SouthernMo Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 10 minutes ago, Duncan said: i'll let you decide You asked: “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.“ As I mentioned, this is a long topic to discuss, and sources are tough to cite in this format. Since you know (and trust?) Quinn, I’d suggest you read LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages. You’ll see that among the first presidency and the 12, there was deceit between them, deception to the laity, and perjury before Congress (Reed Smoot hearings).
Popular Post HappyJackWagon Posted July 25, 2018 Popular Post Posted July 25, 2018 As a general answer to the general question about how questions about church history should be answered, I'd simply say, honestly. When the church gets into the business of trying to make everything "faith promoting" it is bound to be skewed in significant ways. No one (not even the church) can be completely unbiased in the way they approach history but if a final conclusion is reached and then the history is crammed into justifying that final conclusion, then it's doubtful there will be much of an honest or accurate history taught in the church. Sometimes the church may just have to accept that the history is ugly and there's no justification for that. Sometimes there may not be a faith promoting way to view events or people. It's the sanitization of history to achieve a predetermined goal that leads many to feel lied to and/or betrayed. If the history is different than the final conclusion had been previously understood, it's important to adjust the final conclusion, otherwise it becomes dishonest/delusion. 5
carbon dioxide Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 1 hour ago, SouthernMo said: He 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. One mistake you can make in a place like this is assuming that you are more educated on a subject than someone else simply because they hold a different view than you do. You have no idea how much research anyone has done on a particular subject. You could be speaking to a person who has put two or three times as much time into a subject than you have. Believe it or not, someone can walk through the fine details of issues and come to an entirely different conclusion than you. We all look at information and process it differently. This is why one sees hung jury verdicts in court. Individuals hear the exact same evidence presented but arrive to different conclusions regarding the evidence. It is not usually an issue of some on the jury being right and others being wrong. All of them may be right because they are looking at issues differently. 1
mfbukowski Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, SouthernMo said: 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? If you feel in your heart that green tea is not prohibited by the WOW, and that God says its ok for YOUR body, my decision would be to go for it. Make sure you feel fine with the temple recommend question, or don't do it. Always follow the spirit, when in doubt, talk to your bishop and tell him how important it is to you. I would respectfully disagree with President Romney's words as quoted. They may actually be true but I think that that philosophy is not a good one to live by. Trust but verify. Edited July 25, 2018 by mfbukowski 1
ALarson Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: As a general answer to the general question about how questions about church history should be answered, I'd simply say, honestly. When the church gets into the business of trying to make everything "faith promoting" it is bound to be skewed in significant ways. No one (not even the church) can be completely unbiased in the way they approach history but if a final conclusion is reached and then the history is crammed into justifying that final conclusion, then it's doubtful there will be much of an honest or accurate history taught in the church. Sometimes the church may just have to accept that the history is ugly and there's no justification for that. Sometimes there may not be a faith promoting way to view events or people. It's the sanitization of history to achieve a predetermined goal that leads many to feel lied to and/or betrayed. What I put in bold above is why polygamy is generally not discussed (especially Joseph Smith's polygamy)....not in a Sunday School, Priesthood or RS settings and not over the pulpit in general conference, etc. They never mention it (Joseph's polygamy....from what I've heard). For most members, there is simply no way to present him marrying 14 year old girls (and other young teens) behind Emma's back (most of them) and him marrying other men's wives in a "faith promoting" manner. So it's a pretty taboo topic. It's good the essays have been published, but it's still not a topic of discussion for most church settings. His polygamy was not to be discussed during the year we studied his teachings (specific instructions were give regarding this in the manual). Even for the year we studied Brigham Young's teachings, the topic of polygamy was glaringly absent. The leaders know how volatile this topic is too, IMO. 3
Duncan Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 41 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: You asked: “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.“ As I mentioned, this is a long topic to discuss, and sources are tough to cite in this format. Since you know (and trust?) Quinn, I’d suggest you read LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages. You’ll see that among the first presidency and the 12, there was deceit between them, deception to the laity, and perjury before Congress (Reed Smoot hearings). not good enough
Tacenda Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 15 minutes ago, ALarson said: What I put in bold above is why polygamy is generally not discussed (especially Joseph Smith's polygamy)....not in a Sunday School, Priesthood or RS settings and not over the pulpit in general conference, etc. They never mention it (Joseph's polygamy....from what I've heard). For most members, there is simply no way to present him marrying 14 year old girls (and other young teens) behind Emma's back (most of them) and him marrying other men's wives in a "faith promoting" manner. So it's a pretty taboo topic. It's good the essays have been published, but it's still not a topic of discussion for most church settings. His polygamy was not to be discussed during the year we studied his teachings (specific instructions were give regarding this in the manual). Even for the year we studied Brigham Young's teachings, the topic of polygamy was glaringly absent. The leaders know how volatile this topic is too, IMO. Exactly.
carbon dioxide Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) 35 minutes ago, ALarson said: What I put in bold above is why polygamy is generally not discussed (especially Joseph Smith's polygamy)....not in a Sunday School, Priesthood or RS settings and not over the pulpit in general conference, etc. They never mention it (Joseph's polygamy....from what I've heard). For most members, there is simply no way to present him marrying 14 year old girls (and other young teens) behind Emma's back (most of them) and him marrying other men's wives in a "faith promoting" manner. So it's a pretty taboo topic. It's good the essays have been published, but it's still not a topic of discussion for most church settings. His polygamy was not to be discussed during the year we studied his teachings (specific instructions were give regarding this in the manual). Even for the year we studied Brigham Young's teachings, the topic of polygamy was glaringly absent. The leaders know how volatile this topic is too, IMO. One does not eat a 16 ounce steak with one or two bites. One eats it slowly one piece at a time. The problem as I see it but that the Church refusal to even discuss polygamy in any depth at all even if it is found in the scriptures. It seems to be a topic that is avoided for whatever reason even when it is spoken in the Old Testament. How can one even attempt have a constructive discussion on how Joseph Smith handled the issue of polygamy when the underlying doctrine or practice itself is avoided beyond things regarding Joseph Smith? The Church would need to lay the foundation of the practice itself as established in the scriptures first. Then one can build on it with general things about the practice in the 19th century and after laying completing the first floor one can start about the issues of Joseph marrying 14 year olds (not a big deal actually if one divorces themselves from modern day thinking on age) and Emma issues. None of the issues regarding Joseph Smith and his practice bother me because I have a fairly good foundation on the practice of polygamy itself and have built up my testimony and views from there. I had to do it mostly myself as the Church does not spend any effort to lay even basic foundation. It is one area that the Church is completely different in its teaching views today than back in the 19th century. A 19th century LDS member was probably much more educated on polygamy than members today because it was a practice relevant back then and the Church did not avoid it. Edited July 25, 2018 by carbon dioxide
HappyJackWagon Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: One does not eat a 16 ounce steak with one or two bites. One eats it slowly one piece at a time. The problem as I see it but that the Church refusal to even discuss polygamy in any depth at all even if it is found in the scriptures. It seems to be a topic that is avoided for whatever reason even when it is spoken in the Old Testament. How can one even attempt have a constructive discussion on how Joseph Smith handled the issue of polygamy when the underlying doctrine or practice itself is avoided beyond things regarding Joseph Smith? The Church would need to lay the foundation of the practice itself as established in the scriptures first. Then one can build on it with general things about the practice in the 19th century and after laying completing the first floor one can start about the issues of Joseph marrying 14 year olds (not a big deal actually if one divorces themselves from modern day thinking on age) and Emma issues. None of the issues regarding Joseph Smith and his practice bother me because I have a fairly good foundation on the practice of polygamy itself and have built up my testimony and views from there. I had to do it mostly myself as the Church does not spend any effort to lay even basic foundation. It is one area that the Church is completely different in its teaching views today than back in the 19th century. A 19th century LDS member was probably much more educated on polygamy than members today because it was a practice relevant back then and the Church did not avoid it. There are many