NOM

We recently had stake conference and the GA70 spoke about the BOM and referenced it as a literal record of actual people. He then went further to demonstrate by pointing out the raw human emotions found in the various narratives in the BOM stories. He concluded by stating Joseph Smith couldn't have known these therefore he couldn't have written it. He essentially said this:

1. He wasn't educated enough.
2. He dictated it; picking up exactly where he left off each time.
3. He wasn't a father yet, so how could he capture the emotions of father Lehi?
4. Blah blah blah
5. Even more dumb connections.
6. Joseph was a prophet.
7. There will never be physical evidence.
8. The spirit can only teach and confirm.
9. Just believe and feel the spirit.

Then he goes on about how members need to avoid becoming victims of the internet. How members shouldn't believe everything they read and should only listen to the teachings of the spirit.

This seems to be the defense the church is sticking to. Blame the internet, don't look for evidence unless it's written and pulled from the BOM itself (like referenced emotions), and just believe!

None of this is new but I did notice he kept referring to Joseph Smiths "dictation" rather than "translation".

I'm wondering if these guys are getting coached in how to speak to members because it seems like their carefully worded denials and double speak is seeping into the vernacular. A new vocabulary is propped up to support the ever changing narrative.

What other words and descriptions are seeping into the vocabulary.

Dictation
Seer
Become "like" God...

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 1:43 pm What other words and descriptions are seeping into the vocabulary.

Dictation
Seer
Become "like" God...

"A few months before..."

Why can't we except the book of Mormon as scripture without it being real. The book of job is not about a real person. Love the parts that are good throw the rest away (song of solomon). They don't teach a third of third Nephi already anyhow.

xaphalanx wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 3:21 pm Why can't we except the book of Mormon as scripture without it being real. The book of job is not about a real person. Love the parts that are good throw the rest away (song of solomon). They don't teach a third of third Nephi already anyhow.

Except that every official source I've seen also references Job as literal history. Same goes with everything else in genesis.

I heard a rabbi talk on the Song of Solomon a few weeks ago where he describes it as the holiest allegory in Jewish thought. All Spencer Kimball could find was porn.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:10 pm Except that every official source I've seen also references Job as literal history. Same goes with everything else in genesis.

I bought into that once, I got over it.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:10 pm I heard a rabbi talk on the Song of Solomon a few weeks ago where he describes it as the holiest allegory in Jewish thought. All Spencer Kimball could find was porn.

ROFL ...

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:10 pm Except that every official source I've seen also references Job as literal history. Same goes with everything else in genesis.

This puts the LDS church in the same boat with all of the Evangelical fundamentalists, Young Earth Creationists, and other Biblical literalists. I accept that these narratives express a certain rhetorical power to many Christians. It does feel funny as Mormons to try to jump on the same bus with the Evangelicals who do not like us. But the LDS Correlation department is trying to keep the conservatives happy since they are fulfilling most of the tougher jobs and paying the bulk of tithing. The core must be maintained.

We can't realistically hold out hope for a critical examination of scripture in Sunday School to guide our moral judgement. It's funny enough when I sit in Gospel Doctrine class during the lesson on Noah's Ark saying, "We don't really believe this is exactly how happened." A number of worried faces tend to surround me when I say that.

The new narrative being introduced appears to be about preserving the sensibilities of the High Priests quorum and Relief Society. I don't think they are paying enough attention to the Aaronic Priests quorum or even Elders Quorum. And certainly not the Foyer Quorum.

We were taught in SS this past week about Abraham and tests. Our instructor, brother Putz, is an ex stake president, so naturally his insight into the deeper meanings of the gospel far surpass the limited knowledge of the rabble that attend class every week. Literally evey single ward member seemingly hang on his every word. But I digress. We discussed briefly the Facsimile 1 from the BOA. You know, the one described by JS as a priest hovering over Abraham. That's how brother Putz described it, anyway. I was a bit surprised. Clearly this Putz hadn't read the essays. Ok, I get it. He is old (school) and doesnt know or care about the truth. What got me was that NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON in that class corrected or questioned him. I was witnessing, first hand, the miracle of teaching false doctrine. About the only emotion I could discern from those around me was some sort of heavy mixture of boredom, distraction, and a genuine look of "I really dont want to be here".

I think I may come up lame next Sunday so I can stay home and watch golf, and skip sister Milquetoasts heavily correlated SS lesson.