NOM

Emower wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:01 pm She says that it is everyone's responsibility to read and be educated on touchy topics because the church cannot possibly have the time to educate us.

Palerider wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:58 pm by Palerider » Sat Oct 28, 2017 12:58 am

Emower wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2017 12:01 am
She says that it is everyone's responsibility to read and be educated on touchy topics because the church cannot possibly have the time to educate us.
This...this is either a self-deception or one intended for the reader to swallow without any critical thinking.

How many YEARS in the church have we trudged over and over the same subject matter ad nauseam??? When I think of the years spent in classrooms covering the same material again and again......They've had tons of time. But that wouldn't have worked with their agenda.

The reason the church never wanted to approach the difficult issues was because they were AFRAID of the stuff. They knew it wasn't how they had told the story. They knew it wouldn't stand up to close scrutiny. Much of it is illogical, repugnant, suspicious and most importantly, it's TELLING! It's toxic. And now they can't say it isn't true anymore like they used to.

Now their only recourse is to try vainly to spin and mitigate. Obfuscation is the name of the game.

Palerider wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:58 pm

Emower wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:01 pm She says that it is everyone's responsibility to read and be educated on touchy topics because the church cannot possibly have the time to educate us.

This...this is either a self-deception or one intended for the reader to swallow without any critical thinking.

How many YEARS in the church have we trudged over and over the same subject matter ad nauseam??? When I think of the years spent in classrooms covering the same material again and again......They've had tons of time. But that wouldn't have worked with their agenda.

The reason the church never wanted to approach the difficult issues was because they were AFRAID of the stuff. They knew it wasn't how they had told the story. They knew it wouldn't stand up to close scrutiny. Much of it is illogical, repugnant, suspicious and most importantly, it's TELLING! It's toxic. And now they can't say it isn't true anymore like they used to.

Now their only recourse is to try vainly to spin and mitigate. Obfuscation is the name of the game.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2017 4:06 am And as for inoculation - is it a good thing when we convince our children that black is white before they get old enough to know it isn't?

Mormon historians thus not only told a different story from secular historians, they also differed in their judgment of what constituted legitimate sources of the historical facts.

It may not have been the most uplifting activity, and some scoffed, but it was something like reading astrological charts today ---- a little goofy but harmless.

The combination was altogether too common in the nineteenth century for it to invalidate Joseph Smith's more conventional religious claims.

Folk magic was in the mix, but it was not the main ingredient.

We should be careful about putting too much weight on the criticisms of the moment when it is uncertain how enduring they will be.

Emower wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2017 9:11 pm So the first essay was by Bushman dealing with the treasure seeking. He admits that through the early years the church dismissed out of hand the allegations against Joseph, which later turned out to be true.

Mormon historians thus not only told a different story from secular historians, they also differed in their judgment of what constituted legitimate sources of the historical facts.

Bushman says he came to the conclusion that a much of the secular history was correct, but that it was harmless.

It may not have been the most uplifting activity, and some scoffed, but it was something like reading astrological charts today ---- a little goofy but harmless.

This is Bushman's main point through the essay; it wasn't a big deal. Harmless.
He mentions that magic and Christianity were not at odds with each other back in that day. Then comes his main point and the most important sentence.

The combination was altogether too common in the nineteenth century for it to invalidate Joseph Smith's more conventional religious claims.

I happen to agree. It does not invalidate them. But no one is really arguing that his belief in magic invalidates anything, only that it provides an alternative and more explanatory context to other troubling things about the genesis of the church down the road. In addition to things that Joseph Smith said and used (e.g. seer stones & translation, BOM themes, church structure, timelines, etc...) An understanding of his worldview allows more freedom to ascribe happenings and stories to less than divine origins.

Folk magic was in the mix, but it was not the main ingredient.

I think some people would disagree with Bushman here. And it really depends on what period we are talking about as well.

He then gives a confusing section on arguments losing virulence as time goes by. He says that at the time he started writing the folk magic was one of the biggest topics of the time. Now it seems to have lost it's luster and he rarely meets anyone who wants to die on the hill of folk magic having a place in the genesis of our church.

