BofM myths

[Kevin Graham]

Well, I'm not about to repeat everything in my article. Just know that "standard works" had a different meaning back then, which should be fo significance, although it obviously isn't to those who want to ignore it. Of course, now it means something specific. This goes back to what I said on another thread. It is silly to take comment from dead people out of context and insist on its meaning, purpose and intent, when they are no longer around to defend or clarify themselves.

What we do know beyond a doubt is that the JoD came about because one man was trying to raise money to support his family. He got permission from Brigham young to publish the JoD in England. This is on the other side of the planet. So the few saints in England were the first to receive benefit of the JoD. this work didn't come about because the Church all of the sudden decided, "Hey, let's start canonizing our sermons!"

It seems that questioning their accuracy never became much of an issue. Why would it, until critics started insisting on its significance, application to "doctrine" and using it as a whip against the Church? The same thing happened with the work "Mormon Doctrine." Nobody bothered to make a stink of its accuracy or "doctrinal" value, until antis started using it against us.

 

[gort]

It seems that questioning their accuracy never became much of an issue. Why would it, until critics started insisting on its significance, application to "doctrine" and using it as a whip against the Church? The same thing happened with the work "Mormon Doctrine." Nobody bothered to make a stink of its accuracy or "doctrinal" value, until antis started using it against us.

It is still what your prophets had to say. Such as blood atonement. Where teh Blood of Christ Jesus was insufficient for some sins. And somehow mans blood is better to atone in these cases. Are these lies that we anti's spread ?

<><

 

[baker]

Well, I'm not about to repeat everything in my article.

Whew, that's a relief! (come on KG, gotta laugh now and then)

Just know that "standard works" had a different meaning back then, which should be fo significance, although it obviously isn't to those who want to ignore it. Of course, now it means something specific.

KG, I noticed in your article you really glossed over this contention. If you'd like I will cut and paste your words. But you are very vague in your reason for this contention. Care to explore with me?

This goes back to what I said on another thread. It is silly to take comment from dead people out of context and insist on its meaning, purpose and intent, when they are no longer around to defend or clarify themselves.

What!!! But it's ok to to assume that leaders in the church today are more capable to speak for the works than those who were actually responsible for it? That statement is absolutely hysterical. I'll put it up there with the "online hemline checker club"!!!! KG, you need to get a an "anti-FARMS" virus shot.

What we do know beyond a doubt is that the JoD came about because one man was trying to raise money to support his family.

Unsubstantiated and speculation. However,either way it is not relevant to the issue here. There is much in your article that is not relevent also.

He got permission from Brigham young to publish the JoD in England. This is on the other side of the planet. So the few saints in England were the first to receive benefit of the JoD. this work didn't come about because the Church all of the sudden decided, "Hey, let's start canonizing our sermons!"

So what is your point here? Would you have us believe that somehow the Church decided "Hey, lets do this and create some controversy for FARMS to address in about 100 yrs?" Hey, I like humor too, but your's is a satire!

It seems that questioning their accuracy never became much of an issue. Why would it, until critics started insisting on its significance, application to "doctrine" and using it as a whip against the Church? The same thing happened with the work "Mormon Doctrine." Nobody bothered to make a stink of its accuracy or "doctrinal" value, until antis started using it against us.

Oh this is rich! Pretty soon the JOD's will be rationalized as "anti-mormon" literature!!!! Quick, let's run from our history!

 

[happyinhisgrace]

This goes back to what I said on another thread. It is silly to take comment from dead people out of context and insist on its meaning, purpose and intent, when they are no longer around to defend or clarify themselves.

So, by this form of reasoning, we should disregard the entire Bible since the prophets are dead now and not able to tell us themselves exactly what they meant.....nah.

Grace

 

[Kevin Graham]

== KG, I noticed in your article you really glossed over this contention. If you'd like I will cut and paste your words. But you are very vague in your reason for this contention. Care to explore with me?

[Edited by a moderator]

== What!!! But it's ok to to assume that leaders in the church today are more capable to speak for the works than those who were actually responsible for it?

Uh, yeah. Makes sense to me. Especially given the fact that your whoel argument is that thsi stuff represents "Mormon Doctrine." Gee, now can we imagine Mormon authorities actually being able to define their own doctrine? No, perish the thought. Our critics have a better idea what was intended and what ist purpose was. Why? Because they know how to scroll non-canonical works and snag quotations out of context.

== That statement is absolutely hysterical.

Same back at you. I can't even believe we're not on the same page on this one.

== I'll put it up there with the "online hemline checker club"!!!! KG, you need to get a an "anti-FARMS" virus shot

This sort of sarcasm isn't helping you. You should really trying studing this issue instead of cutting a quote from some anti-Mormon website, and then considering the matter closed.

== Unsubstantiated and speculation. However,either way it is not relevant to the issue here.

You obviously haven't any background studies on this issue as you merely dismiss my evidence as "unsubstantiated" without delaing with the evidence I present. It is a proven fact WHY the JoD came into existence. To say it is unsubstantiated is ridiculous. I substantiated everything! And I fail to see how it is "irrelevant" to point out teh PURPOSE for the JoD. It seems pretty reasonable to me that discovering its purpose could give us some idea whether or not it was intended to be a source of doctrine.

== So what is your point here?

I just said it.

== Would you have us believe that somehow the Church decided "Hey, lets do this and create some controversy for FARMS to address in about 100 yrs?" Hey, I like humor too, but your's is a satire!

Not at all. That is my entire point! The CHURCH didn't decide anything of the sort. The Church simply responded to the humble request of a humble LDS who was having trouble supporting his family. All the evidence leans to this conclusion. The fact that the JoD were initially printed in ENGLAND, and NOT where 99% of the Church lived, is revealing in itself just what its "purpose" really was.

== Pretty soon the JOD's will be rationalized as "anti-mormon" literature!!!! Quick, let's run from our history!

My gripe has less to do with the accuracy of the JoD than it does its place in LDS works. JoD serves as a fairly accurate source for history, sure. I never denied what Brigham Young taught. What I deny is that his sermons always carried the theological significance anti-Mormons like to imply. Nevermind the fact that he later said Adam-God wasn't worth knowing, and that even he didn't even understand it like he thought he would. Since when is historical context a factor for discovering the intent of historical characters? What a concept huh?

[Edited by a moderator]

 

[baker]

Kevin,

A little more free advice here.

[Edited by a moderator]

I won't be able to re-post this on every thread here.

 

[baker]

Goodby Kevin,

Not only were you a "legend in your own mind", you probably had the highest daily post average of any in this forum. Our loss is probably your family's gain. But I for one will miss you.

 

[Svt4Him]

Where did he go?

 

[twhite982]

Where did he go?

You can probally find him on Fair.org discussion pages.

TW