An eyewitness account of Joseph Smith at Nauvoo

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Serious question: have you ever read the Book of Mormon?

Read more of my posts, this is a silly question.  I’ve read it upwards of 20 times in my life.  

[cdowis]

On 11/9/2017 at 8:43 AM, stemelbow said:

I'm happy to recreate the discussion we had here.  Here are the relevant parts via Bednar:

It appears to me he is saying it is essential we live the gospel in Mormonism in order to have this change, grow, and build.  That reasons then, .......

Thank you for your honesty and confirming that you are putting words in his mouth.   You have given an excellent example of the "either/or" fallacy, but surely you knew that already.

Edited November 12, 2017 by cdowis

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I could provide a multitude of quotes, but I’m pretty sure you’re already familiar with them and you’ll explain them all away.  

 

If by "explain them all away" you mean I will identify a distinction between folk doctrine/conjecture and authoritative teaching, yes, that's quite likely.

From mormonnewsroom.org:

 

Quote

 

Do Latter-day Saints believe they can become “gods”?

Latter-day Saints believe that God wants us to become like Him. But this teaching is often misrepresented by those who caricature the faith. The Latter-day Saint belief is no different than the biblical teaching, which states, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17). Through following Christ's teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will “get their own planet”?

No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Mormons believe that we are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father (see Romans 8:16-17). The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that “in my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2).

 

Quote

Backfire effect.

I don't know what you mean by "backfire effect". But it's probably not important anyway.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Read more of my posts, this is a silly question.  I’ve read it upwards of 20 times in my life.  

I'm very sorry to come off sounding silly, but do you actually find the Church's teachings on grace somehow out of sync with the clear teachings of the Book of Mormon?

[hope_for_things]

On 11/11/2017 at 10:49 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm very sorry to come off sounding silly, but do you actually find the Church's teachings on grace somehow out of sync with the clear teachings of the Book of Mormon?

Which teachings on grace are you referring to, the more recent evolution of teachings on grace that are more in line with mainstream protestant views, or the teachings of a couple generations back by Bruce R. McKonkie and Joseph Fielding Smith and others?  

[Tacenda]

On 11/11/2017 at 4:37 PM, hope_for_things said:

Read more of my posts, this is a silly question.  I’ve read it upwards of 20 times in my life.  

I couldn't muster up even reading clear through once, wow! I recently came home from a trip with my in laws and they were all reading the BoM on their phone apps and discussing it as real life happenings. Even when a TBM I had a difficult time understanding it as real life. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 11/11/2017 at 10:49 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm very sorry to come off sounding silly, but do you actually find the Church's teachings on grace somehow out of sync with the clear teachings of the Book of Mormon?

 

50 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Which teachings on grace are you referring to, the more recent evolution of teachings on grace that are more in line with mainstream protestant views, or the teachings of a couple generations back by Bruce R. McKonkie and Joseph Fielding Smith and others?  

I think Hamba stated quite plainly he is referring to "the clear teachings of the Book of Mormon."

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I couldn't muster up even reading clear through once, wow! I recently came home from a trip with my in laws and they were all reading the BoM on their phone apps and discussing it as real life happenings. Even when a TBM I had a difficult time understanding it as real life. 

I had read the BoM 3-5 times prior to serving my mission.  We read it together as a family in my childhood and I was reading it personally in addition to the family study.  As a missionary I read it multiple times, and I did so as a return missionary as well.  One time I read it in less than a month as part of a seminary challenge in high school and then I did that again as a missionary, and in institute as a returned missionary.  (Its only 20 pages a day, so actually its not that hard).  

But I understand what you're saying.  I probably won't read it through from front to back again in my life time.  I study passages, but I don't see any point in reading it straight through as a body of work anymore, and since my feelings have changed about the origins of the book, I'm in more of a pick and choose the elements I like perspective these days.  

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I think Hamba stated quite plainly he is referring to "the clear teachings of the Book of Mormon."

