Historicity of the BOM

[tooblue]

It's not disbelief in the veracity of the Book of Mormon I question. Furthermore I have yet to read a post from Non Sequiter concerning the subject of religion that does anymore than question. On the other hand Illuvator consistently goes beyond questioning and directly or indirectly suggests that the church, or a prophet, or scripture is lying, covering up or misleading.

The fact that he does not agree with me has nothing to do with my belief that he is being dishonest. My post was not malicious, if one is going to make subtle or overt assertions one must also be prepared to be challenged. I pointed to an incomplete (half) rationalization he made, pulled from the intro to the BofM.

Sequiter disagrees with me, yet his feelings about the BofM come across as sincere and go out of their way to avoid language and intent to denigrate what others hold as sacred. Furthermore I neither do nor have not pretended to question a person’s moral strength or liken character flaws to unbelief or absence of faith. I question Illuvators intent and firmly assert that he writes to stir up minds and to encourage wallowing in controversy.

Rebuke me, but do not pretend that my words are overly harsh or even an attack, for they are truth written with passion and love ... love of the sacred and love of agency and the right of every man to believe according to the dictates of his own conscience.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by tooblue

It's not disbelief in the veracity of the Book of Mormon I question. Furthermore I have yet to read a post from Non Sequiter concerning the subject of religion that does anymore than question. On the other hand Illuvator consistently goes beyond questioning and directly or indirectly suggests that the church, or a prophet, or scripture is lying, covering up or misleading.

The fact that he does not agree with me has nothing to do with my belief that he is being dishonest. My post was not malicious, if one is going to make subtle or overt assertions one must also be prepared to be challenged. I pointed to an incomplete (half) rationalization he made, pulled from the intro to the BofM.

Sequiter disagrees with me, yet his feelings about the BofM come across as sincere and go out of their way to avoid language and intent to denigrate what others hold as sacred. Furthermore I neither do nor have not pretended to question a person’s moral strength or liken character flaws to unbelief or absence of faith. I question Illuvators intent and firmly assert that he writes to stir up minds and to encourage wallowing in controversy.

Rebuke me, but do not pretend that my words are overly harsh or even an attack, for they are truth written with passion and love ... love of the sacred and love of agency and the right of every man to believe according to the dictates of his own conscience.

Fair enough. But for future reference, I would suggest that following your testimony with a statement like:

"I do not believe your stories of dealings with your Bishop or your wife. ... Nothing you post further will ever be considered truthful."

is not the most effective way to make your point, win friends, or influence people.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Iluvatar

As for your contention that my only purpose on this board is to stir up people who would otherwise be discussing religion honestly? That's clearly a matter of opinion. I don't see how bringing up topics that make you a little uncomfortable makes me dishonest. You basically called me a liar when I stated that JS married other men's wives, lied to his own spouse (and the spouses of the women he took), and lied to the body of the church for decades about it. I think it was you that said that my knowledge of polygamy was incomplete, yadda, yadda, yadda. Turns out I was right though, wasn't I?

What, besides your obvious disbelief of my story concerning my wife and my bishop, do you feel I've lied about (I don't care to prove the validity of my experience to you)? Does not the intro to the book of mormon state in very clear language that the Lamanites are the "primary ancestors" of the American indians? How does pointing out that there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim make me dishonest? In what sense is this a half-truth?

1. No you were not right, the author of said books you quote has contradicted himself on the very subject of polygamy ... go back and look at it ... He himself states his account is incomplete and inaccurate and cannot be verified.

2. Nothing you post has made me uncomfortable. That comment subtly suggests that you feel I am insecure in my knowledge of the church history and the reality that the brethren are fallible men. Do not condescend to me and belittle my faith as insufficiently mature to contend with ‘knowledge and fact’.

3. I’ve been called worse … I’ve not called you a name?! Why have you not posted on many of the other subjects available on this site?

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I question Illuvators intent and firmly assert that he writes to stir up minds and to encourage wallowing in controversy.

I simply choose to give Illuvatar the benefit of the doubt because I have seen others just like him. He feels like he was betrayed and that creates some anger. Hopefully that anger will eventually subside.

The thing that has always prevented me from being angry is that I look at the people in the Church and am convinced that they are sincere. For the most part they are making an effort to better themselves and their families. How can you fault that? I look at most Church leaders and am also convinced that they are sincere. I have never felt like they are intentionally perpetuating some grand lie in which they themselves do not believe. They are good men, dedicating their lives to doing get works. Why attack that?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by homeboy

Fair enough. But for future reference, I would suggest that following your testimony with a statement like:

"I do not believe your stories of dealings with your Bishop or your wife. ... Nothing you post further will ever be considered truthful."

is not the most effective way to make your point, win friends, or influence people.

I do not believe his story.

[Archaea]

One person implies story of prophets is a lie, people take offense.

Another person implies wife-bishop story is a lie, people take offense.

Fascinating as Spock would say.

People usually stump when they say, I've prayed about it and didn't get an answer.

Your options are limited, (a) you can call them liars (typically a great way to win friends and influence enemies), (b) critically analyze their process in front of them (not much better than a), (c) defer until another time and deal with it later.

I wonder if some people have different purposes and are not supposed to receive confirmation for some reason right away. I wonder if some people have the purpose of remaining non-members.

The Bishop story sounds highly unusual and is not consistent with any of my dealings with that office.

As a side note, I was baptized late in teenage years and probably wasn't considered "golden" by anybody then nor now. I am "efficient" getting the most out of the least amount of effort, lol.

Any how, after having served a mission, I ran into a man who sat on the high council while my papers were submitted. He wasn't the most tactful man, but I liked still the same. When he found out I completed my mission and that my President I did a good job, (what mission president doesn't say that?), he told, "You know, We were shocked, We didn't think you had it in you, you weren't supposed to make it."

Thanks for the vote of confidence friend.

Ah well, maybe I won't but it won't be for a lack of association and being around the Church.

[Iluvatar]

Again, TooBlue, I challenge you to tell me wherein I have told half truths. I wasn't just siting Compton in our discussion about Polyandry/polygamy. JS's marriages to already married women are a matter of church record. It's all there for anyone to see! I don't care what Compton personally believes about JS's intentions, etc. I can regard or disregard his opinions. This I cannot; POLYANDRY ocurred, and you didn't even appear to know about it until our little discussion on the Tithing settlement thread. So don't act like the authority here...have you ever even read Compton's book? Or did you just read someones criticism of it, and pass it off as your own opinion?

How is stating that the Intro to the book of mormon is innacurate telling a half truth, or "half rationalization"? Some people don't appear to think it's a big deal for the intro to be wrong (Archea, among others, don't). I, for obvious reasons, think it's huge.

You're right, the tone of my posts are a little more edgy thean non-sequitur's. I'm still a little pissed about having been lied to. I'm a little bent that the church has failed to officially address any of these things at all (why should we be left to work it out all on our own when there is a prophet of god on earth?). I'm a little ticked that I've paid a full and honest tithe (tens, and tens of thousands of dollars) since I was a child, only to find out that the bretheren haven't been so straight forward in their dealings with me.

Homeboy,

Thanks, I appreciate your sentiments. I also appreciate the link. It looks interesting.

I don't expect our church leaders to be perfect. I don't expect the intro to the BOM to be perfect either. I do expect, however, for the brethren to admit that mistakes have been made, and rectify them. You have to think that the bretheren know about these things. The silence from SLC concerning these issues is deafening.

[Archaea]

with personal applications, but to argue that you've been lied to, it sounds perhaps over the top, friend.

And I just don't believe you're construing the semantics correctly. I'm a lawyer by trade, so mincing words is my game.

If you read any scripture, God has frequently played on nuance.

And being a professional nuancer, I don't see the term, "principal", as necessitating, "primary genetic progenitor." Those terms are NOT synonymous.

What manner of misinformation upsets you?

What manner of business are you in?

Having been around politics, management and law, the Church leaders do a very admirable job of governing a large mass of now dissimilar persons. They simplify doctrine because that's what a large body wants and needs. The more complicated stuff is there for personal divination.

Here is the key which most members miss. We are to follow the prophetic counsel, learn the Spirit until we receive constant personal revelation consistent with general guidelines and we are in fact prophets for our own domains.

History, any accurate history, never lends itself to a Sunday School version.

[creekster]

Here is the key which most members miss. We are to follow the prophetic counsel, learn the Spirit until we receive constant personal revelation consistent with general guidelines and we are in fact prophets for our own domains.

History, any accurate history, never lends itself to a Sunday School version

Well said, Archaea.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'm a lawyer by trade, so mincing words is my game. . .and being a professional nuancer. . .

I love that term "professional nuancer". Isn't that what Goebbels had printed on his business cards? :wink: