501 replies to this topic

[Log]

thesometimesaint, on 12 April 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

Tell me is Pi equal to exactly 3?

Tell me, is the law of non-contradiction optional in your world?

Edited by Log, 12 April 2012 - 11:27 AM.

[calmoriah]

Hamilton Porter, on 12 April 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

Tal Bachmann (bitter anti-) said when he was LDS he'd strap himself to a bomb and blow himself up if the prophet told him to.

He said this after he had left the Church, this was his then perception of his former state.  Whether or not he would have said this as a believing faithful member is another thing altogether.  Not everyone is as self aware and analytical as they think they are.

[Hamilton Porter]

why me, on 12 April 2012 - 09:54 AM, said:

I am not surprised but perhaps he is overstating it a bit.

I think that many hardcore antis were 140 percenters when they were members and had no tolerance for people who weren't like them. They tend to bring over that dedication when they leave the lds church as a bitter anti. What Tal said sounds like a 140 percenter to me and very extreme. And I  am sure that he is just as dedicated as a antimormon.

Yeah, if you ever read what he writes or watch him, he is an absolute maniac.

[Skylla]

Log, on 12 April 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

Tell me, is the law of non-contradiction optional in your world?

Stop it.

Skylla

[Hamilton Porter]

reelmormon, on 12 April 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

The issues themselves never really troubled me much....kinderhook, book of abraham, masonry in temples, ect...  never really bothered me.  What has always been the focus of my struggles at times has been what felt to me like lack of full disclosure.  Like no one really wants to go out of their way to tell the full story.  I get answers if I wade myself into troubling information but the church doesn't seem (to me I am saying) to want all members to be aware of controversial issues even when they are factual and historical.  While I am active and have been aware of these issues for many many years it is the lack of info from church sources especially those we use on Sunday that seems to bother me.

I hope you find some breathing space on this forum. Allow yourself to air it out in a faithful setting.

[spartacus]

Buzzard, on 12 April 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

You know what, I am aware of these things, but while they are of interest to me, they are not the source of any "faith crisis".  One, because if you look for perfection in any person or institution, you are setting yourself up for disapointment.
Second-and the most important-the church really stands or falls on the Book of Mormon.  It really is the keystone of our religion. And once you have become convinced of it's truth, all that other stuff is a bit of a sideshow.  And I am convinced. Totally, unambigously, no reservations at all.
Not saying this applies to you, but a lot of folks are looking for a reason not to believe.  If they really want to find one, no excuse is too small.  Heck,  a bishop with a sarcastic streak will do the job quite nicely.

1) "the church is perfect, the people are not" (or something like that) - indicates that a lot of LDS are in for disappointment

2) The truth of the Book of Mormon ("the keystone of our religion") does not indicate the truth of the LDS church.  There are way too many mormon groups that all accept the Book of Mormon (as truth literally or otherwise) to use it's determination as true as justification to believe in one of those groups over another.  So how do you differentiate between all those groups that accept the Book of Mormon?

If you haven't dealt with this fact, then your "no reservations" appear to be from lack of looking around.  If I just looked at the person in front of me I might think there was only one other person in the world, but that doesn't make it true.

[This is also one reason why I disdain the missions, their entire program is built on this false logic.  Their goal is to get someone to pray about the Book of Mormon and then they believe the LDS church is true - false.  They may add praying about the current prophet but, then, how much more do you have to pray about to know the LDS church - a rather large entity with a long complex history is true?]

3) Looking around is what we are supposed to do, see "ponder"-ing.  If you do that, it doesn't mean you are looking for a reason not to believe.  In fact, looking only for reasons to believe is just as bad as looking only for reasons not to believe.  Looking for reasons not to believe is useful in determining falsehood.  If you don't want to believe stuff that is false, look for evidence of falsehood.  If want to believe stuff that is true, you look for falsehoods - because they are usually easy to spot and wittle down the options quite quickly- then look for evidence of truth from what is left over.  Even then you are not done because you will still have multiple non-compatible options to choose from - which is the proper place for prayer and faith in God's leading to come in at (not the very beginning - at least all by itself = without the above steps as well, that is.)

