Utchdorf, Sometimes we have made mistakes

[Snigmorder]

47 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Depends on what one means by "problems" and what one means by "real". Both, to my view, seem to be in the eye of the beholder in regards to these things.

This statement is garbage.

It strikes me that where members should be is humble, faithful, and with strong, faith-based, testimonies and that the levels of understanding history is largely irrelevant.

Another garbage statement.

 

I understand I'm responding to you quoting someone who was quoting someone, so forgive the implication that I'm criticizing your ideas.

I understand your criticisms. I'm also annoyed by the implication that there are "real" problems.  I think perhaps Kimball is referring to things like details in the book of Mormon that don't seem to reflect what the fields say is true. Or perhaps that polygamy is a difficult doctrine. Those are "real" in the sense that the criticism wasn't manufactured ex nihilo (like many of them are). But it is in the eye of the beholder, like you said. One might think the alleged "link" between the temple and freemasonry is the biggest "problem" for the church. Then there's people like me who don't see much of a link or problem with freemasonry.

 

I would agree with the idea that many church members are "un-exposed" to the details. This only matters if the individual is put at risk by such things. For example, my aunt, who is in no way at risk, heard me say "Joseph Smith was a treasure digger" while talking to my grandmother. My aunt thought it was a lie someone had made up. Or in other words, the reality did not square up with her conception of Joseph Smith. Now, if she didn't have the testimony that she does, that might have caused a problem. (perhaps I'll keep my mouth shut next time)

I think a better way to say "resilient" would be to say that "level C is less likely to be broadsided by claims made by critics and anti-Mormons should they encounter them"

I understand the way you feel. I feel that way all the time about things regarding the church. It should also be said that I have affection for Joseph Smith and don't consider his "warts" to be warts. 

Edited July 7, 2017 by Snigmorder

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

I would agree with the idea that many church members are "un-exposed" to the details. This only matters if the individual is put at risk by such things. For example, my aunt, who is in no way at risk, heard me say "Joseph Smith was a treasure digger" while talking to my grandmother. My aunt thought it was a lie someone had made up. Or in other words, the reality did not square up with her conception of Joseph Smith. Now, if she didn't have the testimony that she does, that might have caused a problem. (perhaps I'll keep my mouth shut next time)

Just addressing this by way of discussion:

Calling Joseph a "treasure digger" is hardly fully accurate. It's accurate. Just not "fully" so. The term itself is the kind of tactic anti-folk use, twisting words to imply things beyond what actually was. (It's also an archaic expression). While technically true, the term implies that he was some kind of wacko nut-job. The reality is he took a job looking for a mine for Josiah Stowell, and the rest of the so-called history surrounding the matter is, at best, unreliable, and at worst, indeed, a lie someone made up.

Now someone may not know that Joseph, at some point, worked for someone looking for a lost mine. Telling them that would hardly throw anyone's testimony. Calling him a "treasure digger" and leaving the details out, or worse, adding the anti-quasi-made-up-quasi-unreliable-hater-sourced details is no level at all of history, and responding to it with skepticism is appropriate.

It's the same sort of idea with, for example, the Adam-God theory. I remember the first time someone told me I believed Adam was God because I was a Mormon. More accurately, it was the first time I was handed a track at the Manti pageant as a youth and read, "Mormons believe Adam is God!" I responded by thinking, "No we don't". And I was right. When an anti-source, at whatever time and place, challenged me on that by pointing out that Brigham Young did, indeed, teach that -- it's documented in the History of the Church, I was still able to pretty much reply with a shrug, because I knew darned well that "we" didn't believe that, no matter what was written or said. Knowing know a whole host of explanations and justifications and what-not doesn't make my testimony any stronger, doesn't make me more faithful, and doesn't really change the fact that my initial "that's bull" response was accurate.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Snigmorder said:

The church, Kimball reflected, tends to teach level A history. The trouble with this is that, like someone who has been kept in a germ-free environment and is then exposed to an infectious disease, a person on level A who is exposed to any of the issues that are the fodder for level B will have little resistance and will be likely to fall. 

