Paul H. Dunn, President Monson, and us

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Jesus specifically spoke of Job as if he were a real person.  

Well...he might have.  And Job might have been a real person even if his story very well could be fabrication.  the problems we have with this absolute statement is we don't necessarily have anything that Jesus spoke about.  We have anonymous authors saying what they were told Jesus said.  Added to that, they wrote in a language different than Jesus spoke.  So there is a possible lost in translation issue here. We like to say Jesus said...when we quote Matthew or Luke, and we have nothing better, but that doesn't mean Jesus actually said any of that. 

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

God used the angel  moroni to bring about the book of mormon (which quotes him and tells his story).  If neither Moroni nor Job ever existed, how can someone be o.k. with God doing that, but not o.k. with the kind of story told in the OP?  That's what I'm trying to understand.

I don't think it is that God did that.  There are plenty of assumptions to consider here.  Moroni as an angel might not have been the ancient Moroni to begin with. 

Ben McGuire, I just read, offered an explanation of the concept of historicity in the thread about Inspired fiction.  Says he:

Quote

The argument is best represented of course, in the question of the angel Moroni, appearing to Joseph Smith. The assertion is that the Moroni that appears to Joseph Smith is also the historical figure of the Moroni in the Book of Mormon and that this argues for historicity.

It doesn't look like I can directly link the exact post anymore, not sure if that is part of my sentencing or if something changed generally.  Hopefully you can go and find the whole post.  It's worth considering. 

It seems to me he's suggesting that since Joseph says it was Moroni who visited him, which itself gets a little debatable, we assume it was a historical figure found in the book of Mormon.  It's not a bad assumption if we accept without concern that Moroni was an actual person who buried up the plates to begin with. 

Also, how did the plates factor into bringing about the Book of Mormon?  I'm not sure we know how to answer that very well.  The witnesses to the translation process emphasize that the plates weren't used in translation.  Some say the plates seemed to have to have been close by or else there was no work of translation possible--thus;when the plates were taken, as a result of the lost 116 debacle, there was more than just a symbolic gesture there.  But we don't know that.  The Book of Mormon as we have it, might not be derived from the plates much at all.  We already have arguments for a catalyst theory with the BoA, and a "translation" of Joseph providing what amounts to, it seems, inspired commentary of the KJV Bible.  So who knows how it worked, really. 

On top of that, as weird as it is, we say in the world of science that there was evolution and that the earth has been around for billions of years.  Some argue, "well God made it all happen and made it appear as if there was evolution, that the earth and man's existence is older than it actually was, but ultimately God made it appear as if He didn't really create".  So the notion that God tried to trick us has some precedence anyway. 

or

Maybe God didnt' try to trick anyone, yet Joseph was tricked on some of this.  I mean he thought what was happening and what was being said was something different.  It's interesting when you consider the differing accounts of the first vision.  the story from the 1832 account is quite different from that of later accounts.  God seems much different.  the whole design is different.  It's as if he had a vision and the details of it just plain changed as he felt he understood more and wanted to emphasize teachings he earlier did not consider.  I mean what is a vision anyway?  A dream?  When I dream I see and don't see things.  Sometimes there's a figure there but when I really try and look in my dream state I see nothing...I can't make out a face or it randomly changes into something else.  I could rehearse the same dream a hundred times and have a hundred varied stories.  As time moves on, I think I saw things or things were included that I previously did not realize, or did not notice, or did not even conceive of. 

In the end, we're standing on pretty cloudy ground here.  It's a world of us looking through a glass darkly.  We barely see anything and yet we're quick to conclude.  It's tough.  It's what is meant by living by faith, I suppose.

[bluebell]

45 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well...he might have.  And Job might have been a real person even if his story very well could be fabrication.  the problems we have with this absolute statement is we don't necessarily have anything that Jesus spoke about.  We have anonymous authors saying what they were told Jesus said.  Added to that, they wrote in a language different than Jesus spoke.  So there is a possible lost in translation issue here. We like to say Jesus said...when we quote Matthew or Luke, and we have nothing better, but that doesn't mean Jesus actually said any of that. 

I don't think it is that God did that.  There are plenty of assumptions to consider here.  Moroni as an angel might not have been the ancient Moroni to begin with. 

Ben McGuire, I just read, offered an explanation of the concept of historicity in the thread about Inspired fiction.  Says he:

It doesn't look like I can directly link the exact post anymore, not sure if that is part of my sentencing or if something changed generally.  Hopefully you can go and find the whole post.  It's worth considering. 

It seems to me he's suggesting that since Joseph says it was Moroni who visited him, which itself gets a little debatable, we assume it was a historical figure found in the book of Mormon.  It's not a bad assumption if we accept without concern that Moroni was an actual person who buried up the plates to begin with. 

Also, how did the plates factor into bringing about the Book of Mormon?  I'm not sure we know how to answer that very well.  The witnesses to the translation process emphasize that the plates weren't used in translation.  Some say the plates seemed to have to have been close by or else there was no work of translation possible--thus;when the plates were taken, as a result of the lost 116 debacle, there was more than just a symbolic gesture there.  But we don't know that.  The Book of Mormon as we have it, might not be derived from the plates much at all.  We already have arguments for a catalyst theory with the BoA, and a "translation" of Joseph providing what amounts to, it seems, inspired commentary of the KJV Bible.  So who knows how it worked, really. 

On top of that, as weird as it is, we say in the world of science that there was evolution and that the earth has been around for billions of years.  Some argue, "well God made it all happen and made it appear as if there was evolution, that the earth and man's existence is older than it actually was, but ultimately God made it appear as if He didn't really create".  So the notion that God tried to trick us has some precedence anyway. 

or

Maybe God didnt' try to trick anyone, yet Joseph was tricked on some of this.  I mean he thought what was happening and what was being said was something different.  It's interesting when you consider the differing accounts of the first vision.  the story from the 1832 account is quite different from that of later accounts.  God seems much different.  the whole design is different.  It's as if he had a vision and the details of it just plain changed as he felt he understood more and wanted to emphasize teachings he earlier did not consider.  I mean what is a vision anyway?  A dream?  When I dream I see and don't see things.  Sometimes there's a figure there but when I really try and look in my dream state I see nothing...I can't make out a face or it randomly changes into something else.  I could rehearse the same dream a hundred times and have a hundred varied stories.  As time moves on, I think I saw things or things were included that I previously did not realize, or did not notice, or did not even conceive of. 

In the end, we're standing on pretty cloudy ground here.  It's a world of us looking through a glass darkly.  We barely see anything and yet we're quick to conclude.  It's tough.  It's what is meant by living by faith, I suppose.

This isn't really what i'm talking about.  I'm not talking about whether or not the stories in the bible are true, i'm talking about those people who do not believe they are true, but believe that God set everything up so people would think they are.

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This isn't really what i'm talking about.  I'm not talking about whether or not the stories in the bible are true, i'm talking about those people who do not believe they are true, but believe that God set everything up so people would think they are.

I addressed that.  That was my whole point, as I see it.  People don't necessarily see it as God set it up that way.  There is so much room in how things developed, at least from what we can see, that it's quite possible didn't set it up that way at all.  Thus, you saying Jesus specifically spoke of Job as if he was a real person is quite a claim when we consider we don't know exactly what it was that Jesus said.  We have people relying on others who also relied on others to tell them what Jesus said, in a language Jesus didn't speak. 

[ALarson]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This isn't really what i'm talking about.  I'm not talking about whether or not the stories in the bible are true, i'm talking about those people who do not believe they are true, but believe that God set everything up so people would think they are.

You'll have to ask someone who believes this, bluebell (and I get that's what you're trying to do....I'm just answering for myself )

I don't believe that God will lie to us.  I believe the stories in the scriptures were written by men, not by God.  Even the ones that could possibly have happened were written many years later and were written by men.  But that doesn't mean that I don't believe these stories taught righteous principles.  A story does not have to have actually happened (to the person telling the story or to anyone else) to teach a lesson or a moral. 

But some must believe that putting themselves into the story gives it more impact when they tell it or that it makes them look more righteous or important.  There could be many different reasons why someone would do that.  I believe it's dishonest to leave that impression or belief when it's not the truth.  That's my opinion ....

Edited September 28, 2017 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You'll have to ask someone who believes this, bluebell (and I get that's what you're trying to do....I'm just answering for myself )

I don't believe that God will lie to us.  I believe the stories in the scriptures were written by men, not by God.  Even the ones that could possibly have happened were written many years later and were written by men.  But that doesn't mean that I don't believe these stories taught righteous principles.  A story does not have to have actually happened (to the person telling the story or to anyone else) to teach a lesson or a moral. 

