How to talk to an apostate, a beginners guide

Posted on June 2, 2014 by Mithryn

Notes from a presentation based on a post to /r/LDS[1] that was deleted with the subreddit a long time ago:

Common sayings that members repeat without thinking that can be harmful, with why they hurt illustrated and the “Reverse” phrase to illustrate:

“I know the church is true”

Reverse

“I know the church is false

Why it hurts

Because by saying your beliefs are true, your are implying that all other beliefs are false. You may not see it this way, but trust me, anyone you say it to, who does not agree with you, totally sees it as a put down.

Especially if they just witnessed about their own beliefs.

What could be said better

“I have my convictions, and I am dedicated to them.” This removes any superiority play in the wording, and it implies something very similar to what I think most members mean when they say “I know the church is true”. Further even an atheist can make this statement and have it be true. It removes the emotional baggage and the implied put down of every faith but yours.

You left because you wanted to sin

Reverse

“You joined the mormon church because you wanted to eat bacon” – for a jew.

Why it hurts

It slanders the individual at the same time as, again, trivializing a spiritual journey into some base action. And to the person who left, it is as ridiculous a question as accusing all Mormons of not being Jews because they want to eat bacon.

People alter their beliefs, and then alter their behaviors. “Wanting to sin” also places the definition of “Sin” in the hands of the believer. Coffee is not a sin to 99.9% of the world’s population. Leaving the church to drink coffee would not be leaving to “Sin”, it would be “leaving to take part in something no one else acknowledges as sin except the strict dietary requirements of one sub-sect of one faith”. Not exactly the same thing.

Even further, everyone can think of a practicing LDS member who continues to attend for “appearance” but still commits any number of LDS sins on any given weekend. Certainly, staying in the faith, for appearances of family, friends, or social groups is far easier than actually taking a stand for new beliefs and being vocal about it. Sinning and repenting in the church is far easier than revising one’s core life view. This kind of revision calls into question all the motives, all the actions, all the memories of the individual and leaves one lonely, depressed, and uncertain of his/her future. Anyone who tells you to take such a deeply moving spiritual experience and simply align it with a “sin” motive is probably someone who has ulterior motives of their own.

How you can say it better

“This used to mean a lot to you, it must have taken a lot to change your mind. Tell me about the journey.”

No one can know history

Reverse

“Why should I believe your testimony? I mean it is based on a history and no man can know history”

“Why it hurts”

It is made to take any number of faith-threatening claims based on good evidence and to sweep them all away with a simple statement of vagueness.

This is one the most puzzling one to me as the entire religion depends upon the claims of a “History written upon gold plates”. To say you can’t know history is to imply that one cannot know the church is true. It is usually followed up with a testimony that the person claiming no one can know history bearing testimony that they know the church is true.

This is a one-two punch of ignorance that demeans the individuals entire understanding of actual facts, events, circumstances, etc. as well as replaces good historical research with shallow emotional conjecture in rebuttal.

Certainly the individual who was presenting history against the church could simply reply “I know my beliefs are right” and the discussion would devolve into simply “I know”, “no, I Know”, “no, I know”, like a kindergarten argument over batman or superman being better.

Historical, scientific, anthropological, biological, and other studies are meant to remove emotional statements based on little fact, and replace them with objectivity in as much as is possible. By waving away all of history as an unknown, one effectively shuts down all communication with the apostate, and sends the signal that your emotional feelings trump any amount of factual data.

how to say it better

“I’m not sure I’ll buy every historical piece of data you might present. I’ve been bitten by bad data before, but let me hear you out on what you think is important”.

This statement conveys the same information (History is difficult to be sure of) but invites more conversation, and the person to present his/her case.

It allows the individual making the statement to take each statement on its own merit, instead of discouraging conversation entirely.

“They leave the church but they can’t leave it alone”

reverse

“Mormons are brainwashed. They don’t think for themselves.”

Why it hurts

It assumes that everyone is forced into a predictable set of actions and removes the decisions and experience of the individual. In either the typical statement by the member or my reverse example, it ascribes the motives, thoughts, efforts and focus to a power beyond the individual, trivializing their own thoughts and reasoning.

It’s not kind.

A better way to say it

“So many people, when they leave, go through a rough period of bitterness. That’s understandable, considering they probably feel cheated. I hope that this phase is short for you, and that you can move on with your life.”

This acknowledges stages of grief, and gives the person room both to be upset, as well as encourages progress to move on. It disarms the frustration and need to vent to just “yeah, moving on would be nice” in the mind of the apostate.

You don’t have a religion, you have a non-faith/anti-faith

Reverse

“Mormonism is just an anti-campbellite tract” (As was claimed by Alexander Campbell, Sidney Rigdon’s assistant

Why it hurts

No one likes to be told their belief system is a false one, and valueless.

Odds are the person left mormonism because of some historic fact, or current issue that goes against their morals. It is, in fact, because of their beliefs, they opted out of an organization.

This particular line mistakes having an organization for having a religion. It comes across as hallow as saying “you’re not in my water polo club, ergo you have no beliefs or morals” to the person who has left the organization.

A better way to say this

Just don’t. There’s no good way to make yourself feel bigger by putting down another’s belief system. Some things are best left unsaid.

Posted in Current issues | Leave a comment

Adam-God Doctrine Timeline (dozen instances over 37 year time span recorded)

Posted on June 2, 2014 by Mithryn

April 9, 1852 – Brigham Young,  – HE is our FATHER and our GOD

April 9, 1852– Hosea Stout – President Brigham Young taught that Adam was the father of Jesus and the only God to us.

October 23, 1853 – Brigham Young – Adam was not formed out of bricks of clay

October 6, 1854 – Joseph Lee Robinson quoting Brigham,  – President Brigham Young said thus, that Adam and Eve were the names of the first man and woman of every earth that was ever organized and that Adam and Eve were the natural father and mother of every spirit that comes to this planet, or that receives tabernacles on this planet, consequently we are brother and sisters, and that Adam was God, our Eternal Father

Journal of Samuel H. Rodgers, v. 1, p. 179; BYU Special Collections (Date unspecified but it is within this time frame) – during the time of the Conference President Brigham Young said that our spirits ware begotten before that Adam came to the Earth and that Adam helped to make the Earth, that he had a Celestial boddy when he came to the Earth and that he brought his wife or one of his wives with him, and that Eave was allso a Celestial being, that they eat of the fruit of the ground until they begat children from the Earth, he said that Adam was the onley God that we would have, and that Christ was not begotten of the Holy Gost, but of the Father Adam,

June 7, 1860 – Brigham Young, made at Box Elder, – walks and talks with them as he did with Father Adam

September 9, 1860 – Brigham Young, – co-workers with God our Father in heaven (This is the only one that opposes the Adam-God theory by Brigham in anyway).

June 11, 1864, Brigham said- . Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents.

December 16, 1867 -Journal of Wilford Woodruff,  – At meeting of school of the prophets, President Young said Adam was Michael the Archangel and he was the father of Jesus Christ and was our God, and Joseph taught this principle.

Jan. 24, 1868 – Minutes of the School of Prophets, Wilford Woodruff transcribing for Brigham Young  – I wish to refer to the first doctrine preached that Adam was our Father and God in the revelation called the olive leaf

June 8, 1868 – George G. Bywater, “Minutes of the School of Prophets,” pp. 37-42,  – When I first heard the doctrine of Adam being our Father and God, I was favorably impressed

1877 “Women of Mormondom” published – “Adam is our Father and God. He is the God of the earth.”

June 2, 1888 – Joseph E. Taylor, Collected Discourses, v. 1,  – prove beyond question the power that Adam possessed in regard to taking his body again after laying it down

June 23, 1889 – Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, , BYU Library Special Collections – Adam is His father and our God:

That’s 37 years, or almost four decades of Church leaders claiming that Adam is our God. What doctrines today will be similarly swept under the carpet by the apologist set?

Apologists often use the Joseph F. Smith line from Doctrines of Salvation that only one source that was mistranscribed causes the whole mistaken theory. However, in order to take that logic you have to assume that when Brigham uses “The Lord” he doesn’t mean “Jehovah (or Jesus Christ in his primortal state) the way the King James uses it, but Brigham does use it that way otherwise. In that case there is, in fact, only ONE source that indicates that Brigham did not mean that Adam was God (And even then he capitalized “Father Adam” as though it meant God).

This clearly turns the Adam-God apologetics on its head. Will the apologists admit their own claim that only one could have been mis-transcribed and the rest prove the Adam-God theory? No… because they have an agenda and are paid to put it forward.

Sources:

“Adam is our Father and God. He is the God of the earth.” “Adam is the great Archangel of this creation. He is Michael. He is the Ancient of Days. He is the father of our elder brother, Jesus Christ–the father of him who shall also come as Messiah to reign. He is the father of the spirits as well as the tabernacles of the sons and daughters of man-Adam!” “Michael is one of the grand mystical names in the works of creations; redemptions and resurrections.” “Michael was a celestial, resurrected being, of another world.” “‘In the beginning,’ the Gods created the heavens and the earths. In their councils they said, ‘Let us make man in our own image.’ So, in the likeness of the Fathers, and the Mothers–the Gods–created they man-male and female. When this earth was prepared for mankind, Michael, as Adam, came down. He brought with him one of his wives, and he called her name Eve.” “Adam and Eve are the names of the fathers and mothers of worlds.”

Eliza R. Snow, Women of Mormondom, p. 179

“The grand patriarchal economy, with Adam, as a resurrected being, who brought his wife Eve from another world has been very finely elaborated by Brigham from the patriarchal genesis which Joseph conceived.”

Adam was a resurrected being Eliza R. Snow, Women of Mormondom, p. 180

“I think these two quotations from such a reliable authority fully solve the question as to the relationship existing between Father Adam and the Savior of the world, and prove beyond question the power that Adam possessed in regard to taking his body again after laying it down–which power he never could have attained unless he had received first a resurrection from the grave to a condition of immortality. We further say that this power was not forfeited when as a celestial being he voluntarily partook of the forbidden fruit, and thereby rendered his body mortal in order that he might become the father of mortal tabernacles, as he was already the father of immortal spirits–thus giving opportunity to the offspring of his own begetting to pass through the ordeals necessary to prepare them for a resurrection from the dead, a celestial glory. “All that Father Adam did upon this earth, from the time that he took up his abode in the Garden of Eden, was done for his posterity’s sake and the success of his former mission as the savior of a world, and afterwards, or now, as the father of a world only added to the glory which he already possessed. If, as the savior of a world, he had the power to lay down his life and take it up again, therefore, as the father of a world which is altogether an advanced condition, we necessarily conclude that the grave was powerless to hold him after that mission was completed…”

Joseph E. Taylor, Collected Discourses, v. 1, June 2, 1888

“Friday 9th April 1852. Stormy morning. Attended conference. House much crowded, did not stay in the house long. Afternoon was not in because of the crowd. Another meeting this evening. President Brigham Young taught that Adam was the father of Jesus and the only God to us. That he came to this world in a resurrected body and etc. more hereafter.”

Hosea Stout, Hosea Stout Journal, v. 2, p. 436, April 9, 1852

“… I feel thankful for the privilege of speaking a few words to this school. I wish to refer to the first doctrine preached that Adam was our Father and God in the revelation called the olive leaf it says that ‘the devil gathered together the hosts of hell and Michael the ark angel gathered together the hosts of heaven and he overcame the devil and his angel and this is the battle of the great God’ who is this Michael the archangel it is Adam who was Michael in the creation of the world…”

Wilford Woodruff, “Minutes of the School of Prophets,” Jan. 24, 1868

“Elder Orson Pratt pursued a course of stubbornness and unbelief in what President Young said that will destroy him if he does not repent and turn from his evil ways.”

— Wilford Woodruff, about the Adam God debates. WW, February 19, 1854 1)

“Here let me state to all philosophers of every class upon earth, When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle words devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods dwell…. Adam and Eve are the parents of all pertaining to the flesh, and I would not say that they are not also the parents of our spirits.”

Brigham Young quotes

“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken – He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later!”

