Would You Care?

[Shawn]

Snow-

Makes sense. Although I'm not entirely sure the LDS thought the Salamander Letter was farsical. To be honest, I'm not sure that many Latter-day Saints even really knew about it so maybe my using it as an example was weak to begin with. Never-the-less, the people I associated with at the time knew of it, and the leadership believed in it enough to buy it, so I don't think it was taken lightly by all. Good comments though.

SHAWN

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Shawn@Jul 20 2005, 11:28 PM

Snow-

Makes sense. Although I'm not entirely sure the LDS thought the Salamander Letter was farsical. To be honest, I'm not sure that many Latter-day Saints even really knew about it so maybe my using it as an example was weak to begin with. Never-the-less, the people I associated with at the time knew of it, and the leadership believed in it enough to buy it, so I don't think it was taken lightly by all. Good comments though.

SHAWN

Exactly, the majority of LDS members had no clue about the SL; I know my in-laws didn't know who Mark Hofmann was let alone the SL.

M.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Maureen+Jul 21 2005, 07:59 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Jul 21 2005, 07:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Shawn@Jul 20 2005, 11:28 PM

Snow-

Makes sense.  Although I'm not entirely sure the LDS thought the Salamander Letter was farsical.  To be honest, I'm not sure that many Latter-day Saints even really knew about it so maybe my using it as an example was weak to begin with. Never-the-less, the people I associated with at the time knew of it, and the leadership believed in it enough to buy it, so I don't think it was taken lightly by all.  Good comments though.

SHAWN

Exactly, the majority of LDS members had no clue about the SL; I know my in-laws didn't know who Mark Hofmann was let alone the SL.

M.

I have run into others who have no idea who Mark Hoffman is and what he perpetrated, and it astounds me. I don't understand how most LDS cannot know this.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Shawn@Jul 15 2005, 09:07 PM

...On a scale of 1 to 10, how much anxiety and trouble would you experience if Gordon B Hinckley announced that the BOM will no longer be considered scripture to members of the Church?...

With further thought to this initial question, I believe a more legit question might be:

...how much anxiety and trouble would you experience if (a major leader of a christian religious organization) announced that certain books of the Bible are no longer considered scripture.

Note: This can also be applied to GBH announcing something similar re: books of the BofM.

Now personally for me I would have to do a lot of soul searching, intellectual investigating, praying and a lot of thinking to figure out how this might effect my faith in scripture.

M.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Shawn@Jul 20 2005, 10:28 PM

Snow-

Makes sense. Although I'm not entirely sure the LDS thought the Salamander Letter was farsical. To be honest, I'm not sure that many Latter-day Saints even really knew about it so maybe my using it as an example was weak to begin with. Never-the-less, the people I associated with at the time knew of it, and the leadership believed in it enough to buy it, so I don't think it was taken lightly by all. Good comments though.

SHAWN

At the time of the Salamander Letter, I was a pretty average Mormon and I knew of it... Some evangelical fruitcakes were picketing a Mormon event and the Rose Bowl handing out antiMormon brochures about it. I think plenty of Mormons heard about it and forgot it as those with strong faith don't get wigged out from the slings and arrows of critics.

I don't accept your thought that Church leadership believed it enough to buy it. How do you know they believed it? Because they bought it? That proves nothing other than they take their "due diligence" responsibility seriously. They felt a responsibility to persue what could potentially be a significant historical artifact. It could have been nothing more than a calculation. They may have bought it but did absolutely nothing to say they believed it or hide it.

[Shawn]

Originally posted by Snow@Jul 21 2005, 09:32 PM

I don't accept your thought that Church leadership believed it enough to buy it. How do you know they believed it? Because they bought it? That proves nothing other than they take their "due diligence" responsibility seriously. They felt a responsibility to persue what could potentially be a significant historical artifact. It could have been nothing more than a calculation. They may have bought it but did absolutely nothing to say they believed it or hide it.

I disagree. I can't imagine the leaders spending tithing dollars on something they aren't convinced is genuine. If they did, such action could almost be considered paranoid. And they surely aren't paranoid.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Shawn@Jul 21 2005, 07:49 PM

I disagree. I can't imagine the leaders spending tithing dollars on something they aren't convinced is genuine. If they did, such action could almost be considered paranoid. And they surely aren't paranoid.

They didn't spend tithing money. In fact the letter was purchased by a private collector, Stephen Christensen, who then got some scholars and experts involved for the sake of authentication. He, not knowing it is was authentic, made a calculation, spent his own money on something we wasn't sure about. He was wrong.

To the extent that the Church itself acquires historical documents, it does so with a measure of the same risk.

[huma17]

How much would I care? Well, I would care enough to buy a simpathy card for the Hinckley family, because I would know that the prophet was ready to step to the other side.

