Meadowchik Posted February 22, 2024 Posted February 22, 2024 1 hour ago, BlueDreams said: Meadow, we're going to strongly disagree on this one. The backbone of my disagreement is that one of the main focuses of my job have been working with clients with histories of abuse or are currently in abusive relationships. This includes directly working througn a range of abuse, from the "mild" of emotional and psychological abuse or neglect from a current partner to the extreme of child sex trafficking. It's included stories of what I would absolutely consider abuse via religious leaders, religious fanataicism, dereliction of duty in the face of abuse, and harmful local cultures within the religious faith.. It's included working directly with victims and perpetrators. Because I live in UT in an area with a high density of members, almost all of those stories come within an LDS context to some degree. I couldn't respond to your post yesterday because my morning was spent getting frustrated about a case that includes severe codependency from a complicated case where a person married their rapist. It was beyond frustrating and I didn't want that frustration to bleed into this post. Today's a new day, so I think what I prefer to land on is simply that I strongly disagree with you. Not because I don't think the church has and can do things that are harmful to it's members (especially on the local ward/stake level, which are the levels that also most reflect local culture and flavor...certain cultural contexts seem to have more problematic approaches). But because what your pointing out doesn't meet the qualifications for psychological abuse for me. I don't think any of us fully know how the church as a collective ends up moving positions. I personally don't doubt that argument and different views points play a role, based on a few things I've seen or heard of. On the local level, I've been a source for information on sexual/relational concerns more than once for local leadership. So I do know they do reach out for professional opinions and don't seem to be discouraged to do so since it's happened on the reg, particularly when I wasn't mom of a youngin and had more time to do so. I also know from what I've observed, is that my knowledge source is not the only concern they're balancing out. The local leadership is also usually trying to balance the needs and concerns of their local ward who have a wide range of concerns, experiences, and openness to certain topics. When there's a more closed community there's less that can be shared or explored. When there's a more open one, there's more. I've seen both and many in between within my little slice of the LDS Church communities. what this usually means is that I'm negotiating with community leaders (ward council, rs presidents, PEC's, and Bishops usually) on what to incorporate or cover in presentations. When I've offered my expertise, this happens more. When they seek me out there's less of it. Also what is your definition of apologetics? The og vid I'm assuming is an apologetic work, but I don't think the theories in general are a work of apologetics. I can see where you're coming from and also disagree with the conclusions you're coming to. There's several reasons I could go into about why I see it differently, ranging from cultural shifts on what is ok both in the church and the wider culture(s) it participates in to what is balanced and focused on, to even the context of some of those messages. But I think this may just be better to say I disagree and that that there is more than one conclusion one can make on the same information. With luv, BD Thanks for taking the time. I do agree that we strongly disagree. I know that the attitudes of the the church that I mentioned were psychologically abusive to me. They have made me vulnerable so many times in my life, and they have hurt me directly. And I am certainly not alone in this. The overall authoritarianism of the church is an elephant in the room in apologetics like this. (I'm not using an alternative definition of apologetics btw.) She does not acknowledge it. I don't think she or others who do similarly are being malicious or intentionally hurtful by not acknowledging it. She is walking a fine line which gets drawn and redrawn by the church continually.
smac97 Posted February 22, 2024 Posted February 22, 2024 2 hours ago, Teancum said: JS or whoever wrote the BoM "JS or whoever" is quite a statement, and a very good example of the "presuppositions and biases" I referenced earlier. I think there is substantial evidence that Joseph Smith lacked the ability, both in writing skill and information, to write the Book of Mormon: Quote Even setting aside its doctrinal richness and its vital importance as a second witness for the Savior Jesus Christ, the Book of Mormon is a strikingly complex document — far more so, probably, than most of its readers realize. It features hundreds of individual characters, many of them bearing quite uncommon names, who belong to a multitude of groups, subgroups and small factions. It describes three migrations from the Eastern Hemisphere to the Western Hemisphere. It employs at least three distinct dating systems. Yet, amazingly — and particularly so for a book that was dictated within a remarkably short time, at high speed (roughly nine to 11 pages of the English printed edition per day) — it's internally consistent. It doesn't contradict itself. It both presupposes and reflects a complicated geographical backdrop to its stories, involving scores of place names and topographical indicators. Yet places maintain their proper relationships to each other even when they're mentioned only a few times over hundreds of pages. Furthermore, the book itself, as a work of literature, is structurally complex. For instance, many important sections of the book are prefaced by statements that give readers a forecast of what's coming — and are then followed by summaries of what has just been read. It seems unlikely that a semiliterate young farmer could, while dictating at such speed, recall what he had promised in his prefaces and then remember to finish off such sections with appropriate summaries. And this is to say nothing of the extended chiasms throughout the book. It's to leave unmentioned the way in which the book's purported ancient authors sometimes quote from each other (e.g. in 1 Nephi 1:8 and Alma 36:22, passages dictated orally many days apart). Nor does it take account of other subtle literary features that modern scholars have only recently begun to recognize and to study in the Book of Mormon. Some critics, understandably challenged by the book's consistency within complexity, have sought to dismiss it, pointing out that, for example, J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle Earth, too, is both complicated and consistent. This is, in its way, a very high, though entirely unintended, compliment. I'm a devoted admirer of Tolkien's writing and have been one for many years; I regard it as perhaps the greatest sustained achievement in 20th-century English