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

[stemelbow]

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.

I'm curious too what Larry Morris thought the great difference was, so much so to make some point about it on the broadcast.  I guess he choked on a gnat while trying to swallow a camel, if that's how you see it. 

[churchistrue]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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!"

Meh. If I'm in a room full of people making fun of the fat person, not noticing they've dropped from 400 to 300 lbs, it's good to point it out to them.  

[Buckeye]

15 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

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

Actually, the purpose of the essays is not so much to separate true facts from false information (that's more the roles of scholars) but to present some factual information regarding some difficult historical events in a faithful manner. See, e.g., http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865669945/Essays-on-Mormon-history-doctrine-find-new-visibility-in-official-app-Sunday-School.html. ("Leaders 'want first and foremost to preserve the faith,' [Matthew Bowman] added. 'They wrote the essays in a way that will inoculate the faith.'")

[bluebell]

When i hear the term "church teachings" i think more of doctrine, teachings on how to act more like Christ, and that kind of thing.  I don't ever think of historical facts as 'church teachings'.

[Johnnie Cake]

I'm currently out of town and posting from my iPhone so forgive my lack of an accreditation. maybe someone else can confirm or deny this...but if memory serves me right I remember reading that the terms Aaron s rod. And divining rod/sicks we're interchangeable terms in early 1820s back woods upstate New York.   Only later did the terms fall out of favor causing church editors to scrub the terms from the D&C

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

When i hear the term "church teachings" i think more of doctrine, teachings on how to act more like Christ, and that kind of thing.  I don't ever think of historical facts as 'church teachings'.

I think that was the motto of the Church archives during Joseph Fielding Smith's tenure.

[cinepro]

For all the accusations of "presentism" leveled against critics, this is probably a good example of presentism on the part of apologists.  

Nowadays, dowsing has become fairly normalized around the idea of finding buried stuff.  Ore, oil, water.  )Normalized, but sadly never actually demonstrated beyond the ideomoter effect).  To be clear, dowsing is one of those fascinating talents that is only able to be demonstrated when skeptical eyes aren't watching.

But back to the point of "presentism."  In the past, and to some practitioners today, dowsing wasn't just about finding water or buried treasure.  It was a medium for receiving revelation and communicating with the divine (which some still do to this day):

Quote

Dowsing is the ancient art of finding water, minerals, and other objects. Our task here is to use the pendulum or dowsing rods to ask pertinent questions to important issues in our lives. These answers exist somewhere in the universe and using the pendulum connects us to those answers.

http://www.crystal-life.com/blog/basic-dowsing

/

 

Of course, this also raises another question (which questions never seem to get raised when the story is brought up in Gospel Doctrine).  How on Earth would someone expect to "translate" the Gold Plates using a dowsing rod?  Did he have a board with letters on it and the rod would spell out each word?  

And how would someone translate an ancient, lost language using the method described in D&C 9?  If I gave you a sheet with ancient Chinese writing on it and you tried to translate it using the Spirit of God and the methodology of D&C 9, what would you do?  You "study" the characters, and take a guess about what it might be.

You (prayerfully after study): Is it about a Chinese king?

God: No.

You (prayerfully after study): Is it about a Chinese farmer?

God: No

You (prayerfully after study):  Is it about a Chinese soldier?

God: Yes.

You (prayerfully): Was his name Chin-ho?

God: No.

You: Was his name Chin-ra?

God: No.

and so on...

I can't imagine what Oliver was doing with his dowsing rod and what D&C 9 was telling him to do, but it certainly doesn't sound like a workable methodology to translation.

Edited February 7, 2017 by cinepro

[Storm Rider]

5 hours ago, churchistrue said:

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

I must of missed when you brought that one up - the only one I was focused on is your issue with Aaron's rod and diving rod. I am not speaking in absolutes, but rather taking things as you bring them up.  

I noticed that you did not address if there is a difference between Aaron's rod and a diving rod.  Was that on purpose and conceded it really is just a game of semantics and preference.  Do you see any wisdom in calling it Aaron's rod while also indicating that in other areas of the local culture diving rods were used.  

As far as U&T and the stone in the hat I see them as two different things.  In this instance I don't think it is a case of semantics.  I always go back to what Joseph said - he translated the plates by the gift and power of God.  

[Storm Rider]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm curious too what Larry Morris thought the great difference was, so much so to make some point about it on the broadcast.  I guess he choked on a gnat while trying to swallow a camel, if that's how you see it. 

No, I don't think so.  I already answered this in my above post; it applies to Morris' position.  The local culture used things called diving rods - Oliver was one of them.  

You are still ignoring defining things; it is a common mistake when people are trying to build mountains out of mole hills.  There is a no winner here; you brought up an issue and I have provided an alternative perspective that remains faithful and finds no problems.  If it works for you, great.  If not, no worries.  

[churchistrue]

37 minutes ago, cinepro said:

For all the accusations of "presentism" leveled against critics, this is probably a good example of presentism on the part of apologists.  

Nowadays, dowsing has become fairly normalized around the idea of finding buried stuff.  Ore, oil, water.  )Normalized, but sadly never actually demonstrated beyond the ideomoter effect).  To be clear, dowsing is one of those fascinating talents that is only able to be demonstrated when skeptical eyes aren't watching.

But back to the point of "presentism."  In the past, and to some practitioners today, dowsing wasn't just about finding water or buried treasure.  It was a medium for receiving revelation and communicating with the divine (which some still do to this day):

 

Of course, this also raises another question (which questions never seem to get raised when the story is brought up in Gospel Doctrine).  How on Earth would someone expect to "translate" the Gold Plates using a dowsing rod?  Did he have a board with letters on it and the rod would spell out each word?  

And how would someone translate an ancient, lost language using the method described in D&C 9?  If I gave you a sheet with ancient Chinese writing on it and you tried to translate it using the Spirit of God and the methodology of D&C 9, what would you do?  You "study" the characters, and take a guess about what it might be.

You (prayerfully after study): Is it about a Chinese king?

God: No.

You (prayerfully after study): Is it about a Chinese farmer?

God: No

You (prayerfully after study):  Is it about a Chinese soldier?

God: Yes.

You (prayerfully): Was his name Chin-ho?

God: No.

You: Was his name Chin-ra?

God: No.

and so on...

I can't imagine what Oliver was doing with his dowsing rod and what D&C 9 was telling him to do, but it certainly doesn't sound like a workable methodology to translation.

This remains the most significant part of the whole saga that doesn't get enough attention.   I wrote this on the blog post referenced earlier.

So Oliver took a shot at translating the Book of Mormon using his divining rod as a conduit for the Spirit.  It appears he was successful at first, at least for a brief moment.  D&C 9:5.

5 And, behold, it is because that you did not continue as you commenced, when you began to translate, that I have taken away this privilege from you.

You can’t “continue” in something unless you were doing it in the first place, right?  I wonder what part of the Book of Mormon that is.  OK, so then the Lord gives the reason why he failed, which has become a popular seminary scripture and a foundational piece of a Mormon’s testimony in how we receive personal revelation.  D&C 9:7-9.

7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.

It’s up to us to make a decision ourselves.  Then we take that decision to God for confirmation.  This is how the Lord worked with Brother of Jared.  He had to come up with the solution and present it to God.  We’re instructed not to lazily ask God who to marry or which subject to major in, but to “study it out”, do the work to decide for ourselves, wrestle with it, list the pro’s and con’s, and make the decision ourselves.  It’s great, practical advice.  We as Mormons are a people of action.  We don’t sit on our hands wondering what God wants us to do.  But when it comes to Book of Mormon translation, it’s a bit mind blowing.  How did it go?  Something like this?

