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

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

What exactly do you mean by "more accurate"?    Specific example, please.

If you mean "include more historical details", who is to judge whether such details are in the main text of the teacher/student manual, and when they are relegated to "footnotes", such as lds.org, institute class, and other supplemental materials.

One example is what we just discussed above:  the method of translation for the Book of Mormon.  A more accurate narrative had just recently started making its way into the curriculum. 

The end of polygamy is another example. 

Polyandry.  Early sealing practices. Restoration of the priesthood. 

[cdowis]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

One example is what we just discussed above:  the method of translation for the Book of Mormon.  A more accurate narrative had just recently started making its way into the curriculum. 

The end of polygamy is another example. 

Polyandry.  Early sealing practices. Restoration of the priesthood. 

There are two questions:

1. In what way are these essential, fundamental, doctrinal issues vs footnotes in the history of the church.  Please explain to me how the specific stones being used for translation are fundamental to how we live our lives, and an understanding of gospel essentials.
Now the specific stone and hat story is interesting, how is that interlaced in these gospel principles?

2. At what age or maturity level should we be teaching these footnotes?  All of these issues afe found in supplemental material,college appropriate, and available to anyone willing and interested.  But that takes away from the teaching of the basic principles of the Gospel,

Sir, you won' be judged on your knowledge of these footnotes, BUT will be judged based on Gospel principles.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, cdowis said:

There are two questions:

1. In what way are these essential, fundamental, doctrinal issues vs footnotes in the history of the church.  Please explain to me how the specific stones being used for translation are fundamental to how we live our lives, and an understanding of gospel essentials.
Now the specific stone and hat story is interesting, how is that interlaced in these gospel principles?

2. At what age or maturity level should we be teaching these footnotes?  All of these issues afe found in supplemental material,college appropriate, and available to anyone willing and interested.  But that takes away from the teaching of the basic principles of the Gospel,

Sir, you won' be judged on your knowledge of these footnotes, BUT will be judged based on Gospel principles.

1. They aren't.  That wasn't my claim or point.

2.  We teach the church narrative beginning in primary.  Just need to do it accurately from the beginning (in an age appropriate way).  Yes, everything was available somewhere but there is no reason to go look if one believes that they've been taught a full, accurate, and complete narrative their entire life.  As a life long member, why would I ever have searched for the real way that Joseph "translated" the Book of Mormon.  I already knew it -- until I learned (after four decades of membership) that I didn't.

These details may seem unimportant to our salvation but to the extent that learning the true narrative destroys the faith of members, than teaching the false narrative HAS actually been detrimental to salvation.  Thus the recent push to inoculate. 

[Benjamin Seeker]

47 minutes ago, cdowis said:

There are two questions:

1. In what way are these essential, fundamental, doctrinal issues vs footnotes in the history of the church.  Please explain to me how the specific stones being used for translation are fundamental to how we live our lives, and an understanding of gospel essentials.
Now the specific stone and hat story is interesting, how is that interlaced in these gospel principles?

2. At what age or maturity level should we be teaching these footnotes?  All of these issues afe found in supplemental material,college appropriate, and available to anyone willing and interested.  But that takes away from the teaching of the basic principles of the Gospel,

Sir, you won' be judged on your knowledge of these footnotes, BUT will be judged based on Gospel principles.

If history was taught more accurately, it's possible that church members would have a different understanding of basic gospel principles and their application than we commonly do now.

For example, if it were common knowledge that the poor/needy were not always required/expected to pay tithing in the early church, we might have a different approach to welfare that didn't seek to make a person feel like they should pay God before meeting their own needs. This fairly simple shift in thinking is more nuanced and results in a different understanding of tithing obligation and self sufficiency.

Even the seer stone vs. Urim and Thummim could cause a fundamental shift. As people learn that the Urim and Thummim wasn't the primary tool of translation and that he mainly used a seer stone, which he had used for treasure hunting both preceeding and during his possesion of the gold plates, they could very well feel emboldened in seeking their own revelation with the aid of physical objects. I have at least one friend who, after learning about the seer stone, has expressed desire to have one. Not everyone can have a Urim and Thummim, but everyone could have a seer stone, and JS said that himself. Now, I'm not a proponent of this view, but I'm just pointing out the obvious. Learning about Oliver's, Heber C. Kimball's, and Brigham's revelation rods could also lead to this kind of thinking. This is a fairly different understanding of revelation than we currently practice that more or less eschews physical aids (besides scriptures, journal writing, and temples).

What if more of us understood, how seriously Brigham Young and other early church leaders believed in what we consider speculative doctrines about the nature of God?

 

Quote

 * Orson Pratt said: "I heard brother Young say that Jesus had a body of

    flesh and bones, before he came (to earth and) he was born of the Virgin

    Mary, it was so contrary to every revelation given." (Minutes of meeting

    on April 5, 1860, BY PAPERS)

 

Would that possibly change the faith of some members, the discussions that were allowed in church classes, and lend a more practical approach to prophetic fallibility?

 

Obviously, not all of the possible changes I've mentioned are positive or negative. Teaching this stuff on a church wide level would have lots of unpredicatable mixed results. However, this stuff is what really happened and the real truth, and we deserve to not be spoon fed the same watered down and sometimes inaccurate materials week after week. If nothing else, it would get people to Gospel Doctrine class.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

 

 

52 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

 

You and I see things very differently, but that is my problem, not yours.  For me, such details would be unnecessary, but, obviously, for others, their testimony is rather fragile and such details early in their schooling in the church may avoid problems that you mentioned.

I have the same or similar questions, but I am a "technician" == they don't bother me personally, and I am patient in my effort to find and discover the answers.  I don't know all things, but I know enough.  I suppose one would see it as one of those spiritual gifts, and it is hard for me to see things otherwise, that some individuals are struggling with their testimonies.

Edited February 27, 2017 by cdowis

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, CV75 said:

It seems then that you first concluded that Joseph Smith lied repeatedly 170 years ago but there was no harm done, but then you and others were duped and victimized by a self-professed prophet, which experience flavors your feeling that Joseph Smith, like him, could not be sustained as a prophet. Joseph did not abuse you; this other man did.

 

I think our spiritual inclinations are impacted for better (by nurturing) or worse (by trauma). In a fallen world, with few exceptions (such as familial love) human experience tends to be detrimental to spirituality. The conclusions you drew for Joseph and the man who hurt you are spiritual in nature, made under the separate spiritual conditions they each created. What Joseph Smith did in your behalf seems to be very different from what this man did to you.

 

I think this is why it is important to remember, and in remembering also project and compare. It is fairly easy to assess the impact of what the Lord did through Joseph Smith on your world, and to compare it with the reasonably foreseeable impact of this man on the world 170 years on, especially in consideration of the continued impact of what was done through Joseph Smith.

 

You haven't accurately restated the process. The fact that Joseph Smith lied repeatedly was not harmless at all. I never said it was. What I wasn't sure of epistemologically was if that deception has an existential impact on his claim as prophet. The evidence, from my perspective, had gotten heavier against Joseph and the last reasonable vestige of faith relied on the possibility that he could have revealed for God despite these failings.

The impact of our personal experience with a liar educated us about character in general. It taught me that lying about such important things on multiple occasions impugns the ability of a person to transmit God's word in an authoritative capacity.

In other words,  I learned that the last reasonable vestige I held onto in faith was an illusion. 

(And for the record, the ward member hurt us through a rental situation in which we tried to help him and his family. Never did we regard him as a prophet, although he did try to accuse us of unworthiness as church members and he did claim we'd be looking up at him from the depths of Hell. So you could say he did attempt to make prophetic claims.)

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by Meadowchik

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

If history was taught more accurately, it's possible that church members would have a different understanding of basic gospel principles and their application than we commonly do now.

For example, if it were common knowledge that the poor/needy were not always required/expected to pay tithing in the early church, we might have a different approach to welfare that didn't seek to make a person feel like they should pay God before meeting their own needs. This fairly simple shift in thinking is more nuanced and results in a different understanding of tithing obligation and self sufficiency.

Even the seer stone vs. Urim and Thummim could cause a fundamental shift. As people learn that the Urim and Thummim wasn't the primary tool of translation and that he mainly used a seer stone, which he had used for treasure hunting both preceeding and during his possesion of the gold plates, they could very well feel emboldened in seeking their own revelation with the aid of physical objects. I have at least one friend who, after learning about the seer stone, has expressed desire to have one. Not everyone can have a Urim and Thummim, but everyone could have a seer stone, and JS said that himself. Now, I'm not a proponent of this view, but I'm just pointing out the obvious. Learning about Oliver's, Heber C. Kimball's, and Brigham's revelation rods could also lead to this kind of thinking. This is a fairly different understanding of revelation than we currently practice that more or less eschews physical aids (besides scriptures, journal writing, and temples).

