Taylor Christensen "This is not an anti-mormon video"

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Here’s the problem as I see l, with videos like this.  You can’t answer these questions in 7 minutes.

As an example, I listened to a talk just today by Tad Callister about the potential for God’s children to become like the Father.

That’s a very radical claim, as I’m sure you know.  But this guy used scripture, logic, and a very articulate talk that laid it all out in over 40 minutes.  Just one subject.

You can’t just say, “yeah Joseph Smith had a lot of wives, and a few were married to other men” and then just leave it at that.

You can’t just say, “yeah, Joseph stuck a rock in a hat and translated the Book of Mormon” and then just leave it at that.

These things have very complex backgrounds, and a lot of scholarship that goes into explaining all of it.  Posting a 7 minute video airing out the laundry, with 3 or 4 minutes telling the viewer to have faith despite it all...eh, just no good 

That is definitely the weak point of the whole enterprise plus as 3 DOP exemplifies, those who have not studied the issue have no clue but to take Taylor at his word.

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

So the historical claim of the restoration of the gospel is irrelevant to whether the restoration of the gospel happened?  You would think, that the elements and events that make up the restoration of the gospel are historical events.  I can't see how the history is irrelevant as you suggest.  

Now if you were to say it is irrelevant to me whether the restoration actually happened, as one studies history, because for me the religion works.  I'd hear ya, and get ya.  But, what you say here is just oddly irrational.  

 

Not really. The secular history of polygamy of polygamy is irrelevant to whether God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith. Secular history cannot prove or disprove that event. We know pretty certainly that polygamy happened. But we have no way of proving or disproving by secular history if it was a command from God. Secular history has no way of proving or disproving whether an angel appeared to Joseph and ordered him most explicitly and menacingly to accept and begin practicing that principle, therefore secular history is irrelevant there. Secular history has no way of proving or disproving the resurrection, so it is irrelevant in that respect. We only have the fallout of those reported events recorded by secular history. Since history cannot affirm or deny any of those events, it seems illogical to me for anyone to use history to decide whether there was a resurrection or whether there was a restoration. One should logically seek another source.

Glenn

[Nevo]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That is definitely the weak point of the whole enterprise plus as 3 DOP exemplifies, those who have not studied the issue have no clue but to take Taylor at his word.

I don't think the issue is so much accuracy as completeness. Taylor isn't making outlandish claims. The church essays confirm most of his points. But, obviously, there is no discussion of context in the video. I agree with you and SteveO that that is a failing. But then who would watch a 40-minute Facebook video with shaky camera work and treacly music? People have short attention spans now. I would love it if everyone would read 6–12 books and articles on Joseph's scrying practices and plural marriages before weighing in on these topics, but even many on this board who've engaged in these discussions for years haven't bothered to do so.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Nevo

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

If Joseph wasn't wrong about his choices, then I have to believe God is wrong. I'll choose Joseph.

It kind of puts you in the middleway Tacenda..I understand what you are saying. 

[SteveO]

4 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I don't think the issue is so much accuracy as completeness. Taylor isn't making outlandish claims. The church essays confirm most of his points. But, obviously, there is no discussion of context in the video. I agree with you and SteveO that that is a failing. But then who would watch a 40-minute Facebook video with shaky camera work and treacly music? People have short attention spans now. I would love it if everyone would read 6–12 books and articles on Joseph's scrying practices and plural marriages, but even many people on this board who've been following these discussions for years haven't bothered to do so.

Wait now, is the onus on the church, or the members to do the studying and reading????

[Nevo]

3 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Wait now, is the onus on the church, or the members to do the studying and reading????

Ha ha. Actually, I'd say the onus is on both. The Church is doing its part now, so it's on the members to do theirs too.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Look at say Don Bradly coming back to the Church due to his investigation of the 116 pages. A lot of that is new stuff.

I thought that Don Came back because he did't like the odds. Or was that what made him rethink his atheist position on that life happened by accident?

