Supporting our own

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
Red Ryder
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: Supporting our own

Post by Red Ryder » Thu Aug 25, 2022 12:57 pm

græy wrote:
Thu Aug 25, 2022 9:51 am
Just This Guy wrote:
Wed Aug 24, 2022 5:05 am
A lot of the BoM apologetics try to deal with the given topic by citing either loose or tight translation methods. Has anyone created a list of the various BoM problems and compared how often they cite tight vs loose translation?
I was thinking the same thing. It would be interesting to see a compiled list of each set of verses or words that demand either a tight or loose translation, knowing that they absolutely cannot have it both ways.
OK, I spent a day researching and put the list together.

Loose Translation:
✅ When convenient to apologetics

Tight Translation:
✅ When convenient to apologetics
“It always devolves to Pantaloons. Always.” ~ Fluffy

“I switched baristas” ~ Lady Gaga

“Those who do not move do not notice their chains.” ~Rosa Luxemburg

User avatar
græy
Posts: 1288
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 2:52 pm
Location: Central TX

Re: Supporting our own

Post by græy » Thu Aug 25, 2022 1:43 pm

Red Ryder wrote:
Thu Aug 25, 2022 12:57 pm
OK, I spent a day researching and put the list together.

Loose Translation:
✅ When convenient to apologetics

Tight Translation:
✅ When convenient to apologetics
All in a hard day's work! :lol:
Well, I'm better than dirt! Ah, well... most kinds of dirt; not that fancy store-bought dirt; that stuff is loaded with nutrients. I can't compete with that stuff. -Moe Sizlack

User avatar
jfro18
Posts: 1986
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:41 pm

Re: Supporting our own

Post by jfro18 » Thu Aug 25, 2022 1:54 pm

Just This Guy wrote:
Wed Aug 24, 2022 5:05 am
A lot of the BoM apologetics try to deal with the given topic by citing either loose or tight translation methods. Has anyone created a list of the various BoM problems and compared how often they cite tight vs loose translation?
It would be really interesting to go through the FAIR Mormon reply to the CES Letter and see where they jump between the two. We recorded eps this week for priesthood restoration and the changes to D&C and the loose/tight translation comes up with revelations as well.

But Red Ryder is correct - it all comes down to which version gets you out of that particular jam with no real care for the problems it creates in other areas.

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 4529
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Supporting our own

Post by moksha » Thu Aug 25, 2022 9:19 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB3iwEX8WhY

After a bit of a vacation, the series is back with Joseph Smith's First Vision.
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
blazerb
Posts: 1445
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:35 pm

Re: Supporting our own

Post by blazerb » Mon Sep 05, 2022 10:16 am

I love this series. I am currently watching the Priesthood Restoration. This topic contributed heavily to my shelf. I have a question about one of the sources critiqued from FAIR regarding evidence that JS spoke about the restoration of the priesthood by angelic visitors before 1835.

I looked up the original 1830 D&C 20 from the Book of Commandments from the JSPP. It appears to match the wording from the FAIR site:
which commandments were given to Joseph Smith, jun. who was called of God and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church, and also to Oliver Cowdery, who was also called of God an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church, and ordained under his hand, and this according to the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be all glory both now and ever—amen.
Source: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... 30-dc-20/1

My take on this scripture and other evidence is that JS and others talked about being apostles soon after or maybe even before the church was organized. However, the quote says nothing about angelic visitors granting authority. It refers to the "grace of God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ," which sounds more like the standard protestant belief that authority comes from God directly rather than some intermediary, if I understand their doctrine correctly.

Even if the FAIR quote is accurate and referring to an 1830 quote, my opinion is that they are putting way more meaning into the words than is warranted. I don't see any evidence here that JS or OC are claiming angelic ministers restored the gospel. If anything, it is more evidence that FAIR is wrong about JS or OC telling anyone about the restoration of the priesthood as given in the correlated story. The rest of the revelation does not seem to indicate any difference in the type of authority held by elders from the type of authority held by priests, teachers and deacons. They are all just listed together.

