Jump to content

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I agree with you.  When it takes ten to fifteen pages to respond to why JS married other men's wives or why the BofA is not really a translation like JS said it was, you are going to loose people.  This situation is not helped at all by the fact that there are multiple apologists theories for each of these issues.  I think most people are use to the truth much less convoluted than that.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're dissembling if you think that's an appropriate restatement of what I said.  I doubt you'll be shocked to learn that I believe there's an unbridgeable chasm between what I actually said and your gloss on what I said which, alas, makes any supposed "agreement" between us moot.  (And, by the way, "loose" and "lose" are not synonyms.  They're not even the homophones which so often trip people up.  You should really be mindful of the difference, so as to not seem unintelligent.  I don't think you are, but people are going to judge you by the words you (mis)use, and if they wish, and fair or not, since we all have limited time and other resources, they're entitled to dismiss your opinion [whatever its other perceived merits] on that basis alone.)  While we're at it, the same principle also applies to your use of the word "use" for "used."

While you would not be alone (and, in fact, frankly, would be in good company, if that's the company you wish to keep) if you believe that God should explain Himself to you (or to anyone else) in every particular, or that everything He does (or that he asks us to do) should make complete and total sense to the mortal, finite mind, God seldom, if ever, works that way.  (Cf. Isaiah 55:8-9, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Moses 5:6-8, 1 Samuel 15:22, seemingly ad infinitum).  Since God has not seen fit to explain Himself in every particular, I believe we humans, the foregoing limitations notwithstanding, are free to provide the best contextualization and explanation for those things that we can so as to make room for belief in those who are so inclined.  In fact, not only are we free to do so, it's incumbent upon us to do so.  As Farrer said, "While argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief.  What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned."

Because each of us sees things (especially the past) not as they are, but, rather, as he is, there are apt to be multiple explanations for seemingly troubling issues rather than a single one.  As frustrating or puzzling as it might be to some (or to many), that state of affairs is inevitable: it simply is part and parcel of the human condition of "see[ing] through a glass, darkly" (1 Corinthians 13:12). And in the end, (to borrow and slightly alter the title of a book by Hyrum W. Smith), while questions are inevitable, doubt (on the one hand) and faith (on the other) are choices.  (Not that it matters, but, for the record, Bro. Smith's book is Pain is Inevitable, Misery is Optional.)

Please don't mistake my forthrightness for hostility in any form.  It is not.  Our disagreement notwithstanding, I wish you well. :) 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Ken used the wrong word! :-O
  • Upvote 2
Link to post

Apostles who have clear unambiguous opinions are always targets by those who for one reason or another feel disenfranchised, especially when their own opinions are viewed as with scptisim or "taken with a grain of salt". Their ego's cause them to view themselves as authorities on every topic, and attack any whom others look to as the real authorities. General Authorities whose sermons are always "milk and honey", seldom come under attack, as their comments are seldom threatening to the views of others. But for those who set themselves up (in their minds) as the final word, will launch their attacks from whatever platform they have, "podcast" or just the "cheap seats", they are therefore left only to "kick against the pricks"...of course "pricks" have a dual or different meaning.

in the world in which we live, and the evils that the world seeks to make normal, anyone speaking truth with any amount of conviction will be the target of many, if not most. I once had a good friend and Bishop, with whom I served in the Bishopric say that, "I don't like being controversial"...I reminded him that nothing is more controversial than truth...NOTHING! 

Link to post

I would want to know the hard truth over a comfortable lie because I want to know what's real, but after reading the CES letter a few times I don't believe the information and don't trust the method and way it was done. It seems like anti Mormon lies who takes any negative information he's heard and tries to make things stick. I don't believe what's in the letter as truth.

Link to post
4 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Apostles who have clear unambiguous opinions are always targets by those who for one reason or another feel disenfranchised, especially when their own opinions are viewed as with scptisim or "taken with a grain of salt". Their ego's cause them to view themselves as authorities on every topic, and attack any whom others look to as the real authorities. General Authorities whose sermons are always "milk and honey", seldom come under attack, as their comments are seldom threatening to the views of others. But for those who set themselves up (in their minds) as the final word, will launch their attacks from whatever platform they have, "podcast" or just the "cheap seats", they are therefore left only to "kick against the pricks"...of course "pricks" have a dual or different meaning.

in the world in which we live, and the evils that the world seeks to make normal, anyone speaking truth with any amount of conviction will be the target of many, if not most. I once had a good friend and Bishop, with whom I served in the Bishopric say that, "I don't like being controversial"...I reminded him that nothing is more controversial than truth...NOTHING! 

Nothing is more controversial than the truth? Telling the truth is precisely what Packer wanted ces employees to avoid when inconvenient to the cause. In essence Packer condoned "lying for the lord" if useful. Unfortuneately for the cause, the "lying for the lord," hiding history, or whatever you call it has caused a lot of people to leave.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
36 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I would want to know the hard truth over a comfortable lie because I want to know what's real, but after reading the CES letter a few times I don't believe the information and don't trust the method and way it was done. It seems like anti Mormon lies who takes any negative information he's heard and tries to make things stick. I don't believe what's in the letter as truth.

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.

Link to post
59 minutes 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.

The way Jeremy presents it feels false and spoken in a negative hateful tone. it doesn't bear good fruit. Feels false so I don't believe it. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

Nothing is more controversial than the truth? Telling the truth is precisely what Packer wanted ces employees to avoid when inconvenient to the cause. In essence Packer condoned "lying for the lord" if useful. Unfortuneately for the cause, the "lying for the lord," hiding history, or whatever you call it has caused a lot of people to leave.

I address a number of examples, he was merely one. If his remarks a behavior alone at BYU, with the "September 7", were the sole content of the many critics of GA's, I would not even have waded into the water. It would seem that even my comments cannot be taken as a whole, no more than their lives and service can. 

Link to post
2 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

The way Jeremy presents it feels false and spoken in a negative hateful tone. it doesn't bear good fruit. Feels false so I don't believe it. 

Feels false? Emotional thinking is a poor way to resolve problems. You ought to put in the time, look at the issues, and see if your beliefs are justified.

Link to post
18 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I address a number of examples, he was merely one. If his remarks a behavior alone at BYU, with the "September 7", were the sole content of the many critics of GA's, I would not even have waded into the water. It would seem that even my comments cannot be taken as a whole, no more than their lives and service can. 

Well this OP is about Packer and his desire to have ces employees support the church PR team, even when the church PR team misleads if the ends justify the misleading means. Do you agree with this? Why would an organization that claims to have the truth need to "lie for the lord" in the first place?

Link to post
14 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Well this OP is about Packer and his desire to have ces employees support the church PR team, even when the church PR team misleads if the ends justify the misleading means. Do you agree with this? Why would an organization that claims to have the truth need to "lie for the lord" in the first place?

But ubiquitous podcasts and threads that make for constant cannon fodder are not, and as others point out the nature of such, is why I waded in the shallow end of the pool. But, worry not, I will not seek to swim to the other side in this thread. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

Well this OP is about Packer and his desire to have ces employees support the church PR team, even when the church PR team misleads if the ends justify the misleading means. 

This is a formal CFR.  
Please review the guidelines regarding your responsibility to respond appropriately.  I am asking for specific examples.

Edited by cdowis
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

Feels false? Emotional thinking is a poor way to resolve problems. You ought to put in the time, look at the issues, and see if your beliefs are justified.

Not going to bother because I don't trust Jeremy Runnels motives.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Not going to bother because I don't trust Jeremy Runnels motives.

Sorry Video, but you really should not accuse him of supplying false information or anti-Mormon lies unless you can produce some quotes of his as an example.

What do you consider to be anti-Mormon lies that he's asked about or written?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

I heard an interview with Runnels recently on a podcast, and he mentioned that he has fixed any errors on his website that he got wrong. http://cesletter.com/debunking-fairmormon/

Before the interview, I didn't like that Jeremy was taking funds to keep the website going, but understand things can get expensive, or time is money, and that he is busy enough that he needs the support in order to take care of his family.

I guess when he first wrote the CES letter, he was coming from a disillusioned frame of mind, and maybe some anger mixed in. Now he is coming from a more stablized frame of mind, and still Fairmormon apologists haven't been able to come up with much to refute Runnels claims, or I haven't seen it anyway, especially with the updates.

The church has a history full of warts. I understand that I need to get over that fact and understand the faults of men. I do believe the church does so much that might just help me get over that hump. Unless they harm in other ways, I of course haven't felt that in my life, but I'm a white heterosexual woman, the only thing in that description that enable hurt is the woman part. But I'm old enough that I've been conditioned not to feel the harm I guess.  

 

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

This is a formal CFR.  
Please review the guidelines regarding your responsibility to respond appropriately.  I am asking for specific examples.

1. Using misleading artwork of Joseph Smith using the plates to "translate" the book of mormon when he had his head in his hat the entire time and the plates weren't in the same room as him. 

2. Allowing people to believe that the official first vision account was the only account when there are multiple accounts that differ materially and get more fantastical as time goes on.

3. Restricting access to the church vaults because there might be unflattering information that contradicts the narrative the church wants to portray.