Hamba is asking if I believe the Church's teachings are out of alignment with the BoM, and i'm asking him to clarify which church teachings, the more recent ones or the ones from a couple generations past?  

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Hamba is asking if I believe the Church's teachings are out of alignment with the BoM, and i'm asking him to clarify which church teachings, the more recent ones or the ones from a couple generations past?  

I think that's an example of the fallacy of the false dilemma. It may also be a case of begging the question. You expect your interlocutors to agree with your smuggled-in assumption that the Church's soteriology has changed just because you can cherry-pick a few passages from BRM and others that emphasise different aspects.

Who do you expect to agree with you on that?

 

[blueglass]

On 11/8/2017 at 12:09 PM, hope_for_things said:

I believe that if you are raised on the church's media and correlated curriculum of my lifetime, the Joseph you learn to appreciate is not a real person.  He's a myth, a legend, and a demigod.  Its not the real Joseph Smith, its a crafted hero Joseph.  

When I review the new mormon.org website joseph smith is missing?   I'm not sure why the superhero is not displayed prominently on the website.  Anyone else notice that it's difficult to find anything about joseph smith on the site?  

[blueglass]

On 11/7/2017 at 8:08 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

On his worst day, Joseph was a better man than his critics, past and present. 

I think we can call Abraham Lincoln a great man, even if he did endorse the republican plank to eradicate slavery and polygamy, both of which mormons fully supported.  Utah sat out of the civil war, and did not fight to eradicate slavery.  On the other hand I think it is encouraging that when Lincoln was president he checked out books on mormonism from the library of congress including a copy of the book of mormon.  Within a few days he returned books critical of the mormons, and kept the copy of the book of mormon for 8 months. 

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

I think that's an example of the fallacy of the false dilemma. It may also be a case of begging the question. You expect your interlocutors to agree with your smuggled-in assumption that the Church's soteriology has changed just because you can cherry-pick a few passages from BRM and others that emphasise different aspects.

Who do you expect to agree with you on that?

 

False dilemma?  I'm asking for a specific articulation of belief that I can then compare to the compare to a BoM interpretation.  Last time I checked the church has had more than one leader with various differing opinions on this subject over time.  My assumption is based on evidence.   Your assumption that the LDS church's position on this topic or any topic for that matter haven't changed, goes against all evidence that I've read, and all observations about human nature and history that I've seen. 

[hope_for_things]

41 minutes ago, blueglass said:

When I review the new mormon.org website joseph smith is missing?   I'm not sure why the superhero is not displayed prominently on the website.  Anyone else notice that it's difficult to find anything about joseph smith on the site?  

I haven't reviewed the mormon.org web site much, but if you are correct and if they are putting forward a less Joseph Smith centered message, I think that's probably a good step in the right direction.  I think the more the church focuses on the message of Jesus, and the less they focus on Joseph Smith, the better.  

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

I think we can call Abraham Lincoln a great man, even if he did endorse the republican plank to eradicate slavery and polygamy, both of which mormons fully supported.

Nobody seems to have told the Missourians that.

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

 Utah sat out of the civil war, and did not fight to eradicate slavery.

Utah also turned down Confederate offers of statehood and elected to stick by the Union.

 

[kiwi57]

53 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I haven't reviewed the mormon.org web site much, but if you are correct and if they are putting forward a less Joseph Smith centered message, I think that's probably a good step in the right direction.  I think the more the church focuses on the message of Jesus, and the less they focus on Joseph Smith, the better.  

The Church has always focused on the message of Jesus.

Including, or especially, when we do things that are unpopular in the eyes of "progressives."

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

False dilemma?  I'm asking for a specific articulation of belief that I can then compare to the compare to a BoM interpretation.  Last time I checked the church has had more than one leader with various differing opinions on this subject over time.  My assumption is based on evidence.   Your assumption that the LDS church's position on this topic or any topic for that matter haven't changed, goes against all evidence that I've read, and all observations about human nature and history that I've seen. 

