Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

For discussion of political issues in general.

Sponsored Links

Advertisements

Medical Cost Sharing - It's not insurance it's better!

Lizzy60
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2357
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 5:33 pm

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Lizzy60 » Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:40 pm

I think it's an excellent article. When I initially heard Elder Ballard's answer to the question about "hiding" certain historical events, I felt he only added another example of being less than transparent, which, of course, only advances the problem that that he attempted to solve. Two wrongs don't make a right, and two lies don't equal truth.

larsenb
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4140
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:32 pm
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby larsenb » Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:04 pm

You could say that this article itself is an attempt to 'gaslight' those who believe in the Joseph Smith revelation. One definition:
Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or members of a group, hoping to make targets question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target's belief.[1][2
The overall effect of this article sows seeds of doubt in those who believe in Joseph Smith and the Church he founded (via Jesus Christ), even though it may not use all of the extreme ploys mentioned.

It ignores all the evidentiary episodes and testimony, etc., that support the claims of the Church. It is unwilling to attribute what it is criticizing to simple human weakness and oversight including being forced into a defensive position.

The Church is certainly moving in the direction of addressing the issues mentioned, but apparently not fast enough for these two authors. Are they even active members?

User avatar
Mark
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6435
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:16 am

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Mark » Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:10 pm

Lizzy60 wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:40 pm
I think it's an excellent article. When I initially heard Elder Ballard's answer to the question about "hiding" certain historical events, I felt he only added another example of being less than transparent, which, of course, only advances the problem that that he attempted to solve. Two wrongs don't make a right, and two lies don't equal truth.
Confirmation bias seems to be the order of the day. Those who feel the church has been misleading them will look at anything thru their own particular lens to confirm those negative feelings they harbor. The Lord uses imperfect men to do his work. So what? Neither Joseph or any other Prophet for that matter have declared themselves to be infallible or completely void of any faults or failings. Just the opposite in fact. However Joseph did boldly declare there was no fault in the revelations he received. Why should the church go on an apology tour trying to uncover every fault or failing they can possible find in any man or women who have served in the kingdom? That is silly and unproductive. There are plenty of enemies out there who spend all their efforts doing just that and want nothing more than to discredit all things LDS. Negativity and fault finding comes from the wrong spiritual source. Satan is at its head. Why make his day?
You are a true nothing Mark.

User avatar
sandman45
captain of 100
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:38 pm

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby sandman45 » Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:11 pm

I thought it was a great article.. we need transparency. I mean I remember teaching people on my mission with faith and confidence about certain topics. Now I know what I was teaching was not 100% correct and I do not trust the "Authority" as I once did.

I like how they have a plan for how the church could respond to this and fix it..
- Scrub every single manual..
- create a web page that summarizes all of the major issues that the church feels it should correct the record on
- change the rhetoric. Stop telling people that those that question church history just didn’t pay attention enough to the 1970 article by James Allen. That is insulting to everyone’s intelligence. Recognize and validate the fact that there are real concerns over how church history has been presented over the years. Accept the fact that a certain number of people are going to leave the church over it and that they are not bad people for it.
I am all for learning the truth and knowing the truth...
D&C 93: 24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

User avatar
Sarah
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2014 8:16 am

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Sarah » Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:12 pm

I think some need to take a more grown up perspective on this. Our Church leaders do their best to run the Lord's Church, so He is the one who decides what message He wants all his children to hear. It's not the apostles' job to convert everyone based off of the evidence. Their message is that the Lord restored his Church. The Savior wants everyone to come unto him through the path he has paved - the ordinances of the gospel, which allow us to be bound to him through covenants, which sanctify us as we keep them. That is the path, and we are in a battle against Satan who would like to keep as many off that path as possible.

It's not wise to allow your enemy to know everything about you or your strategy, or he will use it against you. I've experienced this on this forum as I've talked about things that others have twisted to benefit their own agenda. So keeping things close and not out in the open, even with your troops, is not a bad thing to do. The Lord and his leaders are like parents. We are the children. I don't tell my children everything about my past until I feel they are ready and can understand it. It doesn't mean I want to forever "hide" it from them as if I was ashamed or that what I did was wrong even, it's just that I've learned from experience that what parents say to children often sticks with them forever and has a huge influence on their choices, and I want to be careful that my life's history and my thoughts will be appreciated and understood. That is what a compassionate parent does - he gives his children exactly what they need to know, not revealing everything, out of love and not for selfish reasons. Our apostles are not selfish, I can tell you that. They are leading the best way they can under inspiration for our good, and motivated by love.

It comes down to this - if you want to believe it, you will believe it, and be given faith sustaining confirmations that it really is true. You have to have the desire to believe.
Last edited by Sarah on Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
5tev3
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1706
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:43 am
Contact:

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby 5tev3 » Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:13 pm

It's tough because how can you possibly teach everyone everything about everything. Seriously, do you know how much time it takes to really dig in and study even a small portion of a long and complex history?

I currently teach the 10-year-olds and we are covering church history. The fact that we only have minutes to share a couple stories while attempting to unfold doctrines and principles in that time is extremely difficult. Personally, I dislike so much time spent on history, it is the doctrine and principles that matter more. That is where you find what you ultimately need to know. Equipping people with the ability to discover a spiritual rebirth and a relationship with God should be our first and foremost duty. Teaching history falls so low on the list of what is important.

If what we are teaching is true, how it got here is interesting but not essential. The past is certainly interesting and to see how it all unfolded can relay important information, but there's this paralysis by analysis issue to consider as well. I've studied LDS history quite a bit and at the end of the day, you arrive at the same place. You have to choose whether or not you are going to believe that what certain people said happened, happened. One way or the other. There is no smoking gun or proof one way or the other. If you think the claims are serious enough to warrant your investigation then you can put the claims to the test and make a decision based on the results.

I envision a world where we really apply these principles and have a thriving community where the fruits of the gospel are apparent and functioning in our daily lives.

I imagine that the church has tried to hide things for a variety of reasons. Maybe they didn't trust the source, maybe they don't have an explanation for something. Now that the Internet is here we see the church doing some great stuff with making information available online for those who want to spend time digging around in it. That's great, but that wasn't really possible decades ago. There are a ton of documents, papers, books, journals, etc. and how do you make all of that accessible to everyone and put it into context?

You're talking about actions of millions of people over almost two centuries. At some point, you're going to find someone doing scumbag things, you'll also find miraculous stories, I imagine you'd find it all. But then there's the doctrine. You have the Book of Mormon, you have access to God himself and can inquire of him if the path you are on is right. That is accessible by everyone and can result in productive and happy lives and an assurance that God lives, that there's a plan, and that life continues after death. That has to always be the focus.

What I say to the people who complain and moan about transparency and history is just give it some time. The church is making huge strides in technology, embracing it, and providing access like never before. I think that will improve as time goes on for sure. In the meantime, the basic gospel as we know it will not change. If you feel a desire to repent and follow Christ, you can be baptized and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost. You can commune with God, you can study and be blessed by the wisdom in scripture and enjoy the benefits that come from fellowshipping with the Saints. These are all real and tangible things. History is a mess, comprised of the witness testimony of mortal beings. It's like a puzzle made of Jell-o that is missing half the pieces. Through the gospel, you can build on a rock.

I'm very optimistic about the future.

Michelle
captain of 100
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 2:33 pm

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Michelle » Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:32 pm

Not taking the time to learn something, is not the same as it being hidden.

I find this kind of thinking in people all the time with all kinds of topics. (One example might be UN Agenda 21 and 2030. When I tell people what it says they say it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but they refuse to go and read it for themselves. It isn't even that long or hard. Another would be when I quote the Law of Moses. So many people haven't ever read the Old Testament and think there is no way the Lord addressed so many topics that modern science has just recently began to understand and teach, of course without credit to God. Just a couple of examples of truth being available, but people not willing to learn for themselves.)

I don't have time to make a list, but my dad told me as a kid that a lot of the mistakes he made in his life were because he listened to the brethren and then they changed. Funny thing, I went back and read the General Conference talks for the times he speaks of, and they absolutely refute what he is saying. So really, either he didn't listen and learn, or he heard what he wanted to hear.

As for it being hard to find these sources, not at all. Long before the internet we had the History of the Church written by Joseph Smith. We had many books written by prophets and apostles. There were printed General Conference compilations (I use to find the old ones at DI.) For those with pioneer ancestors, we even had the written history of our family members, if we were doing family history as we should. There are plenty of sources. But since at least the advent of television (and certainly before) many people have chosen to spend their free time idling it away instead of studying the truth. They have their agency to do so, but they can't claim it was hidden, only that they were slothful in studying.

One more point. Elder Ballard gave one example. There are more. Should he have taken the time to run down an exhaustive list of references while answering this question? That would certainly have gone over well, right? Can you imagine General Conference talks like that? Just a list of references after every claim? Luckily, the GC talks are printed and sources listed there. With the internet it is not hard to find plenty of sources to back up Elder Ballards claims. Again, not his job to spoon feed. He answered. He provided and example. We are free to continue learning on our own time.

As far as I can tell the two men who wrote the article are only trying to stir up contention and putting on display their own ignorance.

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1240
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:08 am
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby inho » Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:34 pm

larsenb wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:04 pm
Are they even active members?
Isn't FearlessFixxer one of the authors himself, isn't he Ryan McKnight who is behind the MormonLeaks page? I don't think he is a member at all anymore.

User avatar
Joel
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3743
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:48 am

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Joel » Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:17 pm

It would be nice to know more about the context of the original question. Maybe the question Elder Ballard was answering was regarding history surrounding the "strange account" of the first vision and Elder Ballard was not aware of the history of it being locked away? I could see how someone could view that as hiding it.
Joel wrote:
Thu Nov 27, 2014 12:15 am
Here is a PowerPoint presentation (original link) titled “The Case of the Three Torn Pages” which is based on a Dialogue article by Stan Larson titled “Another Look at Joseph Smith’s First Vision”.


Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Saw this here.
Before the photoshop job :)

gardener4life
captain of 100
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby gardener4life » Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:56 pm

larsenb wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:04 pm
You could say that this article itself is an attempt to 'gaslight' those who believe in the Joseph Smith revelation. One definition:
Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or members of a group, hoping to make targets question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target's belief.[1][2
The overall effect of this article sows seeds of doubt in those who believe in Joseph Smith and the Church he founded (via Jesus Christ), even though it may not use all of the extreme ploys mentioned.

It ignores all the evidentiary episodes and testimony, etc., that support the claims of the Church. It is unwilling to attribute what it is criticizing to simple human weakness and oversight including being forced into a defensive position.

The Church is certainly moving in the direction of addressing the issues mentioned, but apparently not fast enough for these two authors. Are they even active members?
I wanted to back up what larsenb said. The key words here are 'sows seeds of doubt'. That's what they are doing. But they are trying to do it in a clever way by trying to make it look like they are on the other side of the fence. This is really interesting. There's other proof that this is article is actually attacking faith too. Like why is the article so spiffy and made to look grand compared to other articles? It's obvious they are trying to make a big statement and show off that they have perceived to find weak spots. But in reality they are just creating fictious openings to attack.

Recently I was reading Alma 30. Guess what...what they are doing its just like what Korihor was doing. They think they are so original and so smart. But they are just doing what Korihor did. Look at what Korihor's statements to Alma in Alma 30 said. Everything Korihor said he was baiting and trying to trap Alma with dual statements and trying to create the illusion that Alma didn't know. He and Sherem first started with accusing the leaders of their time with hiding something. This is the key to seeing that these people coming up with this stuff are following Satan. They are doing what agents of Satan attacking the church of other time periods have done with no change in strategy but only minor wording changes. If you doubt this go read Sherem talking to Jacob, and Korihor talking to Alma. I think the Spirit was helping me see the duality in how Korihor was trying to trap Alma with EVERY single statement he said, primarily to help people see that that's what people are doing today. But the added twist of the ones in our day is they are emphasizing more sheep outfits over their wolf fur. Oh wait, but Sherem and Korihor did also approach the leaders of their day with smiles and calling them brother too. "...I have had much desire to speak with you brother Jacob..."

