Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

430 Excellent

About Exiled

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Exiled

    Left Hand

    Mere opinion designed to have something to condemn. Church leaders need something to point at otherwise their relevance diminishes. Also, these are all minor things. Meanwhile real issues are put aside. When will Pres. Oaks or Nelson attack real issues like the endless wars or the real causes of poverty, etc? MLK tackled racism and was about to go after the unjustness of Vietnam prior to being gunned down. Pres. Oaks worries which hand to use and shames young ladies. Pres. Nelson is too busy being caught up with semantics. Do you really think Satan wins when I use the word Mormon?
  2. Exiled

    Left Hand

    Doesn't this create a codependency between the leader that is always denouncing some petty offense and the parishioner who believes the leader and then feels remorse because the parishioner is forever seeking approval from the leader but always falls short? https://psychcentral.com/lib/symptoms-of-codependency/
  3. Ok. But what if the scriptures aren't what they claim to be? In this case the end result must necessarily be something other than what you believe faith in Christ is, because the foundation is faulty. In this case, research corrected error and was the answer.
  4. Isn't the point of the book of mormon, bible and prophets to act as something tangible upon which to build faith? How can you have faith in Jesus if you don't know anything about him? What happens if research shows that most of what was and is said of him is myth? What if research shows that the holy books are merely man-made inventions and that the "prophets" were merely relaying their own personal thoughts?
  5. That's a great point. Sadly, the church has always been for separating families along belief lines.
  6. Try and imagine a world where research was the answer. In that world the critic would easily be dismissed by appeals to actual evidence instead of appeals to assumed belief and requests to avoid research and appeals to the "spirit." It's too bad research isn't the answer because that would certainly aid in converting the world, the supposed goal. However, as it stands, there are only .2% of the world's population that are considered members. One would think God's truth would prevail a little better?
  7. I think this is a false equivalence. One cannot rationally say that the critic is too hardened for not believing in seer stones or in plates that only a few saw with arguably their spiritual eyes, etc., etc., etc. Maybe it will be shown to be true in the end, but one cannot blame unbelief given the present state of the narrative.
  8. It's funny you say this because this is what the so called "critics" say about the believer. Believers already have a conclusion that must remain despite whatever evidence is shown to them. I think maintaining the believer in this believing state is what Pres. Oaks is after with his "research is not the answer." He knows that research leads too many, in his estimation, to the wrong conclusion and he wants to avoid this. Too bad the evidence leads to the "wrong" conclusion too often for so many. Otherwise, perhaps Pres Oaks would point to the "right" research and be pounding his fists on the table, demanding that the doubter look at the "right" research, because the "right" research is so obvious and leads to the correct conclusion ..... Perhaps the answer for split couples is understanding that most don't reach a believing conclusion, given all the evidence?
  9. I think apostles need to speak in the open as much as possible. God shouldn't want to work in darkness, but work in the light, so all might be edified.
  10. This does seem contrary to what Paul and the other apostles would do. However, reliable rumor has it that Peter wanted to have his denials edited out of the gospels, but he was overruled ....🤣
  11. It just seems like unnecessary magic and deceit to require Alvin to be there, unless one sees the history through the treasure lore lens. There was always an out for why the treasure was never found. The guardian spirit invites Joseph to the hill to get the plates then adds unnecessary, previously unknown requirements as to why the treasure slipped out of his hands one more time. Your thoughts weren't right. Alvin wasn't there. You didn't dress in black, etc., etc. It seems to me that God would be more straight-forward in bringing to light such an important work and wouldn't act like a leprechaun, continually sneaking about, giving plates that no one could see and using seer stones to awkwardly make the translation. Just give the finished document already, like was done, supposedly, with the book of moses. However, seer stones and hidden plates create interest with some. People like a great show. But with God, it would seem that he would want the book to speak for itself and not be swallowed up by the showmanship Joseph created when he combined his work with treasure lore. I wonder what would have happened had Joseph Smith Jr. not been tried as the "glass looker?" Perhaps, he wouldn't have had to try to justify his conduct by transferring it to religion?
  12. So where are the huck finn "stretchers?" Also, isn't the difference with Newton that his work can be proven regardless of where one is on the belief spectrum? I may say delusion or pious fraud and you may say preparation for prophetic work. But, with Newton, it doesn't matter what my religious belief is. Newton's laws are proven whether I am LDS or Agnostic. Also, what is the difference between faith and fraud? Don't both require belief in the invisible? Most couldn't see the plates because of faith and financial statements are denied to the ponzi investor due to faith reasons too.
  13. Using a seer stone to find treasure was a crime back in 1820's New York. Hence, the 1826 trial of Joseph Smith, the "Glass Looker." I guess the people of New York didn't see treasure digging as honorable back then? However, that was obviously mere opinion. What is a crime in some eras could be viewed as "honorable" in other times? How do you view J.S. Jr. never actually finding anything, yet still being paid for his failures? In fact, to this day there aren't any treasures that have been found in the New York area that I am aware. Also, the church still hasn't excavated the hill cumorah in order to find the stone box that allegedly contained the plates. The fact is that there were never any treasures around Palmyra or Harmony or along the banks of the susquehanna river and belief in such was simply delusion. I don't see how you can claim treasure digging was really much ado about nothing ....
  14. I read the essay and wouldn't say it was "incoherent." Perhaps it is incomplete and in need of editing. However, it isn't incoherent. Also, maybe you could give me a list of the claims that aren't supported by professional historiography?