Botched Rescue in Boise
Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:07 pm
It appears that the teachings of such people as Denver Snuffer and Rock Waterman have caused sufficient stir to motivate Church historian Richard Turley and Elder Oaks of the Q12 to hit the road to Boise where they sought to stem the mounting tide of apostasy by instructing the people.
Here is the Mormon Stories recording:
http://mormonstories.org/boise-rescue-oaks-turley/
I had the opportunity to listen to the Boise Rescue on my morning walk, and I have to say that, while impressive sounding on the surface, I found the whole thing rather disappointing. I think it is fair to say that this was the usual non-responsive show of authority and conviction we are used to seeing from the Church.
Granted, I am not the target audience. The people this is targeted at are the sort of folk who are either already on board with everything, or they are wavering and in need of an impressive show of leadership without much in the way of actual substance.
Now, you may think I am being unfair here. After all, the BR sounds like it is oozing with weighty responses. And, indeed, if you are one of Rock Waterman's less informed listeners, you may be reassured that the Brethren have not totally checked out. They did, after all, show up and say stuff because people were upset. If you don't know much about what Denver Snuffer has been saying you might think that being told you don't need to see Jesus in the flesh before you die is a real revelation.
But, what did all of this amount to?
Not terribly much, I'm afraid.
We are assured by the Church historian that there is no way you could have written the Book of Mormon with Joseph Smith's education in less than 90 days time.
Uh, OK. Thanks.
We are told that instances of cribbing from interpolated passages of the New Testament are actually testaments to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon instead of the exact opposite.
We are told that because the apostles have the keys and the authority that means you should not listen to anyone else.
None of this, of course, addresses the myriad problems critics have raised regarding Mormonism in general and the LDS Church in particular.
One of the most telling moments of the whole event, in my opinion, was the use of a picture of an LDS temple as an example of the fruits of God's working through the LDS Church, which is His Church. From one perspective, it just seems so self evident that the wonder of the temple should testify of the truthfulness of the Church. And, yet, I think the use of the picture typifies the ecclesiolatry we see rampant in the LDS Church today. Throw up a picture of a pretty building and you have gone a long way to proving your point because folks love to look at impressive architecture.
Another boner, in my opinion, was the discussion of James Strang as an impostor, who was not, after all, really commissioned by Joseph Smith to be his successor. We really know that the Strang claims were nonsense, so the argument goes, because his church dissolved. I am sure all of those people wondering whether Scientology is false are really relieved to find this out. If they wait long enough, the failure of Scientology, which is inevitable, of course, will settle once and for all the question of the truth of LRH's teachings and his authority from... well, whomever.
And, anyhow, Scientology lacks all those pretty Mormon temples to demonstrate the truthfulness of its work:
Just to give you a small sample of a few of the dusty old shacks waiting to collapse under the weight of the falsehood of Scientology's teachings.[/sarcasm]
I encourage each of you anonymous internet cowards to withstand the logic, evidence, and testimony of Richard Turley, John Dehlin and Elder Oaks, John Dehlin, as they lay waste to your flimsy objections to the truth.
Here is the Mormon Stories recording:
http://mormonstories.org/boise-rescue-oaks-turley/
I had the opportunity to listen to the Boise Rescue on my morning walk, and I have to say that, while impressive sounding on the surface, I found the whole thing rather disappointing. I think it is fair to say that this was the usual non-responsive show of authority and conviction we are used to seeing from the Church.
Granted, I am not the target audience. The people this is targeted at are the sort of folk who are either already on board with everything, or they are wavering and in need of an impressive show of leadership without much in the way of actual substance.
Now, you may think I am being unfair here. After all, the BR sounds like it is oozing with weighty responses. And, indeed, if you are one of Rock Waterman's less informed listeners, you may be reassured that the Brethren have not totally checked out. They did, after all, show up and say stuff because people were upset. If you don't know much about what Denver Snuffer has been saying you might think that being told you don't need to see Jesus in the flesh before you die is a real revelation.
But, what did all of this amount to?
Not terribly much, I'm afraid.
We are assured by the Church historian that there is no way you could have written the Book of Mormon with Joseph Smith's education in less than 90 days time.
Uh, OK. Thanks.
We are told that instances of cribbing from interpolated passages of the New Testament are actually testaments to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon instead of the exact opposite.
We are told that because the apostles have the keys and the authority that means you should not listen to anyone else.
None of this, of course, addresses the myriad problems critics have raised regarding Mormonism in general and the LDS Church in particular.
One of the most telling moments of the whole event, in my opinion, was the use of a picture of an LDS temple as an example of the fruits of God's working through the LDS Church, which is His Church. From one perspective, it just seems so self evident that the wonder of the temple should testify of the truthfulness of the Church. And, yet, I think the use of the picture typifies the ecclesiolatry we see rampant in the LDS Church today. Throw up a picture of a pretty building and you have gone a long way to proving your point because folks love to look at impressive architecture.
Another boner, in my opinion, was the discussion of James Strang as an impostor, who was not, after all, really commissioned by Joseph Smith to be his successor. We really know that the Strang claims were nonsense, so the argument goes, because his church dissolved. I am sure all of those people wondering whether Scientology is false are really relieved to find this out. If they wait long enough, the failure of Scientology, which is inevitable, of course, will settle once and for all the question of the truth of LRH's teachings and his authority from... well, whomever.
And, anyhow, Scientology lacks all those pretty Mormon temples to demonstrate the truthfulness of its work:
Just to give you a small sample of a few of the dusty old shacks waiting to collapse under the weight of the falsehood of Scientology's teachings.[/sarcasm]
I encourage each of you anonymous internet cowards to withstand the logic, evidence, and testimony of Richard Turley, John Dehlin and Elder Oaks, John Dehlin, as they lay waste to your flimsy objections to the truth.