Neutral Scholarship Re: Joseph Smith - Is it Even Possible?

[Ahab]

20 hours ago, california boy said:

So basically you are saying that laws against any religious belief is up for a vote if there is enough support?  Wow.  I guess you have figured out a way to justify Prop 8 at the expense of the religious liberty.  

Sure, people can vote on whatever they want to vote on, regardless of whether or not anyone approves or disapproves.  Is the concept of voting new to you or have you just not thought much about the power inherent in agency?

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

First of all, my original comments, were only to address the overall question(s), asked by the thread author, and to give my opinion concerning such “podcasts”, and their purposes thereof. I was also speaking to the claim and comments, again posed by the thread author, of how many (millions) were able to leave the Churches in which they were raised, and did not look back, with neither longing, or criticizing those many Faiths.
 

I was also pointing out, that I “too” was, or am one of those millions who have done so, left the Church in which I was raised, and the pulpit in which I first started began teaching, seeking to in my Father’s footsteps. But once I had found the Book of Mormon, and via the powerful testimony granted unto me, I was able to leave with “perfect and purposeful” ease. By so doing, I was able to do so without looking back, nor feel the need to criticize my former Faith. In short, I was able to let go completely, and did not feel the need to lead others out. In fact with this being your second or third reply, it seems you are making the point that many believer, “that those who leave the Church, can’t leave the Church alone”. So another point, just as disaffected members, in the early days of the Church, did set out too, and did secede in killing the Prophet Joseph Smith, many seek to kill him in every subsequent generation, and will long after you and I are gone. 

Also, to suggest that John, Bill’s, and others podcasts always have “experts”, who give “expert” opinions on these podcasts, is very disingenuous. Some, just like here, are there solely to give their “opinions”, and “exit testimonials”, with sole purpose of both “cleansing their consciences”, and to give aide and comfort, to those also seeking a way out. A sort of “odd“, strength in numbers. Therefore, just as we are a “missionary minded Church“, and our testimonies grow with every covert, they too have their decisions, or positions, “bolstered”, by the numbers that they lead away. The fact that I can call in, or have typed in with my “opinions”, and have them quoted is clear proof that not n the “Scholarly”, need apply to be heard. As I bring no such gravitas to the table, as my style of debate is different than most. I just “know”, beyond all doubt, a pure testimony. I have doubts about many things in my life, but my first exposure to the Book of Mormon and my four decades since, leaves no room for doubt. This is all I can bring to the table, where for the most part, their houses are built upon and girded about with only doubt, and the constant need to reinforce this doubt. 
 

Now, I fear this is all I can submit, because the manner in which I must post, and limitations of doing so, not to mention the physical difficulties and pain, I must bow out. I fear that it is best I only deal with one question at a time. Also, whatever slight you may have felt I was signaling, I assure you, my original comments were not directed at you personally, nor to every person who ever left the Church. A Church I have begun to wonder if I can ever physically attend again, as I am going to see yet another surgeon tomorrow, to see if anything can be done to improve the quality of my life. I just gone home a few days ago from a hospital stay, and pray that tomorrow does not put me back upon the same path. 

Well my best wishes to you, Papa. 

[Navidad]

On 8/29/2020 at 2:17 PM, bdouglas said:

I think the answer to this question is that it is not possible for anyone, once they have come into contact with JS and the Restoration, to take a neutral position. Once you come into contact with these things you are compelled to vote yay or nay; and if you vote nay——well then you become an enemy and you assume the posture of an enemy and it becomes a battle to the death.

And if you think it is anything less than a battle to the death, you are deluding yourself.

For this reason I think the turn LDS scholars made some time back to produce scholarship that was neutral on the truth claims of the church, or at least not front and center——I think this was/is misguided. Everyone has to stake out a position, and this position has to be clear and unequivocal.

So: let the battle commence.