letters. But Professor Tolkien, an Oxford-trained linguist and medievalist who eventually occupied the chair of English literature at Merton College, Oxford, meticulously crafted Middle Earth over a period extending from 1914 to at least 1949, when the last volume of "The Lord of the Rings" appeared. (He actually kept tinkering with it until his death in late 1973; his "Silmarillion" was published posthumously.) Joseph Smith, by contrast, a Yankee farm boy with only a few weeks of formal education, dictated the Book of Mormon in slightly more than two months, and published it without significant revision. To those who don't find this impressive, I say: Dictate an original manuscript of approximately a quarter of a million words between now and New Year's Day, and then get back to me. (I'm being generous. According to one count, the English Book of Mormon actually contains 268,163 words.) And anybody who attempts this feat, don't forget, will almost certainly be far better educated than Joseph Smith was. The intricate structure and detailed complexity of the Book of Mormon seem far better explained as the work of several ancient writers using various written sources over the space of centuries than exploding suddenly from the mind of a barely educated manual laborer on the American frontier. A good brief statement on this topic, from which I've drawn for this column, is Melvin J. Thorne's 1997 article "Complexity, Consistency, Ignorance, and Probabilities." "It is too complex," says Dr. Thorne of the Book of Mormon, "to have been written by Joseph in the manner and in the amount of time described by witnesses. Indeed, it is too complex to have been written by Joseph in the manner hypothesized by his enemies or critics. Ultimately, it appears to be too complex to have been written by Joseph or any of his contemporaries in the early nineteenth century under any conceivable set of circumstances other than the one Joseph describes — the translation by miraculous means of an authentically ancient document." See also here: Quote This data and analysis demonstrate “that the historical documents relating to this somewhat obscure chapter in early Latter-day Saint history interlock more accurately than might otherwise have been expected.”25 As a result, readers can be confident that the Book of Mormon was dictated in a remarkably short amount of time. If Joseph Smith had hastily created the Book of Mormon on the fly or perhaps attempted to recall his prior plans for its contents from memory, then one might expect the book’s plots, settings, and characters to be fairly simple and for any unnecessary or extraneous data to be limited.26 Instead, the text immediately throws readers into a believable ancient world, featuring over 337 proper names,27 a detailed and consistent internal geography,28 three calendar systems,29 a developed system of weights and measures,30 multiple migrations,31 complex narratives,32 cohesive doctrines,33 dozens of editorial promises,34 various underlying source texts,35 realistic battles,36 hundreds of poetic structures,37 pervasive intertextual relationships,38 multiple literary genres,39 scores of internally fulfilled prophecies,40 and other surprisingly sophisticated or unexpectedly consistent features.41 There is also substantial evidence that he "translated" it over a very brief period: Quote Estimating the Timing of the Translation When combined together, the established anchor dates, revelations, and other supporting historical details give a nuanced and consistent view of the timing of the translation. On its face, the timeframe between April 7 and June 30 allows 85 possible days for the translation, but we know that on many of these days the translators were also engaged in other activities: doing farm chores, entertaining visitors, making trips to Colesville, receiving priesthood authority and additional revelations, baptizing Samuel and Hyrum Smith, moving from Harmony to Fayette, acquiring the Book of Mormon’s copyright, and so forth.16 Book of Mormon scholar John W. Welch has suggested that with these known disruptions and time constraints accounted for, “not many more than the equivalent of about 60 actual working days would have been available in April, May, and June 1829.”17 Terryl Givens has described this rate of translation as “truly prodigious,”18 and Welch concluded that by “any standard” the pace was “blistering.”19 As this guy put it: Quote Now, those familiar with the dictation process claimed that Joseph primarily translated by sticking his face into a hat while looking at a revelatory tool called a seer stone. The evidence does not support the idea that these witnesses were co-conspirators, and these descriptions of the translation come from both believers and nonbelievers, so we’re going to assume that they were telling the truth about what they saw. Thus, if we’re playing devil’s advocate but attempting to accommodate for witness testimony, we’re assuming that with no prior authorship experience Joseph rapidly dictated this 531-page book without significant revisions, on his first try, from memory. And then we have the Plates, the witnesses, etc. Now, you can certainly disagree with the Church's teachings about how the text came about. However, you slide all sorts of unsubstantiated presuppositions into your six-word statement ("JS or whoever wrote the BoM..."). And if you were to ever elaborate on the evidence regarding authorship by Joseph Smith or "whoever," I think you would immediately resort to "mysterious" claims (who is "whoever"? where did Joseph get his information and writing skills?) and all sorts of "spin doctor{ing}" (there being no substantial evidence that Joseph Smith had the knowledge/skill to write it, nor any evidence of the mysterious and anonymous "whoever"), which is what you are complaining about here. Alternatively, I suspect you will refuse to make no particular effort to explain or substantiate or otherwise advance your claim that "JS or whoever wrote the BoM." 2 hours ago, Teancum said: And the elements included in the book from what was in vogue at the time seem enough to demonstrate it is a product of someone who lived in the 19th century and is not ancient. "Someone." 2 hours ago, Teancum said: Not only does the BoM include plenty of what was popular in the 19th century regarding the origins of the native Americans, but is also contains substantial amounts of 19the century anachronisms as well as discussions of Christian doctrines that were being debated at the time the book was produced. These evidences seem to support the book being a 19th century product. Can I look forward to you making any sort of effort to advance this "19th century product" thesis? The text needs to be accounted for. The physicality of the Plates needs to be accounted for. The statements of the Witnesses need to be accounted for. A conclusory assertion that "JS or whoever" wrote it just doesn't have much persuasive value. Thanks, -Smac
BlueDreams Posted February 22, 2024 Posted February 22, 2024 4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: I would agree. I don’t like how the church handles this stuff, I don’t like that they seem to stand behind “apologists” , I don’t like the absence of acknowledgment of bad policy past and present. But I also do not want to be a victim. I personally don’t feel like I have to ascribe to everything to be in good standing with God and to feel worthy of my recommend. I know that doesn’t sound like what we were taught in primary but I’ve grown beyond primary. The church cannot abuse me. I will not let it happen. I can relate in a different way. I've mentioned before that I've always had a strong anti-authority bend likely rooted from family dynamics that were messy on a good day. A person just telling me this is what is done, isn't good enough for me. You have to give me a reason for me to do something. Luckily I've found or had many reasons for my core beliefs that keep me in the church. But there's been others that weren't good enough, fell short, or were holey. I don't do those. I don't believe those. My personality trait can have its own form of weakness to it. I suck at following groups for example...I tend to wander or stay in things that I want to see. I have a hard time taking people's opinions at times and have had to work to make space to see things differently than what I see. I'm still not always good at it. But one of the unintended perks is that it highlighted just how much my life wasn't "controlled" by the church. Control for me entails at least two things: It entails a person's willingness to submit to others in their life and it entails the capacity of people or entities to render means to manage other's behaviors. Not all control is inherently bad. When I had a lead foot and got a couple of tickets, I was being controlled by the state to better manage traffic and public safety, for example. I would say most of the control that the Church can actual yield is boundary maintenance (As in how one engages in the group) and indirectly via cultural influence. Both of those are further brokered via local dynamics. Honestly, it's fairly weak. There's plenty of avenues that my life has almost no direct influence from the church. My career was decided based on my own interests (and if anything was encouraged by church institutions and local members along the way), my interests have never been squelched, where I travel isn't limited, what I do in my free time isn't monitored, how I raise my child has extremely limited input from the church and is still largely decided on whether I approve of said input, etc. If I left the church tomorrow, it would both entail a major rearrangement in my spiritual life in terms of beliefs and how I engage with them (I'm assuming) and very little in my pragmatic one. I'd wear more sleeveless shirts and I'd crack into some green tea. Depending on how I left church, I may still even attend and participate in my ward since I enjoy the community connection. It can have more impact on engagement in specific institutions (like BYU), but that is again a voluntary engagement. Cultural influence is more what I see people struggle with. Even when there's almost no immediate overt consequence to going against the grain (at least in the church....there may be more within a family setting...but that is extremely dependent on how the family incorporates their religious beliefs into their family culture). That's where personal willingness really comes into play as well. If you struggle with codependent or enmeshed patterns you'll be more bereft by ones local culture, leadership, and unhealthy messages. If you're more differentiated, there will be less struggle with that. That's oversimplifying, but I've seen that pattern in my own life and the lives of others. When an apostle, bishop, teacher, leader, etc in the church says something I disagree with...I disagree with it. Sometimes I say my disagreement out loud as a different perspective, sometimes I don't bother since it's not an appropriate setting or time and I don't feel like I have to fix the world, and sometimes I see if I can help by talking to the person individually if it's an area I feel qualified to talk about. I have to go, I wrote more than I should and lost track of time. With luv, BD 2
GoCeltics Posted February 22, 2024 Posted February 22, 2024 On 2/20/2024 at 5:09 PM, Kevin Christensen said: So personally, I do not believe that the Lamanite curse in the Book of Mormon has anything to do with skin color. How does the concept of the Lamanites wearing dark clothing, as opposed to having dark skin as you believe, serve the purpose of making them less appealing to the Nephites and acting as a deterrent to prevent the Nephites from mingling with them and straying from God, as described in 2 Nephi 5:21-23?
smac97 Posted February 22, 2024 Posted February 22, 2024 3 hours ago, pogi said: Do you mind addressing the main point of my post where I stated: Quote Quote I am also not sure the IPP can be aptly described as a "debacle." See here: Success, as defined by the church, was not merely based on educational and economic success, but also on a "lifelong commitment to the faith". It was a proselytizing tool. Virtually everything the Church does can, in the end, be characterized as "a proselytizing tool," as an effort to bring people to Christ. The Church teaches strong moral values, focus on the family, service to others, forgiveness, repentance, and so on. Some of the Church's efforts and initiatives in furtherance of its divine mandates are, by any objective measure, fundamentally and overwhelmingly cool, such that even our most ardent critics struggle to find fault with them. Sometimes, though, the Church - however well-intentioned - fosters an initiative or practice or program that ends up having unintended, and sometimes even troubling and harmful, consequences. And sometimes even "well-intentioned" stuff may have been misguided from the outset (as well as creating adverse consequences). The IPP seems to have been a mixed bag. What you call "a miserable debacle" (by conflating - in error, IMO, the IPP with "baseball baptisms"), and what Murphy and Southerton call "cultural genocide" and "systematic efforts to turn Indians ‘white and delightsome'” is, per Kevin Barney, deserving of less vitriolic, and more even-handed and scholarly, evaluation. The Church can walk and chew gum at the same time. The Church funds BYU to foster "educational and economic success" in its graduates, while at the same time providing a wholesome and spiritual environment and experience. Does it succeed in every instance? Nope. But that doesn't diminish the overall merit of BYU as an educational institution and endeavour. The IPP is, I acknowledge, a substantially different and more controversial program of the Church. Hence my citation to Barney's article, which provides some recommendations for those interested in a more reasoned and scholarly assessment of the program: Quote Bruce A. Chadwick, Stan L. Albrecht and Howard M. Bahr, “Evaluation of an Indian Student Placement Program,” Social Casework 67/9 (1986): 515-24; Bruce