A few questions


Recommended Posts

I can't make heads nor tails of this claim. What does "reading the saints" mean? LDS authors, both general authorities and more ordinary Saints, are often best-sellers in LDS circles. I have never even a single time heard an LDS authority discourage reading "the saints". If you mean Catholic "saints", I likewise have never heard any LDS authority discourage reading of works by canonized Catholics, though I'm sure this is far less common.

Btw, many of the people I talked to during my mission to Italy had been told very specifically by their priests not to read the Bible or scripture commentary, so I wonder if your criticism above might rather apply to Catholicism.

Vort,

Read my posts and you'll see what I'm talking about. Thanks for your kind attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Vort,

Read my posts and you'll see what I'm talking about. Thanks for your kind attitude.

Thanks for your thanks.

I have read your last 20 or so posts, and cannot find anything you have written about "reading the saints". So I have no idea what you are talking about, either for Catholicism or for Mormonism. Will you elucidate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vort,

I will try to be more charitable.

Within this thread there were three comments by LDS marginalizing people who read JofD. My term "reading the saints" was shorthand for reading the JofD. Like my Tradition, LDS does not consider JofD to be doctrine. However, my Tradition refers to the saints (Early Church Fathers) a lot in reading, prayer, study, etc. It was an accurate observation of the comments that LDS discourages the reading of JofD. It may not be a fact as an institution, but what I said is accurate. Your attitude of "I know you are but what am I" communicates hostility. I am not being hostile. I am sorry for the shorthand, the term must not be popular in your tradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Within this thread there were three comments by LDS marginalizing people who read JofD. My term "reading the saints" was shorthand for reading the JofD. Like my Tradition, LDS does not consider JofD to be doctrine. However, my Tradition refers to the saints (Early Church Fathers) a lot in reading, prayer, study, etc.

Okay, this make sense, sort of. Not sure how I was to know that "reading the saints" meant "reading the Journal of Discourses", but I'll chalk that up to coming in late in the conversation.

It was an accurate observation of the comments that LDS discourages the reading of JofD. It may not be a fact as an institution, but what I said is accurate.

I don't understand this. What you say "may not be a fact as an institution, but...[it] is [still] accurate." If what you say is counterfactual, in what sense is it accurate? Do you mean that people on this thread discouraged reading the Journal of Discourses, so therefore the Church as a whole does so?

I did not notice the discouragement to reading the Journal of Discourses. I'd appreciate it if you could point them out to me.

Your attitude of "I know you are but what am I" communicates hostility.

I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. What attitude? Can you point to a post I made that communicated such an attitude?

I am not being hostile.

I hadn't thought so, until this latest post.

I am sorry for the shorthand, the term must not be popular in your tradition.

Which term? "Reading the saints"? If that's what you mean, then you are right, that term is not popular among Latter-day Saints. At least, I have never heard it before.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was encouraged to read the Journal of Discourses after seeing so many church publications that quoted it.

I honestly don't understand where that point is coming from.

I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. What attitude? Can you point to a post I made that communicated such an attitude?

Your rather direct, demanding posts come off a little hostile sometimes when combined with your avatar ;)

'cause she doesn't look happy haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was an accurate observation of the comments that LDS discourages the reading of JofD.

I am not sure this is an accurate statement at all. The church doesn't discourage the reading of it. I think its just important to understand the nature of what is being read. And counting the JofD as LDS canon is a mistake. I think there is a big difference between telling people not to become educated about something and telling people how to catagorize what they read.

What the church DOES say to its members and the world is to use the help of prayer and the influence of the Holy Spirit to discern the truth and then to study from the best books. Being taught from onhigh is pretty big deal for mormons. So is getting as much education as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your rather direct, demanding posts come off a little hostile sometimes when combined with your avatar ;)

'cause she doesn't look happy haha.

What's wrong with Vorts avatar, and how does "that look" tell you she's not happy?

As far as "direct, demanding posts" some of us appreiciate clarity and honesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vort,

I will try again.

The fact that this topic is the one that has hit a nerve is bizarre to me.

Within the CONFINES OF ONLY THE FIRST PAGE of only this thread:

1) TUBALOTH WROTE: "You are really worried about Journal of Discourses? Do you have a copy and can quote it, because I don't have a copy! But it seems like you do and read it more often them most members."

2) DESERETGOV WROTE: "I don't know. Journal of Discourses is not scripture to me. It's pretty far down on my readining list."

3) MISSHALFWAY WROTE: "Memorizing/studying the JoD is NOT part of their training." Nothing wrong there, but it does indicate ignorance.

