So sick of the peeping stone story


Recommended Posts

I'll try to put into perspective why this is troubling for some people.

I personally know people who would argue vehemently that anything anti Mormons said that sounded the least bit weird was an outright lie or gross distortion of truth. They were conditioned to reject these things by seminary teachers, youth leaders, etc.

I have personally known people that have mocked the peeping stone story as false. And they were pretty shocked when the church released photos of it.

The issue that is troubling is that some feel the church was either lying about its history, or at best, withholding truthful information. Whether or not that's true, it's how they feel. They were blindsided to find that some of the crazy things anti Mormons were saying had more truth to them than they were introduced to. 

They interpret that as a breach of trust. And I think it's widely accepted that trust is easier lost than it is regained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

How to have a bulletproof testimony: Know what you believe and why.  You can't be ignorant of things and know.

Trees have bullet-proofing of two kinds. Some trees, such as ancient, centuries-old Douglas firs, have tremendously thick bark that simply doesn't allow the bullet to penetrate. Other trees are simply resilient: The bullets penetrate, but the wood grows and heals itself, and the tree has a type of immune system that discourages the growth of infectious agents. Both strategies can be effective, and both have application to our own living testimonies of the gospel. But the armor plating strategy seems to get most of the press and the mind-space, whereas I think the latter might actually tend to be more effective for the large majority of people and issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Indeed..  The facts are those records exists.  If the church pretends they do not... then the church gets accused of hiding the "truth"

Wereas the church teaches that the translation was done 'By the gift and power of God.'  (per the testimony of Joseph Smith himself).  And here are some reports and records were people who were close during that process and what they have to say about it.  There is no hiding and people can decide for themselves what they think rather then having someone force there opinion upon them.

 

 

The thing is, the church DID know of these records and stuck to a DIFFERENT dialogue up until the 2000s for the primary means of translation.  You are correct, the Anti-Mormons used this to say ALL the prophets were liars and were hiding the truth.

From a Historian's perspective, a SECULAR perspective, the Book of Mormon is false.  There is no way Joseph Smith translated the scriptures as he stated.  We also do not accept ONE individual's testimony (that of Joseph Smiths).  If there are two testimonies (Joseph Smith's and Oliver Cowdery) it may be stronger, but we then look for other sources to find out a counter point or the other side or other points of views.  The only ones available would be those used by Anti-Mormons over the decades.

Using these sources a Historian can prove that Joseph was a Fraud, the church is false, the Book of Mormon is false, the Pearl of Great Price is even MORE false, and there have been many lies from the Church authorities throughout the history.  This is what the sources ultimately tell us.  It is what secular history tells us (and a similar story can be put together in regards to the Bible).

The church currently is picking and choosing from the Anti-Mormon materials.  If they used ALL of the same materials which they claim to be using to write  current Church history, well....you have secular history.  The Articles and Essays ARE more accurate than the Church history has traditionally been in regards to secular history.  It ignores some facts and some items, but for SECULAR history, it is FAR more accurate.

The question then is, if it is far more accurate as far as secular history goes, why didn't the Church use it previously.  Why has it been ignored for a majority of the History of the Church?  Including specifically those that KNEW the people personally?

I find it is a matter of faith.  You either believe Joseph Smith and the other Prophets and Apostles at the time, or you believe their enemies.  Why we suddenly feel to incorporate the stories and articles of our enemies into our faith...I do not know.  But it weakens our own dialogue and our own story.  From a Secular point of view it would appear that we are trying to move away from saying that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon or any other book, because that's what the stone in the hat focus for the Anti-Mormons has been all along, and that's what the push of many of these "historical" interviews really did in the eyes of history. 

YOU MIGHT be able to call it inspired...but translated?  A historian calls into question many things.  If it is a translation he should be using the plates.  if all he had to do was look in a hat, there was no need for the plates, and in fact, if it is as they portrayed...on a table, wrapped up, then he obviously was not even looking at the plates at the time.  There was no need for the plates to even be there.  He might as well just looked at a stone without the plates if that was all he was doing in the first place.  That technically does not count as a translation.  Thus, the entire story of whether he actually translated is tossed out from secular history.

