Seer Stone In A Hat

[CA Steve]

10 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

It's obvious you know little to nothing about "The New Mormonism " and those who promote it.  Those who want to see, will see and those who want to hear will hear.....ignorance is bliss for some...

When you accuse Ben of knowing "little to nothing about "The New Mormonsim" " it is immediately obvious you are the one who does not want to learn.

You may want to spend a little more time reading and less time moralizing.

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by CA Steve

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

When you accuse Ben of knowing "little to nothing about "The New Mormonsim" " it is immediately obvious you are the one who does not want to learn.

You may want to spend a little more time reading and less time moralizing.

 

Speaking of “ignorance is bliss”.  

[CA Steve]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Speaking of “ignorance is bliss”.  

It reminds me a lot of the discussions we have seen over the years regarding Joseph Smith's polygamy practices. The evidence is overwhelming for his polygamy involvement, but preconceived narratives are very hard to change, especially when presentism is involved. Protests about "The New Mormonism" (which, ironically, I think is old news, as I was encountering it more than 40 years ago when Shipps started to publish.) or the "the youth leaving the church"  are just attempts to label people so one can dismiss evidence without responding to it. My father was similarly inclined. I remember calling him up to tell him about this new project and website the Church was doing called the Joseph Smith Papers Project. Even though I explained it was a Church run project, his first question was "Is this an anti-Mormon site?" 

A lot of this type of thinking could have been avoided had the Church allowed Arrington to finish his work as Church Historian.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, CA Steve said:

It reminds me a lot of the discussions we have seen over the years regarding Joseph Smith's polygamy practices. The evidence is overwhelming for his polygamy involvement, but preconceived narratives are very hard to change, especially when presentism is involved. Protests about "The New Mormonism" (which, ironically, I think is old news, as I was encountering it more than 40 years ago when Shipps started to publish.) or the "the youth leaving the church"  are just attempts to label people so one can dismiss evidence without responding to it. My father was similarly inclined. I remember calling him up to tell him about this new project and website the Church was doing called the Joseph Smith Papers Project. Even though I explained it was a Church run project, his first question was "Is this an anti-Mormon site?" 

A lot of this type of thinking could have been avoided had the Church allowed Arrington to finish his work as Church Historian.

Are you following Ben Spackman’s dissertation work?  He posts on FB nice finds in the journals and letters and other writings he is examining.  It is interesting and frustrating at times to see how certain strands of thought not original to the Church or our doctrine got translated into it by leaders who were unfortunately overly fond on some nonMormon writers, not a bad thing in itself, a very good thing actually and we are commanded to seek out of the best books, but the ones they chose were not so “best” in my view.  Those nondoctrinal ideas added to a few leaders’ non doctrinal views of the scriptures as the ultimate measure of truth in all things messed up their logic and messed up a good portion of church culture and teachings (not doctrine) for decades.  Good men (and women) can make bad mistakes.  Thankfully other good people can help repair the damage.

And thank goodness for the Atonement which heals all wounds, spiritual, physical, and mental in the eternities.

It will be interesting to see the reaction when this and other of Ben S’ stuff gets published in a coherent and well documented whole, so people see for themselves whether certain ideas about science taught in church or by a few church leaders that then spread widely among membership were inspired or not. 

I think the last century of the Church’s existence is a good example of how certain teachings can get off track and then corrections are made in our faith, both in historical and scientific beliefs.   This last century’s derailment and correction is easy to see Imo given the extensive documentation out there.  I am grateful the Church has always made a big deal about keeping records since the beginning and is also willing to correct, if quietly, though I wish we had a lot more documents from the first one hundred years.

The Church is likely to remain socially conservative imo, but it will be interesting to see what it becomes when it loses (hopefully) the antiscientific/anti scholar cultural slant that has run through some of our materials and some aspects of our cultural and even scriptural narratives.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Calm

[rjohnson7]

10 hours ago, CA Steve said:

When you accuse Ben of knowing "little to nothing about "The New Mormonsim" " it is immediately obvious you are the one who does not want to learn.