I am not sure how you define "to take a neutral position." Here is my position and I will leave it to you to define whether it is neutral or not. I can say I never felt like I am an enemy or have assumed the posture of an enemy during my many interactions with the church history department, MHA, several general authorities, or our ward. I never felt that until I came here. On this forum I feel like I am an enemy. I deeply regret that. I also am a rather intense feeler. I feel things a lot. I acknowledge that. It is hard for me to be tough and thick skinned as several of you have advised me to be. I don't understand why I have to be thick-skinned in the presence of fellow Christians. That brings me to the heart of my response to your comment. Here is what I believe as a result of my contact with JS and the Restoration:

I believe that the majority of the LDS members that I have come in contact with are Godly and fully Christians, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. I vote Yea!
I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God in the manner of Billy Graham, not in the manner of Ezekiel.
I believe with Joseph Smith that the atonement is the thing and that all the rest are appendages.
I believe in the genuineness of the Christian love as displayed by our ward members in the same way I have observed it in any other church which I have attended.
I believe the LDS church is complex and special; just about as special as any other Christian group I have encountered - no more or less.
I believe that there are doctrines in the church I cannot fully grasp. I think D&C 1:30 is aspirational. It is a subjunctive case verse. It describes a goal, not a realized condition.
I do not see any unique characteristics of a special priesthood in the men of the church. They seem like pretty regular guys to me.
I do not believe that only LDS ordinances are valid. I do believe the LDS is not the first restorational church, nor will it be the last.
I greatly admire the focus on the family; although I also think I will see and know and perhaps live with my wife for eternity with Christ. I hope so. I cannot say I know so, because anything beyond the veil in unknowable.
I believe many faithful members of the LDS church have significant blind spots about how they come across to non-LDS Christians. I also believe, with Dr. Mouw that many non-LDS Christians owe LDS Christians an apology.
I believe that many members of the LDS church are arrogant in a nice, kind, smiley sort of a way. There is no way that anyone who believes they are the only can be anything else. I don't see how my LDS Christian friends can believe they can show respect to non-LDS Christians when at the very core, they believe that non-LDS Christians are incomplete Christians and need the assistance of LDS ordinances to spend eternity with God. That one just baffles me.
I do believe in on-going revelation; that is why I pray and seek God's will for my life. I don't believe He reveals His will to me for your life.

I think that is about it. Am I neutral? I know I am on the edge of the inside and the cusp of the outside. I know I am not really a brother in an atonement sense. This forum has almost destroyed my faith in the LDS church. I invested too much and cared too much. I would guess I will be more neutral than positive in the future. Take care.

Edited September 2, 2020 by Navidad

[Navidad]

23 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Now, I fear this is all I can submit, because the manner in which I must post, and limitations of doing so, not to mention the physical difficulties and pain, I must bow out. I fear that it is best I only deal with one question at a time. Also, whatever slight you may have felt I was signaling, I assure you, my original comments were not directed at you personally, nor to every person who ever left the Church. A Church I have begun to wonder if I can ever physically attend again, as I am going to see yet another surgeon tomorrow, to see if anything can be done to improve the quality of my life. I just gone home a few days ago from a hospital stay, and pray that tomorrow does not put me back upon the same path. 

You are a good person. I hope you will accept a Mennonite's prayers for your physical health. My wife and I will sustain you in that.

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God in the manner of Billy Graham, not in the manner of Ezekiel.

In what way was Billy Graham a "prophet", like Joseph Smith? 

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You are a good person. I hope you will accept a Mennonite's prayers for your physical health. My wife and I will sustain you in that.

I'm sure @Bill “Papa” Lee will appreciate this, but you quoted me so he might not see it. You can fix that with an edit

Edited September 2, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Tacenda]

33 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure how you define "to take a neutral position." Here is my position and I will leave it to you to define whether it is neutral or not. I can say I never felt like I am an enemy or have assumed the posture of an enemy during my many interactions with the church history department, MHA, several general authorities, or our ward. I never felt that until I came here. On this forum I feel like I am an enemy. I deeply regret that. I also am a rather intense feeler. I feel things a lot. I acknowledge that. It is hard for me to be tough and thick skinned as several of you have advised me to be. I don't understand why I have to be thick-skinned in the presence of fellow Christians. That brings me to the heart of my response to your comment. Here is what I believe as a result of my contact with JS and the Restoration:

