Church members who leave the church

[Dario_M]

1 minute ago, Malc said:

Good night, Dario. I hope you sleep well, and waken up refreshed. 

Thank you so much that's really nice of you. But now i'm really going to bed. 🌌

[let’s roll]

4 minutes ago, Malc said:

As far as I'm aware, from the standard works of the church, Joseph did not say that the other two persons in the grove were divine. Nor did he say that either was omniscient, and/or incapable of deception. If you have a source that you can refer me to, I'd be grateful.

I've been puzzled for quite some time about why (again, going by the standard works) Joseph did not identify either of the personages who appeared to him. I would have expected that to be one of the most important statements/claims that he could make about his experience.

You can ask Him all your questions. 

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Malc said:

As far as I'm aware, from the standard works of the church, Joseph did not say that the other two persons in the grove were divine. Nor did he say that either was omniscient, and/or incapable of deception. If you have a source that you can refer me to, I'd be grateful.

I've been puzzled for quite some time about why (again, going by the standard works) Joseph did not identify either of the personages who appeared to him. I would have expected that to be one of the most important statements/claims that he could make about his experience.

Maybe it was one of those things it didn’t occur to him needed to be said given the Bible literacy back then. “This is my Beloved Son” (JS-H 1:17) is a pretty straight pointer to it being God the Father (Matt 3:17 “this is my beloved Son”.

And then he says he had gone to inquire of the Lord and then that he asked the Personages that question, implying he at least is assuming one of them is Christ.  (Vs 18)
 

Which identifies the Father (the one who say “Beloved Son” and the Son/Lord (the one he asks)

Edited September 22, 2024 by Calm

[Malc]

6 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

You can ask Him all your questions. 

Isn't he dead?

[webbles]

34 minutes ago, Frank11 said:

If you look at the 1840 report, it becomes clear that Harris could not have seen anything, especially not that Joseph Smith reads in Golden Plates.

"The way that Smith made his transcripts and translations for Harris was the following; Although as the same room, a thick curtain or blanket was suspended between them, and Smith concealed behind the blanket, pretend 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 drawn near the sacred chest or look at Smith while in the work of deciphering the mysterious characters. This was Harris’ own account of the matter to me. What other measures they afterwards took to transcribe or translate from these metallic plates, I cannot say, as I very soon after this removed to another field of labour where I heard no more on this matter till I learned the BOOK of MORMON was about to be published"

You said there were no witnesses to what was in the picture.  The picture had a blanket between the two and Martin definitely witnessed it and spoke about it.  You are right that we don't know what happened behind the curtain but it wasn't the stone in the hat.  Martin knew about the stone in the hat and had no qualms with touching the hat or the stone.  So, Martin saw the stone in the hat process and that would not be behind the curtain.  It is very plausible that Joseph had the plates open in front of him behind the curtain.

I don't see that picture as being dishonest or misleading.  The problem is that only pictures showing the curtain were commissioned so it makes it look like it was the main form of translation when instead it was only used for a very short time.  It appears the curtain stopped being used sometime during the first translation part.

[Malc]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe it was one of those things it didn’t occur to him needed to be said given the Bible literacy back then. “This is my Beloved Son” is a pretty straight pointer to it being God the Father (Matt 3:17 “this is my beloved Son”.

That's possible, of course.

Still, for all that Joseph had to say about the personages, I find it strange that nowhere in his description of the event does he say who he believed either one to be. "One, ... pointing to the other, ..." is about as vague as you can get.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Malc said:

That's possible, of course.

Still, for all that Joseph had to say about the personages, I find it strange that nowhere in his description of the event does he say who he believed either one to be. "One, ... pointing to the other, ..." is about as vague as you can get.

Did anyone criticize him for this early on? (Question, not challenging, I don’t know).  

If not or if the criticism was rather uncommon, that would indicate to me that culturally what Joseph said, how he said it answered that question for them, if not for us.  

[Malc]

Just now, Calm said:

Did anyone criticize him for this early on? (Question, not challenging, I don’t know).  

If not or if the criticism was rather uncommon, that would indicate to me that culturally what Joseph said, how he said it answered that question for them, if not for us.  

I have no idea, Calm.

All I can say is that several years ago, during a discussion elsewhere about the First Vision, it occurred to me that the canonised version was not specific about who it was that Joseph said he saw. I imagined that, if he saw Heavenly Father and Jesus, then it would be rather strange not to say so from the start, explicitly. According to PoGP, he didn't ask either of them who they were.

