- Status
E
ex-mormon
Guest
mormon fool:
KoC is the Catholic Mens fraternal order known as Knights of Columbus.
Brigham Young said, in 1859, “You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation …When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people” (Journal of Discourses 7:336).
Brigham Young also said that those who fall away from Mormonism would, “become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil” (Journal of Discourse 5:332).
Brigham Young also made these comments about blacks with a biased political stereotype using his interpretation of Genesis;
**"**You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind…Cain slew his brother. Can might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 290).
“In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the “servant of servants,” and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them.” (Journal of Discourses, Volume 2, page 172.)
“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)
more…
MF,
KoC is the Catholic Mens fraternal order known as Knights of Columbus.
Would a biased political enemy that uses stereotypes say something like this?
Brigham Young said, in 1859, “You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation …When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people” (Journal of Discourses 7:336).
Brigham Young also said that those who fall away from Mormonism would, “become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil” (Journal of Discourse 5:332).
Brigham Young also made these comments about blacks with a biased political stereotype using his interpretation of Genesis;
**"**You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind…Cain slew his brother. Can might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 290).
“In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the “servant of servants,” and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them.” (Journal of Discourses, Volume 2, page 172.)
“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)
more…
E
ex-mormon
Guest
… continued
I know that the LDS apologists will say that Brigham Young was not speaking propheticaly or repersenting the churches teachings on this subject so I will include what the Prophet said with regard to that:
"I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 264; see also page 95.)
“I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, page 161.)
“I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom…I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 95.)
God Bless,
ex-mo
I know that the LDS apologists will say that Brigham Young was not speaking propheticaly or repersenting the churches teachings on this subject so I will include what the Prophet said with regard to that:
"I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 264; see also page 95.)
“I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, page 161.)
“I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom…I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 95.)
God Bless,
ex-mo
M
majick275
Guest
This is a recent lesson for Mormon Young Men from their Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3 (1995) lesson #31 “choosing an eternal companion”
[Spencer Kimball]:
“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question” (“Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144).
This is still being taught today. Does this seem like something Jesus wants?
[Spencer Kimball]:
“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question” (“Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144).
This is still being taught today. Does this seem like something Jesus wants?
A
arieh0310
Guest
Paul doesn’t seem to think so:
Galatians 3:27: For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Putting on Christ should tear down race, economic, and gender discrimination.
T
Tmaque
Guest
I think that Jesus would want people, once married, to stay married. Statistics prove that those that follow Spencer Kimball’s advice have a better chance of staying married. I have no problem with his advice for that reason. And, this is despite the fact that I married outside of my race. He isn’t forbidding it, he just recommends against it. In general, I think we tend to be oversensitive to the issue of race nowadays.
M
mormon_fool
Guest
ex-m,
What Brigham Young and other 19th cenrtury Christians said about race issues has no bearing on how to interpret the Book of Mormon. Solid scripture hermeneutics tell us to recover the thought world of the original authors of the Book of Mormon and try to reconstruct their intent and meaning. Chronologically, Brigham Young became outspoken after the production of the Book of Mormon, so his thoughts are irrelevant to this question.
So I will decline to turn this thread into one about racial issues. You weren’t here so you may not have seen the last one get deleted. As for treating the JoD as “scripture” there is scripture and then there is “official scripture” in the LDS church and at best the JoD can be considered as scripture with a small “s”. Official Scripture is not considered inerrant and has been canonized, I have posted numerous passages from Scripture that says as much about errors. Your criticism only works against LDS that have naive, fundamentalistic expectations of their leaders. The LDS leaders of the past focused on solving the problems they faced in their times and not ones that came to a boiling point 100 years later.
If canonized Scripture is not inerrant in the LDS paradigm, then what we say about writing that doesn’t explicitly claim any special inspiration, was unreviewed extemporaneous remarks, can be traced to “product of the culture” influences, have been left out of church manuals and publications for over 25 years, and have had more recent apostles tell us to “forget” such statements and that they were “spectacularly wrong”.
Now to return to the thread’s topic the Book of Mormon’s teachings on racism are not a product of Joseph Smith’s time.But the fact that these wild people are Israel, the chosen of God, adds a level of complexity to the Book of Mormon that simple racism does not explain. Incongruously, the book champions the Indians’ place in world history, assigning them to a more glorious future than modern American whites… Lamanite degradation is not ingrained in their natures, ineluctably bonded to their dark skins. Their wickedness is wholly cultural and frequently reversed. During one period, “they began to be a very industrious people; yea, and they were friendly with the Nephites; therefore, they did open a correspondence with them, and the curse of God did no more follow them.” (Alma 23:18) In the end, the Lamanites triumph. The white Nephites perish, and the dark Lamanites remain.
— Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, (New York: Knopf, 2005), 99.
Now please, folks let us not turn this into a race-baiting thread. 19th century America was racist if we judge by today’s standards. Let’s all move on and thank the Lord that he has made us wiser than they.
later,
fool
What Brigham Young and other 19th cenrtury Christians said about race issues has no bearing on how to interpret the Book of Mormon. Solid scripture hermeneutics tell us to recover the thought world of the original authors of the Book of Mormon and try to reconstruct their intent and meaning. Chronologically, Brigham Young became outspoken after the production of the Book of Mormon, so his thoughts are irrelevant to this question.
So I will decline to turn this thread into one about racial issues. You weren’t here so you may not have seen the last one get deleted. As for treating the JoD as “scripture” there is scripture and then there is “official scripture” in the LDS church and at best the JoD can be considered as scripture with a small “s”. Official Scripture is not considered inerrant and has been canonized, I have posted numerous passages from Scripture that says as much about errors. Your criticism only works against LDS that have naive, fundamentalistic expectations of their leaders. The LDS leaders of the past focused on solving the problems they faced in their times and not ones that came to a boiling point 100 years later.
If canonized Scripture is not inerrant in the LDS paradigm, then what we say about writing that doesn’t explicitly claim any special inspiration, was unreviewed extemporaneous remarks, can be traced to “product of the culture” influences, have been left out of church manuals and publications for over 25 years, and have had more recent apostles tell us to “forget” such statements and that they were “spectacularly wrong”.
Now to return to the thread’s topic the Book of Mormon’s teachings on racism are not a product of Joseph Smith’s time.But the fact that these wild people are Israel, the chosen of God, adds a level of complexity to the Book of Mormon that simple racism does not explain. Incongruously, the book champions the Indians’ place in world history, assigning them to a more glorious future than modern American whites… Lamanite degradation is not ingrained in their natures, ineluctably bonded to their dark skins. Their wickedness is wholly cultural and frequently reversed. During one period, “they began to be a very industrious people; yea, and they were friendly with the Nephites; therefore, they did open a correspondence with them, and the curse of God did no more follow them.” (Alma 23:18) In the end, the Lamanites triumph. The white Nephites perish, and the dark Lamanites remain.
— Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, (New York: Knopf, 2005), 99.
Now please, folks let us not turn this into a race-baiting thread. 19th century America was racist if we judge by today’s standards. Let’s all move on and thank the Lord that he has made us wiser than they.
later,
fool
M
mormon_fool
Guest
Tmaque,
Thanks for these sensible remarks. If I ever were to become Catholic, I would want to be as well adjusted to (what would then be) my former faith as you are.
later,
fool
P
PaulDupre
Guest
I married outside my race (to a Filipina). We have the world’s most beautiful children, and a very interesting bi-cultural home (with the greatest food you could ever imagine). Also, I grew up rather priviledged, whereas my wife grew up in fairly poor circumstances. She worked her way through school and became a registered nurse. In many cases, opposites attract. I do agree that it is of paramount import to marry within one’s religion. It would be very difficult to be married to a non-Catholic. But I think it is very small-minded for a religious leader to dictate racial and economic preferences for marriage.
President Kimball’s remarks remind me of President Benson’s talk at the Taiwan Taipei Mission in 1977. He said:
I’d like to state for the record that my parents are very proud of my children. But then, my parents are Catholics, not Mormons.
Paul
A
arieh0310
Guest
But unfortunately for your children, according to statistics, your marriage won’t last.
As innocuous as Mormons try to portray Kimball’s suggestion it is still despicable.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
I know you were being facetious, but my Mormon marriage lasted less than 5 years. My Catholic marriage just celibrated its 18th happy year. I guess my children never read the statistics.But unfortunately for your children, according to statistics, your marriage won’t last.
As innocuous as Mormons try to portray Kimball’s suggestion it is still despicable.