With those three comments, it is FAIR to make the observation that the readers of the JofD are marginalized, OR that the the reading of it not encouraged. OF COURSE, my observation is not definitive. It is also fair and accurate to notice that I gave the benefit of the doubt by stating that this may NOT be an institutional practice. What that means is that I am NOT saying that the Church as an organization discourages the reading of it. I don't know how to make it clearer.

Within the remainder of this thread:

As circumstantial evidence (in LDS eyes) to my assessment:

4) I gave the story of how I was personally discouraged to research the JofD. (it wasn't good for building faith, anti-Mormons fake them, etc)

As reinforcement to my observation:

5) Several comments with the repeated theme of "JofD is not doctrine." I cannot find any non-LDS member saying it is. It appears defensive, and lacks confident when it is repeated so often.

6) MNN727 WROTE: "...they [anti-Mormons] make it appear like they just happened to be reading the JoD and spotted this strange thing. As if one in a million of them have ever even touched a volume of the JoD or even know that there is more than one volume." True. Most anti-Mormons hate before they understand. Wouldn't it be fair to say that most Mormons don't know much about the JofD as well? Do I come off as someone who doesn't know how many volumes there are? Didn't my journey to read hard-copy of it express my desire to verify/discredit anti-Mormon literature communicate anything to you?

7) Someone also made the comment that "The JofD is hard to find, must be because all the anti-Mormons have them [sic]." That comment invalidates #6, but so what. If it is difficult to find them, the burden is on the LDS.

An unavoidable conclusion for non-LDS:

Whether it is accurate or not, the behavior of LDS in regards to the JofD results in suspicion. Confidence is not portrayed. When 1 out of 100 non-LDS who actually read portions of the JofD and find what "appears" as the founders having difficulty knowing what god they were talking about (for an example), and then they notice the lack of confidence that LDS portray in this area, then he is going to evaluate the situation. It may not be an accurate evaluation, but it is understandable. When investigation is perceived to be discouraged and self-revelation encouraged, the logical conclusion is that things don't add up.

Reading of the saints:

I have already apologized for using jargon. I thought the expression was more popular than it is. I used the term because I thought it would TRANSLATE to the LDS world. Within most of the Christian world, the term means the readings of our Early Church Fathers. We call them ECFs, or saints. By reading them, we can see continuity of theology from the nearly the end of the first century on, continuity of Tradition, etc. Contrary to your illustration, Catholics who are interested in learning the Faith do read them. Catholics who don't read them are, by definition, more ignorant yet become trophies of discernment for other groups.

LDS have their founding fathers as well. Some of their writings are what make of the JofD. Using the term, I thought, would translate as "reading the JofD." I obviously failed, and have apologized for it repeatedly.

Important:

Not once did I say the JofD is regarded to as scripture. Not once did I imply it being important. You are blending my words with those of others--though I know of none.

Hostility?

My first impression of you was in my introduction. You were suspicious of me before you knew anything about me. As I read your posts, you seem to be suspicious of most non-LDS. Your quick attack on the Catholics you knew in Italy was before you even understood what you were reading in my post. I've been shyly called anti-Mormon and bashing now a few times by LDS on this forum (do not make me go back and rewrite the thread for you again) though I've given no reason for it. I have not used any SOP "anti-Mormon" arguments. Two times on this thread I slammed anti-mormon literature. Instead of treating me as though I am "one of them" I would appreciate you judging me by the words I use. Nothing I say can shake your faith, Vort.

My Christimas gift to you. I will give the board a break:

It has actually been a pleasure for me until lately. Most "Christian" boards don't allow Catholics to participate because those boards are mostly run by evangelical fundamentalists who don't consider the CC to be "Christian." The CC is "old school" and its intelligencia tend to be more in classrooms and books than the Internet. My intention was to simply correct the often wrong information about the CC that I've noticed at times--my entry point to this forum was when Catholics became "idolaters" concerning the cross. I got hooked! Some of this was stimulating and exciting. I knew I would be like Frisco speaking to guests at the Taggart wedding reception (anyone know what I'm talking about?) so I will keep closer to my word and be "the Catholic guy" if one is needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vort,

I will try to be more charitable.

Within this thread there were three comments by LDS marginalizing people who read JofD. My term "reading the saints" was shorthand for reading the JofD. Like my Tradition, LDS does not consider JofD to be doctrine. However, my Tradition refers to the saints (Early Church Fathers) a lot in reading, prayer, study, etc. It was an accurate observation of the comments that LDS discourages the reading of JofD. It may not be a fact as an institution, but what I said is accurate. Your attitude of "I know you are but what am I" communicates hostility. I am not being hostile. I am sorry for the shorthand, the term must not be popular in your tradition.