But inwardly they are wolves.

If they aren't wolves why did they pretty up the article why above what others normally do for other normal articles unless they have their own motive?

Also look them up. Guess what...I did. The writer of this article Ryan McKnight has been attacking the church for a long time. The source below shows him the founder of a mormonwiki leaks group and also that he's been involved on trying to spy on and expose the apostles to try to damage credibility. Also said records might be stolen or fictious. People are just assuming things he did in the past are true but how are you going to trust a fox to guard the henhouse? Even if the fox says he'll keep his word he can't hold back his hunger.

This guy has a history of attacking mormons. Why is the Salt Lake Tribune using him?

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865 ... rency.html

I would also speak about truth. Truth isn't opinion. The only truth that matters is inspired truth from Heavenly Father. People think that if someone says something is truth. But that's their opinion. If it can stand the test of enduring to the end or enduring Heavenly Father's guidance that's truth. That's why Joseph Smith and Jesus could give their lives. Giving their lives for the truth was part of showing us they were going all the way to show its not just opinion.

Yet these guys who have probably never wanted to be in a church before are claiming they are truth. That's not truth. They may claim they went to church, but if they never wanted to be their they then spend their time thinking up ways to contradict it. Isn't that really the heart of it? Their families go to church, yet they don't want to. So to not be ashamed of themselves they attack others' character to cover up their own problems and confuse their family. Shame on them.

Also you can't dispute personal revelation. You know recently I had an inspiration. What's interesting is at the time I was thinking, what the heck does that mean. It had words and an image that I didn't understand or know about. Then about a week later I had an experience seeing something that I hadn't known about before that matched that image. Yet if revelation wasn't real and wasn't true then how could Heavenly Father show me something that I didn't know about beforehand to show his hand in things? If revelation wasn't real it wouldn't be able to show us things we didn't know about yet. But Heavenly Father does this all the time. That's why when we get an inspiration, dream, or revelation, we won't understand all of it right away but then later it will show itself as something that will perfectly match up with something about to happen or that happens later in our life. People at the time don't realize that this is a proof of Heavenly Father being real. But at the time we're thinking because I don't understand it, they don't see the value yet. Yet the opposite is true and how perfectly wonderful that is that it's that way where later down the road we think...there's no way the things of God can't be real for something to be shown to us in a revelation that we didn't know about that will match later at the right time and right place of what we're supposed to use it for. (Nephi building the boat, Noah building a boat...'curious workmanship', the prophet tells the Nephite army where to cross the river Sidon and that the Lamanites will be there, the brother of Jared asks the Lord to show mercy and light the barges...)

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 1:08 pm

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Finrock » Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:41 pm

Sarah wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:12 pm
Our Church leaders do their best to run the Lord's Church, so He is the one who decides what message He wants all his children to hear.
I also tend to assume that the leaders are doing their best because unless evidence indicating otherwise, I give them the benefit of the doubt in this thing. However, everything that Church leaders do, say, or teach is not exactly what Jesus wants to be done, said, or taught. I disagree with this, what I believe is a misapplication of faith and belief. To suppose such a thing forces me to adopt a view that our leaders are infallible and I know for a fact that they are fallible. There have been times, there continues to be times, and there will be times in the future when our leaders make mistakes, do things wrong, say the wrong thing, or teach the wrong thing. The "leaders" of the Church are servants. I reject the idea that the leaders are our parents and we are their children. The leaders of the Church in actual truth are our brothers and our sisters and this relationship maintains at all levels. God is no respector of persons and neither does God esteem one flesh above another flesh.

We are not required nor is it even morally right for us to in any way treat our leaders better than we would treat the least member amongst us. We shouldn't treat them worse either, but all should be treated with equal dignity and respect. We recognize, support, and sustain them in their calling but at the same time we shouldn't place them on a pedestal that is unrealistic or treat them in a way that esteems them as better/greater than any other person.

But this idea that the leader's actions and words in all cases are as if Jesus Christ Himself was acting and speaking is a false notion and it can very easily lead a person to start making excuses for immoral conduct, downplaying immoral or unethical behavior, idolizing, supporting/enabling cult of personality (and other cult like beliefs and ideas), enabling abuse in all its forms, and many other problematic/untrue/evil principles.

-Finrock
"You can't reason with a wolf" -rewcox

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 1:08 pm

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Finrock » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:01 pm

gardener4life wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:56 pm
So to not be ashamed of themselves they attack others' character to cover up their own problems and confuse their family. Shame on them.
I feel like your post is doing this to the authors of this article.

Our leaders are not above reproach. Our faith and our belief should be centered and founded in Jesus Christ, not fallible men and women, no matter who they are or what position they hold, etc. It is a good thing to sow seeds of doubt in mortal flesh. If we keep making excuses or if we make evil good and good evil, then we will never exercise faith in Jesus Christ. Why do we need to exercise faith in Jesus Christ if our leaders can never do any wrong and they are always and in all things teaching, doing, and saying the right thing? The only beings that have the quality of always teaching, doing, and saying the right things are the Godhead. It isn't necessarily a bad thing to doubt that the leaders (our fellow servants) are the equivalent to Jesus Christ, the true Master.

At the same token, we don't hyperventilate when leaders (fallible mortal servants) make mistakes and neither do we use that as an excuse to reject light, life, and truth or Jesus Christ.

-Finrock
"You can't reason with a wolf" -rewcox

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 10:34 am

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby TrueIntent » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:55 pm

I just want to interject....the LDS church absolutely did "hide" information from the general membership. The word "hide" "withhold" and "mislead" are all appropriate words to describe their behavior.

Examples of this are....historians who were excommunicated for publishing information. Cherry picking, and deliberately editing quotes in lesson manuals out of context of original sermons....leaving out sections of quotes to completely alter meanings.....quotes by Boyd k. Packer that say that not all information that is good should be made available...the very reason the essays were published was so that the church could finally take the lead on information that was spreading on the internet, it wasn't spreading from church sources..,it came from outside sources.