Glenn

[Glenn101]

46 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Do you dispute that Joseph Smith married several women who were already married to other men? And that in one or two cases he proposed to women while their husbands were on missions?

I do. Joseph was never married to but one woman. Now if one is talking about sealings, that is another story.

[Nevo]

2 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I do. Joseph was never married to but one woman. Now if one is talking about sealings, that is another story.

Okay, I'll rephrase. Do you dispute that Joseph Smith was sealed to several women as plural wives who were already married to other men? And that in one or two cases he proposed to women while their husbands were on missions?

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

I said each person can come to different conclusions of the answers provided...I get irritated when people keep pretending the apologetics are silent with no answers to the accusations.  I have seen Tacenda involved in numerous threads regarding polygamy, and each time she acts as if nobody has been able, or willing to provide her with answers.  

She has been given the answers many times.  She may not like them, fine, but she has reached the conclusion she currently holds a while back.  She doesn’t want the answers anymore, she just wants to continue to believe there aren’t any.

Steve, I don't think that Tacenda is implicitly saying that the answers have not been provide. I hope that she will correct me if I am misunderstanding her, but she seems to have a such a high level of abhorrence to the idea of polygamy that she just cannot accept that God would ever choose to command mortals to practice it. She has this dissonance and has chosen to resolve it by concluding that Joseph Smith was in error/lying, and whatever when he said that God had commanded the practice. She is not unlike some of the men and women in Joseph's day who, although be good people, just could not accept polygamy.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Nevo said:

Do you dispute that Joseph Smith married several women who were already married to other men? And that in one or two cases he proposed to women while their husbands were on missions?

Do I dispute it ? Perhaps not 

Do I seek, consider and provide explanatory context where others are all to eager to jump to conclusions? Very possibly. 

Do I recognize there are questions for which definitive answers have not been — indeed cannot be — provided just now? Absolutely. 

Edited February 6, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Glenn101]

9 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Okay, I'll rephrase. Do you dispute that Joseph Smith was sealed to several women as plural wives who were already married to other men? And that in one or two cases he proposed to women while their husbands were on missions?

Nope. Now the question is, did God command it?

[Calm]

Just now, Glenn101 said:

Nope. Now the question is, did God command it?

Or did God command it in general or specifics and if the former, how much was Joseph inspired in his attempts to implement God's command and how much was him doing trial and error learning?

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I don't think the issue is so much accuracy as completeness. Taylor isn't making outlandish claims. The church essays confirm most of his points. But, obviously, there is no discussion of context in the video. I agree with you and SteveO that that is a failing. But then who would watch a 40-minute Facebook video with shaky camera work and treacly music? People have short attention spans now. I would love it if everyone would read 6–12 books and articles on Joseph's scrying practices and plural marriages before weighing in on these topics, but even many on this board who've engaged in these discussions for years haven't bothered to do so.

Agree fully

I personally haven't done so either because frankly I do not care.  I personally view Mormonism as the best paradigm for viewing God as a Human (the ONLY "Christian" paradigm which does so) and which uses the arguments made by atheists against themselves, by affirming William James' justification for religious belief in the vehicle of Alma 32, which is one of the best explanations of the Pragmatic view of religion made anywhere.  Our faith is fully compatible with secularist views of religion as shown by atheists like Richard Rorty- essentially for informed Mormons, their position is philosophically "bullet proof".  It can even be seen as an affirmation of Neitzsche's position that "God is dead" if you view his position in the context of the sectarian view of god against which he was arguing.  That conception of God has been supplanted by Joseph's paradigm, in my opinion, regardless of Joseph's personal life- which may have been exemplary or less than that the question becomes a personal belief confirmed in an individual's heart.

