Ray A

If you want to read about Mormonism in Australia, you can't go beyond Marjorie Newton's book Southern Cross Saints: Amazon.com: Southern Cross Saints: The Mormons in Australia (Mormons in the Pacific) (Mormons in the Pacific): Marjorie Newton: Books (It probably hasn't had any reviews because no one is as knowledgeable in Australian LDS history as Marjorie is, and, having met and corresponded with her many times, I can tell you she's no "molly Mormon", and once wrote an article for Dialogue titled "Almost Like Us", a critique of Australians adopting US Mormon culture too readily.) Though at the time of writing she had a Masters, Marjorie has had a Ph.D in history for many years now. For stake Internet links: Australian LDS Links Hope this helps.

The Cumorah Project is useful for this sort of information: Cumorah Project LDS Mission Resources Regarding Australia: Cumorah Project International LDS Database LDS constitute about 0.2% of the population. Australians are not very religious, so the trend of low religious observation and church attendance is quite low, across the board. A little informal history (from my memory). The Hamilton New Zealand temple was the first in the Pacific area, dedicated in 1958. Australians had to travel to New Zealand to go to the temple until 1984 (don't miss Rotorua's boiling mud in NZ if you ever visit!. LOL), when the Sydney temple was built. This is located at Carlingford, in Sydney's west. There are now temples located in Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth. When I served a mission in 1976-78 (to Adelaide), few (except the "dreamers") could conceive of a temple in Adelaide so relatively soon, but it happened. I was told by a member many years ago of the visit of Apostle Elder Spencer W. Kimball to Wollongong, which is 50 miles south of Sydney, in which he related that when Elder Kimball visited the small branch (at the time, in those days apostles ordained Seventy), he pointed to a hill beyond and said "that would be a great location for a temple". At that time members could scarcely even imagine a temple in Australia, yet here was Elder Kimball suggesting that we should set our sights on building one "on the hill" in our relatviely small city. Thanks to the "dreamers", we now have for LDS in Australia what was once thought "impossible", temples in most major cities.

Don't blame you for thinking this in general, but Wanderer's thought-provoking posts alerted me immediately to what it would be about.

Sorry about that. Should have checked the link first. Try this: Presentism (literary and historical analysis) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (It worked in the preview anyway.)

Doing this is called "presentism": Presentism (literary and historical analysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) (for a very basic summary)

I think the Church leaders (local and general) are more tolerant of "radicals" today than they were 20-30 years ago. They recognise diversity not only in the membership, but themselves. Apostle Henry Eyring's father, Henry Eyring Snr., was a scientist, and it might help to read his book, Reflections of a Scientist. Here are some excerpts: Henry Eyring: Reflections of a Scientist (excerpts) I think this quote is noteworthy: I think the limit is when a person tries to impose their views on members.

These claims have been around for a long time. Copycat attempts at revelation have also been made, and this even goes back to when Joseph Smith was alive, deceiving some sincere people. Ask yourself, in the first place, why such revelations would come through unauthorised channels. D&C 43: "Any" means all except those who are "at the gate", which is those appointed and authorised to receive revelation "for the Church". I knew a lady who claimed, in all sincerity, that she was going to receive a portion of the sealed plates by revelation. She claimed to have seen Jesus Christ, and conversed with angels, and was "appointed" to this, outside of PH channels. If members paid attention to all such claims, there would be chaos in the Church. Concerning Hiram Page: D&C 28:

Haven't heard of that one. Maybe you could elaborate? Is this the Lehi manuscript that Joseph translated but was lost by Martin Harris?

By the way, Brant recently announced the completion of his Multi-Dimensional Book of Mormon commentary. I'm yet to go through it, but looking forward to it: Book of Mormon Commentary This is well worth book-marking and reading.

