Dissing Boyd K. Packer

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm not looking for a fight, but I have defined the questions in my posts and provided specific quotes from the podcast. RFM does not name Mormon historians in the audience, but he does assert that Arrington was BKP's target. Specifically, he makes the charge the BKP was immoral and unethical because he did not instruct the CES employees to "tell the truth, tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]

https://www.lds.org/music/library/hymns/oh-say-what-is-truth?lang=eng

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I've heard variations on that aphorism, but until I heard yours, I hadn't heard "pound the table" included.  I give whomever came up with that variation credit for cleverness.  I suppose you're free to dismiss any of the arguments I make here (or anywhere else, for that matter) as mere "table pounding."  I wouldn't necessarily make the sort of arguments in an apologetic forum that I would make in a legal forum (or vice-versa).  As much as I might think "thinking like a lawyer" is a useful analytical approach in many situations (and not simply confined to legal contexts), I'm flexible enough to use different paradigms in different fora.  

Faith ain't easy, especially not in a society (or societies: this is a worldwide Board) in which a creeping secularism is becoming the order of the day and faith is falling increasingly out of favor, being seen as tres passé or pasado de moda.  It requires a good bit of nuanced thinking to maintain faith, whether one is a Latter-day Saint or whether one is an adherent of some other faith tradition, and whether one is attempting to make room for faith amid unanswered questions about Joseph Smith's polyandry or amid the more general, "terrible" questions such as why bad things happen to good people, why God permits evil generally, and so on.  In light of that, I simply have to laugh at people (and I hasten to add that I'm not including you in this group) who say I'm simply using faith as a "crutch" or, as a member of the masses which Karl Marx so derided, an "opiate."

While I think that to take Jeremy Runnells' approach to being a Latter-day Saint is to miss the beauty of the forest for all of the trees getting in the way, I don't think anyone can be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and can have a halfway functioning brain and not have questions about certain things, but I'm not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ because I've had all of my questions answered or because it otherwise makes my life hunky-dory: I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ because it fills my soul and makes me happy.  If that makes me a "table-pounding apologist," I plead guilty, Your Honor.  You may impose whatever sentence you believe best fits my crime immediately, and I will cheerfully acquiesce to it.   

I wish one could be LDS and not have to believe it to be the only truest church, why do we need that? I agree that the church can fill souls and make so many happy, but believe the church should never have secrets. The Lord is an open book IMO. The church should allow for scrutiny and then those that see it's faults can feel a little better about their own faults. I think the church should just claim that it can be a path to Christ/God. Not have to be the authority on everything, let that be God's honor only.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Tacenda

[Marmonboy]

This entire discussion reminds me of the old saying,"milk before meat." Is the Church dishonest because it serves up generous helpings of milk, while keeping the meat in the pantry for those who are able to digest it? The meat is there, everyone knows it is, but just because it's not on the table where the little ones can choke on it does not make the Church bad. Anybody who wants a steak can have one, but they need to wait until they are mature enough to eat a whole one.

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

This entire discussion reminds me of the old saying,"milk before meat." Is the Church dishonest because it serves up generous helpings of milk, while keeping the meat in the pantry for those who are able to digest it? The meat is there, everyone knows it is, but just because it's not on the table where the little ones can choke on it does not make the Church bad. Anybody who wants a steak can have one, but they need to wait until they are mature enough to eat a whole one.

If milk before meat was meant to refer to the events of history you'd have a point. 

[Kevin Christensen]

18 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Where is Mr. Runnells not being truthful? You know a lot of what used to be considered anti-mormon lies in the past like joseph smith's money digging, multiple first vision accounts, or use of the seer stone in the book of mormon translation are now admitted in the church essays and elsewhere.

You could look here:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/eye-of-the-beholder-law-of-the-harvest-observations-on-the-inevitable-consequences-of-the-different-investigative-approaches-of-jeremy-runnells-and-jeff-lindsay/#more-5242

and

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/image-is-everything-pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain/

for my responses.

Or here for comprehensive responses from FAIR Mormon:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director

There are several very well informed people who have responded to Runnells.

Joseph's Money Digging is mentioned in the Joseph Smith 1838 History and canonized in the Pearl of Great Price. And it has been the subject of many articles and books since the mid 80s. The multiple First Vision accounts have been published in BYU Studies, and discussed in The Improvement Era in 1970, and several times since, as well as Bachman's First Vision, and several other books readily available from Deseret Book and elsewhere and many essays.  I'm 62 years old and I can't remember when I didn't know about seer stones. 

