Robert F. Smith Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 4 hours ago, Tacenda said: I think it's getting to be more that people don't leave over the history so much as they're leaving over the apologetics who once tried to say things were anti, are no longer anti but fact, as in the Gospel Topic Essays. That would only be true, Tacenda, if we are talking about a Mormon brought up in an absurdly rigid form of the LDS faith (something which happens regularly to evangelicals) which cannot abide clearcut expressions of the faith as found in the Gospel Topics Essays. Why? Because their false version of the LDS faith included infallible prophets, leaders without faults, and a faultless, fairy-tale history -- all of which was false to begin with and was based on a lack of proper education in logic, critical thinking, and fact-based history. This has always been true of anti-Mormon diatribes in which a factual analysis has never been the true objective. The Gospel Topics Essays are not apologetics, but rather clear statements of history and doctrine for the modern internet age. First the anti-Mormons complained about the lack of such clear statements, and when the Church provides them they still complain. To me that is utter hypocrisy. LDS Church officials should be praised for providing such open statements, along with providing all early Church documents (as in the Joseph Smith Papers Project). This comes under the heading of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." Can't get much more two-faced than that. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: This comes under the heading of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." Can't get much more two-faced than that. Indeed. 'But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners'. 1
Tacenda Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: That would only be true, Tacenda, if we are talking about a Mormon brought up in an absurdly rigid form of the LDS faith (something which happens regularly to evangelicals) which cannot abide clearcut expressions of the faith as found in the Gospel Topics Essays. Why? Because their false version of the LDS faith included infallible prophets, leaders without faults, and a faultless, fairy-tale history -- all of which was false to begin with and was based on a lack of proper education in logic, critical thinking, and fact-based history. This has always been true of anti-Mormon diatribes in which a factual analysis has never been the true objective. The Gospel Topics Essays are not apologetics, but rather clear statements of history and doctrine for the modern internet age. First the anti-Mormons complained about the lack of such clear statements, and when the Church provides them they still complain. To me that is utter hypocrisy. LDS Church officials should be praised for providing such open statements, along with providing all early Church documents (as in the Joseph Smith Papers Project). This comes under the heading of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." Can't get much more two-faced than that. You and Hamba probably have never brought up the essays with your average LDS. Am I right? Until then, I don't agree with your sentiments. You and he probably know the harm the truth can do. If we're being honest. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 On 1/7/2017 at 4:48 PM, rockpond said: I feel like Robert's POV is that there are no "facts" regarding the church that could ever be damaging to a testimony as long as those facts are properly understood. Therefore, anyone who leaves because of those facts (i.e. Intellectual reasons) must be wrong or failed to understand properly. What seems so odd here is that, not only did I not ever say these things, but that I have frequently argued that quoting people is the most honest and responsible way to evaluate them. Yet you reject that approach out of hand. It is so much easier to attribute a straw-man position to someone and then beat it down. Which is a successful approach if your objective is simply winning instead of understanding. Neither I nor Mike Ash used the absolute terms you falsely attribute to me. I did not say that "no fact" could "ever" be damaging to a testimony (any religious testimony of any faith) as long as those facts are properly understood. Indeed, I said the exact opposite several times. I never said or suggested that "anyone" who leaves the faith (regardless of which faith) for intellectual reasons must be wrong or failed to understand it properly. On 1/7/2017 at 4:48 PM, rockpond said: If one comes at the issue from that POV, it makes sense. No it doesn't, because it is a false and illogical statement from the outset. On 1/7/2017 at 4:48 PM, rockpond said: For those of us who understand the flaw in that assumption, it seems like an arrogant attitude (at least the way Robert presents it). I don't think he means for it to sound arrogant, he just can't see it any differently. I'll admit that the 30 year old me might have had a similar attitude. It is so easy to arrogantly dismiss someone's statements as long as those statements have been effectively falsified and misstated. At age 75, I suppose that I should accept such misstatements with some equanimity because they are so typical of the dishonest anti-Mormon approach to any discussion. A thief will typically yell "thief" at someone else in order to take the attention off of him while he makes his getaway. Is that what you are doing here, rockpond? However, such misstatements are a good indicator of why it is so important for anyone who wants to make an intellectual evaluation of some POV to at least make the necessary preparation and get the appropriate training. Here we have a prime example of what happens when someone neglects such serious and honest preparation. An honest scholar always states the position of his opponent accurately.