But some must believe that putting themselves into the story gives it more impact when they tell it or that it makes them look more righteous or important.  There could be many different reasons why someone would do that.  I believe it's dishonest to leave that impression or belief when it's not the truth.  That's my opinion ....

This is how I kind of look at things too.  I don;t really question God for the stories of men.   This is why I always ask that question..what would Jesus do??  I get in trouble for it...but it is how I live my life.

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Admittedly, I'm focused more on the Dunn side of things than Pres. Monson wiggling his ears. I can easily see how that could be a common kind of experience. I have no problem allowing a little flexibility and recognize that both could have had similar experiences.

 As far as the kite flying story goes, that seems far beyond the common story of a child imitating an adult and I find it extremely suspect, especially considering that the kite analogy as been such a common one over the years. I interpreted your comment as a defense of the more egregious, obvious embellishments of the HC and Dunn. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.

Would you defend the egregious embellishments and falsehoods of Dunn and the HC speaker? If so, why?

No, I would not.  I find it unfortunate when any individual feels the need to distort their own experiences for whatever base emotion that is motivating them. It is sad, yet I realize it is very human.  Some of us hunger for others to validate our importance or worth while others don't see the value in such efforts.  Regardless of motivation, regardless of the individual's station in life, the path should be one of truth.  If we are making up a story in order to teach a principle then say so and move on.  We all need to be aware when our ego is motivating us and to keep a very tight rein on such an influence. 

[Calm]

12 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

It doesn't seem so unlikely to me that a later set of boys overheard someone repeating that story of small boys imitating President Kimball, and when they found themselves sitting in front of Monson, they suddenly had a hilarious plan ...

I was thinking the same thing...would be pretty irresistible.  Monson being the type of speaker he is would make him one of the best targets for such games, especially if they wanted the story repeated.

Other kids might have tried it, but other speakers might not have repeated the story not wanting to get a worldwide habit going.

[Button Gwinnett]

Personally I don't care who the person is, prophet, saint or sinner.  Planting yourself into a personal faith promoting story that did not personally involve you is lying.  I'm disappointed to learn that president Monson did this, but it's not the only time he's done so. Im aware of other stories where he has embellished his role in some of his stories, seems to be a character flaw.  I guess guess even heros arnt are human and not perfect. 

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Personally I don't care who the person is, prophet, saint or sinner.  Planting yourself into a personal faith promoting story that did not personally involve you is lying.  I'm disappointed to learn that president Monson did this, but it's not the only time he's done so. Im aware of other stories where he has embellished his role in some of his stories, seems to be a character flaw.  I guess guess even heros arnt are human and not perfect. 

I'm not aware of any other stories, though I will say that either his memory or his journals are remarkably detailed. Do you have examples of other stories where he embellished his role?

[Nevo]

I'm embarrassed to say that after reading The Christmas Train: A True Story to my son a few years ago, I actually looked up the 1940 Census and checked period maps to see if the story could be corroborated. 

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I'm embarrassed to say that after reading The Christmas Train: A True Story to my son a few years ago, I actually looked up the 1940 Census and checked period maps to see if the story could be corroborated. 

And? 

(I do remember someone in my ward saying after hearing another version, "Just how many trains did little Tommy give away"?  )  

I said it was probably the same one, just a bit altered names or details in the telling of it.

I've also heard the number of widows questioned (I think he's stated there were 84 widows in his ward when he was the Bishop).  That's a lot of widows in one ward.  But, I don't know the details or where this was (other than probably in Utah somewhere).  Maybe there were just a ton of old couples in that ward and men do die at a younger age on average.

Edited September 28, 2017 by ALarson

[Button Gwinnett]

19 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not aware of any other stories, though I will say that either his memory or his journals are remarkably detailed. Do you have examples of other stories where he embellished his role?

I'd be happy to be incorrect, but I'm pretty sure that President Monson's Conference address about his boyhood friend, Author Patton being killed in action in WW2 has been entirely debunked and found to have several misstatements of fact.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Button Gwinnett

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I'd be happy to be incorrect, but I'm pretty sure that President Monson's Conference About his boyhood friend, Author Patton being killed in action in WW2 has been entirely debunked and found to have several misstatements of fact.