Paul
E
ex-mormon
Guest
mormon fool:
First let me state that in order for your argument to be considered a valid one, the BOM would have to be written at the time Joseph Smith’s claimed it was, as a Catholic and a student of History and Anthropology I can not accept the validity of Joseph Smith’s claim. I can only consider it to be a plagiarized work of the Bible with fictitious characters added to replace the originals. I have not seen the evidence to support its validity. Intent of the original authors and not Joseph Smith’s is a very convenient way to explain the intent of the metaphor for ones spirituality defined as “white”. We will have to agree to disagree on the validity of the book since your faith is based on it and it goes against the very grain of mine. My intent is not to engage in race baiting but to discuss the thread topic “Words in the BOM…” Why they were changed when they were divinely “translated”. But if we can’t have a discussion on a topic because it puts people on the defensive about their Churches History or it is not considered PC, then I will oblige the naive and impressionable individuals that you refer to and leave out the “white” vs. “Pure” discussion and move on to other changes that create new meaning to the passages and content of the book. Let us discuss these changes:
1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon
1 Nephi 11:18
"And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of . . . . ] God, after the manner of the flesh
1981 Edition of the Book of Mormon
“And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.”
1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon
1 Nephi 19:20
“…for had not the Lord been merciful, to shew unto me concerning them, even as he had prophets of old; . . . . ] for he surely…”"…"
1981 Edition of the Book of Mormon
“…for had not the Lord been merciful, to show unto me concerning them, even as he had prophets of old, I should have perished also. And he surely did…”
more…
MF,
First let me state that in order for your argument to be considered a valid one, the BOM would have to be written at the time Joseph Smith’s claimed it was, as a Catholic and a student of History and Anthropology I can not accept the validity of Joseph Smith’s claim. I can only consider it to be a plagiarized work of the Bible with fictitious characters added to replace the originals. I have not seen the evidence to support its validity. Intent of the original authors and not Joseph Smith’s is a very convenient way to explain the intent of the metaphor for ones spirituality defined as “white”. We will have to agree to disagree on the validity of the book since your faith is based on it and it goes against the very grain of mine. My intent is not to engage in race baiting but to discuss the thread topic “Words in the BOM…” Why they were changed when they were divinely “translated”. But if we can’t have a discussion on a topic because it puts people on the defensive about their Churches History or it is not considered PC, then I will oblige the naive and impressionable individuals that you refer to and leave out the “white” vs. “Pure” discussion and move on to other changes that create new meaning to the passages and content of the book. Let us discuss these changes:
1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon
1 Nephi 11:18
"And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of . . . . ] God, after the manner of the flesh
1981 Edition of the Book of Mormon
“And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.”
1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon
1 Nephi 19:20
“…for had not the Lord been merciful, to shew unto me concerning them, even as he had prophets of old; . . . . ] for he surely…”"…"
1981 Edition of the Book of Mormon
“…for had not the Lord been merciful, to show unto me concerning them, even as he had prophets of old, I should have perished also. And he surely did…”
more…
E
ex-mormon
Guest
…continued
1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon
3 Nephi 3:23
“And the land which was appointed was the land of Zarahemla, and the land which was between the land of Zarahemla and the land Bountiful.”
1981 Edition of the Book of Mormon
“And the land which was appointed was the land of Zarahemla . . . .] and the land Bountiful…”
1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon
3 Nephi 10:4
“O ye people of these great cities which have fallen which are a descendant of Jacob; yea which are of the house of Israel; O ye people of the house of Israel, how oft have I gathered you…”
1981 Edition of the Book of Mormon
“O ye people of these great cities which have fallen, who are descendants of Jacob, yea, who are of the house of Israel, . . . . ] how oft have I gathered you…”
1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon
3 Nephi 16:10
“and thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you at that day, When the Gentiles shall sin against my Gospel, and shall subject the fulness of my Gospel, and shall be lifted up…”
1981 Edition of the Book of Mormon
“And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel,. . . . ] and shall be lifted up…”
1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon
3 Nephi 22:4
“…for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, . . . . ] and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.”
1981 Edition of the Book of Mormon
“…for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.”
more…
1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon
3 Nephi 3:23
“And the land which was appointed was the land of Zarahemla, and the land which was between the land of Zarahemla and the land Bountiful.”
1981 Edition of the Book of Mormon
“And the land which was appointed was the land of Zarahemla . . . .] and the land Bountiful…”
1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon
3 Nephi 10:4
“O ye people of these great cities which have fallen which are a descendant of Jacob; yea which are of the house of Israel; O ye people of the house of Israel, how oft have I gathered you…”
1981 Edition of the Book of Mormon
“O ye people of these great cities which have fallen, who are descendants of Jacob, yea, who are of the house of Israel, . . . . ] how oft have I gathered you…”
1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon
3 Nephi 16:10
“and thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you at that day, When the Gentiles shall sin against my Gospel, and shall subject the fulness of my Gospel, and shall be lifted up…”
1981 Edition of the Book of Mormon
“And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel,. . . . ] and shall be lifted up…”
1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon
3 Nephi 22:4
“…for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, . . . . ] and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.”
