New Revelations and the Future

[ksfisher]

34 minutes ago, Exiled said:

As for Jesus and Judas, I think there are some problems with the betrayal story.  For one thing, why would it be necessary to have Judas point out a figure that everyone probably knew?

1) It was dark.

2) People wore clothing that covered the head.

3) That everyone knew him by sight is an assumption.

4) It was dark.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

1) It was dark.

2) People wore clothing that covered the head.

3) That everyone knew him by sight is an assumption.

4) It was dark.

5) Jesus had already slipped away and evaded multiple attempts to stone him or take him before. Getting an inside circle member to hand him over is a safe bet. 

[ALarson]

38 minutes ago, Exiled said:

As for Jesus and Judas, I think there are some problems with the betrayal story.  For one thing, why would it be necessary to have Judas point out a figure that everyone probably knew?  Certainly, the miracles, the entry into Jerusalem, and causing the ruckus at the temple would bring his attention to the Romans.  There simply was no need to bribe Judas to betray Jesus.

I found this interesting to read through:

https://www.livescience.com/28506-gospel-judas-ink-authenticity.html

Quote

 

A long-lost gospel that casts Judas as a co-conspirator of Jesus, rather than a betrayer, was ruled most likely authentic in 2006. Now, scientists reveal they couldn't have made the call without a series of far more mundane documents, including Ancient Egyptian marriage licenses and property contracts.

The Gospel of Judas is a fragmented Coptic (Egyptian)-language text that portrays Judas in a far more sympathetic light than did the gospels that made it into the Bible. In this version of the story, Judas turns Jesus over to the authorities for execution upon Jesus' request, as part of a plan to release his spirit from his body. 

 

 

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

5) Jesus had already slipped away and evaded multiple attempts to stone him or take him before. Getting an inside circle member to hand him over is a safe bet. 

Good point.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I found this interesting to read through:

https://www.livescience.com/28506-gospel-judas-ink-authenticity.html

Didn't Elder Holland teach somewhere that Jesus commanded Peter to deny him, when confronted, against Peter's better judgment or inclination? 

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

What do you think about Spencer's point about Denson's anachronism with her main charge (that Bishop confessed in 1978 to Wells about his rape of Denson in 1984)?

Can you quote in the recorded interview where Denson states this ("that Bishop confessed in 1978 to Wells about his rape" of her in 1984)?

I've read the interview, but missed that if it's true. 

Here's some of the interview where Denson corrects him about this and states he couldn't have confessed about her in 1978:

Quote

 

Joseph Bishop:  Oh, I now understand. Thank you very much for your talk today ’cause I’m listening, and I’m hearing and seeing me, and it’s painful. It really is, but you’re right. I need to do those things that I thought [inaudible 02:31:27]. When I confessed to Elder Wells in the mission field, do you know why that happened?

Interviewer:  Uh-uh (negative).

Joseph Bishop:  We had been doing so well, the baptisms. We went from 70 a month to double that, to double that, to double that.

Interviewer:  This is when you worked missionary [inaudible 02:31:44].

Joseph Bishop:  Mission President.

Interviewer:  Mission President, okay.

Joseph Bishop:  We went from 70 to over 400 baptisms a month.

Interviewer:  Wow.

Joseph Bishop:  And in the middle of this, I had a sister missionary who was besieged with evil spirits. I’ve never experienced them before. Didn’t know they existed, but they do.

Interviewer:  I know that.

Joseph Bishop:  They attacked me. So in this process trying to save my soul, I said, “Okay, well, I need to tell you everything.” And I went back as far back as memory could … I think I talked about you.

Interviewer:  You couldn’t have ’cause you were MTC president after Argentina.

 

 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Can you quote in the recorded interview where Denson states this ("that Bishop confessed in 1978 to Wells about his rape" of her in 1984)?

I've read the interview, but missed that if it's true. 

Here's some of the interview where Denson corrects him about this and states he couldn't have confessed about her in 1978:

I'm referring to these two posts by smac:

 

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

What do you think about Spencer's point about Denson's anachronism with her main charge (that Bishop confessed in 1978 to Wells about his rape of Denson in 1984)? I think that deals a severe blow to her claim, and really damages her credibility. 

CFR

In the transcript she corrects him and says he can't have talked to Wells about her because Argentina came before the MTC.  Where is she charging he confessed the rape to Wells?

[rongo]

In the portions quoted by Spencer (linked to above) in the other thread.

