#Historical evidence for Joseph Smith’s First Vision | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

nerdygaymormon · 4 years ago

Note

Do you have a link to your thoughts on the CES letter? Because I'm sure plenty of folk have asked you about it. I'm, struggling.

The CES letter has been mentioned to me a few times in asks, but I don’t recall being asked to respond directly to it.

Before getting into it, I want to make you aware of this post about Faith Transitions, I think it may be useful to you.

I read the CES letter many years ago, probably the original version, it’s changed a lot since then. I think the CES letter is sloppy, and twists quotes, uses some questionable sources, and frames things in the worst possible way. It’s basically an amalgamation of all the anti-Mormon literature. But many of the main points of the CES letter are important and correct, even if the supporting details aren’t.

In a way, the CES letter has done the Church a favor. For a long time, Elder Packer insisted that anything which isn’t faith-promoting shouldn’t be taught. As a result, most members of the Church were taught a simplified version of Church history, leaving out anything that is messy or difficult. Although those things could be found if someone was looking for them, I found many of them simply by reading Brigham Young Discourses or other works of the early church.

With the internet, Elder Packer’s approach to history turns out to be a bad one. This information is out there and now most members learn about it from sources seeking to destroy their faith. One response to this has been a series of essays where the Church talks about some difficult subjects.

————————————————————

I’m not going to go through all the claims & challenges of the CES letter, but let me address some of the main ones.

1) There are errors in the Book of Mormon that are also contained in the 1769 edition of the Bible.

From the more faithful point-of-view, Joseph recognizes these passages, such as those from Isaiah, and knows they've already been translated into English and copies them from his family’s Bible. The non-faithful point-of-view is that Joseph copied these verses from his family Bible and tried to pass it off as his own translation.

2) DNA analysis has concluded that Native American Indians do not originate from the Middle East or from Israelites but from Asia.

This is correct. The Church has an essay which admits this and then spends a lot of time explaining how genetics works and one day we might find some Middle East connection. I find the Church essay convoluted as it goes through many possible (and unlikely) reasons for why no DNA of the Jaredites, Nephites or Lamanites has yet been found in the Americas.

3) There are things in the Book of Mormon that didn’t exist during Book of Mormon times, or in Central America (assuming this is where the Book of Mormon takes place), such as horses, chariots, goats, elephants, wheat, and steel.

This is also correct. Maybe the translation process was using a common word in English for a common item in the Book of Mormon. Maybe these are errors. Maybe it’s made up.

4) No archeological evidence has been found for the Nephite/Lamanite civilizations.

Correct. When it comes to archeological evidence, it's true that we haven't found any. For one thing, we don't know where the Nephite & Lamanite civilizations are supposed to have taken place. If you don't know where to look, it's easy to have no evidence. Perhaps Nephites & Lamanites didn’t actually exist and that’s why there’s no archeological evidence. The Book of Mormon does seem to do a decent job of describing geography of the Middle East before Lehi & his family boarded the boat for the Promised Land.

5) Book of Mormon names and places are strikingly similar (or identical) to many local names and places of the region Joseph Smith lived in.

This seems like a funny thing to get hung up on. First of all, it’s not very many names that are similar. Secondly, many places in the US are named for Biblical places & people. If the Book of Mormon people came from Israel, it makes sense they did something similar. For example, the word Jordan is in the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and in many places in America.

6) He points to obscure books or dime-novels that Joseph Smith might have read and the similarities between them and the Book of Mormon.

Those similarities are mostly at the surface level. To me it doesn't seem like Joseph plagiarized any particular book, and these specific books seem to not been very popular so difficult to say Joseph, who lived on the frontier, actually read them. Funny how no one from that time period thought the Book of Mormon resembled those books, probably because they hadn’t heard of them. But Joseph did hear and read a number of stories and some of that phrasing or whatever of the time influenced him. Think of songwriters, they create a new song then get accused of plagiarizing because it's similar to another popular song. Even without intending to, they were influenced by things they heard.

7) The Book of Mormon has had 100,000 changes.

Most of the "100,000" changes to the Book of Mormon were to break it into chapters & verses, to add chapter headings, or to add grammar such as commas and whatnot. There are some changes to fix errors that got printed but differed from the original manuscript. And there's been some clarifications made, but these are few in number. By claiming "100,000" he's trying to make it seem like there's a scam being done. It's easy to get a replication of the first Book of Mormon from the Community of Christ and read it side-by-side with today's version. I’ve done that and occasionally there’s a word or two here or there which differ, but overall it's mostly the same.

8) There were over 4 different First Vision accounts

True. Over the years, the way Joseph described the First Vision changed. I think different versions emphasize different aspects of the experience. I don’t find them to be contradictory. Oh, and the Church has an essay about this.

9) The papyri that Joseph translated into the Book of Abraham has been found and translated and it’s nothing like the Book of Abraham.

This is true. The Church has an essay about it. The Church now says that the papyri inspired Joseph to get the Book of Abraham via revelation, much like his translations of the Bible weren’t from studying the ancient Greek & Hebrew. It is a big change from what the Church used to teach, that this was a translation of the papyrus. The papyri has nothing to do with the Book of Abraham, and the explanations of the facsimiles in the Pearl of Great Price don’t match what the scholars say those pictures are about.

10) Joseph married 34+ women, many without Emma’s consent, some who had husbands, and even a teenager.

This all appears to be true. Emma knew about some of them, but not all. As for the married women, they were still married to their husbands but sealed to Joseph (I know this is strange to us, but this sort of thing was common until Wilford Woodruff standardized how sealings are done).

Polygamy was illegal in the United States. Most people who participated were told to keep it secret. So of course there’s carefully-worded statements by Joseph and others denying they participate in polygamy.

The salacious question everyone wants to know is if Joseph slept with all these women. We don’t know, but a DNA search for descendants of Joseph has taken place among the descendants of the women he was ‘married’ to and none have been found. But still, if he wasn’t doing anything wrong, why is he hiding this from Emma?

11) The Church used to teach that polygamy was required for exaltation, even though the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy.

This is accurate. The Church says polygamy was part of ancient Israel and so as part of the restoration of all things, polygamy had to be restored, see D&C 132:34. Now we no longer say polygamy is required to get to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.

12) Brigham Young taught Adam-God theory, which is now disavowed by the Church.

True. Joseph Smith didn’t teach this and John Taylor & Wilford Woodruff don’t seem to have any time for this teaching. It’s a thing Brigham Young was hot about and taught, but seems a lot of the church didn’t buy it as it was discarded after his death.

13) Black people weren’t allowed to hold the priesthood until 1978, despite Joseph having conferred it to a few Black people during his life.

Very true and very sad. This and the Mountain Meadows Massacre are the two biggest stains on the Church’s past. There is a Church essay on Race & the Priesthood. The ban appears to have begun with Brigham Young and he developed several theories to justify it, and these explanations expanded over the decades and bigotry was taught as doctrine. The Church now disavows all explanations that were taught in the past.

No reason for the priesthood ban is put forward in the Church essay other than racism. The past leaders were racists and that blinded them to what God wanted for Black people. There’s a big lesson in that for LGBTQ teachings of the Church.

14) The Church misrepresents how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.

The accounts of Joseph Smith putting a seer stone in a hat and reading words from it, that's part of the historic record. Quotes about it don’t make it to our Sunday School lessons, but if you go back to the Joseph Smith papers and other accounts, it’s there to read. Joseph also used the Urim & Thummim, and wrote out characters and studied them, but he seems to have most favored the stone-in-hat method. I think the main problem here is the Church in its artwork and movies does not depict this, and therefore most members are unaware until they see anti-Mormon literature. Why does the Church not show Joseph looking into a hat? Because it seems magical and weird to modern people. But how much weirder is it than he put on the Urim & Thummim like glasses and could translate that way, or he wrote out these characters from some extinct language and was able to figure out what they mean?

————————————————————

A number of the main points in the CES letter are true (even if explanations/supporting details in the CES are problematic). Some of the main points have simple explanations and don’t seem like a big deal. Others challenge what the Church has taught. To its credit, the Church put out essays by historians & scholars, with sources listed in the footnotes, addressing several of these controversial topics.

————————————————————

Religion is meant to help humans make sense of their world and our place in it. Most religious stories are metaphorical but end up getting taught as literal history and, in my opinion, the same is true of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And that’s why the CES letter has power, it points out things aren’t literally true but were taught by the Church as factual, and the CES letter shows us part of our messy history that the Church tried to hide.

————————————————————

The story of Adam and Eve can’t literally be true. It doesn’t fit our evolutionary past, but it’s meant to make our lives important, God created us and we have to account to Him for our choices, and it’s important to find someone to go through life with. We can say the same of Job and the Book of Ruth, fiction with a purpose.

While there are some real events included in the Bible, much of what’s written is there to teach lessons, culture, and give meaning to life. Jesus taught in parables so at least he was upfront that they were stories that contained morals.

Can I believe the same about the Book of Mormon, that it’s inspired fiction with meaning I can apply to my life, or must it be literally history to have value?

————————————————————

I went through a massive faith crisis while attending BYU. I had access to materials that told a different story of this religion than I’d been taught (the sorts of things in the CES Letter) and it threw me for a loop.

It felt like the floor of faith I had stood on shattered and I fell with no way to stop myself. After I had a chance to process through the things I was feeling, I looked at my shattered faith and picked up the parts that were meaningful to me.

I had lined up my faith similar to a line of dominoes. If the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph was a prophet. If Joseph was a prophet, then this is the true church. If this is the true church, then...

This works until it doesn’t. Once a domino topples over, it starts a chain event.

Now I look at principles and concepts and decide if they’re meaningful to me.

I love the idea that we can spend eternity with the people we love most.

I believe we should be charitable and loving to others.

People on the margins need to be looked after and helped and lifted.

Poor people deserve dignity and the rich to be challenged.

We have a commitment to our community and we all serve to make it better.

All are alike to God, we’re all loved and God has a grand plan for us.

Those who passed away can still be saved through the atonement of Christ.

Those are all principles I find in the Bible and Book of Mormon or at church and I find Love flows through all of those.

This new approach works for me. I don’t have to believe or hold onto problematic teachings. I can drop them and still hold the parts that I find valuable. I can reject the teachings and statements which are bigoted, homophobic, transphobic, racist, ableist, misogynistic. Prophets can make mistakes and still have taught some useful things.

That little voice of the spirit and what it teaches and guides me to do, I trust it over what Church leaders say. Overarching principles are more important to me than specific details for how this gets applied in the 1800′s or 1950′s or Biblical times.

————————————————————

I truly hope some of what I’ve written is helpful.

There’s no use pretending that the CES letter doesn’t get some things correct. It’s also helpful to understand it’s not just trying to share truth, but has an agenda to make the Church look as bad as possible.

What about the things the CES letter is correct about?

Has this church helped you learn to connect with the Divine?

The Church has some very big flaws, but also has some big things in its favor. Some of its unique teachings are very appealing and feel hopeful and right.

Can you leave the Church and be a good person and have a relationship with God? Absolutely.

I also know this church is a community and it’s hard to walk away cold-turkey with nothing to replace it, without another network to belong to. It’s as much a religion as it is a lifestyle and circle of friends.

Are there parts you can hold onto? Parts you can let go of?

You have a lot to think about and work through.

#long post #ces letter #this is a much longer answer than I thought I would write

46 notes · View notes

drunkexmormonsexplain-blog · 6 years ago

Text

So my dad posted an infuriating article on facebook...

Here's the link: https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2019-01-22/what-to-do-with-your-questions-according-to-1-general-authority-whos-an-expert-on-anti-church-materials-48843

After reading this absolute garbage, I was so infuriated that in the height of pettiness I decided to write a 3 page rebuttal essay. Then I realized that as much as I want to stir shit with the Mormons, I don't actually want my dad to disown me. So I'm gonna post it here instead of on my dad's facebook. It's extremely rough and overwritten, but since I have no plans to revise it I'm just gonna let it into the wild. There are a few paragraphs where the wording is too poor to convince real diehards, but it should be convincing enough for my fellow exmos at least! LONG POST AHEAD

---

Valerie Johnson’s piece, “What to do with your questions”, covers LDS leader Elder Corbridge’s visit to a BYU campus and outlines his response to concerns many members of the church have about unsavory parts of its history and current practices. It’s an effective piece of LDS propaganda: a piece of media that obscures or inflates the truth in order to advance the beliefs of an organization. As we’ll see below, not only does the piece fail to address the valid concerns of many latter-day saints, but it also uses familiar techniques to undermine the importance of those concerns in the first place. The following outlines both the inaccuracies in Corbridge’s arguments and the subtle ways in which the article discourages LDS readers from thinking critically about the issues at hand.

Let’s start with the first question in the article. “The kingdom of God is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as described in the book of Daniel as standing forever. The question is, will you and I stand?” Corbridge/Johnson asks. While claims about the longevity of “God’s kingdom” are unprovable, it’s evident to any non-church-funded source that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at least, is dwindling. Church sources commonly claim that membership numbers are increasing, because they count all individuals who have been baptized but not ex-communicated. On the other hand, counting only active, financially-contributing members reveals that membership is declining sharply. Teens and adults who were raised in the church are leaving at a higher rate than ever. A large portion of the membership inflation reported by the church consists of individuals converted by missionaries as adults, who are counted as members until death although they often stop attending within a year.

From there, Johnson moves on to claim that attacks on the church are broad, including church doctrine that conflicts with “shifting attitudes of today”. This is a common phrase in LDS writing, used to encourage but not specifically state the idea that church doctrine, unlike the rest of the world’s social values, is permanent and unchanging. This is untrue, as many church teachings have changed with time, often shifting to become more in line with North American social norms. A famous and relatively recent example, alluded to in Johnson’s article, is the fact that black men were not allowed to receive the priesthood until 1978. Though there have been many apologetic explanations for this overdue change in doctrine, it’s hard to ignore the fact that its introduction coincided with a government warning that the church would only be able to keep its tax-free status if it got rid of its racist policies. With this and other examples, it’s clear that the church does have a historical precedent to alter teachings in order to keep up with society’s “shifting attitudes.” However, the way it’s phrased in the article contributes to the subconscious idea among many church members that society is at fault for becoming more progressive, not the church for its inability to keep up.

Changing church policy, a history of immoral doctrine, and dwindling membership statistics are only a few of the concerns plaguing modern Mormons. Corbridge and Johnson attempt to address this huge umbrella of issues with a simple response: “Answer the primary questions.” According to Corbridge, these fundamental questions about the church include: “Is there a God who is our Father? Is Jesus Christ the Son of God and the Savior of the World? Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the kingdom of God on the earth? Was Joseph Smith a prophet?”

The first three questions refer to the existence God, which is unprovable, and the role of Jesus Christ, a distant historical figure whose true actions in life are hard to discern. In contrast, the last question refers to Joseph Smith, a man who lived in America in the 1800s, whose life is well documented and researched. Was he, as Corbridge asks, a prophet? Researching his life, the answer is clear: hopefully not.

There’s a well of damning evidence on Joseph Smith available with some quick research. He scammed people with his treasure-hunting business, was often jailed for his crimes, and even killed others during his escape attempts. Although the church tried to cover it up for years, he is most well known for his polygamy: by the time he died in 1844, he was married to at least 27 women. The youngest of these, Helen Mar Kimball, was 14 years old. Joseph Smith was 37, which makes him a pedophile on all counts – even in 1843, when they were married, the average marriage age for women was between 20 and 22. If such a man was chosen as a prophet of God, we should question what type of God would choose him, and what type of church would follow his teachings. The church itself has not addressed these concerns, sweeping them under the rug as “lies and deception”, despite multiple sources proving their accuracy. Predictably, Johnson and Corbridge do not mention anything else about Joseph Smith in the article.

Corbridge then moves on to what he calls the “secondary questions,” which Johnson broadly generalizes as “questions about Church history, polygamy, black people and women and the priesthood, how the Book of Mormon was translated, DNA and the Book of Mormon, gay marriage, different accounts of the First Vision and so on,” not going into specifics on any of these topics. Corbridge follows this up with the most bizarre claim in the entire article: “If you answer the primary questions, the secondary questions get answered too or they pale in significance and you can deal with things you understand and things you don’t understand, things you agree with and things you don’t agree with without jumping ship.”

There’s a lot to get into with this statement. Firstly, the article attempts to trivialize many valid concerns about the church. For example, “Gay marriage” is used as a buzzword to cover an array of questions about the church and the LGBT+ community such as why same-sex couples aren’t allowed to be married in the church, if it’s possible for LGB members to be happy even though they’re forced to be celibate, if trans and gender non-conforming individuals are allowed to present their true identity and be fully accepted into the congregation, why children of LGB parents aren’t allowed to be baptized into the church without cutting contact with their family, and so on. These topics are trivialized by presenting them so broadly and following them up with the statement that they “pale in importance” to the primary questions. This is not the case for the LGBT+ individuals in question, or other individuals whose happiness is directly affected by any of the issues mentioned.

Secondly, the idea that some of these secondary questions are also answered by the primary questions is a bold and frankly false statement. Knowing the “correct” answers to the primary questions does nothing to answer the far more nuanced subjects of the secondary questions. A devout Mormon who firmly believes in God and knows that Joseph Smith is a prophet can still easily have questions about why God wouldn’t allow women to hold the priesthood, or how the Book of Mormon can be a historically accurate account of pre-colonial America when DNA evidence proves otherwise. It’s clear that most of these questions fall into Corbridge’s “pale in importance” category, which minimizes the real struggles that even faithful members can experience in the church.

The last part of this statement is the most telling to Corbridge’s, and more broadly the church’s response to criticism and questioning members. He says that it’s important members deal with these controversial subjects, with “things you understand and things you don’t understand, things you agree with and things you don’t agree with, without jumping ship.” According to Corbridge, Mormons should stay active in the church if they believe in the “primary questions”, even if they have doubts about the “secondary questions.” Historically, many religious groups have been formed by those who share the same primary beliefs as another sect – belief in God and Jesus Christ, for example – but differ on how the church should be run or the details about God’s doctrine. There is even history within the Mormon faith of separate factions who have split off from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based on their different answers to the “secondary questions”, even though they share belief in God, Jesus Christ, and Joseph Smith with the mainstream branch of LDS faith. It doesn’t make sense for LDS members who disagree with or don’t understand controversial church doctrine to remain members, even if they believe in God, Jesus Christ, or Joseph Smith, as they can seek out other denominations that are more in line with their personal beliefs. Remaining in the church is not beneficial to their spiritual well-being or happiness. Non-believing or disillusioned members can create disharmony within the church, so it isn’t good for the health and harmony of a congregation for leaders like Corbridge to encourage those members to stay. What it is good for, though, is the church’s finances, since LDS members who want to access all the benefits of Mormonism must pay 10% of their income to the church. Therefore, it’s unsurprising that the purpose of this article is to suggest doubting members ignore their concerns and stay active, tithe-paying members.

Johnson’s section on the methods of learning is familiar to anyone experienced with religious anti-science rhetoric. Though it references the scientific method and “analytical learning” (research), those mentions are meaningless as Corbridge states “the divine method of learning ultimately trumps everything else by tapping into the powers of heaven.” This is echoed often in fundamentalist religious writing, and means that whenever scientific evidence, academic research, or social values clash with religious beliefs, believers are to ignore the facts and trust “God”, or the teachings of their church. It’s a way to shut down logical arguments from doubters or non-believers without having to think critically about church doctrine and has been discussed at length in other writing.

A somewhat amusing and unique addition to this article is the concept of “academic learning” as separate from scientific or analytical. The idea that simply reading a text can provide the reader with truth without the “analytical” step of fact-checking and resource gathering is false. After all, anyone can write a piece (such as Johnson’s) and fill it with lies. Without multiple opinions and validations, a text on its own has no truth value.

The final two sections of “What to do with your questions” move away from laughable pseudo-academic claims and give us insight into the far more insidious psychological methods the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other religious groups use to keep their members in order. The first section is entitled “The Presence or Absence of the Holy Ghost.” Generally, most LDS members and leaders assume the “presence of the Holy Ghost” to mean a happy, warm, and comfortable feeling. This type of feeling commonly occurs in familiar, safe settings such as churches and homes. Corbridge goes on to state that “the gloom I experienced as I listened to the dark choir of voices raised against the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ… is the absence of the Spirit of God.” In other words, if members who read about controversial church history and practices feel bad or uncomfortable while doing so, it must mean these claims are false.

The truth is that anyone who learns about information that radically disrupts their current worldview will be uncomfortable. In the case of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, leaders have so effectively hidden parts of its history from its members and lied about doing so that the discovery of things like Joseph Smith’s history of polygamy and multiple accounts of the First Vision can be shocking and upsetting. Issues dealing with the happiness of LGBT+, women, and black members of the church make many members feel guilty and sad, as they feel empathy for those who have been wronged by the church’s present or past teachings. By equating the natural and understandable feelings of sadness, guilt, and discomfort with the absence of the spirit and therefore falsehood, Corbridge convinces questioning members that they should bury those feelings and ignore their questions. This is not an acceptable way to address controversial church topics, nor is it healthy to encourage members to suppress their emotions.

The final section of the article, “Elimination”, is the final nail in the coffin telling LDS members to keep their doubts private and unanswered. Corbridge reiterates that he and God can’t answer all the member’s doubts – obvious, since he and Johnson have done nothing to address any concerns in this article – and that those who truly answer the “primary questions” will not even need answers to their further questions. This effectively combines the church’s policy of repression and communal guilt: if you are bothered by unsavory aspects of the church’s doctrine, you probably don’t believe in God or Joseph Smith. LDS doctrine already encourages a heavy amount of personal guilt for members who don’t feel they are perfectly living up to the church’s expectations, but if they voice their concerns, they now face the shame of their peers. Nobody in a faith setting wants to be known as the unfaithful member, and Corbridge’s statement is clear: if you want to be respected by your religious peers, keep those questions in.

-North

#mod north #exmormon #exmo #antimormon

18 notes · View notes

retiredtayo · 6 years ago

Note

Why did you decide to leave the church??

Short(ish) answer: after 8 years (all through high school, 2 years of college and a mission) of studying the scriptures and praying and begging god for confirmation of the truthfulness of the church I decided to take the silence as an answer. I’ve since come to learn for myself that the church isn’t true. The moment I decided to leave, I felt something exactly like what I’ve called the spirit, except far stronger than anything I’ve ever felt before.

Leaving is the hardest thing I’ve ever done. It’s negatively impacted my relationship with my family. It has straight up destroyed many friendships. I wouldn’t have left if I didn’t really believe it was right for me.

Long answer:

The version of Mormonism I’ve been living and loving for years is a bizarre brand of liberal mormomism where service was the most important thing you could ever do, and all of the controversial things about the church were the errors of men, not actually of god because I cannot ever believe in a god that makes some of the decisions the church has made that hurt people.

Then I realized that’s standard Christianity (minus the trinity) not Mormonism.

General authorities rarely talk about actual service, Just temple work. Since it’s taught that all the left over temple work will be done during the millennium, I refuse to put that as a higher priority than helping people who need my help now and may not be around to be helped later. My ancestors can wait a little longer. People who are starving to death or who are in other harmful situations can’t.

The church is a multi billion dollar organization and yet very little of that goes into humanitarian efforts. You have to jump through hoops to get financial assistance, and even the poorest members who cannot afford to feed their children as it is have to pay tithing. The church refuses to do background checks or spend money on training bishops and primary workers to project against sexual abuse, but will spend thousands of dollars paying people off so they don’t talk about the abuse that happened. Missionaries can’t ever spend mission funds on something deemed non-essential, and are discouraged from seeking medical treatment and all but forbidden from seeking proper mental health care (beyond 3 visits with a mission therapist who rarely provides real mental health care, mostly tells you to read your scriptures more) BUT mission presidents have all expenses paid for including non essentials like presents for their family’s birthdays etc and pay no tithing on that income. Btw this is what tithing used to be-after all your expenses, what was left you paid tithing on. So if you’re living pay check to pay check you didn’t pay tithing.

The church refuses to ever apologize for mistakes they have made and has gone out of its way to leave clear that the November 2015 policy was revelation from god. Sounds fake but ok.

The church has seriously whitewashed their history and the idea that any non-church source is inherently antimormon is laughable. If reading neutral sources stating historical facts destroys people’s testimonies, that doesn’t lend itself to the church’s truthfulness. There is evidence to show that Sidney rigdon knew Joseph well before the publication of the Book of Mormon. Joseph Fielding Smith hid the 1832 account of the first vision (which doesn’t mention 2 beings appearing, only one). The real reason the early saints were driven out of their homes was polygamy. Joseph didn’t tell people about the first vision until years after the formation of the church. Same with the “restoration” of the priesthood by Peter/James/John. Many of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon said they only saw it with “spiritual eyes” and there’s reason to suspect drinking or other substances were involved in many spiritual experiences/visions.

The “most correct book on earth” has been edited many times, not just for punctuation errors but content as well, but they never admit to doing so, so we don’t really notice. Many changes were made from the original manuscript.

There are tons of things in the Book of Mormon that shouldn’t be there. DNA evidence says native Americans come from Asia, not the Middle East. An enormous civilization would leave traces. Steel didn’t exist yet. Cows and horses and half the animals listed didn’t either. The Book of Isaiah wasn’t written until after Lehi left Jerusalem.

They gaslight us all the time when it comes to gender equality. “Separate but equal” they say, and yet when I go to the temple I have to cover my face. I have to give myself to/promise to obey my husband as he obeys the lord. Polygamy totally still exists in the after life, and female general leaders are nothing but a puppethead. They cannot make any decisions for their designated organizations and are often left out of important decisions.

The idea of marrying a man low key makes me want to die. My sexual orientation seems to be a moving target, but it’s always moving between straight up aroace and gay. If one day I settle down with someone, I’m fairly certain it’ll be a woman. There’s no place in this church for single people, and there’s no place for me if I pursue a relationship because I do not like men.

If you want to know more about the historical issues, check out CESletter.org.

For more about the ways in which the Mormon church behaves a lot like a cult, do a quick read of the BITE model on freedomofmind.com (not a Mormon centric source) or listen to No Man Knows My Herstory’s episodes on the BITE model applied to the church.

To anyone who reads this and feels the same way or has doubts or is feeling the soul crushing anxiety and depression that I felt as a part of my rapid crisis of faith, I’m here for you. I’m still working through things myself, but we can work it out together ❤️

#asks #anon #apostake #exmormon #exmo

16 notes · View notes

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

Can Republicans Take Back The House

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/can-republicans-take-back-the-house/

Can Republicans Take Back The House

The Gop Has Yet To Land A Single Top Recruit To Run For The Senate Anywhere In The Country

Representative Kevin McCarthy discusses if Republicans can take back the House in 2020

The surest way that Republicans can stop whatever legislative agenda President Biden has in mind after the 2022 midterm elections is to win a majority in the US Senate.

Even more than the House, a simple majority in the Senate could let Republicans gum up everything from gun control legislation to Supreme Court nominations.

On paper, it seems easy enough. Republicans need to win just a single seat in order to flip the 50-50 Senate and possibilities for doing so are all over the map. Given that midterm elections often benefit the party out of power, and Democrats control two out of three levers of the federal government, Republicans wouldnât be overly optimistic in assuming Mitch McConnell might soon rule the Senate again.

But here is the thing about the GOPâs chances: At this early stage, they are having problems getting good candidates to sign up. And while the historical trends look good for Republicans you canât win something with nothing.

Republicans have yet to land a single top recruit to run for the Senate anywhere in the country â even in places where they have an opportunity to flip a seat â and a good candidate could make all the difference.

In Nevada, Republicans are pinning their hopes on getting former state attorney general Adam Laxalt in the race to challenge Masto, who won in 2016 by just 3 percentage points. So far, Laxalt has not announced plans to run and he comes with baggage: he lost a bid for governor in 2018.

House Republicans Voice Optimism On Winning Back The House Following Special Election Victories

Coming on the heels of two special election wins, House Republicans are feeling a new sense of optimism about their odds of taking back control of the lower chamber, with National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom EmmerThomas Earl EmmerCrypto industry seeks to build momentum after losing Senate fightTrump-backed Mike Carey wins GOP primary in Ohio special electionJuan Williams: Biden’s child tax credit is a game-changerMORE saying he feels the House is more than just in play.;

While independent political forecasters have largely projected that Republicans face a steep uphill climb to win back the majority citing the number of retirements, the number of seats that flipped in the midterms and the fact that Democrats have a cash advantage top GOP lawmakers say Rep. Mike Garcia’s victory over Democrat Christy Smith in a competitive swing district indicates political analysts may be underestimating the partys momentum.;

The Garcia election in Los Angeles I think was a wake-up call to all the skeptics out there that in the middle of all of these difficult challenges, a Republican just flipped a seat in the suburbs of L.A., and that hasnt been done in 22 years, House Minority Whip Steve ScaliseStephen Joseph ScaliseLouisiana delegation asks for additional relief funding after IdaFEMA has funds to cover disasters for nowWatch live: Scalise holds news conference on Afghanistan MORE told The Hill.;

Al Weaver contributed.

Gerrymandering Texas Could Help Republicans Take Back The House In 2022

HOUSTON Fort Bend County was a sleepy suburban outpost of Houston when KP George arrived in the late 1990s, dominated by conservative politics and represented in Congress by Republican Party star Tom DeLay.

Twenty years later, the areas population has more than doubled in size, driven by fast-growing Asian, Latino and Black communities that in 2019 helped elect George an immigrant from southern India as Fort Bends first non-white county judge.

The wave of left-leaning voters that elevated George and other Democrats to local office in recent years may also help the area land a new congressional district. Texas gained two House seats in the 2020 U.S. Census, driven by a population boom in the Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan regions, among other parts of the state.

But the Republican-controlled state legislature will be in charge of drawing the new districts, leaving Democrats on the sidelines, worried they may not benefit from the regions changing demographics.

You feel like youre not being counted, George said. My county is benefitting from people like me. But when it comes to the seat at the table , we dont have it.

Redistricting is a byzantine process that plays out behind closed doors, but the stakes are high. New congressional and state legislative lines will remain in place for the next decade, giving the parties that benefit most from redistricting considerable clout in policymaking and upcoming elections.

Also Check: Who Won The House Republicans Or Democrats

Democrats And Republicans Vote Straight In Line With Their Parties

Every Republican voted no Wednesday as the Democratic-led U.S. House passed the $1.9 trillion legislation. No Senate Republican voted for the bill when it;came before that chamber;Saturday.

During weeks of debate,;Republicans said the bulk of the spending would go;to an array of items unrelated to COVID-19 from Amtrak railroad service to arts and humanities programs.

Former President Donald Trump issued a short statement after the bill’s passage Wednesday, taking credit for development of COVID-19 vaccines in what could be a glimpse into Republican talking points.;

If I wasnt President, you wouldnt be getting that beautiful shot for 5 years, at best, and probably wouldnt be getting it at all. I hope everyone remembers! Trump said.

The bill; to Americans, extends unemployment benefits, addresses child poverty and health care programs;and speeds up programs to supply COVID-19 vaccinations and school reopenings; all items Democrats frequently tout.

Chris Taylor, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said “the;American people will remember that House Republicans voted against cutting childhood poverty in half” and “getting stimulus checks into the hands of struggling Americans,” among;other benefits.

“House Republicans left American families out to dry,” he said. “The people won’t forget that.”;

Its Not All Bad News For Democrats

While it was unquestionably a good night for Republicans, Democrats still held onto most of the seats they won in 2018 and will continue to be the majority party in the House. Thats in part because they retained most of the suburban districts they picked up in 2018.

Of the 233 seats that Democrats held coming into the election,2 186 of them were in districts that were predominantly or partly suburban in nature, according to density categorizations by Bloombergs CityLab. Thus far, Democrats have lost seven of those seats, but they captured one GOP-held suburban seat around Atlanta. And thanks to redistricting, theyve also won two formerly Republican seats around Greensboro and Raleigh in North Carolina, which reflect the partys strength in more populous areas.

Because of their relative success in the suburbs, Democrats kept many seats in places President Trump won in 2016. Coming into the election, Democrats held 30 seats in districts Trump carried in 2016, and they wouldve lost their majority if theyd lost more than half of them . But theyve won 18 of them so far and picked up one from the GOP . In fact, more than half of Republicans gains have come in seats representing places that Trump won by a pretty sizable margin in 2016. Well have to wait a bit before data can tell us how congressional districts voted in 2020,3 but for now it seems many Republican gains were made by picking off the lowest-hanging fruit.

Don’t Miss: What Is The Principle Of Republicanism

The Justice Department Puts States On Notice About Election Audits And Voting Changes

“If they’re going to try to rely on rigging this game, because they don’t have a plan for the future and they can’t talk to the voters about their ideas and their vision, well, I think that makes me proud to be a Democrat.”

Maloney also posits that GOP turnout will be depressed in an election that doesn’t feature former President Donald Trump himself.

“There’s no evidence that this toxic Trump message will motivate voters without Trump on the ballot,” he says. “If the other side is making one big mistake, I think that might be it, which is a doubling down on this toxic Trump message of division and anger and racism and yet there’s no evidence they can pull out voters with the message without the messenger.”

He points to Texas Republican Jake Ellzey as a recent example. Ellzey was sworn in to the House on Friday, days after winning a special election that saw him defeat a Trump-backed candidate.

Maloney underscores: “It seems like the Trump endorsement’s not what it used to be.”

Here are more highlights from his conversation with NPR’s Susan Davis.

On polarization in Congress:

On the Republican Party:

On his own reelection in 2022:

I Do Not Buy That A Social Media Ban Hurts Trumps 2024 Aspirations: Nate Silver

sarah: Yeah, Democrats might not have their worst Senate map in 2022, but it will by no means be easy, and how they fare will have a lot to do with the national environment. And as we touched on earlier, Bidens overall approval rating will also make a big difference in Democrats midterm chances.

nrakich: Yeah, if the national environment is even a bit Republican-leaning, that could be enough to allow solid Republican recruits to flip even Nevada and New Hampshire. And then it wouldnt even matter if Democrats win Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

One thing is for sure, though whichever party wins the Senate will have only a narrow majority, so I think were stuck in this era of moderates like Sens. Joe Manchin and Lisa Murkowski controlling every bills fate for at least a while longer.;

sarah: Lets talk about big picture strategy, then, and where that leaves us moving forward. Its still early and far too easy to prescribe election narratives that arent grounded in anything, but one gambit the Republican Party seems to be making at this point is that attacking the Democratic Party for being too progressive or woke will help them win.

What do we make of that playbook headed into 2022? Likewise, as the party in charge, what are Democrats planning for?

With that being said, the GOPs strategies could still gin up turnout among its base, in particular, but its hard to separate that from general dissatisfaction with Biden.

You May Like: Why Did Republicans Support The French Revolution

Rising Violent Crime Is Likely To Present A Political Challenge For Democrats In 2022

But there are roadblocks to fully enacting Democrats’ agenda. Their thin majorities in both chambers of Congress mean nearly all Democrats have to get on board with every agenda item in order to push through major legislative priorities. And without adjusting or eliminating the legislative filibuster in the Senate, Democrats need 10 Republicans to join them for various legislation a near-impossible task.

Will 2022 Be A Good Year For Republicans

Can the GOP take back the House? Kevin McCarthy weighs in

A FiveThirtyEight Chat

Welcome to FiveThirtyEights politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarah : Were still more than a year away from the 2022 midterm elections, which means it will be a while before we should take those general election polls too seriously. But with a number of elections underway in 2021, not to mention a number of special elections, its worth kicking off the conversation around what we do and dont know about Republicans and Democrats odds headed into the midterms.

Lets start big picture. The longstanding conventional wisdom is that midterm elections generally go well for the party thats not in the White House. Case in point: Since 1946, the presidents party has lost, on average, 27 House seats.

What are our initial thoughts? Is the starting assumption that Republicans should have a good year in 2022?

alex : Yes, and heres why: 2022 will be the first federal election after the House map are redrawn. And because Democrats fell short of their 2020 expectations in state legislative races, Republicans have the opportunity to redraw congressional maps that are much more clearly in their favor. On top of that, Republicans are already campaigning on the cost and magnitude of President Bidens policy plans to inspire a backlash from voters.

geoffrey.skelley :Simply put, as that chart above shows, the expectation is that Democrats, as the party in the White House, will lose seats in the House.;

nrakich : What they said!

You May Like: Why Do Republicans Still Back Trump

Possible 2010 Or 2014 Midterm Repeat

Big bets on policy also don’t necessarily pay off at the ballot box, a lesson Democrats learned a decade ago when they passed the Affordable Care Act. President Barack Obama’s domestic policy achievement also helped decimate congressional Democratic majorities in the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections.

It’s just one reason why Republicans feel good about their chances in 2022, along with structural advantages like the redistricting process, where House districts are redrawn every decade to reflect population changes. Republicans control the process in more states and are better positioned to gain seats.

“This deck is already stacked, because they’ve been gerrymandering these districts,” Maloney says. “And now they’re trying to do even more of it and add to that with these Jim Crow-style voter suppression laws throughout the country.”

He maintains that efforts among Republican-led state legislatures to enact more voting restrictions show the party has a losing policy hand for the midterm elections.

Jim Jordan: Biden Has Not Done One Thing Right Gop Will Take Back House In 2022

OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the authors opinion

Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan says that Joe Biden has not done one thing right and that he thinks Bidens incompetence will cost Democrats next year.

During an interview on FNCs FOX News Primetime, Jordan said Republicans will take back control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2022 midterm elections.Guest host Tammy Bruce said, What is your message to the American people as we deal with the unfolding disaster of the Biden administration?Jorden said, Well, yeah, defend anyone who gets attacked. These people running for school board because they

Read the rest of this story here: conservativebrief.com

With that said, our content may be reproduced and distributed as long as it has a link to the original source and the author is credited prominently. We dont mind you using our content as long as you help out by giving us credit with a prominent link. If you feel like giving us a tip for the content, we will not object!

JD Rucker EIC

You May Like: Which Republicans Voted Against The Budget Resolution

Republicans Winning Money Race As They Seek To Take Over House In 2022

By Alex Rogers and Manu Raju, CNN

The National Republican Congressional Committee announced Wednesday that it had raised $45.4 million in the second quarter of 2021, the most it has ever raised in three months of a non-election year, as Republicans seek to take over the House in 2022.

This story has been updated with additional developments Wednesday.

Republicans Are Well Positioned To Take The House In 2022

Although we dont yet know the winners of some House races, we can already look ahead to the 2022 midterms and see a fairly straightforward path for the GOP to capture the House. Midterm elections historically go well for the party thats not in the White House, and the out-of-power party is especially likely to do well in the House, since every seat is up for election .

Since the end of World War II, the presidential party has lost an average of 27 House seats in midterm elections, as the chart below shows. No matter how many seats Democrats end up with after 2020s election at this point, they will probably end up somewhere in the low 220s a loss of that magnitude would easily be enough for Republicans to retake the House.

The recent history of midterms in a Democratic presidents first term seems especially promising for the GOP, too. Following Bill Clintons election in 1992, Democrats lost more than 50 seats in 1994, and after Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, Democrats lost more than 60 seats.

If Democrats had added five to 10 seats this year, they could have survived a 20-seat loss in the midterms. Instead, Republicans will probably need to win fewer than 10 seats to gain a slender majority in 2022.

Recommended Reading: Who Was The Leader Of The Radical Republicans

Top Republicans Think Taking Back House And Senate Would Force Biden To Center

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says if Republicans can win back control of Congress in the 2022 midterms, it would force President Joe Biden into a political corner.

Speaking at an event in his home state of Kentucky, McConnell says Americans will have a big decision to make come midterms when control of the House and Senate will be up for grabs.

Do they really want a moderate administration or not? If the House and Senate were to return to Republican hands that doesnt mean nothing will get done, McConnell said.

What I want you to know is if I become majority leader again its not for stopping everything. Its for stopping the worst. Its for stopping things that fundamentally push the country into a direction that at least my party feels is not a good idea for the country. I could make sure Biden makes his promise to be a moderate, he added.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell suggested Monday that he would block a Supreme Court nominee in 2024 if Republicans regain control of the Senate after the 2022 midterm elections.

— USA TODAY

One of the things McConnell would be guaranteed to block from Biden would be a Supreme Court nomination, much like he did with former President Barack Obama and his last nominee, Merrick Garland.;

The Democrats hold a slim lead of nine seats in the House with all 435 seats up for grabs.

0 notes

biointernet · 5 years ago

Text

Hourglass History

Time gives his hour-glass Its due reversal. Their hour is gone. MATTHEW ARNOLD, "Consolation" Hourglass History Hourglass - measurement device The Hourglass, sand glass, sand timer or sand clock An hourglass (or sandglass, sand timer, or sand clock) is a device used to measure the intervals of time It comprises two glass bulbs connected vertically by a narrow neck that allows a regulated trickle of material (historically sand) from the upper bulb to the lower one. Factors affecting the time interval measured include sand quantity, sand coarseness, bulb size, and neck width. Hourglasses may be reused indefinitely by inverting the bulbs once the upper bulb is empty. Hourglass fact: advantages of hourglass, who invented the hourglass, hourglass symbolism, hourglass timer, hourglass quotes, hourglass sand timer, hourglass precision, science of an hourglass Before it became the symbol of a program stalling on your PC, the hourglass spent centuries as the representation of mortality and an emblem of the sciences. Much more than a symbol, of course, it also kept track of time in the pre-Swatch Era. See Time symbolism, Hourglass symbolism.

See also:

Time symbolism

Time is… The Full History of Time Time in physics and time Science Symbolism of Melencolia I by Albrecht Dürer Time and Text

DADA Time

Text, Time, MHC Extinction Rebellion – Time against Life The End of Time Hourglass and Death on St Thomas’ Church Hourglass – symbol of Death Death does not Exist Hourglass and Skeleton “Hourglass and Cards” Exhibition Father and Mother of Time Time Hub Time Philosophy Time synonyms

Qualia and Time Sense

Time perception and Sense of Time The Hourglass of Emotions Time Travel + Time Management = Time Travel Management The Hourglass, Hourglass History Hourglass symbolism Hourglass Figure Hourglass Tattoo Symbols of Time Beauty Bio-Net Father Time Department Father Time and Mother Nature Lunar calendar and Moon’s phases Time Management Time Management tools Time Travel Management MHC SM: MHC Flikr, MHC Pinterest, MHC Facebook, MHC Instagram, MHC YouTube, MHC Twitter

The Hourglass Figure:

MHC Exhibitions: Hourglass Figure Sophia Loren by Adam PierceHourglass Figure Marilyn Monroe About Hourglass Body or Hourglass Figure Hourglass body measurements – body shape online calculator Hourglass Figure Celebrities on MHC Hourglass Figure, the movie MHC hourglass figure workout by Marten Sport Hourglass Figure Department on MHC Virtual Museum Read the full article

#AmbrogioLorenzetti1338hourglass #clepsydra #FatherTime #hourglassclock #HourglassCosmetics #hourglassdefinition #hourglassfacts #hourglassforsale #HourglassHistory #hourglassprecision #hourglassquotes #hourglasssandtimer #hourglasssymbolism #hourglasstimer #SandClock #Sandtimer #sandglass #scienceofanhourglass #whoinventedthehourglass

0 notes

toldnews-blog · 6 years ago

Photo

New Post has been published on https://toldnews.com/world/united-states-of-america/can-a-woman-win-2020-candidates-offer-an-easy-answer-i-have/

Can a Woman Win? 2020 Candidates Offer an Easy Answer: ‘I Have’

CRESTON, Iowa — Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York had a request: Before anyone mocked her claim that she was the Democratic presidential candidate best positioned to take on President Trump, at least listen to the evidence.

Ms. Gillibrand won her first House race in an upstate conservative district that had “more cows than Democrats,” as she likes to say. She ran on Medicaid expansion as early as 2006, long before it had become a litmus test for the progressive flank of the Democratic Party, which often derides her as inauthentic.

In her 2018 Senate re-election campaign, she flipped 18 counties that had voted for Mr. Trump just two years earlier, and in 2012 she received a higher share of the vote in New York than any statewide candidate before or since — better than Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, better than former Senator Hillary Clinton, better than former President Barack Obama.

While many voters don’t know much about Ms. Gillibrand yet, she also sees a set of assumptions about male and females leaders at work.

“The first-blush analysis is inadequate,” Ms. Gillibrand said in an interview. “This is what makes me the best person to take on Trump — electability. Experience. Track record.”

“I’m the most elect ——” she stopped. “I have the type of experience they’re looking for.”

At this early stage of the Democratic presidential primary, much of the discussion among voters has focused on the singular desire of defeating Mr. Trump, and selecting a nominee who’s best suited to that task. But while that line of thinking has largely been associated with well-known veteran male politicians, particularly former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the women running in the historically diverse Democratic field, several of whom have a demonstrated track record of winning over Republican voters, have been telling anyone who will listen that they, too, are equipped to beat the president.

In addition to Ms. Gillibrand, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota has drawn on her electoral success in red counties to position herself as a bridge-builder in increasingly polarized times. And Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — who soundly defeated a popular Republican incumbent in her first election — has focused recently on addressing concerns that she’s simply an “ideas candidate,” combining her rhetoric about economic inequality with a more explicit pitch on her ability to beat Mr. Trump. (A fourth leading female candidate, Senator Kamala Harris of California, has enjoyed most of her success thus far in Democratic strongholds.)