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 1 minute ago, Tacenda said: You and Hamba probably have never brought up the essays with your average LDS. Am I right? Until then, I don't agree with your sentiments. You and he probably know the harm the truth can do. If we're being honest. You couldn't be more wrong. When I was still YM president, I used the gospel topic essays in my lessons with the priests quorum regularly. Now that I'm WML, I still use them in my gospel principles lessons at church and bring them into discussions with both investigators and less-active members in their homes. When full-time missionaries have approached me with 'thorny' questions from those they meet, I've likewise encouraged them to rely on the gospel topic essays in formulating answers. Why would you think otherwise??? 2
Teancum Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 53 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I personally don't know of a single person like this. Do you? (a) I personally don't find LDS history 'compelling'. You however had suggested that it was somehow disqualifying. It is neither. (b) Of the historians with whom I used to work, the only one that I know for certain has even heard of the Book of Mormon would be my former supervisor, and the only reason she would have heard of it would be because I worked under her for nearly five years, during the first year of which we shared an office. I would suspect that a few others will have heard of the book, but they would no doubt be in the minority, and since most of them would be religiously agnostic or even outright atheists, many of whom not even having come from a Christian cultural background, why would they have any interest in reading the Book of Mormon? You as a historian and believing Latter Day Saint don't find the LDS history and what it claims compelling? Amazing! Well I sure did for about 45 years or so at least. Even though now I think it is not convincing that Mormonism is true and in find it damaging to the claims of truth I still find it compelling. It seems to me the truth of the LDS church certainly is tied to its historical narratives and whether in fact they are reliable for helping us determine whether what Joseph claimed is true or not. can you as a professional historian tell me why they are neither qualifying or disqualifying? As for your colleagues I how would I have known most religiously agnostic, atheists or not from a Christian background. Is this the typical demographic of professional historians?
Tacenda Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: You couldn't be more wrong. When I was still YM president, I used the gospel topic essays in my lessons with the priests quorum regularly. Now that I'm WML, I still use them in my gospel principles lessons at church and bring them into discussions with both investigators and less-active members in their homes. When full-time missionaries have approached me with 'thorny' questions from those they meet, I've likewise encouraged them to rely on the gospel topic essays in formulating answers. Why would you think otherwise??? I guess in my world the essays aren't brought up. It use to be that saying things in the essays were anti Mormon sentiments. I'm glad you are being so honest. But that is with the young men, how about Gospel Doctrine. Which essays, if you don't mind me asking. Maybe I need to go sit in a GD class, especially coming up with the First Vision accounts. Edited January 9, 2017 by Tacenda
LittleNipper Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 7 hours ago, pogi said: Growth in light, spirit, truth, and knowledge. The end being the knowledge of God. To know God (John 17:3). You just captured Mormonism in a nut shell with those words. For 20 minutes each morning and night, I sit in meditation and prayer and do just that...simply enjoy God for who He is. Mormonisms motives are not for self-glory, it is all for the glory of God. Our end desire and purpose is to know God and glorify Him. We cannot know God in his fullness until our truth corresponds with his truth. When that happens, we will be like him. The only way to know God in his fullness is to be God, otherwise you will always be viewing him through a glass darkly and never come to a full comprehension and perfect correspondence with God. To enjoy God, glorify Him, and be one with Him in His fullness, that is our telos. The Bible says a Believer is conformed to the image of the Messiah. We are created beings. We have a beginning according to the Bible---. GOD is eternal according to the Bible. GOD is everlasting to everlasting. Humans have a created starting point that runs into infinity. I see nothing to convince me that I will be GOD. I will always be in submission to Him. Saved individuals have an eternity to learn from GOD; however, I don't ever see any created being becoming a god.