Denson, and the transcript, are inconsistent and all over the map. That's why it would be vulnerable as the only source for Denson's rape. Yes, she corrects him in the one instance, but there are others where she is anachronistic.

[ALarson]

30 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm referring to these two posts by smac:

 

I don't see that part of the interview to be problematic at all (smac is quoting it out of context, IMO).  She's asking if he confessed to the type of behavior and actions like he'd done to her and to other women (ie. sexual harassment or sexual abuse...no specific time given).   She's not asking him if he specifically gave a confession to Wells naming her and what he'd done to her while at the MTC (I already posted the part of the interview where she specifically corrects him when he does make that exact error).  The part smac quotes is just a small portion of them discussing his long history of sex addiction and issues (and she clarifies the time frame with her last statement below):

Quote

 

Joseph Bishop:  I know that I had an addiction, and I know that I was forever, when I was in high school I was a really short kid and I invited a short girl to go to a dance, and she said to me …

Interviewer:bbAt church or at school?

Joseph Bishop:  This was a school dance.

Interviewer:  Yeah …

Joseph Bishop:  She said come back and see me when you grow up.

Interviewer:  Oh, sorry.

Joseph Bishop:  That’s, no, no …

Interviewer:  It affects us.

Joseph Bishop:  But I have this thing about, I have this sexual addiction, what can I say?

Interviewer:  But, did you get treatment?

Joseph Bishop:  No.

Interviewer::  So what did you, how …

Joseph Bishop:  I kept fighting, and I kept trying to pray and this and that and everything else to get over it. I’m now, I now feel healed in the sense that I am not tempted … Did you notice what I did when you came in?

Interviewer:  Shook my hand?

Joseph Bishop:  No, I opened those so …

Interviewer:  Oh, I yeah no, I didn’t notice that they look fine.

Joseph Bishop:  Well I, just so you know, I don’t put myself in …

Interviewer:  In a position to … let me tell you some of the things that you did in MTC, and I need closure, I’m not angry but I am a broken woman because of the things that you did. Okay one of the things you did, what you told me, that you and other leaders, and I didn’t know what leaders meant at the time, would go to a place, and I don’t know if it was a hot tub or a hot springs, in Wyoming. Did you remember that?

Joseph Bishop:  No.

Interviewer:  Had that ever happened? Why would you tell me that then?

Joseph Bishop:  I don’t know.

Interviewer:  Okay. There was woman in the hot tub, or at the springs or whatever with you and these other people who took her bikini top off. You don’t remember that?

Joseph Bishop:  I had an experience similar to that, but it wasn’t in a hot tub.

Interviewer:  What was it in? What was it?

Joseph Bishop:  She, well it was in Utah, it wasn’t in Wyoming.

Interviewer:  Do I have my areas mixed up?

Joseph Bishop:  Probably. Because that’s only, it did happen.

Interviewer:  But that did happen, oh, so maybe it was Utah, okay. How about this one. You told me that …

Joseph Bishop:  Was I trying to titillate you?

Interviewer:  I believe that you were grooming me, is what you were doing. And there was another girl, we’ll talk about her in a minute. Um, you told me that you liked it when you and your wife, — — apparently, had dinner alone. Candlelit dinner. And she had this …

Joseph Bishop:  We would take [00:53:36]

Interviewer:  Yes, and she was, you liked it when she pulled it down over her breasts and exposed her breasts at dinner.

Joseph Bishop:  Yes.

Interviewer:  Okay. But, okay, so, your addiction was the problem. I understand that. I understand that more than you know, only because I worked in substance abuse, addiction.

Joseph Bishop:  From the other side of it was, — — was not …

Interviewer:  You know what, we don’t need to talk about — — The fact that I was a missionary, and you were my mission president and you were sharing that was the problem.

Joseph Bishop:  That’s true.

Interviewer:  Yeah. So, but you had that storage room. Why did you take me down there? And why would you do what you tried to do?

Joseph Bishop:  I think at that time I was still very much addicted.

Interviewer:  You were really struggling?

Joseph Bishop:  Oh my. I have struggled. I have struggled my whole life on this very issue.

Interviewer:  With no counseling, no way of making a change of behavior?

Joseph Bishop:  How could you, how could even … I used to say to myself all the time, I’m a hypocrite.

Interviewer:  You were.

Joseph Bishop:  Yeah, of course.

Interviewer:  Yeah, damn right you were.

Joseph Bishop:  Okay now what can a hypocrite do.

