I know there are a lot of LDS people here

[Archie Moses]

"Prophets and apostles shouldn't do that"

They shouldn't, but at the end of the day a man is still man. You could use this quote a ton in reference to the bible as well. Hell, even the apostles of Christ denied him.

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

You are operating on a mistaken assumption on how LDS believe revelation to church leaders work. Yes, direct revelation comes sometimes, and when God has messages to reveal to the entire world we believe it will come through the prophet.

Spot on. I think what Colton is trying to say here is that when our prophets receive doctrine, implement it, and the church/world is okay with it for enough years, that definitely came from God. But when the new doctrine is flawed, the church/world has issue with it, causing it to need to be changed, then that was not from God, actually, it was from flawed men. That's how we are able to know the difference. You see?

Another popular view amongst LDS folk, the "Higgins / Hygar Theory" is that God himself is not always sure about what doctrine He wants. So He might change his mind. But one thing is clear: prophets are here in these latter days to guide us through these perilous times, and although they may occasionally be wrong, listen to what they have to say as they get their wisdom directly from God, except for the things that aren't from God.

- Craig

 

[mellow]

He is going through what many of us have gone through when we realized that the explanation for God's involvement in the church has to be massaged each time it is faced with a new event. Your faith is clearly strong, but many of us have come to see the requirement of faith as a trick that allows religion to get away with gaps in logic and/or fact that we would never accept from any other institution.

Can I step into this conversation for just a moment to say that just because someone has faith or defends the church does not mean he lives without doubts or questions, I know that is true for me, and others. I think The message Colton was trying to convey, and if not then For certain it is the message that I want to convey to Green and anyone else who cares, is that complaining and questioning on a message board is not a way to find answers. I don't know why, but for me the act of publicly or even privately criticizing the church, a boss, or a spouse changes the way it feels inside, once you say it it can't be unsaid. While it is still just a thought in my head I am free to change my mind.

if I had to tell my adult son how to see his way through a concern I would tell him to pray first, confide in a close friend next, then talk to his bishop. I would also tell my son that if he had a crisis of faith not to make it public because if he regains his faith it makes returning more difficult.

I watched someone slowly turn mean and bitter because of how he responded to legitimate conflicts with local Mormons. He was probably right on the issue, but in the long run his public complaints hurt him way more than it hurt them. I don't want anyone to experience what he did, and felt I ought to say something here.

 

[JAZZGASM]

OK, I'll post some opinions on those as I have time throughout the coming week. (I guess there were actually only 7 points, because the 8th was "A lot more".)




This is the only one of the 7 that I didn't really understand. Don't know if Jazzgasm would care to elaborate, or if you (b_line) have thoughts on what he may have meant by that. But I think I'm missing the point because "the story becomes much more detailed towards the end of the section where the small plates were still being translated" seems backwards to me. The end of the small plates is the short books leading up to the Words of Mormon, and they get less and less detailed, not more and more detailed.



I'm pretty sure that I've already had an in-depth conversation here about "glass looking" fairly recently. (...searching...) Yes, it was in this thread: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?42196-Question-About-Joseph-Smith. And it was jazzgasm that brought it up there, but apparently he didn't read my response that refuted his claim that Joseph Smith was convicted of glass looking or anything else in 1826.

As I wrote in post 34 of that thread:


As I also wrote in that thread,



I still stand by that opinion. Those particular charges against Joseph Smith don't trouble me at all. (There are other things which DO trouble me, and I'll have no problem admitting that when I get to them.)

OK, not a "trial", but a "hearing" where he was "ruled against" but not convicted. I'm not too concerned about the civil procedure, I am more concerned about the fact that there is enough historical record to show he was doing these things (backed up by Emma's family and other records) before he translated the BoM. He took money from people to find treasure that he never found, using the same method (hat with stones) used to "translate the BoM". Emma's father didn't want him to marry her until he stopped screwing people out of money. Not sure how that doesn't trouble you at all that it is very possible he used the same system to con people into a religion for money...

