Despite the common origins, Community of Christ is a very different kind of church. In the above characteristics, (1) the members have ultimate charge exercising common consent through voting delegates to the World Conference, (2) the leadership is intensely honest and open despite the difficulties you’ve seen here in this conversation that honesty invites, (3) the leaders are regular people you can hang out with, they retire when their callings come to an end, and the members are called to be “a prophetic people” together and individually, (4) the church believes “all are called” and has full participation of women at every level of leadership, additionally we have or have had Asian, African, Latin American, European, and Pacific Islander apostles in addition to those from North America, and finally (5) Community of Christ has shown that it’s extraordinarily reformable when it finds itself in error. New scripture calls upon leaders and the church to repent when it has been in error.

Regarding afterlife: Community of Christ is quite focused on this life. Speculation on afterlife can be comforting, but it’s ultimately speculative. For me, the anthem here is the old I think children’s hymn… “Have I done any good in the world today? … then wake up and do something more than dream of your mansions above…”

Spending time on this life and living this life meaningfully is a good use of life. The core values (“The Enduring Principles”) of the church in this regard are, Grace and Generosity, Sacredness of Creation, Continuing Revelation, Worth of All Persons, All Are Called
Responsible Choices, Pursuit of Peace (Shalom), Unity in Diversity, and Blessings of Community.

I can tell you that I personally value the blessings of a sharing community where all are valued, and we can be respectful of each other even though we don’t all agree. And many members don’t like the Book or Mormon and don’t read it or quote from it; and many members don’t like Joseph Smith at all and they don’t have to. And if you don’t like the history stuff and don’t want to come with me on a trip to Kirtland Temple, you don’t have to.

Now are we actually better than the Rotary Club? You’ll have to go talk to a Rotarian and decide for yourself.

What we should also point out here — following Alexander Campbell while turning his conclusions around — that we maximize our understanding of the Book of Mormon, if we understand its actual historical context. If we try to wedge the square peg of the Book of Mormon into the round hole of actual Meso-American antiquity as it is now understood, we come up with altogether new readings of the text that are bizarre distortions of the original intent: e.g., Nephites and Lamanites as tiny tribes mixed in among giant indigenous nations that go unmentioned, “swords” as sticks with stones tied to the end, and “horses” as tapirs.

If, instead, we read the Book of Mormon in its actual 19th Century context, we can understand it as an epic of the young American republic in the wake of the Second Great Awakening — excited in its still rare experiment of having thrown off monarchy, divided by sectarianism, paranoid about Freemasonry, and more.

In this way, I’ve argued that the Book of Mormon is to the Bible as the Aeneid is to the Iliad and Odyssey. The great epics of the Roman and Greek worlds were scripture-like in the pre-Christian Roman Empire, as they provided sacred stories about who the Greeks and Romans were and about their relationships with the gods. However, while the Iliad and Odyssey were composed orally in a non-literate period prior to the development of the discipline of history, and thus had great antiquity and appeared to have an organic quality that people equated with a divine origin, the Aeneid was quite deliberately composed by Virgil in the full light of history in order to connect the Romans into the Greek world-view of the Iliad.

The authors underlying the 5 books traditionally ascribed to Moses (Genesis-Deuteronomy) all composed Moses stories that have to be understood in the historical context of the actual authors — all centuries after Moses supposedly would have lived. While understanding their own times well, these authors would have had very little insight into Moses’ era. The same is true for Joseph Smith’s Moses stories that have to be understood in the historical context of Joseph’s era, not Moses’.

So things in Salt Lake there right now are worse than they are for the church as a whole. The congregation there has been at last legs for a while. The overall demographic situation of the past 50 years is bad, but it’s much worse where you are. That said, I believe there’s reason for optimism that doesn’t exist in similarly challenged denominations.

Specifically, in Utah, if just a tiny fraction of the ExMormons in the are who still want to be in a Restoration church, but who can’t abide the sexism of the LDS Church were to begin to meet together, you could fill that building to overflowing. I believe that will happen, but it does require some people to step out in a leap of faith and take a stand so that others can follow.

Regarding alcohol, the WoW is clearly embedded in pre-Prohibition Temperance-movement era America. There’s a minority of people who can’t drink safely who should abstain entirely and obviously alcohol and driving (and other activities) don’t mix — which (in my view) is more a condemnation of suburbs than alcohol. But in general, I think moderate use of alcohol has positive social benefits.

In Community of Christ, on the books use of alcohol has been prohibited for priesthood (which is held by a minority of members). This mostly unenforced rule has been re-examined as of the most recent World Conference.

Let’s say, hypothetically of course, that conclusive evidence (not NHM) is discovered and the Book of Mormon is demonstrated to have elements of historical accuracy. It would still fit the pseudepigraphical, scriptural tradition. For example, many of the forgotten/non-canonized books of the Bible contain certain truths, however the story is exaggerated to a level beyond the realm of historical fact. Also, a book like the Koran and, as I referenced above, Native American oral traditions all contain pieces of truth, however they are glorified and expanded. An example in the Book of Mormon would be the story of Jaredite submarines.

Again, this post is all hypothetical, however the bottom line is that no matter what, the Book of Mormon fits into a long line of scriptural tradition. If we were to accept the Book of Mormon in the manner outlined above, then we would also have to accept the Koran, Native stories, etc.

Over recent months, I attended worship services at about 30 churches in the larger SLC UT area (other than my own: LDS) including the Community of Christ (CoC) in SLC’s Millcreek area. To add value to each visit, I attend the largest Sunday worship gathering of that faith that week. In many cases, I see buildings and sanctuaries that are significantly larger than the week’s attendances needs; and I am sad over the contrast with times past when I image that membership filled every pew. My visits to CoC in Millcreek in 2012/13 matches this.

Please comment on CoC migration history in last 50 years; primarily, the demographic movement west of (out of) Missouri? Does the building size of CoC-Millcreek indicate expected membership growth that did not (has not yet) occurred, evidence of membership loss, or out-migration over time? Outside of Independence MO, where are largest CoC gatherings today?

My sister-in-law is Russian and a convert. Sometimes we talk about these kinds of issues int he church and she always finds it humorous because these aren’t really issues in the International LDS culture. At least not so much in Europe. I don’t think she ever thought of herself as a feminist or progressive until she moved here to the US and was told she is.

For multiple reasons, mainly cost of living, its just common for women to work. It’s not just Russia either because she has lived in other countries in Europe. That was my experience when I lived in Asia. It’s like there isn’t really a concept of “homemaking”. Just curious if any other non-US women or anyone that has lived outside the US has found this is the case. The “ideal” life for women is to get an education and a career to support the family.

What is the root of this in the US? Is it our Puritan roots? Just that we are more religious/conservative in the US? I think that is the conclusion.

Do you personally live the word of wisdom as out line in section 89 of the DandC. If so, how do you live it and how do you define it? in example “hot drinks”. What enfaces if any is given to the word of wisdom with in the CoC?

I would have to say that, yes, the LDS meaning of life is one big test of obedience. To the leaders, scriptures, or what ever they decide it to be. The fact that people close to me know it, believe it, and choose to follow it baffles me to no end.

I think your suggestion is a worthwhile exercise to do. There would be lots of different categories, such as “things that were clearly unethical judged by contemporary 19th century standards” to “things that I personally wouldn’t feel comfortable doing ethically” to “things that had bad consequences that were unintended,” etc.

For myself, I think the obsessive focus on Joseph Smith (by historians, by adherents of Restoration tradition churches, by post-Mormons, and by unrelated detractors) isn’t particularly healthy, useful, or interesting. For me, Joseph Smith is not the most interesting part of the Restoration story, which is why I always prefer to talk about early members of the movement in general and not focus on this one single member in particular. If I end up writing a history of the early church, I’ve thought I would either write it from Emma’s perspective entirely (tentatively titled, “Emma, Her Sons, Their Church, and the Latter Day Saints); or else from the perspective of regular members out in the branches (a much more difficult proposition, which may not be possible).

I think that Mark Scherer’s concept for his 3-Volume history of the Restoration, Reorganization, and Community of Christ was entitled “The Journey of a People” with the idea that it should be more than just a myopic headquarters-centric history. (Sadly, most histories of the church tend to read like biographies of Joseph Smith Jr. slightly expanded to include some institutional history around him.)

Anyway, I realize that I’m unusual in my relative disinterest in Joseph Smith as opposed to the movement he participated in.

If you’re an Ex-Mormon atheist, you’ll eventually find that there are worse tragedies in the world than missionaries traveling around converting people to the LDS Church.

However, if you’re an Evangelical Christian, you are a hypocrite who is plainly ignorant of the history of Christianity in general and of textual criticism of the Bible in particular. You are the person of whom Jesus spoke when he asks why are you paying attention to the mote in your brother’s eye, when you ignore the beam in your own? You should study the results of 2 centuries of Christian scholarship on the Bible before worrying yourself about Mormonism further.

This teaching about oaths is not saying that the content of everything else we might talk about should be deleted in favor of just wandering around all day saying “yes, yes, no, no.”

Actually the CofC may be more of the “real thing,” where as the SLC, LDS church may be just ‘flat pop’ when considering which one is more of an experiential ‘Jesus’ church (from my personal experience with regard to the SLC, LDS church).

John, you have been very forbearing by responding to my postings with great technique and decorum, hence, I want to acknowledge that you are also the “real thing” — a real scholar AND a gentleman.

Perhaps this is outside the scope of this podcast, but I had a thought. It seems that a lot of the ‘validation/credibility’ comments posted here are most pertinent to JS and the Book of Mormon. With regard to JS, however, it would be interesting to see a comparative list of what is perceived as being ‘good’ about JS as to what is perceived as being ‘bad’ (the contrasting headings ‘good’ and ‘bad’ could be substituted with something similar). In other words, being that it was declared by the angel that JS’s name “shall be known for good and evil among all nations; the righteous shall rejoice while the wicked shall rage,” it may be useful or of interest to actually list both those ‘good’ and ‘evil’ attributes, works, behaviors, subjective opinions, conjectures, etc. Just a suggestion.

And again, thanks for all that you do and have done for the enlightenment of many of us.

President Hinckley’s statement only serves to widen the dichotomy between Mormonism and other world views. In my opinion, such bold declarations are the inevitable side effect of portraying an institution as the one true church. Especially with regards to the Utah church, they are finding themselves in a corner in terms of dealing with the reality of history. The progressive nature of the Community of Christ is refreshing compared to the dominant orthodoxy of the Utah sect. By making black and white statements, we neglect to find any value in the gray. This discussion board has shown that inspiration can exist even in fiction or, in scriptural terms, pseudepigrapha.

Regarding President Hinckley’s comment about the church being true or a fraud, it is a very black and white statement and he misses the point. Even if the LDS church is a fraud it is still divine. The LDS church (how ever you think it came into being) is still with in the realm of the universe and is one of Gods creations. Just because the human race is fallible doesn’t discredit our value in being beautiful or created by God. There is great beauty with in the LDS faith. There is wonderful and inspired things with in the church. Many faiths have their short comings but it does not mean they are not with out value. Some more than others. I think the diversity of religions on the planet is a good thing. Even the ones that are quote un quote “wrong” labeled as a fraud.

I would like to add that my argument here is that if a person wants to value scripture, they have give up the modern, reactionary definition of scripture, i.e., that scripture is the literal, inerrant, and authoritative word of God, written down effectively by a human dictaphone who actually hears God speak in a physical, anthropomorphized voice. If that is approximately your definition of scripture, the answer is that scripture does not exist because nothing exists that fits that definition.

Glen: I believe you’re essentially asking, what’s the point of scripture if we’re not talking about the actual transcription of a divine dictaphone? We ought to turn that around and ask what would the point be of scripture that was like that, if such a thing did exist? Is the whole meaning of life simply a test of obedience to the transcription? Why would God want to test whether we are mindlessly obedient to the transcription? Is that a recipe for a valuable and meaningful life? What’s the point of an unthinking life like that?

Conceiving of scripture as the literal word of God, as opposed to the human response to God, is imputing divinity to text. This is, in my view, scripture-worship and idolatry. Moreover, believing that Thomas S. Monson or Joseph Smith is spoken to by God in a way that is a complete order of magnitude different than that available to everyone else is imputing a kind of divinity (certainly supernatural powers) to men. This is, in my view, leader-worship and idolatry.

If instead scripture is vital and profound human responses to God, then you are reading collected wisdom and experience of people facing life’s issues throughout time, along with parables, symbolic stories, theology, philosophy, laments, prayers, and more. From these you can find new inspiration and meaning as you read and interpret them anew. These aren’t rule books to prevent us from thinking, they are tools that we can use by thinking for ourselves.

And could John D’s neighbor write something profound and meaningful in his journal that could be valuable to him and you and me? Maybe so. The heavens are open. All are called. If only one person were called and we were merely called to listen to that person, we would called to idolatry and leader-worship. Does the worth of all persons necessarily lead to confusion? It obviously does not lead to everyone agreeing about everything, which is not necessarily a bad thing. But it also doesn’t lead to mindless obedience, which is a good thing. Church doesn’t have to be one person standing up front talking about a talk that leaders gave a few months back, which itself is just a correlated rehash of previous talks given by leaders. Having a discussion like this one about scripture and life and faith can be church.

For myself, I believe there’s no value to deciding that the point of life is simply memorizing a set of answers or obeying a set of rules or worshiping another human being as if he were a semi-divine viceroy of God. I believe the point of life is to engage our minds, to debate propositions, to ponder ethics, to test ideals, and to continually increase in intelligence?

Joseph Smith believed that the glory of God is intelligence (LDS D&C 93:36). The ancient prophet who wrote the Priestly source of what was later combined to create Genesis believed that humans are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27). Shakespeare argued that the quality that made humanity godlike was our “apprehension” or understanding (Hamlet II:2).

For me, this is a foundation for a meaningful meaning of life — with discoveries and discussions forever building from there.

If Gordon B. Hinckley’s framing of the issue — that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is either (1) the one and only true church on Earth authorized by God or else (2) a total fraud — is valid to assess the organization over which he held supreme authority, the answer is not in question: he and his church were total frauds. The contradictions in the truth-claims are conclusive and inarguable.

The texts of the Bible, the Moses of scripture, the Jesus of history, the apostle Paul, the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, Mormonism, President Gordon B. Hinckley, the LDS Church, and Community of Christ are all different things. Gordon B. Hinckley was able to speak for himself and might have been able to speak for the institution he controlled, but the rest is beyond his monopoly to define.

For the most part, it is established that the New Testament writers probably did not know Jesus as intimately as they would have us believe, but were merely recording the oral tradition of the great man Jesus from 30 years prior (or when Paul wrote 1Corinthians, 20 years prior). Much of their writings probably reflect an exaggerated rendition of a passed down story. Likewise, and even to a greater degree, the Old Testament is certainly not actual history, but an even better example of embellished Jewish oral traditions. Much of what I am saying can be seen in my earlier post.

In addition to Christian examples, the Koran contains many inspiring, yet non-literal stories as recorded by Muhammed. Native American writer Vine Deloria has portrayed the fantastic intricacies of Native American oral tales. Although they are sacred to the individual tribes, I would imagine most people (within and without) recognize that they did not actually occur as told.

Although my point contains several parts, I first refer you to John Hamer’s statement above. Mythical literature and tradition has inspired people (and perhaps has been inspired) for millenia. The goal is to find the portions which resonate most profoundly, while realizing that a fundamentalist viewpoint clouds our ability to truly appreciate such writings. The second thing I would point out is that theology and dogma in general has never been a static, incorruptible concept. Historical context will always play a role in determining doctrine. With regards to D&C 1, I would refer you to Joseph Smith’s 1838 history. Each church was vigorously calling the other one apostate, so naturally Joseph would declare his church true. The Book of Mormon, while it is not for everyone, still fits a long-time scriptural tradition of inspirational messages which affect people deeply. Are we able to feel inspired by anyone’s writings? I suppose so. However, I think scripture is different, as it stands the test of time and affects us at our very core.

This comment is directed to both Johns. John Dehlin posed a question that did not seem to be answered by either John D. or John H. The discussion was regarding scripture and whether to view it literally or some other way. I think John H. presented the idea that scripture is largely the impressions of men. My best recollection of the question posed by John D. regarding scripture is this: “What’s the point (if its the impressions of men), then that is not really scripture, what that is is a bunch of other peoples’ opinions, biases. What’s holy about that? And, why is that compelling to warrant our attention, if in reality it is not inherently superior to what my friend might write in his journal.” Its about 45 minutes into Part II.

In a sense broader than this podcast topic, I think this question deserves an entire episode. If, for example, one of the New Testament writers provided us with his opinions, his recollections, etc. then why should I value his writings any more than I might value John Dehlins’s or John Hamer’s opinions and writings. Similarly, if Joseph Smith’s revelations (like D&C 1 about the one and only true church) are simply his ideas….well…then they are simply his ideas that are of no more value than some other man’s opinions about a church he might have started.

I can’t quite write the right words to capture my problem in this subject area. If I read the Book of Mormon or the D&C or the Bible, what am I reading? Am I reading the word of God? Either I am or I am not….if I am not then of what value is it? I know this is black and white thinking that many discount. So, what about the middle ground, if such writings are sometimes the Word of God and sometimes the words of man….then the same question seems relevant: What value is it to me because then somebody or myself would have to figure out which portions were God talking or which were a man.

Or, another middle ground: “What if they are an approximation of what God said to the prophet…the prophets best attempt to formulate into words what he experienced.” If that is true, then which prophet has the best formulation, the most correct, etc. And, if its true, then really any person who has a spiritual experience might qualify as somebody we ought to listen to. But, then the problem is that there are too many opinions/experiences that differ. Still seems to lead to the same confusion.

I guess I’m arguing for the point (or clinging to it) that President Hinckley made in Conference years ago: It is either true or the biggest fraud perpetrated by a man.

The indefensible perspectives are fundamentalism (believing that the stories here in the Bible and/or the Book of Mormon are literal histories). Even here, everyone is free to have that perspective; but if they do, it means that their world-view is going to be less useful at predicting reality than a reality-based world-view would be.

Here’s an analogy: You can reject Newton entirely because he believed fervently in what he thought was the science of astrology. Or you can pick the parts of Newton out that are good and emphasize those while rejecting his mistakes. Both of these are defensible positions. The indefensible position would be worshiping Newton and viewing all of his writings as authoritative (fundamentalism).

Likewise, we can see the same thing in the work of the canonical gospel evangelists who did not know Jesus but were very content to create stories about him. For example, we can see directly the work of the anonymous authors of the gospels of Matthew and Luke their editing of Mark and Q and their creation of non-historical stories to fill out their books. The work of the editors who expanded the source text in the gospel attributed to John again created stories that were entirely original to the writer and had no basis in history. Thus, the basis for the New Testament of Christianity is also known to be what you are calling “fraudulent”.

However, I’m arguing here that it’s not fraudulent. Rather, the error in thinking here is derived from the modern perspective that these writings should be viewed as literal history. They should not be viewed in that way.

All tradition is compromised. Humans are imperfect. We are continually gaining in knowledge. People did not have more knowledge in some golden age in the past; they had less. That the past is imperfect is not an excuse for throwing it away. But it means that as we honor it, we mustn’t consider it authoritative or enslave ourselves to it. In Community of Christ, we don’t.
_________________

To my knowledge, people don’t really get excommunicated from Community of Christ any more. I’m given to understand the last times many excommunications might have happened was during the 1980s schism when separatists were attempting to claim church property.

Given what you have said so far, I Stand All Amazed that you associate with the Community of Christ as you say it is based on a foundation of a man and a book both of whom you claimed to be fraudulent. Do you love, the organization, in spite of all of this?

Brings up another question, do they have such a thing as excommunication in the CofC? If so, what are the conditions for that action? Who decides? Has it happened recently?

Glad to hear they won’t sell!!!

I agree with you that “lying for the Lord” goes back to Joseph Smith. As I’ve said, Joseph Smith did things that I don’t think are ethical. I’m not trying to justify them; I’m attempting to explain them in a fairly charitable way while hopefully continuing to say that one can justifiably view many of these things less charitably. Leaders should be called out and condemned for bad behavior and error. I think I’ve called Joseph Smith out on lots of errors and bad behaviors here.

Although John D. focused a lot on Joseph Smith in the interview, the Restoration isn’t only about Joseph Smith. In my brief history of Community of Christ, Joseph Jr. dies on page 13 of 72. We can go many Sundays in a row without ever mentioning Joseph Smith.

People who only have experience with the LDS Church can’t help but think of Community of Christ as the Diet Pepsi version of the LDS Church’s Coke. But the churches are actually very different across the board; there’s especially a complete difference in the way leaders are viewed — as the humble humans they truly are in Community of Christ and as the exclusively-God-touched facades they are presented to be in the LDS Church (an impression that LDS leaders maintain also by “lying for the Lord”).

You mention “Praise to the Man”. The original lyrics go:

Praise to the man who commun’d with Jehovah
Jesus anointed that Prophet and Seer
Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren
Kings shall extol him, and nations revere.

However, Joseph Smith III himself re-wrote the lyrics for the Community of Christ version of the hymn:

Praise to the Lord for the great restoration
Brought by the angel to Joseph the Seer
Pleading with God in behalf of his brethren
The church to establish, the gospel declare.

There’s the difference in trajectory right there. And, of course, the hymn has subsequently been deleted from the hymnal altogether.

So why is God calling me to be in a Restoration tradition church that rejects lying for the Lord, that believes All are Called, and that honors heritage and scripture without seeing either as rigidly authoritative? I believe it’s because the need for such a community is so manifest among seekers in the Restoration tradition.

In the case of Kirtland Temple, Community of Christ recently spent millions of dollars constructing a new visitor and spiritual formation center. The church was willing to sell undeveloped properties (including Haun’s Mill site) to the LDS Church in order to perpetually endow the sacred places that have already been developed, including the Joseph & Emma Smith Historic Sites in Nauvoo and Kirtland Temple.

In my opinion, he would have been very aware that he had never experienced a “visitation” of an externally perceivable spectral or alien being. This should not surprise us because such visitations do not exist outside of literature.

Joseph Smith’s calling, in his view, included bringing forth the Book of Mormon, as a new scripture which he believed he was producing by the gift and power of the holy spirit. Although he used the word “translating” in regards to his production of the text, it’s very clear from the internal and external evidence concerning the Book of Mormon, along with the comparative evidence of Joseph Smith’s other scriptural compositions, that Joseph Smith did not use the word “translation” to mean what we mean. Indeed, as I’ve suggested, the word was relatively broadly used for various miraculous gifts that we might call magic — e.g., translating = teleporting; translating = transforming a mortal body to an immortal body.

In producing inspired scripture via the gift and power of the spirit, I believe that Joseph Smith believed he was revealing the word of God. In so doing, he was speaking with the prophetic voice in precisely the same way that ancient Israelite prophets spoke with the prophetic voice. The original Isaiah, when saying “thus saith the Lord,” presumed to speak for the Lord. When the later Isaiah’s did this, they were not only presuming to speak for the Lord, they were doing so while pretending to be the original Isaiah. Which you can call a pious fraud, if that is the way you view things.

What Joseph Smith knew was false was the fact that the physical plates artifact that he used to buttress his audience’s belief in the book he was composing was not, in fact, an ancient object. Rather, he knew that this was something that he had himself made, mostly likely from sheet tin. However, that does not necessarily mean that he felt that there wasn’t an actual lost record. Another contemporary example is the translation of the scroll of the Apostle John. Joseph didn’t ever claim to have access to the scroll which he believed was on the other side of the world. And we can tell from the “translation” of the scroll that this was simply another original composition of Joseph’s. In other words, I think it’s quite possible Joseph believed he was channeling or restoring actual history or at least inspired stories that were the word of God.

The plates artifact can be viewed as an avatar to channel spiritual feelings, much like the various seer stones. Of course, seer stones are just rocks. However, they were obviously part of Joseph’s spiritual formation process.

2. I don’t have to prove that no one ever saw the golden plates; that all contact with the plates artifact was tactile. The Book of Mormon can be shown conclusively to be a 19th century document by its internal evidence: its ubiquitous anachronisms, its literary dependence on the King James Bible, and the fingerprints of its author, Joseph Smith. This can be buttressed with external evidence, including Joseph Smith’s additional scriptural compositions, along with actual Meso-American history. The proofs regarding the real nature of the Book of Mormon do not hinge on the golden plates; they are conclusively proved elsewhere.

Rather, with the plates artifact and the various witnesses, we are left having to understand the evidence and testimony given what we already know: that there were no golden plates in a physical sense. When we are talking about the testimony of the witnesses, the fact that there were no golden plates in a physical sense is not a conclusion; it’s a premise that is known from other proofs.

Given that premise, how do we understand the testimony? As you say, people encountered a physical object wrapped in a cloth or nailed in a box. They touched it and lifted it. In the case of the 8 witnesses:

a. They handled the artifact yes. Mostly likely this was a tin avatar or prop. It was probably sheet metal because more than one witness of the plates artifact felt the leaves under the cloth.

b. In the statement they signed that Joseph wrote, the agreed that the plates were the plates “of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold”. That is certainly what has been spoken, that they have the appearance of gold. We are holding them in this box, and it has been spoken that they have the appearance of gold.

c. They saw the engravings. You can too. Do a google image search on “Anthon Transcript”. That’s what they were shown. The engravings as transcribed onto paper.

d. They hefted the plates artifact. They most certainly did. In a box. Or wrapped in a cloth.

Mary’s experience, although visionary, is fairly consonant with the physical experiences people had with the physical plates artifact; except, of course, that people who saw the plates in visions could also see the angels and see the plates directly with their spiritual eyes — something they could not do with their physical eyes.

1. Thanks for your link to Living Scripture and a Vision of the Living Restoration as I read it with interest. The is definitely the “middle-way of the middle-way) But I am still confused. I am a “black-and-white” kind of guy when looking at anything at a correct level. I think truth can be stated correctly when asking yes/no questions at the correct level. Labeling Joseph as a fraud, is not helpful, however, to say that he created a book, then said it was “The Word of God” and he received it directly from God’s messengers is fraud if he knew it was false. You are stating that his assertions are false, so my question to you, from your understanding, did he know those statements were false?

2. Like Jared Anderson, and a lot historians both in and out of Biblical studies, you state a number of assertions that can not be proved because they are stated in the negative. “No one ever saw the physical plates” is one of those statements. You can’t prove a negative. However, the positive testimony of the 8 witnesses is pretty clear:

“Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shewn unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shewn unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.”

a. they handled them with their hands the leaves of the book
b. they had the appearance of gold
c. they saw the engravings
d. they hefted the plates (like Emma Smith)

So you are saying that this might have been true, but only in their minds eye?

Emma Smith said they were laying around while the book was being translated and said in an interview:

“The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book….”

So are you saying that was a figment of her imagination as well?

Also didn’t Mary Whitmer actually see them as well as reported by Parley P. Pratt?

“Mary Musselman Whitmer (August 27, 1778 – January 1856) was the” wife of Peter Whitmer, Sr. Through her son David Whitmer, she and her family became acquainted with Joseph Smith, Jr. around 1828. In 1829, probably during June, she was caring for three boarders (Joseph Smith, Emma Hale Smith, and Oliver Cowdery) in addition to her large household while the Book of Mormon was being translated. She said she was often overloaded with work to the extent she felt it quite a burden. During this time, the male boarders and members of her household were speaking of being shown the Golden Plates. One evening when she went to milk the cows, she said that a stranger with a knapsack spoke to her, explained what was going on in her house, comforted her, then produced a bundle of plates from his knapsack, turned the leaves for her, showed her the engravings, exhorted her to faith in bearing her burden a little longer, then suddenly vanished with the plates. She always called the stranger Brother Nephi.”

Although visionary this last one was interesting as to the detail.

Again I appreciate the interview and your responses to previous questions,

Glen

Let’s take the somewhat more extreme example of a person who finds herself living in North Korea and has to decide how to operate there. She can protest overtly and be caught up in the system’s standard operating defenses and perhaps become a martyr of some kind; she can collaborate with the system either with the idea of encouraging reform by making a positive difference within it (probably not a realistic hope) or with idea of forcing reform by undermining the system from within somehow; or she can extricate herself from the system by defecting — in the last case either by leaving as hastily as possible (even at great cost) or by leaving in a planned way (which might require some degree of collaboration with the system while implementing the plan).

In my case, I chose to extricate myself from the dishonest system (in which I found myself participating) via a planned exit that was relatively fast (3 years total), but not so precipitously fast as to be overly costly. Meanwhile, I did collaborate to some extent by responding to the system precisely as it wanted to be responded to.

Obviously, one can’t help but admire people who went the more overt path and stood up against the vicious bigotry enshrined in BYU’s rules. The gay people who stood up and were subsequently blackmailed by BYU and/or those who were abused with electro-shock therapy and the like by BYU are certainly heroes who fought oppression head-on and valiantly.

Fighting evil overtly like that was not an easy path. Obviously, many such heroes lost years of work and the university credits owed them; and, of course, many were psychologically scarred. In the short time I was “out” at BYU, doing my part helping support others in the LGBT support group in Provo, two of my small number of gay friends attempted suicide.

So there are certainly more overtly heroic ways to fight a thoroughly dishonest and corrupt system than the path I chose, but I nevertheless am comfortable that I maintained my personal integrity throughout; helping out where possible, while causing no harm.

The principle of parsimony (Occam’s razor) is a core part of determining the likelihood of any thesis in the historical narrative. The evidence for Joseph Smith’s authorship of the Book of Mormon is plentiful and overwhelming — from the fact that so much of the narrative is autobiographical, from the fact that the author goes so far as to name himself (predict himself) in the text (2 Nephi 3:6,15 LDS), from his mother’s recollection of Joseph’s previous oral composition of Nephite stories, from the mass of witnesses of the composition process, and from the various ways events surrounded Joseph during the translation process were worked into the text (see Dan Vogel “Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet”).

The Spaulding authorship theory, by contrast, lacks any positive historical evidence whatsoever beyond the Hurlbut affidavits. As convincing as these seem to be on the surface, it’s clear that the people of Conneaut were misremembering Spaulding’s novel. (Essentially what apparently happened was the people in Conneaut got a hold of a Book of Mormon on their own, they convinced themselves that it was the text of the novel their long-dead neighbor had been working on which they had no access to, they had a Book of Mormon and read parts which were fresh in their minds, the rumor of their theory spread to nearby Kirtland and Hurlbut visited to take down the misremembered affidavits.)

The conspiracy theory required to take us from Spaulding through Rigdon and Pratt to Smith strains all credibility, especially given the total lack of positive evidence that stands in stark contrast with the very clear and overwhelming evidence of Joseph Smith’s authorship. (For an illustration of the preposterous nature of this theory, see my essay: “http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/07/18/the-spaulding-fable/”)

Criddle might just as well have tested whether Shakespeare was the author or whether Thomas Jefferson was the author — or any other person who (like Spaulding) we know was not the author from the historical record. All such computer tests, including the Spaulding one, are irrelevant, and merely demonstrate the faultiness of Criddle’s computer analysis.

Since Criddle’s argument is no better than the arguments people make that the Book of Mormon as an actual ancient text, there’s no way to hypothesize what things would be like if either were the case. We can say definitively that neither is the case.

Regarding L. Ron Hubbard: I think it would be possible for someone raised in Scientology to come up with a reformed church of Scientology that could potentially have value, especially if it helped individuals free themselves from the hierarchy of the mainline church of Scientology.

I suppose with regard to my own experiences in Mormonism (in the tradition of the SLC, LDS church) there were *my* historical contexualizations of truth — the ‘useful’ truths (for me), such as:
- being admonished to have and consequently implement a practical and reassuring ‘being prepared’ home food storage and usage system,
- experiencing the benefits of abstaining from the use of tobacco and alcohol (and who’s to say, perhaps even coffee and tea),
- learning to be ‘God fearing’, which did help keep me on a moralistic/ethical ‘straight and narrow path’ that I feel was a boon to me while growing up.
- learning to share and give freely of my income for (hopefully) the aid others and other good causes ,
- deriving comfort from some of the eschatological and other doctrines that made sense to me (and still do, to some degree) — what I internally/subjectively identify with,
- the worthwhile experiences that contributed to my personal development as a result of serving in lay leadership and other positions within the context of ‘community’,
- and other things which were part and parcel of *my* contextual Mormonism (not failing to mention more importantly than all else, feeling more in tune, or identifying with my Savior, Jesus Christ, had my parents not converted to Mormonism.

Of course, there were also many deleterious aspects and experiences as a result of being raised in a staunch, Mormon household, and among some members of the church who were abject in their behavior towards me inflicting spiritual, social, and psychological harm. My life within Mormonism certainly was a catalyst to test my mettle in order to grow stronger, wiser, and hopefully more compassionately, or to paraphrase what JS said, “The nearer we get to God, the more we are disposed to look upon perishing (and detestable?!) souls with compassion”.

Having said all this, what I eventually came to resist and then resent, though, is that aspect of Mormonism (today, as in the time of JS) which promulgated the ‘metaphor’ for truth in the sense of “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.” And it does this adamantly, and even aggressively by way of extensive public relations programs, misleading propaganda, and intensive indoctrination of all members both young and old. Yet, the top leadership must surely know that “something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” There certainly has to be some rationale for the behavior of ‘lying for the Lord’ (a good church or cause), and other egregious, ‘not what Jesus would do’ actions, all of which is very disturbing to me. And it started with JS! The historical record attests to that, so why, John, are you a proponent of Mormonism and Joseph Smith by associating yourself with a JS type of church?

I *think* I understand what you are conveying in your last paragraph although you may have to clarify what you are saying in clearer terms. In light of the reasons listed above, I am grateful for *my* Mormonism, but to be sure, I am no longer singing ‘Praise to the Man.’ That’s for sure! And although I may not want to completely dismiss some the wonderful religious concepts JS introduced, e.g., “the glory of God is intelligence ….. this is my (God’s) work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” and other esoteric, yet ‘sensible’ doctrines, I still want nothing more to do with the fellow. He is not *my* ‘king of the whole world.’ or *my* ‘god of this dispensation’ or whatever else he claimed, and what the current top leadership believes him to be. In fact, I am inclined to have more faith in and admiration for the ‘exalted’ mortal being Lao Tzu and Zarathustra (Zoroaster), rather than Joseph Smith.

In conclusion, although Mormonism can be, to some extent, an enigmatic quandary or paradox, perhaps it is also something more akin to what Paul Valery stated: “To see is to forget the name of the thing one sees.”, i.e., it may eclipse a solid definition for many of us who have been, to whatever degree, ‘Mormonized’. If it wasn’t for this, there probably wouldn’t be a ‘Mormon Stories’ podcast, and a reason for those who have left the church, to not leave it alone!

Joseph Smith — like everyone — was a product of his own historical context. As you say, a person creating a new religious tradition today would have very little overlap with what Joseph Smith did, since everything in early Mormonism is born out of the context of the surrounding history of the newborn American republic.

Let me say that there is /no/ one and only true church.

A church that claims to be the one and only true church is self-evidently wrong. To the extent that Joseph Smith believed that he had a monopoly on divine authority, he was in error. Likewise, broader Christianity is not the one and only true religion.

But no, I also don’t think that lacking exclusivity, we’re just saying our way is merely super nice. Aren’t we swell?

I believe that experience breeds wisdom. We could create a new religion or a new philosophy today that has no baggage; one that is totally innocent. And that religion or philosophy could fall into error tomorrow since it lacks the wisdom to guide it from error. In the Restoration context, I think the experience of attempting to use force to attack our neighbors in Far West, in Daviess County Missouri, in Nauvoo — I think those failures have helped Community of Christ inform our experience and made us a more credible proponent of peace today.

I’m not a relativist. Not all world-views are of equal value. For example, some world-views are better predictors of reality than others. In a traditional LDS world-view, where you imagined that the Book of Mormon was a literal history, you would predict that archaeological excavations in MesoAmerica would turn up reformed Egyptian inscriptions. And since they do not, you would find that your world-view is not a reliable predictor of accurate results. My world-view, by contrast, would predict the results that have been achieved by MesoAmerican archaeology, since I understand that the 19th century nature of the Book of Mormon is not in question.

Not everyone can devote themselves to extensive research on theology, history, literary criticism, philosophy. Many people have other priorities. What if all informed persons totally abandoned religion and left control of all religious institutions to reactionary anti-scientific, anti-reality, unscrupulous charlatans? What choice would regular people have if they decided they wanted to raise their children in the environment of a church? Wouldn’t they naturally fall into error and the control of deceitful persons? Isn’t it important and vital to provide a rational, ethical alternative to people who aren’t able to devote their lives to detailed studies on their own?

The “but” is in reference to the comment made by ‘Stormin’ (“Joseph was a proven liar and fraud,…”). Sure, I understand that there are elements of truth according to the historical context(s) from which they sprang, but certain truths as being what cannot be negotiated or rationalized — truths which stands outside of historical context as being truly ‘true’ — has to factored in, as well. In other words, would Joseph Smith even remotely ‘get away with’ (for the lack of a better term) a lot of things that he was able to ‘get away with’ if he was among us today as the President of the church, or if he started his movement today?

To answer my own question: Sure, there are always people who will follow charismatic leaders in any age no matter what these leaders propose as being ‘the truth’. However, if JS were born today and started a religious movement, I don’t think you would disagree that it’s highly probable there wouldn’t be any Masonic based rituals, nor a ‘Book of Mormon’ claiming to be an historical, sacred scripture of ancient inhabitants of North and/or South Amercia; there wouldn’t be a ‘Pearl of Great Price’ comprising the writings of Abraham “by his own hand” and about the experiences of Moses, even if he was able to obtain the very same Egyptian artifacts that Chandler sold to the church.

It’s about this sort of thing that you lose me, Mr. Hamer, i.e., where do you stand, really, with regard to Mormonism? I wasn’t able to come to grips with that. Is Mormonism, for you, the one and only true way (and if so, is it by-way-of the CofC ‘church’ — ordinances) that one needs to ascribe to for the opportunity to obtain the ‘highest degree’ for their ‘eternal salvation’, as taught by JS? Or is Mormonism one of many ‘good’ ways, just like many streams and creeks that flow into bigger rivers (or one Christian river) that finally all reach the same ocean (e.g., eternal salvation) if followed? Yet still, there is the nagging issue, like a thorn in my shoe, that says something isn’t totally right with Joseph Smith and his restoration movement when trying to consider it as the one, valid way. It just can’t be with any degree of rationality be consider as such. It’s ludicrous to me. A pious fraud, perhaps, and a continually evolving ‘nice way of life’ (for many people) in which, for example, to raise a family, but most certainly not anything to do with being the ‘one and only true church.’

I don’t think I attempted to justify the position that LDS leaders have taken; as the main thrust of the interview indicated, I left the LDS Church because I didn’t agree with the positions of its leaders.

Stormin. I think Joseph Smith was a bit like all people. He was a little more complicated than one dimention. After all, have we not all lied at some point in our life? You labeling him just a liar is an easy blanket accusation. I like to look at causality and motive behind actions even when looking at something we might at first call a lie.

Joseph Smith lived in a world that was still on the threshold of an enchanted or magical world-view. If you read his father’s patriarchal blessings, you can see that Joseph Smith Sr. believed completely in things that we today would consider magical, e.g., the ability to teleport oneself from place to place. That said, Joseph Smith did want to bring Christian cosmology more up-to-date with his understanding of contemporary science, including things like setting the earth in a Copernican world-view and denying ex nihilo creation (since at the time it was believed that matter couldn’t be created out of nothing; so Joseph Smith’s scripture has “the gods” organizing matter out of existing matter).

2. Community of Christ members do not wear garments, no.

Do CoC wear magic underwear?

Later, monotheism arose in response to scientific observation. Babylonian astronomers/astrologers through centuries of observation realized that the heavens were not a place of chaos. The unfixed stars (the planets, moon, and sun) were not operating at random. They traveled in highly predictable cycles. Phenomena like eclipses could be predicted with incredible accuracy. As a result, the greatest natural philosophers (proto-scientists) of the ancient world, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, concluded that there was a Prime Mover — the basis for a belief in a single “God” to which all the lesser powers and forces were merely “gods” that ultimately operated within the divine Law of the one God.

Unfortunately, in the modern era since the Enlightenment, too much of religion has become detached from the collected wisdom and state of human knowledge and understanding (i.e., science). Progressive or liberal Judeo-Christianity has continued to be informed (among its theologians and core thinkers at least, if not always translating to the pews) by this advance in understanding. However, a large bulk of religion in general has taken the opposite tack: it has detached itself from the knowledge of reality, denied reality, created reactionary anti-reality based world-views, and retreated into new and totally discredited truth claim constructs. This is ultimately a harmful exercise that is totally discrediting to religion in general and which leaves members of reactionary fundamentalist religions with world-views that are not accurate predictors of reality.

However, in discarding these new, reactionary world-views for what they are, we don’t have to discard all tradition and our entire spiritual / philosophical heritage that came before us. For example, there are lots of Western people who find value in the Eastern religious practice of meditation. We should be similarly open to seeing the value of some of our own traditional spiritual practices, including prayer, private and public, and even contemplative, creative envisioning, of listening within our minds and hearts and being open to inspiration.

Oh come on. My little Star Wars and LDS heart just failed me for a moment when you said that. blasphemy. May the ghosts of Darth Mall, Obi Wan, Moroni, and Darth Vader all visit you in your doubt.

The visions of the angels (or spirits) are a different matter. In the first place, we should note that in traditional Christian theology, angels are a different order of creation than humans; they are not the spirits of pre-existent humans or the ghosts of humans that have lived previously. The word for that in normal English is “spirit”. In part, because neither Nephi nor Moroni were literal historical persons, we can say with confidence that neither’s spirit actually visited Joseph Smith in a physical sense. We can also say this because no spirits or ghosts have ever visited anyone ever in an actual, physical, literal sense. Likewise, angels do not have a physical existence in a literal sense; they are literary, theological, philosophical, and spiritual creations. No one, including Joseph Smith, was ever visited by any such being in an external, literal, physical sense.

We can’t know Joseph’s personal visionary process. Did he close his eyes and envision Nephi and Moroni in the many years leading up to his announcement that he finally had possession of the plates and intended to begin committing to paper stories he had been orally composing for years and years? Maybe so — he was a visionary guy who believed in folk magic. It’s up to you to decide and you can certainly decide “no.” What we can have a window into is the visionary process when Joseph experienced visions along with other people. For example, with the Three Witnesses and in Kirtland Temple. Joseph and the other participants in the vision would prepare themselves, close their eyes, open their thoughts, and Joseph would envision a man clad in white. He would ask, “I see a man clad in white” and he would go on to describe the vision and ask, “Do you see him?” And the participants in the vision could very honestly say that they were envisioning the same thing and describe also what they were seeing, sharing the experience together. In the case of the Three Witnesses vision, Martin Harris wasn’t initially on board with Joseph, David Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery’s experience, so Joseph later was able to share the experience 1×1 directly with Martin who in the end believed “it is enough!” and it convinced him. But, again, as with all visions, these are entirely visionary experiences. We are not dealing with glowing spirits walking around the physical world like Obi Wan Kenobi and Yoda from Star Wars. Such things do not exist and never have existed outside of literature.

The only part that bothered me was when both Johns defended the alternate versions of the first vision, saying that Smith’s memory of the event could have changed. I think this is ingenuous. There is no possible way that someone could see God Almighty, the creator of the universe, and Jesus Christ, the savior and creator of the world and forget who they saw. No way could Joe have forgotten and remembered it as Nephi, then Moroni, and then just angels etc. Sorry, but that excuse just does not hold water. Think what you may about Smith, but there is no reasonable way to believe his first vision in view of the contrasting versions he told of the first vision.

1. As a brief summary, David Howlett, Barbara Walden and I wrote a book called Community of Christ: An Illustrated History. Mark Scherer’s 3-volume “Journey of a People” is much more detailed (although you need to wait for the 3rd forthcoming volume to get us to the present-day). The church’s website (cofchrist.org) has a lot of the most current information available.

2. Yes, I believe the LDS Church could make significant changes without losing more members than it already is losing because it is a very different organization and has a very different culture than the RLDS Church ever had. And simultaneously, I believe there is no reason to imagine the LDS Church will make any such changes in the foreseeable future, because the LDS Church is a very different organization than Community of Christ is.

3. There’s too many for any one favorite. I’ll name Steve LeSueur’s “The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri” — if people haven’t read that, they should, it’s excellent.

I just posted a link to this podcast.

This reddit site will only have been live for one week, tommorrow, but already has some subscribers, and links to much content that I hope will be interesting and useful. My hope is that it will help foster further community. I would encourage anyone who reads this comment to take a look, and I hope some of you will feel like subscribing and adding your presence from time to time.

1. Is there a good book or website you would recommend to better understand the CofC?
2. I applaud the CofC for the mainstream Christian changes they made a few years ago. Do you think the Utah Mormon church could make those changes.without losing its membership numbers as I believe the CofC did?
3. Favorite mormon history book?

Thanks!

That’s a lot of questions! This is like another whole interview/episode.

1. The Community of Christ still preaches from the Book of Mormon, yes. The church recently published 3 new books on the Book of Mormon (including Mark Scherer’s first volume of church history), all of which are intended to be used by adult Sunday School classes. In my congregation, we will begin a Book of Mormon unit in adult Sunday School this fall.

2. The Community of Christ puts great emphasis on the D&C and we add new revelations as new sections every few years.

3. The Pearl of Great Price is a Utah creation. It did not exist in the early church and is not a part of the Community of Christ canon. The text that has been labelled “The Book of Moses” and “Joseph Smith–Mathew” are components of the Joseph Smith Bible Revision, which is a manuscript owned by the Community of Christ and canonized as Joseph Smith’s Inspired Version of the Bible. “Joseph Smith–History” and “The Book of Abraham” were not canonized in the early church and are not canon in Community of Christ.

4. The name “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” is (if you will excuse me for saying so) an absolutely terrible name for a church. But the “Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” is even worse. The original name of the church was “Church of Christ.” Community of Christ changed its name (1) to have a better name in general, (2) to have a name that is an homage to the original name of the church, and (3) to have a name that emphasizes our core foci: Christ and the incredible capacity we have to build community together.

5. There was a physical plates artifact. People lifted it in a box or felt it under cloth. No one other than Joseph Smith was ever allowed to look at the artifact directly with physical eyes. All visions of the plates were visionary. All physical connections with the plates artifact were tactile, not visual.

6. Yes, there are several conservative RLDS tradition churches.
7. There is no priesthood discrimination on the basis of gender in Community of Christ. Women fully participate at all levels of leadership: Presiding bishopric, Council of Apostles, First Presidency. I think more than half of congregational leaders at this point are women.

8. The Utah Church threw out the original section on marriage and replaced it with D&C 132. The Utah Church also added several dozen sections of Joseph Smith material to the D&C that was not in the early church’s D&C (and is not in the CofC D&C). The CofC threw out the section that commands member “build my servant Joseph a house” (which is pretty embarrassing) along with the ones on baptism for the dead. Every single prophet of the RLDS Church / Community of Christ has added multiple new revelations to the D&C — these include, in my opinion, some of the most inspired and inspiring writings in the entire standard works.

9. The Powerpoint presentation podcast hasn’t been uploaded by John D. yet. We’ll all be looking forward to it.

10. My baptism into Community of Christ signified for me my personal and public declaration of commitment to membership in the faith community. I did it because sacred symbols and forms have meanings just like sacred stories have meanings. Sacred stories aren’t important because they are (or aren’t) history. Likewise sacred rituals aren’t important because they have literal cosmic significance (they don’t); they are important symbollically, personally, in community, and in personal relationship with God.

11. Yes, I have a perspective and a bias. I’m a missionary for empowering a group of people in my extended faith community, the Restoration. As such, I’m an apologist. However, the nature of my apologetics is (I believe) wholly consonant with responsible scholarship.

12. Thank you. Yes, I’m very happy with my decision. I couldn’t be more happy with my congregation in Toronto and with my denominational community, and with my extended community of cousins within the tradition. We haven’t recorded the final segment yet, so I don’t know if John D. will ask me to bear my testimony.
Thanks,
John H.

I have a fond place in my heart for the CofC because when I came out of Atheism into Christianity, that is one of many that I explored and enjoyed.

Questions for John H:

Scripture:

Does the Church of Christ still preach from the Book of Mormon?
Do they still consider the D&C as it has been changed still used by the the CofC?

Pearl of Great Price?

What do you consider as scripture and how is it different from just good advice that one might find in good books?

Community of Christ Church:

Why did they change the name? They didn’t like the Mormon label?

Joseph Smith never had physical plates? There were a lot of witnesses (more than the 11) that saw them, at least according to my study. What does the CofC teach in that regard?

I have met a couple of people who broke away from the CofC because they felt that JS and the BofM were not preached enough there anymore. Is there an official breakaway that is currently active?

Are the members of the CofC more accepting of gays than the Utah Church? (as the old RLDS friends used to say

A lot of the Utah Church women, and especially the MSPC ones might like the fact that women ministers are equal, as I understand it, with men. Is that correct? The Priesthood open to women? I just noticed women conducting while attending RLDS services in Florida.

Which sections of the Utah Church of the D&C that the CofC throw out? and which new sections of the D&C are added? Are their any other “scripture” like documents in the Church?

Haven’t looked at the Power Point presentation (3rd podcast segment), so I will have to take a look at it.

Personal:

What did your baptism into the CofC Church signify to you? Does it mean different things to different people? Why did you do it?

You seem to be a different type of apologist, but are you still one? Is this more a culture thing to you, rather than a truth thing?

You seem pretty happy with your decisions in regards to religion? I haven’t listened to the last segment and am curious if John D. will ask you to bear your testimony. I will look forward to listening to that.

Thanks again to both of you guys,
Glen

By the way, have you noticed that the Jehovah’s Witnesses should not feel obligated to proselytize Mormons? Jehovah’s Witnesses testify of Jehovah whom they claim is God the Father, not Jesus Christ. However, both the Father and the Son evidently share the name “Jehovah.” This assertion is supported by Section 109 of the D&C (the dedicatory prayer for the Kirtland Temple). Joseph Smith is addressing God the Father as we LDS do in all our prayers: “And now we ask thee, Holy Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of thy bosom….” (Verse 4). Thus Joseph Smith is praying to God the Father and not Jesus Christ. Yet in verses 34 and 42, Joseph Smith calls the person he is praying to “Jehovah.”

Jesus Christ is called the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and that particular Jehovah (Jesus Christ) is referred to in verse 68. It is common for a son to be named after his father. Other names and titles which the Father and the Son share are “Lord” (see several verses in the same section), God, Father, and Adam.

This seems really intimidating.

If you think of the church like a business, any issues you have you just escalate up the levels of management, till you get the answer you want. So no joy from Bishop and SP, go to area presidency, no joy there, 1st quorom of 70, etc…

I know the challenge will be getting names and contact details but should be possible. I expect there are plenty of readers / listeners of this podcast who will have contacts in the church hierarchy.

Keep records of all interactions, and be persistent.

The more people report this sort of bad management, the more the top levels will listen. I do believe the old addage ‘poop rolls downhill’!

** I encourage all others who have had bad experiences with local leadership to do the same **

Tom, your story made me cry and angry at the same time….

It also seems to be contrary to Jeff holands comments about us being a big tent church and also his comments on the BBC documentary about not shunning.

Tom did you ever consider taking the example of your treatment by the new bishop higher up the line e.g.to GA level? The GAs should come down like a ton of bricks onto this sort of bad behaviour

Encounter 1.

As the marriage attendees drifted into the lobby from behind the security desk, a diminutive elderly gentleman walked up to me, took my right hand and, with saccharine effusiveness, congratulated me for doing such a fine job raising such a fine son. I held my silent smile through his protracted grip and words and just said, “thank you” when he was through. He turned out to be a former counselor in our hometown stake presidency and now, as a temple worker, had just performed my son’s sealing ordinance.

Encounter 2.

Minutes later, standing near the big gold side door next to my frail 90-year old father, waiting for our turn to pose for cameras, a current counselor in our hometown stake presidency headed our way. But this one’s eyes, and then hands and sweet words, were locked onto my father. There the three of us stood, at least five yards from anyone else, and this stake holder never acknowledged my existence. Again, I held a silent smile until he turned and walked away.

Tom’s suggestion that the church has a negative affect on some of its leaders reminded me of these encounters and the extremes they can encompass. What is it about religion that can as easily turn some people into a blissfully sweet simpletons as obnoxious tribal pricks?

But perhaps the better question is: What is it about some people that they can leverage religion to support such divergent personal dispositions?

I no longer have any excuse for being a prick or simple-minded – which means I either have to look for some or grow out of both. Standing there with a silent smile – even if somewhat forced – seemed the wisest course of action at the time. But such moments also add up – 29 years and running – which, as I said above, carries its own issues.

I did not say that the various versions of the first vision all agree. I said that the various versions report certain aspects of the first vision that other versions do not. If you can’t live with that possibility, then I am also sorry for you for that. To ignore positive possibilities of that type is to check one’s brain at the door. It is because some disciples became offended (e.g. becoming critical and making negative assumptions and interpretations) that caused some of those disciples of Christ to leave his church even while he lived on the earth. If some left his church while he walked and talked with them, we have to expect that some of Christ’s disciples will leave his church today when Christ is not physically present to perform miracles and try to talk the offended dissidents out of their errors (e.g. helping them understand that all prophets are not all perfect but he still expects us to pay positive attention to their teachings, that God might bind in heaven what they have bound on earth and might seal in heaven what they have sealed on earth, etc.) If it is your intention to destroy people’s faith and lead them carefully away from Christ and his chosen apostles and prophets, please consider repenting before you have their “blood on your hands” per the prophet Ezekiel.

@ Issac N.
To say the various versions of the first vision all agree is to resort to the type of Daniel C. Peterson apologetics that no one believes without checking your brain at the door. It’s that type of apologetic response (spin) that has caused allot of people to leave. If that is your intention please keep up the good work.

What a great tool you have here! Thank you!

I’ve since heard about other crazy stories like a bishop who started using lie detectors in temple recommend interviews and was promptly handled by the higher-ups…

I appreciate your willingness to put your story out there, gave me lots of things to think about. Good luck to you as well.

If he had been excommunicated in the 1960′s, as he should have been, this would undoubtedly be a much more Christlike church than it presently is.

In answer to your questions/diatribes, whenever you put man between you and God, it can get very messy. So why not go direct? Where is true Priesthood found? ‘The Kingdom of God is within you.’ You may want to look up what the Fullness of the Priesthood means. What is true Power in the Priesthood? Does it come from man with an ordination, or is the ordination just a mere invitation to go directly to God and get it yourself? What does the endowment point to? Where is Power in the Priesthood mentioned in the endowment? Why is it mentioned there? Maybe it’s best to use some scriptural examples for illustration. To me the scriptures are beneficial when they point to the real thing. Look at these specific examples where there is no intermediary when Power in the Priesthood is conferred. Now, the temptation would be to take all of these scriptures and stories literally, and that is ok. I choose instead to look at what they are pointing to. To not obsess myself with the symbol but what is represented by the symbol.

“The apparent discrepancy between the Franklin D. Richards and Martha Coray reports on this point may be reconciled in light of the Prophet’s distinction between a man’s ordination to the priesthood and his possessing power in the priesthood. Priesthood ordination does not, by itself, assure a man that God will ratify all his acts as a priesthood bearer. Perhaps Abraham received the “anointing and sealing” (the priesthood ordination of king and priest) under the hands of Melchizedek (Genesis 14:17-24 and JST Genesis 14:25-40), but the “election sure”—the absolute assurance of power in the priesthood—came directly from God only after Abraham indicated his willingness to sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22:1-14). (Words of Joseph Smith footnote)”

D&C 76:20- “And we beheld the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father, and received of his fulness.” (Joseph and Sidney- 16 February 1832).

JST Genesis 14:
26 Now Melchizedek was a man of faith, who wrought righteousness; and when a child he feared God, and stopped the mouths of lions, and quenched the violence of fire.
27 And thus, having been approved of God, he was ordained an high priest after the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch,
28 It being after the order of the Son of God; which order came, not by man, nor the will of man; neither by father nor mother; neither by beginning of days nor end of years; but of God;
29 And it was delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice, according to his own will, unto as many as believed on his name.
30 For God having sworn unto Enoch and unto his seed with an oath by himself; that every one being ordained after this order and calling should have power, by faith, to break mountains, to divide the seas, to dry up waters, to turn them out of their course;

**Note the phrasing- “..which order came, not by man, nor the will of man; neither by father nor mother; neither by beginning of days nor end of years; but of God;
And it was delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice”

Helaman 10:
6 Behold, thou art Nephi, and I am God. Behold, I declare it unto thee in the presence of mine angels, that ye shall have power over this people, and shall smite the earth with famine, and with pestilence, and destruction, according to the wickedness of this people.

7 Behold, I give unto you power, that whatsoever ye shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and thus shall ye have power among this people.

**How did this power come? Was there any intermediary there?

D&C 93:16-18
16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father;
17 And he received all bpower, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.
18 And it shall come to pass, that if you are faithful you shall receive the afulness of the record of John.

I am not a huge Denver Snuffer fan but he got it right with these quotes:

“Priesthood power is clearly something different than an ordination. But it is clear the only thing an ordination accomplishes is to invite the one ordained to then connect to heaven. It is from heaven alone that priesthood power is obtained.”

“Power comes from heaven alone. Therefore, no person who has priesthood conferred upon them has any power prior to having it ratified by heaven. The conferral is only an invitation for a man to go obtain power from heaven, not actual power itself. It confers an office within the church, but an office in the church is not synonymous with the power of heaven.”

“Most of the ordinances of the church are not the real thing. They are types, symbols of the real thing. They are official invitations, authorized by Christ… Any person who has priesthood conferred upon him will need to go into God’s presence, and receive it through the veil for power in their priesthood.”

“Gentiles always crave authority to preside over one another. Gentile authority in the church is not equal to power in the priesthood. … The power of heaven cannot be controlled by men. It comes from heaven or it does not come at all. There has never been an institution entrusted with the power of heaven. … The power of the priesthood comes only one way … men do not have any right to either confer it, or prevent it from being conferred.” (also see Pres Packers talk on power vs authority of the Priesthood).

“Joseph Smith taught that all Old Testament prophets who obtained higher priesthood during the dispensation of Moses, did so by receiving it directly from God. In the Book of Mormon we learn there is a ‘holy order’ which is ‘without beginning of days’ which some obtained ‘from the foundation of the world’ and brought here. The higher priesthood does not come from man or men, is without father or mother, and is only given one way: by the voice of God to the individual.”

Just some food for thought FWIW. Just stay open to all possibilities, that would be my advice…

I hope you will include in your little sermon scriptures from the Bible stressing the importance of priesthood authority from God through the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, e.g. “No man taken this honor unto himself except he that is called of God as was Aaron.” Moses laid his hands on Aaron to confer the priesthood upon him. Also people were re baptized according to the Bible when it became obvious they had been baptized by persons who did not have God’s true priesthood authority to baptize. (Those who were re-baptized had not even heard that there was such a thing as the Holy Ghost.)

I also hope you will include in your sermon the fact that there are persuasive counterarguments to all objections, questions, issues, and problems that critics of the Church raise just as there are persuasive counterarguments to all objections, questions, issues, and problems that critics raise about Jesus and the Bible.
Please tell your children that some of the disciples of Jesus who walked and talked with him eventually left him and went their own way, so we have to expect there will be some people today who also will stop following the Church that Jesus established while he lived on earth. Some members of his Church today will eventually stop attending his Church.

Some would eventually stop following Jesus himself today if they walked and talked with him in person every day like some people walked and talked with Jesus before they became offended and left his Church in the days when Jesus lived on the earth. Some will stop following Christ’s living apostles and prophets today like so many stopped following the original apostles whom Jesus called and set apart to lead his Church on earth after he ascended to Heaven. People stop following prophets when they disagree strongly with the words and/or actions of those prophets even though Jesus allowed them to make some mistakes once in a while.

Then how about finishing with: “Choose ye this day whom ye will serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord even if his chosen servants to whom he has given his priesthood authority make mistakes or say or do something we don’t approve of==or if his chosen servants don’t say or don’t do what we think they should say or do as soon as we think they should.”

I’ve been puzzling over your posts for a few days now. I have to admit that you really got under my skin. Not because of what you wrote, but because I thought you might actually hear what I wrote if I said it one more time in a more clear way.

It reminded me of when My daughter was having a serious conflict this last year with a girl in her circle of friends. My daughter was explaining to her why the boys in the group were not inviting the girls to play video games one night. Thinking she was being witty, my daughter simply stated “sometimes it is just ‘bros before hos.’”

She thought that using vulger slang as humor and that it would also explain that sometimes the boys just need to be with the boys. She expected this young girl to get what she was saying. The young girl’s father came to my house to tell me that my daughter had called his daughter a slut. He ws very upset. He wanted to tell me this man-to-man and for me to punish my daughter. It took me quite a while to make sense of what was going on. My daughter was very embarrassed and intimidated by the father who followed up by tracking down my 5 foot 4 daughter at school and yelling at her. He is probably 6 foot 4.

I had to ask him to not talk to my daughter anymore and to just let the girls sort it out themselves.

The whole thing eventually blew over and in time the young girl continued to come to our home when the gang of kids came over.

I learned from talking to her that she doesn’t get jokes. She is a literalist. If I were to say. “I had to eat crow.” She would think I actually ate a bird. When my daughter used the street slang. She really did think my daughter was calling her a whore.

Knowing this. It was easy to forgive her and her dad.

I don’t get what is going on with you on this thread? You really think bad stuff of me. I like to think I’m a fairly decent guy. Not perfect. I am head strong. But I also like to think I’m tolerant and flexible. I fail at this a lot, but I want to believe that people have good intentions, until I know they don’t. At that point, I’m a pit bull (this is a metaphor, I’m not really a dog).

I don’t know what your issue are or why you behave the way you do on this thread or why you can’t hear what I’m putting out there? Why you say you are not an abuser and then in the same breath abuse? But if nobody else is telling you? It is weird behavior you exhibit on these threads. If you can’t understand what I’m expressing, or you are unable to self reflect on this. Maybe you should go someplace else till you can

You should probably not come someplace like this untill you have the skills to view others as flawed people who have good intentions, and that if you don’t understand something, it is probably because you don’t have all the facts. In my case, though ive triied to explain, myself, I’m just not gong to share all the facts of my issue with you, so the simple truth is that anything you continue to say including your last post, will continue to be insulting rather than meaningful. I stopped listening to you and don’t think anything you have to say is thoughtful or of value because you don’t seem to be able to hear what others are saying or understand why your posts are insulting.

Good luck in your journey.

I don’t think everything the church has done is fine, but just because people mess up, doesn’t mean I throw everything out. Joseph’s polygamy is one of the things in church history that I really struggle with, but I know that the great majority of people who were actually there still sustained him. Are there ways to interpret things that make it look horrible? Yes. Are there ways to interpret things that make it something I can stomach and accept? Yes. All history gets interpreted, I guess all of us chose the version we like the best.

In response to your question if I would/could walk away? I would say yes. I really, deeply assessed my faith a few years back and almost lost it. Took a while to restore it, and it has changed from what it was during high school and mission and such, but I think it is more robust and sturdy now. If the church told me to murder, or rejected Christ, or became Muslim, or brought out the first ten drafts of the Book of Mormon written by someone else, yes, those would be things that would likely destroy my faith.

The question I have for people trying to pull me from Mormonism is, what are you offering in its place? I already believe in God, Jesus, the Bible, I try and live a christian life, I give service, donate to charity, try really hard to be a good father and husband, I enjoy the people I worship with, I’ve been blessed with great leaders, and on and on. I know of no church or faith that could add to those things, though I firmly believe that there are lots of other great churches that do good things. The problem I have with other christian faiths are items like the trinity, and their concept of hell, no work for the dead, and doctrine that is too democratic (small “d” democratic). If we can vote on what God is/says, then to me that is just a social club. Theology is important to me, and I like LDS theology for the most part.

Also, your statement that progressives “have control over the vote of 90% blacks” is just plain offensive. You’re implying that black people don’t have control over their own votes (i.e. opinions and ideas).

Also, since when do progressives control public school education? I wish. Then in places like Texas maybe abstinence-only sex ed would be done away with, along with religion being taught as science and the re-writing of textbooks to eliminate mention of the founding fathers owning slaves and to downplay other social ills in our history that don’t fit a sanitized conservative narrative.

I didn’t say that conservatives are less intelligent. What I said, and what Chris Mooney says (and what the science says) is that conservatives are more prone to “motivated reasoning,” or looking for information to confirm their pre-existing beliefs. And if you’re going to just go ahead and dismiss entire domains of scientific inquiry by claiming “it’s not the most rigid science in the world,” well, then I’m not sure what more I can say. You could try to read it, but if you don’t value science as an epistemology, then there this discussion is kind of done. I won’t accept any other epistemology.

And since you keep pushing, I guess I can engage in your taunts about progressives wanting big government and trying to run everyone else’s lives. That’s simply not true. Conservatives are the ones trying to restrict what people can do sexually, who people can marry (progressives didn’t push through all the constitutional amendments at the state level banning same-sex marriage), and whether or not women can control their fertility. Yes, progressives want large corporations to have more regulation to prevent them from polluting, but they generally don’t care if one, two, ten, or 1,000 people get together to have an orgy, so long as they are all consenting adults. Progressives want greater rights for minorities, not fewer. And that doesn’t mean fewer rights for whites or heterosexuals or men, just equal rights for everyone else. So, please stop with the ridiculous comments about how I want to run your life. I’m not interested in running your life. Just stay out of mine.

A person could ask you if you know anyone who won’t let their family members have a private conversation with a counselor because they’re afraid of what might be divulged, but I have no reason to think or believe that is your case. I just think you’re an highly paranoid individual.

I glanced at the studies you linked, and while interesting, I don’t think it’s as big an issue in the LDS church, where leaders are chosen based essentially on past, faithful performance, not self selected. I think the Catholics had such bad luck, because men who were abusers could self select a career that put them in proximity with potential victims. Also, in most other faiths the leaders will be there for decades, able to cover their tracks, so to speak. In the LDS church the system is much more difficult to perpetuate crimes like that.

Also, Pacumeni, as Ryan pointed out non-religious people do have children, just at lower rates than religious people. It only takes 2 children per woman to keep a population at replacement levels. The birthrate of a number of western European countries (France, for example), has in fact increased over the last couple of decades and is now at or close to replacement rate. So I would agree that all the doom and gloom prognosticating is a bit premature.

http://www.baylor.edu/clergysexualmisconduct/

And

http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/96036.pdf

One in 33 women in America who attend church have had sexual advances by their clergy. You say Mormon bishops are the least likely place to find a preditor. That would seem to defy the statistics. I will grant you that out of the 150 women in our ward. That statistically, we could be among the five who were abused is really bad luck.

Can i ask you a personal question? The study did talk about the abusors blaiming the victims. Any chance you know someone who does that?

The entire Libertarian attitude is wrong. “Unless government is perfect, it should not exist”. Generally this comes from people who are ‘would-be’ exploiters themselves, who are just bummed that the system tanked before they could make a killing off the market.

Call me unrealistic, but nobody has a right to make a KILLING until everyone can make a LIVING who wants one.

Libertarianism would put everyone at the mercy of ‘Caveat Emptor’. It is impossible to be an real Christian when you are constantly having to fight to survive.

“We stand for a living wage… enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living – a standard high enough to make morality possible”
- Theodore Roosevelt

I’m gospel doctrine teacher in my ward, and used to teach young men, and I try hard to touch on those subjects to the extent they can be appropriately addressed. The information is out there, but people are generally too lazy to take the time to research, then get mad when someone shows it to them.

My guess is if we knew the history of the founders of most faiths, few of us would be willing to attend church. Aaron very publicly built a false idol, Moses killed a man, Abraham was a polygamist, Lot got his daughters pregnant while he was drunk, Jacob ripped off Esau, yet not one throws out the bible after the book of Genesis or gives up on God. The standard the LDS church is held to is not one most churches would survive.

My initial comment was to the statement that the LDS church demands perfection like satan did. I think most reasonable people would find that statement to be offensive and without merit. As to depression and suicide, that happens in all churches and all cultures. Whenever an ideal or standard is identified, there is the risk people will become frustrated when they fail to achieve it, but I think it is better to have a standard for people to strive for than to not have one.

As far as Bishop’s tendencies (I assume you meant to type predator), I think Bishoprics is one of the least likely places a person would find a predator. Imperfection, plenty, abusive predator, low odds. I don’t know I’ll have the intuition to know, but I don’t want to live my life suspecting everyone.

If that has been your experience I’m very sorry for that. Hopefully you can avoid those situations in the future, though I don’t think Mormon Bishops are going to be the only place you find those threats.

My younger kids still don’t know, so like you Paul, I am navigating this one step at a time. My 18 year old who is preparing for a mission knows I have some general issues but not too much detail. I think he would have a hard time if he knew I didn’t believe the BOM/JS stories are literal. But he is old enough that he can ask me those questions when he is ready. He has asked me some questions but not that one. When I sat down with him (my wife was present also), I asked him “Did you have any doubts before you found out I had some?” He said no, so then I told him “Don’t worry what I believe or don’t believe, if you feel in your heart that a mission is right for you, then do it. I had a great experience on my mission and I don’t regret it for a minute. But if you don’t think you can teach what they want to teach then don’t go.” From that point on, it has been more of a status quo thing. We just don’t talk about it much. It may be different in the future with my other three younger kids but I will just take it a day at a time. I know it sounds a bit “New agey” but I am trying to just live in the moment and not worry too much about what has happened or will happen. It can eat me alive to do so.

For instance,there are future milestones/events that are coming my way that used to eat at me if I thought about them too much. Will they let me ordain my son a Priest this fall? Will they let me ordain my other son a Deacon in the Spring of next year? What will others think when I am not allowed to ordain my sons or be in the circle? Will I be allowed to stand in when my next missionary gets set apart? If my kids get married in the temple, will they be ok with Dad sitting outside in the waiting room?

I don’t know what will happen. But I just know it will be ok. There is a little bit of that leader roulette talked about in the podcast. But I can guarantee you, if I’m not allowed in these circles, I will have a little sermon prepared for those who are there and will hopefully I will present it in a loving, and respectful manner And it may go something like this “Do you know why I am not allowed in this circle today Son? It is not because I personally am not worthy, it is because others have deemed it so. True Priesthood power and authority comes not from Father, Mother, Bishop, or any other ecclesiastical leader, it comes from God himself, within each and every one of us. We are all born with it. Male, female, black, white, bond, free. It is our birthright, and sometimes we sell it for a mess of pottage. What you have been given today is the authority to participate in and carry out certain ordinances in the church, nothing else. No one outside of you can give or take away what is not theirs to give or take away. They may not allow me to be in the circle today but that in no way diminishes the power and authority I have within myself. Please remember this if you ever face a similar situation in your life. No one stands in the way of your direct access to God. Do not rejoice or be boastful in something you are given by men. Never fear or feel sad for something taken away from you by men either. And regardless of what other men do or don’t do, regardless of what they deem you are worthy to have or not have, love them as I have loved you. If I had one message I could give to you today as your Father, it would be the same message God has given to me directly. ‘You cannot fail me.’”

Coming from someone who grew up in an evangelical Christian church I can say any pastor that would tell you that does not know much about early church history. The hypostatic union was not something that was emphasised (or understood) at all in the early years of Christianity, and it is certainly not something that was a litmus test for being a disciple of Christ. The church I attened would have taught something similar (dogmatic Southern Baptist church), but I have gained quite a bit of insight through podcast like Dan’s, John’s, Mormon Expression, Mormon Expositor etc. and through a great deal of research on my own. I don’t believe much of the fundamentalism that I use to believe, but still find a peace that comes from the life of Christ. If we all try to walk (and treat others) as he did, our theological knowledge of the nature of God is (I think) unimportant.

I admire you both for taking a stand for what you believe in and not just being dishonest with yourselves and others to get inside the temple. Not an easy road you are traveling…

Isn’t AF is a terrific place to raise kids? We love the people, the schools, and who doesn’t love the sticky shoe cinemas!

You are very lucky not to ever had a predictor for a bishop. God help your family when you do. Do you think you will have the intuition to know? Or the courage to say “no?” Thoughts? What will you say to your daughters when thay express as adults that you were absent when they were being abused?

There may well be differences in the way we think, but I maintain the conservatives are no more or less likely to be idiots and fools than progressives. Conservatives may be prone to resisting change, but progressives are prone to wanting to run everyone else’s lives.

Seriously, read that book. Or, at least read some research on this topic:
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/jost/Jost-Amodio-2012.pdf
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/jost/Political%20Ideology__Its%20structure,%20functions,%20and%20elective%20a.pdf
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n10/pdf/nn1979.pdf

Do they bloviate at times? Yes, as do all radio hosts. But I think if you listened to their shows (for more than a day or two) and thought about what they said, you wouldn’t find them as offensive as you expect. And unlike Obama, they don’t use the IRS to illegally harangue people they disagree with.

Maybe the DesNews is just reporting an inspiring story, without any “subtle PR to make the church look good.” It’s possible.

Sorry for your bad luck with church leaders. I think maybe sometimes we expect too much from them. I don’t know that I’ve ever gone to them for “life counsel,” that’s something I’ve tried to work out myself. Bishops aren’t counselors or psychiatrists or social workers, though I’m sure some try because they so much want to help.

As far as bad advice being free, sometimes yes, sometimes no.

While there are definitely some church leaders who aren’t ideal, I think, for the vast majority of cases, church leadership is tremendous. If we judge any organization or group by the bottom ten or twenty percent, we’ll never find anything worthy of our time and resources, including our own families.

As far as being intolerant, I think all of us should be to a certain extent. Part of life is gaining the wisdom to know what things we should accept, and what things we should discriminate against. Can’t blanket statement say we should accept and tolerate everything, though we should be free and open with forgiveness.

Just my thoughts. Thanks for your reply, and good luck finding continued happiness in the future.

In the past hundred years progressives have praised communists and Nazi’s, honored fools like Paul Ehrlich, Rachel Carson, Margaret Sanger, and Al Gore, feared global cooling and heterosexual aids, predicted catastrophic depopulation, banned DDT, blamed global warming on human CO2 emissions (yet not a single climate model has accurately predicted temperature increases or lack thereof for the past dozen years), and many other things. The common thread to all these crises and movements is the need and drive for more powerful governments, something progressives seem hellbent on achieving.

Are liberals correct sometimes? Yes. Are conservatives? Yes, but each side cherry puts blinders on and refuses to see what the other side is saying. I may have blinders on, but at least I admit it, something I rarely hear from the other side.

I wanted to make one other comment about when I was preached against in Stake Conference. I was angered initially and I could see my wife looking at me out of the corner of her eye as I was shaking my head. The amazing thing is the anger dissipated quicker than normal and a great peace settled over me. It was almost a “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do” type moment. It was a sign to me that I could bear this trial, and any future trials, and be there to support my wife. She didn’t ask for this. I “changed the game” on her so to speak. The least I can do for her is to give a little on my end.

I mean I get it. The leaders are trying to protect the flock. However, if they could only see that I have been where they are at, but they have not been where I am at.

I can just imagine now, my son will return home from a mission and report to the High Council, all of whom know about me, and my son has no clue. What will be going through their heads? How will my son react when I tell him?

One thing that pained me was sitting down with my second son, who is preparing for a mission, and feeling the sense of loss that he had. I was his spiritual rock, someone he could rely on, and he no longer feels that. That was a tough one for me. Maybe someday he will feel differently when he knows all the details. Maybe he will find the truth out for himself. I’m in no hurry to pull the rug out from under him. Maybe one day he will say “Thank you Dad for standing by your convictions,it must have been a lonely road.” But maybe that will never happen. It will still be ok.

Anyways, there is a LOT more to the story but I just appreciated the contrasting views expressed in this podcast because I could identify with them both.

Second, are you sure you want to defend Rodney Stark on this? If so, go ahead and explain away these papers that find the US has higher crime rates:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=110776
https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=139741
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935107000503

And, interestingly, this book (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DsN5glgW0v4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=international+crime+rates&ots=VnxM9JrABg&sig=er_Yr-Cp4iUjm3TIgRlp9oApidw#v=onepage&q=international%20crime%20rates&f=false), which specifically focuses on crime, indicates the percentage of young males is a weaker predictor of crime rates than all of the following:
-educational attainment
-individual past experience in criminal activities
-past incidence of crime in society
-level and growth of economic activity
-income inequality
-existence of profitable criminal activities
-strength of the police and the judicial system

So, if Stark is claiming the US should have much higher crime rates because there are more young men, and the US does have higher crime rates (though Stark claims it does not), just not higher than every country in Europe in every year, what exactly have you shown?

I can’t remember the exact wording you used, Ryan, but when you mentioned that non-religious people are accepting of everyone but fundamentalists (in general), I was really able relate. It’s something I constantly struggle with. I want to be accepting of everyone! But, for example, when I speak with my gay uncle and hear of the things he went through when he left the church nearly 15 years ago, I feel so enraged that I can’t help but blurt out how much I hate Mormons. But of course that’s not true! Some of my best friends are true and literally believing Mormons. It’s a difficult balance.

Anyway–really enjoyed this! Thanks to John and Ryan for putting it together.

And I agree that your last point is an ad hominem argument: He can’t be objective because he doesn’t agree with me. By that logic, why should we trust anything a believer says about religion?

“If there’s a road I should walk
Help me find it
If I need to be still
Give me peace for the moment
Whatever Your will
Whatever Your will
Can you help me find it
Can you help me find it.”

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CsjZ94K7UQs

I appreciate the thoughts and experiences shared by both Dan and Tom. I find it very helpful to learn more as I’ve spent the last few years navigating through uncertainty. My husband and I are most definitely the only square pegs in round holes in our local area. It is tough.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if LDS members could attend any ward they wanted to–like other denominations?

Thanks John, for the valuable work you do.

I mentioned this elsewhere, but the head of one of the college Mormon Studies programs wrote letters to my stake president and bishop. I felt that they were really sticking their neck out on behalf of my family.

It was shortly after this (not saying my experience was the catalyst) that the Church did away with the big mission farewells. Good choice.

My parents divorced in my mid teens and my father and mother lived in different states. I submitted papers for the mission through my mother’s ward when I turned 19 after living with my father during my late teens.

A counselor in the bishopric sat down with my mother and me to “plan the farewell.” He said casually during this meeting that “of course your father won’t be allowed to speak.” I asked “why is that?” He didn’t elaborate but said that is what he was told. I told him that if my father was not allowed to speak, I would be more comfortable if I spoke alone with no family members on the stand or speaking. I suggested to have high councilor give a talk after me.

My father I knew had struggled in the past to pay child support but as of that time he was up to date. To my knowledge (and we have a very open family) there was no other infractions that my have triggered the gospel police to exclude him.

I worked nights as a janitor. I received a phone call one night at about 10:30 pm. It was the stk president. He said he heard that I didn’t want to have a farewell if my father was excluded. He was livid and started yelling at me. When I, as I recall, calmly but firmly stood my ground he said “don’t you raise your voice with me!” He said he wanted to talk with me that night. I told him I was at work. “what time do you get off?” I told him “1:30 am.” He invited me either to his home or his stk office….my choice. “I’ll meet you at your office.” I told him.

I met with him that night…which it hindsight is totally outrageous.

I sat down with him and asked the stk pres if he spoke with my father or my father’s stake president within the last year. He didn’t. He told me “as long as I am stake president, your father will never speak in this stake.” Awesome stuff. I stood my ground. I told him that I accepted his viewpoint but that I would then just rather not have a “farewell” (like they used to be decades ago) because of the emotional pain of having my family on the stand with the exclusion of my father in the audience. The stk president told me he didn’t think I was ready to go on a mission because of my insubordination. I asked “why because I don’t want to go through an emotionally traumatic event surrounding a mission farewell?” I respectfully didn’t budge.

I ended up speaking with a high councilman and went on the mission. They local leaders were jerks (actually abusive and I think/hope they realize it) and I haven’t completely let that all go but I have had times when I felt I did.

I think it meant a lot to my dad that I stood up for him. I am very glad I did and don’t regret it one bit. I hope your son has an epiphany and extends himself to you.

BTW, my father is now deceased and the stk president is a general authority. Best wishes to him.

And best wishes to you and your family Tom.

On temple, I’m a freak in that I LOVE ritual and really value its ways of helping us get out of our own way and enter into liminal space (threshold, outside normal space and time) where we can be taught in ways that bypass all the normal mental filters (monkey mind stuff) that are going so strong in our day-to-day lives. So temple was quite wonderful for me as ritual space–roominess for play with archetypal wisdom and situations that might inform my daily walk. I know others don’t experience it this way, at least not as easily as I did. I do think preparation is a big key, including understanding theories about ritual. In them, we can see the sense they make (method to their madness).

As far as “true origins of the temple” goes, I imagine you’ve heard enough from me to know that human processes and their involvement in stuff doesn’t throw me any more. It certainly did at one time, so know that I empathize. My hope is that you’ll just keep open to the possibilities that things will look differently to you down the road.

I don’t want to say more, but if you want a chance to better get what I mean when I talk about ritual structures and what it’s designed to do, I hope you’ll listen to this podcast we did at Mormon Matters. Rich with theory as well as personal experience.

http://mormonmatters.org/2011/07/05/40%E2%80%9341-ritual-within-mormonism/

Talk again, maybe privately.

“To take differences with a Bishop who is concerned with an atheist, who prays to heavenly mother, and who is only using the church to be a positive influence on his kids, seems a little immature.”

In context, the bishop didn’t take difference with me over my doubts my religious practices, my Elder’s Quorum lessons, my scouting, or my 20 inch ponytail. When my spouse decided that she wanted to speak with him about a concern, he took difference with me for not allowing him to have lone access to my wife. Up until that moment, I had full permission to act as any worthy member, as my spouse and I had been interviewed by him some months earlier to get permission to ordain my youngest son. The bishop asked me, with what I felt at the time was sincerity, to meet with my spouse alone. I responded with similar sincerity that my instincts suggested otherwise and as the father of my family that he respect my decision that he no meet with my family members without my presence. It seemed that it was after this decision that things became punitive directed at me.

Yes, this is my version of the story. I’m very sure he would have his own. I’m sure he would tell a tale about counseling a troubled family and how he just wanted to advise the wife without the negative influences of her bright but angry husband. The problem with that is this didn’t happen in a vacuum. It happened in front of several people. My spouse, the bishop’s councilors who I knew as close friends, and who mad the initial recommendation to visit the bishop. There were ward clerks, councilors, a Stake President, and so forth. I remember my spouse and I proposing a compromise with the bishop that the Relief Society President sit in rather than myself. This was refused. I honestly felt like we were bending over backwards to find a creative resolution without compromising my concern. I also expressed my concerns in real time with friends like Dan. My guts told me he was up to no good. I’m convinced this was true, and after watching a neighbor’s divorce which was directly related to the bishop’s private counseling sessions with the wife. Not that my spouse is week minded or anything, I’m just convinced that my gut feelings about the man were right, verified later by my own observation, and I am confident that I made the correct decision.

The trouble continues in the neighborhood four years later. I continue to receive ongoing reports from broad sources about ongoing behavior problems and member’s exiting or refraining from activity. I’ve visited with a handful of members of my former Elder’s quorum over the past few months, oddly in the Fresh Market produce department or along the street in my neighborhood. Some of whom include a few men who were fairly close what was happening to me and others at the time. Thinking about it, I don’t believe any of them allow the bishop to meet individually with their family members. But since he doesn’t have leverage on them (they are not doubters) he doesn’t seem to have abused all of them the way he could me.

I hope that clarifies things somewhat.

To me this is an institutional problem rather than a lone wolf. Reports were sent up the line about behavior problems. He remains the bishop, so I’m assuming they were never addressed in any meaningful way. I know my situation wasn’t.

As to having to deal with me. No, I don’t suppose I would be the easiest guy to negotiate with. Ask Dan.

Also, how did you get to the point where you wanted to go to the temple again? I just don’t see how I will ever get there. While I wanted the temple to be something amazing and special, outside the day I married my wife, it just never was. It wasn’t until I had my faith crisis, learned about the true origins of the temple, that it all made sense and I understood why I didn’t like going…

I reticent to mention this, but there is some evidence that conservatives and fundamentalists actually don’t think the same way as other people and are more likely to believe things that are not true. The evidence on this is growing and is quite fascinating. Here’s a good book summarizing the literature that is very accessible: http://www.amazon.com/Republican-Brain-Science-Science-Reality/dp/1118094514

I don’t mention this to be demeaning or belittling at all. Honestly, I’m surprised that this is true as I long thought that progressives and conservatives just interpreted things differently and it was my own bias that was on display. But the science really does suggest that conservatives and fundamentalists literally think differently, and how they think results in them holding more erroneous beliefs. Pretty fascinating, actually!

I hear you, but it doesn’t make much sense. You say you want diversity and yet you seem to honor those who don’t. I find liberals to be more open to diverse viewpoints. My bishop was rigid and inflexible and ultraconservative. We even had anti-Obama leaflets on our door addressed from the bishops family.

You want to come here and talk about Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Fox News and O’Reiley, and in the same breath say you want an excepting, tolerant, open, divers, and honest church?

I don’t believe I called my bishop a jerk. He may well be a jerk, I think he is dangerous. You said I love diversity, in fact, I honor diversity, I don’t honor hate, prejudice, exclusion, human torture, or discrimination. All of which I associate with those you seem to honor.

I have no idea what to say to you. I hope our struggles were at least entertaining.

Anyway I don’t want to make a big deal of it but after hearing conservatives and their organizations being slighted time after time on many Mormon themed podcast I figured I would pipe up. I’m a small govt fiscal conservative, Limbaugh listener, rarely miss Bill O’Reiley,love pocasts like Mormon stories, Mormon matters, think church leadership has much to repent of and have nothing against LGBT. Tom said he loves diversity, so do I. Tom wants the church to be more accepting, tolerant, open, diverse, honest, so do I. I have many of the same hopes for the Church as my liberal friends so lets knock off blaming and stereotyping conservatives for the problems in the church. Liberals need us open minded conservatives if you really want to see change in the church.

Maybe I’ll have to listen again, but my frustration was not the nuance, but the bias. After classifying mormonism of being fundamentalist, you are very critical of that position, while being quite generous and forgiving to the liberal religious and non-relligious.

I would describe myself as fundamentalist, but I don’t think I take everything as black and white, though I guess that is open to interpretation by those debating the point. I think many times liberals feel conservatives are only being open minded or flexible when we accept liberal arguments and opinions as our own. Conservatives can still be open minded while disagreeing.

I agree that good and bad is not dependent on religiosity or lack thereof, though in the discussion with John the tone seemed to be that only liberal believers and atheists actually used their ability to think in any significant way.

David
May 29, 2013 at 9:38 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I think you are expecting too much from religion. For more absolute truth check out a science museum. Churches are for people looking for an extended family that believe in higher morals than what the world teaches. I share Einstein’s view of God. The view that there is something bigger at work (Einstein’s view)represents the Father and His Son gives us a divine model to follow in a more human way.

“and all those churches are founded on the mirage of biblical inerrancy.”

“All those churches”…? a little extreme. SOME churches are founded on the mirage of biblical inerancy.

Again I think you are expecting too much from a religion. Your looking for truth and reason in the wrong places.

I am a progressive Christian and I have dozens of progressive Christian friends who think like me. Go easy on the fundamental Christian they are clinging to a hope that has carried them through lifes trials.

Good luck in your search I hope you find what your looking for whether its LDS or something else. May the peace of Christ Jesus be in your heart always!

“and all those churches are founded on the mirage of biblical inerrancy.”

“All those churches”…? a little extreme. SOME churches are founded on the mirage of biblical inerancy.

Again I think you are expecting too much from a religion. Your looking for truth and reason in the wrong places.

I am a progressive Christian and I have dozens of progressive Christian friends who think like me. Go easy on the fundamental Christian they are clinging to a hope that has carried them through lifes trials.

Good luck in your search I hope you find what your looking for whether its LDS or something else. May the peace of Christ Jesus be in your heart always!