NOM

Long story short - my wife read the Priesthood timeline I put up at https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/priesthood-timeline and send me notes about it to talk about later.

She did not read my "response to apologetics" which covers some of her criticisms so I'll leave those aside or just note that... but here are her main contentions. I am 99.9% sure she used FAIR and conflictofjustice.com (don't get me started on that site) for her rebuttals. I am putting what my response is currently, but we haven't discussed it so I wanted to run it by anyone who has time to give some advice.

I don't know if she's open to this or not... I know that damned conflictofjustice site has made her more angry towards critics (shocker), so I kind of want to tear that site to the ground when I talk to her, but that's not the point here. So here are the main points she gave me:

1. In response to the idea that Rigdon was the one who brought over the Aaronic/Melchizedek priesthoods, she says: "Rigdon joined the church in late October, 1830. The Book of Mormon was published in March of 1830 (translated in 1829). In Alma 13, Melchizedek is mentioned as holding the highest priesthood, paying tithes, etc. This would have been translated before Rigdon was known. Ridgon was also in Ohio at this time, so he wasn’t near Harmony, PA or Palmyra, NY. Can you provide what other Campbellite members might have influenced this? If Rigdon is the source behind the Priesthood in the Book of Mormon, please provide other documentation of him having anything to do with Smith/Cowdery before 1829."

My response there is something that has been discussed on here, but that Melchizedek was taken from Hebrews 7 which is why he's mentioned in the BoM, but was never talked about as a "priesthood" until after Rigdon arrived. Furthermore, we don't even know if Melchizedek was a real person as modern scholars tend to believe it was a reference to Christ, which Joseph Smith did not know at the time (same problem with him using Deutero-Isaiah passages). Anyone have anything to add there?

2. She references a few newspaper articles from 1831-1833 that talk about them seeing angels and being given authority to speak for God. I have these all on another page (response to apologetics) but she did not know that apparently. I am going to post those quotes here- anyone have anything worth saying here besides these quotes being very generic and not talking specifically about the A/M priesthoods or John the Baptist?

Nov 1830: "About Two weeks since some persons came along here with the book, one of whom pretends to have seen Angels, and assisted in translating the plates. He proclaims the destruction upon the world within a few years,--holds forth that the ordinances of the gospel, have not been regularly administered since the days of the Apostles, till the said Smith and himself commenced the work . . . . The name of the person here, who pretends to have a divine mission, and to have seen and conversed with Angels, is Cowdray.”

Feb 1831: "They then proclaimed that there had been no religion in the world for 1500 years,--that no one had been authorized to preach &c. for that period—that Jo Smith had now received a commission from God for that purpose . . . . Smith (they affirmed) had seen God frequently and personally—Cowdery and his friends had frequent interviews with angels."

Reverend Richmond Taggart to Reverend Jonathan Goings, Cleveland, Ohio, March 2, 1833: The following Curious occurrence occurred last week in Newburg about 6 miles from this Place [Cleveland, Ohio]. Joe Smith the great Mormonosity was there and held forth, and among other things he told them he had seen Jesus Christ and the Apostles and conversed with them, and that he could perform miracles. (She claims that this second hand account referencing seeing Apostles is proof he was talking about it. I would counter it's still 4 years later, second hand, and still completely vague)

3. In response to my claim that Joseph's memories on this and the First Vision tend to go from generic to detailed/more grand over time, she claims: "Please include a psychological source for “exactly the opposite of how normal retellings typically work.” Since readers don’t know anything about your website’s authors, why should they take your word for it that it is the “exact opposite?” Once the source is added, think about rewording the passage because this comes off as an assumption and may show bias. Why would you consider this a “normal retelling?” If you’re claiming to have visitation from angels, that isn’t normal. Why pretend it is? If you are going to include this, you should probably also include the unrest and animosity Joseph Smith ran into which prompted him to move from Palmyra to Harmony. You might want to record what you consider a “normal retelling” to give readers a reference. Is a normal retelling alluding to talking about what you had for dinner? Or are you referring to retelling something life changing? I imagine there’s a difference and would like to see it addressed."