I don't know that newer apostles are on board with the way things were previously handled, but I can not dismiss evidence of the past...while I would like to think that the general authorities always have the best intentions....so do overbearing and intrusive parents.....the fact of the matter is, information absolutely was hid, and distorted...The question is...is it okay to HIDE or Knowingly distort information, and knowingly mislead the membership under any circumstance? And should people "trust" general authorities that have not followed the proper steps of repentance by submitting a full confession.

My own experience...my own family members, extended and such, are still not familiar with the essays, neither were my stake president as of a couple years ago...when the bulk of the membership is completely unaware of topics...while we can't teach EVERYTHING to members, it's interesting to me that we DO teach "Follow the prophet" and "stick with us" "trust us" , but we don't teach times in our history where they have erred. The church has an agenda...it's to follow the leadership....the leaders didn't just make mistakes....they Deliberately withheld information to influence the membership. It's up to individuals to decide what to do....for me, in my own personal sphere...I compare teachings with the scriptures....and church is a place of fellowship not a place where I am bound by blind obedience. I am obedient to the spirit as best I can.

User avatar
skmo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4377
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:44 am

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby skmo » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:56 pm

When I saw it was a commentary from the SL Trib, I knew all I needed to know. Whether there was any validity in their topic or not, its ultimate goal would be to create a thorn in the side of the LDS Church. It would be similar to asking the hildabeast to explain the most honest points about Bill Clinton's character.
Governments don’t live together, people live together. With governments you don’t always get a fair word or a fair fight. Well I’ve come here to give you either one - Or get either one from you.

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 10:34 am

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby TrueIntent » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:17 pm

Michelle wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:32 pm
Not taking the time to learn something, is not the same as it being hidden.

I find this kind of thinking in people all the time with all kinds of topics. (One example might be UN Agenda 21 and 2030. When I tell people what it says they say it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but they refuse to go and read it for themselves. It isn't even that long or hard. Another would be when I quote the Law of Moses. So many people haven't ever read the Old Testament and think there is no way the Lord addressed so many topics that modern science has just recently began to understand and teach, of course without credit to God. Just a couple of examples of truth being available, but people not willing to learn for themselves.)

I don't have time to make a list, but my dad told me as a kid that a lot of the mistakes he made in his life were because he listened to the brethren and then they changed. Funny thing, I went back and read the General Conference talks for the times he speaks of, and they absolutely refute what he is saying. So really, either he didn't listen and learn, or he heard what he wanted to hear.

As for it being hard to find these sources, not at all. Long before the internet we had the History of the Church written by Joseph Smith. We had many books written by prophets and apostles. There were printed General Conference compilations (I use to find the old ones at DI.) For those with pioneer ancestors, we even had the written history of our family members, if we were doing family history as we should. There are plenty of sources. But since at least the advent of television (and certainly before) many people have chosen to spend their free time idling it away instead of studying the truth. They have their agency to do so, but they can't claim it was hidden, only that they were slothful in studying.

One more point. Elder Ballard gave one example. There are more. Should he have taken the time to run down an exhaustive list of references while answering this question? That would certainly have gone over well, right? Can you imagine General Conference talks like that? Just a list of references after every claim? Luckily, the GC talks are printed and sources listed there. With the internet it is not hard to find plenty of sources to back up Elder Ballards claims. Again, not his job to spoon feed. He answered. He provided and example. We are free to continue learning on our own time.

As far as I can tell the two men who wrote the article are only trying to stir up contention and putting on display their own ignorance.
Could be stirring up contention....however, you could say the same thing about the scrptures. If it weren't for opposition, we would not be able to sort out the good from evil. Just because something isnt received by others doesn't mean it isn't true, or good, or of value. The Old Testament for example....as a seminary student...my teacher glossed over stories like Lot sleeping with his daughters...but that's a reflection of the teacher....she was uncomfortable with the information.....same thing with church history...it's not taught or hidden because we are uncomfortable as a church with it. I became more comfortable with it when I realized apostles can be bigots, racists and chauvinist in the early church, just like everyone else at the time was...my generation is not comfortable with how general authorities have handled history....because we are taught what plagerism is, and taking quotes out of context...I'm a journalism major...it's what the media gets blasted for...it's the political spin....we just do it as a church with religion. How polygamy was practiced in their day, is what we would call adultery in ours. Times change, culture changes....doctrine does not...god does not. but even the doctrine vs. principles debate is another manipulation....now we're saying...oh but that wasn't a doctrine...it was just a principle....it's the church trying to cover its butt and blame members for following things they were taught to but shouldn't have. It's like bill Clinton saying...define "is"....we say...define what was taught,...doctrine, principle, or just some old guys opinion.

Tbone
captain of 100
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 10:35 pm
Location: Right here

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Tbone » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:19 pm

skmo wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:56 pm
When I saw it was a commentary from the SL Trib, I knew all I needed to know. Whether there was any validity in their topic or not, its ultimate goal would be to create a thorn in the side of the LDS Church. It would be similar to asking the hildabeast to explain the most honest points about Bill Clinton's character.
I Agree 100%. The Salt Lake Tribune is pretty much garbage when it comes to Mormon commentary. And on top of that the article was written by hypocrites. The Mormon Leaks people should lead the way in transparency and reveal all their sources, strategies, motives, and tactics. I simply cannot put my trust in people who are not 100% transparent, especially when they steal private information from others in their hypocritical transparency crusade.

I don't believe our leaders are perfect and they probably made huge mistakes in the past, and I have had enough encounters, though brief, with general authorities to know that I don't like all of them personally, but I believe they are more trustworthy by far than dishonest thieves with an agenda, such as the hyprocrites at Mormon Leaks and other exmo sites.

Yeah, it's okay to have questions and struggles and even faith crises. We need to be patient with eachother and even respect eachothers different takes on history; however, what makes me angry are people like these that take advantage of others' spiritual weaknesses and try to push them into the pit they digged. It's shameful.

By the way, the 1832 first vision account is by far my favorite. If JFS was really trying to hide it that's too bad, because no other account captures Joseph's deep personal questions and ponderings quite like it. It's simply beautiful. I absolutely reject the idea that the different first vision accounts should create doubt. I very strongly believe that to be a false narrative.

