Xit from Bednar, 10/5/24

[sock puppet]

Bednar October 2024

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2024/10/0 ... -messages/

Bednar is the chap who proclaimed that what he says is modern scripture. Anecdotally, I know first hand that Bednar is the worst Apostle for insisting everyone stands before he enters a room. He insists on it. He has people check that everyone is standing before he enters.

Interesting.

So one can keep an apostle out by simply sitting down‽‽‽

Sitting sounds like a great super power. Sort of like a cross, holy water and a wooden spike.

[Marcus]

...Yes, it is a story about the past written by people who lived in the past, but it was not written as history. Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon as though it were a book about the past written by people of the past, but he did so primarily to write in the Biblical genre, so to speak...

That's not what the LDS church has taught, but I can see the reason for the change, as it is simply insupportable as a history. It would be better, in my opinion, if they were honest about the change in direction, but I doubt that will happen, given their history on making and announcing the reasoning behind this type of change.

I was unaware Smith ever indicated anything like what you stated above, in fact, from what I've read he told people the opposite, that it was a history, and that he translated it from an unknown language. I'd be interested in seeing any research about Smith that indicates otherwise, or that indicates Smith specifically intended for it to be a pseudo-biblical writing, if you have a link.

[Dr. Shades]

So one can keep an apostle out by simply sitting down‽‽‽

That’s probably more likely to get you removed from the meeting

Am I a jerk for now wanting to go wherever Bednar is speaking next and purposefully remain seated until I get thrown out just to see how long I can keep him waiting in the foyer. . . and simultaneously see how mad it makes him?

[I Have Questions]

...Yes, it is a story about the past written by people who lived in the past, but it was not written as history. Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon as though it were a book about the past written by people of the past, but he did so primarily to write in the Biblical genre, so to speak...

That's not what the LDS church has taught, but I can see the reason for the change, as it is simply insupportable as a history. It would be better, in my opinion, if they were honest about the change in direction, but I doubt that will happen, given their history on making and announcing the reasoning behind this type of change.

I was unaware Smith ever indicated anything like what you stated above, in fact, from what I've read he told people the opposite, that it was a history, and that he translated it from an unknown language. I'd be interested in seeing any research about Smith that indicates otherwise, or that indicates Smith specifically intended for it to be a pseudo-biblical writing, if you have a link.

for what it's worth, I took Kish to mean that that’s the way he chooses to view it. Rather than him putting forward an assertion about how the Church or Joseph Smith has ever portrayed it.

[I Have Questions]

That’s probably more likely to get you removed from the meeting

Am I a jerk for now wanting to go wherever Bednar is speaking next and purposefully remain seated until I get thrown out just to see how long I can keep him waiting in the foyer. . . and simultaneously see how mad it makes him?

Not at all. Please also make sure you’re the first person to stand at the end, so that Bednar sees you disrespecting him. A front, or nearly front row seat would be the best position. Return and report.

[Res Ipsa]

That’s probably more likely to get you removed from the meeting

Am I a jerk for now wanting to go wherever Bednar is speaking next and purposefully remain seated until I get thrown out just to see how long I can keep him waiting in the foyer. . . and simultaneously see how mad it makes him?

Maybe, but you would be our jerk.

[Marcus]

That's not what the LDS church has taught, but I can see the reason for the change, as it is simply insupportable as a history. It would be better, in my opinion, if they were honest about the change in direction, but I doubt that will happen, given their history on making and announcing the reasoning behind this type of change.

I was unaware Smith ever indicated anything like what you stated above, in fact, from what I've read he told people the opposite, that it was a history, and that he translated it from an unknown language. I'd be interested in seeing any research about Smith that indicates otherwise, or that indicates Smith specifically intended for it to be a pseudo-biblical writing, if you have a link.

for what it's worth, I took Kish to mean that that’s the way he chooses to view it. Rather than him putting forward an assertion about how the Church or Joseph Smith has ever portrayed it.

That makes sense, thank you.

[Kishkumen]

That's not what the LDS church has taught, but I can see the reason for the change, as it is simply insupportable as a history. It would be better, in my opinion, if they were honest about the change in direction, but I doubt that will happen, given their history on making and announcing the reasoning behind this type of change.

Yeah, I don't see them announcing it either. Probably because there is no consensus among the leaders, no real value given to scholarship over prophetic calling, and a huge worry that many believing LDS people would panic if the LDS Church were to do such a thing.

I was unaware Smith ever indicated anything like what you stated above, in fact, from what I've read he told people the opposite, that it was a history, and that he translated it from an unknown language. I'd be interested in seeing any research about Smith that indicates otherwise, or that indicates Smith specifically intended for it to be a pseudo-biblical writing, if you have a link.

That was a statement of fact as I see it, not an attempt to read Joseph Smith's mind. Based on what we see in the Book of Mormon, he must have written it to be in the same genre as the Bible, as it extensively quotes the Bible and adopts a lot of Biblical elements in its language and style. My thought on Smith is that he was so bold (or foolish) as to write his own Bible, and he had no intention at all to write "pseudo-biblical writing."

In a religious vein, every time people say the Book of Mormon is "Bible fan fiction" or "pseudo-biblical writing," I consider it either a purposeful or inadvertent partisan statement that lines up with the majority Christian view of Biblical authority. Funny thing, since most people I see using such language are either atheists or non-Christians, but that is probably due to the online company I keep.

[Kishkumen]

for what it's worth, I took Kish to mean that that’s the way he chooses to view it. Rather than him putting forward an assertion about how the Church or Joseph Smith has ever portrayed it.

Thanks for chiming in, IHAQ. I wrote that as a kind of dry academic statement. You are correct that Joseph Smith did not provide a kind of outsider's view of his own work. He had the temerity to write scripture, and he believed that he did so. I simply refrained from commenting on his belief.

[Marcus]

I used the term 'pseudo-biblical' in response to your phrase 'write in the Bible genre'; it came out of reading all Carmack's Early Modern English and related papers, and various articles about what people wrote at the time in that genre.

If you interpreted that as a "partisan statement that lines up with the majority Christian view of Biblical authority," it was certainly inadvertent on my part because it was based on how the terms were used in my research, as representing a style of writing. It had nothing to do with me believing in any Christian view about the Bible, nor was my atheism relevant in any way.

For me, given it was definitional and purely based on my research, I couldn't have a drier, more boring and non-partisan reason for using the term, but thanks for the heads up on how my use of the phrase may be mistakenly interpreted, that's useful information for any future conversations.