This move then would appear to be saying that it is not a translation of the Book of Mormon.  It implies that within the next decade, if we continue down this path of secular history, we will end up as the Reorganized Church.  The path we are on would indicate that within the next decade or two it will shift to saying the Book of Mormon is either simply inspired, or not canon.  We might be able to be like the Reorganized Church that were the FIRST to drag all of this out...and say that the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired.  The path that we've chosen to trod in the past few decades leads to a DARK spot.

Thus, the entire thing about Translation...and all the Prophets and Apostles that said it's a translation...well...do we REALLY want to go the route of secular history and be accurate with Secular history? 

When we turn to secular history, rather than our own religious history, the world has a tendency to bite us and bite us bad.  Now days when faced with the accusations of the Seer Stone and other facets long used by the Anti-Mormon, a young individual can no longer simply say...that's not what we believe.  No...instead...they will be then pointed to the church essays (and this happens far more than what many here may think) to PROVE that the church itself believes these things.  They then are shown the FULL sources of these things and all the other items that are talked about in regards to the church.  The young people then come to their leaders (sometimes, sometimes they just fall away) and ask about all the other parts of the story the church has cherry-picked from and why the church only picked and chose rather than use the FULL arguments of those who are the sources of the story today as well other articles these same individuals who carried these articles through history published.  It's a VERY dark place right now in regards to how we are attempting to mix secular and faith based history in the Church.

If one wants to see what happens when one turns to secular history and worldly things, one needs to look no further than what has happened to other churches which have turned more worldly vs. those that are sticking to their guns with focusing more on the faith.  The ones that have turned secular are in most cases...the ones losing the most membership and facing the largest struggles.  Those that have denied much of the secular forces...are the ones that seem to be surviving the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

I'll try to put into perspective why this is troubling for some people.

I personally know people who would argue vehemently that anything anti Mormons said that sounded the least bit weird was an outright lie or gross distortion of truth. They were conditioned to reject these things by seminary teachers, youth leaders, etc.

I have personally known people that have mocked the peeping stone story as false. And they were pretty shocked when the church released photos of it.

The issue that is troubling is that some feel the church was either lying about its history, or at best, withholding truthful information. Whether or not that's true, it's how they feel. They were blindsided to find that some of the crazy things anti Mormons were saying had more truth to them than they were introduced to. 

They interpret that as a breach of trust. And I think it's widely accepted that trust is easier lost than it is regained.

Much of it is that, but more of it is from how we've dealt with this as Secular Historians vs. Faith. 

Do a search of the Seer Stone vs. the Urim and Thummim in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon.  You'll find that at least the Urim and Thummim are normally mentioned in a context of translation more than a Seer Stone.  In fact, the Urim and Thummim seem to be mentioned a LOT more in that context.

Joseph Smith stated In History of the Church 3:28 which originally came from an article in the Elder's Journal in 1838...

Quote

Moroni, who deposited the plates in a hill in Manchester, Ontario county, New York, being dead and raised again therefrom, appeared unto me, and told me where they were, and gave me directions how to obtain them. I obtained them, and the Urim and Thummim with them, by the means of which I translated the plates; and thus came the Book of Mormon.

He has stated other things like this.  The only explanation we seem to toss up today is that he was lying, or that he got confused, or that he referred to the Seer Stone and the Urim and Thummim as the same things.

A primary example of this is when people stated that the Urim and Thummim were in the Manti Temple at the dedication.  This was mentioned by Joseph Fielding Smith, seeing as the Urim and Thummim would have been taken up with the Book of Mormon at the end of translation, that it was actually the Seer Stone that was at Manti, not the Urim and Thummim.

This is from this statement of Joseph Fielding Smith where he states

Quote

SEER STONE NOT USED IN BOOK OF MORMON TRANSLATION.  We have been taught since the days of the Prophet that the Urim and Thummim were returned with the plates to the angel.  We have no record of the Prophet having the Urim and Thummim after the organization of the Church.  Statements of translations by the Urim and Thummim after that date are evidently errors.  The statement has been made that the Urim and Thummim was on the altar in the Manti Temple when that building was dedicated.  The Urim and Thummim so spoken of, however, was the seer stone which was in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in the early days.  This seer stone is now in the possession of the Church.

While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation.  The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose.  The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22-24.

These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites.  Then again the Prophet was impressed by Moroni with the fact that these stones were given for that very purpose.(*see verses quoted below).  It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet would substitute something evidently inferior under these circumstances.  It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other purposes.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation vol III, compiled by Bruce r McConkie, (Salt Lake City, Bookcraft 11th Printing 1956), 11th printing 1969, pgs 225-226

The referenced scripture is...

