Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Does this show do a segment on the Mormons? I am watching it right now and they mentioned Joseph Smith once in terms of the Second Great Awakening, but I certainly hope there is more. Any show about God in America can hardly leave out the Mormons. Will be watching to check. I started this thread but then was told it was being discontinued so I never came back to it until now. I wish I had as I would have liked to have been involved in the conversation. I am actually a historian of the US so I like the way that the thread took a historical turn and believe I could have added some things there, although my fellow Americans did a fine job. Clearly, this is a topic that still interests people so i feel the decision to discontinue it was a bit hasty. I am glad the admins thought to reinstate it. At any rate, I don’t think at this point it would be worth adding anything more, as the time seems to have passed. Well, I have a friend who teaches seminary and he said it as the last poster did, that it is D&C/church history. Is church history analogous to the PofGP because it includes the official account of the first vision? I would still love to hear from others about this. I wrote this post because it just struck me as a problem that I had never seen addressed before. Yes, I am preaching to the choir for those who think the ban was wrong, but that is not the point of my post. My point is that if the church is truly a restored church then that would have to mean that the original Christian church denied the priesthood to blacks, would it not? And if it can be shown that that was not the case, then there really is no way Joseph Smith was operating from revelation. So, yes, I think it casts serious doubts on the church’s veracity that is worthy of mention, something that I have never seen mentioned before. In fact, it seems to me a lot of things that the Church believes/practices could put up to the same judgment. I am not looking for a debate. I could care less about that. I just wanted to post this as an idea for people to ponder. If you don’t want to go there, don’t. No worries.
Having read through the various posts pertaining to Candence’s post, I feel compelled to write that I do not think that any of them have truly answered her question(s). What she is asking, ultimately, is, if the Church is true, why does there need to be ANY questionable problems associated with it. Why is there any reason to question it at all, again, if it is true? It is a question I have long had–why should I be so challenged to believe given that there are so many fallacies in the church’s history? If the church is the one and only true church, and I found it, why would God make it so difficult for me to believe once the reality is revealed?
I feel her pain because I totally agree, and nobody’s response has rectified the issue. The responses, for the most part, are classic examples of the tortured logic that believers concoct to keep the faith.
I respect those who want to remain Mormon and have made efforts to accept the realities of the problems that are evident with it, but, Candence gets to the heart of the matter–the church clearly is not the ONLY true church. And, given that reality, then it is all open to whatever.
I don’t really have anything to add that is probably useful to this discussion but it is another example, IMNSHO, of church members (or “the church”) trying to have its cake and eat it to, in a sense. Whenever some troubling problem comes along that severely tests the canon they escape it by tortured logic designed to make it appear that the church really never taught this or that thing in the way the critic is saying. I was born and reared in the church. The teaching that “as God is, man may become; as man is, God once was” was absolutely central to the church’s theology and in many respects (along with the belief that God and Jesus are distinct beings made of flesh and bone) what made it unique. If that belief goes, it seems to me the whole thing goes. That’s the biggest problem the church has for those of us who feel disaffected. We were taught one thing growing up and now it’s all changed. The Hinkley thing was an absolute embarrassment and not what one would expect from the “prophet.” Journey1, What is your post in response to? You seem to be responding to something but it is not clear what.
I also do not really get why not having a dad made your son feel left out of scouting. My dad was not involved in scouting at all but I never felt left out because of it. I mean what did it matter? You go off with the scout troop and that is that. Maybe things have changed?
However, your post does bring up an issue that I had never given much thought to but that now I am interested in. Should the church be sponsoring boy scout troops? And I think maybe the answer is no. Not, at least, in the way it is forced upon young men. If I remember correctly it was part and parcel of my youth experience in the church. It was an integral part of being a youth in the church. Am I remembering this correctly? Once a week we had priesthood night but it was really scouting night. I could be wrong but that is how I remember it.