The Journal of Discourse includes a lot of statements from early LDS leaders that, in light of 2009 social perspective, includes some apparently racist attitudes, as well as some harsh assessments of detractors. These quotes are now fodder for critics of the church, who wonder aloud how prophets and restored Christians could express such thoughts.

Due to this current state of affairs, it would not surprise me at all that the modern church finds it necessary to downgrade the importance of those documents. I'm told that in Korea now, pastors who post their audio sermons online quickly find that they are sliced and spliced, and reposted by critics, casting the worst possible light on their teachings. Is it any wonder that churches are becoming protective?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

theophilus

Don't get too hung up on the way the thread is going.

1 it is easy for people to mix up who said what.

2 When people are relying on the written vs spoken word it is far easier to mis communicate the intent of what is being said. Instead of being able to rely on the persons voice, what tone etc everything depends on what is written. Language is easy to mis interpret depending on ones own filters that life creates unique to each of us. This means they take the words in, filter or interpret the intent or manner of what is said based on their unique position, emotion etc at the moment. This also means all the other posts effect how the next one is interpreted.

3 Different regions, religions, communities etc create different interpretation of meanings. When we engage in a global community what is common in our area is weird in another. Or different religion, economy, society etc. Another thread talked about Southern US Grits meaning a food. IN Canada where I am from when you talk about Grits you mean the Liberal Political Party.

4 Most people when they've been bit once tend to go on the attack when the situation appears the same. It is a shame but it is human nature regardless of religion or region.

5 personally having been a member of the LDS for 14 years, joined as an adult, I have heard little about the J of D so I don't really know enough to comment. I have never heard a leader in our Ward's encourage or discourage discussion of it.

6 People often forget to put things into historical context when discussing things. No matter what religion if any we each choose to be we carry the attitudes of our economic-region with us. As Society changes attitudes, comments etc that were perfectly valid and accepted in that time frame become wrong in the new. It is normal to distance ourselves from older attitudes that make us uncomfortable.

7 These changes does not mean the Gospel changes or that the Lord's direction was wrong. Nor does it mean various instruction can not change. For example many get bent out of shape about multiple marriages in the early church. I believe God commanded it, based on the historical-social context of the time I can see the Logic behind it from a spiritual-temporal position. I can also see why the command was resided when it's need was past and when the laws of the land required it. But in no time did the gospel change.

8 You are one of God's children as we all are, as long as you are keeping within the guidelines of this forum of course, God has given you the right to express yourself. Your comments are valid and allow a discussion on a topic that might not have been raise otherwise. Also, while many may have been there done that newer members might never have touched on a subject before. I find even topics discussed before have new points never considered.

9 We are all blessed with an amazing gift to discuss topics with people all over the world! It is a huge blessing but like all things there must come a downside. As I used to tell Investigators when they went to classes other then GP class. That if someone comes across as being offensive, or picking on you, or speaking derogatory to you 99% of the time it is a misunderstanding based on a different knowledge of gospel Principles, our upbringing, and the depth of the discussion. With this forum we have to also add difference in language, knowledge of English vocabulary, regional dialects, religious differences, and cultural differences.

10 Communication with all these variables can be difficult and hurtful if we choose walk those paths.

Communication in this manner can also be unifying, liberating and wonderful if we choose those paths.

Keep walking the high road the journey is worth it. How do I know? I can see where I started and where I am know, the view is a lot better here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mormonmusic

Theophilus:

I think the problem is this thread was started by an easy-to-spot and apparently closed-minded anti-Mormon. Junior member, close to zero posts, proclaims himself as committed to a religion already, and posts questions taken from anti-mormon sites -- and a lot of them.

Then you entered the discussion, which sort of suggested you were cut from the same cloth. I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- I DON'T think you are cut from that cloth, and have made some valuable contributions to my own understanding of Catholicism. I also learned the world is a bigger place as a result of one of your posts in another section.

But I'd suggest cutting out of this particular debate, engaging in some mutually rewarding conversations in other parts of this site, and letting us get to know you better. I think you have a lot to offer in helping us understand your own path to truth, general spirituality, and a host of other topics that I think would be of mutual interest. I, for one, will look for the topics you start up.

I think the key in a religious forum like this is to discuss matters without trying to win the battle. I don't think anyone ever does.....

Edited by mormonmusic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know theophilus, this really wasn't about you, it was about the O.P. who displayed typical trolling behavior. (low number of posts, making a claim about having a few quetions, and then copying a pasting from an anti website, only having a couple posts on the entire thread (now 7 pages)after starting it, being upset that anyone would question their sincerity, etc.)

I really don't even consider you as being anti-LDS.

How about we all take a deep breath and move on to other topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share