Interviewer:  Oh, yeah. So you tried to change your behavior …

Joseph Bishop:  Tried to solve it myself. I’m not going to do this anymore, I’m not going to do this anymore, I’m not going to think about this, I’m not going to, you know …

Interviewer:  So you tried, your own kind of mind control where you focus on the appropriate things and try to set aside the things …

Joseph Bishop:  All of those things … all of those things …

Interviewer:  So, how many other women are there? How many other missionaries? How many other young women in The Church have been destroyed like me? I’m not a member of The Church anymore.

Joseph Bishop:  I’m sorry.

Interviewer:  I haven’t been for years. You know …

Joseph Bishop:  Because of me?

Interviewer:  Partly because of you. You know my stepfather was a pedophile, but he was not Mormon. I joined The Church. I lived …

Joseph Bishop:  I remember that …

Interviewer:  A very good healthy life. Went on a mission. All I wanted to do was serve the Lord. That is all I wanted to do. And you singled me out the very first day. The very first day you asked me to bear my testimony. And then the next time the missionaries met you asked me to give the prayer. And then you would call me out of class, the other missionaries were teasing me calling me teacher’s pet, and I can’t record, oh, ridiculous things. But I was so flattered. I thought I was so special. And you told me that I was special. That even though I had been abused that the Lord loved me. And that I was going to be amazing.

Joseph Bishop:  I remember that.

Interviewer:  I wasn’t amazing. I was nothing. I was no one. I was just a missionary. I was just like all the other kids, well 21 year o ld, 19 year o ld, trying to serve the Lord. And you took that away from me. And then you tried to rape me.

Joseph Bishop:  That part I don’t remember.

Interviewer:  Oh how convenient. I need, I need closure.

Joseph Bishop:  I’m not trying to be convenient. I’m trying to be honest.

Interviewer:  Okay Joe, I need, I need closure. Because I have options. I just want this to be over between you and me.

Joseph Bishop:  I’m, I appreciate that. I do.

Interviewer:  So did you, when you talked to Brother Wells and you repented, did you talk about this?

Joseph Bishop:  Yes.

Interviewer:  You talked about what you did with me and other women?

Joseph Bishop:  Yes.

Interviewer:  How many other women are there?

Joseph Bishop:  It’s not that there’s so many other women, it’s just the two that were there, I remember one when I was in the Bishopric.

Interviewer:  Oh yeah.

Joseph Bishop:  Yeah.

Interviewer:  That was so long before you were at the mission, a mission president.

 

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by ALarson

[Avatar4321]

12 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

When do you perceive that something becomes binding on the members of the Church?

Be there when they approve it by the law of common consent or when the holy spirit testifies to them individually that The principal in question is true and they need to live it The principal in question is true and they need to live it .

[Calm]

At the point she asks if he confessed to Wells, Bishop has not been specific about when the confession took place:

Quote

Bishop: I confessed all of my sins to Elder Wells when I was in the mission. But anyway, let me apologize. 

This was the first comment and it didn't identify which mission he was talking about.  She could have been confused on timing by comments like these:

Quote

So you were mission president for the MTC in 83-86.
Bishop:  Probably, yeah.
Luckily. And after that you were at the old church for ten years.

Bishop:  Uh-huh.
So ...
Bishop:  Then after that I got a call from Bob Wells. Elder Wells.

Later on, when there has been enough info given by Bishop, she corrects him when he tries to include any action with her in his confession which has been pinned down to Argentina while dealing with the girl possessed with evil spirits which evil spirits then possessed him.

It is an understandable mistake when he is jumping around in the beginning.  She doesn't make it again.

From Wikipedia:

Quote

The LDS Church assigned Bishop to serve as president[7] of the Argentina Buenos Aires North Mission from 1978 to 1981.[8][9] Bishop later served as president of the LDS Church's main site for training its missionaries, the Missionary Training Center (MTC) in Provo, Utah, 1983–1986.[10][9] After 1986, Bishop was executive director of the BYU–Public School Partnership, where he coordinated the interface between five school districts and BYU's college of education.[5] After his retirement, Bishop and his wife, Carolyn, served as the LDS Church's area welfare agents for Central America, headquartered in Guatemala, 1994–1996.[2][11]

Bishop calls the welfare agent calling a mission. 

Quote

Denson:  you served two mission presidencies, so [crosstalk 00:01:34]

Bishop:  Three.

Oh, three!

Bishop:  well, one was acting president.

Okay. Perfect, we'll get to that. So, for me, I thought you were like a two in one, but now you're a three in one, which is even better.

Bishop:  Let's say two and a half.

