Best Evidences For And Against The Church Being True...

[omni]

@pmccombs1:

I get the spirit in which you say all that but, still, none of your pros don't apply to other Churches, even non-Christian churches.

I tend to agree with you on this. I see these as wonderful benefits one can gain from membership in the church rather than evidences.

Here's a couple more:

For: The mass vision of angels at the Kirtland Temple

Against: The connection of masonry and the temple, not to mention significant changes in both the purpose of temples and the temple ceremony itself.

[Nathair/|\]

I tend to agree with you on this. I see these as wonderful benefits one can gain from membership in the church rather than evidences.

Here's a couple more:

For: The mass vision of angels at the Kirtland Temple

Against: The connection of masonry and the temple, not to mention significant changes in both the purpose of temples and the temple ceremony itself.

Why is the connection with masonry evidence against? That's another claim I've never seen an actual argument for.

[3DOP]

Pros:

1. The eleven witnesses.

Not convincing. I tend to agree that eleven people saw something happen. The question is not whether they saw something, but whether they were good at discerning what they saw. Because of the implications of their understanding, I have the strongest reasons for concluding that they misunderstood what they observed.

2. Internal complexity of the BoM.

Is it? I am unqualified to say one way or the other. Not all internally complex literature is inspired by God.

3. NHM/Nahom

I don't know what that is. (Please don't explain)

4. No apostles or members of the presidency have left the church (since the beginning days of the restoration) after rising to the top and seeing the man behind the curtain.

"The man behind the curtain"? What do non-LDS think there would be to observe that ought to make an apostle leave after being elevated to the highest offices? We don't think that you guys are insincere, and the higher up you go, the more serious and sincere you all tend to be. We don't think its some Wizard of Oz thing. I don't know why becoming an apostle would make you more susceptible to leaving. It seems like those who become apostles would be those with most faith. So all we have to do to prove our churches are true is to not have leaders leave?

Cons:

1. Polygamy/polyandry.

If polygamy isn't compatible with the true church, then no Christian has found it. Would not this argument nullify the Jewish Church from which Christ came?

2. Blacks and the priesthood.

For how long? Christ might not come back for another two thousand years or more. This is a naturalistic argument that doesn't take into consideration that for prudential reasons, at the very earliest beginnings of the Church, God withheld the priesthood for a few generations from blacks. Is there a formal teaching from that period which states that blacks were thought to be unequal as the rest of society held?

3. BoM (anachronisms, King James style English used, scripture taken directly from a future New Testament, all spot on specific prophesies occurred before Joseph's time period or involved him).

Elizabethan English is elegant. Joseph's religious thoughts were clothed in that language. It would seem strange if the translation had been otherwise. Prophecies are often unfulfilled for centuries. If the Jews had been so impatient, they would have given up long before Jesus came.

4. BoA obvious mistranslations.

Sorry you are wrong. Not obvious. I have seen this debated over and over. You should have said, "It can be argued that the BoA has mistranslations." Worst case scenario...its faulty. So what? Its Catholics who believe in the infallibility of their church. Are you saying that the LDS Church can't make a mistake?

5. Changing doctrine (Adam/God theory, blood atonement, black less valiant).

Brigham Young lived at the time when papal infallibility was formulated at the First Vatican Council in 1870. One of the most misunderstood teachings of the Catholic Church is papal infallibility. That council took care to show how that charism is believed to be very strictly limited. Even popes can possibly teach error most of the time according to Catholics! But LDS reject this Catholic doctrine for their leadership. Why? Because they KNOW that their leaders are susceptible to error. Besides, where do you find this stuff in the Standard Works? The Journal of Discourses is fine as an historical record. It isn't Scripture. Even then, Scripture isn't even infallible, only very reliable. There are advantages and disadvantages to denials of infallibility for Scripture and prophets. This is an undeniable advantage. How does it prove the church wrong to have made a mistake when the same church says that it is susceptible to making a mistake, and you find one or two every 150 years?

6. Gays-current doctrine teaches they didn't choose to be gay, so why would God deny them marriage and all the blessing that come with it?

Current doctrine is whatever the Standard Works say, and that is subject to interpretation, most reliably, but not infallibly, by Church Leadership. You can disagree with their interpretation, and even be correct, but that would never speak to whether the Church was true or false.

7. Becoming god-like...I've just never been able to wrap my mind around this one.

Get used to it. Everybody is moving in this direction. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have always taught it. But forget about that. St. Peter says that we have been made partakers of the divine nature. How can that happen without starting to resemble God? We are going to partake of God's nature but not become like God? How does that work?

8. Kinderhook plates

I've heard of them. I don't know what it is/they are. After many years, I know without studying them that every anti-Mormon claim can be reasonably answered.

Fun exercise, especially the cons.

3DOP

[ERayR]

I realize that for most spiritual confirmation will be number one, but please expand. I also realize that many of the same evidences will continue to pop up, that's okay, I as it will probably confirm which are the strongest. I'll go ahead and give mine in no particular order:

Pros:

1. The eleven witnesses.

2. Internal complexity of the BoM.

3. NHM/Nahom

4. No apostles or members of the presidency have left the church (since the beginning days of the restoration) after rising to the top and seeing the man behind the curtain.

Cons:

1. Polygamy/polyandry.

2. Blacks and the priesthood.

3. BoM (anachronisms, King James style English used, scripture taken directly from a future New Testament, all spot on specific prophesies occurred before Joseph's time period or involved him).

4. BoA obvious mistranslations.

5. Changing doctrine (Adam/God theory, blood atonement, black less valiant).

6. Gays-current doctrine teaches they didn't choose to be gay, so why would God deny them marriage and all the blessing that come with it?

7. Becoming god-like...I've just never been able to wrap my mind around this one.

8. Kinderhook plates

Personal Revelation trumps all the cons.

Edited January 28, 2013 by ERayR

[Alvino]

So you criticize church authorities for not being profound but you are unable to provide a definition or examples what is profound. Hmmm

I can give examples though not a definition (btw, I explained why not a definition, might want to check that out). Also, I'm not criticizing church authorities for not being profound but that it seems we would expect much more from the leaders of a Church that needed to be restored.

[Freedom]

1) A church "office" building

Ok, so the true church would not have an adminsitrative center.

2) Investment firms

The true church has no financial resources

3) City Creek Mall

The true church does not invest in its community

4) Everything a trademark or service mark, including Family Home Evening ™, under which commerce is done and programs received that bandage things like modern dissolute families in an effort to be "in the world, but not of it." This policy also demands that the Church do its alms before men, that is, never to mount a significant humanitarian effort without adequate media coverage and branding.

so the true church does not promote programs and protect them from being highjacked.

5) Jesus somehow only calls successful, suit-wearing men into his group of chosen leaders. There are no poor among them, apparently they being unqualified to hear the voice of the Lord.

You need to get to know the general authorities. Poverty today has almost entirely to do with personal choice or some sort of disability. The leadership of the the church have special skills. I have never met a successful person who is poor. This is not an ancient civilization of illiterate nomads.

6) The gospel has been so heavily correlated and standardized that there is no longer any need for a prophet who receives continuing revelation. Instead, we count new church policies as the inspiration we seek. This "hastening of the work" will almost certainly produce no measurable relief to the great majority of the world's suffering, as it has also failed to do in the past, and amounts to so much vanity.

So set doctrine prevents revelation?

7) A Church that confuses "serving the Lord" with "rest" and thus defiles its own Sabbath with hour-after-hour of meetings and programs, leaving many of its people exhausted.

Can you provide an example of Jesus taking a nap on the sabbath? Rest is serving the lord, It is a rest from worldly duties

[Alvino]

After seeing the direction of the discussion here...