Also, the experiences discussed in 1832 account were alluded to in D&C 20:5:
After it was truly manifested unto this first elder that he had received a remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world.
Last edited by Tbone on Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 10:34 am

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby TrueIntent » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:26 pm

Tbone wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:19 pm
skmo wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:56 pm
When I saw it was a commentary from the SL Trib, I knew all I needed to know. Whether there was any validity in their topic or not, its ultimate goal would be to create a thorn in the side of the LDS Church. It would be similar to asking the hildabeast to explain the most honest points about Bill Clinton's character.
I Agree 100%. The Salt Lake Tribune is pretty much garbage when it comes to Mormon commentary. And on top of that the article was written by hypocrites. The Mormon Leaks people should lead the way in transparency and reveal all their sources, strategies, motives, and tactics. I simply cannot put my trust in people who are not 100% transparent, especially when they steal private information from others in their hypocritical transparency crusade.

I don't believe our leaders are perfect and they probably made huge mistakes in the past, and I have had enough encounters, though brief, with general authorities to know that I don't like all of them personally, but I believe they are more trustworthy by far than dishonest thieves with an agenda, such as the hyprocrites at Mormon Leaks and other exmo sites.

Yeah, it's okay to have questions and struggles and even faith crises. We need to be patient with eachother and even respect eachothers different takes on history; however, what makes me angry are people like these that take advantage of others' spiritual weaknesses and try to push them into the pit they digged. It's shameful.

By the way, the 1832 first vision account is by far my favorite. If JFS was really trying to hide it that's too bad, because no other account captures Joseph's deep personal questions and ponderings quite like it. It's simply beautiful. I absolutely reject the idea that the different first vision accounts should create doubt. I very strongly believe that to be a false narrative.
Lol....when the church does the same..hypocrites...right....
"The Mormon Leaks people should lead the way in transparency and reveal all their sources, strategies, motives, and tactics. I simply cannot put my trust in people who are not 100% transparent, especially when they steal private information from others in their hypocritical transparency crusade. "
It is the job of the SLT to report and provide opposition....it is the job of the church, who supposedly has Christ at the head, to be Truth.

Tbone
captain of 100
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 10:35 pm
Location: Right here

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Tbone » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:40 pm

TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:26 pm

Lol....when the church does the same..hypocrites...right....
I don't get your logic. So it's okay to be a hypocrite if you believe church leaders are being hypocrites?? Maybe church leaders have been hypocritical, but I thought Mormon Leaks wants transparency and integrity. Why don't they lead the way? Or are they actually hypocrites? I'm going for hypocrites.
TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:26 pm
It is the job of the SLT to report and provide opposition....it is the job of the church, who supposedly has Christ at the head, to be Truth.
So, the SLT's job is to provide opposition? Again, what a garbage newspaper. They should lead the way and print the facts and only the unbiased facts. If their job is to provide opposition, that's a sign of a garbage newspaper (i.e. propaganda). Just report the facts. Whether those facts oppose or support the church is none of SLT's business.

harakim
captain of 100
Posts: 419
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Near Lehi, Utah

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby harakim » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:45 pm

What a surprise!? Democrats wanting someone else to do all their work for them! Even the elect. Even the elect...

harakim
captain of 100
Posts: 419
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Near Lehi, Utah

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby harakim » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:46 pm

Tbone wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:40 pm
TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:26 pm

Lol....when the church does the same..hypocrites...right....
I don't get your logic. So it's okay to be a hypocrite if you believe church leaders are being hypocrites?? Maybe church leaders have been hypocritical, but I thought Mormon Leaks wants transparency and integrity. Why don't they lead the way? Or are they actually hypocrites? I'm going for hypocrites.
TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:26 pm
It is the job of the SLT to report and provide opposition....it is the job of the church, who supposedly has Christ at the head, to be Truth.
So, the SLT's job is to provide opposition? Again, what a garbage newspaper. They should lead the way and print the facts and only the unbiased facts. If their job is to provide opposition, that's a sign of a garbage newspaper (i.e. propaganda). Just report the facts. Whether those facts oppose or support the church is none of SLT's business.
To be fair, it was in the opinion section.

FearlessFixxer
captain of 10
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:16 pm

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby FearlessFixxer » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:50 pm

inho wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:34 pm
larsenb wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:04 pm
Are they even active members?
Isn't FearlessFixxer one of the authors himself, isn't he Ryan McKnight who is behind the MormonLeaks page? I don't think he is a member at all anymore.
Guilty as charged

Tbone
captain of 100
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 10:35 pm
Location: Right here

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Tbone » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:08 pm

harakim wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:46 pm
To be fair, it was in the opinion section.
I am actually glad there are newspapers and media outlets that allow viewpoints like FearlessFixxers whether I agree or not, but it will be interesting to see if the SLT allows a reasonable retort from an opposing viewpoint in their opinion section, and not just the one-sided view point from a couple of guys self-promoting their websites.

You know, to be fair.

User avatar
Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1011
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:48 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Sunain » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:29 pm

Michelle wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:32 pm
Not taking the time to learn something, is not the same as it being hidden.

As far as I can tell the two men who wrote the article are only trying to stir up contention and putting on display their own ignorance.
It really does seem like they never studied on their own at all. Ignorance is pretty high in that article but that's expected from the Tribune. Anyone that's been to seminary or institute knows that there are many times Joseph Smith recounted the First Vision. Why wouldn't he say it many times? It's the main event in the restoration of the church and the gospel on the earth.
Michelle wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:32 pm
I find this kind of thinking in people all the time with all kinds of topics. (One example might be UN Agenda 21 and 2030. When I tell people what it says they say it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but they refuse to go and read it for themselves. It isn't even that long or hard.
I too have been trying to tell people about the United Nations Agenda's 21 and 30. People think the UN is such a great organization but all you have to do is look at who currently runs the security council and their voting bias against Israel. Not to mention the militarization of the organization.

