Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

268 Excellent

About Exiled

  • Rank
    Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So, how do you square apology "does no one any good" with the reaction to the hoax apology and the outpouring of emotion that resulted from it? Some on this board were caught up in it too. I think it did some people some good. Anyway, I won't hold my breath for any changes.
  2. Well, I think we reached the crux of the issue. You don't think the priesthood ban was a mistake and that it was from God. So, no mistake was ever made and therefore no apologies are necessary, right? Also, what harm is there in apologizing for mistakes committed by past leaders if it will heal a few today? It is true that it is impossible to apologize for what someone else did but people don't view it that way. They view the apology as an expression of understanding of how hurt they are as a result of mistakes made in the past. The apology would heal but obviously you don't see it that way and are hung up on definitions. In any event, I am sorry and apologize to those who see your unwillingness to yield.
  3. I thought the consensus among us apostates is that Swedenborg gave Joseph Smith the ideas of the "vision." Quinn, "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View." If one looks at what Swedenborg was saying at the time, in "Heaven and Hell," it seems to be a close match. https://holybooks-lichtenbergpress.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/Heaven-and-Hell-by-Emanuel-Swedenborg.pdf
  4. I am unaware of any case where persons or organizations are held legally responsible for wrongs committed by persons and organizations some 4 or 5 generations earlier. So, what harm is there in saying sorry for the acts committed by those from the past? The church could even spell it out in a tactful way that "although we had no control over the actions of our predecessors, we are profoundly sorry for their actions and condemn them today. Those actions should have never happened and will not ever again." (Although, an apology or admission of error might be used by some to say that the church was always run by men. However, they already say this regarding the two big issues of mountain meadows and the ban. So, what is there to lose? Maybe try it on a minor issue, study the reaction, and see if an apology helps? I know that some say (from a cle I attended regarding legal ethics) that apologizing is a great way to avoid a medical mal-practice claim according to some study. Perhaps religious leaders are on par with doctors and apologies from religious leaders go a long way toward healing?
  5. I think it is only mormons that view Paul as talking about 3 degrees of glory. He speaks of bodies celestial and bodies terrestrial that he saw, e.g., heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. Paul didn't see telestial bodies or even speak about such things ever. It appears Joseph Smith invented the term "telestial" for his "vision" commonly known as section 76 of the D&C: https://bycommonconsent.com/2010/01/27/the-etymology-of-telestial/ So, was Paul even talking about the same thing as section 76? I think that is debatable as Paul talks about many different glories as stars differ from one another in 1 Cor. 15. So, is it three or two categories comparable to the sun and moon and then many comparable to the many stars that have differing light in the night sky? Paul also talks about having spiritual bodies after the ressurrection which seems to contradict what mormonism teaches.
  6. I suspect your position would change if there were some discovery making historicity more probable. As it stands, however, possible plus prayer is really the only thing one can say.
  7. It seems pretty obvious that the book of mormon condemned the universalist rhetoric of Nehor and Alma's son Corianton. In the book of mormon, not everyone was going to be saved or merely beaten with a few stripes and then saved as Nephi condemned. Along with the rest of christianity at the time, mormons believed in the heaven and hell scheme. With the "vision" as it was called, now the church embraced universalist thinking, e.g., practically everyone was saved somehow from endless torment. It was the opposite. They would now suffer a little and then would be saved into a kingdom of glory instead of having to suffer in hell for eternity. A lot of people left the church because of the move in the opposite direction. https://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-revelations-in-context-the-vision?lang=eng
  8. The church has always taught an historical book of mormon. It has always taught that Christ actually came to the americas and taught the people here. It never taught that Christ's coming to the americas was merely figurative. This should be owned and not discounted just because there are good questions as the truth of the historicity claim.
  9. That's right. I forgot about that lore. Back in 2006 or so I had a good time explaining to my assistants about shape-shifting reptiles in slc.
  10. No, no, no, ... only under the slc temple
  11. This reminds me of when I became active again after leaving for years. My Bishop called me to be the gospel doctrine teacher and some made the comment that I was teaching from a 1980's/1990's perspective because I used a lot of McConkie quotes. Mormonism had moved on from McConkie in the middle 2000's and was about to put Mormon Doctrine to sleep. Perhaps you are from the late 1800's mormonism of adam god and the like? 😉
  12. The hearing was continued to July 18 @ 10:30 am. I don't know why.
  13. So, what is the church's side of things? In my view, the church wanted to restate its position in light of their loss with the SCOTUS decision on same sex marriage. Prohibiting baptism of children of same-sex couples seemed to be a logical step given their position. Surely, they cannot be surprised at the reaction from the public given the public's views on same-sex marriage. How should the public have viewed the church's actions?
  14. I honestly don't know how the brethren can deal with these issues other than to whitewash them. The true history brings the church down from the mountain to an ordinary human level when it was being portrayed as being high up there next to God. So, a legitimate reaction to messy church history is one of unbelief. But unbelief can spread like wildfire if not checked as, imo, belief in the invisible is always shaky and subject to change. So, the unbeliever cannot be legitimized and the issues must continue to be whitewashed.
  15. My guess is that you still want to engage in mormonism but on your terms like I do. When I told my Bishop some years ago that I no longer believed, he immediately fired me from my sunday school position and invited me to resign. I wasn't taken aback from being fired but was from being asked to resign. For me, it was like a forced break-up or getting divorce papers shoved at me. I don't really care to officially divorce myself from the church but still engage on this level. I view resignation as wanting to shove my unbelief in my immediate family's face and I just don't need to do so.