Ten Questions - Interview with the Stake Presidency

[_harmony]

I mentioned my association with FAIR and I think they equate FAIR with either Sunstone or devil worship, or maybe a combination of both.

Well, they're right about something!

[_Boaz & Lidia]

for those who can't see the MADB thread - Will posted this yesterday...

They're still "chewing" on the questions. I may know more after our Wednesday meetings. My initial impression is that they probably don't believe that the questions I listed have any basis in truth. But I didn't press them for any answers. I just asked them to consider how we should respond to members who present questions such as these.

These are the questions I posed (I reduced the number to 5 to keep it manageable):

• Why do we sometimes use illustrations, depicting the translation of the Book of Mormon, that show Joseph Smith wearing a breastplate and some kind of “spectacles” while looking at an open set of golden plates, when in reality the Book of Mormon was dictated while he looked at a stone in the bottom of his hat? And the plates weren’t even around!

• Is it true that Joseph Smith married, as plural wives, a 14-year-old (Helen Mar Kimball), a 15-year-old (Maria Lawrence), and at least two women (Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs and Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner) who were already married to and living with their husbands?

• Is it true that the Egyptian papyri from which the Book of Abraham were “translated” were discovered in 1967, and that modern Egyptologists tell us they have nothing to do with Abraham?

• How do we explain the fact that the Book of Mormon mentions horses, steel, chariots, and many other things that (according to archaeologists) were not present in ancient America prior to the arrival of the Europeans?

• Is it true that Elder James E. Talmage smoked hashish, and that even during his time in the Quorum of the Twelve (and when he was writing Jesus the Christ) that he smoked tobacco? If so, how can we believe that he was an inspired apostle?

By the way, I also got the impression that they are pretty sure I'm teetering on the brink of apostasy. I mentioned my association with FAIR and I think they equate FAIR with either Sunstone or devil worship, or maybe a combination of both.

What a dip****. I told him these unwitting fools would have no idea. What a waste of time.

And who cares if Talmage was a pot head?

[_Canucklehead]

By the way, I also got the impression that they are pretty sure I'm teetering on the brink of apostasy.

It's funny that when an apologist asks these questions to a Stake President, they think he's on the verge of apostasy. Yet, at the same time, these apologists berate average members for being too lazy to have known about these issues before getting baptised/going on a mission/going to the temple/etc.

[_Dr. Shades]

It's funny that when an apologist asks these questions to a Stake President, they think he's on the verge of apostasy. Yet, at the same time, these apologists berate average members for being too lazy to have known about these issues before getting baptised/going on a mission/going to the temple/etc.

This just shows how much denial the Internet Mormons are living in.

[_harmony]

It's funny that when an apologist asks these questions to a Stake President, they think he's on the verge of apostasy. Yet, at the same time, these apologists berate average members for being too lazy to have known about these issues before getting baptised/going on a mission/going to the temple/etc.

This just shows how much denial the Internet Mormons are living in.

At least we know his SP isn't a closet Internet Mormon.

[_mentalgymnast]

If the prophets are only told what God decides to tell them, then the prophets are on their own when it comes to everything else. These prophets/men then become speculators/prognosticators just like the rest of us. We are left to make our own choices and choose our own beliefs after hearkening to the voice of the prophets. The voice of the prophet has never or rarely had significant conflict with core practices/teachings which point one towards Christ...such as sacrament, obedience, service, sacrifice, making covenants, etc. Throughout the church's history the core practices/teachings which lead toward Christlike living and behavior have remained fairly constant. Application of those practices/teachings has varied. Apparent exceptions, such as some of the anomilies associated with polygamy/polyandry, blacks and the priesthood, location of the landing site of the Lehite colony, views towards God's progenitors, etc., may be chalked up to individual interpretation/practice extracurricular to or in opposition of, even if innocently, to the core principles and/or teachings. Where mistakes have been made they have been the mistakes of men. If opposition is to be experienced in all things then would we not expect there to be choices to be made even when it comes to following the prophet? For choices to be made, there would have to be alternatives to choose from wouldn't there?

Hi MG

here is the problem. The prophets and apostles do not teach that this is how they get God's word nor do they encourage the members to come to such a convoluted-sorry but that is what is is- conclusion about what they say.

How else could they get God's word other than when HE "decides to tell them"?

And if this is so, the corollary is that whatever else they speak/teach is "on their own". How could it be otherwise?

Why is this a difficult concept?

