AmorLibertas Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 Perhaps, in your interviews with the national media, you've always expressed yourself with perfect precision, and have never had occasion, afterwards, to wish that you had expressed yourself better.I've sometimes misspoken, though. And I suspect that others have, as well.Did Hinckley ever made such a statement on this subject to the national media when he did not dissemble or as you prefer to think of "flub" a little bit, but instead state plainly that God was once a Man and men may become gods just like Him is in fact a doctrine of the Church that is regularly, though not frequently, taught in Gospel Doctrine class and in High School and College religion courses, but that the particular details about God's life as a man are not presently known or revealed?
Deborah Posted March 21, 2009 Author Posted March 21, 2009 This thread isn't about Billy's old canards which have been discussed ad infinitum elsewhere.
Deborah Posted March 21, 2009 Author Posted March 21, 2009 But beastie's posts and some of the resulting hostility seem symptomatic of much of what this discussion board seems to be about at times. I take it you haven't read very many of beastie's posts. I do agree however, we all would probably be better off not even responding since it causes so much frustration. Beastie like the rest of us made her choices, but it's a little disingenuous to put it all on the church.
beastie Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 I have some catching up to do, but will start here:You are truly at peace with the knowledge that you will cease to exist when you die? That's something most atheists profess, but which I cannot relate to at all.Yes, I am at peace with the idea that I will cease to exist when I die. I look at it this way. I didnâ??t exist prior to my birth, and that wasnâ??t a painful, frightening, or isolating reality. It was no reality at all. So why should the time after my death be any different?The only thing that stresses me about the fact that one day I will cease to exist is that it may cause pain to my loved ones who are still alive.
Deborah Posted March 21, 2009 Author Posted March 21, 2009 I have some catching up to do, but will start here: You've started quite a controversy. Enjoy your 15 minutes....
Billy Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Why didn't you answer my question? Was Peter Being Deceptive?Not only was Peter being deceptive, he LIED.Ive been to family Search and Ive seen the records. I wonder why none of his "Marriages" to other men are catalog there?What are you saying, that these women are not his wives?Individual Record FamilySearchâ?¢ Ancestral File v4.19Search Results | PrintJoseph SMITH (AFN: 9KGL-W2) Pedigree Sex: M FamilyEvent(s) Birth: 23 Dec 1805 Sharon, Windsor, Vermont Death: 27 Jun 1844 Carthage Jail, Hancock, Illinois Burial: 29 Jun 1844 Nauvoo, Hancock, Illinois Parents Father: Joseph SMITH (AFN: 4C9X-LR) FamilyMother: Lucy MACK (AFN: 4C9X-MX) Marriage(s)Spouse: Catherine WALKER (AFN: 1CB1-M7) FamilyMarriage: Spouse: Sarah SCOTT (AFN: 1Z2L-ST) FamilyMarriage: Spouse: Sarah STILES (AFN: 8R67-VW) FamilyMarriage: Spouse: Desdemona Wadsworth FULLMER (AFN: 2S9J-LX) FamilyMarriage: 1842 Nauvoo, Hancock, Il Spouse: Sarah LAWRENCE (AFN: 8R65-X0) FamilyMarriage: Abt 11 1843 May Spouse: Mary Elizabeth ROLLINS (AFN: 17RW-FT) FamilyMarriage: 17 Jan 1842 Nauvoo, Hancock, Il Spouse: Emma HALE (AFN: 91T1-HN) FamilyMarriage: 18 Jan 1827 South Bainbridge, Chenango, Ny Spouse: Amanda Melissa BARNES (AFN: 1S4B-X9) FamilyMarriage: Sealed 19 1852 Jan Salt Lake City, Ut Spouse: Sylvia Porter SESSIONS (AFN: 1H4D-3M) FamilyMarriage: 26 Jan 1846 Spouse: Zina Diantha HUNTINGTON (AFN: 8R65-S9) FamilyMarriage: 27 Oct 1841 Nauvoo, Hancock, Il Spouse: Mary HOUSTON (AFN: 2HDJ-8W) FamilyMarriage: 3 Feb 1846 Spouse: Nancy Mariah WINCHESTER (AFN: 34HH-3H) FamilyMarriage: 3 Feb 1846 Spouse: Helen Mar KIMBALL (AFN: 1FZD-48) FamilyMarriage: May 1843 Smith's Store, Nauvoo, Hancock, Il Spouse: Lucy WALKER (AFN: 3FNF-72) FamilyMarriage: 1 May 1843 Smith's Store, Nauvoo, Hancock, Il Spouse: Rhoda RICHARDS (AFN: 1F72-5R) FamilyMarriage: 12 Jun 1843 Nauvoo, Illinois Spouse: Eliza Roxey SNOW (AFN: 272Q-KP) FamilyMarriage: 29 Jun 1842 Smith's Store, Nauvoo, Hancock, Il Spouse: Sarah Ann WHITNEY (AFN: 3LTZ-0W) FamilyMarriage: 27 Jul 1842 Nauvoo, Hnck, Il Spouse: Martha MCBRIDE (AFN: 1JJW-V0) FamilyMarriage: Aug 1842 Smith's Store, Nauvoo, Hancock, Il Spouse: Malissa LOTT (AFN: 1CZR-T8) FamilyMarriage: 20 Sep 1843 Nauvoo, Illinois Spouse: Fanny YOUNG (AFN: 1BK5-VM) FamilyMarriage: 2 Nov 1843 Spouse: Prescendia Lathrop HUNTINGTON (AFN: 1RBQ-97) FamilyMarriage: 11 Dec 1841 Smith's Store, Nauvoo, Hancock, Il Spouse: Sophronia Gray FROST (AFN: 2HZ7-PN) FamilyMarriage: Spouse: Melissa SNOW (AFN: 272Q-N7) FamilyMarriage: Spouse: Cordelia Calista MORLEY (AFN: 1CP9-HR) FamilyMarriage:
Billy Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Again a deceptive tactic, are you saying that Joseph had only one wife in 1844?I think Joseph lied when he said that he had only one wife in 1844. And I think that you are trying to justify this lie by implying that Joseph did not really lie because he did not have more than one wife in 1844.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Just to be clear, before I answer you, are you calling me a liar, or JS?Yeah you liar.
Billy Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 This thread isn't about Billy's old canards which have been discussed ad infinitum elsewhere.You are absolutely correct. This is not about me, this is about deception among the leaders of the LDS church. Thanks for reminding me and the other posters.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 You are absolutely correct. This is not about me, this is about deception among the leaders of the LDS church. Thanks for reminding me and the other posters.No it isnt, you are deliberatly try to decieve me, the title of this thread is "For those who felt deceived, and left the church"
Jeff K. Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Translation: Don't blame the missionaries for only giving you milk. You should have been searching for meat on your own before you were baptized.Translation: When one person deceives another person, it's not the person doing the deceiving who is in the wrong, it is the one being deceived. Always blame the victim. Caveat Emptor.Translation: All people have the same degree of access and skepticism. The only reason why you were deceived is that you were lazy.Translation: there is no excuse for a person being deceived. Anyone who is deceived in light of all the freely available information they might not know about or be aware of or even think to examine is simply gullible and lazy and is not justified in crying foul because the Church conveniently left out potentially embarrassing facts about its history and doctrines in the haste to convert and baptize new members.Translation: Don't blame the Missionaries for deceiving you, it's your own d*** fault.I speak four languages, three of them fluently (getting better at English). I must admit I have never seen someone mistranslate so consistently. So allow me to correct your erroneous translations.QUOTE(Jeff K. @ Mar 20 2009, 08:03 AM) No, your lack of rigor in both the spiritual and intellectual reflects your shortcoming. Its your agency and your right to choose. Breast feeding usually stops a few months after you are born, after a while you need to learn to feed yourself.Translation: Don't blame the missionaries for only giving you milk. You should have been searching for meat on your own before you were baptized.Don't blame the missionaries for doing their job, teaching the basics of the gospel. It is stupid to believe that a 19 year old is a versed scholar. Within the context of your life it is you that is responsible for what you know and what you accept and what you reject. It is a basic tenet of agency. Which is one of the cornerstones of our religion.QUOTE(Jeff K. @ Mar 20 2009, 08:03 AM) I told you where to look. And yet, you couldn't even think to ask people. Was it that unimportant to you? Your excuses for not taking responsibility for your life and your own actions are extraordinary to say the least. You place your entire philosophy of life in the hands of a 19 year old missionary and then blame them for not breast feeding you all the information you need. Its almost pathetic.Translation: When one person deceives another person, it's not the person doing the deceiving who is in the wrong, it is the one being deceived. Always blame the victim. Caveat Emptor.The presumption of deception is itself a lie and a comfort to those who seek self deception rather than responsibility. Missionaries are 19 year old kids and sincere in their beliefs. The only deception foisted upon anyone here is the comical idea that you can blame someone else for your own ignorance and blatant stupidity when choosing a life philosophy and not taking it seriously enough.As a side note, its like a drunken driver blaming the pedestrian for not wearing brighter clothes when they hit someone.QUOTE(Jeff K. @ Mar 20 2009, 08:03 AM) You might have been a gullible 19 year old, but now you are a responsibility dodging, older person who will grasp any excuse other than their own shortcomings. And when someone else who was 16 at the time steps up and tells you what they were doing at the time, you suddenly find it "hard to believe".Translation: All people have the same degree of access and skepticism. The only reason why you were deceived is that you were lazy.All people have the same level or agency and no one forces them to remain ignorant or grow knowledgeable, it is all based on your