full members. So there is already an alternative. The ultimate question is: Is it viable? Can a religion built on a non-historical, metaphorical foundation survive? The mainstream churches and synagogues which have adopted that approach are not only not growing, but they are dying on the vine. It appears to be no more than a temporary fix. It is not clear, anyhow, that those who do not believe in literal religious explanations need a substitute form of religion. One can meditate without making a religion out of it. Scientists such as Neil deGrasse Tyson are quite happy to believe that this life is the only conscious life there is, and then we die, and there is no afterlife. It is a choice, and we need to respect those who make such choices. Where it gets dicey is when such "enlightened" thinkers begin to preach their new "religion" of secularism, ignorantly denouncing religions about which they know nothing. Dr. Tyson makes a similar point about religion: He objects to religious believers allowing their religious beliefs to dictate national policy and legislation which harms the rest, e.g., anti-LGBTQ beliefs, climate change denial, etc. Why should a religion dictate national policy simply because the religionist believes their God says so. I agree with Tyson. If you have a policy that is simply based on your God you need more than that for the rest of the nation to accept it. You can have your faith but unless you can build a case for your position to be what a nation pursues, when 98% of the nation does not hold your religious views then why should anyone concede to you? 2
rockpond Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Teancum said: So you quote extensively from the 1838 account. This account is 18 years after the claimed FV and there are early accounts which are inconsistent. Also is adds other things which were not in Joseph's initial history. You want to cling to this all being literal and that is fine. You think the burden of proof that the BoM is not historical and what it claims to be is on the critic which is utter nonsense. But hold to it if you wish. I think the lack of evidence speaks loudly. So I will close with one question. You think the BoM is historical and the gold plates were real? Then where are the plates so we can test this...oh wait.... then angel Moroni took them back. How utterly convenient. Excellent point. Prince's position is no more problematic than a literal adherence to Joseph's 1838 FV account. Prince's position allows one that embrace all of the FV accounts. Where does a literal view of just one FV account leave the individual? 2
James Tunney Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: In the end, James provided crucial details which clarified the true nature of the controversy. Otherwise, none of it made any sense -- the circumstances as they were first described were "beyond belief." Plain and simple. My friend was essentially pressured into not talking about the subjects contained in the essays. So, I don't know how that is "beyond belief." Shepherds want to defend the flock and these shepherds weren't sufficiently versed in the issues to properly respond.
rongo Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 Pot-stirring just for the sake of pot-stirring is also not good, and should be discouraged. There are people who just like to get attention for bringing up shocking (to the audience) tidbits, and if this is enough of a problem, bishops and stake presidents are well within their responsibilities to ask people to use their head a little and be considerate of the spirit and needs of the class/meeting. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 2 hours ago, Teancum said: Why should a religion dictate national policy simply because the religionist believes their God says so. I agree with Tyson. If you have a policy that is simply based on your God you need more than that for the rest of the nation to accept it. You can have your faith but unless you can build a case for your position to be what a nation pursues, when 98% of the nation does not hold your religious views then why should anyone concede to you? Yeh, that is the point which both atheists and religionists should adhere to: Have respect for the other POV. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 25 minutes ago, James Tunney said: My friend was essentially pressured into not talking about the subjects contained in the essays. So, I don't know how that is "beyond belief." Shepherds want to defend the flock and these shepherds weren't sufficiently versed in the issues to properly respond. I covered that in more detail in my response to you, and I like what rongo said in summation: Quote Pot-stirring just for the sake of pot-stirring is also not good, and should be discouraged. There are people who just like to get attention for bringing up shocking (to the audience) tidbits, and if this is enough of a problem, bishops and stake presidents are well within their responsibilities to ask people to use their head a little and be considerate of the spirit and needs of the class/meeting. Sometimes restraint is called for, rather than pushing our immediate agenda. Milk before meat, James.
cdowis Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Teancum said: Why should a religion dictate national policy simply because the religionist believes their God says so. Edited October 13, 2016 by cdowis 1
Teancum Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 3 minutes ago, cdowis said: The constitution is a secular document that allows for freedom of religious observance along with freedom of speech. You can petition for any position you wish and you can say "because my God says so" and others are free to say who cares. Impsosing your religious view on society simply because your God says so is a theocracy not a democratic republic.
