As a "critic", what is your purpose or motivation?

[ozpoof]

ozpoop:

Why not? Saul/Paul was.

And although I believe Bruce R. McConkie was called of God, and was a valiant witness of Christ, and a true Apostle--I also think he made his share of mistakes when it came to doctrinal exposition. Of course, I don't require my prophets and apostles to be perfect all the time. It's enough for me that they are righteous and inspired more often than they're not. In fact, I'm pretty much convinced that God sends down to the leaders of His church just enough revelation to compensate for their mistakes and imperfections. And the older I get, the more I understand the divine wisdom at work in such a course of action.

So was he rebuked for the doctrine? was the book yanked off the shelves? How exactly do you tell when an "inspired" man is talking garbage? Apparently Joseph Smith couldn't even tell whether he was being inspired by good or evil spirits. HE said so after a group he sent to Canada to raise money to publish the BoM failed miserably. He was asked why it failed if he was told to do it by God.

What's disturbing in the modern church is that even if these men make mistakes, members are forbidden to challenge them. When did they become infallible?

[Calm]

He couldn't have been guilty of preaching false doctrine then be made an apostle.

Sure he could have. And since the Church leadership at the time required him to remove that from the book which he did for the 2nd ed. it would seem that he was and was corrected by those who were authorized to state what is and isn't LDS doctrine.

http://en.fairmormon.org/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon/Great_and_abominable_church&oldid=81017

[zerinus]

As well as you should. I for one do not think you are motivated by money here. I think you are a sincere person that has some objections to my faith and you see some issue with it. I really doubt you took up this profession solely for money. At least your posts do not bear this out.

Anyway, I hope you do not feel the need to justify the money you do make. It really does not matter. The only thing that matters and should matter is the criticism that you bring up.

You are welcome. I am glad you are here. I think you have some really good thoughts and it seems that you are not the run of the mill critic that some times sprouts up. I think it would truely be a bad thing if you were to leave as I think some of the best threads on this board inovlve the critisms you have brought and of course the responses to those critisms.

Look forward to many more exchanges on the board. Take care.

I am not sure which is worse, making money out of anti-Mormonism, or being an anti-Mormon which kelps you make a bit of money on the side! But I agree that Rob is not a typical anti-Mormon, and his criticisms help to liven up the debate. I have no problems with him posting here.

I don't think that EV's in general (Some do) hate all other faiths. They are zelous to point out that which they think is wrong, but hate is a strong word.

I don't know about "hate," but they are certainly far more intolerant of other religions than Mormons have been. In Mormonism, honourable and decent people of other religions will all be saved, though not perhaps in the highest degree of glory. The Evans believe that unless you believe in (their brand of) Christianity, you are a lost cause, and you are doomed to eternal damnation. For example, they believe that anybody who adheres to the religion of Islam is automatically damned, and are destined to eternally burn in hell unless they convert to (their brand of ) Christianity. Catholicism doesn't fare much better in their estimation. Contrast that with a doctrine such as this found in the Doctrine and Covenants:

D&C 45

:

54 And then shall the heathen nations be redeemed, and they that knew no law shall have part in the first resurrection; and it shall be tolerable for them.

Such a doctrine would be an "abomination" to an Evan! In reality the Evans are far more guilty of the very thing they accuse Mormons of. The main proof text they cite for their accusation against Mormonism is what the Lord said to Joseph Smith in the First Vision, that "their creeds is an abomination in his sight;" and overlook the context that makes it reasonably clear that by that comment the Lord was referring to the religious ministers of the day who were responsible for that religious revival that Joseph had been experiencing. He was not condemning the historical creeds of Christendom. In modern revelation the Lord has specifically commanded Latter-day saints to: "Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil" (D&C 18:20). They are the very ones who are constantly "contending" against every religion that is not their own. If you have been to other boards you will have notices how hateful they are towards Islam. Mormonism is not hateful towards any other religion.

[stemelbow]

ozpoop:

Why not? Saul/Paul was.

And although I believe Bruce R. McConkie was called of God, and was a valiant witness of Christ, and a true Apostle--I also think he made his share of mistakes when it came to doctrinal exposition. Of course, I don't require my prophets and apostles to be perfect all the time. It's enough for me that they are righteous and inspired more often than they're not. In fact, I'm pretty much convinced that God sends down to the leaders of His church just enough revelation to compensate for their mistakes and imperfections. And the older I get, the more I understand the divine wisdom at work in such a course of action.

William, I love your ideas here. Something I've wondered but have been unable to express so succinctly for quite some time. thanks.

[Calm]

So was he rebuked for the doctrine? was the book yanked off the shelves?

Yes. He was required to change it before the 2nd edition was published.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I've provided two quotes already about the Abominable church. It was also published in Mormon Doctrine which was written by a man who later became an apostle. He couldn't have been guilty of preaching false doctrine then be made an apostle.

And what of it? I have not disputed that there are not comments made by some in the church. What matters is what is offical and what is not. Being offical has a huge affect on the argument being made. Should I hold all EV's accountable for Walter Martins comments? You are trying to hold the entire church hostage for the comments of a few that were not spoken of in an offical capacity.

And your canard about "He couldn't have been guilty of preaching false doctrine then be made an apostle." is easly refuted. Remeber Saul/Paul from the bible?

The statement about protestant leaders is a sensitive one that I have been warned not to discuss. That might give you a clue where it happened.

What are you talking about?

Yet again *sigh*, the original post, you know the one back at page one, asks critics for their opinion. The poster stated that Mormons don't criticize other faiths. "Mormon Doctrine" by itself proves they DO, however so does the testimony of Joseph Smith who said he was told all other faiths are false. This is a criticism of their faiths, so as I have already stated several times, the very foundation of Mormonism is based on criticizing other faiths.

Not it does not. The OP is talking about the church as a whole, not one or two members of the church. We do not as a whole spend money on attacking other relgions in any sense. And we deffinatly do not go about things like the counter cult ministries. We don't spend lots of money on movies about how EV's really should choose Jesus not Paul. And we don't go aroung attacking how absurd the idea of Creationism is.

And again.......really, is this so hard to grasp?.........blah blah blah

Appreantly for you it is hard to grasp. You are the one leveling critisism against my church, Which this thread is not about. I am here to defend that. Don't get mad at me for that thread jack, Cheif.

[Vance]

To all LDS participating in this thread:

I am just wondering if you all agree with Mr. Bukowski's claims in the following post.

I agree with him.

Your explanations come across as splitting hairs in an effort to excluded Moroni's promise from being Biblical. I realize that, as an anti-Mormon this is, of necessity, your only recourse, but that doesn't cover the fact that you have to take an extremely tortuous (and disconnected) path to get there. In the end, you come across as not believing in the effectiveness of prayer and that you lack trust/faith that God will actually guide you.

[Vance]

ozpoop:

Why not? Saul/Paul was.

And although I believe Bruce R. McConkie was called of God, and was a valiant witness of Christ, and a true Apostle--I also think he made his share of mistakes when it came to doctrinal exposition. Of course, I don't require my prophets and apostles to be perfect all the time. It's enough for me that they are righteous and inspired more often than they're not. In fact, I'm pretty much convinced that God sends down to the leaders of His church just enough revelation to compensate for their mistakes and imperfections. And the older I get, the more I understand the divine wisdom at work in such a course of action.

:clapping:

[Calm]

It has been noted that some Mormon (paid) apologists are actually in apostacy because they have had to alter the doctrine so much to explain it's problems.

CFR: "Noted by whom?

CFR: And who is getting paid for apologetic work?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So was he rebuked for the doctrine?

Yes, he was. The 1st Presidency asked him to revise his statements.

was the book yanked off the shelves?

As far as I know there are not very many copies of the 1st edition out there. And you currently cannot buy Mormon Doctrine. It is disconintued. Do you see now why you are making a mountain out of a mole hill?

How exactly do you tell when an "inspired" man is talking garbage?

Well, for one it would be in an offical source. It if is not offical I chalk it up to personal opinion. That does not mean that it is automatically false but I don't look to it as much as the scriptures or a GC talk.

Apparently Joseph Smith couldn't even tell whether he was being inspired by good or evil spirits.

CFR please.

HE said so after a group he sent to Canada to raise money to publish the BoM failed miserably. He was asked why it failed if he was told to do it by God.

CFR

What's disturbing in the modern church is that even if these men make mistakes, members are forbidden to challenge them.

They are? CFR.

When did they become infallible?

And that is the question, when did they become infallible? When have the Prophets ever claimed infalliablity?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

CFR: And who is getting paid for apologetic work?

Pssst. Dan Peterson. So I am told.

[Nemesis]

Let's knock off the personal attacks people or we will need to ban people from the thread.

Nemesis

[Vance]

Never mind

[Calm]

Apparently Joseph Smith couldn't even tell whether he was being inspired by good or evil spirits. HE said so after a group he sent to Canada to raise money to publish the BoM failed miserably. He was asked why it failed if he was told to do it by God.

Actually not. See here:

http://en.fairmormon..._sell_copyright

Again if you are going to make claims to attack the positions of others, you should make sure those claims are accurate.