Per Alma 32 and pragmatic justifications of religious belief- if the belief is "sweet" to you and provides your life with meaning and thus "bears sweet fruit" it can be regarded as true, and a fully justified belief within a religious context or "language game"

So it comes full circle and in fact I could mirror your post here while changing the subject from history to a philosophical understanding of Mormonism which could be reached if everyone would read 6-12 philosophical books and articles on a pragmatic justification of religious statements and practices, but as you say, no one is going to do that today.

Pretty dang frustrating.

 

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Okay, I'll rephrase. Do you dispute that Joseph Smith was sealed to several women as plural wives who were already married to other men? And that in one or two cases he proposed to women while their husbands were on missions?

What bothers me is that it’s not enough to just agree on the basic facts for some.  The next step whether you’re an apologist or anti is that a particular interpretation of these facts is required by those groups.  

[3DOP]

3 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Here’s the problem as I see l, with videos like this.  You can’t answer these questions in 7 minutes.

As an example, I listened to a talk just today by Tad Callister about the potential for God’s children to become like the Father.

That’s a very radical claim, as I’m sure you know.  But this guy used scripture, logic, and a very articulate talk that laid it all out in over 40 minutes.  Just one subject.

You can’t just say, “yeah Joseph Smith had a lot of wives, and a few were married to other men” and then just leave it at that.

You can’t just say, “yeah, Joseph stuck a rock in a hat and translated the Book of Mormon” and then just leave it at that.

These things have very complex backgrounds, and a lot of scholarship that goes into explaining all of it.  Posting a 7 minute video airing out the laundry, with 3 or 4 minutes telling the viewer to have faith despite it all...eh, just no good 

Hi SteveO,

I don't propose that the video is accurate. My only problem is with Mormons who apparently accept the video as accurately depicting Joseph Smith in a most disturbing way. The maker of the video raises the question that needs to be answered. It appears that some Mormons believe that the Restoration of the Church is compatible with a belief in an unrighteous Joseph. I am merely disagreeing with that point of view. 

In my opinion, the maker of the video wants be a faithful Mormon. That makes him an understandably sympathetic personality. He doesn't want to hate on his church. But in my opinion, the way he resolves his faith, with what he seems to believe about Joseph Smith, has grave problems that extend beyond his narrow focus of how he and others who are already LDS, can remain in the church. In particular, I don't think the young man is considering how potential converts and missionaries would need to deal with his debatable historical opinions, if his opinions were to be accepted by the church.

Again, I don't take a position on LDS history and I don't accept the video as true. My only misgiving is with those who applaud this young man's way of remaining LDS, while at the same time holding to what I would still be willing to label as anti-Mormon history. I think it is reasonable for me to wonder though, about what is anti-Mormon about this young man's view of history, if it allows him to remain a faithful LDS? When what was once considered anti-Mormon becomes compatible with Mormonism, it has to be because the anti-Mormons knew the truth about Mormon history before the Mormons themselves. If that is the way Mormons want go, its fine with me. But they'll be skewered for it from parties a heck of a lot more hostile to Mormonism than me. I doubt that the young man has taken that in to consideration either.

3DOP       

 

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi SteveO,

I don't propose that the video is accurate. My only problem is with Mormons who apparently accept the video as accurately depicting Joseph Smith in a most disturbing way. The maker of the video raises the question that needs to be answered. It appears that some Mormons believe that the Restoration of the Church is compatible with a belief in an unrighteous Joseph. I am merely disagreeing with that point of view. 

In my opinion, the maker of the video wants be a faithful Mormon. That makes him an understandably sympathetic personality. He doesn't want to hate on his church. But in my opinion, the way he resolves his faith, with what he seems to believe about Joseph Smith, has grave problems that extend beyond his narrow focus of how he and others who are already LDS, can remain in the church. In particular, I don't think the young man is considering how potential converts and missionaries would need to deal with his debatable historical opinions, if his opinions were to be accepted by the church.