The important thing about being scandalized by such things, is the sense of entitlement based on the premise that my teachers and manuals all ought to know everything and they are responsible to give me everything without any effort on my part.  I've not scandalized because I don't expect everything to be given to me, and I do not assume that my teachers know everything.  But I have found seeking out of the best books to be continually rewarding.  And I have noticed that which books are the best changes over time.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

This entire discussion reminds me of the old saying,"milk before meat." Is the Church dishonest because it serves up generous helpings of milk, while keeping the meat in the pantry for those who are able to digest it? The meat is there, everyone knows it is, but just because it's not on the table where the little ones can choke on it does not make the Church bad. Anybody who wants a steak can have one, but they need to wait until they are mature enough to eat a whole one.

Yes, because those that find out about the meat and don't agree, have wasted their life in believing only part of the equation and making covenants based on only a slice of the cheese pizza. The meat portion may not satisfy the partaker, in fact they might be allergic and cannot digest a totally different gospel/meat then they knew growing up. (Please forgive the weird food analogy, I didn't start it the church did. ) In fact the church didn't disclose the full meaning of the temple upfront, and temple goers made covenants under that lack of knowledge. No one tells you what you are promising to do in the temple and the end being that you are to climb the ladder to becoming Gods and Goddesses. That's left out. IMO, when someone forks over thousands of dollars to the church, and the church uses the money in a way that doesn't seem to be condusive to doing what God probably wants, it's hard to swallow. But I love so much of the church still. 

[Jeanne]

24 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

This entire discussion reminds me of the old saying,"milk before meat." Is the Church dishonest because it serves up generous helpings of milk, while keeping the meat in the pantry for those who are able to digest it? The meat is there, everyone knows it is, but just because it's not on the table where the little ones can choke on it does not make the Church bad. Anybody who wants a steak can have one, but they need to wait until they are mature enough to eat a whole one.

But why wait until the meat is spoiled??

[cdowis]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm not looking for a fight, but I have defined the questions in my posts and provided specific quotes from the podcast. RFM does not name Mormon historians in the audience, but he does assert that Arrington was BKP's target.

He is mistaken, but he's entitled to his opinion.
I myself am not convinced that there is a "target".   There is no hidden agenda, no "coded message", but  it is as simple as telling the TEACHERS (the members of this audience)  that they have a duty to their students, at the level they are teaching them, to give them history in such a way to avoid putting doubts into their minds over difficult issues.  He is saying that it is their responsibility, it is their JOB as a teacher to their students to support and strengthen their faith.  There are advanced classes that deal with such issues. 

He was expressing his concern on what is being taught to our youth, and, as an apostle of the Lord, that is his job.

Specifically, he makes the charge the BKP was immoral and unethical because he did not instruct the CES employees to "tell the truth, tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

He is getting hysterical in his accusations and assertions  Should we start in Primary to tell the full, the whole truth?  Should the Baptists teach their Primary kids that the Baptist church preached the Curse of Cain doctrine and justified slavery and segregation?  How about in the elementary school to teach the "full truth" about its history?  The details of the Mountain Meadows Massacre to our youth in early morning seminary?  YES BECAUSE IT IS "IMMORAL" TO WITHHOLD THIS INFORMATION.

 

 

Edited October 31, 2016 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, cdowis said:

 

Maybe not Primary children, how about in the temple classes? Or anyone that is preparing to be endowed, is that old enough????

[ALarson]

 

12 minutes ago, cdowis said:

He is getting hysterical in his accusations and assertions  Should we start in Primary to tell the full, the whole truth?  Should the Baptists teach their Primary kids that the Baptist church preached the Curse of Cain doctrine and justified slavery and segregation?  How about in the elementary school to teach the "full truth" about its history?  The details of the Mountain Meadows Massacre to our youth in early morning seminary?  YES BECAUSE IT IS "IMMORAL" TO WITHHOLD THIS INFORMATION.

Sounds like you're a bit hysterical yourself over this

How about we just be honest here and admit that the church leaders really did not want (and still don't really want) many of the difficult or disturbing details being taught to church members regarding church history. There are numerous stories about how Pres. Packer was one who really pushed to keep these details out of publications, etc.  It's easy to understand why this was done and still continues to this day (try bringing up the topic of polygamy in a gospel doctrine class, for example)  The leaders have been forced to be more open and honest (essays are a good example) and this is progress and openness good.

But I don't believe Packer should be made to be a villain or talked about how it appears he is in this podcast (I haven't listened to it, just going from what's been reported here).  It seems he was passionate about it, but I don't believe he was immoral.

.

Edited October 31, 2016 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

Sounds like you're a bit hysterical yourself over this

How about we just be honest here and admit that the church leaders really did not want (and still don't really want) many of the difficult or disturbing details being taught to church members regarding church history. There are numerous stories about how Pres. Packer was one who really pushed to keep these details out of publications, etc.  It's easy to understand why this was done and still continues to this day (try bringing up the topic of polygamy in a gospel doctrine class, for example)  The leaders have been forced to be more open and honest (essays are a good example) and this is progress and openness good.

