New Paper that Addresses Historical & Doctrinal Issues

[Storm Rider]

I am only aware of one sure foundation and that is Jesus Christ.  Too often individuals, regardless of their church affiliation, set their foundations on sand and regardless of how often they are warned - that is sand you are building upon - they continue right along.  At no time did Joseph ever teach differently than Jesus was the Christ, the son of the Living God, upon whom rests our salvation and exaltation.  Do LDS build their foundations on things other than Jesus Christ?  Of course they do and they pay a price for that error.  Do individual members and leaders influence others to build on the wrong foundation?  I suspect they do, but I tend to think that it is done without intention or desire.  

Do I think that some members treat, think of, or refer to leaders as actual men of god, or even demigods (I really hate that description and reject it), or as superhuman men?  Without a doubt and it is wrong.  We respect the office, the calling leaders hold, but those individuals get up and put their pants on just like every other man alive.  More importantly, their feet are made of clay in the sense that they are not perfect or enlightened.  It does not matter how often this is taught, how often we are warned about this, members still want to hang the hat of their discontent on the humanness of leaders.  It begins to ring hollow and begins to sound link tinkling brass.

If we get caught up in chasing after church history or discovering the utter human frailties of the early saints and lose sight of where our eye should be single, is it any surprise that we fall?  When is it ever helpful to lose sight of Jesus Christ?  When do we cease from following after him?  NEVER!  It never is the right choice.  It does not matter how often I hear that Brother So and So or Sister So and So got caught up in Church history and are now falling away that we conclude also that the vast majority have each lost their focus on Jesus Christ and his redeeming sacrifice and love.  

Church history is not our god.  Joseph Smith has never been our god.  Polygamy is not our god. Brigham Young is not our god. The translation of the Book of Mormon is not our god.  The Book of Mormon is not our god.  Yet, each of these things are simple instruments in bringing us closer to our Creator and our Savior; to our God.  

[clarkgoble]

A few thoughts. First off right off the bat I'd take issue with describing the traditional 20th century view as "orthodox." There's a lot of variation in orthodoxy. Even if you consider the so-called neo-orthodoxy of the 1980's as its own position. So the opposition between orthodox and apologetic just inherently seems problematic. Part of the problem is that I'd think lds.org is a pretty compelling exemplar of what is or isn't orthodoxy. 

An example of this could be found right off the bat with treasure digging. The author says, "the view among Orthodox members is that Joseph Smith had only trivial involvement in treasure digging." But I don't think that's true as even a brief glance at the church magazines and lds.org demonstrates.  He references TPJS but that's simply not a reasonable quote to establish his claim. Especially after the church went out of its way on the seer stones last year. Now his main claim is that scrying with seer stones ought be made explicit to the treasure hunting. That is since articles frequently mention treasure hunting but not scrying, they are being misleading. But the point of the article just seems odd considering this paragraph was in the 2015 Ensign:

Quote

By 1825, young Joseph had a reputation in Manchester and Palmyra for his activities as a treasure seer, or someone who used a seer stone to locate gold or other valuable objects buried in the earth.2 Thus, it was no surprise that Stowell specifically sought out Joseph’s services.

2. Martin Harris said that Joseph once found a lost object by looking at his seer stone inside a hat (see Joel Tiffany, ed., “Mormonism,” Tiffany’s Monthly: Devoted to the Investigation of the Science of Mind, Aug. 1859, 164). Joseph reportedly found the stone while he, his brother Alvin, and a neighbor were digging a well in 1822 (see Eber D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed [1834], 241). As a prominent scholar has written, “In the early nineteenth century, treasure seekers turned increasingly to ‘seer-stones’ or ‘peep-stones’ as a more ready and reliable alternative to dreams” (Alan Taylor, “The Early Republic’s Supernatural Economy: Treasure Seeking in the American Northeast, 1780–1830,” American Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 1 [Spring 1986], 10).

Likewise the entry on "Book of Mormon Translation" at lds.org has this section.

Quote

The other instrument, which Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, was a small oval stone, or “seer stone.”18 As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure.19 As Joseph grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned that he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture.

18. Joseph Smith probably possessed more than one seer stone; he appears to have found one of the stones while digging for a well around 1822. (Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism [Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1984], 69–70.)