Joseph Smith History, vs. 34-35

Quote

34 He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;

35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.

It's MORE than just being solid against Anti-Mormons, this was practically what we were taught, read, studied, and TOLD by the prophets and apostles, since at least I was baptized, and all the way up until the 2000s with very few others times being the outliers to the contrary (one being in General Conference in the mid 90s).

It is whether we believe the Prophets and apostles beyond just Joseph Smith, or whether we feel all of them from Joseph Smith up until just recently, lied to us or they were deliberately misled or they were just ignorant and the Lord didn't tell them what actually happened (including, of all people....Joseph, Joseph F. Smith, and others being ignorant of what they actually did themselves, saw, or had related to them by their fathers and relatives who were actually there during those events or associated at the time with the Prophet during those events).

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

this was practically what we were taught, read, studied, and TOLD by the prophets and apostles, since at least I was baptized, and all the way up until the 2000s with very few others times being the outliers to the contrary (one being in General Conference in the mid 90s).

You and earlier saints were also taught that blacks were not valiant in pre-earth life and the seed of Cain, birth control is evil, and a significantly different endowment (from what I understand). Were they lying or are the leaders today lying?

I argue neither. They were just wrong, making strong statements about things that are if so little concern that it wasn’t revealed, or not ready for the changes that were to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Fether said:

You and earlier saints were also taught that blacks were not valiant in pre-earth life and the seed of Cain, birth control is evil, and a significantly different endowment (from what I understand). Were they lying or are the leaders today lying?

I argue neither. They were just wrong, making strong statements about things that are if so little concern that it wasn’t revealed, or not ready for the changes that were to come.

In regards to the Blacks and the Afterlife, that teaching has not changed...but you have to understand the teaching in the first place.  The teaching was NOT JUST about Blacks.  It was about everyone. 

I've referenced it sometimes in these forums, but the basic idea is that we had choices in the pre-existence.  Those choices reflect on the circumstances in which we were born into this life.  Those who truly wanted to follow the Lord and be part of his church pursued the idea of being IN this church.  They tried to ensure ways in which they would arrive at the right time and place to receive the blessings of the gospel and the church in their lives.  In many ways, it's the idea of our situation here being directly related to how fervently we pursued trying to be in this position in the pre-existence.  Some of us wanted certain trials to teach us certain principles, others wanted ease and luxury and didn't care about the gospel or getting to the Celestial Kingdom.

In this, what position we were born into with this life directly reflects what we chose in the previous life.  This is one way which I personally believe the Lord knows whether we would have accepted the gospel with all our hearts in this life or not, even if we never hear of the gospel.  IT is a reflection of how we felt about it in the pre-existence and our lot here in this life.

Thus, it is FAR more than just Blacks during the early days of the church, it is everyone and their position in regards to the gospel and their ability to accept it and the blessings of it.

Some may view it as a racist view, but this applies equally to those of European descent who never get the gospel or accept it, as well as anyone else.

In regards to the endowment...if you wish to talk about that in the temple, we can at some point.  Previous changes were not as drastic as the one recently.  Some of those who talk about it freely may try to say they were, but in reality...they were not.

There WERE some items that were added by Brigham Young later on.  These changes were ONLY meant to be around for 3 to 4 generations.  After that time period, they were to be removed.  Many refer to these changes as drastic changes, but they were never part of the original endowment to begin with.  Other changes did not deal with some things which I won't discuss outside of the temple, but they were not actually seen as a vital portion of the ordinance.  It was not as drastic as...say...changing the very nature of the Priesthood in who could perform an ordinance. 

Why that was changed...it may be that Priests could perform baptisms already...and so the thought was to extend it to the temple.  I am not privy to the inner workings of the Council of the Twelve of the First Presidency.

AS for some of the things you mention, you might want to read the Pearl of Great Price and see what it has to say about certain things.

In regards to Birth Control being evil...Birth Control in and of itself wasn't evil just like  gun in and of itself is not evil.  It is the reason and purpose that you use it for.  This has not changed.  The world has changed and become more wicked, and the Saints have become more accepting of it.  This could also be a reason why some things have changed in the endowment more recently. 

