How do we best educate adult LDS members w/o losing them?

[TrueIntent]

I would like to know what Elder Christofferson was thinking. He had that smile in his face. Was he smiling in agreement, or was he thinking that things could have been worded differently?

Wow! I have never heard this video before....I am shocked. And this is why I go to God....he tramples on the scriptures in his very response. He is a lawyer and he answers like a lawyer....wow. Go to god people, read your scriptures....the church is a great institution, but the people who lead it, as you can tell from the video are subject to pride and errror just like the rest of us. Wow I can not believe that

[JohnnyL]

I don't understand this thread. I just read the church's post on the origin of the Book of Abraham and I am at a loss as to what is the controversy?

Enthusiastic enmity...

I haven't read it recently but my understanding is that we have the pieces of the original papyrus Joseph translated, and now we can translate Egyptian, and the papyrus doesn't say anything that Jospeh claimed it said...or something like that.....can someone verify this? I believe in translation different anyway.....but for literalist, this is the issue. Anyway, that was one of the issues, but apparently there were others.

This is why I dislike the essays. It seems the best information and thinking has been missed, or dissed.

That roll is not the same roll. (I'd have to look it up, and I hate doing that, but I'll see if I saved it.)

[inho]

This is why I dislike the essays. It seems the best information and thinking has been missed, or dissed.

That roll is not the same roll. (I'd have to look it up, and I hate doing that, but I'll see if I saved it.)

The essay does actually mention the missing scroll theory:

It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus. Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri.

Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham

[JohnnyL]

This is why I dislike the essays. It seems the best information and thinking has been missed, or dissed.

That roll is not the same roll. (I'd have to look it up, and I hate doing that, but I'll see if I saved it.)

The essay does actually mention the missing scroll theory:

It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus. Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri.

Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham

Yes, true. But I think this should be front and center, and it's the missing "rest of the story" that strongly supports this theory. It really would be helpful, I think, to at least link to things that show it, so people would be more inclined to understand and believe.

Life for polygamy, for example, I think one paragraph written by a board member (have to find the thread) was much better than the essay. (JS not having children by them, as DNA shows; spiritual sealings, and sealings as a big happy family, not just not sexual but not even temporal; etc.)

[JohnnyL]

For starters the church should probably admit this^, apologize in General Conference for all the harm it has caused, have lessons about how bad they messed up, then never do it again without clearly and repeatedly disclosing what kinds of information they are withholding and why. If you don't trust the people "educating" you, you are not going to want to learn from them.

Ha! They have higher direction than this advice!

I don't know, I think God is a pretty big fan of repentance...Which is what that is, no? Do you think God asked leaders to withhold information and put forth an incorrect narrative? Are leaders guilty of any wrongdoing here, or were they just following that "higher direction" you mentioned?

I learned at church, that when I hurt people, I should apologize and do my best to right my wrongs. It makes no difference to me whether I intended to hurt them or not. When I become aware of the mess I made, I apologize and try to fix it.

This reminds me of this exchange:

I cant speak for others, but this is one of my major concerns with the church.

Repentance usually involves acknowledging what has been done wrong. To me, the church as an institution, either needet to acknowledge that things like the priesthood ban, polygamy, shadow mountain massaker, have been wrong, and the work of men, and that the church as an institution needs to repent of that, or, it clearly and boldly needs to get declared that all of this has perfectly been the will and intent of the Lord. This is not about defending, this is about honesty and integrity, about trust and simply the way things needet to be. Christ made clear that his kingdom is a kingdom without secrets, but that all shall be made known. To pretent that all is well, when there still are some skeletons in the closet, is not a foundation upon which a healthy relationship can be built. People usually dont doubt the gospel, but the church. These are some of the major reasons why. All it needs to solve the matter, is honesty about it. Revelations from God about it surely wouldnt be a bad thing either. And though we can receive personal revelation about it, it doesnt set the hurch free from its own responsibility.

Don't hold your breath, Oaks said, ""I know that the history of the church is not to seek apologies or to give them,"

Love and Peace,
Amonhi

For reference purposes:

I got something different from this clip: it's not the words (often empty), it's the change in attitude and actions afterwards.

Did he also expand on giving apologies?