LDS Freedom Forum

paper face wrote:Again, the blogger never recommended baptism. How many times does it have to be stated? Your entire stance on this point is irrelevant because she never advised or even suggested that the investigator to go ahead with baptism.

Going back to the source:

...Should all those powerful reasons for affiliating as a Mormon be set aside because one has reservations about the historical truthfulness of the Book of Mormon? ...
...every day I find more and more hopeful signs that Mormons with unorthodox approaches to belief are creating a more solid and supported place in the community for themselves...
...In Mosiah 18: 8 – 10, Alma describes baptism not as an expression of absolute certainty but simply as a willingness and desire to join a community of believers...(why would she bring this up if she wasn't saying that baptism was appropriate?)
...So, as you consider whether the next step in your spiritual journey will lead you (and your child) to Mormonism...
...Are you willing to serve (callings anyone?) and be served by people who take a more literal approach to the Book of Mormon?

I contend that all of the sections in Red imply baptism.

clearly you are correct Brain.

Looks like we have at least a couple more clear subversives here.

Mahonri wrote:Looks like we have at least a couple more clear subversives here.

All the religious world is boasting of righteousness; it is the doctrine of the devil to retard the human mind, and hinder our progress, by filling us with self-righteousness. The nearer we get to our heavenly Father, the more we are disposed to look with compassion on perishing souls; we feel that we want to take them upon our shoulders, and cast their sins behind our backs. My talk is intended for all this society; if you would have God have mercy on you, have mercy on one another. ~ Joseph Smith Jr.

The words of the prophet just don't jive with your constant efforts to label those who disagree with you as "subversives" and "enemies of Christ".

Maybe you should practice your calls to repentance in front of the mirror, Mahonri.

paper face wrote:
Yeah. First it's false doctrine, and now it's an attitude. F-minus.

The blogger implied that there's no definite answer as to the historical accuracy of the BOM or that it doesn't matter in the church. That is false doctrine and I've already provided a quote from Elder Holland where he affirms the literal history of the BOM.

I'll repeat the false doctrine that was implied by the blogger here in the hope you can actually grasp it this time around.

It’s also true that Mormonism has a large proportion of members who profess a literal belief in the totality of Mormon doctrine, including the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon...But quiet in the pews around you there are also plenty of good Mormons who have adopted a less conclusive, more open-ended form of faith

This response to my mind displays an attitude that is not conducive to our having the condemnation removed from us with regard to the BOM. It is an attitude of watering down doctrine of the restoration and telling people what they want to hear.

There. Now I've tied the doctrine that was implied and the attitude displayed together for you, since you were unable to do that on your own.

As far as the question of baptism is concerned. Braingrunt already took care of that.

MercynGrace wrote:

All the religious world is boasting of righteousness; it is the doctrine of the devil to retard the human mind, and hinder our progress, by filling us with self-righteousness. The nearer we get to our heavenly Father, the more we are disposed to look with compassion on perishing souls; we feel that we want to take them upon our shoulders, and cast their sins behind our backs. My talk is intended for all this society; if you would have God have mercy on you, have mercy on one another. ~ Joseph Smith Jr.

The words of the prophet just don't jive with your constant efforts to label those who disagree with you as "subversives" and "enemies of Christ".

Maybe you should practice your calls to repentance in front of the mirror, Mahonri.[/quote]

I love how people cherry pick quotes to attempt to link their point of view with someone that did not have their view.

The Prophet had no problem calling people out when they needed to be

“silence ye fiends of the infernal pit. In the name of Jesus Christ I rebuke you, and command you to be still; I will not live another minute and bear such language. Cease such talk, or you or I die this instant!”

Saying that the historicity of the Book of Mormon doesn't matter is disgusting. A perishing soul is far different than one who is working (knowingly or not) for the evil one.

MercynGrace wrote:“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it."

I think it's important to remember that the BOM, like the Bible, is a vehicle to bring men to CHRIST. Ultimately, He alone offers salvation. No book. No prophet. No artifact.

Of course Christ is the only means of salvation. That is why he is the foundation of our faith. The BOM is the keystone though, and we all know that without the keystone or the foundation, the structure will tumble.

There is a reason the BOM is referred to as the KEYSTONE.

braingrunt wrote:I contend that all of the sections in Red imply baptism.

Fail. All of the items you point out (except the last one) are hypothetical for an already baptized member. I.e., a lifer. She simply uses them to prove a point, not to encourage a testimony-absent baptism for the investigator. The last one is simply recognition that any investigator who begins coming to church will likely participate in service. That it would have to be on the level of a calling is your assumption.

Looks like we have at least a couple more clear subversives here.

Mahonri- Disagreement with your opinion does not equal subversion. In the next world, you and I are going to meet. I promise you. This discussion, and your accusation, will be in our memory. And when we do, you will see what is in my heart.

The blogger implied

Patriotsaint- She either utilized false doctrine or she didn't (she didn't). Your interpretation of what she implied proves nothing. It's simply your projection. She was describing our culture for what it is, and she was right. The truth about a religious group is not a "false doctrine". The section you quoted contains zero doctrines, much less false ones, nor does it "water down" any doctrine in existence. It is a paragraph that describes a culture. Just because it mentions the BOM does not mean it contains a doctrine.

As for Holland's testimony, it is just that. It's not proof of historical accuracy, nor is it intended as such. It is spiritual evidence, and intended to evoke faith unto prayer and revelation. If you take it as proof by itself, then you place your faith in the person bearing it instead of the Messiah.

paper face wrote:

braingrunt wrote:I contend that all of the sections in Red imply baptism.

Fail. All of the items you point out (except the last one) are hypothetical for an already baptized member. I.e., a lifer. She simply uses them to prove a point, not to encourage a testimony-absent baptism for the investigator. The last one is simply recognition that any investigator who begins coming to church will likely participate in service. That it would have to be on the level of a calling is your assumption.

Looks like we have at least a couple more clear subversives here.

Mahonri- Disagreement with your opinion does not equal subversion. In the next world, you and I are going to meet. I promise you. This discussion, and your accusation, will be in our memory. And when we do, you will see what is in my heart.

The blogger implied

Patriotsaint- She either utilized false doctrine or she didn't (she didn't). Your interpretation of what she implied proves nothing. It's simply your projection. She was describing our culture for what it is, and she was right. The truth about a religious group is not a "false doctrine". The section you quoted contains zero doctrines, much less false ones, nor does it "water down" any doctrine in existence. It is a paragraph that describes a culture. Just because it mentions the BOM does not mean it contains a doctrine.

As for Holland's testimony, it is just that. It's not proof of historical accuracy, nor is it intended as such. It is spiritual evidence, and intended to evoke faith unto prayer and revelation. If you take it as proof by itself, then you place your faith in the person bearing it instead of the Messiah.

) ) ) ) ) )

paper face wrote:

braingrunt wrote:I contend that all of the sections in Red imply baptism.

Fail. All of the items you point out (except the last one) are hypothetical for an already baptized member. I.e., a lifer. She simply uses them to prove a point, not to encourage a testimony-absent baptism for the investigator. The last one is simply recognition that any investigator who begins coming to church will likely participate in service. That it would have to be on the level of a calling is your assumption.

If indeed the writer was not suggesting baptism, but instead recommending that the person continue as an investigator--then I agree with them on that point and have no further argument.

I would perhaps take issue with their clarity in expressing themselves but perhaps the failing is mine? I still think I'm right about their intentions but am not really interested in a syntactic argument about the piece. I will have to satisfy myself with an if-then answer to this thread. If they didn't mean baptism then I agree with them. If they did then I disagree and think it's quite "subversive" indeed.

One point where I would take exception, unless you propose a different intention, is this:

But every day I find more and more hopeful signs that Mormons with unorthodox approaches to belief are creating a more solid and supported place in the community for themselves. Given that you’ll rarely hear non-literal approaches on Sunday, blogs like FMH and podcast-communities like Mormon Stories will help you feel less alone and give you the support you’ll need in trying to negotiate Mormonism as a non-literal believer. I’d especially urge you to check out this podcast with Book of Mormon scholar Grant Hardy and his wife Heather Hardy. It’s one of the most encouraging approaches to the Book of Mormon I’ve encountered in a very long time.

It seems the writer is expressing hope that unorthodoxy gets stronger. I freely express my utter ignorance of Grant & Heather Hardy and their approaches to the Book of Mormon; but if you tell me they are actually shining examples of orthodoxy then I'm perfectly ready to give you the conditional: if the writer was suggesting that the investigator check out a podcast which will help build her testimony of historicity etal then once again I'm in agreement with the writer. If on the other hand my gut reaction is correct then the writer finds an unorthodox approach encouraging; I read that as the writer finds it a "hopeful" sign that mormons are getting more saavy.

If I'm not also grossly misinterpreting the writer then I think there is an example of an attitude which is not conducive to the removing of "condemnation", if it spreads amongst us.

braingrunt wrote:

paper face wrote:

braingrunt wrote:I contend that all of the sections in Red imply baptism.

Fail. All of the items you point out (except the last one) are hypothetical for an already baptized member. I.e., a lifer. She simply uses them to prove a point, not to encourage a testimony-absent baptism for the investigator. The last one is simply recognition that any investigator who begins coming to church will likely participate in service. That it would have to be on the level of a calling is your assumption.

If indeed the writer was not suggesting baptism, but instead recommending that the person continue as an investigator--then I agree with them on that point and have no further argument.

I would perhaps take issue with their clarity in expressing themselves but perhaps the failing is mine? I still think I'm right about their intentions but am not really interested in a syntactic argument about the piece. I will have to satisfy myself with an if-then answer to this thread. If they didn't mean baptism then I agree with them. If they did then I disagree and think it's quite "subversive" indeed.

One point where I would take exception, unless you propose a different intention, is this:

But every day I find more and more hopeful signs that Mormons with unorthodox approaches to belief are creating a more solid and supported place in the community for themselves. Given that you’ll rarely hear non-literal approaches on Sunday, blogs like FMH and podcast-communities like Mormon Stories will help you feel less alone and give you the support you’ll need in trying to negotiate Mormonism as a non-literal believer. I’d especially urge you to check out this podcast with Book of Mormon scholar Grant Hardy and his wife Heather Hardy. It’s one of the most encouraging approaches to the Book of Mormon I’ve encountered in a very long time.

It seems the writer is expressing hope that unorthodoxy gets stronger. I freely express my utter ignorance of Grant & Heather Hardy and their approaches to the Book of Mormon; but if you tell me they are actually shining examples of orthodoxy then I'm perfectly ready to give you the conditional: if the writer was suggesting that the investigator check out a podcast which will help build her testimony of historicity etal then once again I'm in agreement with the writer. If on the other hand my gut reaction is correct then the writer finds an unorthodox approach encouraging; I read that as the writer finds it a "hopeful" sign that mormons are getting more saavy.

If I'm not also grossly misinterpreting the writer then I think there is an example of an attitude which is not conducive to the removing of "condemnation", if it spreads amongst us.

well said :ymapplause:

braingrunt wrote:If I'm not also grossly misinterpreting the writer then I think there is an example of an attitude which is not conducive to the removing of "condemnation", if it spreads amongst us.

Braingrunt, I appreciate your examination and fair response. I'll go back to the blog and listen to the podcast when I get time, and comment.

But until I do that, I have a question or two pertaining to the OP:

How exactly do varying approaches to the Book of Mormon contribute to our "condemnation" if, even in their unorthodox approach, they still lead people engage the sacred text in question?

I mean, didn't ETBenson remind us of Section 84 in 1986 because the church had let the Book of Mormon fall too far away from the fore of our public face? Terryl Givens, in his book By the Hand of Mormon (pg. 241) points out one study that shows Church authorities citing the BOM a paltry 12 percent when using scripture to support their General Conference addresses between 1830 and 1986. Church wide study of the BOM didn't become a part of our Sunday School curriculum until 1972. BYU students weren't required to study it until 1961. Even in our hymnals the BOM is referenced in six songs out of 400.

The warning of condemnation came in 1832. Benson reminded us that it was still in effect in 1986, and ordered us to flood the world with the book in 1988. And now in 2011, Mahonri & Patriotsaint are quibbling about attitudes held by a few Mormons who are taking a different intellectual approach to the book than they would. Isn't a blogpost like this really just beside the point when it comes to the condemnation to which Section 84 actually refers? Our culture, in its initial insular orthodoxy, essentially treated the book like an embarrassment for over 150 years! Isn't that, in fact, what the condemnation actually predicts and refers to?

paper face wrote:
The warning of condemnation came in 1832. Benson reminded us that it was still in effect in 1986, and ordered us to flood the world with the book in 1988. And now in 2011, Mahonri & Patriotsaint are quibbling about attitudes held by a few Mormons who are taking a different intellectual approach to the book than they would. Isn't a blogpost like this really just beside the point when it comes to the condemnation to which Section 84 actually refers? Our culture, in its initial insular orthodoxy, essentially treated the book like an embarrassment for over 150 years! Isn't that, in fact, what the condemnation actually predicts and refers to?

all of the above