Joseph looking in the seerstone and “studying it out”, his own mind putting words on the stone for God to confirm…

“I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents in a small village of Malaysia….”  “Am I feeling a burning in my bosom?  No.  Hang on, Oliver.  No, this is definitely stupor of thought.  Let’s try again.”

“I, Nephi, son of the great Viking warrior, Bjorn…”  “No, it’s still a stupor of thought.”

I believe this description of the Book of Mormon translation process provides huge insight, which we as a church haven’t really processed.

 

 

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

No, I don't think so.  I already answered this in my above post; it applies to Morris' position.  The local culture used things called diving rods - Oliver was one of them.  

You are still ignoring defining things; it is a common mistake when people are trying to build mountains out of mole hills.  There is a no winner here; you brought up an issue and I have provided an alternative perspective that remains faithful and finds no problems.  If it works for you, great.  If not, no worries.  

The quote in the OP suggests Morris is the one who made a point about them being different:

 

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)… 

You said:

Quote

One says Aaron's rod another says diving rod.  Please explain the difference or if there is a difference.  This is a CFR

I guess your CFR was for Morris? or he who supposedly spoke for Morris?  Didn't know we could CFR non participants. 

But I am curious.  What really would be the difference.  Why would Morris make a point about them being different?  How would he know?

[rockpond]

On 2/6/2017 at 0:25 PM, 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.

I can't speak to the details of this particular example, others here seem knowledgeable about it.

For me, it is clear that the Church is <pick your word:  changing, adjusting, expanding, clarifying> its narrative to be more in line with the reality of our somewhat messy history.

It's a good thing and I am glad they are doing it because it means my own kids are less likely to have to deal with the same faith challenging issues I have dealt with and, hopefully, won't experience the same pain I went through.

I recently taught the multiple first vision accounts to my Teachers Quorum and was able to do so using documents entirely available on the LDS Gospel Library app!

 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I can't speak to the details of this particular example, others here seem knowledgeable about it.

For me, it is clear that the Church is <pick your word:  changing, adjusting, expanding, clarifying> its narrative to be more in line with the reality of our somewhat messy history.

It's a good thing and I am glad they are doing it because it means my own kids are less likely to have to deal with the same faith challenging issues I have dealt with and, hopefully, won't experience the same pain I went through.

I recently taught the multiple first vision accounts to my Teachers Quorum and was able to do so using documents entirely available on the LDS Gospel Library app!

 

i am so happy to hear this.  It is great that the visions are being taught now more openly and anything that can help that would keep things from being so challenging is  good thing!

[Meadowchik]

On 07/02/2017 at 10:37 PM, rockpond said:

I can't speak to the details of this particular example, others here seem knowledgeable about it.

For me, it is clear that the Church is <pick your word:  changing, adjusting, expanding, clarifying> its narrative to be more in line with the reality of our somewhat messy history.

It's a good thing and I am glad they are doing it because it means my own kids are less likely to have to deal with the same faith challenging issues I have dealt with and, hopefully, won't experience the same pain I went through.

I recently taught the multiple first vision accounts to my Teachers Quorum and was able to do so using documents entirely available on the LDS Gospel Library app!

 

I've been aware of the "messiness" of church history to some extent since I was a teen: polygamy, the questionable character of Joseph Smith, the masonic elements in the temple, etc... First I was skeptical of all things impugning Joseph.  Then I decided that through the fog of history we cannot truly know.  Then I thought that, even if Joseph was a flawed man, that he could have still been a prophet and done good in his life, that in essence, he could have still merited the praise and devotion heaped upon him by his contemporary followers up until the present day.

But then I had an experience of my own, this with another church member who lied, acted in bad faith, threatened my family, assaulted my husband, and convinced other members of his rightness and our wrongness, including the stake president (albeit the SP only temporarily.)  Even after the stake president apoligised to us, after things calmed down and I felt so much better about the specific conflict, my impression of the church had changed.  It was as if a switch had been flipped.