19. According to Martin Harris, an angel commanded Joseph Smith to stop these activities, which he did by 1826. (See Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, 64–76; and Richard Lloyd Anderson, “The Mature Joseph Smith and Treasure Searching,” BYU Studies 24, no. 4 [Fall 1984]: 489–560.) Joseph did not hide his well-known early involvement in treasure seeking. In 1838, he published responses to questions frequently asked of him. “Was not Jo Smith a money digger,” one question read. “Yes,” Joseph answered, “but it was never a very profitable job to him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.” (Selections from Elders’ Journal,July 1838, 43, available at josephsmithpapers.org.) For the broader cultural context, see Alan Taylor, “The Early Republic’s Supernatural Economy: Treasure Seeking in the American Northeast, 1780–1830,” American Quarterly 38, no. 1 (Spring 1986): 6–33.

So orthodox or not? And is his quote fair? "The general membership is leł to think there is liƟle noteworthy of Joseph’s treasure digging, the folk magic pracƕces of the Smith family, or the Palmyra area in general."

And that's just on the first page. While I stopped reading after the First Vision section it had the same sorts of problems. Primarily neglecting the range of views under the orthodox view. I'd add that how he presents the apologetic view is misleading especially with the progressive view that comes after which honestly seems the apologetic view. By not acknowledging that the progressive, apologetic and orthodox views are pretty similar it pushes a narrative of disagreement where there isn't. You'd never know, for instance, that the Ensign had an article on this (although at least he links to it in his links at the end of that section) with all the versions. You'd never know that there have been articles on this going back to 1985 in the Ensign. And not just a few but also in the lesson manual. 

While the idea of breaking things down into the different perspectives is great. I don't think we can say this particular work does a terribly good job representing them. Rather it's pushing a particular "progressive view" often by trying to create differences from orthodoxy that aren't even there. Maybe it got better in the rest, but as is it needs serious work to be considered remotely fair. In particular the orthodox and apologetic categories just aren't treated fairly. I suspect what he's after is a kind of typical loosely informed lay member and then a category that might be termed informed orthodoxy. But that's just not how he presented it. Now to be fair there are differences between what the informed orthodox members believe. Likewise the beliefs change with time. What's mainstream now wasn't in the 1970's. But since we're writing about today I think at a minimum what's on lds.org ought constitute the minimum of orthodoxy. It's fine to perhaps distinguish the range of views by some to orthodoxy on things like a local flood. (Although I think the notion of a local flood is well within orthodoxy even if not mainstream -- even the old problematic neo-orthodoxy label included Nibley)

Edited May 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Johnnie Cake]

47 minutes ago, Rain said:

But how does what I bolded square with what you said here: "I wonder what might have been had this work been available then "?

That's what confuses me.  If people feel this way then how will this document help people keep their faith? How does including the critic help make it a safe place for those who are trying to keep their faith?

Loss of faith in Mormonism is like I said a process not an event.  It is a multiple step process...with one block of faith being replaced because it did not satisfactorily answer the question that the doubt evolved from with a block of non-belief that does, while not necessarily spiritually satisfying...does make sense logically. This process is repeated over and over until one day you wake up a non-believer.  With some this process happens quickly while others fight it, hope against it but eventually give into to it because it resolves all of your questions...I found myself in this later camp. I remember that day I had my faith crises epiphany very well...while pondering all of the issues I have accumulated though my studies I asked myself this question.  "What if it isn't what it claims to be?"  As I pondered that possibility for the very first time in my life...I realized that if that were the case absolutely every single question simply melted away.

If during this loss of faith process I had found Bill's work who knows what might have happened...could it have prevented me from finding other more satisfying answers that allowed faith to be maintained just with a different more nuanced understanding?  I'll never know, but it could have...but I'm way past that point now of going back...and the bar of belief now has been set very high

Edited May 2, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Contrived?  That's not at all true, IMO.  These different ways or levels of belief exist within members of the church.  You might not like the names that Bill has given them, but I doubt he "contrived".

And, members are searching for answers. Wouldn't you rather they read something like this rather than the CES letter, for example?  

You can't just pretend that only faithful answers will be sufficient anymore for many who are searching for truth and help.  There's too many places where they can find the information now.

Would you be willing to help Bill write the sections for where your beliefs are?  That's been suggested and I do like that idea.

It’s not a matter of not liking the names – I couldn’t even tell you what they are. But they are contrived*, which is why they are not naturally or spontaneously remembered. *created or arranged in a way that seems artificial and unrealistic.

You may ignore the actual points I made, but they would answer this question you are asking. If you don’t understand what I wrote, point out what isn’t clear rather than bolding the one word you don't like as a springboard for expressing your bias.

This isn’t about “faithful answers” – whatever that means – but about a faithful process and one that leverages the power of faith instead of controversy.

This isn’t about the author (none is listed). I just figured the article was an anonymous group effort, but if he wants contributors, I’m sure he knows plenty of people.

[JulieM]

 

Quote

It’s not a matter of not liking the names – I couldn’t even tell you what they are. But they are contrived*, 

 

Bill used terms of his choosing, yes.  But "contrived"?  I think that has a very negative connotation and is unfair.  The different levels of belief exist.  Bill didn't contrive to create or make those up.

Do you have an answer to my question regarding being willing to help write the parts in the paper that express your beliefs?

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by JulieM

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Wouldn't you rather they read something like this rather than the CES letter, for example?  

Isn't that a false dichotomy? I'd hope they read something better. Say something that instead portrayed the wide range of orthodox views.

Edited May 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

Isn't that a false dichotomy? I'd hope they read something better.

Such as?

Is there something else out there that reviews historical and doctrinal issues from multiple points of view?

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Isn't that a false dichotomy? I'd hope they read something better. Say something that instead portrayed the wide range of orthodox views.

I don't know...

I just talked to a family member who discovered the CES letter and has been blown away by it.  They are now sharing it with other members of my family.  

I would have rather seen them sharing something like Bill wrote here.

[Ouagadougou]

23 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Bill Reel at Mormon Discussion has created a new document aimed at addressing some of the messy history and doctrine of the church. I read it as being a kind of middle ground tone between the CES letter and FAIR, where both sides have valuable points of view but are very strident and divisive. This is an attempt to validate concerns while looking at the issues in an honest and constructive way by addressing the issues from multiple angles. This is a bold and ambitious attempt to address the issues and I appreciate the effort to include point and counter-point for these issues.

The issues addressed include-

1: Treasure Digging and Folk Magic of Joseph Smith and His Family

2: Joseph Smith’s First Vision

3: Witnesses of the Book of Mormon

4: The Book of Mormon Historicity

5: The Book of Abraham

6: The Prophetic Mantle

7: Science

8: Tithing

9: The Word of Wisdom

10: The True and Living Church

11: Joseph Smith’s Practice of Polygamy

12: Polygamy after Joseph Smith

13: The Cessation of Polygamy

14: The Role of Women throughout Church History

15: Temples and Freemasonry

16: Scripture

17: The Race Based Priesthood and Temple Ban

18: Spiritual Witness as a Mode of Knowing Truth

19: Historical Jesus

To me this is a more productive approach than something like the CES letter and provides links to a variety of sources from FAIR to Mormonthink to show the different approaches.

Which of these topics are most interesting to you? Would you be more or less likely to refer someone with questions to this kind of document instead of the CES letter or FAIR?

*This thread is not about bashing Bill Reel. I know that is a favorite past-time of some here but I would like to discuss the paper and the specific question I raise, instead of litigating the character of Bill.

I'm more interested in the BoA, First Vision, BoM historicity, polygamy and Wow.  I think I would refer someone to both the CES Letter and this document; I think both highlight some very important issues/gaps in the church's historicity claims.  

Further, I think the church's own essays (along with FAIR responses) have had an even greater overall negative effect on how I view some of these issues than the CES Letter or this document.  IMO, some of the church's essays/apologetics are not objective and only try to sweep many of these issues under the rug.  

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Such as?

Is there something else out there that reviews historical and doctrinal issues from multiple points of view?

Well you could read multiple things including what FAIR puts out. Her choices was this or the "CES letter" but the latter doesn't exactly give multiple points of view either.

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Bill used terms of his choosing, yes.  But "contrived"?  I think that has a very negative connotation and is unfair.  The different levels of belief exist.  Bill didn't contrive to create or make those up.

Do you have an answer to my question regarding being willing to help write the parts in the paper that express your beliefs?

I'm happy you know all about Bill. I'm just explaining why terms that are not naturally or spontaneously recognized or remembered are deliberately created or arranged in a way that seems artificial and unrealistic (see definition of contrived). You seem overly focused on that point.