What if more of us understood, how seriously Brigham Young and other early church leaders believed in what we consider speculative doctrines about the nature of God?

 

 

Would that possibly change the faith of some members, the discussions that were allowed in church classes, and lend a more practical approach to prophetic fallibility?

 

Obviously, not all of the possible changes I've mentioned are positive or negative. Teaching this stuff on a church wide level would have lots of unpredicatable mixed results. However, this stuff is what really happened and the real truth, and we deserve to not be spoon fed the same watered down and sometimes inaccurate materials week after week. If nothing else, it would get people to Gospel Doctrine class.

Excellent points. 

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, cdowis said:

 

You and I see things very differently, but that is my problem, not yours.  For me, such details would be unnecessary, but, obviously, for others, their testimony is rather fragile and such details early in their schooling in the church may avoid problems that you mentioned.

I have the same or similar questions, but I am a "technician" == they don't bother me personally, and I am patient in my effort to find and discover the answers.  I don't know all things, but I know enough.  I suppose one would see it as one of those spiritual gifts, and it is hard for me to see things otherwise, that some individuals are struggling with their testimonies.

Your response here is insulting and misses the point.  I'll explain...

My testimony wasn't and isn't fragile, but it was based on many false precepts taught to me by the church as part of an incorrect narrative.  What damaged my faith was not the new narrative that I discovered but having had it intentionally hidden from me by those in whom I had placed my love and trust as divinely ordained leaders. 

[cdowis]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Your response here is insulting and misses the point.  I'll explain...

My testimony wasn't and isn't fragile,

I am speechless ==>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  I neither said nor intended to say this.  I find YOUR response insulting that I would judge you.

I can see this is a waste of time trying to talk with you.

 

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

You haven't accurately restated the process. The fact that Joseph Smith lied repeatedly was not harmless at all. I never said it was. What I wasn't sure of epistemologically was if that deception has an existential impact on his claim as prophet. The evidence, from my perspective, had gotten heavier against Joseph and the last reasonable vestige of faith relied on the possibility that he could have revealed for God despite these failings.

The impact of our personal experience with a liar educated us about character in general. It taught me that lying about such important things on multiple occasions impugns the ability of a person to transmit God's word in an authoritative capacity.

In other words,  I learned that the last reasonable vestige I held onto in faith was an illusion. 

(And for the record, the ward member hurt us through a rental situation in which we tried to help him and his family. Never did we regard him as a prophet, although he did try to accuse us of unworthiness as church members and he did claim we'd be looking up at him from the depths of Hell. So you could say he did attempt to make prophetic claims.)

 

I’m only saying that you personally concluded that he lied repeatedly. It seems for a long time you also concluded that, considering the “fog of history,” such a conclusion had no negative implications on your faith in his being a prophet (which I interpret to be no harm to your faith). But after your more recent experience with a lying member, you concluded that in fact he lied repeatedly and this means you cannot accept him as a prophet.

The change in perspective seems to have occurred after your real-time, real-life experience with a liar, not the historical experience (either personal or reported) with Joseph Smith. You always had the information about Joseph Smith, but not the experience with the liar, which seems to have changed foggy consideration to fact for you, and conclusion to certitude.

Of course intentional lying on multiple occasions impugns the ability of a person to transmit God's word in an authoritative capacity. You concluded after, but not before, your bad experience that is precisely what Joseph Smith had done (lied and thus impugned himself). I think that abuse by one person can easily influence someone to feel abused by another.

This is why I think forgiveness is such a key gospel element, as difficult as it is. Once we forgive our enemies, we are healed of natural reactions like distrust, dubiety, fear and other wounds so as not to misperceive new enemies.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I’m only saying that you personally concluded that he lied repeatedly. It seems for a long time you also concluded that, considering the “fog of history,” such a conclusion had no negative implications on your faith in his being a prophet (which I interpret to be no harm to your faith). But after your more recent experience with a lying member, you concluded that in fact he lied repeatedly and this means you cannot accept him as a prophet.

 

The change in perspective seems to have occurred after your real-time, real-life experience with a liar, not the historical experience (either personal or reported) with Joseph Smith. You always had the information about Joseph Smith, but not the experience with the liar, which seems to have changed foggy consideration to fact for you, and conclusion to certitude.

