Blogger on "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Hamba stated that I said:  "someday your adult grandchildren will look back on what is taught in the family proclamation 'with horror'".

That's completely different than what I said.  I believe a correction is in order.

Except that the Family proclamation clearly teaches that same-sex families are not equal to families where children are raised by mother and father who honor covenants. That sure seems to amount to "any inequality" in my mind. 

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Did you not say something along the lines of 'on all the inequality'? (Going off memory as I looked about an hour ago and too lazy to do it again)

Do you believe the Family Proc does not have any inequality with in it? (Trying to understand what you mean)

 

22 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Except that the Family proclamation clearly teaches that same-sex families are not equal to families where children are raised by mother and father who honor covenants. That sure seems to amount to "any inequality" in my mind. 

Yes, I referred to any inequality with which gay couples are treated.  I had set up that statement with the context of the movie, Hidden Figures, and was primarily speaking of civic inequality.  But I don't think the Proclamation teaches that we should treat anyone with inequality either.  And we've been counseled to treat members of the LGBT community with love and kindness.

Still hoping that Hamba will have the integrity to fix the misquote.

[kllindley]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

Yes, I referred to any inequality with which gay couples are treated.  I had set up that statement with the context of the movie, Hidden Figures, and was primarily speaking of civic inequality.  But I don't think the Proclamation teaches that we should treat anyone with inequality either.  And we've been counseled to treat members of the LGBT community with love and kindness.

Still hoping that Hamba will have the integrity to fix the misquote.

Ok, really trying to understand. When you say inequality. Would refusing to perform same sex marriage ceremonies and excommunicating members who enter same sec marriages be considered inequality in your mind? 

If no, I agree we misunderstood the quote and a correction is in order. If yes, then it makes complete sense that the inequality is taught in the Proclamation and the claim stands. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

Ok, really trying to understand. When you say inequality. Would refusing to perform same sex marriage ceremonies and excommunicating members who enter same sec marriages be considered inequality in your mind? 

If no, I agree we misunderstood the quote and a correction is in order. If yes, then it makes complete sense that the inequality is taught in the Proclamation and the claim stands. 

First, the Proclamation does not mention anything about "refusing to perform same sex marriage ceremonies" nor does it have anything to do with excommunicating members who enter same sex marriages.  If you and Hamba want to start stretching the implications of the Proclamation, please don't apply them to my statements.

Second, I hope that my children will honor the right of the Church to hold to its doctrine on marriage in ALL that it does including how it performs marriages and who can remain a member in good standing.  I will certainly continue to do my best to teach them that.

Third, I hope that my children will have the same love for the teachings of the Proclamation that I do.  I do my best everyday to model what is taught in the Proclamation and hope that they will find joy in living the precepts as well.

Still hoping the misquote by Hamba will be corrected.

[california boy]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

Yes, I referred to any inequality with which gay couples are treated.  I had set up that statement with the context of the movie, Hidden Figures, and was primarily speaking of civic inequality.  But I don't think the Proclamation teaches that we should treat anyone with inequality either.  And we've been counseled to treat members of the LGBT community with love and kindness.

Still hoping that Hamba will have the integrity to fix the misquote.

This was also my understanding of what you were saying.  And I think there is some evidence that what you are suggesting has already happened to some in the church.  There are certainly members that have completely changed their minds about the church's involvement with Prop 8 and now feel that involvement was completely unwarranted and wrong.

There are members of the church who also think the church policy of not allowing children of gay couples to be baptized is wrong.  The number of young people leaving the church is pretty significant, and certainly  some are directly related to how the church treats those that are gay.

Of course anyone can be wrong about predicting what will happen in the future, but it certainly is not a prediction that is without merit.

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

Still hoping the misquote by Hamba will be corrected.

He's in a different hemisphere from you, so there may be a delay.  He should correct it, or at least retract it.

Now, I will say that I initially thought that the implication of the original "horror" statement pertained to the Proclamation, but upon further reflection on what you wrote I see that you didn't mean it that way.  I was left to wonder, however, if you were trying to imply it obliquely.  Perhaps you might have been a tad more precise.

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As though real life is just another game or "World of Warcraft."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN_5f80cFxM .

Trying to lure me into wasting my life play World of Warcraft like so many other sad souls?  Won't work!  I refuse!