I did answer the question. What do you not understand--why I wouldn't participate in an approach and a process I find unsuitable for the purpose of resolving questions of faith?

Now if you're just in a mood badger, you found the wrong guy.

 

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I'm more interested in the BoA, First Vision, BoM historicity, polygamy and Wow.  I think I would refer someone to both the CES Letter and this document; I think both highlight some very important issues/gaps in the church's historicity claims.  

Further, I think the church's own essays (along with FAIR responses) have had an even greater overall negative effect on how I view some of these issues than the CES Letter or this document.  IMO, some of the church's essays/apologetics are not objective and only try to sweep many of these issues under the rug.  

I'll grant you the church's essays are only given a limited view. I don't think FAIR is sweeping issues under the rug although I don't always agree with what they've written. I don't think this work is any more objective than FAIR and sweeps a lot under the rug as well. In particular it's very distortive of what's orthodox. I'd say it's more or less a work of apologetic for the position he calls the "progressive."

Edited May 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

 

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

I think what happened is that Calm posted her initial shorter post and then an hour later edited it to add her actual review of the piece (after she had a chance to read through it).  By then, there were 2 more pages of comments (some about her original, short post).  

But her review was added 17 hours ago now, and she's mentioned that she edited her post.  So people should go back and read her edited section before they continue or want to comment on it.  It just got confusing because people moved on and didn't see the edit.

I honestly feel that Bill has gotten some good feedback (from both sides) and he should just skip any posts that aren't critiques of or specifically related to his paper.

I first posted my immediate reaction based on my concerns with the nature of Reel's past work, including a specific example.  After that I started to read it and in several edits posted my comments as I came across what I saw as issues.  The total effort might have taken an hour.

In my next post I mentioned I had substantially edited it.  I mentioned it in several posts directing people to read it as it was a response they were calling for, iirc.

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I did answer the question.

Here?

"if he wants contributors, I’m sure he knows plenty of people."

Ok.  It's ironic that you criticize, but aren't willing to make it better or improve it.  At least others are giving some constructive feedback and help.

(By the way, I do know what "contrived" means but your demeaning attitude is noted and not necessary.)

[Tacenda]

14 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I have always seen Bill as a genuine and sincere guy.  Misguided?  Yeah, but his heart is in the right place.

Well his church leaders apparently aren't afraid of him, why should others be? So I agree he's very genuine, no fakeness and spells it out like he sees it. Everyone has their points of view. Haven't met him in person, but think he is holding on by a thread, to stay in the church. And if it's by doing these things, more power to him as long as the honesty is there. 

[Calm]

12 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I believe you are one of the best posters I have ever had the pleasure of running across, and an invaluable member of the forum. You are extremely bright, articulate, honest, fair, informed and several other good things  Probably a much better poster than myself. I can get rather opinionated, and occasionally  a bit abrasive. On this occasion I posted too quickly and didn't fully think through my post, and I did end up speaking for you, which again was not my intent, and I was not accurate. I can be a pretty darn good writer but not superfast. I tend to need time to mull over what I have written. Anyway, I guess I am trying to apologize, because if I were you I may have been a little annoyed at what I said, and I definitely don't want to speak for you - I think you are best at that!

I was just somewhat annoyed at the charge of ad hominem brought up, and thought it may have been directed at you. I don't really feel it applies to any of the posters on this thread. I think the criticisms have been directed at the quality of the paper and its deficiencies, which I thought was the point of the thread in the first place. I thought feedback was being solicited - maybe all they expected was positive feedback. Anyway, people like Buckeye definitely have no axe to grind in this presentation, and I think Bill would do well to listen to them. I personally understand his frustration - it is definitely difficult to write things which will please all the people - especially in religion. I believe he was hoping for a warmer reception tho. I think part of his quandry is that he is trying to be a leader. However, his attempt may grow into something interesting - that would probably be more work than he was hoping for. One suggestion I would have for him is to allow links to be added to the general statements of theological outlooks so that additional detail can be added on separate pages which don't clog up the simple statements of theological outlooks he is trying to maintain. That would definitely allow people of other viewpoints to feel they are being more accurately represented. I don't want to discourage him, but I personally feel his effort will be for naught soon anyway... forces of change will overwhelm it.

You are a good man, Rev.  

