The Amazing, Contradicting Joseph Smith

[consiglieri]

New podcast up from Radio Free Mormon called, "The Amazing, Contradicting Joseph Smith."

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/ ... eph-smith/

The main thrust is to look at a number of the instances where Joseph Smith contradicted himself and asks the question whether the willingness to overturn previous doctrinal positions is a better avenue to the truth than refusing to overturn the existing paradigm when confronted with conflicting evidence.

For your perusal.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Another great podcast. Very comprehensive. You have great skill in summarizing a ton of historical information into a concise presentation.

[redjay]

Consiglieri

Are you the radio free mormon host? If so, please accept my admiration and gratitude. The broadcasts really are superb. Anyway that's enough of that, sycophantic worship of those who know better than you is more at home elsewhere

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Question regarding the last podcast on Apostles seeing Jesus. You discussed Tom Phillips 2nd annointing experience, and mentioned that Tom had left the church. It's true he is no longer participating (making your statement accurate), but do we know for a fact if he has officially resigned or been excommunicated? There seems to be speculation that the leaders won't touch him due to his 2nd annointing status.

[20/20hind]

Just listened, great info. Smith was definitely not a conformist. Willing to explore and abandon the rigidity of dogma and creeds. I don't believe his religion anymore. But this idea of non conformity applied to our current leaders just makes them more of a figurehead. Not really innovating. Instead we get the correlation committee that produces insanely boring lessons. And don't forget to pay, pray, and obey

[Red Ryder]

This one was slow to start. The first 20 minutes was a comparison of science vs religion to set up scenarios where it's ok for new belief or evidence (science) to contradict old beliefs and knowledge and where it's not ok (religion). For 20 minutes I kept wondering when the list of 7 contradictions were going to be discussed. I don't know the demographics or intelligence of the target audience but I would think that most people who choose to listen would have a basic understanding of the differences to warrant a much shorter intro and comparison. The comparison was necessary to set up the narrative but was just too long. Give it 5 minutes then skip ahead to the 20 minutes mark! As the Geico Gecko says, 15 minutes could save you 15% on your car insurance.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

This one was slow to start. The first 20 minutes was a comparison of science vs religion to set up scenarios where it's ok for new belief or evidence (science) to contradict old beliefs and knowledge and where it's not ok (religion). For 20 minutes I kept wondering when the list of 7 contradictions were going to be discussed. I don't know the demographics or intelligence of the target audience but I would think that most people who choose to listen would have a basic understanding of the differences to warrant a much shorter intro and comparison. The comparison was necessary to set up the narrative but was just too long. Give it 5 minutes then skip ahead to the 20 minutes mark! As the Geico Gecko says, 15 minutes could save you 15% on your car insurance.

Despite the slow start which is probably a fair critique, I never find the material boring. The ability to summarize all this stuff into a short podcast with enough background detail to set up the good stuff is a skill I really admire. Duration of these seems perfectly done in comparison to say a 3 hour Dehlin interview.

[Rob4Hope]

Not really innovating.

The leaders are doctrinal "wardens" and conformity "police".

Boyd Packer was the best example of this I have ever seen. Bruce R was a bully in the same arena.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Not really innovating.

The leaders are doctrinal "wardens" and conformity "police".

Boyd Packer was the best example of this I have ever seen. Bruce R was a bully in the same arena.

The difference between Bruce R and Packer was that Bruce at least admitted he was wrong about the priesthood ban and corrected course in his "we now have further light" speech. I will give him credit for that at least. He certainly wasn't wishy washy about topics like the church is today. I admire him for his tenacity of declaring solid ground even if mislead and problematic.

[consiglieri]

Question regarding the last podcast on Apostles seeing Jesus. You discussed Tom Phillips 2nd annointing experience, and mentioned that Tom had left the church. It's true he is no longer participating (making your statement accurate), but do we know for a fact if he has officially resigned or been excommunicated? There seems to be speculation that the leaders won't touch him due to his 2nd annointing status.

I have no personal knowledge of the subject, but my understanding is that Tom has not been excommunicated, and some wonder why a guy who has actually revealed the Second Anointing Ceremony AND sued President Monson in court hasn't been axed.

There seems to be only one likely reason . . .

[consiglieri]

This one was slow to start. The first 20 minutes was a comparison of science vs religion to set up scenarios where it's ok for new belief or evidence (science) to contradict old beliefs and knowledge and where it's not ok (religion). For 20 minutes I kept wondering when the list of 7 contradictions were going to be discussed. I don't know the demographics or intelligence of the target audience but I would think that most people who choose to listen would have a basic understanding of the differences to warrant a much shorter intro and comparison. The comparison was necessary to set up the narrative but was just too long. Give it 5 minutes then skip ahead to the 20 minutes mark! As the Geico Gecko says, 15 minutes could save you 15% on your car insurance.

Thanks for the constructive criticism, Red Ryder. Maybe I did go a bit overboard with the framing.

[deacon blues]

Not really innovating.

The leaders are doctrinal "wardens" and conformity "police".

Boyd Packer was the best example of this I have ever seen. Bruce R was a bully in the same arena.

The difference between Bruce R and Packer was that Bruce at least admitted he was wrong about the priesthood ban and corrected course in his "we now have further light" speech. I will give him credit for that at least. He certainly wasn't wishy washy about topics like the church is today. I admire him for his tenacity of declaring solid ground even if mislead and problematic.

Yeah, give him credit for that. Of course, Packer had more edited conference talks.

[2bizE]

Question regarding the last podcast on Apostles seeing Jesus. You discussed Tom Phillips 2nd annointing experience, and mentioned that Tom had left the church. It's true he is no longer participating (making your statement accurate), but do we know for a fact if he has officially resigned or been excommunicated? There seems to be speculation that the leaders won't touch him due to his 2nd annointing status.

I have no personal knowledge of the subject, but my understanding is that Tom has not been excommunicated, and some wonder why a guy who has actually revealed the Second Anointing Ceremony AND sued President Monson in court hasn't been axed.

There seems to be only one likely reason . . .

I'm pretty sure Tom Phillips was excommunicated without even having a church court. He just got a letter in the mail... I guess since he has had the second anointing, it doesn't matter as he is saved anyway.

[GoodBoy]

I love these podcasts that you have been doing. I especially love the November policy one.

[JustCurious]

Question regarding the last podcast on Apostles seeing Jesus. You discussed Tom Phillips 2nd annointing experience, and mentioned that Tom had left the church. It's true he is no longer participating (making your statement accurate), but do we know for a fact if he has officially resigned or been excommunicated? There seems to be speculation that the leaders won't touch him due to his 2nd annointing status.

I know Tom Phillips, as well as Hans Mattsson (if you are also curious about Hans). I consider them both to be friends. If I shared my name here, Tom would instantly recognize me. I don't think Hans would, but if I reminded him of a conversation we had, I am sure he would remember me.

As of the time of my last communication with either of them, neither of them had either officially resigned, nor been excommunicated.

That would be as of a little over a year ago. Things may have changed since then, but I doubt it. I believe neither have resigned, and neither have been excommunicated. And also, neither believe that the LDS church is what it claims to be.

Both are in my opinion really good men. And I respect them both immensely.

[GoodBoy]

I just listened to this one today and was impressed by your scholarship. It reminded me of how Bart Ehrman showed discrepancies between the gospels (like Jesus says different things while on the cross in the different gospels, and after he died there are pretty different stories told about what happens after he was resurrected) and how most apologists try to make them all be right and it kind of makes a ridiculous story and that the apologists are in essence writing their own gospel in their attempts to harmonize the differences. Similarly LDS apologists have to create their own doctrine in their attempts to prove that Joseph Smith wasn't teaching conflicting doctrines at different times.

I appreciate and respect the scholarship that went into researching these topics.