Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

It sounds like you're condescending this position (am I wrong?).  What is wrong with wanting to be Christlike on this board?

In my experience people say they want Christ-like conduct but as soon as you make a whip and start driving people out for profaning the holy they get even whinier. I think they failed to think the request through.

[SouthernMo]

45 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Nothing, provided it's not used sanctimoniously or as a passive aggressive, Holier-Than-Thou weapon, perhaps by someone seeking to shut down debate on an ... Ahem ... Discussion board by dee.ing certain posters' antagonistic posts above critique or criticism. 

 

Of course. I agree fully. Hope my thoughts shared didn’t come across that way. If they did - I am sorry. I just want our discussions to be candid, but kind.

I’m not always great at this, BTW. 

[SouthernMo]

19 minutes ago, USU78 said:

It ain't so much the desire to discipleship as it is the desire to virtue signal.

Great point. 

[SouthernMo]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In my experience people say they want Christ-like conduct but as soon as you make a whip and start driving people out for profaning the holy they get even whinier. I think they failed to think the request through.

Nah - my perspective on this situation is that some people seemed to be quite critical and harsh on Bill for being critical and harsh.  I just don’t see a resolution or fruitful dialogue when that happens.

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It is true that I don't currently believe the BoM is historical based on the strength of evidence as I interpret it.  Is my stating this point akin to not giving someone the benefit of the doubt when they express how they were traumatized by the church?  I see these as different, but I can understand why you're saying they are similar. 

If you strictly interpret giving believers in BofM historicity "the benefit of the doubt" as trusting them about what they have claimed to feel, then stating your lack of belief in historicity wouldn't conflict with your giving them the benefit of the doubt.

However, if you interpret giving believers in historicity the "benefit of the doubt" as refusing to question or oppose their interpretation of their feelings, then stating you lack of belief in historicity would indeed conflict with any claims of you giving them the benefit of the doubt.

When you give someone the "benefit of the doubt" you trust them at their word about something. The first dictionary definition for "benefit of the doubt" to pop up on google is as follows: "a concession that a person or fact must be regarded as correct or justified, if the contrary has not been proven." Thus by stating your lack of belief in historicity, you would not be giving believers in historicity the benefit of the doubt about the conclusions they reached based upon their feelings.

I think you are confusing the idea of declining to point out that you think someone is wrong (for the sake of politeness) with giving them the "benefit of the doubt" about their interpretation of their feelings. Those are two very different things.

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by Ryan Dahle

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Understandable, yes.  Apt, no. 

I agree that the analogies are inapt. We tend to say things we probably shouldn't when we're upset.

Quote

I have had interaction with Bill here over many years, ranging from mutually positive, an interview on his podcast, sympathetic exchanges, and to a parting of the ways which I noticed was most clearly signaled by his choice of metaphor for the church as "abusive parent".  It's not only an interpretation, but also a guide for mapping, for deciding what to look for and what to mark as important.

I can't speak for Bill, obviously, but I would imagine it took a lot of time and experience to get to the point at which he began to see the church as an abusive parent. I see it more as a corporation with religious sensibilities, but I certainly didn't start out thinking that.

Quote

I have been paying close attention to the importance of metaphor over many years.  That is where Kuhn on paradigm and community and Derrida on metaphor as controlling logic and argument, and Jesus on seed and soil and Payne on metaphor as master or servant, and Joseph Campbell on a function of myth as "sustaining a social order" and Barker on a meaning of "masal", parable as "rule over" and on the notion in politics of "controlling the narrative."  I bring it up here not to pile on Bill, but to point out a key element in how and why these tensions in individuals and communities play out.  I'm encouraging a bit of self-awareness, a bit of focus on the beams in our eyes, so that we can consider their impact, and subsequently see clearly.  We can't get away from metaphor, but we can consider their impact, and the impact of their selection on how we subsequently order and interpret our experiences.  His use is particularly telling, and therefore, potentially instructing and eye-opening.  It's a matter of discernment and what can follow.

That seems more Hayden White than Derrida, but I see your point. One of the problems with paradigms, at least how I read Kuhn, is that they are rarely consciously chosen. The idea that someone simply makes a deliberate decision to change paradigms (which is much more drastic than Kuhn's idea of paradigm shift) doesn't ring true to me. Paradigms shift when there is no longer a choice, and Kuhn tells us they shift just enough to accommodate the anomalous. 

But, yes, we could all use a little more self-awareness. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

It sounds like you're condescending this position (am I wrong?).  What is wrong with wanting to be Christlike on this board?

