Wade E. defines "obscure church history" as.....

[_Fence Sitter]

elements of church history that are not typically discussed at Church.

I think a new high reading on the irony meter has just been established. Congratulations Wade!!!!!

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57079-the-workings-of-the-restored-gospel/

[_SteelHead]

Unfortunately, as may become clear over the course of this discussion, these question are not only premature at this point, but the wrong questions to ask, and are posed to the wrong people. Please stay tuned.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks Bob Millet!

[_Willy Law]

So anything the church decides not to correlate into their manuals is "obscure" and not worth looking into.

oy vey

[_Fence Sitter]

I am just waiting for the "mantle is far far greater than the intellect" line.

When Brade asks him to define which aspects of church history are obscure, Wade defines it as those aspects the Church doesn't want to discuss. It's like discussing doctrine with BC.

[_Equality]

Technically, I guess he is right. Obscure means "not easily seen." When the church self-censors the history it spoon-feeds its members through correlated materials, it does make it harder for faithful members to see that which the church has obscured from their view.

[_DrW]

Wade must have recently acquired a special interest in obscure elements of Church history. Seems strange, since these elements are, well, so obscure.

Here he is talking about the recent Grant Palmer podcast.

My response to the Grant Palmers of the world is: I have found that there is an inverse relationship between really getting what the restored gospel is about, and the importance one places on obscure elements of Church history.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57069-grant-palmer-is-at-it-again/

[_Darth J]

The reason I refrain from referring to Stemelbow as an "idiot savant" is that he has never demonstrated any particular aptitude at anything that would justify the "savant" part.

I get that its not an easy place for you at all, but at some point you've got to decide--faith or secularly devised conclusions. I'm not saying that makes it easy for you, even after you decide, but I don't see any other option. If you can't accept Joseph Smith as a prophet because of the weaknesses he demonstrated, then so be it. If you can accept him as a prophet because you have faith the Church is true, the Book of Mormon, D&C, and PofGP are scripture, then so be it. Or, if you prefer, you can't accept the Book of Mormon as scripture because of its weaknesses, then so be it. If you can accept it as scripture because you have faith it is, essentially, from God even though it has weaknesses, then so be it.

in theory your position isn't as hard as it seems. in practice I realize it can be much harder than that and for that I sympathize.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/570 ... -it-again/

"If you can't accept Joseph Smith as a prophet because of the weaknesses he demonstrated......."

What a poor euphemism for Joseph Smith not even living up to the standards that God supposedly revealed to him.

"you can't accept the Book of Mormon as scripture because of its weaknesses....."

Yes, much like I can't accept Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone as an accurate portrayal of what it's really like to go to boarding school in England. It's merely because of the story's "weakness."

"secularly devised conclusions......."

Right, because we must refer only in pejorative terms to the evidenitary problem of why we should believe any of this in the first place. I mean, other than this is what Mom and Dad told me when I was growing up. Speaking of which......

"If you can accept him as a prophet because you have faith the Church is true......"

How can you argue with the power of such a penetrating insight? We believe in Joseph Smith because we believe the Church is true. And why do we believe the Church is true? Because we believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

[_SteelHead]

Wow the thread is a beautiful example of never mind the man behind the curtain just trust our circular, presupposing, begs the question paradigm, and if you get the wrong answer you did it wrong.

Wade E. The new king of circular blind belief. Too bad you can't prove anything following that epistemology.

[_hatersinmyward]

Have you seen the movie FREAKED Darth J?

With all those milk men lined up in a row. Then He gets the pamphlet 'so you're a freak now what'

Too bad it was written by a celebrity... its one of those movies that gets high remarks by anyone that matters, but their just slpstick to the layman. Its those movies get a crappy critique in a way. That's why theirs nothing on top, as opposed to what most people have been fead all their lives its being a nobody poser with an unachievable dream that keeps this country going. 'its all so f****** hysterical' - road to perdition.

[_DrW]

More from Wade's World:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57079-the-workings-of-the-restored-gospel/

For me, to be more specific about the more "obscure" elements of church history, we would have to answer the questions below in order to determine whether they are relevant in relation to the "restoring" of the gospel...


1) Does the possibility that Joseph Smith dishonestly and wrongfully coerced women to marry him undermine Joseph's role as the prophet that God trusted for the restoration of the gospel?

2) More broadly, does the possibility that Joseph Smith fabricated stories of his visions or revelations undermine the work of the restored gospel?

3) Does the possibility that the Book of Mormon was not a divinely translated book with historical origins undermine Joseph's role as the prophet of the restoration?

4) Does the possibility that Joseph's successors were preaching false doctrines and lying undermine the work of the restoration and the claim to an unbroken line of priesthood authority and continued revelation?


To me, the answer to all three question is yes. Validating the evidences of these claims are significant enough to deserve thorough analysis and scrutiny in order to more clearly determine whether Joseph was truly the prophet of the restoration and whether the restoration has continued through his successors. The Lord has clearly cautioned us against false prophets and even taught us how to recognize them "by their fruits".

Of course, the spirit is required in addition to study, but one cannot just ignore the history because they are content with the church's current state.

Unfortunately, as may become clear over the course of this discussion, these question are not only premature at this point, but the wrong questions to ask, and are posed to the wrong people. Please stay tuned.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade Englund at work. Brilliant.