A. Chadwick and Stan L. Albrecht, “Mormons and Indians: Beliefs, Policies, Programs and Practices,” in Contemporary Mormonism: Social Science Perspectives, ed. Tim B. Heaton and Lawrence A. Young (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 287-309; Tona J. Hangen, “A Place to Call Home: Studying the Indian Placement Program,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 30/1 (Spring 1997): 53-69; and James B. Allen, “The Rise and Decline of the LDS Indian Student Placement Program, 1947-1996,” Mormons, Scripture, and the Ancient World: Studies in Honor of John L. Sorenson, ed. Davis Bitton (Provo: FARMS, 1998), 85-119. Alysa Landry has also published a series of articles on the program: Assimilation Tool or a Blessing? Inside the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program How Mormons Assimilated Native Children From Very Good to Tragic: What the Mormons Did for Native Children Some excerpts from the first article: Quote Helen John, Navajo, was the daughter of migrant workers who picked beets one summer for a Mormon family in Richfield, Utah. In 1947, the 16-year-old John begged that family to let her stay for the winter and go to school. Her plea was the beginning of the Indian Student Placement Program. "John begged that family to let her stay..." Quote The program operated unofficially—and illegally—for its first seven years, recruiting children as young as 5 and not requiring them to be members of the Mormon Church. In 1954, with 68 students, it was declared an official program overseen by the Utah-based church’s Relief Society, a women’s auxiliary organization. Accredited by Utah and surrounding states that accepted students, the program operated much like foster care... I think lots of "legalities" were not given sufficient consideration back in the day. Quote It’s impossible to understand the Indian Student Placement Program, its intentions and its limitations without getting to know Spencer W. Kimball, a powerful church leader, a modern-day prophet and the mastermind behind the program. Kimball, raised in southeastern Arizona, was called as an apostle—or one of the top leaders—of the Mormon Church in 1943. Then-president George Albert Smith gave Kimball a special assignment to “watch after the Indians in all the world.” Kimball, who served as chairman of the church’s Committee on Indian Relationships, took the assignment seriously. In 1946, he and other church leaders toured the Navajo Nation and saw firsthand its devastating economic conditions. When he learned of Helen John’s request the following year to remain in Utah and attend school, Kimball wholeheartedly embraced it, believing that Mormons were destined to help Native Americans claim their rightful place in history. “The difference between them and us is opportunity,” Kimball frequently said. Seems like good intentions here, though such things can become "paving stones" on a path somewhere... Quote The church sent missionaries and caseworkers to Indian reservations to recruit students. In local church meetings, leaders asked for volunteer host families. Students flourished academically and spiritually, and many went on to study at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, where, in 1971, a performance group called the Lamanite Generation was formed. The group, made up of Native singers and dancers performed a song about the “ladder of education.” ... The program’s positive momentum helped it weather the criticism, including a federal investigation in 1977 launched to study accusations that the church was using its influence to push children into joining the program. The government ultimately rejected the accusations, finding that the program was largely positive and that it enjoyed enthusiastic support from Native parents and white foster parents. "The program was largely positive and ... enjoyed enthusiastic support from Native parents." This same program was, according to Murphy, "cultural genocide" and according to you, "a miserable debacle." Quote Nearly 70 years after the Indian Student Placement Program began, questions still linger, says Nez, who runs a Facebook group for former students. Viewed through a modern lens, the program is not the resounding success early proponents predicted. The results of the program are as varied as the people involved, Nez said. While some students excelled in the program and graduated at the top of their class, others left early and returned to their reservations. Some embraced the white culture, shunning Native traditions, while others left the program embittered, determined to reconnect with their Native roots. So, mixed results. From the second article: Quote Cultural and religious clashes were inevitable, however, Wallace says. Her birth parents divorced when she was young and a grandmother raised her, introduced her to the church and encouraged her to go on the placement program. During a visit to Colorado, Wallace’s birth mother sat in the host family’s house and smoked a cigarette. “That was bad,” Wallace says. “Her lifestyle was not keeping with the standards, and so I knew I had to choose.” Wallace’s choice, though difficult, was common for placement students. The program, founded on principles of assimilation, forced some students to choose between birth parents and foster families, and between Native tradition and the church’s “higher law.” And the stakes were high: students who failed to meet the church’s standards were sent home. "Assimilation" is fraught with all sorts of complexities. The Church's IPP didn't originate the concept. Quote Above all, once the program was officially recognized, students were required to be at least 8 years old—the age of accountability—and be baptized into the Mormon Church. But if ritual was the only thing that stood between a youth and opportunity, baptism was easy enough to accomplish, Embry said. “There are some examples of people getting baptized just to go on placement,” she said. “Host families would joke that children came with wet hair, that they were baptized just before getting on the bus. There are other stories about children not even knowing they were being baptized. The missionaries said, ‘Come with me and I’ll buy you a hamburger,’ and then they were baptized.” This was obviously problematic. Quote Other problems arose as the program grew. At its height, more than 5,000 students were on the program, which had expanded to Arizona, Canada, California, Colorado, Idaho, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Montana, North and South Dakota and Georgia. Administration became difficult and the number of participants put social and financial strains on the church. Caseworkers, the program’s only paid employees, were charged with making regular visits to all foster families and helping to iron out everything from familial disputes to cultural clashes. But the program had too many students and too little oversight, Embry said. In the 1966-67 school year, there were 1,569 students on the program and only 19 caseworkers. That was 85 students for every professional, Embry