MADB member request

[_Paul Osborne]

My understanding is the reason General Authorities cannot admit any decisions made by General Authorities or the church or themselves have ever been erroneous is because to do so could appear as though they are not inspired and not the Lords ordained servants, which understanding by members could cause a lack of faith and obedience to the church's leaders and disorder. I think that is the fear.

Indeed, it would make the church appear to be less than it wants to appear to be. Appearances are everything and there cannot be any appearances that would lesson the promotion of faith in God’s prophets. This is the course by which the church plods along.

So when a action is found to be erroneous rather than admit they were wrong they simply make another corrective decision, and instead of admitting it is a corrective decision they simply say it's a new decision without past acknowledgment of it being erroneous.

The church doesn’t admit they were wrong. That would make it seem less than perfect. Remember, image is everything to the church.

The approach is a PR one, the kind that does not acknowledge they have been burning bridges after crossing them but not admitting when they need to rebuild the same bridge that they previously burned down.

The Mormon caravan moves on and the bridges it takes are ones that I can no longer cross. I have abandoned the church because my conscience told me to get out.

You will see this if you look closely at the church's policy on the avoidance of the use of the word Mormon, eventually they realized they were wrong and couldn't change the public's choice to use the word and subsequently they did a 180' about face and have started using the word in official website addresses but at the same time, not endorsing it to be used again in circulation. Thus with no acknowledgment of error contradication arises without explanation. Now personally I believe in the general authorities, and I can appreciate the unique complex challenges that their job presents and the difficulties they have in addressing problems.

No matter what, it’s always the Mormon church. The General Authorities cannot reverse that and will never be able to. People will not allow them to have that two-faced luxury of changing their image at the expense of denying the past when the word Mormon was used by the church on every level.

Personally I would like to see the Apostles answer some of the many questions that come up repeatedly in blogs in an open public setting, that is not controlled but decorous and moderated. Sorta like Paul on Mars Hill, out among the people. Instead of leaving apologetic's up to the general membership like me, who is totally unqualified to do so I think they should have a say.

I don’t believe the apostles are very honorable in this regard. They hide behind the apologists who do the dirty work. When will the President of the church take on the Book of Abraham problems and the papyrus and those things connected thereby? I have zero respect for these men. I view their lack of action as really pitiful. I could look any of them in the eyes and tell them to see the wizard of Oz and get some courage.

These men claim to be apostles and I believe they are, so I think the church should show case them, the true and living apostles, who speak with power and authority let them answer the difficult questions people have over history and doctrine in a public setting. I really think there should be more public interviews and exposure, I believe the Lord would uphold them if this was the case.

Don’t expect too much courage from these self proclaimed apostles. They call themselves apostles and you can accept it on faith. But as far as doing apostle like things that would appear to be miraculous in the eyes of the world, don’t hold your breath. They simply don’t have the power or the connection with heaven to prove they are what they claim. God just looks at them and pities them. They are not being truthful with the world. That’s sad.

The GA's can not ever admit any errors at any cost Paul, because people have misguided perceptions over the nature of the Lords servants as totally infallable and they know this.
Paul sounds like your planning a military propaganda leaflet drop! on a massive scale - sounds like an environmental disaster... However I don't think that is necessary I do think general authorities would have real concerns over some of the things Daniel has written in heated blogs.

I don’t expect prophets to be perfect. I do expect them to have courage and face up to the responsibility of defending the position which they claim to fill, i.e. the Book of Abraham papyrus. Own up to it! But they will not even do that and remain in their safe shells.

However I don't think that is the true Daniel, I think any man would bare his teeth if cornered and surrounded by a pack of wolves, trying to knock them off their perch or take them down a notch or two. I do not think I would behave any differently. Whether being surrounded by a pack of wolves is real or imagined it makes no difference to the person feels there is a real threat.

Daniel likes to have a bit too much fun. I think the fun will bite him in the butt in the long run. Actions have consequences and it remains to be seen just how many Daniel has yet to face. He has left a lot of foot prints and his finger prints are everywhere.

As far as I am concerned and where I think the confusion arises is that Daniel doesn't speak for the church any more than any other member. However people perceiving him to be more authoritative than he actually is, is the source of all his problems in my opinion. For example when people see his avatar which is of some evil villian like your own, they are baffled and wonder why is it like that, and what has lead him to do that.

Hold on. Hugh Nibley carried more weight than any of the apostles. People buy his books and quote him as if he was the wisdom of the ages. But he has no authority and doesn’t represent the church per say. But in reality, he does represent the church. Hugh Nibley was a voice for the church as is Daniel today. He is responsible for everything he says and does. So am I, and so are you, Rump.

Daniel’s avatar is all in fun and is a release for him to play his game. I have no problem for that. He likes to play and express himself just like everyone does. His problem is, however, he represents the church! The world sees him as a representative of the church regardless what apologists say or the apostles for that matter. Stick Daniel in the Quorum of the 12 as a pinup boy and an important voice in Mormonism.