I think that overall, that switch resulted from two things:

1) There was a great deal of disppointment in the lack of discernment in my leaders who were apparently unable to recognise a pathological liar and manipulator. Then, as soon as I reflected on Joseph Smith after this discouraging experience, I could see it clearly:  I could see how many good people could be duped by a liar. I could see how a liar could win the praise of people around him even up until now.  I could see how feeble people can be. 

2) At the same time, I could with confidence reject a liar as a prophet of God.  When it comes to the man who hurt my family and tricked other church members, I would not be able to sustain him if he was called this Sunday to a leadership position. If this man declared revelation for me or others, I would reject it wholesale because of the other bad fruits he has produced, of which he has not repented or even acknowledged.  A couple weeks ago one of this man's friends spoke of him and the spiritual gift he had of reading the thoughts of others.  I could have vomited in disgust.  This is the man who spoke vulgar words to me on multiple occasions, who within 24 hours spoke of us belonging in Hell then said he would not be accountable for issuing a death threat because there were no witnesses.  I realised that this man was in no way inspired as a prophet. Likewise, I could no longer see how any man who lies repeatedly, as Joseph Smith had, could be a prophet.

So it's all come crashing down.

I think that, for me, this is a major crux and crisis for the church: the extent of Joseph Smith's deceptions and how they have become ((especially with a fuller more mature understanding of human nature, as was in my case)) indefensible.

 

Edited February 24, 2017 by Meadowchik

[clarkgoble]

On 2/6/2017 at 0:46 PM, 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.

 

Historians and theologians disagree. News at 11.

Seriously though this is a tempest in a tea cup. Faithful apologists were willing to see the rod as a combination of Aaron's rod and diving rods in terms of semantic connotation for a long time. Some disagreed with the connotation of dowsing. Personally I think separating Semitic use of diving rods from European folk traditions (which still persist in most rural areas) is hair splitting. It's of the "your culture is magic and superstition while mine is religion." One doesn't have to read much of the Bible to quickly realize the Jews adopted some of the religious/folk traditions of the places they lived and God was willing to work with that. The ways of divining God's will are fairly diverse in the Bible. And much like Quinn raised folk traditions relative to Joseph Smith scholars have long noted the similarity of some of the NT Jesus narratives to Egyptian magic and similar practices.

Fundamentally all that matters is what gets produced not the ritual trappings that somewhat arbitrarily are associated. The main distinction between magic and religion that's perhaps an useful theological one is how technological it is. But even that can be fuzzy, as we can see with extremely good athletes in contemporary sports who still persist in silly superstitions. So you'll hear about people not cutting their beards or other odd practices. Even atheists will often engage in superstition like behaviors - often in a way that seems technological. (That is it is the act itself that has the causal powers rather than just symbolic or a psychological crutch)

It all gets trickier in early Mormonism since part of the restoration was to restore elements of symbolism. Yet symbols are by their nature fairly arbitrary and open to change. Much of what got injected into Mormonism over time fell out of favor. (Think of many aspects of masonry that were strong in the early Utah period - but also think of 19th century low church protestant symbols such as the cross that fell out of favor)

Edited February 24, 2017 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I've been aware of the "messiness" of church history to some extent since I was a teen: polygamy, the questionable character of Joseph Smith, the masonic elements in the temple, etc... First I was skeptical of all things impugning Joseph.  Then I decided that through the fog of history we cannot truly know.  Then I thought that, even if Joseph was a flawed man, that he could have still been a prophet and done good in his life, that in essence, he could have still merited the praise and devotion heaped upon him by his contemporary followers up until the present day.

But then I had an experience of my own, this with another church member who lied, acted in bad faith, threatened my family, assaulted my husband, and convinced other members of his rightness and our wrongness, including the stake president (albeit the SP only temporarily.)  Even after the stake president apoligised to us, after things calmed down and I felt so much better about the specific conflict, my impression of the church had changed.  It was as if a switch had been flipped.

