[quote=Cassiopeia;53437671]Joseph Smith did no such thing. Joseph Smith did no such what thing - divination? Occult practices? Seer stones? Money/treasure-digging (and bilking farmers out of their hard-earned money for it)? This isn't just my opinion, my dear. It is a matter of public record that he often engaged in all of the above. Even the church doesn't bother to deny these things - why on earth would you?
McConkie has not fallen out of favor with the church. Some of his interpretations of LDS doctrine do fall under criticism but then his book isn't canonized scripture either. Like apostle Paul H. Dunn, who was promptly demoted to "emeritus" status when it was discovered that he had been "colorizing" his life's experiences in talks and writings, McConkie's writings have also been an embarrassment to the church. You can say he hasn't fallen out of favor - that's okay with me - the church doesn't admit it publicly, either. If Joseph Smith hadn't been The Prophet Himself, I daresay he'd have quickly fallen out of favor, too, for all his shenanigans.
How is it that you can decide what the local authorities will get involved in? Do you speak for them as well now? It does not necessarily follow that ANY church action would be taken other than to caution the sister about the concern over the use of the Ouija board which the last time I checked is advised by other churches to refrain from use as well. No, I don't presume to speak for local LDS authorities. But I've had enough experience in the church to know how the system works. It has been six years since I left the church, so maybe the rules have lightened up a bit - but somehow I doubt that.
Why? Because you say so? A lot of data has been posted and it's a fact that Joseph Smith and his family was into occult practices... it's how they made a living. Do you have any data to support what you're saying here?
Joseph Smith did no such thing. Joseph Smith did no such what thing - divination? Occult practices? Seer stones? Money/treasure-digging (and bilking farmers out of their hard-earned money for it)? This isn't just my opinion, my dear. It is a matter of public record that he often engaged in all of the above. Even the church doesn't bother to deny these things - why on earth would you?
McConkie has not fallen out of favor with the church. Some of his interpretations of LDS doctrine do fall under criticism but then his book isn't canonized scripture either. Like apostle Paul H. Dunn, who was promptly demoted to "emeritus" status when it was discovered that he had been "colorizing" his life's experiences in talks and writings, McConkie's writings have also been an embarrassment to the church. You can say he hasn't fallen out of favor - that's okay with me - the church doesn't admit it publicly, either. If Joseph Smith hadn't been The Prophet Himself, I daresay he'd have quickly fallen out of favor, too, for all his shenanigans.
How is it that you can decide what the local authorities will get involved in? Do you speak for them as well now? It does not necessarily follow that ANY church action would be taken other than to caution the sister about the concern over the use of the Ouija board which the last time I checked is advised by other churches to refrain from use as well. No, I don't presume to speak for local LDS authorities. But I've had enough experience in the church to know how the system works. It has been six years since I left the church, so maybe the rules have lightened up a bit - but somehow I doubt that.
Just a little FYI
(notwithstanding your 40+ years of LDS Church knowledge and experience, of course)
Paul H. Dunn was not an apostle.
__________________
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Just a little FYI(notwithstanding your 40+ years of LDS Church knowledge and experience, of course)Paul H. Dunn was not an apostle.
I stand corrected, and thank you for that. Although he was in fact a general authority, in the interest of exactitude, I certainly would not want to lead anyone astray on that critical distinction.
Did you find any other errors in my post? He was a general authority, was he not, and he did embellish accounts of his life's events in his talks and writings, did he not, and he was given "emeritus" status after that was discovered by the church higher-ups, was he not? I'll await your response - in the interest of exactitude.
I stand corrected, and thank you for that. Although he was in fact a general authority, in the interest of exactitude, I certainly would not want to lead anyone astray on that critical distinction.
Did you find any other errors in my post? He was a general authority, was he not, and he did embellish accounts of his life's events in his talks and writings, did he not, and he was given "emeritus" status after that was discovered by the church higher-ups, was he not? I'll await your response - in the interest of exactitude.
Well in the interest of exactitude, I'm still patiently awaiting you to provide the quote from Martha Beck where she said her father was driven "literally" OR "certifiably" OR "verifiably crazy" OR "insane," as you have oft claimed.
__________________
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Well in the interest of exactitude, I'm still patiently awaiting you to provide the quote from Martha Beck where she said her father was driven "literally" OR "certifiably" OR "verifiably crazy" OR "insane," as you have oft claimed.
I laughed right out loud at your little tongue-sticking-out smilie. Thanks for the chuckle.
So...it looks like we'll both continue to wait. As I've said (HOW many times now?), I'm really not willing to wade back into her tome to extricate that quote. It was ponderous enough the first time, thank you. Besides, if it were really the information you were interested in, you'd have taken the trouble yourself. But we both know that it is something other than the information itself that you really wanted, don't we?
As for my waiting for you to verify the correctness of my recent post on this thread, well, I'd say that if you had found anything else you thought was amiss, you'd have already jumped all over it with both feet. Enough said.
I stand corrected, and thank you for that. Although he was in fact a general authority, in the interest of exactitude, I certainly would not want to lead anyone astray on that critical distinction.
Did you find any other errors in my post? He was a general authority, was he not, and he did embellish accounts of his life's events in his talks and writings, did he not, and he was given "emeritus" status after that was discovered by the church higher-ups, was he not? I'll await your response - in the interest of exactitude.
I loved his stories, and I still listen to them at times. I have recorded copies of them. I wonder if there are anybody on this forum who embellishes stories?
I loved his stories, and I still listen to them at times. I have recorded copies of them. I wonder if there are anybody on this forum who embellishes stories?
\
What?? THIS bunch of fine, upstanding folks???? Naaaaaaaaaaahhh...
(notwithstanding your 40+ years of LDS Church knowledge and experience, of course)
Paul H. Dunn was not an apostle.
Correct and to Moodshadow,
Brother Dunn, didn't "colorize his stories." What he failed to do was explain that some of his stories were actually parables and not factual events. Some of his stories were true. Was there a commotion about it, yep. Do I still love his stories. Of course I do. His failure to properly represent them was his human error.
I'm just glad that the mistakes I make aren't held up to public ridicule.
Thews, in his day, Christ was held to have done many things that would have been labeled occultist. He raised the dead, healed the sick, walked on water and I'm quite certain that those who hated him said he did these things of the devil.
I find it interesting that people bandy about the word occult and expect it to mean "of the devil". When that is not it's meaning.
When people pray and ask for miracles and say they receive them, one could consider that practicing the occult; for the definition of occult is things that remain hidden or unseen, magical or having supernatural powers.
To my knowledge, Joseph Smith simply asked for God's guidance and in was given the ability to interpret and given revelation.
If one were to shout that he practiced the occult than what can be said of those who speak in tongues? Is this not "supernatural"?
I think perhaps you should consider that I've read enough of your posts that I no longer read them fully as they are far too lengthy to be of any interest to me and I've seen your posts as attacks on my faith.
So, I shall end conversing with you, and bid you well on your way.
Linear Mode
