• Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


HappyJackWagon last won the day on March 17

HappyJackWagon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,395 Excellent


About HappyJackWagon

  • Rank
    6 foot 5. Actually 6 ' 8" with his afro

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,537 profile views
  1. Honestly, my view of the social issues changed after the rug was pulled out on doctrinal issues. Doctrines about becoming like God, race and the priesthood, polygamy, second annointings etc. all impacted me long before I considered that prophets might also be wrong about social issues and that the current teachings/views are just as likely to change. At the very core of it I have lost trust that the prophets know and teach the will of God. It started with history because it made me aware of doctrinal changes. Social issues followed. Sometimes they speak and I feel inspired and feel connected with the doctrine they speak. But other times I don't. Although I'm not perfect I must be able to trust myself more than individuals I don't personally know. I have to rely on the gifts God gave me on not rely on mediators of his word which are also wrong. If I'm going to be wrong I want it to be an honest mistake after I've done my best to understand and decide, instead of blaming someone else who told me wrong and I just followed blindly. Prophets must earn trust just like everyone else. If their inspired words and/or behaviors contradict the inspired words of other prophets, then I am left to decide for myself which one is right, or maybe neither of them. If being a part of "one true church" was really that important I don't understand why God would choose such fallible and untrustworthy witnesses. I don't know why he would allow such variance in official doctrines. Either God chose a very inefficient plan and is inept or the "one true church--follow the prophet" mantras really don't matter all that much to him. I am left to believe the dogma really isn't important to God at all.
  2. I have no doubt that we get it wrong from time to time which is why it's important to have a messenger who can tell us the will of God. When we discover that the prophet we rely on to tell us the word of God is also wrong, how can we trust that messenger? Why would we rely on the arm of the flesh (or the words of a fallible prophet) when their "doctrines" change. Saying it's our fault for trusting someone we're told we must trust is victim blaming unless we truly give each individual the authority and latitude to truly decide for themselves when they will and when they will not trust/believe/sustain the words of a fallible prophet(s). Many of us are claiming that authority to discern for ourselves and find that in some instances the prophet(s) are wrong. Thus we speak about our disagreement and are called heretics, apostates, etc. The kind of latitude to decide for ourselves does not currently exist in the church.
  3. I agree with this. The change in paradigm for me came in recognizing that this also applies to prophets and apostles and that they are sometimes just as wrong as the rest of us, thus making them unreliable messengers.
  4. It's ironic that we have a long thread about whether or not this is a Mormon board anymore, based on what is described as superfluous topics and a lack of in depth doctrinal discussion, that is itself a superfluous topic which fails to engage in a doctrinal discussion. For those who would like more doctrinal discussions, I'm curious what is preventing you from creating threads on the topics which interest you. I don't understand this criticism. Read the topics you like. Skip the ones you don't. If there is a gap in what you would like to see, fill it.
  5. I agree with this. What irritates me more than anything, is not that things change in the church--I expect that, it's that people act like it has always been the same. That the experience and teachings of 2017 are universal over the other 173 years of the church's existence. The implications that certain members are just crazy to think the church ever taught X because doctrines are unchanging. I view that attitude as dismissive, belittling, and unchristlike. Admittedly, I have very little patience for that kind of arrogance, especially when there is evidence that X was taught differently for many years than it is now. I'd also point out that many of the changes that are taking place don't seem to be based on revelation, as much as on changing cultural milieu in which all church leaders exist. Leaders of today are just as ingrained and influenced by their time and culture as were leaders in the 19th century. I think there is a common assumption that changes occur because of revelation but I really don't see any evidence of that. There certainly aren't any canonized revelations in the last 30 years which leads me to believe the shifts in teaching are more of a doctrinal drift that occurs over time
  6. FWIW- I see that Ougadougou may say some things that condemn ideas that he doesn't feel are valid but I see you condemning Ougadougou. Condemning the idea is not the same as condemning a person.
  7. I'm finding this thread to be a touch too negative
  8. Side note. I don't like that phrasing of "belong to him". It doesn't work in marriage and I don't think it works that way in eternity either.
  9. Every god in eternity is connected in some way to every other god as joint heirs. Thanks for allowing for the possibility that I too could be a God if I work at it
  10. I understand what you are describing but I simply don't find it to be a very inspiring eternity. Again, joint heirs with every god (future or past) throughout eternity sounds unattractive and unworkable. But we're just spinning our wheels here. No need to continue but thanks for the discussion.
  11. Are you thinking of opinion leaders as being media types? While they would be included, there are many other opinion leaders beyond that so claiming that a good opinion leader will do certain things seems a little simplistic. Really, an opinion leader is anyone who influences others. Opinion leaders first must develop their own opinions and that can happen in many ways. There is not one way to do it. But if someone is trying to form their own opinion by asking questions of a church authority, but gets watered down, milk-down sound bites for answers, then the church really isn't doing a very good job of informing opinion leaders.
  12. Possibly, but that space sure gets busy with an infinite number of co-gods intermingling with billions of spirit children. That doesn't sound particularly fun
  13. It's difficult to discuss the merits of the answer if we don't discuss the doctrine behind it, don't you think? As I've already stated, the church leaders seem to be following instructions to downplay and normalize many of the unique church teachings as to not ruffle feathers or draw attention to the unique doctrines. They do this by providing answers that skirt the questions.
  14. 1- When I use the term "supreme" I'm equating it with omnipotence. I don't comprehend how there can be multiple omnipotent beings. Can one really be ALL powerful or supreme if others are just as powerful and supreme? You seem to be claiming a plenipotent God. One who is powerful, but still subservient to a higher power. That higher power might be a council of gods or merely God's parent gods. Do you claim an omnipotent God or a plenipotent god? 2- I agree that I don't comprehend All that our father has. Do you? 3- So if we are living in our own household on a different planet than God, wouldn't it be a reasonable to conclude that we get our "own planet"? Of course the planet we live on wouldn't really be his either because he would be a joint heir with his god who is joint heir with his god etc. to infinity. So what you're describing logically becomes more of a godly commune where we jointly participate as god with an infinite number of other gods. Is that correct?
  15. Nothing you said previously matters because you say things like this. You are assigning motivation of ill intent and dishonesty to what has been a challenging discussion. When you fail to recognize the value of a discussion partner, the discussion cannot continue. In other words, you've killed the discussion by making harsh accusations.