The only hope in such a case, he continued, is to press on to what he termed "level C," which is a version of church history that remains affirmative but which also takes into account any and all legitimate points stressed by level B. Those on level C are largely impervious to infection from level B. Level B formulations simply don't impress them.

I understand this from a logical secular perspective.  But the big problem I see is that this is only secular.  It does not account for any spiritual variables.

The next problem I have is that even if you're talking about logical secular ideas, there is no such thing as being immune.  There is always someone smarter than you. There is always a twist of logic that someone is going to throw at you that you cannot counter.  It doesn't make them right.  But without faith, there is no surviving it.  This author has to be fairly arrogant to think that he's now learned enough about any topic to make him immune to Satan's minions.  Without faith, there is no surviving even stupid ideas.

When we study from a secular perspective only, then we will never have faith.  We must learn and gain knowledge by study and also by faith.

I used to believe things like this (i.e. learn enough intellectually and the faith will take care of itself).  But I learned through sad experience that it simply isn't so.  Have enough faith, and the knowledge will come.  This is more accurate. 

We receive no such witness until after the trial of our faith.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

A potentially more accurate model.

Level A.1 Basic church history. Testimony. Faith.

Level A.2 Basic church history. Weak testimony. Poor faith.

Level B Abandon real church history entirely. Only those from Level A.2 ever go here

Level C Good church history knowledge. Testimony. Faith.

 

I suppose there's a theoretical C.2 where there's good knowledge of history with weak testimony and faith. And it also needs to be understood that faith and testimony are not constants.

Edited July 7, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

whoops...

Edited July 7, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

No one ever points out this passage from that same talk by Pres. Uchtdorf:

As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and as one who has seen firsthand the councils and workings of this Church, I bear solemn witness that no decision of significance affecting this Church or its members is ever made without earnestly seeking the inspiration, guidance, and approbation of our Eternal Father. This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.

While I like this quote, I need to point out that the Huffpo article's quote was not about leaders making misleading statements about doctrine or whatever.  It was about hurt feelings.  

To me, this was a non-issue article.  I don't know why on earth they decided to make this an article at all.  It was of completely no import to me.

But to those whose feelings have been hurt, yes, people need to understand that knowing exactly when to lead gently vs preach with fire and brimstone is not an easy task.  And people will make mistakes in deciding which is appropriate.

Most people don't get that. Too many people will not respond to gentle leading.  But for some reason, they do respond to firm and strong language.  And many don't respond to anything.  They're just ready to leave.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

was not about leaders making misleading statements about doctrine or whatever.  It was about hurt feelings.  

What's the difference?

I have never heard a hurt feeling that came from a General Authority calling someone a poopoo head. I've sure heard a lot of them over statements of doctrine, policy, what-have-you.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

A potentially more accurate model.

Level A.1 Basic church history. Testimony. Faith.

Level A.2 Basic church history. Weak testimony. Poor faith.

Level B Abandon real church history entirely. Only those from Level A.2 ever go here

Level C Good church history knowledge. Testimony. Faith.

Level A: Learn basic things about the Church and its beliefs.  Pray, gain a testimony.  Proceed in faith.
Level B: Learn further and ask questions.  Gain some knowledge.  Pray, gain a stronger testimony.   Proceed in faith.
Level B: Learn further and ask questions.  Gain some knowledge.  Pray, gain a stronger testimony.   Proceed in faith.
Level B: Learn further and ask questions.  Gain some knowledge.  Pray, gain a stronger testimony.   Proceed in faith.
Level B: Learn further and ask questions.  Gain some knowledge.  Pray, gain a stronger testimony.   Proceed in faith.

My point is that we never really get out of this stage.  It's sharpening the saw.  As long as we stay in this cycle, we're doing ok.  If we ever think we can relax, that's when Satan has us.  We've gotten prideful.