I imagined Joseph telling other people about his vision and wondered if he was equally vague in reciting the story, and if nobody at all asked him who the personages were, and how he knew. When some people did not believe him, was it because he was vague, or because he was explicit in telling about  his experience.

Years later, when the experience was recorded, did he not think, even then, that this was a significant point?

In other versions, as you know, the account of who appeared varies, both in number and in identity. 

By the time that the "official" account was canonised (October 1880) the church already had an active missionary program in various parts of the world, not all of which would have a shared culture with the time and place of Joseph's youth. So once again I'm left puzzled by this apparent lack of specificity.

[webbles]

5 minutes ago, Malc said:

I have no idea, Calm.

All I can say is that several years ago, during a discussion elsewhere about the First Vision, it occurred to me that the canonised version was not specific about who it was that Joseph said he saw. I imagined that, if he saw Heavenly Father and Jesus, then it would be rather strange not to say so from the start, explicitly. According to PoGP, he didn't ask either of them who they were.

I imagined Joseph telling other people about his vision and wondered if he was equally vague in reciting the story, and if nobody at all asked him who the personages were, and how he knew. When some people did not believe him, was it because he was vague, or because he was explicit in telling about  his experience.

Years later, when the experience was recorded, did he not think, even then, that this was a significant point?

In other versions, as you know, the account of who appeared varies, both in number and in identity. 

By the time that the "official" account was canonised (October 1880) the church already had an active missionary program in various parts of the world, not all of which would have a shared culture with the time and place of Joseph's youth. So once again I'm left puzzled by this apparent lack of specificity.

https://rsc.byu.edu/exploring-first-vision/earliest-documented-accounts-joseph-smiths-first-vision has 5 accounts of the first vision from other people in the early 1840s.  Interestingly, they also don't name names.  The first 2 might have used the 1838 history for their source but the last 2 apparently heard the story directly from Joseph.  So it does look like he didn't feel it important to be explicit.

[Frank11]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

It is very plausible that Joseph had the plates open in front of him behind the curtain.

Can anything be considered plausible in the translation process of the Book of Mormon?
After 4 years he finally gets the Golden Plates including translation equipment to then develop almost the entire Book of Mormon with his personal seer stone in his hat.

 

[webbles]

6 minutes ago, Frank11 said:

Can anything be considered plausible in the translation process of the Book of Mormon?
After 4 years he finally gets the Golden Plates including translation equipment to then develop almost the entire Book of Mormon with his personal seer stone in his hat.

 

It is as plausible as him looking at the table or looking at some papers.  We don't know what he did behind the curtain but it appears to have been only for the first few pages of translation.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Malc said:

Isn't he dead?

According to some He got better.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Malc said:

not all of which would have a shared culture with the time and place of Joseph's youth.

All Christian though during that time for active proselyting, so wouldn’t they all use the Bible and likely be familiar with some version of “this is my beloved son”?

This sounds like a good research project. Dig into journals for any discussions of the First Vision (which was known iirc, but not used that much as a missionary tool or for sermons to begin with so it would take some extra effort).

Except for those viewed as Lamanites….do we have records of sermons taught to them?

Edited September 22, 2024 by Calm

[Dario_M]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Don’t feel pressured to rush through it. Take your time to understand and ask questions if you feel like anything is missing. Or you are wondering how they concluded something happened that way. 

Oh yes i will i will. I will take my time. But i'm going to read it all from that Dutch link you gave me. So that i can understand most of it. And after that i think i going to make a topic about it. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/20/2024 at 4:04 PM, Teancum said:

Oh my.... shudder....how hideous that someone my partake of alcohol or modify their dress standards. 😏  I am sure murder, raping and pillaging is up next.

You missed the point. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/19/2024 at 2:47 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sure. 

Oops. 

And…

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/19/2024 at 11:39 AM, california boy said:

When they left the Church did they tell you specifically that the only reason they left is because they wanted to drink and wear immodest clothes?  Or did you just decide for yourself that is the reason they left.

 

Neither. 

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Oh yes i will i will. I will take my time. But i'm going to read it all from that Dutch link you gave me. So that i can understand most of it. And after that i think i going to make a topic about it. 

Tell me what chapter you are on from time to time to keep me motivated to read it so I can finish when you do.   I am out of the habit of sticking with reading anything I can’t write a response to these days…though I still binge read for hours and hours at time instead of sleeping. But then ignore the book after that. 