I believe that the majority of the LDS members that I have come in contact with are Godly and fully Christians, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. I vote Yea!
I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God in the manner of Billy Graham, not in the manner of Ezekiel.
I believe with Joseph Smith that the atonement is the thing and that all the rest are appendages.
I believe in the genuineness of the Christian love as displayed by our ward members as I have observed it in any other church which I have attended.
I believe the LDS church is complex and special; just about as special as any other Christian group I have encountered - no more spirituality or faithfulness - no less.
I believe that there are doctrines in the church I cannot agree with. For example I think D&C 1:30 is aspirational. It is a subjunctive case verse. It describes a goal, not a realized condition.
I do not see any unique characteristics of a special priesthood in the men of the church. They seem like pretty regular guys to me.
I do not believe that only LDS ordinances are valid. I do believe the LDS is not the first restorational church, nor will it be the last.
I greatly admire the focus on the family; although I also think I will see and know and perhaps live with my wife for eternity with Christ. I hope so. I cannot say I know so, because anything beyond the veil in unknowable.
I believe many faithful members of the LDS church have significant blind spots about how they come across to non-LDS Christians. I also believe, with Dr. Mouw that many non-LDS Christians owe LDS Christians an apology.
I believe that many members of the LDS church are arrogant in a nice, kind, smiley sort of a way. There is no way that anyone who believes they are the only can be anything else. I don't see how my LDS Christian friends can believe they can show respect to non-LDS Christians when at the very core, they believe that non-LDS Christians are incomplete Christians and need the assistance of LDS ordinances to spend eternity with God. That one just baffles me.
I do believe in on-going revelation; that is why I pray and seek God's will for my life. I don't believe He reveals His will to me for your life.

I think that is about it. Am I neutral? I know I am on the edge of the inside and the cusp of the outside. I know I am not really a brother in an atonement sense. This forum has almost destroyed my faith in the LDS church. I invested too much and cared too much. I would guess I will be more neutral than positive in the future. Take care.

I think some members on this forum, aren't like this in person, honestly. Or they can correct me if wrong. I think they'd act like the members in the ward you go to. I know I'm not how I am in person, the way I am on the forum, don't dare say how my true feelings are to people other than my husband, about my feelings on faith now.

I saw an article the other day that might show the problem here. It's people that have high expectations of themselves or more self control that might act differently in public than they do in private or a forum like this because of those tendencies. And probably shouldn't be blamed because of being taught about striving for perfection all their lives.  This article mentions that it brings out the dark side. I want to add that there are different shades and some attitudes on this forum, I wouldn't paint as dark, but maybe a lighter shade of dark, but where it should be all light. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200827-how-self-control-can-actually-unleash-your-dark-side?ocid=global_worklife_rss&xtor=ES-213-[BBC+News+Newsletter]-2020August31-[worklife&fbclid=IwAR2u20KqPj1ZyUYv9BoX1gAhDYLo2LGJ9RuvE-nppmX4dEM6rynSfJxI8Lk

Which is a sad thing to be sure. I only bring this up because it's something that has bothered me when I see my extended family who are all very faithful LDS act differently in certain situations than with their public persona. I've been very disappointed to see so much judgement. Not all of them, just a few. And on this forum, it's just a few or maybe I got this all wrong. 

Edited September 2, 2020 by Tacenda

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm sure @Bill “Papa” Lee will appreciate this, but you quoted me so he might not see it. You can fix that with an edit

I am so sorry. I messed up the first time I tried to post in months. I don't know how to edit it to fix my mistake. Oh well, I hope he will see it and accept the spirit in which I sent it to him. I am taking my wife up to El Paso every week in preparation for surgeries. So my heart is tender right now to what Bill "Papa" Lee shared. Again, I apologize for messing it up.

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am so sorry. I messed up the first time I tried to post in months. I don't know how to edit it to fix my mistake. Oh well, I hope he will see it and accept the spirit in which I sent it to him. I am taking my wife up to El Paso every week in preparation for surgeries. So my heart is tender right now to what Bill "Papa" Lee shared. Again, I apologize for messing it up.

No apology needed! I just want to do my duty with the misplaced mail ☺️

My best wishes to you and your wife right now.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

In what way was Billy Graham a "prophet", like Joseph Smith? 

