- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFfZfNvCntY My general summary is that Dr. Harper is a longtime church employee that cannot say anything that contradicts the current dominant LDS narrative and this makes me feel like he is less genuine. Like everything he says is through a lens/persona of someone who is half historian and half PR spokesman for the church. Because of this dual role, I feel that Dr. Harper sacrifices trying to understand or illustrate the historical JS in favor of the current LDS legendary status of the man. This plays into my difficulty in trusting church sources because I feel like I am being continuously blamed, gaslighted, and patronized. I feel that this is a very different approach than what seems to be a more academic (while still faithful and charitable) historical approach taken by Richard Bushman.I watched this interview and have jotted down some notes:
Started with personal example of letter that JS supposedly had written to Josiah Stallwell on how to make divining rods. This was disruptive for him but his dad was an example for him on sticking with what we “know” to be true and putting disruptive stuff on the shelf to wait for new information. The letter was later discovered to be a Hoffman forgery and this validated the young Dr. Harper’s shelf approach.
From this incident came a talk by Elder Oaks at a BYU fireside where he said, “If any of you are assuming that prophets cannot be misled, you are assuming wrong.”
It was said that some feel that if people know lots of church history, they will leave the church. As a counterpoint, It was said that lots of very smart people in the church history department know lots and have their testimonies grow. This, to me, seemed like a fallacy. As if to say, smart people are not bothered by this stuff so you don’t need to be concerned.
There was an example shared of a second grader knowing 2nd grade math and then moving on to 3rd grade math. How strange would it be for that child to feel that they had been deceived by the second grade teacher because there is more math that the child never learned in 2nd grade classroom?
Assume that you never have all the facts. There are historians that spend their whole lives studying this out and they don’t have all the facts. You will never have all the context.
It was pointed out that some individuals legitimately could have expected to be better informed through their church studies. This is partially why the “Come follow me” program places responsibility on the individual for your own gospel learning. However, “our teachers and the church need to prepare.” (I’m not fully sure what was meant by that sentence, I listened to it multiple times)
Put faith in JC. Some may have false assumptions about who JC is but we can get a more accurate depiction through his direct words in the D&C. Faith in Christ leads to faith in those that Jesus has called and revealed himself through. For example, JS was flawed but was chosen as the representative of JC. BY had plenty of faults that we could dig up if we wanted, but if we are charitable we can learn from his faults while also celebrating his achievements.
Many that leave Mormonism also lose faith in the bible because without the BoM as a supporting witness the Bible doesn’t seem credible.
If you can’t believe in restored gospel, believe in God and then work your way back. Lots have done so. It is often through personal spiritual experiences that people find their way back and not through rationality. Testimony delivered that we can access spiritual knowledge and that it is reliable.
Mention of depression and that some struggling with it might not feel the sprit in those moments but can rely on those spiritual impressions they had before the depression. Communication always involves an Encoder and a decoder and noise. We can work to be better decoders. Doubts and skepticism can be noise that prevents our access to the communication.
Story of guy named McClellan that asked for and received revelation through JS. He later became very antagonistic to JS but always affirmed the revelation addressed to him and also the BoM. Anyway, he led a tortured life of only intermittently following the advice calling him to repentance in the revelation. Sometimes people leave the church because they don’t want to be reminded of the need to repent.
First Vision Accounts:
Question your assumptions, Don’t assume that you would tell your parents right away, or right it down right away, or always tell it the same way. You can’t assume to know what an 1820 person would do. Don’t assume that JS is lying. Lots of people were having visions at the time but most were limited in purpose to personal comfort. God can appear to anyone and can be at work in the lives of Muslims and Christians of all flavors. Most (of the contemporaries of JS that were having visions) tended to get more ambiguous or uncertain about the exact nature of their visions over time. JS, by contrast, became more concrete over time. Through his “interpretive memories” that make sense of it in retrospect.
The FV gives us the true nature of God. “If JS is telling the truth and God shows up materially” standing next to his son. We often say … God & Christ show up in corporeal bodies, that’s true but also more stuff.
Restoration is fullness of Gospel and that is a responsibility to share with others but not something that makes us better than them.
He can certainly speak to his experiences but his experiences don’t necessarily translate to other people that have run up against church history issues. I don’t think he’s claiming to give theanswer, I think all he’s doing is saying what worked for him. It obviously worked for him, he stayed. I’m assuming that things didn’t work for others that have left the church over similar issues, and that’s fine too.