That just doesn’t seem right to me now. The boy scouts are a secular organization with all kinds of discrimination problems, not to mention molestation issues. Why would the church want to associate itself with such an organization. Granted, the church has made clear its stance on gay marriage but discrimination is another thing altogether. If I am correct the church does not advocate discrimination against homosexuals and even accepts that homosexuality is natural, although it condemns the behavior. Still, it doesn’t say gays are not welcome in the church, right? The scouts are just all screwed up as an organization, it seems to me, and there is no reason the church should be so intimately connected to it. I say it should divorce itself from it.
Quote:“From 1985 to 1995 the Church membership grew from 5.9 million to 9.3 million or about a 58% increase. By comparison from 1999 to 2009 the membership grew from 10.75 million to 13.82 million or an increase of about 29%. So while it is technically true that the Church is still growing the rate of growth has slowed significantly from the way it was before.”
I find these statistics to be completely unbelievable. Would like a source. Growth of that kind in any organization would be so phenomenal as to break records. I don’t buy it.
Hey, Old-Timer, and others, no worries. I really didn’t take offense. We’re dealing with some emotional issues here and stuff like that is bound to happen from time to time. I apologize as well. On with the debate/discussion! Curt
So who decides who is being sarcastic or not, Old-Timer? I thought your initial comment to my post was quite sarcastic, which is why I responded to it as I did. You suggested it would be beneath you to reply to and then did anyway. What am I supposed to make of that? Do you want this to be an open forum or not? Need we adhere to some established rules that don’t allow for contention? That would be sad. I am angry that I have been deceived. Does that not resonate with you? I have spent my whole life as a Mormon believing and now all of this!!!
Quote:Old-Timer wrote:
I have no desire to comment it on, curt. All I would have is pure speculation, and anything I say other than, “I think she probably was telling the truth,” would be impugning her character. My own actual answer is, “I think she was telling the truth” – but I have no reason to give for it.
My summary: I don’t know. Could have been truthful; could have been to support her husband. I don’t know.
Well, thanks for replying anyway, Old-Timer, despite your claim that you had “no desire” to.
It is absolutely ridiculous to worry about impugning the character of historical figures or else why study history? Sure, it is fair, and good historical methodology, that we do not simply make baseless, false claims about historical figures, but that does not mean we can’t or should not question their veracity or character. So what gives? It is not simply a matter of speculation that the BofM is not true or that the plates really did no exist. There are all kinds of reasons to question the veracity of the testimony of the three and the eight witnesses. Emma’s testimony needs to be considered in the same light. We don’t even know, in fact, that this was her testimony because all we have is her son’s report of the matter, produced only AFTER Emma died. He could have fabricated the whole thing. Maybe your point is it doesn’t matter because, well, how can we know? But I find that a very weak answer unless one ignores so much of the other evidence demonstrating the falsehood of the plates as an actual physical object that JS had in possession.
I think Emma’s testimony that she saw the plates on the table, covered in cloth, and that she felt them, is really troubling evidence for those who do not believe the plates were real. Since I fall into that category I must admit to being rather flummoxed by this evidence. For me there are enough other things that do not auger for the plates veracity that this evidence alone does not convince me otherwise, but I have no good explanation for her testimony. Maybe she made it up. It was testimony she offered way after the events, in the 1870s, I think. It was provided to her son. Perhaps, reason to make it up? I would love to hear others comment on this. Here is the quote I am responding to: Quote:“I’d like to see that quote in Journal of Discourses where Brigham Young said some “renounced their belief”. I have a feeling Brigham didn’t use those exact words. I know Grant Palmer says some of the men weren’t reliable witnesses, and I think there is some validity to that, I don’t think any of them every denied the Book of Mormon. Yes some witnesses left the church, such as Oliver Cowdery and the Whitmers, and perhaps they “renounced their belief” in the organized church. David Whitmer liked the lack of hierarchical structure of the priesthood in the early days of the church (pre-1834) and expressed some dismay when the priesthood became more hierarchical in 1834 and beyond, and many had a problem with Joseph’s leadership following the Kirtland Bank Failure in 1838 and resigned church membership or were excommunicated. But Whitmer never denied his role as a witness of the plates. I suspect this Journal of Discourses may be conflating some issues here, or there may be some important info missing from the quote. The church and the testimony of the Book of Mormon may be 2 different things in the eyes of some of these early church members.”