said. The following year, 46 caseworkers supervised 3,123 students—or 67 students per worker. Also problematic. Quote Kinks in the program led to breakdowns in communication, in oversight and, ultimately, in the welfare of students and foster families, said James Allen, a former historian for the Mormon Church. Individual students’ success depended on many factors, including their own preparation, the stability of foster families, support from birth families and individual interpretations of the program. “There were numerous stresses and strains, usually connected with the problem of crossing cultural barriers,” Allen said. “Some foster families gave up in just a few months, others after the first year. Some never fully understood their foster children.” One of my daughters spent a year abroad as an exchange student. These "stresses and strains" and "cultural barriers" are still happening when a youth from one culture is transplanted into a substantially different one. Quote The Indian Student Placement Program was not designed to fully assimilate Native children into the white culture, Boxer said. Rather, its goal was to take Native children and turn them into “agents of change.” “They were supposed to go to school, go to college, but they were also supposed to go home to their reservations and help uplift and convert people,” she said. “One of the tenets of Mormonism requires its members, non-Indians, to save Indian people. One solution would be to convert Indian children who would also aid in the process from within their own communities.” But that logic was flawed, Embry said. Students who embraced the Mormon faith and succeeded academically often felt out of place on their reservations or among traditional Native practices. Such was the case for Wallace, who left the program and her foster family in Colorado after ninth grade. “Over the summer, I went back to my life,” she says. “I went to powwows, hung out with my family. It was more difficult because we dealt with alcoholism and poverty, but it was home and I realized I wanted to be there.” Wallace subsequently fell away from the church and was inactive for 15 years. Now 57 and again an active member of the church, she said her biggest regret is not completing the program. “That’s where I got my foundation—in life and in the church. The church was everything to me and I left it because it was too hard.” So, mixed results. From the third article: Quote Jackson, Hualapai and Hopi, grew up in the impoverished town of Peach Springs, Arizona, with three brothers and a single mother. He was 8 when Mormon missionaries knocked on the door. “My mom usually chased off anyone who came to the door, especially missionaries,” he says. “Not this time. She let them in. We never knew how bad my mom struggled until that day when she broke down and asked for help.” Help came in the way of the Indian Student Placement Program, a foster care program operated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that placed Native children with white Mormon families during the school year. Conceived in 1947, the program attracted 40,000 students during the half-century it was in operation. Jackson met the age requirement to go on the program, but he was not a member of the church. Six weeks after meeting the missionaries, he was baptized and put on a bus to California. On the other end of that seven-hour bus ride, Jackson met the man he would call his dad. “We treated each other like family, right from the start,” Jackson says. “To this day, I still think of him as my dad." ... Jackson graduated from high school in California and his foster dad paid his tuition at a local junior college. Halfway through his second year, heavily involved in drinking, drugs and partying, Jackson left school and the church, and returned to the Hopi Reservation. He spent the next 10 years in and out of jail for drinking, fighting and domestic violence, and all three of his brothers met violent deaths. Through it all, he maintained contact with his foster dad. “I was in rehab when my dad sent me a copy of the Book of Mormon,” he says. “That was the first time I read it.” Hmm. This sounds like some good things came from the programs. Quote But Jackson was at a disadvantage. Because his mother sent him on the program for economic reasons, he lacked the religious conviction necessary to succeed in this Mormon program. Although it often helped Native children break out of poverty and gave them unprecedented access to high-quality education, its secondary purpose was to bring America’s indigenous population into the Mormon Church. “Here was one of the problems,” says James Allen, a former historian for the Mormon Church. “A lot of children were baptized just to go to school. Hundreds of them were members of the church, but they were only on the records because they went on the program." Yes, this was a problem. Quote Cal Nez, who runs a Facebook page for former placement students, says success in the program depended on individual motives. Nez, Navajo, went on the program at age 14, graduated from high school in Utah and married a Mormon woman. He now has a son serving a full-time mission for the church. “There are all these pieces to the program,” Nez says. “There’s education, future, progress, opportunity. There’s religion and spirituality. What are all the motivations? Why are students deciding to go and why are parents sending them?” Nez believes the program was born from good intentions. Native people were floundering in the mid-20th century as the federal government targeted them with wide-reaching assimilation and termination policies. ... Of the 25 youths from his home community who went on the program, only Nez is still active in the church. “What does this say about our motivations?” he says. “Some of the people I’ve spoken with say they hate the church, that the program didn’t deliver what it promised. But I have to ask why they went. We need to look back and find out why we walked those steps. Did we have earthly intentions or spiritual intentions?” "Good intentions." There it is again. Quote With so many people involved, the program was bound to have unpredictable—and unintended—consequences, says Jessie Embry, a professor at Brigham Young University who studied the program. “We have a range of experiences, from the very good to the very tragic. Some students were so close to their foster families they were put in their wills. Host families traveled to the reservations for weddings and births. But others reported abuse or neglect and stayed for only a short time.” More mixed results. Thanks, -Smac 1
Calm Posted February 22, 2024 Posted February 22, 2024 7 minutes ago, smac97 said: We treated each other like family, right from the start,” Jackson says. “To this day, I still think of him as my dad." This is the type of relationship my neighbor/ward member had with her foster daughter some 30 years after her stay with them (this was in Canada where I was shocked by the level of prejudice against First Nations people among the general population and some church members).
Doctor Steuss Posted February 22, 2024 Posted February 22, 2024 30 minutes ago, GoCeltics said: How does the concept of the Lamanites wearing dark clothing [...] serve the purpose of making them less appealing to the Nephites [...] *Insert Google Image Search for "Birkenstocks worn with socks"* 2
Teancum Posted February 22, 2024 Posted February 22, 2024 1 hour ago, smac97 said: The text needs to be accounted for. The physicality of the Plates needs to be accounted for. The statements of the Witnesses need to be accounted for. A conclusory assertion that "JS or whoever" wrote it just doesn't have much persuasive value. If you had plates to show us then they need to be accounted for. Otherwise not so much. The three witnesses? That may be your best bet. I think there are many explanations for the witnesses as well. Delusional, deceived, hallucinations, psychedelics, part of the conspiracy? Who knows. On another note my comment was not meant to be an expose on who may have written the BoM and all the alternative explanation for it. I think there are plenty and another thread can be started if you wish? I don't have the time to write lengthy exposes for every post like you seem to have. You know I have a job and all that. Thus I was not really trying to have a whole lot of "persuasive" value in my post. 1
Teancum Posted February 22, 2024 Posted February 22, 2024 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I think there is substantial evidence that Joseph Smith lacked the ability, both in writing skill and information, to write the Book of Mormon: Also, he produced the Doctrine and Covenants. I find many of the sections of that book much better written than the BoM and mostly more substantive. Ithink he has the skills to write the BoM. Apologists argue aon the one hand he was not intellectual enough to write it. And on the other hand they laud his genius in doctrinal information and kingdom building. Seems like you want it both ways. Edited February 22, 2024 by Teancum 1
Calm Posted February 22, 2024 Posted February 22, 2024 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Teancum said: Also, he produced the Doctrine and Covenants. I find many of the sections of that book much better written than the BoM and mostly more substantive. Wasn’t there editing done by others on the D&C though? Plus do we even have the original format, etc of the Book of Commandments? added: “The firm appointed a committee of three individuals— William W. Phelps, Oliver Cowdery, and John Whitmer —“to review the Book of Commandmants [that is, the “Book of Commandments & Revelations,” or Revelation Book 1] & select for printing such as shall be deemed by them proper, as dictated by the Spirit & make all necessary verbal corrections.” 12 The committee acted upon that instruction by both selecting and revising manuscripts,” ”The apparent intent of editorial work on the revelations—and in any case, the result of that work—was primarily to polish the revelations for publication. Most of the editorial revisions were in the nature of copyediting changes: inserting versification; standardizing language; correcting punctuation, capitalization, grammar, and spelling. A smaller subset of revisions was significant, usually involving the addition of a phrase or the substitution of a word or two. 18 In a few cases, revisions served to update the revelations to reflect changes that had occurred in church government or policy since the time the revelations were first dictated, but such updating was not done systematically. In the majority of cases, revelations that could have been updated were not. For example, although the first ordinations to the office of high priest had occurred in June 1831, 19 the editors preparing the Book of Commandments for publication did not introduce the term “high priest” into revelations predating June 1831 where it would have been logical to do so. A 9 February 1831 revelation, for instance, states that the bishop is to be assisted in certain duties by the elders. In 1835, as part of an effort to update the revelations to reflect changes in church government and policy, this language was expanded to clarify that the high priests are also to assist in these duties. 20 The update presumably could have been made earlier, for inclusion in the Book of Commandments, but was not. In fact, the office of high priest is not mentioned anywhere in the Book of Commandments. More systematic updating of the revelations to reflect changes in church government and policy occurred two years later in connection with the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants.” https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-commandments-1833/1#historical-intro Edited February 22, 2024 by Calm 2
BlueDreams Posted February 22, 2024 Posted February 22, 2024 (edited) 1 hour ago, GoCeltics said: How does the concept of the Lamanites wearing dark clothing, as opposed to having dark skin as you believe, serve the purpose of making them less appealing to the Nephites and acting as a deterrent to prevent the Nephites from mingling with them and straying from God, as described in 2 Nephi 5:21-23? How sexy do you find someone in a kkk garb? Or a nazi outfit? Or *fill in the blank of symbolic wear that infers violent tendencies and conflicting beliefs that could risk your group, order, or personhood*? There are several ways we can demarkate someone as a risk using clothes, style, and behaviors. Usually that's enough for someone to find them unappealing. With luv, BD Edited February 22, 2024 by BlueDreams 4
Calm Posted February 22, 2024 Posted February 22, 2024 Also: Quote It [Doctrine and Covenants] presented more revelations than the incomplete Book of Commandments and presented some previously published revelations in expanded form. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835/1#historical-intro
The Nehor Posted February 22, 2024 Posted February 22, 2024 39 minutes ago, BlueDreams said: There are several ways we can demarkate someone as a risk using clothes, style, and behaviors. Usually that's enough for someone to find them unappealing. Yep, bad boys are universally loathed. Hey…..WAIT A MINUTE!