But, to seriously humor your question, I would pray to know if that was indeed from the Lord. If it wasn't, then I would simply wait for Pres. Hinkley to be removed by the Lord. If is was coming from the Lord, then I would have to accept it. It wouldn't change the fact that the BoM came from the Lord, and what was found within was still true. Somehow the Lord would have found a reason/way for the members to be OK without it - the Restored Gospel has already been proven to be true, so that wouldn't change either. It would be like the math book that taught you addition and subtraction going out of use - it still teaches true, and the principles of math would still be true as well.

Now, you didn't say anything about non-members using the BoM, so I would assume it would still be used to teach and bring those seeking the truth and knowledge of the fulness of the Gospel.

[Shawn]

First, I stand corrected on the Church purchasing the Salamander Letter. Apologies and thank you for the correction, Snow. Second, I really enjoyed the response from Huma17. It represents the quintessential elements of a faith-based dedication to a cause. What is truly interesting to me is some have this attitude and it is right on and of the Lord, while others possess it with the same fervor and wind up at the other end of a Waco or Jonestown. Understand, I'm not comparing the LDS Church practices to either, but I am making a comparison to the belief models people use to get through their religious day. Thanks again, Huma17.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Shawn@Jul 22 2005, 08:43 PM

First, I stand corrected on the Church purchasing the Salamander Letter. Apologies and thank you for the correction, Snow. Second, I really enjoyed the response from Huma17. It represents the quintessential elements of a faith-based dedication to a cause. What is truly interesting to me is some have this attitude and it is right on and of the Lord, while others possess it with the same fervor and wind up at the other end of a Waco or Jonestown. Understand, I'm not comparing the LDS Church practices to either, but I am making a comparison to the belief models people use to get through their religious day. Thanks again, Huma17.

Your welcome, yet I'm not quite sure how to take your response.

You see, I have an actual knowledge of the Restored Gospel, so I know it is led by the Lord through modern revelation, so, in essence, we could go without scripture and still be OK. The greatest tool to teaching people the Gospel is the BoM, however, so that would make things harder. However, to someone who doesn't have the knowledge that many saints do, it could appear as if they are following blindly, or are so convinced that they would do whatever their leader says. That, though, is just not the case. The Lord will not allow his mouthpeice to lead us astray, and JS, himself, told the saints to seek knowledge of truth that a prophet speaks of for themselves. Now, if Pres. Hinckley stated that the BoM was false, that would be different (and that's not what was asked). In that case, I would not follow it at all, and if the Lord didn't destroy him, then I would continue on with what I knew to be true, and wait for things to get sorted out.

My response was to humor the question, not due to dedication - I know what I know, and I wish all could now. That knowledge - not belief, hope, or faith - dictates my actions, and how I would respond to things to come. If you want to compare the saints to followers of Waco or Jonestown, you need only look at the fruit of the tree they follow. Pres. Hinckley - nor any prior prophet, speaking for the Lord - has required the saints to kill themselves or others, separte themselves completely from society or the world, nor asked them to follow the prophet alone, and nobody else - including the Lord - without question. Never with those associated with those groups, did their leader ask them to find out for themselves if what was being taught was true or not, they were told/commanded to do whatever they said - an absolute monarchy. Within the LDS church, the only absolute lies with the Savior.

[Shawn]

That knowledge - not belief, hope, or faith - dictates my actions, and how I would respond to things to come.

Don't we live by faith, huma17? For I would suggest that you really don't know anything at all. I don't mean this in an insult, but philosophically.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Shawn@Jul 22 2005, 10:37 PM

Don't we live by faith, huma17?  For I would suggest that you really don't know anything at all.  I don't mean this in an insult, but philosophically.

Strange post...for, as philosophy is concerned, life is not described accordingly by faith, but rather by reason and logic.

Also, stating that I do not know anything based upon my assertion of a specific knowledge seems somewhat contradictory.

Remember, faith leads to truth, and once you have that truth, you must then rely on that. To deny the HG after having received truth - which came about through faith - is an unpardonable sin. Denying truth based soley upon faith does not hold the same consequences. I still by faith in my life, but not for all things. What I was discussing with you, was based upon my knowledge - which came by faith.

Lastly, belittling someone always shows that the one doing the belittling is really the one who lacks...

[Lindy]

Originally posted by huma17@Jul 22 2005, 06:53 PM

How much would I care? Well, I would care enough to buy a simpathy card for the Hinckley family, because I would know that the prophet was ready to step to the other side.

I like that! Funny, but to the point

[Maureen]

Originally posted by huma17@Jul 22 2005, 06:53 PM

...the Restored Gospel has already been proven to be...

I disagree with this statement. There is much evidence to show that the RG (aka Mormonism) has its problems, ie. Book of Abraham, DNA/BofM, contradictory vision testimonies, polygamy (past & present), MMM, Mark Hofmann, etc.

Can you show us this evidence of proof, huma17?

