There is no such thing as valid criticism of the LDS Church

[Glenn101]

15 hours ago, ALarson said:

Well, I had to read it several times to keep track...ha!     You gave a very confusing scenario 

You don't specify if the divorces involved sealing cancellations and if so, all of them or just some of them?

Yeah, I did leave you having to make some assumptions didn't I? Actually, that was on purpose.

Let me clarify. There was no cancellation of sealings as the women married outside the church. The divorces were civil in nature.

Glenn

Edited September 5, 2017 by Glenn101
spelling

[CV75]

@Five Solas I take each critic and his criticism at face value, one at a time. Do you have what you consider to be the best example of a helpful criticism of the LDS Church or how a helpful critic presents / represents his position (include your criteria for what you consider to be helpful criticism or approach)? Thank you --

Edited September 4, 2017 by CV75

[Atheist Mormon]

31 minutes ago, cdowis said:

It is not the responsibility, or the burden  of a SP to answer your questions.   It is your burden and something between yourself and God.  I suggest you start by following Peter's example in answering this question ==>>

Matt 16 [15] He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
[16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Xcept that he was standing accused of heresy in Court of Love. 

[cdowis]

6 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Xcept that he was standing accused of heresy in Court of Love. 

That is one of the duties of the bishop and SP == a judge in Zion.  This can be accepted as a court of love, or rejected.  It is his choice, and he himself chose to turn his back on the offer of love and to resign his membership..

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, strappinglad said:

And in at least one instance , the current husband was at the sealing ceremony. Flag on the play!

Joseph had a history of promising exaltation for agreeing to comply (or threatening destruction otherwise - see D&C 132). That at least one husband (Henry Jacobs I presume) was at the sealing ceremony does not validate it.

[strappinglad]

Most men today, and I assume most in Joseph's day , would have told him to go pound sand if he suggested a plural marriage with all that implies. Actually, given the tenor of the day, Joseph probably would have been shot post haste. So, what other possible reasons might there have been to stand there at the ceremony .

 1. Henry forced his wife to comply on pain of a severe beating

2. Henry's wife forced Henry to comply with her desires on pain of a severe berating.

3. Both of them were social climbers and saw this as a way to enter the inner circle.

4. As has been suggested, both were convinced that their eternal welfare was at stake.

5. Henry was anxious to get rid of his wife and let Joseph take over her care.

6. There was something about the context of the marriage/sealing that made it so that both Henry and his wife found it quite proper and valuable.

7. enter any other plausible scenario here.

I wasn't there at the time to ask either of them. I have read a bit about their history post ceremony. There are hints about which scenario or combination thereof seems most likely.

 

 

[Atheist Mormon]

52 minutes ago, cdowis said:

That is one of the duties of the bishop and SP == a judge in Zion.  This can be accepted as a court of love, or rejected.  It is his choice, and he himself chose to turn his back on the offer of love and to resign his membership..

Yes, it is a different way of looking at things........But, don't forget something......The whole thing is played in front of very public eye that Church wants to influence.

[Avatar4321]

11 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Asked and poorly answered should be the apologist response.

They should lie?

Edited September 5, 2017 by Avatar4321
Spelling

[smac97]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Have you read the newer info on the Council of Fifty minutes?

What "info" do you have in mind.

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'll bet it would be labled anti until someone see's it in the JSP's project, or something else anti until one see's it on the Gospel Topic Essay's page. I wonder where the rabbit hole ends.

I do not know what you mean here.

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And most people out there that aren't Jeremy Runnells don't get answers when they go to the Stake President or even as high up as a GA. So now Fair Mormon is the answer? They are the Prophet/Apostles? Fair Mormon just has apologetics, is that the same?

Good faith inquiries are fielded and addressed by bishops and stake presidents.  All the time.  

Jeremy Runnells' letter does not fall into that category.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

 I think that members would just like Joseph's story to align with what they were taught for years regarding the translation process.  One can claim anything they want to claim (ie: that placing a stone in your hat is the same practice as the use of the Urim & Thummim in ancient times), but that doesn't align with what they were taught and what they trusted and believed.  There lies the issue, IMO.

I'm asking you, not some imaginary members. 

