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

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I had a big reply which appears to have been lost somehow.

I really hate that....it's happened to me several times and of course they were all my most impressive posts that disappeared 

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Briefly though. By early I meant relative to Emma and Whitmer who were remembering 50-60 years after the fact. 

Oh, ok.  I thought you meant earlier than when the terms "Urim and Thummim" came into use regarding the seer stones and ancient interpreters.  I agree, but I still think that it's important to recognize that Oliver's statement was more vague when compared to other eye witness's statements (who viewed Oliver and Joseph during the translation process) who specifically stated that he used the seer stone in his hat during that time.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Also we have second hand accounts of Cowdery testimonies especially in trials. They're not as good, but I don't think can just be dismissed.

I'd like to read those (do you have a source where you can point me?).  I'm aware of other second hand accounts (the "hostile news accounts" on the FairMormon website).

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I find the use of the Whitmer to prove the brown stone was used for the D&C sections question begging. It's not even clear Whitmer was there for all of those. (Although it's certainly possible given the use of the Whitmer home for translation)

Yes.  It is interesting that Joseph gave Oliver the brown seer stone after that as well (in 1830).

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I didn't remember that bit about Lucy's account being changed. From Darkness Unto Light relies on it in a few places and that undermines that chapter.

Yes.  Unfortunately, her altered history is even used at times as a source for lesson materials and other writings.  I've learned to look at her first draft rather than to rely on the later copy.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Give me a bit to give a good reply. 

Of course.  I look forward to reading it and always appreciate another view.

I did read extensively on this topic at one time, and when viewing all of the eye witness's statements, I felt Joseph most likely only used the ancient interpreters in the beginning (for the 116 pages).  With the reports that they were uncomfortable for him to use or didn't fit well (I'd need to look at the exact quote), it doesn't make a lot of sense that he'd use the seer stone for awhile and then later go back to the interpreters (unless there was a good reason to do so, and maybe there was ?).

[Johnnie Cake]

The church is true...what else matters...certainly not facts

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 9/5/2017 at 10:22 AM, Glenn101 said:

It was not actually Brigham Young. It was George D. Watt editing Brigham Young.

Glenn

Thank You! It fits perfectly with my Satan change theory.  I am not sure why Mormon intellectuals keep insisting that "Brigham claimed to have received these beliefs by revelation, and, on at least three occasions, claimed that he learned it from Joseph Smith" https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory  Do you know why? 

 

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Thank You! It fits perfectly with my Satan change theory.  I am not sure why Mormon intellectuals keep insisting that "Brigham claimed to have received these beliefs by revelation, and, on at least three occasions, claimed that he learned it from Joseph Smith" https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory  Do you know why? 

The Matt Brown FAIR lecture I linked to earlier goes through this. Brigham Young was inconsistent on the topic though although it may also be that there's some conflation over what part of the doctrine was inspired. We tend to label everything as Adam/God when really just a small part is problematic. Often it's not quite clear what Brigham thought was inspired. He was a bit muddled on things as well.

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Thank You! It fits perfectly with my Satan change theory.  I am not sure why Mormon intellectuals keep insisting that "Brigham claimed to have received these beliefs by revelation, and, on at least three occasions, claimed that he learned it from Joseph Smith" https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory  Do you know why? 

 

 

I do not think that a lot of people are aware of just how much editing was done to the talks transcribed by George D. Watt.  That information has been out there (as in available at BYU studies) but I only became aware of it last year when I came across an article on the internet. I do not really know what I was looking for at the time.

But I would not attribute the changes to Satanic influence. I think George Watt was trying to do a good job and was an expert in Pittman shorthand. But there are too many ways that errors can creep into dictated text. Just look at the translation process of the Book of Mormon for example.

The main thing is that the Journal of Discourses is not scripture. They can be read for historical value, to get a feel for what the issues were in the sermons, etc. but I would be very careful in trying to use them to prove a doctrinal point. Whatever point you may make will probably have a contradictory point somewhere else in those volumes.

Glenn

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, ALarson said:

Oh, ok.  I thought you meant earlier than when the terms "Urim and Thummim" came into use regarding the seer stones and ancient interpreters.  I agree, but I still think that it's important to recognize that Oliver's statement was more vague when compared to other eye witness's statements (who viewed Oliver and Joseph during the translation process) who specifically stated that he used the seer stone in his hat during that time.