I think that overall, that switch resulted from two things:

1) There was a great deal of disppointment in the lack of discernment in my leaders who were apparently unable to recognise a pathological liar and manipulator. Then, as soon as I reflected on Joseph Smith after this discouraging experience, I could see it clearly:  I could see how many good people could be duped by a liar. I could see how a liar could win the praise of people around him even up until now.  I could see how feeble people can be. 

2) At the same time, I could with confidence reject a liar as a prophet of God.  When it comes to the man who hurt my family and tricked other church members, I would not be able to sustain him if he was called this Sunday to a leadership position. If this man declared revelation for me or others, I would reject it wholesale because of the other bad fruits he has produced, of which he has not repented or even acknowledged.  A couple weeks ago one of this man's friends spoke of him and the spiritual gift he had of reading the thoughts of others.  I could have vomited in disgust.  This is the man who spoke vulgar words to me on multiple occasions, who within 24 hours spoke of us belonging in Hell then said he would not be accountable for issuing a death threat because there were no witnesses.  I realised that this man was in no way inspired as a prophet. Likewise, I could no longer see how any man who lies repeatedly, as Joseph Smith had, could be a prophet.

So it's all come crashing down.

I think that, for me, this is a major crux and crisis for the church: the extent of Joseph Smith's deceptions and how they have become ((especially with a fuller more mature understanding of human nature, as was in my case)) indefensible.

At the risk of opening up a can of worms here Meadowchick, I want to point out a few things. 

I don't believe JS was as bad as his critics make him out to be. Most of those "marriages" I believe were really eternal sealings. It seems at least for many if not most of them, JS did not consummate any earthly marriage. For example with the women who were already married, their progeny have been shown not to be Joseph's.  I don't know how he could "marry" all these women and not have children by them. The world wants to paint JS as if he were some kind of sex addict, when the facts don't bear that out. So when JS said things like I see no other wives here, he was probably thinking in present terms - in other words in the eyes of the law one had to consummate a marriage for it to be legal. The term "marriage" seems to get thrown around a lot in the early histories, but I think it pretty clear that if one is not married on earth, but only for eternities, JS could correctly say she  was not his wife. I am not saying he didn't have plural wives, I am just bringing up the distinction. 

Was Joseph Smith a sinner? Yes, like the rest of us. The Lord openly rebuked him a few times, and alluded to faults he had in bringing forth the BoM. JS was tempted by money, and did some things he shouldn't have - but his family was pretty hard up for money after Alvin died - it seems Alvin was a major breadwinner. Anyway, I hear what you are saying, but I certainly don't believe everything and every report Joseph's detractors had to say. I think it pretty obvious that lots of it are lies - sometimes by people who where disaffected from the Church. So it seems the truth lies somewhere between the rosy narrative and the attacks of JS' critics. I guess that bothers some people more than others, but it really is not too surprising that JS' life was not exactly as the rosy narrative depicted, and we find that JS was a sinner who needed to repent of things like the Lord told him he was.

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

1) There was a great deal of disppointment in the lack of discernment in my leaders who were apparently unable to recognise a pathological liar and manipulator. Then, as soon as I reflected on Joseph Smith after this discouraging experience, I could see it clearly:  I could see how many good people could be duped by a liar. I could see how a liar could win the praise of people around him even up until now.  I could see how feeble people can be. 

The gift of discernment isn't a general lie detector. Further it requires the person to listen to it. I think to my own life and my perceptions of my spirituality that it ebbs and flows - often in response to my own behavior. If I'm tired or angry I'm not as in tune. And I can definitely think of times when I was being clearly prompted but for whatever reasons (often because I couldn't believe something true of a person) I didn't listen. 

Put an other way, while I recognize I'll likely not change your views, I'm not sure human fallibilism means there weren't warnings. It simply means that just because someone is a leader we shouldn't assume their thinking is correct. But that's always true. Authority isn't necessarily true knowledge.

