Has your opinion of the LDS church

[Cowpie]

Dill Pickles:

[Bill]

When I first came to this site, I had no opinion of the Latter-day Saints.

I came out of curiosity. I'd heard a little about those strange folk called Mormons and wanted to learn more.

I found that some of what I'd heard was true, much of it was false and all of it was somewhat twisted.

I've learned that the Saints are people like any other and that most of them are good people. I've learned that the LDS Church is doing a good job in bringing people to Christ and in serving the world-wide community.

I've come to think of the LDS Church as truely Christian but I reject the claim that it is the only legitimate church. I've come to think of Joseph Smith as somone special but not necessarily as a Prophet. I've come to think of the Book of Mormon as inspired but not on the same level as the Bible and as parable, not history.

So you can say that my opinion of the LDS Church has changed fron none to fairly positive.

.

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, thank you, Dill Pickles, for picking up on my parody and for knowing that I'm a girl cowpie, something that Dr. Peterson ... well, I guess all cowpies look alike to him. 

Truth be told, as far as I can recollect I haven't read many (any?) of your posts before.

You're correct, though, that, so far as I'm concerned, a cowpie is a meadow mufffin is a trail cookie. And I tend not to examine any of them very closely.

Still, it's a comfort to know that the rebuke from the great one was actually meant for Charity.

Don't take too much comfort too soon. While your post concludes with a glaring non sequitur, Charity's doesn't. Moreover, your comments seem (even if, as it appears, they are ultimately insincere) considerably more judgmental than hers.

[why me]

In defense of the board I think that it has eased my doubts and this is the way I voted.

When a year ago, I just happened to put Joseph Smith into the google I received a lot of websites and unfortunately most were negative. As I searched the web, I came across websites that clouded my mind and vision. Even though, inactive, I was depressed for a week from what I read.

I did happen upon a website that seemed to be balanced...made up of people portraying themselves to be discovering new avenues for living away from the church but 95% of the posts were negative about the lds church and very few posts had anything to do with living a productive life outside of the church. From that site I was banned for not fitting in...I was too positive and never a 'tbm' and so I could not understand their pain, I was told.

And then came Fair....for me it was a voice of reason...I don't mind the negatives here because there are plenty of postive posts too. There is a balance of opinions and there is discussion. And in this way it has eased my doubts about the church (From what I read on the internet in the anti sites).

I don't think that the poll will tell us much. The critics will not change their minds and will cast the most negative vote. Those with strong testimonies will remain strong. What needs to be increased however is the eaing of doubts. There needs to be more people voting in that block. Then, FAIR will be on the road to being a success. But where are the people like me?

[why me]

Dill Pickles:

[Abulafia]

Havn't checked out the FARMS site yet. But will check it out. If it's boring, maybe one could add Stairway to Heaven,...and the car chase sounds good!!

My motivation to post here wasn't to have my belief in the church strengthened or weakened. I have my beliefs, they have been hard fought over, and I trust them.

I appreciate the opportunities that I have in my inactivity to search and study without an agenda that says that JS has to be a prophet. I think it allows me the opportunity to see things in a more realistic manner. I would hate to lose that under the weight of religious dogma.

But, I certainly enjoy the banter that goes on here, the excitement that many show for different aspects of history and religious thought, and my interest is continually being kindled in different aspects of the same.

I think that some of my prejudices about LDS thought have changed, and it will be interesting to see a more liberal approach and how it develops. I really left before this was (In the UK anyway) in full swing.

At the end of the day, we all share (I think) the same goal in that we are all searching for religious truth (if that exists at all objectively). It's good to hear all opinions, but like someone else, I wouldn't categorise it as anti-pro.

Just people trying to work things out.

Abulafia

[T-Bone]

I'd have to say that the explanations about some of the unflattering things in LDS history have actually made me less inclined to come back to church.

Also, when people accuse me of being disobedient or whatever because I ask the difficult questions, it reminds me of why I didn't like going to church in the first place. Indeed, this board reminds me why I left.

Some ask why I participate here if I don't want to be Mormon. I must be here to deconvert everybody. I honestly don't care if other get converted or deconverted by this or any other board. The LDS answer would be that a web site cannot do that, only the Holy Ghost can. My answer would be that we are all at different stages in life and need different things. I can't possibly know what you need right now because I've been wrong about what I need at times.

