Unanswered Questions

[Jenamarie]

9 out of 10 Apostates and Anti's are going w00t..w00t...for you as I type...

And I'm sure they're also gleeful that we're so upset over YellowLight's questions. "Proof" that we have something to fear from digging too deeply into the history of the church. (which we really shouldn't, there are answers)

[Aphrodite]

Oh yes...close the thread when people get too close to the truth. I can't believe the way you have been treated yellowlight. A member of the church seeks to enhance his faith by searching. He finds things that upset and confuse him. So comes here seeking answers and its accused of lying, trying to decieve, having the spirit of the devil and basically causing contention. Absolutely unbelievable. These responses almost answer your questions Yellow Light-With a church with members respond like this to a fellow member's problems is it now any surprise that you realise the church isn't all its portrayed to be??

(obviously I am referring to specific people, not the people with truly christain hearts and values. You all know who you are )

[Aphrodite]

And I'm sure they're also gleeful that we're so upset over YellowLight's questions. "Proof" that we have something to fear from digging too deeply into the history of the church. (which we really shouldn't, there are answers)

Amen JenaMarie

[Jenamarie]

Oh yes...close the thread when people get too close to the truth. I can't believe the way you have been treated yellowlight. A member of the church seeks to enhance his faith by searching. He finds things that upset and confuse him. So comes here seeking answers and its accused of lying, trying to decieve, having the spirit of the devil and basically causing contention. Absolutely unbelievable. These responses almost answer your questions Yellow Light-With a church with members respond like this to a fellow member's problems is it now any surprise that you realise the church isn't all its portrayed to be??

(obviously I am referring to specific people, not the people with truly christain hearts and values. You all know who you are )

Right. The church leadership is finally starting to open up over some of splotchier parts of our past, now it just needs to trickle down to the general membership.

[Aphrodite]

I agree. Although I think it will take a lot for some members to accept this even with the authorities speaking out. People turn the church into what they want it to be, and not what it actually is.

[Jenamarie]

I agree. Although I think it will take a lot for some members to accept this even with the authorities speaking out. People turn the church into what they want it to be, and not what it actually is.

Right. :) I think we ought to rejoice in what the church has been able to overcome. Not just the persecution, but the attempts at trickery, top leaders falling away, and people trying to tear it down on every side. And yet, how fast is it growing? How many Temples are there? How glorious is the relationship with Jesus Christ we're all given the opportunity to develope in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?

[Guest User-Removed]

And I'm sure they're also gleeful that we're so upset over YellowLight's questions. "Proof" that we have something to fear from digging too deeply into the history of the church. (which we really shouldn't, there are answers)

Posting almost verbatim quotes and paragraphs from the Tanner website and other anti and apostate websites...is not legit historical digging....

One can never dig too deep into Church History...BUT...when one uses one of the favorite anti/apostate quotes of Boyd K. Packer...I find it clearly troublesome.

[Jenamarie]

Okay, I'll grant you that some of his information is probably not coming from the best websites, but I still don't believe that automatically makes him an Anti, just going to the wrong sources for answers. Some people in this thread have already directed him to better sources of answers, without accusing him of being out to decieve.

[Snow]

Snow,

You seem to be pretty good at twisting things yourself.

If you are going to accuse me of something - you ought to be able to back that up.

What have I twisted?

So you are telling me that someone created a copy of a fake?

I didn't say such thing. I corrected you inaccurate statement.

Hmmm.... Yes, that sounds plausible. You also seem to be under the illusion that there is no possible way that the leaders of the church could ever be fooled by anything, is that right?

No, that's not right. I said or implied nothing of the sort. Obviously you are making things up about me.

Do we really need to dive into the Book of Abraham and what about the Hoffman incident?

Fire away. However, if you are going to make allegations - like the unproven one of dishonesty you made against the Church re the Kinderhook plates, you ought to be prepared to back them up.

So much for the power of discernment huh?

My but you are content to sling the mud around. What wasn't discerned that we might reasonably expect should be discerned? Be specific. Be accurate.

It is people like you that make crazy accusations that there couldn't possibly be anything to what millions of others are saying. You take your side and twist it however it fits your needs. I have been trying to take an objective approach to all of this. However, I can clearly discern what kind of spirit you have.

What accusation have I made that is untrue?

Be specific, be accurate.

Since you claim that you are objective, please accurate describe the dishonesty of the Church you referenced in your accusation.

[Guest User-Removed]

Right. :) I think we ought to rejoice in what the church has been able to overcome. Not just the persecution, but the attempts at trickery, top leaders falling away, and people trying to tear it down on every side. And yet, how fast is it growing? How many Temples are there? How glorious is the relationship with Jesus Christ we're all given the opportunity to develope in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?