When I was a child, I had some faith.  I had a small testimony.  But I had a lot of questions.  Because of my faith, the questions were sincere.  If I had none, then the questions would have been accusations instead.  But by proceeding in faith, I was eventually able to get answers.  And the cycle continues today.

[The Folk Prophet]

Haha.

Level A: Mortals with no knowledge of anything.

Level A: Mortals with no knowledge of anything.

Level A: Mortals with no knowledge of anything.

Level A: Mortals with no knowledge of anything.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What's the difference?

I have never heard a hurt feeling that came from a General Authority calling someone a poopoo head. I've sure heard a lot of them over statements of doctrine, policy, what-have-you.

That was kind of my point.  He never said "General Authorities."  He said "church leaders."  This can include a Sunday School teacher, a YM/YW leader, a bishop, etc.  While it can also include general authorities, it was not the focus.  The fact is that his statement had no person, position, level, or category in mind.

I was stating that when people talk about "church leaders making mistakes" it usually means that some apostle or such said something once upon a time about a belief that we now don't believe to be correct.  Yes, that has happened.  But that wasn't what Uchdorf's quote was about.

His quote was about people being offended by words/rhetoric (such as harsh language against a gay person) rather than disaffected at "incorrect doctrine".  

And HuffPo's title was misleading in that it seemed to say that they made mistakes on doctrine (and thus had to correct itself on doctrine, therefore, we're not really led by the Lord).

I don't know of any "false doctrine" that has caused someone to feel depressed or offended.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

That was kind of my point.  He never said "General Authorities."  He said "church leaders."  This can include a Sunday School teacher, a YM/YW leader, a bishop, etc.  While it can also include general authorities, it was not the focus.  The fact is that his statement had no person, position, level, or category in mind.

I was stating that when people talk about "church leaders making mistakes" it usually means that some apostle or such said something once upon a time about a belief that we now don't believe to be correct.  Yes, that has happened.  But that wasn't what Uchdorf's quote was about.

His quote was about people being offended by words/rhetoric (such as harsh language against a gay person) rather than disaffected at "incorrect doctrine".  

And HuffPo's title was misleading in that it seemed to say that they made mistakes on doctrine (and thus had to correct itself on doctrine, therefore, we're not really led by the Lord).

I don't know of any "false doctrine" that has caused someone to feel depressed or offended.

But my point is that all language that is doctrinal concerning gay persons is "harsh" to some no matter what level of leader says it.

Discussing the larger issue, I don't believe you can define what Uchtdorf meant so narrowly. When he said that sometimes leaders make mistakes I didn't get the sense that it only referred to hurting people's feelings. If you look at the language:

There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

You do get:

There may have been things...done that were not in harmony with our values....

But you also get:

There may have been things said...that were not in harmony with our...doctrine.

Edited July 8, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Maureen]

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

...Calling Joseph a "treasure digger" is hardly fully accurate. It's accurate. Just not "fully" so. The term itself is the kind of tactic anti-folk use, twisting words to imply things beyond what actually was. (It's also an archaic expression). While technically true, the term implies that he was some kind of wacko nut-job. The reality is he took a job looking for a mine for Josiah Stowell, and the rest of the so-called history surrounding the matter is, at best, unreliable, and at worst, indeed, a lie someone made up.

Now someone may not know that Joseph, at some point, worked for someone looking for a lost mine. Telling them that would hardly throw anyone's testimony. Calling him a "treasure digger" and leaving the details out, or worse, adding the anti-quasi-made-up-quasi-unreliable-hater-sourced details is no level at all of history, and responding to it with skepticism is appropriate....

What did Joseph Smith use his seer stones for?

Frederick explained in an email that before Joseph received his call as a prophet, he used his stones much like other people of the time. This included (unsuccessfully) looking for money or buried treasure.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865674233/10-insights-about-Joseph-Smith-and-seer-stones-from-the-authors-of-Joseph-Smith7s-Seer-Stones.html

In his youth, JS occasionally used seer stones to help neighbors find missing objects or search for buried treasure.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/topic/seer-stone

M.

