gitxsanartist Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 HordakI have only been a member of the church since 1958 but I have to tell you that I have never heard of some the things you bring up in your post. Where did you get some of this stuff? Have you been reading the God Makers again? Come on old buddy. You know that the JoD is not doctrine and that doctrine is established by living prophets and opinions by dead people are just opinions and not doctrine. You should know by now that deification is a first century Christian belief still believed by many of the early church fathers and spoke about clear into the fifth century. You should also know that the whole polygamy story is still not understood or told.Maybe you should hop on some of our own apologetics websites like FARMS and FAIR, you need some instruction my good brother. Whitewashing our history gets us no where. Lies, even small white lies, only pile up and become bigger. That is the reason why a person when finally confronted with all of the "warts" of church history usually comes away thoroughly shaken. Yes, let us begin teaching the real history of the church and discussing all of the issues even polgamy and polyandry. Honesty was the best policy for Abe Lincoln and I'm with Abe on that one.
Billy 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.Like I said above, when I was a missionary I knew about a lot of the unique distinctions between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity. I think it is only fair to give investigators an overview of the distinctions of Mormonism. This does not require a PhD or any other degree for that matter, but it would probably require a couple extra weeks in the MTC. These could include1. LDS belief in many Gods2. God is married3. You can become a God and have spiritual children which will then go on to populate a future world4. Baptism for the Dead5. God did not really create the world, rather organized it.6. LDS still believe in polygamy, just not to be practiced at this time.
gitxsanartist Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 For the record:I deny that the Church is dishonest with its history.Do you deny that the Church whitewashes its history then? Packer's comments about not teaching "non-faith promoting history"what are we to make of this?What do you make of the BY sunday school manual that depicts BY as a monogamist with no mention of his plural wives, if nothing else I find it insulting to BY himself and all that he preached whether it is doctrinal today or not.
Nemesis Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Yeah you liar.- Do not accuse others of lying, being delusional or make any other psychological assessments of posters because of a disagreement in belief systems.Don't do it again.Nemesis
Jeff K. Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Like I said above, when I was a missionary I knew about a lot of the unique distinctions between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity. I think it is only fair to give investigators an overview of the distinctions of Mormonism. This does not require a PhD or any other degree for that matter, but it would probably require a couple extra weeks in the MTC. These could include1. LDS belief in many Gods2. God is married3. You can become a God and have spiritual children which will then go on to populate a future world4. Baptism for the Dead5. God did not really create the world, rather organized it.6. LDS still believe in polygamy, just not to be practiced at this time.As I have stated many of those things were discussed during my mission and I was under no instruction not to discuss them. You would have to be pretty dumb in the 1970's not to know of those issues, especially given those issues were often discussed ad nauseum by just about everyone with a negative opinion of Mormons.
Ray Agostini Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 As I have stated many of those things were discussed during my mission and I was under no instruction not to discuss them. You would have to be pretty dumb in the 1970's not to know of those issues, especially given those issues were often discussed ad nauseum by just about everyone with a negative opinion of Mormons.Which books or sources in the 1970s revealed that Joseph Smith had 33 wives? Which books revealed, in the 1970s, that many of those wives were already married to other men?
ttribe Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 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.I'm guessing this was in response to me...even though you quoted yourself for some reason. First, I've attempted to justify nothing...I simply pointed out where I anticipated the argument going, I wasn't trying to take it there. You haven't actually asked for my opinion on the topic; rather, you've decided to TELL me my opinion. For that reason, I will not play your childish little games. Get back to me when you decide to start behaving like a grown up.For the record, I do have an opinion...and it may not be what you think it is.
Billy Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 As I have stated many of those things were discussed during my mission and I was under no instruction not to discuss them. You would have to be pretty dumb in the 1970's not to know of those issues, especially given those issues were often discussed ad nauseum by just about everyone with a negative opinion of Mormons.You overestimate what non mormons understand about your beliefs. You live in Orange County, go to South Coast Plaza and stop 25 people and ask them if they know that the LDS God was once a man on another planet. Report back your findings, I would be interested.Just look back during the campaign trail when Mike Huckabee mentioned that the Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers, if everybody already knew this then why was there such a stir?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 - Do not accuse others of lying, being delusional or make any other psychological assessments of posters because of a disagreement in belief systems.Don't do it again.NemesisAdmin forgive me, it was total tounge and check.
ttribe Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 - Do not accuse others of lying, being delusional or make any other psychological assessments of posters because of a disagreement in belief systems.Don't do it again.NemesisWith respect, Nemesis, I believe Mola's comment to me was a sarcastic response to my question to Billy. I asked Billy, straight out, whether he was accusing me of being a liar (which I believe was implicit in a previous comment to me). Mola was giving Billy a hard time on my behalf when I was away from the thread.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 With respect, Nemesis, I believe Mola's comment to me was a sarcastic response to my question to Billy. I asked Billy, straight out, whether he was accusing me of being a liar (which I believe was implicit in a previous comment to me). Mola was giving Billy a hard time on my behalf when I was away from the thread.This is absolutly correct.
Tarski Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Admin forgive me, it was total tounge and check.FYI,tongue in cheek nottongue and cheek or worse "tounge and check" (check?)Oh and it's tongue not "tounge"--- but I am the kettle calling the pot black when it comes to misspellings.
beastie Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 I really donâ??t know how to respond to the accusations that Iâ??m deluded or lying. Of course the human memory is flawed, and any of us can be led astray by our own memories. Having said that, I am confident in my memory when I stated that I knew next to nothing about Mormonism when the missionaries began teaching me, because it is consistent with what I recorded in the past and my general upbringing. Mormonism really isnâ??t that well known or understood in many parts of the US. Perhaps if I had been raised Baptist, I would have heard something about Mormonism from them, but I wasnâ??t. I was raised in the far more moderate Methodist faith, and wasnâ??t warned about suspect religions like the Baptists like to do. The assertion that others have made that one would be 'dumb' to not know in the seventies such details as baptism for the dead is bizarre. I assure you that, even today, there are plenty of people completely unaware of these sort of issues. The world doesn't revolve around mormonism nor does it revolve around EV anti-mormonism. In fact, I wasn't even certain of the distinction between Mennonites and Mormons when I first heard of my sister's conversion.Aside from that, there are seemingly directly contradictory assertions being made by various believers on this thread. One tactic is to state that it was my fault that I wasnâ??t more skeptical of the missionariesâ?? message, and I was negligent not to know to search for alternate information, perhaps by subscribing to a magazine I didnâ??t know existed, or asking for microfiches from a librarian about unknown topics. But then DCP states this:Nor do I see any evidence that Jesus gave a lot of time for his converts to do library research or field investigations before joining. The call to the disciples on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, for example, seems to have been pretty sudden and imperious. There was no full disclosure of all of the niceties of Christian doctrine, let alone an indication of the suffering and death that discipleship would bring to these men. "Come, follow me!" was the command. And it was a command.If I were negligent in my approach to investigating the church, it was a negligence encouraged by the LDS church, which obviously follows the description DCP offers here, versus the â??subscribe to the Ensignâ?, â??research the church on microfichesâ? approach suggested here, as well.So if I simply followed the path encouraged by the LDS church, which believes this is how the Lord has mandated conversions shall be, then how can I logically be accused of negligence by people who believe in this vision?BTW, I do appreciate the posters like Teancum who objected to the somewhat strident and accusatory tone some of have adopted on this thread.
ttribe Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 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.C'mon Jeff...this aggressiveness is over the top.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 FYI,tongue in cheek nottongue and cheek or worse "tounge and check" (check?)Oh and it's tongue not "tounge"--- but I am the kettle calling the pot black when it comes to misspellings.Dude, you got me here. "Sometimes" my spelling is better than this, but not tonight. Thanks for the heads up though I'll keep it in mind next time.I am quite embarrased by this too. Lol.