In some cases I think this is true, in other cases I think the General Authorities are very switched on, perceptive and on the ball. In the recent case of Bruce C. Hafens talk on the causes of homosexuality that set the church back, it appeared he had no idea about the delicate situation the church was in over the matter almost like he wasn't reading the news papers or communicating with other general authorities, I don't know what was going on there... I think it's a peculiar mixture of some being very very sharp & street wise, and others at times clueless in my opinion.

Well, I don’t have respect for LDS General Authorities. I am against them and am fighting against their Lamb. I view them as corporate men, white collar professionals who think they are better than the working class. I don’t respect their authority or claims to priesthood. They are hiding behind the Mormon curtain. I could stand in front of all of them with uplifted arm and be more powerful than all of them. Why? Because I'm honest and God knows it and appreciates that more than anything.

Paul O

[_Rumpole]

Paul: Indeed, it would make the church appear to be less than it wants to appear to be. Appearances are everything and there cannot be any appearances that would lesson the promotion of faith in God’s prophets. This is the course by which the church plods along. The church doesn’t admit they were wrong. That would make it seem less than perfect. Remember, image is everything to the church.

I try to understand the thinking behind it and when I do it makes a lot of sense. I believe the brethren sincerely have the interests of the church at heart. And they know that in peoples minds they commonly equate words like “truth” and “perfection” as having the same meanings, when in fact have unique and very different meanings. So in the interests of protecting the image of the church, they admit no error because they understand people mistake perfection and truth as the same.

And they know the church cannot fulfill it’s mission to perfect the saints and proclaim the gospel if people don’t join because they have wrong ideas about the church, and think if it is not perfect then it is not true. When the two are not causally related.

Paul:
No matter what, it’s always the Mormon church. The General Authorities cannot reverse that and will never be able to. People will not allow them to have that two-faced luxury of changing their image at the expense of denying the past when the word Mormon was used by the church on every level.

Well the church has succeeded in getting media outlets to use the full name of the church when reporting on the church, but this is always followed by the word (Mormon) in parenthesis. I don’t think it’s a matter of people allowing them to, the reality is the history of the church’s name and it’s public image is a little complex. I believe it’s because of that the church has a request for correct usage of its name as outlined on its news website for media, unfortunately because of the complex history behind the name the guide is contradictory and confusing, it simply does not make coherent sense. The nick name Mormon was a name given by enemies of the church to LDS, and it has stuck ever since, but by the same token LDS do not resent the word itself which Joseph Smith said means “more good” so it’s a ongoing issue.

Paul:
I don’t believe the apostles are very honorable in this regard. They hide behind the apologists who do the dirty work. When will the President of the church take on the Book of Abraham problems and the papyrus and those things connected thereby? I have zero respect for these men. I view their lack of action as really pitiful. I could look any of them in the eyes and tell them to see the wizard of Oz and get some courage.

I would like to see more public dialogue on radio and television with Apostles addressing issues that face the church in it’s history and doctrine as they are so much more authoritative than blogs and lay apologists who are not qualified to represent or speak for the church. I mean apologetics like MADB for example I mean how does one know how representative of the church’s position they are? Anyhow that is the problem I see with apologetics and why I find it so confusing. The brethren at times do speak out on issues the church is facing and addresses them in a controlled environment like General Conference or CES firesides which I find helpful.

But to be dead set honest I do not frankly understand and am not always clear on what line to take in defending the church often it’s pure guess work on my behalf. Sometimes I probably do more damage than good, but I hope more good. I don’t really know too much about the problems with the Book of Abraham to comment, for me however that is the basis of my testimony because I was born remembering the pre-existence particularly one aspect.

However you could argue that the book of Abraham adds no further light to what is known of the pre-existence from fragmentary sources that are scattered all throughout apocryphal writings like a dogs breakfast. Although as a cohesive account it is extraordinary as nothing like it exists anywhere else.

For myself a knowledge of the pre-existence is everything. Mormonism could fail, end tomorrow and all it’s leaders be shot dead or it be proved utterly false and that would not make any difference to me, as I can remember the pre-existence still to a strong enough degree and the Pearl of Great Price gets 100% right and inline with what I remember. Now that doesn’t prove it’s true mind you. Joseph could've ripped it off from somewhere I guess. No one has ever explained how John Milton wrote Paradise Lost. But the strange theories of Joseph being a cross between a charlatan and a polymath are too mind boggling for me and in my mind this fits into that catagory.

Paul:
Don’t expect too much courage from these self proclaimed apostles. They call themselves apostles and you can accept it on faith. But as far as doing apostle like things that would appear to be miraculous in the eyes of the world, don’t hold your breath. They simply don’t have the power or the connection with heaven to prove they are what they claim. God just looks at them and pities them. They are not being truthful with the world. That’s sad.