Doing this means you look at all of these issues and much more that reelmormon posted about.  And what really causes concern is the claim of the LDS church that it is the only one guided by God through an effective means, a prophet.  Given this it would seem that it should have a better track record than everyone else.  Or else what's the point of being guided by God through the only effective means?  So if there is evidence of not such a great track record, then that is quite pertinent to the main claim of the LDS church - revelation received.  It is this grand claim of the LDS church that turns even what otherwise might be gnats into camels.  In fact, with such a strong claim, one could say there are no gnats.  If the LDS church is so efficiently led by a prophet of God, then all would-be gnats become camels.  The LDS church makes great claims that require it to toe a thin line, any deviation puts the whole at risk.

[CV75]

reelmormon, on 12 April 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

I am hoing that the replies to this post might be serious answers from your perspective on how you deal with several faith crises issues.

1.) How do you handle repeated major doctrinal mistakes taught by prophets and apostles from the pulpit or in their books.  
ex: evolution is one of the 7 deadly heresies - bruce R. McConkie, age of the earth - Joseph Fielding Smith, Blacks and the Priesthood - several leaders, all indians = lamanites, Indians getting lighter skin - Spencer W Kimball, ADAM GOD - Brigham Young, great and abominable church = Catholic Church = Bruce R. McConkie.

2.) The lack of sharing historical and theological issues with everyday members.
ex: not finding seer stones and treasure Hunting in any of the info we are taught from on sundays, no mention of polyandry anywhere.... try typing that in LDS.ORG's search engine, no effort in the material to correct any of these fasle teachings mentioned above.

3.) the effort to teach everyone that we should all follow the prophet, that he can not lead the church astray, that we will be blessed for following him regardless of what he asks and then on the other hand being told to know that these are men and they make mistakes and you are not obligated to follow them when they are wrong.  That you should have the spirit and it will direct you when one is acting as a prophet and when they are not.

4.) lastly, Now with the internet the church is forced to deal with much of the above issues but until their hand was forced they did all they could to let this stuff stay below the surface and went out of their way to dismiss having to deal with any of it. ex : prior to 1990 when did we hear of seer stones, evolution can be true, polyandry, treasure hunting, Mormon leaders were racist in their comments about afircan americans, ADAM GOD was taught by Brigham Young and was wrong.  Do you feel like things were kept from you?  and if so how do you reconcile that?

Much of this might be a function of personality, but here goes:

#1. 1 Nephi 19: 5, “…And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself.” So I excuse them, if indeed the proper interpretation of the teachings of concern proves them to be “major doctrinal mistakes.”

#2. This information can be found elsewhere. I think the Church focuses on presenting things, both by way of content and method, in a way that facilitates and emphasizes personal revelation about the truthfulness of the claims made. This vastly, in my opinion, reduces the scope of what is presented in various settings (Sunday School) and expands it in others (The Joseph Smith Papers).

#3. That every member has the Gift of the Holy Ghost is a great advantage in following this kind of counsel to simultaneously obey, discern and learn in and by faith.

#4. Both people and the Church have always used the tools and technology at their disposal, just as they do now. The Internet, like advances in transportation 200 years ago, facilitates the spread of information. I heard of all the things you listed in the 1970s and ‘80s without the Internet.

[CV75]

reelmormon, on 12 April 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

Who here has expended their best efforts?

I have, but that takes nothing away from any current guidance our leaders give as required by the changing dynamics of the times and culture we live in.

[spartacus]

thesometimesaint, on 12 April 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

Log:

This is really going off the OP, but here goes. My testimony of the Restored Gospel is not dependent on your lack of understanding of science. I have a testimony of whom I consider the prophets of God to instruct me in the ways I need to comport my life in order to be a faithfull follower of Christ. Whatever their own personal opinions of science, of men being on the moon or on the sun, the age of the earth, what makes for a beautiful woman, or the best thing they ever ate, it has absolutely no bearing on my testimony.

Thesometimesaint,

Correct me if I am reading you wrong.  But, do you mean to imply that it doesn't matter what the "prophets of God" say or have said, or done for that matter?  Are you saying that your testimony is untouchable by the independent reality of their behavior or performance as prophets?  Surely this can't be the case.  If it is not the case, then that means some of their statements and actions are informative to your "ongoing" testimony - so if it isn't reelmormon's list, it may be another.

The other side of this possible "my untouchable testimony" is where did you get your testimony?  How do you know it came from God?  Is it possible the testimony came about from other less-authoritative source(s) or means?

But, again, surely you are not making such a strong claim about your testimony.

