hope to encourage the LDS church to repeal their decision to discipline me over my free speech
In other words, he knows he has free speech. The question is, Will the LDS church discipline him over his free speech? Or will the LDS church invoke their freedom to remove him from associating with them?
And what is your experience and learning in this field? Does the history of Amasa Lyman tell you anything?
On 16 March 1862, Lyman preached a sermon in Dundee, Scotland, which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ, which was a central tenet of the LDS Church.
Is David Twede expecting the wheel to be reinvented?
Mormon Stories Podcast (John Dehlin's Mormon-themed podcasts) Mormon Expression Podcast (John Larson's Mormon podcasts) Mormon Discussions (perhaps the most neutral, more critics than faithful but includes several apologists)
Mormon Discussions is "perhaps the most neutral"? Hang on a minute while I pick up my jaw off the floor. Twede obviously doesn't know very much about the history of MDB (and why there was a mass LDS exodus). And while Mormon Stories comes closer to objectivity, Mormon Expression is not objective.
Here is their "recommended reading":
Books:
One book we personally would recommend is:
An Insider's View of Mormon Origins by Grant Palmer. He's a former CES teacher of 34 years.
Another excellent book is No Man Knows My History, by Fawn Brodie. (This book is found in many public libraries).
Richard Bushman's book Rough Stone Rolling is also very popular and written by a faithful LDS historian.
Dan Vogel wrote a fascinating very-detailed biography on Joseph Smith called 'Making of a Prophet'.
Only one is written by a faithful Mormon. Is their reading so scarce that they could think of nothing else to "recommend"?
There are many more examples which show that Mormon Think's "objectivity" lies in the eye of the beholder. I don't find it very objective at all, but it is very useful for providing information from which one can "do their own thinking". It's heavily biased towards critics, and criticism of Mormonism. And reader's of their website should be forewarned of this.
David Twede wrote: Thus, I'm taking my fight to the media, and there, hope to encourage the LDS church to repeal their decision to discipline me over my free speech.
The issue isn't about "free speech". You are free to think, say, and publish whatever you like. That's why political parties allow, or don't allow, often depending on the circumstances, a "conscience vote". Every organisation has "requirements of membership", including religious organisations.
If you ever arrive at the stage where you feel you disagree with most of an organisation's statements of belief, purpose, or aims, then you should revise your participation in, or membership of, said organisation. Your free speech is unaffected.
Damn. I just said the same thing on the other thread.
I also don't see the "free speech" angle. From what I have read, it struck me as the church acting in a heavy-handed manner to try to protect Mitt Romney. It was the church censoring the free political expression of one of its members and trying to squelch information that might make it look bad during this election. I mean, how long has Mormon Discussions been around? Six years? And as soon as a post goes up that is critical of Romney and the church's historical involvement in politics they bring the hammer down? And the creepy way they ask for intel on the people who are involved in the site? That's all enough to make the church look like the fascist organization it is. No need to muddy things with talk of "free speech." What I mean is this: yes, the church is trying to "censor" what one of its members publishes online. But it shouldn't be couched as a violation of the member's free speech rights--it ought to be couched as the church acting thuggishly to try to help Romney, which is sure what it looks like to me.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
DrW wrote: If it were up to me, I would describe the confrontation in terms of illegal corporate attempts to intimidate and silence a whistleblower.
Massive and longterm fraud by the "Religion Division" of the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is at issue here.
A whistle blower of what? A whistle blower of which Article of Faith? Are you going to "whistle blow" on every claimed supernatural experience, because it doesn't fit into "empirical science"?
What's Twede "whistle blowing" on? Dialogue started in '66, and Sunstone in the '70s, and now we have a massive archive of LDS history to draw upon (provided courtesy of Mormon scholars):
RayAgostini wrote:A whistle blower of what? A whistle blower of which Article of Faith? Are you going to "whistle blow" on every claimed supernatural experience, because it doesn't fit into "empirical science"?
What's Twede "whistle blowing" on? Dialogue started in '66, and Sunstone in the '70s, and now we have a massive archive of LDS history to draw upon (provided courtesy of Mormon scholars):
Certainly not among Mormon Think's "recommended reading" list (unless I missed it?)
“There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.” - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
So if the church is open and honest about it's history and the difficult issues as you suggest, why is he being subjected to church discipline? What's his crime?
Stormy Waters wrote: So if the church is open and honest about it's history and the difficult issues as you suggest, why is he being subjected to church discipline? What's his crime?
Absolutely the right question to ask.
And the answer is that the truths MormonThink has brought out into the open are "inconvenient" for the LDS Church.
The LDS Church callously and systematically misrepresents its history (and especially past objectionable behavior of Church leaders) to its members and then essentially forbids the members from looking for the truth themselves.