Teancum Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I personally don't know of a single person like this. Do you? Not sure. Jan Shipps? Maybe John Turner who wrote Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet. Maybe Alex Beam who wrote American Crucufiction. Fawn Brodie? Dan Vogel? Are you saying there are no non LDS historians interested in Mormon history? Edited January 9, 2017 by Teancum 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, Tacenda said: It use to be that saying things in the essays were anti Mormon sentiments. l know this has become something of an 'article of faith' in certain quarters, but I don't believe it ... though I'm certainly open to correction. Can you actually provide quotes from past Church publications wherein material presented in any gospel topics essay has previously been dismissed as an 'anti-Mormon' lie? Quote I'm glad you are being so honest. But that is with the young men, how about Gospel Doctrine. I neither teach nor attend gospel doctrine lessons. I do teach gospel principles, which is for investigators and new and returning members. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 1 minute ago, Teancum said: Not sure. Jan Shipps? Maybe John Turner who wrote Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet. Maybe Alex Beam who wrote American Crucufiction. Fawn Brodie? Dan Vogel? You know these people personally? I don't. Quote Are you saying there are no no LDS historians interested in Mormon history? No, you asked me a question about such. I responded that I don't know any of them (and they would be very few in number) personally; consequently, I can't tell you anything about them.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Tacenda said: You and Hamba probably have never brought up the essays with your average LDS. Am I right? Until then, I don't agree with your sentiments. You and he probably know the harm the truth can do. If we're being honest. Truth is harmful, Tacenda? Really? Could you give me some examples? Let's take the race question, for one. Is it bad to tell the truth about the race question? I admit that it is very painful for some people to own up to slavery in America, and racism is a powerful and sad legacy to deal with. How do you deal with it? My ancestors were Abolitionists and ran a section of the Underground Railroad. I spent years and lots of cash attempting to advance civil rights in this country. What have you done? Do you understand the historical and doctrinal context of racism and slavery the way a scholar does? Are you able to deal with human flaws and to work with flawed people? Can leaders be flawed? Or does that automatically negate any good they might do? Are you aware that there are far more slaves worldwide today than at any time in history? Do you realize that most of those slaves are not Black? Are you prepared to do something about modern slavery? What are you prepared to do? ETA: By the way, my home teaching companion got up in Church and bore his testimony today on the fact that leaders make mistakes. He went on and on about it, but no one got up and wrestled him away from the podium. Edited January 9, 2017 by Robert F. Smith 1
Teancum Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: You know these people personally? I don't. No, you asked me a question about such. I responded that I don't know any of them (and they would be very few in number) personally; consequently, I can't tell you anything about them. No I don't know them personally. I know of them. I have read their books. i did not undertstand your question to mean did I know historians personally that were interested in, researched and wrote about LDS history. I simply thought you were looking for examples.
LittleNipper Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 6 hours ago, Foreigner said: Impossible separation. This is God's glory: to glorify men. Examine your Bible first. John 17: 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. And also: Romans 3 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; That means: we had glory before, and are to regain it for future. See also: Romans 5:2, Colossians 3:4, 1Thessalonians 2:12, 2Thessalonians 2:14, Hebrews 2:10, 1Peter 5:4. You are taking the verses out of context. Jesus never infers that we are regaining a glory we once possessed. Jesus is speaking regarding Himself and His disciples and future believer being glorified through the Messiah.. John 17Amplified Bible (AMP) The High Priestly Prayer 17 When Jesus had spoken these things, He raised His eyes to heaven [in prayer] and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, so that Your Son may glorify You. 2 Just as You have given Him power and authority over all mankind, [now glorify Him] so that He may give eternal life to all whom You have given Him [to be His—permanently and forever]. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true [supreme and sovereign] God, and [in the same manner know] Jesus [as the] Messiah whom You have sent. 4 I have glorified You [down here] on the earth by completing the work that You gave Me to do.5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory and majesty that I had with You before the world existed. 6 “I have manifested Your name [and revealed Your very self, Your real self] to the people whom You have given Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept and obeyed Your word. 7 Now [at last] they know [with confident assurance] that all You have given Me is from You [it is really and truly Yours]. 8 For the words which You gave Me I have given them; and they received and accepted them and truly understood [with confident assurance] that I came from You [from Your presence], and they believed [without any doubt] that You sent Me. 9 I pray for them; I do not pray for the world, but for those You have given Me, because they belong to You; 10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and [all things that are] Yours are Mine; and I am glorified in them. 11 I am no longer in the world; yet they are still in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, so that they may be one just as We are. 12 While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and protected them, and not one of them was lost except the son of destruction, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. The Disciples in the World 13 But now I am coming to You; and I say these things [while I am still] in the world so that they may experience My joy made full and complete and perfect within them [filling their hearts with My delight]. 14 I have given to them Your word [the message You gave Me]; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world and do not belong to the world, just as I am not of the world and do not belong to it. 15 I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but that You keep them and protect them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth [set them apart for Your purposes, make them holy]; Your word is truth. 18 Just as You commissioned and sent Me into the world, I also have commissioned and sent them (believers) into the world. 19 For their sake [e]I sanctify Myself [to do Your will], so that they also may be sanctified [set apart, dedicated, made holy] in [Your] truth. 20 “I do not pray for these alone [it is not for their sake only that I make this request], but also for [all] those who [will ever] believe and trust in Me through their message, 21 that they all may be one [united]; just as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be one in Us, so that the world may believe [without any doubt] that You sent Me. Their Future Glory 22 I have given to them the glory and honor which You have given Me, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected and completed into one, so that the world may know [without any doubt] that You sent Me, and [that You] have loved them, just as You have loved Me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given to Me [as Your gift to Me], may be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, because You loved Me before the foundation of the world. 25 “O just and righteous Father, although the world has not known You and has never acknowledged You [and the revelation of Your mercy], yet I have always known You; and these [believers] know [without any doubt] that You sent Me; 26 and I have made Your name known to them, and will continue to make it known, so that the love with which You have loved Me may be in them [overwhelming their heart], and I [may be] in them.”
Tacenda Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said: l know this has become something of an 'article of faith' in certain quarters, but I don't believe it ... though I'm certainly open to correction. Can you actually provide quotes from past Church publications wherein material presented in any gospel topics essay has previously been dismissed as an 'anti-Mormon' lie? I neither teach nor attend gospel doctrine lessons. I do teach gospel principles, which is for investigators and new and returning members. Quote below is from this website: http://www.withoutend.org/stop-weve-lied-to-church/ I apologise for not having what you asked for right away, the only thing I can come up with is the church or apologists weren't forthright about JS's money digging at one time, and that's not even an essay. Joseph Smith's polyandry, polygamy, seerstone in the hat, the DNA of the BOM peoples, etc. Of course I now understand that not even the leaders at the top knew of several issues. But will say the quote below might explain why so many of us were clueless. ETA: I do respect the church historians like B.H. Roberts, Leonard Arrington, etc. and those of you on this board. I applaud you, and probably stand corrected that any of you denied the things in the Gospel Topic Essay categories at one time. "In 1982, the History Division was dissolved and all of the staff historians, including Arrington, were relocated to BYU campus under the newly-created Joseph Fielding Smith Institute of Church History. Arrington was quietly released as Church Historian and named as director of the new department at BYU, while G. Homer Durham, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy and former professor of political science at University of Utah, was installed as the Historical Department’s Managing Director. Arrington continued to manage the Smith Institute until his retirement in 1986. Just prior to his death in 1999, he published a telling memoir titled, Adventures of a Church Historian. From 1997-2005, there was effectively no Church Historian. The Historical Department was instead governed by a board of Executive Directors, which included well-known general authorities like D. Todd Christofferson and Marlin K. Jensen. Finally, in 2005, the Church History Department was reopened under the direction of Marlin K. Jensen. Spurred on by the Joseph Smith Papers Project, the publications division of the Church History Department became re-invigorated with initiatives beginning with the 2008 publication of Massacre at Mountain Meadows by Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley, and Glen M. Leonard. To date, this is the most candid look at the history of a troubling event approved by the church; and it was a sign of things to come from the Church History Department (See Gospel Topics Essays), including a forthcoming four-volume history of the church currently underway by the Church History Department that will bring the history up to the 21st Century. While we will have to wait and see how responsibly they represent the past, I remain cautiously optimistic. So, what happened? Simply put, the non-professional historians won the narrative contest. The didactic approach to telling history remained favorable to the academically-grounded attempt at objectivity and socially-contextualized history. People don’t like “messy,” and that includes our church leaders who were all raised on the same Seminary and Institute curriculum that promoted the Essentials in Church History approach. Borrowing from Lindsay Hansen Park, as a religion we remained more enamored by our “heritage” than our “history.” Perhaps nothing underscores this better than Our Heritage: A Brief History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was distributed by the church in 1996 to its adult Sunday School classes—a 150-page throwback to Essentials in Church History. Then the Internet happened." Edited January 9, 2017 by Tacenda
Tacenda Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 55 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Truth is harmful, Tacenda? Really? Could you give me some examples? Let's take the race question, for one. Is it bad to tell the truth about the race question? I admit that it is very painful for some people to own up to slavery in America, and racism is a powerful and sad legacy to deal with. How do you deal with it? My ancestors were Abolitionists and ran a section of the Underground Railroad. I spent years and lots of cash attempting to advance civil rights in this country. What have you done? Do you understand the historical and doctrinal context of racism and slavery the way a scholar does? Are you able to deal with human flaws and to work with flawed people? Can leaders be flawed? Or does that automatically negate any good they might do? Are you aware that there are far more slaves worldwide today than at any time in history? Do you realize that most of those slaves are not Black? Are you prepared to do something about modern slavery? What are you prepared to do? ETA: By the way, my home teaching companion got up in Church and bore his testimony today on the fact that leaders make mistakes. He went on and on about it, but no one got up and wrestled him away from the podium. Oh, you did not just ask me this Robert. https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/library/talks/ces-symposium-addresses/the-mantle-is-far-far-greater-than-the-intellect_eng.pdf Quote: "Second Caution There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful." Me: I gave the link to make sure his statement is quoted in context. I quoted this in fun, hope you understand that.
mfbukowski Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Jeanne said: Thanks so much for this. I should think before I speak..I just feel like people are slamming me and good people without understanding. My apologies to Robert Smith. I really don't want particularly to get into this right now because I do not have the time to follow through with the discussion, but I do support Robert's position here and maybe let me put it in different terms. Some people due to lack of academic training might not be able to evaluate what "History" really is. I will give you an extreme example: gossip. On the most base level of history one could say that gossip IS "history" in the sense that it alleges to tell the "truth" about past events. "She did this to him and then he did that to her and then....." "OH NO! SHE DID THAT?" All these are are stories someone dreamed up or thought they overheard, or figured out must have been the explanation for that black eye, or ..... whatever If those stories get into print, about what Joseph allegedly did etc, without evidence, and someone wrote them 100 years ago, suddenly they are no better than gossip, but gossip in writing. And if you do not understand Historiography - what IS and is not "history" in an academic setting you might not be able to tell the difference between gossip and "real history" with all its assumptions and nuances about what "really happened" THEN we also have the fact that prophets aren't perfect humans. So IF you do not understand that prophets are not perfect- because you have insufficient knowledge about church doctrine and have not read discussions about these issues AND you read some unsubstantiated gossip written over a hundred years ago which you read as if it was "history" you might not have sufficient training to 1) know that the doctrine has always been that prophets are fallible- even Joseph, in statements he himself made and 2) not know that what you read as "history" is no better than gossip. So you come away with the conclusion that: 1) Joseph was supposed to be infallible and 2) he did such and such, THEREFORE Joseph was a "fallen prophet" and his teachings are therefore not "true" (because you do not have training in how to determine the truth of statements about something as vague as God's will for us) and so the "church is not true"- whatever that is supposed to mean- and then you leave the church. I think this is the kind of point Robert is making. The problem is that these issues are VERY subtle and nuanced, and if you are just going off emotionally about things you really do not understand, it is easy to make a wrong decision It's kind of like running to Mexico for a cancer cure because someone claims that he can cure you with his magic juice which you need to take 15 times a day, and you fall for it. Ordinary folks are not educated enough about cancer to know if this treatment will work or not and will leave it to doctors but yet when it comes to religion, everyone thinks they are experts in every area! So yes you should follow your testimony of course but you should also have enough understanding of the intellectual issues so that they do not cloud your testimony- which yes, they will!! God will lead you to the correct path, but your intellectual training is quite different if you are evaluating these "truths" intellectually. It's like the cardinal who thought that the bible taught that the sun goes around the earth and that science was wrong because it said otherwise. He had a spiritual testimony that "the bible was true"- which it is, but it is not ABOUT science, and besides his "science" was wrong also! So his lack of intellectual understanding of science lead him to bad conclusions about religion because of his lack of intellectual understanding of science! Edited January 9, 2017 by mfbukowski 1
Vance Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 57 minutes ago, LittleNipper said: The Bible says a Believer is conformed to the image of the Messiah. Actually is says that about those who He (God) foreknew. A "Believer" isn't ever described as "conformed". The Bible also says that man was created in the image of God. So, if one is created in the image of God, how can he later be "conformed" to the image of God? 57 minutes ago, LittleNipper said: We are created beings. And what exactly were we created from? Already existing and eternal stuff. We have a beginning according to the Bible---. In our current form yes. As well as Christ also had a beginning in His current form. So what is your point? GOD is eternal according to the Bible. GOD is everlasting to everlasting. The Bible also tells us that the hills are "everlasting". So now what? Humans have a created starting point that runs into infinity. Created from pre-existing, eternal stuff. So what? I see nothing to convince me that I will be GOD. I see nothing to convince me that you will be God too. I will always be in submission to Him. Me too. So what is your point? Saved individuals have an eternity to learn from GOD; Even the none saved individuals will have an eternity to learn from God. So what is your point? however, I don't ever see any created being becoming a god. Of course not. That is because you believe in the false dichotomy of Creator vs creature. Those of us who reject that false notion have no problem with believing the scriptures that clearly indicate that it is possible.
