Chapel Mormons

[Doctor Steuss]

In fairness to Markk, I think his post allowed enough ambiguity to conceivably allow leeway that he advanced to the level of an Elder.

Maybe.

(Although I currently stand by my Tannerism)

<--- Poker of beehives.

[Scott Lloyd]

I "echo" only validation that the experience isn't unique to himself. Many ExMormons feel this way. Mr. Henderson's claim that I quoted above, is perfectly stated as to my opinion of the church's honesty. His whole exit statement resonated with me in every way.

Do you mean to ignore, as Markk has done here, the many Church sources that have been named in which the fact of Joseph Smith receiving a smuggled pistol at Carthage is recounted?

[Scott Lloyd]

In fairness to Markk, I think his post allowed enough ambiguity to conceivably allow leeway that he advanced to the level of an Elder.

Maybe.

(Although I currently stand by my Tannerism)

<--- Poker of beehives.

I think no one here as yet denied that may be the case.

[Redefined]

In implying that they are dishonest (which you seem to be doing here) you are obliged to substantiate such a claim.

By the way, not all of the scholars Daniel named are men. I suspect you are not even acquainted with their work.

You are correct, I realized that while I was writing I just didn't correct it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In fairness to Markk, I think his post allowed enough ambiguity to conceivably allow leeway that he advanced to the level of an Elder.

Maybe.

(Although I currently stand by my Tannerism)

<--- Poker of beehives.

There is that, which is why I kept saying that I am interested, and in due time, Markk will tell us his point of view. Good times.

[Calm]

I think this is the point. I can't understand why Markk thinks this is such a negative thing. I can't see how this can even be close to being a testimony breaker, or even to place the seeds of doubt. Js defended himself and that means that he was an evil vile man. Does Markk also think that Elijah (I think it was Elijah) was a bad man for sending the bears to kill the kids becasue they made fun of him?

I suspect that it is the use of "lamb to the slaughter" which is often seen by critics as Joseph Smith equating himself to the Saviour that is the key here to their approach. Thus they hasten to point out that he did not actually go as a lamb, etc. etc. and try to demonstrate that he was a liar, deceiver and anything but Christlike in his behaviour in his final days. And showing them that the behaviour is not inconsistent with those they acknowledge as prophets is not sufficient because it is Christ they see as the essential comparison.

I also suspect that if he had never said that or if it hadn't been recorded, they would still find a way to be offended at the idea of describing it as a "Martyrdom" anything that might elevate JS's motivations above greed and lust being problematic for most who find this as significant issue.

Christ knew that in order to complete his mission he had to die. He gave himself up willingly in order to accomplish this. That is what is remarkable in my view to his death, not that he went quietly at that time (he certainly resisted getting caught or tricked into doing something they could arrest him for prior to this time....does that make him any less "Christlike"?).

Lambs don't exactly go willingly to their death, they don't have a clue what is going on after all. The use of the term "lamb" is to connect the dots to the idea of "sacrifice" as opposed to a death that is unnecessary or for a mundane reason imo. That was exactly what Joseph was doing, he was sacrificing himself for the good of his people as had Christ and many prophets before him. But for some reason this comparison horrifies some individuals even while they think of themselves in following in Christ's footsteps in other ways.

I see no inherent reason that sacrificing himself for others can't include making it difficult for his assassins when the time came.

[Scott Lloyd]

I suspect that it is the use of "lamb to the slaughter" which is often seen by critics as Joseph Smith equating himself to the Saviour that is the key here to their approach. Thus they hasten to point out that he did not actually go as a lamb, etc. etc. and try to demonstrate that he was a liar, deceiver and anything but Christlike in his behaviour in his final days. And showing them that the behaviour is not inconsistent with those they acknowledge as prophets is not sufficient because it is Christ they see as the essential comparison.

I also suspect that if he had never said that or if it hadn't been recorded, they would still find a way to be offended at the idea of describing it as a "Martyrdom" anything that might elevate JS's motivations above greed and lust being problematic for most who find this as significant issue.

Christ knew that in order to complete his mission he had to die. He gave himself up willingly in order to accomplish this. That is what is remarkable in my view to his death, not that he went quietly at that time (he certainly resisted getting caught or tricked into doing something they could arrest him for prior to this time....does that make him any less "Christlike"?).

Lambs don't exactly go willingly to their death, they don't have a clue what is going on after all. The use of the term "lamb" is to connect the dots to the idea of "sacrifice" as opposed to a death that is unnecessary or for a mundane reason imo. That was exactly what Joseph was doing, he was sacrificing himself for the good of his people as had Christ and many prophets before him. But for some reason this comparison horrifies some individuals even while they think of themselves in following in Christ's footsteps in other ways.

I see no inherent reason that sacrificing himself for others can't include making it difficult for his assassins when the time came.

A very insightful analysis, calmoriah.

[Doctor Steuss]

I think no one here as yet denied that may be the case.