M.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by huma17@Jul 22 2005, 08:08 PM

...Pres. Hinckley - nor any prior prophet, speaking for the Lord - has required the saints to kill themselves or others, separte themselves completely from society or the world...

I disagree again. I believe that BY was responsible for MMM which lead to the death of others. BY also tried to keep his church and members isolated from the Gentiles for many years until it was virtually impossible with train travel and immigration to the west.

M.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Maureen+Jul 25 2005, 10:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Jul 25 2005, 10:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--huma17@Jul 22 2005, 06:53 PM

...the Restored Gospel has already been proven to be...

I disagree with this statement. There is much evidence to show that the RG (aka Mormonism) has its problems, ie. Book of Abraham, DNA/BofM, contradictory vision testimonies, polygamy (past & present), MMM, Mark Hofmann, etc.

Can you show us this evidence of proof, huma17?

M.

A correct call, Maureen, I was not clear enough with that statement. I should have said that it has already been proven to be true for me and all those who have found this to be so by studying and seeking the truthfulness of the BoM. For those who have not yet done so, then there isn't the 'proof' that you, and many others, seek.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Maureen@Jul 25 2005, 10:57 AM

I disagree again. I believe that BY was responsible for MMM which lead to the death of others.

This is your belief. As you had asked of me, I too would need some proof of this.

BY also tried to keep his church and members isolated from the Gentiles for many years until it was virtually impossible with train travel and immigration to the west.

References please. I'm not completely familiar with this at the moment.

[Snow]

Originally posted by huma17+Jul 25 2005, 07:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (huma17 @ Jul 25 2005, 07:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Maureen@Jul 25 2005, 10:57 AM

I disagree again. I believe that BY was responsible for MMM which lead to the death of others.

This is your belief. As you had asked of me, I too would need some proof of this.

There is no proof that BY was involved so the argument goes that he created the climate of fear and us-versus-them hysteria that made it possible for such a crime to occur.

Such an argument has two necessary but ridiculous propositions:

1. People are sheep, not agents unto themselves, responsible for their own actions.

2. That is was BY, and not the persecutors and tormentors of the Saints who was responsible for the climate.

Go figure.

[Snow]

Originally posted by huma17@Jul 22 2005, 07:08 PM

You see, I have an actual knowledge of the Restored Gospel,...

That knowledge - not belief, hope, or faith - dictates my actions, and how I would respond to things to come.

Uh, yeah,

...we all used to say that until we started to understand the defintions of "knowledge" and "faith."

[roman]

Originally posted by Winnie G@Jul 15 2005, 11:41 PM

That is just dumb, and it would not happen since the cornerstone of the church is and always will be the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith as a prophet of the Lord.

This responce opens about a million can of worms-------since from creation of the church the cornerstone has been Jesus Christ-------the doctrine of the apostles------and the ressurection of the LORD----

And you guys continue to wonder why your not considered Christian in many areas

[Maureen]

Originally posted by roman@Jul 26 2005, 03:32 PM

And you guys continue to wonder why your not considered Christian in many areas

You guys? Who are you referring to roman?

M.

[roman]

Originally posted by Maureen+Jul 26 2005, 06:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Jul 26 2005, 06:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--roman@Jul 26 2005, 03:32 PM

And you guys continue to wonder why your not considered Christian in many areas

You guys? Who are you referring to roman?

M.

To anyone who thinks that the BoM and JS are the cornerstone of the Christian church

[Shawn]

Shawn wrote to Huma17

Don't we live by faith, huma17? For I would suggest that you really don't know anything at all. I don't mean this in an insult, but philosophically.

Huma17 responded (in part)

Lastly, belittling someone always shows that the one doing the belittling is really the one who lacks...

Huma17

Please don't feel belittled. I am sorry if I offended. Really. My intent was to communicate that my saying "you really don't know anything at all" was philosophically based. Meaning, outside of a metaphysical interpretation of knowing, humankind has trouble proving it knows anything. I really hate personal attacks and I frankly apologize for writing in a way that sounded like one. I did not mean it as such.

IJA,

Shawn

[Snow]

Originally posted by roman@Jul 26 2005, 02:32 PM

And you guys continue to wonder why your not considered Christian in many areas

Nope - no member of the Church wonders that. We all know exactly why some consider us to be non-Christian; the answer being bigotry, ignorance, fear and lack of inspiration.

[Snow]

Originally posted by roman+Jul 26 2005, 02:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (roman @ Jul 26 2005, 02:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Winnie G@Jul 15 2005, 11:41 PM

That is just dumb, and it would not happen since the cornerstone of the church is and always will be the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith as a prophet of the Lord.

This responce opens about a million can of worms-------since from creation of the church the cornerstone has been Jesus Christ-------the doctrine of the apostles------and the ressurection of the LORD----

It's a matter of semantics.

You think Christ to be the cornerstone - one small part of the foundation, a stone joining two walls.

We believe that Christ is the entire foundation of the Church.