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/
elements of church history that are not typically discussed at Church.
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-
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-
stemelbow wrote: 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/
Verum wrote: 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.