It is the weaponizing of it that is against the board rules, iirc. Whether or not that has been done is usually personal opinion. 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

"Pretty obviously" ... right!  Ah, well!  At some point, all of us, will be assimilated into the Vast Collective of the Uber-Illuminati!  Resistance is futile!   You're frequently on here proclaiming, in the words of Eliza R. Snow from a well-known Latter-day Saint hymn, "Now I'll take no further trouble, Jesus' love is all my theme!"  That's good, and I applaud it, but which is it?  Are Latter-day Saints "pretty obviously" deluded, or is your creed, rather, "Love, live, and let live"?  Seems to me that you need to pay more attention to the next phrase of that hymn, as well: "Little motes are but a bubble when I think upon the beam."  See Hymns of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1985) no. 273, "Truth Reflects Upon Our Senses."  See also Matthew 7:1-5.

I apologize if I overstated my views.  But can I ask you a sincere question?  I don't want this to sound like an attack on your beliefs. Nor do I want this question to be about whether Joseph Smith is a prophet of God or not.  What I want to know is whether some of his claims can still be taken as fact.  And I don't in any way, want to derail this thread.  So whatever you answer, I will just accept as your point of view and move on.  

So here is my question.  Do you really believe that the papyrus scrolls purchased by Joseph. Smith from the touring mummies was actually written by the hand of Abraham himself?  When the dating of the scrolls are not even close to the time Abraham lived?  When the material on the scrolls have absolutely noting to do with what Joseph Smith said he translated? When the drawings in the Book of Abraham do not relate at all to the claims of Joseph Smith?  

Quote

 

“…these three facsimiles of Egyptian documents in the Pearl of Great Price depict the most common objects in the Mortuary religion of Egypt. Joseph Smith’s interpretations of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization.”

–Dr. James H. Breasted, University of Chicago

 

 

Or do you believe the Book of Abraham to be the word of God because of your spiritual experience. Or is it both?  

 

Same goes with the Kenderhook plates that Joseph Smith also claimed to translate?

Quote

Joseph Smith wrote in his diary on May 1, 1843:
“I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth, which must have stood nine feet high. The plates were found on the breast of the skeleton and were covered on both sides with ancient characters. I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth.” (http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/history-1838-1856-volume-d-1-1-august-1842-1-july-1843?p=185&highlight=kinderhook)

Quote

Then, in 1981, an Ensign article stated:
“A recent electronic and chemical analysis of a metal plate (one of six original plates) brought in 1843 to the Prophet Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois, appears to solve a previously unanswered question in Church history, helping to further evidence that the plate is what its producers later said it was—a nineteenth-century attempt to lure Joseph Smith into making a translation of ancient-looking characters that had been etched into the plates.”

 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Nah - my perspective on this situation is that some people seemed to be quite critical and harsh on Bill for being critical and harsh.  I just don’t see a resolution or fruitful dialogue when that happens.

Well, the resolution will probably be excommunication and since neither side wants fruitful dialogue I am not why anyone would lament the lack of it.

[SouthernMo]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is the weaponizing of it that is against the board rules, iirc. Whether or not that has been done is usually personal opinion. 

I did not mean to weaponize the statement.  Was never in my intent.  I did want to make a point, and I have understood that it was taken the wrong way.

I am happy to give a formal apology if anyone would like one.  Did not mean to harm/offend.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

If you strictly interpret giving believers in BofM historicity "the benefit of the doubt" as trusting them about what they have claimed to feel, then stating your lack of belief in historicity wouldn't conflict with your giving them the benefit of the doubt.

However, if you interpret giving believers in historicity the "benefit of the doubt" as refusing to question or oppose their interpretation of their feelings, then stating you lack of belief in historicity would indeed conflict with any claims of you giving them the benefit of the doubt.

When you give someone the "benefit of the doubt" you trust them at their word about something. The first dictionary definition for "benefit of the doubt" to pop up on google is as follows: "a concession that a person or fact must be regarded as correct or justified, if the contrary has not been proven." Thus by stating your lack of belief in historicity, you would not be giving believers in historicity the benefit of the doubt about the conclusions they reached based upon their feelings.

I think you are confusing the idea of declining to point out that you think someone is wrong (for the sake of politeness) with giving them the "benefit of the doubt" about their interpretation of their feelings. Those are two very different things.

 

I understand what you're saying, and it makes some sense.  What I'm saying is that I privilege someone stating they have suffered trauma over someone saying they have faith in a theological idea like BoM historicity.  Perhaps that's not fair of me, but I don't see the two things as being equal or the same.  