1981 Edition of the Book of Mormon
“…for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.”
more…
E
ex-mormon
Guest
…continued
1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon
Ether 9:2
“…nevertheless, the Lord was merciful unto Omer, and also to his sons and to his daughters, which were not, or which did not seek his destruction.”
1981 Edition of the Book of Mormon
“Nevertheless, the Lord was merciful unto Omer, and also to his sons, and to his daughters . . . . ] who did not seek his destruction.”
1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon
1 Nephi 20:1
“Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah,. . . . ] which swear…”
changed in 1964 ed.
“Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, who swear…”
1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon
Mosiah 21:28
…king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings;…"
changed in 1964 ed.
“…king Mosiah had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings;…”
1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon
Alma 29:4
“…yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterale, according to their wills…”
1981 Edition of the Book of Mormon
“…yea, I know that he allotteth unto men . . . .]according to their wills…”
The changes are blatant and even change the meaning of the text.
God Bless,
ex-mo
1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon
Ether 9:2
“…nevertheless, the Lord was merciful unto Omer, and also to his sons and to his daughters, which were not, or which did not seek his destruction.”
1981 Edition of the Book of Mormon
“Nevertheless, the Lord was merciful unto Omer, and also to his sons, and to his daughters . . . . ] who did not seek his destruction.”
1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon
1 Nephi 20:1
“Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah,. . . . ] which swear…”
changed in 1964 ed.
“Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, who swear…”
1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon
Mosiah 21:28
…king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings;…"
changed in 1964 ed.
“…king Mosiah had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings;…”
1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon
Alma 29:4
“…yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterale, according to their wills…”
1981 Edition of the Book of Mormon
“…yea, I know that he allotteth unto men . . . .]according to their wills…”
The changes are blatant and even change the meaning of the text.
God Bless,
ex-mo
B
ben_dy
Guest
mormon fool:
Nonetheless, I cannot see where ‘coming out’ is profitable unless you mean, perhaps, that a book published establishing a DNA ‘biography’ is more apt to be controversial and sell to the masses than a book which findings would try to refute that science (a ‘faith promoting’ exegesis meant primarily for a ‘pro-LDS’ audience)?
As I read the FARMS reviews what I am constantly stuck by are two thinks: 1) the unceasing whining about not having the resources to devote full-time work to apologetics (such work need not be financed by the LDS church and Mr. Keatings example, here, proves, I think, that while one may not become wealthy from apologetics, with public support life can be sustained, and; 2) the confusion that I feel when a once highly thought of LDS ‘scholar’ suddenly becomes an object of ridicule and ad hominem attacks because he has published research that is not faith promoting. It’s difficult for we who are not in the inner circle to try and find out exactly when he who was cited as ‘friend’ in 1990 became ‘foe and fool’ by 1992 - it takes almost more detective work than it’s worth to find that such a scholar may have fallen from grace because, in a review written in 1991, he denied that there were two Hill Cumorahs, for instance (I am offering this as speculative example - not based on an actual person or events).
These two observations make part-time inquiry into LDS scholarship extraordinarily frustrating. First we are told that any apologetics are going to be necessarily lacking in completeness because there exists no paid LDS apologists and then when we begin the task of reading the works we are baffled at the personal attacks on those who, in previous articles, were well regarded even to the point of being ‘experts’ in a given field of study.
I’m ready to throw in the towel, really, and admit that there is no consensus amongst even two apostles of the LDS church as to what constitutes true LDS doctrine at any one time. This disparity of doctrine is, I suppose, all the more confusing for a Catholic - who sees a somewhat similar type of hierarchy in the LDS with an infallible leader whose infallibility greatly surpasses that enjoyed by any apostle or successor and yet, were we to compare the quorum of the 70 to, say, the College of Cardinals, we could - with certainty - know when a Cardinal was or was not teaching true Church doctrine. Such is not the case with the LDS church - not even comparing prophet and pope. While the prophet enjoys far more God-given ‘power’ than any pope, his teachings on faith and morals (and even revelation, unless canonized during or after his death) are sustainable only during his lifetime whereas any pope, when teaching on matters of faith and morals, teaches that which has been taught and is taught for the perpetuity of Christendom.
