Jump to content

Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Just for the sake of argument I am wondering why this is "wrong", conceding that it is an example of deliberate non-disclosure of information considered unfavorable.

Why should "The Church" be presumed have the responsibility to disclose such information?

I don't know that it should.  But it argues against the notion that the Church has always been open and transparent.  

Link to post
1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know that it should.  But it argues against the notion that the Church has always been open and transparent.  

An illusion I have never even considered.   And what does that even mean?   Why should THAT be an expectation?

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, FearlessFixxer said:

No that is not the definition of gaslighting is when someone tries to invalidate a person's lived experience by trying to get them to doubt it ever happened.  In the context of this article and mormnsim, it is commonly seen in the form of members claiming that the church has never tried to hide any aspects of its history.  Or when a person says they never knew some aspect of history someone would respond and say that everyone has always known that.

I don't doubt their experience. What I  do doubt is its prevalence. If poor little old me knows something about Church History there is no excuse for others not knowing it. As to differing First Vision accounts. They have been known for a long time. The only one that is our doctrine is the one we print in our Scriptures.

  • Like 1
Link to post
57 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Yes, that's always been the definition of "gaslighting."  You must have been thinking of something different, which seems to be happening a lot with you lately.  Are you feeling okay?

The definition that i've read on the internet says that gaslighting is manipulating someone so that they question their own sanity (which is what the movie is about which spawned the term 'gaslighting' so it makes sense that that would be the definition).  It's about making someone think they are crazy.  

Is asking someone to trust a person in authority the same as manipulating a person with the goal of getting to them to think they are crazy?

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, FearlessFixxer said:

No that is not the definition of gaslighting is when someone tries to invalidate a person's lived experience by trying to get them to doubt it ever happened.  In the context of this article and mormnsim, it is commonly seen in the form of members claiming that the church has never tried to hide any aspects of its history.  Or when a person says they never knew some aspect of history someone would respond and say that everyone has always known that.

Gaslighting is a manipulation technique, right?  So in order for someone to actually gaslight another, does it have to be intentional or can someone accidentally gaslight another?

Link to post
12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

An illusion I have never even considered.   And what does that even mean?   Why should THAT be an expectation?

I don't think it should be.  I think that's why Elder Ballard's and Oak's comments on that matter were so shocking to some of us.  Nobody expects that the Church of the past somehow do away with any hiding.  And many expect the Church to have plenty to keep under wraps, even today.  

Link to post
4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Gaslighting is a manipulation technique, right?  So in order for someone to actually gaslight another, does it have to be intentional or can someone accidentally gaslight another?

I think most manipulation that goes on in the world is accomplished by those who don't even realize or don't think about, that they are actually manipulating.  I'm not sure that intention is easily discoverable at all when it comes to manipulation in most cases.  

Link to post
36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know that it matters why.  I was at a conference some years ago and the expert on panel on the matter, who I think was Brian Whitney(?), I'll have to find it somewhere if wrong, suggested he'd give JFS a pass because JFS was still reeling from the evils that hit his family and was likely hiding the account because he feared others would rise up and cause problems, or something.  I was like "eh...we don't really know what he was doing with the account in the safe".  But it was nice when pressure was put on them (likely being JFS and his office), that they tried to tape the account back in pretending nothing was hidden at all.  Whatever the case< I would also like to point out that the 1970 article used to try and sell the membership on the Church being open (coming decades too late, I suppose) was not really much more then an effort to paint the 1832 account as nothing to be concerned about at all.  Certainly makes people scratch their head, then, if that is the case, why it was hidden for long?  I don't know that we know it was JFS who cut the account or not, but somehow it ended up in his case locked away.  When Elder Young of the 70 was given access he found a "strange account" of the first vision and was told not to tell anyone about it.  So it seems it was a known hide away.  