[The Folk Prophet]

58 minutes ago, Maureen said:

What did Joseph Smith use his seer stones for?

Frederick explained in an email that before Joseph received his call as a prophet, he used his stones much like other people of the time. This included (unsuccessfully) looking for money or buried treasure.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865674233/10-insights-about-Joseph-Smith-and-seer-stones-from-the-authors-of-Joseph-Smith7s-Seer-Stones.html

In his youth, JS occasionally used seer stones to help neighbors find missing objects or search for buried treasure.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/topic/seer-stone

M.

Garbage.

Edit: I should be clear. Clearly the Joseph Smith papers are not garbage and I do not mean that. Your implication as it relates as a refutation to my post are garbage.

Edited July 8, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Maureen]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Garbage.

Edit: I should be clear. Clearly the Joseph Smith papers are not garbage and I do not mean that. Your implication as it relates as a refutation to my post are garbage.

Why?

Could this just mean you're stuck in Level A and you have no intention of graduating to Level C?

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

49 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Why?

Could this just mean you're stuck in Level A and you have no intention of graduating to Level C?

M.

I think what TFP may be getting at, is that describing Smith as merely a "treasure digger" imposes modernist assumptions and value judgments about past practices that are foreign to the perceptions of those who actually lived the experiences in the past.

It's as if doctors from the year 2250, having eradicated the need for surgical intervention, looked back and described twenty-first century doctors as mere "butchers" due to their perceived affinity for cutting people open.

Nor is it an accurate description of Smith's occupation.  I occasionally submit articles for a religious website, but I don't style myself an "author".  Nor do I consider myself a "cook", even though I was working part-time in a restaurant at the same age that Smith was using his stone.  In spite of my other activities I was first and foremost a student, then a lawyer.  Similarly JS was first and foremost a farmer/laborer, then a storekeeper/clergyman/politician.  Treasure seeking (or any other use of his stone) was, prior to the discovery of the gold plates, a relatively minor part of his story; and those who try to suggest that this activity is what defines him above all other characteristics or employments or pursuits, usually have an agenda in doing so.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[mordorbund]

22 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Just for my own benefit, what leaders do you associate with mistakes?

 

19 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Again, when you say leaders, who are you talking about. You don't have to name names. Just give me some positions.

The reason why I ask is because when I see this quote bandied about, it is used to disregard any policy (or even doctrine!) the author does not agree with.Their reading is that "leaders" means apostles and First Presidency, and "mistakes" means "instituted policy or taught doctrines the anti's love to harp on". I don't see the list @NeuroTypical made. I see Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and living apostles. And I especially don't see this applied on the stake and ward level, which for what it's worth is what I first thought of when President Uchtdorf mentioned leaders in this quote (and which made it to @NeuroTypical's list).

Typically, when I see this quote, my thought is that most leaders (general and local), like Joseph Smith, are guilty of a number of things but not those which their enemies wish to accuse them.

[The Folk Prophet]

10 hours ago, Maureen said:

Why?

I make the point that, essentially, certain ideas expressed (quotes) are suspect (for a variety of reasons), and you respond by posting some of those quotes, as if that settles the matter.

I don't doubt that the historical record contains implications that Joseph used a stone to look for things including treasure. What I consider suspect are 2 things: 1, as JaG explained, the reality that a person did something once, twice, even twenty times, especially in their youth, does not define that person, and in particularly doesn't justify expressing that definition in derogatory terms. JaG used the example of some employment he had. I spent a bit of time thinking about examples and it is difficult to come up with a perfect modern analogy. But let's go with the fact that I spent an awful lot of my youth riding a bicycle. I rode to my friends house every day it was warm enough after school. We'd take our bikes out and build jumps and stuff and do other crazy immature things with them. As an adult I ride a motorcycle to work. My experience as a bike rider changed and matured. I don't jump my motorcycle. Either way, referring to me as a hooligan biker would not only be unfair, it would be mistaken. I am, technically, a "biker". But the implication behind describing someone that way is an implication that in no way applies to me. Of all the things I am, "biker" doesn't even hardly come into the equation looking at my overall life. And the fact that I did childish kids' stuff when I was a kid is entirely irrelevant to the matter.