My response:
The quote from BY is “some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel” (JD, Vol 7, p. 164).
Two of the witnesses did claim that they saw the plates and the angel with their “spiritual eye.” This caused several high-ranking members of the church to leave in 1838. Certainly, it leads less credence to their claim. There is also this problem: The way JS tells the story of the Three Witnesses, the four of them were praying for a revelation but it wasn’t working. Harris then departed from the group claiming it was his fault. After Harris left, the angel appeared to Smith, Cowdery, and Whitmer. Then, Smith went to where Harris was praying and shortly thereafter they both had the same visitation by the angel. This would have us believe that the two visions happened on the same day. However, Harris said on another occasion that he did not see the plates until several days later.
The witnesses were certainly of questionable mental stability. Or, if that seems to strong a charge, then at least gullibility (although Cowdery might be a co-conspirator but that is not my claim). As mentioned in an earlier post, Harris changed his religious affiliation numerous times and went on a mission to England for the Strangites, followers of Josiah Strang, who also claimed to have translated ancient documents using the Urim and Thummim. This AFTER his association with JS and the BofM. Not exactly the kind of guy I would want to cite as proof that the BofM is true. Much is true of the other two witnesses (of the main three). I don’t have time to get into that right now.
As to why the three did not renounce their testimony, this is not surprising. Having claimed as much, in writing no less, to deny that testimony, which, t cannot be denied, did give them a degree of notoriety, would be akin to admitting to being a liar and a cheat. Plenty of men have gone to their graves without admitting to falsehoods they have created.
I am sorry. I still can’t figure out how to copy and past a comment from someone else so I can respond to it. One postee wrote that none of the witnesses to plates ever renounced their testimony of their experience, but I am not sure that is true. BY is quoted in the Journal of Discourses as saying something to the effect that “some of those who touched the plates and saw the angel later renounced their belief.” It isn’t clear, of course, what he meant by this exactly. Their faith in the church or in the vision/experience they had, so hard to say. Others have pointed out that the three main witnesses were not exactly reliable men. Martin Harris changed his religious affiliation at least thirteen times in his life. He went on a mission to England for the Strangites, followers of a man who claimed also to have an ancient record that the translated with use of the UandT. He even joined the Shakers at one point after breaking with the church. Whitmer never came back to the church and never renounced his testimony of the BofM but he was kind of kooky too. Cowdery, well, who knows. Close as he was to Joseph, major scribe of the book, falls out with the “prophet,” becomes a Methodist. Yes, he later rejoined but hardly a compelling witness.
I certainly did not mean to imply or aver that all comments on the Book of Mormon’s authorship were not welcome in this thread, and I apologize if it came off that way. I am just interested in what people have to say about the issue, but if the answer is simply, yes, it was divine intervention, then what? I did check the other thread that Ray suggested and I guess it speaks somewhat to what I am getting at but seems to drift more into the veracity of the book rather than the process by which it was created. The BofM is, arguably, a complex book that would seem incapable of authorship by someone like JS (Mark Twain’s criticisms notwithstanding). And yet, BH Roberts argued that he may well have had the imagination to do so. Since we seem to have a fairly accurate record of the translation process, with the peep stone in the hat, and since it certainly seems implausible that there was a wide-spread conspiracy to create the book, i.e., that JS and the others sat around and concocted it, what is the explanation for it? Again, divine intervention is one answer, but aren’t there those on the list who might believe otherwise?