Need I remind you...that some of the worst enemies of this faith...didn't ride in with the mobs...They dined with the Prophet Joseph....

[Jenamarie]

Sure, but I think it's a rather long jump to the conclusion you're making about YellowLight. I don't believe he's an enemy. Perhaps only going off of this thread he would appear to be that, but having PM'd with him a bit I know that that is not what he is.

[KosherXMorg]

Sure, but I think it's a rather long jump to the conclusion you're making about YellowLight. I don't believe he's an enemy. Perhaps only going off of this thread he would appear to be that, but having PM'd with him a bit I know that that is not what he is.

3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated. ~ Canuck Mormon

Please read the site rules and try to abide by them. Thank you.

[rameumptom]

The issue, in the long run, isn't Church History and how it is written or not written. On the FAIR site, LDS Church Historian David Bitton actually answers this very well:

I Don't Have a Testimony of the History of the Church

The issue isn't whether Joseph and Brigham were mortals with weaknesses and mistakes. We know they were. Joseph messed up frequently, as with the lost 116 manuscript pages. But the scriptures teach us that God works through men and their weaknesses. It isn't a question of whether the History is recorded or taught "correctly," but whether these men were called of God.

The Church is now dealing with better history now. And good for them. They are allowing many of the skeletons to leave the closet, such as Mountain Meadows Massacre stuff. And good for them.

But whether some of the things encountered are somewhat distasteful or not, does not preclude these men from being called of God.

[KosherXMorg]

The issue, in the long run, isn't Church History and how it is written or not written. On the FAIR site, LDS Church Historian David Bitton actually answers this very well:

I Don't Have a Testimony of the History of the Church

The issue isn't whether Joseph and Brigham were mortals with weaknesses and mistakes. We know they were. Joseph messed up frequently, as with the lost 116 manuscript pages. But the scriptures teach us that God works through men and their weaknesses. It isn't a question of whether the History is recorded or taught "correctly," but whether these men were called of God.

The Church is now dealing with better history now. And good for them. They are allowing many of the skeletons to leave the closet, such as Mountain Meadows Massacre stuff. And good for them.

But whether some of the things encountered are somewhat distasteful or not, does not preclude these men from being called of God.

Dealing honestly with history would be releasing ALL documents concerning church history for public perusal. Even the new "Joseph Smith Papers" project has a caveat that the historians compiling it decide what they believe is authentically his and what is not. What that means to casual outsiders is that if they don't like a particular writing they can conclude it's not really Joseph and not include it. Why don't they release all the writings and put a disclaimer by the ones they feel aren't up to snuff?

[Guest User-Removed]

Sure, but I think it's a rather long jump to the conclusion you're making about YellowLight. I don't believe he's an enemy. Perhaps only going off of this thread he would appear to be that, but having PM'd with him a bit I know that that is not what he is.

Jena...I'm not accusing anyone here of being an enemy...although, I have noticed a couple of flaming apostates have now joined in this and other threads...I guess I should be thrilled that I have a fan club that follows me around the cyberworld...

My post concerning enemies of this faith was more generic than specific.

Now, you are a great booster of Richard Bushman's book on the Prophet Joseph...I've read it...I've been fortunate to meet and talk with both Richard and Claudia. Yet, there are those who view his work as a load of codswallop.

I have a friend, who shares a grandfather with Bushman. When I asked him his opinion on the book...His response was "Not the Joseph I know." Yet, I don't see differing opinions on the book, grounds for deciding who's an enemy and who's not.

Likewise, I don't see differing opinions on the Church here as deciding where to draw the line either. EXCEPT...When I read "questions" that clearly come from Anti/Apostate sources. When I see the questioning turn to something of a "Greek Tradgedy"....by that I mean for every question answered...three more pop up.

I'm troubled when I see folks attempting to assist those who claim to need assistance...and yet, their honest heartfelt responses are met by sniggles and other demeaning guffaws.

Sadly...There are way too many anti's and apostates who enjoy membership on this group. It's a free country as someone once said. The only solice I can take...is that sooner or later...most of these anti's and apostates show their true colors...and get bounced.

NOW...Under full disclosure...This post isn't directed towards anyone...It's just my feelings put to "print"....

[KosherXMorg]

3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated. ~ Canuck Mormon

Please read the site rules and try to abide by them. Thank you.

I would hope you would issue the same warning to MyDogSkip, Should we review some of the things he has been saying? I know it's easy to be hard on the "apostate" and easy on the "True Blue Mormon" but please show some equity in your dealings with the members here.

