Jump to content

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

In my case the more accurate history wasn't hidden, it was just labeled "anti-mormon lies".  

You'd be surprised to find out how much you were missing by not looking past labels.

There is a whole world out there just waiting to be discovered.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

On hidden history, how about Widstoe editing quotes from Brigham Young for Discourses of Brigham Young. He took quotes that taught Adam-God, doctored them so they looked like they conform with current teachings, and then included them in Discourses?

 

That is a fairly good example of white washing.   Widtsoe edited quotes from the Journal of Discourses into a volume called the Discourses of Brigham Young.  The manuals used in my lifetime would often quote from Widtsoe's sanitized compilation rather than from the JoD.  

Edited by Oliver_Cowdery
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

It helps to put Elder Packer in context of his times. I think Elder Packer was called to the Twelve when Joseph Fielding Smith was president. Joseph Fielding Smith was the son of Joseph F. Smith, whose father, Hyrum Smith, was murdered at Carthage. Joseph F. was a young boy when he beheld his father, along with Joseph, laid out in their coffins. Later, in the Salt Lake valley, he would live through the Utah war, when the Fed gov't sent troops to put down the "Utah rebellion". Understandably the attitude he adopted was, "We are at war with our enemies, and we must not, we cannot, give so much as even an inch."

This was the attitude my father had, who worked for the church for most of his life. Of those who advocated "transparency", for example historians who wanted to write "warts and all" histories, my father used to say mockingly:

"Here, let me hold your coat for you while you punch me in the nose."

The idea was, we don't give our critics, our enemies, the ammunition they will later use to bloody our noses. It's the same attitude not only Elder Packer had but also J. Rueben Clark and others from that same time.

The attitude of church leaders now is changing. It's a different world, and we must adapt.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
13 hours ago, Nevo said:

I'm not sure what your definition of "available" is, but to this day BYU restricts access to Fawn Brodie's and Dan Vogel's biographies of Joseph Smith. You can't find them on the shelves or even in the non-circulating reference section. The only copies are squirreled away in Special Collections. To see them, you need to fill out a Reading Privilege Request form and provide photo identification. Approval is "limited to those who show scholarly intent." Assuming you clear all of these hurdles, you are only allowed to read the books in the reading room (after your phone and other personal belongings have been securely stowed in a locker). It's clear to me that BYU doesn't want to make these books readily available to students—otherwise they would just put them on the shelves and let people sign them out.

A poor job of keeping them hid.  Broadie's book is available for as little as ten dollars on the internet and Vogel's for fifty dollars.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

It helps to put Elder Packer in context of his times. I think Elder Packer was called to the Twelve when Joseph Fielding Smith was president. Joseph Fielding Smith was the son of Joseph F. Smith, whose father, Hyrum Smith, was murdered at Carthage. Joseph F. was a young boy when he beheld his father, along with Joseph, laid out in their coffins. Later, in the Salt Lake valley, he would live through the Utah war, when the Fed gov't sent troops to put down the "Utah rebellion". Understandably the attitude he adopted was, "We are at war with our enemies, and we must not, we cannot, give so much as even an inch."

This was the attitude my father had, who worked for the church for most of his life. Of those who advocated "transparency", for example historians who wanted to write "warts and all" histories, my father used to say mockingly:

"Here, let me hold your coat for you while you punch me in the nose."

The idea was, we don't give our critics, our enemies, the ammunition they will later use to bloody our noses. It's the same attitude not only Elder Packer had but also J. Rueben Clark and others from that same time.

The attitude of church leaders now is changing. It's a different world, and we must adapt.

that's pretty fair. But it's also fair to recognize many went through the Church at the same time and did come away with the we're at war mentality that Elder Packer did--not that your explanation doesn't fit at all.  it does and thus it is fair to point out. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Those words immoral, unethical and a liar are yours in this description.  I'm of the opinion that our leaders make mistakes.  And if there ever was a mistake it was this talk to CES instructors, if you ask me.

In his criticism of BKP's lawyer analogy, RFM, as a lawyer, says

Quote

I don't know if an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ breaches his ethics by not telling all the truth, but that's something that I'll leave for another day and for other people to decide.

