What do you guys think of the ldsanswers web site?

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Yeah, how do you know? Are you aware of her qualifications?

From their website...

Quote

L. Hannah Stoddard is the producer of the documentary video, For Our Day: Divinely Sanctioned Governments and the director of the videos For Our Day: Covenant on the Land and Statesmen & Symbols: Prelude to the Restoration. In 2015, she worked as producer in the release of the new doculecture series The Prophet Joseph: More Than We Know. Hannah directs Joseph Smith Foundation projects including Joseph Smith Forum, Joseph Smith Academy, Guardians of an Altar, Foundations and ZionVision. She is also the founder of Maidens with a Mission. Hannah was home and privately educated. She has worked as a graphic design artist, software developer, videographer, project manager and research assistant. She has also authored and edited hundreds of articles on the Web. Hannah’s research supports the writings and teachings of ancient and latter-day prophets.

Nothing wrong with home or "private education" however they mean that, but there really aren't any credentials. I suspect she wears that as a badge of honor since in her interview she demeaned scholarly work, specifically history.

As one of her accusations against Bushman she actually said of his approach to history, "If he comes across new information, he will consider it" as if that is a bad thing. Listen to the interview here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkm2B5kyTsM

I don't know exactly how old she is, but she looks rather young and she described herself on the interview as "early twenties". She was asked a question about whether Joseph Smith ever shot a man and she didn't know the answer and instead of answering another question she said she didn't know, but her dad would. Based on age, education, and work history, I would tend to trust Bushman's take on Joseph Smith a bit more than hers. I stand by my judgment that her hubris at proclaiming Bushman's work as "propaganda" is laughable.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

How about by sitting down with any such person, inviting them to share their core beliefs, listening, and seeking their help gaining understanding how such beliefs could drive actions that might, out of context, seem misplaced?

It's hard to sit down for a conversation with a person throwing firebombs like they are throwing. Sometimes its better not to engage when there isn't a communication partner willing to converse in good faith.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

I leave possibilities open for

1. The meeting with the Stoddard family that I remember could have happened in a fold in space/time/reality with an iteration of the Stoddard family slightly different from the version you're now asking about. 

2. Or, two LDS media producers are walking this planet at the same time, using the same graphics and videos, using the same name (...Stoddard III), who both match the photo on the website. (Tracting near the end of my mission, I encountered the spitting image of the young woman back home that I would later marry. Later that week, we tracted out my favorite uncle's exact double. It happened in a small country to which both people's families traced - perhaps genetic whimsy or something. And some twins happen to choose parallel life paths.)

If such things are not in play, then I'm *reasonably* sure it was the same one.

Sounds possibly probably pretty much the same guy.

My apologies, I am not only related to a ton of Stoddards, but married someone also related to a ton of Stoddards.  I understand it was one of the more prolific polygamous families that married into a couple of other prolific polygamous families, so while not a common name in my experience outside the Church, quite common inside.

[Benjamin Seeker]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've observed that most often, those who complain about official Church sources do so because the source did not include this or that portion of the narrative that the complainer thought should have been included. 

So it thus becomes a matter not of getting facts wrong, per se, but of allegedly not being thorough enough with inclusion of facts. And that is very much a subjective judgment. Making a fact error, on the other hand, is an objective, cut-and-dried determination. 

I therefore see the two as falling at different points along the egregiousness scale. 

Furthermore, though official sources might not be inclusive enough to suit some people, I by and large find them more trustworthy than most alternate voices. Anti-Mormon or unfriendly sources are by far the worst offenders where it concerns leaving out relevant or clarifying facts or engaging in slanting, spin and distortion.

By the way, did you look up and review the Oaks talk? It is very good. I gained more from my reading of it today than I did when I first heard it. 

Edited to add: 

Here's a link:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/alternate-voices?lang=eng

I highly recommend a reading/review of it. 

I'll be sure to check it out. There are occasionally factual errors. Brigham's teaching on Adam-God comes to mind (doctored quotes so that they look normal).