Besides, I don't have enough time to get into it, with all my posting rants here and playing World of Warships: https://www.youtube.com/user/worldofwarshipsCOM

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

He's in a different hemisphere from you, so there may be a delay.  He should correct it, or at least retract it.

Now, I will say that I initially thought that the implication of the original "horror" statement pertained to the Proclamation, but upon further reflection on what you wrote I see that you didn't mean it that way.  I was left to wonder, however, if you were trying to imply it obliquely.  Perhaps you might have been a tad more precise.

I guess our POV's are just so different... it didn't even remotely cross my mind that what I was saying had anything to do with the Proclamation that there was no reason to have been more precise in that regard.

[Stargazer]

Just now, rockpond said:

I guess our POV's are just so different... it didn't even remotely cross my mind that what I was saying had anything to do with the Proclamation that there was no reason to have been more precise in that regard.

You better believe that I have written things here (and elsewhere) that I thought were perfectly clear about what I meant, and yet I have had perfectly reasonable people take me completely wrong -- and then refuse to admit that what they thought I said was not what I meant.

I'm not sure POV is the thing here.  Human language in general can be very imprecise, and misunderstanding is common -- don't tell me you haven't noticed this in this place!!!  :-) 

[rockpond]

26 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You better believe that I have written things here (and elsewhere) that I thought were perfectly clear about what I meant, and yet I have had perfectly reasonable people take me completely wrong -- and then refuse to admit that what they thought I said was not what I meant.

I'm not sure POV is the thing here.  Human language in general can be very imprecise, and misunderstanding is common -- don't tell me you haven't noticed this in this place!!!  :-) 

I understand language being imprecise and I definitely understand the misunderstandings here.  But, I never could have imagined that someone would interpret what I said as my kids being horrified at what the proclamation teaches.

[kllindley]

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I understand language being imprecise and I definitely understand the misunderstandings here.  But, I never could have imagined that someone would interpret what I said as my kids being horrified at what the proclamation teaches.

Well provoking those interpretations is a natural consequence of consistently undermining and criticizing the doctrines and foundational beliefs we hold central to our testimonies. Maybe it's hard for you to imagine the we would interpret and understand it in that way, but it probably says something when the two active LGBT members both do in fact understand your comments that way. 

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Well provoking those interpretations is a natural consequence of consistently undermining and criticizing the doctrines and foundational beliefs we hold central to our testimonies. Maybe it's hard for you to imagine the we would interpret and understand it in that way, but it probably says something when the two active LGBT members both do in fact understand your comments that way. 

When or how have I undermined or criticized doctrines or foundational beliefs you hold central to your testimony? (Sincere question) Do you have me confused with someone else?

And I apologize that you it may have come across that way.  Certainly not my intent.

p.s.  Who is the other active LGBT member on this board?

Edited January 18, 2017 by rockpond

[kllindley]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

p.s.  Who is the other active LGBT member on this board?

Hamba

[Gray]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

There is a distinction between revelation and canonization or capital D doctrine.  Revelation does not require a sustaining vote.

In regards to revelation, J. Reuben Clark Jr. said: “There are those who insist that unless the Prophet of the Lord declares, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ the message may not be taken as a revelation. This is a false testing standard. For while many of our modern revelations as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants do contain these words, there are many that do not.” (Church News, 31 July 1954, p. 10.)

For a revelation to have any binding effect on the church, it's supposed to be presented for a sustaining vote. Of course that is not the case for personal revelation

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Hamba

I did not realize that.  Thanks.

No response to my other question?

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

For a revelation to have any binding effect on the church, it's supposed to be presented for a sustaining vote. Of course that is not the case for personal revelation

Interesting point.  I guess one could apply that to the Proclamation but then again, there isn't really anything in the Proclamation that wasn't already taught.  I don't think there is any new doctrine there... more of a compendium of what has been taught by the Brethren over many decades.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Interesting point.  I guess one could apply that to the Proclamation but then again, there isn't really anything in the Proclamation that wasn't already taught.  I don't think there is any new doctrine there... more of a compendium of what has been taught by the Brethren over many decades.

Yes, I think the intent of the proclamation was to simply compile everything the church was already teaching about gender roles into a single document. 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

I guess our POV's are just so different... it didn't even remotely cross my mind that what I was saying had anything to do with the Proclamation that there was no reason to have been more precise in that regard.

