Teancum

If you are interested in such things I recommend the bool The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris. Moral standards can be determined by us based on what maximizes human well being and happiness. Yes it is not the simple and it is complicated. Question? Why should religion be the sole or best option for establishing moral values and rules? What does one do when various religions conflict. Certainly Sharia Law and Western Judeo Christian morals tend to conflict at time. Who's religious morals should prevail? One of the greatest inventions in political government was the US Constitution's 1st amendment. No religion should or could be bale to set up theocracy in the United States, though currently, it seems some Christian Nationalists are working hard at it.

Well said @ttribe

It is really quite simple when one drops the requirement to just have faith. Why would. or what kind of god like being, would ask us to "obey" morally repugnant commands in order to test us, or sift the so called "wheat/tares? Humans can asses and determine morals and ethics on their own. without the need of some imagines god being. Using critical thinking skills it is understandable to conclude that such things are, base ethically sound standards, something that should be rejected.

Why do you think they are "very smug" about retention rates? And what does the church say and share about it's retention rates?

I had a response to you post and somehow when I posted it, the post disappeared. I will try to recreate it.

But it seems clear she rejected BY's claims to lead the church and rejected plural marriage. Isn't the church she claimed to adhere to the one we now call The Community Of Christ? And she rejected the Church that you believe is the one Joseph founded. Also, how much can we trust Emma. She denied that Joseph introduced and practice plural marriage, yet as you note, the historical records supports the position the Joseph was indeed the one responsible for introducing plural marriage. So how can we trust her?

I have been using an AI tool for tax work and research and it is amazing. Like you said, you have to know how to use it and what to ask, and even challenge it. But the end product is great. And it write a tax memo better than I can and I think I can write a good tax memorandum. I can do what used to take ten hours of work in about and hour to and hour and a half.

Well it is a long story. I am still a member. I just do not attend. But after years of doing hobby apologetics I came to the point where I found some many of our apologetic defensed poorly argued and just seemed to be attempts to create plausibility, as one apologists that used to frequent this board used to say. And also to buoy up shaky testimonies of already believers. So yea, I concluded that Joseph Smith was what he claimed, not did he have the supernatural experiences that he claimed. It seems clear that the BoM is a product of the 19th century. Basically I could no longer give witness that the church is what its founders and leaders claim it to be.

Interesting. As for God being a man and scripture, Joseph did site a NT passage where Jesus says he only does that which he saw the Father do. The implication being the Father was a man on a world and a Savior and Jesus is doing the same thing.

Well in my view that LDS Church has made plenty of changes that are not dissimilar to changes that happened over the many centuries of Christianity. Some might view that as apostasy by the church. The changes to doctrine about the Godhead, though the Church position on this is continuing revelation gave us addition light and knowledge. But how about the downplay on the doctrines of the KFD and creating worlds. What about changes to the Endowment that many view as significant. Ending Polygamy seemed a major hurdle for a number of splinter groups to rise up. And there are other LDS spin offs as well. It does seem that differing standards may be applied by Latter-day Saints to our faith vs others perhaps?

Do you think the church does not emphasize the God was once a man....because that want to move away from this idea? Is it part of what looks like an attempt to appear more main stream?

That is accurate. I did not stop believing because of secularism at all. Though secularism does play a large roll in my beliefs now.

When did that happen?

I think what is different for @Navidadis that for a large part of Christianity, what denomination you worship with and find a church home with is not really significant so long as they have the "essential" doctrine correct. Thus moving from Methodist, to Baptist, to Lutheran and so on is quite fine. But as you note in the bolded item above, if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is what it claims, it then holds some exclusive items that is not transferred to other denominations.

I don't see anything in the summaries that I would disagree with.