We should be careful about putting too much weight on the criticisms of the moment when it is uncertain how enduring they will be.

I think his point is "Yes, we found out that this stuff was all true, but people are cool with it now and that means that it is not a big deal." I disagree with this assement. Just because something has evolved out of importance does not mean that it did not have bearing on a church that stakes it's truthfulness on claims that are challenged by the thing that no one cares about anymore. Frankly, that is a horrible dystopian way of looking at things. Plus I do not even think that people are placing less importance on it.

Emower wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:47 pm

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2017 4:06 am And as for inoculation - is it a good thing when we convince our children that black is white before they get old enough to know it isn't?

Teaching kids the truth is a noble cause. The problem is inoculation when done the church's way will equate to spinning the facts and leaving out key pieces of the puzzle.

It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.”
― Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

Culper Jr. wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:04 am I don't think inoculation is going to work out like they hope it will. There is just too much and it's too crazy. If there were a couple of questionable things about church history I could see where it would be effective, but EVERY single part of church history has batsh*t crazy elements to it. Besides, once you admit to the fallibility of church leaders, you lose your ability to demand absolute obedience. Even if you slow down the rate that people are leaving, you are left with a significantly less committed membership.

Emower wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2017 9:11 pm So the first essay was by Bushman dealing with the treasure seeking. He admits that through the early years the church dismissed out of hand the allegations against Joseph, which later turned out to be true.

Mormon historians thus not only told a different story from secular historians, they also differed in their judgment of what constituted legitimate sources of the historical facts.

Bushman says he came to the conclusion that a much of the secular history was correct, but that it was harmless.

It may not have been the most uplifting activity, and some scoffed, but it was something like reading astrological charts today ---- a little goofy but harmless.

This is Bushman's main point through the essay; it wasn't a big deal. Harmless.
He mentions that magic and Christianity were not at odds with each other back in that day. Then comes his main point and the most important sentence.

The combination was altogether too common in the nineteenth century for it to invalidate Joseph Smith's more conventional religious claims.

I happen to agree. It does not invalidate them. But no one is really arguing that his belief in magic invalidates anything, only that it provides an alternative and more explanatory context to other troubling things about the genesis of the church down the road. In addition to things that Joseph Smith said and used (e.g. seer stones & translation, BOM themes, church structure, timelines, etc...) An understanding of his worldview allows more freedom to ascribe happenings and stories to less than divine origins.

Folk magic was in the mix, but it was not the main ingredient.

I think some people would disagree with Bushman here. And it really depends on what period we are talking about as well.

He then gives a confusing section on arguments losing virulence as time goes by. He says that at the time he started writing the folk magic was one of the biggest topics of the time. Now it seems to have lost it's luster and he rarely meets anyone who wants to die on the hill of folk magic having a place in the genesis of our church.

We should be careful about putting too much weight on the criticisms of the moment when it is uncertain how enduring they will be.

I think his point is "Yes, we found out that this stuff was all true, but people are cool with it now and that means that it is not a big deal." I disagree with this assement. Just because something has evolved out of importance does not mean that it did not have bearing on a church that stakes it's truthfulness on claims that are challenged by the thing that no one cares about anymore. Frankly, that a horrible dystopian way of looking at things. Plus I do not even think that people are placing less importance on it.

Emower wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:01 pm So I am going to read this and post my reactions. Someone else bought it for me so I will give it a try. This is probably going to be the same old boring stuff so you can follow along or not, its up to you.

The first post will be the prologue.

She gives an analogy of an anchor holding a boat in place, the anchor being Christ and the boat being a testimony. However a boat without its plug in can sink regardless of the anchor. She makes a point that inoculating kids with the truth early is the key to retaining their testimonies. She is totally right. It would have worked on me had it been done. But it wasn't and here I am.
I object a little to her use of "nurturing atmosphere." That means "sort of dishonest" to me.