Against:

The things that are said to be restored through the Church seem to sound hollow and if they are to not sound hollow then they don't seem relevantly different from more liberal versions of, say, Catholic theology. I mean, won't God at least take into account that someone got baptized with good intent even if they did so under Catholic practice? Does God hear the prayers of non-Mormons less than those of Mormons? If there are relevant differences it seems that God isn't a very good person. If there are not, then, why such noise about a restoration in the first place?

The only thing that seems to separate the LDS Church from others is that the ordinances they perform, supposedly, are now done with the authority God wanted. But that just sounds too weak. Charity is preached and practiced by other churches as well, same with love of and to God, if not even better than the LDS Church. Believers seem to be just as honest and good in other Churches. Let's say God gave again the real priesthood to the Pope and no LDS Church existed. What would really be lost? Unless you think the Pope is an evil guy, why not give him the doctrines that supposedly needed to be restored given that these doctrines don't seem to be all that important in the first place as far as the character of people and spiritual transformation go?

Edited January 28, 2013 by Alvino

[cdowis]

Or how a young man such as Joseph Smith could have written it and without a manuscript. It does seem unbelievable.

Really quite simple, he had a candle and a manuscript in the hat...... but that leaves the question of how he was able to turn the pages.

Anyway, those who laugh at JS because he used a hat in the translation process have discovered that hat has become a two edged sword.

[cdowis]

Let's say God gave again the real priesthood to the Pope and no LDS Church existed. What would really be lost? Unless you think the Pope is an evil guy, why not give him the doctrines that supposedly needed to be restored given that these doctrines don't seem to be all that important in the first place as far as the character of people and spiritual transformation go?

Read where Christ talks about "new wine in old bottles". It just does not work.

[Stargazer]

By golly! Jesus is indeed profound and I often think of his words, believe it or not. I find Isaiah to be more poetic than profound but still quite profound. About providing a definition, I obviously can't. It seems to me just a matter of degree, not of definition, just like there really isn't a precise definition of "loud" in conversation (how high the volume is loud?).

So you criticize church authorities for not being profound but you are unable to provide a definition or examples what is profound. Hmmm

A decent definition of the word "profound" is:

Intellectually deep; entering far into subjects; reaching to the bottom of a matter, or of a branch of learning; thorough; as, a profound investigation or treatise; a profound scholar; profound wisdom

What Alvino is looking for is deepness, not plainness. Since GAs tend to be very plain and stick to the basics, of course he does not consider their words profound. He is simply shopping in the wrong store. I have no problem with that, per se, but this has no bearing on whether the church is true or not. Truth, often enough, is not profound, but very plain -- sometimes truth just smacks you in the face with plainness. On the other hand, there is much fairy tale which is quite profound. Fun, perhaps, but irrelevant in a discussion involving the question "What is true?"

See my response to his search for profundity HERE.

[omni]

Pros:

1. The eleven witnesses.

Not convincing. I tend to agree that eleven people saw something happen. The question is not whether they saw something, but whether they were good at discerning what they saw. Because of the implications of their understanding, I have the strongest reasons for concluding that they misunderstood what they observed.

2. Internal complexity of the BoM.

Is it? I am unqualified to say one way or the other. Not all internally complex literature is inspired by God.

Omni: While it certainly doesn't prove it was inspired by God, I think it would have been incredibly difficult to do it, especially by one with Joseph's education.

3. NHM/Nahom

I don't know what that is. (Please don't explain)

Omni: I would also like to add the old world geography "hits" with this.

4. No apostles or members of the presidency have left the church (since the beginning days of the restoration) after rising to the top and seeing the man behind the curtain.

"The man behind the curtain"? What do non-LDS think there would be to observe that ought to make an apostle leave after being elevated to the highest offices? We don't think that you guys are insincere, and the higher up you go, the more serious and sincere you all tend to be. We don't think its some Wizard of Oz thing. I don't know why becoming an apostle would make you more susceptible to leaving. It seems like those who become apostles would be those with most faith. So all we have to do to prove our churches are true is to not have leaders leave?

Omni: One aspect of this involves the belief that once one becomes an apostle one also becomes a special witness of Christ. I was taught by my mission president in zone conference that when you are a special witness of Christ, you have seen him in the flesh. This isn't some fringe belief, as I've talked to many about this and most if not all have felt the same. If this is indeed true and an apostle didn't receive a visitation from Christ, along with other common assumptions made about apostles/prophets he might then question and leave. I wouldn't think this would be a common response, but you would think it would happen at least once.

Cons:

1. Polygamy/polyandry.

If polygamy isn't compatible with the true church, then no Christian has found it. Would not this argument nullify the Jewish Church from which Christ came?

Omni: Perhaps maybe, just maybe God didn't authorize polygamy in the OT either.

2. Blacks and the priesthood.

For how long? Christ might not come back for another two thousand years or more. This is a naturalistic argument that doesn't take into consideration that for prudential reasons, at the very earliest beginnings of the Church, God withheld the priesthood for a few generations from blacks. Is there a formal teaching from that period which states that blacks were thought to be unequal as the rest of society held?

Omni: Have you read the journal of discourses? I have trouble understanding why God would deny the blessings of the priesthood to someone based solely on their race, or lineage for that matter. This is especially difficult when considering the history surrounding the ban.

3. BoM (anachronisms, King James style English used, scripture taken directly from a future New Testament, all spot on specific prophesies occurred before Joseph's time period or involved him).

Elizabethan English is elegant. Joseph's religious thoughts were clothed in that language. It would seem strange if the translation had been otherwise. Prophecies are often unfulfilled for centuries. If the Jews had been so impatient, they would have given up long before Jesus came.

Omni: If you were asked to translate something today would you do it in Elizabethian English because it's more elegant? What's interesting is if you look at Warren Jeffs "prophesies" and those of many of the LDS off shoots they all use this same style of writing not realizing that God probably doesn't speak like that, it's just the language of the period the KJV was written in.

4. BoA obvious mistranslations.

Sorry you are wrong. Not obvious. I have seen this debated over and over. You should have said, "It can be argued that the BoA has mistranslations." Worst case scenario...its faulty. So what? Its Catholics who believe in the infallibility of their church. Are you saying that the LDS Church can't make a mistake?

Omni: I'm not aware of any egyptologists (including LDS) who would say the translation is even remotely correct. I'm vaguely aware of the catalyst theory, but than why did Joseph not mention this, why doesn't the church today teach this?

5. Changing doctrine (Adam/God theory, blood atonement, black less valiant).

Brigham Young lived at the time when papal infallibility was formulated at the First Vatican Council in 1870. One of the most misunderstood teachings of the Catholic Church is papal infallibility. That council took care to show how that charism is believed to be very strictly limited. Even popes can possibly teach error most of the time according to Catholics! But LDS reject this Catholic doctrine for their leadership. Why? Because they KNOW that their leaders are susceptible to error. Besides, where do you find this stuff in the Standard Works? The Journal of Discourses is fine as an historical record. It isn't Scripture. Even then, Scripture isn't even infallible, only very reliable. There are advantages and disadvantages to denials of infallibility for Scripture and prophets. This is an undeniable advantage. How does it prove the church wrong to have made a mistake when the same church says that it is susceptible to making a mistake, and you find one or two every 150 years?

Omni: This goes to the whole issue of "what is doctrine."? I'm pretty sure if you asked BY and the saints at the time if it was doctrine they would swear to it. I'm not sure what the Catholic Church and it's infallibility have to do with this.

6. Gays-current doctrine teaches they didn't choose to be gay, so why would God deny them marriage and all the blessing that come with it?

Current doctrine is whatever the Standard Works say, and that is subject to interpretation, most reliably, but not infallibly, by Church Leadership. You can disagree with their interpretation, and even be correct, but that would never speak to whether the Church was true or false.

7. Becoming god-like...I've just never been able to wrap my mind around this one.

Get used to it. Everybody is moving in this direction. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have always taught it. But forget about that. St. Peter says that we have been made partakers of the divine nature. How can that happen without starting to resemble God? We are going to partake of God's nature but not become like God? How does that work?

