Reader comments
MormonTimes.com: Joseph Smith Papers more than scholarly project
52 comments | Read story
Darrel | 6:20 a.m. Oct. 28, 2008
It never was a scholarly project.
Sireofmany | 7:17 a.m. Oct. 28, 2008
to Darrel:
From the tone of your response, it is clear you have a bone to pick or at least want to start up some controversy, but I will bite anyway. Why exactly do you think this is not a scholarly project?
From the tone of your response, it is clear you have a bone to pick or at least want to start up some controversy, but I will bite anyway. Why exactly do you think this is not a scholarly project?
To Darrel | 7:25 a.m. Oct. 28, 2008
Apparently you aren't aware that the Joseph Smith papers project scholars
include not only church historians but other well respected historians not of
the LDS faith.
You are mistaken. This IS a scholarly project. Could you assume that historians associated with the LDS church will use some preconceived view to override what they discover through their investigation? That is simply not true.
I have association with the church historians and can tell you they are well educated individuals who take care to authenticate findings with research and carefully documented provenance of their findings. While church historians obviously are interested in the history of the LDS faith, they go to great lengths to be truthful in their findings, debunking what I'll call LDS myths about the history of the Church and artifacts from early members.
I've seen presentations of papers LDS scholars have prepared on other projects and they always present information from all sources--LDS and non-LDS, even the anti-Mormon sources. These things are meticulously researched. An example of this is the book about the Mountain Meadows Massacre that is currently out, researched by both LDS and non-LDS people. The Mormon involvement is not sugar-coated.
You are mistaken. This IS a scholarly project. Could you assume that historians associated with the LDS church will use some preconceived view to override what they discover through their investigation? That is simply not true.
I have association with the church historians and can tell you they are well educated individuals who take care to authenticate findings with research and carefully documented provenance of their findings. While church historians obviously are interested in the history of the LDS faith, they go to great lengths to be truthful in their findings, debunking what I'll call LDS myths about the history of the Church and artifacts from early members.
I've seen presentations of papers LDS scholars have prepared on other projects and they always present information from all sources--LDS and non-LDS, even the anti-Mormon sources. These things are meticulously researched. An example of this is the book about the Mountain Meadows Massacre that is currently out, researched by both LDS and non-LDS people. The Mormon involvement is not sugar-coated.
Comments continue below
Having not read any or it... | 7:30 a.m. Oct. 28, 2008
Having not read any of it, yet, I wonder if it will be "faithful" to
historical accuracy. So much of our church's history has not be faithfully
told to us in manuals and seminary lessons, etc. Really. No anti-Mormon insult
intended. I am a Mormon. RM, BYU grad, family man, etc. People have been
irrated when I or others say this, but we really believe it to be true. The
time and space does not exist here to lay out our case, but we are confident in
the assertion.
RE: having not resd it | 7:54 a.m. Oct. 28, 2008
heres a little advise from fifty years of experience. put your energy into what
you can do to improve todsy instead of worrying about the past.
diligentdave | 8:00 a.m. Oct. 28, 2008
To "Having not read any or it..."
As a life-long (LDS) Church member, and history buff and "scriptorian" to boot, I disagree with "Having not's" viewpoint regarding "historical accuracy" in regards to (LDS) Church manuals, etc.
If by that, "Having not", you mean that the Church does not reprint the total text that historical quotes are taken from, which often contain a more complex story line, then maybe 'yes', the Church is not necessarily "historically accurate".
However, the purpose of church manuals and materials is intended to bring out key concepts, and to promote faith among members. Most members of this (or any) 'faith' do not care to wade through all of the context of either (LDS) Church history (or Roman Catholic history, or Protestant history), though there are those who do. I have tried for nearly 3 decades to get my wife more interested in it. And, while I have been able to increase her interest some, she has always remained more focused on other aspects of life and gospel living. That is not wrong, just different from mine and that of other 'history' and 'detail' "buffs".
As a life-long (LDS) Church member, and history buff and "scriptorian" to boot, I disagree with "Having not's" viewpoint regarding "historical accuracy" in regards to (LDS) Church manuals, etc.
If by that, "Having not", you mean that the Church does not reprint the total text that historical quotes are taken from, which often contain a more complex story line, then maybe 'yes', the Church is not necessarily "historically accurate".
However, the purpose of church manuals and materials is intended to bring out key concepts, and to promote faith among members. Most members of this (or any) 'faith' do not care to wade through all of the context of either (LDS) Church history (or Roman Catholic history, or Protestant history), though there are those who do. I have tried for nearly 3 decades to get my wife more interested in it. And, while I have been able to increase her interest some, she has always remained more focused on other aspects of life and gospel living. That is not wrong, just different from mine and that of other 'history' and 'detail' "buffs".
diligentdave | 8:08 a.m. Oct. 28, 2008
I would add, that even those who want to know some, and a few 'many'
of the details, such a small percentage really want to know most 'all'
of the details. But I find that to be true of those who study the scriptures
(much of which contains either ancient or 19th century history). I know good men
and women in the (LDS) Church who, for the most part, study and understand the
bulk of the scriptures. I have made acquaintance with a handful of individuals
whom I know and converse with personally who know anywhere near as much as I
(immodestly) do�and, of those, none (I would venture to
posit), know them anywhere near as well as I do.
This is not necessarily bragging, but a very frank observation and consideration. But few invest the time, the patience, the energy, and the mental focus, and pay the price to come to a "truer" understanding of the scriptures (or of 'Church history'). But, fortunately, there are those who can treat me medically, fix my car, etc, because they've paid the price in those areas I haven't, and, can't!
This is not necessarily bragging, but a very frank observation and consideration. But few invest the time, the patience, the energy, and the mental focus, and pay the price to come to a "truer" understanding of the scriptures (or of 'Church history'). But, fortunately, there are those who can treat me medically, fix my car, etc, because they've paid the price in those areas I haven't, and, can't!
Truly | 8:47 a.m. Oct. 28, 2008
There already is a scholoarly study of Joseph Smith by Fawn M. Brodie in her No
Man Knows My History. How will this study be different.
Looking forward to this project | 9:07 a.m. Oct. 28, 2008
I am one who also enjoys the historical side of the Church. It does not deter or
distract me from gospel study. I find that if I'm strong on both sides
(doctrinal and historical), it only enhances my own testimony of the truth. But
I also know that there is great danger to those members who do not include the
doctrinal study with historical study. I have never found the Church to be
untruthful about it's history, but rather, the Church is careful to focus
on the doctrinal aspects and allow the few who choose, to dabble in the
historical aspects; with the strong warning that the spirit must be present
during such a study. I love the gospel and I love the doctrine and the history.
What a wonderful project this is!
paa | 9:53 a.m. Oct. 28, 2008
To Truly:
Fawn Brodie's so-called history has been shown time and time again to be a fatally biased rant against Joseph Smith and the church he founded. It pretends to be "objective" but is about as far from objective as you can get. It is a favorite of those who have a beef against the church though because it reinforces their own beliefs, and is one which the anti-Mormons have used as a resource for additional books which reflect their biased views. They are all written with the foregone conclusion that Joseph Smith was a fraud and a deceiver, and they ignore or dismiss all of the abundant evidence to the contrary.
Fawn Brodie's so-called history has been shown time and time again to be a fatally biased rant against Joseph Smith and the church he founded. It pretends to be "objective" but is about as far from objective as you can get. It is a favorite of those who have a beef against the church though because it reinforces their own beliefs, and is one which the anti-Mormons have used as a resource for additional books which reflect their biased views. They are all written with the foregone conclusion that Joseph Smith was a fraud and a deceiver, and they ignore or dismiss all of the abundant evidence to the contrary.
Sorry, but... | 10:20 a.m. Oct. 28, 2008
Fawn Brodie based her book on the documents that were available to her at the
time of her research. When new documentation was later discovered, she had the
honesty to make corrections and changes to subsequent editions. It is
disingenuous to say that it "pretends" to be objective. Despite
it's few flaws, it is much more accurate than the sugar-coated nonsense put
out by the church. The evidence is overwhelming that Joseph Smith was indeed a
fraud.
HistoricBuff | 10:29 a.m. Oct. 28, 2008
As a believing die-hard Catholic, I am really enthused about this project. I
have such an intense interest in the history of the "Restoration
Churches" and 19th Century American. I read everything I can get my hands
on about the origins and development of the Latter-day Saints. I think that to
read the original words of Joseph Smith is going to be a scholarly and wonderful
journey into the mind of the man and the spirit of this Great American religous
movement. Studying LDS history and fascinated by this "uniquely American
Faith" has never caused me to waiver about my own Faith. As Latter-day
Saints, I would think you would be as grounded in your Faith that this treasure
of the " Historical Joseph" would be just as fascinating. I just hope
that it does not become distorted in some fashion to be used by those whose goal
is to malign your Church. Hurry December !