“I tell you, when you see your Father in the Heavens, you will see Adam; when you see your Mother that bear your spirit, you will see Mother Eve.”
Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 50

“Some may think what I have said concerning Adam strange, but the period will come when the people will be willing to adopt Joseph Smith as their Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and God! but not the Father of their spirits, for that was our Father Adam.”
Prophet Brigham Young, Journal History, p. 131, December 11, 1869

“Our Father begot all the spirits that were before any tabernacle was made…and Adam is Michael God and all the God that we have anything to do with.” Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, April 9, 1852.

Sexual relations with Mary:”…when the Virgin Mary was begotten with Child it was by the Father and in no other way only as we were begotten. I will tell you the truth as it is in God. The world don’t know that Jesus Christ our Elder Brother was begotten by our Father in Heaven. Handle it as you please, it will either seal the damnation or salvation of man. He was begotten by the Father and not by the Holy Ghost.”
Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 7, pp. 285, 290 

“Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true.”
Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 5, p. 331;

 

“Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.”
Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, April 9, 1852

Now this is why Church members want to say “Well, these were his opinions, and he wasn’t speaking as a prophet. But you see him saying that salvation or damnation depends on believing this truth.  That’s a pretty strong opinion.

B H Roberts said that: “President Woodruff rendered a most important service to the church. His Journals, regularly and methodically and neatly kept and strongly bound, …constitute an original documentary historical treasure which is priceless. The church is indebted to these Journals for a reliable record of discourses and sayings of the Prophet of the New Dispensation — Joseph Smith — which but for him would have been lost forever. The same is true as to the discourses and sayings of Brigham Young, and other leading elders of the church; [and] for minutes of important council meetings, decisions, judgments, policies, and many official actions of a private nature, without which the writer of history may not be able to get right viewpoints on many things — in all these respects these Journals of President Woodruff are invaluable.”

Bruce R. McConkie admitting that Brigham taught this doctrine, but it is a false doctrine:

 

Original scanned letter, unphotoshopped just in case someone thinks “Well, anyone can post ANYTHING to the internet”

http://www.challengemin.org/adampg6.gif

http://www.challengemin.org/adampg7.gif

Posted in GA Bullsh*t, Timelines | 3 Comments

“Big Lists” and apologetics

Posted on May 25, 2014 by Mithryn

Well, it’s been a couple weeks, and Jeff has not responded [Jeff posted comments below.  I invited him to explain his position further]

As such I’m going to reiterate my basic point (original post is here)s:

1) Big lists are not to “Shock and Awe” they are to prevent apologists from giving answers  that solve one problem, but totally prove the church isn’t true (i.e. Claiming the Nephites were a tiny subset of central america to avoid the DNA argument, while claiming “Barley” as a hit, or “Quetzalcoatl” as a hit when barley requires the Nephites to be in the South Eastern United States, and we have the DNA samples of people who believed in Quetzalcoatl.

2) Claiming that authors of big lists write “The Big List is loaded with barbed questions that [are not] written in search of a real answer. ” is to presuppose that he can read the minds of the authors.  Knowing several of them, I refute this and suggest it is presumptuous of anyone to ascribe motives to the creation of lists without providing proof of the claim.

3) Attacking a big list as a “Gish Gallop” is just mixing terms up.  A Gish Gallop is an attempt to use up time in a debate.  Large lists that can be researched and provide links to help the truth seeker find details shouldn’t be categorized in the same category.  Indeed, if we provide only one thing that proves the church false, the apologist will say “that’s all they’ve got”.  And if we provide a large list, that is wrong too.  It’s clear that the apologists could easily prove there are no true scotsmen.

4. Jeff Lindsay says

“By the way, for the record, I believe in God and believe that He is the Creator, yet believe that science and religion will ultimately be compatible when properly understood. “

If he doesn’t believe in answering big lists of questions, I doubt he’ll ever see the flaw in his thinking.  If Joseph Smith says the universe is 2.5 billion years old, and science says otherwise, the true scientist must reject Joseph Smith, or else he isn’t a scientist, he’s an apologist.  Mr. Lindsay is a Chemical Engineer, and yet speaks frequently as an authority on MesoAmerican history, Mayan folklore, and early church anthropology.  Now I’m not an anthropologist either, we’re both guys out on the internet stating a view.

Mine, however, is open.  I embrace big lists of questions, even when they don’t support my views.  Go to FAIRLDS.org (or now FAIRMORMON.org)’s websites and go through their Big List of answers (After all, it’s just a big list trying to overwhelm the doubter with answers making his post a big case of the pot calling the kettle black) and see if it is internally consistent.  Read how many locations they choose for the book of Mormon (links and articles will discuss Guatemala, Northern U.S., central america, and a bit in Peru.  Other websites will even go to Malaysia!) and see if they are internally consistent.  Reject what doesn’t hold to science and I think in the end, you will see that their basic claims are not scientifically based, they always boil down to faith-based arguments… and for that, Mr. Lindsay is being deceptive both in how he paints big lists, and in how he presents himself to the world.

Note how many times, my own blog directs people to look at answers on FAIR.  I do not fear what people may read in a big list, because I have scientific, personal and historical truth on my side.

Please note the tagline of FAIRLDS, where he posted his blog, “honest questions faithful answers.”  Keep your faithful answers, I prefer honest answers.

Posted in Current issues | 5 Comments

Most people have asked me a question that goes something like “If you could have members read one book, what would it be?”

Posted on May 13, 2014 by Mithryn

Today I was at lunch with the author of the Letter to the CES Director and the subject of how FAIR gives answers that are so nebulous and ambiguous that they could be a plot point on Star Trek.

That reminded me of one of my favorite books. One that explained people’s behavior to me like none other more or less in one line:

There’s a gigantic gray area between good moral behavior and outright felonious activities. I call that the Weasel Zone and it’s where most of life happens.

—Scott Adams, Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel

I’m not sure they need to read the whole book, because it’s pretty much summed up in that one line, but the book then sets about illustrating that principle very well with examples.

I might write one about “The Great Mormon Weasel” where I would illustrate this same idea in Mormon terms.

*i.e. Doing your home teaching is good. It builds community and makes sure the widow and fatherless are cared for in the neighborhood, which some might call “true religion”. It provides a feedback system for the organization and makes you take action on your faith.

Refusing to do it would be okay as well, as visiting smelly homes insincerely could actually harm the community and make people feel like the organization is keeping tabs on them

The way of the Mormon Weasel God is to shuffle your feet and look down whenever the Elder’s Quorum President mentions home teaching, and then report that you visited the family for that time you said a sentence beyond “hi” to them in church.

See how fun a book like that would be?

But where The Mormon Weasel God resides, like Zeus’ Mt. Olympus, is high on top of Mount FAIR.

Yes, that website where Weasel thinking is so prevalent it dresses up in clothing and masquerades as “rational thinking”, “Science” or just really long-worded essays.

For example, when asked “Did Joseph Translate out of a stone in a hat” FAIR could reply “yes” and cite sources. That would be a good answer.

They could reply “no” and quote a thousand talks where general authorities state otherwise. This could at least be fairly repudiated and proven false.

But instead they worship the great God of Mormon Weaselness by stating:

  • Actually, there is much more than one “obscure” talk in the Ensign by Elder Nelson that mentions [translating out of a stone in a hat].
  • For a believer’s perspective on this subject, see: The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat, and the Book: A Twenty-first Century Believer’s View of the Book of Mormon Translation.

That’s right, even though the talk was basically a crumpled up piece of paper left over after a CES fireside to only seminary teachers left in a disused lavatory with a sign saying “Beware of the leopard” on it, the true way to worship the Weasel is to make the author of the letter look dumb by stating there are LOTS of talks in which Elder Nelson mentions this… and not provide any sources to these LOTS of talks.

But they do provide a link to this article in which the author states: Given that I am not a scholar, it is not my intention to draw any conclusions regarding this aspect of the translation

That’s right, skip providing sources to General Authorities or scholars. Worshiping the weasel means turning to a random dude’s opinion on the internet (who has no more authority in this matter, than say; I do.)

Or another example.

Ask FAIR was Joseph Smith into Polyandry and they reply:

In all cases, these women continued to live with their husbands, most of them doing so until their husbands died. These eternal [polyandrous] marriages appear to have had little effect upon the lives of the women involved

See that’s a Weasel answer. Simply saying “Yes” and perhaps citing marriage records would be good. Saying “no” and providing sources would be a bad answer but at least could be given a reply.

To Worship the God of Weasel, you have to not only admit that he did, but then downplay that the women were affected. Or another way to phrase that would be “.. but they enjoyed it”. Hell, at that point you could say “They were asking for it” and it would be just about as weasel-born an idea.

Anyway, if you haven’t seen the Donut charts on the letter to the CES director’s FAIR rebuttals, I urge you to do so. You’ll never find a more wretched hive of scum and worship of the Mormon Weasel god than in FAIR’s rebuttals.

Because honestly, I don’t believe they worship the Mormon God of Truth, Justice, Mercy and Love, but the Great Mormon Weasel God, who is okay with half-truths, misleading answers, and leaving off convenient source citation.  They’ve started their own religion and are masquerading as Mormons online to fool the gullible members.

Read each comment and think about what a good answer might look like, what a bad answer might look like, and realize how much Weasel is sprinkled into each one.

Polygamy

Book of Mormon

Translation

First Vision

Book of Abraham

Masonry

Posted in Apologetics | Leave a comment

Elder David A. Bednar – and the wrong birthday

Posted on April 9, 2014 by Mithryn

The following was taken from a post by hoserb2k from reddit:

In case you were not watching confrence closely, near the end of Bednar’s “load” speech, he proclaimed that April 6th was known to be Jesus’s birthday by “revelation” (link, go to 15:28[1] )

The problem with this statement is that the April 6 date was not revelation, but rather mormon fokelore. While some point to D&C section 20 1) The revelation was given on April 10, not on the 6th like the scriptures claim and 2) The bit about April 6th was the addition of a scribe later on as an embellishment. What is the source of all this? Some terrible anti source like mormonthink.com? Try the church’s newspaper, Desert News

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700094707/What-was-the-real-date-of-Jesus-birth.html?pg=all[2]

Well you say, there must have been some later revelation by a Prophet and Seer that confirms that the 6th really was the date. You would be incorrect, in fact Prophets and Seers are on the record as not agreeing. Here are some mormon luminaries weighing in on the issue:

James Talmage: April 6, meridian of time

J. Reuben Clark: Early December, 4 or 5 B.C.

Bruce R. McConkie: December 5 B.C.

In modern LDS history, both the clergy and the academics of the the church have pushed away from the 6th date as impossible (BYU Studies[3] ).

I know that the general membership does not really care about this, but among the LDS historians and thinkers, this was a huge punch to the gut. The problematic april 6th date had been neatly solved for decades, and in a few seconds bednar again tears open the problem. You can head to the faithful sub and see how the debate will go (some upset, most rebuking them saying “how is this relevant to your salvation?”). A good friend of mine gasped when he heard bednar say this, and was convinced that it would be edited out of the conference report as an error. He was devastated when the report came out today and it remained in.

My point in bringing this up is that some LDS members really do care about facts, and do notice when events are misrepresented. As someone else posted, LDS editors notice when conference speakers steal quotes, and historians notice when you mess with history.

_____

There you have it, B.S. from the pulpit in conference.  Accountability?  None.

Posted in GA Bullsh*t | 5 Comments

Summer of Decision

Posted on April 9, 2014 by Mithryn

The Video

My Commentary (Read this in Joel, Crow and Tom Servo’s voices)

0:16 – Gosh I love volkswagon’s.  They look the same no matter the era.

0:27 – Frank Wise did the editing, I hope he was wise about he edited.

0:31 – Morris G. Rowley wrote this.  His accomplishments include: Finishing Highschool.  Serving a mission in the North West.  Marrying a girl in 1939who waited for him after his mission. A teacher and principle.  Interestingly enough he doesn’t seem to be a General Authority at all.  He was a teacher who wrote a story and BYU decided to publish it.  Adding the “G” initial to his name made him sound more official I guess.

0:34- Wetzel, dear Wetzel who produced Johny Lingo, Pioneers in Petticoats and “The windows of Heaven” known for his historical accuracy. I doubt I’d have this section on my blog if it wasn’t for his “insight” into filmmaking.

0:40 – This guy is so nervous it looks like he should be on “What to do on a date”.

0:49 – Handshake and inspection of the young man, leading to the interrogation.

1:24 – Do I know your father”, the beginning of a perfect “I did your mom” joke if ever I heard one.

1:30 – “What does he do in the church” ah yes, must be a member and an active one.  This is a byu production after all.

1:43 – The eight cow potential wife is on set!

1:48 – Your daddy kept me Sooo entertained…

1:56 – Wait, is this to get us to expect every father to be like a District Attorney.  If this guy is a special case, were we just illustrating he was being a dick to her dates?  I’m confused.

2:06 – He want’s the boy’s number so he can “entertain” him again after the date.

2:16 – ETA is 22:00 hours sir, assuming mission is accomplished in 5 minutes or less after parking, sir!

2:25 – Goodnight, go to bed, you’re never seeing your little girl again!

2:35 – Wait, he’s the new move in and they hold hands as soon as they are out of sight of the father, she’s a quick mover!

2:40 – Woah, Bill, dude, on camera in that outfit, no!

2:42 – “All kinds of fun”  Nudge nudge wink wink.

2:49 – And just like a library book you returned her slightly used, and with her pages ruffled, didn’t you, you dog!

2:55 – “.. on the porch for her” which is why we made out long before I took her up the drive.

3:10 – Notice that BYU is not an option he is considering.  Even LDS kids know that real education comes from eastern universities.

3:30 – College decisions should be set by pretty girls at home.

3:38 – is that a soda or a beer?  The way he says “Get a job” makes me think “beer”.

3:43 – Yes, mom and dad ain’t paying for ya!

3:55 – Eastern girls are dragons!  ohhh, what a dis!

4:00 – cut to dragon-women at eastern apparently.  Also, Dragons have LOTS of hair

4:12 – Pay attention in class, naw; letter writing time!  Reminds me of the MTC the way he hides his writing.

4:35 – Sociology and evolution.  SOCIALIST PROFESSOR! DANGER BILL ROBINSON DANGER!

4:50 – He left the mormon bubble; he’s so dead.  SO DEAD!

5:00 – Only mormon.  Has to defend it, and goes straight to persecuted by people being incredulous.  No specifics, mind you, but let’s assume they’re talking about why black men can’t hold the priesthood and are lesser because of skin color.

5:30 – He says “Phenomenon” like Richard Dawkins.  Ah yes, it’s the MISSION they can’t believe.  What a zany belief to argue over, not say, throwing javalin’s through adulterers, or polygamy.

5:35 – So many straw men, the crows will never land.  Missionaries AND diet… preposterous.

6:06 – “pleasures of food and drink” that’s great screenwriting right there.  What all the kids say those days.

6:15 – Other religions are included, ince.

6:30 – Possible the church will modify its stand… to bad these are straw men or they might mention other positions the church has altered, or other religions that have altered.  Ya know, give some reasoning.

6:35- Blame the group for why you are uninformed, sure, not your leaders who after years of teaching you didn’t cover the basics.

6:50 – Scowl to not being sure about the church

7:00 – Obligatory prayer in school!  (institute)  Missionary effort for every LDS child

7:18- After school with the institute teacher… cue the guitar.

7:29 – being unsure about the church = personality change

7:46 – The answer to all problems, interrogation.

8:00 – No institute, no clubs, no way to extend the bubble. TROUBLE!

8:30 – Questioning bad, turning in your peer for having doubts to leadership, good!

8:44- Women in aprons, men tasting, how the church was meant to be.

9:08- Everything is decided by Football.  This is no way a discussion of BYU (state) vs. U of U by the way, it just sounds that way.

9:28 – Tickets to the game, but instead, parking.  Smooth!

9:35 – Take that old man and your losing football team.

10:20 – “Will you marry me?”

10:50 – Ask Daddy … you have to marry him too!

11:00 – Married the same day as we go to the temple… did you hear that.  It was only back to when this film was made that people were married civilly before a temple wedding.  Commonly on different days.

11:05 – Tis a silly place of masonic symbols and penalties, they’ve hidden from you.

11:20 – Answers BEFORE the temple, crazy talk!

11:25 – Stop repeating me

11:40 – The cult told me temple first, questions later.  It’s so hard to decide.

11:56 – Love me and have questions… preposterous!

12:00 – That’s right, do not marry someone who thinks.  #notACult

12:05 – She’s trying to fix you.  RUN BILL, RUN!

12:15 – Yes, go to a man he’s never met before, for advice.  He is totally irrational for turning that idea down.

12:35 – Your strange man, you’ve told me about before is so WRONG when the man I’ve never told you about is so RIGHT!

12:45 – “{Self-reliant” thrown back in his face, that’ll show him, thinking for himself instead of depending on the organization.  #notACult

13:00 – I’m ready for my close up

13:20 – He goes to someone to ask questions.  Good on Bill.  Pity we don’t see the discussion club influencing him on asking questions is a good thing.  Or “hearing both sides”

14:00 – Institute teachers never go home

14:20 – “I heartily recommend the institution” is a quote by Wilford Woodruff, who, incidentally had 7 wives.  You can hear this quote in “Mountain of the Lord”

15:00 – Nothing wrong with Good Honest Doubt.  Bravo!

 15:05 – “Period of doubting” ah yes, it’s something you grow out of. *sigh*

15:15 – “Are you attending your meetings” because that would help doubt… or not.

15:30 – Baptism covenant guilt trip!  You were a whole 8 years old, why don’t you keep what you agreed to when 8, like that you’d always watch cartoons your whole life?! #notACult

16:00 – only go to school within our reach

16:15 – It’s YOUR fault you don’t want to go to the temple.

16:28 – Clint eastwood eyes… GO TO YOUR BISHOP.

16:35 – Wait, he asked no questions and got no answers.  No one is going to actually help resolve concerns?

17:00 – Pajamas matter

17:30 – 6:30 and she’s dressed like that already.  Woah!

17:45 – Elopement wins!  Just like Joseph and Emma, ignore your father’s religious beliefs and get hitched!

17:50 – God told her it will be fine.  It’s a church that says you can get truth claims resolved by prayer.  No problem, right?

18:00 – Dig that car.  This is my mother and father’s era

18:18 – Isn’t he cute, folks?  Did he just make an “L” on his forehead?

19:00 – Elopement via Mormon bishop… totally allowed in the day

19:45 – No promises until sure… so crazy.

19:55 – Love = TEMPLE, #notACult

20:00 – Any other kind of marriage should be farthest thing… and he stands up for his bride and his decision.  Well done.

20:20 – Mormon bishop > other marriage forms because?

20:45 – Fighting comes from questions and doubts.  Remember that kids.

21:00 – Do you think this is what Emma said to Joseph?

21:30 – Seatbelts, foiling God’s plan for punishing kids who ask questions since they were required by law

22:00 –  yes, Death is an appropriate end to those who don’t follow the church.  #notACult

23:00 – Spooky mormon hell dream inducing weirdness.

23:05 – NO walk into the LIGHT!

23:15 – See mormons are inconsiderate to the non-believer even in death.  She doesn’t even say goodbye, or talk to him as he cries out.

23:30 – Hell is slow motion and 70’s lighting

23:40 – you know it was good writting when the twist at the end is “it was all a dream”.

24:20 – Hello, Nancy, I had a dream I did your mother last night, as well as that we should go to the temple.  I always trust my dreams so come right over… and bring your mom.

24:35 – Whine over technology- the telephone, no fucks given.

24:50 – Something is wrong with him.  he’s about to give up free thought in order to promise everything he will ever have to the organization under threat that his tongue might be ripped out and his bowels split if he ever talks about it, because he had a guilt dream.

25:18 – Was it like an erection?

25:30 – “I’ve been wrong”, because that’s the point of this little moral tale after all.

26:00 – At least he’ll get honest answers from the bishop, because they’re trained to have answers to hard questions right?  RIGHT?  That’s not going to backfire.

26:21 – A mormon film that ends with making out on the couch, and then they decided a shotgun wedding would be better than a temple wedding, and 8 1/2 months later Little Johnny was born, and That’s How I Met Your Mother.

Closing note: Notice there is NO discussion of a mission.  This is my parent’s generation.  It’s been that short of time that the entire organization has swapped to putting such peer pressure on young men that this girl would be seen as almost inactive for not demanding that he serve a mission before getting married today.  This is the power of correlation.

The End

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in New look at old Church Videos | Leave a comment

Young Women’s – Roll model analysis and the Bechtel test

Posted on April 8, 2014 by Mithryn

In the Sunstone article we find that women regularly exercised their priesthood up until Joseph F. Smith sent a letter in 1946.

Many people asked “how could correlation remove all knowledge of this in such a short time”.  I thought a fitting way to see how correlation is able to subtly modify views of members in the church would be to review and analyze leadership roles defined in Young Women’s.  My Hypothesis is that every woman’s story will be illustrating how she obeys a man, or how she was strong and independent and obedient to church authority.  There maybe be a margin of up to 5 examples without me rejecting the null hypothesis (figuring that maybe on days like Christmas, or Pioneer day they might break from it, 5 days out of 52 weeks or about 10% of the lessons).

Now I haven’t looked at a Young Women’s manual since the 90’s when I taught young women’s as a missionary (Long story, short version is it was a small branch and we did whatever was necessary to help out), so going into it, I could totally be proven wrong.

TITLE: Come follow me.  Women following a man;  okay, it’s Jesus, but not a strong name implying women’s strength like “As Sister’s in Zion”, or “The Handmaiden of the Lord” (Still subservient but a quote of what the Mother of Jesus said).  However I do have to say that “Come Follow Me” in context is what Jesus said to his apostles; encouraging them to leave the worldly and to serve as leaders in the kingdom.  In LDS connotation it is a phrase for every member so it is, in effect equalizing.  Not so bad so far.

Women Mentioned:

Lesson 2: Sister Orgando – Independant, Told originally by Pres. Monson, they give the woman her own voice.

Lesson 4 (Holy Ghost): They have a video where girls discuss conference talks.  Only a man’s talk is discussed.  Girls are asked to read “Teaching our Children to Understand“, about a little girl who is taught that when her brother won’t share she must pray to heavenly father.  The Story is not resolved whether the brother shares or not; but the girl “feels better” and that is enough.  However the girl does go to her mother for guidance.  Story 2 “Only upon the principles of righteousness” is all about how a man is able to tell his wife what to do, jokingly at first, but after about when he is able to use the priesthood to lead, although the less focuses again on a daughter turning to her mother for consoling feelings.  The final one “The Why of Priesthood Service” is about Uchtdorf being ordained in the Aaronic Priesthood.

Lesson 5 – Central article says “Our daily contributions of nurturing, teaching, and caring for others may seem mundane, diminished, difficult, and demeaning at times,” definitely pandering to the roles that women are to be set in. Her mother, being a single mom for 40+ years, could be a central strength and a story of being on her own, but instead “she relied on the power of prayer, priesthood, and covenant promises. ” and then the story defers to President Hinkley’s opinion of women. The video “Significant in Every way” is actually pretty woman-empowering.  Uchtdorf then gives a rendition of the ugly duckling, which he gives as a masculine version.  Another talk “the moral force of women” gives several examples of pioneer women without illustrating how they defer to men.

And with that, in the first 5  lessons I have to reject the null hypothesis.  Earlier lessons may have rewritten the past, and while there is no indication of priesthood use, it’s clear that women in the manual are allowed to be independent of thought, and to do good without having to defer to authority.  I’m really impressed on this one.  The Young Women’s manual passes the Bechtdel test with flying colors on almost every lesson.  Now there are Lots and Lots of quotes by LDS General Authorities that could fill up the full time, but it is there such that if a YW’s leader wanted to teach the lesson entirely from a woman perspective, it could be done in a majority of lessons.

 

 

Posted in Current issues | Leave a comment

Top 5 reasons General Conference is not like a Ted talk

Posted on April 4, 2014 by Mithryn

This link has shown up a bit on my facebook feed today: http://www.normons.com/why-you-shouldnt-be-scared-mormon-general-conference/ comparing General Conference to TED talks.

Very well, they compel me to go with them a mile, I will go with them twain.  The top 5 reasons that General Conference is NOT like a TED talk.

