Doctor Steuss

Who told you about my "Professor[ship]"? I was saving that for a Mother's Day surprise. LDS Church historian Richard Turley said that while Eyring's words didn't go so far as to say the church is "sorry," the remarks were an apology. "[The church] is deeply, deeply sorry," he said. "What happened here was horrific." From: this article. Hugs, Your Smarmy Son

Some stuff I've compiled on the FV (there's much more that I have, but this should be enough for a start):Eldon Watson's fun stuff on the FV - Here he compares all of the versions, showing they harmonize. From Terryl L. Givens, “By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion,” 2003 Paperback Edition (New York: Oxford University Press), pages 9-10: Like many seekers of the Second Awakening, the young Smith found himself caught up in a scene of fervid revivalism and confused by the competing claims of ministers seeking converts. Deciding to pray for heavenly guidance, Smith had retired to the woods to ask God which church he should join. On that early spring morning in 1820, two personages, identifying themselves as God the Father and Jesus Christ, had appeared to the boy in a grove of trees on his father’s homestead (2). Though it may be true, as Mormon historian Richard Bushman writes, that in seeking such guidance “an answer for himself must be an answer for the entire world” and that with the vision “a new era in history began,” the boy’s initial reading was clearly less grandiose (3). His personal quest for spiritual guidance may have precipitated an epiphany on the order of Paul’s on the road to Damascus, but the important truths he learned were that his personal sins were forgiven and that he should hold himself aloof from the sects of his day. Although the timing and the naming of the event assign it absolute primacy in the founding of Mormonism, the vision was described by the young Joseph and apparently interpreted by him at the time as a private experience with no greater implications for the world at large or for Christian believers generally. In returning from the divine visitation, his understated remark, to his mother was simply, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” (4) In fact, so far was Smith at this point from universalizing his private revelation that his own mother continued her affiliation with the Presbyterian church for another several years. Apparently Smith did share his experience with at least a few persons outside the family circle, for he later said that he was chastised by the clergy and ridiculed by neighbors for his claims (5). It was not until 1832 that he actually recorded the event, and he withheld publishing a version until 1842, just two years before his death (6). Accordingly, neither Smith nor Mormon missionaries made much mention of the vision in the early years of Mormonism (7). Even in the 1830 “Revelation on Church Organization and Government,” a kind of manifesto that heralded the church’s formal founding, the vision received no more than a passing, cryptic allusion to a time when “it was truly manifested unto this first elder [Joseph Smith] that he had received a remission of his sins.” (8 ) Clearly, the experience was understood at the time, and even scripturally portrayed, as part of a personal conversion narrative, not the opening scene in a new gospel dispensation. Endnotes: (2). Between 1832 and 1842, Joseph would write or dictate several accounts of this vision. In the first, he mentions only on personage. See Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Papers of Joseph Smith, vol. 1, Autobiographical and Historical Writings (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989), for those versions as well as some contemporary secondhand accounts. (3). Richard L. Bushman’s account of early Mormonism is the best to date. See his Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1984), 55,57 (4). Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., ed. James Mulholland, Robert B. Thompson, William W. Phelps, Willard Richards, George A. Smith, and later B.H. Roberts (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1902-12; 2nd rev. ed., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1951), 1:6. Bushman observes that the confusion of the prophet’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, over the details of Joseph’s first vision seems to confirm that he shared few particulars of his experience even with close family. As Bushman notes, “even twelve years after the event the First Vision’s personal significance for him still overshadowed its place in the divine plan.” (Bushman, Joseph Smith, 56). (5). Disapproval by “one of the Methodist preachers” – probably George Lane – is the only specific instance he provides of the “severe persecution at the hands of all classes of men, both religious and irreligious” referred to in his personal history (JS-H 1:21-27). (6). Two years before the publication of Joseph’s official version in 1842, his friend Orson Pratt had published an account related to him by the prophet. See An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions and of the Late Discovery of Ancient American Records (Edinburgh: Ballyntyne and Hughes, 1840). For a study of the different accounts of the First Vision, see Milton V. Backman Jr., Joseph Smith’s First Vision (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980). (7) See James B. Allen, “The Significance of Joseph Smith’s ‘First Vision’ in Mormon Thought,” Dialogue 1 (autumn 1966): 29-45; Marvin Hill, “On the First Vision and Its Importance in the Shaping of Early Mormonism,” Dialogue 12 (spring 1979): 90-99; James B. Allen, “The Emergence of a Fundamental: The Expanding Role of Joseph Smith’s First Vision in Mormon Thought,” Journal of Mormon History 7 (1980): 43-61. (8 ). Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) 20:5. In 1833, a compilation of revelations received by Joseph Smith was published as the Book of Commandments. In 1835, the volume was expanded and republished as the Doctrine and Covenants. This volume, along with the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Pearl of Great Price, is one of the “standard works” considered scripture by Latter-day Saints. ---------------- Links to the Dialogue articles mentioned in the endnotes: The Significance of Joseph Smith's 'First Vision' in Mormon Thought -- James B. Allen (Begins on page 29) A Note On Joseph Smith's First Vision and its Import In the Shaping of Early Mormonism -- Marvin S. Hill (Begins on page 90) Also, this BYU Studies article by RL Anderson might be of interest: FV through Reminiscences, and of course this groovy little speech by (by Anderson also): Paul and Joseph Smith. And then, Bushman (if you don't own "Rough Stone Rolling," go out and buy it TODAY -- it rocks!) weighs in a bit in this Dialogue article that starts on page 82: FV Story Revised. Or, if you don't like reading much (there are some people out there), Mike Ash has this short brochure here, but it might leave you unsatisfied. It will at least give you something though. And then Matthew Brown has this little paper here that was actually from the 2006 FAIR Conference. I doubt it will answer all of your questions, and it might even cause a few more questions; however, it just might answer a few in the process. Or, if you're after what is basically a completely "faith-promoting" look, then I'd suggest Milton V. Backman Jr., “Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision,” Ensign, Jan. 1985, 8 which can be accessed online here. There's also another little dilly by Backman that is a bit more in depth that can be found here. This should at least give you some info to formulate your own opinion on the events. I guess ultimately though (at least this is what people tell me), history isn't ever going to convert anyone... it's gotta be the spirit (maybe one day he'll pay me a visit). Here’s probably the best article to date on this (although it is quite dated): Stanley B. Kimball, “Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax,” Ensign, Aug. 1981, 66, it can be found online here.Recently however, I understand Don Bradley and a friend of his have some new evidence regarding this event (for those who don't know, Don isn't LDS). From the brief information I have heard thus far, it appears that Joseph did indeed try to translate the KPs, but it was a secular translation that he attempted. Again, this information is preliminary, so take it for what it's worth... Supposedly, Joseph sent for lexicons and dictionaries for these particular plates (in lieu of the seer stone, or Urim and Thummin, or through meditation and prayer). If he did indeed (which is still debatable) attempt to translate them, it was through secular means and not through his role as prophet. But, one thing to keep in mind is if Joseph translated the KPs, where's the translation? To me, that's pretty compelling (for what it's worth). The word of wisdom was considered counsel long before it was considered command. The key to why the revelations was given, and why it changed in status as time progressed can be found in its opening verses. There is a strong Biblical president for some prophets being both government leaders as well as spiritual leaders. Even if this wasn’t so, I don’t know why a Prophet wouldn’t be allowed to run for a government office just because of his spiritual calling. Not sure why this one is a point of contention. You are aware that this was a forgery, right?

There's some damn good genetics in this here family...

Maybe I'd be a liger

And I apologize for being ugly.

In all truthfulness, I hope you're not wrong.

I don't buy that. I think that our HF is in our most intimate details and mindful of every little thing in our lives, and it is up to us to understand that. 'Teaching correct principles and letting them govern themselves' does not imply 'here you go, good luck, see you in a lifetime!' I think that means, much like HT and Sacrament meeting and all other instruction we receive that it is constantly before us and we have the right to listen or not. But it does not imply a 'hands off' attitude', IMO. HF is VERY much in control of what is happening in the church and in the world. Darius Gray (and the First Presidency which gave their “blessing” for him to give an “authorized” opinion regarding the Priesthood ban at the last FAIR conference) might disagree. He may be in control, but He seems to have taken the back seat in regards to at least one priesthood issue in the past. Edited to add: But, I do agree that if any such change were to occur, it would come from the Prophet. And in the end, it has no eternal significance as no blessings are being witheld due to it.

Or, a fourth option; G-d is much like His prophets, and is less active in the governing of our affairs than we'd like to believe. "I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves..." There seems to be a lot within the Church and the world that G-d probably doesn't want happening, but allows nonetheless. He didn't seem to support Satan's plan too much...

Saints Alive in Jesus produce some real gems, don't they?

