Matthew J. Tandy

This thread has turned faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar too political.

Darren, you will not make headway with thesometimesaint. He posts the most liberal political comments around these parts. Others post very conservative. Fortunately, this is a board about religion, and when the topic gets more into politics than faith, the threads tend to get closed. I think aside from politics we can all mostly hug and get along.:-)

Matthew...this policy keeps repentant gays from involvment with any youth program...YM, Sunday School and Primary....it is discriminatory...it is one sided...it is equivilent to calling the repentant homosexual a pedophile. The mere essence of the policy is discusting...

Craig, please reread my post. It is discriminatory, but not more than keeping a male of any attraction from serving as a Young Women's leader and vice versa. Is that policy wrong? Does it mean that the church views all men as potential problems if they taught Laurel classes? In a way, yes. Our policy is we don't combine them since the attraction is to that gender and they have acted sexually with that gender in the past.

That, I knew about, and I have no problem with it. That just seems to make the exclusion of SS attracted individuals even more puzzling, though, does it not?

I suppose the church could say "Ok, you can serve in Primary in a set, but you can't serve in Yourn Men. Or Primary 11 year olds (because that's a boy's class). But that would probably be more of an administrative headache. And unfrotunately, a lot of wards don't do the double-up teaching system like they should.

I think the parents would be upset, no matter the sexual orientation of the perpetrator. I'm not saying the church doesn't have the responsibility to try and screen people for that kind of position, but using sexual orientation as a part of the screening process, seems, not only discriminatory, but is not going to make their children any safer, IMHO. A lot of pedophiles are heterosexual, seemingly, happily married males. They are usually very good at creating a cover. The last guy you might ever suspect..

Libs, again, it is not discriminatory any worse than how we do not call men to teach young women classes and we don't call women to teach young men classes. Additionally, if a male is called to teach in Primary, he is always supposed to have a teaching companion, regardless of sexual orientation. That is discriminatory against all men, but it is a sound policy based on past experience. Men are more like to be accused of sexual crimes than women, so they can't teach primary classes alone. It is absolutely discriminatory of us to not call men to the women's organization and vice versa, but we know that it is not wise to call a leader to youth who is attracted to that gender. Normally, it's a non-issue, because mothers aren't going to complain that some young returned missionary isn't teaching Laurels. In this case though, that your returned missionary is gay, so would not be attracted to the female gender, but is to the male gender. Would that gay person hit on the young men? Probably not, but the same reason that keeps him from teaching the young women keeps him from teaching the young men. It is common sense.

one on NOM (which I wasn't all too surprised about, they don't like me too much there =p).

What's NOM?

So, I see you've been to Gospel Essentials, eh? Good! just out of curiosity, based off of doctrine, official doctrine available, let's say, strictly from the Standard Works, which would be most likely true or the "truest"?

I think there is not nearly enough revealed information available to go one way or another. The phrase I used of "it's not my personal belief" at the end of 2.2.1 is true for all of them. I'm jsut not dogmatic in that way. All are valid. Which do I personally think would be the coolest? 2.2.1. I like the idea of continually progressing in that method, of having those experiences, etc. I hink certain things both Joseph and Brigham said indicate they at least pondered this as a possibility, but nothing was ever revealed, or it was revealed to them to stop theorizing about it ebcuase it either shouldn't be known or because it is patently false.:-) 2.2 is probably the one that could best be documented, if only by a little.

Out of general curiosity, I was wondering if, since I generally engage in very civil discourse with all sides, I had ever given reason to be cited in other boards and mocked. Sop I did a Google search, added in the term LDS, and went at it. Although not fullproof (lots of things may not be indexed), I did find two examples, and one utterly surpised me. Apparently I was referenced on Mormonwiki... but the link is bad!

