New video -- apologetics/inoculation topic

[Paperback Writer]

It's a brilliant statement that took guts to release. I don't feel any kinship with them, but theologically they are much closer to me in some ways.

Probably a different thread but I wonder where one draws the line between theological accord and kinship in regards to the CofC. Is it just a matter of with whom we have chosen to worship?

As an adult, I don't know any CofC members but that was not always the case. I grew up in the midwest where there are higher numbers of CofC and briefly dated a girl in HS who was RLDS (RLDS then, now CofC). Conseqently, I became aware of some of the differences between LDS and RLDS. As expected, this caught the attention of my parents when I asked permission to attend a RLDS service with her in exchange for her attending our ward with me. This resulted in a long discussion on church history and theology and I accepted my Dad's explanations.

The way it was explained to me wat that the RLDS no longer had the priesthood and a "true" prophet so they got some things wrong. While he emphasized that RLDS were good people, they were not living the "higher law". Specifically, they have a different view on what constitutes tithing, don't always practice the WofW, and do not have temple worship. Then asked me if I wanted those blessings in my life.

Many years later, I'm thinking that maybe the CofC is not so theologically off base. And perhaps it is just a matter of kinship after all. If one GG Grandfathers had not married BY's cousin and another had not been BY's neighbor in Nauvoo, maybe those families don't follow BY's lead and head west.

[Pheidippides]

New video -- apologetics/inoculation topic

Probably a different thread but I wonder where one draws the line between theological accord and kinship in regards to the CofC. Is it just a matter of with whom we have chosen to worship?

As an adult, I don't know any CofC members but that was not always the case. I grew up in the midwest where there are higher numbers of CofC and briefly dated a girl in HS who was RLDS (RLDS then, now CofC). Conseqently, I became aware of some of the differences between LDS and RLDS. As expected, this caught the attention of my parents when I asked permission to attend a RLDS service with her in exchange for her attending our ward with me. This resulted in a long discussion on church history and theology and I accepted my Dad's explanations.

The way it was explained to me wat that the RLDS no longer had the priesthood and a "true" prophet so they got some things wrong. While he emphasized that RLDS were good people, they were not living the "higher law". Specifically, they have a different view on what constitutes tithing, don't always practice the WofW, and do not have temple worship. Then asked me if I wanted those blessings in my life.

Many years later, I'm thinking that maybe the CofC is not so theologically off base. And perhaps it is just a matter of kinship after all. If one GG Grandfathers had not married BY's cousin and another had not been BY's neighbor in Nauvoo, maybe those families don't follow BY's lead and head west.

It's a question I think about too. Tithing, WoW and temple worship are the things I most often have concern about, and their approach to tithing (for example) appears to be the exact method pellegrino suggested.

But I'd be out of place there I think, in terms of actual worship. Not exactly a huge congregation in Houston either.

[tooblue]

Ah, good. I don't believe that TSM knew all the historical stuff when he was called, give the era, and I have no clue what he knows now. But I hope he lives for a long time because I like him running the show. (Or, if what I hear about his mental state is true, Eyring and Uchdorf running the show - I don't mean that as criticism, btw. Old happens to everybody.)

All of that information has been available long before the Internet and not just in anti-mormon tracts. It was easy to find. I am sorry that it shook your faith. But, it is not unreasonable to believe that it may not have the same effect on others, regardless of the era.

[Paperback Writer]

All of that information has been available long before the Internet and not just in anti-mormon tracts. It was easy to find. I am sorry that it shook your faith. But, it is not unreasonable to believe that it may not have the same effect on others, regardless of the era.

While I agree that the information has been out there for a long time, much of the the time the source or scholarship of the information was not known. So all too often credible information would often be classified and dismissed as "anti-Mormon" material. With the internet, one can better or more easily discern fact from fiction; history from fabrication.

Although, it may have been relatively easy to find decades ago, it's much easier to find now with the internet. And it's much easier to validate and put into context. None of this was new to me. What was new is how credible the information is and not so easily discarded as anti-Mormon propaganda. It's also somewhat reassuring that other "believing" or "inclined to believe" feel similar as I. That's another important benefit of the internet-the social interactions. It's one thing to feel this way about traditional Mormon narratives and feel that you're the only one that thinks this way because others around you are disinterested or arrive at different conclusions. It's another thing with encountering others of a like mind. It's similar to having the results of one's scientific studies validated by scientific methods at other laboratories. Prior to the internet, it was difficult to find such validation without venturing outside of Mormonism and having to deal with all the hostility and untruths of anti-Mormonism.

[eldiente]

http://mormonchallenges.org/

This is pretty interesting. The church seems to be really taking a different direction.
The church seems to be ready to be open and direct about some of this stuff.

The church isn't responsible for this site. Living Hope Christian Fellowship seems to be the site owner. Pretty deceptive though

[Pheidippides]

New video -- apologetics/inoculation topic

The church isn't responsible for this site. Living Hope Christian Fellowship seems to be the site owner. Pretty deceptive though

Interesting.

You know, a more vindictive me with more time on his hands would go about making a video ministry kindly showing all the biblical anachronisms and issues.

[jay santos]

The church isn't responsible for this site. Living Hope Christian Fellowship seems to be the site owner. Pretty deceptive though

Are you sure? I googled Living Hope Christian Fellowship and get various hits that all are Christian type ministries, which would imply it's some sort of anti-Mormon thing. Two BYU professors appear in the video, and the LDS scholar in the video is Kerry Mulhestein, who is listed as an Associate Chair of the Ancient Scripture Department at BYU.

[tooblue]

While I agree that the information has been out there for a long time, much of the the time the source or scholarship of the information was not known. So all too often credible information would often be classified and dismissed as "anti-Mormon" material. With the internet, one can better or more easily discern fact from fiction; history from fabrication.

Although, it may have been relatively easy to find decades ago, it's much easier to find now with the internet. And it's much easier to validate and put into context. None of this was new to me. What was new is how credible the information is and not so easily discarded as anti-Mormon propaganda. It's also somewhat reassuring that other "believing" or "inclined to believe" feel similar as I. That's another important benefit of the internet-the social interactions. It's one thing to feel this way about traditional Mormon narratives and feel that you're the only one that thinks this way because others around you are disinterested or arrive at different conclusions. It's another thing with encountering others of a like mind. It's similar to having the results of one's scientific studies validated by scientific methods at other laboratories. Prior to the internet, it was difficult to find such validation without venturing outside of Mormonism and having to deal with all the hostility and untruths of anti-Mormonism.

I would argue that the Internet does not in fact make it easier to validate or put into context the church's history. It renders the churches history issues more complicated. Mostly, what can be found on the World Wide Web merely piques one's curiosity. The instant gratification nature of the Web clouds one's ability to discern fact from fiction. Our curiosity is too easily satiated by the immediacy with which we can access information. Lazy or, an absolute lack of real personal scholarship and introspection is the consequence. Most of what is discovered on the Web is junk food for the mind. We all love junk food. But, it has the potential to have a calamitous affect on our health and well being ... mentally and physically.

All history is a type of fiction. Credibility is a careful ruse "historians" play on their readers. If history has shown anything—especially in this case—it's that credibility is fluid. The desire and drive to seek and validate credible sources is commendable. It's not something that should be rushed or, worse addressed with a statement that reads like a wikipedia entry. (For clarification, I am not characterizing nikuman's post as a wikipedia entry).

I readily accept and have parroted many of your thoughts on "internet-the social interactions." It's one of the reasons I come here from time to time.

[tooblue]

I would argue that the Internet does not in fact make it easier to validate or put into context the church's history. It renders the churches history issues more complicated. Mostly, what can be found on the World Wide Web merely piques one's curiosity. The instant gratification nature of the Web clouds one's ability to discern fact from fiction. Our curiosity is too easily satiated by the immediacy with which we can access information. Lazy or, an absolute lack of real personal scholarship and introspection is the consequence. Most of what is discovered on the Web is junk food for the mind. We all love junk food. But, it has the potential to have a calamitous affect on our health and well being ... mentally and physically.

All history is a type of fiction. Credibility is a careful ruse "historians" play on their readers. If history has shown anything—especially in this case—it's that credibility is fluid. The desire and drive to seek and validate credible sources is commendable. It's not something that should be rushed or, worse addressed with a statement that reads like a wikipedia entry. (For clarification, I am not characterizing nikuman's post as a wikipedia entry).

I readily accept and have parroted many of your thoughts on "internet-the social interactions." It's one of the reasons I come here from time to time.

Case in point:

The church isn't responsible for this site. Living Hope Christian Fellowship seems to be the site owner. Pretty deceptive though

Are you sure? I googled Living Hope Christian Fellowship and get various hits that all are Christian type ministries, which would imply it's some sort of anti-Mormon thing. Two BYU professors appear in the video, and the LDS scholar in the video is Kerry Mulhestein, who is listed as an Associate Chair of the Ancient Scripture Department at BYU.

On another note the site does not match the churches style guides for the design of Web sites sponsored by the church. The site is a subtle anti-mormon effort.

[jay santos]

Case in point:





On another note the site does not match the churches style guides for the design of Web sites sponsored by the church. The site is a subtle anti-mormon effort.

FAIL

[Indy Coug]

The fact that no one can seem to figure out who is behind is a giant red flag.

[jay santos]

The fact that no one can seem to figure out who is behind is a giant red flag.

I wonder if it's a beta thing that's not ready for public consumption. It's obviously a church/BYU thing, but I agree the web site is odd and there is no official tie to BYU or the church anywhere.

[tooblue]

FAIL

The only failure here can be assigned to you. It's unfortunate.

[jay santos]

The only failure here can be assigned to you. It's unfortunate.

I'm curious, where are you going to get better information from a faithful perspective on Book of Abraham than Kerry Mulhestein.

http://religion.byu.edu/kerry_muhlestein

Anti-Mormons are now producing videos featuring prominent LDS apologists. Very clever of them.

[tooblue]

I'm curious, where are you going to get better information from a faithful perspective on Book of Abraham than Kerry Mulhestein.

http://religion.byu.edu/kerry_muhlestein

Anti-Mormons are now producing videos featuring prominent LDS apologists. Very clever of them.

It may well be a multi-faith effort similar to the a foundation for a better life efforts. But I am not convinced. Furthermore, i am not trying to win an argument. But it does highlight the issue of confusion and complication in regards to information about the church that can be found on the Internet.