To the broader question though of course people can be deceived by liars and cons. That's why I don't think we should just trust Joseph is a prophet. Rather we have to find out for ourselves. Further just because we once had a spiritual experience doesn't mean it's effect persists. We have to continually find out because the effect of evidence dims with time if we're not rethinking about the issue and continuing to inquire.

[Meadowchik]

29 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

At the risk of opening up a can of worms here Meadowchick, I want to point out a few things. 

I don't believe JS was as bad as his critics make him out to be. Most of those "marriages" I believe were really eternal sealings. It seems at least for many if not most of them, JS did not consummate any earthly marriage. For example with the women who were already married, their progeny have been shown not to be Joseph's.  I don't know how he could "marry" all these women and not have children by them. The world wants to paint JS as if he were some kind of sex addict, when the facts don't bear that out. So when JS said things like I see no other wives here, he was probably thinking in present terms - in other words in the eyes of the law one had to consummate a marriage for it to be legal. The term "marriage" seems to get thrown around a lot in the early histories, but I think it pretty clear that if one is not married on earth, but only for eternities, JS could correctly say she  was not his wife. I am not saying he didn't have plural wives, I am just bringing up the distinction. 

Was Joseph Smith a sinner? Yes, like the rest of us. The Lord openly rebuked him a few times, and alluded to faults he had in bringing forth the BoM. JS was tempted by money, and did some things he shouldn't have - but his family was pretty hard up for money after Alvin died - it seems Alvin was a major breadwinner. Anyway, I hear what you are saying, but I certainly don't believe everything and every report Joseph's detractors had to say. I think it pretty obvious that lots of it are lies - sometimes by people who where disaffected from the Church. So it seems the truth lies somewhere between the rosy narrative and the attacks of JS' critics. I guess that bothers some people more than others, but it really is not too surprising that JS' life was not exactly as the rosy narrative depicted, and we find that JS was a sinner who needed to repent of things like the Lord told him he was.

Thank you for that, RevTestament...I think what became crucial for me was my experience with how evil and hurtful the comparably minor offenses of the ward member were. That clarifies for me the kind of hurt and evil going around in what I am already convinced Joseph Smith was doing. 

[Meadowchik]

22 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The gift of discernment isn't a general lie detector. Further it requires the person to listen to it. I think to my own life and my perceptions of my spirituality that it ebbs and flows - often in response to my own behavior. If I'm tired or angry I'm not as in tune. And I can definitely think of times when I was being clearly prompted but for whatever reasons (often because I couldn't believe something true of a person) I didn't listen. 

Put an other way, while I recognize I'll likely not change your views, I'm not sure human fallibilism means there weren't warnings. It simply means that just because someone is a leader we shouldn't assume their thinking is correct. But that's always true. Authority isn't necessarily true knowledge.

To the broader question though of course people can be deceived by liars and cons. That's why I don't think we should just trust Joseph is a prophet. Rather we have to find out for ourselves. Further just because we once had a spiritual experience doesn't mean it's effect persists. We have to continually find out because the effect of evidence dims with time if we're not rethinking about the issue and continuing to inquire.

Yep. Knowing is a constant process as is faith. In the experience we had with our ward member, it was ongoing for more than a year and it wasn't just a one-time error in discernment. 

Fortunately, though, I choose to continue in faith in Christ and move forward. I trust that He will be there at my side.

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I've been aware of the "messiness" of church history to some extent since I was a teen: polygamy, the questionable character of Joseph Smith, the masonic elements in the temple, etc... First I was skeptical of all things impugning Joseph.  Then I decided that through the fog of history we cannot truly know.  Then I thought that, even if Joseph was a flawed man, that he could have still been a prophet and done good in his life, that in essence, he could have still merited the praise and devotion heaped upon him by his contemporary followers up until the present day.