Again, I don't take a position on LDS history and I don't accept the video as true. My only misgiving is with those who applaud this young man's way of remaining LDS, while at the same time holding to what I would still be willing to label as anti-Mormon history. I think it is reasonable for me to wonder though, about what is anti-Mormon about this young man's view of history, if it allows him to remain a faithful LDS? When what was once considered anti-Mormon becomes compatible with Mormonism, it has to be because the anti-Mormons knew the truth about Mormon history before the Mormons themselves. If that is the way Mormons want go, its fine with me. But they'll be skewered for it from parties a heck of a lot more hostile to Mormonism than me. I doubt that the young man has taken that in to consideration either.

3DOP       

 

He obviously sees things you cannot understand so I don't see how this concerns you

Have you ever received a direct revelation from God?  Many of us have.

And it appears you have swept the issue of corrupt Popes under the rug and not responded.   How can you believe in Catholicism??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Stephen_VI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_XII

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_IX

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Urban_VI

Shall I continue?   There are plenty more.   I don't get it.  Let me turn your argument around and as YOU how you deal with this stuff?

I didn't bring this up- you did and so I would think you would just love to answer.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

He obviously sees things you cannot understand so I don't see how this concerns you

 

I think he grasps the matter quite well.

Quote

Have you ever received a direct revelation from God?  Many of us have.

I think receiving direct revelation is not as esoteric as you make it seem here.
 

Quote

 

And it appears you have swept the issue of corrupt Popes under the rug and not responded.   How can you believe in Catholicism??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Stephen_VI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_XII

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_IX

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Urban_VI

Shall I continue?   There are plenty more.   I don't get it.  Let me turn your argument around and as YOU how you deal with this stuff?

I didn't bring this up- you did and so I would think you would just love to answer.

 

Perhaps I missed something, but I don't recall him bringing up Catholicism in this thread.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Well that is certainly a doctrine we could use as well then.

Consider it "done" for me since that is what the Holy Ghost as already confirmed for me.  Scoundrel prophets scoundrel popes- who cares?

I am glad it was an easy one for you.  Being "duped" by interpretations of alleged "history" is always also an easy way out.

So we are on the same strong ground I see.  

The Gospel admonishes us to "beware of false prophets" and where a criteria is given that would show a scoundrel prophet to disqualify himself from our consideration. Popes are not even prophets, let alone founders of the Catholic Church. I allow that like our popes, your officers can have any number of even grave faults and sins. I don't think you can compare Joseph Smith with Catholic successors of Peter, or LDS successors of Joseph. As the Gospel instructs us, when a  prophet comes as a wolf in sheep's clothing, we don't have to put his claims to the test. Jesus promises His disciples that he will not send a prophet with evil character. I see your ground as significantly mushier than mine if you think the founder of the Restoration could have been unrighteous.

 

[sunstoned]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Does the sound work for you? It didn't for me, luckily it had captions. If I ever need something to explain my disbelief or disillusionment I might share this video/blog to my family. They are still unaware of how far I've gone from the church. I can't say that I want them to come after me like a Shepherd. But would appreciate the part of having empathy. 

Thanks for sharing this churchistrue!

I had the same problem.  The default on the video seems to be mute.  So once it starts, chick on the video, and you see the volume scale to the right.  Just move it up to a higher volume and you should be able to then hear the dialog. 

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

He obviously sees things you cannot understand so I don't see how this concerns you

Have you ever received a direct revelation from God?  Many of us have.

And it appears you have swept the issue of corrupt Popes under the rug and not responded.   How can you believe in Catholicism??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Stephen_VI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_XII

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_IX

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Urban_VI

Shall I continue?   There are plenty more.   I don't get it.  Let me turn your argument around and as YOU how you deal with this stuff?

I didn't bring this up- you did and so I would think you would just love to answer.

 

Ah, so you do think true Mormonism is compatible with an unrighteous prophet. I was pretty sure that would need to be the case. But unlike most here, your reasoning springs from a philosophy of skepticism about objective truth, that wasn't shared by Christ, or by His Apostles, or by Joseph Smith, or any LDS Apostles. Regardless of whether your position is consistent, and I think it is, until we think it is true, we have to proceed according to the worldview we accept. You would change a religion based on historical beliefs in to something else that you described elsewhere as being like a god making truth in your own universe. I paraphrase and you can correct me if I have misstated your thrust. I think your philosophy is more dangerous and less compatible with the beliefs and worldview held by the witnesses of Jesus Christ unto our own times, than the belief that Joseph Smith could have been an objectively cruddy character. At least we agree with them about objective reality and our ability to know it. You need to win us to your philosophy before you can get us to disregard Joseph's character for the reason you would give. I am engaging Mormons who are more or less untouched by your inscrutable philosophy.

Please, please, please. I am not offended. When I talked this way in the past you have interpreted me as angry with you. How can I prove that I am not. A zillion emoticons?     

 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think he grasps the matter quite well.

I think receiving direct revelation is not as esoteric as you make it seem here.
 

Perhaps I missed something, but I don't recall him bringing up Catholicism in this thread.

Hi Scott...Mark offered me a question to answer and I bit.

He rejoices in a rather clever misconstruing of the reply I gave him in a quote just above this one.

He had asked how the Catholic priesthood could have survived a bad pope and I gave a glib and quick answer. My answer, which he thinks should apply to the question of Joseph's righteousness, was specifically about why I couldn't think a bad pope would destroy a priesthood validly established in holiness. It wasn't about whether Catholicism was true even if its founders were unrighteous. It is necessary to Catholicism that Christ and the Apostles who we believe are the foundations of the Catholic Church, were righteous and good. Would it not be necessary to Mormonism, that its principle founder after Christ, was similarly righteous and good? I don't think we have a valid priesthood in Catholicism if Christ and His apostles were guilty of the sins Joseph Smith is being charged with.  

Edited February 6, 2018 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think he grasps the matter quite well.

I think receiving direct revelation is not as esoteric as you make it seem here.
 

Perhaps I missed something, but I don't recall him bringing up Catholicism in this thread.

Still wondering why you did not answer my earlier post to you.

No he brought up Mormonism and asked how we could tolerate belief in a prophet who was immoral, supposedly.  I asked him how he could tolerate a Pope or several, who were immoral supposedly

I trust you understand the point now. 

But my unanswered question for you is whether or not you feel that Joseph could not have been a prophet if he lived a flawed life, and how you handle the historic evidence that he might have been?   Can God reveal his will to flawed humans?  Does one have to be perfect to be a prophet?

[mfbukowski]

Kinda funny really.

Love ya all- I'm out.  This is not an anti-Mormon board, or is it.

Why support ideas which will destroy the church and which the Restoration corrects?

Beats me.

Toodles!

Edited February 6, 2018 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Kinda funny really.

Love ya all- I'm out.

Me too Mark. I had the day off today. Not tomorrow. G'nite to you and all. God bless.

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

This is turning into a real emotional topic.  So here is some emotion for you all.  I was not there when Joseph Smith was alive but I know that he was under incredible pressure.  God commands him to have more than one wife and his one wife is very very upset about it.  I would stake any day that Joseph Smith was not a bad man why because I have read almost everything he wrote not just the scriptures but everything else he wrote I know him by his writing he was not a evil man.

We do need to keep in mind that it was Joseph himself who declared that God told him to collect wives.  No one else heard that voice.  So it really comes down to full belief in Joseph Smith and a full belief in what he said.   To me the question is: can I believe what Joseph Smith claimed? Did he conduct his life in a manner in keeping with what he claimed God called him to do?  Do his works stand on their own?  I  think this is what the video was getting to.  As stated in the video, where there are facts and evidence, faith is not needed. Where there is no evidence, then faith comes into play.   I think these are the questions we all need to answer and decide for ourselves.  

Edited February 6, 2018 by sunstoned