Let me know if I am misunderstanding anything. Thanks again for all the work on this.

User avatar
jfro18
Posts: 1986
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:41 pm

Re: Supporting our own

Post by jfro18 » Tue Sep 06, 2022 5:27 am

blazerb wrote:
Mon Sep 05, 2022 10:16 am
My take on this scripture and other evidence is that JS and others talked about being apostles soon after or maybe even before the church was organized. However, the quote says nothing about angelic visitors granting authority. It refers to the "grace of God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ," which sounds more like the standard protestant belief that authority comes from God directly rather than some intermediary, if I understand their doctrine correctly.
I think this is correct - at the time of the original D&C 20 the belief appears to be that they have a divine command to baptize and bring people to the church, but not in a formal "priesthood" as they have today. I find it funny that Lucy Mack Smith wrote in her autobiography that their authority to baptize each other came through the stone and not from angelic ordinations because it further shows that he believed (or at least told others) in divine command.

It's also part of what David Whitmer was hammering in his 'address to all believers' because he was there at the beginning when priesthood was never mentioned but authority was.

FAIR in their essay tries to find words that they can cram into the idea of priesthood while ignoring everything around it that is screaming that Joseph had not conceptualized it and in no way was thinking that he saw Peter, James, and John.

User avatar
nibbler
Posts: 798
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:12 pm

Re: Supporting our own

Post by nibbler » Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:04 am

blazerb wrote:
Mon Sep 05, 2022 10:16 am
I love this series. I am currently watching the Priesthood Restoration. This topic contributed heavily to my shelf. I have a question about one of the sources critiqued from FAIR regarding evidence that JS spoke about the restoration of the priesthood by angelic visitors before 1835.

I looked up the original 1830 D&C 20 from the Book of Commandments from the JSPP. It appears to match the wording from the FAIR site:
which commandments were given to Joseph Smith, jun. who was called of God and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church, and also to Oliver Cowdery, who was also called of God an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church, and ordained under his hand, and this according to the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be all glory both now and ever—amen.
Source: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... 30-dc-20/1
Apologists are probably focusing on the phrase "and ordained under his hand" and filling in narrative gaps with lots of assumed knowledge.
We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.
– Anais Nin

User avatar
Just This Guy
Posts: 1393
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:30 pm
Location: Almost Heaven

Re: Supporting our own

Post by Just This Guy » Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:14 am

Listening to the First Vision episode, one thing stood out to me. If I am completely off base, here, that's fine, just let me know.

The 1832 version is a journal entry where JSj mentions being visited by "the Lord."
The 1985 version Jsj states that he was vised by an angel.

Given that JS was generally considered in public to only have seen an angel and not god and/or Jesus for a long part of the early church history, what is the possibility that the 1835 account is really the first account of the first vision? I seams more in line with the general understanding of the time. The 1832 seams out of place. Sort of like the vision got a downgrade between 1832 and 1835.

Could the 1832 version have been added in sometime after the fact to establish JSj's claim to seeing the higher being to match the growing fish story of the vision? Basically slipped into an old diary as a retcon?
"The story so far: In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Red Ryder
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: Supporting our own

Post by Red Ryder » Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:29 am

Just This Guy wrote:
Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:14 am

Could the 1832 version have been added in sometime after the fact to establish JSj's claim to seeing the higher being to match the growing fish story of the vision? Basically slipped into an old diary as a retcon?
Interesting theory. Who do you think would have done this?

I don’t see Brigham Young as an intellectual who weaved instructions and revelations together to continue the push for established doctrines. I see BY as a heavy handed authoritarian figure who mastered getting his men to do his dirty work and establish clear lines of authority and dominance in business and church.