You may want to spend a little more time reading and less time moralizing.

 

Since I have been here I have thanked everyone for their input and then your friend posted this....

 

 And you can believe that the LDS Church is somehow progressive, or revisionist, but this means that what you are really saying is that you don't care about what actually happened - you only care about protecting the narrative that explains what you think should have happened. This is how people lose their faith - it is not by accepting more accurate historical accounts that come from first hand sources, it is by continuing to insist that the flawed and incorrect version must be true for the Church and its gospel message to be true.

Edit: I wanted to add one more comment. If the Church's narrative has been wrong, and the Church has now updated that narrative to better reflect what we now know was the historical reality, then there is a group of us (older members who have been members a long time) that will have to deal with this issue. But, most new members and younger members will not experience this same disconnect because the Church has in fact changed what they are telling people, and so those members won't experience the historically inaccurate narratives that you seem to be struggling with so much. The problem isn't with the Church changing the narrative, it is with some of us (as members) being unwilling to change with the Church. It is this sort of believing too much and not too little that creates frail testimonies.

 

I disagree with the above and found it to be a little contentious, I have even suggested books to read but I was not my mindset to be rude nor contentious.   He was rude and aggressive which was not necessary since I was always polite and complimentary .

[rjohnson7]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Speaking of “ignorance is bliss”.  

I hope you did not mean me....😇😇

[rjohnson7]

10 hours ago, CA Steve said:

It reminds me a lot of the discussions we have seen over the years regarding Joseph Smith's polygamy practices. The evidence is overwhelming for his polygamy involvement, but preconceived narratives are very hard to change, especially when presentism is involved. Protests about "The New Mormonism" (which, ironically, I think is old news, as I was encountering it more than 40 years ago when Shipps started to publish.) or the "the youth leaving the church"  are just attempts to label people so one can dismiss evidence without responding to it. My father was similarly inclined. I remember calling him up to tell him about this new project and website the Church was doing called the Joseph Smith Papers Project. Even though I explained it was a Church run project, his first question was "Is this an anti-Mormon site?" 

A lot of this type of thinking could have been avoided had the Church allowed Arrington to finish his work as Church Historian.

Arrington was a huge problem and the New Mormonism does not go back 40 years.   I thank you for your input, but I think I know more about then most LDS.

[rjohnson7]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you following Ben Spackman’s dissertation work?  He posts on FB nice finds in the journals and letters and other writings he is examining.  It is interesting and frustrating at times to see how certain strands of thought not original to the Church or our doctrine got translated into it by leaders who were unfortunately overly fond on some nonMormon writers, not a bad thing in itself, a very good thing actually and we are commanded to seek out of the best books, but the ones they chose were not so “best” in my view.  Those nondoctrinal ideas added to a few leaders’ non doctrinal views of the scriptures as the ultimate measure of truth in all things messed up their logic and messed up a good portion of church culture and teachings (not doctrine) for decades.  Good men (and women) can make bad mistakes.  Thankfully other good people can help repair the damage.

And thank goodness for the Atonement which heals all wounds, spiritual, physical, and mental in the eternities.

It will be interesting to see the reaction when this and other of Ben S’ stuff gets published in a coherent and well documented whole, so people see for themselves whether certain ideas about science taught in church or by a few church leaders that then spread widely among membership were inspired or not. 

I think the last century of the Church’s existence is a good example of how certain teachings can get off track and then corrections are made in our faith, both in historical and scientific beliefs.   This last century’s derailment and correction is easy to see Imo given the extensive documentation out there.  I am grateful the Church has always made a big deal about keeping records since the beginning and is also willing to correct, if quietly, though I wish we had a lot more documents from the first one hundred years.

The Church is likely to remain socially conservative imo, but it will be interesting to see what it becomes when it loses (hopefully) the antiscientific/anti scholar cultural slant that has run through some of our materials and some aspects of our cultural and even scriptural narratives.

Very good post....