I don't think that it was "entirely debunked", but iirc, (from reading the information back when people were looking into this) the details did change between the two times he told it (different ships and maybe different battles that Arthur was supposedly killed in).  The ship didn't sink and there was no record of any Arthur Patton being killed (nor possibly anyone else in the battle that President Monson named).  But, Arthur (and I think a friend serving with him) did disappear and were assumed  to be dead (it was kind of mysterious or at least unknown what actually happened).  

Other's may know more as I'm completely going from memory and it was quite awhile ago when I read about this.

(It's quite possible I just got everything wrong too )

Edited September 28, 2017 by ALarson

[Nevo]

53 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And? 

The results were inconclusive  

42 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I'd be happy to be incorrect, but I'm pretty sure that President Monson's Conference About his boyhood friend, Author Patton being killed in action in WW2 has been entirely debunked and found to have several misstatements of fact.

ALarson is correct that the story hasn't been "entirely debunked." The initial speculation from Steve Benson and others was that Arthur was an "imaginary friend"—that he never existed. But Arthur did exist, lived in Salt Lake City, and probably attended the same high school as Thomas Monson—all of Arthur's siblings did. Arthur enlisted in the navy halfway through his junior year so that may be why he doesn't appear in West High School's yearbook. And he did die in the war, just not the way Thomas Monson thought he did.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Nevo

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Nevo said:

The results were inconclusive  

Is that a nice way of pleading the fifth here? 

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

You'll have to ask someone who believes this, bluebell (and I get that's what you're trying to do....I'm just answering for myself )

I don't believe that God will lie to us.  I believe the stories in the scriptures were written by men, not by God.  Even the ones that could possibly have happened were written many years later and were written by men.  But that doesn't mean that I don't believe these stories taught righteous principles.  A story does not have to have actually happened (to the person telling the story or to anyone else) to teach a lesson or a moral. 

But some must believe that putting themselves into the story gives it more impact when they tell it or that it makes them look more righteous or important.  There could be many different reasons why someone would do that.  I believe it's dishonest to leave that impression or belief when it's not the truth.  That's my opinion ....

I think that those who don't believe the bible stories actually happened have a good leg to stand on.  Not believing that the BOM is historical (which, because of the way it came about, can't be blamed on the writings of men) is trickier to solve.  If Nephi, Mormon, etc., never existed, but the BOM is the word of God and was translated by JS through divine intervention, that means that God revealed to JS a fictitious book but presented it to JS as a history of real people.

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I addressed that.  That was my whole point, as I see it.  People don't necessarily see it as God set it up that way.  There is so much room in how things developed, at least from what we can see, that it's quite possible didn't set it up that way at all.  Thus, you saying Jesus specifically spoke of Job as if he was a real person is quite a claim when we consider we don't know exactly what it was that Jesus said.  We have people relying on others who also relied on others to tell them what Jesus said, in a language Jesus didn't speak. 

Let's leave Job out of it then and just apply it to the BOM.  Is there anyway for the BOM to be fictitious but also the Word of God, and not have God complicit in it being presented as a true account of real people?

[Vanguard]

On 9/27/2017 at 7:02 AM, stemelbow said:

http://brycox.com/lds/BryCox-SweetwaterRescue.pdf

This past Sunday all 5 of these untruths were told, so I assumed it was found in the manual.  I tried to comment and add clarification while not being too controversial or upsetting.  But it seemed most in the class were dismissive, as one gentlemen upset with any attempt correct chimed in by saying, "all 3 of these 18 year old are in my family, so I know it's true".  Ah well...

Wow. I had no idea. Good grief. Must virtually every story be taken with a grain of salt? This story has been so codified, what other stories will experience the same fate? : (

Edited September 29, 2017 by Vanguard
grammar

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Wow. I had no idea. Good grief. Must virtually every story be taken with a grain of salt? 

It probably would be a good idea.  Neither our greater culture nor our church culture is founded on looking at history as historians do.  People don't know how to factcheck or don't want to before passing on a story (and of course in the past it was much harder to),

How many people took Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code as factual even when all it took was a few google queries to find out how off he was.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/6232148/The-Lost-Symbol-and-The-Da-Vinci-Code-author-Dan-Brown-50-factual-errors.html

I remember a lecture by Richard Holzapfel back when it was popular about how much he got swamped with questions about it as soon as he told someone he was a historian and how hard at times it was for some to accept it was totally fabricated.

