An unfortunate 1950s fundamentalism


tesuji
 Share

Recommended Posts

A significant new post by Ben Spackman, one of my favorite LDS scholars.

It hurts to realize that some of our 20th century prophets were overly fundamentalist, and have given us simplistic or incomplete narratives.

But I think it's important to understand. I feel that now in the 21st century, some people who leave the church are actually rejecting false or limited understandings that are really not part of our doctrine at all.

Encultured Prophets and the Firmament of Genesis: Peter Enns Continued
https://benspackman.com/2010/11/09/encultured-prophets-and-the-firmament-of-genesis-peter-enns-continued/


More background:

The 1950s: A Fundamentalist Shift
https://benspackman.com/2020/01/07/the-1950s-a-fundamentalist-shift/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, laronius said:

From the beginning the prophets have without fail always taught that they are not perfect and that we should always seek the confirming witness of the Spirit. 

Yes, I agree.

The purpose of my post is not to bash or speak evil of our prophets. 

My purpose is to raise awareness. Many LDS members do believe prophets are infallible, and that what prophets say is always consistent with other prophets and the scriptures. They also learned overly simplistic, fundamentalist narratives from some prophets in the past. These beliefs are causing a lot of damage now in the church. There is a reason that the church no longer sells McConkie's book Mormon Doctrine.

But the problem persists. For example, Ben Spackman, the author of those two articles, is a seminary teacher. He reports that many volunteer seminary teachers still teach out of books like Skousen's The First 1000 Years, which is full of speculation and not at all doctrinal.

These overly simplistic narrative are no longer enough for people who are becoming more educated via the internet, modern scholarship, etc.

If you look at that first article I posted, it gives great examples of the problem. 

 

3 hours ago, laronius said:

No one leaves the Church for having followed the prophet, only for not having followed the prophet close enough.

People do leave the church when they don't follow your first sentence, and rely too much on what a prophet says.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tesuji said:

A significant new post by Ben Spackman, one of my favorite LDS scholars.

It hurts to realize that some of our 20th century prophets were overly fundamentalist, and have given us simplistic or incomplete narratives.

But I think it's important to understand. I feel that now in the 21st century, some people who leave the church are actually rejecting false or limited understandings that are really not part of our doctrine at all.

Encultured Prophets and the Firmament of Genesis: Peter Enns Continued
https://benspackman.com/2010/11/09/encultured-prophets-and-the-firmament-of-genesis-peter-enns-continued/


More background:

The 1950s: A Fundamentalist Shift
https://benspackman.com/2020/01/07/the-1950s-a-fundamentalist-shift/

I disagree with some of it.  There was a shift towards fundamentalism, but some of the items listed are actually NOT A SHIFT but reverting to older doctrine and teachings.  There are items that were stated by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, and Joseph F. Smith which were basically reiterated by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie. 

Notably, one of the interesting items is that they inferred that the words of a modern prophet should agree with that of the older prophets.  A difference between real prophets and false ones were that their teachings and words would disagree with each other.  Thus, much of what they said were attempts to try to show agreement between the modern teachings and those of the older Prophets such as Brigham Young.  In many cases it was simply due to people misunderstanding what the older prophets had said in earlier decades due to modern understandings or morality rather than that of the time period they were stated. 

In essence, if the teachings agreed with those of old, one could reliably say that they were true teachings.  If they clashed or disagreed or said the old teachings or scriptures and doctrine were wrong, one might be able to identify that this was something of man...not of heaven and it's eternal principles.

A classic case of this was the idea that Brigham Young had this strange belief that Adam was the same being as his father.  The idea that he ever said this was a fallacy.  Joseph Fielding Smith tried to write about what he was teaching at the time and trying to convey.  Instead of glossing over it and simply talking about modern things, he tried to help the Saints undersand the important ideas Brigham Young was trying to teach the Saints during his time.  Brigham Young was shown demonstrably to understand that he spoke of Adam the first man of mortality being different than his Father who was the Father of Heaven and the Father of the Savior Jesus Christ.  Brigham Young DID stress to an extreme idea the same idea that Joseph tried to teach, the our Father was once a man and went through life to become what he was in an immortal and eternal sphere. 

Heber J. Grant had various ideas to try to reform the church during time as President.  Some of these tried to move away from the teachings of earlier prophets and reform the church.  Some saw that this heavily damaged the church (though others would say it was the period over which he presided over the church as it was a tough time for many, not just members).  He had tried to change the Doctrine and Covenants and take out and change up some of the doctrines taught. 

In this, one could say it was a step back towards a time prior to him that they were moving.  They consistently referred more to Joseph F. Smith and the prophets prior to him, than those after his time period.  It was more of a reversion back to the initial doctrines and teachings of the church without invoking some of the more troubling terminology that some use today (such as Adam-God, or other such terms) that brought misunderstandings about the doctrines taught by those prophets and what they actually meant when they were teaching over the pulpit.

However, they also had a more fundamentalist view (Which was shared by some of the prophets from prior decades, while at the same time others were not so staunch on it), some of which also were started during the Heber J. Grant years.  The tended to take the Bible very literally.  In this, one could say they were fundamentalist.  It was not just the Bible, but the Book of Mormon as well. 

This flavored many of their ideas which they spoke about, but which they were very clear upon later on that they were writing as men, not necessarily by direct revelation from the Lord on many of these items.  One of these was the idea that men would never land on the Moon.  Joseph Fielding expressed this idea, but also expressed that this was how he felt (not that it was an actual revelation).  Later, as men DID land on the Moon in his lifetime, he could point out that this would be an example of him speaking as a man expressing his feelings on the matter and thoughts, but not revelation from the Lord.  On the otherhand, when he spoke about things of the Spirit as the prophet, it would more akin to revelation.

This idea of literal interpretation of the Bible and Book of Mormon may remain in the Church today (I know I am one that takes the scriptures as literal), however I think this influence that they laid down in the mid to later half of the 20th century is fading and there are many Saints alive today who do not take the Bible or the Book of Mormon quite as literally as the Smiths or McConkies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tesuji said:

People do leave the church when they don't follow your first sentence, and rely too much on what a prophet says.