But I don't believe Packer should be made to be a villain or talked about how it appears he is in this podcast (I haven't listened to it, just going from what's been reported here).  It seems he was passionate about it, but I don't believe he was immoral.

.

It kind of rubs me wrong when these leaders appear to be worried over faith crisis from this information, such as Joseph F. Smith cutting out the actual first written vision by JS. It seems as if they aren't sure the church is true themselves, or why would they try to keep it from public view. It shouldn't be so scary if the church is true. Usually you hear stories of converts that convert over unusual religious beliefs sometimes. Something a little more than what is on the average Christian's plate. 

[cdowis]

43 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe not Primary children, how about in the temple classes? Or anyone that is preparing to be endowed, is that old enough????

Gospel Essentials class, for our newly baptized members.  There should be a whole chapter in "Preach My Gospel" manual, to be taught to investigators just after the section on the Book of Mormon.

A Family Home Evening lesson.

But, seriously, it really belongs in Primary where the children can draw pictures on what happened.  Our critic demands realistic pictures, so the Primary manual will have realistic pictures to show the children.

We can re-create the massacre at our Halloween party.  The scouts can pretend to dig the graves.  It boggles the imagination.

 

Edited October 31, 2016 by cdowis

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Gospel Essentials class, for our newly baptized members.  There should be a whole chapter in "Preach My Gospel" manual, to be taught to investigators just after the section on the Book of Mormon.

But, seriously, it really belongs in Primary where the children can draw pictures on what happened.  Our critic demands realistic pictures, so the Primary manual will have realistic pictures to show the children.

We can re-create the massacre at our Halloween party.

You are being way sarcastic here don't you think?  See..just change the pics in Primary...mention the stone and hat...

When a young girl is in late primary or Beehive...for heaven sakes..let her learn about the other wives..yes...their talents and what not..they can handle it.  If it is the truth ..their agency is to believe or not.  If they are old enough to get married..(my sarcasm) they are old enough to know.  I pleaded for my Bishop to get me into a class that would teach important truths of the Temple and it's commitments...hey, I was 47 years old!! 

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

You are being way sarcastic here don't you think?  See..just change the pics in Primary...mention the stone and hat...

When a young girl is in late primary or Beehive...for heaven sakes..let her learn about the other wives..yes...their talents and what not..they can handle it.  If it is the truth ..their agency is to believe or not.  If they are old enough to get married..(my sarcasm) they are old enough to know.  I pleaded for my Bishop to get me into a class that would teach important truths of the Temple and it's commitments...hey, I was 47 years old!! 

Important truths that probably only half or less know or believe in the church. I'll bet JLHPROF will agree, not everyone is on board with the idea that men and women will be as the Gods. And I'm sure he'd agree that it must be taught that polygamy is part of that plan. Let's just be honest that our church believes that we are striving to be as perfect as God, and even be a God/Goddess. Or if we don't choose that path, we can go to a lower kingdom. And not live with God. That is the crux, or it was for me. That the CK is the only place God dwells, so if I choose otherwise I can't live with Him. 

But glad to know the Jesus Christ visits the other kingdom or kingdoms, don't know for sure. 

Edited October 31, 2016 by Tacenda

[cdowis]

22 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

You are being way sarcastic here don't you think?  See..just change the pics in Primary...mention the stone and hat...

"the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth"  It is unethical, dishonest to talk about early church history, not just the pioneers  and the settling of Deseret without giving "the whole truth" including, as you say, realistic pictures.

This has nothing to do with humor, sarcasm, this has to do with following the demands of a critic of the church.  I think the church has chose wisely in what and how it teaches, so let's unmask this critic and show him for what he is (or her).  I am showing the realistic picture of where this individual wants to lead us.

Not sarcasm, but an unmasking and a warning.  Again, all of this information is available, but it is simply not taught except at the advanced levels of learning to mature students who would be knowledgeable of the doctrinal and historical context.

Finally, I'm not opposed to these suggestions for certain topics.  Why not tell about the stone and the hat, and there are already pictures, but it is self-evident that a detailed discussion of polygamy, which is forbidden in the church, would be inappropriate.  

Edited October 31, 2016 by cdowis

[ALarson]

56 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Gospel Essentials class, for our newly baptized members.  There should be a whole chapter in "Preach My Gospel" manual, to be taught to investigators just after the section on the Book of Mormon.

A Family Home Evening lesson.

But, seriously, it really belongs in Primary where the children can draw pictures on what happened.  Our critic demands realistic pictures, so the Primary manual will have realistic pictures to show the children

 

I liked this part of your post (above) and I actually think there are some good suggestions there.

