- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
On Own Now wrote:Sheldon wrote:
How many times has the church only published part of the truth (translation of the Plates, First Vision, etc), thus only telling “part of the truth”, that “lead people in a way to believe something that is not true”. Our church history books are full of this. By the churches own definition they are not being honest.
Missionaries tell investigators that JS “translated the contents of these plates by the power of God” (Preach my Gospel). How is not mentioning the hat, the seertsone, the breasplate, the Urim and Thummim, the sheet, the box, or the scribe leading people to believe something that is not true (from the perspective of the Church)?
Look at this picture I found by just Googling (is that a verb???) Smith Plates
[img]http://4c9aaie8nf22wxdk63a2acfl6q.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2015/08/translating_the_plates.jpg [/img] This NEVER happened. He put his head in a hat and “translated” by using the rock he found in a hole. The church is leading us to believe this is how it happened. By withholding some of the truth and leading people to believe something that never happened they are dishonest by there own definition!
It is worth noting, Sheldon, that the picture in question is on a 2001 issue of the Ensign. I don;t disagree with what you are saying, such pictures are one of my pet peeves. However, I think the church is not actively using pictures like that any more and has been open about use of the seer stone and hat. I recently visited the priesthood restoration site in Pennsylvania (newly constructed visitor center). I was impressed that the sister missionary, while in Joseph and Emma’s small house, mentioned that the hat was on the table for that reason – to keep in mind that that’s how he did it. She knew we were members, of course, and may not have done the same were we not – but I was still impressed. Joseph himself apparently never said much about translating the plates and used that phrase that he translated by the gift and power of God. I think it’s fine that the missionaries teach that, and fine that others (teachers, leaders) teach that – and leave it at that. I don’t know that it’s so important how he did it as that he did it – but I don’t like misrepresenting how he did it.
Yes, the church is much more open today thanks to the internet (thank you Al Gore!). But they were not in the past, and were thus dishonest. That was my point. They thought that “Lying for the Lord” was justified. If we didn’t have the internet it is my opinion they would still be doing it today. They can’t get away with it anymore. Sheldon wrote:Yes, the church is much more open today thanks to the internet (thank you Al Gore!). But they were not in the past, and were thus dishonest. That was my point. They thought that “Lying for the Lord” was justified. If we didn’t have the internet it is my opinion they would still be doing it today. They can’t get away with it anymore.
I agree that without the internet they would still be doing itmore than they do ittoday. They can’t get away with it as muchtoday. Sheldon wrote:This NEVER happened.
But Sheldon, you see, this is an example of why perspectives matter. You say it “never happened” that way because in your mind JS used only the stone-in-the-hat method. Conversely members of the Church, even those at the top, likely believe that the hat method was occasional. IMO there were no plates, ergo no translation method. But that aside, the ‘history’ is that JS used many techniques for the translation, including the stone-in-the-hat, but also the Urim and Thummim, and probably just looking at the ‘plates’. Scribes described a sheet separating JS from the scribe so that he could have the plates out to look at them, which isn’t consistent with the stone-in-the-hat method.Let me put another perspective on this. When I was a missionary, I was in the middle of the 4th discussion with and investigator. In that discussion, we talked about how the Church continues to be organized with a FP and a Q12, similar to old days. The investigator seemed to understand and we were about to move on, when my comp interjected some truth. “Actually, today we only have 10 apostles. Two have passed away and haven’t been replaced yet, so we really don’t have 12 apostles but 10.” I can remember feeling irritated. Was it true? Yes, absolutely. But it was completely irrelevant and only served to confuse the matter. Was I lying saying we had 12 apostles? I ask you.
On Own Now wrote:Let me put another perspective on this.
When I was a missionary, I was in the middle of the 4th discussion with and investigator. In that discussion, we talked about how the Church continues to be organized with a FP and a Q12, similar to old days. The investigator seemed to understand and we were about to move on, when my comp interjected some truth. “Actually, today we only have 10 apostles. Two have passed away and haven’t been replaced yet, so we really don’t have 12 apostles but 10.” I can remember feeling irritated. Was it true? Yes, absolutely. But it was completely irrelevant and only served to confuse the matter. Was I lying saying we had 12 apostles? I ask you.
I once heard a talk in church on honesty that made a lot of sense to me. The speaker said that you are lying if it is your intention to deceive someone. You weren’t doing that at all, and I know you know that. Good point to raise, though.Just to emphasize what already has been said: We don’t have enough information to know how the translation process occurred at every moment throughout the process, but we do have enough to know more than one method was documented – including the very real possibility of Joseph looking directly at plates that he might have been holding.
I will NOT say Sheldon was lying in his comment (because I don’t believe that), but, IF his statement actually is incorrect, some people could say it is a lie.
I mention that ONLY to illustrate how complicated this issue is, even as I state firmly that I believe some leaders have lied at some points in our history – and that is not limited only to Paul H. Dunn.
Even an intent to deceive can be tricky to judge. I work at a Catholic university. I talk with prospective students and parents a lot. Many of them assume I am Catholic, before and after our conversations, since I can talk about Catholicism with a fair amount of credibility.
I don’t try actively to make them think I am Catholic, but I don’t try actively to make them know I am not Catholic – and I am aware completely that many leave campus with the wrong belief about my religious affiliation.
Some people would say I deceive those people.
Truly, this is not a simple issue.
When BY took over the church, he promised to lead it until JS’s son was ready to take over. It was supposed to be a family lineage of leadership. BY and the majority of the church went West. Emma didn’t go. As JS’s widow, most of the church assets became hers via laws of inheritance.
