Hammer Away!

[_Daniel Peterson]

gee mike, thanks for chasing him away.

What on earth is wrong with some of you folks? I decide to spend the evening away from this wretched board, and you crow in triumph?

Got news for you. When I finish eating my mashed potatoes, I may not come back at all tonight. And I'm in meetings and classes from 9 AM to 9 PM tomorrow, and then driving over to Elko, Nevada, for a fireside on Friday. All planned in advance, in order to avoid further posting.

Victory!

I wasted multiple hours here throughout the whole day, and that's not enough? If I don't waste the entire evening, it's because I'm cringing somewhere in terror?

Good grief.

[_Mike Reed]

gee mike, thanks for chasing him away.

What on earth is wrong with some of you folks? I decide to spend the evening away from this wretched board, and you crow in triumph?

Got news for you. When I finish eating my mashed potatoes, I may not come back at all tonight. And I'm in meetings and classes from 9 AM to 9 PM tomorrow, and then driving over to Elko, Nevada, for a fireside on Friday.

Victory!

I think Rockslider was kidding. I understand that participants here have lives beyond messages boards. Enjoy your dinner and trip to Nevada.

[_Themis]

For the record, too, I'm a "chapel Mormon." There isn't a single claim of the Gospel that I reject. The existence of God, the divinity of the process of creation, the deity of Christ, the necessity of his atonement, the restoration of priesthood, the requirement of temple ordinances, the authentic physicality of the gold plates, life after death, the reality of the sealing power, the doctrine of exaltation, the existence of Jaredites and Nephites, the literality of Moroni's visit to Joseph Smith, Christ's appearance in the New World, the transfiguration of Brigham Young -- I believe and teach it all.

You are definitely not a chapel Mormon, but an internet one, as most people would define them. That's is not to say you are unfaithful to your religion in any way, but your beliefs as I have seen you state them over the years are not the same as a chapel Mormon. As one example, Chapel Mormons believe in a Global flood, which is one of the claims the Church makes which you do reject, unless of course I got that wrong and you do believe in a global Flood.

[_RockSlider]

Got news for you. When I finish eating my mashed potatoes, I may not come back at all tonight.

Oh, not that, anything but that!

[_brade]

Properly understood, in my judgment, history not only doesn’t “refute” Mormon claims, it supports them.

This bit is interesting, I think. I agree with you that history doesn't refute Mormon claims (the ones relevant to this sort of discussion), but I come out on the other side of things. I think that when you gather up all the best available evidence and survey it, you find that Mormon claims are at least called into question. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here. Here's my question:

Do you believe that a reasonable person who doesn't trust mystical experience as a good truth-getting-method, having surveyed all the evidence you have surveyed regarding Mormonism, would find that the preponderance of evidence suggests that the foundational claims of Mormonism are true? In other words, do you believe that, setting aside the evidence of personal mystical experience, the evidence tips in favor of Mormon claims being true?

[_Rambo]

Thanks a lot for the answers Dan :)

Does the church encourage members to look into their history?

More than most churches and parties, yes, it does.

Hum maybe it is just me but I have never really heard the church say there is some history that you may want to look into before you see it from an anti source. I actually think this would be helpful in the long run.

Does it really take much longer to say that Joseph Smith had more than 1 version of the 1st vision?

No. Not really. And I happily say it. And Deseret Book has published volumes on the subject, and the Church's official magazine has published the texts of the various versions.

To be honest I really did not like reading the ensign but I didn't mind going to institute class. I guess it just would've been nice to mention some of the things I have never heard before like this. I didn't know Joseph Smith put his head in a hat with seer stones to translate the Book of Mormon. I found that out in a south park episode. Yet maybe if I read an ensign article from 1978 I think (before I was born) I would have know this. My roommate saw this south park episode and he said he was offended. I asked him what part offended him and he said it was when Joseph Smith put his head in a hat. I told him that is how it happened but I didn't know about it until that episode as well. I guess what I am trying to say is would it harm the church to it least mention some of the difficult history it least in institute class?

How long does it take to say that Joseph Smith slept with women behind Emma's back?

A bit more. The way you state what happened is rather inflammatory. Leaving it at that, though, would be, in my judgment, very misleading. Which, again, is why I'm delighted at the appearance of new books like the anthology edited by Newell Bringhurst and Craig Foster, and at the publishing of articles like Spencer Fluhman's on Helen Mar Kimball and Greg Smith's on Nauvoo polygamy. May their tribe increase.

What do you suggest would be the best book to resolve this concern? I have seen some pretty compelling evidence that Joseph Smith did this.

I think I got taught about the WOW, chasitity, tithing, baptism, faith, etc it least 100 times each and it was very repetitive. I think a little history I did not know would've it least made church a little more interesting.

I'm not unsympathetic to that complaint.

I know the answer is the church is suppose to be focused on helping us all become eternal families at that we should not focus on history. But I really think more people would like going to church if they learned more about the interesting history of Mormonism. Plus they would not feel blindsided by some anti Mormon material. If the church is going to focus on saving souls than souls could be saved if the did some focus on their history as well. I hope I made sense here.

I guess what I am saying is the church could come out and say read stuff like RSR to get to know church history more. They could say it is better getting it from a friendly source instead of an anti source.

I agree, pretty much, although I don't think that the Church should ever endorse any particular biography or academic historical book. We don't seek such endorsement for anything published by the Maxwell Institute, and wouldn't really welcome it.

Maybe the church could print their own book like RSR and encourage members to read it. I think that would help a lot :)

Plus I really didn't think there was much other history to learn because I thought I learned most of the important stuff in institute after going for 7 years.

You did.
But seven years of Institute -- on the Book of Mormon, the New Testament, the Old Testament, Courtship and Marriage, and the like, heavily mingled with social activities and service projects and encouragement to date -- shouldn't be confused with seven years of graduate study in Mormon historiography.

I think taking a mandatory history course to graduate from institute could be helpful, especially in the first year. That way a member will not be blind sided when they come across anti Mormon material.

[_Ray A]

Do you believe that a reasonable person who doesn't trust mystical experience as a good truth-getting-method, having surveyed all the evidence you have surveyed regarding Mormonism, would find that the preponderance of evidence suggests that the foundational claims of Mormonism are true? In other words, do you believe that, setting aside the evidence of personal mystical experience, the evidence tips in favor of Mormon claims being true?

I think this is an excellent point, and I think the answer would most assuredly be no. The Book of Mormon, when analysed by scholars in the Reflections on Mormonism conference in 1978, unanimously returned a verdict of pseudepigrapha (the ones who specifically addressed that). My understanding of Charlesworth is that it can be considered "inspired" (my words, not his, but I think he meant as much), but not history. Bob Bennett does have a point about the book's complexity, which would lead one to ask which "outside help"? God? Spalding? The latter I don't accept. But it is clear that to accept the Book of Mormon a "leap of faith" is required. Now that's one small leap for a believer, one giant leap for an unbeliever.

[_Fence Sitter]

In other words, do you believe that, setting aside the evidence of personal mystical experience, the evidence tips in favor of Mormon claims being true?

Dan,

I am still pondering your analogy of the car accident and cars, relating to David Whitmer's witnesses. Is it possible that your analogy does not take into consideration the evidence of "personal mystical experience", that Brade refers to, when you categorized David Whitmer's testimonies? Wouldn't that spiritual experience, if you will, be the same for his plate's testimony as it was for his views of Joseph Smith's theology?

[_McKay Jones]

Dan,

I am still pondering your analogy of the car accident and cars, relating to David Whitmer's witnesses. Is it possible that your analogy does not take into consideration the evidence of "personal mystical experience", that Brade refers to, when you categorized David Whitmer's testimonies? Wouldn't that spiritual experience, if you will, be the same for his plate's testimony as it was for his views of Joseph Smith's theology?

I think his testimony about his spiritual experience is as valid as his testimony about the plates as far as it goes. I assume you're refering to his claim in "An Address to All Believers in Christ" that the voice of God told him to separate himself from the Church in Far West. The connundrum TBMs are supposed to be in, I guess, is that this would ostensibly be impossible, that God woud never have done this if He had used David as one of the three witnesses.

I can completely accept that God told David (really, not just that he "thought" God did) to separate himself from the main body of the Saints. I can see many reasons for this, not the least of which is the dynamics at the time, and David's utility as a special witness for decades later.

So, in my view, David's unique position as one of the three witnesses is not compromised at all by him believing that God told him to leave the Saints (or God actually telling him to).

[_Fence Sitter]

I think his testimony about his spiritual experience is as valid as his testimony about the plates as far as it goes. I assume you're refering to his claim in "An Address to All Believers in Christ" that the voice of God told him to separate himself from the Church in Far West. The connundrum TBMs are supposed to be in, I guess, is that this would ostensibly be impossible, that God woud never have done this if He had used David as one of the three witnesses.

I can completely accept that God told David (really, not just that he "thought" God did) to separate himself from the main body of the Saints. I can see many reasons for this, not the least of which is the dynamics at the time, and David's utility as a special witness for decades later.

So, in my view, David's unique position as one of the three witnesses is not compromised at all by him believing that God told him to leave the Saints (or God actually telling him to).

It seems to me the need to believe God commanded David Whitmer or encouraged him to separate himself from the Church in order to increase his utility as a witness is a case of special pleading.
You would also have to apply that belief to all the witnesses that left the church for one reason or another.


I would also like to explore more your response regarding the use of non correlation material in a church setting. You used the term "within reason" to limit such use. Would you care to give an example of something that would be outside those limits and why? For example would Joseph Smith's lying to Emma regarding polygamy be appropriate in a discussion on D&C section 132?

I guess what I am asking is, does the term "within reason" limit the outside material to only that which agrees with the correlated material or would you be comfortable with information that is in conflict with it?