But then I had an experience of my own, this with another church member who lied, acted in bad faith, threatened my family, assaulted my husband, and convinced other members of his rightness and our wrongness, including the stake president (albeit the SP only temporarily.)  Even after the stake president apoligised to us, after things calmed down and I felt so much better about the specific conflict, my impression of the church had changed.  It was as if a switch had been flipped.

I think that overall, that switch resulted from two things:

1) There was a great deal of disppointment in the lack of discernment in my leaders who were apparently unable to recognise a pathological liar and manipulator. Then, as soon as I reflected on Joseph Smith after this discouraging experience, I could see it clearly:  I could see how many good people could be duped by a liar. I could see how a liar could win the praise of people around him even up until now.  I could see how feeble people can be. 

2) At the same time, I could with confidence reject a liar as a prophet of God.  When it comes to the man who hurt my family and tricked other church members, I would not be able to sustain him if he was called this Sunday to a leadership position. If this man declared revelation for me or others, I would reject it wholesale because of the other bad fruits he has produced, of which he has not repented or even acknowledged.  A couple weeks ago one of this man's friends spoke of him and the spiritual gift he had of reading the thoughts of others.  I could have vomited in disgust.  This is the man who spoke vulgar words to me on multiple occasions, who within 24 hours spoke of us belonging in Hell then said he would not be accountable for issuing a death threat because there were no witnesses.  I realised that this man was in no way inspired as a prophet. Likewise, I could no longer see how any man who lies repeatedly, as Joseph Smith had, could be a prophet.

So it's all come crashing down.

I think that, for me, this is a major crux and crisis for the church: the extent of Joseph Smith's deceptions and how they have become ((especially with a fuller more mature understanding of human nature, as was in my case)) indefensible.

 

How did you go from what you learned in the bolded part above, to the conviction that it applied to JS?  I mean, that can be very true but it doesn't mean that every person who has won the praise of the people around him is a liar.  

 

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How did you go from what you learned in the bolded part above, to the conviction that it applied to JS?  I mean, that can be very true but it doesn't mean that every person who has won the praise of the people around him is a liar.  

I won't speak for Meadowchik, but for myself, I do not like it that Joseph lied to so many in order to practice something he claimed came from God. There was simply too much deceit involved for polygamy to have come from God, IMO.  Joseph hid things from Emma and he lied to the members.  The very ones who were asked to trust him the most.

Edited February 24, 2017 by JulieM

[Meadowchik]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How did you go from what you learned in the bolded part above, to the conviction that it applied to JS?  I mean, that can be very true but it doesn't mean that every person who has won the praise of the people around him is a liar.  

 

In short, I already knew he lied, but I was able to suspend my doubt about its significance until now.

[RevTestament]

46 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Thank you for that, RevTestament...I think what became crucial for me was my experience with how evil and hurtful the comparably minor offenses of the ward member were. That clarifies for me the kind of hurt and evil going around in what I am already convinced Joseph Smith was doing. 

Hurt and sin do not invalidate truth Meadowchik. Sin usually involves hurt. My wife temporarily left the church(went inactive) due to some very hurtful things she experienced at the hands of church members, and saw other church members doing while being called to church callings. The thing is every calling is filled by a sinner. If we expect perfection in our church leaders we are bound to get disappointed. I have largely come to terms with my beliefs about JS's faults, yet I know that the Lord called him to restore the gospel, and I know the BoM is true because the spirit of the Lord confirmed that for me. As I told JulieM, if JS did sin in his marriage, that is not for me to judge - that will be between Him and our Savior, whom the Father has given judgement to. JS was human, and had faults, incorrect opinions, and was a sinner. If we judge by that standard, no one could be called as a prophet.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I've been aware of the "messiness" of church history to some extent since I was a teen: polygamy, the questionable character of Joseph Smith, the masonic elements in the temple, etc... First I was skeptical of all things impugning Joseph.  Then I decided that through the fog of history we cannot truly know.  Then I thought that, even if Joseph was a flawed man, that he could have still been a prophet and done good in his life, that in essence, he could have still merited the praise and devotion heaped upon him by his contemporary followers up until the present day.