The items with Birth control were actually only advice and at times policy related to that advice, but it was NOT doctrine.  The doctrine that it relied on is still in place.  To a degree it relates directly to the item I mentioned above about our choices in the pre-existence.  The idea is that there are many spirits in the pre-existence that wish to be born into the Church.  The ONLY way they can be born into the church is if they are given to parents in the church having children.  When we limit how many children we have, we are by default not allowing some of those who may have wished to be ours into our family.  This is no fault of their own, but it could be, in theory, on us.  We all make choices and have to make choices.  We are also given the adage given to Joseph Smith sr. that basically says not to try to run before we can walk.  In otherwords, if we cannot afford to have children, we might want to try to get to the point where we can afford the children first.

So, there has always been a little confliction of ideas in that regards, but the idea still stands that there are those in the pre-existence that want to be born into the Church and there is only one way currently provided for them to do so.  If they want to be born in the covenant, it's reliant on those who are already here and in an celestial marriage to try to help them receive that blessing.

In this Birth control (and certain forms of it is STILL dissuaded, especially if it is more permanent than temporary) is still not promoted as a good thing.  However, with the prevalence and acceptance of it by church members, unless one wants to really storm down on the members (and the church doesn't seem so much like that these days...Brigham's days seemed far more likely to do things like that) it's a futile endeavor to try to tell Church members that it is not advisable to take Birth Control in this day and time.  This extends to many other things that we were once advised to do or not to do.  The majority of Members seem to simply follow along with the world in many aspects and so even if it were advised, the members ignored it anyways.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

In regards to the Blacks and the Afterlife, that teaching has not changed...but you have to understand the teaching in the first place.  The teaching was NOT JUST about Blacks.  It was about everyone. 

I've referenced it sometimes in these forums, but the basic idea is that we had choices in the pre-existence.  Those choices reflect on the circumstances in which we were born into this life.  Those who truly wanted to follow the Lord and be part of his church pursued the idea of being IN this church.  They tried to ensure ways in which they would arrive at the right time and place to receive the blessings of the gospel and the church in their lives.  In many ways, it's the idea of our situation here being directly related to how fervently we pursued trying to be in this position in the pre-existence.  Some of us wanted certain trials to teach us certain principles, others wanted ease and luxury and didn't care about the gospel or getting to the Celestial Kingdom.

In this, what position we were born into with this life directly reflects what we chose in the previous life.  This is one way which I personally believe the Lord knows whether we would have accepted the gospel with all our hearts in this life or not, even if we never hear of the gospel.  IT is a reflection of how we felt about it in the pre-existence and our lot here in this life.

Thus, it is FAR more than just Blacks during the early days of the church, it is everyone and their position in regards to the gospel and their ability to accept it and the blessings of it.

Some may view it as a racist view, but this applies equally to those of European descent who never get the gospel or accept it, as well as anyone else.

In regards to the endowment...if you wish to talk about that in the temple, we can at some point.  Previous changes were not as drastic as the one recently.  Some of those who talk about it freely may try to say they were, but in reality...they were not.

There WERE some items that were added by Brigham Young later on.  These changes were ONLY meant to be around for 3 to 4 generations.  After that time period, they were to be removed.  Many refer to these changes as drastic changes, but they were never part of the original endowment to begin with.  Other changes did not deal with some things which I won't discuss outside of the temple, but they were not actually seen as a vital portion of the ordinance.  It was not as drastic as...say...changing the very nature of the Priesthood in who could perform an ordinance. 

Why that was changed...it may be that Priests could perform baptisms already...and so the thought was to extend it to the temple.  I am not privy to the inner workings of the Council of the Twelve of the First Presidency.

AS for some of the things you mention, you might want to read the Pearl of Great Price and see what it has to say about certain things.

In regards to Birth Control being evil...Birth Control in and of itself wasn't evil just like  gun in and of itself is not evil.  It is the reason and purpose that you use it for.  This has not changed.  The world has changed and become more wicked, and the Saints have become more accepting of it.  This could also be a reason why some things have changed in the endowment more recently. 

The items with Birth control were actually only advice and at times policy related to that advice, but it was NOT doctrine.  The doctrine that it relied on is still in place.  To a degree it relates directly to the item I mentioned above about our choices in the pre-existence.  The idea is that there are many spirits in the pre-existence that wish to be born into the Church.  The ONLY way they can be born into the church is if they are given to parents in the church having children.  When we limit how many children we have, we are by default not allowing some of those who may have wished to be ours into our family.  This is no fault of their own, but it could be, in theory, on us.  We all make choices and have to make choices.  We are also given the adage given to Joseph Smith sr. that basically says not to try to run before we can walk.  In otherwords, if we cannot afford to have children, we might want to try to get to the point where we can afford the children first.