Seriously?

Oh well.  That's very different.

Nevermind.

Quote

 

To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

And messing up descriptions and messing up interpretations of descriptions is about all there is to these "problems".

Edited January 18, 2017 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

For a revelation to have any binding effect on the church, it's supposed to be presented for a sustaining vote. Of course that is not the case for personal revelation

To me it is a distinction without much difference.  God's revelations are God's revelations, whether they be found in the canon of the church or taught in Muslim mosques or Buddhist temples of Nepal.  We are bound by our canon to search out and live by ALL of God's revelations and to seek out ALL of God's light.  The official stamp of canonized scripture simply acts as a binding foundation to build upon and an official source to measure all other truths against.  It is not meant to degrade all other light or free us from accountability.

To say that a revelation is not "binding", is not to say that we will not be held accountable for neglecting, depreciating, or undervaluing any revelation of God as received by His prophets or by any other means.  It simply means that it is not binding as a source of "official" doctrine for the church as a whole, but it is still binding on each one of us to adhere to the light received.

 

 

Edited January 18, 2017 by pogi

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

To me it is a distinction without much difference.  God's revelations are God's revelations, whether they be found in the canon of the church or taught in Muslim mosques or Buddhist temples of Nepal.  We are bound by our canon to search out and live by ALL of God's revelations and to seek out ALL of God's light.  The official stamp of canonized scripture simply acts as a binding foundation to build upon and an official source to measure all other truths against.  It is not meant to degrade all other light or free us from accountability.

To say that a revelation is not "binding", is not to say that we will not be held accountable for neglecting, depreciating, or undervaluing any revelation of God as received by His prophets or by any other means.  It simply means that it is not binding as a source of "official" doctrine for the church as a whole, but it is still binding on each one of us to adhere to the light received.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't care if something is "official" or not. Good teachings (ie inspired teachings) are good no matter who says them. But, some people think that the old system was inspired too. And it seems to have been abandoned. 

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

Don't get me wrong, I don't care if something is "official" or not. Good teachings (ie inspired teachings) are good no matter who says them. But, some people think that the old system was inspired too. And it seems to have been abandoned. 

Calling the proclamation a "revelation" is not to call it "canon", you continue to conflate the two. To call the proclamation a "revelation" is not abandonment of the "old system". The  old system is still the same system we use for canonization of revelation and establishment of capital-D Doctrine.  No one here is claiming that the proclamation is canon, so I don't know what you mean by abandoning old systems.

The only point that I have made is that several prophets claim that it was received by revelation, is prophetic, and is equal to the voice of God.  These claims do not require common consent as you seem to suggest, and are not in violation of the system established in the D&C.

Edited January 18, 2017 by pogi

[Robert F. Smith]

23 hours ago, rockpond said:

I agree.  The process is not over.  I didn't mean to imply that it was.

But as you have stated,  Much was known, research was done, long before 2012.  The narrative could have been updated earlier to reflect the reality of what was known, what research had been done.  But it wasn't.  And there has been a lot of suffering as a result.

Yes, research is a lifelong process.  But withholding information that was well researched and known is now causing problems as many of us heard it from outside of church sources FIRST and then had to process not only the new information but the feelings of betrayal from those in whom we had placed great trust.

Well, of course, you and I are not  happy that some of the Brethren have been all too human.  The difference is that I place their actions in historical context, and you do not.  And, as we go round and round with this "tis so, tis not" nonsense, it really all boils down to you not knowing what you don't know:  You are in the same boat that the Brethren find themselves in, except that you lack the faith & testimony which sees them through the long haul.  Had you some notion of what real historiography is, that would have helped a lot.  Since that is not the case, we end up with woulda, shoulda, coulda claims which mean nothing outside actual historical context.  Pretending that "well researched" materials were "withheld" assumes what has to be proven based on misinformation about what in fact was well researched and ready for distribution without adequate background commentary and notes. You have put the ;cart before the horse based on the false idea that raw documents were adequate in and of themselves, or that the Brethren were actually familiar with them.  Neither claim was true.