1. Heartsell is a trademarked technology used by the LDS church during general conference to help members feel what the speakers are saying.  Members mostly don’t know the technology exists, and it includes things like pipes on the organ so low that that you can’t hear when they are played, but the members can still feel it.  Bonneville Communications (Owned by the same corporation as the church and who’s board of directors consists of members of the quorum of the twelve apostles of the LDS church) sells this to other churches.  If TED talks were using subliminal techniques to make their talks a success, I’m sure it would be a scandal that would turn people off.

2. TED Talks are not allowed to push the person’s own product.  The head of Pepsi cola is allowed to talk about how jetpacks could be very helpful in the future or even how an initiative in his company helped poor children in africa, but he isn’t allowed to make health claims about pepsi cola and turn the ted talk into a half-hour commercial.  LDS general authorities speak exclusively about the product their organization pushes; the LDS faith.  They make statements that it is the one, true faith.  That no one can be a family without it.  Imagine a VP of Microsoft making a claim like that at TED!

3. TED talks are not correlated. Imagine learning that there was a group who edited and changed the talks at TED before they were given, with the purpose of making sure no one left 72 talking points.  Imagine that if someone did give a talk beyond those limited thoughts, they were forced to re-record their talk including a cough track so that those watching the video later wouldn’t know the talk was edited.  TED would become a laughing stock and no one would want to speak at it.  General Conference is correlated.

4. TED speakers are not paid.  General Authorities of the church are paid a modest living allowance that they, themselves have compared to CEO wages (Mormon Doctrine p. 510 and Doctrine and Covenants, Sec. 42:71-73).  In addition they get exclusive book deals with companies like Bookcraft and Deseret Book, and sit on the board of directors of various companies simply by being male and having an apostolic calling.  Don’t get me wrong, being paid as a minister isn’t the problem, it’s that members constantly claim they have “No paid clergy” in the church; whereas TED talks really are not paid.

5. The use of fallacy. If I hear more than 4 fallacies in a TED talk, I turn it off.  I just don’t have time for speculation.  General Conference is filled with fallacy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBXxJJfX3Nk&feature=related&utm_campaign=Listly&utm_medium=list&utm_source=listly

Please, let’s keep science and open-minded ideas separate from the same classification as a sales message for religion.

Posted in Correlation, Current issues | 8 Comments

Lesson 5: Studying the Scriptures

Posted on March 28, 2014 by Mithryn

The Original

This lesson begins with a “lost and found” exercise where the teacher asks them to search the room for something lost, and doesn’t describe it.  I remember actually having my instructor use this lesson back when I was in seminary.

Then it says

“After students have searched unsuccessfully for a brief time, describe what they should be searching for, and ask them to try again.”

This presumes that one will not find the answer, and that the students are not going to spend enough time to do an actual scientific inquiry.  In fact, it is a lesson that is Anti-science.

If one were to give the students a puzzle to be solved, say; a mixture of chemicals that turns purple when two clear chemicals are mixed together, today’s students could probably find the answer on google in seconds.  Without google, but with scientific inquiry, they might not find the compound’s exact name, but could perhaps test the original chemical’s PH, viscosity and other attributes, and narrow down the solution.  Students are bright.

“Guess what I’m thinking” is not really a good test of ability to find one’s own answers.  Nor is “I’m telling you what the answer you should find is” a good example of learning.  Instead, it is psuedo-learning, it is prepping people to only learn the desired answer, and goes along with leading questions and planting suggestions as bad technique.  This lesson begins with -10 points off the bat.

One cannot honestly study the scriptures without learning gospel principles because the scriptures have been written to preserve principles” (“The Message of the Old Testament” [address to CES religious educators, Aug. 17, 1979], 3, LDS.org ).

This is a funny lil quote, because it suggests that everyone who studies scriptures finds the same principles.  Despite the FLDS believing in Adam-God, or the Community of Christ having a different definition of tithing, or the Bickertonites and their codes of conduct, yet all these groups have the same scriptures.

“Principles are concentrated truth, packaged for application to a wide variety of circumstances. A true principle makes decisions clear even under the most confusing and compelling circumstances” (“Acquiring Spiritual Knowledge,” Ensign, Nov. 1993, 86).

Despite these “principles” being concentrated truth, people get many different principles out of the same scriptures.  Here they make it seem as though everyone should get the same answers.

To put it another way, this would be like the English teacher who says there is only one way to understand MacBeth, and anyone who thinks about it differently is wrong.

Then the lesson makes this claim:

Explain that principles and doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ are fundamental, unchanging truths that provide guidance for our lives.

To everyone who has ever used the phrase “He was speaking as a man” to excuse bad doctrine, I offer this; the CES, the official Church Educational System, is responsible for putting into kids heads that the principles are 1. easy to find, 2. immutable, and 3. unchanging.

No wonder so many members are shocked when they learn about the changes to the doctrine over the years.  Telling them “it wasn’t doctrine” when they were taught it was simple, and obvious to anyone who reads is not going to make them feel any better.

The lesson then compares the scriptures to a piece of fruit with one layer.  I rather think of them more like the epic of Homer, an ancient document that requires years of study, understanding of location and the nuances of ancient language in order to really understand, but one can enjoy even without training.

But this comparison of fruit implies that one can simply and easily understand the scriptures with just a bit of “guidance”.

The lesson then does explain the importance of historical setting which is laudable (+5 points).  Truly a lot of my love for studying early church history was kindled or at least fueled in seminary by learning details.

It selects D&C 121 for the students to learn about setting, and that it is set in Liberty Jail.  This isn’t about providing historical context at that point, but pushing emotional reactions into the children.

For example, think about how the historical context changes knowing the following:

1) Joseph Smith and Company had attempted to break out of jail at least twice by the time this revelation was given

2) Porter Rockwell and others shortly after broke Joseph Smith’s 6 year old son into the jail to give him a blessing

3) Joseph Smith had been convicted of illegal banking and ordered to pay $1,000 fine in Ohio, had ordered the burning of Gallatin, Missouri, and had sexual relations with a minor working for his family, Fanny Alger, by this point.

4. Mormon soldiers, under military titles such as “Captain Fearnot” and Joseph’s lead had fired upon state militia.  How would groups that lead military insurrection against state police or the national guard be treated today?

