Difference between revisions of "Christensen: "Notice again the shift from an original argument against the priesthood restoration based on 'no such claim until 1834' to a much softer complaint about the general membership being 'unfamiliar with the now official story.'""

(Christensen: "Notice again the shift from an original argument against the priesthood restoration based on 'no such claim until 1834' to a much softer complaint about the general membership being 'unfamiliar with the now official story.'")
Line 16: Line 16:
  
 
<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
[[en:Source:Christensen:Eye of the Beholder, Law of the Harvest:Interpreter:Runnells says, 'Although the priesthood is now taught to have been restored in 1829, Joseph and Oliver made no such claim until 1834"]]
+
 
 
[[es:Fuente:Christensen:Eye of the Beholder, Law of the Harvest:Interpreter:Runnells dice: "A pesar de que el sacerdocio se enseña que fue restaurado en 1829, José y Oliver hizo ningún reclamo hasta 1834"]]
 
[[es:Fuente:Christensen:Eye of the Beholder, Law of the Harvest:Interpreter:Runnells dice: "A pesar de que el sacerdocio se enseña que fue restaurado en 1829, José y Oliver hizo ningún reclamo hasta 1834"]]
 
[[pt:Fonte:Christensen:Eye of the Beholder, Law of the Harvest:Interpreter:Runnells diz: "Embora o sacerdócio agora é ensinado a ter sido restaurado em 1829, Joseph e Oliver não faz tal afirmação até 1834"]]
 
[[pt:Fonte:Christensen:Eye of the Beholder, Law of the Harvest:Interpreter:Runnells diz: "Embora o sacerdócio agora é ensinado a ter sido restaurado em 1829, Joseph e Oliver não faz tal afirmação até 1834"]]

Revision as of 15:47, 5 June 2017

  1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Christensen: "Notice again the shift from an original argument against the priesthood restoration based on 'no such claim until 1834' to a much softer complaint about the general membership being 'unfamiliar with the now official story.'"

Kevin Christensen:

In his original Letter, Runnells says, “Although the priesthood is now taught to have been restored in 1829, Joseph and Oliver made no such claim until 1834.”[1] He uncritically repeats [Grant] Palmer’s claims about an 1834 date and leaves this crucially important information from 1832 off the table. When FairMormon points out the 1832 account, he labors to devalue the significance of this passage, and of other earlier sources that FairMormon mentions: “FAIR’s above answer actually confirms my point that the general Church membership was unfamiliar with the now official story of the Priesthood restoration until 1834. The best FAIR can do after scouring through everything for their rebuttal is this?”[2]

Notice again the shift from an original argument against the priesthood restoration based on “no such claim until 1834” to a much softer complaint about the general membership being “unfamiliar with the now official story.”[3]


Notes

  1. Runnells, “Letter to a CES Director,” 49.
  2. Runnells, “Debunking FAIR’s Debunking”
  3. Kevin Christensen, "Eye of the Beholder, Law of the Harvest: Observations on the Inevitable Consequences of the Different Investigative Approaches of Jeremy Runnells and Jeff Lindsay," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 10:175-238 (2014).