[rjohnson7]

19 hours ago, webbles said:

No, I don't believe the plates were always covered.  And I don't really know which color the seer stone was, nor do I think it really matters.  I just believe that if you need to look at all of the first hand witness (Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and Emma Smith) to get an idea of what happened.  Focusing on just Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery isn't enough to figure out what happened since they both give extremely little information.  For example, neither of them mention the curtain.

Do you think there was a need for the plates and if not why?

[rjohnson7]

On 9/5/2023 at 12:15 AM, webbles said:

You are right that there is confusion and contradiction amongst the witnesses.  But if you ignore those statements, then there is no first hand witness of a blanket/curtain/etc.  Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery never mention a blanket/curtain/etc.  You keep bringing up why the blanket/curtain/etc was used but apparently you also disregard all the testimonies about the blanket/curtain/etc.  You can't have it both ways.

The way that Smith made his transcripts and transcriptions for Harris was the following. Although in the same room, a thick curtain or blanket was suspended between them, and Smith concealed behind the blanket, pretended to look through his spectacles, or transparent stones, and would then write down or repeat what he saw, which, when repeated aloud, was written down by Harris, who sat on the other side of the suspended blanket. Harris was told that it would arouse the most terrible divine displeasure, if he should attempt to draw near the sacred chest, or look at Smith while engaged in the work of decyphering the mysterious characters. This was Harris’s own account of the matter to me. [45]
 

John Clark.... 

[webbles]

37 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Do you think there was a need for the plates and if not why?

I do think there was a need for the plates.  And there was a discussion here on the board about that very thing.

[webbles]

26 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

The way that Smith made his transcripts and transcriptions for Harris was the following. Although in the same room, a thick curtain or blanket was suspended between them, and Smith concealed behind the blanket, pretended to look through his spectacles, or transparent stones, and would then write down or repeat what he saw, which, when repeated aloud, was written down by Harris, who sat on the other side of the suspended blanket. Harris was told that it would arouse the most terrible divine displeasure, if he should attempt to draw near the sacred chest, or look at Smith while engaged in the work of decyphering the mysterious characters. This was Harris’s own account of the matter to me. [45]
 

John Clark.... 

Yes, that's a statement from Martin Harris which I already quoted above to you.  Martin Harris also says that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat.  All the people with first-hand knowledge of the translation process that talk about the curtain/blanket also talk about the seer stone in the hat.  So, if you accept Martin Harris's testimony in regards to the blanket, then you should also accept his testimony in regards to the seer stone in the hat.

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

I have even suggested books to read but I was not my mindset to be rude nor contentious.   He was rude and aggressive which was not necessary since I was always polite and complimentary .

I can be blunt, which is not always the same things as being rude.

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

Arrington was a huge problem and the New Mormonism does not go back 40 years.

Arrington was never a huge problem. He was the first to open the Church archives and to allow trained historians to access the documents and to begin to put together a more accurate history of the Church - it is a tradition that the Church currently has given its full support to with the Joseph Smith Papers project. If you want to participate in the argument over whether or not the Church should have allowed this or not, that's fine. But the reality is that Arrington was chosen for the role as Church historian by the leaders of the Church. Arrington was a faithful member his entire life who applied his formal training as a historian to the work of cataloguing the Church archives and improving our understanding of the history of the Church. There is an odd self-contradiction here in the suggestion that Arrington is part of the New Mormonism and the claim that it doesn't go back 40 years. Arrington became the official LDS Church Historian in January of 1972 - 51 years ago.

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

I thank you for your input, but I think I know more about then most LDS.

Perhaps, but I think that I know more about this than you do. Just because we happen to sit on different sides of the question of whether or not the Church should be open about its history doesn't mean that I am less aware of these issues than you are.

