Yesterday's Anti-Mormon Lies are Today's Church Teachings

[churchistrue]

There was a thread a while back discussing this idea.  I would have added this comment on that thread without starting a new one, but it was closed.  Here's an example from a blog post I wrote.

http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/teaching-messy-lds-church-history/

 

In this post, I talk about the Mormon Interpreter's scripture roundtable discussion from four years ago where this was said, referencing D&C Section 8 http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/scripture-roundtable-9-dc-gospel-doctrine-5/:

Quote

Some people, especially critics of the church and Joseph Smith, have speculated that this rod was a divining rod…But I consulted with Larry Morris, coauthor of the biography Oliver Cowdery: Scribe, Elder, Witness, and he said there is no evidence of Oliver Cowdery using a divining rod…it seems more likely that this rod is connected to Aaron’s rod (from Old Testament)… 

 

That was four years ago.  Since then, the church published the article Oliver Cowder's Gift.  

https://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-oliver-cowdery?lang=eng

 

Quote

Oliver Cowdery lived in a culture steeped in biblical ideas, language, and practices. The revelation’s reference to Moses likely resonated with him. The Old Testament account of Moses and his brother Aaron recounted several instances of using rods to manifest God’s will (see Exodus 7:9–12; Numbers 17:8). Many Christians in Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery’s day similarly believed in divining rods as instruments for revelation.  Oliver was among those who believed in and used a divining rod.

 

The Lord recognized Oliver’s ability to use a rod: “Thou hast another gift which is the gift of working with the sprout [or rod].” Confirming the divinity of this gift, the revelation stated: “Behold there is no other power save God that can cause this thing of Nature to work in your hands for it is the work of God.” If Oliver desired, the revelation went on to say, the Lord would add the gift of translation to the revelatory gifts Oliver already possessed.

 

 

I am not blasting the church or anyone in particular for why this is.  But I do believe there is a need for the narrative to change.  I believe it's changing and will continue to change.

Edited February 6, 2017 by churchistrue

[Kevin Christensen]

All of them?  No exceptions?  So the title states a valid general principle?  And shows no tendency to hysterical overstatement and over-generalization?

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited February 6, 2017 by Kevin Christensen
type

[churchistrue]

2 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

All of them?  No exceptions?  So the title state a valid general principle?  And shows no tendency to hysterical overstatement and over-generalization?

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Obviously not all of them.  I'm not totally sure any of them.  This is an extension of a discussion where that was thrown out as a premise, obviously over-generalized.  There was a challenge to name anything at all that might qualify.  This is an example.

 

[Calm]

OC's Gift was published in Dec 2012, a month before the Roundtable.

Your timeline is off.

 

Oliver Cowdery’s Gift

D&C 6, 7, 8, 9, 13

Jeffrey G. Cannon15 December 2012

Edited February 6, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

History gets really messy when dates aren't paid attention to.

[churchistrue]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

History gets really messy when dates aren't paid attention to.

haha touche.  Good catch.  I'm not sure when that article was publicized or if the participants on that podcast were aware of it.  But I think the point is solid.  We're coming from position A where the church's stance on the Oliver's Divining Rod is unclear and members are not sure if they should deny it as an Anti-Mormon lie or integrate into their beliefs.  Then the church publishes the revelations in context article.  And at some point we'll be at position B (probably not there yet), where the church's view on Oliver's Divining Rod is understood by members.

Edited February 6, 2017 by churchistrue

[Calm]

"But I consulted with Larry Morris, coauthor of the biography Oliver Cowdery: Scribe, Elder, Witness, and he said there is no evidence of Oliver Cowdery using a divining rod…it seems more likely that this rod is connected to Aaron’s rod (from Old Testament)…"

And where in there does it say it is an anti-Mormon lie?

[churchistrue]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

"But I consulted with Larry Morris, coauthor of the biography Oliver Cowdery: Scribe, Elder, Witness, and he said there is no evidence of Oliver Cowdery using a divining rod…it seems more likely that this rod is connected to Aaron’s rod (from Old Testament)…"

And where in there does it say it is an anti-Mormon lie?

"Some people, especially critics of the church, have speculated..."

[Calm]

First, it says "speculate", not "lie".  Second, it says "some people" of which "critics" (not the same as "anti-mormons") are only a subgroup, so "people" speculating must also include at least neutral in beliefs and likely some believers, even if most are critics.

You seem to be requiring the Church speak with precision in its history.  Seems to me you should as well rather than choosing the more sensationalized approach.

[churchistrue]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

First, it says "speculate", not "lie".  Second, it says "some people" of which "critics" (not the same as "anti-mormons") are only a subgroup, so "people" speculating must also include at least neutral in beliefs and likely some believers, even if most are critics.

You seem to be requiring the Church speak with precision in its history.  Seems to me you should as well rather than choosing the more sensationalized approach.

OK, first, I don't require the church speak with precision in its history.  If you were familiar with my writing in general or the specific article I linked to, you would understand I am very generous towards the church on this subject.  Next, if a knowledgeable member of the church using careful language in a podcast is calling it "critical speculation" refuted by Larry Morris, then I'm sure you would find plenty of Mormons in the past calling it an "Anti-mormon lie". I know I would have assumed that 20 years ago.  And I'm sure the church was just fine letting me assume that.  But the positive thing here is that the church is no longer fine letting members assume that.  I see that as big progress.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

OK, first, I don't require the church speak with precision in its history.  If you were familiar with my writing in general or the specific article I linked to, you would understand I am very generous towards the church on this subject.  Next, if a knowledgeable member of the church using careful language in a podcast is calling it "critical speculation" refuted by Larry Morris, then I'm sure you would find plenty of Mormons in the past calling it an "Anti-mormon lie". I know I would have assumed that 20 years ago.  And I'm sure the church was just fine letting me assume that.  But the positive thing here is that the church is no longer fine letting members assume that.  I see that as big progress.

 

 

What "plenty of Mormons" think or say and what the Church authoritatively teaches (or does not teach) do not always coincide.

[churchistrue]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What "plenty of Mormons" think or say and what the Church authoritatively teaches (or does not teach) do not always coincide.

Right.  I think it's understood, or at least it's how I assumed it was meant, that we're talking about a culture or environment in terms of how the body of the church collectively perceived an issue.  Not necessarily what is stated in official sources.  Because most of these issues were not commonly addressed by the church directly in the time period in question, ie 70's/80's up until the internet age exploding things.

 

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

OK, first, I don't require the church speak with precision in its history.  If you were familiar with my writing in general or the specific article I linked to, you would understand I am very generous towards the church on this subject. 

Good to know.

However to the rest, your post used the quote from the RT as evidence when it is not saying that at all.  If you want to claim that some members go to extremes, then say that and don't misrepresent what someone else has actually said so it can allegedly match your claims.  Your credibility suffers when it looks like you are sensationalizing their words.

Plus just because plenty of LDS say things a certain way doesn't mean the majority of LDS have said or taught it that way and given your one example is evidence of not saying it that way (example:  Rowe's books were number one in the LDS market for quite some time, they were also on the spurious materials/banned at CES list by church authorities).

Your argument/analysis is very weak the way you have constructed it...First the timeline was wrong, the Church was publishing correct info before Brother Morris gave his own opinion.  Second, Brother Morris never referred to "anti-mormons" or third, "lies".

Rather than trying to get by with stuff that doesn't come close unless you make undocumented assumptions attempting to tie them to your claims, you should go back and start over if you want to be persuasive rather than simply critical or sensationalist.

[Bob Crockett]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What "plenty of Mormons" think or say and what the Church authoritatively teaches (or does not teach) do not always coincide.

Well, I'm seeing the word "narrative" again to describe Church doctrine.  And we all seem to accept it so.

[churchistrue]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

Good to know.

However to the rest, your post used the quote from the RT as evidence when it is not saying that at all.  If you want to claim that some members go to extremes, then say that and don't misrepresent what someone else has actually said so it can allegedly match your claims.  Your credibility suffers when it looks like you are sensationalizing their words.

Plus just because plenty of LDS say things a certain way doesn't mean the majority of LDS have said or taught it that way and given your one example is evidence of not saying it that way (example:  Rowe's books were number one in the LDS market for quite some time, they were also on the spurious materials/banned at CES list by church authorities).

Your argument/analysis is very weak the way you have constructed it...First the timeline was wrong, the Church was publishing correct info before Brother Morris gave his own opinion.  Second, Brother Morris never referred to "anti-mormons" or third, "lies".

Rather than trying to get by with stuff that doesn't come close unless you make undocumented assumptions attempting to tie them to your claims, you should go back and start over if you want to be persuasive rather than simply critical or sensationalist.

Hi Calm, I'm a friend.  I have an extreme level of commitment to the church.  I love the church, and I'm devoting substantial resources in a cause to help defend it.  My approach is very different than yours.  That's OK.  Different people have different needs and require different approaches. You can retain some your way.  I might be able to retain some my way.  Someone just today told me my approach gave them hope that the church can be nuanced enough for them to stay.  

A lot of people accuse FairMormon or "Mopologists" or the "old FARMS approach" of obfuscating.  Sometimes it's done very generally with a broad brush and is not very fair.  This is one of those specific times I'd like to bring it to your attention.  I am being very clear with my argument.  I have a very solid example.  The point I'm making is not a win or lose deal.  If I "win" this argument and you "lose" it, the church will not be affected in the slightest.  There is no need to stop this "uncontested slam dunk".  By doing what you do here, the biggest danger is that you'll create feelings of hostility towards me or towards other readers who can clearly see I'm making a simple and valid point, and you're responding by obfuscating.

Position A.  issue in question: Oliver Cowdery's use of a divining rod and the fact that in D&C 8 the Lord is commanding Oliver to use his divining rod to attempt to translate the Book of Mormon. This issue is considered generally in the church as an "Anti-Mormon lie".  A very good illustration of this environment is that a church scholar Larry Morris denied it, and the commenter on the MI RT referenced it as "critical speculation."  I can't go back in time and conduct a poll, but come on, be real, can't we agree that this would have been very common sentiment among the body of the church in the 80's/90's pre-internet age?  

in between Position A and B: the church publishes the revelation in context article "Oliver Cowder's Gift" confirming the issue in question.

Position B. Members will understand this is not an "anti-Mormon lie" or "critical speculation" and accept it as documented church history.  

We're moving from Position A to Position B.  I'm not judging it.  I'm sure there are very many complicated issues that result in Position A.  I'm simply observing it and the change to Position B.

 

[Calm]

"A lot of people accuse FairMormon or "Mopologists" or the "old FARMS approach" of obfuscating.  Sometimes it's done very generally with a broad brush and is not very fair.  This is one of those specific times I'd like to bring it to your attention"

Very few current FM members hang out on the board here consistently...I may be the only one by now...and I don't know about others who may lurk, but I have no intention of being the messenger.  It is not effective to have a middleman.  I don't do the wiki or the Answers section either, your corrections do not impact the projects I work on (currently mainly the semidaily news service, FairMormon Front Page).  If your intent is to have an impact on FM, you need to go to the source.

http://www.fairmormon.org/contact

Edited February 6, 2017 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, churchistrue said:

There was a thread a while back discussing this idea.  I would have added this comment on that thread without starting a new one, but it was closed.  Here's an example from a blog post I wrote.

http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/teaching-messy-lds-church-history/

 

In this post, I talk about the Mormon Interpreter's scripture roundtable discussion from four years ago where this was said, referencing D&C Section 8 http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/scripture-roundtable-9-dc-gospel-doctrine-5/:

 

That was four years ago.  Since then, the church published the article Oliver Cowder's Gift.  

https://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-oliver-cowdery?lang=eng

 

 

I am not blasting the church or anyone in particular for why this is.  But I do believe there is a need for the narrative to change.  I believe it's changing and will continue to change.

Apologetics in the church has a history of moving the goal posts on issues like this, this is part of why its so hard for me to trust any one source, and why I try and look at multiple sources and opinions on issues before I come to any conclusions.

I also think that with respect to the supernatural world views of the early church leaders, that there is a lot of discomfort in the 21st century with these very foreign perspectives.  Look at the LDS Answers folks and their denials of anything magical in the early church narrative.  

[Glenn101]

It is not the outrageous liars and lies that are the real problem. It is when bits of truth are sprinkled in with the lies making it hard to be able to separate fact from fiction. One can find nuggets of truth in just about any ant-mormon broadside. For those who are looking for something to criticize, that is enough. I think that the church essays is an attempt to separate the grain from the chaff. I do not know how well it will work.

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

42 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

We're moving from Position A to Position B.  I'm not judging it.  I'm sure there are very many complicated issues that result in Position A.  I'm simply observing it and the change to Position B.