Bobbieaware Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, LittleNipper said: You are taking the verses out of context. Jesus never infers that we are regaining a glory we once possessed. Jesus is speaking regarding Himself and His disciples and future believer being glorified through the Messiah.. John 17Amplified Bible (AMP) The High Priestly Prayer 17 When Jesus had spoken these things, He raised His eyes to heaven [in prayer] and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, so that Your Son may glorify You. 2 Just as You have given Him power and authority over all mankind, [now glorify Him] so that He may give eternal life to all whom You have given Him [to be His—permanently and forever]. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true [supreme and sovereign] God, and [in the same manner know] Jesus [as the] Messiah whom You have sent. 4 I have glorified You [down here] on the earth by completing the work that You gave Me to do.5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory and majesty that I had with You before the world existed. 6 “I have manifested Your name [and revealed Your very self, Your real self] to the people whom You have given Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept and obeyed Your word. 7 Now [at last] they know [with confident assurance] that all You have given Me is from You [it is really and truly Yours]. 8 For the words which You gave Me I have given them; and they received and accepted them and truly understood [with confident assurance] that I came from You [from Your presence], and they believed [without any doubt] that You sent Me. 9 I pray for them; I do not pray for the world, but for those You have given Me, because they belong to You; 10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and [all things that are] Yours are Mine; and I am glorified in them. 11 I am no longer in the world; yet they are still in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, so that they may be one just as We are. 12 While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and protected them, and not one of them was lost except the son of destruction, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. The Disciples in the World 13 But now I am coming to You; and I say these things [while I am still] in the world so that they may experience My joy made full and complete and perfect within them [filling their hearts with My delight]. 14 I have given to them Your word [the message You gave Me]; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world and do not belong to the world, just as I am not of the world and do not belong to it. 15 I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but that You keep them and protect them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth [set them apart for Your purposes, make them holy]; Your word is truth. 18 Just as You commissioned and sent Me into the world, I also have commissioned and sent them (believers) into the world. 19 For their sake [e]I sanctify Myself [to do Your will], so that they also may be sanctified [set apart, dedicated, made holy] in [Your] truth. 20 “I do not pray for these alone [it is not for their sake only that I make this request], but also for [all] those who [will ever] believe and trust in Me through their message, 21 that they all may be one [united]; just as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be one in Us, so that the world may believe [without any doubt] that You sent Me. Their Future Glory 22 I have given to them the glory and honor which You have given Me, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected and completed into one, so that the world may know [without any doubt] that You sent Me, and [that You] have loved them, just as You have loved Me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given to Me [as Your gift to Me], may be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, because You loved Me before the foundation of the world. 25 “O just and righteous Father, although the world has not known You and has never acknowledged You [and the revelation of Your mercy], yet I have always known You; and these [believers] know [without any doubt] that You sent Me; 26 and I have made Your name known to them, and will continue to make it known, so that the love with which You have loved Me may be in them [overwhelming their heart], and I [may be] in them.” In these verses, it matters not whether or not Christ is speaking of the pre-earth life of man. It's enough to know the Savior promises the faithful followers he will be one in them in THE SAME WAY he is one with the Father, and that the Father and the Son and faithful followers will all be one in the very same eternal glory the Father gave to the Son. For your information, the Latter-Day Saints believe the sacrifice of Christ is infinite and eternal, which means we don't believe the Savior sacrificed only a limited portion of his glory for our salvation. Rather, we believe he sacrificed ALL of his glory glory for us because he wants us to have the very same fullness of joy he enjoys, and also because he loves us so much that he wants us to be one In glory with him in same way he is one in glory with the Father. To the Latter-Day Saints, in makes no sense that Christ's sacrifice would be infinite and eternal and yet have him leave his beloved sons and daughters with only a limited portion of his of his truth and light. And we believe that with God ALL THINGS are possible, including the blessing of enjoying same "far more exceeding and ETERNAL weight of eternal glory" he enjoys. You're wasting your time trying to convince testimony-bearing Latter-Day Saints that Christ sacrificed only a limited portion of his glory for us, which is why we believe we will inherit all he has inherited as joint heirs with him in ALL he possesses. Edited January 9, 2017 by Bobbieaware