[CV75]

reelmormon, on 12 April 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

What has always been the focus of my struggles at times has been what felt to me like lack of full disclosure.

"Full disclosure" from the perspective of a student/learner is a very relative term, and depends entirely on what they want or are ready to learn. It also depnds on the tools they use, who they want to teach them, and how matched their interest is with one who is interested in their learning (and about what they learn), etc. On teh other hand, from the perspective of the Holy Ghost in preaching the Gospel, it represents a much more fundamental set of principles and tehse are what those with the keys are responsible for disclosing.

[Log]

spartacus, on 12 April 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

(D)o you mean to imply that it doesn't matter what the "prophets of God" say or have said, or done for that matter?  Are you saying that your testimony is untouchable by the independent reality of their behavior or performance as prophets?  

He probably is saying exactly that.  I can say so for myself - that is, I know for myself of the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and this knowledge is independent of the words or actions of any man.

[Jaybear]

thesometimesaint, on 12 April 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

I joined as an adult. Treasure hunting was never an issue with me. Kinda expected of a poor young man in the early 19th Century in America.

Who doesn't love a good treasure hunt.

[CV75]

reelmormon, on 12 April 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

on some level they do but not absolutely.

This is the level the faithful operate on. "Absoluteness" is just a relative or alternatively-chosen level of perception, procesing or operation, and has the same outward appearance as faith.

[Wiki Wonka]

reelmormon, on 12 April 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

2.) The lack of sharing historical and theological issues with everyday members.
ex: not finding seer stones and treasure Hunting in any of the info we are taught from on sundays, no mention of polyandry anywhere.... try typing that in LDS.ORG's search engine, no effort in the material to correct any of these fasle teachings mentioned above.

I don't believe that the Church hides this information - I believe that they simply don't emphasize it. Sometimes these things do get printed in the Ensign or the Friend.

The stone and the hat

1997

Ensign
"Martin Harris related of the seer stone: 'Sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin'"
—Neal A. Maxwell, “‘By the Gift and Power of God’,” Ensign, Jan 1997, 36 (emphasis added)  off-site
1993

Ensign
"David Whitmer wrote: ' Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine.'"
—Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” Ensign, Jul 1993, 61. (emphasis added)  off-site
1988

Not My Will, But Thine
"Jacob censured the "stiffnecked" Jews for "looking beyond the mark" (Jacob 4:14). We are looking beyond the mark today, for example, if we are more interested in the physical dimensions of the cross than in what Jesus achieved thereon; or when we neglect Alma's words on faith because we are too fascinated by the light-shielding hat reportedly used by Joseph Smith during some of the translating of the Book of Mormon. To neglect substance while focusing on process is another form of unsubmissively looking beyond the mark."
—Neal A. Maxwell, Not My Will, But Thine (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1988), 26.
1987

Ensign
The scriptures indicate that translation involved sight, power, transcription of the characters, the Urim and Thummim or a seerstone, study, and prayer.[/indent][indent=1]After returning from a trip to Palmyra to settle his affairs, Martin began to transcribe. From April 12 to June 14, Joseph translated while Martin wrote, with only a curtain between them. On occasion they took breaks from the arduous task, sometimes going to the river and throwing stones. Once Martin found a rock closely resembling the seerstone Joseph sometimes used in place of the interpreters and substituted it without the Prophet’s knowledge. When the translation resumed, Joseph paused for a long time and then exclaimed, “Martin, what is the matter, all is as dark as Egypt.” Martin then confessed that he wished to “stop the mouths of fools” who told him that the Prophet memorized sentences and merely repeated them."
Kenneth W. Godfrey, “A New Prophet and a New Scripture: The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon,” Ensign, Jan 1988, 6-13.(both quotations on page 11)

1977

Ensign
"There he gave his most detailed view of 'the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated': “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light."
—Richard Lloyd Anderson, "‘By the Gift and Power of God’," Ensign (Sep 1977), 79, emphasis added.  off-site

1974

Friend
"To help him with the translation, Joseph found with the gold plates “a curious instrument which the ancients called Urim and Thummim, which consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.” Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone."
—“A Peaceful Heart,” Friend, Sep 1974, 7  off-site
The stone and Nephite interpreters

1977

Ensign
"...the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone."
—Richard Lloyd Anderson, "‘By the Gift and Power of God’," Ensign (Sep 1977), 79, emphasis added.  off-site

The practice of plural marriage during Joseph's lifetime

2007

Lesson manual: Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith
This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day....This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime.
—The 2008-2009 lesson manual Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, (2007), pages vii–xiii (emphasis added)

1992

Ensign
Her great trial came when the prophet revealed to Emma that they would be required to live the ancient law of Abraham—plural marriage. Emma suffered deeply hurt feelings because of it. While she agreed with this doctrine at times, at other times she opposed it. Years later, Emma is purported to have denied that any such doctrine was ever introduced by her husband.
—Gracia N. Jones, “My Great-Great-Grandmother, Emma Hale Smith,” Ensign, Aug 1992, 30  off-site (emphasis added)

1989

Ensign
The Prophet introduced several doctrines relating to the temple including the temple ceremonies and plural marriage, which some could not accept....
—William G. Hartley, “The Knight Family: Ever Faithful to the Prophet,” Ensign, Jan 1989, 43  off-site (emphasis added)

1978

Ensign
How a family accepts members who join it by marriage is, in some ways, analogous to how a Church accepts members who join it by baptism. The experiences of plural marriage make the analogy even closer....the Prophet Joseph Smith recorded a revelation to the Whitneys on plural marriage....The Whitneys gave their daughter into the system of plural marriage and received into their family other plural wives.
—D. Michael Quinn, “The Newel K. Whitney Family,” Ensign, Dec 1978, 42  off-site (emphasis added)

1977

Ensign
Starting during Joseph Smith’s own lifetime but limited to a few dozen families until its official announcement in 1852, plural marriage brought a powerful new challenge to the equanimity of Latter-day Saint family life...
—Davis Bitton, “Great-Grandfather’s Family,” Ensign, Feb 1977, 48  off-site (emphasis added)

1973

New Era
The great prophet Elias, whom Joseph Fielding Smith says is Noah..., appeared and bestowed upon their heads the keys of the dispensation of Abraham, or in other words, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie says in Mormon Doctrine...the keys of celestial and plural marriage.
—Jerry C. Roundy, “The Greatness of Joseph Smith and His Remarkable Visions,” New Era, Dec 1973, 7  off-site (emphasis added)

Joseph's marriages to young women

The Ensign

June 1979 Ensign: Although little Don Carlos Smith died a short time later, Emily and Eliza continued to live in the Smith home, where, in the summer of 1842, both girls “were married to Bro. Joseph about the same time, but neither of us knew about the other at the time; everything was so secret” (Emily, “Incidents,” p. 186).—Dean Jessee, "‘Steadfastness and Patient Endurance’: The Legacy of Edward Partridge," Ensign (Jun 1979), 41.  off-site (emphasis added)

December 1978 Ensign: How a family accepts members who join it by marriage is, in some ways, analogous to how a Church accepts members who join it by baptism. The experiences of plural marriage make the analogy even closer....the Prophet Joseph Smith recorded a revelation to the Whitneys on plural marriage....The Whitneys gave their daughter into the system of plural marriage and received into their family other plural wives.—D. Michael Quinn, “The Newel K. Whitney Family,” Ensign, Dec 1978, 42  off-site (emphasis added)


The papyri and the Book of the Dead

August 1968 Improvement Era: The largest part of the papyri in the possession of the Church consists of fragments from the Egyptian Book of the Dead.—Hugh Nibley, "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price," Improvement Era (August 1968), 56–57. This issue contains color photographs of the papyri. A scan of the page from the article can be viewed here.

March 1976 Ensign: A Book of Breathings text that closely matches the Joseph Smith version (and there are precious few of them) is the so-called Kerasher Book of Breathings. It too has a frontispiece, only in this case it is the same as our Facsimile No. 3, showing that it too is closely associated with our text."—Hugh Nibley, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Mar. 1976, 34–36  off-site

July 1988 Ensign: Why doesn’t the translation of the Egyptian papyri found in 1967 match the text of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price?—Michael D. Rhodes, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, July 1988, 51–53  off-site

Edited by Wiki Wonka, 12 April 2012 - 12:49 PM.

[Buzzard]

1) "the church is perfect, the people are not" (or something like that) - indicates that a lot of LDS are in for disappointment
Ah, but since I don't expect perfection in either people or the church, I'm rarely disappointed.