It is much simpler, I think, for the denomination hopping protestant (who, if he or she becomes LDS will likely hop away from that as well) to not worry so much about doctrine than for the inquisitive Catholic.
That is, from what I’ve read, a good list of those always apt to make ‘faith promoting’ arguments vs. those (the ‘cons’) who publish what they find with no apologetics (Gee is maybe the best well known, to me anyway, of the former, while Vogel, to me lately of the latter).
Nonetheless, I cannot see where ‘coming out’ is profitable unless you mean, perhaps, that a book published establishing a DNA ‘biography’ is more apt to be controversial and sell to the masses than a book which findings would try to refute that science (a ‘faith promoting’ exegesis meant primarily for a ‘pro-LDS’ audience)?
As I read the FARMS reviews what I am constantly stuck by are two thinks: 1) the unceasing whining about not having the resources to devote full-time work to apologetics (such work need not be financed by the LDS church and Mr. Keatings example, here, proves, I think, that while one may not become wealthy from apologetics, with public support life can be sustained, and; 2) the confusion that I feel when a once highly thought of LDS ‘scholar’ suddenly becomes an object of ridicule and ad hominem attacks because he has published research that is not faith promoting. It’s difficult for we who are not in the inner circle to try and find out exactly when he who was cited as ‘friend’ in 1990 became ‘foe and fool’ by 1992 - it takes almost more detective work than it’s worth to find that such a scholar may have fallen from grace because, in a review written in 1991, he denied that there were two Hill Cumorahs, for instance (I am offering this as speculative example - not based on an actual person or events).
These two observations make part-time inquiry into LDS scholarship extraordinarily frustrating. First we are told that any apologetics are going to be necessarily lacking in completeness because there exists no paid LDS apologists and then when we begin the task of reading the works we are baffled at the personal attacks on those who, in previous articles, were well regarded even to the point of being ‘experts’ in a given field of study.
I’m ready to throw in the towel, really, and admit that there is no consensus amongst even two apostles of the LDS church as to what constitutes true LDS doctrine at any one time. This disparity of doctrine is, I suppose, all the more confusing for a Catholic - who sees a somewhat similar type of hierarchy in the LDS with an infallible leader whose infallibility greatly surpasses that enjoyed by any apostle or successor and yet, were we to compare the quorum of the 70 to, say, the College of Cardinals, we could - with certainty - know when a Cardinal was or was not teaching true Church doctrine. Such is not the case with the LDS church - not even comparing prophet and pope. While the prophet enjoys far more God-given ‘power’ than any pope, his teachings on faith and morals (and even revelation, unless canonized during or after his death) are sustainable only during his lifetime whereas any pope, when teaching on matters of faith and morals, teaches that which has been taught and is taught for the perpetuity of Christendom.
It is much simpler, I think, for the denomination hopping protestant (who, if he or she becomes LDS will likely hop away from that as well) to not worry so much about doctrine than for the inquisitive Catholic.
M
mormon_fool
Guest
in it stands apart from 19th century thought. Since he is an expert in that time period he can reconstruct how the first mormons would have read the Book of Mormon and how different the BoM concepts would sound to them compared to contemporary ideas. The implication would be that naturalistic treatments of Joseph Smith have another puzzle to solve. But it will fit right in with Mormon thought that the Book of Mormon is indeed ancient.
Because the intermediate product of the divinely aided translation left an identifiable Hebraicism. This makes for a nice piece of evidence that the Book of Mormon is an ancient work. Of course some one can launch a counter argument that an observant reader could pick up the same metaphor is used in the Bible like I linked to earlier.
Why the change? As I said earlier, to prevent overly literalistic readings of lay people not up on ancient metaphors. Having both versions allows us to have both remember the BoM is an ancient work and correctly understand the original author’s intent where there might be ambiguity.
Thank you. Yes I do tend to get defensive about church history. To clarify my “they” I referred to were 19th century Americans and not anyone participating on this board.
Next you list a bunch of changes in the Book of Mormon. I have no problem with them. It is the prophet’s perogative to try to fix errors in transmission and clarify readings. Only a handful of changes can be said to have much significance.
later,
fool
T
Tmaque
Guest
I agree it would be small-minded in 2005 to recommend marraige only within ones race. However, in the 1970’s, 30 years ago, it would have placed the marriage at a significant disadvantage right from the beginning. You will not find modern LDS leaders making statements like this because times have changed and race is not nearly as important as it once was. My point was simply that Pres. Kimball’s purpose in making the statement was to give LDS marriages the greatest possible chance of success. And, for that reason, and given the decade the suggestion was given, I have no problem with it.