When I was in Primary, the older primary kids and the young men and young women got to go to Palmyra and Kirkland. The whole method of translating the Book of Mormon was talked about and discussed there at the church historical locations such as the Smith house, Martin Harris home, Peter Whitmer home and the Hill Cumorah Visitors Center. They talked about the many methods Joseph Smith used to translate, the glasses with breastplate, the Seer Stone, Urim and Thummim, ect.

It sounds like the author is:
1. Ignorant
2. Doesn't or wouldn't study on own.
3. Didn't attend Seminary or Institute
4. Had bad Primary/Sunday School/Seminary/Institute teachers.
5. Just wants to complain and make the same baseless arguments exmormon's make.
6. All of the above are not surprising considering who the writer of the article is.

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 10:34 am

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby TrueIntent » Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:43 pm

Tbone wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:40 pm
TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:26 pm

Lol....when the church does the same..hypocrites...right....
I don't get your logic. So it's okay to be a hypocrite if you believe church leaders are being hypocrites?? Maybe church leaders have been hypocritical, but I thought Mormon Leaks wants transparency and integrity. Why don't they lead the way? Or are they actually hypocrites? I'm going for hypocrites.
TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:26 pm
It is the job of the SLT to report and provide opposition....it is the job of the church, who supposedly has Christ at the head, to be Truth.
So, the SLT's job is to provide opposition? Again, what a garbage newspaper. They should lead the way and print the facts and only the unbiased facts. If their job is to provide opposition, that's a sign of a garbage newspaper (i.e. propaganda). Just report the facts. Whether those facts oppose or support the church is none of SLT's business.


So let me get what you are saying....you believe that a newspaper organization, should take the lead, and set the example for transparency for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints....who claims to have Christ leading the Apostles..who Christ is, per himself, The way, the truth, and the light.....you're saying the Newspaper organization should set an example of transparency for a religious institution that claims Jesus Christ, himself, is leading its apostles. ??? And the newspaper is the hypocritical ones for not doing so.....NOT the religious institution....is that what you are saying?

Newspapers are supposed to provide checks and balances.....they report controversy, to make the public aware. They are an integral part of the United States and its founding.......they rat out the rats, and sometimes they are the rats, but they provide opposition, just like opposing parties do in government...TO GIVE PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE.

No...I don't support hypocrisy....so you realize You're the Bias one....can you say...hypocrite? Pull the beam out of your own eye.

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 10:34 am

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby TrueIntent » Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:50 pm

TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:43 pm
Tbone wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:40 pm
TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:26 pm

Lol....when the church does the same..hypocrites...right....
I don't get your logic. So it's okay to be a hypocrite if you believe church leaders are being hypocrites?? Maybe church leaders have been hypocritical, but I thought Mormon Leaks wants transparency and integrity. Why don't they lead the way? Or are they actually hypocrites? I'm going for hypocrites.
TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:26 pm
It is the job of the SLT to report and provide opposition....it is the job of the church, who supposedly has Christ at the head, to be Truth.
So, the SLT's job is to provide opposition? Again, what a garbage newspaper. They should lead the way and print the facts and only the unbiased facts. If their job is to provide opposition, that's a sign of a garbage newspaper (i.e. propaganda). Just report the facts. Whether those facts oppose or support the church is none of SLT's business.


So let me get what you are saying....you believe that a newspaper organization, should take the lead, and set the example for transparency for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints....who claims to have Christ leading the Apostles..who Christ is, per himself, The way, the truth, and the light.....you're saying the Newspaper organization should set an example of transparency for a religious institution that claims Jesus Christ, himself, is leading its apostles. ??? And the newspaper is the hypocritical ones for not doing so.....NOT the religious institution....is that what you are saying?

Newspapers are supposed to provide checks and balances.....they report controversy, to make the public aware. They are an integral part of the United States and its founding.......they rat out the rats, and sometimes they are the rats, but they provide opposition, just like opposing parties do in government...TO GIVE PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE.

No...I don't support hypocrisy....so you realize You're the Bias one....can you say...hypocrite? Pull the beam out of your own eye.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, says that "Congress shall make no law....abridging (limiting) the freedom of speech, or of the press.........why???? It's all about checks and balances....as soon as people get a little power they exercise unrighteous dominion no matter whether it's religion, politics, or news. Checks and balances.

buffalo_girl
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5215
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:40 pm

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby buffalo_girl » Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:59 pm

Maybe each of us needs to get his/her own vision regarding Joseph's accounts.

There's a Joseph Smith Translation in the New Testament that makes for a bit of confusion regarding the identities of the Father and the Son as two separate Beings. Are those the First Vision account differences of concern - that only Christ appears to Joseph in his 1832 account?

I find NO fault with The Book of Mormon message. As to how Joseph transcribed that Holy Writ is inconsequential to me.

How Joseph led his personal life has no bearing on my belief in the veracity of Christ's Ministry and Gospel.

There are a whole lot of things I don't know about 'Mormonism', 'Gospel Doctrine', Church protocol, temple worship, and/or why most ordinary Latter-day Saints are so rabidly 'uptight'.

Michelle
captain of 100
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 2:33 pm

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Michelle » Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:16 pm

TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:17 pm
Michelle wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:32 pm
Not taking the time to learn something, is not the same as it being hidden.

I find this kind of thinking in people all the time with all kinds of topics. (One example might be UN Agenda 21 and 2030. When I tell people what it says they say it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but they refuse to go and read it for themselves. It isn't even that long or hard. Another would be when I quote the Law of Moses. So many people haven't ever read the Old Testament and think there is no way the Lord addressed so many topics that modern science has just recently began to understand and teach, of course without credit to God. Just a couple of examples of truth being available, but people not willing to learn for themselves.)

I don't have time to make a list, but my dad told me as a kid that a lot of the mistakes he made in his life were because he listened to the brethren and then they changed. Funny thing, I went back and read the General Conference talks for the times he speaks of, and they absolutely refute what he is saying. So really, either he didn't listen and learn, or he heard what he wanted to hear.