Its also worth pointing out that Martin Harris was not a scribe for any of the Book of Mormon that we have today. He was the primary scribe for the 116 page manuscript that was lost. When the plates were returned to Joseph Smith and translation started again, Oliver Cowdery had replaced Martin Harris as the scribe. Ultimately, does it matter? Why should we pay attention to the source that you quote about the curtain? You know what the source was, right? It is an anti-mormon account by a Presbyterian minister (documenting, as the author says in the preface, the "Mormon Delusion"). The part that you quote comes from page 230. But just a couple of pages earlier (pp. 226-227) we read this:

Quote

But Jo had not been altogether obedient to the heavenly vision. After his marriage and return from Pennsylvania, he became so awfully impressed with the high destiny that awaited him, that he communicated the secret to his father and family. The money-digging propensity of the old man operated so powerfully, that he insisted upon it that they should go and dig and see if the chest was there - not with any view to remove it till the appointed time, but merely to satisfy themselves. Accordingly they went forth in the stillness of the night with their spades and mattocks to the spot where slumbered this sacred deposit. They had proceeded but a little while in the work of excavation, before the mysterious chest appeared; but lo! instantly it moved and glided along out of their sight. Directed, however, by the clairvoyance of Jo, they again penetrated to the spot where it stood, and succeeded in gaining a partial view of its dimensions.

In an account like this, how do you personally decide which accounts we should accept as true and which ones we should accept as lies? And if you want to engage a text like this, what makes you any different from the New Mormon History types that you seem to despise so much?

In the long run, whether you like it or not, the LDS Church has come to embrace much of what you label as the New Mormon History. Why? Because historians in their efforts have managed to produce a lot of evidence from the documents and the artifacts of the past that have helped correct the misinformed and sometimes misguided narratives that we have built over time with an even more incomplete understanding of the past than we have today. Part of the Church's adoption of these revised histories has come with the Church also wanting to provide context that can be understood in a faith promoting way. And so the Church continues to reject a lot of material that has been published that provides non-faith promoting narratives. This is one of the problems I think that I have with what you write - you seem to be lumping faithful members of the Church together with critics of the Church - simply because you have a belief in some non-historical narratives of the Church's origins. Finally, I want to point out something that should be mentioned. Historical Revisionism is, in most contexts, completely normal and non-controversial. It occurs all the time as historians and other investigators of the past (e.g. archeologists) uncover new data that changes our perception of the past. But, I think that what you are doing here - by trying to make all of those engaged in Mormon Historical studies alike is a problem. Comparing Bushman and Givens and Arrington to Brooks and Quinn is problematic. That you are willing to make that suggestion tells me that you probably don't know as much as you think you know.

[rjohnson7]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

Yes, that's a statement from Martin Harris which I already quoted above to you.  Martin Harris also says that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat.  All the people with first-hand knowledge of the translation process that talk about the curtain/blanket also talk about the seer stone in the hat.  So, if you accept Martin Harris's testimony in regards to the blanket, then you should also accept his testimony in regards to the seer stone in the hat.

Okay, you said he needed the plates, yet nobody was allowed to see them and yet Harris would see JS with a stone in a hat. What about the plates then?  Did not JS translate directly from them?

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I can be blunt, which is not always the same things as being rude.

Arrington was never a huge problem. He was the first to open the Church archives and to allow trained historians to access the documents and to begin to put together a more accurate history of the Church - it is a tradition that the Church currently has given its full support to with the Joseph Smith Papers project. If you want to participate in the argument over whether or not the Church should have allowed this or not, that's fine. But the reality is that Arrington was chosen for the role as Church historian by the leaders of the Church. Arrington was a faithful member his entire life who applied his formal training as a historian to the work of cataloguing the Church archives and improving our understanding of the history of the Church. There is an odd self-contradiction here in the suggestion that Arrington is part of the New Mormonism and the claim that it doesn't go back 40 years. Arrington became the official LDS Church Historian in January of 1972 - 51 years ago.

Perhaps, but I think that I know more about this than you do. Just because we happen to sit on different sides of the question of whether or not the Church should be open about its history doesn't mean that I am less aware of these issues than you are.