Omni: I'm pretty sure if I asked 100 Catholics right now if their church believed in theosis, 99 would just laugh in my face.

8. Kinderhook plates

I've heard of them. I don't know what it is/they are. After many years, I know without studying them that every anti-Mormon claim can be reasonably answered.

Omni: After Joseph translated them, complete with a backstory of the civilization, the man who found and gave them to Joseph admitted they were a hoax and explained in detail how he created them.

Fun exercise, especially the cons.

Omni: Care to add any yourself?

3DOP

[Freedom]

I can give examples though not a definition (btw, I explained why not a definition, might want to check that out). Also, I'm not criticizing church authorities for not being profound but that it seems we would expect much more from the leaders of a Church that needed to be restored.

then you would have to give examples otherwise you are arguing from silence. I do not quite understand why a church leader has to have unique literary skills to create brilliant prose. They are not here to create poetry, they are here to teach the simple beauty of the restored gospel. Is a doctor less of a doctor is he cannot write medical text books? The two skills are not related.

[Maidservant]

I mean, won't God at least take into account that someone got baptized with good intent even if they did so under Catholic practice?

"take into account" for what and in what way? What do you think the purpose of baptism is, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Generally speaking, God and LDS always take into account "good intents", and I think especially the last several years of the church's approach to people of other faiths and other good and sincere people in the world, this has been pretty clear.

Does God hear the prayers of non-Mormons less than those of Mormons?

LDS never make this claim. In fact, the opposite. Where are you getting this idea as even a crux of discussion?

If there are not, then, why such noise about a restoration in the first place?

Good question. Maybe start a whole thread on this.

In my mysticism religion class, my professor wrote two categories on the board. He wrote the first category: "What got broken" and the second was: "How to fix it." Then throughout the semester as we discussed various religions (etc), we always asked and answered these questions from the point of view of the subject religion. How Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, Evangelism, Hinduism, LDS-ism answers these questions is different. You wouldn't think so, since the broader frame--THAT something got broken in the world of men, and THAT it needs to be fixed, is pretty universal. But the details are distinct.

I think that the LDS answers to those two questions are distinct from even other Christians, and a restoration makes the claim that whatever ancient information or connection we had with God, as a world, we have lost, so that others do not understand the proper answers to those questions (LDS leaders would never frame those questions, I'm just bringing out a thought exercise that I learned).

But I do agree with you that if the only thing we can say about the truth of the Church is: great for families . . . then that doesn't justify creating a whole new paradigm, a whole new institution (unless for fun or because we can).

The trouble is in the way the OP was asked. It asked for evidences that seem to mount on either side of it being true or not. The most 'objectively' true thing about the church may be the 'internal complexity of the Book of Mormon', BUT that's not the same thing as saying something such as: the most important truth the Church brings to the earth (restored) is the Priesthood and all its blessings.

So you can't use the Priesthood as an evidence of objective truth (or?), coz that's going straight to 'spiritual witness' and we granted that in the OP and then went on to discuss other items that tend to collect in our minds.

( I should mention that 'objective' truth is meaningless to me in my personal paradigm, but I was just trying to identify what we are doing here in this thread.)

The only thing that seems to separate the LDS Church from others is that the ordinances they perform, supposedly, are now done with the authority God wanted. But that just sounds too weak. Charity is preached and practiced by other churches as well, same with love of and to God, if not even better than the LDS Church. Believers seem to be just as honest and good in other Churches.

Why does it sound too weak? What do you think the purposes of the ordinances are?

Also it's not the only thing. The knowledge that we are literal sons and daughters of God and that God has a body is a pretty big section of Restoration. There's a lot of Restoration in the restoration. And it's not just a restoration of Jesus' church from the meridian of time. It's a restoration of all dispensations plus new stuff for the current dispensation we are in.

You are right to ask: what is it that is being offered if charity and honesty exists somewhere else, everywhere else, potentially?

So what is it?

Is it freedom from the chains of error-laden ideologies so that these very same charitable and honest people all over the world, don't have to be blinded by (or as claimed)? So that they don't have to think that their loved ones are lost to them forever (etc)? So that they don't have to think that some people are destined for hell (LDS don't have an eternal hell; rather three degrees of happiness)?

It's a lot more than even that, but I offer that as a starting point.

Let's say God gave again the real priesthood to the Pope and no LDS Church existed. What would really be lost?

Then the Pope would be Joseph Smith or vice versa and no biggie and Jesus would still create the Church as it is now with whoever he wanted to use.

Lost in what? Lost of what? We came to earth to progress. It's not about evil. It's about learning. It's about reaching our next potential as eternal beings. You do know that LDS doctrine saves everyone (who wants to be saved)?

Unless you think the Pope is an evil guy, why not give him the doctrines that supposedly needed to be restored given that these doctrines don't seem to be all that important in the first place as far as the character of people and spiritual transformation go?

Again, it's not about evil.

This is a good question to ask God himself.

And again, the most important truths of the gospel ARE transformational, but that wasn't the question of the OP.

Why not reveal to the Pope the Restoration? Why not reveal to an Muslim Imam the Restoration? Why not reveal to the Dalai Lama the Restoration? Why not reveal it to Abraham Lincoln? No problem, of course, with any of these people, but that's simply not how it played out.

Why not reveal to a 14 year old boy?

Edited January 28, 2013 by Maidservant

[Freedom]

Omni: Perhaps maybe, just maybe God didn't authorize polygamy in the OT either.

That is conjecture on your part that has no doctrinal support in the scriptures.

Omni: Have you read the journal of discourses? I have trouble understanding why God would deny the blessings of the priesthood to someone based solely on their race, or lineage for that matter. This is especially difficult when considering the history surrounding the ban.

You may have to ask why the Savior enforced the same restrictions during his ministry.

Omni: If you were asked to translate something today would you do it in Elizabethian English because it's more elegant? What's interesting is if you look at Warren Jeffs "prophesies" and those of many of the LDS off shoots they all use this same style of writing not realizing that God probably doesn't speak like that, it's just the language of the period the KJV was written in.

This argument is spurious in my opinion. This is like rejecting a message because the messenger has a german accent.

Omni: I'm not aware of any egyptologists (including LDS) who would say the translation is even remotely correct. I'm vaguely aware of the catalyst theory, but than why did Joseph not mention this, why doesn't the church today teach this?

I am not aware of any egyptologist who would say they have seen the source material that produced the book of Abraham. Those who express an opinion the matter rely on the distortions and mis-directions of the ani-mormons.

Omni: This goes to the whole issue of "what is doctrine."? I'm pretty sure if you asked BY and the saints at the time if it was doctrine they would swear to it. I'm not sure what the Catholic Church and it's infallibility have to do with this.

So you are proposing we climb into the minds of the early saints? This is more conjecture on your part without any evidence

Omni: I'm pretty sure if I asked 100 Catholics right now if their church believed in theosis, 99 would just laugh in my face.

Well then, why don't you ask 100 of them? I suggest you ask 100 priests. You will find you are wrong.

Omni: After Joseph translated them, complete with a backstory of the civilization, the man who found and gave them to Joseph admitted they were a hoax and explained in detail how he created them.

I don't know where you are getting your information from, but it is not from facts. He never translated them and never gave them a second thought after first looking at them.

[williamsmith]

Cons:

1. Polygamy/polyandry.

Why? This same criticism can be used against the Abraham

2. Blacks and the priesthood.

Why? This same criticism can be used against the Savior

3. BoM (anachronisms, King James style English used, scripture taken directly from a future New Testament, all spot on specific prophesies occurred before Joseph's time period or involved him).