I agree I have never seen or heard of anything miraculous from an Apostle since Joseph Smith. Although I am not surprised that seems to be usually the way it works you get one great gifted man that comes along once in an age like Moses, and then a heap of unmirculous followers and leaders.

Abraham never did a thing miraculous. Even the apostles of Christ couldn’t cast out a demon without his help, and instruction. So I see nothing too surprising in their lack of power to me it seems in line with what lessons history can teach with regards to religious leaders, I can see nothing that would indicate they are not true apostles. Most of Christ’s apostles do not get mentioned as doing anything particularly miraculous they are promised however they will do things more miraculous than himself. Basically I see nothing I would not expect.

Paul:

Hold on. Hugh Nibley carried more weight than any of the apostles. People buy his books and quote him as if he was the wisdom of the ages. But he has no authority and doesn’t represent the church per say. But in reality, he does represent the church. Hugh Nibley was a voice for the church as is Daniel today. He is responsible for everything he says and does. So am I, and so are you, Rump.

Daniel’s avatar is all in fun and is a release for him to play his game. I have no problem for that. He likes to play and express himself just like everyone does. His problem is, however, he represents the church! The world sees him as a representative of the church regardless what apologists say or the apostles for that matter. Stick Daniel in the Quorum of the 12 as a pinup boy and an important voice in Mormonism.

I think for a lot of Mormons, it’s just the comfort of knowing there was someone with an awful lot of education that believed in all this stuff. Most of the LDS I know that referenced Nibley were not familiar with him or his work it was just the comfort of knowing somewhere out there existed this really smart guy who believes in what they do, and that helped validate and comfort their beliefs, that such a person even existed. And now Daniel is filling those shoe’s he is now that guy, that smart guy out there somewhere.

Just knowing they exist is all that matters, and even less LDS would've read his books because most are not LDS related. Authoritative yes and no, if you mean by having power in the latter day saints mind, yes for some this would be the case, for example in these tit for tat back n’ forth exchanges that become very personal, that Daniel has engaged in, and that have played out publically online.

These I think would be of interest to the General Authorities or at least they would be surprised I think, that he is involved in this kind of thing . I have never seen Daniel warned or moderated against ever, not even once for anything at MADB in it’s entire history even in his many heated exchanges, which makes me believe to some he is viewed of as a type of religious authority, existing on a similar plane in their minds to the Lords Anointed. The problem is he is on the board of directions so it can’t really be impartial unbiased, or ironically FAIR. But I do not think that is intentionally.

You are going to have unavoidable conflicts of interests like that whether you like it or not. I disagree I do not think he could be made an apostle because his past online dialogues would give too much ammunition to anti’s if he held apostolic rank. He is too radical and liberally educated to be an apostle in today’s conservative Mormonism so no Paul no pin up boy for the 12.

Paul:
Well, I don’t have respect for LDS General Authorities. I am against them and am fighting against their Lamb. I view them as corporate men, white collar professionals who think they are better than the working class. I don’t respect their authority or claims to priesthood. They are hiding behind the Mormon curtain. I could stand in front of all of them with uplifted arm and be more powerful than all of them. Why? Because I'm honest and God knows it and appreciates that more than anything.

Paul O

Well I do agree they do appear to be white collar professionals, often businessmen and lawyers. I worry about this at times and it concerns me a great deal. I have tried to work out what it means because in my mind businessmen and lawyers are the least spiritual kind of people I do not doubt they can be religious and moral people but I do not believe your really going to draw spiritually natured people from these fields. But instead of get angry over it I try and understand it and figure it out. Because I too am honest, and know I am responsible for what I say.

p.s. I never would've guessed Dr. Shades was a sexy asian woman, you never can tell…

p.s. the church is true!

[_Paul Osborne]

I try to understand the thinking behind it and when I do it makes a lot of sense. I believe the brethren sincerely have the interests of the church at heart. And they know that in peoples minds they commonly equate words like “truth” and “perfection” as having the same meanings, when in fact have unique and very different meanings. So in the interests of protecting the image of the church, they admit no error because they understand people mistake perfection and truth as the same.

And they know the church cannot fulfill it’s mission to perfect the saints and proclaim the gospel if people don’t join because they have wrong ideas about the church, and think if it is not perfect then it is not true. When the two are not causally related.

This seems to get into the concept of what is mutually exclusive and what isn’t and how a variety of things vary. The church looks at things as either black or white, no middle ground.

Well the church has succeeded in getting media outlets to use the full name of the church when reporting on the church, but this is always followed by the word (Mormon) in parenthesis. I don’t think it’s a matter of people allowing them to, the reality is the history of the church’s name and it’s public image is a little complex. I believe it’s because of that the church has a request for correct usage of its name as outlined on its news website for media, unfortunately because of the complex history behind the name the guide is contradictory and confusing, it simply does not make coherent sense. The nick name Mormon was a name given by enemies of the church to LDS, and it has stuck ever since, but by the same token LDS do not resent the word itself which Joseph Smith said means “more good” so it’s a ongoing issue.

Yes, the name is supposed to mean “more good”, so there really is no reason to avoid it in a negative sense. If the church insists on using the full name because that is what they want to be known for, I have no problem with that. Just so long as the word “Mormon” isn’t cast solely into a derogative name category by evolving LDS thinkers who want to move things along without regard to history.

I would like to see more public dialogue on radio and television with Apostles addressing issues that face the church in it’s history and doctrine as they are so much more authoritative than blogs and lay apologists who are not qualified to represent or speak for the church. I mean apologetics like MADB for example I mean how does one know how representative of the church’s position they are? Anyhow that is the problem I see with apologetics and why I find it so confusing. The brethren at times do speak out on issues the church is facing and addresses them in a controlled environment like General Conference or CES firesides which I find helpful.

It’s almost like there is a united gag order amongst the apostles. They are unwilling to go live and debate or defend Mormonism from a critical point of view. They don’t accept criticism or engage in debate no matter how civilized the forum may be.

But to be dead set honest I do not frankly understand and am not always clear on what line to take in defending the church often it’s pure guess work on my behalf. Sometimes I probably do more damage than good, but I hope more good. I don’t really know too much about the problems with the Book of Abraham to comment, for me however that is the basis of my testimony because I was born remembering the pre-existence particularly one aspect.

There certainly are a wide range of topics to defend when it comes to Mormonism! The list seems endless. The Book of Abraham offers some vary difficult challenges for apologists and they are unable to fill the holes. Hugh Nibley glossed over some of the holes with some glitter and a lot of red herrings.

However you could argue that the book of Abraham adds no further light to what is known of the pre-existence from fragmentary sources that are scattered all throughout apocryphal writings like a dogs breakfast. Although as a cohesive account it is extraordinary as nothing like it exists anywhere else.

I agree with that. But, let’s keep in mind that people are not in the business of creating new books and calling them scripture. That is simply something that is not done except on rare occasion. So, it would be fair to class the Book of Abraham as extraordinary. However, there are a great many talented people who have lived and died who could have wrote fantastic stories and claimed them to be revelations. It’s just not something that is done.

For myself a knowledge of the pre-existence is everything. Mormonism could fail, end tomorrow and all it’s leaders be shot dead or it be proved utterly false and that would not make any difference to me, as I can remember the pre-existence still to a strong enough degree and the Pearl of Great Price gets 100% right and inline with what I remember. Now that doesn’t prove it’s true mind you. Joseph could've ripped it off from somewhere I guess. No one has ever explained how John Milton wrote Paradise Lost. But the strange theories of Joseph being a cross between a charlatan and a polymath are too mind boggling for me and in my mind this fits into that catagory.

Doctrine of preexistence is a reoccurring theme in near death experiences. Could be that Joseph Smith had such an encounter during his early lifetime which brought him into direct contact with that doctrine. Think about that!!

I agree I have never seen or heard of anything miraculous from an Apostle since Joseph Smith. Although I am not surprised that seems to be usually the way it works you get one great gifted man that comes along once in an age like Moses, and then a heap of unmirculous followers and leaders.

Joseph Smith had a lot of charisma and effected people at a time when they needed to be affected. It seems he served a purpose. The apostles today are a joke compared to the men they claim to be substitutes for.

Abraham never did a thing miraculous. Even the apostles of Christ couldn’t cast out a demon without his help, and instruction. So I see nothing too surprising in their lack of power to me it seems in line with what lessons history can teach with regards to religious leaders, I can see nothing that would indicate they are not true apostles. Most of Christ’s apostles do not get mentioned as doing anything particularly miraculous they are promised however they will do things more miraculous than himself. Basically I see nothing I would not expect.

Hold on. Assuming there really was an Abraham we know very little of life’s experiences other than what is lightly touched upon in scripture. How do we know what he did during his life? There is a brief account. Recall the brief mention of Enoch in the Bible compared to the epic experiences told in the LDS Moses account. That’s some difference! So you see, we have little idea of what Abraham did because there just isn’t much said about him to cover the experiences of his long life. Also, the New Testament is a brief record that doesn’t tell all. A good portion of it is all about Paul’s teachings and his endless ramblings.

Paul O

[_Paul Osborne]

I think for a lot of Mormons, it’s just the comfort of knowing there was someone with an awful lot of education that believed in all this stuff. Most of the LDS I know that referenced Nibley were not familiar with him or his work it was just the comfort of knowing somewhere out there existed this really smart guy who believes in what they do, and that helped validate and comfort their beliefs, that such a person even existed. And now Daniel is filling those shoe’s he is now that guy, that smart guy out there somewhere.

