NOM

Has anyone seen this on the Church website or Gospel Library app? https://www.lds.org/languages/eng/conte ... s?lang=eng. If you look on the left, there are all the topics. A lot of them appear to be a direct response to Mormon Think. It's interesting that many of them are worded in a way that if you did not know the issue, you would not want to dig any further, but is meant to directly rebut issues that come up, especially on Mormon Think.

Very Interesting. I believe this content has been available via the "Gospel Library App" for a while, but I didn't know it was available to normal old internet users.

There is really no easy way to find this via a regular old computer if you don't already have a link directly to the "library." It seems to be impossible to find it via the LDS.org search box, or even a google search at this point.

In my browser there is a "Beta" tag at the top left of the window also. Perhaps they'll make it more accessible to normal old web users instead of hiding it in the future? (Based on their history, I don't hold out much hope for this...)

Well, the church is still at it.

Just reading over the "Joseph Smith trial of 1826" there are a number of misrepresentations being put forth. Plus they gloss over a lot as well.

It states Joseph was accused of "gazing into a stone to discover lost property". As I recall the accusation was that he was being fraudulent in his gazing. There is a difference. If he had actually found buried treasure, no one would have complained about his using the stone to do so. It was the fact that he was extracting money from the very naive and superstitious Josiah Stowell as a con artist that had people upset.

Furthermore, the article indicates that Joseph was probably found innocent. Not true.

In New York state at the time, a defendant would be given a preliminary hearing before a judge with witnesses in attendance. It's very similar to what we might call a "grand jury" only without the jury. It's purpose is to ascertain if there is enough evidence to bind the defendant over for an actual trial by jury. And in Joseph's case the judge found that there was sufficient evidence and that he was probably guilty.

But because of the nature of the offense not being terribly threatening to the community, the expense of a trial and Mr. Stowell's naivete towards Joseph, he was given "leg bail". Leg bail amounts to allowing the prisoner to be set at liberty ON CONDITION that he not return to the court's jurisdiction.

In other words it was "get the hell out of the county and don't come back." Joseph was seen and rightly so, as an undesirable person.

The article also tells us that Joseph didn’t seek employment as a money digger or to use his skill as a treasure seeker. But we only have his word for that. Given the impoverished state of his family, it is more likely that Joseph sought money from whatever source he could find.

This article only serves to demonstrate the church's efforts to mitigate every accusation brought against Joseph and to obfuscate the truth. Pretty sad and actually embarrassing for an organization that prides itself on honesty and integrity.

But then, if they were to accept the truth for what it is, the game would be up wouldn't it..... No more power, no more adulation, no more soft cushy red chairs in general conference, no more money, no more fun.....

Palerider wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:26 am The article also tells us that Joseph didn’t seek employment as a money digger or to use his skill as a treasure seeker. But we only have his word for that. Given the impoverished state of his family, it is more likely that Joseph sought money from whatever source he could find.

But of course he did! He tried to sell the first copies of the BoM for $1.25. He tried to sell the copyright. If he'd had actual gold plates, he would've been far more interested in selling them than translating them.

I refuse to download any of their apps. Let's just say I don't trust what Info they are tracking.

I did click through the link above. It's funny that this doesn't format on my phone the same way most other LDS.org pages format.

How do you spell "Institutional dishonesty"?

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:33 am How do you spell "Institutional dishonesty"?

• "Gospel Topics Essays"
• "Church History Topics"

(Too many examples to list within those "essays" and "topics.")

Palerider wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:26 am No more power, no more adulation, no more soft cushy red chairs in general conference, no more money, no more fun.....

No more unchallenged misogyny; no more claims to speak unilaterally for God; no more getting to have unlimited wives; no more claiming to be "special witnesses" (of what?)....no more......

Can't wait for the page on Skin Curses. Perhaps they will reveal the apologetic answer that the curse of the dark skin was referring to the colors of the Nephite's loincloths. White, hot pink and chartreuse were the pure and delightsome shades of loincloths. The cursed shades of loincloth skins were black, brown, and burnt sienna. The page will also include a reference to the Crayola chart of current and previous colors.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:33 am I refuse to download any of their apps. Let's just say I don't trust what Info they are tracking.

Actually, I kind of hope they are tracking me. I need to reduce the chance of attaining priesthood leadership. This past weekend I was at scout camp with the young men in our ward. I mentioned that I am entirely planning to never be a bishop. My current bishop was right there and said, with a smile, "Yeah, neither was I."

My current bishop is a good man and a friend I have known for quite a long time. The big difference, of course, is that he clearly is a believer but does not know the depth of my own unbelief. I would love to discuss church history topics with him. But it has been my experience that vanishingly few Mormons truly want to discuss full history and challenging doctrine in any detail beyond the correlated lesson manual. The burden of a bishop is already quite heavy. I would not want to burden him further unless he were to ask me about it.

wtfluff wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:47 am There is really no easy way to find this via a regular old computer if you don't already have a link directly to the "library." It seems to be impossible to find it via the LDS.org search box, or even a google search at this point.

Making it available on a semi-hidden basis is designed to keep the nose from growing when at some convenient future date apologists might want to say that such information has been available for years and that it is the fault of lazy members not to have discovered it.

The brief essay on the First Vision accounts parallels Dr. Peterson's recent article on the First Vision accounts. https://www.lds.org/languages/eng/conte ... n-accounts

Quote: The various accounts of the First Vision tell a consistent story, though naturally they differ in emphasis and detail. Historians expect that when an individual retells an experience in multiple settings to different audiences over many years, each account will emphasize various aspects of the experience and contain unique details. Some have mistakenly argued that any variation in the retelling of the story is evidence of fabrication. To the contrary, the rich historical record enables us to learn more about this remarkable event than we could if it were less well documented. Unquote.

So when will the 1832 First Vision Account become canonized?

deacon blues wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:27 pm The brief essay on the First Vision accounts parallels Dr. Peterson's recent article on the First Vision accounts. https://www.lds.org/languages/eng/conte ... n-accounts

Quote: The various accounts of the First Vision tell a consistent story, though naturally they differ in emphasis and detail. Historians expect that when an individual retells an experience in multiple settings to different audiences over many years, each account will emphasize various aspects of the experience and contain unique details. Some have mistakenly argued that any variation in the retelling of the story is evidence of fabrication. To the contrary, the rich historical record enables us to learn more about this remarkable event than we could if it were less well documented. Unquote.

So when will the 1832 First Vision Account become canonized?

Wasn't Joseph Fielding Smith attempting to have it canonized by hiding it in his safe in the 1930's?

Palerider wrote: ↑Sun Jul 08, 2018 7:15 am

deacon blues wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:27 pm The brief essay on the First Vision accounts parallels Dr. Peterson's recent article on the First Vision accounts. https://www.lds.org/languages/eng/conte ... n-accounts

Quote: The various accounts of the First Vision tell a consistent story, though naturally they differ in emphasis and detail. Historians expect that when an individual retells an experience in multiple settings to different audiences over many years, each account will emphasize various aspects of the experience and contain unique details. Some have mistakenly argued that any variation in the retelling of the story is evidence of fabrication. To the contrary, the rich historical record enables us to learn more about this remarkable event than we could if it were less well documented. Unquote.

So when will the 1832 First Vision Account become canonized?

Wasn't Joseph Fielding Smith attempting to have it canonized by hiding it in his safe in the 1930's?

Hehehe. We are lucky it didn’t have it canonized by wadding it up and stuffing it in a cannon, then lighting it. Boom.

That answer is only going to satisfy those who have heard there is a problem but never read the different accounts.

I had one psychology class where the prof was often a special witness about memory and he taught us some of how memory changes and how it does not. It will change to fit your current beliefs better, it will change to make you look better, it will change to justify your actions. Generally, it changes because you keep telling it and add details, or change details. But the bones of the story don’t change. So, if you catch a big trout, the trout may get bigger to make you look better, but it does not turn into a grizzly bear. If you are almost in an accident with a semi and it was your fault for running an orange light, the semi will not turn not a cop car, but it may be that you went through on green, just before it turned orange, and is the one running a red light.

My prof told us testifying in rape cases where the victim “could not get her story straight” and how it really probably was rape (bones) and yet she was changing details to protect herself. His story told of her going willingly with him, kissing, undressing and consent. So, probably, she had kissed him and after the fact, the idea of kissing him made her sick to her stomach, so she was omitting it from her memory due to the trauma that followed. He probably did all the undressing, (her clothing was torn) but was changing his memory to make him look better.

So, given those generalities, no, the story would never change from an angel to Jesus, then to God the Father AND Jesus. That is bones changing. So, the actual experience will be in all the stories. Unless, there was no angel to begin with. If the actual experience was a drugged vision of light, and transcendent feelings of warmth and love, and great feelings of self importance, that he wanted to express, but sounded mundane, then he might add to it. Then, he struggles to put into words what he did experience and make it sound as incredible as it felt. He can’t find words, so he says an angel appeared and said he was forgiven. He has heard others say similar things, so it fits and describes his feeling of joy. Then, it kinda stops working because he is telling other stories related to his treasure seeking (angel Moroni/Nephi) and an angel does not tell the bones of his story. The bones is joy, and how important he is, and he wants to transition to something religious, instead of sounding so much like necromancy and treasure seeking. But it can’t just be an angel, because that has now become kinda mundane, but has to be more, so it becomes Jesus. Still, it contains the joy and How important Joseph is. Then as his new stories get bigger, it makes the first vision sound kinda mundane and no longer makes him look as important as he felt. Then his theology changes and he wants to GtF and JC to be separate people, but still show something terribly important with him as the beloved star of the show as this first vision. So, to make it useful and stay with his bones experience, it needs to be bigger, theologically correct, and start the new church. So, it becomes GtF and JC, telling him to start a new church.

That is the only way this changing of his account makes sense. His core experience was not an angel or any being, but joy and self importance. Those are the core of his experience.