I appreciate your post and understand where you are coming from.  I can also understand where Calm and others are coming from as well, I think because FAIR is a whipping boy often enough that those involved in these circles are sensitive to criticism, and thats fine, I can understand that mindset.  Your underlying point about changing narratives over time and the sanitizing and acceptance of certain unsavory/controversial history is part of the story of the past 75 years.  

Its a slow crawl, but those of us who feel on the borders of church orthodoxy might find many of our views as mainstream orthodox in another 50 years and we could be looking at a very different church in the future.  If only I had a divining rod I could find out if this prediction will come true....

 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

OC's Gift was published in Dec 2012, a month before the Roundtable.

Your timeline is off.

 

Oliver Cowdery’s Gift

D&C 6, 7, 8, 9, 13

 

Jeffrey G. Cannon15 December 2012

oops.   So miuch for that argument

[cinepro]

6 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Obviously not all of them.  I'm not totally sure any of them.  This is an extension of a discussion where that was thrown out as a premise, obviously over-generalized.  There was a challenge to name anything at all that might qualify.  This is an example.

 

If someone told me 10 years ago that an online discussion about Oliver Cowdery's divining rod would go the way this thread has gone, I would have thought they were crazy.  I think your point has been proven far better than anyone could have imagined.

Edited February 7, 2017 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, churchistrue said:

 

We're moving from Position A to Position B.  I'm not judging it.  I'm sure there are very many complicated issues that result in Position A.  I'm simply observing it and the change to Position B.

 

That's not the way I see it at all.

Calling it out as a former "anti-Mormon lie" is polarizing and looks an awful lot like a heavy criticism.  The church lied before but now it is lying less.  It is as if I praised you for no longer beating your wife instead of saying that I was aware of a vast improvement in how you get along with your wife.

It is not good PR for your position or your work.  If you wanted to draw attention to the article, perhaps you might have talked about the value of clarifying the issue and that it further amplifies the fact that formerly, objects were used to receive revelation like the papyrus in the Book of Abraham, and the plates and the seer stone with the Book of Mormon.

You could have referenced the quotes that say that a "white stone" will be given to all to act as a Urim and Thummim, thereby showing the validity of the Restoration in restoring some Old Testament practices.

There are no facts, only interpretations, and I would suggest you could have interpreted the data in a more positive way.

Yes the church is changing- isn't it great??

When someone is trying to lose weight you do not comment on how fat they used to be, or say "For a drunk you are doing very well!"

Edited February 7, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

I recall one night in a public park near my home in Los Alamos when some high school friends and I saw a fellow walking around holding two coat hangers bent in an L shape. We asked him what he was doing. He was an engineer who worked for the nuclear lab. He said he was practicing dowsing by searching for the pop-up sprinkler heads buried in the lawn. He held the wires straight in front of him as he walked and when he crossed over a sprinkler the wires would turn inward and cross. Seemed to work just fine. We tried it with varying degrees of success over the next few days. He didn't attribute it to occult or mystical powers, but he said he didn't understand why it worked. Quien sabe?

[Storm Rider]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

If someone told me 10 years ago that an online discussion about Oliver Cowdery's divining rod would go the way this thread has gone, I would have thought they were crazy.  I think your point has been proven far better than anyone could have imagined.

Gads, I dislike silliness created over semantics.  One says Aaron's rod another says diving rod.  Please explain the difference or if there is a difference.  This is a CFR.

If there is no difference when discussing Oliver gift, what exactly is the big deal that two of you are wanting to pound the silly drum about?  That the narrative must change that everyone must now use only one and never the other to label the rod?  Why?  Who exactly is benefited by such a unilateral move?  Why isn't it both?  Oh, now I see.  If we only using diving rod then we can equate it to all other uses of a diving rod.  Geez, and we wonder why people choke on gnats and swallow camels.

[churchistrue]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Gads, I dislike silliness created over semantics.  One says Aaron's rod another says diving rod.  Please explain the difference or if there is a difference.  This is a CFR.

If there is no difference when discussing Oliver gift, what exactly is the big deal that two of you are wanting to pound the silly drum about?  That the narrative must change that everyone must now use only one and never the other to label the rod?  Why?  Who exactly is benefited by such a unilateral move?  Why isn't it both?  Oh, now I see.  If we only using diving rod then we can equate it to all other uses of a diving rod.  Geez, and we wonder why people choke on gnats and swallow camels.

Likewise, it's silly to even mention the distinction between the Urim and Thummim and the seerstone/hat?  Some people think it's important.