The intent was to preserve what he felt was important: The abridgement done by Mormon was selective. From Nephi: Mormon abridged Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, 3 and 4 Nephi, and included the small plates of Nephi (unabridged), which contained more of the teachings of the prophets, not the history, which were on the large plates. I didn't say it was "only a history". I quoted Nephi who said that "a more history part" was on his other plates, which also contained the Book of Lehi. You wouldn't find any evidence, and again that's my point. You have to have faith in what Joseph said. I think the internal structure of the Book of Mormon is quite complex, and in my opinion well beyond Joseph Smith's capability, but at the same time I can't ignore what specialists like Michael Coe have said. And on that basis I conclude that there is no final, convincing evidence for Book of Mormon historicity. Matthew Roper (FARMS) wrote: Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations - FARMS Review

I've had discussions with Brant on FAIR in the past, and he told me he believes the Book of Mormon is more of a "lineage history". I think he is a member here, but if you want to contact him he still posts on MADB (formerly FAIR): http://www.mormonapologetics.org/ You have to be registered there to PM him. I'll answer your other points soon.

The Book of Mormon isn't, strictly speaking, "a history", it contains the teachings of prophets, primarily. The Lehi manuscript was mainly history, but after being lost it was replaced with Nephi's writings, and he specified that "the more history part" was in his father's writings, not his. His sole aim was not to record history, but to convince the people to believe in Christ. I have no idea. I don't think they kept membership records in those days, and if they did, I haven't seen any. The Jews, most of them eventually, came to believe Jesus was a heretic. But that's the point, Jesus said to Thomas he was "blessed" for believing because he saw, but others would have to have faith without seeing "the hard evidence". In other words, they would have to have faith, and that faith would be based on their spiritual experiences and manifestations, not what Mesoamerican archaeologists say.

Do you believe there is hard evidence supporting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the evidence was obvious, then lots and lots of people would be joining the Church. And why would anyone leave, in the face of such convincing evidence? Do you think God designed it this way?

I don't believe the Book of Mormon is "literal history", and I have quite long and complex reasons for this, which are too lengthy to go into here (not to mention a lack of time right now). I believe it is inspired, and I believe God inspired it, and that what Joseph Smith said is true, that "a man will drawn nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book", with my emphasis there. Did Joseph ever say that it was a requirement to believe it to be historical? Even he had to speculate where it might have occurred, because he didn't know where it occurred. It's clear to me that he didn't understand the geography of the Book of Mormon. I prefer to leave my options open in any quest to understand everything about the Book of Mormon, but it's also clear to me that some modern interpolations occurred in this "historical" text, sometimes referred to as "translator anachronisms". Blake Ostler has written about this. The short of it is that I feel no need to take a firm stand on historicity, any more than I feel a need to call it a "fraud". I realise that my position is "silly" to both defenders of historicity, and to the fraudsters, who feel I must firmly go one way or the other. I don't know the mind of God, but I believe the mind of God is in the Book of Mormon. I don't even know the very basics of how computers work, but somehow my emails still make it to the other end. So I get mocked by those in the Great and Spacious Building who keep telling me I'm silly and confused and can't think straight, but neither can I deny what I inwardly feel and believe. As Paul said, to them it's all "foolishness".

I was a single father with my youngest daughter living with me for most of the time over seven years, one reason I suspect, in fact know, is because I spoiled her more than her mother did. I gave her a limit of $30 per fortnight, for calls and text. This was done on each of my paydays. If it ran out, she had to wait until my next payday. This may seem too generous, but I preferred to part with my money than see a sad teenage girl unable to use her phone. I'm such a weakling, but I just could not even conceive of enforcing bans. What real harm can talking to friends do?

Seems like we had the same experience.

I posted on LDS Talk many years ago. In those days they had a moderator named "bat". Not sure if this is the same LDS Talk. If it is, then it has come a long way since those days. Does anyone know about "bat"? The former moderator of LDS Talk?