individual desire to learn something. No one decieved you, you simply chose to remain ignorant rather than learn, regardless of when you made the decision. The fact that you now have flitted (apparently quite easily) to yet another life philosophy simply reflects how shallow you tend to approach important decisions.QUOTE(Jeff K. @ Mar 20 2009, 08:03 AM) The first thing you should do is splash some cold water on yourself, then mature and maybe face the responsibility that you are responsible for your decisions and stop looking for excuses that someone else is at fault. Even in the 1970's there was plenty of opinion and information (especially during the attempted passing of the ERA). What you offer is not even a good excuse.Translation: there is no excuse for a person being deceived. Anyone who is deceived in light of all the freely available information they might not know about or be aware of or even think to examine is simply gullible and lazy and is not justified in crying foul because the Church conveniently left out potentially embarrassing facts about its history and doctrines in the haste to convert and baptize new members.There is no excuse for a person to act stupidly when information is available from many sources, with opinions held by many people (no one in the 1970's said "whats a Mormon"). Anyone who has the information and opinion of the day and does not act upon it, in order to learn more, is indeed gullible, lazy and not justified in calling anyone else deceptive. Especially two 19 year old men who are sincere in their approach and believe what they do. That is not deception. Now if you want to delve is some ridiculous grand conspiracy theory, I can only wish you luck translation your warped version of the Da Vinci Code. I am sure you and Tom Hanks will be very happy together.QUOTE(Jeff K. @ Mar 20 2009, 08:03 AM) For your benefit:The "hard time" is of your own making, not the missionaries.Translation: Don't blame the Missionaries for deceiving you, it's your own d*** fault. Ahh, very true and absolutely correct. The problem isn't the Church or it's Doctrine, they are both Solid Gold! The problem lies within the Hypocritical, elitist members who think they are better than non-members. Members don't leave the Gospel or the Doctrine, they leave because of the people.. It's about your relationship with our Savior, not anyone else. But like alot of fine organizations, unfortunately people ruin it! God Bless ya! If you leave because of the people then you don't deserve the doctrine. I am sure Judas Iscariot left because of the people and Peter remained because of the doctrine.
Billy Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 BillyI just want to be perfectly clear here. I take it that you know what I am talking about here??I remember the little white book. I just fished it out of my file cabinet. It is 4.5" tall x 3 5/8" wide. I just have the shell, my rail passes, and my little white card that says ". . .is a duly ordained minister of the gospel. . .We inite all people to give heed to his message. . ." Is this the white Bible that you are speaking about?
Billy Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Don't blame the missionaries for doing their job, teaching the basics of the gospel. It is stupid to believe that a 19 year old is a versed scholar.Oh that is a nice touch. Don't expect full disclosure because "It is stupid to believe that a 19 year old is a versed scholar."
beastie Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Beastie like the rest of us made her choices, but it's a little disingenuous to put it all on the church.Iâ??m not â??putting it all on the churchâ?. And, btw, Iâ??d like to know which parts of my story â??has holesâ? - a clear insinuation that Iâ??m lying.All human beings, including those who run religions, are responsible for their own choices and actions. So while my own gullibility, fueled by my young age and eagerness to resolve the â??god questionâ? that had plagued me since my early teens, when I first began to doubt the existence of the god Iâ??d been taught about in the Bible and the Methodist church, canâ??t be blamed on any external source, that doesnâ??t negate the church leadersâ?? responsibility for their own choices and actions.It is indisputable that church leaders have, since its institution, made decisions about what information to openly share, what information to emphasize, and what information to ignore or downplay â?? or, at times, seek to suppress. That is the nature of leading any group of people. Those decisions are their responsibilities. The fact that I was particularly na
Billy Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 No it isnt, you are deliberatly try to decieve me, the title of this thread is "For those who felt deceived, and left the church"For those who were deceived that left the church, who do you think were the deceivers?