Its also worth pointing out that Martin Harris was not a scribe for any of the Book of Mormon that we have today. He was the primary scribe for the 116 page manuscript that was lost. When the plates were returned to Joseph Smith and translation started again, Oliver Cowdery had replaced Martin Harris as the scribe. Ultimately, does it matter? Why should we pay attention to the source that you quote about the curtain? You know what the source was, right? It is an anti-mormon account by a Presbyterian minister (documenting, as the author says in the preface, the "Mormon Delusion"). The part that you quote comes from page 230. But just a couple of pages earlier (pp. 226-227) we read this:

In an account like this, how do you personally decide which accounts we should accept as true and which ones we should accept as lies? And if you want to engage a text like this, what makes you any different from the New Mormon History types that you seem to despise so much?

In the long run, whether you like it or not, the LDS Church has come to embrace much of what you label as the New Mormon History. Why? Because historians in their efforts have managed to produce a lot of evidence from the documents and the artifacts of the past that have helped correct the misinformed and sometimes misguided narratives that we have built over time with an even more incomplete understanding of the past than we have today. Part of the Church's adoption of these revised histories has come with the Church also wanting to provide context that can be understood in a faith promoting way. And so the Church continues to reject a lot of material that has been published that provides non-faith promoting narratives. This is one of the problems I think that I have with what you write - you seem to be lumping faithful members of the Church together with critics of the Church - simply because you have a belief in some non-historical narratives of the Church's origins. Finally, I want to point out something that should be mentioned. Historical Revisionism is, in most contexts, completely normal and non-controversial. It occurs all the time as historians and other investigators of the past (e.g. archeologists) uncover new data that changes our perception of the past. But, I think that what you are doing here - by trying to make all of those engaged in Mormon Historical studies alike is a problem. Comparing Bushman and Givens and Arrington to Brooks and Quinn is problematic. That you are willing to make that suggestion tells me that you probably don't know as much as you think you know.

Not here to say you're wrong, but in actuality I believe you might be part of the problem.... I read Arrington, Bushman, Vogel and many others.... in direct and indirect ways they claim the church lied to us.  Dismiss this if you want to, but as for me and my deep research for some 50 yrs. I find a certain amount of members having faith crisis for the very reasons you are in denial of... maybe it's apathy and a disconnect for you, but you're being manipulated by some very slick sheep in wolves clothes.  We disagree for reasons of disinformation and revisionist history.   I have read most of the anti Mormon pamphlet, books and lectures, starting 50 yrs. ago by reading 'Mormonism Unveiled', Tanners and much more.  Eyes to see and ears to hear, try it!

 

 

 

[Tacenda]

36 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Not here to say you're wrong, but in actuality I believe you might be part of the problem.... I read Arrington, Bushman, Vogel and many others.... in direct and indirect ways they claim the church lied to us.  Dismiss this if you want to, but as for me and my deep research for some 50 yrs. I find a certain amount of members having faith crisis for the very reasons you are in denial of... maybe it's apathy and a disconnect for you, but you're being manipulated by some very slick sheep in wolves clothes.  We disagree for reasons of disinformation and revisionist history.   I have read most of the anti Mormon pamphlet, books and lectures, starting 50 yrs. ago by reading 'Mormonism Unveiled', Tanners and much more.  Eyes to see and ears to hear, try it!

 

 

 

How do you feel about the Gospel Topic Essays listed on the church's website, don't you think the presidency of the church had a hand in that?

You seem to be totally contradicting Pres Nelson, the current prophet. So you might just be a wolve in sheeps clothing. See how that feels. How do we know that you're not just playing games here. How do we know you're not an anti just creating a false identity claiming that the New Mormonism is a thing, lol. Edit to add: I googled "the new Mormonism" and I saw a few sites but with different ideas. Will you please give me your definition?

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Tacenda

[webbles]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

Okay, you said he needed the plates, yet nobody was allowed to see them and yet Harris would see JS with a stone in a hat. What about the plates then?  Did not JS translate directly from them?

I'm not sure what you are talking about.  It feels like you aren't aware of what Martin Harris talked about.  He talked about two methods of translation.  One was where Joseph Smith used the Nephite interpreters behind a curtain to read from the plates.  The other was using a seer stone in a hat.  Joseph Smith used both forms of translation.  It isn't an either/or situation.