In my experience you just have to search carefully for measured voices, and official sources aren't reliable on all subjects, particularly controversial ones.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I'll be sure to check it out. There are occasionally factual errors. Brigham's teaching on Adam-God comes to mind (doctored quotes so that they look normal).

In my experience you just have to search carefully for measured voices, and official sources aren't reliable on all subjects, particularly controversial ones.

Again, it becomes a matter of opinion as to whether a decision not to highlight this or that fact (or a mere failure to hughlight it) makes a source unreliable. If that is the case, then the adversaries of Mormonism as a whole are by far the most unreliable, because they leave out illuminating and clarifying information all the time. 

As for fact errors, when one is discovered, I have generally observed a good faith effort on the part of the Church to correct the record. 

For example, for generations, it was believed and taught that John  the Baptist visited Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery on the banks of the Susquehenna River. 

When the Priesthood Restoration Site was being developed as visitor attraction (dedicated last year) it was learned this more than likely occurred in the sugar maple grove near Joseph and Emma's home. This new understanding was widely communicated to the Church and public. A header to one of the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants was even changed accordingly. 

By the way, I'm not familiar with any instance where Brigham Young quotes on Adam-God were doctored. Was this in an official source or an alternate-voice source?

Edited December 20, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Benjamin Seeker]

46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, it becomes a matter of opinion as to whether a decision not to highlight this or that fact (or a mere failure to hughlight it) makes a source unreliable. If that is the case, then the adversaries of Mormonism as a whole are by far the most unreliable, because they leave out illuminating and clarifying information all the time. 

As for fact errors, when one is discovered, I have generally observed a good faith effort on the part of the Church to correct the record. 

For example, for generations, it was believed and taught that John  the Baptist visited Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery on the banks of the Susquehenna River. 

When the Priesthood Restoration Site was being developed as visitor attraction (dedicated last year) it was learned this more than likely occurred in the sugar maple grove near Joseph and Emma's home. This new understanding was widely communicated to the Church and public. A header to one of the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants was even changed accordingly. 

By the way, I'm not familiar with any instance where Brigham Young quotes on Adam-God were doctored. Was this in an official source or an alternate-voice source?

Yes, I know of at least one doctored quote in the Brigham Teachings of the Presidents manual, but you'll have to give me a little while to find it. 

In the meantime, here is a quote used in the Teachings of the Presidents manual that omits it's initial context, making it seem like Brigham taught modern day orthodox doctrine about God the Father:

Quote

Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth [see Hebrews 12:9]; and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by his power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man. We were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal (DBY, 24).

Chapter 4

Seems straight forward on the surface. However, this quote is taken from Brigham's April 9,1852 Adam-God announcement. He is talking about Adam. The official source cherry picks this quote with full knowledge that Brigham was talking about Adam, and that he preached Adam as the Father of our spirits and Jesus spirit and body from this historic announcement until his death. Frankly, this goes beyond mere bias. Omitting Adam-God is inpallatable to me but understandable. Using Brigham's words from his Adam-God announcement to teach orthodoxy crosses a line. 

Here is the full 1852 sermon: https://journalofdiscourses.com/1/8

Edited December 20, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[stemelbow]

Quick browsing isn't given me any hope regarding this site.  The first one I read through was the piece about Joseph marrying Helen mar Kimball.  There was nothing in that whole write up that would be of any use to anyone, in my view. 

Is this an all in the family project? 

[stemelbow]

I wish them well, for some reason.  My ward members will eat this stuff up, I think.  I don't think I'll be able to stomach it for more than a few glances here and there. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Yes, I know of at least one doctored quote in the Brigham Teachings of the Presidents manual, but you'll have to give me a little while to find it. 

In the meantime, here is a quote used in the Teachings of the Presidents manual that omits it's initial context, making it seem like Brigham taught modern day orthodox doctrine about God the Father:

Chapter 4

Seems straight forward on the surface. However, this quote is taken from Brigham's April 9,1852 Adam-God announcement. He is talking about Adam. The official source cherry picks this quote with full knowledge that Brigham was talking about Adam, and that he preached Adam as the Father of our spirits and Jesus spirit and body from this historic announcement until his death. Frankly, this goes beyond mere bias. Omitting Adam-God is inpallatable to me but understandable. Using Brigham's words from his Adam-God announcement to teach orthodoxy crosses a line. 

Here is the full 1852 sermon: https://journalofdiscourses.com/1/8

So, for now, what we have from you is not an example of a doctored quote, but rather, one allegedly taken out of context. 

I strongly disapprove of taking material out of context. I complain about it quite often. 

However, I recognize that just because it is claimed something was removed from context, that doesn't mean it was. 

The test I apply to determine whether a statement was taken out of context is whether or not the intended meaning or message from the speaker or writer was materially altered by the quote having been detached from its surrounding context. In the instance you cite, I just don't see it. The statement you quote from Brigham Young stands on its own and would mean the same thing whether or not it is read within the discourse in which it was originally uttered. 

To take your argument to its absurd conclusion (reductio ad absurdum) we could never accept a simple, generic statement like "God loves His children" at face value without first rigorously exploring what the speaker means by "God," "loves" and "children" and evaluating whether we found his understanding of those terms suitable. This could make good-faith discourse extremely difficult.

And by the way, lest you intend to make this argument, the use of ellipses (...) in a quote does not constitute all by itself the doctoring of the quote. That is merely a good-faith notification to the reader that one or more words were left out of the quote, which, ideally, does not alter the overall meaning of the quote (although it could).

On the other hand, if words were left out and there were no ellipses to indicate that had happened, then that would constitute doctoring of the quote. 

Edited December 21, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[hagoth7]

11 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Nothing wrong with home or "private education" however they mean that, but there really aren't any credentials. I suspect she wears that as a badge of honor since in her interview she demeaned scholarly work, specifically history.

As one of her accusations against Bushman she actually said of his approach to history, "If he comes across new information, he will consider it" as if that is a bad thing...

1) In private discussion with them, they shed some light on the issue of private education. Might surprise you. In a good way.

2) If you really want to claim they have a beef with history and/or research...why are the bulk of their articles and videos about...history...and why do they contain....research? (Whether you happen to agree with their interpretation or not.)

3) If you visited with them briefly, you'd quickly realize they aren't at all against learning or growing, or researching, or history. Quite the contrary.

ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't know exactly how old she is, but she looks rather young and she described herself on the interview as "early twenties". She was asked a question about whether Joseph Smith ever shot a man and she didn't know the answer and instead of answering another question she said she didn't know, but her dad would. Based on age, education, and work history, I would tend to trust Bushman's take on Joseph Smith a bit more than hers. I stand by my judgment that her hubris at proclaiming Bushman's work as "propaganda" is laughable.

Is much of the issue that she is relatively young?

Is much of the issue that her educational path isn't what some might deem traditional?

Is there really a burning issue with her publicly admitting when she encounters a question she hasn't yet studied through?

As to who I would trust when it came to history, I wouldn't trust her more than Bushman, or Bushman more than her. Sometimes a fresh perspective can surprise. On any such issue, I would hopefully weigh their individual assertions against the available evidence.

As to propaganda, Bushman's writings actually *are* propaganda.

As are your posts - whenever you're advocating a point.

(Ditto for pretty much anything I write.) 

Making, supporting, or countering any premise *is* an act of propaganda. Is it not?

Merriam-Webster

Propaganda:

2:  the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3:  ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also :  a public action having such an effect

Hopefully we can agreeably disagree.

[hagoth7]

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's hard to sit down for a conversation with a person throwing firebombs like they are throwing. Sometimes its better not to engage when there isn't a communication partner willing to converse in good faith.

I don't see their comments...or yours...as firebombs...simply disagreements on how to faithfully approach sensitive things such as history. If such things from you or them (or me) occasionally have a bit of topspin?  Meh...mortal shortcomings.

Finally, to address your assertion that they are somehow unwilling to engage in good faith, again, from personal experience, I know that such an assertion is neither kind nor true. I suggest we can/should be more gracious to one another.  I wish you well.

Edited December 21, 2016 by hagoth7

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I know next to nothing about ldsanswers.org, but obviously it falls within the category of alternate voices (see my citation of Elder Oaks's talk above). So do the ark steadiers. So does Bushman, for the most part, and so do the Givenses. So do the progmos. 

It should be noted that alternate voices is not inherently a pajorative. Some entities that I hold in very high esteem would be classed as alternate voices, such as FairMormon and Interpreter: a Journal of Mormon Scripture. Of course, I have far less respect and esteem for other alternate voices. 

As pertaining to much of what I post on this board, I am an alternate voice. So is virtually everyone who posts here. 

OOO!  OOO!  RED LETTER DAY!!!!

I CAN'T BELIEVE IT!!!!!!

I caught Scott in a misspelling !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

It's "perjorative"  

Love ya dude- it's just such a rare occasion, you nver mess up like I do.....   

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's hard to sit down for a conversation with a person throwing firebombs like they are throwing. Sometimes its better not to engage when there isn't a communication partner willing to converse in good faith.

But on the other hand we do it all the time don't we!?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

OOO!  OOO!  RED LETTER DAY!!!!

I CAN'T BELIEVE IT!!!!!!

I caught Scott in a misspelling !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

It's "perjorative"  

Love ya dude- it's just such a rare occasion, you nver mess up like I do.....   

Actually, it's pejorative. (No r in the first syllable.)

But you knew that already, right? 

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Actually, it's pejorative. (No r in the first syllable.)

But you knew that already, right? 

LOL!   Of course, I was just trying to make you feel better.

 

.......stupid dyslexia, &$*^  looked it up three times %$*! still couldn't get it *^#$% right.........*&$! idiot....

 

[Benjamin Seeker]

 

Quote

The statement you quote from Brigham Young stands on its own and would mean the same thing whether or not it is read within the discourse in which it was originally uttered. 

I suppose, as long as the reader doesn't mind that what Brigham meant can honestly and accurately written this way:

Quote

[Adam] begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth [see Hebrews 12:9]; and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by his power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man. We were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal (DBY, 24).

I feel that if the manual wants to avoid Adam-God then it should probably, out of good conscience, avoid quoting from the most iconic Adam-God doctrine sermon. Literally, the very next sentences following the one quoted by the manual read:

Quote

Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later.

 

Quote

To take your argument to its absurd conclusion (reductio ad absurdum) we could never accept a simple, generic statement like "God loves His children" at face value without first rigorously exploring what the speaker means by "God," "loves" and "children" and evaluating whether we found his understanding of those terms suitable. This could make good-faith discourse extremely difficult.

I agree that would be absurd :). I'm suggesting some slightly lighter on the absurd scale. Don't quote from famous Adam-God sermon, which intends Adam for Heavenly Father, if you want to avoid the sticky subject..

OK, on to the doctored quote (from the manual, ch. 14):

Quote

 Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with him, and the things that pertain to God and to heaven were as familiar among mankind in the first ages of their existence on the earth, as … our gardens are to our wives and children, or as the road to the Western Ocean is to the experienced traveler [see Moses 3:15–21; 4:14–30; 5:4–5, 9, 12; 6:51] (DBY, 104).

"Him" is bolded here to show where the quote has been doctored, it's, of course, not bolded in the manual. Here is the actual quote from JD:

Quote

Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with [their Grandfather, and their children were more or less acquainted with their Great-Grandfather;] and the things that pertain to God and to heaven were as familiar among mankind, in the first ages of their existence on the earth, as these mountains are to our mountain boys, as our gardens are to our wives and children, or as the road to the Western Ocean is to the experienced traveler.

OK, so why take out the Grandfather and Great-Grandfather? According to Brigham, Elohim was the father of Adam's spirit (and from this quote, it implies body as well), while Adam was the father of all the spirits of human kind, including Jesus Christ. The invocation of Grand Father and Great-Grandfather hints at Brigham's conception of the endowment's godhead as a chain of Father-Gods or something to that effect. You could argue that Brigham just means Elohim as physical father of Adam and physical Grandfather of Adam's children etc., which is probably totally valid. However, when you dig to see what Brigham thought about Adam's physical genesis, you learn that he was born mortally on another world, attained his exaltation, resurrection, and a celestial body, and then descended as a God the Father to our little earthly abode. By using the word "him" you avoid the whole mess.

It should be admitted that the Teachings manual is quoting Discourses of Brigham Young, and it's actually Widstoe, compiler of the DBY, that messed with the quote in the first place. However, it only takes a minute on the web to check the original sermon and see there is something wrong.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[Tacenda]

On 12/20/2016 at 8:59 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

From their website...

Nothing wrong with home or "private education" however they mean that, but there really aren't any credentials. I suspect she wears that as a badge of honor since in her interview she demeaned scholarly work, specifically history.

As one of her accusations against Bushman she actually said of his approach to history, "If he comes across new information, he will consider it" as if that is a bad thing. Listen to the interview here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkm2B5kyTsM

I don't know exactly how old she is, but she looks rather young and she described herself on the interview as "early twenties". She was asked a question about whether Joseph Smith ever shot a man and she didn't know the answer and instead of answering another question she said she didn't know, but her dad would. Based on age, education, and work history, I would tend to trust Bushman's take on Joseph Smith a bit more than hers. I stand by my judgment that her hubris at proclaiming Bushman's work as "propaganda" is laughable.

 

I actually haven't been reading the board like usual and totally missed seeing this thread and posted a thread similar to it today. In the radio show I linked to on that thread, Hannah mentioned that her father has studied Joseph Smith almost daily for many years. So he probably taught her for years, I guess that could be considered being well educated.

[rongo]

I finally went to the site and checked it out. From what was said here, I initially thought that it might be a more conservative alternative to FAIR, which is appealing to me because I think FAIR has kind of lost its way from the halcyon days of the 2000s. 

To be honest, ldsanswers appears to me to be too nutty on the far end of the conservative spectrum to be helpful. I'm quite conservative in my worldview (global flood, young earth, unity of Isaiah, literal scriptures, etc.), and ldsanswers is too fundamentalist for me!   Reminds me of what people used to say about Reed Benson (my Book of Mormon teacher, whom I really liked): "He thinks the John Birch Society is a bunch of pinko commies" . . .  

The exchange with BYU sociology department chair Rick Miller was painful to read. No sense of humor or self-awareness. The anti-Halloween screed was cringe-worthy, as well. And the same applies to their approach to church history and issues. Their approach is completely not helpful or effective. 

Just my two cents. Your mileage may vary. Void where prohibited.  

[rockpond]

I read the "Answer" on Helen Mar Kimball.  Unimpressed.  If their intent really is to counter Bushman/Prince, they'll need to step it up.  What they wrote regarding the early marriage of Helen Mar Kimball only supports the need for a reconstructed narrative.

[Jeanne]

Just now, rockpond said:

I read the "Answer" on Helen Mar Kimball.  Unimpressed.  If their intent really is to counter Bushman/Prince, they'll need to step it up.  What they wrote regarding the early marriage of Helen Mar Kimball only supports the need for a reconstructed narrative.

I mentioned this too...there seems to be a whole lot missing!

[bcuzbcuz]

On 12/19/2016 at 3:52 PM, churchistrue said:

It appears to be from ultra-conservative LDS perspective, taking aim not so much at the "anti-Mormon" material that FairMormon types usually aim at, but moving the dial a step to the right, and taking aim at Progressive LDS.

Some of their topics are anti-evolution and anti-Progressive-Mormonism.  Here's a very interesting article.  http://www.ldsanswers.org/dominant-church-history-narrative-not-true-lds-scholars-encourage-new-history-new-policy-new-church/  

The articles are well footed and seem to be pretty well written, thought I've just skimmed through most of the articles.  

I beg to differ regarding their articles being well footed. a simple examination of their topic under "Science" called "Carbon Dating: How old is it really?" will suffice. They begin the article with a disclaimer, (This is a variation of an article first published in “Chronology & Catastrophism Review” 2013. It also comprises the bulk of Chapter 3 in Science and Religion: Reconciling the Conflicts, 2013.)

They continue with a quote...that isn't a quote. 

Radiocarbon dating is not employed to test theories, but to support them . . .
radiocarbon always gives a scattered set of dates.
The theorists then pick the ones they believe to be correct.
—Charles Ginenthal, 1997

They provide no reference to where they have picked up this quote. and we're left with an author...who can't be found on Wikipedia and the date only corresponds to his book on Mammoths which claims to prove that mammoths went extinct 3,500 years ago, from a sudden freezing. 

They provide no reference to Ginenthal's work, at all. The article continues with standard articles from new-earthers. 

Sorry, but that doesn't fill me with confidence in their abilities to prove a point.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

1) In private discussion with them, they shed some light on the issue of private education. Might surprise you. In a good way.

2) If you really want to claim they have a beef with history and/or research...why are the bulk of their articles and videos about...history...and why do they contain....research? (Whether you happen to agree with their interpretation or not.)

3) If you visited with them briefly, you'd quickly realize they aren't at all against learning or growing, or researching, or history. Quite the contrary.

Is much of the issue that she is relatively young?

Is much of the issue that her educational path isn't what some might deem traditional?

Is there really a burning issue with her publicly admitting when she encounters a question she hasn't yet studied through?

As to who I would trust when it came to history, I wouldn't trust her more than Bushman, or Bushman more than her. Sometimes a fresh perspective can surprise. On any such issue, I would hopefully weigh their individual assertions against the available evidence.

As to propaganda, Bushman's writings actually *are* propaganda.

As are your posts - whenever you're advocating a point.

(Ditto for pretty much anything I write.) 

Making, supporting, or countering any premise *is* an act of propaganda. Is it not?

Merriam-Webster

Propaganda:

2:  the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3:  ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also :  a public action having such an effect

Hopefully we can agreeably disagree.

I'd recommend you listen to the interview. I doubt I'll have the opportunity to sit down for a private conversation with these people so I'm left with their public statements (like the interview) and their posts on the website.

FYI- they were using "propaganda" in the most derogatory  sense as evidence of an infiltration of scholars like Bushman to dismantle LDS history in an attempt to destroy the church. They made this point repeatedly. Church history is being destroyed as part of a conspiracy by these scholars to destroy the church. I'm not exaggerating this. You should listen.

 

[Oliver_Cowdery]

Quote

Hannah was home and privately educated.

 

Quote

early twenties

That sounds just like Joseph Smith.  Joseph published the Book of Mormon at 24 years old and he had no formal education. However, Joseph had schooling at home and access to private tutors.  And yet Church members feel justified in describing Joseph as an "uneducated farm boy".

So to be consistent, should we not be amazed that an uneducated girl was able to produce this documentary?  What possible explanation can there be for this thing?  There must have been divine help.  How can there be any other explanation?  I defy any of you to come up with an explanation that explains this complex documentary that doesn't involve divine revelation.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[stemelbow]

25 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

 

That sound just like Joseph Smith.  Joseph published the Book of Mormon at 24 years old and he had no formal education. However, Joseph had schooling at home and access to private tutors.  However, Church members feel justified in describing Joseph as an "uneducated farm boy".

So to be consistent, should we not be amazed that an uneducated girl was able to produce this documentary?  What possible explanation can there be for this thing?  There must have been divine help.  How can there be any other explanation?  I defy any of you to come up with an explanation that explain this complex documentary that doesn't involve divine revelation.

She had help

[Oliver_Cowdery]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

She had help

Like scribes?