cdowis Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Teancum said: If you have a policy that is simply based on your God you need more than that for the rest of the nation to accept it. You can have your faith but unless you can build a case for your position to be what a nation pursues, when 98% of the nation does not hold your religious views then why should anyone concede to you? The answer is simple, because we have a Constitutional form of government which allows access to public discourse for both the God-fearing (religious) and the non-believer alike. Each one is free to express their reasons for public policy. Other countries deny that right of free speech, and your demand is to remove a fundamental right from the Constitution. And,of course, you are free to make that demand based on your sense of justice, or intellectual reasoning, as I have a right to express my opinions based on a religious belief. Don't tear down the Constitution just to silence those whose opinions you oppose. We should not only respect the rights of the opposing side, but go beyond respect, and demand that those rights be preserved for us all. Edited October 13, 2016 by cdowis 1
mfbukowski Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 3 hours ago, rockpond said: Excellent point. Prince's position is no more problematic than a literal adherence to Joseph's 1838 FV account. Prince's position allows one that embrace all of the FV accounts. Where does a literal view of just one FV account leave the individual? I have always found it odd that the literalists end up disputing the only possible point of view which makes Mormonism rationally viable. Literalism works if you are willing to see it as one extreme possibility, but it is logically possible. Even Bertrand Russell said he could not "disprove" that the world was not created 5 minutes ago, and all our memories implanted. I think a literalistic approach is more reasonable than that, but I am not going to condemn anyone for holding such views- God can do whatever he wants, I suppose. I don't particularly agree with Prince, what I know of his positions, becasue I think his approach is hamfisted and lacks nuance but he is in the ballpark I will be glad to listen to Dehlin for 4 hours if he is willing to pay me $400. per hour. And no, that does not mean $390 per hour either. I have more integrity than that.
James Tunney Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I covered that in more detail in my response to you, and I like what rongo said in summation: Sometimes restraint is called for, rather than pushing our immediate agenda. Milk before meat, James. I dont know if one can characterize the essays as meat. Maybe they are rancid meat?
Calm Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 On 10/11/2016 at 11:31 AM, Jeanne said: Excommunications of the Sept. Six year ago..seems so odd to me now. Maxine Hanks had something interesting to say today (the conversation is on FB and I am too tired tonight to figure out how to link directly to a quote, my apologies): "Why does anyone think they can define my view / approach? Let me/us speak for ourselves. Countless people have a deeper, more complex view of Mormonism, incl. Mke Quinn, Don Bradley, James Faulconer, Joseph Spencer, and numerous others. We may agree on some points but we diverge on others. You can't lump people together, as if we have a hive mind. The same thing happened to the Sept. Six, (for 25 years now) no matter how much I have deconstructed it -- insisting there were diverse views and experiences among the disciplined and the leaders in 1993 -- people still reduce the Sept. Six to one view, position, interpretation -- then use it to support their own arguments against the church. My excommunication has been deployed by others for two decades. They hijacked my narrative."
cdowis Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 2 hours ago, Teancum said: The constitution is a secular document that allows for freedom of religious observance along with freedom of speech. You can petition for any position you wish and you can say "because my God says so" and others are free to say who cares. Impsosing your religious view on society simply because your God says so is a theocracy not a democratic republic. It also allows every qualified citizen freedom to speak, to vote, to run for the legislature and pass laws, without restriction of his or her religion. WE "IMPOSE" our views by speaking, voting, passing laws ================JUST AS YOU DO========= according to the laws of the land. You are free to speak, vote, pass laws in the legislature AND to bring any law to court to be overturned if they are unconstitutional. The godless atheist who preach and the religious fanatic are both protected by the Constitution regardless of what you think of their arguments. Your ignorance of the Constitution is deeply troubling and it is people like yourself that would force your "rational" views upon society with secularFacism and Communism. 1
rongo Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 10 hours ago, James Tunney said: I dont know if one can characterize the essays as meat. Maybe they are rancid meat? Spam?