I just wrote you a long reply to your question. When I hit submit reply I got a 403 message and it all disappeared. I don't know what happened, but I can't rebuild the whole reply right now. I should have copied and saved it prior to trying to post. Sorry.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure how you define "to take a neutral position." Here is my position and I will leave it to you to define whether it is neutral or not. I can say I never felt like I am an enemy or have assumed the posture of an enemy during my many interactions with the church history department, MHA, several general authorities, or our ward. I never felt that until I came here.

I am genuinely sorry if I have contributed to you being offended, and am trying to repent of my bellicose nature when it comes to church discussions

I wonder if you have discussed your feelings about DC 1:30- or the "one true church" aspect of our beliefs with those several general authorities, or those in the church history department, or for that matter the members of your ward, and if so, how they reacted to your firm position that such an attitude was uncommon in your conception of Christianity.

I also tend to be an "intense feeler" and unfortunately our discussions have centered around this continually repeated point of disagreement and after a while, I have a tendency to be offended myself when communication simply does not seem to be happening.

As we know it takes two to generate a feeling of offense- the offender and the offended.  And of course usually the offender is unaware that he has crossed that line into offending the "offendee"  and does so without realizing it.  After discussing the same point several times with no resultant communication evident,  I tend to get frustrated and short-tempered.

In fact, after reading this, frankly, I felt the same way yet again.

Quote

 

I believe that there are doctrines in the church I cannot agree with. For example I think D&C 1:30 is aspirational. It is a subjunctive case verse. It describes a goal, not a realized condition.
I do not see any unique characteristics of a special priesthood in the men of the church. They seem like pretty regular guys to me.
I do not believe that only LDS ordinances are valid. I do believe the LDS is not the first restorational church, nor will it be the last.
I greatly admire the focus on the family; although I also think I will see and know and perhaps live with my wife for eternity with Christ. I hope so. I cannot say I know so, because anything beyond the veil in unknowable.
I believe many faithful members of the LDS church have significant blind spots about how they come across to non-LDS Christians. I also believe, with Dr. Mouw that many non-LDS Christians owe LDS Christians an apology.
I believe that many members of the LDS church are arrogant in a nice, kind, smiley sort of a way. There is no way that anyone who believes they are the only can be anything else. I don't see how my LDS Christian friends can believe they can show respect to non-LDS Christians when at the very core, they believe that non-LDS Christians are incomplete Christians and need the assistance of LDS ordinances to spend eternity with God. That one just baffles me.

 

Again, you have seen us as "arrogant" and apparently hypocritical since we are "smiley" while doing so, and you don't see any possible cure for our arrogance since we believe we are the only true church.   You said we see non-LDS Christians as "incomplete"

I am sorry if these facts offend you, but I think it is an issue you have that we all know about.

I wish we could avoid discussing it, if it offends you, but it appears one way or another all the time.

I will try my best to not let my "intense feely" side react to these points.

I have found that there are two ways we can handle disagreements in good faith between two people- one is to "react" - and that comes out of emotion and feeling like one is being attacked.  Reacting means loss of control and lashing out at the other person.   The other way to handle a disagreement is to "respond" in a calm and thoughtful manner.

I pledge to do my best to respond to your questions, and not react.

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I just wrote you a long reply to your question. When I hit submit reply I got a 403 message and it all disappeared. I don't know what happened, but I can't rebuild the whole reply right now. I should have copied and saved it prior to trying to post. Sorry.

I have gotten so many of those it is a habit now on long posts.  You never know what is going to happen when you hit that button.

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I just wrote you a long reply to your question. When I hit submit reply I got a 403 message and it all disappeared. I don't know what happened, but I can't rebuild the whole reply right now. I should have copied and saved it prior to trying to post. Sorry.

That happens to me sometimes but when go back to the start my comment is still there until I figure out why or what word it doesn't like, until finally it accepts the changes. Have you tried that ?

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

Sure, people can vote on whatever they want to vote on, regardless of whether or not anyone approves or disapproves.  Is the concept of voting new to you or have you just not thought much about the power inherent in agency?

The concept of voting against rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States is new to me.  Constitutional rights are not up for a vote. Is the concept of Constitutional rights new to you?  

Our laws require a Constitutional amendment to change those rights.  And that is way more complicated than just a popular vote.