My first sentence was all about what a prophet says. The prophets teach us to gain a testimony by the Spirit. If I, by following the counsel of the prophets, gain a witness through the Spirit of the truthfulness of the restored gospel and it's church and then leave said church because the prophet got some teaching wrong, that is on me. It is I who rejected the witness of the Spirit. Now I get the need to try to be as accurate as possible even with non-salvation required doctrine like the meaning of firmament in order to help those struggling with their testimony. But at the judgement bar if we have refused to allow the Spirit to guide us the blame will be ours alone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are a variety of things going on here.

JFS, JFS-II, and McConkie all had their perceptions of academic scriptural scholarship colored by the fact that the prevailing higher critics of the early 20th century (and on up through the last twenty or thirty years, really) could best be characterized as being positively hostile to the Biblical teachings that McConkie described as the “three pillars of eternity”—the creation, the fall, the atonement.  I think Spackman himself has written about how academic Biblical scholarship has only really begun welcoming overt believers, within his lifetime.  (It’s one thing to believe Solomon built a temple; another to believe God blessed it with His presence.  One thing to acknowledge the possibility that Yeshua-bin-Yusuf really lived and was executed by Romans; another to believe that that death had meaning or was reversed by a resurrection three days later.)  The “fundamentalist” Church leaders of the mid-20th century felt that the spiritual costs of allying with the academic community outweighed the benefits—and I believe they were essentially correct, even if they perhaps didn’t quite understand how or why they were correct.

Our leaders have made the best sense they could out of the scriptures, using the best tools that they dared to use.  In every way that is essential to our salvation, they were right.  Certainly, we can be grateful for the deeper textual or historical understandings coming from a new generation of scholars using new tools and pursuing new avenues of inquiry.  We can also appreciate the service of the now-departed shepherds who defended their flock from an earlier generation of ravening wolves; and we need not second-guess the shepherds’ techniques just because with the benefit of hindsight the “wolves” have now been largely reduced to paper tigers.

The shepherds of 1960 did what was needful then.  We look to the shepherds of 2020 to do what is needful now.  We should be wary of “fundamentalists” who demand we define our spirituality by the way we garnish the sepulchers of the dead prophets.  We should also be deeply suspicious of liberals who resurrect dead prophets only because they want an excuse to crucify them afresh, hoping to create a mob that will bury the living prophets along with the dead.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, tesuji said:

There is a reason that the church no longer sells McConkie's book Mormon Doctrine

David O. McKay actually met with McConkie several times and asked him not to publish the book, and firmly told him to make it clear that it was his own work and opinion, and not endorsed by the church in any way.

I would refute your other statements more, but I doubt you would care to really listen. If all you want to do is criticize then at least get your facts straight from now on...unless of course your aim is to blatantly sew discontent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some critical points are being overlooked and misstated.  As odd as it may seem - I think there is a flaw in thinking that G-d is going to speak to any man and reveal things that he (man) does not or cannot understand.  In short, when the Father appeared to the boy Joseph Smith and introduced his Son - both the Father and the Son spoke in English.  The concept that there is a Star Trek device that is a universal translator has at its core a flaw - that is obvious to any bilingual person.  I would take this one step further and state that even when two individuals are speaking the exact same language as both's primary language - there is sufficient ambiguity that disagreements are more based in misinterpretations (including bias and prejudices) than in actual literal differences in thinking.

From the OP - there is the term ferment and expanse.  Contrary to most modern thinkers; most studied ancient thinkers were not as stupid and wrong about things as advertised.   The ancients knew that the moon orbited the earth and that the earth orbited the sun.  They understood that there was "order" among the stars.  For example they understood that a few of the stars (shiny objects in the night sky) were part of the order or our sun, moon and earth.  They gave these stars names of their ancient g-ds - that interestingly we still use today - such as Mercury, Venus, Mars and Jupiter. They were smart enough to figure out that various other stars belong to exact same but different "orders" and they defined constellations to explain those orders - we still use those ancient names.  They were smart enough to realize that knowledge of these stars could be used to figure out where you were on the earth.  The Mayan civilization were expert in such calculations and somehow - determined the circumference of our earth.  As smart as we are today no one has figured out how the ancient Mayan made such an accurate calculation.  And since they were so smart why there is no record of them showing up on other continents - despite vague references that quite possibly they did??? 

In reality we, as a civilization, are not as smart as we like to think we are.  In fact - few in our modern society are capable of making sense of modern concepts of religion and science - so much so that the great majority of religious thinkers refuse to consider and believe scientific notions and vice versa.  Why is this?????

I have though that I could communicate some reasons why - but alas I have seldom made a dent in anyone's inability to integrate actual science with any religion - including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

But I would make a point about our prophets.  I understand that individuals have flaws - including our prophets.  However, I believe that few have real appreciation for revelation from G-d.  I would purport that there are two kinds of revelation.  One is spiritual - the other is physical.  Though there are two kinds of revelation - I do not believe anyone truly understands either unless they understand both.  I would suggest that to understand both that the process is the same two step process.  First study everything you can to which you have access and then derive a solution.  Then the second part is to ask G-d if you are right.  What will happen is that you will learn both religious and scientific truth via this method but it will come to you as line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  There is no "Ta Da!" moment when you will understand everything.  If you do think so - it will, someday be conclusively proven that you are wrong.

But I would draw attention to something about prophets - that the revelations of prophets is greater than the some of their knowledge and all the best thinking of their generation.  That there is more truth than can even be understood in that particular generation.  I will illustrate this principle with two revelations that come to us from the same prophet Joseph Smith.  The first is a translation from the ancient prophet Abraham in ancient Egypt in the Book of Abraham - specifically Chapter 3.  Strange as it may seem this piece of scripture is given to us today in a translation that reflects ancient Egyptian literary style and understanding of the cosmos.  Now let us compare this scripture with Doctrine and Covenants section 88.  This piece of scripture is in modern style and format explaining the same cosmos with the understanding of Newtonian  of Joseph Smith's day.  The only way to understand both and reconcile the "literal" doctrine of both is to study ancient Egyptian literary styles and to also study Newtonian physics - both in great depths.  The more one studies and understands both (as prescribed above in a two step process) - the more they will appreciate and understand - both that Joseph was indeed a prophet of a G-d of Truth and Light - and that G-d has opened through revelation to Joseph Smith things that we cannot come to know about G-d and his creation by any other means.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The concept that there is a Star Trek device that is a universal translator has at its core a flaw - that is obvious to any bilingual person.