Do those change the context?  Could they be played just as easily to alter the emotions of students?  Historical setting can be used to push the learner to a desired conclusion through spinning the tale, or only telling part of the story.  The priesthood manual’s lesson on Honesty (lesson 31) says that omission is just as much lying as intentionally telling a falsehood.  By leaving out details surrounding Joseph Smith’s arrest, the seminary manual is manipulating students into emotionally reacting, while telling them they are studying history.  -20 points.

Point out that some words used in the scriptures may not be familiar. The Bible Dictionary, the Guide to the Scriptures, scripture footnotes, and a regular dictionary can help us learn the definitions of words and understand their meaning.

The omission of other places to search for meaning needs to be updated.  Wikipedia, encyclopedias, School libraries, published works on topics, and more can certainly provide context, and broader views than the church produced bible dictionary, guide to the scriptures, and the footnotes.  They at least threw in one outside source, “The regular dictionary”, but now with a world-wide database of all published human knowledge in the palm of every student-who-owns-a-smartphone hand, this is a very limited “Only what we print is a good source” narrowing of scope that should have been updated.  -20 points for not updating, but +5 for at least mentioning an outside source.

The lesson then engages in this weird discussion about identifying principles and separating out the circumstance.  I call it weird because it doesn’t give any hard guidelines, and this kind of study can lead people to make some really wrong conclusions.  For example, if one reads that one shouldn’t wear mixed-cloth garments in the bible, and decides that the principle is “one should not mix” they could conclude the temple is a fallen concept because one can buy Cotton-poly garments from the church.  Or if one reads about the tribe of Benjamin slaughtering the men of the town and forcing the women to marry them, one might conclude that rape can be divinely inspired.  The author of the lesson clearly had only particular principles in mind, without giving thorough guidance as to how to find those principles.  I’m going to guess that as we proceed into future lessons, the answer will be shown to be: “Whatever the LDS leaders are currently saying”.

This part is just bad form regardless.

“If [you] are acquainted with the revelations, there is no question—personal or social or political or occupational—that need go unanswered. (“Teach the Scriptures” [address to CES religious educators, Oct. 14, 1977], 3–4, LDS.org

Is it any wonder that there are over 200 split off groups from the mormon origins with thinking like this?  Find a scripture, identify a principle, and then apply it to every question in your life.  The scriptures are like a ouija board that if you open it up and select a random set of scriptures and then filter them, answers to all of life questions are mystically revealed.

I think this lesson was written poorly and without real thought that students have their own minds.  I think it is meant to prep students to only receive certain answers that are going to be spoon fed, and that it is given in a wrapper than the church has all the answers to life’s problems.  It creates dependence without thought, and that is one of the bad behaviors organizations should strive to remove.

D+.

 

Posted in Seminary Manuals | Leave a comment

Lesson 4: Doctrine and Covenants 1

Posted on March 21, 2014 by Mithryn

By November 1831, Joseph Smith had received more than 60 revelations.

Including some already failed prophesies (such as selling the copyright of the Book of Mormon in Canada), but let’s skip past that.

 The Prophet convened a conference in Hiram, Ohio, to discuss publishing them as a book that would be called the Book of Commandments. A committee of elders drafted a preface to the book. Unsatisfied with this draft, those who attended the conference requested that Joseph Smith ask the Lord for a preface. After petitioning the Lord in prayer, Joseph received a preface by revelation.

So this book is the only one, to my knowledge, that has a preface written by God himself.  That’s an impressive and… extraordinary claim.  You know where I’m going, where is the extraordinary evidence?

Modern English version of D&C 1; or “Why does god sound like someone copying 1700’s English?)

V1: Everyone, Everywhere, listen up.

V2: No really, EVERYONE, hear this deep down

V3: People who don’t listen, it will be bad for you.

V4: I’m warning you through my chosen servants

V5: And nobody is stopping my servants

So, one thing we notice about God’s voice even by verse 5, is that He repeats himself, a lot.  He’s very poetic, and likes to threaten.

V6: I have authority, they have authority to publish this preface on this book. (God’s copyright).

V7: and this stuff is scary, yo.

V8-9: The people who bring this to you have power to seal on earth and heaven not to love and eternal life, but to wrath against the end of the world(Quite the statement!)

V10: Poetic description of second coming of Christ

V11: I’m saying this to all y’all.

V12-14: Cause I’m mad, do prepare all of you, and if you don’t listen it’s gonna bad.

Again, God repeats himself, loves poetic language and speaks like He is a century behind the times.

And what is it that gets God soooo upset that He would go on and on about how bad it’s going to be?

For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;

They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.

Hmmm, yes, I can see why the lesson only mentions the scripture, but doesn’t go into depth about it.

When has someone sought to get your attention and warn you about something? How did you respond?

Given that it is now over 100 years after the original end times stated by Joseph Smith/Jesus and Wilford Woodruff, I’d say a lot like the people in the “Boy who cried wolf”.

How do you feel about that person’s efforts to warn you?

A real warning to a clear and present danger, grateful.  To a false warning that is just to get a rise out of my emotions, I get upset.  I have things to focus on, and simply getting hyped up because one can is off-putting.  I would say that putting hyperbole and poetry repeated over and over in order to warn people would fall into the latter category.

Display your copy of the Doctrine and Covenants, and explain that in this book the Lord provides warnings, commandments, and instructions that are crucial for our happiness and salvation.

Another extraordinary claim.  I’d like to see extraordinary evidence that people who had the Doctrine and Covenants are happier or saved more.  Go on, any evidence at all.

The gospel was restored through Joseph Smith to prepare the world for the calamity of the last days

That are TOTALLY going to happen.  Any day now.  I mean, just look at that mall built in SLC, clearly that means that the trip back to Missouri for the meeting at Adam-ondi-ahman is going to happen any day.

As well as the building of an apartment complex next to a temple on the east coast.  Yup, it’s a good thing that this voice of warning wasn’t just crying wolf or else people might question the need for all the dire speak.  But if they were willing to question that, they might also question 1700’s english from a God who speaks all languages.

 

Posted in Seminary Manuals, Uncategorized | Leave a comment