After denying JS’s polygamy, BY later turned around and filed a court document that stated ALL of JS’s wives had equal rights to the property that Emma held. BY had all those women sealed to JS. The church needed the assets, BY wanted control of them and he sued Emma for them, even though they were originally supposed to be held by her. It was a circus of multiple wives being paraded before the court .. All in order to gain control of financial assets.
LIP wrote:SilentDawning wrote:And I hate to say it, our church has been guilty of it over the years on certain points, even on a church wide, official basis.
This (as you can probably tell) is the main reason for my post; I have been feeling betrayed and trying to reconcile why this would happen in the True Church. It is helpful to hear the thoughts of people across the whole spectrum of believers and non-believers about this topic.
Thanks for starting the discussion LIP.Any further thoughts on your feelings of being betrayed and with accusations the church has lied over the years?
How do you process it all?
LIP wrote:
SilentDawning wrote:And I hate to say it, our church has been guilty of it over the years on certain points, even on a church wide, official basis.
This (as you can probably tell) is the main reason for my post; I have been feeling betrayed and trying to reconcile why this would happen in the True Church.One of the most difficult and helpful changes I have made in my own understanding is this concept of “true.” When I try to make the word say “literal, factual exclusive church of God” then it bumps up uncomfortably against all kinds of other things – including circumstances in our history and some of our scriptures that say God loves and cares for (speaks to?) his children whoever/wherever they are.
On the other hand when a bicycle wheel is true it accomplishes its purpose. When an arrow is true it can reach its target. In my own life the church fulfilled the general purpose of helping me reach adulthood with morals and values. In that way the church is true from my experience.
Some members have a close or general target that they are aiming for with their “arrow” of the church. It will not be hard for them to hit it, so the church is easily “true” for them. Others may have a distant and very detailed objective, for which there is probably no “arrow” on earth that can be true enough to reach it.
This is what I mean when I say we can choose to see the church as true in our own lives. It all depends on our expectations.
I have dealt with it by cancelling out the other claims the church makes about its divinity. I take all those claims with a grain of salt now. I focus on the social benefits of the church — blessings to the lives of youth, blessings to my marriage in being a supportive husband, the spiritual feelings I once had that tell me that of all the churches, this is the one I think God wanted me to be part of for most or all of my earthly life. But no longer will it extract so much from me as it has in the past — unless I choose to give it — and I may well do so. No guilt, no promises of good that will accrue in the next life, and no succumbing to social pressure unless I want to. I will say, the whitewashing of history brings new irony to the title of the church’s official history — called “Truth Restored”….
Heber13 wrote:Any further thoughts on your feelings of being betrayed and with accusations the church has lied over the years? How do you process it all?
I wrote a reply but it sounded too bitter, so let me try again. I feel angry right now. I think it’s clear that the church has repeatedly been dishonest when it served the church, and it’s illogical to believe that it has stopped doing this.
I think the church is happy to let us think that everything in general conference and the Ensign is Official Doctrine, while at the same time keeping close to its chest the technicality that almost nothing is Official Doctrine and could be changed at any moment. It’s happy to let an apostle claim the prophet received revelation while the prophet himself doesn’t say that. It’s happy to let us think there is more revelation at the upper echelon than there might really be. It’s happy to talk about an open canon but not actually canonize anything new. It’s happy to hide the finances of the church when right from its inception the Brethren tried to profit from our tithes (are today’s Brethren so flawless when compared to JS that we can trust them more than him with our money?).
We are taught from sunbeams until we die that the church is either the only true church, or it is a fraud. My bishop said this to me not 2 months ago. The church has created the black-and-white concept of truth, and I don’t think it stands up to its own rule. I accept that the church brings people to Christ, but I don’t see how he could be at the head of it. If he was, why does it repeatedly take outside pressure, like civil law forcing the church to its knees, before he gives it better direction?
Uh…still sounds bitter, doesn’t it?
LIP wrote:Heber13 wrote:Any further thoughts on your feelings of being betrayed and with accusations the church has lied over the years? How do you process it all?
I wrote a reply but it sounded too bitter, so let me try again. I feel angry right now.
I think it’s clear that the church has repeatedly been dishonest when it served the church, and it’s illogical to believe that it has stopped doing this. I think the church is happy to let us think that everything in general conference and the Ensign is Official Doctrine, while at the same time keeping close to its chest the technicality that almost nothing is Official Doctrine and could be changed at any moment.
It’s happy to let an apostle claim the prophet received revelation while the prophet himself doesn’t say that. It’s happy to let us think there is more revelation at the upper echelon than there might really be. It’s happy to talk about an open canon but not actually canonize anything new. It’s happy to hide the finances of the church when right from its inception the Brethren tried to profit from our tithes (are today’s Brethren so flawless when compared to JS that we can trust them more than him with our money?). We are taught from sunbeams until we die that the church is either the only true church, or it is a fraud. My bishop said this to me not 2 months ago. The church has created the black-and-white concept of truth, and I don’t think it stands up to its own rule. I accept that the church brings people to Christ, but I don’t see how he could be at the head of it.
If he was, why does it repeatedly take outside pressure, like civil law forcing the church to its knees, before he gives it better direction?Uh…still sounds bitter, doesn’t it?
I don’t think it sounds bitter, just a list of reasons you think the church doesn’t meet the expectations one would have of an organization with a divine commission. I bolded the ones that really resonated with me.
It’s good to be able to describe the good the church does, though. I am more capable of seeing that now that I have crossed the line from believing everything hook, line, and sinker, to seeing it as a temporal organization with some serious delusions…with reduced expectations, I see it more as a temporal organization and expect less of it. It will be hard to listen to some of its delusions when I return to church soon, but at least I will no longer expect much, as evidenced by my reduced commitment…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.