Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Church begins inoculation efforts on historical issues

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 100
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 11 51 100 template Next
  • #1

    Church begins inoculation efforts on historical issues

    http://www.lds.org/topics/first-visi...ounts?lang=eng

    We've been talking about it for some time. Marlin K mentioned the church would start doing this. They've done a couple things here and there like this that came out a year ago http://history.lds.org/article/doctr...wdery?lang=eng, but I am hearing this First Vision article will be the first of many in a series addressing some of the common historical questions. Kind of ground breaking for the church.

    this was posted anonymously a couple weeks ago:
    Without giving too much info, I am a current FTE of the Church, working downtown, and know about new website aimed at answering "sensitive issues" and questions. The project is on a rush order from President Uchtdorf and Elder Holland personally, and should be launched sometime in the next few weeks-1 month. The type of issues will be along the lines of Book of Mormon translation, role of the Holy Ghost, and similar.
    The site will be taking this place of the gospel topics section of LDS.org .
    Last edited by jay santos; 11-21-2013, 06:09 AM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    It's about time. Hopefully that will take a lot of burden off of the rank and file to get their own personal revelation on such things.
    Everything in life is an approximation.

    http://twitter.com/CougarStats

    Comment

    • #3
      Originally posted by Indy Coug View Post
      It's about time. Hopefully that will take a lot of burden off of the rank and file to get their own personal revelation on such things.
      Of course individuals must address their own "burdens," but the institution whose silence, secrecy, and obfuscation has made those "burdens" heavier has a moral responsibility to make an effort in this regard.

      I'm interested in whether or not the effort is simply an apologetic one. Forty years ago the RLDS took this stuff on seriously and it actually increased tensions in their church. Fundamentalist-leaning RLDS retrenched and started openly publishing about the apostates in their ranks. It led to ultra-orthodox publications that were a bit like Sunstone and Dialogue running in reverse. For their part, the modernist-leaning RLDS cultivated an identity politics that re-thought the church's origins and eventually led to the ordination of women. Of course, the result was schism, although it took about 15 years to get there.
      We all trust our own unorthodoxies.

      Comment

      • #4
        Originally posted by Indy Coug View Post
        It's about time. Hopefully that will take a lot of burden off of the rank and file to get their own personal revelation on such things.
        I'll just summarize the ensuing conversation so we can save time.
        JS: What are you saying? The church shouldn't have done this?
        IC: No, not saying that at all.
        JS: OK, so you seem to be saying it's unnecessary. Why would the church do it if it's unnecessary?
        IC: No not saying that either.
        JS: Hmm, then what's your point? Just taking a general jab at the people who called for the church to take action on this for the past 20 years?
        IC: No, not doing that.
        JS: OK, nevermind then.

        Comment

        • #5
          Another way of reading the 1832 account is that Joseph Smith referred to two beings, both of whom he called “Lord.” The embellishment argument hinges on the assumption that the 1832 account describes the appearance of only one divine being. But the 1832 account does not say that only one being appeared. Note that the two references to “Lord” are separated in time: first “the Lord” opens the heavens; then Joseph Smith sees “the Lord.” This reading of the account is consistent with Joseph’s 1835 account, which has one personage appearing first, followed by another soon afterwards. The 1832 account, then, can reasonably be read to mean that Joseph Smith saw one being who then revealed another and that he referred to both of them as “the Lord”: “the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord.”11
          No wonder my baptist friends think mormonism is a polytheistic religion.
          "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
          "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
          "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
          GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

          Comment

          • #6
            Originally posted by jay santos View Post
            I'll just summarize the ensuing conversation so we can save time.
            JS: What are you saying? The church shouldn't have done this?
            IC: No, not saying that at all.
            JS: OK, so you seem to be saying it's unnecessary. Why would the church do it if it's unnecessary?
            IC: No not saying that either.
            JS: Hmm, then what's your point? Just taking a general jab at the people who called for the church to take action on this for the past 20 years?
            IC: No, not doing that.
            JS: OK, nevermind then.
            It should be more like this

            JS: Thank you for the sarcastic comment.
            IC: No problem.
            Everything in life is an approximation.

            http://twitter.com/CougarStats

            Comment

            • #7
              Originally posted by Indy Coug View Post
              It should be more like this

              JS: Thank you for the sarcastic comment.
              IC: No problem.
              Just sarcasm with no intent.

              Comment

              • #8
                Originally posted by jay santos View Post
                I'll just summarize the ensuing conversation so we can save time.
                JS: What are you saying? The church shouldn't have done this?
                IC: No, not saying that at all.
                JS: OK, so you seem to be saying it's unnecessary. Why would the church do it if it's unnecessary?
                IC: No not saying that either.
                JS: Hmm, then what's your point? Just taking a general jab at the people who called for the church to take action on this for the past 20 years?
                IC: No, not doing that.
                JS: OK, nevermind then.
                This doesnt sound like Indy coug to me. Your Indy coug doesn't provide a graph or statistical reference that is either self evident, incorrect, or inapplicable.
                Fitter. Happier. More Productive.
                sigpic

                Comment

                • #9
                  Without giving too much info, I am a current FTE of the Church, working downtown, and know about new website aimed at answering "sensitive issues" and questions. The project is on a rush order from President Uchtdorf and Elder Holland personally, and should be launched sometime in the next few weeks-1 month. The type of issues will be along the lines of Book of Mormon translation, role of the Holy Ghost, and similar.
                  The site will be taking this place of the gospel topics section of LDS.org .
                  I hope they aren't too hasty. If they just throw together some Dan Peterson-style crap, this could backfire.
                  "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
                  "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
                  "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
                    I hope they aren't too hasty. If they just throw together some Dan Peterson-style crap, this could backfire.
                    I don't see how it can be anything but. There is a much deeper change that needs to happen before honest open scholarship will be embraced.

                    And yes, I think that's worse than nothing

                    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
                    At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
                    -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ERCougar View Post
                      I don't see how it can be anything but. There is a much deeper change that needs to happen before honest open scholarship will be embraced.

                      And yes, I think that's worse than nothing
                      I tend to agree. But it is a tough issue to deal with either way. I think the best first start would be to change the tone of the discussion about church history. Come out with a set of guiding principles like this:

                      http://www.cofchrist.org/ourfaith/history.asp

                      Just the other day my wife was in a discussion with some fellow sisters in our stake and they were commenting on how people need to stop reading church history and just focus on the present. Yowza.
                      "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
                      "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
                      "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        ER, JL, did you read the article? I think it's reasonably done.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          These are seeds being sown, anchors for a backstory that will be told in a decade or two.
                          "What are you prepared to do?" - Jimmy Malone

                          "What choice?" - Abe Petrovsky

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by jay santos View Post
                            ER, JL, did you read the article? I think it's reasonably done.
                            Yes, I did, and yes, I think it's reasonably well-done. I don't think this is a particularly difficult topic to address however. I'd be interested in seeing them address polygamy/polyandry, for instance. I've never seen that done very well, even by fairly reasonable people. Their hands are tied.

                            Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
                            At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
                            -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
                              I hope they aren't too hasty. If they just throw together some Dan Peterson-style crap, this could backfire.
                              This sounds like it has been in the works for a long time.
                              Everything in life is an approximation.

                              http://twitter.com/CougarStats

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 11 51 100 template Next
                              Working...
                              X