Reminds me of Fawn Brodie being offered access to the LDS Archives back in the early 1940s, and her refusal:  She didn't want to be bothered with additional data.  Instead of having a professional pre-publication review of her bio of Joseph, she went ahead with a deeply flawed publication, which required immediate changes due to the objectively false claims she had made.  A parade example is her false claim that "Nauvoo" is not a Hebrew word..  All she had to do prior to publication was to have someone who knew Hebrew to examine the claim, but she was an English lit teacher and had no idea that all such claims must be closely checked and verified.  Like you and the Brethren, she did not know what she did not know.  Yet people still read her biography of Joseph without an inkling that it is false history.  Like consumption of fake news by the masses, the hoi polloi have no basis for understanding the difference between fact and fancy.  Those who are not trained historians simply don't get it, and they swiftly turn to feelings of betrayal from those they mistakenly saw as above reproach.

[RevTestament]

On 1/17/2017 at 9:25 AM, Gray said:

So the only reason I know anything about this topic is I recently listened to a ten part lecture series on the historical Jesus,  from Dr. Thomas Sheehan at the Department of Religious Studies at Stanford University. As part of the lecture series, they go into the centuries preceding the historical Jesus (or Yeshua, as he is referred to in the series), including the Book of Daniel. 

http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/FeedEnclosure/itunes.stanford.edu.1291405182.01291405187.1297459218/enclosure.pdf 

As I understand it, the author of Daniel, who is supposed to be writing during the Babylonian captivity, gets a lot of that "contemporary" history wrong (also inventing a king called Darius The Mede https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_the_Mede ). He's much more accurate when you get to the history of the 2nd century BCE,but again has errors in his predictions about the last days of Antiochus. So scholars think the author of Daniel was writing just before the death of Antiochus, or just before word of his death got around. 

Here's another source:

https://www.amazon.com/Daniel-Hermeneia-Series-Historical-Commentary/dp/0800660404 

 

History is a an academic discipline, with its own set of rules. If you're rejecting scholarship, you can't really call your interpretation of Daniel "historical". If it's not historical, it's probably theological, right? 

Antiochus isn't the king of the North - he's the vile person. If I'm not misunderstanding, the "north" referred to is Syria and the "south" is  Egypt. 

Further reading - Oxford Companion to the Bible:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Y2KGVuym5OUC&pg=PA150&dq="why+the+text+of+Daniel+switches+so+suddenly"&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IkZsVfnICY7l8AWWz4PwBA&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=antiochus&f=false

 

 

Thanks Gray - the point I was trying to make by having you post a cfr is that there really is no evidence for the date of the Book of Daniel. I have taken a course in NT textual analysis, and understand what you are saying, but the problem with it is that the dating is not based on actual evidence. In other words there is no third party historian of an earlier date who verifies the existence of Daniel in the 6th century BC, etc. Looking at the page of the book you posted note that it says "The lengthy apocalypse of Daniel 10-12 provides the best evidence for date and authorship." In other words from a scholarly standpoint they reject the book as a prophecy and conclude that since it appears to outline events leading up to Antiochus Epiphanes, that must be the time it was written. Similar analysis is applied to the NT books which refer to the impending destruction of the temple. Scholars CONCLUDE that these books must have been written or finished after the referenced destruction of the temple since Jesus obviously couldn't have know it would happen.... bla bla bla. 

The obvious problem with this type of dating is that it really is not based on "evidence" but conclusions based upon interpretation. Really, modern scholars have fallen into the same trap of the Maccabeans who believed they understood the vision, and that Antiochus Ephiphanes was the vile one. In fact the text itself addresses that:
 

Daniel 11:14

14 And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.

The text says this vision will not be established until the latter days or time of the end. 

So answer this: If the scholars are right, and it was written late, and doesn't refer to a time when the Grecian kingdoms were plucked up, and they were indeed writing about Antiochus Ephiphanes as the vile one, like modern scholars claim, how come these writers switch to the king of the north(Antiochus Epiphanes) coming against himself (the "him" or vile one of the preceding verses) at the time of the end? That certainly seems to point to a large flaw in their conslusions ie interpretation...  