Robert F. Smith Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 10 hours ago, James Tunney said: I dont know if one can characterize the essays as meat. Maybe they are rancid meat? The essays differ across a broad spectrum on how much "milk" or "meat" they contain. Some deal with the basics (whether theological or historical), and some deal with the mysteries, but all must be read in proper context to make any sense. Some people used to complain that the LDS Church didn't discuss such matters or clarify things, and so now when they do that it is characterized as "rancid"? Or do you mean that to be taken as the beloved Tibetan ghee (rancid butter)? 1
James Tunney Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: The essays differ across a broad spectrum on how much "milk" or "meat" they contain. Some deal with the basics (whether theological or historical), and some deal with the mysteries, but all must be read in proper context to make any sense. Some people used to complain that the LDS Church didn't discuss such matters or clarify things, and so now when they do that it is characterized as "rancid"? Or do you mean that to be taken as the beloved Tibetan ghee (rancid butter)? haha. 1
Teancum Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 19 hours ago, cdowis said: The answer is simple, because we have a Constitutional form of government which allows access to public discourse for both the God-fearing (religious) and the non-believer alike. Each one is free to express their reasons for public policy. Other countries deny that right of free speech, and your demand is to remove a fundamental right from the Constitution. And,of course, you are free to make that demand based on your sense of justice, or intellectual reasoning, as I have a right to express my opinions based on a religious belief. Don't tear down the Constitution just to silence those whose opinions you oppose. We should not only respect the rights of the opposing side, but go beyond respect, and demand that those rights be preserved for us all. I think I am not expressing myself well. I do not think that someone cannot or should not speak up on their view even if it is based on their personal faith. I do not want to silence anyone who says they are opposed or for something because they believe it because of their religion. But others may disagree as well based on their God and others may believe that you need more than God says so. So no I do not demand that we limit speech based on religion but in my opinion even if I have a religious view to persuade others I think I need more that stating my position is faith based only.
cdowis Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 2 hours ago, Teancum said: I think I am not expressing myself well. I do not think that someone cannot or should not speak up on their view even if it is based on their personal faith. I do not want to silence anyone who says they are opposed or for something because they believe it because of their religion. But others may disagree as well based on their God and others may believe that you need more than God says so. So no I do not demand that we limit speech based on religion but in my opinion even if I have a religious view to persuade others I think I need more that stating my position is faith based only. And I was hoping that we are in agreement on the place of religion and faith in the public discourse. Of course, if our position is prinarily based on faith, we should also be able to give logical and reasoned arguments to explain our views as well. In this forum I gave, for example, what I believed logical reasons to be opposed to SSM, with no mention of religion at all among those reasons. 1
Meadowchik Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 Just looking at it from the perspective of limits, perhaps one could say that the gospel in action and the church is only metaphorically true. (One way to picture this is a function as it approaches a limit in calculus but never actually 'touches" it.) Even if all the truth claims were proven, there is still that gap between reality and the ideal, wherein we rely on Christ's mediation in the next life to resolve. Or maybe I'm completely wrong, but those are some thoughts I've had.
rockpond Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: Just looking at it from the perspective of limits, perhaps one could say that the gospel in action and the church is only metaphorically true. (One way to picture this is a function as it approaches a limit in calculus but never actually 'touches" it.) Even if all the truth claims were proven, there is still that gap between reality and the ideal, wherein we rely on Christ's mediation in the next life to resolve. Or maybe I'm completely wrong, but those are some thoughts I've had. Nice analogy!
Jeanne Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 2 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Just looking at it from the perspective of limits, perhaps one could say that the gospel in action and the church is only metaphorically true. (One way to picture this is a function as it approaches a limit in calculus but never actually 'touches" it.) Even if all the truth claims were proven, there is still that gap between reality and the ideal, wherein we rely on Christ's mediation in the next life to resolve. Or maybe I'm completely wrong, but those are some thoughts I've had. That was well put and it makes sense in a lot of areas in life.
Recommended Posts