One of my many faults is that I often skim (which adversely impacts my reading comprehension).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A very insightful analysis, calmoriah.

I concour. It was a great analysis and it only makes my head itch more.

[Redefined]

We can rename it the "disease germ" policy.

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no47.htm

[Calm]

Sort of reminds me when Born-again Christians harass their family and friends who are looking into Mormonism. Then after the individual converts, he attends new member meetings, testimony meetings, an may seek after Mormon apologetic resources for self-validation to rationalize the conversion.

Conversion and deconversion often follow the same pattern. Juliann's posted some research studies into this if you are interested. Do a search through her posts to find the sources.

[ttribe]

We can rename it the "disease germ" policy.

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no47.htm

Uggghh...talk about twisting the facts to fit a theory.

[Calm]

church policy is that the only Mormon history told should be a so-called

[ttribe]

CFR if someone hasn't done this before on the alleged church policy that conceals controvesies and difficulties etc.....

Post Link

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

We can rename it the "disease germ" policy.

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no47.htm

Oh boy.

[Calm]

You are correct, I realized that while I was writing I just didn't correct it.

So you intentionally omitted information you knew. I guess that means we can now logically claim that you are being deceptive and trying suppress information, hiding history etc. etc.

[Redefined]

Uggghh...talk about twisting the facts to fit a theory.

If you say so.

[Bsix]

Funny...when I was raised in a traditional Christian setting I don't recall that there was any time spent on teaching me the negative, controversial, or obscure aspects of traditional Christian history or doctrine.

Those CADS!!! They deceived me.

Six

[ttribe]

If you say so.

You posted that up as evidence of a "policy" to hide Church history. However, throughout the course of this very thread there are NUMEROUS examples wherein the Church has published information about these so-called "controversial" issues. Which one are you going to take as evidence regarding this "policy"? If there is a policy, why does the Church continue to violate it itself? If there isn't a policy why would critics need to assert that there is one? Perhaps these are the questions you need to answer for yourself.

[Redefined]

So you intentionally omitted information you knew. I guess that means we can now logically claim that you are being deceptive and trying suppress information, hiding history etc. etc.

Well let me clarify. . . I saw that I had said that, the thought crossed my mind that I needed to change that to say individuals, I forgot about it while constructing the rest of my comment, and I hit post without correcting it. When it was pointed out to me in a subsequent post, I acknowledged my mistake, I can go fix it if everyone would like me to.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well let me clarify. . . I saw that I had said that, the thought crossed my mind that I needed to change that to say individuals, I forgot about it while constructing the rest of my comment, and I hit post without correcting it. When it was pointed out to me in a subsequent post, I acknowledged my mistake, I can go fix it if everyone would like me to.

You appear to have missed calmoriah's point.

By the way, I said I suspected you are not acquainted with the historians Daniel Peterson mentioned. The fact that you initially waved away the whole bunch by referring to them as "these men" leads me to that conclusion. If you are not acquainted with the work of these authors who are employed by the Church, how can you claim the Church has a policy of covering up aspects of its history?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If you say so.

http://www.utlm.org/...etters/no47.htm

"Since qualified historians had been working with these documents for ten years, we can see no legitimate reason why the Church would have to reclassify and reevaluate them at this time. We can only believe that this is a move to suppress the material from Church historians. Whether the Church can keep these things hidden remains to be seen. The bad publicity that this is bringing the Church could very well force the General Authorities to reconsider their decision."

Since it has been shown that the church is horrible at hiddin it history, what do you make of this statement. So much for the argument, and the "apostacy germs". This is not a very well written piece of propaganda. The church doesn't want people to know about its history so what does the church do? print it's history.

Still waiting for a refernce that the church is to only publish faith promoting history.

[ttribe]

Well let me clarify. . . I saw that I had said that, the thought crossed my mind that I needed to change that to say individuals, I forgot about it while constructing the rest of my comment, and I hit post without correcting it. When it was pointed out to me in a subsequent post, I acknowledged my mistake, I can go fix it if everyone would like me to.

No need to be a literalist in responding to cal...perhaps some reflection about double-standards would be in order, however.

[Redefined]

You posted that up as evidence of a "policy" to hide Church history. However, throughout the course of this very thread there are NUMEROUS examples wherein the Church has published information about these so-called "controversial" issues. Which one are you going to take as evidence regarding this "policy"? If there is a policy, why does the Church continue to violate it itself? If there isn't a policy why would critics need to assert that there is one? Perhaps these are the questions you need to answer for yourself.

This is interesting because I have been told in this forum that such and such specifics are insignificant. This is why they aren't incorporated into lesson plans.

[Redefined]

You appear to have missed calmoriah's point.

By the way, I said I suspected you are not acquainted with the historians Daniel Peterson mentioned. The fact that you initially waved away the whole bunch by referring to them as "these men" leads me to that conclusion. If you are not acquainted with the work of these authors who are employed by the Church, how can you claim the Church has a policy of covering up aspects of its history?

Did you read the link?