Danzo Posted February 22, 2024 Posted February 22, 2024 20 hours ago, pogi said: If I wasn’t clear, I am speaking more of traditional culture were you referring to piercing genitals with a stingray spine? Slavery? Human sacrifice? Or Child Marriage (My Mother in law was married at fourteen)? Even the traditional culture isn't all good. You might accuse me and my wife of cultural genocide for not raising our children in the ñuù davi culture she grew up in, however we decided that while we could retain some of the culture, much of it was better left behind. 1
smac97 Posted February 22, 2024 Posted February 22, 2024 1 hour ago, Teancum said: Quote I think there is substantial evidence that Joseph Smith lacked the ability, both in writing skill and information, to write the Book of Mormon: Also, he produced the Doctrine and Covenants. Over many years, yes. And with plenty of help from others (see above). And we know who those others are (unlike the mysterious "whoever" you referenced). 1 hour ago, Teancum said: I find many of the sections of that book much better written than the BoM and mostly more substantive. But far less complex and lengthy than the BoM text. 1 hour ago, Teancum said: I think he has the skills to write the BoM. Frankly, I don't. Again: Quote If Joseph Smith had hastily created the Book of Mormon on the fly or perhaps attempted to recall his prior plans for its contents from memory, then one might expect the book’s plots, settings, and characters to be fairly simple and for any unnecessary or extraneous data to be limited.26 Instead, the text immediately throws readers into a believable ancient world, featuring over 337 proper names,27 a detailed and consistent internal geography,28 three calendar systems,29 a developed system of weights and measures,30 multiple migrations,31 complex narratives,32 cohesive doctrines,33 dozens of editorial promises,34 various underlying source texts,35 realistic battles,36 hundreds of poetic structures,37 pervasive intertextual relationships,38 multiple literary genres,39 scores of internally fulfilled prophecies,40 and other surprisingly sophisticated or unexpectedly consistent features.41 The D&C doesn't describe extensive details of an "ancient world," nor does it include unusual proper names (many of which have plausible etymological roots that comport with Joseph's narrative), or extensive descriptions of geography, or of calendar systems, or of weights and measures, or descriptions of realistic battles. There are no "complex narratives," etc. 1 hour ago, Teancum said: Apologists argue aon the one hand he was not intellectual enough to write it. I don't think "apologists" impute his intelligence, just his education and writing ability and information at the time the Book of Mormon text was being produced. 1 hour ago, Teancum said: And on the other hand they laud his genius in doctrinal information and kingdom building. Seems like you want it both ways. Through both personal study and revelation, and over a period of many years, Joseph came to be fairly erudite. But that wasn't the case during the period the text was being produced. Thanks, -Smac 1
smac97 Posted February 22, 2024 Posted February 22, 2024 2 hours ago, Teancum said: Quote The text needs to be accounted for. The physicality of the Plates needs to be accounted for. The statements of the Witnesses need to be accounted for. A conclusory assertion that "JS or whoever" wrote it just doesn't have much persuasive value. If you had plates to show us then they need to be accounted for. Otherwise not so much. How do you figure? Witnesses claimed there were plates. Joseph said there were plates. The existence of the Plates - for which there is evidence - does not need to be addressed. And substantiating the claim some anonymous guy who authored the text and handed it off to Joseph also does not need to be addressed. The intervals when you display intellectual curiosity and intellect indifference are . . . interesting. 2 hours ago, Teancum said: The three witnesses? That may be your best bet. I think there are many explanations for the witnesses as well. Delusional, deceived, hallucinations, psychedelics, part of the conspiracy? Who knows. And the indifference continues. 2 hours ago, Teancum said: On another note my comment was not meant to be an expose on who may have written the BoM and all the alternative explanation for it. No doubt. But it sure is convenient that you can toss it out there, then retreat from actually having to substantiate it. Ever. 2 hours ago, Teancum said: I think there are plenty and another thread can be started if you wish? It's your theory. Feel free to start a thread where you lay out your reasoning, evidence, etc. for the putative 19th-century author of the Book of Mormon. Thanks, -Smac
BlueDreams Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Yep, bad boys are universally loathed. Hey…..WAIT A MINUTE! That's only if they're cosplay acceptable type of bad boy and you only have a summer fling with them. Any longer and it'll lose the magic 3
Calm Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 35 minutes ago, GoCeltics said: How does the concept of the Lamanites wearing dark clothing, as opposed to having dark skin as you believe, serve the purpose of making them less appealing to the Nephites and acting as a deterrent to prevent the Nephites from mingling with them and straying from God, as described in 2 Nephi 5:21-23? Some of the skins that marked the enemies of the Nephites were dyed with blood, which darkens over time. That is probably going to smell and even if it didn’t, if the Nephites were aware of what was used, they quite possibly would be repulsed. The Gadianton robbers might have borrowed the idea from the Lamanites. (3 Ne 4) 1
Popular Post BlueDreams Posted February 23, 2024 Popular Post Posted February 23, 2024 (edited) On 2/21/2024 at 10:50 AM, Teancum said: Of course they are not into repudiations. It brings into severe questions their claims to be prophets, seers and revelators. I I think it's a little more nuanced than that personally. I see the church more as trying to balance movement and growth with how well members can adapt to change with how much leaders are able and willing to accept change. And I think there is reason to be cautious with condemnations of past peoples. On 2/21/2024 at 10:50 AM, Teancum said: Likely you are correct. I would imagine talking about how the American Indians are turning white as they accept Mormonism is probably not in vogue much following the change on the priesthood ban in 1978. It like McConkie sates-"Just forget everything we ever said" about the priesthood ban. But you know this ideas that the Lamanites skin was turned dark and that it would become white as an American Indian accepted the LDS gospel had sever repercussions. Just look at the debacle of the Indian Placement Program the church had going on for decades. I still remember what we called the Indian School when I was small little lad in Brigham City Utah in the 60s. But hey, they just misunderstood the text right? I see it as parallel branches from the same tree of a racial caste system the US marinated in for most of its history. Speaking solely for myself, when I read this, I always think about the US as a whole...the world they were products and inheritors of. There wasn't a well known and generally accessible system really nailing it when it comes to race relations at that time. At best there were small often isolated communities that had more egalitarian cultures based on race within the US, and small often considered extreme groups advocating for fundamental change. I've never believed in Church as a specially ordained group where prejudices, biases, and perspectives can't hinder, taint, or confuse the work. The opposite pattern shows up in just about every book of scripture and especially within the book of mormon. When I came to my aha moment, what it also entail was a moment of epiphany of "oh, of course they interpreted wrong. Their world and experiences were inherently far more racist than today." I don't condemn my past ancestors. I prefer not to measure people by an unobtainable standard none of us will reach in this life (ie. Perfect and above the trappings of their times). I also don't ignore their blindspots, prejudices, and flaws. They are what they are: humans. Most of whom were trying to the degree they knew how to and to the degree they were ready to accept. At least I assume so, because most the people I meet are usually trying too in that same framework. With luv, BD Edited February 23, 2024 by BlueDreams 5