The story about Josiah Stowell: Here’s this strange letter. It goes against things I believe. I’ll shelf it because I know the BoM is true. One day it will make sense. Oh, it’s a forgery. Crisis averted.
I’m not sure that was the best story to share to win people back to the church but I know that approach does help many people on the edges of a faith crisis put things up on the infamous shelf.
I think the issue here is that there’s a huge divide. Some members reach the conclusion that anything that goes against the traditional narratives are forgeries while other members reach the conclusion that the traditional narratives are the actual forgeries. There’s no clear communication from the top, so members are left to duke it out amongst themselves.
Members that don’t arrive at conclusions that allow them to accept either the traditional narratives or the new narratives end up leaving. Is that by design? Do we want them to leave? Is there a way to make space for people that don’t care whether the church is authoritative or do we have to make the church’s authority the hill members must die on?
My own personal soapbox: so much time and energy is spent either proving or disproving the “truthfulness” of the church. It’s a nice hobby but I don’t feel like anyone’s salvation is on the line. Imagine a church that accepted help from everyone and helped everyone. What if all the energy directed toward loyalty to the narrative went towards something more productive?
If you knew what I knew, you’d leave the church. If you knew what I knew, you’d stay.
This video feels like it’s only critical of one of those statements but it’s really the same statement. Any problem with one statement is also a problem for the other statement.
The 3rd grade math example: Again, not the best example IMO. Multiplication
buildson knowledge of addition. 2×3 is the same as 2+2+2. When you understand one, it prepares you to understand the other. People that leave over church history issues might point out that teachings that were anti-Mormon lies yesterday are Gospel Topic Essays today. There’s certainly a case to be made for milk before meat, but when narratives do a 180 like that it tends to tear down, not build. We need constructive ways to give grace to people that feel caught up in that whiplash. We need to openly discuss the whiplash at church on Sundays. Both sides, no more inter-generational gaslighting or winners or losers.
I agree on the point that I don’t believe the people that taught me lied. Everyone’s doing the best they can with the tools they’ve got. When people learn better, I believe they try to do better. I’m sure there are exceptions to this, events people can point to where a church leader made a conscientious decision to whitewash or hide information from church members. I don’t think the people that taught my SS or EQ lessons over the years were in that camp.
He makes another analogy about art. He learned more about art and he doesn’t conclude that art isn’t true as a result of learning more. He’s only speaking for himself, I get it, but that’s a strawman for many people that leave over historical issues. I’ll come up with a (poor) analogy of my own.
Let’s say Burger King airs a commercial offering a kosher burger. They even have a special option with “cheese” that’s not really cheese but tastes just like it. The analogy of learning more about art would be akin to learning that Burger King had other kosher options available and also many options that weren’t. Relating it back to people that take issue with church history, it would be akin to finding out that Burger King’s “kosher” burger was 10% pork and their “kosher” cheese was actually just a piece of regular cheese.
When you learn more about Burger King you can go right on believing that the kosher burger is kosher. When you learn more about the kosher burger… all of a sudden it becomes more difficult to believe that the burger is kosher. That and you start trusting Burger King a whole lot less than you did before.
He talks of the importance of expectations. Perhaps it’s not a good idea to have an expectation that there is such a thing as a “true” church. What’s the great takeaway from the life of Jesus? A church? Authority? The principles he taught?
Roy wrote:
Put faith in JC. Some may have false assumptions about who JC is but we can get a more accurate depiction through his direct words in the D&C.
I just got to that part of the video.
The subject was a student that didn’t like the idea of a vengeful Jesus and Harper essentially says that Jesus is vengeful because it’s right there in the D&C and it’s autobiographical, Jesus himself is telling you he’s vengeful.
This is the danger in believing scripture is inerrant. Scripture isn’t the word of Jesus. At best, scripture is the word of Jesus filtered through a very imperfect medium. In the case of the D&C, you’re not getting the direct words of Jesus, you’re getting what JS
believesJesus is saying. To me there’s an enormous difference. Roy wrote:
Faith in Christ leads to faith in those that Jesus has called and revealed himself through.
That line of logic feels dangerous to me. It’s leveraging people’s faith in Jesus to prop up the leader de jour. To employ some hyperbole, I know I should follow David Koresh because I have faith in Jesus. It’s such an odd concept to me because if you have faith in Jesus, why not follow… JESUS. There’s always insistence on inserting these middlemen.
He also employs circular logic here. We can trust Joseph Smith because Jesus says we can but Smith is the one that revealed that Jesus said to trust Joseph.
