Saints

This is for encouragement, ideas, and support for people going through a faith transition no matter where you hope to end up. This is also the place to laugh, cry, and love together.
User avatar
slavereeno
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:30 am
Location: QC, AZ

Re: Saints

Post by slavereeno » Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:00 pm

1826 - JS hearing for fraud and disorderly person takes place
1873 - Fraser's Magazine posts the transcript from the hearing including dates, fees and persons involved, a summary of statements and a guilty verdict
1877 - WD Purple writes a piece about JS in Chenango Union and includes a narrative of the trial including a dismissal of the charges
1945 - Fawn Brodie writes about the 1873 Fraser account in No Man Knows my History
1946 - The church throws her under the bus and says the account in Fraser's is a forgery, that the trial never happened cause if it did it would be damning, even though JS mentions it in the history of the church albeit in a very vague and misleading way.
1971 - A an actual court document is found in NY that corroborates much of the transcript posted in 1873 including the dates, names and even the correct amount for the fees.
Now - Church decides to gaslight the heck out of this, claiming now that JS really could see treasure or at least that some of the people in the hearing thought so and that is just more proof of his divine gift with the rock. We've been open and transparent about this too, you just haven't been paying attention. Funny though, they quote Josiah Stowell going off about Joseph's gifts, but not the nephew who brought the case to court in the first place, the one that said he was a transparent fraud, nor do they mention the blood sacrifices to the demon that took place to try to appease the spirit to get the loot.
Last edited by slavereeno on Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MalcolmVillager
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Saints

Post by MalcolmVillager » Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:35 pm

I read the 5 chapters that are released during SM at my parents ward last week. They are not long or detailed. I think they are Scott I'm ng some gaslighting content in there so that the woke members don't complain, while keeping the information light and faith promoting.

A brother brought this up today in EQ. He said he has studied JS a ton in his life, yet he learned a lot of new things that he had not known before. I am curious what all he has studied because there wasn't anything new to me (except for the church's spin) and it was very superficial on all of it.

The gaslighting and moving of goal posts will work for so many who do not really dig. Interestingly they have a ton of sources cited. It is interesting what they allow as a source that opens pandora box further if you dig. The same is said of sources in the essays.

User avatar
slavereeno
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:30 am
Location: QC, AZ

Re: Saints

Post by slavereeno » Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:20 pm

MalcolmVillager wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:35 pm
The gaslighting and moving of goal posts will work for so many who do not really dig. Interestingly they have a ton of sources cited. It is interesting what they allow as a source that opens pandora box further if you dig. The same is said of sources in the essays.
I agree with this, but TBMs aren't going to look any further, into the sources. They are going to take the faith promoting story at face value. I read a bunch of these with DW and again on my own and they do seem pretty light.

User avatar
MerrieMiss
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Saints

Post by MerrieMiss » Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:41 am

slavereeno wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 11:26 pm
https://www.lds.org/church/news/saints- ... s?lang=eng

DW is reading these and its giving me a rash...
There is no author on this that I can see. I know this isn't news, after all, the essays weren't published with names attached. But this bothers me. I'm having a difficult time putting into words why this is bothersome.

Authors and researchers should get credit for their work. How do I know the authors of this are credible? I don't like the anonymity that pushes the idea: "The Church" published it, so that makes it okay. I think it makes it easier to change at a later date without vilifying anyone other than a "committee" who simply didn't know any better, meaning we don't say any one person was wrong, after all they may be a GA someday. But I guess this goes back to the idea that if one has the truth, why hide behind it? Why not put your name to it and boldly proclaim it?

Does it bother anyone else and why?

User avatar
blazerb
Posts: 1614
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:35 pm

Re: Saints

Post by blazerb » Sun Sep 02, 2018 4:53 pm

MerrieMiss wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:41 am
There is no author on this that I can see. I know this isn't news, after all, the essays weren't published with names attached. But this bothers me. I'm having a difficult time putting into words why this is bothersome.

Authors and researchers should get credit for their work. How do I know the authors of this are credible? I don't like the anonymity that pushes the idea: "The Church" published it, so that makes it okay. I think it makes it easier to change at a later date without vilifying anyone other than a "committee" who simply didn't know any better, meaning we don't say any one person was wrong, after all they may be a GA someday. But I guess this goes back to the idea that if one has the truth, why hide behind it? Why not put your name to it and boldly proclaim it?

Does it bother anyone else and why?
I think you hit the nail on the head. The church wants to be able to easily change the story. It also bothers me that the church does not want to give credit to the people who do the work. There is the possibility that those involved do not want their name on the work. Maybe they wrote the text, sent it to the correlation committee, passed it to whichever GA's need to be involved, got told how to word something so that the meaning is not really changed but puts a spin on the facts that is more faith-promoting, etc. After all that, it might bear little resemblance to something a reputable historian wants to put their name on.

I have not started reading the work. I know how much the "several months before her 15th birthday" phrase in the polygamy essay bothered me. It showed fear that the facts can not just be stated. I don't want to deal with more of that.

User avatar
slavereeno
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:30 am
Location: QC, AZ

Re: Saints

Post by slavereeno » Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:34 pm

blazerb wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 4:53 pm
It also bothers me that the church does not want to give credit to the people who do the work. There is the possibility that those involved do not want their name on the work.
There is a "Contributors" section in the front of the book. It lists writers, editors, managers and research specialists.

User avatar
blazerb
Posts: 1614
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:35 pm

Re: Saints

Post by blazerb » Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:51 pm

slavereeno wrote:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:34 pm
blazerb wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 4:53 pm
It also bothers me that the church does not want to give credit to the people who do the work. There is the possibility that those involved do not want their name on the work.
There is a "Contributors" section in the front of the book. It lists writers, editors, managers and research specialists.
Good to know. Thanks. It's not as bad as I assumed.

User avatar
slavereeno
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:30 am
Location: QC, AZ

Re: Saints

Post by slavereeno » Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:52 pm

I have agreed to read these with DW. The books read like fiction that is based on real events. I am going through the first volume and have made it to chapter 7. I am trying to be less negative about church stuff right now, since that negativity is driving a wedge between DW and I.

The concept of the "Urim and Thumum" is pushed pretty hard in chapters 5,6 and 7. While they do describe the seer stone in the hat, they imply that translation and revelation were performed primarily with the Urim and Thumim.

The sources for this seem to be a dog's breakfast. It seems that they are cherry picking the most faith promoting stuff and then sprinkling a few of the less convenient facts in, in such a way as to diminish their impact. The seer stone is an example:

In chapter 6 it reads:
Looking into the interpreters or another seer stone, he was able to translate whether the plates were in front of him or wrapped in one of Emma’s linen cloths on the table.
Then later in chapter 7 it reads:
Sometimes Joseph translated by looking through the interpreters and reading in English the characters on the plates.

Often he found a single seer stone to be more convenient. He would put the seer stone in his hat, place his face into the hat to block out the light, and peer at the stone. Light from the stone would shine in the darkness, revealing words that Joseph dictated as Oliver rapidly copied them down.
So they set the reader up to believe that the U&T are really the go-to but toss the seer stone thing in for "honesty."

Reading this thing is putting me in a bad mood, this is designed to intentionally push a very specific and biased narrative. Trying not to wear my negativity on my sleeve.

User avatar
slavereeno
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:30 am
Location: QC, AZ

Re: Saints

Post by slavereeno » Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:33 pm

The account of the 3 and 8 witnesses was also very faith affirming, if you believe it.

The account draws heavily on Lucy Mack Smith's history.

User avatar
Coop
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 7:52 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Saints

Post by Coop » Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:48 pm

slavereeno wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 9:45 am
So DW has started reading all of these. This gives me a rash because I was falling into a nice pattern of indifference and starting to do a lot of things that had nothing to do with Mormonism. These are going to suck me right back and with whiplash.
Do you mind if I ask you a tough question?

Obviously it makes sense for me not to wait for your reply. You can just ignore me if you feel my question is inappropriate.

Does your wife know that you visit this forum and is she aware of this posting in particular?

Assuming the answer is no then talking about her behind her back might not be that helpful. Sorry to be so blunt but better this comes from me, a person who doesn’t post that often, than from someone you care about. In this case you can always shoot the messenger.

Assuming the answer is yes then if she was so inclined would she be willing to post her perspective on this latest discussion?

My reading between the lines of your post suggests that her perspective on her efforts at resolving your differences would be much different than yours. In my experience when couples are having marital issues they often spend a lot of time arguing over the content of their differences rather than dealing with the way they process information. Arguing over content is mostly a waste of time. Discussing process is way more helpful and way less stressful.

If you are interested I could share a few suggestions.

All the best,
Bob

User avatar
slavereeno
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:30 am
Location: QC, AZ

Re: Saints

Post by slavereeno » Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:42 pm

Coop wrote:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:48 pm
Does your wife know that you visit this forum and is she aware of this posting in particular?
Yes, she absolutely knows I am on this forum, we talk often about my goings on here. I probably have not shared this specific post, but mainly because there simply isn't time to share everything. The point of that particular post is that I was trying to distance myself from obsessing about Mormonism because I was reeking negativity all the time and this wasn't allowing me to get a break.
Coop wrote:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:48 pm
Assuming the answer is no then talking about her behind her back might not be that helpful. Sorry to be so blunt but better this comes from me, a person who doesn’t post that often, than from someone you care about. In this case you can always shoot the messenger.
I went back and re-read from my post you have quoted from, and you have a good point. I have tried pretty hard not to post a lot about DW or speak for her here, but that post may have crossed the line. I will go back and remove the items where I am speaking for DW.
Coop wrote:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:48 pm
Assuming the answer is yes then if she was so inclined would she be willing to post her perspective on this latest discussion?
That's entirely up to her.
Coop wrote:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:48 pm
If you are interested I could share a few suggestions.
Thanks for the reality check, I am always open to suggestions, perhaps in a PM?

User avatar
slavereeno
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:30 am
Location: QC, AZ

Re: Saints

Post by slavereeno » Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:46 pm

The book mentions Abner Cole, I can't recall ever learning about him. "Saints" doesn't mention Luman Walters who seems to be a central figure in Abner Cole's writings.

User avatar
jfro18
Posts: 2064
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:41 pm

Re: Saints

Post by jfro18 » Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:14 pm

I read some of this today after seeing that the church decided to subtitle it "The Standard of Truth," and it is just appalling how much info they leave out.

The chapters on the translation are effectively a retelling of Lucy Mack Smith if you look at the sources, and they completely lie about the Urim/Thummim and then try to just casually switch the meaning as they go.

The way they treat polygamy is if you imagine taking something as awful as polygamy and then need to convert it to a Disney movie. They hyped this book as tackling the tough issues, but as has been said above... they focus heavily on the faith promoting issues and then sprinkle in the tough ones in a way that just gets glossed over for the reader.

I am sure my wife will read it... she doesn't trust any non-church sources, but I will definitely ask what she thinks about how they completely ignore that Joseph Smith never used the gold plates, how there was no Urim-Thummim, and how they continue to treat the Joseph-Emma marriage as this amazing love story when in reality she was tormented by what Joseph did to her with polygamy.

This 'book' is even worse than the essays in terms of lying to members, because they can claim to have covered these subjects when in reality they only barely touch on the tough stuff while surrounding it with fluffy narratives that never include the critical sources.

Their inoculation game is strong!

User avatar
slavereeno
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:30 am
Location: QC, AZ

Re: Saints

Post by slavereeno » Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:34 am

jfro18 wrote:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:14 pm
This 'book' is even worse than the essays in terms of lying to members, because they can claim to have covered these subjects when in reality they only barely touch on the tough stuff while surrounding it with fluffy narratives that never include the critical sources.

Their inoculation game is strong!
Yes, this is exactly why reading it is making me angry again. It really is deceptive, and intentionally so. As I read about the foundation of the church and priesthood I thought about your timeline jfro, there is really a lot that they are ignoring, or re-writing the history to push the one true church narrative. This book is not about understanding or truth its about inoculation and indoctrination. And once the dust settles they are going to gaslight the hell out of the things they taught me as a youth in the church. I think I may need to just set it aside for a while.

User avatar
Archimedes
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:22 am

Re: Saints

Post by Archimedes » Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:20 am

It blames Emma for the failure of Polygamy, predictably. I need to dig up the exact quote.
"She never loved you; she loved the church, her one true love. She used you to marry the church by proxy."

-- unknown reddit poster

User avatar
jfro18
Posts: 2064
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:41 pm

Re: Saints

Post by jfro18 » Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:08 am

It talks about the visit to Charles Anthon in a way that gives NO account to what Anthon says happened and makes the LDS account 100% authoritative.

On that particular instance I kind of think it's somewhere in the middle - Anthon probably thought at first there might be something to it until he asked about what the characters came from... realizing it was complete crap once he heard the source.

Which makes sense - happens all the time with thing as simple as verifying an autograph, so clearly if someone brings funny looking characters you woudl try to figure them out as you get context to where they came from.

Point being - Saints is basically pulling only from faith promoting sources and pretending the others don't exist.

Want peak apologetics? They cite Rough Stone Rolling in Saints, yet they still pretend that John the Baptist visiting Joseph in 1829 even though Rough Stone Rolling makes clear that was never mentioned until 1835 AND that Joseph himself wasn't even ordained until 1831... it's blatantly dishonest.

User avatar
Archimedes
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:22 am

Re: Saints

Post by Archimedes » Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:29 pm

slavereeno wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 4:36 pm
I am glad there is NOM and that I can see all you are out there, but we are waaaay fewer and further between than any of us would like to admit. The church isn't going anywhere, with a few hundred billion dollars to throw around its hard to see a win for me in the end.
The angry reddit board is almost up to 90,000 members. NoM is a narrow cross section of a very much larger community of Disaffected.
"She never loved you; she loved the church, her one true love. She used you to marry the church by proxy."

-- unknown reddit poster

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 5050
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Saints

Post by moksha » Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:37 pm

Wonder if the Saints: The Standard of Truth website has been able to electronically inject Slavereeno with a powerful dosage of iHypnotics? Even now, tiny electronic nanobots are whispering a single message, reactivate.

Image
Reactivate! Reactivate! Reactivate!
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

User avatar
DPRoberts
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:48 pm

Re: Saints

Post by DPRoberts » Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:30 pm

moksha wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:37 pm
Wonder if the Saints: The Standard of Truth website has been able to electronically inject Slavereeno with a powerful dosage of iHypnotics? Even now, tiny electronic nanobots are whispering a single message, reactivate.

Image
Reactivate! Reactivate! Reactivate!
LOL
When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or cease to be honest. -anon
The belief that there is only one truth, and that oneself is in possession of it, is the root of all evil in the world. -Max Born

User avatar
Ghost
Posts: 414
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 11:40 pm

Re: Saints

Post by Ghost » Sat Sep 08, 2018 11:53 am

I've been reading this over the past few days, and I can't help noticing how my current perspective colors the narrative for me. Years ago, a book like this would have been a dream come true for me. I was always looking for things that dug a little deeper. Now, I find it amusing to see how they couch some of the events, and I'm continually reminded how much my perspective has changed.

Another thing I find amusing is the headline "Newly Released Saints Volume 1 Provides Honest Look at Early Church History." Is the implication that there were less-than-honest historical accounts previously?

Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 54 guests