1) The actual reason I am making this thread: http://www.mormonwiki.org/Relationship_with_Jesus . Yes, I made it on to Mormon Wiki!!! I have to say, after years of toiling, it's gratifying to know I said something someone cared about, even if they wanted to put a negative spin on it.:-) Sure, it's jsut a general link for a view, not actually a footnote, but I will take it. Sadly, I went to read whatever it was I was had posted, and the link was bad (it goes to the defunct Mormonapologetics.org version of the board). It was titled "How Do You Interact With Christ?". I vaguely recall this thread. I can't find it in teh archives though. Anyone know if it's backed up somewhere. I would love to be able to reread it and help them update their links.;-) As a side note, the MormonWiki page on this is just terrible on the logic and doctrinal side. And they say our wiki is bad. Whew!

2) Uncle Dale, who some of you from many many years ago on many old iterations of this board may remember, was big on the Spaliding Theory for the Book of Mormon. He was an excellent man in often poor health. I don;t know if he is still around. He was inactive RLDS, one of the more polite detractors, and maintained a prodgious database of data scanned in from records all over the place. Apparently back in 2007, in response to a question at Mormondiscussions someone posed about if anyone ahd the same amount of knowledge on the Spalding Theory as he did, he said:

If Dr. Lester E. Bush, Jr. is still alive, he would be the most expert LDS on the topic. He was the one who responded to my 1982 Mormon History Association paper on the topic. From interacting with him then, I can say that he knew a great deal about the subject -- but was very guarded in talking about it candidly.

Next in line would be Richard L. Anderson. I have seen evidence of his research in out of the way places, from California to Washington, D. C. I recall once looking over an old ledger book in Cherry Valley, NY,

(where Spalding once lived), and on a page with an entry for Spalding's brother Josiah, was inserted a local person's business card from about 1960, and on the back was Anderson's name and phone number in Utah.

Anderson is not interested in talking about this subject, despite his years of quiet research. Nor is BYU prof Kent P. Jackson (who edited and oversaw the research on the last LDS Church publication in the topic).

The LDS second-string scholars would include Matthew B. Brown, Matt Roper and perhaps Matthew J. Tandy. Scott H. Faulring might also fit in there somewhere -- though I doubt he has much useful knowledge.

Marvin S. Hill once knew a good deal, but I'm pretty sure he has not kept up his earlier interest.

On the amateur level there are Wade England, Jeff Lindsay, Russell Anderson, Robert & Rosemary Brown, and perhaps Richard Winwood.

None of these Mormons seems ready, willing and able to discuss the many facets of the Spalding-Rigdon authorship explanation in a reasonable, objective sort of way. Even Bush (who, as I said knows much) was more interested in bearing his LDS testimony and talking about why NOT to study the topic, than he was in sifting through the old evidence in dialogue with a non-Mormon.

I have hopes for Matthew J. Tandy --- time will tell.

Let me just say that, again, I always liked Uncle Dale (that was his moniker here), even if we didn't agree on what the evidence pointed to. We almost met on BYU once while he was in town, but work prevented me sadl from doing so. However, I am pleased that I made it into his view of a second-string scholar, and that he ahd high hopes for me.;-) In all lack of humility, I probably do know more about the Spalding theory than all but a small handful of people in or out of the Church. Since 2007, I have read and accumulated multiples of more knowledge on it. Although the details are fuzzier nowadays as it's been a year or two since I looked much at it (you can only research it so much before you are treading the same ground). Uncle Dale provided many useful resources, not just for the Spalding theory, but for early Mormon documents in general that are fascinating to any historian. I personally sitll view the Spalding Theory as thoroughly implausible, but resarching everything possibly surrounding it greatly expanded my knowledge of early LDS historical sources, both in and out of the church.

So... excluding Daniel Peterson, who could create an Encycopledia length tome on how others have used him, what about all of you other "second stringers"? Google your screen name with "lds" added in (or MormonDiscussions or whatever) and post the more itneresting finds!

From post #54 on the thread entitled "Corrections to Some of Xander/Kevin's Latest Falsehoods":

(See http://www.mormondia...ds/page__st__40 .)

Ahahahah, too funny! Add that to the three completely different views of God and religion espoused, and this person can't keep their story straight! Either someone out for some fun poking all of the ant hills (including the anti one, since they;ve changed their belief in God in there), or one person who seriosuly needs help.

