Chapel Mormons

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Oh it helps so much that all of us ExMormons that have experienced this are viewed as "whiny tripe".

but I shouldn't have to be an adult Mormon, fighting attacks from "outsiders" that know more facts about the church I was raised in then I do!

SO why is this the churches fault?

[Redefined]

SO why is this the churches fault?

It's about loyalty and trust.

[ttribe]

It's about loyalty and trust.

Nonsense. It's about personal responsibility.

Why won't you answer the questions I posed to you?

[Redefined]

Again, please answer my questions - Post Link

Refer to post #511.

[ttribe]

Refer to post #511.

That's not an answer to my questions...I should know, I asked them.

[wenglund]

When even the best of LDS feel that the church wasn't forthcoming, then that is cause for concern, and maybe the church should work on this. . . because, if that is all it is, and it is no big deal one way or the other, then why not work on correcting this misunderstanding rather than lose more and more members because of the such misunderstood "faith-promoting policy". I don't think it would be to much to add certain "insignificant" facts into lessons.

I am touched by your concern for the Church and your wish to prevent the loss of more and more members.

However, it may help for you to correctly understand that if people are losing faith over the absence of certain "insignificant" facts in the lesson, then they really don't understand what the gospel of Christ is really all about to begin with. That, to me, is the real problem.

As such, instead of including the "insignificant" facts in the lessons, thereby masking the problem (addressing symptoms rather than causes), it makes more sense to devote lesson time to teaching members what the gospel is really all about--which, not coincidentally, is exactly what the Church has long been doing.

If you and Mark and others correctly understood what the restored gospel is really all about, you would have already known this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

but I shouldn't have to be an adult Mormon, fighting attacks from "outsiders" that know more facts about the church I was raised in then I do!

The vast majority of outsiders know much, much less about the Church than you do. Those who do know more know because they've chosen to actually study it (as opposed to those who think they know more because they just accept the arguments of others as the truth, the whole truth, etc....).

I expect someone who studies something more than I do to know more about a subject than I do. It seems common sense to me. If you don't want to be placed in that situation (not sure what is so horrible about it in the first place...great motivator for personal study for one thing), then the obvious solution is to study to see just how much you know about something rather than assuming you know everything that's important to know or enough so you won't look like an idiot if someone asks about your religion or whatever your standard of 'enough knowledge' is.

[Wiki Wonka]

I will take Daniel Peterson's word that there are sources with such information. I don't think it is too much to ask to add that into the lesson when talking about Joseph Smith's matrydom. It is at least more significant to history to show Joseph Smith in the least was willing to defend himself. In the least it is more significant then the fact that Joseph Smith was good at grappling.

A list of sources mentioning the gun, taken from here: Hiding Joseph's gun We're still adding to this list.

There's also a picture there of the gun displayed in the Church History Museum. I also showed a filmstrip called "The Martyrdom" on my mission in the late 70s that described how the gun was given to Joseph. We showed it to every investigator.

1844

* George T. M. Davis, of Alton, Illinois, An Authentic Account of the Massacre of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, and Hyram Smith, his brother, together with a Brief History of the Rise and Progress of Mormonism, and all the circumstances which led to their death (St. Louis 1844); also quoted in

[volgadon]

There's no accounting for taste. You may well like that quotation, but I simply can't agree that the writings of Leonard Arrington, Davis Bitton, James Allen, Thomas Alexander, Carol Cornwall Madsen, Richard Bushman, Mark Ashurst-McGee, Richard Lloyd Anderson, Grant Underwood, Jill Mulvay Derr, Steven Harper, Ronald Esplin, etc. -- many of them friends of mine -- are dishonest. And I defy you or Francis Nelson Henderson (whoever that is) to demonstrate that they are.

Only a dishonest zealot like Leonard Arrington, out to distort and conceal the facts about church history, would dare publish such a book as Saints Without Halos.

Seriously, she has no idea what she is talking about.

[Calm]

It's about loyalty and trust.

If by this you mean that those who blame the Church when they find themselves in a situation where they feel out of their depth and assume the Church has been intentionally hiding information from them, then I would agree that this shows a lack of loyalty and trust on the part of the individual.

[Chaos]

Refer to post #511.

Give the documentation you were asked for or leave the thread. You are derailing the thread.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's about loyalty and trust.

Ok in light that the church doesn't hide it history and even......gasp......prints its history, you think that the church is some how lying to you? I don't get it. The church prints it's own history. You fail to read it, and it is the churched fault, how?

