My TBM GF's latest gem

[_charity]

Actually, Elder Boyd K. Packer spoke about this, cautioning members not to treat the Book of Mormon as a history, and I suppose by extension, a geography manual.

Yes, there are naïve LDS out there. (I am not one of them, despite reports to the contrary.) And lots of people pass on urban myths. Anyone hear the one about two little old white ladies who are on an elevator when Kobe Bryant gets on with two German shepherd dogs.........

I have never heard South American/Mesoamerican geography taught by a General Authority from the pulpit. Now, I have heard people put forth their own speculations. And often times the more naïve take someone's speculations, and then go around blatting about how somebody said something was really true.

It seems, charity, that you are offering up excuses for the GAs, trying to explain away their obvious indifference to correcting the widespread disinformation that flourishes amongst TBMs. The fact of the matter is that the GAs would prefer that these faith-promoting rumors stay in circulation. You say that they do not teach this stuff "from the pulpit," but do they really discourage it? I would argue that they (at the very least implicitly) encourage belief in some of this totally false nonsense, and that the existence of FARMS is proof of said encouragement. I imagine the Brethren's thinking went something like this: "Ah, gee... All of this so-called research is really damaging some members' testimonies. On the other hand, the false information and rumors that some of the spread is helping to combat that. What should we do? Oh! I've got it! We'll establish a pseudo-scientific organization at BYU to look into this stuff. After all, if real scholars at a real university are researching such things as Book of Mormon geography, then it will give struggling members more reason to believe." I think that, in the end, the mere existence of FARMS/FAIR does more to bolster members' faith than the actual research being done.

So: Scottie's TBM GF can continue to feel like these passed-along fallacies are legit, since, after all, DCP and his ilk at The Lord's University are busy scurrying away to prove all of them.

I am not offering excuses for anyone. I was agreeing with Scottie that people can say some pretty innocently stupid stuff. I have a news flash for you, since you don't seem to know it: People are gullible!

If it comes to choosing the perspective of people who are gullible and jump on any faith promoting rumor they can find, or the perspective of jumping on every anti-faith promoting rumor, I think I would be closer to the truth at the end of the day with those naïve LDS. They are optimists. The perspective you demosntrate in your post is one of cynicism and bitterness. That is a hard way to live.

Or maybe I will just maintain my place in the middle. I can shake my head at some of the things people can say in ignorance and still not hold it against them, and yet not have to wallow in misery of thinking everyone is lying or deceviing me.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

In his book, Justified by Faith (p. 4), Stephen D. Nadauld quotes from Henry A. Smith's Matthew Cowley: Man of Faith (SLC: Bookcraft, 1954, 138-139):

I was asked to administer to a baby in New Zealand. I was able to bless it. The father came up to me with this child, fourteen months old, and he said, 'Our child has not been blessed yet, so I want you to give it a name.' I said, 'All right, what is the name?' [Don't understand this part, frankly--CKS] He gave me the name of the child, and then he said in a matter-of-fact way, 'While you are giving it its name, give it its sight.' The child was born blind. He said, 'We have had it to the specialists in Wellington. They said it was born blind and they cannot do anything for it. So while you are giving it a name [didn't "it" already have a name, per supra?--CKS], give it its vision.' Eight months later I saw the child and it saw me...." (emphasis in original).

Now, I wonder, how much fact-checking went into the inclusion of the miraculous even described in this narrative. My guess is, None.

It's a pretty important, supernatural claim. But, I've never heard of it until I read Naudald's rather apathetic, chart-ridden book on "justification by faith"--yes, you do have to earn it--(written by a professor in the Marriot school of management at BYU, former CEO of a dairy farm).

Now, is this true? Seems like it would have made some sort of news broadcast here or there: LDS priestly blessing restores sight to the blind!

You portend to believe in Christ's miracles, right?

[_Sethbag]

I can shake my head at some of the things people can say in ignorance and still not hold it against them, and yet not have to wallow in misery of thinking everyone is lying or deceviing me.

Charity, it's this constant turn to hyperbole that undercuts so much of what you say. Everyone isn't lying to you or intentionally deceiving you. They're just wrong. But they believe they're right. It's just like believing JWs in a JW meeting. They're not lying, and they're not intentionally deceiving their fellow believers, but in the end, they're still all wrong.

[_The Nehor]

In his book, Justified by Faith (p. 4), Stephen D. Nadauld quotes from Henry A. Smith's Matthew Cowley: Man of Faith (SLC: Bookcraft, 1954, 138-139):

I was asked to administer to a baby in New Zealand. I was able to bless it. The father came up to me with this child, fourteen months old, and he said, 'Our child has not been blessed yet, so I want you to give it a name.' I said, 'All right, what is the name?' [Don't understand this part, frankly--CKS] He gave me the name of the child, and then he said in a matter-of-fact way, 'While you are giving it its name, give it its sight.' The child was born blind. He said, 'We have had it to the specialists in Wellington. They said it was born blind and they cannot do anything for it. So while you are giving it a name [didn't "it" already have a name, per supra?--CKS], give it its vision.' Eight months later I saw the child and it saw me...." (emphasis in original).