Again, to all the others who aren't active LDS here, we don't judge you by this crackpot.:-)

Note:

It is difficult to say whether or not Economicsishard is LancePeters. Due to the sudden same interest and claims sprouting up at the same time, the evidence points to yes. It's easy to claim being one person on the internet, and then turn around and say no in another area, you are someone else. To me, the evidence of common phrases and early things you said (since deleted), makes it appear you are most likely one and the same.

So here's my groundrule: Economicsishard, as long as you are decent over here, I will happily engage you on the face of your actions and behavior here. Even if not genuine on your part, we are always happy to have civil discussions about new and interesting historical items. So it's a win situation for us. But only if it stays civil.

And, while the 7 items I listed may not apply to you directly, perhaps some do. I have read through a lot of the link. It's very interesting, but I find little of relevance beyond saying yes, esoeteric thought is common throughout the world and in all ages and times.

1) Has s/he never read Nibley? Or countless FARMS articles? I mean, she's acting as if Esoteric thought and Mormon research is something new, or Masonry connections (gasp!). I think it's great that s/he is reading some of it now, but Coptics, Masons, and even Islamic and Jewish mysticism has all been referenced by us before. The whole statement made about why are we fighting learning about it instead of adapting it into our studies... well... sorry, we've been doing it for decades.

2) Lies upon lies upon lies. Is Economicsishard a faithful Mormon? Or perhaps Economicsishard is a disaffected Mormon who is now Christian? Because Economicsishard talks about not only praying, but also how damned Joseph is and how he will burn in hell. Wait, or is Economicsishard an atheist? Because, well, Economicsishard in the quoted posts straight out says he doesn't beleive in God, then conjectures about what his God would be like.

3) So much bullcrap and lack of knowledge about actual history in the post. Sex with a 14 year old girl? Really, you want to toss that around? Because it shows a total lack of not only church history and research on Joseph Smith and consummation, but historical reference to marriage age in the 19th century. And that's the easy one. The amount of bill in there was amazing. Truly, it takes someone with skill to crap it all in like that.

4) Even the posts over there from Economicsishard are rambling, contradictory, and show signs of major mental problems. Apparently that medicine is causing too many problems or not solving enough.

5) The threats against Dan and being in his class next semester are, I reckon, a load of bullcrap designed to induce paranoia. Even if true, it's designed to create the same effect. Which means there is something seriously seriously wrong with this person. And I feel sorry for them and hope they get help before they or someone else is hurt.

6) I've now read through about 3 hours worth of the Kore Kosmou. I am not finding all these great amazing finds. Apparently Economicsishard is finding phantoms in every corner. My assumption is it's because Economicsishard is either just nuts, or is desperate to justify their anger, screw logic and reason.

7) Economicsishard is the kind of psychotic anti-Mormons that legitimate people with reasonable concerns and questions about the church and scholarship therein distance themselves from. I want all of our non-member and non/differently-believing member friends here, such as Craig Paxton, Libs, Chris Smith, and many others to know I would never ever put you in the same boat as this nutbag. You guys are great. Sometimes I feel like I need to apologize for the crazy Mormon neighbor who starts spouting crazy stuff about the church from within as proof of truth. In this case, I feel the need to let everyone else know I don't judge you by Economicsishard.

I hope you get the psychological help you need.

Unless you are a mod, you need to use the report function rather than telling others they need to stop something. The mods have asked us to do so and refrain from doing anything else besides pointing to the board rules/providing a link and a quote of them.

When we start the threads ourselves, it has been accepted that we can in large part self-regulate by asking people not to do something or to stay on topic. I suppose Darren citing policy versus thread preference may cross some boundary though.

Asterix or not,if a man has been disciplined for heterosexual sins ,he is not eligible to work for CES. If a man has been found to have participated in child pornography I would hope there is a huge asterix if he were to be considered to teach in Primary.