Let's say the record is entirely accurate as described in the quotes you've given, and Joseph did use his "stone" for trying to find treasure. That doesn't imply that that is what he did or was any more than the time I used my camera to take pictures of the moon makes me a lunar photographer. I just took pictures of the moon playing around with my camera. I've even taken pictures of the moon several times. Relative to the other things I've shot with my camera, it's a drop in the bucket.

I went rabbit hunting once. I failed to kill a rabbit. A few people I was with never interacted with me other than the time I went rabbit hunting. I'm not a hunter. I didn't like hunting. I'm actually quite glad I failed to kill a rabbit. (Even though in the moment and excitement of the chase, I really tried. I was chasing rabbits like a blood-thirsty mad man.) Now, granted, those with me won't remember me at all. But if I were to rise to controversial prominence shortly after or even during my time when I went hunting they may have. And how might they have described me?

Which brings me to point 2. The reliability of a historical record is and always should be HIGHLY suspect. Anyone who doesn't realize this is fooling themselves. Even first-person reports are suspect. They are tainted by brevity, self-delusion, language of the time, cherry-picking, and context. How much more tainted are second-person reports? Third- and fourth-person, removed by time, sometimes decades of time? Take these records and apply them to a highly controversial, either loved or hated, public figure and reliability suffers further. The entire record from a historical perspective, is suspect.

10 hours ago, Maureen said:

Could this just mean you're stuck in Level A and you have no intention of graduating to Level C?

You might put it that way. I understand the joke, and apologize for responding in such a serious way to it, but I do not consider the C Level to be of much value because of the suspect nature of the historical record as explained above. The reality is that both positive and negative historical views of Joseph Smith are based on bias.

Now, granted, I think there is a balance, and I do believe that an honest interpretation with bias removed would lead one toward a more positive view than a negative one. But anyone who accepts historical records as "fact" is deluding themselves.

So, yes, I plan on maintaining my A Level understanding of Joseph Smith because it is the ONLY reliable record -- the one that is given by the Holy Spirit -- that he was a prophet of God, that the scriptural record he provided was and is accurate, and that God restored the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ through him.

The rest is all interesting, but that's about it. I'll graduate to the Level C history when we see and know the reality of it in the next life.

Edited July 8, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

17 hours ago, Carborendum said:

We must learn and gain knowledge by study and also by faith.

I hesitate to criticize scripture in any regard, but I've always sort of felt it was unfortunate that this was worded "by study and also by faith" instead of "by faith and also by study".

In our modern way of speaking, particularly, the inference of "and also by" makes it sound parenthetical.

[Guest]

On 7/7/2017 at 5:34 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

I'm going to have to correct myself from a previous post since I kind of misunderstood some statements.

No, I get exactly what you pointed out.  But I also see it as one of three.  Everyone, especially HuffPo seems to be making this entirely about ONE of those items.  My point was that is is much more commonly the other two that such mistakes are made. And I believe Uchdorf's comment should be taken commensurately so.  I'd even say that the hurt feelings was the thrust of the quote and that is even MORE so due to the first two rather than doctrine.

At the same time, issues like homosexuality still become offensive no matter what one says.  But that has more to do with the individual than the Church leader.

It almost seems like you're siding with HuffPo on this one.  Be that as it may, here are a couple of anecdotal examples of general authorities who have said some non-doctrine-related things that "offended" people.

My brother served a mission in Argentina where Elder McConkie came to visit.  He gave an address and testimony on the BoM

Quote

McConkie: So, you, Elder (pointing at my brother's companinon) tell me, why do we read the Bible?

Comp: (A bright, wide-eyed, fresh off the farm greenie from Idaho) So, we can learn more about it and gain a better understanding, sir.

Mc: Elders and Sisters (in that slow drawl that he was wont to use to make a point) that is the dumbest answer I have ever heard.  We read the Bible to gain a better understanding of the Book of Mormon.