[Benjamin McGuire]

8 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Not here to say you're wrong, but in actuality I believe you might be part of the problem.... I read Arrington, Bushman, Vogel and many others.... in direct and indirect ways they claim the church lied to us.  Dismiss this if you want to, but as for me and my deep research for some 50 yrs. I find a certain amount of members having faith crisis for the very reasons you are in denial of... maybe it's apathy and a disconnect for you, but you're being manipulated by some very slick sheep in wolves clothes.  We disagree for reasons of disinformation and revisionist history.   I have read most of the anti Mormon pamphlet, books and lectures, starting 50 yrs. ago by reading 'Mormonism Unveiled', Tanners and much more.  Eyes to see and ears to hear, try it!

*shrug*

Look, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I believe that individuals who share beliefs like yours are more damaging to the faith of the members of the Church than are individuals like Arrington, Bushman, and so on. There is something strange, in my opinion, in the suggestion that truth is harmful. And, for the record, it seems like the LDS Church has come to agree with my point of view and not yours. I am not being manipulated. It's nice that you want to dismiss my opinion by making claims like this. Perhaps as part of the root of the disagreement is the challenge with semantics (semantics sits at the heart of most disagreements in some form or another). Lying doesn't mean saying something that is wrong. Lying means deliberately trying to deceive someone. The LDS Church may have provided an inaccurate narrative of certain historical events for a very long time without lying. But, you can also lie by saying things that are completely factually accurate.

I wouldn't be here if I was merely apathetic. I am not in denial. You mention being manipulated - but, let me suggest an alternate interpretation. My testimony isn't based on whether or not Joseph Smith used a seer stone when translating the Book of Mormon. My testimony isn't based on some particular historical narrative. My testimony is based on the witness I receive from God through the Holy Ghost - it is a personal witness. The critics of the LDS Church are the ones whose message is that all of these other things are really important - they are the ones who want to suggest that the Church has been deliberately lying and misleading everyone for a long time. It is not a one or the other situation - and you seem to have bought in to that argument made by the critics. And because of this, you seem to be the one in denial - you don't want to recognize more accurate historical narratives. Every time we start talking about historical accounts that disagree with the incorrect beliefs that you have, you deflect, you change the topic, you go back again to telling us how evil these faithful members of the LDS Church are. I think that you need to give some thoughtful consideration to the idea that maybe you are wrong about the history of the Church. The facts aren't going to change. The historical record isn't somehow going to disappear. Those members who believe (as you seem to) that these old and inaccurate narratives are the most important issues for the Church are the ones that are going to have their faith shaken. The LDS Church has recognized this - and it has taken steps to help members understand that they can accept these better histories. I don't know why you feel the need to compare Bushman and Arrington to Vogel and the Tanners, but it is an insulting comparison.

I too have read Mormonism Unveiled (I have a copy). Why you think that your having read this gives you credibility here is puzzling to me.

Edit: I wanted to add - perhaps the better question is, what have you read by Arrington or Bushman or Givens?

Edited September 7, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[CA Steve]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you following Ben Spackman’s dissertation work?  He posts on FB nice finds in the journals and letters and other writings he is examining.  It is interesting and frustrating at times to see how certain strands of thought not original to the Church or our doctrine got translated into it by leaders who were unfortunately overly fond on some nonMormon writers, not a bad thing in itself, a very good thing actually and we are commanded to seek out of the best books, but the ones they chose were not so “best” in my view.  Those nondoctrinal ideas added to a few leaders’ non doctrinal views of the scriptures as the ultimate measure of truth in all things messed up their logic and messed up a good portion of church culture and teachings (not doctrine) for decades.  Good men (and women) can make bad mistakes.  Thankfully other good people can help repair the damage.

And thank goodness for the Atonement which heals all wounds, spiritual, physical, and mental in the eternities.

It will be interesting to see the reaction when this and other of Ben S’ stuff gets published in a coherent and well documented whole, so people see for themselves whether certain ideas about science taught in church or by a few church leaders that then spread widely among membership were inspired or not. 

