ERayR Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 According to Joseph Smith, the endowment is more like Junior High Math...Higher Math is going to be something we get in the next life....Unfortunatly there are many who try to start higher up the ladder than they have prepared for.
rpn Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 In 1894 Wilford Woodruff receive revelation that sealings were being done incorrectly to the most righteous people instead of in families. You may call it polyandry, but I'm thinking it was simple misunderstanding about sealing, that the Lord saw fit to permanently fix more than 100 years ago. Why in the world does it need to be TAUGHT at all. Do you plan to TEACH your children about all the mistakes you (their parent) made as you were figuring out live? Does your boss TEACH you all the mistakes your company made before you came around? NO, you get taught what you need to know to do what you are asked to do. We don't even know how the mistaken understanding got started. But it was disclosed in 2002 or so when we all studied teachings of wilford woodruff in RS/Priesthood, in the manual itself. 1
Thinking Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 According to Joseph Smith, the endowment is more like Junior High Math...Higher Math is going to be something we get in the next life....When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph SmithHow did you get Jr. High Math out of that statement?
Calm Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 most righteous peopleI wouldn't equate "most righteous" with "church leaders" even though some of the most righteous have been church leaders. 1
Calm Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 (edited) How did you get Jr. High Math out of that statement?But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned themThe "veil" is not the endowment even, but death. Sounds like there is a lot to learn after the endowment.One can start learning Calc in High School and the AP exam is for those who want to get college credit, not those who took it in college, right? So let's just say that the final exam whatever it is judges one's knowledge of calculus. If so, it is even more likely in my view that mortal life is more like elementary school when compared to the final exam at judgment time.A big part of elementary school is learning how to learn as well as how to socialize, which makes the analogy work even better imo. Edited July 8, 2012 by calmoriah 1
CV75 Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 When is dishonesty ok?Dishonesty is never OK, but there is clearly a lack of understanding abut what honesty is in the OP. But reather than get into that right now:A very honest thing to do is to treat poor quality, irrelevant and other information that the Holy Ghost will not ratify without much ado. Another very honest thing to do is to disseminate truth, testimony and other information that the Holy Ghost will ratify with earnestness and unwearyingness.The Church is in the business of authoritatively promulgating the Doctrine of Christ, and does so honestly. Considering the stakes and experience, those who have been entrusted with the keys (and that group which forms and is identiied with and as the head of the Church collectively since its inception) to carry out the Lord’s instructions are going to do that which the Holy Ghost will ratify.Unless it involves the Church Historian, any other history, no matter how well intentioned, is about as good as William E. Mcleillin’s attempts to write revelation for the purposes of authoritatively promulgating the Doctrine of Christ.
Tacenda Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 Exaltation or Eternal Life is a belief among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) that mankind can return to live in God's presence and continue as families.[1] Exaltation is believed to be what God desires for all humankind. The LDS Church teaches that through exaltation believers may become joint-heirs with Jesus Christ.[2] The objective of adherents is to strive for purity and righteousness and to become one with Jesus as Jesus is one with the Father (God).[3] In the Doctrine and Covenants is found a verse that states that those who are exalted will become gods.[4]Last paragraph just above the see also.Shame on you. You should read it all for comprehension else you skip over as you have done and come away with the wrong idea.I was on my phone, and I'm not lying when I say that the above is all I saw on my phone, on my computer I now will read the rest of it. Sorry, I do usually read what is given me to look at.
ERayR Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 Exaltation or Eternal Life is a belief among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) that mankind can return to live in God's presence and continue as families.[1] Exaltation is believed to be what God desires for all humankind. The LDS Church teaches that through exaltation believers may become joint-heirs with Jesus Christ.[2] The objective of adherents is to strive for purity and righteousness and to become one with Jesus as Jesus is one with the Father (God).[3] In the Doctrine and Covenants is found a verse that states that those who are exalted will become gods.[4]I was on my phone, and I'm not lying when I say that the above is all I saw on my phone, on my computer I now will read the rest of it. Sorry, I do usually read what is given me to look at.Just digging a little. No hard feelings OK.
