The Church faces an insolvable problem. Mormonism has always had a battle between it's teachings and reality. Converts and existing members have always had to choose between the Book of Mormon and scientific truths.
That doesn't seem to be the case either. This never comes up in Church probably because there are no scientific problems associated with the Book of Mormon. Not DNA, not steel, not horses, nothing.
But don't you see that you've captured the exact problem that Jensen refers to. That 'it' doesn't come up in Church. It is that very reason that drives members to search for questions elsewhere.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
bcspace wrote:There have been ups and downs all through out Church history, modern and ancient. But I'm fairly certain you guys will do anything to exaggerate even the slightest negative turn of events.
Hmmm. So, when I say I don't think there's a mass exodus or large numbers of people leaving, that really means I'm exaggerating things. Got it. :-)
The church isn't going anywhere, and those who think it's just a matter of time before it collapses are fooling themselves.
Runtu wrote:Talk of a mass exodus is of course completely overblown, but there has been enough apostasy that the church has taken notice. That the church recognizes there is a problem puts the lie to the sneers of those who think it's just a trickle of selfish people.
I don't think that there is a "mass" exodus. I do think that there are a greater number leaving every year and that there is a very real decline in converts. Especially in Europe where well educated people are the norm.
At a recent conference for church members in the German speaking area of Europe Pres. Monson admitted that the church is getting smaller; that the number baptised is fewer than the number who die every year.
The dyke is leaking and the hole will get larger exponentially.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
Drifting wrote:But don't you see that you've captured the exact problem that Jensen refers to. That 'it' doesn't come up in Church. It is that very reason that drives members to search for questions elsewhere.
I missed that. Of course there are problems with anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, and the apologetic answers, to put it kindly, suck.
Take steel, for example. The Book of Mormon mentions not only the metal, but the technology used to make it, and what it was used for. There is no evidence for any of this, and when I've talked to Brant Gardner and others, they tell me 1) it wasn't really steel, 2) that the technology was restricted to the priestly class, and 3) hard, smelted metal was not used for weapons. Basically, they are completely denying what the text says.
That doesn't seem to be the case either. This never comes up in Church probably because there are no scientific problems associated with the Book of Mormon. Not DNA, not steel, not horses, nothing.
But don't you see that you've captured the exact problem that Jensen refers to.
No.
That 'it' doesn't come up in Church. It is that very reason that drives members to search for questions elsewhere.
No, I really don't see Book of Mormon "anachronisms" coming up very often and I have a pretty good handle on the pulse of the classes and doctrinal questions that arise. Of course it could be that the NOMs and DAMUs have heard of me and don't want to argue against someone they can't win against or embarrass. I find that most of these types of questions are not from honest truth seekers but from those who are already lost and don't want to be recovered. It's usually their last attempt to cause some damage before going totally dark.
bcspace wrote: No, I really don't see Book of Mormon "anachronisms" coming up very often and I have a pretty good handle on the pulse of the classes and doctrinal questions that arise.
Exactly. The controversial facts don't get raised and they go elsewhere.
You should be able to say "yes, they get raised and we discuss them". The fact that you can't backs up what Elder Jensen is saying.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Drifting wrote:But don't you see that you've captured the exact problem that Jensen refers to. That 'it' doesn't come up in Church. It is that very reason that drives members to search for questions elsewhere.
I missed that. Of course there are problems with anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, and the apologetic answers, to put it kindly, suck.
Take steel, for example. The Book of Mormon mentions not only the metal, but the technology used to make it, and what it was used for. There is no evidence for any of this, and when I've talked to Brant Gardner and others, they tell me 1) it wasn't really steel, 2) that the technology was restricted to the priestly class, and 3) hard, smelted metal was not used for weapons. Basically, they are completely denying what the text says.
Oh yes. All the apologetics depend on the believer not going back to check what the Book of Mormon text actually SAYS.
The teeming masses of pre-existing natives idea is a great example of this.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
No, I really don't see Book of Mormon "anachronisms" coming up very often and I have a pretty good handle on the pulse of the classes and doctrinal questions that arise.
Exactly. The controversial facts don't get raised and they go elsewhere.
I'm afraid it's a slow downhill slide with no stop until it reaches the bottom.
There have been ups and downs all through out Church history, modern and ancient. But I'm fairly certain you guys will do anything to exaggerate even the slightest negative turn of events.
Us guys? I speak only for myself (a relief to everyone else, I'm sure). I don't think it's an exaggeration. The fact that we are even having this discussion on a message board speaks for itself.
There may have been ups and downs in Church history, but now there is the internet. Unless that goes away (not the way to bet) the decline will continue at an accelerated rate.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.