I think the last century of the Church’s existence is a good example of how certain teachings can get off track and then corrections are made in our faith, both in historical and scientific beliefs.   This last century’s derailment and correction is easy to see Imo given the extensive documentation out there.  I am grateful the Church has always made a big deal about keeping records since the beginning and is also willing to correct, if quietly, though I wish we had a lot more documents from the first one hundred years.

Thanks Calm,

I am not on Facebook, I feel like it places too much personal information on it and I find I keep my friends and family friended IRL, when I don't post there. 😄

I have read a few blog posts by Spackman and have always liked what he posted but I do not follow him closely. It does sound very interesting.

23 hours ago, Calm said:

The Church is likely to remain socially conservative imo, but it will be interesting to see what it becomes when it loses (hopefully) the antiscientific/anti scholar cultural slant that has run through some of our materials and some aspects of our cultural and even scriptural narratives.

I don't have a lot of optimism that the Church is going to pivot toward more accepting view on scholarship/science, though I believe they think they are trying. In some cases, like the JSPP, they have made great progress, but not without controversy. There are scholars within the Church who have expressed displeasure with it.  I think too much of what makes Mormonism unique is rooted in a view of history, both ancient and recent, that is not supported by critical analysis. 

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

.... I read Arrington, Bushman, Vogel and many others.... in direct and indirect ways they claim the church lied to us.  

Because they did "lie" inasmuch as they presented a Disneyfied version of history instead of actual history. 

They still do to some extent.  A recent visit to Deseret Book had lots of art and statues portraying the romantic love story of Joseph and Emma.  Like a Jane Austen novel.

It's like when the Disney movie makes Pocahontas look like a 25 year old supermodel to tell her story instead of the 12 year old wild girl.

So yes, real history isn't so neat and tidy as the Church portrayed in the past.

[Nevo]

On 8/30/2023 at 12:16 PM, rjohnson7 said:

New Mormonism is taught by some ar BYU.  Lenard Abington the LDS Historian for the Church wrote several progressive and revised history as did Richard Bushman.   If you google The New Mormonism it pretty much explains....

On 9/5/2023 at 8:29 PM, rjohnson7 said:

It's obvious you know little to nothing about "The New Mormonism " and those who promote it.  Those who want to see, will see and those who want to hear will hear.....ignorance is bliss for some...

14 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Arrington was a huge problem and the New Mormonism does not go back 40 years.   I thank you for your input, but I think I know more about then most LDS.

Lol, Lenard Abington and The New Mormonism. I can't tell anymore if you're trolling us or just completely lacking in self-awareness. Either way, Ben and webbles are saints for engaging you.

[rjohnson7]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

*shrug*

Look, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I believe that individuals who share beliefs like yours are more damaging to the faith of the members of the Church than are individuals like Arrington, Bushman, and so on. There is something strange, in my opinion, in the suggestion that truth is harmful. And, for the record, it seems like the LDS Church has come to agree with my point of view and not yours. I am not being manipulated. It's nice that you want to dismiss my opinion by making claims like this. Perhaps as part of the root of the disagreement is the challenge with semantics (semantics sits at the heart of most disagreements in some form or another). Lying doesn't mean saying something that is wrong. Lying means deliberately trying to deceive someone. The LDS Church may have provided an inaccurate narrative of certain historical events for a very long time without lying. But, you can also lie by saying things that are completely factually accurate.

I wouldn't be here if I was merely apathetic. I am not in denial. You mention being manipulated - but, let me suggest an alternate interpretation. My testimony isn't based on whether or not Joseph Smith used a seer stone when translating the Book of Mormon. My testimony isn't based on some particular historical narrative. My testimony is based on the witness I receive from God through the Holy Ghost - it is a personal witness. The critics of the LDS Church are the ones whose message is that all of these other things are really important - they are the ones who want to suggest that the Church has been deliberately lying and misleading everyone for a long time. It is not a one or the other situation - and you seem to have bought in to that argument made by the critics. And because of this, you seem to be the one in denial - you don't want to recognize more accurate historical narratives. Every time we start talking about historical accounts that disagree with the incorrect beliefs that you have, you deflect, you change the topic, you go back again to telling us how evil these faithful members of the LDS Church are. I think that you need to give some thoughtful consideration to the idea that maybe you are wrong about the history of the Church. The facts aren't going to change. The historical record isn't somehow going to disappear. Those members who believe (as you seem to) that these old and inaccurate narratives are the most important issues for the Church are the ones that are going to have their faith shaken. The LDS Church has recognized this - and it has taken steps to help members understand that they can accept these better histories. I don't know why you feel the need to compare Bushman and Arrington to Vogel and the Tanners, but it is an insulting comparison.

I too have read Mormonism Unveiled (I have a copy). Why you think that your having read this gives you credibility here is puzzling to me.

Edit: I wanted to add - perhaps the better question is, what have you read by Arrington or Bushman or Givens?

Wonderful all the above and your very strong testimony I feel you have expressed.  First of all is not my debate with you or members of the church, it's with those progressives who are changing the church history.  Bushman is an active LDS, called as a Patriarch and Temple Sealer along with Arrington and others who believe and live LDS doctrine.   Arrington is dead and left his journal for all to read and I have read some of it recently as I have read Bushman.  I'm most happy for you and the words you have shared even though I feel in my heart you're being manipulated and influenced by some dangerous and faith destroying revised history.  Yes, we can agree we are 100% not on the same page and I wish you well, brother.

 

Richard

[Benjamin McGuire]

6 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Lol, Lenard Abington and The New Mormonism. I can't tell anymore if you're trolling us or just completely lacking in self-awareness.

Most of what they have mentioned has come from this wikipedia page here.

[Tacenda]

37 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Wonderful all the above and your very strong testimony I feel you have expressed.  First of all is not my debate with you or members of the church, it's with those progressives who are changing the church history.  Bushman is an active LDS, called as a Patriarch and Temple Sealer along with Arrington and others who believe and live LDS doctrine.   Arrington is dead and left his journal for all to read and I have read some of it recently as I have read Bushman.  I'm most happy for you and the words you have shared even though I feel in my heart you're being manipulated and influenced by some dangerous and faith destroying revised history.  Yes, we can agree we are 100% not on the same page and I wish you well, brother.

 

Richard

I almost feel like this is another poster that was banned. And you're just playing with us.

[Benjamin McGuire]

42 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Wonderful all the above and your very strong testimony I feel you have expressed.  First of all is not my debate with you or members of the church, it's with those progressives who are changing the church history.

So let's clarify this, ok? History doesn't change. Our perception and understanding of history changes. There is something wrong with arguing (as you are) that the Church shouldn't make efforts to correct the understanding of its history and the perceptions of that history, when it turns out that the understanding and perceptions don't reflect what really happened.

Second, you keep using this term "progressive" as if it means something in this context. It doesn't. Progressive does not mean wanting to change the understanding or perception of the history of the Church to match the reality of that history. Progressive generally refers to the divide that is sometimes viewed between conservative and liberal views within a movement. Progressive Mormons are generally labeled as such because of issues over theology, doctrine, and policy - not history. Additionally, many of the names you have listed aren't Mormons at all - the idea of labeling them as 'progressive' in a Mormon context has absolutely no meaning at all. Labeling them as progressive in some other context doesn't really have any meaning either - at least for this discussion. And really, does anyone here think that Jerald and Sandra Tanner should be considered progressives in any context? (I am not saying this or using them as an example to disparage them, just to point out that being progressive requires certain characteristics that are not shared by everyone in this group that you claim are trying to change Mormon history).

In general, the notion of historical revisionism isn't itself particularly controversial, it isn't something that is divided along liberal and conservative lines - and so it isn't a progressive practice. Finally, the First Presidency of the Church has been involved in approving the new approaches to Mormon history on the LDS Church's official website. Do you think that they are progressive?

Edited September 7, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire