Botched Rescue in Boise

[_mentalgymnast]

When members stand once a month and declare they know the Book of Mormon is true, I wonder if they actually understand what it is they think is true. I know some believe the statement means they take it at face value. The events happened, its historic, there really were Nephites and Lamanites and plates.

I don't know that after all is said and done that there really is any other way to look at it as a believer.

These same members also believe that Joseph translated the book by staring at actual gold plates through magic spectacles. When these members are shown the Church essay on the subject, they tend to disbelieve the essay rather than what they have been led to believe over generations.

I would disagree with using "these same members" in a way as to signify that all those that ultimately have a certain degree of faith that the Book of Mormon is based on real history are also by necessity also believers in a certain way/means by which the Book of Mormon was translated. Look at Brant Gardner and Royal Skousen as examples of two men who are believers in Book of Mormon historicity but are not always on the same page in regards to how the Book of Mormon was translated, etc.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

What they were doing was asking members to leave the thinking to them and to just follow their guidance because their interpretation of scriptures is the right one.

How would you personally interpret the scriptures they used during their presentation? How would you interpretation conflict with theirs? I think the possible interpretations of the scriptures that Elder Oaks and Turley used are rather limited in scope. I'd like to know how you would look at them differently and how you would then know that your interpretation is correct.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

i read your words (twice) an still don't understand. I guess I'm just not ready for the meat of the gospel.

Were MG to sit back, reflect, and then return with a better considered answer, he might say that those who know to leave the scriptural interpretation to the Elders and those people they tap from the field of law will accept these leaders' historically un-contextualized proof-texting as an effective argument because they really don't know any better.

Same question that I asked to IHAQ.

Regards,
MG

[_Kishkumen]

How would you personally interpret the scriptures they used during their presentation? How would you interpretation conflict with theirs? I think the possible interpretations of the scriptures that Elder Oaks and Turley used are rather limited in scope. I'd like to know how you would look at them differently and how you would then know that your interpretation is correct..

Regards,
MG

It would be good to treat them historically, instead of divorcing them from their historical context. That would, of course, be a tough order to fill in a short public presentation, but it would definitely show that things are not nearly as straightforward as Elder Oaks depicted them.

[_mentalgymnast]

How would you personally interpret the scriptures they used during their presentation? How would you interpretation conflict with theirs? I think the possible interpretations of the scriptures that Elder Oaks and Turley used are rather limited in scope. I'd like to know how you would look at them differently and how you would then know that your interpretation is correct..

Regards,
MG

It would be good to treat them historically, instead of divorcing them from their historical context. That would, of course, be a tough order to fill in a short public presentation, but it would definitely show that things are not nearly as straightforward as Elder Oaks depicted them.

It would be helpful, if someone wanted to take the time to do so, to actually list all of the scriptures they used and then look at them carefully to 'match' them with what we see going on around us and whether or not they are applicable within the context where we find ourselves in today's world and the apostasy that we see around us. It seems that Elder Oaks and Turley see the D&C scriptures that they accessed as being directly applicable to what we are observing.

I suppose we'd have to pull our scriptures out and really dig in to find out whether or not they were/are simply blowing hot air.

I don't have any overwhelming reason to think that the scriptures they were using in their presentation are not applicable to the examples of 'apostasy' that are becoming more frequent. Should I? What gives you reason to think that they aren't or that these scriptures they quoted are somehow being twisted or used out of context and are not applicable to what we are seeing?

Would you like to make a list of all the scriptures Oaks and Turley used and show that they were being used inappropriately? If not, might we assume that the scriptures are applicable to what we see going on around us? If it can be shown that their usage of the scriptures really doesn't find applicability to Snuffer/Waterman and others, then you are in a sweet spot, because the fact is, they rooted their whole presentation in the scriptures...and if their usage and/or contextual application is faulty, then they really didn't have much to offer.

Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

It would be helpful, if someone wanted to take the time to do so, to actually list all of the scriptures they used and then look at them carefully to 'match' them with what we see going on around us and whether or not they are applicable within the context where we find ourselves in today's world and the apostasy that we see around us. It seems that Elder Oaks and Turley see the D&C scriptures that they accessed as being directly applicable to what we are observing.

I suppose we'd have to pull our scriptures out and really dig in to find out whether or not they were/are simply blowing hot air.

I don't have any overwhelming reason to think that the scriptures they were using in their presentation are not applicable to the examples of 'apostasy' that are becoming more frequent. Should I? What gives you reason to think that they aren't or that these scriptures they quoted are somehow being twisted or used out of context and are not applicable to what we are seeing?

Would you like to make a list of all the scriptures Oaks and Turley used and show that they were being used inappropriately? If not, might we assume that the scriptures are applicable to what we see going on around us? If it can be shown that their usage of the scriptures really doesn't find applicability to Snuffer/Waterman and others, then you are in a sweet spot, because the fact is, they rooted their whole presentation in the scriptures...and if their usage and/or contextual application is faulty, then they really didn't have much to offer.

