So a senior leader of the church, and later first counselor to Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, was " under a good deal of stress when making these assertions." He was also "not always known to tell the truth." He was "known to embellish and at times leave out important information when giving narratives/accounts."
In other words, Heber was unreliable, maybe an outright liar, perhaps especially when under stress. Good to know!
It also looks as if you're implying that, because "Wilford Woodruff said nothing until AFTER Heber C.", Wilford may have been simply supporting Heber's lie - that is, he had no prior knowledge of the story about the sword. Is that what you meant to imply?
Was/is this also true of other leaders of the church? Or were Heber and possibly Wilford the only ones so afflicted? For example, have any of the present-day GAs been "not always known to tell the truth", or "known to embellish and at times leave out important information when giving narratives/accounts."?
I can't say that I know the details and nitty gritty on this. I wasn't involved obviously. What I do know, however, is that we are prone, as human beings, to relying on and respecting authority in our 'tribes'. Some playing into that tendency more than others. Especially when in direct line or responsibility to the authority. People even 'fall in line' with a sense of integrity and personal 'truth' as they do so.
I think there are studies and examples out there which show this human behavior to be rather common. At the end of the day we are each responsible for determining what we know/believe to be the closest approximation to the truth.
Regards,
MG
C'mon, MG, stop dodging the questions.
I'm not asking about whether we are prone, as human beings, to relying on and respecting authority in our 'tribes'. I'm also not asking whether this human behavior is rather common. Nor whether you were involved - I mean, really‽‽
Instead of answering specific questions about specific people, or specific groups of people, with vague generalities about humans, please try again, and answer the specific questions I asked:
Did you mean to imply that, because "Wilford Woodruff said nothing until AFTER Heber C.", Wilford may have been simply supporting Heber's lie - that is, he had no prior knowledge of the story about the sword.
Were Heber and possibly Wilford the only church leaders not always known to tell the truth", or "known to embellish and at times leave out important information when giving narratives/accounts."?
Have any of the present-day GAs been "not always known to tell the truth", or "known to embellish and at times leave out important information when giving narratives/accounts."?
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I can't say that I know the details and nitty gritty on this. I wasn't involved obviously. What I do know, however, is that we are prone, as human beings, to relying on and respecting authority in our 'tribes'. Some playing into that tendency more than others. Especially when in direct line or responsibility to the authority. People even 'fall in line' with a sense of integrity and personal 'truth' as they do so.
I think there are studies and examples out there which show this human behavior to be rather common. At the end of the day we are each responsible for determining what we know/believe to be the closest approximation to the truth.
Regards,
MG
C'mon, MG, stop dodging the questions.
I'm not asking about whether we are prone, as human beings, to relying on and respecting authority in our 'tribes'. I'm also not asking whether this human behavior is rather common. Nor whether you were involved - I mean, really‽‽
Instead of answering specific questions about specific people, or specific groups of people, with vague generalities about humans, please try again, and answer the specific questions I asked:
Did you mean to imply that, because "Wilford Woodruff said nothing until AFTER Heber C.", Wilford may have been simply supporting Heber's lie - that is, he had no prior knowledge of the story about the sword.
Were Heber and possibly Wilford the only church leaders not always known to tell the truth", or "known to embellish and at times leave out important information when giving narratives/accounts."?
Have any of the present-day GAs been "not always known to tell the truth", or "known to embellish and at times leave out important information when giving narratives/accounts."?
Hi malkie, I think I did answer your questions. We, along with church authorities, are in a sense members of a 'tribe', yes? Including those that came before us. And the problem is, we don't have access to and/or are not privy to all of the information needed to make an accurate assessment.
But as I said, we DO know what humans are prone to do. We are then responsible...as individuals...to determine the truth inasmuch as we are able to do so. At times we give each other the benefit of a doubt. That, in and of itself, is very hard to do at times.
I'm not asking about whether we are prone, as human beings, to relying on and respecting authority in our 'tribes'. I'm also not asking whether this human behavior is rather common. Nor whether you were involved - I mean, really‽‽
Instead of answering specific questions about specific people, or specific groups of people, with vague generalities about humans, please try again, and answer the specific questions I asked:
Did you mean to imply that, because "Wilford Woodruff said nothing until AFTER Heber C.", Wilford may have been simply supporting Heber's lie - that is, he had no prior knowledge of the story about the sword.
Were Heber and possibly Wilford the only church leaders not always known to tell the truth", or "known to embellish and at times leave out important information when giving narratives/accounts."?
Have any of the present-day GAs been "not always known to tell the truth", or "known to embellish and at times leave out important information when giving narratives/accounts."?
Hi malkie, I think I did answer your questions. We, along with church authorities, are in a sense members of a 'tribe', yes? Including those that came before us. And the problem is, we don't have access to and/or are not privy to all of the information needed to make an accurate assessment.
But as I said, we DO know what humans are prone to do. We are then responsible...as individuals...to determine the truth inasmuch as we are able to do so. At times we give each other the benefit of a doubt. That, in and of itself, is very hard to do at times.
Would you agree?
Regards,
MG
You're saying that God's prophets sometimes lie to protect the 'tribe'. Right?
MG, you seem to be saying that you doubt the angel with the sword scenario. Is this true?
It gets much worse for MG. In addition to many others, we have prophets Heber J. Grant, Joseph F. Smith and Lorenzo Snow all testifying to the angel with a sword story. I really do feel sorry for MG. It appears this is a bridge too far for him and might break his shelf. He is dying on this hill. It's not fun to watch. I too was once where MG is now.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
MG, you seem to be saying that you doubt the angel with the sword scenario. Is this true?
The way the story has been passed along and amplified and possibly embellished...I'm a bit skeptical of. No first hand contemporary witness. No journal entry. Just the witnesses speaking decades down the road.
An angel with a flaming sword actually threatened Joseph with destruction/death? That's a hard one to swallow at face value. There may have been something that happened with a divine messenger. A personal interview and strong counsel. That I would be more comfortable with.
But a threat that would essentially supercede Joseph's agency? I don't think so.
Hi malkie, I think I did answer your questions. We, along with church authorities, are in a sense members of a 'tribe', yes? Including those that came before us. And the problem is, we don't have access to and/or are not privy to all of the information needed to make an accurate assessment.
But as I said, we DO know what humans are prone to do. We are then responsible...as individuals...to determine the truth inasmuch as we are able to do so. At times we give each other the benefit of a doubt. That, in and of itself, is very hard to do at times.
Would you agree?
Regards,
MG
You're saying that God's prophets sometimes lie to protect the 'tribe'. Right?
There is evidence of this here and there. Go back to Abraham.
MG, you seem to be saying that you doubt the angel with the sword scenario. Is this true?
The way the story has been passed along and amplified and possibly embellished...I'm a bit skeptical of. No first hand contemporary witness. No journal entry. Just the witnesses speaking decades down the road.
An angel with a flaming sword actually threatened Joseph with destruction/death? That's a hard one to swallow at face value. There may have been something that happened with a divine messenger. A personal interview and strong counsel. That I would be more comfortable with.
But a threat that would essentially supercede Joseph's agency? I don't think so.
Regards,
MG
Once again, I agree with you. You really can't trust anything Church leaders have said about the restoration. That the account is included in the Church's modern apologetic--on its own website--is even worse, wouldn't you agree?