In considering this issue one needs to ask why is it that Church leaders such as BKP, Dallin Oaks and Jeff Holland have such a clear and often expressed problem with truth.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
This essay doesn't prove that Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon, but it also doesn't prove that Joseph or someone else didn't write the Book of Mormon either. There seems to be ample evidence that shows that Joseph or someone like him could have written the Book of Mormon, and it didn't have to come from a divine source. It may have happened just as Joseph claimed but that cannot be determined by assuming Joseph could not have written it. The evidence seems to show it was at least possible that Joseph, with or without help, could have produced a book like the Book of Mormon.
LDS historian Grant Palmer asserts that 80% of the Book of Mormon can be explained by such sources available to Joseph Smith as The Holy Bible, View of the Hebrews, Joseph's family and surroundings, local protestant revival meetings, etc. The other 20% may have merely come from Joseph or someone else's imagination.
To not have a definitive answer as to how exactly the remaining unexplained portion of the Book of Mormon was derived doesn't make it so perplexing of a mystery as to assume divine intervention must have taken place. Joseph may have received help, but Joseph's "angels" perhaps were no more supernatural than David Copperfield's assistants.
There are so many more amazing mysteries that we don't know the answers to, but we don't immediately say that it must have some supernatural explanation, such as; how did Beethoven write entire symphonies when he was totally deaf, how were the pyramids of Egypt built, how did Einstein come up with the theory of relativity, how did Mozart compose music as a child, etc. We're more amazed at how Daniel Tammet memorized and recited pi to 22,514 digits than how Joseph maybe wrote a book.
We don't know exactly how illusionist David Copperfield can make the Statue of Liberty seem to disappear or how magician Chris Angel can 'float' between buildings but us not knowing exactly how these gifted magicians perform their illusions doesn't change the fact that they are merely tricks and nothing supernatural. Similarly we don't know exactly how Joseph Smith came up with the Book of Mormon but to merely assume it must have been by using seer stones and gold plates is a bit premature.
Many people believe that Joseph could have written the Book of Mormon by using a combination of several factors such as his story telling gift, his Bible study and other religious and secular training, remarkable innate abilities, assistance from others such as Cowdery and Rigdon, etc.
Not very faith promoting. Also, all the information before this is a woulda, coulda, and a shoulda. It is meant to cast doubt for members and perpsective members. And this is a prolds site? Please.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
This essay doesn't prove that Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon, but it also doesn't prove that Joseph or someone else didn't write the Book of Mormon either. There seems to be ample evidence that shows that Joseph or someone like him could have written the Book of Mormon, and it didn't have to come from a divine source. It may have happened just as Joseph claimed but that cannot be determined by assuming Joseph could not have written it. The evidence seems to show it was at least possible that Joseph, with or without help, could have produced a book like the Book of Mormon.
LDS historian Grant Palmer asserts that 80% of the Book of Mormon can be explained by such sources available to Joseph Smith as The Holy Bible, View of the Hebrews, Joseph's family and surroundings, local protestant revival meetings, etc. The other 20% may have merely come from Joseph or someone else's imagination.
To not have a definitive answer as to how exactly the remaining unexplained portion of the Book of Mormon was derived doesn't make it so perplexing of a mystery as to assume divine intervention must have taken place. Joseph may have received help, but Joseph's "angels" perhaps were no more supernatural than David Copperfield's assistants.
There are so many more amazing mysteries that we don't know the answers to, but we don't immediately say that it must have some supernatural explanation, such as; how did Beethoven write entire symphonies when he was totally deaf, how were the pyramids of Egypt built, how did Einstein come up with the theory of relativity, how did Mozart compose music as a child, etc. We're more amazed at how Daniel Tammet memorized and recited pi to 22,514 digits than how Joseph maybe wrote a book.
We don't know exactly how illusionist David Copperfield can make the Statue of Liberty seem to disappear or how magician Chris Angel can 'float' between buildings but us not knowing exactly how these gifted magicians perform their illusions doesn't change the fact that they are merely tricks and nothing supernatural. Similarly we don't know exactly how Joseph Smith came up with the Book of Mormon but to merely assume it must have been by using seer stones and gold plates is a bit premature.
Many people believe that Joseph could have written the Book of Mormon by using a combination of several factors such as his story telling gift, his Bible study and other religious and secular training, remarkable innate abilities, assistance from others such as Cowdery and Rigdon, etc.
Not very faith promoting. Also, all the information before this is a woulda, coulda, and a shoulda. It is meant to cast doubt for members and perpsective members. And this is a prolds site? Please.
The important point is not whether it is faith promoting, but whether it is logical, reasonable, and fact based (in other words, true).
And, unfortunately for the LDS Church, it is true - all of it.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."