I should quit while I’m behind. I didn’t set out to poo-poo how he was able to incorporate new ideas into his existing beliefs. He found a way, and that’s a good thing.
nibbler wrote:
He can certainly speak to his experiences but his experiences don’t necessarily translate to other people that have run up against church history issues. I don’t think he’s claiming to givetheanswer, I think all he’s doing is saying what worked for him. It obviously worked for him, he stayed. I’m assuming that things didn’t work for others that have left the church over similar issues, and that’s fine too.
The story about Josiah Stowell: Here’s this strange letter. It goes against things I believe. I’ll shelf it because I know the BoM is true. One day it will make sense. Oh, it’s a forgery. Crisis averted.
I’m not sure that was the best story to share to win people back to the church but I know that approach does help many people on the edges of a faith crisis put things up on the infamous shelf.
I agree that this example is not the best. It feels too neat and clean. It doesn’t show anyone how to deal with messy church history that doesn’t turn out to be a forgery. I mean, JS was involved in money digging and divining rods and seer stones – so even if this particular letter was false, how do we deal with the underlying contradictions? Dr. Harper doesn’t help us to adjust our understanding of church history into anything that is different than the dominant church narrative.
I wouldn’t mind this sort of thing coming from an average member because most members are super uninformed of messy church issues. But Dr. Harper is presenting himself as an expert. He is a historian and professor. He says that he knows all the same facts as the church detractors.
But this was an experience from his childhood, before he became an expert on these matters. Maybe Dr. Harper can be extended some grace on that account. It just felt that throughout the interview there was never any example of diving deeper into the issues and working through them in a faithful way.
nibbler wrote:
If you knew what I knew, you’d leave the church.If you knew what I knew, you’d stay.
This video feels like it’s only critical of one of those statements but it’s really the same statement. Any problem with one statement is also a problem for the other statement.
The 3rd grade math example:
Again, not the best example IMO. Multiplication builds on knowledge of addition. 2×3 is the same as 2+2+2. When you understand one, it prepares you to understand the other.
People that leave over church history issues might point out that teachings that were anti-Mormon lies yesterday are Gospel Topic Essays today. There’s certainly a case to be made for milk before meat, but when narratives do a 180 like that it tends to tear down, not build.
Right! He is holding himself up as an expert but then I don’t feel that the interview ever delves into any of the issues (except the first vision, I’ll write more on that later).
I agree that the 3rd grade math is a pretty terrible analogy. What if my 2nd grade math teacher said that addition was the only true math and that the multiplication proponents were setting out to deceive us and take us away from the path. By presenting this analogy, Dr. Harper seems to say that we shouldn’t be surprised to learn that there was always more and higher level math but this obfuscates the truth that my “teacher” wasn’t preparing me for 3rd grade. My “teacher” is trying to hold me in 2nd grade.
nibbler wrote:
I agree on the point that I don’t believe the people that taught me lied. Everyone’s doing the best they can with the tools they’ve got. When people learn better, I believe they try to do better. I’m sure there are exceptions to this, events people can point to where a church leader made a conscientious decision to whitewash or hide information from church members. I don’t think the people that taught my SS or EQ lessons over the years were in that camp.
Right! Almost nobody “lied” (although we have a culture of self censoring anything that is not faith affirming). However, is nobody responsible? Is there no captain of this ship or are we all just regurgitating the same repeated stories back to each other in an echo chamber?
Roy wrote:
From this incident came a talk by Elder Oaks at a BYU fireside where he said, “If any of you are assuming that prophets cannot be misled, you are assuming wrong.”
I feel that I am pretty open to the idea that prophets are mostly good men that are the product of their times and doing the best that they can with possible splashes of inspiration in critical moments needed to direct the church through major crises. But I didn’t come up with the prophets will never lead astray on my own. This is something that is actively and intentionally taught from multiple official sources. How do I navigate believing that prophets are fallible when to hold that position openly would cause my fellows to feel that my faith is deficient?Several times, I have been on the receiving end of having my ideas and comments in Sunday School dismissed. It is very difficult. Going back to the math analogy, I feel like I have some exposure and understanding of 3rd grade multiplication but if I mention anything about it, I get censored. (My examples are suggesting that the “Church of Christ” from Nephi’s dream could include more than just the LDS church, or suggesting that some callings may be assigned without revelation and might actually not be the best fit, or highlighting the “individual circumstances may necessitate adaptation” clause of the family proc.) What does that mean when the membership is fearful of 3rd grade multiplication?
nibbler wrote:
He talks of the importance of expectations. Perhaps it’s not a good idea to have an expectation that there is such a thing as a “true” church. What’s the great takeaway from the life of Jesus? A church? Authority? The principles he taught?