2) The truth of the Book of Mormon ("the keystone of our religion") does not indicate the truth of the LDS church.  There are way too many mormon groups that all accept the Book of Mormon (as truth literally or otherwise) to use it's determination as true as justification to believe in one of those groups over another.  So how do you differentiate between all those groups that accept the Book of Mormon?
Get real.  You really think I'm going to follow the Bickertonites?  Or follow my fourth cousins down to that train wreck in Colorado City? At the very least I have eliminated the Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, and lots of non-Mormon groups.

If you haven't dealt with this fact, then your "no reservations" appear to be from lack of looking around.  If I just looked at the person in front of me I might think there was only one other person in the world, but that doesn't make it true.
If by looking around, you mean I haven't looked into joining other "mormon" groups, then OK, if you mean a lack of intellectual curiosity, you are mistaken.
[This is also one reason why I disdain the missions, their entire program is built on this false logic.  Their goal is to get someone to pray about the Book of Mormon and then they believe the LDS church is true - false.  They may add praying about the current prophet but, then, how much more do you have to pray about to know the LDS church - a rather large entity with a long complex history is true?]
Disdain all you want, no skin off my nose.
3) Looking around is what we are supposed to do, see "ponder"-ing.  If you do that, it doesn't mean you are looking for a reason not to believe.  In fact, looking only for reasons to believe is just as bad as looking only for reasons not to believe.  Looking for reasons not to believe is useful in determining falsehood.  If you don't want to believe stuff that is false, look for evidence of falsehood.  If want to believe stuff that is true, you look for falsehoods - because they are usually easy to spot and wittle down the options quite quickly- then look for evidence of truth from what is left over.  Even then you are not done because you will still have multiple non-compatible options to choose from - which is the proper place for prayer and faith in God's leading to come in at (not the very beginning - at least all by itself = without the above steps as well, that is.)

Doing this means you look at all of these issues and much more that reelmormon posted about.  And what really causes concern is the claim of the LDS church that it is the only one guided by God through an effective means, a prophet.  Given this it would seem that it should have a better track record than everyone else.  Or else what's the point of being guided by God through the only effective means?  So if there is evidence of not such a great track record, then that is quite pertinent to the main claim of the LDS church - revelation received.  It is this grand claim of the LDS church that turns even what otherwise might be gnats into camels.  In fact, with such a strong claim, one could say there are no gnats.  If the LDS church is so efficiently led by a prophet of God, then all would-be gnats become camels.  The LDS church makes great claims that require it to toe a thin line, any deviation puts the whole at risk.
You do see where this leads don't you? I go through and look at all the issues that reelmormon raises, then he or someone else comes along with a new list, and another, and another.  According to you, I need to investigate each and every objection to the church or I am guilty of..something.  Not being cynical enough, maybe. But it becomes an endless circle.  And frankly, although I am familiar with the points reelmormon raises-and others-I generally prefer to spend time reading things that uplift me and bring me closer to Christ. Not to mention hanging around on internet forums, but that's pretty much for entertainment purposes only.

[selek1]

Kenngo1969, on 12 April 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

1.  Doctrinal Mistakes – Neither my testimony nor my salvation hinge of the particulars regarding evolution, the age of the earth, why the priesthood was withheld from blacks, the ancestry of native peoples, light-skinned Lamanites, the Adam-God theory, or whether the great and abominable church refers to any specific organization.  For me, if the adversary can get me to discount the spiritual witnesses I have received in favor of straining on these gnats in order to swallow the camel that the Church isn’t true, then he’s won.  I’d rather not concede the battle over things that don’t form the foundation of my testimony.

2.  Not Providing What Some Believe to be Adequate Focus on Certain Historical Issues – For me, the issue of how the Book of Mormon came to be is secondary.  Even if Joseph Smith dictated all or part of it to his scribes while standing on his head, rubbing his tummy in a counterclockwise direction and clucking like a chicken, that does nothing to account for the facts that (1) the Book of Mormon still exists, and (2) for me (certain glaring imperfections of mine notwithstanding, which I continue to labor to overcome) it has succeeded very well in its stated mission of bringing people to Christ.

Richard Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling succeeds very well at putting Joseph Smith into the context of his time while still allowing his story to speak for itself.  And just because Rough Stone Rolling isn’t Sunday School curriculum or the Ensign doesn’t mean I can’t resort to it to supplement my knowledge on a given subject.  I try not to go to Sunday School an empty vessel, waiting to be “filled” in some manner that’s “Church-approved” (and if I do that, it’s my own fault).  I try to follow the admonitions of the scriptures to “seek out of the best books words of wisdom,” to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith,” and to seek out things that are “virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy.”