To clarify my position on the small plates, I didn't accurately communicate what I meant. I was referring to Omni and not Words of Mormon and the inconsistency with writing and how the stories became more detailed. Been a while since I read it, but having a man appointed king when Nephi was dying, which, even on abridged plates is very odd as no other historical writing would name a new king as a man and not his name (rather than X son of X was named king... This was "fixed" by saying Nephi was to be remembered, and all future kings should be Nephi II Nephi III etc., yet only the second king is referred two until Omni, then suddenly in Omni the writing changes and you have more details and names, as if an author clearly remembered names he had used when writing a story where pages were lost as he was getting back near where he left off and names may have been easier to remember. So we then have Mosiah and King Benjamin (who appears to be the unnamed king from Mosiah IIRC?). OK, then why were they not Nephi V or VI or whatever number they fall in line? Again, I have heard justifications, they all are questionable.

Again, I don't need your answers, this is just a few of my many issues that I could never get resolved, and I had these conversations with many church leaders. After hearing suspect answers over, and over, and over and over, I kept hearing hooves so to speak and the answer given to me was repeatedly zebra...the truth was revealed to me. I am happy that you have your own truth and that it works for you.

 

[JAZZGASM]

Can I step into this conversation for just a moment to say that just because someone has faith or defends the church does not mean he lives without doubts or questions, I know that is true for me, and others. I think The message Colton was trying to convey, and if not then For certain it is the message that I want to convey to Green and anyone else who cares, is that complaining and questioning on a message board is not a way to find answers. I don't know why, but for me the act of publicly or even privately criticizing the church, a boss, or a spouse changes the way it feels inside, once you say it it can't be unsaid. While it is still just a thought in my head I am free to change my mind.

if I had to tell my adult son how to see his way through a concern I would tell him to pray first, confide in a close friend next, then talk to his bishop. I would also tell my son that if he had a crisis of faith not to make it public because if he regains his faith it makes returning more difficult.

I watched someone slowly turn mean and bitter because of how he responded to legitimate conflicts with local Mormons. He was probably right on the issue, but in the long run his public complaints hurt him way more than it hurt them. I don't want anyone to experience what he did, and felt I ought to say something here.

Questioning something does not mean criticizing it. If you can't question something out loud without it changing what you know, isn't that a problem? To me, if something is true, you should be able to examine it, question it, poke it prod it and spin it on it's head and it should still feel that same way inside.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Spot on. I think what Colton is trying to say here is that when our prophets receive doctrine, implement it, and the church/world is okay with it for enough years, that definitely came from God. But when the new doctrine is flawed, the church/world has issue with it, causing it to need to be changed, then that was not from God, actually, it was from flawed men. That's how we are able to know the difference. You see?

Another popular view amongst LDS folk, the "Higgins / Hygar Theory" is that God himself is not always sure about what doctrine He wants. So He might change his mind. But one thing is clear: prophets are here in these latter days to guide us through these perilous times, and although they may occasionally be wrong, listen to what they have to say as they get their wisdom directly from God, except for the things that aren't from God.

- Craig

Wow Craig, that was one hell of a post.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I learned the other day that my brother-in-law, who I never dreamed would do such a thing, resigned his membership in the church over this issue. I was stunned. I'm certain that most of the resignations have come from people who were not active, but that's not the case with this guy. I'll be interested to see what he does going forward.

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

It looks like some of my fellow brethren are being overwhelmed in this thread. It's not easy, and a lot of this can be confusing, but allow me to clear the air.

2-J. Smith was convicted of glass looking in NY over two years before he translated the BOM. Essentially he put special stones into a hat and told farmers if they gave him $ he'd find treasure on their lands, and of course, he never did. This was three years before "translating" the BOM in much the same manner. An additional charge of glass looking was brought but JS fled out of NY before the trial.