Now, I wonder, how much fact-checking went into the inclusion of the miraculous even described in this narrative. My guess is, None.

It's a pretty important, supernatural claim. But, I've never heard of it until I read Naudald's rather apathetic, chart-ridden book on "justification by faith"--yes, you do have to earn it--(written by a professor in the Marriot school of management at BYU, former CEO of a dairy farm).

Now, is this true? Seems like it would have made some sort of news broadcast here or there: LDS priestly blessing restores sight to the blind!

The general attitude that I have seen among believing LDS includiing myself is that we do not share these kinds of experiences. I have seen a few. The families and the recipients do not trumpet it out for all to hear. Our scriptures teach that signs follow those who believe. There is a horrible danger in the LDS Church coming to be seen as a kind of Benny Hinn. God will not be used as a magical device to fix your problems. He will often fix your problems if you come unto him to be perfected.

As to that mention in the book, I doubt it was checked extensively. I have no idea whether it happened or not.

[_mormonmistress]

I was asked to administer to a baby in New Zealand. I was able to bless it. The father came up to me with this child, fourteen months old, and he said, 'Our child has not been blessed yet, so I want you to give it a name.' I said, 'All right, what is the name?' [Don't understand this part, frankly--CKS] He gave me the name of the child, and then he said in a matter-of-fact way, 'While you are giving it its name, give it its sight.' The child was born blind. He said, 'We have had it to the specialists in Wellington. They said it was born blind and they cannot do anything for it. So while you are giving it a name [didn't "it" already have a name, per supra?--CKS], give it its vision.' Eight months later I saw the child and it saw me...." (emphasis in original).

Well, as a TBK (true blue kiwi) my opinion is that this is a load of crock! We don't call babies "its"!!!! ;)

[_charity]

I can shake my head at some of the things people can say in ignorance and still not hold it against them, and yet not have to wallow in misery of thinking everyone is lying or deceviing me.

Charity, it's this constant turn to hyperbole that undercuts so much of what you say. Everyone isn't lying to you or intentionally deceiving you. They're just wrong. But they believe they're right. It's just like believing JWs in a JW meeting. They're not lying, and they're not intentionally deceiving their fellow believers, but in the end, they're still all wrong.

You mistake me, sethbag. I am not the one thinking that I am being lied to. Just read below what Mr. Scratch responded to me earlier in this thread.


"It seems, charity, that you are offering up excuses for the GAs, trying to explain away their obvious indifference to correcting the widespread disinformation that flourishes amongst TBMs. The fact of the matter is that the GAs would prefer that these faith-promoting rumors stay in circulation. You say that they do not teach this stuff "from the pulpit," but do they really discourage it? I would argue that they (at the very least implicitly) encourage belief in some of this totally false nonsense, and that the existence of FARMS is proof of said encouragement. I imagine the Brethren's thinking went something like this: "Ah, gee... All of this so-called research is really damaging some members' testimonies. On the other hand, the false information and rumors that some of the spread is helping to combat that. What should we do? Oh! I've got it! We'll establish a pseudo-scientific organization at BYU to look into this stuff. After all, if real scholars at a real university are researching such things as Book of Mormon geography, then it will give struggling members more reason to believe." I think that, in the end, the mere existence of FARMS/FAIR does more to bolster members' faith than the actual research being done.

So: Scottie's TBM GF can continue to feel like these passed-along fallacies are legit, since, after all, DCP and his ilk at The Lord's University are busy scurrying away to prove all of them."


These are the people who are seeing liars behind every bush. They are they miserable ones.

Did you really misread what I said? Or did you hope I wouldn't catch it?

[_Some Schmo]

So... since she believes this stuff and remains your girlfriend, can I assume she's smokin' hot?

Not only that, but she's just an amazing girl! I've never been so compatible with a girl...TBMishness notwithstanding...

I've dated hot girls before, but they are have all been really boring with no real connection. We really have a great connection, which is sooo hard to find.

So, yes, she's worth it. Even if I have to roll my eyes occasionally.

Well bud, I understand your point of view, but I've got to say, I think it's wholly unrealistic to expect this relationship to last, unless you think she'll eventually let go of her silly belief in the church.

I hope you're at least nailing her while you can. Oh wait... that's fornication.

Hmmm... I just don't see the point. If it's just for the conversations, why not just be friends? (...unless you actually are getting a bit of the old cram and slap action, in which case, never mind.)

[_Sethbag]

Charity, I'm not sure what we're arguing about, but I'll do my best to hold up my end of it. ;-) You implied that the believer's response to FPRs is to smile politely while recognizing that they were incorrect, and that the alternative to this, as you believe Mr. Scratch meant, was to wallow in misery thinking everyone is lying or out to deceive. I don't think it's a fair characterization to assume that the critic's attitude is necessarily that the church is out to lie and deceive. There is room in the critics' tent for people like myself who recognize that the church leaders actually believe what they say, and that they're just wrong about it. I believe Joseph Smith knew he was making it up as he went along, but his successors actually believed it all. I believe GBH has a firm testimony that the church is true. He's wrong, though.

I agree with the notion that FARMS is more about people knowing that "smart people" have looked into things, and still believe it's true, than it is about actually finding real proof, and real evidence, for the church's claims. The thing is, I don't think DCP and the others are lying. I don't see liars behind every bush. I see people who actually believe the church is true, and actually believe that the Book of Mormon will someday be vindicated, who assume that there must be a way to explain all the problematic things, etc. So they scurry away trying to do these things, and the LDS faithful who even know FARMS exist look to them and think hey, some smart people are working on all of these questions, and they still believe in the church, so there must be a good reason for it.

I don't see liars behind every bush. What I see is the blind leading the blind. I see deceived people (deceived, ultimately, by Joseph Smith) leading other people to join in and support the deception, but they don't think it's deception, they think it's revelation and faith and all the rest.

Look at the Book of Abraham apologetics. The Book of Abraham is so transparently and obvious fraudulent that it's not even funny. Joseph Smith undoubtedly deceived his followers when he held it up to his followers as the translation from the ancient Egyptian papyrus in his possession of a real story that had been penned by Abraham. This cannot be doubted by anyone except the true believers who need for the book to be true. So now we have Book of Abraham apologetics attempting to legitimize defense of an obvious fraud. They are supporting the continuation of a deception, but they do it believing they are supporting the defense of something that's true. They're wrong, though. You can Nibley up all the parallels you want, but Joseph Smith still invented the Book of Abraham and passed it off as a true translation.

Disinformation is disinformation even when it's given with belief.

If the GAs know that the faith promoting rumors are simply false, they ought to do more to inform members of that fact, and to take a firmer, more quotable stand against such false rumors being circulated by sunday school teachers, seminary teachers, fireside speakers, and whatnot. There is undeniably a tradition of faith promoting rumors in the LDS church, and the GAs seem to do essentially nothing at all to discourage it.

To an extent this has even been institutionalized, as in the earlier Book of Mormon edition cited earlier in this thread, containing photos of Mesoamerican ruins and such with an implication that these were Book of Mormon sites. I remember quite a few years back watching a film produced by the church about Book of Mormon archeology, showing ruins containing what were claimed to be LDS-style baptismal fonts, stone boxes, and the like, all in the service of "proving" that the Book of Mormon is archeologically sound.

What I disagree with is that the LDS church leadership are actually setting out to lie and deceive. I believe that the LDS leadership truly believe in the church, and believe it's true, and believe that what they do is for the best, and that protecting peoples' testimonies is of vital importance for their salvation and so forth. That doesn't stop them from being wrong, however, and I'm now convinced that they are in fact wrong.

[_Yoda]

So... since she believes this stuff and remains your girlfriend, can I assume she's smokin' hot?

Not only that, but she's just an amazing girl! I've never been so compatible with a girl...TBMishness notwithstanding...

I've dated hot girls before, but they are have all been really boring with no real connection. We really have a great connection, which is sooo hard to find.

So, yes, she's worth it. Even if I have to roll my eyes occasionally.

Well bud, I understand your point of view, but I've got to say, I think it's wholly unrealistic to expect this relationship to last, unless you think she'll eventually let go of her silly belief in the church.

I hope you're at least nailing her while you can. Oh wait... that's fornication.

Hmmm... I just don't see the point. If it's just for the conversations, why not just be friends? (...unless you actually are getting a bit of the old cram and slap action, in which case, never mind.)

"Cram and slap action"?

Schmo, I'm disappointed.

:(

Scottie's in love.

I can't help it. I'm a hopeless romantic.

;)

Scottie, is marriage seriously on the horizon?

[_Some Schmo]

"Cram and slap action"?

Schmo, I'm disappointed.

:(

Scottie's in love.

I can't help it. I'm a hopeless romantic.

;)

Scottie, is marriage seriously on the horizon?

LOL

Why are you disappointed? And what makes you think that two people who are in love can't engage in the old cram and slap?

Scottie, plz tell me you aren't actually seriously considering marrying a Mormon. If so, let me be the first to say, "Don't say I didn't warn you." It may be all fine and dandy now, but once you introduce kids into the mix, you'll have two choices: either eat your integrity and let her raise them to embrace a lack of critical thinking skills, or fight each other about how to raise them until your inevitable divorce.

She may be hot, and she may even be a good conversationalist (she may even be good at the ol' cram and slap), but anyone who would voluntarily sign up for an interfaith marriage is insane (and I'm pretty sure you're not insane... are you?) The idea that "love will conquer all" is pure BS. Please make a rational decision about a potential marriage.

And if you're not thinking of it... forget I said anything (and don't get me going, liz, you evil temptress).