So, there has always been a little confliction of ideas in that regards, but the idea still stands that there are those in the pre-existence that want to be born into the Church and there is only one way currently provided for them to do so.  If they want to be born in the covenant, it's reliant on those who are already here and in an celestial marriage to try to help them receive that blessing.

In this Birth control (and certain forms of it is STILL dissuaded, especially if it is more permanent than temporary) is still not promoted as a good thing.  However, with the prevalence and acceptance of it by church members, unless one wants to really storm down on the members (and the church doesn't seem so much like that these days...Brigham's days seemed far more likely to do things like that) it's a futile endeavor to try to tell Church members that it is not advisable to take Birth Control in this day and time.  This extends to many other things that we were once advised to do or not to do.  The majority of Members seem to simply follow along with the world in many aspects and so even if it were advised, the members ignored it anyways.

I actually agree with you COMPLETELY on your assessment on each of those, but when I read the statements made by the leaders living in those times, I get the strong vibe that they felt more strongly about those doctrines that we now call policy. I may be wrong as I was not there, but to me it seemed that if you were to ask Brigham Young, Joseph F Smith, or Bruce R McConkie if the CHURCH’s stance such topics as spoken above (and I would throw in evolution) would change, they would provide a hard NO. But here we are today. Endowment presentation has changed, evolution is now being taught and accepted in Church run schools, contraception is not talked about at all when compared to the past, teachings of the seer stone and the hat has changed, and blacks are no longer marked has being the ones who were not valiant.

I’m not suggesting the church is wrong or that the changes are signs of an apostasy, I’m saying what I did above. We have more light and understanding today. Perhaps there are some opinions spoke by previous church leaders in great emotion that simply don’t matter so they weren’t or haven’t been revealed. I suspect that there are also things that we are taught today that we may find later are not exactly true. But until that happens, I subscribe to the most recent revealed truth established by the CHURCH even if it conflicts with a statement made by a prophet in earlier decades.

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

I actually agree with you COMPLETELY on your assessment on each of those, but when I read the statements made by the leaders living in those times, I get the strong vibe that they felt more strongly about those doctrines that we now call policy. I may be wrong as I was not there, but to me it seemed that if you were to ask Brigham Young, Joseph F Smith, or Bruce R McConkie if the CHURCH’s stance such topics as spoken above (and I would throw in evolution) would change, they would provide a hard NO. But here we are today. Endowment presentation has changed, evolution is now being taught and accepted in Church run schools, contraception is not talked about at all when compared to the past, teachings of the seer stone and the hat has changed, and blacks are no longer marked has being the ones who were not valiant.

I’m not suggesting the church is wrong or that the changes are signs of an apostasy, I’m saying what I did above. We have more light and understanding today. Perhaps there are some opinions spoke by previous church leaders in great emotion that simply don’t matter so they weren’t or haven’t been revealed. I suspect that there are also things that we are taught today that we may find later are not exactly true. But until that happens, I subscribe to the most recent revealed truth established by the CHURCH even if it conflicts with a statement made by a prophet in earlier decades.

Once again, Blacks and anyone who was born into a situation that they could not receive all the blessings of the Priesthood were seen as having made that choice in the Pre-existence.  The interpretation of that choice (less valiant) was stated at various times...even by prophets and apostles.  We have not stated that they were wrong...per se...(remember, the essays are not actually doctrine, even if we refer to them a lot), but that we do not understand why certain things were said or stated (even if some have a pretty good idea).

If you asked Brigham, in regards to the latest changes...you may be correct.  In regards to earlier changes...at least MANY of them, he would probably answer you...has it been 3 or 4 generations?  If so...what happened is what was always meant to happen.  In some other items...you are probably correct.  Part of what was done previously was to cut down on the time it took to do certain ordinances.  They used to take half a day or more very early on.  It was looked at and saw what was actually instructional, and what was actually the ordinance itself along with the covenants that were made in the ordinance.  I do not have all the answers, but it could have been due to wickedness on our part that some instruction was taken out, or various other things in which instruction was reduced, but the essential portions of the ordinance were left in. 

Evolution was clear that it was them speaking as men...but it WAS a very STRONG opinion of theirs.  It is still an opinion held by many. 

I think with some of the items you mention, they would have said that it is because of the wickedness of the members that things have been taken away.  That, at least prior to a few years ago, the core of it was still there (for example, dissuading Birth Control was actually still in policy to a degree, even if we did not talk about it as much), even if the members are not being given as much of the information as they used to be.  I'd say they would have the opposite opinion that you have, that rather than more light and understanding, as members increase in wickedness, light and understanding is slowly being taken away.

In a way, they probably would be correct, looking at how willfully we've accepted the worldly things of today and discarded a LOT of what was taught in the past.  Even today as surgeries to permanently have birth control, or have an abortion, or other things are not seen as things to be sought after in this world, they happen a great deal with members in the church.

In regards to some things though, you are probably right.  They would probably have said a HARD NO to some of the things that are occurring today.  The question is WHY and who are these things attributable.  I tend to think it deals more with the bureaucracy of the church, but obviously others have different opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will add something of interest...that also could indicate a rising wickedness of our generation and later.  If what Brigham Young said was true, and we accept the Revelation on the Priesthood that all men can hold it and all authority, it indicates something pretty interesting.

We are in the wrap up phase prior to the Second Coming.  It means the rest of us already had our chance and we rejected it.  It means that we had all the light and knowledge laid out before us, and instead of the world accepting it, they rejected it.

Now comes the time which is similar to the Nephites and Lamanites where the Nephites became far more wicked, and it was the Lamanites who truly became more like the people of the Zion.

If so, look to see Africa become the last refuge of righteousness and holiness in the future, and the rest of the world to become more and more wicked and evil.

Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

When we turn to secular history, rather than our own religious history, the world has a tendency to bite us and bite us bad.  Now days when faced with the accusations of the Seer Stone and other facets long used by the Anti-Mormon, a young individual can no longer simply say...that's not what we believe.  No...instead...they will be then pointed to the church essays (and this happens far more than what many here may think) to PROVE that the church itself believes these things.  They then are shown the FULL sources of these things and all the other items that are talked about in regards to the church.  The young people then come to their leaders (sometimes, sometimes they just fall away) and ask about all the other parts of the story the church has cherry-picked from and why the church only picked and chose rather than use the FULL arguments of those who are the sources of the story today as well other articles these same individuals who carried these articles through history published.  It's a VERY dark place right now in regards to how we are attempting to mix secular and faith based history in the Church.

If one wants to see what happens when one turns to secular history and worldly things, one needs to look no further than what has happened to other churches which have turned more worldly vs. those that are sticking to their guns with focusing more on the faith.  The ones that have turned secular are in most cases...the ones losing the most membership and facing the largest struggles.  Those that have denied much of the secular forces...are the ones that seem to be surviving the best.

Matthew 13

24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The thing is, the church DID know of these records and stuck to a DIFFERENT dialogue up until the 2000s for the primary means of translation.  You are correct, the Anti-Mormons used this to say ALL the prophets were liars and were hiding the truth.

From a Historian's perspective, a SECULAR perspective, the Book of Mormon is false.  There is no way Joseph Smith translated the scriptures as he stated.  We also do not accept ONE individual's testimony (that of Joseph Smiths).  If there are two testimonies (Joseph Smith's and Oliver Cowdery) it may be stronger, but we then look for other sources to find out a counter point or the other side or other points of views.  The only ones available would be those used by Anti-Mormons over the decades.

Using these sources a Historian can prove that Joseph was a Fraud, the church is false, the Book of Mormon is false, the Pearl of Great Price is even MORE false, and there have been many lies from the.....

As I have discovered in the sports world, more so Football, you need a good SYSTEM and ATHLETES that BUY IN to it.

Every team in the NFL has a strategy and system that is designed to succeed and ultimately win a superbowl.

The New England patriots have been the most winningest franchise the past decade despite the unethical behaviour that happens behind the scenes (spy gate, deflate gate, etc..) aka cheating. The athletes on the field are unaware of such behavior and dont have time nor is it their jobs to worry about it. The athletes are disciplined and obedient enough to execute and maximize the potential of the SYSTEM. This UNITY leads to success.

I never would have imagined that the strength of our church would come down to the front lines, the obedience and dedication of its members, because the history and authenticity of our leaders are questionable, we are left to believe in each other.