BlueDreams Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 (edited) 5 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Thanks for taking the time. I do agree that we strongly disagree. I know that the attitudes of the the church that I mentioned were psychologically abusive to me. They have made me vulnerable so many times in my life, and they have hurt me directly. And I am certainly not alone in this. I won't bely the point too much. I just want to say I don't doubt that you experienced harm in the church. I've seen it happen before. I've also seen the same system do quite the opposite...sometimes the exact same means and avenues. I get a really weird window into the ways local leadership flavors the experiences of members. And each time, for better or worse, those experiences become "the church" for them because most people don't get a random sampling of differing people in differing areas in their church life to compare/contrast religious experiences. From the ones I've heard of or interacted with, some are above and beyond stellar, some who really dropped balls, are horrible. and even psychologically abusive. Most are just doing their best with what they're given and support their members as best they can. I even had one weird case where I ended up being a mediator between a bishop and a member. Because I'd talked to both of them individually before (I should note, with written permission and clear communication as to what I discussed with my client), I knew both of them were good and just inadvertently pushing each other's buttons. Sure enough when there was someone they trusted in the room to help facilitate communication, the relationship shifted and became healthier. 5 hours ago, Meadowchik said: The overall authoritarianism of the church is an elephant in the room in apologetics like this. (I'm not using an alternative definition of apologetics btw.) She does not acknowledge it. I don't think she or others who do similarly are being malicious or intentionally hurtful by not acknowledging it. She is walking a fine line which gets drawn and redrawn by the church continually. I didn't assume you were using an alternative definition. I think I was wondering what is your cut off for what would be considered apologetics. I'm also not sure why this person would need to talk about authoritarianism in a video that's obviously not focusing on such concepts. And since most people who fall into apologetics probably don't experience the church as authoritarian, I don't think it would be felt or experienced as an elephant to them. Expecting others to engage with the church in the language and manner you see it, isn't realistic IMHO. From an LDS stance, it reminds me of the people on this channel I subscribe to on Youtube where a pastor is exploring different aspects of the church. When he doesn't get the same uplifting experience and picture of Jesus from the BoM as some members do, they can get annoyed in the comments section, wondering how he could have missed it. We're bound to see it differently, assuming it's obvious and apparent may not be true. With luv, BD Edited February 23, 2024 by BlueDreams 3
Tacenda Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 (edited) deleted to not side track the topic Edited February 23, 2024 by Tacenda
The Nehor Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 1 hour ago, BlueDreams said: That's only if they're cosplay acceptable type of bad boy and you only have a summer fling with them. Any longer and it'll lose the magic Nah, I found the key is to just spank him until he behaves.
Meadowchik Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 7 hours ago, MustardSeed said: I would agree. I don’t like how the church handles this stuff, I don’t like that they seem to stand behind “apologists” , I don’t like the absence of acknowledgment of bad policy past and present. But I also do not want to be a victim. I personally don’t feel like I have to ascribe to everything to be in good standing with God and to feel worthy of my recommend. I know that doesn’t sound like what we were taught in primary but I’ve grown beyond primary. The church cannot abuse me. I will not let it happen. It sounds like you're saying that even if the church is abusive towards you, it doesn't matter as much (as it might matter to others) because you don't allow it..and that you're implying that it is the individual's job to prevent abuse of themselves. That therefore they must be accountable at least in part if "they let themselves" be abused. I am going to assume you didn't think it through, because whether in a collective or more intimate setting, this sounds very unhealthy.
Analytics Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 5 hours ago, smac97 said: The physicality of the Plates needs to be accounted for. If the plates physically existed, they wouldn’t have disappeared into thin air. Real, physical things just don’t do that. 1
Meadowchik Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 (edited) 36 minutes ago, BlueDreams said: I won't bely the point too much. I just want to say I don't doubt that you experienced harm in the church. I've seen it happen before. I've also seen the same system do quite the opposite...sometimes the exact same means and avenues. I get a really weird window into the ways local leadership flavors the experiences of members. And each time, for better or worse, those experiences become "the church" for them because most people don't get a random sampling of differing people in differing areas in their church life to compare/contrast religious experiences. From the ones I've heard of or interacted with, some are above and beyond stellar, some who really dropped balls, are horrible. and even psychologically abusive. Most are just doing their best with what they're given and support their members as best they can. I even had one weird case where I ended up being a mediator between a bishop and a member. Because I'd talked to both of them individually before (I should note, with written permission and clear communication as to what I discussed with my client), I knew both of them were good and just inadvertently pushing each other's buttons. Sure enough when there was someone they trusted in the room to help facilitate communication, the relationship shifted and became healthier. I didn't assume you were using an alternative definition. I think I was wondering what is your cut off for what would be considered apologetics. I'm also not sure why this person would need to talk about authoritarianism in a video that's obviously not focusing on such concepts. And since most people who fall into apologetics probably don't experience the church as authoritarian, I don't think it would be felt or experienced as an elephant to them. Expecting others to engage with the church in the language and manner you see it, isn't realistic IMHO. From an LDS stance, it reminds me of the people on this channel I subscribe to on Youtube where a pastor is exploring different aspects of the church. When he doesn't get the same uplifting experience and picture of Jesus from the BoM as some members do, they can get annoyed in the comments section, wondering how he could have missed it. We're bound to see it differently, assuming it's obvious and apparent may not be true. With luv, BD I'm not referring to local leadership alone when I refer to authoritarian control and psychological abuse. I am referring to the systemic way the church operates from the top and through time. Not all churches do it, but the LDS claim to be the mouthpiece of God, the judge of our worthiness, and the knower of how we must live our everyday lives in extensive detail. I didn't expect the apologist to reference authoritarianism either. As someone who no longer occupies that world mentally, it is an obvious cockroach in her ice cream: It doesn't matter what she thinks or how smart her ideas are, "doctrine is not up for debate." The Brethren decide, the end. Edited February 23, 2024 by Meadowchik 2
Recommended Posts