fundamentalist groups who are well educated on polygamy I'm quite certain that today's church doesn't want people well educated on the virtues of polygamy, nor do they want people well educated on the abusive practices found in polygamy, therefore it's near impossible to talk about JS and polygamy. So does the church avoid the teaching and history of polygamy because it's so difficult to understand or because it's an embarrassment? FTR- there are many things from the old testament that aren't taught any more. Just because something is found in the old testament, doesn't mean it has value for our lives today. For example, we seldom teach about the virtues of genocide or other forms of approved violence. That's a good thing. 1
hope_for_things Posted July 25, 2018 Author Posted July 25, 2018 16 hours ago, Jane_Doe said: The purpose of the parallel was showing how the lesson that 10 year old receives is different that the college student receives. Truth didn't change one bit, but the student grew and now is ready for a more advanced understanding of the same topics. For a biology example, you have how photosynthesis works-- totally different discussion for 4th graders versus students who've taken college o-chem. And there are a million examples you could likewise pull from Gospel topics or church history stuff. You mentioned the translation of the plates: for a junior primary class the discussion is that God helped JS take the plates from the language the Nephites spoke to English so we can read it. Adult discussion can touch on things like the known/speculated mechanics of said translation, how languages evolve through time, complexities of modern language, etc. For a another example: the Bible tells of the creation of the Earth and man. The jr primary discussion is "God made me! God love me! He made my dog and trees to climb and so many other great things!" That's all well and good. My adult perception is: Yes God made me, that is always true. God also made my dog and the trees to rest next too. God does love me. The story of how He made Adam by putting clay together and blew life into it is symbolic and we can learn much spiritual truth from that account. That's scripture's purpose: to teach us spiritual things. The Bible isn't a biology book to explain DNA, gene mutation, selective pressures, etc-- like can you picture some old Isreali king trying to sound out 'deoxyribonucleic acid', let alone understand it? Heck, we 21st century folks barely have any idea how DNA works! The Bible story of creation (and rest of scriptures) is for teaching the spiritual concept. Those Truths don't change just because we learn more about DNA and the mechanics of how God works His wonders. For my professional biology research, I have the pleasure of being paid to learn a smidge more of those mechanics, and that's awesome. Thanks for the reply, just a few comments. In the Santa analogy, the truth does change. Santa isn't alive today and doesn't have a sleigh or reindeer. The Santa story is an exaggerated myth built on a foundation of an actual historical figure Saint Nicholas. Now that part seems to work with the religion analogy well. Jesus was a historical figure, but many of the stories about Jesus are exaggerated and or created for particular narrative purposes. I think what you're saying is different with the biology example of a 4th grader learning more simple concepts than a college student. The 4th grader doesn't learn the more complicated concepts, but they aren't being taught fallacious ideas like the myths about Santa. Also, I'm wondering about your "Adult Perception" when you imply that the complexities of biology are evidence of how "God works His wonders". Wouldn't that be similar to someone saying that all the complexities of Christmas are evidence for how Santa works his wonders? There isn't anything in the science of biology that explicitly points to a theistic God being the source of these mechanisms. So of course the authors of biblical texts didn't know about DNA, but they also thought God controlled the weather, and disease and any number of different things that we know today are caused by natural mechanisms.