Ray Agostini Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 As I have stated many of those things were discussed during my mission and I was under no instruction not to discuss them. You would have to be pretty dumb in the 1970's not to know of those issues, especially given those issues were often discussed ad nauseum by just about everyone with a negative opinion of Mormons.For Jeff K's information:Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, Prophet's Wife, "Elect Lady," Polygamy's Foe, was not published until 1984. Van Wagoner's Mormon Polygamy: A History, was not published until 1989. Todd Compton's In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, was not published until 1997. Compton began his serious work in Mormon history as a Visiting Fellow at the Huntington Library studying the journals of Eliza R. Snow.[4] He found that his Classics background helped his Mormon history work by teaching him respect for these primary documents.[1] While researching, and trying to note people identified in Snow's journals, Compton found that he needed a good list of Joseph Smith's plural wives. Not finding one, he began researching his own list, which eventually grew into his 1997 book, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. (emphasis added)Yet Jeff states:You would have to be pretty dumb in the 1970's not to know of those issues, especially given those issues were often discussed ad nauseum by just about everyone with a negative opinion of Mormons.My next question to Jeff is: Have you read any of these books?
Zakuska Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Not only was Peter being deceptive, he LIED.What are you saying, that these women are not his wives?Individual Record FamilySearchâ?¢ Ancestral File v4.19Search Results | PrintJoseph SMITH (AFN: 9KGL-W2) PedigreeSex: 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 ParentsFather: 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:Not in the "conventional" sense, no. These women where "Sealed" to him. Look at the dates! I see five of them who where Infants sealed to him AFTER he was murdered. Now unless you think these women had a corpse groom... Theres a mother/daughter pair in the list. Have you ever read what their "Marriage" to Joseph consisted of? Joseph and Emma would stop by their house once a week to pick up his starched shirts and to drop off the dirty shirts from the previous week. Not much of a marriage. if you ask me.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 I read Mormon Enigma on my mission.I did that one too as well as the mormon puzzle. I think I already said that today, well about the latter one anyway.
beastie Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 I read Mormon Enigma on my mission.Wow. When I was a missionary back in the dark ages, we were only allowed to read the scriptures and a couple of other books: Miracle of Forgiveness, Jesus The Christ, and later Drawing on the Power of Heaven.
Tarski Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Dude, you got me here. "Sometimes" my spelling is better than this, but not tonight. Thanks for the heads up though I'll keep it in mind next time.I am quite embarrased by this too. Lol.You can catch me next time and get me back.
Ray Agostini Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 I read Mormon Enigma on my mission.Is your name Jeff K?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Not in the "conventional" sense, no. These women where "Sealed" to him. Look at the dates. Some of them were Infants sealed to him AFTER he was murdered. Theres a mother/daughter pair in the list. Have you ever read what their "Marriage" to Joseph consisted of? Joseph and Emma would stop by their house once a week to pick up his starched shirts and to drop of the shirts from the previous week.You mean like this one? Spouse: Amanda Melissa BARNES (AFN: 1S4B-X9) FamilyMarriage: Sealed 19 1852 Jan Salt Lake City, Ut How do the critics explain this one. Surley JS had relations with this wife? Right? I mean come on here.
ttribe Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Wow. When I was a missionary back in the dark ages, we were only allowed to read the scriptures and a couple of other books: Miracle of Forgiveness, Jesus The Christ, and later Drawing on the Power of Heaven.I read the entire 7 volume set of History of the Church...and a whole bunch of other books (can't remember them right now)...some were permanently in our apartment, some were borrowed from members.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 You can catch me next time and get me back.Un likley. I wrote for the news paper in high school. Oh boy.......Going back over and catching my mistakes were so hard for me.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.