I was a Gospel Doctrine teacher, so I "obviously" have some "General stripes" (insert false modesty icon here). A good teacher doesn't do most of the talking, he/she gets the class to talk, and ask questions. Outline the main points of your lesson on paper, as your private notes. If it's about forgiveness, then get quotes or teachings about forgiveness, or what Church leaders and the scriptures have taught, and the teacher's lesson manual will also give you some guidelines. Remember, it's not a lecture, but a lesson, and you will learn as much by simply generating ideas in the form of questions to the class, and letting them respond. Ask questions like "what do you think.....?" "How would you approach this problem.....?" "How do you feel about.....?" You did this thread in the Relief Society and Women's issues forum, so I presume you're not teaching Primary (?). Adults generally respond very well if you don't come across as lecturing. Your private notes, quotations, statements, are only back-ups, in case the class "stalls" in discussion. Your main aim should be to generate discussions and opinions. If someone strays with a point, then you can correct them. And remember to keep the class discussing the subject of the lesson, not pet theories or hobby horses. Again, the teacher's manual will outline a specific course to take for the lesson, and you are the only one who can keep the lesson "on track". Most of all, "be thou humble" and the Lord will guide you in what to say. Nothing can compensate for this lack. If you are teaching Primary, then a different approach applies.

It's your life, and your choice. Smoking dramatically raises the risk of emphysema and lung cancer. 85% of emphysema victims are smokers, and 9 out of 10 lung cancer victims are smokers. You might be one of the lucky ones if you decide to take it up again, but it's your life, and your decision.

The motor vehicle accident statistic doesn't bear this out. Even if every person in the US was killed while DUI, or a victim of a DUI, it would still not match the smoking deaths figure of over 400,000. You'd be far better off sticking to a couple of beers a night than taking up smoking. Alcohol at least has some redeeming qualities (in small amounts that is), in that it can benefit the heart (beyond two drinks for women, and four drinks for men, per day, it becomes harmful). Smoking has no redeeming qualities.

The full Encyclopedia of Mormonism is now also online: Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Illegal drugs kill much less people than alcohol, but tobacco is the deadliest substance, outnumbering alcohol-related deaths. Here is one statistical review of deaths in the US:

A little postscript I'd like to add here. The Church leaders aligned with the Prohibitionists, and Heber J. Grant in particular, as he struggled with alcohol himself as a youth. This is recorded in Ronald W. Walker's "Young Heber J. Grants' Years of Passage" (BYU Studies, vol.24, 1984): http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/43.1WalkerYears.pdf (PDF)Grant urged Church members to vote to retain Prohibition, primarily because of his own experiences with the "demon" drink. However, Utah, along with Ohio and Pennsylvania, were the states which broke the voting deadlock, ending Prohibition. I guess this is one example that contradicts the oft repeated saying that "when the leaders speak, the thinking has been done".

For sure, like being a 24/7 enemy of the Church. I agree. Mormons have very worthwhile and high standards, and my admiration for this is quite high. But alcohol does not wither testimony. If it did, Joseph would have gone apostate. I know a former alcoholic who was told he'd be dead by 50 unless he gave it up. He met the missionaries (who dragged him out of a gutter), converted, and today he's nearing 90! No, you should not lower the standards, while keeping in mind that one or two beers after work does not make a man or woman "evil". I think you already know that.

I don't think a brother or sister who "imbibes" should be lectured or ostracised. Be glad they are still sympathetic to Mormonism, and still believe. In the 7th volume of the Church History we have this entry: As strong as he was, Joseph also imbibed on this occasion, to "revive" his spirits. The Word of Wisdom was given by Joseph in 1833: As one who deals with drunks on a regular basis, I can see the wisdom of abstinence, and I think the Church move to make it more binding has been a good thing. But we need to be careful this does not engender a spirit of self-righteousness. A brother/sister who admits "imbibing" is honest. Many others may imbibe in secret yet present a facade of holiness. If eleven years after his revelation, Joseph still felt the need to "imbibe" to "revive his spirits", who are we to judge "lesser mortals"?