Paul H. Dunn, President Monson, and us

[Button Gwinnett]

18 hours ago, ALarson said:

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 )

I shouldn't have used the word entirely. Portions of the story, when fact checked, didn't hold up.

[clarkgoble]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I think that's a bit misleading. In the missing manuscript theory the roll with the sn sn text on it has a second text on it. Joseph translates it but is getting at the original text that is copied after the sn-sn. That is we likely have a somewhat corrupt and incomplete text about Abraham on the papyri but we get a deconstructive translation that gets at the original sources for this text. It's that original that Joseph ascribes to Abraham having written himself.

I'm certainly not saying the missing manuscript theory doesn't have problems. But I think assuming Joseph had full knowledge of what's going on seems dubious. (That's true of the Book of Mormon as well)

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I shouldn't have used the word entirely. Portions of the story, when fact checked, didn't hold up.

Correct.  There were quite a few discrepancies and I even read somewhere that someone contacted Arthur's sister and she knew nothing about the story President Monson was telling and had never heard her Mother relate anything about it.  (I'm again going from memory here.)  Of course, the Mother may have never related any of what took place to her daughter either (her writing a letter to President Monson or any contact with him, etc.).  I think she's also the one who stated that they don't know how Arthur died, but he didn't die in a battle or with his ship sinking.   Either way, some things in the story were accurate but much detail was added that ended up not being factual.  It is a beautiful story as told though.

Edited September 29, 2017 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

Makes me wonder when I listen to the leaders now during conference if their stories are true now. Too bad a little bit of untruth can change the whole experience, stemming from lack of trust. 

[Button Gwinnett]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

For words written by men to become scripture they don't necessarily have to be based in historical fact or even historically accurate.  All they have to be is inspirational.  Does anyone take the creation story or the Adam and Eve narrative or Job's experience literally any more?  Did each of the stories told by Christ actually take place? And yet within those stories can be found inspiring gems and important lessons to pattern our lives upon. 

[Button Gwinnett]

We live in a new era when claims made by general authorities in Conference talks can be and are fact checked.  I've got to imagine that they know this.  Wasn't there some dust up over embellished claims made by one or two GA's in the last conference?  Something involving Elder Stevensons talk?  Or was that all resolved?  

Given the number of public addresses these men give, it's actually amazing that this sort of thing doesn't happen more often, but that said I've got to believe that they try to get their facts straight so it's hard to understand when some factoid is exposed as an embellishment or error.  

[Button Gwinnett]

On 9/27/2017 at 4:06 PM, bluebell said:

It would depend on why they were telling it.  Are they trying to teach a gospel principle?  I don't think i'd care.  Are they trying to make themselves look good?  No, I wouldn't let them get away with that.

A lot of people don't have an issue with this when God does it.  There are members of the church who don't believe that Job existed, or that Nephi existed, but they don't have a problem with God presenting them to His prophets and us as if they did.  Such members have lots of arguments about why it doesn't matter that the stories aren't historically true or accurate because it's not about the story, but what the story teaches.  But if a leader does it to teach something, it means they aren't trustworthy.  

Is that a double standard? 

I never considered the Book of Mormon as anything but historical.  Speaking only for myself, if it could ever be confirmed beyond doubt that Nephites and lamanites were fictional characters, I would have a hard time maintaining belief. If those people never existed it creates a domino effect that undermines Joseph's entire story of the coming forth of the book.  I can't have faith in a fictional Moroni or fictional plates.

[Duncan]

16 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

We live in a new era when claims made by general authorities in Conference talks can be and are fact checked.  I've got to imagine that they know this.  Wasn't there some dust up over embellished claims made by one or two GA's in the last conference?  Something involving Elder Stevensons talk?  Or was that all resolved?  

Given the number of public addresses these men give, it's actually amazing that this sort of thing doesn't happen more often, but that said I've got to believe that they try to get their facts straight so it's hard to understand when some factoid is exposed as an embellishment or error.  

yeah him and another one who talked about some fire in California

[Button Gwinnett]

On 9/27/2017 at 4:32 PM, clarkgoble said:

Throw in false memory syndrome. That's more real than people realize. I even had it happen to me after reading about it for years. I'd heard a story about seeing Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck at a restaurant (back when they were married) and someone asking to take their picture. They declined politely saying they didn't get a chance to have a private dinner often. Well I started telling this one day as if it happened to me. To the person it had happened to. They pointed it out and I was floored. (It helped that I'd been at the restaurant in question many times) I started examining my memories and realized the problem. That sort of thing can happen when you're tired, remember and then your brain restores it. Sleep deprivation in particular screws up the storage of the memory. (Rather than leave memories in place the brain makes them present and then re-encodes somehow the recreation of the memory allowing it to become transformed - there are good evolutionary reasons to do this but it does mean memories can become distorted) Ironically the memories most at risk for distortion are those frequently accessed. There are always ways to check ones memories by carefully thinking about related memories and trying to find tokens that can stimulate recall of less frequently accessed memories.

