Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. And if they rise from their graves and continue to repeat those views, I might be taken back enough not to say anything, but my mind would still be going " you have got to be kidding me!". I don't know if it was in that post or another one, but I believe I acknowledged that comments in the past from leaders had been harsh. That the most recent of your quotes was written in 1966 (and McConkie was told to lose the Roman Catholic Church of the Devil comment by those with more authority) only demonstrates we don't hear this from the pulpit anymore. Which of those comments besides the History of JS is used in manuals, magazines, or cited in conference talks? Mormon Doctrine isn't even published any more by Deseretbook and I am guessing that wasn't a decision based on how it sold. Even your insert of "(Christian churches)" in the History of JS (the only comment still being taught) is not a repudiation of those churches as Christian. I am not claiming we don't teach they have false doctrine and in some very, very important areas (such as the nature of God), I am saying we don't make claims these days and haven't for as long as I have been aware of the conversations from the pulpit or in official publications that other Christians are not actually Christian. Unfortunately there are a few members who do, but I have never encountered any at church or otherwise face to face....only online.
  3. Number 1 is the only quote that is kind of relevant, but still isn't all that relevant. BH Roberts isn't calling orthodox Christians pagan, he is only referring to their doctrine (which I'm guessing he means the doctrine of the Trinity). Number 2 does not say anything about the members of those Christian churches, and numbers 3-5 are actively taught against in the church (McConkie even got reprimanded for trying to pass them off as official church doctrine when they weren't, which I'm guessing you are aware of since you've been a member for so long).
  4. Based on personal inside knowledge and what I have shared here (plus what I haven’t shared), I’d say that option number 3 above has a near-zero likelihood. In fact, since you have been pushing your narrative here, that the Church is covering up its statistics, the validity of your reasoning has pretty much evaporated. It was based partly on your erroneous assumption that the Church had ceased to publish its statistical report in the Ensign. It turned out you were looking in the wrong month’s edition.
  5. “Orthodox Christian views of God are pagan rather than Christian” (Mormon Doctrine of Deity, B. H. Roberts [General Authority], 116). I was answered that I must join none of them (Christian churches), for they were all wrong . . . their creeds were an abomination in [God’s] sight; that those professors were all corrupt” (Joseph Smith—History1:19). “The Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant church, is the great corrupt, ecclesiastical power, represented by great Babylon” (Orson Pratt, Writings of an Apostle, Orson Pratt, n. 6, 84). [Under the heading, “Church of the Devil,” Apostle Bruce R. McConkie lists:] “The Roman Catholic Church specifically—singled out, set apart, described, and designated as being ‘most abominable above all other churches’ (I Ne. 13:5)” (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, 129). “Believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap damnation to their souls (Morm. 8; Moro. 8)” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, Bruce R. McConkie, 177).
  6. And yet if Scott had agreed to take on the job ( or others if offered) it would have been published. It would have been very easy for leadership to tell someone to drop it completely, the job wouldn't have been offered at all. They didn't have to be subtle about it and hope that it would disappear. That they didn't stop the job from being offered would seem to indicate at least at that time they were neutral. Not wanting is a possibility just as being unaware is a possibility, but in my opinion both are highly unlikely based on the greater context of how things worked and were done. edit: ach, what bluebell said!
  7. True, however I think only one of those possibilities actually has evidence to back it up. I think the fact that the DN would have continued to print it if someone had taken the job actively disproves the argument that church leadership didn't want the data publicly available. If Scott had taken the job, it would have continued to be printed. It was Scott, not the church leadership, that made the difference. If the church had not wanted the data to be publicly available anymore, then Scott would not have been the deciding factor.
  8. Number 1 is an unreasonable expectation, imo. They may have been unaware of the problems it was having in being cost effective as its publishing was likely not seen as part of the mission of the Church, but unaware of it at all?
  9. See my response above that I was apparently typing when yours came through. I think it's possible that they didn't care or that they didn't know. I wasn't suggesting that there is conclusive evidence that the church had a negative feeling about the almanac. I'm not sure how aware the FP, Q12, and Presiding Bishopric were of the almanac. Neutral is a possibility. And, not wanting the data publicly available is also a possibility.
  10. That pleases me. I would have been sad to see the historic building filled with movie screens instead. Live actors provide something special. Is Salt Lake the only one left using actors?
  11. You keep bringing up conspiracy theories... I'm not sure why. I haven't suggested any conspiracies. As for what can reasonably be read into it either: Church leadership at the time was unaware of the almanac and the decision resided solely within the DN and/or CN organizations. Church leadership at the time didn't care either way about the publication of the almanac. Church leadership didn't want the almanac published for the time being. Am I missing a reasonable expectation?
  12. What if the church didn't care one way or the other if the almanac continued to be printed? Have you considered that possibility or is 'they did not want it to be printed' the only reasonable interpretation of these events in your view? From my perspective, I don't think we can say that because the church didn't step in to pay for the almanac then that means they didn't want it to be printed. That seems like an assumption that is not well supported. However, I think we do have support for the idea that the church didn't care either way and let DN do whatever they thought best with it. This is supported by two things: The DN was going to try to keep printing it and offered that job to Scott (and the church did not intervene in that-which shows that they were fine if it continued to be printed) The DN could not find anyone who would take on the job (and the church did not intervene in that-which shows they were fine if it stopped being printed) Your argument seems to be that the evidence we have clearly shows that the church had a negative feeling about the almanac's continued presence (otherwise they would have saved it) but from my perspective, the evidence shows that the church was neutral on the topic (which is why they did not nothing to stop it and also nothing to save it).
  13. Yes - DMC is a holding company. More specifically an asset management company. It is not the subsidiary, nor did I state that. DN is the subsidiary of DMC. It has nothing to do with my feelings for the word, it’s just the correct term for it. Also, acknowledging that DN is a subsidiary of DMC does not connote that the Church is a commercial business.
  14. Today
  15. I don't know about personal interpretations, but it is generally presented by leaders in my experience as it is the Spirit that converts and that time is best spent creating opportunities to experience the Spirit through reading scripture, prayer, etc. Now being kids, there may definitely be many who see whatever they do as superior to others. My husband had a companion who would never take advice because he was from California. I know other kids who felt the same way because they were from back east, were jocks, were geeks, were the oldest in their family, the youngest, etc. and somehow that made them feel better informed/more experienced than others. More than likely that is simply what they used to justify their feelings of superiority (so common among those who are actually deep down rather insecure about their place in life). Kids who are taking two years out of their life and often years of hard work earning money to pay for it are likely going to feel the drive to commit so much because what they are teaching is what they believe others need to hear. I can't imagine asking a young man or woman to sacrifice that much on the off chance they might meet someone who the Church can benefit but viewing most others as doing fine without it. Being able to debate is seen as counterproductive by most members and leaders in my experience (for example, over the years FairMormon has gotten challenged on occasion by members who saw any defense of the Church as wrong/unnecessary and not a few who were offended by the word apologetics as they interpreted that as offering apologies; when it happens now it helps that in emphasizing our supportive/informative role we can point to the Church using us as a reference for additional resources). I have seen a lot of discouragement of missionaries doing any debating/bashing. Discussing people's personal beliefs to contrast them to our beliefs is probably seen as too close to debating and young, untrained, and enthusiastic missionaries likely too prone to go too far, so learning others' beliefs would likely be seen most useful as similar to learning people's cultural background...as a way to understand them better, not as a way to help convert. I don't know how much culture is actually taught in the MTC, I would assume much is focused on what not to do to offend rather than to promote enjoyment of the culture...that is probably seen as more of the individual's responsibility. Back in the 60s I believe, studies were done on what made the difference for those converts who stayed active for many years after conversion, the conclusion was the turning point happened early on when they felt the Spirit witness to the truth. At that time, they switched from long, ongoing indepth teaching and waiting to offer baptism to the short set of lessons where baptism is offered quite early. I would assume they still do studies on what are the most effective teaching and retention methods. There have been a number of recommendations published over the years such as having lessons in members' homes. My personal preference would be lots of teaching of the culture and religion of the people they will be interacting with, but there is only so much time to prepare. And if I were a missionary, sitting in a classroom for the additional hours would be excrutiating when I could be out in the real world learning from the people themselves. It makes sense to teach enough so most do not feel so hopelessly lost they shut down, but rely more on the immersion experience of real life to teach the background beyond the very basics.
  16. I really like this. I find I can pay attention to a person more than a movie.
  17. I suppose they could do a host of things they’re not doing now. The question is, why would they, or why should they be expected to? Or, more to the point, at hand, what could reasonably be read into the fact that they are not? The latter question is important, because it helps discern between reasonable expectations and conspiracy theories.
  18. I by no means hold myself up as a centrist saint in my views, but I believe that salvation is a present tense concept. If I kneel to pray and ask for forgiveness, and seek to right my wrongs, I believe I "am saved." If I were to die right then, I would bypass Hell, and go to await resurrection in paradise. I believe that is a much different process than exaltation. Angels can die saved, but not reach exaltation. So, I don't consider it the same "process" at all. Maybe it is on a continuum, along the same path, but the two are quite distinguishable. We are rewarded based on our degree of exaltation. To receive all the Father hath is the goal - not everyone receives that promise, and Yeshua never said anything like that. That is where I think modern Christianity has lost lots of truth. They view heaven as one big room all saved people go to, when Yeshua said the Father's house has many rooms. Everyone in those rooms is saved from Hell, but have not received the same degrees of glory - because His house(of Elohim) is a house of many rooms. I agree. What Paul calls sanctification, I call exaltation. I don't see a difference. I think the difference you perceive is due to the doctrines of trinitinarianism. Yeshua prayed that we may be one with He and the Father even as He was one. The Roman catechism preserves the early patristic concept of theosis that was obviously in early Christianity, and I believe got replaced later with doctrines of the trinity. I believe we can be every much as one with the Father as Yeshua is - and even as He prayed for it. And actually, I believe this is the teaching and hope of the atonement - God looks for a godly seed. I agree. LDS definitely believe we can fall. Now Yeshua said none can wrest away those given to Him by the Father, but we certainly can choose not to follow. We can wrest ourselves away. However, I believe Christ will do everything He can to soften our hearts and win us back. I am LDS and that is my thinking. I believe we need to repent to be prepared for baptism. I am sure that is in LDS doctrine somewhere. The bishop conducts worthiness interviews beforehand as well. I admire you as someone willing to leap that bridge of trust, and willing to be hurt in the process. i do agree that the verbiage is used differently among Saints and Evangelicals, but I think the same is true of Catholics and Evangelicals. I think the conversation you seek to have is worthwhile. I just want you to know that I consider you to be one of the rare internet friends I have met online. I believe you to be straightforward, and that you do not have an axe to grind. I know you are not always trusted, but I can only speak for myself in saying that I trust you, and enjoy our conversations. It brings to mind another internet friend I met from Sweden. He took a test to see which denomination he might align best with - one was LDS. He said even higher was Mennonite! I think he tried the Mennonites for awhile, but I think he has dropped that. Anyway in light of the bond I think we made, I find our present conversation intriguing. I wonder what it is about the Mennonite sect and the LDS sect which seems to find common ground?
  19. DMC is a holding company, not a subsidiary. You seem enamored with that term, but I maintain it is misleading in that it connotes the Church is a commercial business, which it is not.
  20. Thanks so much. The whole world today of comparative religions is fascinating. Let me give you two examples from our current discussion; both involve Ethiopia, a bastion of ancient Coptic (Orthodox) Christianity. The Mennonite Church in Ethiopia is the fast growing Mennonite group (by country) in the world. The largest Mennonite church in the world is in Ethiopia. Who would have thought either of those were true with our simplistic stereotypes of Anglo Mennonites speaking low German and making wonderful scrapple (yum!). Next, a recent Prime Minister of Ethiopia was a convert to Oneness Pentecostalism and made it possible for an unusual openness to this Pentecostal group. Here in Mexico Pentecostalism has positioned itself as the most native or indigenous church of Protestantism. They pride themselves on rarely if ever in their history having had Anglo pastors. It is all very interesting.
  21. DMC is owned by the Church. DN (of which the Church News is a part) is a company (aka subsidiary) owned by DMC. DMC's Board of Directors is made up of the prophet and his counselors, three members of the Twelve, and the Presiding Bishopric. I know you already know this. Just clarifying what I meant by wholly owned subsidiary. But, my question was this: If Church leadership (and you can define that as those leaders which form the DMC’s board of directors) wanted the almanac to continue to be published, couldn’t they have provided the resources to make that happen?
  22. Yeah, in my experience missionaries have always assumed they are right and people will be drawn to their truth and there certainly isn't any formalized comparative religion training for missionaries. I always enjoy reading your posts. I would have never expected Mexico to have a large Mennonite population.
  23. I always saw the Almanac as something for trivia buffs/games for FHE and to have on the side table when for moments of waiting where I didn't want to get involved deeply in anything. We bought one once at a sales table, think it was a year or two out of date. I think we probably opened ours up a couple of times at most to intentionally look for something. Couldn't really justify buying it back when we wanted it, think we might buy it now just for the occasional browsing. Once the Internet started putting so much info out there, I was not surprised to see it cease publication because people wouldn't really see much of a need to buy it. Lot of work to put it together plus low sales...wise business decision to stop, imo. I think I gave it away or I would take a gander at it to see what it had that couldn't be found relatively easy these days with google.
  24. Yes, that’s correct. The temple annex and the South Visitors Center are going away, to be replaced by two buildings each on the north and south. This will facilitate much better street views of the temple, in part because the wall portions on those sides of Temple Square will be removed.
  25. There are those, especially in the borderlands who claim more than 20,000,000 adherents to the Oneness movement. That makes it bigger than either the Southern Baptist or LDS Church. It is an ubiquitous movement here in Mexico. It seems to me the LDS missionaries are woefully unprepared for encounters with these folks. I often wonder why the study of comparative religions, especially those that might be faced in a certain mission field is not more a part of missionary training in the Church. Talking with missionaries here, there just seems to be a tacit assumption that their faith is the best (or the only) so therefore folks should just naturally recognize that with a recitation of the message and join up. That just isn't happening, at least not very much in our part of the world. There is little interest in understanding the faith of those to whom they are ministering whether they be Catholic, Mennonite, or Pentecostal - the big three "other" faiths in our area.
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...