Church Admonishes to Use Only Approved Sources

[_sock puppet]

When we study, we should do so not only through study...but also by faith. That as I look at and read source material and writings of biographers, associates of the 'primaries', and other historical and/or scientific topics/references that are available...I am more "open minded" and thorough as I try to keep a balance between competing/conflicting ideas/theories/presuppositions, etc.

Does your faith in the tooth fairy keep you more open minded and keep a balance between competing notions?

[_sock puppet]

Hi, Philo!

Any chance I could get you to do an interview on Radio Free Mormon?

I really think people would be interested in hearing about your spiritual and intellectual journey.

All in favor, manifest it by the usual sign.

Oh I would bore the hell outta everybody. I am a rather blase sorta guy. . . having said that, aren't you nervous about your ratings tanking out because of it? There ain't much to say, I lost faith. . . But I may be up for it however. . .

Boring? Blase? Quite the contrary actually.

[_Chuck Finley]

There is a rich abundance of these books, written by heaven-inspired Church leaders and recognized, safe, and reliable Church history and doctrine scholars.

And where might one find a list of "safe and reliable Church history"?

I thought it was a reference to two different types of scholars, history and doctrine. Or one set of scholars who study history and doctrin. It seems to me he is talking about the authors of "these books" so I do not read the sentence to mean church history is referenced as being safe. Anyone else see that, or have I consumed too much Dr. Pepper for my own good this evening?

[Guest]

There is a rich abundance of these books, written by heaven-inspired Church leaders and recognized, safe, and reliable Church history and doctrine scholars.

And where might one find a list of "safe and reliable Church history"?

I thought it was a reference to two different types of scholars, history and doctrine. Or one set of scholars who study history and doctrin. It seems to me he is talking about the authors of "these books" so I do not read the sentence to mean church history is referenced as being safe. Anyone else see that, or have I consumed too much Dr. Pepper for my own good this evening?

No, you're not seeing things. I saw it too, sans Dr. Pepper! From my post upthread:

"...these books, written by heaven-inspired Church leaders and recognized, safe, and reliable Church history and doctrine scholars."

Safe and reliable? Who separates historical and scholastic authors into categories like that?

[_Xenophon]

Hi, Philo!

Any chance I could get you to do an interview on Radio Free Mormon?

I really think people would be interested in hearing about your spiritual and intellectual journey.

All in favor, manifest it by the usual sign.

Oh I would bore the hell outta everybody. I am a rather blase sorta guy. . . having said that, aren't you nervous about your ratings tanking out because of it? There ain't much to say, I lost faith. . . But I may be up for it however. . .

How could this guy bore people:



Count me in favor of this interview

[_Stem]

There is nothing to be gained in exploring the views and opinions of the less informed or disenchanted.

Well, maybe he's right. But then we have to conclude that General Conference is not worth listening to. Tough, is he so right that he's telling us that we shouldn't have listened to him telling us that we shouldn't listen to him?

[_Shulem]

And - if I may ask rhetorically just to blow off some steam - what would a "church-approved" source be? LDS.org? A treatise from a BYU professor? A CES manual? The scriptures? FAIRMormon? Sic et Non? The Interpreter? Old-school FARMS? The new-direction MI? Ensign articles? The opinions of local leaders?

They have to be "heaven-inspired church leaders":

Asking of God is to be preceded by careful study, for we are under scriptural mandate to seek “out of the best books words of wisdom” and to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). There is a rich abundance of these books, written by heaven-inspired Church leaders and recognized, safe, and reliable Church history and doctrine scholars. With that said, none surpass the majesty of the revealed word of God in canonized scripture.

So, what have all these heaven-inspired church leaders had to say about the bogus Explanations of Facsimile No. 3?

How is the church member supposed to get correct information about what is really contained in the Facsimile No. 3? Should they not consult Egyptologists and rely upon the light and truth of modern science? Or are they supposed to just put it on the back burner and maintain faith in translations and interpretations which have been proven false?

Elder Ardern is a used car salesman. He demands his buyer to trust that everything is well and dandy under the hood.

[_Shulem]

And where might one find a list of "safe and reliable Church history"?

That's right, no list exists, and any member found reading anything historical that makes him or her question her testimony has de facto not been reading "safe and reliable church history" regardless of the source. Even the essays are not "safe and reliable" in that sense.

I am dumbfounded by his use of the term "reliable history". What he really means is "faithful history".

The actual message here isn't to encourage members to be selective of what they read, it is to make them fearful of reading anything at all that will challenge their faith, regardless of whether that faith is based in "reliable history" or not.

When a member reads something that negatively affects his faith, it will be his fault for doing so. Because, of course, members should know beforehand whether or not something they are going to read is "safe".

/boggle

The Mormon CULT to a lesser degree is how North Korea leads its flock. Keep the sheep ignorant and don't let them ask questions that might upset the apple cart or lead people away from the faith burners. The dear leader, President Monson, holds the keys to the kingdom and all is well.

Yes indeed, Mormonism is a CULT. I'm 100% convinced. The educational systems sponsored by the church are inferior and totally biased.

[_Stem]

Consig, these post mortem episodes from this October Conference were some of the best Mormon-related podcasts I've listened to. You hit a home run each and every one.

[_consiglieri]

Oh I would bore the hell outta everybody. I am a rather blase sorta guy. . . having said that, aren't you nervous about your ratings tanking out because of it? There ain't much to say, I lost faith. . . But I may be up for it however. . .

Since the voting appears to be unanimous, would you mind PM'ing me your phone number and/or email?

This will be the first interview I have ever done and I am really excited about having you on the program!

I will have to contact Bill about how to do it and download the software in advance.

You can make good use of this lag time by preparing yourself mentally and physically.

Like maybe a good, long bike ride!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri