Is the Mormon Church dishonest...?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

A good object lesson is to look at the Will Schryver thread. You'll note he'll overtly lie until proven conclusively that he was lying, and then there'll be no apology. There'll be no amends.

Look at the apostate. The apostate is willing to admit fault, and offer apologies.

The onus to be "perfect" in one's claims produces an amazing capacity to dissemble and obfuscate. Of course the LDS church lies. Just look at its members.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Quasimodo]

Is Too-Tall Jones really too tall?

Did Brigham Young have cluttered bathrooms?

[_moksha]

Is there any proof that current Church leaders do not believe what they teach?

[_Buffalo]

Is there any proof that current Church leaders do not believe what they teach?

Are you saying they're just ignorant of church history?

[_LDS truthseeker]

Is Too-Tall Jones really too tall?

Did Brigham Young have cluttered bathrooms?

Is the atomic weight of Cobalt 58.9?

[_Obiwan]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints places great emphasis on the need for honesty and truth.

One of its Articles of Faith (canonized statements of its basic beliefs) states:
'We believe in being honest, true...'

To achieve the top status of membership (the holding of a valid pass to enter the Temples) you have to pass a series of worthiness tests, questioned by your local Church leader. One of these questions asks:
'Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men?

So, honesty and truth seem to be important in the faith. But does the organization practice what it preaches?

Absolutely..... Yes.

Further, I will show that it is YOU who is dishonest. You do so by omiting facts and history to paint another story, a false story.

Example Number 1.
There can be no doubt that the method for producing the Book of Mormon involved Joseph Smith putting a rock (seer stone if you prefer) in his hat. You could make an argument for the method of using the Urim & Thummim (Rock/crystal based spectacles) initially but only for the pages that were 'lost'.
The Church provides its volunteer teachers with support materials including pictures, that are to be shown during the appropriate lesson. The picture for the translation of the Book of Mormon shows Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey sat at a table with the golden plates clearly on display in front of them. Joseph is studying them and Oliver is writing.
(Picture available on the LDS website under media support materials)

No rock, no hat, no Urim and Thummim and Oliver can clearly see the plates.

The ACTUAL facts of history, contrary to your bearing false witness quote mine, is that Joseph used and engaged in SEVERAL methodology's in translating the Book of Mormon.

He use the Urim Thummim, he used the Sear Stone, he used a hat, he had the plates in front of him seeing the words in vision, he had nothing at all with him, and more....

So, is this picture dishonest?

Not at all.... This picture is structured to show the "idea" of TRANSLATION, not to represent every "method" used in translating. Your ignorance of the actual facts of history, and how ART works is you and others like you the actual ones being "dishonest".

Example Number 2.
The Doctrine and Covenants is canonized LDS scripture which contains 'revelations given to Joseph Smith, The Prophet.
Section 137 was 'given' to Joseph on January 21st 1836 and was recorded in his journal - it is from this journal that section 137 was copied (well almost copied, see below).
Verse 5 of section 137 reads:
'I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother...'
(available to view online at the LDS website under scriptures)
However, the actual journal entry from which this is copied reads:
'I saw Father Adam and Abraham and Michael and my father and my mother...'
(available from the LDS website 'The Joseph Smith Papers' under Journals)
No official (apologists have had a go at speculating and theorising) explanation for the omission of the fact that Joseph saw Michael as well as Adam and Abraham is given.
This is important because Mormons believe (and are instructed in the Temple) that in fact Michael IS Adam.
So either Michael isn't Adam after all, or perhaps Joseph was mistaken in who he saw (both situations would be very embarrassing on the Church's credibility).

As you say, I don't know of yet any "apologist theorizing" on the issue, but it simply could have been a mistake when he wrote the journal, or a mistake in who he thought he saw. Neither one has any "embarrasing" to the Church. Humans sometimes make errors.

Are you telling me that YOU "never" in your writing have you wrote a thing and then accidently repeated it, and more importantly, never reapeated it but writting it in a different way? Joseph likely did just that.... Further, it was his journal. As a busy man he likely didn't "proof-read" his journal.

Ultimately, it could mean several things, none of which have any embarrasment to the Church, save YOUR thoughts on the matter, which ONLY interpret the situation in the most negative possibility possible. There are however in fact several other possibilities, potentially more that I don't even know about off hand. Why don't you submit it to FAIR, and if they think it's a big enough priority, and/or have someone who can ready answer per the history at the time of the writting of that journal entry, maybe they will answer your question.

So is section 137 of the Doctrine & Covenants dishonest?

Nope, any number of possibilities other than being "dishonest".

Does the Mormon Church 'believe in being honest, true...'?

Absolutely..... It is those like you who aren't being honest and true.....

[_ludwigm]

OK. I have took up the gauntlet.

You may call me grammatical nazi or whatever.
I am NOT one.
I am Hungarian, (and I am happy that You don't listen my pronounciation or pronunciation or prxnxion)....

...

Anyway, You, Americans, have no rules in spelling.
During reading of these (xmormon) sites I am biased.

_____________________________________________
EDUCATION.
Does it mean correct spelling?
_____________________________________________
apostasy apostacy apostaty apoanythink ??
..................................................................................
Skip it, go ahead.
Correct spelling has to do with education.
I don't hate any uneducated persons for errors.. I DO PLACE THEM to their place...

You do so by omiting facts

omitTing

and engaged in SEVERAL methodology's

methodologies

He use the Urim Thummim

Urim and/& Thummim

any "embarrasing" to the Church

embarrasSing

he used the Sear Stone

SeEr

I am sorry. I am VERY sorry.

For me, the uneducated, stupid persons don't count.
I am sorry. I am VERY sorry.

obiwan doesn't count

OBIWAN DOESN'T COUNT

[_Quasimodo]

I am sorry. I am VERY sorry.

For me, the uneducated, stupid persons don't count.
I am sorry. I am VERY sorry.

obiwan doesn't count

OBIWAN DOESN'T COUNT

ludwigm,

I am so impressed with your grasp of English! I know absolutely no Hungarian words (maybe you could teach me a few).

English is complex and often illogical. The fact that you can teach obiwan (a native English speaker) correct spelling says a lot about your intellect and his lack of intellect.

No need to be sorry. You only pointed out where obiwan is coming from.

[_Blixa]

It's a losing battle, ludwig.

Every time problems like these are pointed out to the most egregious offenders they respond with the ludicrous assertion that these aren't mistakes but indications of a literary style that we aesthetic pedestrians are too literal-minded to grasp.

Although in terms of the history of world literature, I still have many unexplored territories, I think I can safely say that I am fairly well-read. I began my studies with a traditional introduction to the canonical classics with emphasis on medieval literature and 20thC modernism, gained the ability to read pretty well in Latin (history and poetry), haphazardly in German, got the basics of Anglo-Saxon and a smattering of Gaelic, spent time in two universities with leading creative writing programs, and in grad school and beyond read widely in philosophy, cultural theory, film theory, marxism, art history and criticism. Since beginning my full time work as a college professor, I extended my expertise to American literature and am currently working on western Americana and cultural memory studies. I read on average a couple of hundred books a year (mostly current fiction and history but also a lot of re-reading of novels I've enjoyed hundreds of times) and I write tutorial essays for my classes, scholarly prose for academic journals and articles for mass circulation magazines. I've worked as a technical writer and editor, I've written grant proposals, I've written encyclopedia entries. In short, in both my career and my daily life I work with multiple registers of discourse as both a reader and a writer.

However, I am apparently incapable of recognizing that narcissistic purple prose is finely crafted literary satire, or that banal redundancies are in fact conscious flourishes for the sake of "nuance and metering [sic]," or that hilarious misuse of quote marks is actually an example of brilliant outside-of-the-box stylistics.

And that's just attention to grammar and syntax! Trying to show someone that their argument itself is poorly reasoned or intellectually sophomoric in an attempt to help them make better arguments, is usually brushed aside with shallow defenses like, "You don't like me because I'm LDS," or "You don't like my argument because of your heavy anti-lds bias" or variations thereof. As has been amply demonstrated by the Will Schryver thread, though it certainly needed no demonstration for anyone who has read widely on this board, there exist a group of self-styled Mormon "defenders" who can only frame discussion in terms of two opposing sides: Mormon and anti-mormon. From the beginning, then, there is no hope for discussion, because all conversation is pre-framed as a battle in which one is engaged in scoring "points" off of an "enemy." There is no engagement, only a series of retorts which assert the opposite of what the "other side" has said. And whether the retorts rely only on ad hominem remarks, plagiarisms, drawings of turds, ecclesiastical threats, or bullying commands to leave the thread or the state of Utah, it doesn't matter. A weapon has been lobbed back at the enemy and that's all that counts.

Of course there are crappy writers who are not among these "defenders." But the difference there is that I've never seen any of them defend their writing or arguments by claiming that they are in fact brilliantly rich intellectual treatises that the "other side" is too blinded by prejudice or lack of the Spirit to appreciate.

And yet, while such silliness is a depressing waste of time, its not all that's on offer at MDB. I still enjoy the variety of opinion, the range of differing backgrounds and interests of many of the posters, and the enjoyment of conversation and discussion with people who share my interest in Mormon history and related subjects.

[_jon]

Obi wan,

1. Please can you reference your sources for the two methods of translation that you added (translating with nothing at all, and translating with the plates in front of him producing words 'in vision'.

2. You seem to accept that Josephs journal is in error and the D&C is correct. Can you show me where the Church explains the discrepancy?
Are you willing to accept the possibility that the D&C may be in error, and if not, why not?