Regards,
MG

MG, how about if you make a similar list of all of the scriptures that Snuffer, Waterman, Larsen, etc mention and give them that same excruciating detailed, perfectly contextual consideration? If a multibillion dollar corporation with a huge pool of attorney/propagandist/historians can't make an objective case, there's something rotten in Salt Lake City. And it ain't the lake. These guys relied heavily on Satan. Good grief, everybody from Imams to the Right Reverend Jim Bob can shake their snakes at the programmed masses. Satan is like the Godwin argument. If that's what you're banking on, you've lost.

[_Flaming Meaux]

I don't think that I and many others like me have surrendered our thinking to others. Although, I must admit, there are many that don't take the time or effort to explore possibilities other than that which they are told over the pulpit, so to speak.

Says the person who then says:

I don't have any overwhelming reason to think that the scriptures they were using in their presentation are not applicable to the examples of 'apostasy' that are becoming more frequent. Should I? What gives you reason to think that they aren't or that these scriptures they quoted are somehow being twisted or used out of context and are not applicable to what we are seeing?

Would you like to make a list of all the scriptures Oaks and Turley used and show that they were being used inappropriately? If not, might we assume that the scriptures are applicable to what we see going on around us?

In other words, you are including yourself in the "many that don't take the time or effort to explore possibilities other than that which they are told over the pulpit"?

Effectively what you just said was: "I just like to assume that what I'm being told is correct unless I have an overwhelming reason to think otherwise. I don't want to do my own investigation into the matter, so can someone please distill 1000 years of Biblical scholarship that goes against my assumed position down into a single sentence so that I'm more comfortable rejecting it as 'not an overwhelming reason to think otherwise?'"

Jeezus.

[_Symmachus]

Recall that this was the same time period as the arrest of Mark Hofmann for murder, forgery, and fraud connected to the sale of early Mormon history documents. Why was Turley, a brand-new attorney, hired to fill a supervisory position in the Church Historical Department at this time?

Because it could only be an attorney—especially one who is academically gifted, steeped in Mormon history, deeply loyal to the institution, and a member of the clique of families that still dominate the LDS hierarchy—who could write a book like this:

https://books.google.com/books?id=IqrDD ... &q&f=false

It helps too that, with barely any experience, he was probably not commanding the sort of salary that would make it hard to lure him away from law.

[_Kishkumen]

Because it could only be an attorney—especially one who is academically gifted, steeped in Mormon history, deeply loyal to the institution, and a member of the clique of families that still dominate the LDS hierarchy—who could write a book like this:

https://books.google.com/books?id=IqrDD ... &q&f=false

It helps too that, with barely any experience, he was probably not commanding the sort of salary that would make it hard to lure him away from law.

Nothing like the specter of nepotism to add its stamp of legitimacy at a troubled time.

[_Symmachus]

Where things break down for the LDS Church, in my view, is the attempt to say that the "prophetic leadership" of the present is essentially identical to Joseph Smith's prophetic leadership. Since the Church lacks any kind of sophisticated discussion of these things, they can get away with this where most people are concerned. But to those who know the history fairly well, it does not fly at all. There is no reason simply to assume that nothing important changed in the transition from Joseph Smith to Brigham Young. In looking at the succession crisis, one can't easily apply the rule of the Lord's House being one of order, etc., because if there was ever a time it was not, then that was it.

At one point Turley comments that "apostasy breeds chaos." Well, yes, and what might that tell you? Does it tell you that there was no apostasy in Nauvoo, or lots of it? Does it tell you that there was no apostasy after the assassination of Joseph Smith, or lots of it? And who, after all, was right? Is it simply true that Brigham Young was obviously *the* man the Lord called to succeed Joseph Smith? That is hardly the case at all. And, naturally, this is something that Turley would avoid altogether, since he knows his argument would be highly dubious.

So, all of these revelations in the D&C about "the Lord's mouthpiece," which apply very well to Joseph Smith, do not automatically apply to Brigham Young. I think that was fairly clear to Brigham Young and even his apostolic colleagues. You can see the success of his mantle in his ability to foist the Adam-God doctrine on the Church. Yep, it was a colossal failure. So, what do we say about apostasy where this is concerned? It seems to me that Brigham Young's own record makes for a pretty convincing case of apostasy from Joseph Smith's teachings, which resulted from his illegitimate attempt to be Joseph Smith when he did not have that calling.

Am I claiming that Brigham Young was not the president of the Church or that he did not have keys? No. I am saying that I don't think anyone has successfully demonstrated that Brigham Young was the Lord's mouthpiece in the way Joseph Smith was. Ergo, one cannot assume that language in the D&C about the Lord's mouthpiece applies to Brigham or his successors automatically.

Ironically, this is exactly the view that the traditional LDS narrative applies to early Christianity, though isn't it? Nibley's been on my mind to today, so I hope you'll forgive me for pointing out that he lays a great deal of emphasis on the post-apostolic confusion as being evidence for apostasy. If you're gonna ignore that chaos in the apostolic interregnum (as the brighamite Church used to characterize it) in early Mormonism and presenting the history this way, why not ignore it altogether and just become a Roman Catholic?