So who was running the early “correlation” committee?
“It always devolves to Pantaloons. Always.” ~ Fluffy

“I switched baristas” ~ Lady Gaga

“Those who do not move do not notice their chains.” ~Rosa Luxemburg

User avatar
Just This Guy
Posts: 1393
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:30 pm
Location: Almost Heaven

Re: Supporting our own

Post by Just This Guy » Tue Sep 06, 2022 9:58 am

Red Ryder wrote:
Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:29 am
Interesting theory. Who do you think would have done this?

I don’t see Brigham Young as an intellectual who weaved instructions and revelations together to continue the push for established doctrines. I see BY as a heavy handed authoritarian figure who mastered getting his men to do his dirty work and establish clear lines of authority and dominance in business and church.

So who was running the early “correlation” committee?

Anything I say is purely guess work and not based on any facts. I have no proof, or supporting evidence, just an idea that happens to fit the facts at the moment.

I doupt BY. It would have to happen sometime between 1835 and 1839. It would have to be before his theology moved to the Godhead view. BY didn't really come that large into the picture until later.

Who? My guess would be JSj himself. When his authority was challenged and so he wrote and inserted an entry into a journal of his from 1832 as a way to have some proof that he did talk to god. Of course, counter argument is if he is going to fake a journal entry, why not fake one for much earlier, say 1824, right after the vision supposedly happened. I am already making a lot of assumptions here based on little evidence.
"The story so far: In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

User avatar
blazerb
Posts: 1445
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:35 pm

Re: Supporting our own

Post by blazerb » Tue Sep 06, 2022 11:43 am

jfro18 wrote:
Tue Sep 06, 2022 5:27 am
It's also part of what David Whitmer was hammering in his 'address to all believers' because he was there at the beginning when priesthood was never mentioned but authority was.

FAIR in their essay tries to find words that they can cram into the idea of priesthood while ignoring everything around it that is screaming that Joseph had not conceptualized it and in no way was thinking that he saw Peter, James, and John.
The distinction between "priesthood" and "authority" is amazing. It made a lot of things make more sense. One thing I have noticed about apologists is their tendency to interpret past statements in light of current doctrine rather than trying to figure out what was originally meant. This is great work.

User avatar
jfro18
Posts: 1986
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:41 pm

Re: Supporting our own

Post by jfro18 » Tue Sep 06, 2022 1:55 pm

Just This Guy wrote:
Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:14 am
Given that JS was generally considered in public to only have seen an angel and not god and/or Jesus for a long part of the early church history, what is the possibility that the 1835 account is really the first account of the first vision? I seams more in line with the general understanding of the time. The 1832 seams out of place. Sort of like the vision got a downgrade between 1832 and 1835.

Could the 1832 version have been added in sometime after the fact to establish JSj's claim to seeing the higher being to match the growing fish story of the vision? Basically slipped into an old diary as a retcon?
I remember reading a while back that there was some dispute as to when the '1832' account was actually written and that could be something that needs to be fleshed out more as to how they are dating it.

It's also interesting because most early members thought of the first vision as an angelic visitation and NOT God/Jesus coming down which would seem to indicate that whatever he was telling in the early days was not the story being crafted throughout the 1830s.

But to me that 1832 isn't the outlier because it's the first - it's just his first draft at trying to get the story how he wanted it and because he apparently scrapped it he felt free to change as needed in the years to come.

User avatar
jfro18
Posts: 1986
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:41 pm

Re: Supporting our own

Post by jfro18 » Tue Sep 06, 2022 1:57 pm

blazerb wrote:
Tue Sep 06, 2022 11:43 am
The distinction between "priesthood" and "authority" is amazing. It made a lot of things make more sense. One thing I have noticed about apologists is their tendency to interpret past statements in light of current doctrine rather than trying to figure out what was originally meant. This is great work.
To me as a convert I was always told priesthood was authority so to a certain extent I can see why apologists try to play that word game.

But your biggest point is exactly right - they love to use the "the past is a foreign country" line when talking about issues that are just horrific (polygamy, race issues, etc), but then they go right out and impose modern/contemporary ideas into the past history when it suits them by implying/imposing that the statements and accounts of early leaders somehow mesh perfectly with the way the church teaches these issues today.

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 6408
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Supporting our own

Post by Hagoth » Wed Sep 07, 2022 7:08 am

jfro18 wrote:
Tue Sep 06, 2022 1:57 pm
they love to use the "the past is a foreign country" line when talking about issues that are just horrific (polygamy, race issues, etc)
And I hate it when they do that. When L. P. Hartley wrote, "the past is a foreign country: they do things differently there," he was referring to his own memories from when he was 4 years old, and commenting on how untrustworthy such memories are in light of historical fact. He's remembering a mystical, golden age that could only exist in the mind of a small child.

But, like so many things that are taken too literally in Mormonism, apologists use that phrase almost as a law of nature to support the notion that you can reimagine any statement or historical record into what you want it to be just by tossing it into a meaningless shadow-time. Any bad behavior can be dismissed because morality, like facts, is just a randomly morphing state that cannot be weighed against our own moral expectations. Well, for Mormon leaders, anyway. Anyone who didn't fully agree with those leaders were, are, and always will be unquestionably corrupt in a way that is as unchanging as the gospel (which, by the way, was also very different back then and has been constantly changing. But don't worry your pretty little head about it, that happened in a foreign country too, right?) They invert Hartley's intent and expect YOU to adopt the impressionable and fantasy-prone mind of a 4-year old child.
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is within you." The Buddha: "Be your own light."

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 4529
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Supporting our own

Post by moksha » Fri Oct 14, 2022 2:50 pm

An Introduction to Mormon Polygamy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqp9bdHd3io&t=484s
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
Hagoth
Posts: 6408
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Supporting our own

Post by Hagoth » Sat Oct 15, 2022 9:17 pm

moksha wrote:
Fri Oct 14, 2022 2:50 pm
An Introduction to Mormon Polygamy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqp9bdHd3io&t=484s
Jfro is killing it! The first polygamy episode is great. I am really looking forward to what's to come.
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is within you." The Buddha: "Be your own light."

User avatar
jfro18
Posts: 1986
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:41 pm

Re: Supporting our own

Post by jfro18 » Sun Oct 16, 2022 5:30 am

Hagoth wrote:
Sat Oct 15, 2022 9:17 pm
moksha wrote:
Fri Oct 14, 2022 2:50 pm
An Introduction to Mormon Polygamy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqp9bdHd3io&t=484s
Jfro is killing it! The first polygamy episode is great. I am really looking forward to what's to come.
I get progressively angrier with each polygamy episode if that helps. :lol:

User avatar
Red Ryder
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: Supporting our own

Post by Red Ryder » Sat Oct 22, 2022 5:30 pm

Jfro,

Just wanted to pass along a happy message.

Syster Ryder has been listening to your podcast series. She’s 5 episodes in and said she enjoys the “just the facts” tone. No anger or biased side taking. Just presenting the information in a good solid information sharing tone.

She found the podcast all on her own and knowing that she is a selective and picky podcast listener and has continued to listen tells me you’ve got a good formula working.

Keep up the great work.
“It always devolves to Pantaloons. Always.” ~ Fluffy

“I switched baristas” ~ Lady Gaga

“Those who do not move do not notice their chains.” ~Rosa Luxemburg

User avatar
Mormorrisey
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:54 pm

Re: Supporting our own

Post by Mormorrisey » Sat Oct 22, 2022 7:14 pm

Red Ryder wrote:
Sat Oct 22, 2022 5:30 pm
Jfro,

Just wanted to pass along a happy message.

Syster Ryder has been listening to your podcast series. She’s 5 episodes in and said she enjoys the “just the facts” tone. No anger or biased side taking. Just presenting the information in a good solid information sharing tone.

She found the podcast all on her own and knowing that she is a selective and picky podcast listener and has continued to listen tells me you’ve got a good formula working.

Keep up the great work.
Have to echo this. One of my kids was a bit traumatized by the temple, and listened to your recent episode on Masonry, and that actually helped her a great deal. Luckily some years ago I did some historical work on fraternal orders and was able to just listen and back up what you said, and that helped her a great deal. I agree with RR, it's the just the facts tone that sets these segments apart. Well done, jfro! (It absolutely shocked the crap out of me that this particular child listened to Mormon Stories to begin with. She was drawn in a few of weeks ago by John's interview with Elissa Wall, after watching the Keep Sweet documentary. Pretty wild things happening in the Mormorrisey extended household!)

I'm on the polygamy episodes, halfway through the second one on D&C 132, and two things struck me. I never really considered how offensive the word concubine is, and I was really grateful to Elisha for bringing this up. It truly illustrates how problematic the doctrine is, just that that word exists to describe it, and is canonized in our scripture. Never considered the problems that such terminology would bring before Elisha mentioned it.

Secondly, I felt your pain with describing how horrible the doctrine is about how women will be given to other men if their spouse is "unfaithful." It's bullcrap, is what it is, but I don't think TBM's really contemplate what this means. Even when I pressed Sis. M about this doctrine, she simply doesn't want to think about the ramifications of what that means in the eternities, that she'll be in a harem with a faithful priesthood holder populating planets, instead of being with me. She doesn't even want to believe it, when clearly that's the doctrine. I don't want to hammer that home to her, as it clearly will bring other problems to the marriage, but my goodness. This is the doctrine. You either buy it, or you don't. And I'M the one who's a cafeteria Mormon. Sheesh.
"And I don't need you...or, your homespun philosophies."
"And when you try to break my spirit, it won't work, because there's nothing left to break."

User avatar
jfro18
Posts: 1986
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:41 pm

Re: Supporting our own

Post by jfro18 » Sun Oct 23, 2022 6:56 am

Red Ryder wrote:
Sat Oct 22, 2022 5:30 pm
Just wanted to pass along a happy message.

Syster Ryder has been listening to your podcast series. She’s 5 episodes in and said she enjoys the “just the facts” tone. No anger or biased side taking. Just presenting the information in a good solid information sharing tone.
That's the best compliment I can get - I know we fail sometimes to keep all emotions out, but my goal has always been to get the info out in a way that doesn't feel like it's making fun of or sensationalizing it. It makes it even cooler than she got there on her own - I really wonder a lot about what, if any, impact this series might have because I don't know if it get lost in the masses of podcasts or (hopefully) be a good series for those who are questioning but don't want to be made to feel like idiots for believing.
Mormorrisey wrote:
Sat Oct 22, 2022 7:14 pm
Have to echo this. One of my kids was a bit traumatized by the temple, and listened to your recent episode on Masonry, and that actually helped her a great deal.

I'm on the polygamy episodes, halfway through the second one on D&C 132, and two things struck me. I never really considered how offensive the word concubine is, and I was really grateful to Elisha for bringing this up. It truly illustrates how problematic the doctrine is, just that that word exists to describe it, and is canonized in our scripture. Never considered the problems that such terminology would bring before Elisha mentioned it.
This is also quite the amazing compliment so thank you! We wanted to have a woman's voice on for the polygamy episodes and I wanted to bring Elisha on because she has a really great approach to this stuff which isn't going to make fun of it or keep calling it a cult, so I'm really happy with the two episodes we've recorded so far (second one will be up Thursday). We've got at least one more with her and I think she brings a great perspective to this stuff.

The original plan was 3 episodes on polygamy which got split to 5 before we began recording and now we're at 6 because the episode for this upcoming week would've been 3.5 hours without splitting... I can now understand why Lindsey ended up with 100+ episodes on polygamy. :lol:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests