mfbukowski Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, USU78 said: What methodology could possibly have any utility in addressing that there question? Yep that's the point - exactly none in principle. The very question is contradictory in seeking objective evidence for the subjective. It's like asking you to remember my mother as I do or other childhood memories Strange question indeed. Edited July 25, 2018 by mfbukowski 2
mfbukowski Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) 27 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: This is a very good point, and we always need to make sure we know what questions we are asking, and what to expect of the individuals or organization we are asking. However, if I could further your analogy to express a frustration of mine: History shows that the leaders of the church in the past have sometimes been wrong, or lied. When these men claim to be the mouthpiece of God, they are telling us about a existence destination and giving us a roadmap of how to get there. Why should we trust an organization that has lied or been wrong in the past about the directions or existence of a destination unseen by the human eye? The popular response to these challenges of faith (when we feel we’re lost) is to have faith, and just keep driving. That doesn’t sound rational...? If you were lost, would you stop and reassess, or keep driving in the same direction with faith and hope and persistence? I have no clue why you would take anybody's word for what the afterlife is like unless you have verified it by your own testimony. You might was well go to a fortune teller to tell you your future and actually believe it. I am always amazed at these questions. It's like asking a medicine man what the temperature will be tomorrow. Humans teach a theory. In science you verify it by objective experimental evidence In religion it is verified by feelings in your heart that give you joy and give you purpose in life, just like Alma says. You think the theory makes some sense- it "could" work after all, you think- in both disciplines In science you test it objectively In religion, you pray to ask God if that is the belief he wants you to adopt. You get a sense of peace- it feels good to you, and it feels sweet. (Alma 32 all the way) You live your life believing that for awhile. Does the belief grow in your heart? Do you see other aspects of the theory coming together in your life? Does it enrich your life? Then it is "true" for you That is both philosophy AND the church's teaching. Truth is what works for the purpose intended. The purpose of religion is to give joy and purpose in your life- it is not about engineering and how to build bridges! How could this be so totally misunderstood???? Does anyone actually read the scriptures? Edited July 25, 2018 by mfbukowski 4
Popular Post Duncan Posted July 25, 2018 Popular Post Posted July 25, 2018 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: I have no clue why you would take anybody's word for what the afterlife is like unless you have verified it by your own testimony. You might was well go to a fortune teller to tell you your future and actually believe it. I am always amazed at these questions. It's like asking a medicine man what the temperature will be tomorrow. They teach a theory You think the theory makes some sense- it "could" work after all, you think Then you pray to ask God if that is the belief he wants you to adopt. You get a sense of peace- it feels good to you, and it feels sweet. (Alma 32 all the way) You live your life believing that for awhile. Does the belief grow in your heart? Do you see other aspects of the theory coming together in your life? Does it enrich your life? Then it is "true" for you That is both philosophy AND the church's teaching. Truth is what works for the purpose intended. The purpose of religion is to give joy and purpose in your life- it is not about engineering and how to build bridges! How could this be so totally misunderstood???? Does anyone actually read the scriptures? I completely agree. My mom has a library degree and so does my bro, but what was a degree in the 1960's for my Mom is now a Master's program-for my brother. Yet, both were qualified at the time to do their jobs. Now, almost everything that my Mom learned over 50 years ago is overturned yet my Mom would never say they lied to her and kept her from the truth about library stuff. It's all line upon line, in and out of the Church. I don't buy these claims the Church lied, as if the teachers knew the truth and withheld it. If the Church is lying who told the teachers/leaders, a) to lie, b) what secret documents are out there that has the "real" history and where do these teachers and leaders go to find it out? Did the pioneers to Utah actually come via airplane? and we are all being lied to they walked, wagon, handcart etc.? gimme a break ! 6