"There is strength in numbers" is basically what it comes down to. I think the anti crowd should focus on finding their own group of believers to join instead of trying to destroy another group. In the NFL jealosy, greed and hate is not a formula for success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Fether said:

You and earlier saints were also taught that blacks were not valiant in pre-earth life and the seed of Cain, birth control is evil, and a significantly different endowment (from what I understand). Were they lying or are the leaders today lying?

I argue neither. They were just wrong, making strong statements about things that are if so little concern that it wasn’t revealed, or not ready for the changes that were to come.

How do you know they were wrong? What evidence do you have that the much discredited "not as valiant premortally" theory is actually false? Maybe birth control really is evil; it's no coincidence that the development and widespread usage of oral contraception coincided exactly with the US/western European "free love" movement and the widespread growth of fornications of all sorts. And to suggest that the older endowment presentations were somehow less accurate or inspired than those of today is simple and blatant presentism—admittedly a common enough disease among the forty-and-under crowd.

People today would do well to temper or even withhold their judgments about the beliefs and activities of past Saints until we are in a far better position to have a truthful perspective. Or shall we also suppose that the early Saints were wrong to practice plural marriage, that attempts at recreating a living economic law of consecration à la the city of Enoch through various united orders were misguided foolishness, and that Jehovah himself was wrong to command blood sacrifice and circumcision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

How do you know they were wrong? What evidence do you have that the much discredited "not as valiant premortally" theory is actually false? Maybe birth control really is evil; it's no coincidence that the development and widespread usage of oral contraception coincided exactly with the US/western European "free love" movement and the widespread growth of fornications of all sorts. And to suggest that the older endowment presentations were somehow less accurate or inspired than those of today is simple and blatant presentism—admittedly a common enough disease among the forty-and-under crowd.

People today would do well to temper or even withhold their judgments about the beliefs and activities of past Saints until we are in a far better position to have a truthful perspective. Or shall we also suppose that the early Saints were wrong to practice plural marriage, that attempts at recreating a living economic law of consecration à la the city of Enoch through various united orders were misguided foolishness, and that Jehovah himself was wrong to command blood sacrifice and circumcision?

So how are we suppose to see these changes in teachings? To me it seems we only have a few choices.

1) the church today is falling into apostasy

2) the church today is is growing in light and understanding and so somethings past leaders have taught just don’t matter (hence the lack of discussion on certain topics).

3) the saints are becoming less saintly and so the church is teaching (AND BACKING in the case of the seer stone) easier and less strict doctrines for us to live and leaving the “higher law” for the elect to discover on their own.

to me #2 seems to coincide with what the prophet is saying. Like how our the youth today are the strongest and have been prepared for this day, and how the lord is expecting more of us so we are changing to home centered church.

how else can we take this (and I ask honestly)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Fether said:

So how are we suppose to see these changes in teachings? To me it seems we only have a few choices.

1) the church today is falling into apostasy

2) the church today is is growing in light and understanding and so somethings past leaders have taught just don’t matter (hence the lack of discussion on certain topics).

3) the saints are becoming less saintly and so the church is teaching (AND BACKING in the case of the seer stone) easier and less strict doctrines for us to live and leaving the “higher law” for the elect to discover on their own.

to me #2 seems to coincide with what the prophet is saying. Like how our the youth today are the strongest and have been prepared for this day, and how the lord is expecting more of us so we are changing to home centered church.

how else can we take this (and I ask honestly)

I think there’s another option:  that the Church received roughly the information and policies that it needed to carry it through the challenges of the day.  There was a time and a place where the priesthood ban was necessary and appropriate, and then it passed.  There was a time and a place where certain elements of the older temple liturgy were necessary and appropriate, and then it passed.  We live in a time where the Church’s tactful silence on certain less-critical things things we still know to be true is rapidly becoming necessary and appropriate, and that time too will pass.

There was, I submit, a time and a place where David Whitmer and Emma Smith needed to be regarded with extreme suspicion . . . and then it passed.  This may seem silly, but remember—RLDS and Whitmer’s followers recruited heavily in early-20th-century Utah.  If we take our church’s soteriology at all seriously, then one can’t escape the conclusion that people lost their exaltations by giving too much credence to Whitmer and Emma.  Counter-intuitively, now that history has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Emma was not an infallible source (e.g., Joseph Smith’s polygamy) and that the RLDS Church’s competing institutional claims to exclusive truth, authority, and/or priesthood have pretty evaporated (they can no longer claim to be led by lineal descendants of Joseph Smith); Church members can begin engaging in a more serious way with sources previously labeled “apostate” in a way that separates bathwater from baby.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think there’s another option:  that the Church received roughly the information and policies that it needed to carry it through the challenges of the day.  There was a time and a place where the priesthood ban was necessary and appropriate, and then it passed.  There was a time and a place where certain elements of the older temple liturgy were necessary and appropriate, and then it passed.  We live in a time where the Church’s tactful silence on certain less-critical things things we still know to be true is rapidly becoming necessary and appropriate, and that time too will pass.

There was, I submit, a time and a place where David Whitmer and Emma Smith needed to be regarded with extreme suspicion . . . and then it passed.  This may seem silly, but remember—RLDS and Whitmer’s followers recruited heavily in early-20th-century Utah.  If we take our church’s soteriology at all seriously, then one can’t escape the conclusion that people lost their exaltations by giving too much credence to Whitmer and Emma.  Counter-intuitively, now that history has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Emma was not an infallible source (e.g., Joseph Smith’s polygamy) and that the RLDS Church’s competing institutional claims to exclusive truth, authority, and/or priesthood have pretty evaporated (they can no longer claim to be led by lineal descendants of Joseph Smith); Church members can begin engaging in a more serious way with sources previously labeled “apostate” in a way that separates bathwater from baby.

Indeed... Part of believing in a True and Living Church.  Is that living things grow and respond and adapt to their surrounding.  Such growth, responses, and adaptations do not make the church false when they happen... neither do they make it false when they are no longer needful it simply means the context it is living in changed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Indeed... Part of believing in a True and Living Church.  Is that living things grow and respond and adapt to their surrounding.  Such growth, responses, and adaptations do not make the church false when they happen... neither do they make it false when they are no longer needful it simply means the context it is living in changed

I would argue that recent changes in the living church are going the way of the world which is not a bad thing and actually welcomed. For example garment styles have become more comfortable, home teaching became more convenient and less rigid.

Because mormons are obedient and great at sustaining our prophet even though some things make no sense (coffee a no no but sugary soda is ok). All we need is the prophet to approve some little thing that the world has a problem with and we become more accepted. 

There are many active and inactives that have a problem with church attendance because of its social setting or their work schedules, the change from 3hr to 2hr is a step toward worldly change. I believe in the future we will no longer need to step into a chapel,  worship will be done online or virtual. This will help increase membership and activity. EXCITING TIMES INDEED!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think there’s another option:  that the Church received roughly the information and policies that it needed to carry it through the challenges of the day.  There was a time and a place where the priesthood ban was necessary and appropriate, and then it passed.  There was a time and a place where certain elements of the older temple liturgy were necessary and appropriate, and then it passed.  We live in a time where the Church’s tactful silence on certain less-critical things things we still know to be true is rapidly becoming necessary and appropriate, and that time too will pass.

There was, I submit, a time and a place where David Whitmer and Emma Smith needed to be regarded with extreme suspicion . . . and then it passed.  This may seem silly, but remember—RLDS and Whitmer’s followers recruited heavily in early-20th-century Utah.  If we take our church’s soteriology at all seriously, then one can’t escape the conclusion that people lost their exaltations by giving too much credence to Whitmer and Emma.  Counter-intuitively, now that history has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Emma was not an infallible source (e.g., Joseph Smith’s polygamy) and that the RLDS Church’s competing institutional claims to exclusive truth, authority, and/or priesthood have pretty evaporated (they can no longer claim to be led by lineal descendants of Joseph Smith); Church members can begin engaging in a more serious way with sources previously labeled “apostate” in a way that separates bathwater from baby.

I found this incredibly insightful, yet simple. Thank you!

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
On 8/31/2019 at 8:04 AM, JohnsonJones said:

The question then is, if it is far more accurate as far as secular history goes, why didn't the Church use it previously.  Why has it been ignored for a majority of the History of the Church?  Including specifically those that KNEW the people personally?

This is an easy answer.  The invention of the information superhighway changed everything.  Not only did it change the manner by which the Church proselytes, it also changed the manner by which the Church teaches its own members.  This new paradigm takes control of the flow of information away from the Church to be delivered line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept, into a free-for-all format that the Church simply hopes the masses can wade through on their own and find their faith.

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