But then I read the rest of your post (below) and realized you weren't serious 

56 minutes ago, cdowis said:

We can re-create the massacre at our Halloween party.  The scouts can pretend to dig the graves.  It boggles the imagination.

You really do pull out all of the old apologetic tactics, don't you?   I've got to say, it gets old and it's very difficult to have an honest discussion with you.

.

Edited October 31, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, cdowis said:

"the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth"

Yup.  That's pretty much what the leaders expect of the members (have you ever read the threads about temple recommend interviews here, for example?).

Do you expect less from our leaders?

Edited October 31, 2016 by ALarson

[cinepro]

On 10/29/2016 at 6:36 PM, VideoGameJunkie said:

Whats bad is pastor Joel Osteen who owns a $10.6 million mansion and makes $40 million a year from his church and tens of millions more from his books which he promotes during sermons.

Why is that bad?  I've seen the televangelists who use high pressure techniques to get people to send in money, but I haven' head accusations of the Osteen's doing that.  From what I can tell, he's a really nice, positive guy and people really want to support his efforts and buy his books.  I don't think he even tells people they need to donate money to him in order to go to heaven or anything like that.

According to this video, he doesn't take a salary from the ministry, it's mostly "books" and things like that.  I wonder if he even takes a "living allowance"?

 

 

Edited October 31, 2016 by cinepro

[VideoGameJunkie]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

I think you may have the link wrong.  Who is the debunker?

Sorry, here's a better link. The pdf version is clickable at the bottom of the page. http://debunking-cesletter.com/

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

 

I think we are basically on the same page.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

When the Church publishes my life history, I hope they include the detail that in 1964 I impetuously stole an article of clothing from the local men's store. 

Or that day in (fill in the blank) when I (fill in the blank).

 

Edited October 31, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Important truths that probably only half or less know or believe in the church. I'll bet JLHPROF will agree, not everyone is on board with the idea that men and women will be as the Gods. And I'm sure he'd agree that it must be taught that polygamy is part of that plan. Let's just be honest that our church believes that we are striving to be as perfect as God, and even be a God/Goddess. Or if we don't choose that path, we can go to a lower kingdom. And not live with God. That is the crux, or it was for me. That the CK is the only place God dwells, so if I choose otherwise I can't live with Him. 

But glad to know the Jesus Christ visits the other kingdom or kingdoms, don't know for sure. 

You seem to have a very distorted view on what the church teaches.  Might I suggest taking the missionary discussions over again?  I find it very useful myself to get in touch with the basic doctrines of the church.  

I am currently serving as a ward missionary and it teaching exaltation is part of the missionary lessons.  It is part of the gospel essentials class. (I have taught it)

Perfection (as commanded by Christ in the new testament) is only available through the atonement of Christ, not by striving (we just had a lesson on that last Sunday, from the stake president, no less).

These are basic principles.

It almost seems you are getting your information on what we believe from someone outside the church.  

 

[ALarson]

26 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

When the Church publishes my life history, I hope they include the detail that in 1964 I impetuously stole an article of clothing from the local men's store. 

Or that day in (fill in the blank) when I (fill in the blank).

Not quite the same, but I'm sure you know that.  Good tactic though  

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You seem to have a very distorted view on what the church teaches.  Might I suggest taking the missionary discussions over again?  I find it very useful myself to get in touch with the basic doctrines of the church.  

I am currently serving as a ward missionary and it teaching exaltation is part of the missionary lessons.  It is part of the gospel essentials class. (I have taught it)

Perfection (as commanded by Christ in the new testament) is only available through the atonement of Christ, not by striving (we just had a lesson on that last Sunday, from the stake president, no less).

These are basic principles.

It almost seems you are getting your information on what we believe from someone outside the church.  

 

Exaltation to me never meant be a God I guess. I've really been a dummy all my Mormon life, I've never had missionary discussions, maybe I should have the missionary discussions because I'd like to ask them what exaltation means.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101#C13

Do Latter-day Saints believe they can become “gods”?

Latter-day Saints believe that God wants us to become like Him. But this teaching is often misrepresented by those who caricature the faith. The Latter-day Saint belief is no different than the biblical teaching, which states, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17). Through following Christ's teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

Partakers or actual Gods?

[VideoGameJunkie]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Why is that bad?  I've seen the televangelists who use high pressure techniques to get people to send in money, but I haven' head accusations of the Osteen's doing that.  From what I can tell, he's a really nice, positive guy and people really want to support his efforts and buy his books.  I don't think he even tells people they need to donate money to him in order to go to heaven or anything like that.

According to this video, he doesn't take a salary from the ministry, it's mostly "books" and things like that.  I wonder if he even takes a "living allowance"?

 

 

There's a problem in a church when the pastor is the richest member of the congregation twenty times over.