rongo Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 I watched the Barbara Walter's special on 20/20 on the internet that aired last night. It's subject was on Heaven and the different religions belief on it. She interviewed representatives from Muslims, Evangelicals, Catholics and Jewish & LDS faiths. Our LDS rep did a good job but left out some importatant stuff about our religion. Where the others were basically the same type of heaven. Why didn't the rep from our church do a better job of explaining our thoughts of being Gods etc.? I don't know, because now I see that we should be shouting that fact from the rooftops like say the earlier Saints did.Many LDS don't understand our doctrine of "heaven/hell" very well. I've even assigned sacrament meeting speakers to speak specifically about the degrees of glory because of this. I had a sister come to see me, initially to ask for a counseling referral. I told her that she could self-refer without a referral at all (on her dime), and asked if I could help her with anything. She said no, but then suddenly asked what a person had to do to go to hell. As I asked her what she meant by "hell," it became apparent that she viewed it *exactly* in the sectarian "heaven/hell" dichotomy. We ended up having a three hour talk, beginning with the three degrees of glory (i.e., most LDS, by "heaven," mean "celestial kingdom;" and by "hell," mean "telestial" or "not-celestial"). She initally said that she wanted to carry the specifics of her problems with her to the grave, but eventually confessed everthing and resolved her issues through formal church discipline.This is not an isolated incident, in my experience, and she was a seminary graduate whose father is also currently a bishop. It is difficult when even many "active" members don't understand our doctrines of the hereafter very well, and 20/20 tapings are not a good forum for discussing such things in depth (i.e., when editing will take place). I've done radio interviews of an LDS apologetic nature, and it's a very fine line between being in-depth and thorough and being effective within the time and format constraints. I think that those who criticize Church representatives in interviews have never done anything like it ---- it is not as easy as some might think, no matter how "with it" and sharp the interviewee is. 2
DBMormon Posted July 8, 2012 Author Posted July 8, 2012 You guys act like it is all or nothing. Tell themHow can it be introduced in manuals: Joseph, who married other men's wives, restored the true church of christ. Would that be okay? Or what about this: Joseph Smith, who was married to 33 women, was the first prophet of the lds church. I think it can be more subtle then that. For example on a lesson about following the spirit we can share a short story about how one of these wives felt this challenge of polygamy/polyandry was too big a sacrifice and then how after seeking God's direction recived an answer to proceed and the strength to do soIf I as a member hear in some place about polyandry and I am wanting to verify it but only using faithful sources where do I go on LDS.ORG, Ensign, manuals, to find it? Simply stated when it comes to Polyandry, Should the church at least acknowledge it?
Thinking Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 The "veil" is not the endowment even, but death. Sounds like there is a lot to learn after the endowment.One can start learning Calc in High School and the AP exam is for those who want to get college credit, not those who took it in college, right? So let's just say that the final exam whatever it is judges one's knowledge of calculus. If so, it is even more likely in my view that mortal life is more like elementary school when compared to the final exam at judgment time.A big part of elementary school is learning how to learn as well as how to socialize, which makes the analogy work even better imo.Calculus is a 100 level course in college, just the beginning if you are on the math track.