Ah, yes. The Universal Translator, rooted in 19th and early 20th centuries linguistic theory. It's as flawed and false a premise as faster-than-light travel, and like FTL, has become a staple of sort of corporate sci-fi despite its falsity. It takes the inherent complexity and ambiguity of the universe and converts it all into small, easily digestible chunks. That those chunks no longer bear resemblance to the real universe is beside the point. They sell, and in Hollywood's Darwinian jungle, that's all that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2020 at 12:17 PM, tesuji said:

It hurts to realize that some of our 20th century prophets were overly fundamentalist, and have given us simplistic or incomplete narratives.

The article you cite points out that he prefers biblical prophets be viewed within the context of when they lived and served. The 20th century prophets doubled down on fundamentalism for a reason. At the turn of the century sophists applauded Darwin's findings and concluded God (of the gaps) was dead. Oh, but when they cheered the portion in parenthesis went unuttered. Midcentury biblical scholars revisited their assumptions. Naturism is en vogue today, and in Talmage's time you could find a great many scholars who took the Bible at face value and were often cross-trained in theology. Between the historical and naturist eras was the era of skepticism. The Bible was viewed as propaganda with little grounding in history or reality. There's a reason why McConkie used many of the same sources Talmage did when writing The Mortal Messiah

Elders Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie are favorite punching bags, but they are the Pauls of our day. The majority of the New Testament was penned by Paul and the supermajority of New Testament doctrine comes through him. He's even open about sharing his opinion, but I don't hear the same disdain sent his way.

Returning to the article, perhaps we should apply the same standard to our own prophets and recognize having modern prophets means they speak in a modern context. Or perhaps we should simply push the criticisms back in time and lament because it hurts to realize that some of our 2nd Millennia BC prophets had a geocentric view of the cosmos.

On 4/19/2020 at 12:17 PM, tesuji said:

But I think it's important to understand. I feel that now in the 21st century, some people who leave the church are actually rejecting false or limited understandings that are really not part of our doctrine at all.

I feel that now in the 21st century if people can't relate to the context of the mid-20th century they probably shouldn't read works that are 70 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think there are a variety of things going on here.

JFS, JFS-II, and McConkie all had their perceptions of academic scriptural scholarship colored by the fact that the prevailing higher critics of the early 20th century (and on up through the last twenty or thirty years, really) could best be characterized as being positively hostile to the Biblical teachings that McConkie described as the “three pillars of eternity”—the creation, the fall, the atonement.  I think Spackman himself has written about how academic Biblical scholarship has only really begun welcoming overt believers, within his lifetime.  (It’s one thing to believe Solomon built a temple; another to believe God blessed it with His presence.  One thing to acknowledge the possibility that Yeshua-bin-Yusuf really lived and was executed by Romans; another to believe that that death had meaning or was reversed by a resurrection three days later.)  The “fundamentalist” Church leaders of the mid-20th century felt that the spiritual costs of allying with the academic community outweighed the benefits—and I believe they were essentially correct, even if they perhaps didn’t quite understand how or why they were correct.

Our leaders have made the best sense they could out of the scriptures, using the best tools that they dared to use.  In every way that is essential to our salvation, they were right.  Certainly, we can be grateful for the deeper textual or historical understandings coming from a new generation of scholars using new tools and pursuing new avenues of inquiry.  We can also appreciate the service of the now-departed shepherds who defended their flock from an earlier generation of ravening wolves; and we need not second-guess the shepherds’ techniques just because with the benefit of hindsight the “wolves” have now been largely reduced to paper tigers.

The shepherds of 1960 did what was needful then.  We look to the shepherds of 2020 to do what is needful now.  We should be wary of “fundamentalists” who demand we define our spirituality by the way we garnish the sepulchers of the dead prophets.  We should also be deeply suspicious of liberals who resurrect dead prophets only because they want an excuse to crucify them afresh, hoping to create a mob that will bury the living prophets along with the dead.

Missed this earlier. I wouldn't have bothered posting if I had read this first. File mine under "redundantly superfluous".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2020 at 6:26 PM, Vort said:

Behold @tesuji's thesis statement: Relying on what a prophet says is simply dangerous. Much better to rely on what tesuji says.

Not at all.

You have grossly misunderstood my intent and my motivation. 

If you have not carefully read what I said, and also carefully read the two articles I posted, I encourage you to go back and do that.

Edited by tesuji
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tesuji said:

Not at all.

You have grossly misunderstood my intent and my motivation. Very seldom have I ever felt such antagonism or lack of generosity toward something I posted on the internet, and never among fellow brothers and sisters in my church.

If you have not carefully read what I said, and also carefully read the two articles I posted, I encourage you to go back and do that.

I have decided to address you directly - I prefer to speak more generally and perhaps others may find some things of interest.  I would begin with two thoughts.  The first is hindsight.  Generally we think that many things in the past could be improved if we understood better (assuming as we do now).  There are several flaws in such thinking.  Though this comes from the notion that we learn from our past in order to improve our future, which is a good thing, there is a tendency  to take the past out of context and this is the beginning of the flaw.  

The second thought is seeing the future and moving forward.  Humans are intelligently wired to anticipate the future.  We are not unique in the animal kingdom with this ability but of all creatures - we are, by far, the best at it.  This is a critical part of what we classify as "intelligence" in the world of science.  I will take this moment to apologize if it appears that I am talking down to you.  I am attempting to lay the ground work for what I believe to be a critical and important notion for anticipating the future.  I do have experience with this sort of thing because I have worked for over 35 years as a engineer in industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.   But as good as I have been, I am becoming somewhat of a dinosaur in the industry.  I have a son working on cutting edge technology for artificial intelligence that is making the things that I and my generation did, to appear to be primitive and sophomoric.  But for all the mistakes made by engineers like me and others - my son and the new generation would not be capable of doing what they are doing today.

With this groundwork set - I would say something about prophets - and a notion that you seem to have - that modern prophets are not to be followed as exactly as ancient prophets were or as perhaps more knowledgeable prophets of the future - or G-d himself.  In my  experience there are 2 grand but horribly destructive problems with this notion but I will speak only to one.  The one to which I speak I will call - "Disharmony".

During my college years I played rhythm guitar with a singing and instrumental group.  The leader of our group was an interesting fellow that lived in "feelings'.  He was a very good musician but would seldom do the same thing twice.  Worse, even though we would practice a lot - when we would get to a performance he would, on the fly while we were playing; change a key or change to an augmentation chord, a diminished or a 7th chord with a feeling at the moment.  Two of our lady musicians (who were very good) seemed to be able to anticipate and be right with him - the rest of the group (except me) would follow.  I would end up playing catch-up sliding through some extra "stuff" trying to blend.  These "wrong" choices in the middle of  a performance;  drove me crazy.  Often, after an performance, I would be a little angry (at everybody) and ask , "What the flip was that!?"  Flip, was the worse expletive I grew up with.  I was forced to do what I knew was not "right" to maintain some resemblance of harmony.

Individualism is an element of our society that when followed can cause disharmony.   Especially when we know we are right and everybody else is wrong.  There are times and places for strong immovable individuality.  But to be clear - the time for immovable individuality is not when what needs to be accomplished requires harmony and togetherness.  There are times for harmony and togetherness outside of musical performances - like team sports, driving a vehicle in heavy traffic, fighting a war, establishing a peaceful society and a marriage and family.  I am not saying that we do not note problems or mistakes and attempt to correct them - just that in the heat of battle, during a performance or in front of the world or on the internet or in a publication (where your enemies and those that seek to defeat or destroy you, have any access) is never that time nor place.  If you do no understand this logic or the destructive powers that can destroy, not just you but your kith and kin and all you hold dear -- all I can say is that you may be dead right in your understanding of mistakes made by leaders and others but the operative word here is not "right" - but "dead". 

Again individualism is as likely to be over played as blindly following a leader or the herd.  But I want to make a very important point - no one has ever been led astray following a prophet of G-d!  But they have been led astray thinking they were following a prophet of G-d but in reality they were overreaching their own individuality.  I will demonstrate this overreach with an old Buddhist parable:

In the parable two Buddhists monks were traveling together - one older and wiser monk - the other a younger apprentice monk.   The two monks came upon a young beautiful maiden, alone and in tears by a river.  She was slender and beautiful and fearful she would be caught up in the river if she attempted to cross - but it was necessary that she cross.  The older monk took no time to think on the matter but picked up the maiden and carried her across the river.  The apprentice monk followed.  Once to the other side the old monk put the maiden down and left to continue his journey ignoring the thanks from the maiden.  The apprentice followed and wondered how it was that the older monk could disavow himself and touch the maiden (it is forbidden for Buddhists monks to touch the opposite sex).  And then just continue his journey as if nothing had happened.  The more the apprentice though on this mistake the more he became upset that the older monk would not address his mistake.  Finely, after several miles and hours, the apprentice monk stopped and demanded that the older monk deal with his mistake involving the maiden.  The older monk inquired, "What maiden?"  The younger monk replied, "The one you pick up and carried across the river!"  The older monk looked at the young apprentice and said "Grasshopper".  Actually I am kidding about the grasshopper but let us continue.  The older monk said that when he reached the other side that he put the maiden down and continued his journey but that the young apprentice had picked her up and had been careening her ever since in his heart - refusing to put her down and continue his journey.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take-aways from all this:

The problem: We have some 1950s prophets teaching some things we realize are now apparently not true, or are at the very least are limited and simplistic. Some people see this kind of thing and have their faith shaken. Many others don't even realize it, and these kinds of teachings continue to persist in our church.


So what can we learn from this?

  • The church and our history are apparently more complicated than we thought.
  • The teachings we are talking about are not about the core gospel. They are in the realm of science, history, and Bible studies. These are areas where we are continually learning, and will continue to do so. We shouldn't expect the last word on these kinds of things, even from experts and scholars, much less "general" authorities who are talking outside their expertise.
  • The Bible is complex. We shouldn't assume we understand it just by reading the text and coming up with our personal interpretation, and reading our own ideas into it. Bible scholars call this eisegesis. A better way is exegesis: "Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines: textual criticism is the investigation into the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds of the author, text, and original audience." (Wikipedia)
  • Prophets are just people too. The belief that the Lord leads this church is a foundation of our church. But that doesn't mean that everything a prophet says is the last word on something, especially if they are speaking about subjects outside core doctrine, or speaking on their own. See Elder Oak's talk in Oct. 2019 general conference, "Trust in the Lord": https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/10/17oaks?lang=eng
  • As @laronius said at the top of this discussion, our ultimate guide to truth is the Holy Spirit.


Regarding Bible studies:

A good place to start is the book Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes, by E. Randolph Richards, Brandon J. O'Brien.
https://www.amazon.com/Misreading-Scripture-Western-Eyes-Understand/dp/0830837825/

Unfortunately, the church's excellent Gospel Topics Essays do not yet include official guidance in matters of Bible studies. So I have turned to faithful LDS scholars such as Ben Spackman, and BYU professors such as Eric Huntsman and Julie Smith.

Ben Spackman has a great list of resources, beginning with this page: https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2014/10/recommended-nt-resources-part-1-translations-text-and-the-bible-in-general/

Here's a great article from BYU professor Julie Smith:

The Next Generation's Faith Crisis
https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2014/10/the-next-generations-faith-crisis/

When it comes to the Bible, some of our problems arise because of translation. The King James Version, while it has beautiful language, is not the greatest translation. There is nothing stopping us from supplementing our studies with better, modern translations. The New Revised Standard Version is what Bible scholars quote from when they publish in their journals: https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-Revised-Standard-Version-NRSV-Bible/#booklist

 

Edited by tesuji
clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2020 at 11:17 AM, tesuji said:

A significant new post by Ben Spackman, one of my favorite LDS scholars.