mfbukowski Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) Regarding Santa Claus- it is precisely the same thing!! If one looks at Santa in terms of the "spirit of giving" there IS a Santa Claus! The entire question AND answer is precisely the same- one must think symbolically about symbols and parables One does not refuse to accept the Prodigal Son because we do not have his address or name- we learn the LESSON behind the parable just as we should learn the lesson behind other parables- as Santa Claus http://www.newseum.org/exhibits/online/yes-virginia/ Quote DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus. Papa says, ‘If you see it in THE SUN it’s so.’ Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus? VIRGINIA O’HANLON. 115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET. VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge. Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished. Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world. You may tear apart the baby’s rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding. No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood. "ONLY a parable"?? Do you want to learn spiritual principles or are you looking for reindeer propulsion of airplanes? You don't learn anything spiritually by looking at reindeer propulsion and disregarding the principles to be learned from Santa "All" there is to Santa is spiritual. If you thought reindeer propulsion actually worked, you missed the point. Put off childish things and take responsibility for your beliefs ! Edited July 25, 2018 by mfbukowski 3
cinepro Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Jane_Doe said: I don't like that Santa Claus analogy at all. It's really horrible. Here's my parallel: I teach biology on a number of levels (pre-K through graduate). I am quite honest with my students: what I am telling you right now is a simplification of how the real world works. What your 3rd grade teacher told you and showed you on "The Magic School Bus" was great understanding for 10 year olds-- I watch "The Magic School Bus" with my own daughter. But for this college class we're ditching the 90's cartoon simplifications and I'm going to tell you a much more complicated story that doesn't alway match up with Ms. Frizzle's telling for 10 year olds. And if you go on to Graduate School, you'll find all the find all exceptions to the simplified version "rules" I'm going to tell you in here-- I'm still learning those complexities myself. Unfortunately, the college-level courses for LDS adults are either mired at the 4-year-old level, or way off the tracks into the graduate-level study of flying reindeer. Edited July 25, 2018 by cinepro 2
USU78 Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 3 minutes ago, cinepro said: Unfortunately, the college-level courses for LDS adults are either mired at the 4-year-old level, or way off the tracks into the graduate-level study of flying reindeer. Not that there's anything wrong with a good sneer. 2
mfbukowski Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, cinepro said: Unfortunately, the college-level courses for LDS adults are either mired at the 4-year-old level, or way off the tracks into the graduate-level study of flying reindeer. The irony is that IF one takes the scriptures literally, that is what works for you and that paradigm is no better or worse than some high-falutin' argument from Hermeneutics. It is just as wrong imo to condemn literalism in religion as it is to condemn the most symbolic, non- literal mythological view In religion is about picking the paradigm that works for you individually When we get into trouble is when we mix our metaphors /paradigms as you see here constantly- looking to weigh God or use evolution against the gospel The truth is in Alma 32- study it out and find what grows in your heart and produces fruit. If it is a literal Adam that is no better or worse than thinking the Fall is our personal fall from innocence. Both of these views think what they think is "correct" and that they have the "true" view. Of course there is no way of proving or falsifying either view. What is truth? Follow Alma and section 97. Truth exists in "spheres"- the trick is applying the words in the right "sphere". The spiritual sphere is not the scientific sphere- that is where confusing the two leads to problems. 1
mfbukowski Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 10 minutes ago, USU78 said: Not that there's anything wrong with a good sneer. Dang it - there you go again getting it exactly right in about 5 words before I can even get my 300 word rambling story out. Dang ya anyhow! 😣 1
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted July 25, 2018 Popular Post Posted July 25, 2018 12 hours ago, hope_for_things said: .............................. Towards the end of the video (19 min mark) he makes an analogy to finding out that story of Santa Clause he learned as a young child wasn't real. He explains that he learned many things about the history of Santa Clause that differed from the simple story told to children. The point of this was to say that just because he learned that story wasn't true, doesn't mean we should throw out Christmas. There is value in Christmas still even if those childhood stories about Santa Clause aren't true. If we apply this analogy to Mormon church history, what does it mean to learn that things aren't true, but that we shouldn't throw out the church? I think to some extent my personal beliefs track really closely to this. I don't believe in a theistic God anymore and I don't believe the BoM is historical, yet I still see value in the Mormon tradition and religious traditions in general. It seems like my orientation of not wanting to throw out all the good just because I learned the traditional narratives aren't true, would apply here. Thoughts? Steven Harper is an actual historian, as measured by secular standards. I have listened to him lecture on many occasions, and have read some of his work. He has a first class grasp of Mormon history -- again as measured by purely secular standards. The analogy with Xmas is a good one when considering real history, whether we want (1) to study the origin of the stories about Saint Nicholas, (2) merely talk about all the fun children have in opening presents while having a cool Yule, or (3) speaking about the actual birth stories of a particular dying-and-rising god at the Winter Solstice -- which has pagan and orthodox aspects to it. Once we accept that Xmas is really a fun pagan celebration (just like Easter), we can begin to demythologize it for adults. For example, the story of three wise men does not actually have three in the NT. We don't know the number of the magi. We only know the tale about the gifts they brought. Thus, most discussion about the NT is conducted at the infantile level, hardly anyone reading it in Greek or understanding the Jewish context. True historical concerns are only rarely brought to bear. Most Mormons and non-Mormons address the actual Bible with something like Cliff's Notes to help them understand. 12 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Also, towards the beginning of the interview he talks about after having some experiences that challenged his faith that his Dad shared his testimony of the BoM with him, and that even though he didn't have good answers to every question, how he relies on a testimony of the BoM. Later in the interview he makes a statement that no amount of history can prove the church is or isn't true. He seems to be saying that what matters most is not accurate history, but rather a person's orientation towards a very specific truth claim. So even if none of the LDS truth claims have historical evidence to support them, as long as you believe the BoM is "true" and the gospel is "true" then nothing else matters. Why? I don't understand. You don't understand the difference between faith and science. They are completely different categories of thought. One is mediated by the Holy Spirit, the other through forensic or logical evidence. Since hardly anyone is really qualified to address the actual secular issues of history, archeology, or theology of the Bible or Book of Mormon, nearly everyone depends upon mere unaided opinion in determining the truth or falsity of biblical or Book of Mormon claims. A personal testimony is not evidence that something is true, except to the person having that testimony. 12 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Can anyone else help me understand what he's trying to say. I'm on board with not throwing out all the good of religion and Mormonism when we find out that traditional narratives aren't accurate history. That makes complete sense to me. But I'm confused as to why this principle seems to be limited to only certain questions. Can't we also learn that the BoM isn't "true", through seeking greater knowledge? Why does he seem to limit this exploration when it comes down to the bare essentials, questions about the gospel (God) and questions about the foundational text of Mormonism. https://www.mormonchannel.org/watch/series/gospel-solutions-for-families/how-to-answer-questions-about-church-history The late UofU Professor Sterling McMurrin held the view that Mormon society or culture was a good thing, but he did not believe in the authenticity of the BofM or the Bible. Yet he remained a member of the LDS Church all his life. I think that you misinterpret Harper. He is not opposed to studying historical evidences, no matter where that study may lead. I find rather that it is precisely the anti-Mormons who are deeply fearful of studying secular history. After all, the conclusions might upset their settled and poorly informed opinions. Many of them want Mormonism to be false, no matter what. When that happens, there isn't much room for discussion. 6
Hamba Tuhan Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: We don't know the number of the magi. We only know the tale about the gifts they brought. Wait, are you telling me I've been lied to my entire life? That the nativity scene I bought a couple of years ago is part of the deception. That when I sing 'We Three Kings' every December, I'm just perpetuating a false historical narrative? Well, then, clearly there's no Jesus. I'm off to a pub. Or a brothel. Can't decide yet ... 4
SouthernMo Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 7 hours ago, Duncan said: I completely agree. My mom has a library degree and so does my bro, but what was a degree in the 1960's for my Mom is now a Master's program-for my brother. Yet, both were qualified at the time to do their jobs. Now, almost everything that my Mom learned over 50 years ago is overturned yet my Mom would never say they lied to her and kept her from the truth about library stuff. It's all line upon line, in and out of the Church. I don't buy these claims the Church lied, as if the teachers knew the truth and withheld it. If the Church is lying who told the teachers/leaders, a) to lie, b) what secret documents are out there that has the "real" history and where do these teachers and leaders go to find it out? Did the pioneers to Utah actually come via airplane? and we are all being lied to they walked, wagon, handcart etc.? gimme a break ! If you’re an honest seeker of truth, and want to know of an example of church leaders lying, I encourage you to study the modern history of polygamy. There are a NUMBER of well-cited histories written about this subject - both in the early years of the LDS church, and the lies that church leaders told between the first and second manifestos (and beyond). There are many, many documented instances of general authorities, including the first presidency lying. Too many to list in any thread on this site! You phrases your objection to this fact as “I don’t buy these claims.” I encourage you to educate yourself and read more church history. We cannot debate facts, but we can debate why certain leaders felt it necessary to lie, or if it was appropriate. But it you refuse to research the facts, then you are willingly ignorant, and will not see the truth. But, perhaps you are comfortable in the Garden of Eden. 1
SouthernMo Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 8 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I have no clue why you would take anybody's word for what the afterlife is like unless you have verified it by your own testimony. You might was well go to a fortune teller to tell you your future and actually believe it. I am always amazed at these questions. It's like asking a medicine man what the temperature will be tomorrow. Humans teach a theory. In science you verify it by objective experimental evidence In religion it is verified by feelings in your heart that give you joy and give you purpose in life, just like Alma says. You think the theory makes some sense- it "could" work after all, you think- in both disciplines In science you test it objectively In religion, you pray to ask God if that is the belief he wants you to adopt. You get a sense of peace- it feels good to you, and it feels sweet. (Alma 32 all the way) You live your life believing that for awhile. Does the belief grow in your heart? Do you see other aspects of the theory coming together in your life? Does it enrich your life? Then it is "true" for you That is both philosophy AND the church's teaching. Truth is what works for the purpose intended. The purpose of religion is to give joy and purpose in your life- it is not about engineering and how to build bridges! How could this be so totally misunderstood???? Does anyone actually read the scriptures? Love this response. Well thought out. Perhaps you can give me guidance on a current belief I have that some will undoubtedly disagree with. In D&C 89, we have the word of wisdom revealed. The words Joseph Smith received indicate that this revelation is not a commandment. However, subsequent church leaders turned this into a commandment and adherence a requirement for temple entry. I have put this commandment to the test (as Alma 32 teaches), and have discovered a few things: Reducing meat in my diet (to almost none) has made me feel incredible. The promises in verses 18-20 have been fulfilled in my life. Not sure about verse 21 (yet?). There is truth in that revelation! However, I have incorporated green tea in my diet (something indirectly forbidden in the revelation, and clearly forbidden by today’s leaders). For me, drinking green tea has given me more energy, helped my digestion, and I’ve gotten much more clear revelation. God is telling me that drinking Green tea is just fine. Do I follow my revelation, or heed Marion G. Romney’s counsel?: “I assure you, however, that the spirit of the Lord will never direct a person to take a position in opposition to the counsel of the Presidency of His Church. Such could not be…” (April 1942 conference report) Is there something to be said of ignoring my personal revelation because of faith in prophets, seers, and revelators? Or, would I be foolish for questioning the revelation God gave to me?
Kenngo1969 Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Interesting. Would you say that there is any way to accurately determine if Joseph Smith experienced a theophany from a factual and historical perspective? How, exactly, would one go about doing that? Hire a paranormal investigator to perform a spectral analysis of the spot where God and Christ reportedly stood? "Yep, something's been here, all right, and it's ... Not of this world!" Google Davis Bitton, "I Don't Have a Testimony of the History of the Church." Edited July 25, 2018 by Kenngo1969 2
Duncan Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, SouthernMo said: If you’re an honest seeker of truth, and want to know of an example of church leaders lying, I encourage you to study the modern history of polygamy. There are a NUMBER of well-cited histories written about this subject - both in the early years of the LDS church, and the lies that church leaders told between the first and second manifestos (and beyond). There are many, many documented instances of general authorities, including the first presidency lying. Too many to list in any thread on this site! You phrases your objection to this fact as “I don’t buy these claims.” I encourage you to educate yourself and read more church history. We cannot debate facts, but we can debate why certain leaders felt it necessary to lie, or if it was appropriate. But it you refuse to research the facts, then you are willingly ignorant, and will not see the truth. But, perhaps you are comfortable in the Garden of Eden. You don't know me so i'll by pass all this judgemental nonsense. Can you be a bit more specific about modern polygamy? what leaders, when, cite sources please. Show me they knew the truth and didn't say it. When my Mom graduated from the U of Toronto in 1964 with a degree in Library, would you accuse her professors of lying to her? That would be like having them knowing about the google and facebook back then and just not saying anything about it and deliberately withholding all that information from her, but when my brother went to library school in the late 1990's they had some classes about computer stuff and he had to take other training in it. I'm going to throw this out there but they didn't know about the google in 1964 and Mark Zuckerberg wasn't even born yet. I know a man who is about 97 ish and he was a lawyer for his career. The divorce laws in Canada changed in and around 1970. Prior to that to get a divorce you had to prove infidelity, which meant evidence and witnesses and a court case. It was really hard to get a divorce back then and expensive. He was saying how difficult it was to prove in court all that stuff, "lying witnesses and grainy photos". Then he had to learn after 1970 the new way of doing things. He graduated Law School prior to 1970 but would you accuse his Law Professors. of lying to him about the divorce laws and how to prove or disprove marital infidelity? I'm going to say they probably didn't know they would be changed in the coming years. Are you at all familiar with the principle of line upon line? You can't debate facts? A fact isn't what you think it is. A fact is something that is true or false. Nobody would say that Joseph Smith was born in 1935 in Lisbon, Portugal because he wasn't. I'll ask you a question, when did WW1 start? did it actually start in the summer of 1914? are you sure? Read the whole history about a Canadian figure named Louis Riel and the Metis and tell me you can't debate facts. I don't know if you are aware but history is more than names and dates Edited July 25, 2018 by Duncan 2
stemelbow Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 18 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I just watched this recent video interview with Steven Harper from the Mormon Channel. I like Dr. Harper overall, he seems like a nice guy and a good scholar. He makes multiple points about not negatively stigmatizing people with questions, listening to them with sincerity, and I loved those points. But I found other elements somewhat problematic and thought provoking and just wanted to share in case others may have questions/thoughts. Towards the end of the video (19 min mark) he makes an analogy to finding out that story of Santa Clause he learned as a young child wasn't real. He explains that he learned many things about the history of Santa Clause that differed from the simple story told to children. The point of this was to say that just because he learned that story wasn't true, doesn't mean we should throw out Christmas. There is value in Christmas still even if those childhood stories about Santa Clause aren't true. If we apply this analogy to Mormon church history, what does it mean to learn that things aren't true, but that we shouldn't throw out the church? I think to some extent my personal beliefs track really closely to this. I don't believe in a theistic God anymore and I don't believe the BoM is historical, yet I still see value in the Mormon tradition and religious traditions in general. It seems like my orientation of not wanting to throw out all the good just because I learned the traditional narratives aren't true, would apply here. Thoughts? Also, towards the beginning of the interview he talks about after having some experiences that challenged his faith that his Dad shared his testimony of the BoM with him, and that even though he didn't have good answers to every question, how he relies on a testimony of the BoM. Later in the interview he makes a statement that no amount of history can prove the church is or isn't true. He seems to be saying that what matters most is not accurate history, but rather a person's orientation towards a very specific truth claim. So even if none of the LDS truth claims have historical evidence to support them, as long as you believe the BoM is "true" and the gospel is "true" then nothing else matters. Why? I don't understand. Can anyone else help me understand what he's trying to say. I'm on board with not throwing out all the good of religion and Mormonism when we find out that traditional narratives aren't accurate history. That makes complete sense to me. But I'm confused as to why this principle seems to be limited to only certain questions. Can't we also learn that the BoM isn't "true", through seeking greater knowledge? Why does he seem to limit this exploration when it comes down to the bare essentials, questions about the gospel (God) and questions about the foundational text of Mormonism. https://www.mormonchannel.org/watch/series/gospel-solutions-for-families/how-to-answer-questions-about-church-history I think he's right in a sense. It doesn't matter if the Church is true or not. It matters if it works fro someone or not. If it doesn't work for someone why does it matter if Joseph had a dream of God and Jesus nearly 200 years ago? For one thing the religion has changed. Some might take offense to that, but I don't see why anyone would. It's changed. I'd wonder if Joseph would even recognize it today, without the name attachment and all that. For another thing what's true for one doesn't seem to true for another. So many people are much happier outside the Church then in it. That'll always be the case. The Church is conditional. I think the Church is making a mistake by treating life as either/or, black or white. I mean I'm sure it helps it keep a strong loyal following. But, it also prevents it from being inclusive. It's a great set up for people socially. But for those who can't fit, it's terribly painful, difficult and often brings anxiety and discomfort.