[Nemesis]

No, it's not a miracle that the sun rises every day, A miracle would be if the sun reversed, or did not rise on time, The Sun rising is a result of natural forces, all explained by science.

Your "events with no natural explanations" that you claim are miracles will one day be explained by science. A cigarette lighter to a primitive, religious tribe would be seen as a miracle. Your religious mindset can't comprehend what you claim to have seen as a scientific reality so you revert to the superstitious thinking of a primitive. Until you transcend primitive thinking you can't see things as they really are - i.e science.

Stop trolling or your time here will be short. Try a little harder to have a discussion.

Nemesis

[ozpoof]

And what of it? I have not disputed that there are not comments made by some in the church. What matters is what is offical and what is not. Being offical has a huge affect on the argument being made. Should I hold all EV's accountable for Walter Martins comments? You are trying to hold the entire church hostage for the comments of a few that were not spoken of in an offical capacity.

Read the original question. It's talking about critics of the church, which many LDS members paint with the same brush, and it asked an opinion. You are saying that no Mormon has ever expressed an opinion about another faith,as did the poster of this thread! That's rubbish. You also insist on ignoring the statements of your founder.

[ozpoof]

Stop trolling or your time here will be short. Try a little harder to have a discussion.

Nemesis

I'm trying to have a discussion. I'm not trolling. I understood I could express my opinion. I've read the guidelines, and it seems the continued repetition of the same question to me is badgering me for an answer when it has already been given.

Also, I am being given FAIR explanations as CFRs. Come on.

[ozpoof]

Well, for one it would be in an offical source. It if is not offical I chalk it up to personal opinion.

Personal opinion **IS** still criticism of other faiths! Can't you understand that the rhetoric about other religions being false that began with Joseph Smith is criticism of other faiths. Are you seriously claiming Mormonism has NEVER made any critical statement in it's history towards other religions?

[ozpoof]

Actually not. See here:

http://en.fairmormon..._sell_copyright

Again if you are going to make claims to attack the positions of others, you should make sure those claims are accurate.

"The criticism that Joseph later claimed that the revelation had not come from God is in all likelihood the product of a false memory by David Whitmer." --- THAT'S the best FAIR can come up with? Please don't use their attempts at explaining away awkward history with me again. It's nonsense.

[Calm]

Also, I am being given FAIR explanations as CFRs. Come on.

If you are going to criticize FAIR explanations, please demonstrate where they are inaccurate.

[Calm]

"The criticism that Joseph later claimed that the revelation had not come from God is in all likelihood the product of a false memory by David Whitmer." --- THAT'S the best FAIR can come up with? Please don't use their attempts at explaining away awkward history with me again. It's nonsense.

Since the actual revelation does not agree with the Whitmer statement, then what else would you suggest happened? That David Whitmer lied about it? Why would he do that?

If you dismiss something simply because FAIR has produced it, I see no reason why you should even desire to post on this board.

[ozpoof]

If you are going to criticize FAIR explanations, please demonstrate where they are inaccurate.

As above, "The criticism that Joseph later claimed that the revelation had not come from God is in all likelihood the product of a false memory by David Whitmer." That's not an explanation at all. The statement "in all likelihood" means they have no proof.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Personal opinion **IS** still criticism of other faiths! Can't you understand that the rhetoric about other religions being false that began with Joseph Smith is criticism of other faiths. Are you seriously claiming Mormonism has NEVER made any critical statement in it's history towards other religions?

Oh but that is not what you claimed earlier. You claimed we were attacking other's faith. A criticism is a different thing. Talk about moving the goal posts. (I know I could not resists saying this.)

Anyway, I have no problems with personal opinions, they are what they are. What I have a problem with, which it sounds like I have demonstrated, is that when one tries to use some one else's personal opnion as a club to try and bash a whole orginization with.

[ozpoof]

Since the actual revelation does not agree with the Whitmer statement, then what else would you suggest happened? That David Whitmer lied about it? Why would he do that?

If you dismiss something simply because FAIR has produced it, I see no reason why you should even desire to post on this board.

There's always the possibility the "actual" revelation was changed later. Let's be honest though. FAIR *is* saying Whitmer lied when they say he had a "false memory". If you say something in court that is not true it is called a lie, never a "false memory".

Your last statement is ridiculous. If I consider FAIR to be unable to answer many difficult questions about church history, I therefore don't belong here to discuss Mormonism?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As above, "The criticism that Joseph later claimed that the revelation had not come from God is in all likelihood the product of a false memory by David Whitmer." That's not an explanation at all. The statement "in all likelihood" means they have no proof.

On the other hand you have no other evidence that that is indeed what occoured. THe fact that there seems to be no other account that back's up what Whitmer says seems to lay doubt the claim's he made.