I say this just to note that there are good psychological reasons for why oft told stories get distorted the most particularly during periods of stress and poor sleep. 

That doesn't explain Paul H. Dunn of course. The lies were blatant, repeated, and with broad categories of his history. 

I think with Pres. Monson he always was a bit of a storyteller with a focus on the story rather than the facts. (I know many people like that) I noticed that after he became President he was more careful with his stories - although apparently dementia also started affecting him - probably well before rumors about it started popping up.

Excellent points.  Plus we do hold them to a higher standard of truth telling than we hold ourselves (at least I do) but I guess that comes with the job.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I never considered the Book of Mormon as anything but historical.  Speaking only for myself, if it could ever be confirmed beyond doubt that Nephites and lamanites were fictional characters, I would have a hard time maintaining belief. If those people never existed it creates a domino effect that undermines Joseph's entire story of the coming forth of the book.  I can't have faith in a fictional Moroni or fictional plates.

A lot of members feel the same way.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I agree, there is room for gray when it comes to the BOA as well.  But I'm not seeing how there is any room for gray when it comes to whether or not the BOM is true or false, because of how it came to be known and translated.

For those who don't believe the BOM is historical but do believe that JS was a prophet and the book comes from God, is there anyway that us believing it's historical isn't God's fault?

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree, there is room for gray when it comes to the BOA as well.  But I'm not seeing how there is any room for gray when it comes to whether or not the BOM is true or false, because of how it came to be known and translated.

For those who don't believe the BOM is historical but do believe that JS was a prophet and the book comes from God, is there anyway that us believing it's historical isn't God's fault?

Sure. Joseph was mistaken. He didn't understand the experiences of translation just like he didn't understand the experience of translating the BoA.

When you get into the "true V. false" dichotomy you suddenly have to accept everything as true or everything is false when in fact it could be much more complicated than that. Maybe there are true principles based on a false history. Is God a liar? I think it's unfair to throw God under the bus simply because humans (including Joseph Smith) misunderstand or make mistakes.

[Nevo]

57 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I shouldn't have used the word entirely. Portions of the story, when fact checked, didn't hold up.

But I think it's important to point out that the portions that didn't hold up were things that President Monson could have had no personal knowledge of, like where and when Arthur died. That was the only part of the story that was "debunked."

[Nevo]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree, there is room for gray when it comes to the BOA as well.  But I'm not seeing how there is any room for gray when it comes to whether or not the BOM is true or false.

Do you mean gray the color or Gray the poster?

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Makes me wonder when I listen to the leaders now during conference if their stories are true now. Too bad a little bit of untruth can change the whole experience, stemming from lack of trust. 

If you are trying to hold on to the church Tacenda, don't even go there.  It is the trust that separated me...I want you to be happy!!

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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

 

This isn't an issue of the BOM being either 100% true or not.  I don't know anyone who thinks that every quote in the BOM is a direct quote, for example.  The men who wrote it probably paraphrased and remembered minor things wrong on occasion, etc.  The issue is whether or not the BOM is what it purports to be-an ancient record of people that actual existed and interacted with God and Christ.  The issue is whether or not the nephites and lamanites (under whatever name they were known by in their own languages) actually existed and experienced what the books claims they did.  I know of members who don't believe it is what it purports to be but still believe it is scripture.

The reason that I don't think there's any wiggle room for the BOM being less than it purports to be is because God is the one who told JS what the book was.  God sent an angel to tell JS that there was a book of scripture buried in a hill and that it was "an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang...,[and] the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants."  

From my perspective, either what God told the angel to say about the book is true, or it's not.

Edited September 29, 2017 by bluebell

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sure. Joseph was mistaken. He didn't understand the experiences of translation just like he didn't understand the experience of translating the BoA.

When you get into the "true V. false" dichotomy you suddenly have to accept everything as true or everything is false when in fact it could be much more complicated than that. Maybe there are true principles based on a false history. Is God a liar? I think it's unfair to throw God under the bus simply because humans (including Joseph Smith) misunderstand or make mistakes.

JS didn't understand what the angel told him about what the BOM was (repeated three times to be sure that JS remembered), is that what you are saying?  God sent an angel to tell JS that the book of mormon was an actual account of the nephites and lamanites.  If that's not what the book of mormon is, how can we blame it on JS?  

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The reason that I don't think there's any wiggle room for the BOM being less than it purports to be is because God is the one who told JS what the book was.  

According to a man who related what he believed he experienced.  It's not as definite as you're portraying here, IMO.  

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

According to a man who related what he believed he experienced.  It's not as definite as you're portraying here, IMO.  

Yes, but if Joseph was mistaken about Moroni visiting him on 3 different occasions, then you have to seriously question what else he was mistaken about - God the Father and Jesus Christ, Peter, James, and John, John the Baptist?  If these priesthood holders did not visit Joseph, then was the priesthood really restored?  Wouldn't this all just be a big sham then?  Seriously though, if Joseph hallucinated Moroni on 3 different occasions, then I can't trust him as a reliable testator of other heavenly visitations; and without actual visitations, then the priesthood was not really restored to him.  That, to me, is a more important question than the BoM being historical or not.  Without the priesthood, there could be no restoration, and the question of the BoM would then becomes a null point.  All of the following accounts would be in question, and if all of the following are in question, then everything about the church is in question:

 http://www.ldsliving.com/24-Angels-Who-Visited-Joseph-Smith/s/79521

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

According to a man who related what he believed he experienced.  It's not as definite as you're portraying here, IMO.  

I quoted JS, so i'm not sure what you mean.  Can you clarify?

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

JS didn't understand what the angel told him about what the BOM was (repeated three times to be sure that JS remembered), is that what you are saying?  God sent an angel to tell JS that the book of mormon was an actual account of the nephites and lamanites.  If that's not what the book of mormon is, how can we blame it on JS?  

I'm suggesting that maybe Joseph didn't understand the experience.

It's been documented that Joseph would tell stories about the ancient native Americans around the family hearth. It was something that was on his mind and something he'd given a lot of thought to. He developed stories about the native americans long before the Book of Mormon. So in the middle of the night Joseph has a vision in which Nephi Moroni appears 3 times. Am I certain that Moroni physically visited Joseph 3 times versus him having some kind of night time vision or dream about it? No. How well do you remember your dreams for accuracy? I don't remember mine very well. Is it possible he awakes with an idea in his mind and a memory of the vision but can't fully grasp, understand, or remember it? I think it's possible.  I'm much more likely to give God the benefit of the doubt than I am Joseph.

But for me a better question is, if Joseph wasn't accurate in his memory or interpretation of his experience why wouldn't God correct him?

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm suggesting that maybe Joseph didn't understand the experience.

It's been documented that Joseph would tell stories about the ancient native Americans around the family hearth. It was something that was on his mind and something he'd given a lot of thought to. He developed stories about the native americans long before the Book of Mormon. So in the middle of the night Joseph has a vision in which Nephi Moroni appears 3 times. Am I certain that Moroni physically visited Joseph 3 times versus him having some kind of night time vision or dream about it? No. How well do you remember your dreams for accuracy? I don't remember mine very well. Is it possible he awakes with an idea in his mind and a memory of the vision but can't fully grasp, understand, or remember it? I think it's possible.  I'm much more likely to give God the benefit of the doubt than I am Joseph.

But for me a better question is, if Joseph wasn't accurate in his memory or interpretation of his experience why wouldn't God correct him?

I actually remember my dreams very well and tell my husband about them almost every morning (because they are so weird usually).   I think that would be especially true if I were to have the exact same dream three times in a row (and then again the next day in a field). 

But I also don’t think a dream and a vision sent from God would have similar impacts on my mind, understanding, and memory either.  Do you? 

It seems like your way of looking at JS’s encounter with Moroni causes way more problems than it solves. It essentially calls into question all doctrinal and truth claims of the LDS church.  

[Johnnie Cake]

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes, but if Joseph was mistaken about Moroni visiting him on 3 different occasions, then you have to seriously question what else he was mistaken about - God the Father and Jesus Christ, Peter, James, and John, John the Baptist?  If these priesthood holders did not visit Joseph, then was the priesthood really restored?  Wouldn't this all just be a big sham then?  Seriously though, if Joseph hallucinated Moroni on 3 different occasions, then I can't trust him as a reliable testator of other heavenly visitations; and without actual visitations, then the priesthood was not really restored to him.  That, to me, is a more important question than the BoM being historical or not.  Without the priesthood, there could be no restoration, and the question of the BoM would then becomes a null point.  All of the following accounts would be in question, and if all of the following are in question, then everything about the church is in question:

 http://www.ldsliving.com/24-Angels-Who-Visited-Joseph-Smith/s/79521

Amen

[Johnnie Cake]

Why am I enjoying this thread so much? Oh yeah I remember now

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Amen

And ...Amen.