DBMormon Posted July 8, 2012 Author Posted July 8, 2012 You were not looking for an excuse and polygamy was not enough to do it so you went and found the Book of Abraham? That is wrong and unhelpful. It is a matter of people looking at the whole equation. While some say enough pieces fit and spiritual experiences abound along with it, others say the puzzle won't go together and enough important pieces don't work and who are you to assume how they got there.... I think you owe an apology
Tacenda Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 That is wrong and unhelpful. It is a matter of people looking at the whole equation. While some say enough pieces fit and spiritual experiences abound along with it, others say the puzzle won't go together and enough important pieces don't work and who are you to assume how they got there.... I think you owe an apology
Calm Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 (edited) Calculus is a 100 level course in college, just the beginning if you are on the math track.I know, I took all three semesters...my son took his first year (one college semester worth) in high school.Most people aren't familiar with the higher levels of math courses....not sure I am for current ones. Edited July 8, 2012 by calmoriah
selek1 Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 On one hand there is a standard in the gospel to not share everything...I don't think this is a fair characterization , nor even reasonable approximation thereof, of the Church's position.Nor is the deliberate misrepresentation particularly helpful or constructive.However you try to weasel word it, you are still accusing the Church of acting to deliberately mislead others.Nothing could be farther from the sort of truth-telling you claim to champion.On the other hand there is a directive that to be honest is to not withhold info, not avoid revealing any truth even if it hurts you and others. Case in point. This "definition" is deliberately constructed in such a way as to make the Church an offender. It bears no resemblance to the actual policies of the Church nor to the wise counsel which you pretend to quote.I am simply exploring the line. On the contrary, you are deliberately obscuring the line for polemical advantage.Rather than discussing this in a rationale, common-sense manner, you are working hard toward a predetermined goal: making the Saints offenders for a word. don't be too harsh guys ease up. I realize there are two philosphies or ideals at work here, just seeing what determines the line and pushing the envelope a little. In other words, you're hitting the Saints for reactions."Pushing the envelope"? You are trolling.Troll (Internet) In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted."Given the cynicism and deliberate manipulation involved in your activities,. one wonders why the faithful continue to play alongYou are out of the thread.
Libs Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 For me the question is what was the testimony built on to begin with that reading something can negate all the good things one once "knew" were true.I never said it negated all of the good things I once knew were true. Not at all. Some of the things I learned made me question just about everything, for awhile, but I have not thrown out, what I still perceive to be "good" about the LDS Church. I haven't thrown out the spiritual experiences I had, while I was a member, which includes some things that I still "know" to be true.
Storm Rider Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 Recently someone posted in a thread about honesty and the Lord's expectation of being honest, completely honest and hiding nothing. We also had a discussion recently about what if withholding information protects the faith of the weak.Recognizing that the Church chooses to share certain parts of it's history and chooses to withhold other parts, my hope is we can shed some light on when complete and absolute forthcoming of truth is important and when it is ok to with hold info.Some will jump in here and ask where the church has withheld information or truth. I will be a broken record and say that it is impossible to discover Polyandry (Joseph's sealings to already married women) from any of the following sources - LDS.ORG, Church lesson manual, Ensign, Liahona, New Era, Friend, General Conference Talk, or any other current LDS sponsored source of info. While some may have learned this in a church setting or from a class like seminary or institute, we must recognize that occured becasue a teacher or another student brought it up without any encouragement from the manual or the Church leadershiphttp://www.lds.org/l...03a94610aRCRD#1It places us in quite a predicament. on one hand the Lord and his apostles withheld info at times if they saw fit. He says as much in his reason for teaching parables and also on occasions where he asks the 12 not to share certain things he has told them.On the other hand we are taught that absolute and complete honesty are crucial to salvation. We are taught that we can not only share partial truth or be silent. That these are just as dishonest as telling a lie. When is lying (either telling something untrue, or withholding something true) ok?If we are completely honest, we have to admit the Church lies at times at least in the sense it holds back information that might trouble it's members or keep investigators from looking into the Church. Even in the church we see milk before meat and yet on some level that is withholding information. Perhaps it is in their best interest, perhaps it protects the name of the Church but at the end of the day it is according to the quotes above dishonest. Is some lying or dishonesty justifiable? We each do it at time Ex: Santa Claus, Do I look fat in this dress, not