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

Let's leave Job out of it then and just apply it to the BOM.  Is there anyway for the BOM to be fictitious but also the Word of God, and not have God complicit in it being presented as a true account of real people?

Sure.  it might bring into question things like what does it mean to call scripture the Word of God?  And of course it would require that God be left out of the teaching that it is represented as a true account.  It's an interesting question when you think of scripture though.  Nearly all of the OT was written by those who lived long after the events and peoples described, yet in many cases the writings are attributed in a first person way to those who had long passed.  It also seems apparent that many of the events are barrows from other cultures yet presented, using your word, as a true account of real people. 

If someone else took it up him/herself to write my story got the general theme of me close and yet in the writing all sorts of other people's stories got incorporated and also made the whole book appear to be written by me, are we talking fiction here?  Is it a mix of both?  How should we view such a thing?  it seems that type of thing is exactly what scripture is.  It's hard to just categorize it as fiction or non.  It's all gray. 

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure.  it might bring into question things like what does it mean to call scripture the Word of God?  And of course it would require that God be left out of the teaching that it is represented as a true account.  It's an interesting question when you think of scripture though.  Nearly all of the OT was written by those who lived long after the events and peoples described, yet in many cases the writings are attributed in a first person way to those who had long passed.  It also seems apparent that many of the events are barrows from other cultures yet presented, using your word, as a true account of real people. 

If someone else took it up him/herself to write my story got the general theme of me close and yet in the writing all sorts of other people's stories got incorporated and also made the whole book appear to be written by me, are we talking fiction here?  Is it a mix of both?  How should we view such a thing?  it seems that type of thing is exactly what scripture is.  It's hard to just categorize it as fiction or non.  It's all gray. 

When you stick only to the BOM, and the events leading to it's discovery and translation, I don't think it's that difficult or gray to be able to categorize Nephites/lamanites as having actually lived or not.  With other scriptures, yes, it can get gray.

[HappyJackWagon]

31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure.  it might bring into question things like what does it mean to call scripture the Word of God?  And of course it would require that God be left out of the teaching that it is represented as a true account.  It's an interesting question when you think of scripture though.  Nearly all of the OT was written by those who lived long after the events and peoples described, yet in many cases the writings are attributed in a first person way to those who had long passed.  It also seems apparent that many of the events are barrows from other cultures yet presented, using your word, as a true account of real people. 

If someone else took it up him/herself to write my story got the general theme of me close and yet in the writing all sorts of other people's stories got incorporated and also made the whole book appear to be written by me, are we talking fiction here?  Is it a mix of both?  How should we view such a thing?  it seems that type of thing is exactly what scripture is.  It's hard to just categorize it as fiction or non.  It's all gray. 

Rep point!!

Great post Stem!

[ALarson]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think that those who don't believe the bible stories actually happened have a good leg to stand on.  Not believing that the BOM is historical (which, because of the way it came about, can't be blamed on the writings of men) is trickier to solve. 

Why not?  (To the part in bold).  Why couldn't writings be inspired yet still be writings of and stories from men? 

 

Edited September 29, 2017 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When you stick only to the BOM, and the events leading to it's discovery and translation, I don't think it's that difficult or gray to be able to categorize Nephites/lamanites as having actually lived or not.  With other scriptures, yes, it can get gray.

What happens when you switch from the BoM to the BoA?

Is the BoA fiction or history? A combination of both? Allegory?

Is it difficult to know whether or not Joseph translated from the papyrus like he claimed or is it possible he didn't understand the source of his inspiration? Was the papyrus written by Abraham's own hand like Joseph claimed? Doesn't seem to be. So is the BoA inspired by God even if it wasn't directly translated as originally claimed? Or was Joseph inspired to write pseudepigrapha? Seems like a whole lot of gray area in there.

For those trying to recognize some kind of value in the BoM and the BoA, setting up a binary of "all true" or "all false" only tears down faith.

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When you stick only to the BOM, and the events leading to it's discovery and translation, I don't think it's that difficult or gray to be able to categorize Nephites/lamanites as having actually lived or not.  With other scriptures, yes, it can get gray.

Ok.