Historicity Of The Bom

[LeSellers]

I'm sorry, I didn't see your name in my quote. Please stop trying to pick and grab every statement of mine and trying to answer on behalf of others, because your answer, although it may be accurate, does not address the question with his stance. Thank you.

At the risk of being labeled a board nanny, I will say this: Please recall that this is a public message board. Anything any of us says is open to all to read and to comment on. Unless you want to start a topic in the Focused Discussions area (where you can control who posts and so on), the general discussion area is under no control but that of the moderators. You have neither the right nor the power to dictate who can respond to your posts.

If you want to whine about what happens here, report it to the moderators: they'll handle it.

Lehi

[SeattleGrunge]

Being a full time Saint is hard work. It is a burden at times. Sometimes it is easier to let someone prove you wrong than to commit to ongoing endurance.

One good friend of mine was pulling all of the weight in her family when it came to church activity. She used to post on apologitics sites and came to me for research when she got stumped. There wasn't a topic we couldn't discuss. She finally got to the point where she was fed up defending something that wasn't giving her return support. At that point it was easy to convince her that the church wasn't what is claimed to be.

Her family circumstance incluenced her willingness to continue shelving her doubts. In my frequent discussions on line and in the meat world I find many Saints who falter because of family dysfunction. None of these are personal sins on the part of those who fall away. They all have reasons other than a historical question, but the question is the catalyst that finally gives them the excuse they need to leave the struggle.

In this sense we create our own apostates by not living up to our covenants to love and care for our brethren and sisters.

IMO There are very, very few people who upon experiencing the gospel as it should lived leave because of historical problems alone.

Thanks, I agree. I see some who "burn themselves out of the church" as in burn out from so much effort.

[Jesterss]

At the risk of being labeled a board nanny, I will say this: Please recall that this is a public message board. Anything any of us says is open to all to read and to comment on. Unless you want to start a topic in the Focused Discussions area (where you can control who posts and so on), the general discussion area is under no control but that of the moderators. You have neither the right nor the power to dictate who can respond to your posts.

If you want to whine about what happens here, report it to the moderators: they'll handle it.

Lehi

Of course it is...

[altersteve]

I'm sorry, I didn't see your name in my quote. Please stop trying to pick and grab every statement of mine and trying to answer on behalf of others, because your answer, although it may be accurate, does not address the question with his stance. Thank you.

I'll respond to whatever I want to respond to. Like Lehi said, this is a discussion board. Deal with it.

[Ares]

If you don't like how the topic is being engaged don't post.

If you think a board rule is being broken (in letter or spirit) report it.

Anyone who wants to be the board Nanny let me know and I will add it to your Nic.

[why me]

So do you agree with the biblical history that Peter was the first Saint of the catholic church as the catholics claim? I don't. Therefore, due to their history, I don't agree with their statements.

Let me try this again: mormons are attacked over their history time and again. It is a relentless bombardment from the critics. Why? It is not done to educate mormons but to get them to doubt their faith. I don't see this being done to catholics or protestants. Rather what I see on catholic boards is a debate over doctrine to debate who is right and who is wrong with the protestants. History does not play a role in casting doubt in people's minds. Why? Because both histories are tainted because humans make history and humans are imperfect. The same holds true for the lds church. But for critics, they attempt to show imperfections in lds history as a way and a means to cast doubt in the minds of the faithful as to the truthfulness of mormonism. That was my point.

[Robert F. Smith]

I have not seen catholics or protestants leave their faith over history. I don't think that history is all that important for them. However, mormon history is constantly being brought up by critics to disprove the lds church. And that was my point. Mormons do leave over history. Why? I have no idea. I would assume however that some mormons may wish to view mormon history as something that should be perfect. And when they discover when it isn't, they become disillusioned. The amount of energy that antimormons spend in attempting to get mormons to leave their faith is huge. And they do succeed...just need to look at antimormon boards. Full of people who left the lds church over trivial matters such as quotations and history. The goal of antimormon boards is to cast doubt in the faith of the lds. I see no so many attempts with the mainstream religions.

Yes, you are correct: "trivial matters," accompanied by no more than a very superficial version of history and doctrine. Brigham Young used to point out that such members typically live on borrowed light, not knowing the truth of the doctrine for themselves. They are weak members of the flock, all too vulnerable to the raptors and wolves who come in to prey upon them. They are members who have been sold a bill of goods about Mormonism, (1) first by those who taught them a rigid version of the Gospel, which they (2) then discover is just not true. They make their own lack of knowledge the measure of truth, and thus find themselves outside the faith, making the assault on the true faith their life's work. Pity them, and pray for them.

Other faiths also lose members, whether due to disillusionment with predator priests (leading to the bankruptcy of one diocese after another here and in a number of other countries), or dissatisfaction with faith in general in Europe, for example. The losses are vast and very damaging in many cases. The shift to other faiths has become a virtual stampede in some areas. Through it all, the LDS Church continues to experience robust growth.

[english gent]

Good evening, Ladies and Gentleman

Craig Paxton - you recently referred to one of Grant gardner's posts by stating...

'BUT… General Authorities have certainly never been shy about teaching or preaching their particular theories on Book of Mormon Geography. Do they speak for the church? Does Spencer W. Kimball as president of the church speak for the church? I’m guessing that you don’t think so…while I believe he does. We’ll have to agree to disagree'

I'm not sure how familiar you are exactly with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and it's teachings, but Grant Gardner is exactly correct in what he says.

Church members and Church leaders (including General Authorities etc) are entitled to hold - as human beings - their own views about Book of Mormon Geography or anything else pertaining to the Church/Gospel, but a Prophet only speaks on behalf of the Lord through Revelation.

The Lord has not revealed the exact location of Book of Mormon lands, but the thinking has changed amongst many LDS scholars (and thus probably amongst some members/leaders who may well follow developments) as to the whereabout of Book of Mormon lands: most are now convinced of a Mesoamerican

setting.

This is quite acceptable, and in no way constitutes a change in the position of the Church with regard to this issue, simply because the Church has never had an official position on this issue.

When you say 'Does President Kimball speak for the Church? I'm guessing that you don't think so... while I believe he does,' you are really twisting the issue of President Kimball as a man who might have vocalized his own opinion/current thinking, and the President Kimball who spoke as a Prophet when recieving revelation from the Lord.

By stating things in this way, it's not really being fair on Mr Gardner, who of course accepts President Kimball as being both a Prophet who spoke for the Church, and also a man with his own (perfectly human) views.

It's not really fair play: not good 'cricket.'

[cdowis]

BOM geography is not a doctrinal issue. It is a matter of research and factual discovery. Anyone is able to express their opinion with equal weight and authority -- prophet, member and critic.