No more what I was going by was the accounts FAIR listed. So I was thinking of the hostile accounts that mention the spectacles relative to Cowdery. It's circumstantial I'll admit. So they mention Cowdery and the spectacles together. Relative to second hand from Cowdery I was thinking of accounts like the 18 December 1830 one. "To Smith was given to transcribe the character which he was enabled to do by looking through two semitransparent stones, but as he was ignorant of the writing, Cowdry and others wrote as Smith interpreted."  Similar accounts were repeated tying Cowdery to the spectacles such as the Josiah Jones account. (1 June 1841) Jones says Cowdery "affirmed while [Joseph] looked through the stone spectacles another sat by and wrote what he told them." 

More convincing were the second hand accounts of Cowdery during trials such as the 9 April 1831 account. "Oliver Cowdry, one of the three witnesses to the book, testified under oath, that said Smith found with the plates, from which he translated his book, two transparent stones, resembling glass, set in silver bows. That by looking through these, he was able to read in English, the formed Egyptian characters, which were engraved on the plates.So much for the gift and power of God. by which Smith says he translate his book. Two transparent stones, undoubtedly of the same properties, and the gift of the same spirit as the one in which he looked to find his neighbor’s goods."

While it's quite possible to read the 1834 Cowdery account as vague due to the ambiguity of "Urim and Thummim" it's worth noting he also says interpreters with an emphasis on the plural. Likewise the 1835 Phelps to Cowdery letter seems clearly to be talking of the spectacles when using "U&T" and not the brown seerstone. 

My skepticism on the later accounts comes from Harris' 1870 account that suggests when he was there Joseph used both the seer stone and the spectacles saying the seer stone was just for convenience. Given the size of spectacles, this makes a lot of sense if Joseph was trying to shield the light with a hat. (Several of the chapters in From Darkness Unto Light make this point about how the spectacles being unwieldily, even suggesting the accounts of a white or crystal single stone was one of the lenses of the spectacles popped out and used individually. There are obvious problems with that theory since it implies Joseph was willing to do that to these sacred tools - I think Ashurt-McGee is the main proponent. If this happened though then it might explain the confusion over stones. It's possible some of the time he was using a single stone it was actually one of the lenses of the spectacles. The other reason to argue this is the Lyman Stowell account of Smith searching for something saying "he had lost one of the magic glasses." But that's late and not trustworthy. The other argument are accounts like Jonathan Hadley's that Joseph put the spectacles in the hat during the period he had them. Yet the spectacles are too big for the hat when in their holder.

The significance relative to Cowdery is, as I noted, Cowdery's attempts at translation. The Spencer paper you linked to suggests that the dowsing rod could have been used but I find that pretty implausible given the methodology of dowsing. I think the revelation is more using dowsing to explain Cowdery having a gift, suggesting he could use the interpreters or seer stone for scrying. The failure suggests he wasn't successful at scrying. I can't recall if I mentioned it before or in my lost post, but it's worth noting Joseph gives Cowdery the brown seer stone. Some suggest this indicates Cowdery may have tried using the brown seer stone but I'm a bit more skeptical of that. 

The main argument is that only Joseph and the witnesses saw the Spectacles. There's pretty compelling evidence that at the Whitmer's there just wasn't the sheet used with Harris. So, the argument goes, that entails no spectacles. But that seems pretty circular since it presupposes only the witnesses saw the interpreters. 

My main complaint is that the accounts by Emma and Whitmer are just so late but constitute the main argument for the spectacles not being used after the 116 pages. There's just nothing unambiguous that's near contemporary in the 1830's and lots of reasons to think things are at best much mroe complicated.

9 hours ago, ALarson said:

I did read extensively on this topic at one time, and when viewing all of the eye witness's statements, I felt Joseph most likely only used the ancient interpreters in the beginning (for the 116 pages).  With the reports that they were uncomfortable for him to use or didn't fit well (I'd need to look at the exact quote), it doesn't make a lot of sense that he'd use the seer stone for awhile and then later go back to the interpreters (unless there was a good reason to do so, and maybe there was ?).

I'll fully admit it's somewhat ambiguous. The main reason I accepted Cowdery at more face value was the Lucy Smith account - but you pointed out that was not original. So that kills the main positive argument I had. I'll fully admit everything else is fairly ambiguous or so late as to not be trustworthy.

The problem with the comfort is the theory he just popped one of them out with some circumstantial evidence for that as I mentioned. Since there's likely no new evidence coming I doubt we'll know for sure.