As for it being hard to find these sources, not at all. Long before the internet we had the History of the Church written by Joseph Smith. We had many books written by prophets and apostles. There were printed General Conference compilations (I use to find the old ones at DI.) For those with pioneer ancestors, we even had the written history of our family members, if we were doing family history as we should. There are plenty of sources. But since at least the advent of television (and certainly before) many people have chosen to spend their free time idling it away instead of studying the truth. They have their agency to do so, but they can't claim it was hidden, only that they were slothful in studying.

One more point. Elder Ballard gave one example. There are more. Should he have taken the time to run down an exhaustive list of references while answering this question? That would certainly have gone over well, right? Can you imagine General Conference talks like that? Just a list of references after every claim? Luckily, the GC talks are printed and sources listed there. With the internet it is not hard to find plenty of sources to back up Elder Ballards claims. Again, not his job to spoon feed. He answered. He provided and example. We are free to continue learning on our own time.

As far as I can tell the two men who wrote the article are only trying to stir up contention and putting on display their own ignorance.
Could be stirring up contention....however, you could say the same thing about the scrptures. If it weren't for opposition, we would not be able to sort out the good from evil. Just because something isnt received by others doesn't mean it isn't true, or good, or of value. The Old Testament for example....as a seminary student...my teacher glossed over stories like Lot sleeping with his daughters...but that's a reflection of the teacher....she was uncomfortable with the information.....same thing with church history...it's not taught or hidden because we are uncomfortable as a church with it. I became more comfortable with it when I realized apostles can be bigots, racists and chauvinist in the early church, just like everyone else at the time was...my generation is not comfortable with how general authorities have handled history....because we are taught what plagerism is, and taking quotes out of context...I'm a journalism major...it's what the media gets blasted for...it's the political spin....we just do it as a church with religion. How polygamy was practiced in their day, is what we would call adultery in ours. Times change, culture changes....doctrine does not...god does not. but even the doctrine vs. principles debate is another manipulation....now we're saying...oh but that wasn't a doctrine...it was just a principle....it's the church trying to cover its butt and blame members for following things they were taught to but shouldn't have. It's like bill Clinton saying...define "is"....we say...define what was taught,...doctrine, principle, or just some old guys opinion.
Your kind of proving my point.The story of Lot is interesting because there is a Joseph Smith Translation that he did not offer his daughters to the men of the city, they demanded the girls and he refused. Secondly, Lot did not consent to his daughters actions with him, they tricked him. How is he to blame?

A little research answers a lot of questions.

If you are simply stating that your teacher tried to hide the story. That is on her, not the whole church. Did you not have your own scriptures? Search and know for yourself.

I still disagree about who is responsible with regard to learning. I cannot change anothers actions, only my own. It is not on them to spoon feed us, it is on us to just look. It almost seems it is because of the easiness of the way that so many refuse to learn. The church has already made the info available, it is on us to learn. I think they bend over backwards to meet people where they are at and make it as easy as possible, througout history with the various technologies available, for us to learn and know for ourselves. We literally have people visit our homes to teach us, we have church that is long enough each Sunday to cause people to complain, they print magazines for the various age groups, they make available lesson manuals for free online and they will even give you a hard copy of the books we use at church each year for our study. Not to mention with modern technology they have invested in printing the Joseph Smith Papers, something that would have been harder to do in the past, and even made videos of the Bible and are working on the Book of Mormon for those to lazy to read. This is not even a comprehensive list. The resources the church provides for us to learn are so extensive it would be hard to "consume" all the media they create just for the purpose of learning and making it as easy as possible.

Tbone
captain of 100
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 10:35 pm
Location: Right here

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Tbone » Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:47 pm

TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:50 pm
So let me get what you are saying....you believe that a newspaper organization, should take the lead, and set the example for transparency for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints....who claims to have Christ leading the Apostles..who Christ is, per himself, The way, the truth, and the light.....you're saying the Newspaper organization should set an example of transparency for a religious institution that claims Jesus Christ, himself, is leading its apostles. ??? And the newspaper is the hypocritical ones for not doing so.....NOT the religious institution....is that what you are saying?
I believe I referred to SLT as a garbage newspaper because their commentary on Mormon topics is garbage, not for lack of transparency. I don't believe I referred to SLT as hypocrites, but they probably are and as you pointed out, so am I. I referred to FearlessFixer himself as a hypocrite for not revealing his sources, strategies, motives, and tactics. Isn't that what they want from the church? If Mormon Leaks and other exmo groups believe they are on higher ground, then yes they should "take the lead, and set the example for transparency." Otherwise, they are nothing more than hypocrites.

As far as your comment on Christ leading the apostles, I know you are mocking. However, I don't think I have as fundamentalist of a viewpoint as you appear to have, so I am okay if apostles mess up sometimes. It's disappointing and it has consequences, but they are progressing too. I believe the overall pattern makes it clear that Christ does lead this church, even if you can point out some anecdotal events where He probably did a face palm and shook His head. But in my own personal experience, the church has done me immeasurable amounts of good.
TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:50 pm
Newspapers are supposed to provide checks and balances.....they report controversy, to make the public aware. They are an integral part of the United States and its founding.......they rat out the rats, and sometimes they are the rats, but they provide opposition, just like opposing parties do in government...TO GIVE PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE.
I don't think we disagree here. However, I want a press that reports facts. If they are going to report controversy, then they better base it on facts and not become propaganda.
TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:50 pm
No...I don't support hypocrisy....so you realize You're the Bias one....can you say...hypocrite? Pull the beam out of your own eye.
This one kind of made me laugh. Am I biased? Definitely, but hopefully I am not ignorant. Am I a hypocrite? Probably, but I can't see for sure because of the beam in my eye.

But it's always someone else who has the beam, right? We all need to be careful around you TrueIntent. You know, since you are the one here that is worthy to cast the first stone. I am not worthy, but I chucked one anyways.
TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:50 pm
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, says that "Congress shall make no law....abridging (limiting) the freedom of speech, or of the press.........why???? It's all about checks and balances....as soon as people get a little power they exercise unrighteous dominion no matter whether it's religion, politics, or news. Checks and balances.
I'm cool with the freedom of speech. I am glad we have it. However, the press's speech needs to based on facts or its libel and slander, and when it is just one sided, it is nothing more than propaganda like the SLT (and Deseret News on the other side). The church has certainly faced plenty of that over the years.

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 10:34 am

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby TrueIntent » Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:34 pm

Michelle wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:16 pm
TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:17 pm
Michelle wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:32 pm
Not taking the time to learn something, is not the same as it being hidden.

I find this kind of thinking in people all the time with all kinds of topics. (One example might be UN Agenda 21 and 2030. When I tell people what it says they say it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but they refuse to go and read it for themselves. It isn't even that long or hard. Another would be when I quote the Law of Moses. So many people haven't ever read the Old Testament and think there is no way the Lord addressed so many topics that modern science has just recently began to understand and teach, of course without credit to God. Just a couple of examples of truth being available, but people not willing to learn for themselves.)

I don't have time to make a list, but my dad told me as a kid that a lot of the mistakes he made in his life were because he listened to the brethren and then they changed. Funny thing, I went back and read the General Conference talks for the times he speaks of, and they absolutely refute what he is saying. So really, either he didn't listen and learn, or he heard what he wanted to hear.

As for it being hard to find these sources, not at all. Long before the internet we had the History of the Church written by Joseph Smith. We had many books written by prophets and apostles. There were printed General Conference compilations (I use to find the old ones at DI.) For those with pioneer ancestors, we even had the written history of our family members, if we were doing family history as we should. There are plenty of sources. But since at least the advent of television (and certainly before) many people have chosen to spend their free time idling it away instead of studying the truth. They have their agency to do so, but they can't claim it was hidden, only that they were slothful in studying.

One more point. Elder Ballard gave one example. There are more. Should he have taken the time to run down an exhaustive list of references while answering this question? That would certainly have gone over well, right? Can you imagine General Conference talks like that? Just a list of references after every claim? Luckily, the GC talks are printed and sources listed there. With the internet it is not hard to find plenty of sources to back up Elder Ballards claims. Again, not his job to spoon feed. He answered. He provided and example. We are free to continue learning on our own time.

As far as I can tell the two men who wrote the article are only trying to stir up contention and putting on display their own ignorance.
Could be stirring up contention....however, you could say the same thing about the scrptures. If it weren't for opposition, we would not be able to sort out the good from evil. Just because something isnt received by others doesn't mean it isn't true, or good, or of value. The Old Testament for example....as a seminary student...my teacher glossed over stories like Lot sleeping with his daughters...but that's a reflection of the teacher....she was uncomfortable with the information.....same thing with church history...it's not taught or hidden because we are uncomfortable as a church with it. I became more comfortable with it when I realized apostles can be bigots, racists and chauvinist in the early church, just like everyone else at the time was...my generation is not comfortable with how general authorities have handled history....because we are taught what plagerism is, and taking quotes out of context...I'm a journalism major...it's what the media gets blasted for...it's the political spin....we just do it as a church with religion. How polygamy was practiced in their day, is what we would call adultery in ours. Times change, culture changes....doctrine does not...god does not. but even the doctrine vs. principles debate is another manipulation....now we're saying...oh but that wasn't a doctrine...it was just a principle....it's the church trying to cover its butt and blame members for following things they were taught to but shouldn't have. It's like bill Clinton saying...define "is"....we say...define what was taught,...doctrine, principle, or just some old guys opinion.
Your kind of proving my point.The story of Lot is interesting because there is a Joseph Smith Translation that he did not offer his daughters to the men of the city, they demanded the girls and he refused. Secondly, Lot did not consent to his daughters actions with him, they tricked him. How is he to blame?

A little research answers a lot of questions.

If you are simply stating that your teacher tried to hide the story. That is on her, not the whole church. Did you not have your own scriptures? Search and know for yourself.

I still disagree about who is responsible with regard to learning. I cannot change anothers actions, only my own. It is not on them to spoon feed us, it is on us to just look. It almost seems it is because of the easiness of the way that so many refuse to learn. The church has already made the info available, it is on us to learn. I think they bend over backwards to meet people where they are at and make it as easy as possible, througout history with the various technologies available, for us to learn and know for ourselves. We literally have people visit our homes to teach us, we have church that is long enough each Sunday to cause people to complain, they print magazines for the various age groups, they make available lesson manuals for free online and they will even give you a hard copy of the books we use at church each year for our study. Not to mention with modern technology they have invested in printing the Joseph Smith Papers, something that would have been harder to do in the past, and even made videos of the Bible and are working on the Book of Mormon for those to lazy to read. This is not even a comprehensive list. The resources the church provides for us to learn are so extensive it would be hard to "consume" all the media they create just for the purpose of learning and making it as easy as possible.

I was actually referring to the part of Lots daughters getting their father drunk and sleeping with them....and yes....I read it in my own scriptures at 16 years old...you do realize that Christ descended through these daughters children bloodline..this was the chosen bloodline...it's not what you think, .my point also wasn't to diss my seminary teacher...my point was to say there are things we don't discuss because in our day, because it's adultery or pedophilia....there are explainations but they require spirit led revelation and a willingness to acknowledge that men are flawed and they err...even when their name is written in scripture...and it's not what we perceive outwardly.

It's interesting that you say their job is not to spoon feed us.....why all the lesson manuals, conference talks, church programs, and handbooks if they aren't spoon feeding us already....it's what they are spoon feeding us that matters, at least to me anyway.

I think you're ignorant or just plain bias....journals of discourses was made available, and it doesn't take 20 years to get the Joseph smith papers online,..,the Internet has been around for a long time. You're making excuses....you just won't acknowledge it. The church has printed and complied vast manuals with detailed quotes from historical documents...and we couldn't get the Joseph smith papers online until now?

I'm not trying to argue with you...the facts are obvious, information has been withheld deliberately. I don't need you to accept this.......so what if you acknowledge that what I say may be true? How would this change you and your understanding? Would it be painful to acknowledge this? If you did, you would have to change your testimony, or understanding of the church? It's not as painful of a process as you might think....but the adversary would have us believe it's much worse than it is.


Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: awaketozion, Baidu [Spider], Dave62, davedan, Fiannan, moving2zion, PressingForward, Son of Liberty, zionbuilder and 135 guests