But then I had an experience of my own, this with another church member who lied, acted in bad faith, threatened my family, assaulted my husband, and convinced other members of his rightness and our wrongness, including the stake president (albeit the SP only temporarily.)  Even after the stake president apoligised to us, after things calmed down and I felt so much better about the specific conflict, my impression of the church had changed.  It was as if a switch had been flipped.

I think that overall, that switch resulted from two things:

1) There was a great deal of disppointment in the lack of discernment in my leaders who were apparently unable to recognise a pathological liar and manipulator. Then, as soon as I reflected on Joseph Smith after this discouraging experience, I could see it clearly:  I could see how many good people could be duped by a liar. I could see how a liar could win the praise of people around him even up until now.  I could see how feeble people can be. 

2) At the same time, I could with confidence reject a liar as a prophet of God.  When it comes to the man who hurt my family and tricked other church members, I would not be able to sustain him if he was called this Sunday to a leadership position. If this man declared revelation for me or others, I would reject it wholesale because of the other bad fruits he has produced, of which he has not repented or even acknowledged.  A couple weeks ago one of this man's friends spoke of him and the spiritual gift he had of reading the thoughts of others.  I could have vomited in disgust.  This is the man who spoke vulgar words to me on multiple occasions, who within 24 hours spoke of us belonging in Hell then said he would not be accountable for issuing a death threat because there were no witnesses.  I realised that this man was in no way inspired as a prophet. Likewise, I could no longer see how any man who lies repeatedly, as Joseph Smith had, could be a prophet.

So it's all come crashing down.

I think that, for me, this is a major crux and crisis for the church: the extent of Joseph Smith's deceptions and how they have become ((especially with a fuller more mature understanding of human nature, as was in my case)) indefensible.

 

You need to ask yourself if a pathological liar can produce the Book of Mormon and other scripture.  Manipulating other people is one thing, can they construct words to convey the Spirit?  If you don't see the Book of Mormon and at least some of the rest as having the coherency and depth that comes from being the Word of God, I don't know where to tell you to look, but perhaps you should focus on examining the Book of Mormon itself to see if it is a product of revelation or lies.

Also what do you make of other leaders claiming revelation?  Not just confirming the morality of another person, but explaining they had visions and other forms of revelation.  Do you see this as wishful thinking or possibly lying as well?

This must be a real struggle for you. I am sorry you and your family are going through it.  I hope you find peace, whatever form that takes.

Perhaps it might also help to go back to much earlier posts and read what you wrote there about your personal experiences with the Spirit and belief and see how that all fits into your new paradigm.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

32 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Hurt and sin do not invalidate truth Meadowchik. Sin usually involves hurt. My wife temporarily left the church(went inactive) due to some very hurtful things she experienced at the hands of church members, and saw other church members doing while being called to church callings. The thing is every calling is filled by a sinner. If we expect perfection in our church leaders we are bound to get disappointed. I have largely come to terms with my beliefs about JS's faults, yet I know that the Lord called him to restore the gospel, and I know the BoM is true because the spirit of the Lord confirmed that for me. As I told JulieM, if JS did sin in his marriage, that is not for me to judge - that will be between Him and our Savior, whom the Father has given judgement to. JS was human, and had faults, incorrect opinions, and was a sinner. If we judge by that standard, no one could be called as a prophet.

There is sin and then there is grievous sin. 

For me, if I had read about my experience with my ward member I could have attributed the same to Joseph without changing my belief about him being a prophet. 

But I didn't read it, I experienced it.

There were lines this person crossed which to me are comparable to blasphemy, lines which I didn't understand until I experienced them. And I believe Joseph did worse.

We see him differently.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Meadowchik