cacheman Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 21 hours ago, tietjens said: One interesting thing that I've never heard any ex-Mormon/anti-Mormon address is the lack of qualified experts among the critics, the anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons who spend so much time attacking the church. If I were an ex-Mormon/anti-Mormon, I'd find this troubling — if I were honest. Oddly enough, the more education one has, the more likely one is to remain a believing Latter Day Saint. Of all of the people I know who've left the church ostensibly for historical reasons, not a one had any training in history and all have been poorly educated. One person in particular I know who left says his doubt began with the multiple accounts of the First Vision. But would a Latter Day Saint who also happened to be a trained historian find anything threatening in the ten extant accounts of the First Vision? Most probably would not; rather, I think, they would conclude that Joseph Smith's accounts of this visions were remarkably consistent over the years, and that he was telling the truth. Latter Day Saints have nothing to fear from "experts" but lots to gain, and this is one reason, perhaps the primary reason, that 90% or more of the experts are in the camp of the saints, not vice versa. Hi tietjens, I like to think of myself as an honest guy.....but I'm not troubled at all that there are not more exmormon 'experts' actively pursuing scholarship critical of the LDS church. For starters, we are discussing vastly different population sizes in both cases. Why would anyone expect the tiny minority population to have an equal number of anything found in a much much larger population? Am I missing something? -cacheman
cacheman Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I don't know if any research is more up to date, but there is this. Anecdotally, this thesis is absolutely borne out in my ward, which would include everyone from those with PhDs to those who have only a few years of primary education. With few exceptions, our most active, committed members are the highly educated. Our least educated members are not only mostly inactive but very difficult to work with. If you don't mind sharing, I'm curious as to why you find it very difficult to work with the least educated members of your ward. -cacheman
Okrahomer Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 16 hours ago, sjdawg said: What is the evidence for this claim? If true and more educated people remain in the Church is it also true that more educated people join the LDS Church? See here and here and here for information about your first question. See here for information about your second question. From the PEW study: "Mormons are significantly more likely than the population overall to have some college education. Six-in-ten Mormons (61%) have at least some college education, compared with half of the overall population. However, the proportion of Mormons who graduate from college (18%) or receive postgraduate education (10%) is similar to the population as a whole (16% and 11%, respectively). "The 26% of Mormons who are converts to the faith differ markedly from lifelong Mormons in several ways. First, converts tend to be older than lifelong Mormons. Nearly half of converts (48%) are over age 50, compared with about three-in-ten lifelong members (29%). Converts also tend to be less educated than nonconverts (16% did not graduate from high school, compared with just 6% of lifelong members) and they earn decidedly lower incomes (40% make less than $30,000 a year, compared with 21% among nonconverts)." 1
tietjens Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 9 minutes ago, cacheman said: Hi tietjens, I like to think of myself as an honest guy.....but I'm not troubled at all that there are not more exmormon 'experts' actively pursuing scholarship critical of the LDS church. For starters, we are discussing vastly different population sizes in both cases. Why would anyone expect the tiny minority population to have an equal number of anything found in a much much larger population? Am I missing something? -cacheman Well I don't know, but I'm not sure the "vastly different population sizes" is the answer either. There are 15 million LDS, but only 5 million who are churchgoing, and of that 5 million, how many have temple recommends? My point is, you have a potential population of at least 10 million lapsed or unbelieving LDS from which to draw "experts", but the best the ex-Mormons and anti-Mormons can come up with are Dan Vogel, Grant Palmer, Jeremy Runnels, and others like them, and the assorted guiding lights on Mormon Discussions, ex-Mormon reddit, and other such sites. But there may be people i.e. experts (practicing historians, geneticists, linguists, archaeologists, etc.) who are writing and I just don't know about them.