The presentation that there was no Darius the Mede is also a conclusion, and could be wrong. We don't really know much of the Medes. We do know that is where the 10 tribes were taken, and we find the Medes helping Babylon defeat Assyria - maybe a little Hebrew "payback" involved? We also know thte Medes then joined forces with the Persians to defeat Babylon. This alliance was cemented with marriages. And indeed we find Ruth marrying a king in the book of Ruth. It is certainly conceivable that there was a Darius who served under the Persian king - who really did not take the city of Babylon himself but arrived after his generals had taken the city. Just like the NT refers to Herod as "king" but he is really a Roman prefect - he certainly wasn't the emperor. It was not much later that Darius the Great came to power. It is certainly conceivable that he was named after a famous general or something like that, whom the book is referring to. Hystaspes, his father, served as a general for Cyrus. Incidentally, Darius the Great said his father, Hystaspes, had been a prefect of Bactria, which I believe may have been a landing ground of the tribe of Ephraim. One of the subtribes of Ephraim were the Bachrites. In fact, maybe it is this Hystaspes whom the book calls Darius the Mede as the father of Darius the Great. 

[Physics Guy]

So this old book describes a series of historical events in somewhat vague terms. Up to a certain point, the vagueness really doesn't seem so vague, though. It seems pretty easy and natural to match up what the book says with events that we know from other sources. Then, at that certain point, the matching suddenly goes off the rails. It becomes very unclear what the book is talking about. You have to jump hundreds of years into the future, and squint quite a bit, to find anything that half-way fits. Whereas before, all the events seemed to line up pretty well with known history, in accurate sequence, within one century. 

One explanation is that the author of the book was miraculously foretelling the future, as a prophet inspired by God, but at that one point the prophecy jumped ahead several centuries, without any warning or comment. God and the prophet were keen to reveal the future straightforwardly up to a point, but then they got cagey all of sudden, and decided to be confusing. For a while they go on talking about Hellenistic rulers BC, but then they abruptly switch topic to AD papacy, or something, without any overt hint that the topic has changed. Okay, then.

The other explanation is that the point at which the prophecy seems to jump is simply the time at which the author was writing. He wrote a poetic description of his own recent history, and then continued with guesses about his future. His guesses were wrong.

Okay, the second explanation has an intrinsic appeal to skeptics/rationalists/atheists, while the first is more congenial to religious believers. Apart from that, though, it seems to me that the second explanation is just simpler and more coherent, according to its own logic, than the first explanation is, according to its logic. So to me the second explanation has a louder ring of truth. In principle I'm willing to believe in prophecy, but if a book can manage to be a miraculous prophecy, then why can't it manage to present its message clearly?

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, of course, you and I are not  happy that some of the Brethren have been all too human.  The difference is that I place their actions in historical context, and you do not.  And, as we go round and round with this "tis so, tis not" nonsense, it really all boils down to you not knowing what you don't know:  You are in the same boat that the Brethren find themselves in, except that you lack the faith & testimony which sees them through the long haul.  Had you some notion of what real historiography is, that would have helped a lot.  Since that is not the case, we end up with woulda, shoulda, coulda claims which mean nothing outside actual historical context.  Pretending that "well researched" materials were "withheld" assumes what has to be proven based on misinformation about what in fact was well researched and ready for distribution without adequate background commentary and notes. You have put the ;cart before the horse based on the false idea that raw documents were adequate in and of themselves, or that the Brethren were actually familiar with them.  Neither claim was true.

Reminds me of Fawn Brodie being offered access to the LDS Archives back in the early 1940s, and her refusal:  She didn't want to be bothered with additional data.  Instead of having a professional pre-publication review of her bio of Joseph, she went ahead with a deeply flawed publication, which required immediate changes due to the objectively false claims she had made.  A parade example is her false claim that "Nauvoo" is not a Hebrew word..  All she had to do prior to publication was to have someone who knew Hebrew to examine the claim, but she was an English lit teacher and had no idea that all such claims must be closely checked and verified.  Like you and the Brethren, she did not know what she did not know.  Yet people still read her biography of Joseph without an inkling that it is false history.  Like consumption of fake news by the masses, the hoi polloi have no basis for understanding the difference between fact and fancy.  Those who are not trained historians simply don't get it, and they swiftly turn to feelings of betrayal from those they mistakenly saw as above reproach.

In case you care at all about accuracy, I went ahead and bolded the false statements you have made about me.  I do place their actions in historical context.  I have faith and testimony that see me through the long haul (that's why I'm still a faithful, active church member).  And I don't believe that raw documents are adequate in and of themselves... but the Brethren have had far more than raw documents for a long time.

I haven't studied Fawn Brodie nor read her book so I don't have much to comment on your second paragraph.