 

Of course intentional lying on multiple occasions impugns the ability of a person to transmit God's word in an authoritative capacity. You concluded after, but not before, your bad experience that is precisely what Joseph Smith had done (lied and thus impugned himself). I think that abuse by one person can easily influence someone to feel abused by another.

 

This is why I think forgiveness is such a key gospel element, as difficult as it is. Once we forgive our enemies, we are healed of natural reactions like distrust, dubiety, fear and other wounds so as not to misperceive new enemies.

 

The fact that Smith lied did harm my faith, but didrnt destroy it. Doubt remained about what the lying meant. 

I'm not sure what you mean about forgiveness. Are you saying that if I had forgiven that ward member that my faith in Joseph Smith might not have been impacted?

There are many strong feelings tied to this troubling situation with the ward member, but the conclusion I drew was a rational conclusion, not based on feelings. I learned a cognitive lesson about personality and behaviour.  

Let me give an example: a nice person can make a mistake like hit someone with their car while using bad judgment like driving when sleepy. But a nice person (or a person with integrity) not tell deliberately threatening things to people and then lie repeatedly about those people, all because they don't get something they want.

I think that I previously allowed myself to conflate honest mistakes and minor flaws with real iniquity and bad faith.

(BTW, I was taking the effort towards forgiveness during this process. I tried to envision that man in the Celestial Kingdom, being glad he was there, him completely whole and healed from whatever it was in him that hurt us. However, even though I was working toward a better attitude about him, I still had to literally look over my shoulder all the time to ensure our safety around him. He could not be trusted.)

Edited February 27, 2017 by Meadowchik

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I’m only saying that you personally concluded that he lied repeatedly. 

Joseph did lie (to Emma and others).  How have you been able to reconcile him lying to his wife?  Is it that you feel he was lying for the Lord, so you feel it was justified?  (These are sincere questions as I'd like to know your thought process here).

Maybe you already answered my questions previously.  I haven't read this entire thread.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

I am speechless ==>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  I neither said nor intended to say this.  I find YOUR response insulting that I would judge you.

I can see this is a waste of time trying to talk with you.

 

You made a blanket statement deeming the testimony of others to be fragile.  That's what I consider to be insulting.  And I attempted to explain why your conclusion isn't necessarily accurate.  I'm sorry you consider that to be a waste of time.

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Joseph did lie (to Emma and others).  How have you been able to reconcile him lying to his wife?  Is it that you feel he was lying for the Lord, so you feel it was justified?  (These are sincere questions as I'd like to know your thought process here).

Maybe you already answered my questions previously.  I haven't read this entire thread.

I personally reconcile it as, he was wrong to lie.  He made a bad choice.  I think he had good intentions but a good intention can still be sin.  I don't see that i need to reconcile it beyond that.  

Prophets can sin and still be prophets (as we all know) so him having lied to his wife doesn't automatically negate anything.

 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I personally reconcile it as, he was wrong to lie.  He made a bad choice.  I think he had good intentions but a good intention can still be sin.  I don't see that i need to reconcile it beyond that.  

Prophets can sin and still be prophets (as we all know) so him having lied to his wife doesn't automatically negate anything.

Maybe.  But would you say the same today about an active member of the church lying to his wife (and being with other women behind her back)?  Men are excommunicated today for doing this.  I'd call that negating. 

Honesty is required of church members today for attending the temple.  We are asked to be honest in ALL our dealings.  

I'd say that Joseph's lies negated trust and still affect members today (and potential members).  

Edited February 27, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Joseph did lie (to Emma and others).  How have you been able to reconcile him lying to his wife?  Is it that you feel he was lying for the Lord, so you feel it was justified?  (These are sincere questions as I'd like to know your thought process here).

I personally reconcile it under the "pearls before swine" principle.
Having fought Joseph severely on plural marriage repeatedly and considering plural marriage a law of God I see no obligation on Joseph's part to keep placing these ordinances in her line of fire.
Do missionaries keep teaching people who consider the Book of Mormon a fake, Joseph a con-man, and doubt that there is a God?

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I personally reconcile it under the "pearls before swine" principle.
Having fought Joseph severely on plural marriage repeatedly and considering plural marriage a law of God I see no obligation on Joseph's part to keep placing these ordinances in her line of fire.
Do missionaries keep teaching people who consider the Book of Mormon a fake, Joseph a con-man, and doubt that there is a God?