It hurts to realize that some of our 20th century prophets were overly fundamentalist, and have given us simplistic or incomplete narratives.

But I think it's important to understand. I feel that now in the 21st century, some people who leave the church are actually rejecting false or limited understandings that are really not part of our doctrine at all.

Encultured Prophets and the Firmament of Genesis: Peter Enns Continued
https://benspackman.com/2010/11/09/encultured-prophets-and-the-firmament-of-genesis-peter-enns-continued/


More background:

The 1950s: A Fundamentalist Shift
https://benspackman.com/2020/01/07/the-1950s-a-fundamentalist-shift/

Please explain what you mean by "unfortunate fundamentalism." 

  • What specific words or doctrinal declaration are you referring to as "fundamentalism."
  • Why exactly is that fundamentalism unfortunate?
Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably can't speak for tesuji, but, in the 2nd link to Spackman's blog, Spackman writes:

Quote

Leonard Arrington reflected in his journal on the

[emergence] at BYU in the 1950s…. particularly in the College of Religion [of] A sort of Mormon Fundamentalism like Protestant Fundamentalism [which] Emphasizes Biblical literalism, rejects the Higher Criticism [in biblical studies, and] the law of evolution…

To be clear, many of these ideas or tendencies were present earlier in LDS history; what happens in the 1950s is a narrowing of the general discourse, a solidification of these fundamentalist tendencies.

then, after giving a timeline of events/publicatioins, he observes

Quote

Each of these works tacitly assumed (but did not really present arguments for the idea) that the genre of ancient scripture consisted primarily of modern history and scientific facts; that this history and science was accurate because scripture is divinely inspired; all scripture was entirely harmonious and internally consistent in every detail and degree.

And, therefore, evolution was obviously false.

It's probably just an outgrowth of Spackman's research emphases (a combination of Church history, history of science, and Biblical studies), but that seems to be how Spackman sees it.

Why is this unfortunate. I don't know. Others upthread have said that maybe we needed this shift in order to retain a belief in God. If we were too accepting of the materialistic/naturalistic/atheistic explanations for life, the universe, and everything we would have lost our faith in God. I don't know if it is worth playing the "what would have happened if" game, but a quick browse of Wikipedia's Evolution and the Catholic Church article notes that Pope Pious in a 1950 publication insisted that Catholics could believe in evolution as long as they accepted God as the ultimate driver behind it, and the Catholic Church went down a path of quasi-officially adopting theistic evolution. So maybe it was a fortunate shift in that it preserved a faith in God that we otherwise would have lost, or maybe it was unfortunate in that it set us on a path of Biblical literalism and inerrancy that interfered with our ability to reconcile science and religion earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tesuji said:

My take-aways from all this:

The problem: We have some 1950s prophets teaching some things we realize are now apparently not true, or are at the very least are limited and simplistic. Some people see this kind of thing and have their faith shaken. Many others don't even realize it, and these kinds of teachings continue to persist in our church.


So what can we learn from this?

  • The church and our history are apparently more complicated than we thought.
  • The teachings we are talking about are not about the core gospel. They are in the realm of science, history, and Bible studies. These are areas where we are continually learning, and will continue to do so. We shouldn't expect the last word on these kinds of things, even from experts and scholars, much less "general" authorities who are talking outside their expertise.
  • The Bible is complex. We shouldn't assume we understand it just by reading the text and coming up with our personal interpretation, and reading our own ideas into it. Bible scholars call this eisegesis. A better way is exegesis: "Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines: textual criticism is the investigation into the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds of the author, text, and original audience." (Wikipedia)
  • Prophets are just people too. The belief that the Lord leads this church is a foundation of our church. But that doesn't mean that everything a prophet says is the last word on something, especially if they are speaking about subjects outside core doctrine, or speaking on their own. See Elder Oak's talk in Oct. 2019 general conference, "Trust in the Lord": https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/10/17oaks?lang=eng
  • As @laronius said at the top of this discussion, our ultimate guide to truth is the Holy Spirit.


Regarding Bible studies:

A good place to start is the book Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes, by E. Randolph Richards, Brandon J. O'Brien.
https://www.amazon.com/Misreading-Scripture-Western-Eyes-Understand/dp/0830837825/

Unfortunately, the church's excellent Gospel Topics Essays do not yet include official guidance in matters of Bible studies. So I have turned to faithful LDS scholars such as Ben Spackman, and BYU professors such as Eric Huntsman and Julie Smith.

Ben Spackman has a great list of resources, beginning with this page: https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2014/10/recommended-nt-resources-part-1-translations-text-and-the-bible-in-general/

Here's a great article from BYU professor Julie Smith:

The Next Generation's Faith Crisis
https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2014/10/the-next-generations-faith-crisis/

When it comes to the Bible, some of our problems arise because of translation. The King James Version, while it has beautiful language, is not the greatest translation. There is nothing stopping us from supplementing our studies with better, modern translations. The New Revised Standard Version is what Bible scholars quote from when they publish in their journals: https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-Revised-Standard-Version-NRSV-Bible/#booklist

 

There are some thing going on with Church Historians which should be ALARMING to members today.  Rather than BELIEVE what the prophets (yes, even those from the 1950s and such) said and related, even those with FIRST HAND EXPERIENCES with those who said them (for example, Joseph F. Smith KNEW many of the older Prophets and General Authorities personally, and knew his Father perhaps better than any other living during the time when he was Prophet.  He also understood Brigham Young's teachings enough to counter many polygamists who wanted to continue the traditions of it when the time was not right for it) and explained them.

Instead, the church historians have turned to the ANTI-MORMON dialogues to explain things, sometimes even using documents and items which were greatly discredited in the past.