It then unfolded this way, as I understand it:

Elder Young tells LaMar Peterson, who was said to be an amateur historian, who eventually tells the Tanners.  The Tanners press for access but are denied. Some time later, Paul Cheesman, given access to get research for his master's thesis, found the book in question and found the pages taped back into it, which contained the 1832 account.  He wrote his thesis, which was his intent from the start, and the Church put a stop to it being publish, some say, but the Tanners published it anyway.  

 

I am going through a book now that claims that Section 84 contains elements of the 1832 account and that others like Orson Hyde knew it and didn't make mention of the date but knew the elements of it in an 1842 publication. i think we are conflating issues here, the writing of the First Vision and also the history of it since it's been written and the teaching of it and it's hard to seperate the two out. I wonder though if Pres. Smith tried to wrestle it back when the account got out or did he even care? like if it was so important to hide away was he upset that it got out and why did he give Paul Cheeseman access? if you'r so intent on hiding something you don't acknowledge it's existence, if he was sloppy with it then he couldn't have cared all that much

Just on your point about it being hidden for so long, James Allen wrote this this comes from James Allen himself and because I like you i'll type it up here, 

"The 1970 Article

In 1970, at the request of the editors of the Improvement Era, I published the article titled, "Eight contemporary Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision-What do we learn from them?" By that time people had become aware of the various different accounts of the vision, and many, including Latter-day Saints as well as some people who were not friendly to the Church, began to raise questions. That 1970 Improvement Era was the first discussion of these accounts to appear in any official church publication (Some discussion had appeared earlier in BYU Studies, but this was not widely known to Church members) I was surprised and gratified when I received all kinds of compliments from people I knew as well as some that I did not know. The feedback I received from the editor of the magazine as well as other people indicated that it helped many who had heard about these various accounts but were unable to reconcile them until they saw an article that could put them together in a positive way" (James B. Allen, interview by Samuel Alonzo Dodge, July 27, 2009, Provo Ut.) printed in Exploring the First Vision by Samuel Alonzo Dodge and Steven C. Harper, p42.

I think it's interesting he said that people needed someone to reconcile it all and James Allen did and they liked him for it, but if some people had their way then somebody with no expertise on the historiography of the First Vision should be the one to decipher everything and it would be even better if they contribute $ to their podcast or whatever.

Edited by Duncan
  • Like 4
Link to post
56 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think most manipulation that goes on in the world is accomplished by those who don't even realize or don't think about, that they are actually manipulating.  I'm not sure that intention is easily discoverable at all when it comes to manipulation in most cases.  

I agree that intention is hard to know sometimes.  I'm more wondering though whether or not someone can accidentally try to make another person feel insane.

Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think it should be.  I think that's why Elder Ballard's and Oak's comments on that matter were so shocking to some of us.  Nobody expects that the Church of the past somehow do away with any hiding.  And many expect the Church to have plenty to keep under wraps, even today.  

Yes, the church has a poor track record for restricting access to documents in the past, and its ironic that Ballard and Oaks use the First Vision example with the history of Joseph Fielding Smith hiding the 1832 account.  There are still items restricted today as well.  I'm grateful that the church is improving on the transparency front, but it is not 100% transparent, and as an institution it really has no underlying interest in being 100% transparent.  But it wants the perception of transparency as a PR position. 

This is the conundrum that all large institutions both public and private face.  None will be 100% honest, they have interests in hiding the mistakes and less than favorable news and presenting a positive image to the public.  This is why I am critical of Elder Ballard's plea to just trust us and equating the trust of leaders to following God.  It is morally problematic, and it isn't central to the gospel message as I understand it.  

Edited by hope_for_things
  • Like 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think I may be confused, are you saying that Joseph Fielding Smith did not hide the 1832 account until after it was heard by others (I believe the Tanners) that he did have such an account?  Later it was released after it's long slumber, right?  Sounds like a clear case of a Church leader hiding something, right?

 

 

If we were in the spirit world having this conversation and the spirit of Cecil T. Copperpot complained that he lived his whole life in the Church and died in 1947 and he had never heard of the different accounts of the First Vision, then I think that would be a valid complaint. 

But at some point, we're complaining that the Church "hid" that info from someone else.  It should also be clarified that the Church has never pretended that it wasn't "hiding" stuff; indeed Elder Packer and his ilk never seemed embarrassed by their beliefs that the Church should hide the embarrassing stuff that wasn't faith promoting.  So if hiding stuff proves that the Church isn't "true", then that's something we should have known all along (or at least for the last half-century or so).

So here we are in 2017 having this conversation.  The gospel topics essays were published years ago.  The internet has been in full swing for about 20 years.  So what would you say if, in 2040, a 20-year old LDS complains to you that they didn't know about the different versions of the First Vision because the Church was "hiding" it? 

 

And as an additional historical tidbit, it could be argued that the Church was hiding all the versions of the First Vision until 1905!

Quote

Many factors contributed to the relative lack of interest in the First Vision by nineteenth-century believers and nonbelievers. Most have been identified by Latter-day Saint scholars in a variety of articles attempting to validate the historicity of the event or its relationship to developments in L.D.S. doctrine. Though these studies disagree on the First Vision’s theological implications, what matters for our purposes is that all agree, in the words of James B. Allen, author of the most extensive study , that “the weight of evidence would suggest that it [the First Vision] was not a matter of common knowledge, even among church members, in the earliest years of Mormon history.”

(emphasis added)

 

 

Edited by cinepro
  • Like 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, the church has a poor track record for restricting access to documents in the past, and its ironic that Ballard and Oaks use the First Vision example with the history of Joseph Fielding Smith hiding the 1832 account.  There are still items restricted today as well.  I'm grateful that the church is improving on the transparency front, but it is not 100% transparent, and as an institution it really has no underlying interest in being 100% transparent.  But it wants the perception of transparency as a PR position. 

This is the conundrum that all large institutions both public and private face.  None will be 100% honest, they have interests in hiding the mistakes and less than favorable news and presenting a positive image to the public.  This is why I am critical of Elder Ballard's plea to just trust us and equating the trust of leaders to following God.  It is morally problematic, and it isn't central to the gospel message as I understand it.  

TBH though, sometimes, alot? it's not the Church Archives that puts restrictions on items, it's the family or donater. I used to work at a Museum years ago that had an archives and the families had to sign this agreement and if we broke it we could be sued. Plus too, the Church doesn't own the copyright to a lot of donated materials. The WORST archives i've ever dealt with was the City one where I live. I was doing this project and needed just basic information that I coudn't find. Well, my goodness, you think I was cleaning the Crown Jewels or something. Someone was with me the whole time, they found everything, checked my notes, backpack, basically everything but my IQ. All for this piece of information.

  • Like 3
Link to post
55 minutes ago, Duncan said:

TBH though, sometimes, alot? it's not the Church Archives that puts restrictions on items, it's the family or donater. I used to work at a Museum years ago that had an archives and the families had to sign this agreement and if we broke it we could be sued. Plus too, the Church doesn't own the copyright to a lot of donated materials. The WORST archives i've ever dealt with was the City one where I live. I was doing this project and needed just basic information that I coudn't find. Well, my goodness, you think I was cleaning the Crown Jewels or something. Someone was with me the whole time, they found everything, checked my notes, backpack, basically everything but my IQ. All for this piece of information.

Families and donors can put restrictions on items, but the church can as as well.  How do you explain the example of the 1832 account.  Or perhaps some of the Hoffman forgeries?  There have been many examples of the Church restricting items for a perceived benefit.  That’s why I don’t trust that they aren’t doing the same with some materials today, and because of those examples that are clearly for reasons to try and support a particular narrative and to avoid criticism I think its just much more honest to say as was quoted in that Trib article by Elder Snow, that at times in the past they haven’t been as transparent as they should have been.  Do you think Elder Snow was correct with his admission of a lack of transparency in the past?  

I agree with you that this is not unique to the church, and I made the statement that all large institutions do this to some extent.  Let’s just acknowledge that up front, that large institutions including the LDS church have interests that aren’t always compatible with 100% transparency.  

 

Link to post

You may be interested in reading this 

https://history.lds.org/article/access?lang=eng

or if you have a Law degree, you can read this from the National Archives of Canada (which i've been to) and how they operate, you can't get everything there either

The 1832 account wasn't donated, as far as I know, to the Church Archives, it was in private hands who can do whatever they want with it.

I heard the story of Elder Glen L. Rudd who donated a copy of the BOM that had been to space and he had a heck of a time getting it back! but he did get it back, not sure it's current whereabouts! I have been denied access to somethings, for reasons I am not sure but then again I have been given the "access to restricted materials" form to fill out. it's stinks when what you want isn't available, either because of the family or because they never even wrote anything! they can't give what they don't have. Then again sometimes things are so fragile that they can't give it out to everyone. I was corrected by bro. Lloyd who said

"Context matters. Elder Snow’s context is the past accessibility of records from the Church History Department. Elder Ballard’s context is the openness and transparency with which the Brethren address the people they speak to in the course of their ministry."

Link to post
5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

............................... I think that's why Elder Ballard's and Oak's comments on that matter were so shocking to some of us.  Nobody expects that the Church of the past somehow do away with any hiding.  And many expect the Church to have plenty to keep under wraps, even today.  

Not sure I understand the point you are making here.  Could you clarify?

Link to post
23 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

Bushman has said that the dominant church narrative is false and unsustainable. 

Wow.  Now who's "gaslighting?"  Here is a link to Bushman's comment.

I think Bro. Bushman's statement, being off-the-cuff, was not an altogether accurate statement of his position.  He made this remark in a small group setting, and in response to another participant's use of the phrase "dominant narrative".  He subsequently clarified his position here:

Quote

I have been using the phrase “reconstruct the narrative” in recent talks because that is exactly what the Church is doing right now.  The Joseph Smith Papers offer a reconstructed narrative, so do some of the “Gospel Topics” essays.  The short First Vision film in the Church Museum of History mentions six accounts of Joseph’s experience and draws on all of them.  That is all reconstructing the narrative.  I got the phrase from a young woman who reported that she and her husband had both been through faith crises.  She had come back; he had remained alienated.  But both of them had to reconstruct the narrative.  We have to include, for example, the fact that that the first words to Joseph in the First Vision were:  “Your sins are forgiven.”  That makes us look again at his life and realize how important a part forgiveness played.  Similarly, we now have assimilated seer stones into the translation story.  A picture of a seer stone now appears in the Church History Museum display.  That would not have happened even five years ago.  The list goes on and on.

I consider Rough Stone Rolling a reconstructed narrative.  It was shocking to some people.  They could not bear to have the old story disrupted in any way.  What I was getting at in the quoted passage is that we must be willing to modify the account according to newly authenticated facts.  If we don’t we will weaken our position.  Unfortunately, not everyone can adjust to this new material.  Many think they were deceived and the church was lying.  That is not a fair judgment in my opinion.  The whole church, from top to bottom, has had to adjust to the findings of our historians.  We are all having to reconstruct.   In my opinion, nothing in the new material overturns the basic thrust of the story.  I still believe in gold plates.  I don’t think Joseph Smith could have dictated the Book of Mormon text without inspiration.  I think he was sincere in saying he saw God.  The glimpse Joseph Smith gives us of divine interest in humankind is still a source of hope in an unbelieving world.

If anyone has questions about what I believe, I would be happy to hear from him or her.  I believe pretty much the same things I did sixty years ago when I was a missionary.

"Many think they were deceived and the church was lying. That is not a fair judgment in my opinion.  The whole church, from top to bottom, has had to adjust to the findings of our historians. We are all having to reconstruct."

So here we have you quoting Bushman to advance your "the Church lied to us!" complaint, despite the fact that Bushman is on record as rejecting that as "not a fair judgment."