3.  Following/Not Following the Prophets – In order to contextualize this particular allegation, you’d have to bring forth an instance in which you followed prophetic counsel, to your detriment.  Any time I have questioned a prophetic pronouncement by appealing to its purported source (something we’re supposed to do, by the way), that prophetic pronouncement has been ratified as having come from that source.  I have also received specific guidance as to how to apply that prophetic pronouncement to my own benefit.  I do what I do not because Joseph Smith did (or did not) translate the Book of Mormon in a certain way; not because Brigham Young taught (or did not) teach the Adam-God theory/doctrine; not because Lamanite skin did (or did not) become lighter; I do it because it bears good fruit in my life and fills my soul.  Your mileage may vary.

Neither doubt nor faith are things that creep upon us like a thief in the night, capturing us unawares.  (Or at least, they need not be.)  Rather, both of them are choices.  Faith isn’t just some harbor in which one puts down anchor and is thereby permanently and comfortably ensconced.  It’s a choice.  If I am to stay there, it requires work on my part to continually adjust to currents that would sweep me out of the harbor if I let them.  My faith, contrary to the allegation of some against me and those who are similarly situated, spiritually speaking, is not rooted in blissful ignorance.  It’s not as if I, or any other person who has chosen faith, have never asked myself any of the questions you pose.  I’ve found what I consider to be satisfactory answers to many of them.  People who have forgotten more about the background underlying the challenging issues you raise than you or I will ever know have, nonetheless, remained faithful.  That tells me something; again, your mileage may vary.

Ran out of rep points.

+1 Kenngo.

[Scott Lloyd]

selek1, on 12 April 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Ran out of rep points.

+1 Kenngo.

I gave him one in your honor.

[selek1]

Scott Lloyd, on 12 April 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

I gave him one in your honor.

Thank you.

[Scott Lloyd]

Wiki Wonka, on 12 April 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

I don't believe that the Church hides this information - I believe that they simply don't emphasize it.

This is a very good point. Allegations that the Church "covers up" aspects of its history are groundless. When critics gripe that the Church "hides" or "sanitizes" information, generally what they are actually complaining about is that the Church doesn't emphasize what the critic thinks should be emphasized. So I wonder why the critic thinks he has any greater right, authority, wisdom, prerogative, etc., to say what should be emphasized in a given setting than the next person.

In this regard, I refer the reader to my sig line, the portion in red type.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 12 April 2012 - 02:22 PM.

[spartacus]

Buzzard, on 12 April 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

2) The truth of the Book of Mormon ("the keystone of our religion") does not indicate the truth of the LDS church.  There are way too many mormon groups that all accept the Book of Mormon (as truth literally or otherwise) to use it's determination as true as justification to believe in one of those groups over another.  So how do you differentiate between all those groups that accept the Book of Mormon?
Get real.  You really think I'm going to follow the Bickertonites?  Or follow my fourth cousins down to that train wreck in Colorado City? At the very least I have eliminated the Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, and lots of non-Mormon groups.

If you haven't dealt with this fact, then your "no reservations" appear to be from lack of looking around.  If I just looked at the person in front of me I might think there was only one other person in the world, but that doesn't make it true.
If by looking around, you mean I haven't looked into joining other "mormon" groups, then OK, if you mean a lack of intellectual curiosity, you are mistaken.
[This is also one reason why I disdain the missions, their entire program is built on this false logic.  Their goal is to get someone to pray about the Book of Mormon and then they believe the LDS church is true - false.  They may add praying about the current prophet but, then, how much more do you have to pray about to know the LDS church - a rather large entity with a long complex history is true?]
Disdain all you want, no skin off my nose.

What do you have against the Bickertonites? - Don't seem like the true BoM accepting group to you?  Why is that?  Is it something other than that they accept the BoM?

I hope you have looked a little into other mormon groups considering the way that prophet succession went down.  Even just that Emma Smith didn't go with Brigham Young is pretty good reason to consider which group is right.  After all, that seems to be the whole point of LDS - it is not the BoM - it's that groups go into apostasy and you have to look into it to know which group is true.

I meant nothing against your nose skin , just that it doesn't look good for an organization to be going around using such an obviously unsound argument as its main teaching apparatus.