They are writing revisionist history...and some of them if you READ between the lines are doing so because THEY LOST THEIR TESTIMONY.   (Then again, I'm an outsider of the LDS historian circles, more of the worldly traditions and practices.  Plus, I'm just a amateur church historian, my more professional focuses are in other areas)

Why, then is the church letting them take control and change policies, rewrite church history, and many other things!!!?

I have NO IDEA.  For some reason we've handed the keys to much of our things to those who hate Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, and even more recent ones like Ezra Taft Benson.  I do not know WHY we are doing this or for what reason.  It should be obvious from what has happened to other churches that by giving up the discourse to those that hate the traditional teachings it convinces NONE of those that hated the church to begin with, and drives the true beleivers away once you've gone down the path to liberalize your church enough.

Now, I will be at the forefront to say as a Historian, via what we would use as sources, I could probably say from a world viewpoint that the Church's history would be incorrect.  Of course, with that same logic I can also show that the Bible cannot be true and is ALSO false.

How do I correlate this between what I know is true and my stance that the Book of Mormon and the Bible are literal and true (in otherwords, I take that the Book of Mormon is a literal history as is the Bible and they are also true).  I can't.  I cannot see in any way to correlate them.  Thus, the best stance is to admit from a worldly point of view one is how I handle it scholastically, and the other is a PERSONAL belief.  Religion and Facts do not mix in this.  I think those that try to mix them and intermingle to try to make religion match what we currently know of history (and that actually changes quite a bit) only weaken their own arguments of Faith and doctrine.

From what we have seen over the past 2 decades on churches that try to rewrite their history to conform with what their enemies have said about them, or to acquiesce more towards the LGBT and other audiences, it has only served to weaken those churches and drive down membership.  From every angle I can see, it is a mistake.  You cannot convert those who already are determined to destroy your church, and you are not going to retain those who believe in the old doctrines if you change them to new doctrines.  It's a good way to destroy your church.

And yet, I see a LOT of those among the Church historians today.  They are accurately trying to portray church history as per the world acceptance (which includes also including anti-Mormon accounts and first hand experiences).  In this, from a secular viewpoint they are more accurate than the church has been before. At the same time they are completely failing (because rather than go the entire way the world sees it, they are trying to do a balancing act between what the secular interpretations of the world are and the traditional spiritual accounts of church witnesses) to convince other historians outside the church anyways, or anyone else.  You cannot balance the two.  You either embrace what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said and believe that they told the truth rather than those who wrote primary accounts against them, OR, you take the preponderance of evidence and take the secular view against them.  You cannot have both pieces of the pie, which is what the Church currently seems to be trying to do. 

This is not so much about Prophets, but more about what seems to be a revisionist revolution within the Church to be more sympathetic to those who would destroy the church (which is actually kind of insane, why you would ever sympathize with those that want to destroy you is normally not a smart strategy.  You end up dead doing that. ) among the ranks of bureaucracy.

What the Prophets of Old said, is correct.  What the Prophets of the Latter-day is Correct.  When there is conflict, take into account what (I believe Joseph Fielding Smith said this) which, in summary basically says, old and new will always agree. 

Basically, the old is always correct, the new just fulfills it.  A way to see it is the Savior.  Some thought he was trying to teach against the old teachings, but in truth, if you keep the HIGHER LAW, you are keeping the Lower Law.  He NEVER taught against the ten commandments, rather he taught that not only should we keep them in action, we should ALSO keep them at thought.  He fulfilled the law of sacrifice, he didn't teach against it.  HE NEVER said that any of the Old Testament prophets were liars, instead he taught that they brought truth.

This same can be seen in our day.  When Historical Bureaucrats try to convince us that Brigham Young or Joseph Smith were less of prophets because they were influenced by something as petty as racism, or let their more base human desires get the better of them...alarms go of in my head and say...something is wrong here.  If they are fallen prophets, that would mean ALL of those after them are fallen prophets.  What does one get by teaching against them in such a manner as it would, by logic, mean any of the prophets today are also thus (and unfortunately, if you read some of the Historical revisionist histories on the church today, that is EXACTLY the takeaway...which is SCARY). 

I do not know why the Church is allowing this to go on, or why we are bending to them.  I am just a lowly member at this point trying to hang on by the fingernails.  However, I think it's a problem stemming from the bureaucracy and other people within the church rather than the Leaders at this point (or so I would hope and pray). 

Right now, it's the wolf in sheep clothing that I think we have to fear the worst from, and I feel they have invaded the church administrative system enough to force their viewpoint to the fore.  I only hope and pray that the Lord does something to help us before they do more than they already have.  (personal opinion, of course).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I probably can't speak for tesuji, but, in the 2nd link to Spackman's blog, Spackman writes:

then, after giving a timeline of events/publicatioins, he observes

It's probably just an outgrowth of Spackman's research emphases (a combination of Church history, history of science, and Biblical studies), but that seems to be how Spackman sees it.

Why is this unfortunate. I don't know. Others upthread have said that maybe we needed this shift in order to retain a belief in God. If we were too accepting of the materialistic/naturalistic/atheistic explanations for life, the universe, and everything we would have lost our faith in God. I don't know if it is worth playing the "what would have happened if" game, but a quick browse of Wikipedia's Evolution and the Catholic Church article notes that Pope Pious in a 1950 publication insisted that Catholics could believe in evolution as long as they accepted God as the ultimate driver behind it, and the Catholic Church went down a path of quasi-officially adopting theistic evolution. So maybe it was a fortunate shift in that it preserved a faith in God that we otherwise would have lost, or maybe it was unfortunate in that it set us on a path of Biblical literalism and inerrancy that interfered with our ability to reconcile science and religion earlier.

There are many who can instinctively feel when there is a wolf in sheep's clothing.  The problem today is that many of these are doing 1 of 2 things.

1.  They are trying to be good historians.  They are gathering primary and secondary sources in a good historical method.  They are trying to write the history in a way that recounts the Church's history from a good historical background.  The problem with this is that EVERYONE get's equal footing.  They get equal say, those who hate the church and those who loved the church.  Unfortunately, over the years, those who were trying to take down the church have more evidence on their side than those who spoke for the church.  This leads to a preponderance that says the church is false.  The personal stories of Joseph Smith and others around him and from his time that WERE good members are ignored because the majority are against him.