Interestingly, if you have ever been disciplined for pornography of ANY kind, you are not allowed to be employed by CES as a for-pay (and possibly even voluntary, but I don't know) Seminary or Institute Teacher/Director. Its considered to big of a risk, No pedophile oriented porn needed, it could be old grannies. Either way, no working for the Church in CES for Seminary or Institute.

Selek, my last comment about your tone in the thread was from previous posts you amde. The most recent one was quie nice, not compromising, but not berating either.

Selek,

I appreciate your viewpoint, but it is way too heavy in this thread on anger and bitterness and condescension. Tone it down mate while still making your point.

Personally, I do not equate homosexuality with pedophile. And, it appears, neither does the church based on past conference talks. I haven't heard them being equated by a leader before. I do think any lifestyle that encourages a free-love mentality can produce a higher rate of pedophiles, but most gays are against disgusting groups like NAMBLA, and many want stable relationships and families. So any free-love group, hetero or homo, is more likely to produce pedophiles than any group who is looking for relationship stability.

Thank you for the reasoned response, Matthew.

I don't think Benji was sexually active during his probation period (and, if I am recalling correctly, not yet sexually active in any sense?)....but, definitely not during the one year probation.

The problem I'm having with the "asterisk" policy (if it is, indeed, true) is purely a matter of discrimination and treating SS attracted differently from those who are not. I just believe that is wrong, and has no real basis or foundation.

Your welcome Libs. I touched on the sexual activity in the other thread. The two threads is getting a little confusing, but I am trying to move it all over here. I said in response to a similar question:

Petting was an earlier mention. Later in the podcast he alludes to other sins. In his church court he later discusses (which he requested), he discusses how he was very detailed and graphic in what he had done because he wanted it out in the open. I applaud him for that. It is apparent though that more than petting was involved after his initial petting. Which, by and by, is considered homosexual activity, but not homosexual intercourse. Mutual masturbation, for instance, is a sexual activity no matter the genders involved, but it is not intercourse and the church discipline on it is usually different than intercourse. Regarding the double standard, I address that in the other thread on this topic.

Perhaps I have the chronology wrong, but either way, sexual activity is a term that may mean different things to you and I.

I agree the asterisk is a form of discrimination. That however does not mean it is wrong. We discriminate constantly about who is best to fill certain positions based on current and past behavior. The discrimination is based in this case upon past action, not attractions. The church did not cause the person to engage in such activities, but they do set standards for certain roles. Incidentally, such a person could still serve as an Elder's Quorum President, Temple Worker, Executive Secretary, serve a couple mission, and do so many wonderful things. Thus, I think saying the church is motivated by fear is probably not something that can be backed up (sorry Cinepro, but if your theory worked, then they wouldn't be able to hold those other callings which hold a lot more influence). Again, this seems linked to not placing a woman to teach young men and a man to teach young women, which is because we don't want them over people of whom they are biologically attracted to in gender. It's not that we think the whole world is full of pedophiles, but we still discriminate based upon prudence in an organization that wants to play it safe and has been hit with ridiculous lawsuits. Such as a Young Men's leader molesting a boy.

Also, for a whole year, he was prevented from serving in the church, because of the disciplinary measures taken (which he wanted and embraced). Also, have to remember that he is still a very young man, having some very heavy burdens to deal with.

My general view, as I stated before, is I wish him luck adn he is still a good person. My view of him now is essentially as he says of himself: he si still trying to figure things out. In his narrative, that was apparent, as he is still trying to figure out how he can reconcile his past and current self into a cohesive narrative from the framework of his still wobbly self identity.

Matthew, shame on you and the mocking tone of your posts...you should be ashamed of yourself...how dare you judge Benji Schwimmer or his personal repentance sacrifice or the sincerity and depth of his penitence...who the hell are you to pass judgment on him or the choices he's made in his life. You don't know his personal struggles. You haven't walked even an inch in his shoes, yet you feel so comfortable casting that first stone of pious opinion from your sanctimonious, self righteous, rameumptum...shame on you. You disgust me.

