Jump to content

sunstoned

Members
  • Content count

    1,303
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

825 Excellent

3 Followers

About sunstoned

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Utah
  • Interests
    Cycling, climbing, and other outdoor activities.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,964 profile views
  1. 4th Sundays in 2018

    This is a good point. The topic is broad enough that with some coordination between instructors the lessons do not have to be redundant.
  2. jospeh the con man?

    Yes, bad things happened to JS. That doesn't address his intentions. Con men often times get caught and beat up. The tar and feathering came from people angry at his taking advantage of a young girl in Kirtland. His family dirt poor while he was growing up. He tried to make money by treasure hunting and "glass looking". He wrote a book (Book of Mormon) and tried to sell the copyright. Why would someone want to sell a copyright? The answer is to get money. Is this the actions of a prophet? Sell the book that was given to him through revelation? The end result was that his work effort paid off. At Nauvoo he lived in a "mansion" house, he was the mayor and a general in an army that he created. His family also benefited from the organization that JS created. Even his father, who struggled with alcohol, was made a patriarch and charged $3 for blessings (http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1886WWyl.htm#pg016b). Even Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith made money by charging visitors to see the egyptian mummies JS bought from Chandler (with the membder's money) https://medium.com/mormon-writers/gospel-topics-responses-e28be44ffefa. All of this is circumstantial evidence that (IMO) points to someone who is less than honest, rather than a prophet of god.
  3. jospeh the con man?

    Let's see. He lied to cover up his sexual exploits. He lied to his wife and to his membership and to the public at large about this. Don't shoot me, I am only the messenger on this. This are facts. So we can debate this in the forum bubble, but the reality is he took women and young girls to be his "wives". He did did this using his position of religious position of authority. This is just one issue. I won't bright up the Kirkland banking fiasco, and his translation failures. This one issue is a smoking gun in my opinion. We know what regular, non-apologist, think of the Mormon story. There are more ex-members an in active members than there are active members. The ratio is 2 to 1.
  4. We live in exciting times for sure.
  5. How can one trust the Holy Ghost

    I do see you point that many who have spoken out on the policy are ex-members, or inactive members. However, I believe there are many (and I know some, including a current mission president) who oppose the policy, but they remain quiet. They do not speak out because the church has little tolerance for dissent. Even if it is loyal dissent. I applaud your commitment follow your heart and speak out should the church introduce a policy/doctrine that you could not support. But you or any member in good standing who dissents risks censure or worse from the church. From BY forward, it has been like this. Rank and file members who would not support Adam-God, and who did not have Orson Hyde's standing were threatened with church discipline. An example of this is Bishop Edward Bunker (http://www.lds-mormon.com/jehovahasfather.shtml).
  6. How can one trust the Holy Ghost

    You are probably right. Let's bring this a little closer to home. Many are convinced that the November policy is very wrong. As wrong as Adam-God was. The back lash has been strong, both from members and non-members a like. It seems it might be easier for some to hold Orson Hyde up as man of principles that did the right thing in opposing church leadership than to acknowledge those who oppose and are speaking out against the November policy today. Thoughts?
  7. How can one trust the Holy Ghost

    This is a valid point. It should also be noted the Orson did loose seniority in the twelve (yes, the argument can be made that it wasn't for this reason, but I think it was). I take this as an object lesson that if you receive conformation that is at odds with the prevailing thoughts/teachings of the twelve, you probably best keep it to yourself. With that said, Orson was not just a lay member, he was in a position of leadership, so I think he did the right thing by speaking up.
  8. How can one trust the Holy Ghost

    The fact that BY taught Adam-God is indeed a fact. It is recorded in numerous places beyond the Journal of Discourses. Besides I think the correlation committee thinks it is okay as the JofD was used extensively in the BY lesson manual a few years ago.
  9. How can one trust the Holy Ghost

    No offence. I have heard this quote many times, and it is usually give in the context similar to what we are discussing here. However, this is circular logic. Leaders make mistakes and have given false doctrine. They have not been removed from office. Yet here we have a leader in WW who, while a godly man, has given us false doctrine. But we are suppose to believe him this time. The fact this was given over the pullout in general conference does not reinforce its validity. I know you don't want to talk about it, but it happened: BY preached Adam-God in general conference (October 8, 1854)
  10. I think you are confusing the teachings of Christ with Christianity. They can be very different.
  11. Again, a straw man argument. In your scenario it would be the parents who are forbidding their child to come unto Christ. In the topic we are discussion it is the church who is doing the forbidding. I am not trying to be argumentative, and I know this policy is hard for many members.
  12. guilty on many of the above. I guess I am among the ranks of the morally bankrupted.
  13. Except a heavy handed, restrictive policy that not only forbids children of gay parents from being baptized, it forbids them from receiving a name and a blessing. The November policy really is at odds with that whole "forbid them not" clause that Christ stated.
  14. Again a straw man argument. Classic apologetic defense. Don't address the hard topic, just pound the table in the hopes that it will cause a distraction. Once again, the issue is that Christ said suffer the little children to come unto him. and forbid them not. It sounds like you are making an argument for forbidding.
×