california boy Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 I have remembered this talk by Elder Holland way back in 1994. It has stuck with me for all of these years. I was teaching seminary at the time and while I was not able to attend the CES symposium at BYU, I did get a tape of the talks from that symposium. I still remember driving in my car, shoving this tape into my cassette player and listening to it. While there were other talks from this symposium, this is the one that I never forgot. Here is an excerpt of that talk Quote A good deal has been said about the authorship—and, therefore, the divine origins—of the Book of Mormon. But then there has always been a lot said about it ever since it first rolled off the old E. B. Grandin press in downtown Palmyra, New York, on the 26th of March, 1830. Let me quote a very powerful comment from President Ezra Taft Benson, who said, “The Book of Mormon is the keystone of [our] testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it. “Yes, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion—the keystone of our testimony, the keystone of our doctrine, and the keystone in the witness of our Lord and Savior” (A Witness and a Warning, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1988, p. 19). To hear someone so remarkable say something so tremendously bold, so overwhelming in its implications, that everything in the Church—everything—rises or falls on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and, by implication, the Prophet Joseph Smith’s account of how it came forth, can be a little breathtaking. It sounds like a “sudden death” proposition to me. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward. Not everything in life is so black and white, but it seems the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and its keystone role in our belief is exactly that. Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, who, after seeing the Father and the Son, later beheld the angel Moroni, repeatedly heard counsel from his lips, eventually receiving at his hands a set of ancient gold plates which he then translated according to the gift and power of God—or else he did not. And if he did not, in the spirit of President Benson’s comment, he is not entitled to retain even the reputation of New England folk hero or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, and he is not entitled to be considered a great teacher or a quintessential American prophet or the creator of great wisdom literature. If he lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he is certainly none of those. Why do people stay in the church? Because they believe that what the prophet Joseph Smith claimed and taught came from God himself. Every word in the Book of Mormon is true, translated by the power of God Himself. Why do people leave the church? Because they no longer believe the Book of Mormon narrative to be credible for them. They have found the story of Joseph Smith and what he taught to no longer be credible. In the end, it all comes down to this. Are you devoting your life to a prophet of God and what he taught Or are you devoting your life to a fraud and one of the greatest deceptions ever put upon mankind. According to Elder Holland, it is that simple. I frankly agree with him. All this talk about postmodernism, intellectual understanding and historics etc is completely irrelevant to the fundamental statement that Elder Holland asserts. 1
tietjens Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 11 minutes ago, california boy said: I have remembered this talk by Elder Holland way back in 1994. It has stuck with me for all of these years. I was teaching seminary at the time and while I was not able to attend the CES symposium at BYU, I did get a tape of the talks from that symposium. I still remember driving in my car, shoving this tape into my cassette player and listening to it. While there were other talks from this symposium, this is the one that I never forgot. Here is an excerpt of that talk Why do people stay in the church? Because they believe that what the prophet Joseph Smith claimed and taught came from God himself. Every word in the Book of Mormon is true, translated by the power of God Himself. Why do people leave the church? Because they no longer believe the Book of Mormon narrative to be credible for them. They have found the story of Joseph Smith and what he taught to no longer be credible. In the end, it all comes down to this. Are you devoting your life to a prophet of God and what he taught Or are you devoting your life to a fraud and one of the greatest deceptions ever put upon mankind. According to Elder Holland, it is that simple. I frankly agree with him. All this talk about postmodernism, intellectual understanding and historics etc is completely irrelevant to the fundamental statement that Elder Holland asserts. There really isn't any middle ground. Elder Holland was right (and so was Pres. Hinckley, who said the same thing). In my opinion it, Mormonism, was made this way purposefully — by God. One has to choose, and it is a clear choice. There isn't any middle ground — none at least one can stand on. This is one of the things that makes Mormonism so interesting.
Recommended Posts