Peterson Misleading Again

[_neworder]

I finally just came to the conclusion that NOTHING is doctrine in the LDS Church.

Took you long enough. Now you can begin to understand our Faith if you'd just get the Holy Ghost in there.

Believe me, I have tried but I can not find the right frequency that the Holy Ghost operates on. Somebody told me it was on 146.52MHz but all I get is static. My transmitter seems to be working fine but I can't get the receiver to work no matter what I try. Maybe I need a bigger antenna.

[_neworder]

I finally just came to the conclusion that NOTHING is doctrine in the LDS Church.

See my siggy.

I have read it but it still leaves me confused. Maybe I am just not smart enough for Mormonism.

According to the link in your Sig it states "This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith." and then you have the talks like the one I already pointed out like the "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" that will quote something like this

President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

“I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living prophets and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’

“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham I want you to go to the podium and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’

So here you have the early Church (and being quoted in a Conference Talk in the 80s) with People saying that when people give revelations (I am assuming the current prophets) that it should match the Standard Works. Then Brigham Young gets up and says that when compared to the living oracles, those books (the standard works) are nothing.

It seems that some members will put the standard works higher than what the current prophet will say and some will say the prophet Trump's the standard works. Two messages are being sent out and which one do we listen to. Do we listen to a talk given by a Prophet or do we listen to a web site page at LDS.org in the newsroom section which does not even list the author of the text.

[_guy sajer]

I finally just came to the conclusion that NOTHING is doctrine in the LDS Church.

See my siggy.

I have read it but it still leaves me confused. Maybe I am just not smart enough for Mormonism.

According to the link in your Sig it states "This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith." and then you have the talks like the one I already pointed out like the "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" that will quote something like this

President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

“I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living prophets and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’

“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham I want you to go to the podium and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’

So here you have the early Church (and being quoted in a Conference Talk in the 80s) with People saying that when people give revelations (I am assuming the current prophets) that it should match the Standard Works. Then Brigham Young gets up and says that when compared to the living oracles, those books (the standard works) are nothing.

It seems that some members will put the standard works higher than what the current prophet will say and some will say the prophet Trump's the standard works. Two messages are being sent out and which one do we listen to. Do we listen to a talk given by a Prophet or do we listen to a web site page at LDS.org in the newsroom section which does not even list the author of the text.

In a religion claiming over 12 million adherents, bcspace is one of an elite few (which, apparently, excludes members of the ruling hierarchy) who actually understand what doctrine is.

Amazing!

[_ludwigm]

...
In a religion claiming over 12 million adherents, bcspace is one of an elite few (which, apparently, excludes members of the ruling hierarchy) who actually understand what doctrine is.
Amazing!

There was a joke during the first Near East conflict (I hope my translation doesn't kill it):

- Do You understand the actual Near East situation ?
- Wait a minute, I explain it at length ...
- No, no, please! I can explain it too. I asked You if You understand it!

[_Daniel Peterson]

You need to read the letter. The response was on behalf of President Hinckley, an appropriate task for a personal secretary, done all the time. Second, as the letter indicates, it was a position long maintained by the "Church", not some opinions of individual members.

When the Church wants to issue an official statement, it doesn't do so in a private letter to an individual and then turn distribution of its new official statement over to the Tanners.

This letter was not an official statement of the Church. No official Church geography exists for the Book of Mormon.

The statement has never been retracted. If it had, the duo of Peterson & Hamblin would have provided us the retraction.

One correction or retraction to that private letter to an individual came in a private letter to Professor Hamblin dated 23 April 1993. This letter is quoted in its entirety in William J. Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (1993): 181.

His silence is evidence of his lie.

His silence is evidence that he's been at the Utah Festival Opera in Logan, watching performances of Stephen Sondheim's Into the Woods, Giuseppi Verdi's Aïda, Peter Stone's and Sherman Edwards's 1776, and Giacomo Puccini's Manon Lescaut.

Even an utterly shameless lying hack like Peterson needs to take a break once in a while.

[_Yoda]

His silence is evidence that he's been at the Utah Festival Opera in Logan, watching performances of Stephen Sondheim's Into the Woods, Giuseppi Verdi's Aïda, Peter Stone's and Sherman Edwards's 1776, and Giacomo Puccini's Manon Lescaut.

Awesome! Start a thread in Off Topic with a review! :)

[_Daniel Peterson]

He has been asked to provide the source of his "official statement" many times in the past. He simply cannot do so because the "offical statement" he claims to have seen does not exist.

He has always said that the source of the letter was F. Michael Watson, until recently secretary to the First Presidency.

Basically, he insists that Bill Hamblin managed to somehow browbeat Micheal Watson into disavowing the first letter and writing a second one, the text of which was reproduced in (I believe) an issue of FARMS Review.

"Browbeat"??? Typical Scratch/Hack. All I've ever "insisted" is that Professor Hamblin wrote a letter to the First Presidency inquiring about the first Michael Watson letter, and that Michael Watson responded with the letter that is cited, in full, in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (and not, pace Scratch/Hack, in the FARMS Review).

The point is that Peterson claims to have seen an "official statement".

I saw a letter. No more official than the letter reproduced by the Tanners. But also no less official.

What makes a footnote in a FARMS article "official"?

It wasn't a "footnote." (Have you and Scratch/Hack ever actually troubled yourselves to even look at the thing?) And I've never claimed that something becomes "official" by being printed in a FARMS article.

What makes personal correspondence between Hamblin and Watson "official"?

The same thing that made the Tanners' reproduced letter official -- or didn't.

Where can anyone see this "official" statement posted anywhere on the Church website? Where has the Church published this "official statement"?

Where has the Church published the letter reproduced by the Tanners? Where can it be found on the Church website?

Peterson knows what ever he claims to have seen is not "official" but continues to lie about it even now.

????

He has difficulty holding himself to the same standards of truthfulness he demands from others.

????

[_Gadianton]

His silence is evidence that he's been at the Utah Festival Opera in Logan, watching performances of Stephen Sondheim's Into the Woods, Giuseppi Verdi's Aïda, Peter Stone's and Sherman Edwards's 1776, and Giacomo Puccini's Manon Lescaut.

We are humbled. Bill Hamblin may very well be the most cultured man alive today and frankly, I think he should get an honorarium for it. What did Joey do this weekend? Watch Batman? I'll bet Joey can't even pronounce "Giacomo Puccini", I know I can't.

I'll bet Bill Hamblin can pronounce "Giacomo Puccini", heck, he could probably write a book on how to pronounce hard words. Is he headed to Oxford after his retreat in Logan? I'll bet he is. I'll bet the conservatories and gallaries are boarding up as we speak in fear the great guardian of high culture will glance his keen discriminating taste their way.

[_Daniel Peterson]

We are humbled.

Good!

Bill Hamblin may very well be the most cultured man alive today and frankly, I think he should get an honorarium for it.

Maybe so.

But the he didn't refer to Bill Hamblin. It referred to me.

What did Joey do this weekend? Watch Batman? I'll bet Joey can't even pronounce "Giacomo Puccini", I know I can't.

Can Joey pronounce Batman?

I'll bet Bill Hamblin can pronounce "Giacomo Puccini"

I'm sure he can. He served his mission in la bella Italia.

Is he headed to Oxford after his retreat in Logan? I'll bet he is.

He's been in Oxford for at least three or four weeks now.

I'll bet the conservatories and gallaries are boarding up as we speak in fear the great guardian of high culture will glance his keen discriminating taste their way.

Don't know about that, but he's been sending a stream of marvelous photographs of French cathedrals and Welsh shrines and the like to the vicious, conspiratorial, and evil Skinny list.

[_Mister Scratch]

Basically, he insists that Bill Hamblin managed to somehow browbeat Micheal Watson into disavowing the first letter and writing a second one, the text of which was reproduced in (I believe) an issue of FARMS Review.

"Browbeat"??? Typical Scratch/Hack. All I've ever "insisted" is that Professor Hamblin wrote a letter to the First Presidency inquiring about the first Michael Watson letter, and that Michael Watson responded with the letter that is cited, in full, in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (and not, pace Scratch/Hack, in the FARMS Review).

Did you read the letter Bill Hamblin wrote to Michael Watson?