ADA Jack McCoy: "Objection, your honor!"

RFM: "Withdrawn."

Quote

For a historian [or lawyer] it's a breach of [ethics, integrity, and morality] to not tell the truth, but apparently for BKP, and he presumes all the teachers he's talking to and the Church he represents, there's no breach of integrity or ethics or morality in being deceptive about Church history because that's the course of conduct he wants his listeners to follow.

 

Link to post

 

10 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You'd be surprised to find out how much you were missing by not looking past labels.

There is a whole world out there just waiting to be discovered.

You are absolutely right.  I have since discovered just how wrong I used to be.  I used to trust church leaders and sources. I no longer do.  Knowledge really is power.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Are you sure there are any speed limits posted at 90 miles per hour?  The few times I've been there it seems the posted limits were generally closer to 35, as I drove through town. 

:PEverybody out of the way when Jeanne goes to town!!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Last year I read "I, Claudius" by Robert Graves. It's a historical novel about the Roman emperor Claudius. In it there is a debate between two Roman historians, Livy and Pollio, about the proper way to tell Roman history. One says history should be strictly true, even if that makes it boring; the other says history must be re-worked, even re-imagined, so as to teach virtue and courage to future generations of Romans. The argument of course is never resolved, and this same argument is going on in the church today.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
15 minutes ago, cinepro said:

That's fine, but now you're explaining why they hid stuff, which is different than saying that they didn't hide stuff in the first place.

There are different kinds of truth. Is the Old Testament a true history? I guess it depends on what you mean by "true history". Is it a true factual history, true in the sense that we will find only the straight historical facts laid out like a corpse? No, I don't think so. (The same could be said of the BOM.)

I think the Old Testament writers were striving for another kind of truth. Does this make, say, the Book of Genesis, dishonest? Does this mean Moses was hiding things? I think what it means is that Moses had another purpose in mind than laying out the straight historical truth (if such a thing even exists, and it doesn't), just as the Roman historian I mentioned before had another purpose in the way he told Roman history i.e. he was interesting in molding the nation and teaching courage, hard work, and other virtues to future generations of Romans.

Edited by bdouglas
Link to post
42 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Radio Free Mormon (RFM) spends several minutes defining lying from the Gospel Principals manual chapter 31 which says may have been approved by BKP. Leaving out information is deceptive and "can be" lying. (I'm not sure there is that distinction.) RFM says he is trying to avoid calling BKP a liar, but makes the points that telling part of the truth is sinful, that BKP is involved in deceiving the Church and forcing CES to join him in the deception, and sarcastically notes that BKP does not refer to this chapter in his talk. The conclusion that he thinks BKP is a liar is unavoidable.

What's fair is fair, I say.  I don't see anything wrong with pointing out the definition of lying from that manual.  I remember teaching it and hearing it myself.  Elder Packer was preaching to the teachers to accept the notion that its okay to leave out information.  Let whoever conclude whatever he/she wants. 

42 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

BKP says if you are a CES teacher and tell the "whole truth and nothing but the truth" then you are serving the wrong master. RFM sarcastically twists that to say BKP is the master they should serve. BKP wants them to teach deceptive half-truths and inaccurate history and uses Orwellian double-speak to threaten them.

I have admit the speech was pretty terrible on these points and the podcaster did a pretty good job pointing out this weakness.  Why in the world would Packer advocate the notion that teaching whole truths is something that would get them in trouble with the divine?  that's just nuts, I'd say.  I'm at a loss as to why this is problematic to anyone.  THe speech was bad.  I wish Packer himself corrected it.  But he never did, probably because he never really got backlash. 

42 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

RFM says BKS apparently knows some temple covenants along the lines of being dishonest and deceptive. and that God is a being that deals in half truths.

I'm not sure I get your objection.  Here is Elder packer from his speech:

Quote

One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for “advanced history,” is himself in spiritual jeopardy. If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be accountable. After all of the tomorrows of mortality have been finished, he will not stand where he might have stood.