This brought this young greenie to tears.  When they got back home, my brother spent the rest of the day trying to convince him not to go home (he succeeded).

**********

Elder Nelson once addressed my stake and spoke of what to do during the administration of the sacrament.  He said the usual things.  But one thing he said rather puzzled me.

Quote

I never understood the need for some people to be reading the scriptures as the sacrament is being passed.  Do you?

I'm not sure anyone else who noted it.  But my reaction was that many people have the scriptures out to go over the sacramental prayers during the administration.  If such people were easily offended, you can see where that would go.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Guest

[classylady]

On 7/7/2017 at 3:07 PM, Carborendum said:

I understand this from a logical secular perspective.  But the big problem I see is that this is only secular.  It does not account for any spiritual variables.

The next problem I have is that even if you're talking about logical secular ideas, there is no such thing as being immune.  There is always someone smarter than you. There is always a twist of logic that someone is going to throw at you that you cannot counter.  It doesn't make them right.  But without faith, there is no surviving it.  This author has to be fairly arrogant to think that he's now learned enough about any topic to make him immune to Satan's minions.  Without faith, there is no surviving even stupid ideas.

When we study from a secular perspective only, then we will never have faith.  We must learn and gain knowledge by study and also by faith.

I used to believe things like this (i.e. learn enough intellectually and the faith will take care of itself).  But I learned through sad experience that it simply isn't so.  Have enough faith, and the knowledge will come.  This is more accurate. 

We receive no such witness until after the trial of our faith.

And, it is the witness by the Holy Ghost which gives the confirmation of the truthfulness of the gospel. In my own experience, that is what I rely on--confirmation from the Holy Ghost. Whenever I encounter a "question" that might possibly put the church in doubt, I can always look at the confirmation I had of the Holy Ghost testifying to me of Joseph Smith's vision and of the this being the Lord's church. I cannot deny that confirmation!  It is more real than study, faith building stories, historical narratives, etc. 

[Maureen]

Quote

He called the first of these "level A." This level, he said, is the Junior Sunday School version of church history, in which Mormons always wear the white hats, nobody disagrees, no leader ever makes a mistake, and all is unambiguously clear.

On 7/7/2017 at 3:04 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

Calling Joseph a "treasure digger" is hardly fully accurate. It's accurate. Just not "fully" so. The term itself is the kind of tactic anti-folk use, twisting words to imply things beyond what actually was. (It's also an archaic expression). While technically true, the term implies that he was some kind of wacko nut-job. The reality is he took a job looking for a mine for Josiah Stowell, and the rest of the so-called history surrounding the matter is, at best, unreliable, and at worst, indeed, a lie someone made up.

Now someone may not know that Joseph, at some point, worked for someone looking for a lost mine. Telling them that would hardly throw anyone's testimony. Calling him a "treasure digger" and leaving the details out, or worse, adding the anti-quasi-made-up-quasi-unreliable-hater-sourced details is no level at all of history, and responding to it with skepticism is appropriate.

My reason for replying to your above quote with quotes from the Deseret News and the Joseph Smith Papers was because I took your words as someone, who saw this small part of LDS history, in the Level A category. And I thought to myself "Really? It's 2017, the LDS church acknowledges that JS grew up in an environment of Folk Magic with seer stones and "glass looking". It's not like he was born a prophet with a golden halo. He did have a life before he became this (alleged) prophet." You seem to take offense at the idea that JS took part in this activity that was common for his upbringing. He was not the only one in his community that looked for buried treasure. And when you really think about it, who else better to find hidden gold plates than someone who had practice.

M.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Maureen

[The Folk Prophet]

16 hours ago, Maureen said:

My reason for replying to your above quote with quotes from the Deseret News and the Joseph Smith Papers was because I took your words as someone, who saw this small part of LDS history, in the Level A category. And I thought to myself "Really? It's 2017, the LDS church acknowledges that JS grew up in an environment of Folk Magic with seer stones and "glass looking".