Herstoric Buffy | 10:59 a.m. Oct. 28, 2008
to HistoricBuff
It is easy for you to be facinated by the true history of Joseph Smith. We all should be. The only problem is that the "true" Joseph Smith differs quite greatly from the "prophet" Joseph Smith.
It is easy for you to be facinated by the true history of Joseph Smith. We all should be. The only problem is that the "true" Joseph Smith differs quite greatly from the "prophet" Joseph Smith.
To: Having not read any or it... | 11:04 a.m. Oct. 28, 2008
I would recommend you spend some time on the project's website. The
National Historical Publications and Records Commission (part of the Library of
Congress) has marked the methodology of the project as at or above standards.
Their standards are very high and do not allow much by way of omission. I met
with one of the editors of the project in a class I had. He showed us the
breadth of the editing and I can honestly say, there isn't a lot being done
to omit or delete from the papers. The Church has had the full support of the
RLDS (Community of Christ) and have had unlimited access to any and all
resources from both historical libraries. Even private collectors have allowed
pieces from their collection to be included in the Project. Everyone is going to
have some doubts I'm sure. But as the editor related to my class, when
President Hinckley authorized the project, he was very direct in stating he
wanted a scholarly work, not a manual or church book. The world of religious
scholars will have an opportunity to see JS from his own writings. A noble thing
to say the least!
Illuminated | 11:06 a.m. Oct. 28, 2008
Truly:
The difference is that the "JS Papers" is endorsed by the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC), "No Man Knows My History" is not.
The difference is that the "JS Papers" is endorsed by the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC), "No Man Knows My History" is not.
Cora | 11:40 a.m. Oct. 28, 2008
Everything in the book "No man knows my history" is backed up on each
page with the source, date, time, etc.
Did the author write it in a biased manor? I don't see how she could have written it without telling the whole truth. When you back up each statement with undisputed facts, there is no biased motive at all.
Did the author write it in a biased manor? I don't see how she could have written it without telling the whole truth. When you back up each statement with undisputed facts, there is no biased motive at all.
John Pack Lambert | 11:43 a.m. Oct. 28, 2008
To Truly,
If you think that Brodie's hogwash history based on the impossible act of understanding Joseph Smith's inner thinking is "scholarly" than you have major issues.
This is going to be a publication of the things Joseph Smith actually wrote or caused to be written. It will force people to deal with the actual documents, instead of second hand reports made 50 years after Joseph's death.
If you think that Brodie's hogwash history based on the impossible act of understanding Joseph Smith's inner thinking is "scholarly" than you have major issues.
This is going to be a publication of the things Joseph Smith actually wrote or caused to be written. It will force people to deal with the actual documents, instead of second hand reports made 50 years after Joseph's death.
Gimme a Break! | 11:43 a.m. Oct. 28, 2008
"No Man Knows My History" was written 50 years ago in an era where
records were not so readily available. It was a groundbreaking, truth seeking
research project. It is attacked today by the LDS Church due to the fact that
it showed Smith was a fraud. Mormons focus on the few details that Brodie got
wrong, but refuse to look at the big picture. The National Historical
Publications and Records Commission did not even exist at that time. To dismiss
it like that is also disingenuine.
Anonymous | 11:55 a.m. Oct. 28, 2008
I'm shocked that the article ends with: ""Contrary to the
conventional situation, which is the more educated you become the less religious
you become, in the (LDS) church it is just the opposite -- the more educated the
more devoted," he said, referring to the results of a Brigham Young
University study. "It's a thinking-man's faith."
That is ridiculous. During my life as a member of the LDS church, I have repeatedly heard, "Do not study too much into it, or you will study your way out of the Church," (referring to church history). I do agree that LDS enjoy studying their history, but usually just the water-downed censored version of its history.
That is ridiculous. During my life as a member of the LDS church, I have repeatedly heard, "Do not study too much into it, or you will study your way out of the Church," (referring to church history). I do agree that LDS enjoy studying their history, but usually just the water-downed censored version of its history.
Re: Herstoric Buffy | 11:57 a.m. Oct. 28, 2008
I choose to put more credibility on the word of my ancestors, who were neighbors
to the Smiths in Vermont, New York, Ohio, and Illinois for decades; than on the
words of those who ONLY trust the writings of modern day disgruntled ex-Mormons.
And I'm speaking of dozens of them - none of whom ever faltered. I honor
them with the continuation of great faith in my family.
Hey Cora | 12:05 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
If her writing was so un biased as you say, why did she not get her research and
writing supervised, authenticated, and accredited? And why does she not tell
everything, including the thousands of items that will be in this work that she
conveniently left out? And why does her reference material consist mostly of
rumor, hunches, and innuendo? She says "the evidence supports...",
but doesn't indicate that the evidence also supports other explanations?
You know what? I'll bet that's why she didn't get her research
supervised, authenticated, and accredited.
Emanuel Swedenborg | 12:12 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
In agreement with Cora... This is where most LDS historians become perplexed.
There exists "hard" factual evidence to the contrary of what this
project proposes itself to be. In my view it's just plain ignorant not to
accept the real facts as they are. Compare D&C 76 with Emanuel
Swedenborg's "Heaven and Hell" - Do you think that it's
purely conincidental? When I discovered these striking similarities, my doubts
about JS were confirmed - He plagiarized Heaven and Hell to suit his own
purposes. There exists such a myopic view among the very small minority who are
active in the LDS faith. Over half of the 12 million members are inactive.
Sorry, I couldn't resist that fact.
Anonymous | 12:13 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
To Ever Defensive John Pack Lambert:
And I suppose this publication will also include the court records (NOT "second hand reports made 50 years after Joseph's death") that prove he was a "glass looker" and that he was arrested and brought before a Justice of the Peace for that practice?
Just because Joseph Smith "actually wrote" something does not make it true--just look at the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon.
And I suppose this publication will also include the court records (NOT "second hand reports made 50 years after Joseph's death") that prove he was a "glass looker" and that he was arrested and brought before a Justice of the Peace for that practice?
Just because Joseph Smith "actually wrote" something does not make it true--just look at the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon.
The Three Witnesses | 12:23 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
Has anybody really explained why all of the three witnesses of the BoM left the
Church? It still baffles me. I wouldn't call the LDS faith a
"thinking man's faith" at all, because if everyone in the faith
really did their homework on all of the inplausibilities of the LDS standard
works, they would promptly exit stage left... Critical thinking leads to
intelligence, not soley on faith-based principles or doctrine. If the glory of
God is intelligence, then the truth will surely set you free....
Illuminated | 12:25 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
"During my life as a member of the LDS church, I have repeatedly heard,
"Do not study too much into it, or you will study your way out of the
Church," (referring to church history)."
-Anonymous | 11:55 a.m.
That is completely and utterly untrue. I have been a member all my life and have never once heard that garbage. In fact, I have heard the complete opposite in my experience.
I have studied long and hard, every anti-mormon attack and have not found a single piece of evidence that could not be debunked, by facts and reason.
The church IS TRUE. I know it. I will also say that studying church history and Book of Mormon evidence has strengthened my testimony even further.
Don't buy into the hogwash that you cannot study the church on it's historical truth. It is JUST AS true, through the Holy Ghost, as it is true through studying it's temporal evidence.
-Anonymous | 11:55 a.m.
That is completely and utterly untrue. I have been a member all my life and have never once heard that garbage. In fact, I have heard the complete opposite in my experience.
I have studied long and hard, every anti-mormon attack and have not found a single piece of evidence that could not be debunked, by facts and reason.
The church IS TRUE. I know it. I will also say that studying church history and Book of Mormon evidence has strengthened my testimony even further.
Don't buy into the hogwash that you cannot study the church on it's historical truth. It is JUST AS true, through the Holy Ghost, as it is true through studying it's temporal evidence.
RE: Re: Herstoric Buffy | 12:27 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
The world is full of inaccurate myths handed down by our ancestors. Suggest you
put less credibility on the "word of your ancestors" and study the
historical record. You do not honor your ancestors by simply following their
faith blindly. Someone along the line must have found the courage to leave the
earlier faiths of their fathers, otherwise you would still be Catholic or pagan.
Comment | 12:39 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
To Truly,
Read "No Ma'am That's Not History" (1946) by Hugh Nibley.
I am hoping the Joseph Smith Papers is the long awaited strictly factual and unbiased reference work containing carefully transcribed documents related to the history of Joseph Smith.
Read "No Ma'am That's Not History" (1946) by Hugh Nibley.
I am hoping the Joseph Smith Papers is the long awaited strictly factual and unbiased reference work containing carefully transcribed documents related to the history of Joseph Smith.
New Yorker | 12:39 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
To Anonymous:
I have never been told not to study too much. I don't believe for a minute that you were told that. Just the opposite has been my experience. Not like many faiths that when questioned, they say the clergy will study for you and it must be of the devil.
I have never been told not to study too much. I don't believe for a minute that you were told that. Just the opposite has been my experience. Not like many faiths that when questioned, they say the clergy will study for you and it must be of the devil.
Illuminated | 12:56 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
"Everything in the book "No man knows my history" is backed up on
each page with the source, date, time, etc.
Did the author write it in a biased manor?"
-Cora
Yes, she wrote it in a biased manner. Her purpose was clearly to tear down the LDS faith after being indoctrinated by another faith at the University of Chicago.
Anyone can cite valid sources, while leaving out important pieces of the truth. Hugh Nibley said that Brodie used quotes supporting her arguments, while throwing out quotes that refuted them.
Besides the NHPRC endorsement, the Joseph Smith Papers is a scholarly project. It is not a novel or a thesis designed to persuade it's readers one way or another (as Brodie's book does). It is not meant to be read that way at all. It can be compared to an encyclopedia or a reference guide for all of the written documents that were associated with Joseph Smith.
Did the author write it in a biased manor?"
-Cora
Yes, she wrote it in a biased manner. Her purpose was clearly to tear down the LDS faith after being indoctrinated by another faith at the University of Chicago.
Anyone can cite valid sources, while leaving out important pieces of the truth. Hugh Nibley said that Brodie used quotes supporting her arguments, while throwing out quotes that refuted them.
Besides the NHPRC endorsement, the Joseph Smith Papers is a scholarly project. It is not a novel or a thesis designed to persuade it's readers one way or another (as Brodie's book does). It is not meant to be read that way at all. It can be compared to an encyclopedia or a reference guide for all of the written documents that were associated with Joseph Smith.
Acegrace | 1:04 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
I have studied the history in depth and if it's a trustworthy source (in or
out of the LDS church), it holds up. Otherwise there wouldn't be an LDS
church (or the Community of Christ) because they would fall apart. I appreciate
Buffy's comments above as I have relatives' diaries from Kirtland and
Nauvoo that show the Smiths were people of great integrity also.
I appreciate those who gave the input that professional standards and outside agencies are certifying the work so that it cannot be said that it was poorly done.
I appreciate those who gave the input that professional standards and outside agencies are certifying the work so that it cannot be said that it was poorly done.
HistoricBuff | 1:17 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
to: Herstoric Buffy
And I have the intelligence to distiquish between the two views when they conflict and when they do not.
And I have the intelligence to distiquish between the two views when they conflict and when they do not.
Illuminated | 1:21 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
"You do not honor your ancestors by simply following their faith
blindly"
-RE: Re: Herstoric Buffy | 12:27 p.m.
Did you not read what he wrote, or do you just choose to ignore it? He said, his ancestors LIVED next to the Smiths for decades. Their experience had nothing to do with Faith, but with first-hand eye-witness.
-RE: Re: Herstoric Buffy | 12:27 p.m.
Did you not read what he wrote, or do you just choose to ignore it? He said, his ancestors LIVED next to the Smiths for decades. Their experience had nothing to do with Faith, but with first-hand eye-witness.
Illuminated | 1:30 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
In my mission I had many experiences with investigators and less-active members
who, outwardly, claimed to have fallen away from or disbelieved the LDS church
because they had found evidence to disprove it.
However, with deeper questions, I discovered their real problem was with sin or a weakness of some kind.
I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of those in contempt with the church (including Brodie) is because of their weaknesses or not being able to "live up" to the standards of the church, not because of problems with church history.
These people have decided it is easier to join the mob in trying destroy the church, rather than to try to overcome their weakness. I would suggest you take a deeper look at yourself and ask if that is not the reason for your hatred of the church.
However, with deeper questions, I discovered their real problem was with sin or a weakness of some kind.