Craig, Perhaps you are reading far too much into what I wrote. Reread it and you will note I did not condemn him, question his sacrifice (which, in fact, I specifically in other segments brought up as a legitimate question of how mu8ch God expects us to take in our trials before saying it's enough), etc. I did point out that at 1:08:00 he completely ripped President Monson, how he framed the story initially in the context of that's how we was feeling at the moment he found out about the policy change, but that later statements showed he felt the same way (but perhaps in a calmer demeanor). I fail to see how that is judging him harshly. It's what he said. I appreciate you saying I am pious, I suppose that is a compliment. You however are the first person I have known who has ever accused me of casting first stones, sanctimonious, self-righteousness, etc. I am not taking it personally however, as you and I have had good conversations in the past if I recall when others would not engage you on a logical level. I do assume though that you completely misread my post. If I was unclear, I apologize.

BTW…his so called sin was petting…not homosexual activity…as you so piously stated. Were heterosexuals treated equally, I dare say that there would be less missionaries, Bishops, High Council members or Stake Presidents...as all of these callings require working with youth. It’s a blatant double standard.

Petting was an earlier mention. Later in the podcast he alludes to other sins. In his church court he later discusses (which he requested), he discusses how he was very detailed and graphic in what he had done because he wanted it out in the open. I applaud him for that. It is apparent though that more than petting was involved after his initial petting. Which, by and by, is considered homosexual activity, but not homosexual intercourse. Mutual masturbation, for instance, is a sexual activity no matter the genders involved, but it is not intercourse and the church discipline on it is usually different than intercourse. Regarding the double standard, I address that in the other thread on this topic.

This new policy is offensive, hurtful, manmade and unChrist-like. Members of all stripes should rise up and protest this policy…what more can they do to or ask of a repentant soul that they haven’t already done…oh I know... let’s keep their church records marked with a scarlet letter for the rest of their lives. What ever happened to… “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool”…I guess within Mormonism it is no longer the case….well at least with respect to Gays….who’s repented sins will follow them throughout their lives.

The policy is wrong in so many ways least of which is that it suggests that homosexuals are pedophiles and not to be trusted with children…this is just plain BS and not founded in any reality…

I applaud Benji’s rejection of this humiliating, life-time mark…and the church that promotes this hurtful policy...the church does not deserve this good man…I wish him well in life and all the happiness in the world.

My only hope is that you read this post before it is forever wiped from this thread by the moderators…

The policy is not wrong, as explained in the other thread. If you would like to discuss this specific issue, I am happy to discourse with you at It's a good and important discussion Craig, and it does deserve its own thread.

I hope you will consider an apology for jumping rashly to conclusions and misreading my posts. I expect good dialogue is still available.

Let me add on by saying that trying to determine what it means to "be like God" is actually not well known. We've been promised worlds without number, eternal posterity, and a few assorted items. But we don't know how the powers are derived, at what point we'll be able to do what (Joseph said something to the effect of it would be millennia of progressing after this life before we can even finish working out our salvation, which I take to mean being purified in character). To really understand how little we understand, it's good to look at what we know about man once being a man like us. Does that simply mean he was mortal? Or does it mean he had the same exterior biology? Did he look the same exterior, but interior have a different organ position? Was he from a high gravity or a low gravity planet, thus producing shorter or taller people with denser or thinner bones? Did his body have genetic variations that countered toxic effects of certain flora and fauna on his planet? Was the brain the same size?

There's so much we don't know, a lot we can believe, and very little revealed. It's the same with the nature of Christ's atonement. For me, while I like to theorize on the valid possibilities, I am satisfied to simply say, Christ is the only Savior whom I have anything to do with in this life, and he is the son of God the Father whom I worship.

If there are peoples of other worlds beyond our own, He atoned for them as well. His sacrifice was the infinite and eternal sacrifice. According to LDS faith and worship, beyond Jesus Christ there is no Savior ad there is no being exalted by the Most High to be above all that is.