carbon dioxide Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) 24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: There are many fundamentalist groups who are well educated on polygamy I'm quite certain that today's church doesn't want people well educated on the virtues of polygamy, nor do they want people well educated on the abusive practices found in polygamy, therefore it's near impossible to talk about JS and polygamy. So does the church avoid the teaching and history of polygamy because it's so difficult to understand or because it's an embarrassment? FTR- there are many things from the old testament that aren't taught any more. Just because something is found in the old testament, doesn't mean it has value for our lives today. For example, we seldom teach about the virtues of genocide or other forms of approved violence. That's a good thing. I think the Church chooses to spend its time having members focus on relevant things to their lives than issues like polygamy. I have no problem with that but avoiding issues does not solve problems. Few problem ever go away by ignoring them. Abuses can be found in polygamy and they can be found in monogamy. With a 50% divorce rate and plenty of examples of husbands abusing their wives, one can make an argument against monogamy and marriage itself. Not good arguments but one can make arguments. So finding problems in polygamy is not an argument against polygamy just as finding problems in monogamy is not an argument against monogamy. I would agree that there are issues in LDS history hard to understand. Like in math, if one does not get the basic foundations in math, how can one understand the harder issues in math. My point is the LDS Church does not even bother teaching just the basic concepts of polygamy. I would consider it to be an entire waste of time attempting to explain or justify what Joseph Smith did to a person who themselves sees polygamy itself as wrong. If one does not see the practice itself as one that God has authorized in the past and could authorize today, there is no reason to even move any further. So line upon line, precept upon precept. Horse before the cart. I would be against the Church focusing on specifics of Joseph Smith and his practice of polygamy before the Church spends some time laying the scriptural foundation of polygamy first in its lessons. Yes there are many things in the Old Testament that are not taught anymore or relevant but so what. There are many things in the Old Testament that are still relevant. I would not equate genocide with polygamy. Apples and oranges. Edited July 25, 2018 by carbon dioxide 1
RevTestament Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 21 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 49 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: As a general answer to the general question about how questions about church history should be answered, I'd simply say, honestly. When the church gets into the business of trying to make everything "faith promoting" it is bound to be skewed in significant ways. No one (not even the church) can be completely unbiased in the way they approach history but if a final conclusion is reached and then the history is crammed into justifying that final conclusion, then it's doubtful there will be much of an honest or accurate history taught in the church. Sometimes the church may just have to accept that the history is ugly and there's no justification for that. Sometimes there may not be a faith promoting way to view events or people. It's the sanitization of history to achieve a predetermined goal that leads many to feel lied to and/or betrayed. If the history is different than the final conclusion had been previously understood, it's important to adjust the final conclusion, otherwise it becomes dishonest/delusion. In general I agree with HappyJack. I feel efforts to be faith promoting have somewhat backfired in the modern internet age. Of course we are probably all guilty of putting our best foot forward. Joseph Smith alluded to his money-digging days, but it is the stories of others who fill out the details of this unfortunate enterprise, and his being arrested for it. I don't know that these things will ever really be much taught in SS class. It is just the way people are. It is also difficult to ascertain the true facts about these kinds of things because the motives of those involved are usually skewed to one "side" or the other - this includes Joseph Smith's own history. I accept Joseph Smith as an imperfect teenager. I was. I grew. I learned. I believe the sanitized history as presented in Church has presented problems for the Church. Despite efforts to claim the Church has not hidden the facts, failure to disclose certain facts in such presentations can be seen as an attempt to hide facts or mislead perceptions. However, probably every organization which has ever existed tries to put its best foot forward, and it can reasonably expected for historians to see this. There is a saying "history is written by the victors." Finding what is "factual" about the past is therefore not always an easy task. History is always seen through the perceptions and motivations of its recorders. For me to lose faith about the Church because of disputed items of history is sad, and I believe can be avoided if one focuses on the spiritual life of the restored gospel rather than the often unknowable intricacies of historical details. To try to answer HfT more specifically, I don't believe you can learn that the BoM isn't true. I believe there are enough details in it and historical and archaeological evidence to support its veracity at least to some degree. HfT you always seem to be swayed by some recent scholarly opinion on matters of history. You tend to present scholarly opinions about scriptures and archaeology as facts as if you can "discover" that the BoM isn't true. I don't think you can. The same debate applies to the Bible as well. Been there, done that with you. The analogy with the story of Santa Claus is not really an accurate one. There is an obvious difference between folk lore and historical claims, but I think the analogy is somewhat useful. Nevertheless, parents playing Santa Claus realize the stories aren't factual, whereas Churches promoting scripture deeply believe them to be true. Religion is not a scientific endeavor for search for factual truths. Science is not based upon faith nor scriptural interpretation to try to gain understanding. There is far too much application of this type of reasoning to religion. While there is a certain amount of learning and reasoning in religion, ultimately, I believe religion is experiential. Trying to apply scholarly analysis to it with the idea of proofs, etc, is just bound to lead to disappointment.
hope_for_things Posted July 25, 2018 Author Posted July 25, 2018 16 hours ago, Duncan said: "what does it mean to learn that things aren't true, but that we shouldn't throw out the church? " I am not leaving the Church because I found out a story, say, Joseph F. Smith told, happened 10 years later than he said it did. Is my rock Jesus or Joseph F. Smith? (as wonderful as he is, he isn't the Saviour) Or I am still going to visit Stonehenge even though people disagree with the who, what , where and why of it. Do I stop going to Missouri because I found out Col. Potter, from Hannibal, was not a real character? or the bigger picture do I not go to the US because the creators of MASH are Americans and they lied to me about Col. Potter's existence? no, that would be silly "LDS truth claims " Give me an example of this. I think many members take the claims of Joseph Smith as foundational. Think of President Hinckley's quote about either these things are true or this is the biggest fraud ever perpetuated. For many, the claims of the BoM or Joseph's vision as tangible and historical events are people's rock for their belief in the church. Those are they kinds of truth claims I'm talking about.
hope_for_things Posted July 25, 2018 Author Posted July 25, 2018 15 hours ago, mfbukowski said: But what does this mean? I am lost Quote 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. Steven Harper knows a lot about church history. He said that we can learn things about history all day long, but we can't prove the church is true or untrue, he seems to be making contradictory claims from my vantage point. He claims that his experience through prayer is proof of the truth of the BoM. But he's also saying that no amount of historical evidence can prove or disprove Mormonism. So essentially it sounds like he wants to put a fence around the BoM and other fundamental religious propositions and say that these things can be studied and researched all you want, but that will never change the foundational assumption that these things are true. So evidence doesn't matter on these core foundational claims. BoM historicity, Joseph Smith prophet, God is real, Jesus Resurrection. If all these things are fundamentally true and no level of evidence can prove or disprove them, then that seems contradictory to me.
Duncan Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I think many members take the claims of Joseph Smith as foundational. Think of President Hinckley's quote about either these things are true or this is the biggest fraud ever perpetuated. For many, the claims of the BoM or Joseph's vision as tangible and historical events are people's rock for their belief in the church. Those are they kinds of truth claims I'm talking about. I would agree to an extent but remember how Christ says he is a door in John 10. A door, obviously, opens to something so we can see, experience something. What does Christ, Joseph's vision and the Book of Mormon open to me and others? if God spoke to Joseph, appears to him, knows him by name, he can do all those things if I ask, and he wills it, to me. Remember what Joseph said to his parents, after the plates were shown to the 3 Witnesses,? In the words of his mother “When they returned to the house, it was between three and four o’clock. Mrs. Whitmer, Mr. Smith, and myself were sitting in a bedroom, myself on a bedside. When Joseph came in, he threw himself down beside me and exclaimed, ‘Father! Mother! You do not know how happy I am. The Lord has caused the plates to be shown to three more besides me. They have also seen an angel and will have to testify to the truth of what I have said, for they know for themselves that I do not go about to deceive the people. I do feel as though I was relieved of a dreadful burden which was almost too much for me to endure. But they will now have to bear a part, and it does rejoice my soul that I am not any longer to be entirely alone in the world.’ Smith, Lucy Mack. The Revised and Enhanced History of Joseph Smith by His Mother.Edited by Scot Facer Proctor and Maurine Jensen Proctor. Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1996, p. 199. What God is willing to share with one, he is willing to share with others so Joseph and these others aren't the sole witnesses. We all can be witnesses. 1
