Jump to content

drums12

Members
  • Content count

    204
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

229 Excellent

1 Follower

About drums12

  • Rank
    OverThinker

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Somewhere in America

Recent Profile Visitors

1,267 profile views
  1. from http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2009/10/elder-jeffrey-r-holland-speaks-out-on.html Some critics have howled about the horrific, cynical dishonesty of Elder Holland in holding up a book that they think is not the real book. The confusion is understandable since it appears that the Church owns two similar books, one that is the original and one that is a similar edition that had the same page dog-eared like the book that Hyrum had. This was made clear in a Deseret News story on the talk and the book. The vitriol and name calling in this case says much about some of our critics. Such anger, such anxiousness to criticize, such unwillingness to even wonder if it was just a mistake. But the mistake appears to have been an earlier Church news story that showed the copy, not the original that Elder Holland was holding. I think it's fair to grant that Elder Holland asked for the original to be brought to him, and whether it was the original or not, I think it's fair to accept that he was not knowingly lying about the book. The story is true and the point he makes about Hyrum and Joseph turning to it in their final moments still adds to their witness of the Book of Mormon, regardless of which of the two similar books Elder Holland had on the pulpit with him.
  2. I see you are using all the progressive, NOM, EX-MO jargon psychobabble
  3. Geez Bill...we get it. You have made a cottage industry of making church leaders offenders for a word. I've got plenty of things that bother me about the Church, its history as well as current practices. But seriously, it seems like you sit around data mining everything LDS related to find something you can get mileage out of.
  4. drums12

    Joseph F. Smith and the End of Tithing

    Man you are great at setting up straw men
  5. drums12

    The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

    Uhhhh no. Your argument only makes sense if you accept the premise that there is some social contract a la Elizabeth Warren. I don't subscribe to collectivism.
  6. drums12

    The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

    I'll pass. Please disabuse yourself of this fallacy. https://mises.org/library/no-tax-breaks-are-not-subsidies http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/17/the-difference-between-a-tax-b
  7. drums12

    The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

    Tax breaks ARE NOT subsidies...I get so tired of this fallacy. Letting an individual or organization keep its own property is not subsidizing it.
  8. drums12

    Pope Endorses Homosexual Behavior?

    Seriously....quite making everyone an "offender for a word"
  9. I don't know if he thinks it has the least evidence...we didn't discuss things like the Book of Abraham if that's what you're getting at.
  10. I was talking to a close friend the other day who believes in the Restoration, the Book of Mormon, etc. He is very disillusioned with the modern Church for various reasons. As I mentioned my difficulty reconciling plural marriage, he said "but there is no proof Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. There are affidavits in which he denied it. There are no contemporary documents from his lifetime." I didn't wish to argue the point, but I think he is wrong. To my thinking, his belief requires a conspiracy of epic proportions. Dozens of early Saints would have to have been in on the lie. Still, let's just assume for a moment that he is correct. What are the implications for the modern Church? Would not Brigham Young and his successors have been adulterers, and thus unworthy to hold the Priesthood? What about eternal marriage? How do we separate the idea of eternal marriage from section 132, which clearly teaches plural marriage? Any other implications?
  11. drums12

    Church Statement on Medical Marijuana

    I'm a big fan of the Libertas Institute. I think the Church is dead wrong on this. A childhood friend has a son who had a hemispherectomy as a toddler to stop constant seizures. Cannabinoid oil is helping many children who suffer similarly. Perhaps had it been available and legal ten years ago his son would have hope of a normal life instead of being permanently mentally disabled. There is promising research overseas suggesting that cannabinoid oil also can shrink brain tumors. It's all well and good to say we need things tested by the government, but what if you're dying of cancer in the mean time? Should you not be able to try any therapy you wish? Beyond this, I don't believe the State has the right to tell people what they will or won't put in their bodies. The framers of the Constitution never would have supported prohibition. Ever. See D&C 98 5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. 6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; 7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
  12. drums12

    New Revelations and the Future

    You are misinterpreting what the Lord is saying, IMO. He isn't saying "anything my servants say is as if I said it." He's saying, "I can speak through my servants, and when I do, their words are as if I had said it myself." Your interpretation is saying we should turn off our brains and blindly obey anything church leaders say. It's the old, "obey your file leader, and even if he's wrong you'll be blessed" argument.
  13. drums12

    New Revelations and the Future

    I tend to agree with what you're saying. However, even Joseph Smith, according to my understanding, didn't receive revelation by means of an audible voice from heaven. He recorded words as they came to his mind, at least in most cases.
  14. Yes is does. I know for a fact that the GHI requires disciplinary councils to be held in cases of criminal sexual abuse. There is no such requirement for chastity violations between consenting individuals, unless one is in a position of leadership. I have my own issues with Church policies and a host of other things, but some of you all are just drawing wild inferences.
  15. Ummm I assume one or more individuals had the idea (whether inspired or not is a matter of faith), then it was discussed with more individuals, and finally agreed upon by 15 (assuming all were present) individuals.
×