Quote

We quoted Snow in the article...his quote is at odds with Oaks and Ballard.

I am not sure why one must be a trained historian to have an opinion on the matter. 

One needn't be a trained historian to have a mere opinion.  However, the "trained historian" in view, the one you just quoted to advance your accusations against the Church, rejects the premise of your theory.  And since the topic under discussion is the history of the LDS Church, Bro. Bushman's expertise in this area renders his informed opinion significantly more probative than yours.

Quote

That seems like a strange qualifier and borderline logical fallacy (appeal to authority)

Unless, of course, the subject matter under discussion falls within the province of training and expertise, in which case citing a recognized authority on that subject matter is not problematic.

Your grievance is that the Church has not been sufficiently open with its history.  You even quote a trained historian (Bushman) to buttress your claim.  That same trained historian rejects the premise of your grievance ("Many think they were deceived and the church was lying. That is not a fair judgment in my opinion.").

So where does that leave us?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 3
Link to post
7 hours ago, juliann said:

Yet you fail to mention that Pres. Uchtdorf, in General Conference,  has said mistakes were made. Even if that is not enough for you, it isn't forthcoming to hide it. 

Yep.  Doesn't jibe with the narrative he's trying to advance.  So he ignores it (either that, or he is ignorant of it).

Mr. McKnight, omitting/ignoring things that don't advance one's preferred narrative is, by your reckoning, a bad thing.  So how is it that you are doing that which you are so publicly condemning?

7 hours ago, juliann said:

When you are setting down rules for others, shouldn't you be the first to follow them by asking "yourselves if you could do a better job with the messaging and then take the steps necessary to accept responsibility and correct the issues."?   

Well, Mr. McKnight?

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, bluebell said:

Gaslighting is a manipulation technique, right?  So in order for someone to actually gaslight another, does it have to be intentional or can someone accidentally gaslight another?

Has to be intentional.

  • Like 1
Link to post
27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Wow.  Now who's "gaslighting?"  Here is a link to Bushman's comment.

I think Bro. Bushman's statement, being off-the-cuff, was not an altogether accurate statement of his position.  He made this remark in a small group setting, and in response to another participant's use of the phrase "dominant narrative".  He subsequently clarified his position here:

"Many think they were deceived and the church was lying. That is not a fair judgment in my opinion.  The whole church, from top to bottom, has had to adjust to the findings of our historians. We are all having to reconstruct."

So here we have you quoting Bushman to advance your "the Church lied to us!" complaint, despite the fact that Bushman is on record as rejecting that as "not a fair judgment."

One needn't be a trained historian to have a mere opinion.  However, the "trained historian" in view, the one you just quoted to advance your accusations against the Church, rejects the premise of your theory.  And since the topic under discussion is the history of the LDS Church, Bro. Bushman's expertise in this value renders his informed opinion significantly more probative than yours.

Unless, of course, the subject matter under discussion falls within the province of training and expertise, in which case citing a recognized authority on that subject matter is not problematic.

Your grievance is that the Church has not been sufficiently open with its history.  You even quote a trained historian (Bushman) to buttress your claim.  That same trained historian rejects the premise of your grievance ("Many think they were deceived and the church was lying. That is not a fair judgment in my opinion.").

So where does that leave us?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

  • Like 1
Link to post

"Setting aside the rhetoric....does the article make any good points?"

Are you suggesting the article's rhetoric has no value in itself?

If not, then why are you suggesting we avoid discussing it?