narcing out a friend. But in the case of the Church the standard is higher. I am not speaking of when an individual leader does this as that can be seen as an individual sin and not tied to the church. But when the church as a whole unitedly withholds info.......... or tells the story in a way that is not the whole story but teaches a principle like the cream and strippings with Bro. MarshWhen is dishonesty ok?So when is it appropriate to tell everything all at once? In what context should I tell everything I have ever thought about my wife to her? When is it appropriate to tell everything I have ever done to anyone? When is it appropriate to recount everything I know about "you" to everyone else? Is it vital that I know everything that President (insert name of your president of choice) has ever done in his life? When is it dishonest when any fact is withheld when talking about an event? Is it dishonest? Why?First of all, the first thing I am going to tell you when you start venting on everything you know is, "Please, just shut up!" I really don't want to know everything you have ever done. More importantly, I don't want to know everthing that has ever occured in anyone's life. Is it dishonest to withhold information? Of course not! In a class I am looking to teach vital, as in most important, lessons that will help each member, in their own relationship to God, become a better disciple. When doing this I teach principles that will build faith, enable deeper understanding of our relationship to God and his to us as individuals. Did Jesus tell his followers everything there is to know about him? Why is so much information missing in the Bible? Were the early apostles dishonest for excluding so much information about themselves and about Jesus? Why did they parse so much information?No class on Sunday is or should be a time, "Everything you wanted to know about Joseph Smith, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Peter, Paul, James, Brigham, Joshua, or Thomas, but were afraid to ask." The premise of your discussion is unrealistic and shortsighted. You assume that anyone can teach everything there is to know in a simple lesson. What is the purpose of a Sunday School lesson or any lesson on Sunday? Can you teach everything that ever occured in the lives of each of our leaders from Adam on down to classes? This is not reasonable or possible. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 I'm not calling anyone out, but will someone please tell me, is it a belief that we are to get our own planet or not? If our church is offering so much more than other churches why on earth be vague about it? I recently sat in GD class where a sub was teaching and he even mentioned that we are to be Gods. Maybe it wasn't appropiate because I haven't heard it stated that way before in a regular sunday school class. Of course the majority of my callings have been in the primary.I recently sat in GD class where a sub was teaching and he even mentioned that we are to be Gods gods. Maybe it wasn't appropiate because I haven't heard it stated that way before in a regular sunday school class.Reminds me of a book my mother used to read to me when I was little that went through the alphabet: "Big G, little g, what begins with 'g'?"
Calm Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 Reminds me of a book my mother used to read to me when I was little that went through the alphabet: "Big G, little g, what begins with 'g'?" Goat, girl, googoo googles G... g... G...
Calm Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 (edited) Came across this doing some research for another thread, I think it is relevant here to a certain extent:Starting on page 11: Didn’t Joseph Deceive Church Members?Some are quick to point out that Joseph Smith didn’t just lie to the government or to non-members, but also deceived members of the Church. This objection ignores, of course, the point that to make the announcement publicly to the Church is the same as telling everyone.12The accusation also omits some vital information. Joseph was not trying to simply act as he pleased and keep everyone else in the dark. He was anxious to teach the principle of plural marriage to any who would accept it; Church leaders such as Hyrum Smith and the Twelve were introduced to it. This is strange behavior for a deceiver, since each of these high Church leaders was in a position to denounce and ruin him. (Joseph had ample experience with such scenarios given the earlier departure of such key figures as the Three Witnesses, and many of the original Twelve Apostles during the Kirtland-era apostasy.) One source reports that over one hundred adults were taught the doctrine in Nauvoo before Joseph’s murder.44Wouldn’t it be better to simply keep quiet about polygamy if Joseph was just a libidinous leader? Joseph persisted, however, in trying to introduce others to “the Principle.” He did make some efforts to teach plural marriage publicly—he seemed willing to accept the risk from non-members if the Church would support him. Heber C. Kimball wrote, in 1882: On a certain Sabbath morning, previous to the return of the Apostles from Europe, in 1841, [Joseph] astonished his hearers by preaching on the restoration of all things, and said that as it was anciently with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so it would be again, etc.45A contemporary journal describes the reaction: When the prophet “went to his dinner,” [Joseph Lee] Robinson wrote, “as it might be expected sev- eral of the first women of the church collected at the Prophet’s house with his wife [and] said thus to the prophet Joseph O mister Smith you have done it now it will never do it is all but Blassphemy you must take back what you have said to day is it is outrageous it would ruin us as a people.” So in the