Right. It feel like our church is built on 2nd grade addition being the only true way. That system worked out ok when access to information was less available. Now, with the internet and the rise of secularism and all that this brings, this approach seems less sustainable. That’s the crisis facing the church now. This is not Dr. Harper’s fault. He inherited this mess just like the rest of us. I only wish that he could use his expertise to offer an olive branch to those that are struggling. Instead, at every turn, he seems to put blame on the questioner/struggler for their predicament.If Dr. Harper has found a way to live faithfully in 3rd grade multiplication then show me how he does it. Everything seems to be directed towards pacifying and keeping individuals comfortable in 2nd grade addition.
nibbler wrote:
Roy wrote:
Put faith in JC. Some may have false assumptions about who JC is but we can get a more accurate depiction through his direct words in the D&C.
I just got to that part of the video.
The subject was a student that didn’t like the idea of a vengeful Jesus and Harper essentially says that Jesus is vengeful because it’s right there in the D&C and it’s autobiographical, Jesus himself is telling you he’s vengeful.
This is the danger in believing scripture is inerrant. Scripture isn’t the word of Jesus. At best, scripture is the word of Jesus filtered through a very imperfect medium. In the case of the D&C, you’re not getting the direct words of Jesus, you’re getting what JS
believesJesus is saying. To me there’s an enormous difference.
Right. I guess what I keep saying with the math analogy is that Dr. Harper seems to be firmly in stage 3. Stage 3 is so simplistic and reductive that it makes it difficult to for my to square all the knowledge that Dr. Harper has with that mindset.
In this example, He is saying that the words of Jesus presented in the D&C are direct quotes. I understand that the words of Jesus in the bible have some challenges. They have been filtered through the memories of the disciples, passed down in oral traditions, written down decades later, and then going through multiple translations. But it distresses me that Dr. Harper doesn’t seem to consider the information points that suggest that the revelations to JS are subject to their own filtering process. JS spoke of the difficulty of putting his inspirations/revelations into words – suggesting that they arrived to JS in some medium other than English words. JS also went back and made changes and revisions to some of his revelations afterwards as his understanding evolved. It would seem sacrilegious to change any jot or tittle if every word was direct from God.
I’m not a historian and I don’t have a PHD, but my understanding of these issues is such that I see problems with Dr. Harper’s approach in the example above. He seems to only be addressing those in stage 3 or 2nd grade addition. That’s fine, maybe I am not the target audience? Where do I go to sign up for the 3rd grade multiplication course?
Roy wrote:
The FV gives us the true nature of God. “If JS is telling the truth and God shows up materially” standing next to his son. We often say … God & Christ show up in corporeal bodies, that’s true but also more stuff.
The first vision is a pretty safe go-to example when church apologists are addressing church history issues. There are multiple accounts and how do we harmonize those? Do we dismiss the experience because of the multiple accounts? I think most people can understand that there are multiple logical and rational reasons why we might expect multiple accounts. Easy-peazy
It concerns me again that Dr. Harper only addresses the FV as a material and corporeal visitation. Did JS and his contemporaries consider it as a vision or a visitation? What evidence do we have for how JS understood his own experience? If JS considered it a vision and not a visitation, why would we not believe him? How does Dr. Harper’s position and training as a historian and also experience with/access to the 1st person accounts of JS and his contemporaries inform Dr. Harper’s stated position that this was a material and corporeal visitation? Is this position something that was arrived at academically or is it something that was confirmed through the holy spirit?
Roy wrote:
Dr. Harper seems to say that we shouldn’t be surprised to learn that there was always more and higher level math but this obfuscates the truth that my “teacher” wasn’t preparing me for 3rd grade. My “teacher” is trying to hold me in 2nd grade.
Excellent point.
Roy wrote:
JS also went back and made changes and revisions to some of his revelations afterwards as his understanding evolved.
Right, there have been several editions of the D&C and we can see how revelations have been revised over time.
Roy wrote:
It concerns me again that Dr. Harper only addresses the FV as a material and corporeal visitation. Did JS and his contemporaries consider it as a vision or a visitation? What evidence do we have for how JS understood his own experience?
I’ve never really thought of it before and perhaps it’s the subject of another post but if it was a vision how could the vision alone establish that god has a corporeal body? Then again, if it’s a visitation but there’s no physical contact, how would the visitation establish that god has a corporeal body?