[Canuck Mormon]

I would hope you would issue the same warning to MyDogSkip, Should we review some of the things he has been saying? I know it's easy to be hard on the "apostate" and easy on the "True Blue Mormon" but please show some equity in your dealings with the members here.

MyDogSkip has been issued warnings in the past and has been towing the line ever since. If you have a problem with a particular post, you can report it.

We try and show everyone equity whether an "apostate" or a "True Blue Mormon" as you put it. Criticizing the moderators is not a way to make friends.

[Guest Seraphim]

Oh yes...close the thread when people get too close to the truth. I can't believe the way you have been treated yellowlight. A member of the church seeks to enhance his faith by searching. He finds things that upset and confuse him. So comes here seeking answers and its accused of lying, trying to decieve, having the spirit of the devil and basically causing contention. Absolutely unbelievable. These responses almost answer your questions Yellow Light-With a church with members respond like this to a fellow member's problems is it now any surprise that you realise the church isn't all its portrayed to be??

(obviously I am referring to specific people, not the people with truly christain hearts and values. You all know who you are )

Aphrodite: You have already been warned before about your antagonistic posts toward the church. Unfortunately, YellowLight has given reason to doubt his intentions by posting quotes from anti-Mormon sources. It's to be expected that trust would be lost and I find it unreasonable to express disgust towards those who don't believe him when there are uncountable examples of anti-Mormons attempting to lure members away from the church.

We will continue to give the benefit of the doubt the best we can, but we will also do what we can to protect others from those who seek to sow seeds of doubt under the guise of sharing their own doubts. True doubters carry the burden of showing they are not a wolf in sheep's clothing through sensitivity and absolute honesty. A member of the church who is only doubting will still be in tune with what is crossing the line with other members of the church.

Seraphim

[Finrock]

Snow,

You seem to be pretty good at twisting things yourself. So you are telling me that someone created a copy of a fake? Hmmm.... Yes, that sounds plausible. You also seem to be under the illusion that there is no possible way that the leaders of the church could ever be fooled by anything, is that right? Do we really need to dive into the Book of Abraham and what about the Hoffman incident? So much for the power of discernment huh?

It is people like you that make crazy accusations that there couldn't possibly be anything to what millions of others are saying. You take your side and twist it however it fits your needs. I have been trying to take an objective approach to all of this. However, I can clearly discern what kind of spirit you have.

Greetings YellowLight!

I hope you are enjoying your day. I will be disagreeing with you, somewhat, in my post here, but please do not misunderstand my disagreement to mean that I count you as an enemy. I appreciate your questions and concerns. They shouldn't be scoffed at, in my opinion, but rather genuinely considered and sincerely answered to the best of one's ability.

My observation, based on your posts after your initial questions, tends to show that you are not taking an objective approach to this. I say this because the evidence for what you postulate simply isn't as conclusive as you are making it out to be.

In regards to the Kinderhook plates, we have two contradictory statements that claim that some translation was given by Joseph Smith. Neither of the statements are Joseph's own words, but what other's claim Joseph said.

"The elements that these two accounts have in common suggest a basic jist to the hearsay stories circulating in Nauvoo and also that Joseph Smith with others saw and wondered about the nature of the material that had been brought to Nauvoo. But there is, obviously, leagues of difference between an actual translation of sacred records and a consideration of artifacts of uncertain origin—the former requiring study, prayer, and revelation; the latter characterized perhaps by an examination for points of similarity, etc., in a setting where various suggestions are likely aired by those present and elaborated on as discussion continued. And the actual presence of William Clayton or Parley P. Pratt in any discussion on the topic with Joseph Smith is simply unknown" (Source).

Most telling, however, is that no translation was ever forthcoming. Nothing was produced. There are also statements which indicate that Joseph Smith would not translate the plates until they were verified.

Also, there is no evidence that the Kinderhook event has been nefariously hidden by the Church. It simply wasn't a significant issue. All evidence seems to indicate that Joseph Smith never accepted the plates as authentic and never produced a translation. It was a hoax. For what purpose would the Church propogate that information. It is unreasonable require that all events, whether significant or relevant, should be recorded and passed on as part of the Churches history by the Church. However, there has been plenty of information available regarding it.

There simply is no preponderance of evidence that would lead an unbiased and objective individual to conclude anything nefarious or underhanded, in regards to this. The evidence actually would lead one away from anything nefarious, and instead towards an appreciation of Joseph Smith as a true prophet.

Thank you for taking the time to read my post. As I stated in my introduction on this post, I may be disagreeing with you, but I still respect your perspective and the concerns you present. I hope that you find my post helpful.