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

I first posted my immediate reaction based on my concerns with the nature of Reel's past work, including a specific example.  After that I started to read it and in several edits posted my comments as I came across what I saw as issues.  The total effort might have taken an hour.

In my next post I mentioned I had substantially edited it.  I mentioned it in several posts directing people to read it as it was a response they were calling for, iirc.

Oh, I was standing up for you here and trying to explain (probably not well!).  I know you mentioned several times that you edited your post and asked if the person had read your update.  There's no reason for anyone to have not gone back and read what you'd added, IMO.

Edited May 2, 2017 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

Just now, JulieM said:

Oh, I was standing up for you here and trying to explain (probably not well!).  I know you mentioned several times that you edited your post and asked if the person had read your update.  

Been there done that, edited my posts and hoped no one had seen the way I had it, and hoped it would be read as I intended it.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

Bill, would you accept submissions from others who self-identify in these different groups?

And would he give them final approval over their content or would he retain the right to change what they said if it distastified him for whatever reason?

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Oh, I was standing up for you here and trying to explain (probably not well!).  I know you mentioned several times that you edited your post and asked if the person had read your update.  There's no reason for anyone to have not gone back and read what you'd added, IMO.

Thanks.  I understand it was confusing, it is not the way I usually do things, though I edit a lot and prefer that to keep thoughts together...but that substantive of one?  No, it should have been in a new thread and the edit be "see later posts for additional comment on current work" rather than trying to respond to multiple posts in one post (first bluebell's and then Jack's)...I was particularly, excruciatingly restless yesterday and couldn't do much besides grit my teeth and find distractions, so I wouldn't be surprised to find sloppy work here and there.

 I am just obsessing a bit, I guess.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

I first posted my immediate reaction based on my concerns with the nature of Reel's past work, including a specific example.  After that I started to read it and in several edits posted my comments as I came across what I saw as issues.  The total effort might have taken an hour.

In my next post I mentioned I had substantially edited it.  I mentioned it in several posts directing people to read it as it was a response they were calling for, iirc.

FYI- I missed it for many pages until I came back this morning to all of the lamenting that no one has addressed your edited post. I have attempted to respond so hopefully that refrain is over  

[juliann]

14 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Here?

"if he wants contributors, I’m sure he knows plenty of people."

Ok.  It's ironic that you criticize, but aren't willing to make it better or improve it.  At least others are giving some constructive feedback and help.

 

Where does the idea come from that if someone on a message board critiques something (after being asked to) they are required to rewrite it for the author?? That is a rather bizarre demand.

It looks to me like those you are handing out assignments to are unified in saying it is a flawed premise with a biased agenda. That requires much more than "making it better." 

The first thing anyone who attempts to reduce a complicated set of beliefs to a few paragraphs learns is that it can't be done. That is why sites like Mormonthink and FairMormon exist. 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Here?

"if he wants contributors, I’m sure he knows plenty of people."

Ok.  It's ironic that you criticize, but aren't willing to make it better or improve it.  At least others are giving some constructive feedback and help.

(By the way, I do know what "contrived" means but your demeaning attitude is noted and not necessary.)

I think cv is sort of criticizing from two POV, the first is saying if someone assumes Reel's work is useful contribution, they could contribute to making it better for its purpose as there is room for much improvement and having multiple contributors is one way.

But his view is it is a faulty approach in the first place, so even though things could be done to make it better, in the end it is detrimental to understanding and relationships, so he has no interest in making it better.  Think of an extreme analogy of being able to recognize technical errors in the construction of a bomb while holding the viewpoint that the bomb's stated purpose of maintaining peace will not be well served by the use of it.

He can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think it is ironic.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Calm

[juliann]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

And would he give them final approval over their content or would he retain the right to change what they said if it distastified him for whatever reason?

As Clark pointed out, those categories don't exist in real life so good luck finding someone who is willing to box themselves into one and then do Bill's work for him. 

Edited May 2, 2017 by juliann

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Here?

"if he wants contributors, I’m sure he knows plenty of people."

Ok.  It's ironic that you criticize, but aren't willing to make it better or improve it.  At least others are giving some constructive feedback and help.

(By the way, I do know what "contrived" means but your demeaning attitude is noted and not necessary.)

As I said, my remarks are not criticism. I think my feedback is most constructive, but it seems you just wanna - -