Frankly, I not convinced Nibley believed his own apologetics unless he was totally delusional. I view Nibley as a kind of religious apologetic lawyer who worked to defend the cause at any cost. He was well compensated in many ways and seemed satisfied with his compensation for defending Mormonism.

Just knowing they exist is all that matters, and even less LDS would've read his books because most are not LDS related. Authoritative yes and no, if you mean by having power in the latter day saints mind, yes for some this would be the case, for example in these tit for tat back n’ forth exchanges that become very personal, that Daniel has engaged in, and that have played out publically online.

Apologetics is a tricky business.

These I think would be of interest to the General Authorities or at least they would be surprised I think, that he is involved in this kind of thing . I have never seen Daniel warned or moderated against ever, not even once for anything at MADB in it’s entire history even in his many heated exchanges, which makes me believe to some he is viewed of as a type of religious authority, existing on a similar plane in their minds to the Lords Anointed. The problem is he is on the board of directions so it can’t really be impartial unbiased, or ironically FAIR. But I do not think that is intentionally.

True. He receives preferential treatment and has a free hand to do as he pleases. I think he was granted silent moderator privilege whereby he has the power to ban or suspend posters at will.

You are going to have unavoidable conflicts of interests like that whether you like it or not. I disagree I do not think he could be made an apostle because his past online dialogues would give too much ammunition to anti’s if he held apostolic rank. He is too radical and liberally educated to be an apostle in today’s conservative Mormonism so no Paul no pin up boy for the 12.

I agree. The pinup expression was my way of saying that he has the kind of influence and power over a great many saints as would any apostle. So, he is kind of a stand in apostle to people who need that. He will never be called to the Q of the 12, maybe the Seventy but I still see that as unlikely. Peterson is a bit of a loose canon and is therefore too risky.

Well I do agree they do appear to be white collar professionals, often businessmen and lawyers. I worry about this at times and it concerns me a great deal. I have tried to work out what it means because in my mind businessmen and lawyers are the least spiritual kind of people I do not doubt they can be religious and moral people but I do not believe your really going to draw spiritually natured people from these fields. But instead of get angry over it I try and understand it and figure it out. Because I too am honest, and know I am responsible for what I say.

p.s. I never would've guessed Dr. Shades was a sexy asian woman, you never can tell…

p.s. the church is true!

Well, birds of a feather flock together. The white collar men like to keep a tight club. Letting in blue collar men is outside their cultural understanding and a very advanced concept that Jesus Christ simply loved. But, as we see, the men in charge don’t have confidence in the ability of blue collar men to lead the church. It is a terrible loss. The leadership should be a mixture of white and blue collar men.

Yeah, Shades sure is pretty! But I think the avatar is his wife.

I believe there are concepts and doctrines of the LDS church that are verily true. The church has done a lot of good in the world and will continue to do so. I won’t deny that.

Paul O

[_Rumpole]

Paul: "Frankly, I not convinced Nibley believed his own apologetics unless he was totally delusional. I view Nibley as a kind of religious apologetic lawyer who worked to defend the cause at any cost. He was well compensated in many ways and seemed satisfied with his compensation for defending Mormonism."

I am not entirely sure what you mean by compensation for Nibley. If you mean financial compensation I would be very interested in learning more. I have listened to a number of Nibley’s lectures, in a few he addresses the subject of riches and is completely at odds with capitalism and materialism and often very critical of the church and it's members for rampant materialism.

For example in one lecture when he was talking on the subject he just off the cuff pointed out the suit he was wearing he picked up for 4$ at a LDS thrift store, as he was talking about the point from the BM that there is nothing wrong with fine apparel it’s costly apparel that is the problem.

In another LDS church production , when Nibley was talking about his grand father who was an exceedingly rich general authority, he said that his grand father was genuinely concerned about his riches and it psychologically bothered him until the day he died because he was also a church leader. He said the worry was a recurring theme throughout his diary, and a lesson for himself, as his grandfather was afraid of dying because of the judgment that might come from his excessive wealth. Also from what I understand, and I seem to recall this Hugh was reported after his death that he lived out of a modest shoe box of a house in Utah. He commonly referred to money as quote "that filthy lucre".

Paul:
True. He receives preferential treatment and has a free hand to do as he pleases. I think he was granted silent moderator privilege whereby he has the power to ban or suspend posters at will.

There is no proof of that whatsoever, however I think your suspicion is probably right.

Paul: I agree. The pinup expression was my way of saying that he has the kind of influence and power over a great many saints as would any apostle. So, he is kind of a stand in apostle to people who need that. He will never be called to the Q of the 12, maybe the Seventy but I still see that as unlikely. Peterson is a bit of a loose canon and is therefore too risky.

With all that controversial confrontational material floating around online of his; enough as you suggest to cause an environmental disaster, I seriously doubt he could be called as a GA, unless they were unaware of the fact.

Well, birds of a feather flock together. The white collar men like to keep a tight club. Letting in blue collar men is outside their cultural understanding and a very advanced concept that Jesus Christ simply loved. But, as we see, the men in charge don’t have confidence in the ability of blue collar men to lead the church. It is a terrible loss. The leadership should be a mixture of white and blue collar men.

Yeah, Shades sure is pretty! But I think the avatar is his wife.

I believe there are concepts and doctrines of the LDS church that are verily true. The church has done a lot of good in the world and will continue to do so. I won’t deny that.

Paul O

I never thought of it like that, I think of it more in terms of liberal vs. conservative men, it seems to me the leadership only wants conservative republican types. They want what they consider solid stable common sense individuals that have their heads screwed on straight that are level headed. I think they think that liberally minded people are dangerous, and don’t have common sense or something, well at least that is my guess.

Paul: This seems to get into the concept of what is mutually exclusive and what isn’t and how a variety of things vary. The church looks at things as either black or white, no middle ground.

I agree in many ways, there is a valuable bit of wisdom that I gained from star wars of all places, the line is, “only the Sith deal in absolutes”. The danger with doing so as I see it, is anti-intelligent fundamentalist ideas. But I agree the fear in having middle ground is that that is the first step to moral erosion, so it’s a bit tricky.

Paul: Yes, the name is supposed to mean “more good”, so there really is no reason to avoid it in a negative sense. If the church insists on using the full name because that is what they want to be known for, I have no problem with that. Just so long as the word “Mormon” isn’t cast solely into a derogative name category by evolving LDS thinkers who want to move things along without regard to history.

…makes sense...

Paul: It’s almost like there is a united gag order amongst the apostles. They are unwilling to go live and debate or defend Mormonism from a critical point of view. They don’t accept criticism or engage in debate no matter how civilized the forum may be.

I think the reason they decline in defending the church in any forum they cannot control may be due to a lack of expertise/knowledge in questions that might arise. That is my theory anyhow for what it is worth.

Paul: There certainly are a wide range of topics to defend when it comes to Mormonism! The list seems endless. The Book of Abraham offers some vary difficult challenges for apologists and they are unable to fill the holes. Hugh Nibley glossed over some of the holes with some glitter and a lot of red herrings.

Well apologetics isn't scholarship, and I think he was under pressure to pull rabbits out of hats were there were none, by people who didn't really understand the issues, or what they were asking him to do.

Paul: I agree with that. But, let’s keep in mind that people are not in the business of creating new books and calling them scripture. That is simply something that is not done except on rare occasion. So, it would be fair to class the Book of Abraham as extraordinary. However, there are a great many talented people who have lived and died who could have wrote fantastic stories and claimed them to be revelations. It’s just not something that is done.

I have always found it interesting being a member of the Theosophical Society for years now, that in all the explanations for the Book of Mormon by friends and enemies alike. Joseph Smith is never accused of channeling the book, even though some of the weirdest most wondrous volumes of mystery have come through this medium i.e., (the book of “Urantia” perhaps the best example that comes to mind, Kybalion and on and on, the Theosophical library where I am is lined with arcane channeled books, that defy explanation). This is never leveled at the Book of Mormon even though it came through such supernatural means. . . which only adds to the mystery of the whole thing in my mind.

Paul: Doctrine of preexistence is a reoccurring theme in near death experiences. Could be that Joseph Smith had such an encounter during his early lifetime which brought him into direct contact with that doctrine. Think about that!!

Yeah that sounds like an interesting theory, if it was to be linked with his boy hood operation on his leg? I happen to be pretty expert to a degree on thanatology. I think your referring to people reporting a thinning of the veil in relation to a pre-birth memories while in the NDE? I really launched into the subject as I tried to work out /gauge how common or uncommon being able to recall the pre-existence is.

After years of trying to answer that question, by reading and studying I finally spoke to the world authority on the subject and they informed me that an account with as much detail as mine is exceptionally rare, almost entirely unheard of. Now the curious thing is I am an utter no body, forget being modest the cold hard reality is, I am a nothing a nigh complete insignificant worthless person, of less than little or no consequence, the crap on the bottom of your shoe.

And sometimes like recently I held my fist and I stood and shook it at God, for cursing me with this. (Keep in mind I was born with this and I was not born into the Church) I always think of that dodgy bustard from the matrix that betrays Neo to the agents telling them he wants to be reinserted back into the matrix, and he wants to remember NOTHING!

Paul: Joseph Smith had a lot of charisma and effected people at a time when they needed to be affected. It seems he served a purpose. The apostles today are a joke compared to the men they claim to be substitutes for.

I think they are lesser lights I don’t think they are a joke by comparison, many of them I find quite impressive. I mean if you think of Christ, and his apostles the far lesser lights bickering like spoilt children about who is going to be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, which may sound idiotic but it happened. Remembering this then I am not surprised by the lack of power of the current apostles. So using this measuring rod in my mind they can still be true apostles in every sense.

I also think of the Israelites under Josiah who were still true Israel but they descended into a kind of stagnation, and he reformed Israel. So I think the kingdom of God on the earth goes through these seasonal changes, of charismatic, conservative, ultra-conservative. . . then reform, renaissance and renewal, an age old pattern for the gospel. Right now it’s all still true we are just in a transitory phase in my opinion, with the decline and fall of charisma and the re-characterization of spiritual gifts.

Paul: Hold on. Assuming there really was an Abraham we know very little of life’s experiences other than what is lightly touched upon in scripture. How do we know what he did during his life? There is a brief account. Recall the brief mention of Enoch in the Bible compared to the epic experiences told in the LDS Moses account. That’s some difference! So you see, we have little idea of what Abraham did because there just isn’t much said about him to cover the experiences of his long life. Also, the New Testament is a brief record that doesn’t tell all. A good portion of it is all about Paul’s teachings and his endless ramblings.

I read a little on the research Nibley did on Abraham and interestingly of the many sources he consulted the recurring theme of interest is that Abraham never did anything miraculous which sets him uniquely apart from other prophets even minor ones. Enoch is an interesting figure I recall for 600yrs the Book of Enoch was part of the generally accepted scriptural cannon, it was only taken out relatively recently in history. I personally think there is something to Enoch, he is a serious figure in the royal arch Degree, (Chapter) commonly called the 4th degree in freemasonry.

Also in all occult lore Enoch is always the man that is credited with being the sort of originator of all esoteric mystical occult knowledge, the origins are always pushed back to Hermes Trismegistus then Enoch. I mean if you avoid just lumping all that on Adam. Also Melchezedek who out ranked Abraham is also a common central figure in occult lore, and new age huffle puff as a result, also happens to be a central figure in Mormonism. . . what is that noise? I think I can here the twilight zone theme music playing in the back ground. . ?

[_Paul Osborne]

I am not entirely sure what you mean by compensation for Nibley. If you mean financial compensation I would be very interested in learning more. I have listened to a number of Nibley’s lectures, in a few he addresses the subject of riches and is completely at odds with capitalism and materialism and often very critical of the church and it's members for rampant materialism.

The compensation I refer to is his whole package which satisfied him. His salary, benefits, perks, and fame was more than enough to keep him in the game as a life long heavy hitter for the church.

For example in one lecture when he was talking on the subject he just off the cuff pointed out the suit he was wearing he picked up for 4$ at a LDS thrift store, as he was talking about the point from the BM that there is nothing wrong with fine apparel it’s costly apparel that is the problem.

That’s a great lesson. I would have appreciated being there at that lecture. I’m sure Nibley had a lot of wisdom and good advice on several fronts. However, I take great issue against his Book of Abraham apologetic front. My arguments about that man have generally been centered in that scope alone.

In another LDS church production , when Nibley was talking about his grand father who was an exceedingly rich general authority, he said that his grand father was genuinely concerned about his riches and it psychologically bothered him until the day he died because he was also a church leader. He said the worry was a recurring theme throughout his diary, and a lesson for himself, as his grandfather was afraid of dying because of the judgment that might come from his excessive wealth. Also from what I understand, and I seem to recall this Hugh was reported after his death that he lived out of a modest shoe box of a house in Utah. He commonly referred to money as quote "that filthy lucre".

I can appreciate these sentiments. Sounds like Nibley had some character traits that I find to be very valuable. I like that in a person. Those are likely some of the things that helped him be so successful and well liked during his career. He was a magnate and a great many people respected him. Again, my issue with Nibley is with his Book of Abraham apologetics wherein I think his character traits in this matter were less than honorable.

There is no proof of that whatsoever, however I think your suspicion is probably right.

Perhaps someone should ask Daniel Peterson if he does have moderator rights. There are three possible outcomes that could come from such a question:

1. No answer
2. Denial
3. Confirmation to the affirmative

With all that controversial confrontational material floating around online of his; enough as you suggest to cause an environmental disaster, I seriously doubt he could be called as a GA, unless they were unaware of the fact.

This is so true. Besides, it’s not like he is an administrator or the President of the university. Those are the ones that are likely to get called up. Daniel is just a school teacher. He hates it when I say that. Professors can get pretty touchy when they feel less educated people aren’t showing the proper respect for their title and degrees. It makes me roll my eyes.

I never thought of it like that, I think of it more in terms of liberal vs. conservative men, it seems to me the leadership only wants conservative republican types. They want what they consider solid stable common sense individuals that have their heads screwed on straight that are level headed. I think they think that liberally minded people are dangerous, and don’t have common sense or something, well at least that is my guess.