T-Bone

[Neighbor]

QUOTE (Neighbor @ Dec 20 2005, 09:28 PM)

That's why I like to let Gods word speak for itself into my heart.

It's a love letter from God. Those who love Him don't need a prophet to tell them what God said to them.

Daniel Peterson:

Well, there go the Old and New Testaments. Those who really love God and simply let his word speak for itself, directly into their hearts, evidently don't need Luke, or Moses, or Mark, or Jeremiah, or Matthew, or Paul, or Peter, or Ezekiel, or Amos, or John, or any of those folks.

Neighbor: I try to not put words into another mans mouth or to twist what they are saying. Yes, you correctly identify my Christian perspective as a conservative Protestant. Actually, I don't like that designation. I'd rather consider myself as merely a disciple of Jesus Christ - not the Protestant title, but the meaning that Jesus Himself gave to it. I do take the word of God as eternally true. I do take it as something that is a benefit to study for all of life - not just Seminary or glossing over as most do in a Bible class on Sunday mornings.

As I take the Bible to contain the word of God to man via the prophets, apostles and the Son of God Himself, yes, I do need every single book of the Bible to know the richness of Gods grace towards mankind in Jesus Christ in the fulness of the truth of God. Don't you?

Yes, there are too many books that are not very thoughtful or useful. Especially when people write about things they really don't understand. About the only conmentary I've ever enjoyed and respected is J. Vernon McGee's "THROUGH THE BIBLE". It's a no nonsense comentary of the entire Bible in five volumes, written by a man with a lifetime knowledge of the word of God who respects the word for what it says it is. A dear man who is now departed to the Lord, but who left a wealth of understanding the practicality and wonderfulness of Gods word.

Yes, I need a teacher, but, the Spirit also testifies with my conscience and by the very words themselves when the teacher is rightly dividing the word of truth. Yes, I have held some incorrect understandings - perhaps I still do in some areas - but most of those are based upon what I was taught to believe was true when I was a child that I'd trusted my teachers to have done their homework and that they did know the truth - when in fact I can now see that they were pretty off base and ignorant if not closed minded in many ways. ... perhaps to the point of blindness.

That is how I can see through much of what Mormons are told that is gospel truth when in fact it is not.

Don't you think there is enough truth in Gods word (the Bible) that we really don't need another testimony of Jesus Christ?

If not, in particular: what and why?

Have a great day Daniel!:-)

[Boy Named Sue]

While your post concludes with a glaring non sequitur, Charity's doesn't.

[GDTeacher]

On the whole, I wouldn't expect anybody's testimony of the Gospel to be strengthened on a message board such as this.  At best, it's likely to remain roughly the same as it was.  And, given the nature of the place, it's very possible that it will be weakened (in my opinion, of course, mostly by badly flawed arguments and demagoguery).

Why?

Because, while this is a venue for attacks on the truth claims of Mormonism and for brief and informal defenses of those truth claims, it is not a place where sophisticated, formal defenses are likely to appear, and serious scholarly arguments for the truth claims of Mormonism are very rarely if ever set forth on message boards.

In other words, it's rather like a football game in which only the offense of one team and the defense of the other actually play. The defense will occasionally catch an interception, and if it's really effective, it will keep the other team from scoring.  But, on the whole, the nature of the contest will give something of an advantage to the offense.  (Fortunately, though, the offense in this instance doesn't have a particularly good case.)

Incidentally, a new and, we hope, more useful version of the FARMS website -- which is a good place to look for serious scholarly arguments (and not merely defensive ones) regarding the truth claims of Mormonism -- was unveiled today, and is definitely worth some examination.

http://farms.byu.edu/index.php

Is there a venue anywhere for the formal, sophisticated, scholarly dialogue of the claims of Mormonism? There are venues for the one-sided formal, sophisticated defenses of the claims of Mormonism, like FARMS, but what of a level playing field where both the offense and the defense of both scholarly camps get to play?

In my limited experience, a person can view the offense of one side playing against the defense of the other side, but that is all. You can view a game on one side of town that has one game, but you have to go to the other side of town to view the other game.

The scholars for the claims of Mormonism will use a defensive forum not only as a defensive forum, but also a forum to attack the scholars who are against the claims of Mormonism. Unfortunately ad hominem attacks occassionally or frequently discredit the defensive position.

Likewise, the mirror image exists at the other camp. Although there are amateurish ad hominem attacks against defenders of Mormonism, I don't recall having read ad hominem attacks coming from serious scholars representing positions which are not favorable to the church.

Dan, with your position, would you be able to encourage or set up a forum or venue where formal, scholarly studies, and discussions from scholars from both camps could play? I'll be taking a look at the FARMS page you have pointed us to, but first glance gives me pause as to whether or not it is really a level playing field.

I realize some here will say that that is just ludicrous because a testimony does not come from facts and information, but from the Spirit. I do not discount that, but it would certainly provide an opportunity to reduce or to eliminate a lot of the rehashing that goes on year to year regarding the same topics.

It seems that a lot of us LDS folks have the delusion that if someone is not for the church, they are against the church. In reality, most people are completely indifferent. There are scholars inside the church that want to defend the church. There are a few scholars outside the church that want to attack the church. By and large, most scholars simply want to find the truth. So as with many situations inside our church and others, we create false dichotomies to energize us or give us a cause or something. Most people just want to find the truth.

[rhinomelon]

I haven't seen any LDS post-er express hatred or disrespect for any religious leader of any other denomination, or a denomination itself.

I have, several times, but that's beside the point since it cuts both ways.

Anyway, as to the topic, this board has been a great forum and a great challenge to me. I constantly face new ideas that make me examine and reexamine my own faith and beliefs, and help me fine-tune how I communicate those beliefs to others. Some beliefs may have changed, or are in the process of changing, as a result of conversations on these boards.

As far as beliefs specifically about LDS, I've had some of my doubts erased (like about some aspects of LDS history, for example), and have had new ones come even more strongly to the forefront of my thinking. I have benefited from a more nuanced and clear picture of LDS belief on many issues (particularly the nature of salvation, although that still is an ongoing learning process as I sort through differing LDS positions), and hopefully have helped LDS understand mainstream Christian belief in a clearer way as well.

And finally, perhaps the most influential aspect of the boards has been my newfound interest in early church history and doctrine, particularly the early church fathers. This aspect has possibly changed the direction of my life, as I'm seriously looking at studying patristics and historical theology at the graduate school level. I'm looking at Durham University in England at the moment, but it's still up in the air.

Take care, everyone

[Abulafia]

I'm looking at Durham University in England at the moment, but it's still up in the air.

One of my tutors on the blessed 'dark ages' (never let them be called that...she would slap me if she heard me) came from that region of the country and absolutely loved the place. Hope it all goes well...

Homework, write out 50 times...

I must get to Lindisfarne

I must get to Lindisfarne

I must get to Lindisfarne

(Okay that's enough!!)

The Cathedral is supposed to be spectacular. Have you been there????

Abulafia

[rhinomelon]

The Cathedral is supposed to be spectacular. Have you been there????

Not yet, but if all goes well...

While the cathedral must be incredible, I'm more interested in the current bishop, N.T. Wright. His writings on the New Testament and the historical Jesus are near the top of my book wishlist.

[Daniel Peterson]

Is there a venue anywhere for the formal, sophisticated, scholarly dialogue of the claims of Mormonism?

[Scott Lloyd]

EDIT:  Well, well, well. Look what you recently said in another thread:

For one thing, the TBM Latter-day Saint, church membership is not as casual as many Christian denominations are. (Please note, I am not saying ALL, but MANY.) For the LDS we don't go to Church only on Christmas and Easter. We devote hours of our time in service to the Church and don't sit back and let a paid ministry do the work. We live by a strict moral code. We haven't changed the commandments to allow for pre-marital sex if you are engaged or thinking about being engaged. We gladly give 10% of our increase, and not just drop a couple of dollars in a collection plate when we feel like it.