As Colton said, sure, he was using stones or "seer stones" in a hat to hunt treasure before translating the Book of Mormon through the same means. This excursion failed when Smith said that an enchantment became so strong that he could no longer see it. What we are seeing here, and I think Colton agrees, is a miraculous gift of God at its infancy. Those seer stones in the hat are the key to our salvation. But they are a powerful thing to wield. No doubt Smith almost got some of that treasure, but he ended up getting the gold plates, right? As Colton said, the proceedings were unclear and Smith wasn't really condemned of anything, so everything should be okay and this isn't a big deal.

3-Historical inaccuracies in BOM, glass mentioned but did not exist. Horses, cimeters (Scimitars), elephants, steel, silk, Barley, wheat, goats, pigs, etc., did not exist at the time or had not been brought to the Americas.

It has been proven by some LDS archeologists that the horses in the Book of Mormon were actually tapirs and that the Lamanites rode the tapirs into war.



The rest of that is similar, it was just an error in Smith's translation. God works in mysterious ways. If you need me to share some links, Colton may have some, we are both fond of sharing links on such matters.

Home teachers are here, I'll get back to this later. I don't know if you'll need any more explaining though, that should probably do it.

- Craig

 

[JAZZGASM]

It looks like some of my fellow brethren are being overwhelmed in this thread. It's not easy, and a lot of this can be confusing, but allow me to clear the air.


As Colton said, sure, he was using stones or "seer stones" in a hat to hunt treasure before translating the Book of Mormon through the same means. This excursion failed when Smith said that an enchantment became so strong that he could no longer see it. What we are seeing here, and I think Colton agrees, is a miraculous gift of God at its infancy. Those seer stones in the hat are the key to our salvation. But they are a powerful thing to wield. No doubt Smith almost got some of that treasure, but he ended up getting the gold plates, right? As Colton said, the proceedings were unclear and Smith wasn't really condemned of anything, so everything should be okay and this isn't a big deal.


It has been proven by some LDS archeologists that the horses in the Book of Mormon were actually tapirs and that the Lamanites rode the tapirs into war.

View attachment 4534

The rest of that is similar, it was just an error in Smith's translation. God works in mysterious ways. If you need me to share some links, Colton may have some, we are both fond of sharing links on such matters.

Home teachers are here, I'll get back to this later. I don't know if you'll need any more explaining though, that should probably do it.

- Craig

Right, that makes sense. Hear hooves, think tapir.

 

[carolinajazz]

This is what bothers me. I stayed up last night pouring through the bible looking at the scriptures on homosexuality. There are some and the Bible is very clear on the matter: Homosexuality is wrong.

BUT, in EVERY case, listed right next to homosexuality is adultery and fornication. So, why are we singling out gay people? Shouldn't the people who committed the sin not be allowed to be Bishops, young men leaders, Primary leaders, etc?

Good points! If the Mormons (LDS) would stick to the Bible as the "inspired" and revealed word of God then this wouldn't be an issue, now would it?

(1 Timothy 3:1-7) 3 This statement is trustworthy: If a man is reaching out to be an overseer, he is desirous of a fine work. 2 The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent, but reasonable, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money, 4 a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner, having his children in subjection with all seriousness 5 (for if any man does not know how to preside over his own household, how will he care for the congregation of God?), 6 not a newly converted man, for fear that he might get puffed up with pride and fall into the judgment passed on the Devil. 7 Moreover, he should also have a fine testimony from outsiders so that he does not fall into reproach and a snare of the Devil.

(1 Timothy 3:12, 13) 12 Let ministerial servants be husbands of one wife, presiding in a fine manner over their children and their own households. 13 For the men who minister in a fine manner are acquiring for themselves a fine standing and great freeness of speech in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

...and is there any "truth" to this? In Utah, where the Mormon Church claims 70*percent membership, government records show that the divorce rate is higher than the national average, and 7 out of 10 teenage mothers conceived their first baby out of wedlock. All the religious and social programs of the church have brought little, if any, real advantage to its members. On the contrary, the demands in time, effort and finances that such programs place upon its members only add to their frustration, disappointment and depression. As a result, the suicide rate of both adults and teenagers in Utah is also above the national average, and consumption of tranquilizers and pep pills, among other drugs, by Mormons far exceeds that by the population at large.