I'm not sure it's "eminently clear." It didn't seem to be prior to BRM saying to "forget everything they had said on the subject" and that they were speaking with a "limited light" when the ban was lifted on those born with higher levels of melanin. Why was it that while our black brothers were denied the priesthood, our black sisters couldn't enter the temple either? If only men hold the priesthood, then why would women also be denied the priesthood ordinances and not be able to wear the holy vestments of the priesthood also? Furthermore, why do women wear the holy vestments of the priesthood if they do not hold the priesthood? Why do I need to receive the Aaronic priesthood to so much as enter a temple for Baptisms for the Dead, but women don’t? And why does a man need a woman in order to enter into “this order of the priesthood” (D&C 131:2) in order to dwell with G-d in the highest kingdom? You are right that G-d would do something about “it” if He truly wanted to. But He seems to often wait for us to figure things out on our own. And I'm not even really sure what "it" is. Joseph Smith once said that the Relief Society "should move according to the ancienty Priesthood," and that he was "going to make the society a kingdom of priests as in Enoch's day as in Paul's day." (WOJS. pg 110). So, is "it" recognizing that women might have a form of "priesthood" already? They can already create life like gods can. Or is "it" giving them an office in the priesthood? Is there even something for Him to do, or is it more-so something for Him to help us see and/or realize? Then again, maybe I just don't have the right spirit to truly understand His will and the nature of His holy priesthood (which, in all seriousness, might be the most valid option).

I think Tuttle is wrong. I'd imagine Turley had a hand in drafting up the message (as it was predominantly his and co. research that contributed to some of the words). If Turley thinks it was an apology (which he does), and if my heart tells me it was an apology, then I’m not too concerned what a media-savvy PR spin-doctor has to say about it. It may not have been an apology in the strictest sense of the word (how do you truly apologize for something you had no part in[?]). But, it was a vicarious apology for the actions of those who strayed from the Christian teachings of our church, and I think it was a humble act befitting of G-d's church.

I think I’ll post a little hymn by a certain gentleman that was off once in a while (in his book Mormon Doctrine), and because of the comments where he was off (despite the fact the book was written before he was an apostle), some critics like to parrot little snippets trying to show that we aren’t Christians. Dibster hasn’t done so, but from his/her comments thus far, I imagine that a few of his/her little “gems” that he/she likes to parrot come from McConkie. So, ladies and germs; you judge if this is about a “different Jesus,” and if the person who wrote this was a “Christian.” 1. I believe in Christ; he is my King! With all my heart to him I’ll sing; I’ll raise my voice in praise and joy, In grand amens my tongue employ. I believe in Christ; he is God’s Son. On earth to dwell his soul did come. He healed the sick; the dead he raised. Good works were his; his name be praised. 2. I believe in Christ; oh blessed name! As Mary’s Son he came to reign ’Mid mortal men, his earthly kin, To save them from the woes of sin. I believe in Christ, who marked the path, Who did gain all his Father hath, Who said to men: “Come, follow me, That ye, my friends, with God may be.” 3. I believe in Christ—my Lord, my God! My feet he plants on gospel sod. I’ll worship him with all my might; He is the source of truth and light. I believe in Christ; he ransoms me. From Satan’s grasp he sets me free, And I shall live with joy and love In his eternal courts above. 4. I believe in Christ; he stands supreme! From him I’ll gain my fondest dream; And while I strive through grief and pain, His voice is heard: “Ye shall obtain.” I believe in Christ; so come what may, With him I’ll stand in that great day When on this earth he comes again To rule among the sons of men. Forever, and ever, Amen! And Amen!, Doctor Steuss -- loves his "different" Jesus

The engineers had some forethought to try to keep the LV Temple outside of floodplains. I have heard that the baptismal font can get a bit full at times. And then there was that one time when the old woman had her cup overfloweth…