 

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I just wrote you a long reply to your question. When I hit submit reply I got a 403 message and it all disappeared. I don't know what happened, but I can't rebuild the whole reply right now. I should have copied and saved it prior to trying to post. Sorry.

That is the worst!  No rush.

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I just wrote you a long reply to your question. When I hit submit reply I got a 403 message and it all disappeared. I don't know what happened, but I can't rebuild the whole reply right now. I should have copied and saved it prior to trying to post. Sorry.

Usually means you used a verboten word in your reply. There are quite a few of them on the site.

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am genuinely sorry if I have contributed to you being offended, and am trying to repent of my bellicose nature when it comes to church discussions

I wonder if you have discussed your feelings about DC 1:30- or the "one true church" aspect of our beliefs with those several general authorities, or those in the church history department, or for that matter the members of your ward, and if so, how they reacted to your firm position that such an attitude was uncommon in your conception of Christianity.

I also tend to be an "intense feeler" and unfortunately our discussions have centered around this continually repeated point of disagreement and after a while, I have a tendency to be offended myself when communication simply does not seem to be happening.

As we know it takes two to generate a feeling of offense- the offender and the offended.  And of course usually the offender is unaware that he has crossed that line into offending the "offendee"  and does so without realizing it.  After discussing the same point several times with no resultant communication evident,  I tend to get frustrated and short-tempered.

In fact, after reading this, frankly, I felt the same way yet again.

Again, you have seen us as "arrogant" and apparently hypocritical since we are "smiley" while doing so, and you don't see any possible cure for our arrogance since we believe we are the only true church.   You said we see non-LDS Christians as "incomplete"

I am sorry if these facts offend you, but I think it is an issue you have that we all know about.

I wish we could avoid discussing it, if it offends you, but it appears one way or another all the time.

I will try my best to not let my "intense feely" side react to these points.

I have found that there are two ways we can handle disagreements in good faith between two people- one is to "react" - and that comes out of emotion and feeling like one is being attacked.  Reacting means loss of control and lashing out at the other person.   The other way to handle a disagreement is to "respond" in a calm and thoughtful manner.

I pledge to do my best to respond to your questions, and not react.

Hi Mark: I have discussed DC 1:30 with many LDS folks. I am sure I have done so with church history folks and with my LDS professor friends, especially one particular prof. I have discussed it with a number of folks in the ward, including all three members of our bishopric, as well as our stake president. I also found a wonderful presentation at a recent Sunstone conference. I have discussed it with a number of folks. I have certainly discussed it many times with those assigned to minister to us. One simply says "I don't agree with that either!" Oh well! It does take two to be offended. I would add that scripturally I think both bear responsibility. It was a big part of my training to never be a stumbling block to those seeking to learn more about faith. Here, I sometimes have found folks who are oblivious to the fact that they might be a stumbling block to someone by perhaps the manner or way they express what they have believed since primary.  I don't know but I don't think the concept of causing someone to stumble is something taught in LDS seminary, institute, primary, etc. Of course, it may be - but it just seems like folks here are a tiny bit oblivious to it, especially when they are simply telling the seeker how it is! During my away time the past several months I have really been reading a lot. That has changed some of my views. Mostly, as you point out, I still struggle with the same old things. Nothing has happened to change that.

I realize that everything I said in this post I have said before. However, I was replying to the OP who I don't remember being on the board before. He or she would have no idea where I am coming from as I tried to answer the OP question. I certainly agree about reacting and responding. I will try too. I get so much grief from my friends and family for "wasting my time" trying to learn about the LDS faith. I get so much grief from my LDS friends for not simply agreeing that as I am I will never experience eternity with God. The combination can be overwhelming. Perhaps you don't realize how serious this all is for me. I still think there is a perspective that I am playing pretend, play-acting, etc. so why would I get upset about being told I am doomed unless I see the light. Sorry I am just babbling on again. You are right, you have heard this all before. I am just irritating you. Sorry.

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Usually means you used a verboten word in your reply. There are quite a few of them on the site.

Is there a list somewhere? Let's see, I said Billy Graham - that ought to have done it! Ha!