There are a great many conservative men in the church who are blue collar workers who have fantastic abilities and are quite capable of assisting in the leadership effort at the highest levels. White collar men don’t own all rights neither do they have a monopoly on the ability to lead a world wide organization. It is the mindset of white collar men that happen to think blue collar men don’t have the necessary skills to assist in this venture, but they fail to make the connection that the greatest blue collar man of all time was only a carpenter. Both classes of men should be working together to compliment the entire process and bring about positive social changes.

I agree in many ways, there is a valuable bit of wisdom that I gained from star wars of all places, the line is, “only the Sith deal in absolutes”. The danger with doing so as I see it, is anti-intelligent fundamentalist ideas. But I agree the fear in having middle ground is that that is the first step to moral erosion, so it’s a bit tricky.

The middle ground the prophets need to learn to take is to start putting names of blue collar men in their prayer pool and pick some of them to become General Authorities. Until these men get into their prayer pool they will never get the chance to serve. The church continues on a course that is totally corporate in nature, patterned after the world, run by men of one class. This is not good.

I think the reason they decline in defending the church in any forum they cannot control may be due to a lack of expertise/knowledge in questions that might arise. That is my theory anyhow for what it is worth.

What about the old adage about it "being given you in the very moment what you will say"? What about so called inspiration? Then again, if General Authorities have no knowledge of a subject they wouldn’t be able to carry on much of a debate outside of simply bearing their testimonies. But surely there are some of those men at the top who do have quite a bit of knowledge on controversial matters. They just won’t touch it. They aren’t allowed to. I think the President of the church has made that quite clear in their councils and there is a set procedure in place for when controversy pops up. They avoid it. Watching elder Holland rant about faithless members having to climb over the Book of Mormon was unusual.

Well apologetics isn't scholarship, and I think he was under pressure to pull rabbits out of hats were there were none, by people who didn't really understand the issues, or what they were asking him to do.

I tend to view Nibley as a scapegoat. The apostles and prophets, whether educated in these matters or not, they failed to assist him.

Paul O

[_Rumpole]

What about the old adage about it "being given you in the very moment what you will say"? What about so called inspiration? Then again, if General Authorities have no knowledge of a subject they wouldn’t be able to carry on much of a debate outside of simply bearing their testimonies. But surely there are some of those men at the top who do have quite a bit of knowledge on controversial matters. They just won’t touch it. They aren’t allowed to. I think the President of the church has made that quite clear in their councils and there is a set procedure in place for when controversy pops up. They avoid it. Watching elder Holland rant about faithless members having to climb over the Book of Mormon was unusual.

Paul O

Paul I don't have all the answers I just know it's true. And quite frankly I can't really understand how anything bad could happen to someone like you who really doesn't know (supposing that is the case), I mean if you really don't know it's true then I am skeptical there will be any severe judgment in an after life for someone like you, I mean how could there be you don't know. The underlying question I always ask myself when trying to root out the truth in these back and forth exchanges that deal with all that appears to be wrong with the church is this philosophical unanswerable question?

If there was a true church on the earth today what would it look like? How would you expect it to appear and operate? What would it's priesthood be like? Would they be rich? Poor? Average? How would it's members dress. What would it's buildings look like? I suggest everyone has different ideas about this, but I think this unanswered question is the guiding force behind most the problems you have with the church. But the problem is we don't know how it should be ideally. Francis Bacon's New Atlantis comes to mind. I am sure you would be happy to point out all that is wrong with the church, but could you say how it should be. I suggest know one knows the answer to that it is only the should not be they can answer.

[_Paul Osborne]

Paul I don't have all the answers I just know it's true.

I know you don't have all the answers, Rump and you believe the church is true. Do you also believe the Explanations given by Joseph Smith in the Times & Seasons and the Pearl of Great Price: The translated name of "Shulem" and a god of Egypt being interpreted as a mere slave?



Paul O

[_Rumpole]

Paul I don't have all the answers I just know it's true.

I know you don't have all the answers, Rump and you believe the church is true. Do you also believe the Explanations given by Joseph Smith in the Times & Seasons and the Pearl of Great Price: The translated name of "Shulem" and a god of Egypt being interpreted as a mere slave?



Paul O

Hello Paul I am not an expert in the problems with the book of Abraham, however I have heard that it was common in funerary papyri, for them to appropriate unrelated pictures that do not match the text, I have heard that suggested by LDS scholars. However my understanding is there currently exists no expert LDS egyptologists. Anyhow my shallow understanding is that ancient egyptian semiotics still remains very much a mystery.

[_Paul Osborne]

Rump,

There is a great deal of comment that I could offer to your reply about the Book of Abraham and the controversy connected thereto. But, allow me to repeat my original question which only requires a yes or no answer:

"Do you also believe the Explanations given by Joseph Smith in the Times & Seasons and the Pearl of Great Price: The translated name of "Shulem" and a god of Egypt being interpreted as a mere slave?"

Paul O