Elder Holland and Double Digit Stake Creation Weekly

[SouthernMo]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

Joseph Smith was uneducated, but he did pretty well with restoring truth.

I agree. Appealing to the degrees one has received to establish the validity of a position is pretty weak - no matter the side of the argument.

If all Mormons looked to one’s academic credentials for validation of the message, not many would have followed Joseph Smith. But - he had ideas. We follow ideas on their individual merits.

[bdouglas]

24 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Since it's your idea, you should do it.

By the way, why did you leave out BS and BA? Are those people not educated enough for you?

Also, if an argument is valid, it doesn't matter what letters are attached to the author's name.

Who are the leading lights on the ex-Mormon side and what are their educational credentials? If I am going to look into history, in this case Mormon history, wouldn't it be better to read an actual practicing historian? Are the leading lights on mormon discussions or any other ex-Mormon blog or site qualified to evaluate history? What are their credentials?

I had a conversation with an ex-Mormon the other day, a former missionary companion. He went to college, got an Associate Degree, and then dropped out when he married. He has a plumbing company and has done very well for himself. But when I suggested, after talking about Joseph Smith's polygamy, that he wasn't qualified to evaluate history, he was offended.

"I read," he said. "I spend hours every day reading on the internet."

"But are you reading history," I said, "or polemic?"

He didn't know what I was talking about. I explained to him the difference, but still, I doubt he will ever read RSR or any other actual historical treatment of JS polygamy.

My point is, there is a ton of polemic on the ex-Mormon side, but very little history, linguistic analysis of the BOM, Egyptologists looking at the BOA, and so on and so on. Now there is a ton of polemic on the believing Mormon side also, but there is also a lot (and more every month) of actual historical treatment, archaeology, linguistics, etc., all done by qualified experts. But there is very little of this on the ex-Mormon side. It is virtually all polemic, 90% or more of which comes from people like Jeremy Runnells (I use him merely as a typical example).

Edited June 9, 2018 by bdouglas

[JulieM]

30 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Nothing. It's mostly just a promise we make that we will not talk about the sacred details of the endowment ceremony outside the temple.  

There were penalties for sure when Romney took out his endowment.  That was the question.  He couldn’t have completed his endowment without agreeing to those penalties.  That’s the true and honest answer.

Edited June 9, 2018 by JulieM

[stemelbow]

41 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Nothing. It's mostly just a promise we make that we will not talk about the sacred details of the endowment ceremony outside the temple.  
I suppose those who do talk about it will have to answer to God later on. 

It’s been a while but I recall walking away feels ng like there was some sort of threat...maybe implicitly as you describe I guess

[bdouglas]

38 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Joseph Smith was uneducated, but he did pretty well with restoring truth.

I agree. Appealing to the degrees one has received to establish the validity of a position is pretty weak - no matter the side of the argument.

If all Mormons looked to one’s academic credentials for validation of the message, not many would have followed Joseph Smith. But - he had ideas. We follow ideas on their individual merits.

I can think of lots of people with college degrees who I'd consider uneducated. But an education, formal or informal, helps when evaluating history and truth claims. I find most ex-Mormons, those who I am acquainted with, to be (1) blind to nuance, and (2) literalistic in their thinking.

An example of this is the way they respond to the four first person accounts of the First Vision.

"Ah-hah! Joseph Smith gave four different accounts of the First Vision, therefore he is lying."

This is an example of un-nuanced and literalitistic thinking, the kind of thing an education, formal or informal, can help with. Someone with an education says:

"Wait a minute. Just the opposite would be true: four first person accounts of the same event with not even a suggestion of variance would suggest a made up story. The person, the teller of the story, has gone through and eliminated all discrepancies. But someone who is telling the truth doesn't do that."

Bottom line ... if I want to read history, I am going to choose a historian over a non-historian. If I want to read a critical piece on the the BOA, I am going to read an author who has a background in Egyptology. And so on and so on.

I am not talking about prophets, someone like Joseph Smith (or even our modern prophets). I am talking about truth claim analysis.

Edited June 9, 2018 by bdouglas

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It’s been a while but I recall walking away feels ng like there was some sort of threat...maybe implicitly as you describe I guess

No, there were death penalties back when Mitt Romney took out his endowment.  Why not just either acknowledge that was done or say it’s not discussed outside the temple?

[SouthernMo]

8 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

Bottom line ... if I want to read history, I am going to choose a historian over a non-historian. If I want to read a critical piece on the the BOA, I am going to read an author who has a background in Egyptology. And so on and so on.

I think that when one shows (through formal education) that one has studied an issue seriously, we need to give him/her the benefit of the doubt at times. Certainly, expertise has its place.

But, it should not be the main crux of an argument.

If I ask a question of my PhD professor, and ask him to give me proof, and he responds: “Trust me, I have a PhD” I am unimpressed, and unsatisfied. His education should allow him to show me how he knows something is true.

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

No, there were death penalties back when Mitt Romney took out his endowment.  Why not just either acknowledge that was done or say it’s not discussed outside the temple?

OK your'e right. I think Holland was a bit surprised by the question and in his eagerness to answer all questions, he started to answer it but then he might have realized that he really should not have even answered any questions that concerned details about the temple. I think if he had it to do over again he would have said something different or nothing.  I make similar mistakes like that a  lot, but it's not being recorded for all the world to see. 

[bdouglas]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

I find that as a group of friends, such as I have, push each other to grow and to develop and welcome and honor each others truth, that I have benefited by continued learning and appreciation for new spiritual practices that have served me better than Mormonism.  

Then why spend such an inordinate amount of time bashing the faith of your former Mormon brothers and sisters? How much time do you spend every week on your podcasts and your ex-Mormon website? Wouldn't this time be better spent exploring your new religious faith? (And agnosticism/atheism is a religious faith.)

You have left Mormonism ("Good riddance!" you say), why not now leave it alone?

It would seem to me your new religion is not so much agnosticism but ex-Mormonism. And what do ex-Mormons do? They devote their lives to destroying Mormonism, never shining on themselves that bright searching light they turn on their former faith.

If they did turn this searching light on themselves and their new beliefs, assumptions, etc., what would they see?

Edited June 9, 2018 by bdouglas

[juliann]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I actually think quite highly of the Tanners and feel your thoughts on them are unfair.  I don't agree with all their conclusions, but I found them to be of high integrity and honesty in their treatment of most topics and how they've even stuck up for the church in the past.  

What "silly assumptions and shallow thinking" are you speaking of?

I think mean spirited and petty sums it up. She sued FAIR for a bogus claim that the VP's personal website copied hers and diverted buyers to the FAIR website. (I think we had maybe 3 books in common.) The offending parody website was in black and orange Halloween colors. So they brought in a visual that was black and white thinking they could slide by with that. 

 It was basically thrown out in state court. She then took it to the 10th Circuit where they used it to close up a hole that other circuits had already filled. On the side of FAIR. The latest Supreme Court judge was on that panel. Sandra Tanner's name is now forever enshrined on a losing lawsuit that will be used as caselaw for the forseeable future. 

 

[JAHS]

38 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It’s been a while but I recall walking away feels ng like there was some sort of threat...maybe implicitly as you describe I guess

To me I'm not sure it was even implicitly meant. It was just a strong way to emphasize the seriousness of the promises made. I don't know of anyone who actually thought they would ever have to give up their life if they were being forced to reveal something.  

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, bdouglas said:

Who are the leading lights on the ex-Mormon side and what are their educational credentials? If I am going to look into history, in this case Mormon history, wouldn't it be better to read an actual practicing historian? Are the leading lights on mormon discussions or any other ex-Mormon blog or site qualified to evaluate history? What are their credentials?

I had a conversation with an ex-Mormon the other day, a former missionary companion. He went to college, got an Associate Degree, and then dropped out when he married. He has a plumbing company and has done very well for himself. But when I suggested, after talking about Joseph Smith's polygamy, that he wasn't qualified to evaluate history, he was offended.

"I read," he said. "I spend hours every day reading on the internet."

"But are you reading history," I said, "or polemic?"

He didn't know what I was talking about. I explained to him the difference, but still, I doubt he will ever read RSR or any other actual historical treatment of JS polygamy.

My point is, there is a ton of polemic on the ex-Mormon side, but very little history, linguistic analysis of the BOM, Egyptologists looking at the BOA, and so on and so on. Now there is a ton of polemic on the believing Mormon side also, but there is also a lot (and more every month) of actual historical treatment, archaeology, linguistics, etc., all done by qualified experts. But there is very little of this on the ex-Mormon side. It is virtually all polemic, 90% or more of which comes from people like Jeremy Runnells (I use him merely as a typical example).

I guess this means you're not going to do the experiment. Instead you'll point to a couple of anecdotal examples and still (absent the experiment) give a range (90% or more) as if you had done the experiment.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, DBMormon said:

maybe because a faithful answer that is also logical and reasonable doesn't exist?

For instance someone recently sent FairMormon the same question I posed.  FairMormon's response was funny as the sender mentioned having read the issue on my facebook page and so FairMormon proceeded to attack me in their response and claim that such was enough to dismiss the question and they offered no answer for how to reconcile Holland's imposition.  Which If I am not mistaken is the very thing FairMormon assures people it doesn't do (Adhominem and dismissing questions).  My question would be why can't we just acknowledge Holland likely exaggerated and we validate that such is not exactly honest and that we as members do not have to have such sit well with us.  And that we will not attack those who raise valid concerns.  

Sadly this seems to be the one thing defenders can never grant..... but I can see why

You apparently didn't read the actual responses.  It is appropriate to deal with the credibility of a source when someone (the questioner, you perhaps?) is using that source as their 'documentation'.  Pointing out your site has a hostile bias is not an ad hom when explaining accusations of lying (meaning an intentional deception) are an extreme interpretation.

You make it sound like a passing comment referring to a source was pages of bile.

The question was not dismissed in either response I saw.

Edited June 9, 2018 by Calm

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, bdouglas said:

I can think of lots of people with college degrees who I'd consider uneducated. But an education, formal or informal, helps when evaluating history and truth claims. I find most ex-Mormons, those who I am acquainted with, to be (1) blind to nuance, and (2) literalistic in their thinking.

An example of this is the way they respond to the four first person accounts of the First Vision.

"Ah-hah! Joseph Smith gave four different accounts of the First Vision, therefore he is lying."

This is an example of un-nuanced and literalitistic thinking, the kind of thing an education, formal or informal, can help with. Someone with an education says:

"Wait a minute. Just the opposite would be true: four first person accounts of the same event with not even a suggestion of variance would suggest a made up story. The person, the teller of the story, has gone through and eliminated all discrepancies. But someone who is telling the truth doesn't do that."

Bottom line ... if I want to read history, I am going to choose a historian over a non-historian. If I want to read a critical piece on the the BOA, I am going to read an author who has a background in Egyptology. And so on and so on.

I am not talking about prophets, someone like Joseph Smith (or even our modern prophets). I am talking about truth claim analysis.

I say give analysis a try. You might find that one doesn't need a PhD to do it. Anyone can evaluate mormon truth claims. I think it's just that a lot of people come to a different conclusion than you would like, so you put this artificial requirement to have an expert answer the questioners questions.

So, do you think doubt over the book of abraham, book of mormon, priesthood ban, d&c, polygamy, etc., etc. is somehow illegitimate if a PhD doesn't agree with the doubt? Be careful what you ask for. I think an overwhelming majority would side with Dr. Coe (PhD from Yale) regarding the lack of archaeological evidence for the book of mormon. If one were to give all the evidence we have to a group of 100 non-mormon PhD's, I think 100/100 would still remain unconvinced and non-mormon. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bdouglas said:

Then why spend such an inordinate amount of time bashing the faith of your former Mormon brothers and sisters? How much time do you spend every week on your podcasts and your ex-Mormon website? Wouldn't this time be better spent exploring your new religious faith? (And agnosticism/atheism is a religious faith.)

You have left Mormonism ("Good riddance!" you say), why not now leave it alone?

It would seem to me your new religion is not so much agnosticism but ex-Mormonism. And what do ex-Mormons do? They devote their lives to destroying Mormonism, never shining on themselves that bright searching light they turn on their former faith.

If they did turn this searching light on themselves and their new beliefs, assumptions, etc., what would they see?

Wait, when did Bill Reel leave Mormonism?

 

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Wait, when did Bill Reel leave Mormonism?

 

Bill wants you to pay him $1000 to become a "titanium supporter" of his podcast and he'll tell you🤑

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Bill wants you to pay him $1000 to become a "titanium supporter" of his podcast and he'll tell you🤑

🤣😂

[bdouglas]

35 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Be careful what you ask for. I think an overwhelming majority would side with Dr. Coe (PhD from Yale) regarding the lack of archaeological evidence for the book of mormon.