As they now campaign for president, they are encountering some of the same misogyny that Mrs. Clinton faced when she ran in 2016. They are running up against assumptions voters and pundits have about what presidential leadership looks like, battling a presidential archetype where men are the only touchstones.

As a result, they are frequently asked to explain why they believe they have paths to victory, and prove they can win over prized working-class voters in critical states like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. This has come even as polls have consistently found that numerous Democrats — including multiple women — enjoy an early edge in head-to-head matchups against Mr. Trump.

“We have 45 presidents who have been men. And seeing a woman in that role is still something that we’re not used to,” said Kimberly Peeler-Allen, a co-founder of Higher Heights, a national organization building the political power and leadership of black women.

She noted that the Democratic women running for president had been forced to answer for Mrs. Clinton’s defeat in 2016, and to allay concerns from voters that a woman can win the presidency. The men in the race don’t face such burdens.

She also pointed to last year’s midterm elections, in which more than half of the House districts that flipped from Republicans to Democrats were won by women.

“We have to, as an electorate, change our mind-set on what executive leadership looks like,” Ms. Peeler-Allen said. “Women lead differently. And that’s not a bad thing.”

Ms. Gillibrand has addressed the question head-on. She kicked off her recent “Rural Listening Tour” throughout southwest Iowa with a clear focus on highlighting her ability to win Republican votes. “Secretary Clinton and I, while I admire her, are very different people and we have very different stories,” she said at one stop. “I’m from the upstate part of New York. She’s from the suburbs of Illinois.”

On the campaign trail, Ms. Klobuchar touts the 42 counties Mr. Trump carried that she won during her re-election race last November. She won 51 of the state’s 87 counties in all, and she outperformed the other Democrats running statewide, earning 86,500 more votes than Senator Tina Smith and 76,000 more than Gov. Tim Walz.

She has made her understanding of rural issues and her ability to reach across the aisle central to her campaign pitch, trying to sell voters on what she’s termed “heartland economics.” In Nevada, Iowa, she vowed to protect the state’s farmers, suggesting she could form a coalition that could bridge divides between the agriculture industry and environmentalists.

“When I see those wind turbines out there and think of solar, and how that benefits us more in the middle of the country, you could put together a package that the Midwest would like,” Ms. Klobuchar said, pointing across the street to several turbines spinning in a chilly wind.

“I grew up in the metro area, but just on the border of farm country,” she said. As a child, she would ride her bike to her best friend’s dairy farm. “I was very close to that whole world. That was something that I grew up with and understand.”

In a race defined by early uncertainty, Democratic candidates such as former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., have garnered significant attention and high first-quarter fund-raising totals, outraising all the women in the Democratic field except Ms. Harris, who has relied on the liberal donor circuit in her deep blue home state. But their success has also fueled a backlash, as critics say their rise, in spite of their comparative lack of experience, is indicative of a presidential landscape that prefers male figures.

When asked in a phone interview if she believed her candidacy was being hampered by gendered notions of “electability,” Ms. Warren demurred.

“I can’t talk about everything in this race,” she said. “I can just tell you what I’ve done and what I plan on doing.”

In an interview in Iowa, Ms. Gillibrand specifically alluded to Mr. Buttigieg and Mr. O’Rourke, saying, “I don’t think either of them have won red and purple areas. I have.”

She also added a warning for the Democrats trying to occupy a more moderate lane, as Mr. Biden has since entering the race.

“If your ideas aren’t progressive or bold enough, you will not win the respect of the grass-roots,” Ms. Gillibrand said. “You will not win young people. You will not win black women — all the people who were responsible for electing a Democratic majority this last election cycle in the House of Representatives.”

The themes represent another fault line for a Democratic Party at an existential crossroads. After the surprise election of Mr. Trump, a sizable portion of Democrats began to voice concerns that the party’s embrace of gender and racial diversity had put it at odds with some of the electorate, and that Mr. Trump’s willingness to use racist and sexist political rhetoric had put Democrats at a disadvantage, especially in rural America or among Republican-leaning independents.

“We were not heard in ’16,” said Patty Judge, a former lieutenant governor of Iowa who started an organization called Focus on Rural America. “People did not understand the frustration and the anger that is out there in rural Iowa.”

When asked in surveys, most voters say they could support a woman for president. A recent poll found that 84 percent of Americans said they’re comfortable with a female candidate, more than those who said they were accepting of a candidate who is a Muslim, an evangelical Christian or over the age of 75.

But when pressed on the issue in interviews, Democratic voters in early primary states point to Mrs. Clinton’s Electoral College defeat as a sign that others — their family, friends or large swaths of the country — won’t back a female candidate.

During Ms. Gillibrand’s listening tour, voters who were asked to explain what it meant to be an “electable candidate” were fairly clear. They said Mr. Trump’s presence may require a man to lead the Democratic ticket.

“You’ll always hear ‘there’s no way a woman can win this,’ and they go back to Hillary,” said DeAnne Butler, who attended Ms. Gillibrand’s campaign stop in Clarinda, Iowa. “Even among my female friends.”

Ms. Warren said in a phone interview that she does believe voters sometimes forget about her 2012 Senate victory against Scott Brown, a well-liked Republican incumbent. Ms. Warren became the first woman elected to the Senate in Massachusetts history when she unseated Mr. Brown in a hotly contested race. A Boston Globe poll at the time found Mr. Brown had a higher favorability rating than Ms. Warren and that he was seen as the more “likable” candidate.

In her view, the question of who is best positioned to beat Mr. Trump depends on more than just poll numbers or the ability to flip red districts. It hinges on who can tell a cohesive story and put forth an “affirmative vision,” as she called it, that excites voters and draws contrasts with the current administration.

“The 2020 election is about big issues facing our country: who government works for,” Ms. Warren said. “We must beat Donald Trump, but we must do so much more.”

Ms. Warren, Ms. Gillibrand, Ms. Harris and Ms. Klobuchar can all claim an interesting distinction: They have never lost an election in their political careers. All of the most prominent male Democratic candidates, including Mr. Biden, Mr. Buttigieg, Mr. O’Rourke, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, have lost at least one.

#c usa football news #ireland v usa news #n korea vs usa news #usa news for india #usa news volleyball #wusa news director

0 notes

seekingheavenlymother-blog · 6 years ago

Link

“And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me, Look! And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.” -1 Nephi 3:46 RAV, 11:8 OPV

Within the Latter Day Saint movement, there are a number of theologies regarding the nature of God. In the Fellowship, and within Mormon Kabbalah, we accept all of them. It’s about how God reveals Himself, or Themselves, to us as individuals. We build, as it were, our own religions.

This said, it is clear there is a female aspect of deity. This may be, as the trinitarians would say, the female aspect of a gender-less parent God. Or, it could be as other believe, multiple Gods. Elohim, the name for God in the first chapter in Genesis, is a Hebrew word meaning “gods,” plural. It is a combination of the masculine singular with the feminine plural.

The “Evolution” of God

Many look to the Bible to understand the nature of God. However, the idea of divinity met with a number of radical changes as the Israelites developed the Ancient Hebrew religion. In the 7th to 6th century BC there were major modifications made as the Kingdom of Judah fell into Babylonian captivity. It was around this period, likely due to their loss as a nation, monotheism emerged. This idea was solid as doctrine by the time of Rabbinical Judaism in the 2nd century AD.

We can still “travel back in time,” so to speak, by looking at the Torah. In the creation story, Genesis 1:26, Elohim said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” and created them, male and female (Genesis 1: 26-28). Some claim that this is referring to a God the Father and a God the Mother―our heavenly parents. In Kabbalah this first chapter is seen as the spiritual creation. Is there a Mother God? Or a Divine Feminine side to Deity?

In traditional Kabbalah, which is normally seen as monotheistic, there is a mother goddess, Shekinah. She is also known as Sophia in Gnostic scriptures. She is known in the Old Testament as the Queen of Heaven (Jeremiah 44:17). Some Latter Day Saints and Mormons believe, as some Kabbalists teach, that this female deity is the Holy Spirit. Other Latter Day Saints see Her as God the Mother, wife of El, with flesh and bone, equal in all ways to the Father. Some call her Asherah. Who is correct? This is a mystery.

Heavenly Mother

Regardless of one or multiple deity, in order to understand Chokhma, we must see our Heavenly Mother as a Goddess in Her own right. This may be as a part of the Trinity, or as an independent being acting as one with Avinu, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, even if one sees Her as the Holy Spirit. We know the Divine Feminine is real. Joseph Smith reportedly did see our Heavenly Mother in vision.

“One day the Prophet Joseph asked [Zebedee Coltrin] and Sidney Rigdon to accompany him into the woods to pray. When they had reached a secluded spot, Joseph laid down on his back and stretched out his arms. He told the brethren to lie one on each arm, and then shut their eyes. After they had prayed he told them to open their eyes. They did so and saw a brilliant light surrounding a pedestal which seemed to rest on the earth. They closed their eyes and again prayed. They then saw, on opening them, the Father seated upon a throne; they prayed again and on looking saw the Mother also; after praying and looking the fourth time they saw the Savior added to the group.” -Abraham H. Cannon (Wilcox, Linda P. (1987), “The Mormon Concept of a Mother in Heaven”, in Maureen Ursenbach Beecher; Lavina Fielding Anderson, Sisters in Spirit: Mormon Women in Historical and Cultural Perspective, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 64–77.)

To those new to this concept, there are some commonly asked questions:

How do we know this?

What should we do with this knowledge?

Why don’t we worship Her as we do God the Father?

Is She even doctrinal, or merely a logical conjecture based on hints in the scriptures?

Really Real?

Let’s start with how we know there is a Divine Feminine. She is mentioned in the scriptures, in a variety of places. Let’s look at one of the clearest examples:

“The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the Queen of Heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.” – Jeremiah 7: 18

It really doesn’t get much plainer than this―“Queen of Heaven.” This term was also used by either Joseph Smith Jr. or W.W. Phelps who’s lyrics stated “Here’s our Father in heaven, and Mother, the Queen” (History of the Church 5 p. 254). (There is some confusion as to where the idea came from in the poem.) This scripture actually answers many of the above questions. Yes, she is real. Jeremiah also talks of her later in chapter 44: 15-19. However, in both accounts he speaks of the sin of worshiping Her alone.

Why don’t We Worship Her?

It must be made clear that we do not worship the Divine Feminine. She will not save us from sin, and neither will the Father. Elohim sent the Son, Jesus Christ, and it is through Him we are saved. Yes, in the trinitarian notion of deity they are all the same person. However, the scriptures are still clear on this point, for whatever reason.

We worship YHVH/Jesus Christ, as we were commanded in the Law (Exodus 20:2-5, Deuteronomy 5:6-10, Mosiah 7:113-114 RAV, 13:12-14 OPV). Christ is our emissary. We worship the Divine Masculine and Feminine, or our Heavenly Parents, through Him. It is their divine attributes of Love and Compassion we strive to emulate. We can only do this as we follow the example set for us by Jesus Christ in His earthly ministry.

When we pray, we pray to Elohim as one. The Divine Feminine/Heavenly Mother hears, and either through or as the Holy Spirit answers our prayers. If one wishes to clearly address “Elohim,” one is directly addressing both Masculine and Feminine deity. This term is plural and thus more deliberate in speaking to God the Father and Mother. And, there are those that pray to both directly by name, and those that pray to the Father, as Jesus taught, understanding that both are listening and answer.

Scriptural Evidence

There are a number of scriptures that hint to the Divine Feminine, such as Roman 8:16-18 or Genesis 1: 26-27. Nephi’s vision explaining his Father Lehi’s vision of the tree of life in the Book of Mormon may be one of the best examples, however. The tree is called “the tree which is precious above all” by the Spirit of the Lord (1 Nephi 3:49 RAV, 11:9 OPV). In Nephi’s day, trees were used to represent the Queen of Heaven in the Jerusalem temple. When Nephi asks what the meaning of the tree is, the tree turns into Mary, the mother of Christ (1 Nephi 3:49-53 RAV, 11:11-13 OPV). She is said to be, like the tree, being “exceedingly fair and white.”

This idea of Mary being “white” is an interesting play on words, as while the color of the bark of the tree of life was white, the term “white” in Joseph Smith Jr.’s day was used to denote something was pure, wholesome, or good. We see this use many times throughout his translation of the book (though some have taken the term out of context to denote race). Mary the mother of Christ was obviously not Caucasian. She was not white in reference to the color of her skin. Rather, Nephi, seeing her in a vision, would have known that she was purified from sin; a sanctified young woman.

In Lehi and Nephi’s vision, Mary represents the Divine Feminine, being the emissary of the Mother much the same way Christ represents the Father. Mary is even known as the Queen of Heaven. This idea of the tree becoming Mary would have made perfect sense to Nephi.

The Divine Feminine

The Divine Feminine/Heavenly Mother is as real as the Divine Masculine/Heavenly Father. Regardless of one’s view of deity, they are one either literally or spiritually. She is not hidden by the Father, as some might claim, nor is She a fragile thing in need of protected as some mythologies claim. Rather She is a living part of our worship and our lives as we worship the Father through the Son, even Jesus Christ. We should remember Her as we pray in Jesus name.

#essay #david first elder #seeking heavenly mother #heavenly mother #heavenly parents #lds #mormon #the church of jesus christ of latter day saints #tumblrstake #friends of other faiths

1 note · View note

newstfionline · 7 years ago

Text

Can former journalist Lee Strobel make a convincing case for miracles?

By Jonathan Merritt, Religion News Service, March 14, 2018

A few years ago, I experienced a miracle at a writing conference outside of Boston, Massachusetts. Following a talk I gave on storytelling, a group of women approached me and one stepped forward: “We have a word from God for you.”

I froze but maintained a cautious smile.

The women explained that they were friends who had met at a church with a long name that had the word “revelatory” in it. It sounded like the type of place that calls its pastor “Apostle” and lets people dance while he preaches. As a Southern Baptist, I’ve always been skeptical of these kind of Christians. Maybe I’m afraid that their Holy Spirit juju might somehow rub off on me, and I’ll have an experience I won’t be able to explain. I know now that the fear is well-founded.

“Can we pray over you and anoint you?” one asked.

Not wanting to be rude, I agreed.

And then it happened. One by one these women told me things about myself that they could not have known--things that I’d never shared with anyone. And then they delivered a message, an encouragement, that I now believe was from God. I shared this story in full in my book “Jesus is Better Than You Imagined,” and it is not the only time I’ve inexplicably encountered transcendence.

I believe in miracles because I’ve experienced them.

But my testimonial is not enough to convince others. Certainly not stalwart skeptics and the non-religious. And that’s where Lee Strobel hopes to contribute to the cause. As the former legal editor of The Chicago Tribune, he has created a cottage industry around investigating Christian claims and making an evidence-based “case” for everything from Jesus’s Resurrection to faith itself.

Strobel’s new book, “The Case for Miracles: A Journalist Investigates Evidence for the Supernatural,” features a lot of miracle accounts, rational arguments, and a fascinating poll of Americans. I question whether it is effective to judge mystical events by logical standards, so I decided to discuss these matters with Strobel myself.

RNS: Let’s start by defining terms. How do you define a “miracle?”

LS: My two-year investigation of the supernatural blew my mind. But like you, I needed to start out with a meaningful definition of miracles, especially since it’s a term used in many differing ways --- and often flippantly. A lot of philosophers have given it their best shot. Augustine was poetic. He said a miracle is “whatever appears that is difficult or unusual above the hope and power of them who wonder.” Oxford’s Richard Swinburne was straightforward. He called a miracle “an event of an extraordinary kind brought about by a god and of religious significance.”

I prefer the definition offered by the late philosopher Richard L. Purtill: “A miracle is an event (1) brought about by the power of God that is (2) a temporary (3) exception (4) to the ordinary course of nature (5) for the purpose of showing that God has acted in history.”

RNS: You partnered with Barna to conduct a survey for this book. So tell us: do Americans believe in miracles?

LS: Yes, they do--more than I anticipated. Half of Americans (51 percent) said they believe the miracles of the Bible happened as they are described. That’s pretty high in our increasingly skeptical culture. Two out of three (67 percent) said miracles are possible today. Only 15 percent said they aren’t. One sidelight: Republicans are more likely to believe in modern miracles (74 percent) than Democrats (61 percent). I’m not commenting on that--just presenting the facts.

RNS: How many Americans claim to have personally experienced a miracle?

LS: This is where the research really gets interesting. Nearly two out of five US adults (38 percent) said they have had an experience that they can only explain as being a miracle of God. By extrapolation, that means 94,792,000 American adults are convinced that God has performed at least one miracle for them personally. That’s an astonishing number. Now, let’s say 95 percent of those cases are actually astounding coincidences that can be explained through natural means. That would still leave more than 4.7 million miracles, and that’s just in the United States.

“Skeptic” magazine scoffs that supernatural reports are “more common from the uncivilized and uneducated.” Yet another study showed that 55 percent of US physicians said they have seen results in their patients that they would consider miraculous. That’s coming from highly educated professionals trained in medicine, often in very secular settings.

RNS: In your book, you spend a lot of time documenting people who share unexplainable events. It seems to me that this, at least partly, roots your argument in experience rather than evidence. What am I missing?

LS: A person’s experience can have evidential value. However, the evidence is amplified if we also have corroboration in the form of multiple other eyewitnesses who are trustworthy and have no bias or reason to lie; medical tests before and after a supposed healing; or other kinds of more objective facts. I’m as skeptical of miracle claims as the next person. However, I believe they are possible, and I’m willing to examine the evidence in each case to conclude whether it’s actually a misdiagnosis, the placebo effect, fakery, spontaneous remission, or there’s some sort of other natural explanation--or whether it can truly be best described as a divine intervention.

RNS: I’ve heard skeptics often say that to believe in “miracles” would be to deny science because, after all, miracles violate the established and observed laws of nature. How do you respond?

LS: Scottish skeptic David Hume called a miracle “a violation of the laws of nature”--and you can’t violate the laws of nature, right? Hume’s critique is still touted by skeptics today, but my book demonstrates that Hume’s approach is fatally flawed. In fact, philosophers have decimated Hume in recent years, as illustrated by the title of a recent book by a non-Christian scholar published by Oxford University Press: Hume’s Abject Failure.

Actually, miracles are not a violation of the laws of nature. For example, if I drop an apple, the law of gravity tells me it will hit the floor. But if I drop the apple and you reach in and grab it before it hits the floor, you haven’t violated the law of gravity--you’ve merely intervened. And that’s what God does in performing a miracle--he intervenes in the world that he created.

As philosopher William Lane Craig told me, natural laws have implicit ceteris paribus conditions, which is Latin for “all other things being equal.” In other words, natural laws assume that no other natural or supernatural factors are interfering with the operation that the law generally describes.

Craig explained that if there’s a supernatural agent that’s working in the natural world, then the idealized conditions described by the law are no longer in effect. The law isn’t violated because the law has this implicit provision that no outside forces are messing around with the conditions.

RNS: I have friend who often makes decisions based on recurring dreams that they believe are from God. What do you think about that? Can dreams or visions be considered miracles?

LS: The Bible contains about 200 examples of God using dreams and visions to further his plans. I devote an entire chapter to analyzing the supernatural phenomenon of Jesus appearing in dreams of Muslims, usually in countries closed to the gospel.

However, we need to be very careful about dreams; everything must be weighed against scripture. In the cases I cite, there’s some sort of external corroboration--for instance, the dreamer encounters someone in his dream who he has never met, and then he subsequently meets that individual in person--and this individual explains the gospel to them. This kind of external validation is helpful in weighing the legitimacy of dreams and visions.

That said, when you hear story after story of devout Muslims who are encountering the divine Jesus in supernatural ways, and then risking everything to follow him, it’s both jaw-dropping and inspiring. I think this is one of the most exciting parts of the book.

RNS: There are many accounts of miracles, similar to those you cite, but told by people of other faiths. There’s a litany of miracle stories of those who follow the teachings of Buddha or worship Krishna. If I’m going to believe your “evidence,” wouldn’t I have to also conclude that there is something to these stories? Why should I accept the miracle stories of Christians and not the identical stories told by Muslims, Jews, Mormons, and others?

LS: Not all miracle reports are equally credible. For instance, the supposed miracles associated with Buddha or Krishna are shrouded in the mists of history and legend, and are often written by unknown sources and without specific references to historic times and places, so they lack the credibility of historical biblical accounts. The supposed miracles of Muhammad are only in the hadith, which is Islamic tradition that comes hundreds of years after his life and therefore isn’t comparable to the gospels, which were recorded within the first generation when eyewitnesses were still living. The miracles of Mormonism lack credibility because of the unreliability of Joseph Smith and many of his early followers.

In contrast, the key miracle of Jesus--his resurrection from the dead--is corroborated by excellent historical data, as I demonstrate in my book. We have five sources outside the Bible confirming his death. We have a report of the resurrection that has been dated by scholars to within months of his death--too early to be a mere legend. We have an empty tomb that even the opponents of Jesus implicitly conceded was empty. And we have nine ancient sources, inside and outside the New Testament, affirming the conviction of the disciples that they had encountered the risen Jesus. That’s an avalanche of historical data that isn’t matched by any miracle claims in another any other tradition.

RNS: I believe in miracles because, among other things, I’ve experienced them in my life. But your approach is to make a “case” for them rooted in evidence and logic. Doesn’t this ignore the mysterious nature of the supernatural and the miraculous?

LS: Evidence and experience are both important, which is why I explore both of these components in The Case for Miracles. Your experience of the miraculous may be valid, but it might not be convincing to others. That’s where corroboration comes in. Skeptics--like me a few years back--are much more apt to believe the supernatural when presented with credible reports by unbiased eyewitnesses, medical records, etc. I hope my book will challenge the skepticism of non-believers, while at the same time encouraging and strengthening the faith of Christians. To do that, the more substantiation, the better. Honestly, I don’t think documentation strips away the mystery of miracles--to me, it elicits even more awe and wonder, along with the confidence to share the miraculous reports with others.

RNS: You mention that some churches are embarrassed by the supernatural. How would you advise churches to acknowledge and process when their congregants claim to have experienced a miracle?

LS: I believe many evangelical and mainline churches are embarrassed by the supernatural. They want to be considered respectable by their neighbors and not be conflated with the bizarre antics of some TV faith healers. They crave acceptability, order, and predictability. I can understand this, since there are plenty of charlatans out there to distance ourselves from. But the Holy Spirit cannot be put in a box. He will do as He wishes. We should be open to whatever God may want to do, even when He disrupts our carefully planned world.

Now, when miracle claims are made, I don’t think we should automatically accept them. It’s always wise to scrutinize them--are they consistent with Scripture, are they confirmed or validated by witnesses or medical records, and so forth. The Bible warns us to “test everything…hold on to what is good.” Certainly Catholics have been investigating miracles for centuries when they consider a person for sainthood in their tradition. Similarly, when we see what appears to be a divine work of the Lord--like some of the well-documented miracles in The Case for Miracles--we should not only accept them, but also praise Him for His gracious intervention on behalf of people He so clearly loves.

#miracles #Lee Strobel #The Case for Miracles

0 notes

christsbride · 7 years ago

Text

When An Angel Teaches A Different Gospel

Since the foundation of the Church, there have been many claims of supposed truth that has come down from heaven after what Jesus, and The Apostles of Jesus have made known in scripture. Three most notable is what founded Islam, Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses. All of these claim an Angel revealed something to their founders, different from the gospel that was proclaimed in scripture; either attempting to correct or add to it. But, interestingly, The Holy Spirit knew this would happen and thus specifically said something about it. Galatians 1:6-9

"I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"

Papyrus 46 is the oldest manuscript of Galatians currently discovered. It is dated around the end of the 2nd century. It contains significant portions of Galatians. With it is Romans, Hebrews, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, and possibly others. The reliability of this is unquestionable. It is important to note the date and relation Galatians has with the other scriptures discovered with it. Though the original was written before this manuscript, the date of this specific manuscript is only two of three generations from Jesus himself. Secondly, it is also in agreement with all that which is revealed in the other letters discovered with it. This is important later. People, at the time of this writing, were 'deserting' the true gospel message preached by the Apostles to a 'different', 'distorted', and 'contrary' gospel. The source of the 'different', 'distorted', and 'contrary' gospels came either from men or even spirits. The Holy Spirit, through Paul, declares that even if the Apostles themselves begin distorting the original gospel preached, they are wrong. Even if an Angel from heaven came and taught a distorted gospel, they are also wrong. In other words, there is no other gospel no matter the source; natural (men) or supernatural (spirits) besides the original gospel that was first proclaimed. The True Gospel This is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ which includes the person and work of Jesus. Jesus, The Son of God and God Himself, willingly, humbly, and voluntarily came down from heaven, to be born of a virgin, lived a perfect sinless life, and was the perfect sacrificial lamb to once and for all atone for the sins of all those who believe. He then rose from the dead three days later validating his power over death and the power as the source of eternal life. This is The Gospel message proclaimed by Jesus and The Apostles. But, as time went on, human nature lead some to teaching something different, distorted, and contrary to this. Gnosticism This is a general term given to different early teachings. Some of these early ideas are still apparent in cults and other religions today. There are similar ideas in all these teachings. They deny the foundational aspects of The Gospel message: The sufficiency of scripture, the incarnation of God as The Son and the sufficiency of Jesus death on the cross. Some even deny the death of Jesus on the cross all together. These Gnostics claimed that the source for their teachings came from divine sources and heightened states of spiritual awareness. When people fail to understand and believe Galatians 1:6-9, their hearts and minds are open to just about any claim. Islam Around 610AD Mohammed, in a cave on Mt. Hira, hears the an angel who he believes to be Gabriel tell him that Allah is the only true God. Right off the bat, this conflicts with what The Holy Spirit made known 500 years earlier (Galatians 1:8). This belief system is different and contrary to what which was made known by Jesus and the Apostles. It denies that Jesus was the Son of God and God in the flesh. It denies that Jesus even died on the cross. It denies Jesus' sufficient atoning death for sin and denies the sufficiency of scripture. In 746AD John of Damascus wrote about the claims of Islam where he said that Mohammad's ideas of what Christianity believed derived from an Arian monk; of which Arianism is a distortion of the The Gospel as well. Not only would Mohammad's understanding of Christianity be influenced by a distorted gospel to begin with, but he then created his own system from there. Regardless, at the premise, the birth of Islam conflicts with Galatians 1:8. Either Galatians is false, or Muhammad's teaching of a 'different', 'distorted', and 'contrary' gospel is false, both can not be true. Mormonism On Sept. 21, 1823 an angel revealed to Joseph Smith of the location of golden tablets and told him that he had been chosen to translate the book of Mormon. The book of Mormon created an entire new system of religious beliefs that splintered off from Christianity. A basic problem of the book of Mormon is that there are no archeological evidences to support any of its extreme historical claims. Mormonism denies that Jesus is the One Triune God, in fact, Mormonism teaches that there is more than one god. They deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the sufficiency of his death to forgive all sins once and for all. They also deny the sufficiency of scripture alone and require other divine writings to aid in 'correctly' interpreting scripture. Just like in Muhammad's situation, Either Galatians is false, or Mormonism's teaching of a 'different', 'distorted', and 'contrary' gospel is false, both can not be true. The Easy Way Out When an unverifiable person jumps up and declares that he has been given a vision or told by an angel to write a divine writing; it is then easy for them to explain away any true contradictions with scripture. In the case with Galatians, it is then easy to say something like "God isn't talk about me, but others after me". Or, even, claim that Galatians is a corruption of the original. And people have no choice but to accept this unverifiable claim. The major difference between Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and others who make this argument is that God never actually verified their claim for others to see. Muhammad never performed any miracles and his prophecies failed. Joseph Smith never performed any visible verifiable miracles. The prophecies of the Jehovha's Witnesses are continually failed and have been re-explained and failed again. The Apostles were healing the blind and crippled and raising the dead to life. Aside from the biblical recorded accounts, early church teacher, Papias, validated this as he knew of people who were raised from the dead in his day. Membership growth and wining Wars do not validate someone's spiritual truth claim. Atheist church membership is growing and atheists have caused and won many wars. Declaring "I will raise myself from the dead three days after I die" and then doing just that is validation. Declaring that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, then raising people from the dead is validating the source of power. Anyone can claim that Galatians is wrong. A 12 year old can just make that sort of claim just to reject the authority and justify themselves, but again, that does not make is so. Its easy to make any claim, deny facts, and avoid being verifiable. Not a Forgery So how do we know that Galatians is not a later forgery with the name of Paul as the author later inserted? Well, its quite simple actually. We just compare the vocabulary, writing style, theological point of view, cultural first hand knowledge, and presupposed historical situation to all the other Pauline writings. Clement of Rome (and other early ancient church teachers) quoted from Romans and he wrote around 90 AD. So we have outside sources to validate Paul's Letter to the Romans. When comparing such validated letters we see the commonalities of the letters from one author style. Such is with Galatians, it is the same in vocabulary, writing style, theological point of view, and presupposed historical situation as the other validated Pauline writings. Now of course no one now saw Paul pen the letters first hand; just like all other ancient writings, yet, given the evidences, we can be certain that this letter is in fact from Paul. Even in Islam, Muhammad never wrote anything; Joseph Smith never showed the supposed Gold Tablets to anyone; Jehovah's Witnesses only have the unverifiable claims (and failed prophecies) of their founders. This is a major problem for Islam, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses. They are forced to claim that the words in Galatians are not of Paul but must be later insertions and corruptions. They are forced to go against the certainty of evidence support for the authenticity of Galatians. Because if they admit the truth of Galatians, they are then exposed to the truth stated by Paul in Galatians 1:6-9. So, of course, they take the easy way out and just flat out deny it. Conclusion Sense we can be certain that Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ validated by the other Apostles (Galatians 1:18-19, 2:9; Acts 9:26-29), wrote Galatians and a copy exists from the 2nd century we can conclude that his statement in Galatians 1:6-9 is from an Apostle of Jesus Christ validated by the other Apostles. Therefore, the Apostolic statement must be true. That if anyone and even an angel preaches a different gospel message, it is wrong. Islam, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses do just that, preach a different gospel from other angels. But unlike them, he is validated by Apostolic support and miracles through preaching the true gospel and declaring Jesus as Christ and eternal Son of God. Sense Galatians 1:6-9 is true, the claims of Islam, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses can not be. If you have any questions or comments about this article please contact us or join our discussion forms

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2zQWvGL

#Blogger

0 notes

albemarletradewinds · 8 years ago

Link

ELIZABETH CITY, N.C. – From its inauspicious beginnings in an old highway patrol building in 1967 to its 50,000 square foot facility on the Elizabeth City waterfront today, the Museum of the Albemarle for 50 years has told an expansive story of the people and culture of northeastern North Carolina. Programming in its 50th anniversary year of service holds true to its mission offering education and interpretation on the region and beyond.

“From American Indians to watermen to the Coast Guard, we are committed to presenting both well-known and obscure facts about the region,” says Museum Curator Wanda Lassiter. “We offer the old and new, the familiar and unique, so that we will remain fresh and a valued asset to all citizens as we go into our next 50 years.”

“The Museum of the Albemarle encourages citizens and visitors to understand the past, reflect on their own lives and to preserve this history for future generations,” observes Bill McCrea, director of regional history museums, N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources.

The Museum of the Albemarle 50th Anniversary exhibit “50 Years of Museum History” will open during a black-tie celebration on April 21, 2017 from 7 to 11 p.m. The Friends of the Albemarle will host the gala which will include a live band, dancing and dinner. Tickets are available at the museum for purchase. Please join us on Saturday, April 22, 2017 for a public exhibit opening at 10:00 a.m.with a ribbon cutting. A special invitation is extended to former Friends of the Museum of the Albemarle board members and former staff for the ribbon cutting.

A range of programming, book signings, camps, summer fun days, and lectures on a wide range of topics are offered at the museum to celebrate the birthday. The April 9, 2:30 p.m. program, “Looking for the Tomb of Joseph of Arimathea” is a pre-Easter examination of archaeological evidence, ancient sources and research of Professor Robert Smith to evaluate candidate locations for the tomb used to bury Jesus. Other events include a “Founders Day Tea,” June 4, “Children’s Birthday Party,” July 8, “Theodosia Burr Portrait Exhibition,” August 2017-February 2018, and a symposium on “Northeastern North Carolina Women of the Underground Railroad,” October 5-7.

About the Museum of the Albemarle

For additional information, please call (252) 335-1453 and check social media sites. The Museum of the Albemarle is located at 501 South Water Street, Elizabeth City, NC. Website: http://ift.tt/2a8fXTN. Hours are Monday through Saturday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm Closed Sundays and State Holidays. The Museum of the Albemarle serves thirteen counties: Bertie, Camden, Chowan, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hertford, Hyde, Northampton, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell and Washington Counties. Museum of the Albemarle is the northeast regional history museum of the North Carolina Division of State History Museums within the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources.

About the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources

The N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (NCDNCR) is the state agency with a vision to be the leader in using the state's natural and cultural resources to build the social, cultural, educational and economic future of North Carolina. NCDNCR's mission is to improve the quality of life in our state by creating opportunities to experience excellence in the arts, history, libraries and nature in North Carolina by stimulating learning, inspiring creativity, preserving the state's history, conserving the state's natural heritage, encouraging recreation and cultural tourism, and promoting economic development.

NCDNCR includes 27 historic sites, seven history museums, two art museums, two science museums, three aquariums and Jennette's Pier, 39 state parks and recreation areas, the N.C. Zoo, the nation's first state-supported Symphony Orchestra, the State Library, the State Archives, the N.C. Arts Council, State Preservation Office and the Office of State Archaeology, along with the Division of Land and Water Stewardship. For more information, please call (919) 807-7300 or visit www.ncdcr.gov.