 

[Five Solas]

Just quick not of thanks to the 45 folks who participated in the poll (as of 6:31 AM Seattle time).  I have to admit, I didn't anticipate the results and thought it would be a little more evenly distributed.  It's encouraging, from my point of view.  

And I thought it would be interesting to divide responses between LDS temple recommend holders and LDS without--and so I authored the poll accordingly.  My hypothesis was that we might see a significantly different answer ratio between the groups.  But that wasn't the case.  And I also didn't expect temple recommend holders would outnumber all other groups combined by over two to one (31 to 14).  Concerns are sometimes expressed on the forum that critics dominate--but they certainly don't appear to based on the data here. 

--Erik

_________________________________________________________

Everything is supposed to get in
I just don't know where I'm a-getting it from
A cha-charger
What is the cause of it?
And well in that case, how do you know it's your own?
A cha-charger
What do you say now?

--Gorillaz, feat. Grace Jones, 2017

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 9/5/2017 at 9:55 AM, clarkgoble said:

. What is or isn't inspired by Brigham is more complicated than you let on. There's no problem with Adam being crowned a father, God and King in terms of the patriarchal order. Joseph as the head of our dispensation is as well. He'll have to give an account of this dispensation to Adam who will in turn give it to Christ. That's all mainstream LDS doctrine separate from what gets terms Adam/God theory (by which most people just mean the controversial parts).

So it's complicated and we don't know what is or isn't. What you are telling me now sounds like what you said earlier "Anything historical that doesn't fit his worldview is fake information planted by Satan." So anything that doesn't fit your worldview is complicated and we don't know what is or isn't?  At least my Satan change theory is coherent.   

[clarkgoble]

25 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

So it's complicated and we don't know what is or isn't. What you are telling me now sounds like what you said earlier "Anything historical that doesn't fit his worldview is fake information planted by Satan." So anything that doesn't fit your worldview is complicated and we don't know what is or isn't?  At least my Satan change theory is coherent.   

I'm more than willing to acknowledge the data doesn't make things clear. You (if you are being sincere) want everything to be clear and will make it so with conjectures that match worldviews. My worldview of theology really doesn't rest on Brigham so I don't mind if he's wrong or not. Saying where he is wrong or not requires data and argument. Those aren't always easy to provide. But I think we should be honest about that.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm more than willing to acknowledge the data doesn't make things clear. 

Yes, I can see that. Hopefully you get to respect my Satan Change theory because your complexity isn't much better. 

[ALarson]

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The Spencer paper you linked to suggests that the dowsing rod could have been used but I find that pretty implausible given the methodology of dowsing.

Thanks for your reply, Clark.  I'll respond more in my next post, but I wanted to separate this sentence out.

Can you quote the Spencer paper where it "suggests that the dowsing rod could have been used" by Oliver in his attempt to translate?  I didn't remember reading that, but  then did a quick search of the paper this morning and could not find anything mentioned about that.

Here's the link again:

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/seers-and-stones-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon-as-divine-visions-of-an-old-time-seer/

[Danzo]

I think the last couple of pages are a very good example of useful criticism.  Clarkgoble and Alarson seem to sincerely trying to understand what the truth is, not using the others lack of knowledge to beat them over the head or accuse the church or the anti-Mormons of deceit and having an agenda. Good criticism brings more light and knowledge and should be used to build faith, not tear it down.

[Marginal Gains]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think the last couple of pages are a very good example of useful criticism.  Clarkgoble and Alarson seem to sincerely trying to understand what the truth is, not using the others lack of knowledge to beat them over the head or accuse the church or the anti-Mormons of deceit and having an agenda. Good criticism brings more light and knowledge and should be used to build faith, not tear it down.

I sort of disagree. Good criticism should bring progress, which isn’t automatically tied to building faith.

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I sort of disagree. Good criticism should bring progress, which isn’t automatically tied to building faith.

Building Faith is progress.

[clarkgoble]

50 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Can you quote the Spencer paper where it "suggests that the dowsing rod could have been used" by Oliver in his attempt to translate?  I didn't remember reading that, but  then did a quick search of the paper this morning and could not find anything mentioned about that.