When Jesus visited disciples after the resurrection the disciples in those stories would often touch Jesus to establish that he was corporeal. Sight only (vision or visitation with no physical contact) doesn’t really achieve that.
I don’t know that Joseph Smith ever claimed that the teaching that god had a body was derived from his FV experience. It’s my understanding that the concept of god and Jesus being two separate beings came much later in the restoration. That could also be why we have multiple FV accounts; much like the D&C, the FV had to be revisited and tweaked as the theology matured.
I may try to sit down to watch the other two thirds or so of the video when I get a chance.
nibbler wrote:
Roy wrote:
It concerns me again that Dr. Harper only addresses the FV as a material and corporeal visitation. Did JS and his contemporaries consider it as a vision or a visitation? What evidence do we have for how JS understood his own experience?
I’ve never really thought of it before and perhaps it’s the subject of another post but if it was a vision how could the vision alone establish that god has a corporeal body? Then again, if it’s a visitation but there’s no physical contact, how would the visitation establish that god has a corporeal body?
When Jesus visited disciples after the resurrection the disciples in those stories would often touch Jesus to establish that he was corporeal. Sight only (vision or visitation with no physical contact) doesn’t really achieve that.
I don’t know that Joseph Smith ever claimed that the teaching that god had a body was derived from his FV experience. It’s my understanding that the concept of god and Jesus being two separate beings came much later in the restoration. That could also be why we have multiple FV accounts; much like the D&C, the FV had to be revisited and tweaked as the theology matured.
I still don’t know what to make of the 1st vision. The life-changing event for me that I wound up having multiple “stories” for is delivering my daughter by catching her and sitting down (true story – my husband had run off towels in hand to create a nest outside the bathroom while telling me not to push). When I told the story to other mothers – different parts were expanded on. When with non-mothers – especially males – it’s briefer and the messy parts are left out. But the key facts of the story – the most important part of the birth narrative is that I didn’t have time to get to the hospital, so I literally caught her as she was being pushed out and sat down in our bathroom. Joseph’s encounter with God smacks of being “that important fact of the narrative” – but visualizing 1 person or 2 people or blurry images – it feels like “the most important facts” are being changed. It feels like me starting out by saying “I delivered my baby in my bathroom” and then “wait – technically it happened in the kitchen”, and then “actually, I started giving birth in my bathroom but I actually made it my neighbor’s bathroom – it just matters that it’s a bathroom, right?”.
Or in some tellings you have twobabies instead of one. nibbler wrote:
Roy wrote:
JS also went back and made changes and revisions to some of his revelations afterwards as his understanding evolved.
Right, there have been several editions of the D&C and we can see how revelations have been revised over time.
Roy wrote:
It concerns me again that Dr. Harper only addresses the FV as a material and corporeal visitation. Did JS and his contemporaries consider it as a vision or a visitation? What evidence do we have for how JS understood his own experience?
I’ve never really thought of it before and perhaps it’s the subject of another post but if it was a vision how could the vision alone establish that god has a corporeal body? Then again, if it’s a visitation but there’s no physical contact, how would the visitation establish that god has a corporeal body?
When Jesus visited disciples after the resurrection the disciples in those stories would often touch Jesus to establish that he was corporeal. Sight only (vision or visitation with no physical contact) doesn’t really achieve that.
I don’t know that Joseph Smith ever claimed that the teaching that god had a body was derived from his FV experience. It’s my understanding that the concept of god and Jesus being two separate beings came much later in the restoration. That could also be why we have multiple FV accounts; much like the D&C, the FV had to be revisited and tweaked as the theology matured.
Yes, If the FV was ethereal and ineffable and abstract as a vision then it becomes much more pliable.
I like to think of the vision of young Colton Burpo.
Quote:In the wake of this revelation, Todd had more questions than answers. How had Colton known what his parents were doing during the operation? Todd and Sonja hadn’t told him—had someone else? Most importantly, was the experience Colton described a dream, or had Jesus and the angels really visited him?
Once the Burpos had returned home from their trip, Todd decided to ask Colton more about his experience with Jesus and the angels. He started with an open question: What else happened when Colton was with Jesus?
First, Colton revealed that he’d met not only Jesus, but also Jesus’s cousin. Jesus told Colton that his cousin had baptized him. (Colton said that he didn’t know the cousin’s name, but Todd identified him as John the Baptist.) Then, Colton blurted out that Jesus owned a rainbow-colored horse. Finally, he stated that there had been lots of colors in the place he’d been. Todd asked where exactly that place was. Colton responded that it was heaven.