I need to find some sources about this, but I think she's taking my fairly generic claim and trying to attach more to it. Regardless, if anyone has any thoughts here let me know.

4. She goes after the claim the revelations were quietly changed w/o any explanation: "The Book of Commandments was a much shorter book than the Doctrine and Covenants, and obviously changes were made. Instead of adding a new section to the Doctrine and Covenants, additions were added to section 27. Nobody pretended that it wasn’t an addition. The changes you highlighted are well-documented. No one is denying them. However, just because the Book of Commandments wasn’t specific doesn’t mean that the details weren’t talked about before then. Please refer to the newspaper articles for a few of earlier mentions of ordination."

That is from conflictofjustice I believe, since they tend to hard on the idea that the BoM was a "much shorter book" and that obviously it was changed so shut up about it. I don't really have anything to add here since they were not well documented - most of the books were destroyed and they priesthood evolution was *never* told to me as a member. If anyone has anything to add either way though let me know.

5. When discussing the Bushman quotes about Joseph never mentioning the priesthood until 1831 and how Bushman said Joseph “revised his own revelations, adding new material and splicing one to another, altering the wording as he saw fit. He felt authorized to expand the revelations as his understanding expanded": For the Richard Bushman quotes, I think the part where he mentions “…as his understanding expanded” allows that Joseph Smith was still learning and adding to his understanding. This ties to the addition to the Book of Commandments and explains why he made additions.

My response here is that Bushman is a historian who ultimately gives Joseph apologetic outs because he needs to, but that even with that said, further understanding does not equal remembering who was there for a revelation and the names of the priesthoods.

6. Her last point is that quotes from Whitmer and McLellin should not be used because they were given after they had left the church. I think this is a small thing to be honest so my only response would be that we shouldn't use their faith promoting stories either if we're going to go down that road.

Anyway... I don't know if this will be a productive talk with my wife later, but since she instigated it I hope I can make some inroads at least getting her to see the bigger picture of these problems and I really want to hammer home what an absolute hack the conflictofjustice website is.

Sorry this is so long -- if anyone made it this far and has any thoughts, let me know.

Thanks y'all!

I have to run, so just want to respond to your first issue about the priesthood.

You are right that Alma 13 "borrows" heavily from Hebrews 7.

But other than this, priesthood is an absolute non-issue in the Book of Mormon.

Which is why Alma the Elder can baptize people at the waters of Mormon without being baptized and receiving the "correct" priesthood himself.

And which is why it is that in the Book of Moroni where the author is writing out the rules for church administration, he is very specific about the mode of baptism, as well as the two sacrament prayers . . . but has nothing to say about the priesthood.

And then, of course, there is the whole issue with the later additions made to section 27 in the D&C!

Good luck!

As a bit of advice, which you probably don't need, I would suggest you not make this about the church or a website, or anything like that.

Just tell your wife your own experience and how you have felt as you have come to your realizations.

A lot of "I feel" statements are usually a good thing.

It is hard to argue with those pesky "I feel" statements, and yet they let you tell your story without giving the other party much to "defend" against.

Again the best of luck!

Agree with Consig on the BOM priesthood stuff. Recall also the June 1831 conference where Joseph has the high priesthood conferred for the "first time". This delineation of the multiple offices was very vague before. At the organization of the church JS and Oliver were simply first and second Elders. Even bushman admits the later fabrication possibility on page 75 of RSR. Also Alexander Crawford's ideas were likely not new to just the Reformed Baptist and Campbellite movement after 1827. I'm hoping for more on that in the future.

Haven't read any of the other responses but don't let her tie you immediately to a psychological issue on the changing first vision story.

Make it "legal"

All cops and prosecutors know this stuff.