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I certainly agree about reacting and responding. I will try too. I get so much grief from my friends and family for "wasting my time" trying to learn about the LDS faith. I get so much grief from my LDS friends for not simply agreeing that as I am I will never experience eternity with God. The combination can be overwhelming. Perhaps you don't realize how serious this all is for me. I still think there is a perspective that I am playing pretend, play-acting, etc. so why would I get upset about being told I am doomed unless I see the light.

I really pray that someday you will see our doctrine as I do- and that this impression results from a harsh fundamentalist interpretation of I don't know what.

We preach hope for those who are progressing- and that includes all of us.  I do not believe for one moment, at least from what I know of you and your character, that any of this view you describe above is even remotely "true".  You might actually be a serial murderer though, so who knows

But seriously I do not believe for one minute that what you state above is remotely even close to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.   You are a sincere seeker of God as far as I can tell, and sincere seekers doing their best will qualify for the highest of kingdoms.  That is what I know, not "believe"

I find that you think that we teach that you "will never experience eternity with God" is a mean distortion perhaps delivered to you by the Father of lies instead of our Father in heaven.

We simply do not believe that.

Yes there may be some here who spout that extreme fundamentalist view just as there are Christians who actually believe that if one was born in China in 1000 BC you will burn in hell forever because you never accepted Jesus.

If that is the way it is- count me out.  I would rather be a Buddhist.  The spirit inside me simply rejects those kinds of views as unqualified..... excrement, preached by harsh people with a harsh sense of values and raised by harsh parents, who see our Father as a parent as harsh as their parents were to Him.

That is not the God that speaks to me- that is not the healer Jesus Christ who came to us so that we could be free of those kind of hateful views.

Please take our view for what it is- that we all can progress forever if we want to do so.   It is the most generous view of God that I think is possible.  It is virtual universalism not only preaching "salvation" and the promise of getting our own cloud so we can strum a harp forever- but that slimy little slugs as we are today can some day grow up to be AS God IS after a few eternities of working on our righteousness.

I cannot imagine a greater blessing!!

Our beliefs now are shadows of a reality we cannot fathom for we see through a distorted mirror.  Why a mirror? because what we actually see is ourselves in a distorted understanding- not as God sees us, but as we see ourselves though a glass darkly

I hope someday I will qualify to have a discussion with you on the other side so I can say "I told you so" in a context where you will see that I have been right all along. 

I wish you could see it as I do, that's all I have to say.   Something is blocking you, and I don't think that block comes from God.  I feel I have to say give up the resentment and accept the image of freedom from guilt that Christ truly provides for those who love him.

His gospel is simple and loving if we simply take upon ourselves his yoke, which is light . Do not be "heavy laden" by these things any more.

Matt 11:

Quote

25  At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. 26 Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. 27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. 28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

 

[Islander]

On 8/29/2020 at 2:17 PM, bdouglas said:

Alter Idem on Robert Ritner thread said:

This is a curious thing. What is that prevents the ex-Mormon from simply leaving and finding another church or belief system that suits him better than Mormonism, and then leaving it at that?

For example, my wife is a convert from the Catholic church. She went to Catholic schools as a child and teenager, and met the missionaries when she was 20 and never looked back. She has literally never spent even a minute of her life since bashing Catholicism. Rather, she says, “I love the Catholic church, but I don’t believe it. Not since coming into contact with the Book of Mormon.”

What is it that prevents a Bill Reel or a John Dehlin or a Jeremy Runnells from doing the same? They are not content to leave Mormonism, they wish to see it burn, abolished, wiped from the face of the earth.

What is that prevented John Bennett or Symonds Ryder from simply walking away and saying, “Well I’m glad all that crazy Mormonism is behind me”? Why did they turn virulent enemy and seek the life of JS?

What is that prevented Lucifer from saying, “I’ll dwell here in my space, and let Christ, Abraham et al dwell in theirs. I can be as happy in my place as they are in theirs”? But Lucifer doesn’t do this. He cannot, will not, rest until God and Christ and goodness generally are banished from the universe.

I think the answer to this question is that it is not possible for anyone, once they have come into contact with JS and the Restoration, to take a neutral position. Once you come into contact with these things you are compelled to vote yay or nay; and if you vote nay——well then you become an enemy and you assume the posture of an enemy and it becomes a battle to the death.

And if you think it is anything less than a battle to the death, you are deluding yourself.