T
Tmaque
Guest
I’m sure I can find you some quotes from Catholic leaders in the last century recommending the same thing. Times have changed in the last 30 years. It’s not despicable at all. It’s the way most people viewed the subject of race and marriage in that generation. Should we also condemn Paul for saying women should be silent in church?But unfortunately for your children, according to statistics, your marriage won’t last.
As innocuous as Mormons try to portray Kimball’s suggestion it is still despicable.
M
mormon_fool
Guest
ben,
I am beginning to see your frustration with mormon apologetics. I suppose that some of the trouble is that this type of literature is not written for “inquisitive” outsiders like yourself. The audience for FARMS Review is more for mormon insiders who like to track all the current criticisms, who’s who, the intellectual history of different ideas, and so forth. Boring stuff for outsiders.
ben_dy:
I suppose some of your perception are that you have read review articles that are on the defensive. Gee’s non review writing, where he is presenting his own findings are a lot less curmudgeonly. I could point to any number of links where Vogel is on the defensive and he is equally curmudgeonly.
I tend to think FARMS reviewers volunteering their time would tend to support the theory that they stand behind what they write. This may not be conclusive, but it should be a big clue. FARMS writers are definitely friends of the church as is anything published by Deseret Book or BYU Studies. The church supports FARMS but it is safe to say FARMS doesn’t speak for the church. Too bad the LDS church doesn’t have an imprimatur stamp.
If you get to a library, there are some books that a mormon and non-mormon can read that will challenge the intellect but not someone’s faith. The books by Givens, Ships, Remini, and Bushman can’t go wrong. Internet stuff always seems to be much more motivated by advocacy one way or the other.
later,
fool
I am beginning to see your frustration with mormon apologetics. I suppose that some of the trouble is that this type of literature is not written for “inquisitive” outsiders like yourself. The audience for FARMS Review is more for mormon insiders who like to track all the current criticisms, who’s who, the intellectual history of different ideas, and so forth. Boring stuff for outsiders.
Hmmm. Maybe my bias detector is a little more sensitive than yours when it comes to reading critics of the LDS. It is a misnomer that the con’s are not apologists, they most definitely are. Everybody is an apologist for their own position and there is no getting around that. You mention Vogel, but if you see my quote in the JS:RSS thread he was said – by a non-LDS reviewer – to occupy the “endzone” compared to Bushman being just to the right of the 50 yard line. Another non-Mormon biographer of Joseph Smith, Robert Remini, basically classified Vogel’s work as polemic. Vogel starts his latest book right off the bat stating he is a naturalist and that Joseph Smith was a pious fraud. He then repeatedly applies these assumptions throughout his entire book. Its fool-proof, when Joseph Smith says something that doesn’t fit in Vogel’s interpretive framework he is lying. The “con” people have never come to a consensus on how to explain Joseph Smith. Quinn, for instance ripped into Vogel’s book at a history conference in May.
I suppose some of your perception are that you have read review articles that are on the defensive. Gee’s non review writing, where he is presenting his own findings are a lot less curmudgeonly. I could point to any number of links where Vogel is on the defensive and he is equally curmudgeonly.
Yes this is what I mean. Signature books/Dialogue/Sunstone are eager to publish books and articles of those ‘coming out’. There are also plenty of staff and editing positions available in those organizations. Martha Beck has the Oprah financial machine behind her.
I tend to think FARMS reviewers volunteering their time would tend to support the theory that they stand behind what they write. This may not be conclusive, but it should be a big clue. FARMS writers are definitely friends of the church as is anything published by Deseret Book or BYU Studies. The church supports FARMS but it is safe to say FARMS doesn’t speak for the church. Too bad the LDS church doesn’t have an imprimatur stamp.
If you get to a library, there are some books that a mormon and non-mormon can read that will challenge the intellect but not someone’s faith. The books by Givens, Ships, Remini, and Bushman can’t go wrong. Internet stuff always seems to be much more motivated by advocacy one way or the other.
later,
fool
M
majick275
Guest
Well before we brush this off as being a product of 30 years ago… This quote is printed in a 1995 lesson manual and is being taught in LDS wards this month. If mr. Kimball’s words are no longer the “will of the Lord” for instructing his people then why are they still being used to teach the youth today?
- Status