Deborah Posted March 21, 2009 Author Posted March 21, 2009 Iâ??m not â??putting it all on the churchâ?. And, btw, Iâ??d like to know which parts of my story â??has holesâ? - a clear insinuation that Iâ??m lying. actually it's intended to point out that we deceive ourselves as much as anyone else about what our motivations are. In any case I just think people often forget what they once knew or the history changes because of faulty memories. I just think you probably heard more than you remember and just forgot and now you are trying to say the church somehow played a part in that.
Jeff K. Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 QUOTEApparently you do care.No I don't care that you think you need to call it as you see it. I note it just so others can see hubris in actionSorry Teancum, but the mere action of posting reflects it.QUOTEAnd it is truthful regardless of your own opinion.No it is not truth. It is false. I would suggest that you realm of experience at least currently is insufficient to opine on the sincerity or lack there of about someone's own spiritual journey away from a faith they truly loves and believed. Were someones to treat you the way you are treating beastie over your testimony of the LDS Church you would no doubt bristle.Your suggestion is noted, chuckle, but my experience is fairly deep and with a great deal more understanding of how people look for any excuse to justify their action, no matter how flimsy.I expect people to treat me like an adult, and let me know when I am blaming others for my own misdeeds. Perhaps you want to play babysitter. I presume a certain level of maturity from people in their 40's. I don't see it reflected in her posts.QUOTEEverypoint I raised has been legitimate even if the package its wrapped in isn't with the nicest bow.No not really. Is this where I reply, no really "you are". My points are legitimate and unlike your little sentence fully explained as can be attested to the length I go through in a attempt to fully explain its simplist form.QUOTEI don't talk of the loss of faith as if it is some kind of cosmic accident she didn't see coming. Beastie chose to let go or lose her faith on step at a time, she chose the path she is on.No not really. That is not how she describes it. And since you are not in her shoes you cannot know this. Again, if she questioned the validity of your spiritual experiences I submit you would have a fit.That is exactly how she describes it. She can't take seriously the fact others do research, she can't take responsibility for her own actions and prefers the charge of deception from others. It is that type of immaturity that requires someone to say "enough, and "grow up".QUOTEAnd then like some spoilt child she blames others for the path she took, and claims betrayal when every choice made, in all those situations were her choices and no one elses.The only blame or compliant I see her making is that the Church is not open about difficult historical issues. This is a simple fact. And at least when she joined resources were not readily available to do a thorough due diligence. Perhaps now they are what with the internet and all. But still, the LDS proselyting process does not encourage this at all. Missionaries typically are pushed to baptize people quickly by teaching the basics, getting the investigator to feel the spirit and get a testimony then get baptized. This is how we did it when I was a missionary. All they needed to know was that JS was a prophet and commit to the commandments and all the rest would fall into place. I don't see a whole lot of difference today."Honest officer Pete, I only killed the first guy". The difficult historical issues for anyone to find if they research and they exist for anyone that seeks to ask an opinion. Mormonism isn't some little known group for which no one has an opinion. It isn't the Millard Fillmore of religion. It has always excited strong opinion by both those who do know the religion somewhat and those who know it very little. And we are expected to believe that no one ventured a negative opinion to this poor misbetten beastie child? Sorry, that itself is a huge hole and reflects her own laziness in the arena.Your own reflection is rife with ignorance. All you needed to know was irrelevant to what you agreed with. If you believed certain things then you were indeed baptised. But the question is belief. No one forces you to believe anything, you are expected to seek out knowledge and then believe. Apparently both of you seem a little light in that level of understanding.QUOTEOne wonders when people will mature and take responsibility for their own actions. Even years later its still somebody elses fault.One wonders what fosters such a condemning and harsh attitude.A lack of patience with lunacy, whining individuals, and people trying to blame others for their decisions.Iâ??m not â??putting it all on the churchâ?. And, btw, Iâ??d like to know which parts of my story â??has holesâ? - a clear insinuation that Iâ??m lying.You can be a self pitying blob of self delusion and still not lie.It is indisputable that church leaders have, since its institution, made decisions about what information to openly share, what information to emphasize, and what information to ignore or downplay â?? or, at times, seek to suppress. That is the nature of leading any group of people. Those decisions are their responsibilities. The fact that I was particularly na
Billy Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 actually it's intended to point out that we deceive ourselves as much as anyone else about what our motivations are. In any case I just think people often forget what they once knew or the history changes because of faulty memories. I just think you probably heard more than you remember and just forgot and now you are trying to say the church somehow played a part in that.Why do LDS always blame the other person such as you did when you stated, "you probably heard more than you remember"? This happens over and over again, it must be some sort of unconscious defense mechanism.
Jeff K. Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Oh that is a nice touch. Don't expect full disclosure because "It is stupid to believe that a 19 year old is a versed scholar."Let me guess, the missionaries really are versed scholars and so they aren't fully disclosing all they know?You really believe that?
Billy Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Let me guess, the missionaries really are versed scholars and so they aren't fully disclosing all they know?You really believe that?Absolutely I think that they know some of these basic facts. I certainly did when I was on my mission. Things such as God the Father having a wife, Jesus being the brother of the Devil, God was a man prior to becoming a God, following in the footsteps of God and becoming a God someday and populating future worlds.But I don't think that they know some of the deeper stuff like the King Follett discourse, Adam God theory, or about Blood Atonement.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Why do LDS always blame the other person such as you did when you stated, "you probably heard more than you remember"? This happens over and over again, it must be some sort of unconscious defense mechanism.Geeze Billy are you ignorant of how the human memory works. Good greif I can barley rember any thing that happened last week.It is a very valid point. If you dont keep using that which you have learned you are going to forget it.DO you blame the school because you can no longer remember you mid school locker combination.
Jeff K. Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 QUOTE(Jeff K. @ Mar 20 2009, 06:08 PM) Let me guess, the missionaries really are versed scholars and so they aren't fully disclosing all they know?You really believe that?Absolutely I think that they know some of these basic facts. I certainly did when I was on my mission. Things such as God the Father having a wife, Jesus being the brother of the Devil, God was a man prior to becoming a God, following in the footsteps of God and becoming a God someday and populating future worlds.But I don't think that they know some of the deeper stuff like the King Follett discourse, Adam God theory, or about Blood Atonement. Discussed some of those things on my mission. Perhaps you are more deceptive than I. So no, I don't think 19 year olds are well versed. Nor do I think their job is beyond teaching the basics, anymore than the apostle Peter was supposed to be a scholar. He simply testified of the Christ, he did not go into the vagaries of circumcision.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Absolutely I think that they know some of these basic facts. I certainly did when I was on my mission. Things such as God the Father having a wife, Jesus being the brother of the Devil, God was a man prior to becoming a God, following in the footsteps of God and becoming a God someday and populating future worlds.But I don't think that they know some of the deeper stuff like the King Follett discourse, Adam God theory, or about Blood Atonement.Billy,I take offense to this, I never lied to anybody about any thing in the mission field about points of doctirne. FYI It was never doctrine that God was a man prior to becomeing God. Please dont take the King Follet discourse out of context. Sorry your going to have to do better than that.The mer fact that you keep bring these same old canards up, makes me think that you are intentionally doing it over and over as to decieve. And it has been exlpaind a million times. You just refuse to accept the answers and the doctrine, becuase you have such a huge agenda acgainst it. This isnt my probelm though and your going to have to figure it out.
staccato Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Let me guess, the missionaries really are versed scholars and so they aren't fully disclosing all they know?You really believe that? I guess we could suppose that by putting innocent, uneducated blokes out into the mission field the "church" can operate under plausible deniability if misinformation or omission of information occurs.
Jeff K. Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 So only Phd's should be out there? Is that reasonable? Was Jesus calling upon Peter the apostle an exercise in plausible deniability? I really haven't seen the requirement of deep understanding into arcane gospel opinions to be a requirement to testify of Christ but wait with baited breath.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.