So if someone chooses the tenets of his profession is in spiritual jeopardy, and if that one is a member of the church that one has broken his/he convenatns....because he/she has followed the tenets of his/her profession? 

Quote

I recall a conversation with President Henry D. Moyle. We were driving back from Arizona and were talking about a man who destroyed the faith of young people from the vantage point of a teaching position. Someone asked President Moyle why this man was still a member of the Church when he did things like that. “He is not a member of the Church,” President Moyle answered firmly. Another replied that he had not heard of his excommunication. “He has excommunicated himself,” President Moyle responded. “He has cut himself off from the Spirit of God. Whether or not we get around to holding a court doesn’t matter that much; he has cut himself off from the Spirit of the Lord.”
 

Of course we don't have a clue about the details of this.  What did this man teach that destroyed the faith of young people?  Truth?  It's a good question that is posed in the podcast.  Cannot the Church withstand the scrutiny of truth?  All we get from this is no matter what is taught if it destroys someone's faith that teacher is excommunicated.  That's just disgusting, if you ask me. 

Quote

President Joseph Fielding Smith pointed out that it would be a foolish general who would give access to all of his intelligence to his enemy. It is neither expected nor necessary for us to accommodate those who seek to retrieve references from our sources, distort them, and use them against us. Suppose that a well-managed business corporation is threatened by takeover from another corporation. Suppose that the corporation bent on the takeover is determined to drain off all its assets and then dissolve this company. You can rest assured that the threatened company would hire legal counsel to protect itself. Can you imagine that attorney, under contract to protect the company having fixed in his mind that he must not really take sides, that he must be impartial? Suppose that when the records of the company he has been employed to protect are opened for him to prepare his brief he collects evidence and passes some of it to the attorneys of the enemy company. His own firm may then be in great jeopardy because of his disloyal conduct. Do you not recognize a breach of ethics, or integrity, or morality? I think you can see the point I am making. Those of you who are employed by the Church have a special responsibility to build faith, not destroy it. If you do not do that, but in fact accommodate the enemy, who is the destroyer of faith, you become in that sense a traitor to the cause you have made covenants to protect.
 

huh?  Now a teacher or historian telling the truth is compared to an attorney hired by a company to protect the company?  This is just silly.  it feels like nothing more than advocating the preaching of half-truths to me. 

42 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

RFM says by forcing them to lie to the Church, BKP restricts their agency. BKP's God is one who approves deception and restricts agency. BKP favors the God who restricts agency. BKP favors Satan's plan. 

RFM says he is broadcasting behind enemy lines. He makes it abundantly clear that he believes BKP is a General in the enemy's army.

Elder Packer is saying he's a general in the army in the talk--fighting against those who want to tell the whole story. Packer wants the enemy destroyed because they only want to tell the truth to get personal gain.  It's pretty appalling.  I don't fault the podcaster for pointing that out and then using over-the-top language and descriptions.  Sure it's over-the-top.  But to miss the notion that Packer's talk was terrible, over-the-top, and problematic particularly as it relates to openness and thoughtfulness is to miss the boat. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
16 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

There are different kinds of truth. Is the Old Testament a true history? I guess it depends on what you mean by "true history". Is it a true factual history, true in the sense that we will find only the straight historical facts laid out like a corpse? No, I don't think so. (The same could be said of the BOM.)

I think the Old Testament writers were striving for another kind of truth. Does this make, say, the Book of Genesis, dishonest? Does this mean Moses was hiding things? I think what it means is that Moses had another purpose in mind than laying out the straight historical truth (if such a thing even exists, and it doesn't), just as the Roman historian I mentioned before had another purpose in the way he told Roman history i.e. he was interesting in molding the nation and teaching courage, hard work, and other virtues to future generations of Romans.

But to use history to teach these lessons is withholding the whole story.  Might as well be honest that that's what you're doing.  History is a discipline these days.  The rules are be forthcoming and honest. 

Link to post
25 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

Last year I read "I, Claudius" by Robert Graves. It's a historical novel about the Roman emperor Claudius. In it there is a debate between two Roman historians, Livy and Pollio, about the proper way to tell Roman history. One says history should be strictly true, even if that makes it boring; the other says history must be re-worked, even re-imagined, so as to teach virtue and courage to future generations of Romans. The argument of course is never resolved, and this same argument is going on in the church today.

The same argument can be made about the history of anything.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What's fair is fair, I say.  I don't see anything wrong with pointing out the definition of lying from that manual.  I remember teaching it and hearing it myself.  Elder Packer was preaching to the teachers to accept the notion that its okay to leave out information.  Let whoever conclude whatever he/she wants. 

I have admit the speech was pretty terrible on these points and the podcaster did a pretty good job pointing out this weakness.  Why in the world would Packer advocate the notion that teaching whole truths is something that would get them in trouble with the divine?  that's just nuts, I'd say.  I'm at a loss as to why this is problematic to anyone.  THe speech was bad.  I wish Packer himself corrected it.  But he never did, probably because he never really got backlash. 

I'm not sure I get your objection.  Here is Elder packer from his speech:

So if someone chooses the tenets of his profession is in spiritual jeopardy, and if that one is a member of the church that one has broken his/he convenatns....because he/she has followed the tenets of his/her profession? 

Of course we don't have a clue about the details of this.  What did this man teach that destroyed the faith of young people?  Truth?  It's a good question that is posed in the podcast.  Cannot the Church withstand the scrutiny of truth?  All we get from this is no matter what is taught if it destroys someone's faith that teacher is excommunicated.  That's just disgusting, if you ask me. 

huh?  Now a teacher or historian telling the truth is compared to an attorney hired by a company to protect the company?  This is just silly.  it feels like nothing more than advocating the preaching of half-truths to me. 

Elder Packer is saying he's a general in the army in the talk--fighting against those who want to tell the whole story. Packer wants the enemy destroyed because they only want to tell the truth to get personal gain.  It's pretty appalling.  I don't fault the podcaster for pointing that out and then using over-the-top language and descriptions.  Sure it's over-the-top.  But to miss the notion that Packer's talk was terrible, over-the-top, and problematic particularly as it relates to openness and thoughtfulness is to miss the boat. 

That's all fine. It's one way to look at BKP's talk. There are other ways to understand it. As has been pointed out, BPK's effort, if we understand it as RFM and you say, was spectacularly unsuccessful.

On the other hand, my reporting of RFM's blog is accurate and not misleading, as per your accusation.

Link to post
4 hours ago, Duncan said:

The fact that we know about them and have done so for so long now tells me it ain't hidden, it's the minutes of the Council of 50

The point is that we just got them. So, obviously they weren't available until now meaning that they were hidden from the public. Is this about semantics? Could you just admit that the church hasnt been open about its history and that in the past it attacked those who brought out the unflattering history? Further, the church just excommunicated Mr. Runnells because he pointed out the troubling history.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That's all fine. It's one way to look at BKP's talk. There are other ways to understand it. As has been pointed out, BPK's effort, if we understand it as RFM and you say, was spectacularly unsuccessful.

On the other hand, my reporting of RFM's blog is accurate and not misleading, as per your accusation.

Let's just say, then, when I read your OP I felt mislead by what the podcast said.  Your subsequent explanations about the points raised did much better. 

Link to post
7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But to use history to teach these lessons is withholding the whole story.  Might as well be honest that that's what you're doing.  History is a discipline these days.  The rules are be forthcoming and honest. 

Is there any organization, church or otherwise, in the whole history of the world, who has not withheld the "whole story"? It seems to me that to expect such a thing from church leaders from a different generation (a generation barely removed from Carthage) is ... well, uncharitable (not to mention blind to context of the times). You are expecting something from them nobody else, no country, and certainly no church, has ever done: give the "whole story".

Does God give us everything, the "whole story"? — just dump it on us, willy nilly? Or does he portion it out, a little here and a little there, according to our capacity and understanding?

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
7 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Further, the church just excommunicated Mr. Runnells because he pointed out the troubling history.

The church excommunicated Jeremy Runnells because he is an enemy, plain and simple — an enemy, who in addition to seeking to destroy the church, is also seeking to profit i.e. earn a living from it. I know someone, personally, that Mr. Runnells sat down with and asked for money — so he could do his CES letter full time, make a regular job of it.

Edited by bdouglas
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Just now, bdouglas said:

Is there any organization, church or otherwise, in the whole history of the world, who has not withheld the "whole story"? It seems to me that to expect such a thing from church leaders from a different generation (a generation barely removed from Carthage) is ... well, uncharitable (not to mention blind to context of the times). You are expecting something from them nobody else, no country, and certainly no church, has ever done: give the "whole story".

Fair point. But to castigate the notion that finding the whole story, or teaching the whole truth is a whole other story.  Meaning, let me see if I can unpack this, no one should or could possibly expect all things be told in any given history.  Lines have to be drawn for any story or it'd go on forever.  But if an organization, or it's leaders, preach that some parts of its history or story should not be taught, well then it is advocated that some parts are left out.  If the same org condemns anyone who wishes to teach more or give more facts than what is advocated, that org is necessarily trying to hide or withhold information.  That's just how it is. 

I'm not sure how Elder Packer's preferred method is justifiably defended here on that basis.  The added problem with it is, sometimes the story is wrong--as Richard Bushman recently suggested, the dominant narrative (regarding the history of the Church) is wrong.  And to preach wrongness is just, well, wrong. 

Just now, bdouglas said:

Does God give us everything, the "whole story"? — just dump it on us, willy nilly? Or does he portion it out, a little here and a little there, according to our capacity and understanding?

I really wish that's how the Church did it as opposed to what she has done. 

Link to post
4 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

The church excommunicated Jeremy Runnells because he is an enemy, plain and simple — an enemy, who in addition to seeking to destroy the church, is also seeking to profit i.e. earn a living from it. I know someone, personally, that Mr. Runnells sat down with and asked for money — so he could do his CES letter full time, make a regular job of it.

I agree.  Runnels wasn't ex'd because he pointed out that which many of us already were familiar with. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Fair point. But to castigate the notion that finding the whole story, or teaching the whole truth is a whole other story.  Meaning, let me see if I can unpack this, no one should or could possibly expect all things be told in any given history.  Lines have to be drawn for any story or it'd go on forever.  But if an organization, or it's leaders, preach that some parts of its history or story should not be taught, well then it is advocated that some parts are left out.  If the same org condemns anyone who wishes to teach more or give more facts than what is advocated, that org is necessarily trying to hide or withhold information.  That's just how it is. 

I'm not sure how Elder Packer's preferred method is justifiably defended here on that basis.  The added problem with it is, sometimes the story is wrong--as Richard Bushman recently suggested, the dominant narrative (regarding the history of the Church) is wrong.  And to preach wrongness is just, well, wrong. 

I really wish that's how the Church did it as opposed to what she has done. 

You know, back in the day, I was never a big fan of Elder Packer — when I was a young man and he was still relatively young. I was too young to remember Leonard Arrington and "Camelot", but if I had been around then, I would have been sad to see him go. But as others have pointed in other threads, it was Leonard Arrington's vision which ultimately prevailed. The church history dept. was eventually revamped and real historians came on board. We are now getting more of the "whole story" (although this "whole story", for the most part, was always available), and I think overall it is a good thing.

So I say, let's give Elder Packer a pass. When I read his talk to CES people, and I read in context of the times (the 1970s?), I don't see anything that strikes me as ... I dunno ... devious or dishonest. It seems to me, given the time and context, to have been sound counsel and direction.

Edited by bdouglas
Link to post
17 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

The church excommunicated Jeremy Runnells because he is an enemy, plain and simple — an enemy, who in addition to seeking to destroy the church, is also seeking to profit i.e. earn a living from it. I know someone, personally, that Mr. Runnells sat down with and asked for money — so he could do his CES letter full time, make a regular job of it.

Why is making money so horrible for Runnells when the apostles, and seventies earn money from what they do?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Fair Dinkum
      While I'll assume no one in this board is unfamiliar with this subject, I'll still offer a short synopsis just in case. Back Story:  In 1985 the family of B.H. Roberts allowed a collection of his personal papers, still in the private hands of family members, to be published into book form.  The collection was published as "Studies of The Book of Mormon"
      In his papers were discovered notes of a special meeting that was held in early 1922 involving all member's of the First Presidency, The Quorum of the Twelve as well as the 7 Presidents of the Seventy, of which Robert's was a member.  Robert's had been given the assignment by Heber J. Grant to answer questions that had been sent in a letter to the church from a member seeking answers. 
      The questions were quite straight forward:
      when the Jews landed in the New World (600 B.C.) is not enough time to explain the diversity of native Indian languages. Horses were introduced to the Americas by the Spaniards, thus their appearance in the Book of Mormon is an anachronisms. The use of steel in the Book of Mormon is an anachronism. The use of scimitars (an arabian sword) in an anachronism. The use of silk was unknown to the Americas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_of_the_Book_of_Mormon
      Roberts concerns went unanswered by church authorities which caused him to try and resolve the difficulties himself.  The book represents his attempt to resolve those questions, he was unsuccessful in doing so. 
      Now a new master thesis has been written exploring secret meetings that took place following Robert's failed attempt to find satisfaction from his fellow church authorities.  Robert's formed this band of LDS intelligentsia in a further attempt to resolve his concerns and find answers to Book of Mormon problems.  While I've only just started to read it, this thesis is a fascinating behind the scenes look into the pre-correlation church.
      https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/6712
      Despite his failures to resolve his concerns, we owe much to Roberts attempt, for it was from many of these questions that much of today's apologetic theories of a limited footprint, duel Cumorah's and acknowledgement of a pre-populated Asian immigrant America, to name just a few, have emerged.  Since the emergence of the internet, modern day apologetics has completely re-framed how the Book of Mormon is viewed from how it was interpreted in 1922. The problem is that much of the church still views the book in much the same way as it was seen in 1922.
      Mormon historians have debated whether the manuscript/book reflects Roberts's doubts or was a case of his playing a devils advocate. One interesting fact remains, per his instructions, his headstone has a Christian Cross on it, which was even unusual for that time and even more so for a former General Authority of the Church.
       
    • By blueglass
      Here is the 2019 end of year seminary assessment my kids received yesterday. Would love to hear your thoughts on the questions, the probable answers, and the doctrine taught.  Don't forget the last 4 questions pertaining to the Explain Doctrine section.  
      https://ibb.co/Dfz4JNr
      Read instructions before you start the test:
      Exam code: 8
      If you have difficulty taking the learning assessment in the traditional way, please talk with your teacher to figure out the best way to help you succeed.
      Use a no. 2 or HB pencil. Indicate your response by completely filling in the bubble on your answer sheet.
      Section name: Multiple Choice
        1.  Who will receive a place in a kingdom of glory? (1 mark)
      a) Every individual born into mortality
      b) All of God's children except the sons of perdition
      c) Only individuals who are worthy of exaltation
        2. Which of the following is a specific responsibility mentioned in the oath and covenant of the priesthood? (1 mar)
      a) To magnify their callings
      b) To pay a generous fast offering
      c) To not be idle
        3. Because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, in the Resurrection all individuals will receive ____ (1 mark)
      a) at least a terrestrial glory
      b) celestial glory
      c) glory according to the law they obeyed
        4. Which of the following blessings does God offer to those who keep the Word of Wisdom? (1 mark)
      a) They will not be burned at the Second Coming.
      b) Their bodies will be protected from all illness.
      c) They will receive wisdom and great treasures of knowledge.
        5. To be endowed in the temple means to receive ____ (1 mark)
      a) a guarantee of eternal life
      b) spiritual power and knowledge
      c) unique physical gifts from the Lord
        6. What does the existence of the precious truths in the Pearl of Great Pric teach us about the Prophet Joseph Smith? (1 mark)
      a) He no longer needed the power of God to help him translate.
      b) He was a prophet, seer, and revelator.
      c) He is the only prophet of this dispensation that can receive new scripture.
        7. As watchmen on the tower, modern prophets have a responsibility to ____ (1 mark)
      a) warn us of coming dangers
      b) stop Satan from tempting members of the Church
      c) change truth to fit modern times
        8. What is a bishop's or branch president's main responsibility when a teenager confesses sin to him? (1 mark)
      a) To prevent the person from being part of the Church
      b) To help the person receive forgiveness of the sins and regain peace of mind
      c) To inflict severe consequences and punishments from sinning
        9. Who visited the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple to restore priesthood keys? (1 mark)
      a) Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Malachi
      b) Moses, Elias, and Elijah
      c) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
        10. According to the Doctrine and Covenants, what are tithing funds used for? (1 mark)
      a) They are the main fund the Church uses to support the poor and the needy.
      b) They are used to build temples and to accomplish the work of the Lord.
      c) They are used to pay ward and branch members for serving in the Church.
        11. While the Prophet Joseph Smith was falsely imprisoned in Liberty Jail, the Lord taught him that adversity and affliction
      (1 mark)
      a) will not occur if we trust in God
      b) are always a consequence of our poor choices
      c) can give us experience and be for our good
        12. Which of the following is a true statement about Relief Society? (1 mark)
      a) It was divinely organized to assist in the work of salvation.
      b) It was established during the trek west to help Saints who were suffering.
      c) It did not exist during the lifetime of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
        13. A man and a woman will receive eternal life and glory if _____ (1 mark)
      a) they love each other more than they love themselves
      b) they keep the new and everlasting covenant of marriage they made in the temple
      c) they are married in the temple
        14. Why do our ancestors who die without having a knowledge of the gospel need us to perform ordinances for them in the temple?
      a) Without these ordinances, our ancestors cannot progress toward eternal life. (1 mark)
      b) Without these ordinances, our ancestors cannot be saved in any kingdom of glory.
      c} Without these ordinances, our ancestors will not be resurrected.
        15. Marriage between one man and one woman is the Lord's standing law. Wen is the only time plural marriage is justified?
      a) Wen there are more women than men in the Church (1 mark)
      b) Whenever local laws and traditions allow members to practice it without breaking the law
      c) When the Lord authorizes it through the priesthood keys given to the President of the Church
        16. When the President of the Church dies, which quorum becomes the presiding quorum of the Church? (1 mark)
      a) The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
      b) The Quorum of the First Presidency
      c) The Presiding Bishopric
        17. Which of the following shows the correct chronological order (first to last) of places the Saints were told to gather to? (1 mark}
      a) A stake in their homeland; Nauvoo, Illinois; Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Salt Lake City, Utah
      b) Nauvoo, Illinois; Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Salt Lake City, Utah; a stake in their homeland
      c) Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Nauvoo, Illinois; Salt Lake City, Utah; a stake in their homeland
        18. After the Savior visited the spirit world, what did righteous spirits there begin to do?
      a} They were all resurrected and began entering the highest kingdom of glory.
      b) They began performing ordinances for those who had not received them.
      c) They began teaching the gospel to those in spirit prison.
      (1 mark)
        19. According to Official Declaration 2, the Lord revealed that all worthy male Church members may ___ _ (1 mark)
      a) receive the ordinance of baptism
      b) serve a mission at age 18
      c) receive the priesthood and enjoy temple blessings
        20. What principle is emphasized in Doctrine and Covenants 121:36, 41-2? (1 mark)
      a) Priesthood holders can draw upon the powers of heaven only if they live righteously.
      b) lf we actively seek to learn through study and faith, our faith in Jesus Christ will increase.