 

 

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Fair Dinkum
      While I'll assume no one in this board is unfamiliar with this subject, I'll still offer a short synopsis just in case. Back Story:  In 1985 the family of B.H. Roberts allowed a collection of his personal papers, still in the private hands of family members, to be published into book form.  The collection was published as "Studies of The Book of Mormon"
      In his papers were discovered notes of a special meeting that was held in early 1922 involving all member's of the First Presidency, The Quorum of the Twelve as well as the 7 Presidents of the Seventy, of which Robert's was a member.  Robert's had been given the assignment by Heber J. Grant to answer questions that had been sent in a letter to the church from a member seeking answers. 
      The questions were quite straight forward:
      when the Jews landed in the New World (600 B.C.) is not enough time to explain the diversity of native Indian languages. Horses were introduced to the Americas by the Spaniards, thus their appearance in the Book of Mormon is an anachronisms. The use of steel in the Book of Mormon is an anachronism. The use of scimitars (an arabian sword) in an anachronism. The use of silk was unknown to the Americas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_of_the_Book_of_Mormon
      Roberts concerns went unanswered by church authorities which caused him to try and resolve the difficulties himself.  The book represents his attempt to resolve those questions, he was unsuccessful in doing so. 
      Now a new master thesis has been written exploring secret meetings that took place following Robert's failed attempt to find satisfaction from his fellow church authorities.  Robert's formed this band of LDS intelligentsia in a further attempt to resolve his concerns and find answers to Book of Mormon problems.  While I've only just started to read it, this thesis is a fascinating behind the scenes look into the pre-correlation church.
      https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/6712
      Despite his failures to resolve his concerns, we owe much to Roberts attempt, for it was from many of these questions that much of today's apologetic theories of a limited footprint, duel Cumorah's and acknowledgement of a pre-populated Asian immigrant America, to name just a few, have emerged.  Since the emergence of the internet, modern day apologetics has completely re-framed how the Book of Mormon is viewed from how it was interpreted in 1922. The problem is that much of the church still views the book in much the same way as it was seen in 1922.
      Mormon historians have debated whether the manuscript/book reflects Roberts's doubts or was a case of his playing a devils advocate. One interesting fact remains, per his instructions, his headstone has a Christian Cross on it, which was even unusual for that time and even more so for a former General Authority of the Church.
       