Edited September 23, 2024 by Calm

[Dario_M]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Tell me what chapter you are on from time to time to keep me motivated to read it so I can finish when you do.   I am out of the habit of sticking with reading anything I can’t write a response to these days…though I still binge read for hours and hours at time instead of sleeping. But then ignore the book after that. 

I've read chapter 5 from your link. "Alles is verloren" and offcourse chapter 1,2,3 4. 

Now i only need to read the chapters 6,7 and 8.

Edited September 23, 2024 by Dario_M

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/19/2024 at 11:10 AM, bluebell said:

I have a little experience with this.  It doesn't happen all the time but when it does I have so many questions.

For example, I have one acquaintance who left the church very vocally with his wife and now every picture they put on facebook, her chest is hanging out (like, WAY out).  Every time I see it I wonder about that change.  I want to ask if she always wanted to dress like that but felt before that she couldn't do what she wanted because of her previous beliefs?  Or is her desire to show the world as much as you can on facebook without getting banned something that popped up after her beliefs changed?

I would never ask her because it's nosey and none of my business, but that's what goes through my head every time she posts a photo: have you always been this person, or is this a new person?

I understand what you are saying. Two faithful young women in our ward who were very close to Sister Gui left the church, one shortly after returning early from her mission and the other after dropping out of BYU. Both soon began posting photos of themselves on Facebook wearing more revealing clothing and having fun in bars with their new friends. The change happened quickly, and for some reason they wanted to show it in a place where everyone would notice. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I understand what you are saying. Two faithful young women in our ward who were very close to Sister Gui left the church, one shortly after returning early from her mission and the other after dropping out of BYU. Both soon began posting photos of themselves on Facebook wearing more revealing clothing and having fun in bars with their new friends. The change happened quickly, and for some reason they wanted to show it in a place where everyone would notice. 

I think reading into that that it was boasting about their new lifestyle or calculated to offend/sadden members or whatever is a bit of a leap. They had a good time and showed pics of them having a good time probably more aimed at their friends with similar enjoyments. I find it weirder that church members expect those who have left to censor themselves to avoid offending the poor members.

[Dario_M]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think reading into that that it was boasting about their new lifestyle or calculated to offend/sadden members or whatever is a bit of a leap. They had a good time and showed pics of them having a good time probably more aimed at their friends with similar enjoyments. I find it weirder that church members expect those who have left to censor themselves to avoid offending the poor members.

I don't feel offended if ex mormons drink or furnicate or whatever they wanna do in life. It's not my problem you know. What i do find a problem is that those ex mormon acuses the church of lying (wich the church kinda had admit to themselfs wich wasn't so wise) and all the other negative things ex mormons say about the church. And attacking those who are still within the church. That's not okay in my opinion. That's bully behavoir. People who try their personal best to make the church look bad. 

[Rain]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think reading into that that it was boasting about their new lifestyle or calculated to offend/sadden members or whatever is a bit of a leap. They had a good time and showed pics of them having a good time probably more aimed at their friends with similar enjoyments. I find it weirder that church members expect those who have left to censor themselves to avoid offending the poor members.

I wonder if some of it comes from the church being so strong about showing the good it is in members lives. It has encouraged people to share good things about the church, good things within that a person is doing. To basically "show" others how good the church can be.  So it doesn't surprise me when members leave that members feel those leaving are showing it, nor would it surprise me if some are actually showing it since the church kind of taught them to do so.  

So I think it's best to just not assume things about the motivations of others. Just love them. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The change happened quickly, and for some reason they wanted to show it in a place where everyone would notice. 

Social media is a way younger generation talk, showing pictures of what they were doing would have been life as usual, not a special effort to draw attention to it necessarily.

[gopher]

8 hours ago, Dario_M said:

I've read chapter 5 from your link. "Alles is verloren" and offcourse chapter 1,2,3 4. 

Now i only need to read the chapters 6,7 and 8.

I'm sure you realize the only reliable source to convince you Joseph Smith was a prophet is God.  It can be interesting to read what scholars and historians inside and outside the church think about JS, but I doubt many with a mature testimony of the prophet Joseph Smith base their belief on what other people think.  Instead they trust what they have learned through the Holy Ghost about his calling as a prophet of God.  What did you think and feel when you first learned about Joseph Smith?  Oh wait, board rules prohibit testimony in favor of JS or the church.  Testimonies that JS was a fraud are allowed, however.  No matter what critics say about JS, there are still people who are joining the church because they sincerely believe that God has confirmed to their spirit that JS was a prophet.  And God has been doing that same thing for 200 years now.