This information floored Todd. Until then, he’d assumed that if Colton’s experience was real, it had been an example of divine visitation: Jesus and the angels appearing to someone on Earth. However, it now seemed that Colton had traveled to heaven.
I think that it is worth a compare and contrast with the FV of JS.
Colton’s dad wondered if it was a dream or a visitation, then he seemed to adjust to the idea that Colton had “traveled to heaven.” This happened while Colton’s body was in surgery. What does it mean to “travel” to another place while your body is located in another place? Is this astral projection? How is it different from a visionary dream or a vision? We have lots of scriptural examples of these sorts of revelations.
How should we interpret that Colton saw that Jesus owns a rainbow-colored horse? Is that a metaphor and symbolic or does everyone in heaven get their own rainbow colored horse?
I feel like if Colton’s vision was in the same time/place/circumstance as the FV of JS then we might today be insisting that Colton was visited by a material and corporeal rainbow-colored horse and that this proves that horses go to heaven and they are rainbow colored.
Ok. Now I’m going to get real heretical. JS not only felt empowered to make changes and revisions to his OWN FV experience and D&C revelations but, I would argue, that JS likewise felt empowered to make changes and revisions to the holy writings of others. I feel that the BOM, inserted timeline-wise between the Old and New Testament, represents such a change and revision. JS later did the same with the BOA. He also applies a similar approach to his revision/translation of the bible and makes many changes through revelation. This is also where he receives the Book of Moses and inserts it into the scriptural timeline. My point in bringing this up is only to suggest that JS felt empowered for his inspirations and revelations to travel non-linearly. IOW, He could go back and change history to better align with his current present.
I know I’m a little late to the party but I was on a trip and then there’s all the stuff to catch up on. So here I am. I started the video but didn’t finish, too long for me for something that wasn’t a movie I like (and I’ve cut out of shorter movies before). From what I saw I think your take is good Roy.
Roy wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFfZfNvCntY My general summary is that Dr. Harper is a longtime church employee that cannot say anything that contradicts the current dominant LDS narrative and this makes me feel like he is less genuine. Like everything he says is through a lens/persona of someone who is half historian and half PR spokesman for the church. Because of this dual role, I feel that Dr. Harper sacrifices trying to understand or illustrate the historical JS in favor of the current LDS legendary status of the man. This plays into my difficulty in trusting church sources because I feel like I am being continuously blamed, gaslighted, and patronized. I feel that this is a very different approach than what seems to be a more academic (while still faithful and charitable) historical approach taken by Richard Bushman.Agreed I often feel the same with people like Richard Bushman or Terryl Givens. But I think Bushman and Givens tell the truth (or at least the facts they know) and offer little in the way of their own opinion on historical matters, and they seem to let the readers draw their own conclusions. I think Harper is less like that and thus more prone to having to walk the line.
Roy wrote:Assume that you never have all the facts. There are historians that spend their whole lives studying this out and they don’t have all the facts. You will never have all the context.
I am not a real historian, but I was a history teacher. I learned several things from that experience, including that history actually changes as available facts and evidence change. And, history is always viewed and written through a lens – even first hand accounts are from the point of view of the person offering it. We never will have all the facts and we never will have an unbiased account.
Roy wrote:It was pointed out that some individuals legitimately could have expected to be better informed through their church studies. This is partially why the “Come follow me” program places responsibility on the individual for your own gospel learning. However, “our teachers and the church need to prepare.” (I’m not fully sure what was meant by that sentence, I listened to it multiple times)
Yeah, I don’t get it either. I do believe in the premise of Come Follow Me, but I believe it was poorly implemented. However I do give the church a pass on the implementation because what they were attempting was a wholesale culture change of being spoon fed everything. I think I believe in Come Follow Me because it’s what I did before there was a “program” in the process of rebuilding my faith but I think most people haven’t done anything in that respect because they don’t see the need or importance (even though the prophet they profess to follow has told them they do). Again, I give them a pass because I think they simply don’t know how (or maybe don’t want to put in the effort – a side effect of having been spoon fed).
Roy wrote:Put faith in JC. Some may have false assumptions about who JC is but we can get a more accurate depiction through his direct words in the D&C. Faith in Christ leads to faith in those that Jesus has called and revealed himself through. For example, JS was flawed but was chosen as the representative of JC. BY had plenty of faults that we could dig up if we wanted, but if we are charitable we can learn from his faults while also celebrating his achievements.
Faith in Jesus Christ I absolutely agree with. I also agree that many people (members) really do have false assumptions about Christ and about God. That’s what my faith crisis was about (as opposed to historical issues). I guess that makes my point of view on this very different. I disagree that D&C is the best best way to get an accurate depiction but I honestly have not studied it extensively since coming to my own view and understanding of Christ (FWIW, I believe the four gospels to be the best way to get an understanding of JC).
And I agree that Joseph and Brigham and many other early church leaders were flawed and God still worked with them. That’s important to understand because it also helps us understand that God will work with us as well, despite our own flaws (and despite our “worthiness” – all are worthy of God’s love and help). I also disagree that faith in Christ leads to faith in our leaders, and could do just the opposite.
Roy wrote:Many that leave Mormonism also lose faith in the bible because without the BoM as a supporting witness the Bible doesn’t seem credible.
Yep, many people who leave the church do lose faith in the Bible but that’s because they can’t separate the idea that God and the Gospel could exist and be true without the “true” church. IOW, most people who I know who have left the church also left religion behind completely (although I do know some who make a go of it in other churches or religions). I am honestly not sure the BoM has much to do with it other than the idea that of the church is not true then neither is the BoM (along with the other dominoes that fall). My own point of view is that neither the Bible nor the BoM validate one another, but they are both good books which can and do bring people closer to God and Christ.
Roy wrote:If you can’t believe in restored gospel, believe in God and then work your way back. Lots have done so. It is often through personal spiritual experiences that people find their way back and not through rationality. Testimony delivered that we can access spiritual knowledge and that it is reliable.
One of the few ideas I am mostly in agreement with – because it was my own experience. However, I did and do use rationality.
Roy wrote:Mention of depression and that some struggling with it might not feel the sprit in those moments but can rely on those spiritual impressions they had before the depression. Communication always involves an Encoder and a decoder and noise. We can work to be better decoders. Doubts and skepticism can be noise that prevents our access to the communication.
Maybe. It’s not this simple, and doubts are not evil. This idea also smacks a bit of blaming the victim.
Roy wrote:Story of guy named McClellan that asked for and received revelation through JS. He later became very antagonistic to JS but always affirmed the revelation addressed to him and also the BoM. Anyway, he led a tortured life of only intermittently following the advice calling him to repentance in the revelation. Sometimes people leave the church because they don’t want to be reminded of the need to repent.
I am familiar with the McClellan story (I may actually be distantly related to him) but it’s far more complex. What I think Harper is really trying to say here is that some people leave the church because they want to sin (where have you heard that before?). I don’t think that’s true, but I do think some people leave because they don’t believe what they’re doing is a sin or is as serious a sin AND the church can make the repentance process seem much more arduous than it really is (it has nothing to do with punishment).
Roy wrote:First Vision Accounts:
Question your assumptions, Don’t assume that you would tell your parents right away, or right it down right away, or always tell it the same way. You can’t assume to know what an 1820 person would do. Don’t assume that JS is lying. Lots of people were having visions at the time but most were limited in purpose to personal comfort. God can appear to anyone and can be at work in the lives of Muslims and Christians of all flavors. Most (of the contemporaries of JS that were having visions) tended to get more ambiguous or uncertain about the exact nature of their visions over time. JS, by contrast, became more concrete over time. Through his “interpretive memories” that make sense of it in retrospect.
Agreed. We have a very different point of view than those that lived in that area 200 years ago. Mysticism was a much more prevalent and important part of their every day lives, and we simply can’t understand.
Roy wrote:The FV gives us the true nature of God. “If JS is telling the truth and God shows up materially” standing next to his son. We often say … God & Christ show up in corporeal bodies, that’s true but also more stuff.
I have little trouble with the idea that what Joseph said he saw was God the Father and Jesus Christ as separate beings. It makes some sense to me. I do not believe they appeared corporeally or physically – Jospeh never said it was anything other than a vision.
Roy wrote:Restoration is fullness of Gospel and that is a responsibility to share with others but not something that makes us better than them.
Agreed it doesn’t make us better than others – we’re not that chosen. We probably have a different definition of what the restoration means and what sharing it means.
Roy wrote:
Roy wrote:
The FV gives us the true nature of God. “If JS is telling the truth and God shows up materially” standing next to his son. We often say … God & Christ show up in corporeal bodies, that’s true but also more stuff.
