NOM

https://www.lds.org/liahona/2017/02/und ... h?lang=eng

The seer stone portion really pisses me off.

#GasLightTheWorld

Yeah, overall a crappy article. But there was one quote that did strike me as reasonable if taken out of context.

From our perspective today, we obviously know more than participants did about the outcome of the past, but we also know far less about their experience of living in it.

This just reminds me not to judge people who believed.

Some things come to mind:

1. Mitigate, mitigate, mitigate. We cannot go back in time and watch and hear what happened with our own eyes and ears, therefore we must give Joseph the benefit of the doubt.

2. Quote Joseph and the modern "scriptures" as proof texts of how we should view these problems, even though THEY are the issues in question. Is that circular reasoning or what?

3. "Present assumptions distort the past."
And that includes the assumption from which this article is written i.e. that Joseph Smith told the truth and was a prophet of God.
It never enters their mind that this assumption could possibly be wrong.

Facts don’t speak, but storytellers do

So let us dictate which story tellers you can believe and which ones you cannot. Facts can't spin themselves.

Palerider wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:13 pm Some things come to mind:

1. Mitigate, mitigate, mitigate. We cannot go back in time and watch and hear what happened with our own eyes and ears, therefore we must give Joseph the benefit of the doubt.

2. Quote Joseph and the modern "scriptures" as proof texts of how we should view these problems, even though THEY are the issues in question. Is that circular reasoning or what?

3. "Present assumptions distort the past."
And that includes the assumption from which this article is written i.e. that Joseph Smith told the truth and was a prophet of God.
It never enters their mind that this assumption could possibly be wrong.

I may be wrong, but I think it does enter their minds. At least it does for some of them. I’ve been reading a book by a gay Christian who spent most of his life trying to deny his homosexual feelings. He could not deny he had them, but worked so hard to convince himself that they were from Satan, or they were a test, or that he was just a sinner, but that he could be miraculously cured, or overcome them through sheer willpower. The thoughts are there, but many fear admitting it, even to themselves. Right now I am convinced that Joseph Smith was a fraud. But I entertain thoughts that I could be wrong. Evidence (it would take a lot) could convince me I am wrong. But, the evidence is either not there, or God is withholding it for some difficult to understand reason. I doubt my convictions and I doubt my doubts. To do otherwise seems like being dishonest.

Lack of evidence is evidence. If I were on a jury in a murder trial and the prosecution couldn’t put the suspect at the scene of the crime that is evidence. When nobody can put swords, horses, wheat, cattle, or millions of Christian Hebrews in Ancient America, that’s evidence. When no experts can trace anything on the Papyri to the Book of Abraham, that’s evidence. I think a God of truth would expect followers to acknowledge that.

And another thing.......the lack of self doubt by apologists and TBM’s makes me more doubtful of what they say. It seems like fear rather than faith that makes them avoid contrary arguments. I’ve never heard an agnostic or a thoughtful theist say “don’t read those Mormon books or magazines.” And only extremely rarely have I heard them say or write, “we must keep those evangelicals or Mormons from polluting our young with their germs of faith.”

Whew.... maybe I’m done. It felt like I couldn’t restrain the spirit within me.

deacon blues wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:33 pm The thoughts are there, but many fear admitting it, even to themselves.

Probably a better way of saying it is that, "They can't or won't allow the possibility that their assumption could be wrong."

The critical term you used is "fear". It was an extremely difficult hurdle for me to face the possibility that the church might not be true...but the desire for truth eventually outweighed the fear and anxiety.

If in reality the truth sets us free, then what have we to fear?

One more thing: faith is engaging contrary evidence because one is confident one is right. Fear is avoiding contrary evidence, for obvious reasons.

Here's an article about hiding church history:
https://proveallthingsholdfasttogood.wo ... -history/

Hagoth wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:42 pm Here's an article about hiding church history:
https://proveallthingsholdfasttogood.wo ... -history/

Interesting article. I am surprised poelmans talk is not listed.

Also interesting how prominently Dallin Oaks features into this article.

The Poelman talk is a good one. I'll have to add it. Thanks.

Understanding Church's stand on history:

1. Coverup
2. Revise
3. Insist coverup never happened