4. Purchasing Hoffman's forged documents in order to bury them from the public because the magical world view contained in the forged documents didn't support the narrative the church had crafted over the years.

5. President Hinckley acting on Larry King like the church didn't teach that man can become like God when the manuals clearly taught that.

6. Spinning the Martin and Willey tragedy into something "faithful" when it was clear church leadership mismanagement that caused the tragedy.

7. It continues to this day with the LGTBQ policy/revelation event where it looks like the bad press caused Nelson to double down and claim that it was actually a revelation.  It went in the manuals but was mysteriously taken out.

8. Only after bad press and denial of entry into the Big 12 will BYU change their policy of blaming victims of sexual assault.

Organizations make mistakes.  The actual history isn't as pretty as the church portrays it.  Nevertheless, Packer would require denial of this or support of church spin in order to protect the cause.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, James Tunney said:

1. Using misleading artwork of Joseph Smith using the plates to "translate" the book of mormon when he had his head in his hat the entire time and the plates weren't in the same room as him. 

Artwork is influenced by artistic license.  For example, there are many depictions of BOTH the shepherds and the Magi present at the manger by religious artists. Many paintings with halos, etc The painting of Samuel the Lamanite -- he jumped off the wall and was able to ran away?

2. Allowing people to believe that the official first vision account was the only account when there are multiple accounts that differ materially and get more fantastical as time goes on.

There are no substantive contradictions, except for one.  Just differences in details.
You can start a new thread if you wish, and I will be happy to educate you.

3. Restricting access to the church vaults because there might be unflattering information that contradicts the narrative the church wants to portray.

I would say that is an unproven assertion, but I will not dispute the possibility that the information they want to protect could lend itself to be misinterpretation if it lacks the full context.   I personally agree with the sentiment, why should I load the gun of the enemies of the church.

4. Purchasing Hoffman's forged documents in order to bury them from the public because the magical world view contained in the forged documents didn't support the narrative the church had crafted over the years.

They bought the documents and "hid" them from the public by publishing them for all to see.

5. President Hinckley acting on Larry King like the church didn't teach that man can become like God when the manuals clearly taught that.

You are mistaken.  I suspect that you are talking about the TIME magazine interview, but it has been proven that they edited his full answer, which completely changed the meaning of his answer. http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/does_president_hinckley_understand_lds_doctrine

6. Spinning the Martin and Willey tragedy into something "faithful" when it was clear church leadership mismanagement that caused the tragedy.

This was a decision, by the local leaders.  BY attempted to stop them but his instruction came too late.

7. It continues to this day with the LGTBQ policy/revelation event where it looks like the bad press caused Nelson to double down and claim that it was actually a revelation.  It went in the manuals but was mysteriously taken out.

Yawn.

8. Only after bad press and denial of entry into the Big 12 will BYU change their policy of blaming victims of sexual assault.

So what?  How does that relate to this talk.

Organizations make mistakes.  The actual history isn't as pretty as the church portrays it.  Nevertheless, Packer would require denial of this or support of church spin in order to protect the cause.  

You did not answer the question == to whom was he speaking?  It appears that you blame Packer for ever decision by the church leaders, including telling the President of the church how to answer questions, the Q12 and BYU board on how to run BYU,  etc  He was speaking to the CES instructors whose OB is both to teach the church curriculum and to strengthen the faith of their students.

May I suggest that your bitterness and hatred of the church will eventually lead you to a very dark place.

 

Edited by cdowis
Link to post
5 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Feels false? Emotional thinking is a poor way to resolve problems. You ought to put in the time, look at the issues, and see if your beliefs are justified.

You think religious belief in general can or should be subjected to empirical testing to find out whether it can be "justified"?  I have only one thing to say to that:

:D:rofl::D 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to post
15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're dissembling if you think that's an appropriate restatement of what I said.  I doubt you'll be shocked to learn that I believe there's an unbridgeable chasm between what I actually said and your gloss on what I said which, alas, makes any supposed "agreement" between us moot.  (And, by the way, "loose" and "lose" are not synonyms.  They're not even the homophones which so often trip people up.  You should really be mindful of the difference, so as to not seem unintelligent.  I don't think you are, but people are going to judge you by the words you (mis)use, and if they wish, and fair or not, since we all have limited time and other resources, they're entitled to dismiss your opinion [whatever its other perceived merits] on that basis alone.)  While we're at it, the same principle also applies to your use of the word "use" for "used."

While you would not be alone (and, in fact, frankly, would be in good company, if that's the company you wish to keep) if you believe that God should explain Himself to you (or to anyone else) in every particular, or that everything He does (or that he asks us to do) should make complete and total sense to the mortal, finite mind, God seldom, if ever, works that way.  (Cf. Isaiah 55:8-9, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Moses 5:6-8, 1 Samuel 15:22, seemingly ad infinitum).  Since God has not seen fit to explain Himself in every particular, I believe we humans, the foregoing limitations notwithstanding, are free to provide the best contextualization and explanation for those things that we can so as to make room for belief in those who are so inclined.  In fact, not only are we free to do so, it's incumbent upon us to do so.  As Farrer said, "While argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief.  What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned."

Because each of us sees things (especially the past) not as they are, but, rather, as he is, there are apt to be multiple explanations for seemingly troubling issues rather than a single one.  As frustrating or puzzling as it might be to some (or to many), that state of affairs is inevitable: it simply is part and parcel of the human condition of "see[ing] through a glass, darkly" (1 Corinthians 13:12). And in the end, (to borrow and slightly alter the title of a book by Hyrum W. Smith), while questions are inevitable, doubt (on the one hand) and faith (on the other) are choices.  (Not that it matters, but, for the record, Bro. Smith's book is Pain is Inevitable, Misery is Optional.)

Please don't mistake my forthrightness for hostility in any form.  It is not.  Our disagreement notwithstanding, I wish you well. :) 

No offence taken.  This conversation, and your response kind of reminds me of the old legal aphorism that goes something like this, "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."  If it takes fifteen pages of apologetic spin to responded to simple questions, then I would say that is a prime example of table pounding.  I think Boyd Packer was aware that the church has many foundational narratives, such as polygamy/polyandry and the BofA that cannot be easily defended.  I also think that the CES Director that never answered Jeremy Runnells knew it too.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, cdowis said:

 

You're a prime example of Packer's legacy in your response. Does the church ever do anything wrong in your eyes? Do you think everyone who disagrees with yours and your church's views is bitter? 

Anyway, I disagree with your "faithful" explanations as follows:

1. The artwork is approved by church leaders at the highest levels. I find it hard to believe that a church that carefully crafts its message would let the artists do whatever. Don't you think its curious that the artwork follows what people normally envision what a translation process looks like?

2. Only Jesus appears in the 1832 account but both God and Jesus appear in the official account. Don't you think that's a substantive contradiction? 

3. I thought if you have the truth, it'll set you free and hiding stuff from enemies wouldnt be necessary.

4. They were published after Hoffman leaked it to the press that the church had his fake documents. That was part of his plan to embarrass the church and it looks like he succeeded.

5. Whatever the source, Hinckley for some reason claimed that man being able to become a god wasnt taught or emphasized.

6. Handcarts were the idea of Brigham Young to save money and Apostle Franklin Richards, was the "local" leader who challenged the Martin and Willey companies to continue on when he should have told them to stay put or turn around.

7. I guess a yawn is a good way to deflect.

8. BYU had an awful policy of punishing sexual assault victims and changed it only after outside pressure. You may now spin it into a faithful response a la Packer.

Packer's speech was published in the Ensign for the general membership to apply it to themselves. His us v. them, god v. devil attitude still lives on to this day and is present in your responses.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

1. Thanks.  He's my hero.

2. No.

8. This is pathetic and merely indicates the severity of your illness.

I see no reason to continue to feed your ... whatever it is that you are suffering from.  Best of luck to you.

Edited by cdowis
Link to post
On 10/29/2016 at 9:24 AM, cdowis said:

<Meta Discussion mode>

Uh.... no.  YOU wanted my view of the answers and as the author of this thread, if you want to discuss answers, YOU need to precisely  define the questions.

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."

 

For example:

Quote

 

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.

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.

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.

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. 

I have listened to the podcast twice and transcribed a few thoughts, but I'm not going to  do any more. This one suffices:

Quote

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."

 

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Well this OP is about Packer and his desire to have ces employees support the church PR team, even when the church PR team misleads if the ends justify the misleading means. Do you agree with this? Why would an organization that claims to have the truth need to "lie for the lord" in the first place?

The OP had nothing to do with any kind of BKP move to support the church PR team. Please do not misrepresent what I write.

How do you know his desires? CFR that Elder Packer desired to have CES employees support the Church PR team. A specific statement to that effect would suffice.

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

No offence taken.  This conversation, and your response kind of reminds me of the old legal aphorism that goes something like this, "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."  If it takes fifteen pages of apologetic spin to responded to simple questions, then I would say that is a prime example of table pounding.  I think Boyd Packer was aware that the church has many foundational narratives, such as polygamy/polyandry and the BofA that cannot be easily defended.  I also think that the CES Director that never answered Jeremy Runnells knew it too.

 

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.  :) 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Damn open Italics tag! ;-D
  • Upvote 2
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&amp;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...