The first vision is a pretty safe go-to example when church apologists are addressing church history issues. There are multiple accounts and how do we harmonize those? Do we dismiss the experience because of the multiple accounts? I think most people can understand that there are multiple logical and rational reasons why we might expect multiple accounts. Easy-peazy
It concerns me again that Dr. Harper only addresses the FV as a material and corporeal visitation. Did JS and his contemporaries consider it as a vision or a visitation? What evidence do we have for how JS understood his own experience? If JS considered it a vision and not a visitation, why would we not believe him? How does Dr. Harper’s position and training as a historian and also experience with/access to the 1st person accounts of JS and his contemporaries inform Dr. Harper’s stated position that this was a material and corporeal visitation? Is this position something that was arrived at academically or is it something that was confirmed through the holy spirit?
As you’re probably aware, I live in (and grew up in) an area quite close to the “cradle of the restoration.” I have been to Palmyra, the “sacred grove,” the Hill Cumorah, etc., too many times to count or remember. I have studied the first vision fairly extensively (which is why I am convinced that what Joseph was really asking for was forgiveness, and according to him he got it). Nowhere in anything I have ever read did Joseph refer to it as anything other than a vision. And, Joseph himself rarely talked about it and seemingly didn’t like to talk about it. He did not see that as what made him a prophet (probably because it was more personal for him because he was seeking forgiveness). Most of the earliest church leaders knew little or nothing at all about it.
I think the idea that it was a corporeal visit, as opposed to “only” a vision, is that most people can’t wrap their heads around the abstract idea of a vision or “waking dream.” That’s not real enough for them. There’s really a conundrum there because we talk about having to have faith in God and Jesus and many other things because we can’t see or touch them, but in order for the FV to be “real” it had to be physical. I would also assert that while as far as we know no one else was present, if someone else were present it is entirely possible Joseph could have seen it but not the other person (and this could be true of Moroni’s visits where there were others present, although apparently asleep).
DarkJedi wrote:
As you’re probably aware, I live in (and grew up in) an area quite close to the “cradle of the restoration.” I have been to Palmyra, the “sacred grove,” the Hill Cumorah, etc., too many times to count or remember. I have studied the first vision fairly extensively (which is why I am convinced that what Joseph was really asking for was forgiveness, and according to him he got it). Nowhere in anything I have ever read did Joseph refer to it as anything other than a vision. And, Joseph himself rarely talked about it and seemingly didn’t like to talk about it. He did not see that as what made him a prophet (probably because it was more personal for him because he was seeking forgiveness). Most of the earliest church leaders knew little or nothing at all about it.I think the idea that it was a corporeal visit, as opposed to “only” a vision, is that most people can’t wrap their heads around the abstract idea of a vision or “waking dream.” That’s not real enough for them. There’s really a conundrum there because we talk about having to have faith in God and Jesus and many other things because we can’t see or touch them, but in order for the FV to be “real” it had to be physical. I would also assert that while as far as we know no one else was present, if someone else were present it is entirely possible Joseph could have seen it but not the other person (and this could be true of Moroni’s visits where there were others present, although apparently asleep).
Yeah, lots of people need for it to be a corporeal visitation for it to be “real.” We also have the same problem with the golden plates. Did it have to be physical plates? Why? What if God wanted to give us correct principles through an extended parable?
I think we have good evidence for the visions not being visible to other people present.
Quote:“Through the power of the spirit our eyes were opened and our understandings were enlightened,” they wrote, “so as to see and understand the things of God.”2
Philo Dibble, who was also in the translating room that day, remembered that he “felt the power, but did not see the vision.”3 Joseph and Sidney’s account of their experience was soon recorded in the Church’s revelation book, copied by missionaries to be shared in the Church’s branches, and published in the Church newspaper.
From the preface of D&C 110
Quote:Visionsmanifested to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Oliver Cowdery in the temple at Kirtland, Ohio, April 3, 1836. The occasion was that of a Sabbath day meeting. Joseph Smith’s history states: “In the afternoon, I assisted the other Presidents in distributing the Lord’s Supper to the Church, receiving it from the Twelve, whose privilege it was to officiate at the sacred desk this day. After having performed this service to my brethren, I retired to the pulpit, the veils being dropped, and bowed myself, with Oliver Cowdery, in solemn and silent prayer. After rising from prayer, the following visionwas opened to both of us.” 1–10, The Lord Jehovah appears in glory and accepts the Kirtland Temple as His house; 11–12, Moses and Elias each appear and commit their keys and dispensations; 13–16, Elijah returns and commits the keys of his dispensation as promised by Malachi.
Here we have Jesus and others appear to JS in a “vision” and bestow priesthood keys.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.