If one wants to be a good historian, this is what the evidence will tell them.  AS Church historians, they can't say that.  Thus, they try to ride the balance between what a good historian would do, and the traditional story of the church.  This is trying to appease both sides, but in reality appeasing neither one. 

The other problem with this is instead of giving the benefit of the doubt to Joseph Smith and those who were on his side and trying to interpret things as per HIS viewpoint (Accept that his opinion is the basis of the true story and take everything from there) they take it from the viewpoint that he lied.  Instead, they take the preponderance of evidence as telling the real story which, unfortunately is anti-Mormon generally.

Thus, we have the really weird and strange place that Church history is today where the revisionist are trying to rewrite it (for example, why write Saints as the new official Church history when we ALREADY HAD one, and it had better sources from a historians viewpoint) and change it to appease more to those who already hate the church.  This is a flawed take.  They are never going to convince those who are anti-Mormon to agree with them, nor are they going to get historians to think it is good history (you can't do good history with the technique they are doing).  Sure, it is more accurate than it was before, but at the cost of taking the viewpoint that Joseph Smith did more of his actions because he was a man rather than a Prophet of God.

2.  They lost their testimony overall.  They still have fragments of it which they are trying to reconcile with the gospel, but they also disbelieve the idea that Joseph and prophets from the 19th and the 20th centuries were really inspired.  Thus, they discount things and revelations from them and rewrite them as racism, sexism, and many other things in an attempt to appeal to modern audiences.  The truth...they will NEVER appeal to modern audiences in the way they think they are.  By detracting from the prophets of the Early Church they only diminish the viewpoint of the modern prophets.

Most believing members will not discount that the Prophets are men.  It is obvious.  However, the efforts today by those who lost their testimony but are still in the Church employ or working for the Church (supposedly) to discount earlier revelations and prophets I think it will only lead to more confusion and falling away rather than helping people stay firm in their testimony.

-----------------------------------------------------------

As I said, from a historian's viewpoint form the outside looking in at what is happening in the Church History departments today...you have wolf in sheep's clothing there and it puzzles me why the Church is moving so far along with them.  They think that by balancing between secular and traditional history they are keeping members, but I only see them as being catalysts to drive members leaving at this point.  There are those that take anything they write and believe it, but there are many others that are on one side or the other...and by trying to go between the two, they are going to appeal to neither.  It is better to appeal to the believing audience (and my real personal beliefs in the gospel and religion), then to try to appease those that will never be appeased to begin with (The secular world).  You aren't going to convince me (my secular practice of history) or any other secular organization, much less those who don't like the church to begin with, with the current approach.  It is better to teach to the living than the dead.  I'll accept the religious history as coming from Joseph Smith, John Taylor and others from their own testimonies and mouths than a lot of this revisionist stuff coming out today.  On my secular side...the secular world was already closed on that account and nothing the church does is going to convince them of the divine nature of the gospel or the church.

I am a believer, but I do not try to reconcile my belief with what the secular world sees as facts.  I cannot.  However, I truly believe and know that Joseph was a Prophet and those that followed him are as well.  I know the Book of Mormon is true and the gospel is true.  No secular knowledge will ever lead me there, only the Holy Ghost and the Lord.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

There are some thing going on with Church Historians which should be ALARMING to members today.  Rather than BELIEVE what the prophets (yes, even those from the 1950s and such) said and related, even those with FIRST HAND EXPERIENCES with those who said them (for example, Joseph F. Smith KNEW many of the older Prophets and General Authorities personally, and knew his Father perhaps better than any other living during the time when he was Prophet.  He also understood Brigham Young's teachings enough to counter many polygamists who wanted to continue the traditions of it when the time was not right for it) and explained them.

...

Instead, the church historians have turned to the ANTI-MORMON dialogues to explain things, sometimes even using documents and items which were greatly discredited in the past.

Right now, it's the wolf in sheep clothing that I think we have to fear the worst from, and I feel they have invaded the church administrative system enough to force their viewpoint to the fore.  I only hope and pray that the Lord does something to help us before they do more than they already have.  (personal opinion, of course).

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

There are many who can instinctively feel when there is a wolf in sheep's clothing.  The problem today is that many of these are doing 1 of 2 things.

As I said, from a historian's viewpoint form the outside looking in at what is happening in the Church History departments today...you have wolf in sheep's clothing there and it puzzles me why the Church is moving so far along with them.  They think that by balancing between secular and traditional history they are keeping members, but I only see them as being catalysts to drive members leaving at this point

...

I am a believer, but I do not try to reconcile my belief with what the secular world sees as facts.  I cannot.  However, I truly believe and know that Joseph was a Prophet and those that followed him are as well.  I know the Book of Mormon is true and the gospel is true.  No secular knowledge will ever lead me there, only the Holy Ghost and the Lord.

I know that we're often on opposite sides on issues.  But I completely agree with these two posts 100%.  Thank you.

I only edited the quotes because they were extremely long.  You still have that gift of gab.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2020 at 9:26 AM, tesuji said:

Not at all.

You have grossly misunderstood my intent and my motivation. 

If you have not carefully read what I said, and also carefully read the two articles I posted, I encourage you to go back and do that.

But isn't that really what is being encouraged?  Regardless of what you actually said or even what your links actually say, that is the end result of the line of reasoning.

 

Pres. Harold B. Lee addresses the "problem of Liberal Mormons."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY9f0WIJ4Jg

Now, don't get you dander up.  He defines "liberal" not in political terms, but in theological & scholarly terms.  He defines it as

Quote

A liberal in the Church is merely one who does not have a testimony.

This statement, as clear as it is, can still be misconstrued to apply to anyone or no one.  But in his discourse, he gives more detail to the people he's talking about. 

He describes the individual who claims membership and even faith and/or testimony, but then goes and tries to justify every belief (or condemn every belief) based on secular standards rather than divine standards -- then seeks to change the Church based on those secular principles (wording is mine).

Those articles linked in the OP provide perfect examples of this methodology.  And by encouraging this methodology as the means for determining truth takes us away from the Lord and His Spirit.  It causes us to ignore the Prophet.

I've used the description before.  And I'll give it again.  People want to create God in their own image rather than remembering that He created us in His image.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2020 at 6:04 AM, tesuji said:

So I have turned to faithful LDS scholars such as Ben Spackman, and BYU professors such as Eric Huntsman and Julie Smith.

. . . .

Here's a great article from BYU professor Julie Smith: . . .

I trust Spackman and Huntsman; I’ve never seen them advocate for anything but LDS orthopraxy (Huntsman also seems quite orthodox and Spackman, I think well over 95% of the time; his diversions from LDS orthodoxy seem relatively innocuous to me).

As for Julie Smith—she has a lot of useful knowledge, but several of her public forum posts lead me to believe that she does not have a testimony of the law of chastity (and/or that she is incrementally-but-actively trying to create an intellectual/theological framework for the Church to abandon that law).  Time will ultimately tell whether she can accurately be called “faithful”.  In the interim—I don’t trust her motives or authority any more than I trust Randolph Richards or Peter Enns or Mike Quinn or any other non-Mormon or former Mormon author.  I’m happy to read any of their stuff, and extract whatever useful tidbits I wish.  But I read their works with an awareness that their own insights and biases and agendas are not in full conformance with my own faith community.  To my mind, none of those latter authors—including Smith—is truly “one of us”. 

If an author says they’re gonna help me know Jesus better, they’d better not let me catch them fighting or nit-picking or murmuring against His apostles’ warnings against sin (or egging on others who are bent on doing the same).  One of the big things I expect from a self-professed teacher of righteousness is a love for and aspiration to—well—righteousness.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2020 at 2:49 PM, tesuji said:

Many LDS members do believe prophets are infallible, and that what prophets say is always consistent with other prophets and the scriptures.

I have always wanted to ask this in light of statements like this. Do you actually have statistics on this? I can understand the confusion between doctrine (as something that was taught) and personal thoughts, theories, etc...

I just think the word "many" is all to often thrown out because they have come across a "few" members who think prophets are infallible, and are always consistent with each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Here's a great presentation at a recent FairMormon conference that I think makes the point even better than my original post:

A Paradoxical Preservation of Faith: LDS Creation Accounts and the Composite Nature of Revelation

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2019/a-paradoxical-preservation-of-faith?fbclid=IwAR3ZdogxsEmsYGEJEdXLd_5yCVmHD1QgyJKjQQf7A4vhJMqi7t5xR70v1hM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a great presentation at a recent FairMormon conference that I think makes the point even better than my original post:

A Paradoxical Preservation of Faith: LDS Creation Accounts and the Composite Nature of Revelation

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2019/a-paradoxical-preservation-of-faith?fbclid=IwAR3ZdogxsEmsYGEJEdXLd_5yCVmHD1QgyJKjQQf7A4vhJMqi7t5xR70v1hM


While I'm at it, here's a great interview with Richard Bushman from a few years ago. One of the best things I've ever heard - about a range of LDS questions, including what's in this thread.

182: Perspectives – Richard Bushman
https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/11/perspectives-richard-bushman/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tesuji said:

Here's a great presentation at a recent FairMormon conference that I think makes the point even better than my original post:

A Paradoxical Preservation of Faith: LDS Creation Accounts and the Composite Nature of Revelation

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2019/a-paradoxical-preservation-of-faith?fbclid=IwAR3ZdogxsEmsYGEJEdXLd_5yCVmHD1QgyJKjQQf7A4vhJMqi7t5xR70v1hM


While I'm at it, here's a great interview with Richard Bushman from a few years ago. One of the best things I've ever heard - about a range of LDS questions, including what's in this thread.

182: Perspectives – Richard Bushman
https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/11/perspectives-richard-bushman/

 

Didn't Bushman claim he had lost his testimony a while back, but that he had reformed a (slightly less strong) one with a reformed idea of how the church history was?

Thus came a push (or he was one of several) to rewrite church history in their own image?

He was the one that said that he had NO testimony in what the Church had taught about Joseph Smith and the rest of church history and that Church history itself was untrue (the official Church history written that we used for over a century).

Thus, it had to be reconstructed.  He accepted the anti-Mormon stories as fact and in light of those, could not accept the Church's own history and records at the time.

He now claims to have a testimony...but his testimony has inferred that at times he could NOT have a testimony of Joseph Smith...but he has one of Jesus Christ and thus, perhaps, a reformed idea of what Joseph Smith as a prophet.

I'm not a Big fan of Richard Bushman, but his impact on the Church history departments and Church history in general over the past decade is undeniable.  He and those who follow his ideas are perhaps one of the biggest proponents in the rewrite of Church history today and the revisionist forms that they are propagating.

From what I gather he is the epitome of a wolf in sheeps clothing.  His book (s) have probably contributed more to leaving the LDS Church or refusing to join it than many others who were verifiably anti-Mormon.  It is ironic he has such influence.

On the otherhand, some have said he has helped them stay in the church...after they also read many anti-Mormon articles and were seeking answers (they accepted the anti-Mormon articles as truth vs. that of the Church history at the time or even the words of the prophets including Joseph's Nephew and Great Nephews of Joseph F. and Joseph Fielding).

I am NOT a fan of Bushman or the revisionist history he has brought into the Church over the past few years.  He is at the very core of what I feel is tearing a LOT of the church apart within those who are leaving it.  I do NOT think it is unintentional.  He says he has a testimony of the gospel, but he was one of the first to try to make it so that the Church appeared to verify that Joseph was involved in folk magic, and other items backing up claims the Anti-Mormons had made against the Church since it's inception over 189 years ago.  He may have a testimony, but it seems odd in the way he's tried to tear down Joseph Smith in his writings and recreate him to validate the statements of Josephs enemies and the church's enemies that they have been making for almost two centuries since the prophet's first organization of the Church..

IMO....of course.

Edited by JohnsonJones
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