I used to have a lot of quotes on the whole Savior/Saviors thing, but I lost them years ago in a hard drive crash. Suffice it to say, the most common belief currently in the church is that the Savior Jesus Christ is the Savior of all worlds of God's children. However, there is a vast array of beliefs within that, all of which an apostle or prophet has espoused at some point and all of which are acceptable as working with existing doctrine.

* The binding theme: All Mankind is saved by Jesus Christ. Christ's redemption extends beyond this earth to many other worlds.

Various Possibilities:

1) Jesus is the only atoning Savior in all of Eternity. Earth is special because of this. His atonement covers any previous beings and all future ones, wherever and whenever they may be.

1.1) God the Father is singular in his existence as such. While he experienced being a man, yet he is unique. He is the first true God, and we are his 1st generation children. Christ also, and thus the atonement will cover everyone.

1.2) God the Father, in scripture, may refer to our immediate father, and/or it may refer to the great first God of all (consider how we refer to Father Abraham or Father Adam, but because they are those who gave birth to mankind and the covenant relationships). Christ is 1st generation from that God and thus his atonement covers all.

2) Jesus' atonement covers all the children of God the Father, on whatever planet they are on. It probably does not cover children of other God's who are preceding our Father in Heaven nor any of his (the Father's) siblings.

2.1) Only one sacrifice is involved, that being Christ's.

2.2) Other Saviors may be involved on other planets. They however are enabled by the atonement of Christ, and possible vice versa. This goes with:

2.2.1) Exalted beings will be proven able to become Savior's of other worlds, and possibly their own worlds, by their actions in this life. Shades of Adam-God theory here exist, but not needed. These exalted being are exalted only because of Christ, so without Christ's redemption of mankind, there would be no future atonements on other planets. It is like a great priesthood chain. Likewise, God the Father became what he is now because he was a Savior in another world or redeemed by one. This is different than reincarnation! In reincarnation, you keep returning until you get it right. In this model, one who becomes a Savior is never just another mortal. Christ was different than us. He alone among man had the power to take his life and raise it up again. He died because he allowed himself to, not because others could make him. Thus, while part man, he was not man. In this model, Darren10 could become a Savior of another world as part of the natural progression in the eternities to being like God and comprehending as God comprehends. As a Savior, he would be fundamentally different than others on the planet. From what I can gather, this model of progression is basically Unorganized Intelligence -> Spirit -> Mortal Man -> Exalted Man -> Adam -> Savior -> God the Father (creator of Spirits, worlds without end, etc), although I have seen the Adam and Savior aspects flipped. Either way, it's not my personal belief, though if it was true I wouldn't be bothered. I find it tenable.

Libs,

I listened to the entire 2 hours of the third podcast wherein he talks about the church and leaving it. See here:

Regardng the asterisk, which I will assume is valid, as he didn't strike me as out to deceive (though of course he could have misunderstood), I understand it. I noted this while lsitening (posted in the other thread):

1 hour 8 minutes into it: He totally slams President Monson, church policy etc. He tries to frame it in the context of how he felt at the moment he found out that because he engaged in homosexual activity, the policy was changed in 2010 that he would never be able to serve in callings teaching youth, but he continues on and it's apparent he feels exactly the same way right now. He obviously doesn't understand the difference between administrative functions and forgiveness through Christ, which are two improtant different aspects.

So accepting that the administrative side is different than the Christ's forgiveness side, which Benjia apparently did not and does not comprehend (well, leaving hte church, I suppose he views it separate now...), let's consider the administrative reasons:

1) Any youth that is aware of the teacher's past homosexual behavior, NOT jsut attraction, is a candidate of someone who may ask the adult. While it can be a growing experience, it can also be difficult for the adult. Youth may mock him more, or challenge his choice to remain celibate or enter into a hetero marriage. Youth are going through a lot of social challenges at that time, and unlike adults who the church expects better behavior from, we realize youth can be downright nasty without even believing they are.

2) Again, any youth that is aware of the teacher or leader's past, if experiencing homosexual leanging themselves, may seek personal direction from that teacher. Because it is of a sexual nature, this discussion is best had with the Bishop and family, or on the sides if acquainted, but not as a youth looking to their leader.