Dr. Coe is an atheist. To him, the BOM is absurd from the git-go, it's a non-starter. It's like asking him to evaluate the truth of the resurrection.

P.S. - I have read a little of Coe's work. I have also read, or am reading, John Sorenson's "Mormon's Codex". I have also read Sorenson's essay "An Open Letter Dr. Coe".

 

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, drums12 said:

Geez Bill...we get it.  You have made a cottage industry of making church leaders offenders for a word.   I've got plenty of things that bother me about the Church, its history as well as current practices.  But seriously, it seems like you sit around data mining everything LDS related to find something you can get mileage out of.  

[mfbukowski]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Wait, when did Bill Reel leave Mormonism?

 

We should care?

[bdouglas]

31 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Bill wants you to pay him $1000 to become a "titanium supporter" of his podcast and he'll tell you🤑

Bill Reel is on his way to becoming a full-time paid ex-Mormon, like Jeremy Runnells. Jeremy R. and Bill R. strike me as being very similar, like two peas in a pod.

P.S. - I said ex-Mormonism is like a religion, and it is. They fellowship one another. They get together in meetings. They buck up each other up, strengthen the faith. And most importantly, they have their own set of leading lights. They don't, of course call these leading lights apostles and prophets, but they function similarly. Jeremy R. is one of these leading lights, and Bill R. is making a bid to become another.

The downside is (or one downside), it's a negative pursuit. Imagine spending your life bashing other people's faith——and getting paid to do it.

Edited June 9, 2018 by bdouglas

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We should care?

Yes. Do you?

[mfbukowski]

On 6/8/2018 at 2:18 PM, DBMormon said:

4.) Elder Holland when asked directly whether Mitt Romney would have made penalty oaths in the temple answers NO.  Problem, such is a flat untruth.  When called on it he stammers and stutters in an effort to regain balance in the conversation.  
RESOURCES:
- Youtube Clip showing the lie
- https://www.cityweekly.net/BuzzBlog/archives/2012/06/05/bbc-interview-with-lds-leader-earns-controversy
- https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/7c2tuq/did_holland_lie_semantic_analysis_of_jeffrey_r/
- Jonathon Streeter's dissection of this event
 

Flat out lies.

No Mormon before 1990 ever said anything about slitting their throats

I know- I was endowed in 1980.

There were penalties and gestures, no words and if that is what one INFERRED to be the MEANING of the GESTURE that is up to their interpretation

All the questioner ask is if Romney said those words.  The correct answer is "no" in keeping with the sacred character of temple ordinances and no wanting to go further in the discussion

I never made that interpretation of the gesture(s) and saw them in different ways- of course I will not discuss further.

All the questions asked are of the character of "when did you stop beating your wife" and are precisely constructed semantic traps.

This is the quote:

Quote

He would have sworn an oath to say that he would not pass on what happens in the Temple lest he slit his throat. Is that true?

The correct answer is "No, he did not say that"

It is asked again later in a slightly different way- again asking if he "said" that.  No, he did not say that.

Edited June 9, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

(I think we had maybe 3 books in common.) 

 

Iirc, they were Church Distribution books.

Edited June 9, 2018 by Calm

[california boy]

2 hours ago, bdouglas said:

I can think of lots of people with college degrees who I'd consider uneducated. But an education, formal or informal, helps when evaluating history and truth claims. I find most ex-Mormons, those who I am acquainted with, to be (1) blind to nuance, and (2) literalistic in their thinking.

An example of this is the way they respond to the four first person accounts of the First Vision.

"Ah-hah! Joseph Smith gave four different accounts of the First Vision, therefore he is lying."

This is an example of un-nuanced and literalitistic thinking, the kind of thing an education, formal or informal, can help with. Someone with an education says:

"Wait a minute. Just the opposite would be true: four first person accounts of the same event with not even a suggestion of variance would suggest a made up story. The person, the teller of the story, has gone through and eliminated all discrepancies. But someone who is telling the truth doesn't do that."

Bottom line ... if I want to read history, I am going to choose a historian over a non-historian. If I want to read a critical piece on the the BOA, I am going to read an author who has a background in Egyptology. And so on and so on.

I am not talking about prophets, someone like Joseph Smith (or even our modern prophets). I am talking about truth claim analysis.

Is the flip side also true?  You aren't qualified to determine the truthfulness of the claims of Mormonism unless you are educated and have a PHD?