Has someone been reading John Ankerberg's and John Weldon's Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism? It's amazing how much this tripe gets passed around. What's even more amazing is as early as 1838 Parley P. Pratt already had a sound response to this idiocy, yet somehow it still pops up all this time later: "This you say, is a contradiction of his being born in Bethlehem, (a little place, six miles from Jerusalem,) but mark the local difference in the places where each was spoken. One prophet stands in the vicinity where the thing was fulfilled, and points out the exact location, (Bethlehem.) The other stands on the other side of the globe, from Jerusalem, and addresses a people who knew but little concerning the localities of the various towns and villages of Judea. The prophet speaks in general terms concerning a thing which should transpire in the land of Jerusalem, as they had a general idea of the great capitol city and country, from whence they sprang, rather than a distinct idea of all its villages. This is in perfect accordance with all the circumstances under which they wrote, and a great proof in favour of the Book of Mormon; because an imposter, in forging a book, would have said Bethlehem; for every school boy knows, that Bethlehem is the place where the Lord was born." (Pratt, Mormonism Unveiled . . . Sutherland Exposed . . . . [1838], 19.) Perhaps in your reading of the Book of Mormon (I'd hate to think you skimmed this from anti-Mormon propaganda instead of reading the actual book), you came across 1 Nephi 1:4, 7 and then compared it to Nephi 3:16, 23–24. You might have noticed that although Lehi dwelt "at Jerusalem," he evidently was outside of the city proper. And what should we make of the fact that around 597 BCE (when the BoM narrative begins) that Jerusalem was more-or-less a city-state? The Babylonians had completely conquered the former kingdom of Judah at this point, and Zedekiah had already been put on the throne as the little Babylonian puppet that he was (see 1 Nephi 1:4 for the establishment that the narrative is after Zedekiah's placement). Although it was still technically called the "kingdom of Judah," the area that Zedekiah was given control over was pretty much reduced to the area directly surrounding Jerusalem (which would not be a far stretch to be known as "the land of Jerusalem" -- and which would most likely contain the town of Bethlehem). BTW, "Pseudo-Jeremiah" (4Q385) from the Dead Sea Scrolls speaks of Jews being "taken captive from the land of Jerusalem." This is attributed to Jeremiah, the prophet and contemporary of Lehi. What should we make of this? Please don’t let any of this stop you though. You are more than welcome to keep banging your head against the monolith of Mormonism and keep reading your anti-Mormon propaganda instead of studying your own religion. I’ve never understood why your ilk has this latent need to try to dismantle another religion; especially since if the same methods were applied to your own religion, it would crumble under your hypocrisy and double standards.

Church Issues Apology for Massacre May this help lead to healing by both the descendents of the victims and the descendents of those who perpetrated the act.

As opposed to what? The nebulous self-contradictory cloud of Greek philosophy that post 4th Century "Christians" have taught on the subject? (See, I can engage in worthless [and baseless] polemics too.) This "different Jesus" crap is just that... crap. It is an intellectually dishonest polemic. Quantitatively, the "LDS Jesus" and the "Jesus of the Bible" are ONE IN THE SAME. The "Catholic Jesus" is the same Jesus as the "Lutheran Jesus" and the "Evangelical Jesus" and the "LDS Jesus." Qualitative differences do not equate to quantitative differences; no matter how much one wishes to misconstrue, quote-mine, or wrestle scripture. You ask "Please don't take it as me being disrespectful," and then go on to try to copyright Christ. IMO, that is quite disrespectful. It is akin to the xenophobes I deal with on anti-Mormon sites that refer to "the LDS god."

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. Perhaps I'm too liberal, but "worshiping" Aldous Huxley, Andrew Carnegie, Ernest Hemingway, Ayn Rand, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, George Bernard Shaw, Frank Lloyd Wright, Thomas Edison, Freidrich Nietzsche, or even Anaxagoras or Democritus seems to fall within the "what" of this key tenet of our religion.

Didn't the First Presidency (under Ezra Taft Benson) reinstate Lee's temple blessings? I think that's probably more than enough for the fellow.

I would want to be a marsupial. I'd keep candy in my pouch. And maybe an iPod... and some cheese.

This one was just posted over at MA&D: Massacre services reopen wounds. Turley's comments in the other article are wise, and extremely good counsel IMO.

Huh? Are you calling Elphaba a troll? Would you mind clarifying this a bit for those who are thick-headed such as myself?

It has been a while since I attended. I just remember that it moved too quickly. One such topic was on how Joseph's understanding of "Zion" evolved as he gained more and more light. We were only able to devote one class to the topic, but it felt like it should have been an entire year...

The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself. The best way to lose yourself is to give of yourself… Bunnzy, Although service is a wonderful tool, you also need to be ok with being selfish right now. You need to love yourself, and you need to heal. I know that the "depression monsters" make being selfish unnatural, but now is a time when you need to focus on yourself so that you can then share the real you with your brothers and sisters through service. Maya Angelou (not a direct quote, going by memory here) once said “We accept the love we think we deserve.” You will receive so much love through serving others, but first you need to realize that you deserve so much more than the darkness has deceitfully made you think you deserve. -Stu

I imagine the joys experienced in Heaven will make the joys of earth seem like paltry wooden tokens. Whether they are necessarily through physical means or emotional means, or even scientific means is negligible. The mere joy of existence in the hereafter will probably blow all of our minds more than anything we will ever experience here.

Sometimes I wonder what's more worthy of worship. The G-d that Joseph Smith revealed, or the Joseph Smith that academia has revealed. -- Doctor Steuss If you find yourself with a glass that is half emptyl; get a smaller glass.