Given that Emma was Joseph's wife and not some investigator, he was not justified in hiding these relationships from her. She did not consider the arrangement to be moral, and she had a right to know about them. 

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I personally reconcile it under the "pearls before swine" principle.
Having fought Joseph severely on plural marriage repeatedly and considering plural marriage a law of God I see no obligation on Joseph's part to keep placing these ordinances in her line of fire.
Do missionaries keep teaching people who consider the Book of Mormon a fake, Joseph a con-man, and doubt that there is a God?

Do you really think that's an adequate comparison?  Missionaries choosing whether or not to teach an investigator vs. a man choosing whether or not to tell his wife that he was marrying other women?

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Given that Emma was Joseph's wife and not some investigator, he was not justified in hiding these relationships from her. She did not consider the arrangement to be moral, and she had a right to know about them.

 

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Do you really think that's an adequate comparison?  Missionaries choosing whether or not to teach an investigator vs. a man choosing whether or not to tell his wife that he was marrying other women?

Perhaps my investigator comparison was flawed, but the principle I consider to be valid.  Emma having rejected a thing of God with eternal consequence Joseph was under no obligation to continue laying sacred things before her and allowing her to trample them.  Pearls before swine.
 

Edited February 27, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I personally reconcile it under the "pearls before swine" principle.
Having fought Joseph severely on plural marriage repeatedly and considering plural marriage a law of God I see no obligation on Joseph's part to keep placing these ordinances in her line of fire.
Do missionaries keep teaching people who consider the Book of Mormon a fake, Joseph a con-man, and doubt that there is a God?

I just know that you are honest and open with your wife..would you do it any other way on any promise or disagreement worries?  IMO, there is no justification for omitting a truth to a spouse.  I have lived it and it made a good and strong marriage even in the hardest times.  Joseph LIED to Emma..you can't fix that.  No one can.

[Meadowchik]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I personally reconcile it under the "pearls before swine" principle.
Having fought Joseph severely on plural marriage repeatedly and considering plural marriage a law of God I see no obligation on Joseph's part to keep placing these ordinances in her line of fire.
Do missionaries keep teaching people who consider the Book of Mormon a fake, Joseph a con-man, and doubt that there is a God?

Without obtaining her consent Joseph himself was violating the law governing plural marriage in D&C 132.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Meadowchik

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Perhaps my investigator comparison was flawed, but the principle I consider to be valid.  Emma having rejected a thing of God with eternal consequence Joseph was under no obligation to continue laying sacred things before her and allowing her to trample them.  Pearls before swine.
 

Do you have any evidence that Emma fought Joseph "repeatedly" about plural marriage prior to his relationship with Fanny Alger?

Also, I don't see how that could have even been a marriage.  It was not an eternal sealing (sealing keys hadn't been restored).  And, it couldn't have been a legal marriage (he already was legally married to Emma).  

What type of marriage was it?

Edited February 27, 2017 by JulieM

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Perhaps my investigator comparison was flawed, but the principle I consider to be valid.  Emma having rejected a thing of God with eternal consequence Joseph was under no obligation to continue laying sacred things before her and allowing her to trample them.  Pearls before swine.
 

Joseph "was under no obligation" to tell his wife that he was marrying and being sealed to other women?  Is there something in Section 132 that you feel grants him that freedom?

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Without obtaining her consent Joseph himself was violating the law governing plural marriage in D&C 132.

Not according to vs 64-65

• 64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.
  65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

Joseph had no obligation to tell Emma once she had rejected the law.

21 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Do you have any evidence that Emma fought Joseph "repeatedly" about plural marriage prior to his relationship with Fanny Alger?

We have no idea when Emma was first taught about plural marriage.  Joseph had known about it as early as 1831.  We have no idea when he first told Emma.

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Joseph "was under no obligation" to tell his wife that he was marrying and being sealed to other women?  Is there something in Section 132 that you feel grants him that freedom?

God said to practice polygamy, so its ok for Joseph to do this behind Emma's back because its God authorized.  And sometimes God commands people to do things that don't make any sense, and instead of questioning whether that person correctly interpreted this communication from God, its better for the person to just trust that their interpretation of God's wishes is correct, move forward with the problematic act, and use a Nuremberg defense if anyone questions their decision making.