Since you appear not to care much for Elder McConkie, I'll select from his teachings as a test case. You can tell us how it conflicts with the teachings in the Book of Mormon or of Stephen Robinson or Brad Wilcox or Robert Millet or any of the younger speakers and writers who apparently are more to your liking.
 

Quote

 

3. What is the grace of God? It is his mercy, his love, and his condescension—all manifest for the benefit and blessing of his children, all operating to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

We rejoice in the heavenly condescension that enabled Mary to become “the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh” (1 Nephi 11:18).

We bask in the eternal love that sent the Only Begotten into the world “that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

We are profoundly grateful for that mercy which endureth forever and through which salvation is offered to erring mortals.

4. Does salvation come by grace, or grace alone, by grace without works? It surely does, without any question in all its parts, types, kinds, and degrees.

We are saved by grace, without works; it is a gift of God. How else could it come?

In his goodness and grace the great God ordained and established the plan of salvation. No works on our part were required.

In his goodness and grace he created this earth and all that is on it, with man as the crowning creature of his creating—without which creation his spirit children could not obtain immortality and eternal life. No works on our part were required.

In his goodness and grace he provided for the Fall of man, thus bringing mortality and death and a probationary estate into being—without all of which there would be no immortality and eternal life. And again no works on our part were required.

In his goodness and grace—and this above all—he gave his Only Begotten Son to ransom man and all life from the temporal and spiritual death brought into the world by the Fall of Adam.

He sent his Son to redeem mankind, to atone for the sins of the world, “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39). And again all this comes to us as a free gift and without works.

There is nothing any man could do to create himself. This was the work of the Lord God.

Nor did we have any part in the Fall of man, without which there could be no salvation. The Lord provided the way, and Adam and Eve put the system into operation.

And finally, there neither has been, nor is, nor ever can be any way nor means by which man alone can, or any power he possesses, redeem himself.

We cannot resurrect ourselves anymore than we can create ourselves. We cannot create a heavenly abode for the Saints, nor make provision for the continuation of the family unit in eternity, nor bring salvation and exaltation into being. All these things are ordained and established by that God who is the Father of us all. And they all came into being and are made available to us, as free gifts, without works, because of the infinite goodness and grace of Him whose children we are.

Truly, there is no way to overstate the goodness and grandeurs and glories of the grace of God which bringeth salvation. Such wondrous love, such unending mercy, such infinite compassion and condescension—all these can come only from the Eternal God who lives in eternal life and who desires all of his children to live as he lives and be inheritors of eternal life.

 

 

Edited November 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

When I review the new mormon.org website joseph smith is missing?   I'm not sure why the superhero is not displayed prominently on the website.  Anyone else notice that it's difficult to find anything about joseph smith on the site?  

Took me all of about 20 seconds to find this:

Quote

It was through one such prayer that the Restoration of Jesus Christ’s Church began, after a young Joseph Smith read James 1:5, a New Testament scripture that inspired him to ask for divine guidance from God. The faithful 14-year-old did so, kneeling down in a grove of trees and asking which of all the churches was true. Joseph received an answer directly from God the Father and Jesus Christ, and he went on to restore Christ’s original Church and become a modern-day prophet. It was also through divine guidance that Joseph Smith translated an ancient book of scripture known as the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, something he, as an uneducated farm boy, would never have been able to do on his own. These miracles, like all that have occurred before them or since, were first preceded by faith: the faith of an earnest young man praying to know which church to join, the faith of someone in need of direction.

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

The Church has always focused on the message of Jesus.

Including, or especially, when we do things that are unpopular in the eyes of "progressives."

This doctrine that no change ever happens doesn’t taste good to me. 

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This doctrine that no change ever happens doesn’t taste good to me. 

That's why an attention span is worth cultivating. Some things are open to change; others are not. And sometimes the lasting things are the most valuable.

They are certainly far more important than mere taste.

[blueglass]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Took me all of about 20 seconds to find this:

wayback machine confirms what I suspected.  around 1 year ago the new site definitely removed around 90% of the joseph smith material.  Under Beliefs tab for 2016 Joseph Smith had his own bold link, then a few videos, bold subheadings under joseph smith for seeker of truth, prophet of god, leader of jesus christ's church, devoted husband and father and martyr of the restored gospel.   All of these are gone now.  Even the first vision video is gone and nowhere to be found on the webpage.