I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of those in contempt with the church (including Brodie) is because of their weaknesses or not being able to "live up" to the standards of the church, not because of problems with church history.
These people have decided it is easier to join the mob in trying destroy the church, rather than to try to overcome their weakness. I would suggest you take a deeper look at yourself and ask if that is not the reason for your hatred of the church.
Believe what you want | 2:01 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
I know my comment is at odds with the opinion of many of you ("having not
read it"...see above). Like I said, I COULD spend ALL day discussing
various topics to support my opinion, but in the end I am satisfied that I am
right, and you all are satisfied that you are right. I believe most of you,
however, are basing your "satisfied that you are right" on less than
complete information.
For starters, just read a couple of these:
1. Rough Stone Rolling (Bushman)
2. In Sacred Lonliness (Compton)
3. Mormon Polygamy
4. Juanita Brooks book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre
5. Book of Mormon Studies (BH Roberts)
Any one of these fine books, all written by LDS authors, provides some real "ah-ha" moments. AND THESE ARE WRITTEN BY PEOPLE WHO WANT YOU TO BELIEVE IN THE CHURCH! I guarentee you don't know many, many, of the details contained in even one of these books. Most of you will not take the challenge to look at these "safe" sources, let alone some other sources...
For starters, just read a couple of these:
1. Rough Stone Rolling (Bushman)
2. In Sacred Lonliness (Compton)
3. Mormon Polygamy
4. Juanita Brooks book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre
5. Book of Mormon Studies (BH Roberts)
Any one of these fine books, all written by LDS authors, provides some real "ah-ha" moments. AND THESE ARE WRITTEN BY PEOPLE WHO WANT YOU TO BELIEVE IN THE CHURCH! I guarentee you don't know many, many, of the details contained in even one of these books. Most of you will not take the challenge to look at these "safe" sources, let alone some other sources...
Larry | 2:08 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
To illuniated 1:30, I have been in the church for over forty years and I have
yet to met a fellow member without sin or weakeness, if you are that person I
would sure like to meet you.
Rich | 2:14 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
I've occasionally come across quotes or facts that seem on their surface to
refute the truth of Mormonism. But every time I have delved in detail into the
issue, I've come away with my faith strengthened, rather than weakened.
However, I have come to realize how true it is that all men, even church
leaders, are human and, therefore, prone to make mistakes. It is not LDS
doctrine that any priesthood leader is infallible, and that includes Joseph
Smith, Brigham Young and Thomas S. Monson. As for the Swedenborg claim,
I'll look into it, but I must point out that evidence for the three degrees
of heaven exists in the Bible. A wise person who is an independent thinker and
not a stubborn follower of dogma could easily see this evidence and come to
conclusions very similar to D&C 76. How do you explain the uncanny accuracy
as to the science of raising olives as explained in the Book of Mormon when
Joseph Smith could not have had access to any texts pertaining to the process?
keno108 | 2:41 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
to all u molly mormons and peter priesthoods who really gives a damn im sick and
tired how u people in mister rogers neiborhood always think that your church is
the true church
To: keno108 | 3:14 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
"to all u molly mormons and peter priesthoods..."
That cannot be the truth, since you keep coming onto these blogs. You can cure your sick and tired condition by not reading the comments. Otherwise, enjoy it. This is great!
That cannot be the truth, since you keep coming onto these blogs. You can cure your sick and tired condition by not reading the comments. Otherwise, enjoy it. This is great!
Fooled No More | 3:47 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
To AceGrace and Historic Buff:
You don't suppose your ancestors were wearing rose colored glasses and under his spell when they wrote about Joseph Smith do you?
Jim Jones and David Koresh's followers thought they were divine as well.
There is essentially no difference between any of these three cults.
You don't suppose your ancestors were wearing rose colored glasses and under his spell when they wrote about Joseph Smith do you?
Jim Jones and David Koresh's followers thought they were divine as well.
There is essentially no difference between any of these three cults.
Rich | 4:10 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
I just read the relevant sections of Swedenborg's "Heaven and
Hell" to see what the reader who listed himself as Emanuel Swedenborg was
talking about. Swedenborg's writings are fascinating, and some of his
teachings are similar to Mormon doctrine. Most of these common doctrines find a
basis in the Bible, such as faith alone is insufficient for salvation. But
there are many dissimilarities. For example, Swedenborg subscribes to the
teaching that there is no Trinity, only Jesus Christ, the Eternal God. Most
Christian sects since the third century have taught that the Trinity is composed
of three personages with one being, while the LDS Church reflects Biblical
teachings that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are separate
individuals who are one in purpose and thought. His teachings about two heavens
and three further divisions are somewhat similar to D&C 76. A faithful
Mormon would conclude that he was getting close to the truth in some matters,
while straying considerably away in other things. As an active LDS, I
don't believe the Heavens have ever been totally closed and that earnest
men and women have always been influenced by the Holy Spirit in their search for
truth.
RE: The Three Witnesses | 4:24 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
The three left church because of political disagreement ( church politics )
NOt doctinal disagreement or because they belived it wasn't true
Not of them denied their testimonies of waht tehy had witnessed.
If they wanted discredit the church or Joseph Smith they easily could have.
But they did not.
Remember many are called but few are chosen.
It a difficult thing to always keep the faith, keep to the striaght and narrow, not to succumb to weaknesses of the flesh, not to let little unimportant things become big stumbling blocks, not let pride gert in the way.
And by the way, 2 of three witnesses did come back to the church.
Record keeeping, Hisorty, is very important part of the church.
If history were not so important then why do Anti-Mormons use TRY (AND FAIL) to it use all time to attack the church?
( it fails against those who do their research and find out the WHOLE truth, not just the parts the antis want to mislead you with.)
NOt doctinal disagreement or because they belived it wasn't true
Not of them denied their testimonies of waht tehy had witnessed.
If they wanted discredit the church or Joseph Smith they easily could have.
But they did not.
Remember many are called but few are chosen.
It a difficult thing to always keep the faith, keep to the striaght and narrow, not to succumb to weaknesses of the flesh, not to let little unimportant things become big stumbling blocks, not let pride gert in the way.
And by the way, 2 of three witnesses did come back to the church.
Record keeeping, Hisorty, is very important part of the church.
If history were not so important then why do Anti-Mormons use TRY (AND FAIL) to it use all time to attack the church?
( it fails against those who do their research and find out the WHOLE truth, not just the parts the antis want to mislead you with.)
Papist | 4:25 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
to Keno108
As a praoticing Catholic I comment on here all the time. I respect the LDS perspective when I post a comment. I have never felt unwelcome even though I am on the other end of the "True Church" idea. I love the interaction with other Faiths. My choice, as yours, if I didn't like the exchange, I would just stay away.
As a praoticing Catholic I comment on here all the time. I respect the LDS perspective when I post a comment. I have never felt unwelcome even though I am on the other end of the "True Church" idea. I love the interaction with other Faiths. My choice, as yours, if I didn't like the exchange, I would just stay away.
ramper | 4:43 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
Hey keno108. It is neighborhood. Not neiborhood. If you had watched Mr. Rogers
you would have known that. You can say what you want about Mormons or the
Priesthood, but dissing Mr. Rogers is going too far.
Even saying this, "we like you just the way you are."
Well, maybe not all of you.
Even saying this, "we like you just the way you are."
Well, maybe not all of you.
Anonymous | 4:54 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
To Hey Cora:
You stated, "And why does she not tell everything, including the thousands of items that will be in this work that she conveniently left out?"
Answer: Because the documents and information that will be contained in the new Joseph Smith's Papers were not available to Brodie. They have been kept under lock and key until now. Having said that, I am not a fan of Brodie's work.
You stated, "And why does she not tell everything, including the thousands of items that will be in this work that she conveniently left out?"
Answer: Because the documents and information that will be contained in the new Joseph Smith's Papers were not available to Brodie. They have been kept under lock and key until now. Having said that, I am not a fan of Brodie's work.
kenny | 5:39 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
Beacuse a work was written by a scholar does that make that work scholarly?
Depends on the audience.This project may very well be scholary in nature.I hope
to read and judge for myself.I would say Carl Sagan was a scholar but he wrote
to the masses who are anything but.Was Joseph Smith a scholar?Well he sure had
the best of the best instructors!!!!!Personally I think a purely scholarly work
becomes very boring on page two.No I will stick with National Geographic over
some scolarly work.For those who disagree get your nose off your Diploma hanging
on the wall and join the rest of the world club.
History Nut | 6:06 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
Elder Oaks announced in conference more than 10 years ago that results of this
project were about to be released. We still haven't seen a single volume.