A WITNESS HAS CHANGED THEIR STORY
Any time a witness changes their story, they become unreliable. Whether a witness’s testimony will still be valuable in court is up to an attorney, but in general, the greater the change, the more unreliable the witness is. The key element is whether the witness was on record with their first story.

If their first statement was not recorded and only done verbally, the second statement that was a recorded witness statement may carry more weight. This is why it is important to have a witness statement documented and have it done as early as possible while the event is still fresh in a person’s mind. A private investigator has skills and legal knowledge to record an in-person witness statement accurately.

https://www.tristarpi.com/blog/signs-to ... -reliable/

Heading out right now. I'll be back to hopefully help with more.

There is nothing wrong with a view of JS that he got ideas from all over, took them before the Lord and got answers, which make him still a prophet. So, the timing does not matter. So what if somebody told him about there being two different levels of priesthood and he incorporated it into his church. He could have taken the idea, just as he did the WOW idea and prayed about it. With the exact data you are using to “prove” him not a prophet, because he collected ideas from all over, you could argue that it proves he was a prophet because he took ideas, and asked if they were true or not and the Lord revealed the truth to him. Why does “revelation” have to be completely brand new ideas that nobody ever thought of before?

So, I would not even have this discussion, because what will it accomplish besides driving a wedge between you and the woman you say you love. She feels as she does about the church, and to argue with how she feels and make her justify it with proof is not kind. Just skip the whole conversation because it won’t convince her that you are right. It will just piss her off. The more you prove her wrong, the more you lose.

alas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:18 pm
So, I would not even have this discussion, because what will it accomplish besides driving a wedge between you and the woman you say you love. She feels as she does about the church, and to argue with how she feels and make her justify it with proof is not kind. Just skip the whole conversation because it won’t convince her that you are right. It will just piss her off. The more you prove her wrong, the more you lose.

This wasn't a conversation I initiated... I would have much rather discusses polygamy, Book of Abraham, etc. She kind of threw it at me this morning, so I wanted to go through it and try to at least have my own responses to it.

Of all my issues with the church, this one (while an important one) is not near the top of the list. I'm not going to be combative on it, but at least I can explain why I feel that it is a problem, and that if she wants to do this research I can at least get a foundation for where we are at in the process of talking about this stuff.

jfro18 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:11 am 4. She goes after the claim the revelations were quietly changed w/o any explanation: "The Book of Commandments was a much shorter book than the Doctrine and Covenants, and obviously changes were made. Instead of adding a new section to the Doctrine and Covenants, additions were added to section 27. Nobody pretended that it wasn’t an addition. The changes you highlighted are well-documented. No one is denying them. However, just because the Book of Commandments wasn’t specific doesn’t mean that the details weren’t talked about before then. Please refer to the newspaper articles for a few of earlier mentions of ordination."

I think the best response to this is to look at Jerald Tanner's illustrations of how the commandments were added to and removed from:
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changin ... ations.htm (bottom)
It's really hard to look at this and believe that God said "Thus saith the Lord" about one version when he meant it to eventually transform into something so different.

Looks like Alas beat me to it, but I hope this isn't going to turn into an ugly debate with your wife. It's not worth it. Debate usually polarizes people and seldom changes minds.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:44 pm
Looks like Alas beat me to it, but I hope this isn't going to turn into an ugly debate with your wife. It's not worth it. Debate usually polarizes people and seldom changes minds.

I don't think it will... I was surprised to be honest that she had read this out of the blue, and so I am not sure if she's looking to learn more or just to try and use the lovely conflictofjustice website on me. I guess I'll find that out later.

And I agree 100% about the changing revelations - there's just no way that would be the way revelations would come out just to be changed in such a wholesale fashion. I had *no* idea of any significant changes while I was active, so the idea that they are well documented is a stretch for any apologist to make.

jfro18 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:02 pm ...the idea that they are well documented is a stretch for any apologist to make.

When I feel like I'm being gaslighted in this way (apologists, not your wife) my reaction is to want to ask "now which lesson was that taught in? I must have been out that week."

Take a painting class together!

Or pottery...

jfro18 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:02 pm

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:44 pm
Looks like Alas beat me to it, but I hope this isn't going to turn into an ugly debate with your wife. It's not worth it. Debate usually polarizes people and seldom changes minds.

I don't think it will... I was surprised to be honest that she had read this out of the blue, and so I am not sure if she's looking to learn more or just to try and use the lovely conflictofjustice website on me. I guess I'll find that out later.

And I agree 100% about the changing revelations - there's just no way that would be the way revelations would come out just to be changed in such a wholesale fashion. I had *no* idea of any significant changes while I was active, so the idea that they are well documented is a stretch for any apologist to make.

I trust that you know your wife well enough that if you don’t think this will turn into a negative debate, then hopefully it will go well. Start off by listening to her and her feelings. See if she is trying to figure out your thinking or prove you wrong. This is key. If she has read the proMormon argument and wants to prove you wrong, so that you will see the error of your ways and return to the faith, then I don’t see how finding counter arguments will do any good, but just turn it into a negative debate. If she is basically intellectual and will logic herself out of the church, then as long as the discussion stays non defensive on both your parts, it could do some good at reaching a real understanding. But if she is more typical of female TBMs and her testimony is more based on feelings, then the logical debate will be threatening to her. So, you know her better than I do. If she is more thinking than feeling, then your approach may not be the land mine it sounds like it could become. Tread carefully.

As to why she picked this topic, it may be more safe to explore from an intellectual standpoint than something more emotionally charged like polygamy.

You could start off the conversation by asking her what she hopes to gain from the discussion. That will give you a good idea if she wants to show you the error of your ways or wants to come to a better understanding of your position.

alas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:08 pm You could start off the conversation by asking her what she hopes to gain from the discussion. That will give you a good idea if she wants to show you the error of your ways or wants to come to a better understanding of your position.

Thanks alas -- that's some amazingly smart and insightful advice.

And you're right on like every part of it... I have no idea what the "angle" of the conversation is, but you hit the nail on the head that right now she's definitely a "Feelings over facts" TBM and I think that's probably why she avoided the things I know trouble her.

We'll see... I'll tread lightly and try to get those things out in the open early so that any conversation is meaningful or if it's going down a bad path we can just bail on it.

Thank you again - some truly wise words

edit: Alas was right... that did not go well... I got ambushed. There's no point in going into details, but I am shell shocked from that one.

This church is poison.

jfro18 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:04 pm edit: Alas was right... that did not go well... I got ambushed. There's no point in going into details, but I am shell shocked from that one.

Sorry to hear that. Ugh.

That's not a good hill to die on, considering that there are things out there like Nauvoo polygamy and the BOA, which have a lot more smoke coming out of their guns.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:22 am

jfro18 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:04 pm edit: Alas was right... that did not go well... I got ambushed. There's no point in going into details, but I am shell shocked from that one.

Sorry to hear that. Ugh.

That's not a good hill to die on, considering that there are things out there like Nauvoo polygamy and the BOA, which have a lot more smoke coming out of their guns.

I asked her why she chose priesthood since there are so many others that are more problematic, and she said that she chose it because months ago I made a comment about how when it's taught in Sunday School they're lying to kids by teaching them John the Baptist was there without noting it was added five years later.

Whether or not that's the real reason, that was hers. She had notes so it was just bullet after bullet which I can defend against, but as you said that's just not the hill to die on nor is it ever going to be a definitive one.

As soon as I tried to transition elsewhere she turned it into "do you know how you make me feel saying I'm brainwashed for believing this?"

That's not what I said, but I know that's how most feel when beliefs are questioned and I get that's the implication when you say the church teaches us from a young age to ignore our doubts. I mentioned how the site she's been reading (conflictofjustice) is an absolute nutjob, which didn't go over even after I talked about how he was tweeting out that Christine Ford was a CIA plant the other day. I also noted how he's been caught lying repeatedly and will reply with "that doesn't change things" and she basically shrugged at that like who cares.

Just a horrible, horrible night... and completely out of left field. I have no idea why she decided to look now and at that of all things.

jfro18 wrote:

Hagoth wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:22 am

jfro18 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:04 pm edit: Alas was right... that did not go well... I got ambushed. There's no point in going into details, but I am shell shocked from that one.

Sorry to hear that. Ugh.

That's not a good hill to die on, considering that there are things out there like Nauvoo polygamy and the BOA, which have a lot more smoke coming out of their guns.

I asked her why she chose priesthood since there are so many others that are more problematic, and she said that she chose it because months ago I made a comment about how when it's taught in Sunday School they're lying to kids by teaching them John the Baptist was there without noting it was added five years later.

Whether or not that's the real reason, that was hers. She had notes so it was just bullet after bullet which I can defend against, but as you said that's just not the hill to die on nor is it ever going to be a definitive one.

As soon as I tried to transition elsewhere she turned it into "do you know how you make me feel saying I'm brainwashed for believing this?"

That's not what I said, but I know that's how most feel when beliefs are questioned and I get that's the implication when you say the church teaches us from a young age to ignore our doubts. I mentioned how the site she's been reading (conflictofjustice) is an absolute nutjob, which didn't go over even after I talked about how he was tweeting out that Christine Ford was a CIA plant the other day. I also noted how he's been caught lying repeatedly and will reply with "that doesn't change things" and she basically shrugged at that like who cares.

Just a horrible, horrible night... and completely out of left field. I have no idea why she decided to look now and at that of all things.

It might not be as bad as you think, obviously your comment and webpage have at least caused her to look behind the curtain. The wheels of cogdis grind slow and fine sometimes. This may be the seed of discovery planted that just might change things someday.

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:43 am It might not be as bad as you think, obviously your comment and webpage have at least caused her to look behind the curtain. The wheels of cogdis grind slow and fine sometimes. This may be the seed of discovery planted that just might change things someday.

Maybe... I think she's just retrenched a lot more over the last 6 months and she really buys into the more aggressive apologetics at least for now.

I just don't see her even opening up, and right now it's a mess because we both know it's not going away anytime soon. If you ignore it, it bottles up... if you talk about it, it ends up poorly. I know after watching too many Mormon Stories podcasts this isn't unique, but it really sucks. I kept hoping we'd be one of those happy endings you see on there, but I don't think that's happening.

The Church tends to "lie by omission" but does "lie by commission" as well. Pointing to the omission lies is often less confrontational.

I am sorry to be right. Sometimes I would love to have my pessimism blown out of the water.

But anyway. Time to pick up the pieces. The best way to do that is to acknowledge her position has some merit. You hold your ground on your position, but acknowledge hers. Kind of like digging trenches in WWI, and agreeing that there is a no man’s land between you. But at least you are not constantly shooting at each other.

See, she just attacked by luring you out of your defensive position and ambushing you. So, you have to establish a no man’s land. My husband was smart. He was the one with us to enforce no man’s land. He would just say, “I’m not going to argue about this.” And walk away. See, he learned something from all the marriage counseling I did.

But to establish a no man’s land, you both have to stop drawing the other out of their defensive position into an ambush. You have to grant each other your battle lines and agree not to cross. This sounds and feels like a stalemate, but it is more of a truce. Because you recognize her position. This is key. Recognize her position.

So, what is it your wife loves about the church? If you don’t know, then it is high time to ask.

So, you can start out by acknowledging that where you are with church hurts her and that you Do. Not. Want. To. Hurt. Her.

You want to understand her. And you would like for her to at least accept you, even if she can’t understand.

So, first step have a good talk about what she loves about the church. Do you know “reflective listening”? That is when you repeat your understanding of what she said back to her to make sure you understand.

Second step is to assure her that you want to let her keep all that.

Third step is to explain that you would like her to accept where you are, not change her, but just get her to accept where you are. Explain that what you REALLY want is for her to understand, but acknowledge that may be impossible and so you are trying to settle for accept. Apologize for pushing her to try to get her to understand because you see it hurts her.

Fourth step is to Explain that trying to change the other person isn’t working. Her trying to fix your testimony is not going to work and you trying to get her out of the church isn’t going to work. (Hint, the way others have gotten their spouse out is by letting them alone to figure it out for *themselves*) tell her that you have to accept that as much as you need her to accept that. You need her to accept that you are not coming back to church.

If you can get through all steps in one conversation great, if it starts heating up, kiss her and ask to save it for later.

Mostly she needs to know you love her more than you hate the church.

And I can’t tell you how many time my DH and I have been through variations of this conversation. Mostly because over the years, I have lost count.

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:43 amIt might not be as bad as you think, obviously your comment and webpage have at least caused her to look behind the curtain. The wheels of cogdis grind slow and fine sometimes. This may be the seed of discovery planted that just might change things someday.

Most of us have reacted essentially the same way to someone who was questioning our beliefs. Nothing invokes defensiveness like religion because, by nature, religions make unbelievable claims. The test of your value as an adherent is the ability to believe those things when the rest of the world doesn't. When someone who SHOULD accept them with insider protectiveness begins to denounce them with outsider critical examination there's trouble right here in River City.

It turned out that one of my wife's biggest concerns is that she thought I was laughing at her behind her back for being gullible. I have gone to a lot of effort to help her understand that I respect her faith and all of the sacrifices she has made to be a member of the church as a convert from a derisive family. I also praise her for trying to be understanding and accepting of my situation. If you praise someone for being what you hope they will be it helps them become that. People respond to praise. I do a lot of tongue biting about church issues that I'd like to unload on her but I don't want to push her away. From time to time she will ask me a question or raise a concern and I give her the bare bones of the issue so she can go away and think about it, and maybe do some follow-up. If she makes further comments or asks questions I give her the next bite-sized morsel. We've made huge progress in that way.

Some of us want our spouses out of the church and some of us just want to not be looked down upon as failures. Finding a place of mutual respect and acceptance, regardless of faith, can be that golden city on the hill. I love it when couples reach that kind of (rare) balance. Good luck, jfro. Looks like this may be a tortoise race.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:12 am Some of us want our spouses out of the church and some of us just want to not be looked down upon as failures. Finding a place of mutual respect and acceptance, regardless of faith, can be that golden city on the hill. I love it when couples reach that kind of (rare) balance. Good luck, jfro. Looks like this may be a tortoise race.

Truthfully I made that mistake I know a lot of people do, which is you find out everything and instead of taking time and really getting it all together, you just talk to them and go point by point like a machine gun. That was six months ago, but I think that made her retrench. Since then I've tried not to bring it up much, but I think a lot of the conversations go back to that because it was a brutal stretch. I wish so much I could change that, not because I think it would make her necessarily more open to me, but it would have been so much more constructive.

It's also what made yesterday so out of left field - she has never initiated a conversation before, and we hadn't talked about this for a good month when I told her I was sharing the misc stuff put together online. I didn't feel right putting it up w/o her knowing, so I wanted to tell her it was there if she ever wanted to talk about it, but if she never did that was OK too.

alas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:33 am Mostly she needs to know you love her more than you hate the church.

And I can’t tell you how many time my DH and I have been through variations of this conversation. Mostly because over the years, I have lost count.

You're good, Alas... I wish I could somehow channel you when I'm in these conversations. It would've saved me so much trouble these past six months.