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Yes, it is a different way of looking at things........But, don't forget something......The whole thing is played in front of very public eye that Church wants to influence.

YOU remember that the church did not video tape the proceedings, but he surreptitiously made the recording.  YOU remember that he held a press conference.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

The apologist failure to give plausible answers has already been dismissed many times. I think this is a case of the apologist looking at reality and then putting on the critic what the apologist is actually doing. 

This makes no sense. 

[Five Solas]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

@Five Solas I take each critic and his criticism at face value, one at a time. Do you have what you consider to be the best example of a helpful criticism of the LDS Church or how a helpful critic presents / represents his position (include your criteria for what you consider to be helpful criticism or approach)? Thank you --

Appreciate the question, CV75.

Personally, I take the view that greater transparency and openness is a good thing, especially in non-profit organizations that receive tax relief/benefit from the rest of us.  So I applaud the recent efforts of the LDS Church to be more forthcoming about its history.  At the same time, I doubt these steps would have been taken were it not for some brave individuals at independent publications (e.g., Sunstone, Dialogue) in the late 80's /early 90's who stood up to LDS leadership and their strong counsel at the time against "alternative voices."  In addition--there were a lot of quiet heroes out there who kept their subscriptions and donations coming--enabling research and many truths about LDS history to be published to a broader audience. 

So, do you have an example to share?

--Erik

_____________________________________________

I wanted to tell her but I stuck to my lies
I wanted to tell her till I looked in her eyes

--Ministry, 1983

 

[Marginal Gains]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Appreciate the question, CV75.

Personally, I take the view that greater transparency and openness is a good thing, especially in non-profit organizations that receive tax relief/benefit from the rest of us.  So I applaud the recent efforts of the LDS Church to be more forthcoming about its history.  At the same time, I doubt these steps would have been taken were it not for some brave individuals at independent publications (e.g., Sunstone, Dialogue) in the late 80's /early 90's who stood up to LDS leadership and their strong counsel at the time against "alternative voices."  In addition--there were a lot of quiet heroes out there who kept their subscriptions and donations coming--enabling research and many truths about LDS history to be published to a broader audience. 

So, do you have an example to share?

--Erik

_____________________________________________

I wanted to tell her but I stuck to my lies
I wanted to tell her till I looked in her eyes

--Ministry, 1983

 

Has the Church put forward anything significant about its history that wasn’t already in the public domain, put there by non Church sources such as historians, apostates and even anti-Mormons?

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Has the Church put forward anything significant about its history that wasn’t already in the public domain, put there by non Church sources such as historians, apostates and even anti-Mormons?

You have heard about the Joseph Smith Papers project have you not? There is a lot of that which was not general knowledge or maybe even particular knowledge. Items such as the minutes on the Council of Fifty.

Glenn

[Marginal Gains]

55 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

You have heard about the Joseph Smith Papers project have you not? There is a lot of that which was not general knowledge or maybe even particular knowledge. Items such as the minutes on the Council of Fifty.

Glenn

Thanks for pointing that out. It is certainly an example of the Church putting into the public domain documents that weren’t accessible before.

I confess to not being familiar with the contents of the project. Is there anything of significance (that you’re aware of) within those documents that we didn’t already know?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Thanks for pointing that out. It is certainly an example of the Church putting into the public domain documents that weren’t accessible before.

I confess to not being familiar with the contents of the project. Is there anything of significance (that you’re aware of) within those documents that we didn’t already know?

He already did. 

The Council of Fifty minutes remained hidden for many years and were the object of rampant speculation, especially among critics. 

The printersmanuscript of the Book of Mormon was published as a photo facsimile.  

[Marginal Gains]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He already did. 

The Council of Fifty minutes remained hidden for many years and were the object of rampant speculation, especially among critics. 

The printersmanuscript of the Book of Mormon was published as a photo facsimile.  

Apologies, I should have been clearer. Is there anything specific within, say, the Council Of Fifty minutes, that wasn’t already known?

[Atheist Mormon]

10 hours ago, cdowis said:

YOU remember that the church did not video tape the proceedings, but he surreptitiously made the recording.  YOU remember that he held a press conference.

How relevant is that? Of course they will not videotape proceedings, who wants publicity? Transparency is the last thing Church wanted on this matter. Not trying to be negative here, I run a business too I don't want anything negative around me.