For this reason I think the turn LDS scholars made some time back to produce scholarship that was neutral on the truth claims of the church, or at least not front and center——I think this was/is misguided. Everyone has to stake out a position, and this position has to be clear and unequivocal.

So: let the battle commence.

Evil doesn't stand still. Besides, they are trying to monetize their endeavour.  

[JamesBYoung]

The attempt to contextualize and to be objective and not treat people as stick figures against the backdrop of the Restoration are key to good history writing. A Bushman or a Park or a Blythe are worth worth their weight in gold compared to the musings of a Peterson or a Baldwin.

Edited September 3, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[Ahab]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

I get so much grief from my friends and family for "wasting my time" trying to learn about the LDS faith. I get so much grief from my LDS friends for not simply agreeing that as I am I will never experience eternity with God. The combination can be overwhelming. 

None of us will be able to experience eternity with God as we are now.  We will all need to be changed, to some extent, and the more knowledge we gain, and the more love we share with others, the better our own experiences will be.

The only ones who will never be able to experience eternity with God, again, now that we have fallen from our former estate as we did when we came to this planet, will be those who are damned/stopped because they refused to do what it took for them to progress.

So keep at it, bro, and never give up trying to become as much like Jesus and our Father in heaven as you can as as they keep trying to teach you how you should be and all of the things you should know.

[Kevin Christensen]

Richard Bushman wrote on the topic of objectivity and on the value of those who published through FARMS in an essay called "The Social Dimensions of Rationality" which you can find in several places on the web.  He recognizes that to those who claim to practicing "objective science, the findings of Mormon scholar are necessarily polluted by their personal interest in the outcome."   But he goes on to notice the critics of the notion of objective scholarship, who observe that "the pretense of objectivity is an exercise in self-aggrandizement. Objectivity disguises a play for power by those who pretend to the authority of objective scholarship when they are every bit as self-interested in the outcome as any religious apologist."   And in the course of noticing that "every form of scholarship is rooted in a society, an imagined community of scholars in which the teachers or writers live and move and have their being. We cannot take a position on a scholarly issue without implicitly forming or breaking a social relationship."   And towards the end he bluntly states that "Objectivity is the claim of people who think they are gods now, not persons worshiping God, or striving to be like him, nor of persons who understand the reality of finite human life without God... in the end the Enlightenment project fails us. Even when science has done its work to perfection, it fails to tell us how to live a life."

 I presented on D&C 1:30 at a Sunstone several decades ago and published the line of thought in "Sophic Box and Mantic Vista" in Interpreter in 2013.

Quote

The first section of the Doctrine and Covenants was received in Hiram, Ohio on November 1, 1831, as a formal statement of “mine authority, and the authority of my servants.” (v 6). The leading verses describe how people have “strayed from mine ordinances and have broken mine everlasting covenant.” Verse 17 describes the calling of Joseph Smith in response, and verse 18 describes how God also gave commandments to unspecified [Page 133]“others.” Later, God explains that “I the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh; for I am no respecter of persons.” (v 34-35). Truth and revelation here are important for LDS claims, but both are expressly non-exclusive.

Speaking of the LDS leaders against the notion of absolute and actual truth as static and unchanging, see verses 24-28:

These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

And inasmuch as they erred, it might be made known;

And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

And inasmuch as they sinned, they might be chastened that they might repent;

And inasmuch as they were made humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

The truth the LDS possess is here explicitly imperfect and incomplete rather than absolute and final. Because the formal claims made for LDS authorities include incompleteness and imperfection, the presence of such should not diminish their authority any more than the imperfections and incompleteness of science diminishes the authority of science. By formal definition, both societies offer not static absolute truths but self-correcting processes.