    • By blueglass
      Here is the 2019 end of year seminary assessment my kids received yesterday. Would love to hear your thoughts on the questions, the probable answers, and the doctrine taught.  Don't forget the last 4 questions pertaining to the Explain Doctrine section.  
      https://ibb.co/Dfz4JNr
      Read instructions before you start the test:
      Exam code: 8
      If you have difficulty taking the learning assessment in the traditional way, please talk with your teacher to figure out the best way to help you succeed.
      Use a no. 2 or HB pencil. Indicate your response by completely filling in the bubble on your answer sheet.
      Section name: Multiple Choice
        1.  Who will receive a place in a kingdom of glory? (1 mark)
      a) Every individual born into mortality
      b) All of God's children except the sons of perdition
      c) Only individuals who are worthy of exaltation
        2. Which of the following is a specific responsibility mentioned in the oath and covenant of the priesthood? (1 mar)
      a) To magnify their callings
      b) To pay a generous fast offering
      c) To not be idle
        3. Because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, in the Resurrection all individuals will receive ____ (1 mark)
      a) at least a terrestrial glory
      b) celestial glory
      c) glory according to the law they obeyed
        4. Which of the following blessings does God offer to those who keep the Word of Wisdom? (1 mark)
      a) They will not be burned at the Second Coming.
      b) Their bodies will be protected from all illness.
      c) They will receive wisdom and great treasures of knowledge.
        5. To be endowed in the temple means to receive ____ (1 mark)
      a) a guarantee of eternal life
      b) spiritual power and knowledge
      c) unique physical gifts from the Lord
        6. What does the existence of the precious truths in the Pearl of Great Pric teach us about the Prophet Joseph Smith? (1 mark)
      a) He no longer needed the power of God to help him translate.
      b) He was a prophet, seer, and revelator.
      c) He is the only prophet of this dispensation that can receive new scripture.
        7. As watchmen on the tower, modern prophets have a responsibility to ____ (1 mark)
      a) warn us of coming dangers
      b) stop Satan from tempting members of the Church
      c) change truth to fit modern times
        8. What is a bishop's or branch president's main responsibility when a teenager confesses sin to him? (1 mark)
      a) To prevent the person from being part of the Church
      b) To help the person receive forgiveness of the sins and regain peace of mind
      c) To inflict severe consequences and punishments from sinning
        9. Who visited the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple to restore priesthood keys? (1 mark)
      a) Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Malachi
      b) Moses, Elias, and Elijah
      c) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
        10. According to the Doctrine and Covenants, what are tithing funds used for? (1 mark)
      a) They are the main fund the Church uses to support the poor and the needy.
      b) They are used to build temples and to accomplish the work of the Lord.
      c) They are used to pay ward and branch members for serving in the Church.
        11. While the Prophet Joseph Smith was falsely imprisoned in Liberty Jail, the Lord taught him that adversity and affliction
      (1 mark)
      a) will not occur if we trust in God
      b) are always a consequence of our poor choices
      c) can give us experience and be for our good
        12. Which of the following is a true statement about Relief Society? (1 mark)
      a) It was divinely organized to assist in the work of salvation.
      b) It was established during the trek west to help Saints who were suffering.
      c) It did not exist during the lifetime of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
        13. A man and a woman will receive eternal life and glory if _____ (1 mark)
      a) they love each other more than they love themselves
      b) they keep the new and everlasting covenant of marriage they made in the temple
      c) they are married in the temple
        14. Why do our ancestors who die without having a knowledge of the gospel need us to perform ordinances for them in the temple?
      a) Without these ordinances, our ancestors cannot progress toward eternal life. (1 mark)
      b) Without these ordinances, our ancestors cannot be saved in any kingdom of glory.
      c} Without these ordinances, our ancestors will not be resurrected.
        15. Marriage between one man and one woman is the Lord's standing law. Wen is the only time plural marriage is justified?
      a) Wen there are more women than men in the Church (1 mark)
      b) Whenever local laws and traditions allow members to practice it without breaking the law
      c) When the Lord authorizes it through the priesthood keys given to the President of the Church
        16. When the President of the Church dies, which quorum becomes the presiding quorum of the Church? (1 mark)
      a) The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
      b) The Quorum of the First Presidency
      c) The Presiding Bishopric
        17. Which of the following shows the correct chronological order (first to last) of places the Saints were told to gather to? (1 mark}
      a) A stake in their homeland; Nauvoo, Illinois; Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Salt Lake City, Utah
      b) Nauvoo, Illinois; Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Salt Lake City, Utah; a stake in their homeland
      c) Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Nauvoo, Illinois; Salt Lake City, Utah; a stake in their homeland
        18. After the Savior visited the spirit world, what did righteous spirits there begin to do?
      a} They were all resurrected and began entering the highest kingdom of glory.
      b) They began performing ordinances for those who had not received them.
      c) They began teaching the gospel to those in spirit prison.
      (1 mark)
        19. According to Official Declaration 2, the Lord revealed that all worthy male Church members may ___ _ (1 mark)
      a) receive the ordinance of baptism
      b) serve a mission at age 18
      c) receive the priesthood and enjoy temple blessings
        20. What principle is emphasized in Doctrine and Covenants 121:36, 41-2? (1 mark)
      a) Priesthood holders can draw upon the powers of heaven only if they live righteously.
      b) lf we actively seek to learn through study and faith, our faith in Jesus Christ will increase.