Vaporware.
Vaporware.
Thinking man's religion | 6:59 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
I enjoyed this albeit short article greatly! It has been my experience during my
long life that the LDS religion is indeed a thinking man's religion! It
definately has been for me (only I would know that). My faith and testimony have
grown much over my life by thinking and pondering the rich doctrines and
searching the scriptures and feeling the spirit as I do so. I have also read and
listened to many of our critics and have found their criticism to be nothing
more than attempts to re-define our history and our doctrines.Others have
attempted to offer alternative explanations, most of which I find intellectually
disingenuous! For example; Fawn Brodies explanation of the 3 witnesses as having
been hypnotized. These papers will not be good news for those who seek to
re-invent and re-define our religion because the knowledge that will come out of
it will cause much of our critic's house of cards to collapse. I look
forward to reading them and the thinking they will inspire!
Mr Troll | 7:09 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
Hello I am a Troll.
I will say something outrageous and hope that you write back.
Thanks for making my day.
Sincerely,
Mr Troll
I will say something outrageous and hope that you write back.
Thanks for making my day.
Sincerely,
Mr Troll
I Agree | 8:29 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
the LDS Church is definately a thinking mans religion. The human ego is what
makes this church continually look for "the next topic to speak
about." However, the things that are attributes of God are not from the
ego, they are of spirit. For example love, peace, forgiveness, gratitude and
many other great attributes are not from a thinking position. If you read the
typical LDS blogger on here, the conversations almost always become
argumentative. This is because their mind is what is engaged in their
affiliation with the LDS Church, not their Spirit.
Ditto : | 10:46 p.m. Oct. 28, 2008
Just wanted to agree with the comments about the National Historical
Publications and Records Department. No where, nationally, can any researcher
receive a higher rating of acuracy when compiling history or artifacts that
through this agency. The process to get this certification is gruelly and
intense and requires exactness in the preparation and authenticity of the
papers. Whether you are a member of the LDS church or not, it is ridiculous and
simply unprofessional to assert that this compilation of church documents are
tainted or not accurate or falsified. To make such claims identifies the
commenters as an uneducated person in the matters of compilation of historical
documents nationally and internationally. These standards are set and used by
many groups, and researchers worldwide as a standard for integrity to accuracy
and truth in the materials assembled. It is time for the hate mongers to be
ethical, reasonable, and to drain the venom out of their embarrassing
assertions.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Cougars beat Utes in overtime 1:11 a.m.
- UVU beats SUU; USU wins big 12:57 a.m.
- BYU spikers end season with a loss 12:55 a.m.
- Iverson may be headed to 76ers 12:34 a.m.
- Credit Coug defense for win 12:33 a.m.
- Aggies blow away T-birds 12:32 a.m.
- Mo steals show in Cavaliers' victory 12:31 a.m.
- Editorial: Facilitate Big Brother? 12:22 a.m.
- Mom befriends wife of PTSD vet 12:21 a.m.
- Political clash over U.S. debt 12:21 a.m.
- Cave to be sealed with body inside
- Predicting the unpredictable: BYU wins
- Vegas, Poinsettia bowls or bust
- BYU football: 5 keys to victory
- Glover gives Utes last-second upset
- Cougars turn back Wildcats'
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies
- Running game key to BYU offense
- Woods, wife unavailable for interview
- Cougars beat Utes in overtime
394 - Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah130
- Cave to be sealed with body inside115
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies115
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin113
- Rivalry Week is highly profane88
- Hall's legacy measured today75
- Y. focused on 10-win season73
- Letters: C02 causes warming70
There are 14 BYU players from Salt Lake Valley. And there are four Utah...
Latest comments
It's BEER, not acid people! Some people love having it sprayed on themselves....
I believe Max Hall cemented his legacy tonight with his lack of...
I find it interesting that these comment come after a so-so performance in a...
If you really think BYU is more arrogant than USC or UCLA or so many other...
cougars baby!!!!!
I have one word for the BYU AND UTAH fans: TCU!!!! hahahaha
Two great examples of lack of class surfaced tonight: Pete Carroll, USC's...
Don't forget my favorite Max stat. 2 out of 3. Yeah, I bet that...
Thanks for the comment Max! I hope you keep on playing just like you have...
Neat article! (Yes, I'm a little biased :) It's been an exciting time to be...
Advertisements