I would call this disrespectful in that it is hugely exaggerated -- both in your glorifying of LDS and your marginalization of "many Christian denominations (Please note, I am not saying ALL, but MANY.)" I've heard a little too much of this kind of back-patting by LDS over the years. LDS are just a little too prone to sing their own praises, they even do it in Sacrament meeting, and the problem is that they end up believing it. In my opinion, they are no better or worse in the way the live their religion than "many Christian denominations are. (Please note, I am not saying ALL, but MANY.)"

This act of out-of-context quotation illustrates the sort of hostility that Charity was decrying in her initial post on this thread.

In the thread from which this quotation was extracted, Latter-day Saints were defending themselves against critics who were censuring Church members for taking seriously their covenants and religious beliefs. Charity's remarks were by way of contrast, saying that for believing and faithful Latter-day Saints, religion is an integral part of life, not just a Christmas/Easter occasion.

[suem]

In the thread from which this quotation was extracted, Latter-day Saints were defending themselves against critics who were censuring Church members for taking seriously their covenants and religious beliefs. Charity's remarks were by way of contrast, saying that for believing and faithful Latter-day Saints, religion is an integral part of life, not just a Christmas/Easter occasion.

So in that case, it makes it OKAY for her to disrespect another denomination or religion.

As to the poll, I really didn't know what to answer. I would say that I had doubts, well really no belief at all, and I have come to validate that. It has not increased or decreased anything in regards to my beliefs. I have found more peace with who I am.

I enjoy engaging with others on this board. I have been able to get to know a handful more personally and that has been a lot of fun.

[Scott Lloyd]

In the thread from which this quotation was extracted, Latter-day Saints were defending themselves against critics who were censuring Church members for taking seriously their covenants and religious beliefs. Charity's remarks were by way of contrast, saying that for believing and faithful Latter-day Saints, religion is an integral part of life, not just a Christmas/Easter occasion.

So in that case, it makes it OKAY for her to disrespect another denomination or religion.

I don't agree with the accusation that she was being disrespectful to other donominations or religions. As I read it, she was contrasting the attitude of faithful Latter-day Saints with the attitude of those who were criticizing Church members for being dedicated to covenants and beliefs.

[charity]

suem, you said, referring to my post from another thread: "So in that case, it makes it OKAY for her to disrespect another denomination or religion."

Judgemental requires that a moral distinction be made between two positions. It isn't simply vanilla ice cream versus strawberry. It is vanilla = good and strawberry = wicked.

When I contrasted two different ways of worshipping, what I characterized as TBM versus many but not all Christian practices of the Christmas-Easter, etc variety of participation, it was others who read into that an interpretation of TBM = good and Christmas-Easter = wicked.

I never said that. My mother never goes to church at all. Nor does my brother and his family. My two sons, 2 of my grandchildren, a daughter-in-law, a son-in-law are in that category, as well. I don't think any of them are wicked.

I think probably the reason I got jumped on was that there is a certain amount of defensiveness in the Christmas-Easter crowd. They must think they aren't doing what they should be doing. I didn't say that of them.

I firmly believe in the 11th Article of Faith. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

[Scott Lloyd]

suem, you said, referring to my post from another thread: "So in that case, it makes it OKAY for her to disrespect another denomination or religion."

Judgemental requires that a moral distinction be made between two positions. It isn't simply vanilla ice cream versus strawberry. It is vanilla = good and strawberry = wicked.

When I contrasted two different ways of worshipping, what I characterized as TBM versus many but not all Christian practices of the Christmas-Easter, etc variety of participation, it was others who read into that an interpretation of TBM = good and Christmas-Easter = wicked.

I never said that. My mother never goes to church at all. Nor does my brother and his family. My two sons, 2 of my grandchildren, a daughter-in-law, a son-in-law are in that category, as well. I don't think any of them are wicked.

I think probably the reason I got jumped on was that there is a certain amount of defensiveness in the Christmas-Easter crowd. They must think they aren't doing what they should be doing. I didn't say that of them.

I firmly believe in the 11th Article of Faith. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

I think, by any objective measure, there are religious groups (I might even say many) that don't ask much in the way of behavioral commitment from their members and are not ashamed of the fact that they don't.

[Escalante Sam]

Dag nabbit! I got here late to this here gunfight, an' I kin only conjecture 'bout what got said to one cowboy by th' other. I prolly 'll come up with somethin' way worse than what really got said.