It may seem strange that the areas in which Mormonism holds the strongest appeal—family, youth, strong church programs and the like—should be where it is experiencing the most pressing problems. In reality this paradox is the product of Mormonism’s unique and bizarre concept of the nature of God and man.

According to Mormon theology, all humankind existed as spirit beings in heaven before coming to earth.
Obviously, to support such a theology, much more than the Bible is needed. Thus the eighth of the Mormon Articles of Faith declares: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.” On the other hand, the Book of Mormon is said by Joseph Smith to be “the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” Yet the Book of Mormon itself is a translation. Joseph Smith claimed to have translated it from “Reformed Egyptian” inscriptions on golden plates (long since disappeared), delivered to him by the angel Moroni, by using “the Urim and Thummin,” a special pair of spectacles. Interestingly, this “most correct of any book on earth” has had over 2,000 textual changes since first published in 1830, and it contains about 27,000 words—a tenth of the book—quoted verbatim or slightly modified from the King James Version of the Bible, including some of its translation errors.

 

[bigb]

OK, not a "trial", but a "hearing" where he was "ruled against" but not convicted. I'm not too concerned about the civil procedure, I am more concerned about the fact that there is enough historical record to show he was doing these things (backed up by Emma's family and other records) before he translated the BoM. He took money from people to find treasure that he never found, using the same method (hat with stones) used to "translate the BoM". Emma's father didn't want him to marry her until he stopped screwing people out of money. Not sure how that doesn't trouble you at all that it is very possible he used the same system to con people into a religion for money...

To clarify my position on the small plates, I didn't accurately communicate what I meant. I was referring to Omni and not Words of Mormon and the inconsistency with writing and how the stories became more detailed. Been a while since I read it, but having a man appointed king when Nephi was dying, which, even on abridged plates is very odd as no other historical writing would name a new king as a man and not his name (rather than X son of X was named king... This was "fixed" by saying Nephi was to be remembered, and all future kings should be Nephi II Nephi III etc., yet only the second king is referred two until Omni, then suddenly in Omni the writing changes and you have more details and names, as if an author clearly remembered names he had used when writing a story where pages were lost as he was getting back near where he left off and names may have been easier to remember. So we then have Mosiah and King Benjamin (who appears to be the unnamed king from Mosiah IIRC?). OK, then why were they not Nephi V or VI or whatever number they fall in line? Again, I have heard justifications, they all are questionable.

Again, I don't need your answers, this is just a few of my many issues that I could never get resolved, and I had these conversations with many church leaders. After hearing suspect answers over, and over, and over and over, I kept hearing hooves so to speak and the answer given to me was repeatedly zebra...the truth was revealed to me. I am happy that you have your own truth and that it works for you.

I'm not going to address the Joseph Smith thing as I think colton did a great job. My thought on the king thing: I don't freaking care. What words one guy (and yes, it was guy, just as prone to being human as you put I) chooses to use doesn't matter to me. Obviously, before King Benjamin became king, he had a name. Whether or not his people referred to him as Nephi V or King Benjamin isn't really important to me (and I personally don't think it will affect any body's eternal salvation).

 

[JAZZGASM]

I'm not going to address the Joseph Smith thing as I think colton did a great job. My thought on the king thing: I don't freaking care. What words one guy (and yes, it was guy, just as prone to being human as you put I) chooses to use doesn't matter to me. Obviously, before King Benjamin became king, he had a name. Whether or not his people referred to him as Nephi V or King Benjamin isn't really important to me (and I personally don't think it will affect any body's eternal salvation).

The only way I could have stayed a faithful member would be to be like you and not "freaking care" and to gloss over all the things that dont make sense. If it was just this, I agree, not big deal.

But at some point, you either have to care about all the things that do not make sense, or just ignore it all. Ignorance is bliss, right?