Duncan Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) 32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Steven Harper knows a lot about church history. He said that we can learn things about history all day long, but we can't prove the church is true or untrue, he seems to be making contradictory claims from my vantage point. He claims that his experience through prayer is proof of the truth of the BoM. But he's also saying that no amount of historical evidence can prove or disprove Mormonism. So essentially it sounds like he wants to put a fence around the BoM and other fundamental religious propositions and say that these things can be studied and researched all you want, but that will never change the foundational assumption that these things are true. So evidence doesn't matter on these core foundational claims. BoM historicity, Joseph Smith prophet, God is real, Jesus Resurrection. If all these things are fundamentally true and no level of evidence can prove or disprove them, then that seems contradictory to me. Its not contradictory, these foundational events don't have the how and everything spelled out for us yet.Something I learned years ago in a class on the philosophy of History was the Prof. was saying a historian and their writing aren't interested in if God exists(they may be personally), they are interested in say what does Winston Churchill think about God? So, the historian will read everything Churchill said about the subject and write about it. What a historian won't write about is if God exists and Churchill was right about his beliefs. We shouldn't confuse the two. If the resurrection is real, then somehow there were physics and biology involved but I doubt a physicist or biologist would ever attempt to explain how Christ or anyone would be resurrected. That does not mean he wasn't resurrected but the how is unknown to us. No one but Joseph Smith was in the grove that day in 1820, no was there filming it. There have been books written on the inter play of History and Religion and how they work and don't work. Read more of this from Hugh Nibley https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1123&index=13 edit to add. Right now I am reading a book on the Franco-Prussian Ward by a Prof.who at the time was at the US Naval College in Rhode Island. Anyways, that is a huge topic and it's part of an even larger topic of Bismarck's plan to unify Germany. He's saying what Bismarck and the French were doing and what they said and battles and what happened, he isn't saying should this or that have happened or it's right or wrong for this or that. If Bismarck or Francois Bazaine had any documented regrets he would point them out, but the author isn't saying what these others aren't saying. Edited July 25, 2018 by Duncan 1
stemelbow Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 2 hours ago, SouthernMo said: 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)? When I mentioned happy I mean in terms of being able to live with myself rather than whether I laugh enough or not. In truth overall I don't really know if I'm more or less happy. I feel like I have more hope and I feel like my perplexed condition is a little lighter. But I laugh about the same amount. I also don't think I've felt a void so much. It took a long time for me to contemplate leaving. I got my mind in order, in a sense, before I left. I guess I determined what it would look like. I feel like leaving was not losing anything, but an attempt to build on that which I had. I've kept busy enough, I guess.
SouthernMo Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: One mistake you can make in a place like this is assuming that you are more educated on a subject than someone else simply because they hold a different view than you do. You have no idea how much research anyone has done on a particular subject. You could be speaking to a person who has put two or three times as much time into a subject than you have. Believe it or not, someone can walk through the fine details of issues and come to an entirely different conclusion than you. We all look at information and process it differently. This is why one sees hung jury verdicts in court. Individuals hear the exact same evidence presented but arrive to different conclusions regarding the evidence. It is not usually an issue of some on the jury being right and others being wrong. All of them may be right because they are looking at issues differently. That’s a really good point. A mistake on my part. In this case, it’s hard to think that someone who claims to have never found a lie in the annals of LDS church history knows more than I do on that subject. I’m sure @Duncan has studied a lot, but the idea that he doesn’t know about a single lie, or that any communication that appears contradictory must be explained as truth somehow is befuddling to me.