      c) If we obey the Lord, He will always keep His promises to bless us.
        21. Which of the following accurately describes Heavenly Father? (1 mark)
      a) He is without feelings or emotions.
      b) He is a personage of Spirit and can dwell in us.
      c) He has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's.
        22. Which of the following is a requirement for receiving exaltation in the celestial kingdom? (1 mark)
      a) Bearing testimony of the Savior is all that is needed.
      b) Receiving a patriarchal blessing
      c) Receiving and being valiant in the testimony of Jesus Christ
        23. Of the following groups, who will inherit the celestial kingdom? (1 mark)
      a) All children who die before they reach the age of accountability
      b) All members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
      c) All individuals who have been baptized
        24. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "God doesn't care how marriage is defined"? (1 mark)
      a) Ever individual born into morality is a child of God, and God loves each of us.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God changes truth to meet the circumstances and needs of His children.
        25. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "It isn't as important for couples to have children today as it used to
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      c) God's commandment fr husbands and wives to have children remains in force today.
        26. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "As long as two individuals love each other, physical intimacy is
      acceptable"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
        27. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "As governments continue to redefine marriage, God's definition of
      marriage will change to reflect the values of modern society"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      b) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      c) Changes in the civil law do not change the moral law that God has established.
        28. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "The only purpose of marriage is for adults to find fulfillment and
      happiness"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      Section name: Explain Doctrine _
      Instructions: Write your answer on a piece of paper. Compare your response with the correct answer received from your teacher. After self-grading the explain-doctrine question, bubble in your answer sheet.
      Self-grade your answer for each question:
      a. Yes, I explained this in my response.
      b. No, I left this out of my response.
        29. What is an example of a truth that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why the truth you chose can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        30. What is an example of an ordinance that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why the ordinance you chose can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        31. What is an example of priesthood authority that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why this authority of the priesthood can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        32. Share your personal thoughts on the importance of the Prophet Joseph Smith. (1 mark)
    • By blueglass
      Really impressed with Kate Holbrook's interview with Terryl Givens.  She's thoughtful, candid, and inspiring as she speaks about her persistence to get a PhD and work full time for the church as a manger of church history.  She's working on a project with Lisa Tate on the history of the young women's organization.  
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2G7k1ggz7k&amp;feature=em-uploademail
      One thing I caught that I hadn't heard before was when Terryl asks her about whether she felt a sense of loss and a sense of jubilation when studying the history of the RS.  Joseph envisioned a more collaborative relationship with the male priesthood, more autonomy, abundance of spiritual gifts, authority to administer ordinances including healing by the laying of hands.  Kate responds that she understands the hyperfocus on this time period, but she feels there is a lost opportunity in recognizing the accomplishments of the women of the 20th century - she then backtracks a bit and says:
      "I don't want to say that their isn't a difference, between - a time when a woman was able to say I have this terrific idea she's say the General RS president and she goes and talks to the president of the church about it.  That is certainly different than now, when she goes and talks to someone in the presiding bishopric, and it has to go through several levels to even get to the president.  There is a loss, and there is a difference."
      I had no idea that the General RS president did not have direct access to the quorum of the 12, and first presidency?  Why in 3 heavens does the general RS president still have such an auxiliary level of access to the presiding apostolic quorum, access to financial influence through Pres Bishopric perhaps, but no real budget to work with?  No seat on the correlation committee?  
      Kate has a great story about how Ardeth Greene Kapp (General YW president 84-92') while receiving a downpour of revelation would use innovative, clever ways and technology to push the ideas upward through the hierarchy.  
    • By FearlessFixxer
      Greetings.

      I was told by a friend that I needed to check this site out and I am super impressed!  I love the commentary, both for and against, the various leaks we have have over the last year.
       
      This is by far the best forum currently discussing the leaks.
       
      Anyway, I thought I would offer myself up to you all and do an AMA (Ask Me Anything).
       
      No questions are off the table, but I reserve the right to say no comment 
       
      If you need proof that this is really me you can PM me at https://www.facebook.com/FearlessFixxer
       
      Cheers
       
      Moderator advice: Welcome to the board, feel free to join in but we do not allow personal ads. 
    • By rockpond
      For anyone out there who has been dying to know how much a temple employee makes <crickets>, some 2006 data is now available!
      MormonLeaks has also created a page where they are compiling all leaks that have to do with church salaries, it's here:
      https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/index.php?title=Mormon_Church_Salaries
      If you were looking to become employed with the church, it appears that (as of 2006) the top salaries there maxed out around $130k.  Likely a bit higher now.
×
×
  • Create New...