Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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
Link to comment

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 comment

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 comment
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.

Link to comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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
Link to comment
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?

Link to comment

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.  

 

Link to comment
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.  

Link to comment
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 comment
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 comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

 

Link to comment

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 comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...