On the new 2017 site the beliefs tab removed joseph smith.   Even if you click on  Beliefs>additional topics>prophets you have to click on the Expand text link to find a quick paragraph about joseph smith.  also a short paragraph under Apostasy heading on the expanded belief's page, and a similar paragraph under beliefs>jesus Christ, but only if you click on the Expand text link.   

Is this significant, or not so much?  Curious what others think about the motivations for this rework and emphasis. 

[DonBradley]

On 11/5/2017 at 10:16 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Saw this post on Dan Peterson’s blog, Sic et Non, and was so impressed by it I had an impulse to share it here. 

In its own way, it contradicts endeavors to vilify and assassinate the character of the prophet of the Restoration. I fear that some, even among our own people, are so eager to assert his fallibility that they unjustly marginalize his greatness. 

Link:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/11/eyewitness-account-joseph-smith-nauvoo.html#disqus_thread

Stories of Joseph Smith's generosity and kindness are myriad. I had to recognize that and try to take into account even when I was a complete non-believer.

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, blueglass said:

wayback machine confirms what I suspected.  around 1 year ago the new site definitely removed around 90% of the joseph smith material.  Under Beliefs tab for 2016 Joseph Smith had his own bold link, then a few videos, bold subheadings under joseph smith for seeker of truth, prophet of god, leader of jesus christ's church, devoted husband and father and martyr of the restored gospel.   All of these are gone now.  Even the first vision video is gone and nowhere to be found on the webpage.

On the new 2017 site the beliefs tab removed joseph smith.   Even if you click on  Beliefs>additional topics>prophets you have to click on the Expand text link to find a quick paragraph about joseph smith.  also a short paragraph under Apostasy heading on the expanded belief's page, and a similar paragraph under beliefs>jesus Christ, but only if you click on the Expand text link.   

Is this significant, or not so much?  Curious what others think about the motivations for this rework and emphasis. 

I don't think it is significant. There is also a bit in the church history section. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, blueglass said:

wayback machine confirms what I suspected.  around 1 year ago the new site definitely removed around 90% of the joseph smith material.  Under Beliefs tab for 2016 Joseph Smith had his own bold link, then a few videos, bold subheadings under joseph smith for seeker of truth, prophet of god, leader of jesus christ's church, devoted husband and father and martyr of the restored gospel.   All of these are gone now.  Even the first vision video is gone and nowhere to be found on the webpage.

On the new 2017 site the beliefs tab removed joseph smith.   Even if you click on  Beliefs>additional topics>prophets you have to click on the Expand text link to find a quick paragraph about joseph smith.  also a short paragraph under Apostasy heading on the expanded belief's page, and a similar paragraph under beliefs>jesus Christ, but only if you click on the Expand text link.   

Is this significant, or not so much?  Curious what others think about the motivations for this 

 

 

Web page designs come and go according to marketing schemes, notions of what’s going to attract page views, etc. But it would be a mistake to conclude from this that the Church is backing away from its doctrines pertaining to Joseph Smith, his mission, his role in the Restoration, as Hope_for_Things seems eager to do. To understand this one need only view the content that is present on that site pertaining to Joseph Smith. 

Edited November 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Web page designs come and go according to marketing schemes, notions of what’s going to attract page views, etc. But it would be a mistake to conclude from this that the Church is backing away from its doctrines pertaining to Joseph Smith, his mission, his role in the Restoration, as Hope_for_Things seems eager to do. To understand this one need only view the content that is present on that site pertaining to Joseph Smith. 

I don't think the Church is backing away from Joseph and the restoration.  They just spent a small fortune redesigning the Church History museum, purchasing the printer's manuscript for the Book of Mormon, and the Joseph Smith Papers project continues very publicly.

They may just want the first thing seen about the Church to be related to the Savior.  As it should be.