When you made the assertion that Bill's trauma is only based on his interpretation you're insinuating that the trauma experienced isn't fully legitimate.  I'm doing something different, I'm assuming legitimacy for someone's religious experience with respect to their faith in BoM historicity.  I have a different position on an ideological scholarly question that is frequently debated. 

You've assumed that there is some kind of factual and debatable grounds for examining whether the trauma an individual claims they personally experience is legitimate.  I don't think a personal individual claim of trauma should be examined for factual accuracy and debated in the same way that a concept like BoM historicity, is debated and examined.   My default position on those who claim trauma is to believe them first.  I don't have a desire to question someone's personal experience and put that under the microscope of examination in the same way as a broad claim for something like BoM historicity is examined.  

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I understand what you're saying, and it makes some sense.  What I'm saying is that I privilege someone stating they have suffered trauma over someone saying they have faith in a theological idea like BoM historicity.  Perhaps that's not fair of me, but I don't see the two things as being equal or the same.  

When you made the assertion that Bill's trauma is only based on his interpretation you're insinuating that the trauma experienced isn't fully legitimate.  I'm doing something different, I'm assuming legitimacy for someone's religious experience with respect to their faith in BoM historicity.  I have a different position on an ideological scholarly question that is frequently debated. 

You've assumed that there is some kind of factual and debatable grounds for examining whether the trauma an individual claims they personally experience is legitimate.  I don't think a personal individual claim of trauma should be examined for factual accuracy and debated in the same way that a concept like BoM historicity, is debated and examined.   My default position on those who claim trauma is to believe them first.  I don't have a desire to question someone's personal experience and put that under the microscope of examination in the same way as a broad claim for something like BoM historicity is examined.  

Yeah, it doesn't help to dismiss people's experiences and feelings. Years ago I went to a therapist in Provo, and in the first visit we talked about my struggles with guilt and shame over the years. She asked me to tell her about a time when I felt the most guilt and shame, and I mentioned the MTC, in which Joseph Bishop, among others, constantly told us we needed to repent of any unresolved sins to have any success at all as missionaries. I wracked my brain for anything I might have done that I hadn't repented of, but I couldn't come up with anything, and then I felt guilty because I thought I was probably just forgetting something I should have repented of. (I should say that this inordinate amount of guilt seems ridiculous and almost pathological to me now, but it was very real then.) To my surprise, the therapist got really defensive and said that she and her husband had worked in the MTC in the late 2000s, and it was nothing like that, so I must be projecting. It wasn't until the whole McKenna Denson story broke that I talked to some people, including Ms. Denson, about their experiences in the MTC at the time, and they were pretty consistent with my own experience. The therapist couldn't help me because she dismissed my experience (trauma is too strong a word). The problem is, at least it was for my therapist, that she couldn't grasp what I was feeling because, to her, the church would never do anything like that. I suspect that's how a lot of people feel about Bill's experiences.

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yeah, it doesn't help to dismiss people's experiences and feelings. Years ago I went to a therapist in Provo, and in the first visit we talked about my struggles with guilt and shame over the years. She asked me to tell her about a time when I felt the most guilt and shame, and I mentioned the MTC, in which Joseph Bishop, among others, constantly told us we needed to repent of any unresolved sins to have any success at all as missionaries. I wracked my brain for anything I might have done that I hadn't repented of, but I couldn't come up with anything, and then I felt guilty because I thought I was probably just forgetting something I should have repented of. (I should say that this inordinate amount of guilt seems ridiculous and almost pathological to me now, but it was very real then.) To my surprise, the therapist got really defensive and said that she and her husband had worked in the MTC in the late 2000s, and it was nothing like that, so I must be projecting. It wasn't until the whole McKenna Denson story broke that I talked to some people, including Ms. Denson, about their experiences in the MTC at the time, and they were pretty consistent with my own experience. The therapist couldn't help me because she dismissed my experience (trauma is too strong a word). The problem is, at least it was for my therapist, that she couldn't grasp what I was feeling because, to her, the church would never do anything like that. I suspect that's how a lot of people feel about Bill's experiences.

Thanks for sharing.  I think that's one of the challenges with some therapists who have an ideological view of things, and when they aren't following their training to not impose their own views on the people they are helping.  Unfortunately, when it comes to the LDS church, our culture has developed such a hyper sensitivity to criticism, and a hyper-vigilant approach to defending the faith, that caring for people and their feelings are often the collateral damage of these traits.  

I keep finding things that reinforce this idea in my mind that much of this behavior is a result of how new of a faith Mormonism is in the broad scheme of things.  This is just more evidence of immature behavior developmentally, and I think given more time Mormon culture will mature past this kind of stuff.  Its just going to be long after I've passed away.  

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for sharing.  I think that's one of the challenges with some therapists who have an ideological view of things, and when they aren't following their training to not impose their own views on the people they are helping.  Unfortunately, when it comes to the LDS church, our culture has developed such a hyper sensitivity to criticism, and a hyper-vigilant approach to defending the faith, that caring for people and their feelings are often the collateral damage of these traits.  

I keep finding things that reinforce this idea in my mind that much of this behavior is a result of how new of a faith Mormonism is in the broad scheme of things.  This is just more evidence of immature behavior developmentally, and I think given more time Mormon culture will mature past this kind of stuff.  Its just going to be long after I've passed away.  

Didn't mean to make this about me, just I thought it was a good example of how when people are defensive about their religion or "tribe," it's easier to see how someone's experience and feelings might be swallowed up by that defensiveness. That was clear to me with that therapist.

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Didn't mean to make this about me, just I thought it was a good example of how when people are defensive about their religion or "tribe," it's easier to see how someone's experience and feelings might be swallowed up by that defensiveness. That was clear to me with that therapist.

That's a crap therapist who lets her personal biases color her treatment of a client.

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Didn't mean to make this about me, just I thought it was a good example of how when people are defensive about their religion or "tribe," it's easier to see how someone's experience and feelings might be swallowed up by that defensiveness. That was clear to me with that therapist.

I agree completely and appreciate you sharing the example, its relevant. 

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

What I'm saying is that I privilege someone stating they have suffered trauma over someone saying they have faith in a theological idea like BoM historicity.  Perhaps that's not fair of me, but I don't see the two things as being equal or the same.

So you feel inclined to legitimize peoples negative emotional experiences but not their positive emotional experiences? Yeah, that doesn't seem fair or logically justifiable. 

 

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

When you made the assertion that Bill's trauma is only based on his interpretation you're insinuating that the trauma experienced isn't fully legitimate.

 

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

You've assumed that there is some kind of factual and debatable grounds for examining whether the trauma an individual claims they personally experience is legitimate.

I'm not sure what  you mean by "legitimate"? I think the conversation is regressing in clarity. Do you mean "legitimate" in the sense of accepting the reality of someone's claimed sensation? Or do you mean it in the sense of accepting that their interpretation of what caused the sensation is accurate?

 

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

 I don't think a personal individual claim of trauma should be examined for factual accuracy and debated in the same way that a concept like BoM historicity, is debated and examined. 

I think this is a false comparison because my discussion of BofM historicity had to do with specific personal spiritual experiences, not broad-ranging intellectual debates, as you seem to be implying. 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by Ryan Dahle

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

So you feel inclined to legitimize peoples negative emotional experiences but not their positive emotional experiences? Yeah, that doesn't seem fair or logically justifiable. 

I stated earlier that I honor people's individual perspectives about the BoM as legitimate for them personally, and I don't question the power of those experiences.  So I am legitmizing their experience.  I still disagree with the strength of the scholarly evidence, but I don't make the discussion about questioning religious spiritual experience, I make the debate on empirical evidence about a broad theological discussion, not about an individual's personal experience.  

13 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm not sure what  you mean by "legitimate"? I think the conversation is regressing in clarity. Do you mean "legitimate" in the sense of accepting the reality of someone's claimed sensation? Of do you mean it in the sense of accepting that their interpretation of what caused the sensation is accurate?

Sometimes I've had discussions about how people interpret spiritual experience generally, as this is a point that interests me and is a topic that I have found informative to my own personal faith journey.  But I can't recall ever calling another person's spiritual experience into question and telling them it wasn't legitimate for them.  I try to start with the assumption that those experiences are legitimate, powerful, subjective and not open to debate, because I respect people and I respect their personal spiritual experiences.  

15 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

 I don't think a personal individual claim of trauma should be examined for factual accuracy and debated in the same way that a concept like BoM historicity, is debated and examined. 

I think this is a false comparison because my discussion of BofM historicity had to do with specific personal spiritual experiences, not broad-ranging intellectual debates, as you seem to be implying. 

I don't think you understand the distinction I'm making.  Your experience of believing the BoM is historical, is out of bounds for debate.  No one can examine it and I'm not about to start claiming that it wasn't real for you or that we should attempt to determine the factual accuracy of your personal experience.  The debate about BoM historicity is an argument that can be discussed and evaluated.  Personal answers to prayers cannot be evaluated as supporting evidence for the historicity of the BoM from a scholarly perspective. 

You want to debate whether Bill's experience of trauma is factually accurate or legitimate.  I think thats not even possible for one and I also think its out of bounds for you to critique him in that way.    

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

You want to debate whether Bill's experience of trauma is factually accurate or legitimate.  I think thats not even possible for one and I also think its out of bounds for you to critique him in that way. 

I think my questioning of Bill's interpretation of his own trauma is completely appropriate and in bounds, and I acknowledged at the beginning that I accepted his trauma as real.

There was an elderly individual in our ward a while back who, unbeknownst to me, had not had any children in her younger years, even though she had tried. During gospel doctrine class, I would often cover up our newborn in his car seat when he was getting fussy, so that he wouldn't disturb the class. This elderly person was very hurt because she thought I was deliberately trying to keep our baby away from her sight. I had no idea that is how she felt. She finally got so upset that she confronted me about it and insinuated that I was doing this maliciously. I was totally blindsided, and felt very bad for her. But her interpretation of events was completely unjustified.

Your moral position requires that in my communication with her, I had an obligation to not only accept the reality of her traumatic emotional experience, but that I was also morally obligated to see her interpretation of its cause as being legitimate--i.e. justified, true, or correct. Yet that is complete and utter nonsense. I felt very bad for her, but there was no way that I was going to falsely validate her interpretation of what was happening. I was not doing anything maliciously, and I very politely tried to explain that to her and to tell her I was sorry for any harm I inadvertently caused her. The truth is, though, that her narrative about her trauma was false and not worthy of validation. And the fact that such narratives can be and often are false proves why it isn't always morally correct to validate them, and why it may even be morally necessary to oppose them. In this case, I felt a strong moral obligation to not legitimize her narrative about why she felt hurt and offended.

You could argue that because I have a perfect knowledge of my own intent that this example doesn't count. However, what if this elderly woman said to another ward member that she didn't like how I was traumatizing her and hurting her feelings. And what if that other ward member knew me and didn't believe that this women was correct. Your moral paradigm insists that this other ward member would need to not only accept the reality of the trauma that the elderly women felt, but that this ward member would also need to see it as being legitimate--i.e. justified, true, or correct. Once again, that is complete nonsense. It would be perfectly morally acceptable for the other ward member to propose to the elderly woman that her narrative was likely not true and that her feelings of being intentionally hurt might be unjustified.

Let's take this another step. Suppose that the elderly woman started publicly claiming that I was traumatizing her and was intentionally causing her harm. By your moral reasoning, everyone who heard this narrative would be under a moral obligation to not only accept that her feelings of being hurt were real, but to affirm that her interpretation of events was legitimate. It would be inappropriate or out of bounds, according to your view, for anyone--including the Bishop--to question the legitimacy of her narrative. Once again, this is obviously and completely absurd. And it could lead me to be ostracized or unjustly dealt with by ecclesiastical leaders. 

I feel that Bill's narrative about the cause of his trauma is false and not worthy of validation. Moreover, I feel that his narrative is causing other people spiritual harm. So I don't feel any moral obligation to refrain from publicly saying so, and I can't see why you think I should feel this type of moral obligation in the first place. Your principle is completely unjustified once it is tested in situations where you aren't inherently biased to agree with or sympathize with the self-proclaimed victim. So we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by Ryan Dahle

[hope_for_things]

41 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

So we will just have to agree to disagree.

I agree, the argument is getting somewhat circular at this point.  

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

In my experience people say they want Christ-like conduct but as soon as you make a whip and start driving people out for profaning the holy they get even whinier. I think they failed to think the request through.

I don't think we understand Christ at all.  Far too often being Christlike is made to sound like a Disney cartoon.

I think we ignore the Christ of scripture in favor of the Christ of inspirational memes and pop psychology.  Or apparently in Bill's case an imaginary philosopher with a few good ideas.

Edited August 4, 2018 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

7 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I did not mean to weaponize the statement.  Was never in my intent.  I did want to make a point, and I have understood that it was taken the wrong way.

I am happy to give a formal apology if anyone would like one.  Did not mean to harm/offend.

I didn't read your post that way.  For awhile there, it was a very common comment on the board, so there may be some who generally read it that way.  I don't until I see someone using it often with only a certain group while never addressing others' behaviour.

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

I apologize if I overstated my views.

They're your views.  By definition, it is impossible for you to overstate your own views.  No one knows better what you believe and why you believe it than you do.  You can believe whatever you wish, about whatever subject you wish.  My only contention is that reasonable, sane, reasonably-intelligent people have considered the obstacles to belief that you apparently believe are insurmountable and have come to vastly different conclusions regarding those supposed insurmountable obstacles.  Obviously, you disagree; to each, his own.

Quote

But can I ask you a sincere question?  I don't want this to sound like an attack on your beliefs. Nor do I want this question to be about whether Joseph Smith is a prophet of God or not.  What I want to know is whether some of his claims can still be taken as fact.  And I don't in any way, want to derail this thread.  So whatever you answer, I will just accept as your point of view and move on.

OK. 

Quote

So here is my question.  Do you really believe that the papyrus scrolls purchased by Joseph. Smith from the touring mummies was actually written by the hand of Abraham himself?  When the dating of the scrolls are not even close to the time Abraham lived?  When the material on the scrolls have absolutely noting to do with what Joseph Smith said he translated? When the drawings in the Book of Abraham do not relate at all to the claims of Joseph Smith?  

I don't accept the premises upon which your leading questions are based, but thanks for asking.  I don't believe we have all of the papyri which originally were in the possession of Joseph Smith, and, given the absence of that material, I don't think it is possible to determine with any degree of certainty whether the Book of Abraham is fraudulent, even given the alleged non-correspondence between the Facsimiles and the extant text.  Given what's apparently missing from what Joseph Smith originally possessed, I don't think that alleged non-correspondence, standing alone, is sufficient to make a definitive case against the Book of Abraham.

Quote

Or do you believe the Book of Abraham to be the word of God because of your spiritual experience. Or is it both?  

I don't see any reason why that must be an either-or proposition, although if someone says that the state of the currently available evidence is not sufficient, standing alone, to make a definitive case for the genuineness of the Book of Abraham, I think that's correct.  The thing is, I don't think God cares about that, and I don't see why He should.  

Quote

Same goes with the Kenderhook plates that Joseph Smith also claimed to translate?

I don't think the Kinderhook plates make as damning a case against Joseph Smith as you suggest, and I don't think you read the material to which you referred me in an effort to prove that the Kinderhook plates make Joseph Smith a fraud very carefully.  Your single cherry-picked excerpt wasn't representative of the overall thrust of the article.

As you yourself point out, this is a derail of this thread.  This will be my only reply to you regarding these matters.

Edited August 4, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

They're your views.  By definition, it is impossible for you to overstate your own views.  No one knows better what you believe and why you believe it than you do.  You can believe whatever you wish, about whatever subject you wish.  My only contention is that reasonable, sane, reasonably-intelligent people have considered the obstacles to belief that you apparently believe are insurmountable and have come to vastly different conclusions regarding those supposed insurmountable obstacles.  Obviously, you disagree; to each, his own.

OK. 

I don't accept the premises upon which your leading questions are based, but thanks for asking.  I don't believe we have all of the papyri which originally were in the possession of Joseph Smith, and, given the absence of that material, I don't think it is possible to determine with any degree of certainty whether the Book of Abraham is fraudulent, even given the alleged non-correspondence between the Facsimiles and the extant text.  Given what's apparently missing from what Joseph Smith originally possessed, I don't think that alleged non-correspondence, standing alone, is sufficient to make a definitive case against the Book of Abraham.

I don't see any reason why that must be an either-or proposition, although if someone says that the state of the currently available evidence is not sufficient, standing alone, to make a definitive case for the genuineness of the Book of Abraham, I think that's correct.  The thing is, I don't think God cares about that, and I don't see why He should.  

I don't think the Kinderhook plates make as damning a case against Joseph Smith as you suggest, and I don't think you read the material to which you referred me in an effort to prove that the Kinderhook plates make Joseph Smith a fraud very carefully.  Your single cherry-picked excerpt wasn't representative of the overall thrust of the article.

As you yourself point out, this is a derail of this thread.  This will be my only reply to you regarding these matters.

Thanks for your response.   Nice to get your perspective.

[why me]

On 8/3/2018 at 6:00 AM, sunstoned said:

Bill questioned and called out a apostle who was lying.  If anyone is led away by this, the I would suggest it was the actions of the apostle, and not Bill.

I  don't think that this is the only reason. However, it is good copy to single it out. I am sure that if the apostle lied, he was called out by many other members who are not facing excommunication. It goes much deeper than one issue.