      c) If we obey the Lord, He will always keep His promises to bless us.
        21. Which of the following accurately describes Heavenly Father? (1 mark)
      a) He is without feelings or emotions.
      b) He is a personage of Spirit and can dwell in us.
      c) He has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's.
        22. Which of the following is a requirement for receiving exaltation in the celestial kingdom? (1 mark)
      a) Bearing testimony of the Savior is all that is needed.
      b) Receiving a patriarchal blessing
      c) Receiving and being valiant in the testimony of Jesus Christ
        23. Of the following groups, who will inherit the celestial kingdom? (1 mark)
      a) All children who die before they reach the age of accountability
      b) All members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
      c) All individuals who have been baptized
        24. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "God doesn't care how marriage is defined"? (1 mark)
      a) Ever individual born into morality is a child of God, and God loves each of us.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God changes truth to meet the circumstances and needs of His children.
        25. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "It isn't as important for couples to have children today as it used to
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      c) God's commandment fr husbands and wives to have children remains in force today.
        26. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "As long as two individuals love each other, physical intimacy is
      acceptable"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
        27. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "As governments continue to redefine marriage, God's definition of
      marriage will change to reflect the values of modern society"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      b) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      c) Changes in the civil law do not change the moral law that God has established.
        28. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "The only purpose of marriage is for adults to find fulfillment and
      happiness"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      Section name: Explain Doctrine _
      Instructions: Write your answer on a piece of paper. Compare your response with the correct answer received from your teacher. After self-grading the explain-doctrine question, bubble in your answer sheet.
      Self-grade your answer for each question:
      a. Yes, I explained this in my response.
      b. No, I left this out of my response.
        29. What is an example of a truth that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why the truth you chose can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        30. What is an example of an ordinance that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why the ordinance you chose can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        31. What is an example of priesthood authority that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why this authority of the priesthood can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        32. Share your personal thoughts on the importance of the Prophet Joseph Smith. (1 mark)
    • By blueglass
      Really impressed with Kate Holbrook's interview with Terryl Givens.  She's thoughtful, candid, and inspiring as she speaks about her persistence to get a PhD and work full time for the church as a manger of church history.  She's working on a project with Lisa Tate on the history of the young women's organization.  
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2G7k1ggz7k&feature=em-uploademail
      One thing I caught that I hadn't heard before was when Terryl asks her about whether she felt a sense of loss and a sense of jubilation when studying the history of the RS.  Joseph envisioned a more collaborative relationship with the male priesthood, more autonomy, abundance of spiritual gifts, authority to administer ordinances including healing by the laying of hands.  Kate responds that she understands the hyperfocus on this time period, but she feels there is a lost opportunity in recognizing the accomplishments of the women of the 20th century - she then backtracks a bit and says:
      "I don't want to say that their isn't a difference, between - a time when a woman was able to say I have this terrific idea she's say the General RS president and she goes and talks to the president of the church about it.  That is certainly different than now, when she goes and talks to someone in the presiding bishopric, and it has to go through several levels to even get to the president.  There is a loss, and there is a difference."
      I had no idea that the General RS president did not have direct access to the quorum of the 12, and first presidency?  Why in 3 heavens does the general RS president still have such an auxiliary level of access to the presiding apostolic quorum, access to financial influence through Pres Bishopric perhaps, but no real budget to work with?  No seat on the correlation committee?  
      Kate has a great story about how Ardeth Greene Kapp (General YW president 84-92') while receiving a downpour of revelation would use innovative, clever ways and technology to push the ideas upward through the hierarchy.  
    • By FearlessFixxer
      http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2017/11/26/commentary-the-gaslighting-within-mormonism-must-stop/
    • By canard78
      Elder Maynes CES devotional went into extensive detail on the first vision accounts last night. 
      Starts at 35:20:
      https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/the-truth-restored?lang=eng&_r=1
      I'm delighted that the essays and these topics are gradually becoming more mainstream. My mum (a primary president) even plans to use parts of the vision essay in sharing time this month (it's the "truth restored" section of the manual). I'll share this talk and article with her too as it's got some useful suggestions.
      A couple of questions: 
      - He said Joseph "wrote or dictated" the four accounts. Is that the best description of how the official account was written? I'll have to look up the Bushman reference I'm thinking of as I seem to remember him saying somewhere that the official version was a bit more of a co-creation or collaboration with Rigdon. I might be misremembering that so will try to check it.
      - He also says that it's the best documented vision in history. I wondered what the other contenders would be. 
      Any other thoughts?
×
×
  • Create New...