SouthernMo Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 36 minutes ago, Duncan said: You don't know me so i'll by pass all this judgemental nonsense. Can you be a bit more specific about modern polygamy? what leaders, when, cite sources please. Show me they knew the truth and didn't say it. When my Mom graduated from the U of Toronto in 1964 with a degree in Library, would you accuse her professors of lying to her? That would be like having them knowing about the google and facebook back then and just not saying anything about it and deliberately withholding all that information from her, but when my brother went to library school in the late 1990's they had some classes about computer stuff and he had to take other training in it. I'm going to throw this out there but they didn't know about the google in 1964 and Mark Zuckerberg wasn't even born yet. I know a man who is about 97 ish and he was a lawyer for his career. The divorce laws in Canada changed in and around 1970. Prior to that to get a divorce you had to prove infidelity, which meant evidence and witnesses and a court case. It was really hard to get a divorce back then and expensive. He was saying how difficult it was to prove in court all that stuff. Then he had to learn after 1970 the new way of doing things was to be done. He graduated Law School prior to 1970 but would you accuse his Law Professors. of lying to him about the divorce laws and how to prove or disprove marital infidelity? I'm going to say they probably didn't know they would be changed in the coming years. Are you at all familiar with the principle of line upon line? You can't debate facts? A fact isn't what you think it is. A fact is something that is true or false. Nobody would say that Joseph Smith was born in 1935 in Lisbon, Portugal because he wasn't. I'll ask you a question, when did WW1 start? did it actually start in the summer of 1914? are you sure? Read the whole history about a Canadian figure named Louis Riel and the Metis and tell me you can't debate facts. I don't know if you are aware but history is more than names and dates Hey Duncan - a couple of things: First: Its really up to you if you want to be educated or not, but you’ll learn much, much more by doing your own research, rather than relying on me or others to walk you through the fine details. I think it’s great that you want sources, and specific examples, but there isn’t a lot of room here, and discussion threads aren’t great formats for showing stories, context, and citing sources. But, this forum can be good for pointing you in the right direction to learn. So, maybe start here: https://mormonitemusings.com/tag/reed-smoot-hearings/ But, read D. Michael Quinn if you’re serious. Others, too, but he’s a good author who is meticulous in his sources. Second: I will happily discuss and debate with you. It’s one of the reasons I come here! I love exchanges of ideas and perspectives. But, this last post of yours was a long stream of consciousness with multiple examples and analogies, and contains 5-8 questions (let alone the statements you made that could be replied to). I can’t handle all that at once. I don’t know where to start! If you’d like to have a discussion, ask me one or two questions at a time, or make one or two points. My brain can’t handle much more! Lastly, if you’re happy in the belief that no general authority has ever lied, then please, please do not do any serious study of modern church history. It will only hurt you, and force you to change your perspective (which is very painful for most people). Below is a list of LDS topics for you to avoid if you are happy in your belief that general authorities have never lied (just some that are very clearly riddled with lies, cover-ups, and half-truths). None of the following are (to your example) instances where over time additional context and information clarified things. In each of them, one will find specific examples of a leader teaching something that HE HIMSELF knew didn’t or did happen, which was not true: Paul Dunn Modern Polygamy (1834 onward) Blood Atonement Adam God Theory LDS Church Bribing Public Officials Danites/Whistle and Whittle Brigade The Veracity of Priesthood Keys
SouthernMo Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 3 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I think he's right in a sense. It doesn't matter if the Church is true or not. It matters if it works fro someone or not. This is a very good point. The church does not have to be true for someone to be a Mormon. If it works (helps an individual), by all means live that great Mormon lifestyle. But... if that is your perspective, I think it’s dishonest to testify that you know it’s “true.” That is bearing false witness. Or, do you see it differently?
Duncan Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) 20 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: Hey Duncan - a couple of things: First: Its really up to you if you want to be educated or not, but you’ll learn much, much more by doing your own research, rather than relying on me or others to walk you through the fine details. I think it’s great that you want sources, and specific examples, but there isn’t a lot of room here, and discussion threads aren’t great formats for showing stories, context, and citing sources. But, this forum can be good for pointing you in the right direction to learn. So, maybe start here: https://mormonitemusings.com/tag/reed-smoot-hearings/ But, read D. Michael Quinn if you’re serious. Others, too, but he’s a good author who is meticulous in his sources. Second: I will happily discuss and debate with you. It’s one of the reasons I come here! I love exchanges of ideas and perspectives. But, this last post of yours was a long stream of consciousness with multiple examples and analogies, and contains 5-8 questions (let alone the statements you made that could be replied to). I can’t handle all that at once. I don’t know where to start! If you’d like to have a discussion, ask me one or two questions at a time, or make one or two points. My brain can’t handle much more! Lastly, if you’re happy in the belief that no general authority has ever lied, then please, please do not do any serious study of modern church history. It will only hurt you, and force you to change your perspective (which is very painful for most people). Below is a list of LDS topics for you to avoid if you are happy in your belief that general authorities have never lied (just some that are very clearly riddled with lies, cover-ups, and half-truths). None of the following are (to your example) instances where over time additional context and information clarified things. In each of them, one will find specific examples of a leader teaching something that HE HIMSELF knew didn’t or did happen, which was not true: Paul Dunn Modern Polygamy (1834 onward) Blood Atonement Adam God Theory LDS Church Bribing Public Officials Danites/Whistle and Whittle Brigade The Veracity of Priesthood Keys OH I AM SO GLAD YOU"RE HERE!!! what would were doing before? how grateful I am!! Teach us of your wisdom!!!! All those issues are debatable and have been debated for years and years. I have read Quinn's works on various issues yet his a believer to some extent in the gospel. He also has a PH.D. in History and I'm quite sure he has learned a few lessons in university about the academic study of history. I don't want to be rude or anything but why can't you handle answering my questions? do you have a disability or something? Edited July 25, 2018 by Duncan 1
Jeanne Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 13 hours ago, USU78 said: 9? Huh. I was six. I know...it is so embarrassing...😊 1
stemelbow Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 9 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: This is a very good point. The church does not have to be true for someone to be a Mormon. If it works (helps an individual), by all means live that great Mormon lifestyle. But... if that is your perspective, I think it’s dishonest to testify that you know it’s “true.” That is bearing false witness. Or, do you see it differently? Maybe a little differently. In order to be heavily engaged in Mormonism it feels like the religion really wants the individual to say it's true. And if it works for someone it might as well be considered "true" I suppose. What is true afterall when it comes to religion? I can't really take issue with someone who says if the religion works for me it means it's true. I want to, but in the end, the person seems to just be saying I'm engaged in this religion and it's working for me--they're just using the phrase "it's true" to say that. But for me, when I really try to get to the bottom of my own feelings and thoughts that is basically why it doesn't work for me. Sure the history has problems, sure the doctrine has holes and has breaks if you follow it through history. Sure the ongoing policies and doctrine can cause frustrations and problems, but in the end, it's simply that there is no room to discuss it with each other, there is no room to question fully (as I see it) there is no room to say "its not true, and there are plenty of problems but there is still something useful for me here" and be engaged--at least not that I've found. It's the exclusivity of it that has turned me off more than anything. It simply has never really worked for me precisely because it doesn't work. I'm not happy in that atmosphere...I'm not learning and growing. I'm stunted, perplexed and frustrated. Just as someone uses the phrase "the Church is true" to suggest its working for him/her...I can do the opposite I suppose--it's not true because it's never worked for me.
SouthernMo Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 9 minutes ago, Duncan said: OH I AM SO GLAD YOU"RE HERE!!! what would were doing before? how grateful I am!! Teach us of your wisdom!!!! All those issues are debatable and have been debated for years and years. I have read Quinn's works on various issues yet his a believer to some extent in the gospel. He also has a PH.D. in History and I'm quite sure he has learned a few lessons in university about the academic study of history. I don't want to be rude or anything but why can't you handle answering my questions? do you have a disability or something? Hey Duncan - I’m yearning to know your perspective. Did Paul Dunn lie or not? That’s even one he apologized for, but you seem to have a perspective that he didn’t lie, and that that “fact” is debatable. As for why I can’t handle your questions, no I don’t have an ADA recognized disability. I’m happy to discuss any question with you to the best of my limited ability. I’m just pointing out that when you spew a steam of consciousness and lump multiple questions together that have varying degrees of interrelatedness, it’s hard to have a meaningful conversation about one topic. The topic I’m pursuing with you is whether or not general authorities have lied. You have posted that you don’t “buy these claims [that general authorities have lied].” My position is that it has happened, many of which are well documented. What evidence would you accept that an LDS general authority has lied? Because apparently, even when one admits he does (Paul H. Dunn), you don’t believe one lied.
SouthernMo Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 19 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Maybe a little differently. In order to be heavily engaged in Mormonism it feels like the religion really wants the individual to say it's true. And if it works for someone it might as well be considered "true" I suppose. What is true afterall when it comes to religion? I can't really take issue with someone who says if the religion works for me it means it's true. I want to, but in the end, the person seems to just be saying I'm engaged in this religion and it's working for me--they're just using the phrase "it's true" to say that. But for me, when I really try to get to the bottom of my own feelings and thoughts that is basically why it doesn't work for me. Sure the history has problems, sure the doctrine has holes and has breaks if you follow it through history. Sure the ongoing policies and doctrine can cause frustrations and problems, but in the end, it's simply that there is no room to discuss it with each other, there is no room to question fully (as I see it) there is no room to say "its not true, and there are plenty of problems but there is still something useful for me here" and be engaged--at least not that I've found. It's the exclusivity of it that has turned me off more than anything. It simply has never really worked for me precisely because it doesn't work. I'm not happy in that atmosphere...I'm not learning and growing. I'm stunted, perplexed and frustrated. Just as someone uses the phrase "the Church is true" to suggest its working for him/her...I can do the opposite I suppose--it's not true because it's never worked for me. Thoughtful. I like it. All lives have to have some direction and meaning to be happy. For many, when they leave a strong belief system (like the Mormon church) there is a vacuum in this area. Do you have a meaning or direction that has helped you? Are you happier (yet)?
Duncan Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 15 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: Hey Duncan - I’m yearning to know your perspective. Did Paul Dunn lie or not? That’s even one he apologized for, but you seem to have a perspective that he didn’t lie, and that that “fact” is debatable. As for why I can’t handle your questions, no I don’t have an ADA recognized disability. I’m happy to discuss any question with you to the best of my limited ability. I’m just pointing out that when you spew a steam of consciousness and lump multiple questions together that have varying degrees of interrelatedness, it’s hard to have a meaningful conversation about one topic. The topic I’m pursuing with you is whether or not general authorities have lied. You have posted that you don’t “buy these claims [that general authorities have lied].” My position is that it has happened, many of which are well documented. What evidence would you accept that an LDS general authority has lied? Because apparently, even when one admits he does (Paul H. Dunn), you don’t believe one lied. I don't know how we got onto Elder Dunn, I wasn't talking about him. I'll answer your questions when you answer mine
SouthernMo Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 Just now, Duncan said: I don't know how we got onto Elder Dunn, I wasn't talking about him. I'll answer your questions when you answer mine Happy to - one at a time. Ask them one at a time, and I’ll answer anything you want. I can’t promise fact, but I can promise sincerity! Which question do you want me to start with?
Duncan Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 3 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: Happy to - one at a time. Ask them one at a time, and I’ll answer anything you want. I can’t promise fact, but I can promise sincerity! Which question do you want me to start with? i'll let you decide
Recommended Posts