Whoops. Sorry about that. I was going through both Spencer and Nicholson when replying. That was from Nicholson not Spencer. I was writing on my laptop on the couch rather than with a reasonable monitor. So I just looked at the wrong window when writing that. I was trying to deal with the two main non-From Darkness Unto Light papers on the topic since they disagree with some of the authors there. Nicholson wrote, "Since Oliver had used his divining rod to receive revelation in the past, it is not unreasonable to assume that Oliver may have attempted to use his own revelatory instrument during his attempt to translate. " The problem with this theory to explain away Cowdery needing access to Joseph's translation tools is that it confuses how a dowsing rod was used versus scrying. That in turn means D&C 6 strongly suggests Oliver would have used either the spectacles or brown seer stone in his attempt. So at a minimum there's very strong reason to think Oliver knew how Joseph was translating. That in turn gives heavier weight to Oliver's descriptions of intepreters.

 

 

 

Edited September 7, 2017 by clarkgoble

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

Just quick not of thanks to the 45 folks who participated in the poll (as of 6:31 AM Seattle time).  I have to admit, I didn't anticipate the results and thought it would be a little more evenly distributed.  It's encouraging, from my point of view.  

And I thought it would be interesting to divide responses between LDS temple recommend holders and LDS without--and so I authored the poll accordingly.  My hypothesis was that we might see a significantly different answer ratio between the groups.  But that wasn't the case.  And I also didn't expect temple recommend holders would outnumber all other groups combined by over two to one (31 to 14).  Concerns are sometimes expressed on the forum that critics dominate--but they certainly don't appear to based on the data here. 

--Erik

_________________________________________________________

Everything is supposed to get in
I just don't know where I'm a-getting it from
A cha-charger
What is the cause of it?
And well in that case, how do you know it's your own?
A cha-charger
What do you say now?

--Gorillaz, feat. Grace Jones, 2017

I think it would be good to also qualify what you mean by critic and criticism, since in the examples you gave in our conversation, you framed the survey's “make valid points and thereby serve a useful purpose” in terms of that which leads to substantive alignment of the Church to the critic’s / criticism’s aims, as opposed to, for example, the Church resolving matters highlighted by critics through more refined policies and practices which may come across as moving further apart from alignment with them.

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Whoops. Sorry about that. I was going through both Spencer and Nicholson when replying. That was from Nicholson not Spencer. I was writing on my laptop on the couch rather than with a reasonable monitor. So I just looked at the wrong window when writing that.

No problem and I understand how it is going back and forth between several sources.  I didn't think I'd read that in the Spencer paper but did remember reading it somewhere.  

The Spencer paper expresses my thoughts and opinions probably the best that I've found.  I like the way he analyzes the chronology and the different witness statements.  I feel that he compiles everything and makes sense out of it.

I still want to reply to the rest of your post as well and plan on doing that later today.  Thanks.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm more than willing to acknowledge the data doesn't make things clear. 

Wait a minute. Can't you apply that to almost anything when the data contradicts your worldview? It is not hard to get complicated, even anti-Mormons get complicated when they can't explain something. 

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

 My worldview of theology really doesn't rest on Brigham so I don't mind if he's wrong or not

You and I believe Brigham Young was a prophet capable of telling the difference between the spirit and his own thoughts. Statements like "which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God" do contradict the prophet's credibility, that is why I don't believe Young said "God revealed to me". 

Edited September 7, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The Spencer paper expresses my thoughts and opinions probably the best that I've found.  I like the way he analyzes the chronology and the different witness statements.  I feel that he compiles everything and makes sense out of it.

I still want to reply to the rest of your post as well and plan on doing that later today.  Thanks.

My main problem with the Spencer paper is that I don't think he really engages with the plural vs. singular usage in descriptions. I'm willing to concede with regards to the Urim & Thummim not necessarily being plural conceptually but with the rest I wish he'd engaged with that more. He also mentions Brigham Young's comment about the Urim and Thummim being returned with the Book of Mormon after the translation was fully complete, but only in a footnote. I wished he'd engaged with that more in the body text. He also doesn't acknowledge the possibility of Joseph using one of the stones in the Nephite interpreters. That said, his comment about Cowdery using interpreter to modify Urim & Thummim rather than a description is plausible. I do wish he'd made more of a deal of the problem of putting the spectacles in a hat given the size description most make. 

While as I mentioned I'm somewhat skeptical of the "pop the lens out" model it seems clear that if this did happen conflating the brown seer stone with a white spectacle stone would be easy. Complicating things is the fact Joseph had a second seer stone that was white.

 

 

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Wait a minute. Can't you apply that to almost anything when the data contradicts your worldview? It is not hard to get complicated, even anti-Mormons get complicated when they can't explain something. 

You and I believe Brigham Young was a prophet capable of telling the difference between the spirit and his own thoughts. Passages like "which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God" do contradict the prophet's credibility, that is why I don't believe Young said "God revealed to me". 

Except as I mentioned Adam is both a father and god in a theological sense. That's not the part of A/G that is controversial.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Except as I mentioned Adam is both a father and god in a theological sense. That's not the part of A/G that is controversial.

and that is where you have to get complicated because your claim that Adam is "both father and god" doesn't explain other passages, your theory is flawed,  you are just speculating. 

I am also speculating, but my Satan change theory does explain all Adam/God passages. 

Edited September 7, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Except as I mentioned Adam is both a father and god in a theological sense. That's not the part of A/G that is controversial.

And why would God reveal to Young that Adam is both father and god in a theological sense? God is not a god of confusion. 

[clarkgoble]

17 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

And why would God reveal to Young that Adam is both father and god in a theological sense? God is not a god of confusion. 

I think I'm just going to drop out from discussing this with you - especially since I'm becoming pretty convinced you're not being serious in your comments.

I'll answer this though one last time. God revealed Adam is a father and God because the the nature of exaltation to be both becoming a god and having eternal progeny were important doctrines. Further we know that in Nauvoo Joseph was crowned a king and made a god in terms of higher temple ordinances. So there were important theological conceptions of ritual going on. Lastly we know Joseph had a theology regarding priesthood keys and responsibilities especially for dispensation heads that have to be given back to Adam. All of that can be established by reasonably clear texts. 

The controversial part in terms of contemporary LDS theology is the idea that Adam in the garden who was cast out was a prior resurrected being before going into the garden and that he was the physical father of Jesus Christ and our spirits. 

So when discussing Adam God we have to be clear what point of theology is being established by a particular quote. This is interpretation 101. 

To state without evidence that a supernatural being is changing texts without people being aware of it is a HUGE assumption that requires some degree of evidence. You've not established any evidence for it. (Problems of modification of Young's sermons by his stenographer, while a definite issue, isn't the same as supernatural changing of texts) 

In one case we're establishing with clear strong evidence that a text is ambiguous relative to certain uses. In the other case we're postulating with no evidence a very significant supernatural event that makes all texts untrustworthy. If one can't see relative argumentative strength between these two positions is to say that we can't agree upon what makes a good argument. At which point discussion becomes pointless and impossible. 

None of this is God being a God of Confusion but someone being confused about how arguments work. 

Edited September 7, 2017 by clarkgoble

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

My main problem with the Spencer paper is that I don't think he really engages with the plural vs. singular usage in descriptions. I'm willing to concede with regards to the Urim & Thummim not necessarily being plural conceptually but with the rest I wish he'd engaged with that more. He also mentions Brigham Young's comment about the Urim and Thummim being returned with the Book of Mormon after the translation was fully complete, but only in a footnote. I wished he'd engaged with that more in the body text. He also doesn't acknowledge the possibility of Joseph using one of the stones in the Nephite interpreters. That said, his comment about Cowdery using interpreter to modify Urim & Thummim rather than a description is plausible. I do wish he'd made more of a deal of the problem of putting the spectacles in a hat given the size description most make. 

While as I mentioned I'm somewhat skeptical of the "pop the lens out" model it seems clear that if this did happen conflating the brown seer stone with a white spectacle stone would be easy. Complicating things is the fact Joseph had a second seer stone that was white.

Which in my opinion could be the reason a plural usage could apply to Joseph's seer stones.

I also feel that the thought of Joseph putting the interpreters or spectacles into his hat is problematic for me to believe.

I agree that a more thorough analysis of Brigham Young's comment would have been good to have seen included in the paper too.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Which in my opinion could be the reason a plural usage could apply to Joseph's seer stones.

I also feel that the thought of Joseph putting the interpreters or spectacles into his hat is problematic for me to believe.

The question then becomes if he needed to shield them to read from them, how did he do it? If it wasn't the spectacles in the hat, then what was in the hat early on?

I agree the plural might apply to the secondary white seer stone which is the big mystery in all this. None of the papers dealing with the spectacles really deal well with the ambiguity there. I'm skeptical he was using the white stone, but I'll admit there's no easy textual way to dismiss it.

Edited September 7, 2017 by clarkgoble