[CV75]

9 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Appreciate the question, CV75.

Personally, I take the view that greater transparency and openness is a good thing, especially in non-profit organizations that receive tax relief/benefit from the rest of us.  So I applaud the recent efforts of the LDS Church to be more forthcoming about its history.  At the same time, I doubt these steps would have been taken were it not for some brave individuals at independent publications (e.g., Sunstone, Dialogue) in the late 80's /early 90's who stood up to LDS leadership and their strong counsel at the time against "alternative voices."  In addition--there were a lot of quiet heroes out there who kept their subscriptions and donations coming--enabling research and many truths about LDS history to be published to a broader audience. 

So, do you have an example to share?

--Erik

_____________________________________________

I wanted to tell her but I stuck to my lies
I wanted to tell her till I looked in her eyes

--Ministry, 1983

 

Not really, as I see improvements in the Church being generated by the council process as opposed to being instigated by critical pressure. For example, there may well have been voices within the councils of the Church that, considering all the essential factors required to support the ultimate goal of presenting top-quality historical material, were weighed in getting the Church into a position to make those improvements. These voices typically don’t seek or take any individual credit for progress.

I do think the tax relief for religious organizations has more to do with special constitutional protections for religious freedom than with ensuring a scholarly treatment of their history. I think as long as their religious actions are shown to be legal, such protections are merited.

As far as the OP choices, I can't pick one because I don't see where criticism or critics have been part of the Church councils.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Thanks for pointing that out. It is certainly an example of the Church putting into the public domain documents that weren’t accessible before.

I confess to not being familiar with the contents of the project. Is there anything of significance (that you’re aware of) within those documents that we didn’t already know?

I don't know of anything startling. In fact so much of it is in a way mundane. Joseph Smith's personal diaries, the ones he wrote himself, are interesting because they were apparently written without the expectation of them becoming public. The publication of the minutes of the Council of Fifty was something that had been eagerly anticipated by friend and foe alike. It turned out not to provide any smoking guns as to a secret design to overthrow the U.S. government and set up a theocracy. The Joseph Smith papers project is online and easy to search. I find the personal insights of the most interest.

Glenn

[Five Solas]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

...

As far as the OP choices, I can't pick one because I don't see where criticism or critics have been part of the Church councils.

While critics don't have a literal seat at the table in a church council, their ideas certainly find their way into the room and into the discussion.  You need only spend a little time with content made available via MormonLeaks to appreciate the fact.  LDS leaders even commissioned a summary slide about them, listing critics & movements on an ideological spectrum, left to right.  It got a fair bit of attention when it was released, including on this forum.

You sure you can't think of even one example, CV75?

--Erik

[ALarson]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm asking you, not some imaginary members. 

Ok, we were speaking in general terms previously so that's how I responded.

But for me?  The answer is, possibly as I'm always willing to read any new information available.   Do you have a source that aligns the two (Joseph's seer stones and the ancient Urim & Thummim)?   (Other than speculation or just stating that they were both instruments through which God worked?)  If so, I'd definitely read what you have.  I've read the history of how Joseph's seer stones evolved into being called the Urim & Thummim.  The problem is that it was still believed and taught that  the terms were used only for the interpreters (that Joseph stated came with the plates).  

Edited September 5, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

15 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Yeah, I did leave you having to make some assumptions didn't I? Actually, that was on purpose.

Let me clarify. There was no cancellation of sealings as the women married outside the church. The divorces were civil in nature.

Glenn

Glenn, I honestly do not see how your scenario applies to what Joseph did regarding marrying other men's legal wives.  The plural wives involved in his polyandrous marriages did not civilly divorce their husbands.  You may be able to make a case for spiritual polyandry in the scenario.  Is that what you meant?  (It was confusing and I'm not sure what your point was, to be honest....just trying to understand here )

[Johnnie Cake]

On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 7:52 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Anti-mormons are big fans of historical "truth", they don't realize that Satan changed some historical diaries, letters, newspapers, and documents just like he did with the 116 pages.  Anti-mormons have nothing new and will never demonstrate the church is false because it is true.  

Are you for real?  You're Joking, pulling our leg aren't you...