I am curious about whether FARMS and its allied organizations have any interactions and cross-pollenization with Sunstone, Dialogue, Signature Press, etc. Are there commonalities, or do they get along like gunfighters at the O.K. corral?

[Scottie]

First, let me say that the weak explanations offered by the apologists on FAIR and FARMS has destroyed my testimony FAR more than any anti material that I might have read. So, I voted "It has weakened my testimony" although my testimony is non-existent at this point.

I thought, naively, that people who were really anti-Mormon just didn't understand, and when they did, they wouldn't be anti-Mormon any more.  But guess what.  The behavior of some of the anti-Mormons who post here showed me how the spirit of the adversary works.  Some people posting here have shown an absolute refusal to be open to ideas presented to them.  But what has surprised me most is the hatred. There is opposition in all things.  What a confirmation of the wisdom of the prophets.

If persecution were the yardstick used to determine truth in a religion, wouldn't Judaism win?

I see this refusal to be open to ideas FAR more on the pro-LDS side. Most arguments end with a "Well, we can't really know, so just pray to gain your witness." If ever there was a cop out and a refusal to admit you are wrong, that is it! Even though the evidence stacks up against you, you're still not wrong because the spirit told you that you were right. Talk about closed minded!

Now, on to hatred...you can not seriously read all the posts here and think that the apologists are nice, can you??? Most apologists are some of the rudest, most intolerant people I know. When a new poster comes here with a sincere question, watch how many posts it take before they are accused of being a troll, not to mention the "yawn", "it's been answered already, sheesh!" and such rubbish posts. I can think of 5 prominent posters off the top of my head that don't hesitate in the least to post rude and insensitive posts to legitimate questions.

I'm sorry, but being LDS does not automatically make you nice and being non-LDS doesn't automatically make you mean.

[Scott Lloyd]

First, let me say that the weak explanations offered by the apologists on FAIR and FARMS has destroyed my testimony FAR more than any anti material that I might have read. So, I voted "It has weakened my testimony" although my testimony is non-existent at this point.

I thought, naively, that people who were really anti-Mormon just didn't understand, and when they did, they wouldn't be anti-Mormon any more.

[Scottie]

With such happening repeatedly, more seasoned posters can hardly be blamed for becoming a little jaded.

Actually, they can be blamed.

EVERYONE should be given the benefit of the doubt until there is sufficient evidence that they are indeed a troll. I don't see that kind of tolerance here. I have seen MANY new posters treated with extreme hostility by the apologists when they post sincere questions. Sometimes they are trolls, but often enough they are not.

Should there ever be a valid reason for ANYONE, critic or apologist, to treat another poster with such disdain? I say no. To say that they "can hardly be blamed" is condoning this.

[GDTeacher]

Dag nabbit! I got here late to this here gunfight, an' I kin only conjecture 'bout what got said to one cowboy by th' other. I prolly 'll come up with somethin' way worse than what really got said.

I am curious about whether FARMS and its allied organizations have any interactions and cross-pollenization with Sunstone, Dialogue, Signature Press, etc. Are there commonalities, or do they get along like gunfighters at the O.K. corral?

There used to be a lot of cross pollenization between the various scholarly forums. Dallin Oaks even participated with the Sunstone/Dialogue crowd for a time. During the mid to late 80's on into the 90's there was a crackdown of sorts, including the highly discussed "September Six."

It would be interesting for a more combined forum to evolve. I'm not sure I would expect it anytime soon, but I am hopeful.

[Scott Lloyd]

With such happening repeatedly, more seasoned posters can hardly be blamed for becoming a little jaded.

Actually, they can be blamed.

EVERYONE should be given the benefit of the doubt until there is sufficient evidence that they are indeed a troll. I don't see that kind of tolerance here. I have seen MANY new posters treated with extreme hostility by the apologists when they post sincere questions. Sometimes they are trolls, but often enough they are not.

Should there ever be a valid reason for ANYONE, critic or apologist, to treat another poster with such disdain? I say no. To say that they "can hardly be blamed" is condoning this.

It's hard to talk in the abstract on this matter, but I have definitely seen instances where anonymous posters posing as what they were not were ridiculously transparent.

And blatant dishonesty is hardly worthy of respect.