Keep in mind that I am trying to be sensitive to your issues here. They are very real to you and I am trying to repsect that. I can't for the life of me see the justifcation you are placing on your situation though, given the relvant facts and materials.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If by this you mean that those who blame the Church when they find themselves in a situation where they feel out of their depth and assume the Church has been intentionally hiding information from them, then I would agree that this shows a lack of loyalty and trust on the part of the individual.

You said it better than I could have. I know, I tried and mine sounded like I was being an ***.

[Calm]

As well as each of the Primary, Seminary and Institute manual that deals with Church History. So that makes for every age group except Nursery getting taught about the gun.

I'd like to know what class is left that Redefined and others think should be teaching this.

I'd like Redefined to answer my question as well, I'll even repeat it in question form so as to make it obvious.

The 'gun' incident is taught in Primary, Sunday School Gospel Doctrine (which covers ages 14 up IIRC), Seminary and Institute Church History courses.

So....what church class do you think this event is relevant to, but is missing from the curriculum?

[Deborah]

Oh it helps so much that all of us ExMormons that have experienced this are viewed as "whiny tripe".

I did not call them whiny tripe, I said that statement was whiny tripe; it exemplified the shifting of personal responsibility for one's choices to the big bad church.

How about not teaching that the "mob" consisted of bigoted haters that just wanted to persecute Joseph Smith for his religion. . . oh those weren't the words exactly. . . well that is how it is coming across to a very large amount of people. What was the Mob's problem?

I have no idea what you are talking about. What would you call a black-faced mob that came with the intent to kill men who had not had a trial or been convicted of anything? You tell us what the mob's problem was if not pure hatred of a faith and a people they had every intention of wiping out.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have no idea what you are talking about. What would you call a black-faced mob that came with the intent to kill men who had not had a trial or been convicted of anything? You tell us what the mob's problem was if not pure hatred of a faith and a people they had every intention of wiping out.

You didn't know that the mob really went ot kill JS and his buddies in love?

[Scott Lloyd]

I'd like Redefined to answer my question as well, I'll even repeat it in question form so as to make it obvious.

The 'gun' incident is taught in Primary, Sunday School Gospel Doctrine (which covers ages 14 up IIRC), Seminary and Institute Church History courses.

So....what church class do you think this event is relevant to, but is missing from the curriculum?

Maybe the Social Relations class that meets out in the foyer during the Sunday School hour.

Or the Got-Better-Things-To-Do-With-My-Sundays-Than-Sit-In-A-Stuffy-Chapel class.

Or the Can't-Be-Bothered-to-Crack-Open-A-Church-History-Book class.

Why isn't the Church reaching out to these folks? It's all about loyalty and trust, you see.

[Redefined]

I think it boils down to this too many people don't ever get the meat. It varies from individual to individual on what meat they got. If so many ExMormons are saying this is their experience, then it is their experience. . . they never got the meat! Why would I question what I was taught about Joseph Smith's Martrydom? The "spirit" never suggested that I wasn't getting the full story everything all felt so spiritual. . . what would be wrong? It would never have popped in my mind to go out searching for sources to see if Joseph Smith was truely a martyr. So when critics suggest that Joseph Smith was not the Martyr I was taught he was. The first thing to pop into my head would be "the work of the devil trying to lead my mind astray". . . scriptures like Mosiah 4:30 would come to mind. Secondly. . . is there any LDS material suggesting that Joseph Smith wasn't a Martyr? If the church doesn't encourage critical exploration, then it doesn't help it's members come to an informed decision.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it boils down to this too many people don't ever get the meat. It varies from individual to individual on what meat they got. If so many ExMormons are saying this is their experience, then it is their experience. . . they never got the meat! Why would I question what I was taught about Joseph Smith's Martrydom? The "spirit" never suggested that I wasn't getting the full story everything all felt so spiritual. . . what would be wrong? It would never have popped in my mind to go out searching for sources to see if Joseph Smith was truely a martyr. So when critics suggest that Joseph Smith was not the Martyr I was taught he was. The first thing to pop into my head would be "the work of the devil trying to lead my mind astray". . . scriptures like Mosiah 4:30 would come to mind. Secondly. . . is there any LDS material suggesting that Joseph Smith wasn't a Martyr? If the church doesn't encourage critical exploration, then it doesn't help it's members come to an informed decision.

Did it occur to you to think critically about what the antagonists were saying? To question their reasoning? What is it about the circumstances surrounding the murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith that disqualifies them from being classed as martyrs?

Hint: a martyr is one who refuses to renounce his principles or beliefs as a condition for being allowed to remain alive.

Maybe it's the critics who are out of kilter with their presumed definitions.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think it boils down to this too many people don't ever get the meat. It varies from individual to individual on what meat they got. If so many ExMormons are saying this is their experience, then it is their experience. . . they never got the meat! Why would I question what I was taught about Joseph Smith's Martrydom? The "spirit" never suggested that I wasn't getting the full story everything all felt so spiritual. . . what would be wrong? It would never have popped in my mind to go out searching for sources to see if Joseph Smith was truely a martyr. So when critics suggest that Joseph Smith was not the Martyr I was taught he was. The first thing to pop into my head would be "the work of the devil trying to lead my mind astray". . . scriptures like Mosiah 4:30 would come to mind. Secondly. . . is there any LDS material suggesting that Joseph Smith wasn't a Martyr? If the church doesn't encourage critical exploration, then it doesn't help it's members come to an informed decision.

You now need to demonstrate that JS was not a martyr. This is what you are saying. The fact is that JS was a martyr and I have yet seen a reasonable reason why JS would not be classified as such.

And for the record the church has always expressed its views that you read, study, get an education, and find the truth for your self. They have even.......gasp.....printed it's own history for you to read.

Why would the church suggest that JS not be a martyr when he was in fact a martyr. This makes no sense.

We should look to see if the number 4 is not really the number 5 so we can better understand the number 4.

[Calm]

The "spirit" never suggested that I wasn't getting the full story everything all felt so spiritual. . . what would be wrong?

This is seriously how you view it?

I find this an incredibly naive idea.

When I took US History in High School, I never assumed that I was getting the full story and that was with a 5 day, 1 hour class time with a pretty hefty textbook.

Why would anyone assume that they could get the full story of the Church and its leadership in a class that met once a week and on a good day had about a 30 minute lesson time PLUS had tons of repetition over the years and even more tons of stuff that had nothing to do with Church history and everything to do with how to live our lives better. Even seminary...well, just look at the manual, it's not even as academic as most High School textbooks are.

One only has to read the scriptures included in the lesson plans to realize that the "full story" is not being told. One has to only look at the 7 Volume History of the Church sitting on the shelf in the library to realize that the maybe 1/2 inch thick seminary Doctrine and Covenants manual was likely missing a few details.

Why in the world would the Spirit need to suggest anything that was obvious if one just used one's brain to consider the fact.

[Scott Lloyd]

Secondly. . . is there any LDS material suggesting that Joseph Smith wasn't a Martyr? If the church doesn't encourage critical exploration, then it doesn't help it's members come to an informed decision.

Why would the Church publish material suggesting he was not a martyr, when it is the Church's position that he was? That makes no sense.

It is up to the antagonists to substantiate, if they can, their notion that he was not a martyr. If their reasoning is fallacious, if it is persuasively rebutted, their argument fails.

That said, I have seen material wherein LDS scholars effectively rebut the notion that Joseph was not a martyr. It's available to read for anyone who has a question about it. Frankly, I think for most people in the Church, it's a no-brainer: Joseph was a martyr based on the definition I have given above.

[wenglund]

I think it boils down to this too many people don't ever get the meat.

Here's a news flash: Joseph having a gun in the Carthage jail, isn't the "meat" of the gospel, or the "desert", or an "Hors d'

[Redefined]

This is seriously how you view it?

I find this an incredibly naive idea.

When I took US History in High School, I never assumed that I was getting the full story and that was with a 5 day, 1 hour class time with a pretty hefty textbook.

Why would anyone assume that they could get the full story of the Church and its leadership in a class that met once a week and on a good day had about a 30 minute lesson time PLUS had tons of repetition over the years and even more tons of stuff that had nothing to do with Church history and everything to do with how to live our lives better.

One only has to read the scriptures included in the lesson plans to realize that the "full story" is not being told. One has to only look at the 7 Volume History of the Church sitting on the shelf in the library to realize that the maybe 1/2 inch thick history manual was likely missing a few details.

Why in the world would the Spirit need to suggest anything that was obvious if one just used one's brain to consider the fact.

Frankly, my upbringing didn't cultivate anything but naivety. Call me a very trusting and willing child. . . there were so many like me out there. I feel like everyone wants to say, "look at the fool!" HAHAHA what an idiot. . . but I guess I am an advocate for all of us "idiots" that didn't get it.

[Calm]

Martyrs of the Alamo

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0005719/

Someone should start a protest about what a lie this movie title is considering all the guns these guys were packing and that they actually managed to kill quite a few of the their attackers only makes it worse.....

And even more horrifying, the State is brainwashing all those children of schools and civic groups who have fieldtrips they even call "pilgrimage" to honour these so-called matyrs!

http://books.google.com/books?id=YVYkrNhPMQkC&pg=PT49&dq=alamo+martyrs&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=alamo%20martyrs&f=false