Not that it's relevant, really, and not that you'd have any frame of reference to understand, but no...this knowledge is not Level A "Junior Sunday School" common knowledge, nor will it ever be. We simply do not focus on such things in church, nor should we, nor will we. It is not the point of church.

16 hours ago, Maureen said:

You seem to take offense at the idea that JS took part in this activity that was common for his upbringing.

No. I take no offense. Nor do I even deny it, as should be quite plain from the lengthy explanations I have given. I simply claim that referring to him as a "treasure digger" is not an accurate or valid description for reasons that I have also explained at length.

16 hours ago, Maureen said:

And when you really think about it, who else better to find hidden gold plates than someone who had practice.

Also not really relevant...but...since you mention it: Are you familiar with the details of how Joseph claimed he found the plates? The "practice" of having searched for treasure in the past has no place in or bearing on it whatsoever. So...no...when I really think about it I do not come to that conclusion at all.

Edited July 9, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[eddified]

On 7/7/2017 at 8:56 AM, mordorbund said:

Just for my own benefit, what leaders do you associate with mistakes?

 

On 7/7/2017 at 3:04 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

It's the same sort of idea with, for example, the Adam-God theory. I remember the first time someone told me I believed Adam was God because I was a Mormon. More accurately, it was the first time I was handed a track at the Manti pageant as a youth and read, "Mormons believe Adam is God!" I responded by thinking, "No we don't". And I was right. When an anti-source, at whatever time and place, challenged me on that by pointing out that Brigham Young did, indeed, teach that -- it's documented in the History of the Church, I was still able to pretty much reply with a shrug, because I knew darned well that "we" didn't believe that, no matter what was written or said. Knowing know a whole host of explanations and justifications and what-not doesn't make my testimony any stronger, doesn't make me more faithful, and doesn't really change the fact that my initial "that's bull" response was accurate.

Brigham Young and the Adam-God theory is exactly what came to my mind when @mordorbund asked about who made mistakes. I'd be curious as to what other believers think about this idea. Did Brigham Young make a mistake when he taught the Adam-God theory? (Or, if you as an LDS believer also believe in the Adam-God theory, did President Kimball make a mistake when he publicly denounced the Adam-God Theory in 1976?)

For those of you who don't believe the Adam God Theory, and also think Brigham Young did not make a mistake, can you explain how this is possible? (Did Brigham Young not actually teach it, according to your belief?)

I personally think Brigham Young was the right person for the job, chosen by the Lord to lead the church, yet also think that Brigham Young was mistaken to teach the Adam-God theory. Thoughts?

[Vort]

22 minutes ago, eddified said:

For those of you who don't believe the Adam God Theory, and also think Brigham Young did not make a mistake, can you explain how this is possible?

I think we misunderstand what Brother Brigham taught.

23 minutes ago, eddified said:

I personally think Brigham Young was the right person for the job, chosen by the Lord to lead the church, yet also think that Brigham Young was mistaken to teach the Adam-God theory. Thoughts?

I think it's spiritually dangerous to dismiss a prophetic teach we don't like and/or understand by saying, "Oh, they were just wrong."

[The Folk Prophet]

23 minutes ago, eddified said:

 

Brigham Young and the Adam-God theory is exactly what came to my mind when @mordorbund asked about who made mistakes. I'd be curious as to what other believers think about this idea. Did Brigham Young make a mistake when he taught the Adam-God theory? (Or, if you as an LDS believer also believe in the Adam-God theory, did President Kimball make a mistake when he publicly denounced the Adam-God Theory in 1976?)

For those of you who don't believe the Adam God Theory, and also think Brigham Young did not make a mistake, can you explain how this is possible? (Did Brigham Young not actually teach it, according to your belief?)

I personally think Brigham Young was the right person for the job, chosen by the Lord to lead the church, yet also think that Brigham Young was mistaken to teach the Adam-God theory. Thoughts?

Of this I feel confident: Brigham Young did not believe that Adam was Elohim.