afternoon session Smith again took the stand, according to Robinson, and said “Brethren and Sisters I take back what we said this morning and leave it as though there had been nothing said.”46Robinson feels that this reaction was not unexpected; yet, Joseph tried anyway. Note that Joseph does not come back in the afternoon and deny the doctrine; he merely withdraws it from public consideration. Upon the return of the Twelve, he would begin teaching it to them. Heber also recounted the negative reaction of Emma and others: He spoke so plainly that his wife, Emma, as well as others were quite excited over it. Seeing the effect his sermon had upon them, he consoled them in the afternoon by saying that the time of which he had spoken might be further off than he anticipated.47George A. Smith alluded to the same or a similar episode based upon records of those present: The Prophet goes up on the stand, and, after preachng about everything else he could think of in the world, at last hints at the idea of the law of redemption, makes a bare hint at the law of sealing, and it produced such a tremendous excitement that, as soon as he had got his dinner half eaten, he had to go back to the stand, and unpreach all that he had preached, and left the people to guess at the matter. While he was thus preaching he turned to the men sitting in the stand, and who were the men who should have backed him up, for instance, to our good old President Marks, William and Wilson Law, and father Cowles, and a number of other individuals about Nauvoo, for this occurred when the Twelve were in the Eastern portions of the United States, and said, “If I were to reveal the things that God has revealed to me, if I were to reveal to this people the doctrines that I know are for their exaltation, these men would spill my blood.”48Joseph considered the doctrine essential for the Church,49 and it would seem that he offered the Church members at least one public opportunity to hear about plural marriage, but they refused it. So, Joseph continued to teach the doctrine, but in private. Are other more faithful members to be forbidden knowledge which some refused to receive?In the last years of his life, Joseph repeatedly bemoaned the fact that all the members would not accept that which he wanted to teach. He warned, from Liberty Jail in 1839, “where is the man who is authorized to put his finger on the spot and say, thus far thou shalt go and no farther: there is no man. Therefore let us receive the whole, or none.”50Wilford Woodruff quoted Joseph in 1841: “Some say Joseph is a fallen Prophet because he does not bring forth more of the word of the Lord,” he acknowledged in a December 1841 meeting with the Twelve. “Why does he not?” he then asked. “Are we able to receive it? No (says he) not one in this room.”51Joseph noted in 1843 that “many seal up the door of heaven by saying so far God may reveal and I will believe but no further.”52These factors add a new moral wrinkle to the issue: what is a prophet to do if the majority of people are not yet ready to accept a teaching? Should he announce it publicly anyway, risking the wrath of violent opponents who will seek to prevent him from teaching anything at all? Should he teach nothing, and allow the less-faithful to decide that the more-faithful may not enjoy revelation from God? Or, should he opt for Joseph’s approach—keep the doctrine private, and introduce it as people will accept it?Critics who refuse to believe in modern prophets will find such a question pointless. But, if we give Joseph the benefit of the doubt before condemning him, this is an issue which we must confront.As George A. Smith indicated, it is a problem with no neat, pat solution. Of the Kirtland Temple period, which he then applied by analogy to apostate William Law and polygamy, Smith said: If the Lord had on that occasion revealed one single sentiment more, or went one step further to reveal more fully the law of redemption, I believe He would have upset the whole of us. The fact was, He dare not, on that very account, reveal to us a single principle further than He had done, for He had tried, over and over again, to do it... He was determined this time to be so careful, and advance the idea so slowly, to communicate them to the children of men with such great caution that, at all hazards, a few of them might be able to understand and obey.53I am thinking of those who bemoan the perceived lack of revelation, they desire the good old days where each new month brought new words from the Lord....yet even then there were those who were saying enough is enough, no more...the Prophet's attempts to reveal the "meat", the higher things of the Lord led to not only a rejection of such by the general membership, but even a rejection by the nonLDS communities around that which ultimately led to his death. What do we think would happen to us if he revealed some of the higher laws to us. A goodly number have stated they will leave over polygamy, but there were others even more offensive apparently. Is there any reason to think that we would not react to them much as they did when they got hints, Maybe we did. Maybe the earring thing was a hint for something that would come but with so much resistance it was not given to us at this time. I think if we start looking at the instructions we are living and thinking what could come of this if taken further in a way that could develop us as a people and individuals, we may get hints of things to come, the things that will challenge us, even cause fear for us because it will cause fear and rejection in those outside of our communities.I think that would tend to establish the precedent that new revelation would come in God's time and not by the demands of Man since Man had shown his lack of commitment to revealed religion....it is interesting and makes us feel special to receive it, but if it demands a sacrifice or even a great sacrifice of the level of Abraham....that it demands we not only have to tolerate mocking from our neighbours, but also legal means and violence as they try to shut up the mouth of prophecy before it condemns they all, perhaps even a level of violence that may cost us our lives...even withSaints at Joseph's time who had already suffered do much, one would think nothing could faze them and yet even with them, they came to a point of let's hear no more.So the premiere prophet of this dispensation wanted to reveal much, much more for us and we as a people completely shut him down and then allowed him to go to his death, to seal his testimony of all that he had tried to do and both succeed and failed inIs it any wonder that after the first prophet's martyrdom brought about by those he had once tried to teach the higher truths to, truths that got him killed, that other prophets more concerned with the survival of the Church might have slowed the revelations somewhat and focused instead of making full use of what had finally able to be openly taught and accepted among the Saints safe for a brief moment in order to solidified their growth and to use the Principle to the fullest force in order to protect the saints. But after that Church leaders were concentrating on just staying alive and new revelation was tied to that, easily accept as value even when hard to get done. So the Church spread out and more order came to the valley and through that new order things improved, homes were build, crops grown, people kept safe and warm and with mostly full stomach. Very practical revelations meant to improve one's life requires familiar sacrifices, these would be expected...there were always leaders among the folk that knew when it was right to plant, etc. Now some more dramatic ones such as building temples...well, yes, but this is a good thing, this will create for them a greater sense of purpose, of presence, with temples we are no longer some wild on the fringes group just looking for the perfect recipe of happiness, we divide ourselves by no long having God dwell only in a tent but in his own house. A temple grounds its people to this world while drawing them to the next due to what takes place inside. And it is a good thing to experience that grounding before moving on to the next aspect...temple ordinances for oneself and others. Uncertainty enters in, but as much exists outside these days...is he the man I want to spend eternity with? How can I be sure?All these are basic concerns, doesn't sound like the kind that would prepare us to receive the things that got Joseph killed. Are we will to take that risk, do we even realize that is what we are doing, not only putting ourselves in danger as a community, but our prophet. I can under that the leaders would prefer to work on forging a strong community in faith and understanding who would be willing to stand with the Prophets when the time comes for the answers to the kobe beef of teaching....so that when we learn it and realize that for such we might have to die we will shout for the joy of receiving God' will and knowledge for us and not runaway with our tails between to home where we huddle whining about all we had asked for was some tidbit of knowledge here and there...why did they have to go all out and get us killed more than likely.edit: I hope this makes semisense, I was writing it just fine at the beginning, but my sleeping drug kicked in before the ending and I see I got a bit scattered. Edited July 8, 2012 by calmoriah 1
Deborah Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 I find it very hard to believe that the church is "hiding" its history when we have the publication of the Joseph Smith Papers, which has been in the works for the last seven or so years, and with the opening of the Church History Library. It seems to me it's pretty much out in the open. Even before these events scholars such as Truman Madsen had access to many of these documents and spoke on what they found.I don't think people realize when they talk about church history the extent of materials we are dealing with; and with those there needs to be corroboration and verification of their authenticity. Something critics of the church don't really care about.
Storm Rider Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 It is similar to the allegation that the LDS temple ordinances are secret rather than sacred. We don't talk about them with anyone, yet they abound in countless websites on the Internet. How are they secret? I really think critics, specifically those that are anti-Mormons, just have talking points and they are not really concerned about being accurate or right, they just like to sling all kinds of accusations. They are just hoping that something sticks. And they wonder why they are accused of being liars.
Somebodyz Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 This seems like a pile on. <sigh>For what it's worth, DB (which will probably not be much in this group), I agree with you that the church needs to do a better job of informing members about the true history of the church. There are a lot of possible ways it could be done, in a very faith promoting way. As someone who stumbled, in part, because of lack of information, I agree with you that it would be extremely helpful (for some).What other church teaches a history lesson on a Sunday? What other church teaches it's history to it's members at all?Why are we expected to be different in this manner?
thesometimesaint Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 Somdbodyz:IF someone is interested the history of most churches is available. We do a good job in teaching it, not perfect, but good.
Recommended Posts