- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Shawn wrote:
Wikipedia. There’s a main page and many offshoots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LDS_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints I like wikipedia too. Everyone has the right to reply or challenge the pages and all claims need a source. Sometimes the sources are dubious and only secondary commentary, but it’s possibly the best place to hear both “sides” of the story.
FYI: FairMormon claim that wikipedia isn’t balanced because the chief editors of many of the pages are non-Mormon and sometimes critical of the church. I think that even if that’s true and even if that influence permeates the articles, it’s still one of the most balanced sites available.
Many blogs post fantastic church history pieces. I enjoy By Common Consent, Exponent II, Rational Faiths, Wheat and Tares. I also just like grabbing an old book, like Lucy Mack’s Journal or Brigham Youngs Discources and reading them. Scary sometimes but very insightful. Good insights regarding Wikipedia, mackay. I’m glad you brought those things up. Old-Timer wrote:Quote:What many people don’t understand is the questions about doctrine and history that are pushed on us by the critics are virtually all red herrings and straw men.
No, they aren’t. I can disagree with interpretations of just about anything, but the questions themselves usually are not red herrings and straw men – and many who struggle with them are sincere, good, faithful, active, loving, intelligent, dedicated members of the LDS Church.
Speaking as an admin here, we simply do NOT dismiss arguments or questions and tell people they wouldn’t have concerns or questions if they simply were more righteous, understood the Gospel better, prayed more or harder, etc. That sort of answer isn’t in harmony with our mission and won’t be tolerated – just like its opposite extreme (all questions and arguments against the Church are legit and prove that people ought to leave) won’t be tolerated. Neither of those positions is how we roll here. Please understand and respect that part of our mission.
I think some of them genuinely are.
I mean, why do folk get so het up about how the word “adieu” is used in the Book of Mormon? They try and say French wouldn’t have been spoken back then, but then again, neither would English, and the whole thing claims to be a translation, not a transliteration of the original. That’s an example of a genuine red herring,
Shawn wrote:Wikipedia. There’s a main page and many offshoots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LDS_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints A real mixed bag, IMHO.
Would like to hear from you on these links though (if the links don’t work, add a “)” to the end of the url)-
I agree totally that there are red herrings, Sam – and “adieu” absolutely is one of them. It actually fits the verse perfectly – and there isn’t an English word that fits as well as it does. Most people don’t understand how it fits so perfectly, but it does. That’s why I said the questions “usually” aren’t red herrings.
There are so many genuine issues in Mormonism, I’m amazed that red herrings – the adieus – have to be introduced! SamBee wrote:Shawn wrote:Wikipedia. There’s a main page and many offshoots…
A real mixed bag, IMHO.
Would like to hear from you on these links though (if the links don’t work, add a “)” to the end of the url)-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_century_(Mormonism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century_(Mormonism)
Can you be more specific about what I should comment on?I can say that I like what is at the top of the first page you linked:
Quote:This article
needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. ( September 2011)
I like that it is up front in admitting thepage needs to be improved. I don’t think other websites about church history and doctrine will make that confession. It is a concern that it has needed improvement since 2011, though🙂 . Those timelines are merely lists of events, anyway – they don’t provide details about history or doctrine. Isn’t it cool that you can help improve those pages!?!Was just interested in your general opinion on them Shawn. They used to be a lot drier, e.g. X becomes GA, Y becomes apostle etc, but they’ve become broader. I can’t make up my mind if they’re biased or not! Even if they are biased, they provide a broader overview of church history than the usual pro or anti.
SamBee wrote:Was just interested in your general opinion on them Shawn. They used to be a lot drier, e.g. X becomes GA, Y becomes apostle etc, but they’ve become broader. I can’t make up my mind if they’re biased or not!
Even if they are biased, they provide a broader overview of church history than the usual pro or anti.
Oh, I see. Well, it’s hard to say how complete those lists are.I suppose this is the problem, trying to find a middle ground between anti-Mormonism and a white washed history, both of which tend to be wrong.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.