Regards,
MG

[_Jason Bourne]

If the prophets are only told what God decides to tell them, then the prophets are on their own when it comes to everything else. These prophets/men then become speculators/prognosticators just like the rest of us. We are left to make our own choices and choose our own beliefs after hearkening to the voice of the prophets. The voice of the prophet has never or rarely had significant conflict with core practices/teachings which point one towards Christ...such as sacrament, obedience, service, sacrifice, making covenants, etc. Throughout the church's history the core practices/teachings which lead toward Christlike living and behavior have remained fairly constant. Application of those practices/teachings has varied. Apparent exceptions, such as some of the anomilies associated with polygamy/polyandry, blacks and the priesthood, location of the landing site of the Lehite colony, views towards God's progenitors, etc., may be chalked up to individual interpretation/practice extracurricular to or in opposition of, even if innocently, to the core principles and/or teachings. Where mistakes have been made they have been the mistakes of men. If opposition is to be experienced in all things then would we not expect there to be choices to be made even when it comes to following the prophet? For choices to be made, there would have to be alternatives to choose from wouldn't there?

Hi MG

here is the problem. The prophets and apostles do not teach that this is how they get God's word nor do they encourage the members to come to such a convoluted-sorry but that is what is is- conclusion about what they say.

How else could they get God's word other than when HE "decides to tell them"?

And if this is so, the corollary is that whatever else they speak/teach is "on their own". How could it be otherwise?

Why is this a difficult concept?

Regards,
MG

It is not the they only tell us what god tells them. You seem to say that God does not tell them much and they get A LOT of their own views in. But the Prophets teach like most of what they get is from God. You seem at odds with them. This ist he problem with apologists. They think 90% of what the leaders say is opinion. The leaders thing 90% of what they teach and say is from God and the members better follow it, at least if the prophet is living.

[_Brackite]

Hello all here,

Why is it fine for LDS women to remain single in the Church, but not for LDS men to remain single?
Please Check Out and See:
To the Single Adult Brethren of the Church
To the Single Adult Sisters of the Church

[_rcrocket]

These are your questions? Why?

• Why do we sometimes use illustrations, depicting the translation of the Book of Mormon, that show Joseph Smith wearing a breastplate and some kind of “spectacles” while looking at an open set of golden plates, when in reality the Book of Mormon was dictated while he looked at a stone in the bottom of his hat? And the plates weren’t even around!

The "stone in the bottom of the hat" story comes from David Whitmer after he was out of the Church. In reality, Joseph Smith has never explained his translation process. One depiction is as good as another.

• Is it true that Joseph Smith married, as plural wives, a 14-year-old (Helen Mar Kimball), a 15-year-old (Maria Lawrence), and at least two women (Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs and Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner) who were already married to and living with their husbands?

These are two questions. Kimball and Lawrence were not married to other men. Marriage at these ages was very common in the 19th century, as anybody who has read English, French and Russian literature can attest.

Jacobs and Rollins -- marriages for eternity not life (although the sources conflict). Each of these women have different stories.

• Is it true that the Egyptian papyri from which the Book of Abraham were “translated” were discovered in 1967, and that modern Egyptologists tell us they have nothing to do with Abraham?

Two questions. (1) Not really known, and (2) it is true that the discovered papyri refer to Abraham only in an incantation.

• How do we explain the fact that the Book of Mormon mentions horses, steel, chariots, and many other things that (according to archaeologists) were not present in ancient America prior to the arrival of the Europeans?

Multiple questions. As the book, the History of Warfare discusses, horses were viable before the 19th century only in very limited areas of the world. Since horses are so rarely discussed in the Book of Mormon, they were probably rare.

Steel: The word also means "bronze."

Chariots: A toy chariot has been found, but it is true that there is no evidence of a wheel in production.

"Many other things." Well, my reponse to that is that "many other things" in the Book of Mormon are adequately documented by archaelogical evidence -- earthen works; tree of life motif; large cities; light and dark skinned races in conflict; encounters with Asians or Europeans long before Columbus.

• Is it true that Elder James E. Talmage smoked hashish, and that even during his time in the Quorum of the Twelve (and when he was writing Jesus the Christ) that he smoked tobacco? If so, how can we believe that he was an inspired apostle?

I knew he was a drinker. I hadn't heard about the hasish or when he purportedly did it, but it wasn't illegal until recent decades. Nor will I believe the story without documentation.

The diaries of apostles and general authorities also show they routinely had wine and used laudnum (opium). Enforcement of the Word of Wisdom as a commandment was not routine until the 1930s and 1940s. The question seems to presuppose the significance of the Word of Wisdom in Mormon doctrine; in truth, it is only a very minor issue. People can hold callings in the church who have WoW problems. There is no "repentence" really necessary for a WoW violation. Just stop.

rcrocket

[_rcrocket]

It's funny that when an apologist asks these questions to a Stake President, they think he's on the verge of apostasy. Yet, at the same time, these apologists berate average members for being too lazy to have known about these issues before getting baptised/going on a mission/going to the temple/etc.

This just shows how much denial the Internet Mormons are living in.

Which apologist has posed these questions to a Stake President, and which Stake President thinks the apologist is on the verge of apostacy?