SouthernMo Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 2 hours ago, Duncan said: not good enough What do you mean? By sharing that article, i showed you specific leaders in specific instances with sources included. That’s what you asked for, so I’m confused by your curt response. Have you already read the article, and you still don’t see a single deception from LDS leadership? You disagree with the facts Quinn presents? 1
Duncan Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 8 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: What do you mean? By sharing that article, i showed you specific leaders in specific instances with sources included. That’s what you asked for, so I’m confused by your curt response. Have you already read the article, and you still don’t see a single deception from LDS leadership? You disagree with the facts Quinn presents? what article?
Duncan Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 20 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: That’s a really good point. A mistake on my part. In this case, it’s hard to think that someone who claims to have never found a lie in the annals of LDS church history knows more than I do on that subject. I’m sure @Duncan has studied a lot, but the idea that he doesn’t know about a single lie, or that any communication that appears contradictory must be explained as truth somehow is befuddling to me. and how you and others somehow know people's(none of they have ever met) motives, knowledge base, experience is also befuddling.
SouthernMo Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, Duncan said: what article? The one I referenced in my answer to your first question: LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages Here’s a link: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V18N01_11.pdf Looking forward to your thoughts.
SouthernMo Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 5 minutes ago, Duncan said: and how you and others somehow know people's(none of they have ever met) motives, knowledge base, experience is also befuddling. I don’t know about any of those things, but I’m going off clues you’ve given me.
Duncan Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 3 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: The one I referenced in my answer to your first question: LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages Here’s a link: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V18N01_11.pdf Looking forward to your thoughts. it's 97 pages, give me time
hope_for_things Posted July 25, 2018 Author Posted July 25, 2018 15 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: 20 hours ago, hope_for_things said: For me, I learned that the spiritual experiences I have aren't evidence to confirm historical events. They are individual and subjective experiences that have value for my personal life, but that they don't tell me facts about history. Spiritual experiences may fill in some gaps or act as a bridge to confirm something historical but they can not be used as objective evidence to prove to someone else that something is historical. On can't prove the Book of Mormon based on historical information that is widely accepted. That does not mean the BOM is not historical. It just means that current information concerning history does not validate it. A spiritual experience can tell an individual that despite current knowledge, the BOM is historical and true. Given the fact that we know very little about ancient America and that is being proven by the new LIDAR mapping technology that is will rewrite everything that has been said about the ancient Americans, the current lack of information neither refutes or supports the BOM. The spirit can bridge the current information gap for the individual so they don't have to wait around for the next 50 years to get something validated. So yes spiritual events may not give you facts about history but it is possible they can cause a person to focus less on individual facts that are not that important and get a person to focus on stuff that will be more important as time goes on. The belief that spiritual experiences can fill in gaps of our knowledge is something I've thought a lot about. I don't currently believe in the supernatural. I haven't seen compelling evidence that would suggest humans can accurately learn facts about history through supernatural means. Or facts about the future for that matter either. I think there are things we can learn, perhaps abilities we have that science today doesn't currently comprehend. I don't believe one of these abilities includes learning something unknowable about a historical event in the past. While science can't rule out the slim possibility for a historical BoM, I think the overwhelming evidence historically shows that this was a 19th century creation by Joseph Smith. I don't believe spiritual experiences can tell a person the BoM is historical. I do believe someone can have a spiritual experience telling them the BoM is good and true and all things not related to historicity though. A person might interpret their spiritual experience as telling them something else, but that says more about interpretation. If a person's spiritual experience tells them to not focus on scholarly inquiry, that doesn't mean this impression to avoid digging into scholarship was necessarily a good impression, it could be a decision made out of fear and bias rather than a sound decision. I think we need to be careful not to fall into prejudiced traps, and it takes a great deal of humility and becoming more self aware to understand which direction to turn and how to use our feelings to the maximum benefit. I certainly don't have it all figured out, and am working to get better in this regard.
Recommended Posts