The other thing I didnt like was the classic blame the victim game. She says that it is everyone's responsibility to read and be educated on touchy topics because the church cannot possibly have the time to educate us. Why? Because they dont have our attention for long enough? There aren't enough meetings? One lifetime isn't long enough to tell me the real story? They dont have the money to print educational resources? They aren't good at holding secret meetings? Bullcrap Laura. Not to mention where she expects people to have gone for information before those terribly informative essays came along. Because "googling" it us what got us all into this mess and that was pretty much your only option neforw the essays. For you older folks the only way you could get educated was through more nefarious means.

The accounts reveal that he consciously interpreted the experience and discovered meanings in it later that were not available to him when it occurred. The accounts are not, by Joseph's acknowledgement, a flawless recreation of the event, nor are they likely, "a complete fabrication of life events." Rather they are products of Joseph Smith's subjective, constructive process of remembering.

It is not perfectly safe to take for granted that Joseph's memory was perfectly accurate at the time of his experience and that it grew increasingly inaccurate in proportion to the passage of time.

Since Joseph Smith's ability to form memories depended largely on what he already knew, his culture conditioned the way he remembered his original experience, and subsequent experiences expanded his ability to rehearse meaningful reflections of what he had experienced.

Joseph's original, unrecorded telling led to a rejection by the minister and the world he represented. When Joseph worked up the will to tell it again, in his 1832 autobiography, he recast the story as an evangelical script, conforming to his culture and seeking validation

The 1835 record of spontaneous memory shows that, given the right cues and context, Joseph could produce a memory of the event that did not depend on or respond to the Methodist minister, either attempting to please him, as in the 1832 account, or lashing back at him, as in the 1838-39"

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:54 pm Emower,...I read your last post here and found it interesting. These guys throw Occam's Razor out the window and grab at straws to add credibility to some pretty serious problems.

It makes no sense that someone's memory requires cultural "safety" to be framed in a way that changes historical religious tradition (Trinity).

What about the possibility that JS changed the story, making it bigger and more flamboyant as a way to bolster his power position with people who were questioning his prophetic mantel in the first place?

These "faithful" apologists are guilty of historical heresy--they start with the conclusion in mind and work their heart out to constrain the data to conform to their preconceptions. This seems like a deadly flaw to any true historian's position, and yet they do it over and over.

Emower wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:59 pm In their defense though not having a specific conclusion in mind just is not a big deal for a tbm. Logic is for logical stuff, not religion. It just doesn't work to try to explain things that way to someone who is trying to live life in a reasonable manner.

What God used to effect the transformation was yet another weak thing. God used folk beliefs of the rural population that had been a part of the way the world was understood for millennia. Even in Joseph's day the learned had come to despise them, but in the community where Joseph lived,
those folk beliefs were alive and well.

The actual effectiveness of seeing in the stone really isn't the important issue for the translation of the Book of Mormon. What is important is that Joseph believed he could see hidden things that others could not, and there were others who believed that Joseph had that particular talent.
It was Joseph's belief that he could see the unseeable that the Lord used as the fulcrum to leverage the village seer into a translator and then into a prophet of God.

The seer stone was simply the crutch the Lord used to prop up Joseph's nascent faith in his calling.

It is probable that for much of the translation process that plates were not visable.

From the beginning, the physical presence of the plates declared the reality of the angelic vision.

Latter-Saint artists who depict Joseph's finger on the plates are simply following a story about the translation that the Saints themselves were telling as early as 1836.

The answer to all those questions depends entirely upon the precise method by which Joseph was able to using the Gift and Power of God. Unfortunately, Joseph never gave any more details then that. The process he used is open to speculation, but it is only speculation. One might speculate that because God inspired the translation it should be without error. But that is an assumption of what God might have done. The evidence for what God did do suggests that he worked through his human instrument---and Joseph, his human instrument, might have decided there was a better way to express the meaning of the plates in English.

We believe that it can be translated because we believe the meaning is much more important than the originally dictated words, which may or may not have an exact translation in another language.