Regards,

Finrock

[rameumptom]

Dealing honestly with history would be releasing ALL documents concerning church history for public perusal. Even the new "Joseph Smith Papers" project has a caveat that the historians compiling it decide what they believe is authentically his and what is not. What that means to casual outsiders is that if they don't like a particular writing they can conclude it's not really Joseph and not include it. Why don't they release all the writings and put a disclaimer by the ones they feel aren't up to snuff?

I also agree that it would be nice of the Church to release all of it in its rough data form, rather than releasing it as they have been doing. Still, it is more than many religions have done with their historical data. There are many secrets still hid by the Catholic and various Protestant religions as to their early leaders, etc.; and we don't see many demanding the release of their papers.

I find it refreshing that the Church is beginning to open up, see the blemishes on our history, and dealing with it. Let's thank them for the good they have done, so perhaps they will be more willing to do more of it in the future.

[HiJolly]

Greetings YellowLight!

I appreciate your questions and concerns. They shouldn't be scoffed at, in my opinion, but rather genuinely considered and sincerely answered to the best of one's ability. (snip)

Regards,

Finrock

I agree with you, finrock, and I really have to hand it to you -- you are truly a peacemaker. Kudos!!

It's so hard for me to take all YL's sloppy thinking, deception and proof-texting from ANTI-Mormon sites with any degree of equinamity. I need to try harder, I guess, and I really appreciate your good example. Thanks.

HiJolly

[YellowLight]

The issue, in the long run, isn't Church History and how it is written or not written. On the FAIR site, LDS Church Historian David Bitton actually answers this very well:

I Don't Have a Testimony of the History of the Church

The issue isn't whether Joseph and Brigham were mortals with weaknesses and mistakes. We know they were. Joseph messed up frequently, as with the lost 116 manuscript pages. But the scriptures teach us that God works through men and their weaknesses. It isn't a question of whether the History is recorded or taught "correctly," but whether these men were called of God.

The Church is now dealing with better history now. And good for them. They are allowing many of the skeletons to leave the closet, such as Mountain Meadows Massacre stuff. And good for them.

But whether some of the things encountered are somewhat distasteful or not, does not preclude these men from being called of God.

Exactly. I guess I am trying to express myself through many of the things that I have just recently studied in church history. We all know that the past leaders of the church are not perfect. I am not saying that. Let's not even go that route and say that certain things were not hidden, but we are purely misinformed. Or maybe something just doesn't make sense to us. By searching into the history to answer these simple questions, more and more questions do come up. This happens to anyone searching any sort of history, whether it be that of the church or of something else. Why does the church not try to rectify the most prominent questions facing many of us?

I have only begun to look into the history of the church and I know that I will run accross things that can be cleared up or answered with ease by those who have seen them before. I also understand that there are certain aspects that I will never understand in this lifetime. I just hope that all of you will be patient while I work through this. That is why I am here. Thank you.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Why does the church not try to rectify the most prominent questions facing many of us?

I think it may be because the church is concentrating more on the main priority which is preaching the gospel and helping people to develop a relationship with the Saviour.

You have intrigued me on some of the church history topics which I previously knew nothing about and I am learning a little more so thank you for that.

I do realise that if the church doesn't publish articles on these subjects then quite often the only source of information will be anti-mormon sites and therefore if people are looking for information then this is the information the are going to find. How are they to know?

[rameumptom]

I was in a seminar in April in Indianapolis at IUPUI entitled, Mormons and American Life. Jan Shipps, non-LDS scholar on Mormonism, was the first speaker. She covered a chapter in a new book she is writing on the Mormon experience.

She ended her remarks with two stories:

Living in Utah was not easy. Scottish convert John McNeal complained of no

work in Utah. There were too many Mormons, too few workers, and too many

jobs without real pay. He had to work for Gentiles for money, and then was

harassed by his Church leaders to pay his tithes. He said the Church was

great in Scotland, but terrible in Utah. He believed in Mormonism, and so he

stayed, even though his expectations were not met.

Ex-LDS Virginia Sorenson told the story of her grandmother to Jan Shipps. In the 1880s,

Cache Valley, during the persecution for plural marriage, she would step out

of her house everyday, shake her fist at the mountains and complain about

her situation. "Damned Mormons lied to me!" Her neighbor asked her, "why

don't you just go home?" Grandmother replied, "home is where the saints

are." She was home, even though she didn't like it much.

While our history and sometimes our expectations are in reality, occasionally dismal; we don't stay because every moment is a chocolate ice cream party moment. We stay because the Spirit has witnessed to us that this is home, even with its current flaws.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Thank you. I really needed those words right now. They are a great encouragement to me at a difficult time.