My reading of verse 30, regarding the distinction of the church, suggests that the word “only” applies to the phrase “with which I, the Lord am well pleased.” (Consider a sentence about the “only blue and idling car upon the face of the whole parking [Page 134]lot, with which I, the attendant, am well pleased.” That is not just a florid and emphatic way to say “only blue car” but provides a very different thought.) The “well-pleased” designation in D&C 1 applies to the church and is relative to what “true and living” means as descriptive qualities for church. It happens that the Biblical occurrences of true and living cast light on the meaning: “true vine,” “true treasure,” “truth and life,” “tree of life,” “living bread,” “living waters,” “new and living way through the veil” (Hebrews 10:20); and “true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22). The Bible imagery of “true and living” has to do with the voice of warning (Jeremiah 10:10, and D&C 1:2), priesthood (true vine, John 15:1-5), living bread and living waters (sacrament and baptism, Holy Spirit inspiration, scripture; that is, ordinances and covenants and revelation), and finally, tree of life and “living way through the veil,” which both point to the temple and Christ’s role as the Melchizedek High Priest who enters the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. ((See Margaret Barker, “The Great High Priest” BYU Studies 42/3&4 (2003): 64–84.)) The themes that go with Biblical “true and living” imagery parallel the themes of D&C 1 point for point, verse for verse. Collectively all of these Bible images based on “true and/or living” center on the ongoing revelation and the distinctive priesthood ordinances and covenants, scriptures and temple worship that do, in actual fact and practice, distinguish the LDS from other faiths. But the designation is expressly non-exclusive and incomplete relative to truth, revelation, and human virtue. Riskas refers to “‘the only true Church’ on the face of the earth today,” but he has not considered the fact of his misquotation ((Riskas, 174. Contrast D&C 1:30.)) and consequent inaccuracy of thought, and therefore he has not considered the implications of his own misreading as a “multiplier of negative [Page 135]effects.” ((Riskas, 383.)) My point is that the expectations that I get from a close reading of D&C 1 are far more tolerant and robust than the expectations that Riskas uses to test LDS truth claims. 

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

The actual way to remove beams from our own eyes is not to claim objectivity, or to claim that one's opponents spout only fake news on grounds that, "Why would I ever be on the wrong side of any issue of question?  Why would I ever choose to be wrong about anything?" is to start with being self-critical in a way that is not completely paradigm-dependent.  And that is an ongoing process, continual repentence.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Ahab]

19 hours ago, california boy said:

The concept of voting against rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States is new to me.  Constitutional rights are not up for a vote. Is the concept of Constitutional rights new to you?  

Our laws require a Constitutional amendment to change those rights.  And that is way more complicated than just a popular vote.

 

We all have God-given rights, which we refer to as inalienable rights, but God-given rights are not universally accepted by all of mankind and some of the rights that are upheld by some of mankind are not what God wants us to choose to do.

We all have agency/the power to choose to murder someone, for example, or to commit some other type of sin,but the fact that we have the power to choose to do that doesn't mean that is something God wants us to do.

And everything is always up for debate, with people on both sides either approving or opposing any or all of the many things that we have the power to choose to do.

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Richard Bushman wrote on the topic of objectivity and on the value of those who published through FARMS in an essay called "The Social Dimensions of Rationality" which you can find in several places on the web.  He recognizes that to those who claim to practicing "objective science, the findings of Mormon scholar are necessarily polluted by their personal interest in the outcome."   But he goes on to notice the critics of the notion of objective scholarship, who observe that "the pretense of objectivity is an exercise in self-aggrandizement. Objectivity disguises a play for power by those who pretend to the authority of objective scholarship when they are every bit as self-interested in the outcome as any religious apologist."   And in the course of noticing that "every form of scholarship is rooted in a society, an imagined community of scholars in which the teachers or writers live and move and have their being. We cannot take a position on a scholarly issue without implicitly forming or breaking a social relationship."   And towards the end he bluntly states that "Objectivity is the claim of people who think they are gods now, not persons worshiping God, or striving to be like him, nor of persons who understand the reality of finite human life without God... in the end the Enlightenment project fails us. Even when science has done its work to perfection, it fails to tell us how to live a life."

 I presented on D&C 1:30 at a Sunstone several decades ago and published the line of thought in "Sophic Box and Mantic Vista" in Interpreter in 2013.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

The actual way to remove beams from our own eyes is not to claim objectivity, or to claim that one's opponents spout only fake news on grounds that, "Why would I ever be on the wrong side of any issue of question?  Why would I ever choose to be wrong about anything?" is to start with being self-critical in a way that is not completely paradigm-dependent.  And that is an ongoing process, continual repentence.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thanks for posting this. I look forward to digging into your article this evening. I am sure I will learn a lot.  Thanks again.