#IFTTT #Blogger

0 notes

nerdygaymormon · 5 years ago

Text

Gospel Topic Essays

In 2013 & 2014, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released a series of essays that address a number of question and criticisms. These essays have been approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of 12 Apostles. The stated reason for the essays is gathering accurate information and making it available.

I added a few thoughts in italics

Are Mormons Christian - Members of the Church believe in and teach of Christ, but they don’t believe in the post-New Testament Creeds, and have scriptures in addition to the Bible. The LDS Church also is not a direct descendant of an existing Christian church.

What Mormons mean by the word “Christian” is different than the rest of Christianity. Mormons are Christian in that they believe Jesus was the Messiah and redeemer of the world.

Becoming Like God - Since people are the spirit children of God, we have the potential to develop and grow to become like God. The essay includes some Bible verses to support this teaching, but most of the world interprets them differently.

The essay leaves out Bible verses that would seem to contradict this teaching. The Bible, at best, is mixed. There aren’t any verses from the Book of Mormon included because this concept is absent from that book.

God was once like humans are now. And people can become gods. We teach God is married, so there are godly roles for both men & women. Does this make us polytheists? Yes, in that there are many gods, but really no because we only worship our Heavenly Father and will continue doing so even when we become gods ourselves.

How does someone become like God? It’s the covenant path we hear so much about. Baptism, Melchizedek Priesthood (if you’re male), temple endowment, sealed to a spouse, obey temple covenants.

Sounds pretty good, except...

What about if your spouse or children are unworthy? If you’re gay? If you get divorced? A widowed husband gets married & sealed to a 2nd wife, what if the 1st wife isn’t into polygamy?

Book of Mormon and DNA Studies - The purpose of the Book of Mormon is spiritual, not historical. There’s no DNA evidence to confirm that Middle Eastern people came to the Americas prior to Christopher Columbus. This essay goes through many possible excuses for why no DNA of the Jaredites, Nephites or Lamanites has yet been found in the Americas.

The introduction page to the Book of Mormon used to say that the Jaredites & Nephites were destroyed, leaving the Lamanites who are "the principal ancestors of the American Indians.” DNA evidence forced a change, it now says, Lamanites are “among” the ancestors of the American Indians.

Book of Mormon Translation - Joseph placed either the interpreters (Urim & Thummim) or his seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out light, and read aloud the English words that appeared. He dictated the words, not punctuation, to the scribes. The scribes wrote their own punctuation and that is what was printed. Most changes in the Book of Mormon have involved punctuation and creating verses & chapters.

It’s not a “translation” in the usual sense of that word. An examination of the characters on the plate wasn’t typically involved (despite much of the artwork that suggests otherwise), in fact, the plates often weren’t visible. There’s no way to test the accuracy of the translation.

Also, some other changes beyond punctuation and creating chapters/verses has taken place, like having some of the more racist language toned down.

First Vision Accounts - Joseph had a vision (not necessarily an actual visitation) in which 2 heavenly beings appeared to him.

Joseph published 2 accounts of this vision during his lifetime. Two additional accounts (from his autobiography and from a journal) have been found and published in the 1960′s. There are also 5 descriptions of Joseph Smith’s vision recorded by others who heard Joseph speak about the vision.

That makes 9 different accounts, and there are some differences between them. The essay explains that different accounts emphasize different details. Memories fade over time and things get remembered differently.

There is a generally consistent theme across the different versions, but the first written account comes many years after the vision is supposed to have occurred, which makes me wonder how accurate or reliable it is.

Joseph Smith’s Teachings about Priesthood, Temple and Women - During the 19th century, women frequently blessed the sick by a prayer of faith, and many women received priesthood blessings promising that they would have the gift of healing. In reference to these healing blessings, Relief Society general president Eliza R. Snow explained in 1883, "Women can administer in the name of JESUS, but not by virtue of the Priesthood."

That’s because the priesthood was new & fresh, but understanding changed as Joseph Smith received more revelations.

I think they stuck to Joseph Smith’s teachings so they wouldn’t have to go into the misogynistic teachings of Brigham Young or Spencer Kimball. At the time of Joseph’s death, women were still doing healings & had control of the Relief Society.

Priesthood power is given to women in the temple as part of the endowment ceremony. When a couple is sealed in the temple, together they enter into an order of the priesthood. Women can officiate in the priesthood in ordinances for other women. Women can officiate when only women are getting the ordinance, when it is for men & women then the men are in charge.

Women and the Priesthood today - well, they still can do stuff in the temple.

Mother in Heaven - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. This understanding is rooted in scriptural and prophetic teachings about the nature of God, and the godly potential of men and women. The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother is a cherished and distinctive belief among Latter-day Saints.

According to things taught through most of church history, this essay could have been titled Mothers in Heaven. We each have a mother & father in heaven, we each have the same father but there could be many different mothers in heaven. Good old polygamy, interwoven into our theology.

6 paragraphs, that’s all? Shouldn’t we know more? What is heaven like for women?

Peace in Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints - The Latter-day Saints were persecuted, often violently, for their beliefs. Several incidents are discussed.

Well, to be accurate, it was more for their actions than their beliefs. We weren’t exactly great neighbors to non-members of the church.

And, tragically, some Church members participated in deplorable violence against people they perceived to be their enemies. Joseph Smith had the Danites, and a stake president ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Brigham Young taught that some sins were serious enough that the person should be killed as part of forgiveness process (blood atonement).

The early Mormons had many threats and violence done against them, and they also did the same to others. It was a rough time.

Imagine all the things said & done against the LGBTQ+ community by the Church--denying they exist, electro-shock therapy, advocating for laws to limit & take away their rights. In a real sense the church isn’t a good neighbor to this group. In an earlier time, this might get settled via guns and violence.

Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo - God commanded people in ancient Israel to have polygamous marriages. As part of the restoration of all things, God commanded Joseph Smith to introduce polygamy.

The verses cited just indicate that polygamy was practiced in Old Testament times, not that God commanded anyone to have such marriages.

Joseph really didn’t want to do it (or worried about how his wife Emma would react), so God had to send an angel 3 times between 1834 and 1842 to command him to proceed with plural marriage. During the final appearance, the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully.

The concept of polygamy was part of the revelation on eternal marriage and is how to be exalted with God.

The essay says there wasn’t much instruction on how to do polygamy, I think this is meant to suggest that mistakes happened because people didn’t know better. D&C 132 does have a number of instructions, some of which were ignored. Such as the 1st wife had to give permission for any additional wife, and the additional wives each have to be virgins.

Joseph kept most of his marriages secret from Emma, and he married other men’s wives who most assuredly weren’t virgins.

Joseph had 30-40 wives. His oldest wife was 56 and the youngest was 14.

Polygamy was illegal. Most people who participated were told to keep it secret. Also important for married women to keep it a secret from their first husband. Rumors spread and so “carefully worded denials” were issued in which they’d switch one word, or change the meaning of a word. Basically it looks like they were lying because it would mean trouble.

Wilford Woodruff issued a manifesto in 1890 which led to the end of polygamy (eventually...it took a second manifesto in 1904 to end it officially).

A form of polygamy still survives. Men who remarry may be sealed to their additional wives. People can do temple work to seal women who were married to more than one man during their lifetimes but not sealed to them. Only men are allowed to be sealed to more than one person whilst alive.

Plural Marriage and Families in early Utah - Church members do not understand the purposes for instituting the practice of plural marriage during the 19th century. The essay heavily suggests that having a lot of children was a primary purpose.

Footnote 6 says “Studies have shown that monogamous women bore more children per wife than did polygamous wives except the first.” In all likelihood, polygamy led to fewer children than probably would have been born in a monogamous society

Accounts left by men and women who practiced plural marriage attest to the challenges and difficulties they experienced, such as financial difficulty, interpersonal strife, and some wives’ longing for the sustained companionship of their husbands. Virtually all of those practicing it in the earliest years had to overcome their own prejudice against plural marriage and adjust to life in polygamous families.

Few would have entered into plural marriages if leaders didn’t emphasize that polygamy was required for a man’s highest exaltation in the life to come, and women who refused plural marriage could find themselves single & a servant in heaven. Polygamous wives were so unhappy that Brigham Young eventually gave an ultimatum, 2 weeks to freely leave the territory or stop whining and fully live their religion.

Plural marriage was an illegal practice and members engaged in civil disobedience against such laws. In direct violation of the 12th Article of Faith

The essay shows Mormon polygamy in a very favorable light.

The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage - Polygamous marriage was illegal in the United States and the LDS Church fled to Mexico but the United States took the territory they were fleeing to. The Church felt that polygamy was protected under the Constitution’s freedom of religion but the Supreme Court disagreed.

Given the importance polygamy to the church’s beliefs about heaven, the members were encouraged to disregard the law and obey God. After 2 decades of increasing troubles, many polygamous families headed to Canada or Mexico to escape US justice (nevermind polygamy was just as illegal in those countries).

When the US Supreme Court upheld the legality of confiscating church property, this could mean that temple ordinances would end when those buildings are seized. Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto to ban polygamy in 1890. This calmed things with the US government and within 3 years Utah was admitted as a state.

Members continued entering into new plural marriages for about 15 more years, but in declining numbers. In 1899 the newly-elected senator from Utah was not allowed to take his seat in Congress because he had 3 wives, including one he married after the manifesto. When an apostle was elected in 1903, he also was not allowed to take his seat as an investigation took place into the church & polygamy, even church president Joseph F. Smith testified before Congress.

President Smith testified that the Manifesto removed God’s commandment on the church to practice polygamy, but didn’t forbid individuals from choosing to continue to be polygamous. He issued a Second Manifest at the April General Conference forbidding members from entering new polygamous marriages.

Race and the Priesthood - The Church was established in 1830, many people of African descent in the United States lived in slavery, and racial prejudice were believed by most white Americans.

From the mid-1800s until 1978—the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances.

This is true, but one would hope a church which claims revelation through prophets would be able to overcome cultural norms that aren’t in line with the gospel.

Church leaders taught many things to explain the ban, and today, all of that is rejected by the church and considered error. These weren’t just teachings, they were doctrines. And the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham were used to justify bigotry, such as stating that the curse of Cain was a dark skin.

International expansion of the church, especially in Brazil, forced the church into difficult situations. The Church in the USA was also under heavy pressure for the priesthood restrictions.

Church president Spencer W. Kimball spent many hours praying for revelation to undo the priesthood ban. The essay makes it sound like some big revelation was received, but it wasn’t that way. It was a process, a statement drafted and changes made to it and voted on.

Today, the Church disavows all teachings that teach any race or ethnicity if inferior in any way, or that mixed-race marriages are wrong. Church leaders unequivocally condemn all racism.

No reason for the priesthood ban is put forward in this article other than racism. The past leaders were racists and that blinded them to what God wanted for black people. There’s a big lesson in that.

Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the book of Abraham as scripture.

A traveling salesman sold several Egyptian papyri and mummies to Joseph Smith. He was excited to learn one papyrus was scripture from Abraham and set to translating it.

After the church left Nauvoo, Joseph’s family sold the Egyptian artifacts and they eventually ended up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. In 1967, the museum transferred these fragments to the Church.

Discovery of the papyri allowed an examination of Joseph Smith’s translation. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham.

Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.

The essay mostly tries to explain how it is possible for Joseph Smith to have called the process for bringing forth the book of Abraham a "translation" when it is obvious that it was not a translation of the Egyptian papyri in his possession

#before these essays many of these positions would be considered anti-Mormon #tumblrstake

30 notes · View notes