Two and a half, two and a half, okay. 

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by Calm

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

So what are the key differentiators?

That’s like trying to explain h

The difference between bitter and sweet to someone who refuses to eat 

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

What do you think about Spencer's point about Denson's anachronism with her main charge (that Bishop confessed in 1978 to Wells about his rape of Denson in 1984)? I think that deals a severe blow to her claim, and really damages her credibility. What he does or does not confess to in the transcript is pretty much a mirror of the person discussing it. Especially when they keep pointing to Weber St. as supporting evidence to build the case that he had a rape problem.  

Perhaps it will damage her credibility with some but given the truth about the secret room and at least another victim coming forward, I don't think Denson is inventing the story.  I think she may be fuzzy on the actual penetration part because I think she originally said that Bishop attempted penetration but couldn't and now it seems like she is saying he did penetrate her.  Even so, the law doesn't require much to be considered rape and maybe that is where she was confused.  Regardless, I think there was at least a sexual assault that occurred and Bishop's story to the police that Denson showed Bishop her breasts without any coaxing on his part is hard to believe to say the least.

[Marginal Gains]

12 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

When do you perceive that something becomes binding on the members of the Church?

 

12 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Be there when they approve it by the law of common consent or when the holy spirit testifies to them individually that The principal in question is true and they need to live it The principal in question is true and they need to live it .

So if it’s not formally approved by common consent and the spirit doesn’t testify, it’s not binding? 

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

1) It was dark.

2) People wore clothing that covered the head.

3) That everyone knew him by sight is an assumption.

4) It was dark.

They couldn't wait until light?  A man who supposedly raised people from the dead, walked on water, healed lepers, send people out to proclaim his teachings to the masses, feed 5,000 and 4,000, etc., yet was anonymous or not that well known is hard to believe.

[Avatar4321]

On 4/11/2018 at 11:39 AM, Exiled said:

And there is no way to prove this.  One needs to be taught or led to believe that whatever they experience was the Holy Ghost because it is so close to simple human emotion.  As such, it is highly susceptible to being a tool of manipulation to get people to follow the David Koresh's of the world.

 Actually there’s an easy way to prove it. Get the Holy Ghost. He’s very good at explaining himself . You experiment on the word. You do what you need to do to qualify or the blessing and wait on the Lord to do the rest

[Marginal Gains]

On 11/04/2018 at 5:39 PM, Exiled said:

And there is no way to prove this.  One needs to be taught or led to believe that whatever they experience was the Holy Ghost because it is so close to simple human emotion.  As such, it is highly susceptible to being a tool of manipulation to get people to follow the David Koresh's of the world.

 

1 minute ago, Avatar4321 said:

 Actually there’s an easy way to prove it. Get the Holy Ghost. He’s very good at explaining himself . You experiment on the word. You do what you need to do to qualify or the blessing and wait on the Lord to do the rest

Yep, he’s explained himself very well to the followers of the FLDS, the followers of David Koresh, the followers of...etc etc etc

[Calm]

Quote

Bishop:  I'd confessed.
Oh.
Bishop:  That t ime.

You confessed about me?
Bishop:  I don't know about I confessed all of my sins to Elder Wells when I was in themission. But anyway, let me apologize. 

Page 26

Quote

You were never called into a church council, church court, even after you confessed to Elder Wells, there was never a fellowship, nothing?

No Ihadn't confessed all those things before Elder Wells, but wanted to redo it. I struggled to make sure that everything was taken care of. 

Page 37

Quote

Bishop: ... she contacted... she did what you did, appropriately so. She made an attempt to find out. I did [inaudible 01:10:22] her. Anyway. I had a conversation with an authority called me --

Who?

Somebody in the church, I don't remember their name. [Calm:  I am thinking this may refer to 2010]

 Okay. It was a long time ago.

Bishop:Yeah. Years and years ago. And she had made the same thing you had done. I confessed. She had her problems, too. Poor [Green] But. Mine was the big problem.

Page 40

page 41

Quote

When I was a young missionary, in Argentina, [inaudible 01:15:08], there was a lady. I went to the mission president, halfway confessed, didn't tell him all that happened, so you can't blame him for not [inaudible 01:15:30]. There was nothing .. when I was in Florida, there was this lady I just told you about. 

Quote

Bishop:  When I confessed to Elder Wells in the mission field, do you know why that happened?

Uh-uh (negative).
Bishop:  We had been doing so well, the baptisms. We went from 70 a month to double That, to double that, to double that.
This is when you worked missionary [inaudible 02:31:44].

Bishop:  Mission President.

Page 70

These are all the uses of "confess" for Bishop.  As you can see, he jumps all over, and confuses the timing, but in the last one that has been quoted by ALarson iirc more fully, this is when he is specific about it and when she corrects him iirc.  Thus you can see how it progresses and why she made an error in the beginning when she had less info, but didn't later on when she had more.  Demanding she be precise before she knew the whole story is unreasonable and it is not an anachronism.

please point out any error as I have to run and don't have time to triplecheck.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

They couldn't wait until light?  A man who supposedly raised people from the dead, walked on water, healed lepers, send people out to proclaim his teachings to the masses, feed 5,000 and 4,000, etc., yet was anonymous or not that well known is hard to believe.

Waiting until light meant waiting until crowds were around, crowds that supported him.

Did the Roman guards walk around the town getting in on the raising the dead and other events?  Unlikely.  His name may have been well know, but how would they have known what he looked like?  Even if they used sketch artists back then, there is no reason to assume he would be that distinguishable from all the others around him given there was supposed to be nothing unusual about him.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Calm

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Waiting until light meant waiting until crowds were around, crowds that supported him.

Did the guards walk around the town getting in on the raising the dead and other events.  His name may have been well know, but how would they have known what he looked like?  Even if they used sketch artists back then, there is no reason to assume he would be distinguishable from all the others around him given there was supposed to be nothing unusual about him.

Serious questions (I don't know the answers). I live in a town of 50,000, and am curious how the setting would compare to that.

What was the population of Jerusalem at that time?

What about greater Judea?

How much would the number of people in Jerusalem have swelled during Passover?

I'm wondering about assumptions that everyone would have known Jesus and known of his miracles. 

[Exiled]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Waiting until light meant waiting until crowds were around, crowds that supported him.

Yet they publicly executed him, in front of crowds that supposedly supported him.  Rome didn't want insurrections and publicly arresting and then publicly executing the revolutionary would seem to be what Rome would have done. Punishing publicly, those the state thinks are criminals, is a way to dissuade other potential revolutionaries and governments do this all the time.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Yet they publicly executed him, in front of crowds that supposedly supported him.  Rome didn't want insurrections and publicly arresting and then publicly executing the revolutionary would seem to be what Rome would have done. Punishing publicly, those the state thinks are criminals, is a way to dissuade other potential revolutionaries and governments do this all the time.

The execution area looked like it was stocked with the followers of his enemies, easily swayed.  Likely was more defensible with greater number of soldiers than there would have been wandering around town, maybe through market places, where it would be easy to scatter in the crowd while he was separated from the crowd and restrained once arrested.  There is likely a different sort of crowd that shows up for a Roman public execution and those who hang out to see Jewish miracles.  His friends were too afraid to show up according to the scriptures, afraid they would be taken too.

There is a huge difference in my opinion between trying to catch someone in a crowd that might or might not turn against you and walking an already captured and restrained man through a crown under guard.  The mentality of the crowd in the first is much more unpredictable than in the second.  One is much more likely to come off as strong and in control in the second, in the first running after multiple suspects at once, more likely to come off as incompetent unless an arrest is made almost instantly.

Avoid all the guessing and waste of time grabbing the guy at night, one ensures he is there when needed for the public ceremony.  If it had taken too long to catch him, they might have missed it iirc the sequences.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

Serious questions (I don't know the answers). I live in a town of 50,000, and am curious how the setting would compare to that.

What was the population of Jerusalem at that time?

What about greater Judea?

How much would the number of people in Jerusalem have swelled during Passover?

I'm wondering about assumptions that everyone would have known Jesus and known of his miracles. 

Knowing about him and recognizing him enough to pick him out of a crowd are different things too.

[ksfisher]

34 minutes ago, Exiled said:

They couldn't wait until light?  A man who supposedly raised people from the dead, walked on water, healed lepers, send people out to proclaim his teachings to the masses, feed 5,000 and 4,000, etc., yet was anonymous or not that well known is hard to believe.

Christ, as you say, was a popular figure.  Perhaps they were afraid of the possibility of an uprising or riot (or at least some sort of disturbance) if He was seen being arrested. 

As was mentioned by Calm, Christ's public appearances took place in locations which the authorities could control. 

Also, the crowds were looking for a deliverer from Roman rule.  After it became apparent that He wasn't going to do that, and he appeared weaker than His Roman captures, the crowd seems to have turned against Him.