3) Women, not men, are called to lead the Young Women. Men, not women, are called to lead the Young Men. This isn't jsut for rolemodels, it's because we don't want them at any age being regularly in a room alone with people of the same gender they are attracted to. It is inviting trouble, and it has nothing to do with being gay, except for you are now attracted AND acted to/with men so you can't serve young men, and policy already prevents that person serving in Young Womens. Sunday School is I suppose a grey area since the genders are taught together, but reasons one and two are enough to say that it's a small enough occurence we aren't going to get bent out of shape for not letting them teach there. Benji was upset because he couldn't serve in Young Mens or Scouts.

Service to others is heavily stressed in lesson manuals and conference. The way he presented his revelation, it was as if the LDS church doesn't actively promote exactly that. I aprpeciate that he had been so self-absorbed in his life and problems (not a bad thing per say) that he forgot to focus on true service. In his situation, he was often asked to perform public service by being a figurehead and speaking and such. I am glad he finally realized that he had been misisng an important part of lifee, but I wish he had framed it in such a way that it did not imply we in the church do not already beleive and teach that.

1:35:00 - He seems amazed that as soon as he stops focusing on his problems, he looks at others more and tries to help them. I think that is a given, in or out of the church. That is what the church has often said: Lose yourself in service to others.

1 Hour 18 minutes into it: You learn he has a very loose view of God. He has a form of spiritual experience, but then talks about it as, loosely quoting "God, or my true innner self, or heavenly father or heavenly mother, or whatever you want to call it."

1:25:30 - He casts himself in prophetic light because he separates. Lehi, Nephi, Abraham, etc.

Now, there was an interesting thought he conveyed: He felt that God at some point said that he had done enough, shown he was willing to sacrifice, had it appears tried really and genuinely tried to go for the celibate or hetero-married choice, and that it was enough. Which is an interesting view. He gets the impression that he is not meant to be in the church anymore. He resigned from the church on April 27th, 2011. So he feels that the Church in general is true, some prophets like Monson are not inspired, and that he could not progress further in the church and had to leave.

I actually agree in some sense with the general mindset (not the parts about Pres. Monson and prophets not being inspired). Moroni 10 seems to indicate that although the Book of Mormon is true, it might not be in God's wisdom to know that. God cannot save all mankind from strictly in the church. There are inspired people everywhere, helping mankind to be better and lead them closer to him.

1:31:00 - Shows he is agnostic.

1:33:00 - No longer believes the church to be true, but adding in previous few minutes, he holds that God inspires most groups that have followings. I definitely don't agree with how far he takes it.

1 hour 8 minutes into it: He totally slams President Monson, church policy etc. He tries to frame it in the context of how he felt at the moment he found out that because he engaged in homosexual activity, the policy was changed in 2010 that he would never be able to serve in callings teaching youth, but he continues on and it's apparent he feels exactly the same way right now. He obviously doesn't understand the difference between administrative functions and forgiveness through Christ, which are two improtant different aspects.

Now, to be honest, the book itself sounds absolutely fascinating. I love reading hermetical literature, Masonic thought, etc! But... while parallels may exist, I don't see it as a major contrinuting factor to anything in the restored gospel.

Economicsishard,

I think you are highly over estimating Joseph Smith's German abilities. From what I have read, there is no evidence he had more than what I would posit as a half semester of a german college course. Enough to read parts of the Bible, but not without a lexicon to lean upon. To then take his knowledge and be able tor ead a complex hermeticla text is highly unlikely.

47 minutes: He gives an emotional positive review of John Dehlin. I am unmoved by his reasoning in terms of linking it to active church members and how important John is. The flipping off, even in "jest", is silly. I get that Mormon Podcasts helped Benji, although a lot of it is theoretical and contradictory considering he just said how he felt better that year. But I get that it can help people in his situation.

Sorry, that's 21 minutes in to the 3rd video, which is the only one I am taking the time to play in the background while working. These things are way too long for me. 40 minutes into it.