KJ style is evidence of it being false? Don't follow you. The anachronisms are shrinking as more evidence comes forward. The teachings from the NT prove that the teachings were not unique to the early saints but rather consistent with eternal principles

4. BoA obvious mistranslations.

Obvious to who? The BoA has been proven consistent with other documents that have been discovered after JS translated it.

5. Changing doctrine (Adam/God theory, blood atonement, black less valiant).

None of these are changing doctrines. None of these were ever doctrines.

6. Gays-current doctrine teaches they didn't choose to be gay, so why would God deny them marriage and all the blessing that come with it?

People don't choose to be ADHD, schizophrenic, hot tempered and host of other character flaws. We are born with weaknesses and can either conquer them or succumb to them.

7. Becoming god-like...I've just never been able to wrap my mind around this one.

So you reject the teachings of the bible? Why else would God, our Father, tell us to be like him and promise us that inherit all that he has?

8. Kinderhook plates

Read the history, this is a non-issue.

I second that.

Obviously some of these answers could be better expanded on, such as the first two, someone else doing something also isn't necessarily a pro, but the ultimate point is that almost every "con" against the Church is actually a "Pro" (or at least neutral and not a bad thing) when the full facts are had.

Edited January 28, 2013 by williamsmith

[williamsmith]

3. NHM/Nahom

This actually isn't anything strong "by itself".

What is valuable about this is that Lehi's entire journey has been discovered and validated. 100's of evidences spanning an entire continent, along with the Nahom evidence which was only one part of that journey.

Everyone who want's to know the strongest collection of evidences for the Restoration needs to read Nephi Projects "Lehi in the Wilderness..." book.

http://www.nephiproject.com

[pmccombs1]

1) A church "office" building

Ok, so the true church would not have an adminsitrative center.

No, it wouldn't have a business administrative center.

2) Investment firms

The true church has no financial resources

It would have no corporate financial resources.

3) City Creek Mall

The true church does not invest in its community

Not through corporate retail channels, no. That's serving money interests.

4) Everything a trademark or service mark, including Family Home Evening ™, under which commerce is done and programs received that bandage things like modern dissolute families in an effort to be "in the world, but not of it." This policy also demands that the Church do its alms before men, that is, never to mount a significant humanitarian effort without adequate media coverage and branding.

so the true church does not promote programs and protect them from being highjacked.

It does not promote corporate-feeling programs that offer second-bests in place of actual healing of family and communities. In order to trademark something, you have to ply commerce with that thing. Trademark is to protect interstate commerce. That's not how you heal families and communities.

5) Jesus somehow only calls successful, suit-wearing men into his group of chosen leaders. There are no poor among them, apparently they being unqualified to hear the voice of the Lord.

You need to get to know the general authorities. Poverty today has almost entirely to do with personal choice or some sort of disability. The leadership of the the church have special skills. I have never met a successful person who is poor. This is not an ancient civilization of illiterate nomads.

Poverty has always had to do with personal choices and disabilities. Jesus said that through the low things, the high ones would be put to shame. It was by working through just these very people of poor choices and disabilities that he showed forth his power, and also through those who chose the low road of poverty even when whole and sound.

6) The gospel has been so heavily correlated and standardized that there is no longer any need for a prophet who receives continuing revelation. Instead, we count new church policies as the inspiration we seek. This "hastening of the work" will almost certainly produce no measurable relief to the great majority of the world's suffering, as it has also failed to do in the past, and amounts to so much vanity.

So set doctrine prevents revelation?

No, closed canons do, as do dumbed-down and impoverished vocabularies and meta-texts generated by computer systems.

7) A Church that confuses "serving the Lord" with "rest" and thus defiles its own Sabbath with hour-after-hour of meetings and programs, leaving many of its people exhausted.

Can you provide an example of Jesus taking a nap on the sabbath? Rest is serving the lord, It is a rest from worldly duties

Rest and napping are not synonyms. You project a lot of unwarranted assumptions into my observations in order to build up some strange straw men! There are all manner of restful ways of serving the Lord, and none of these leave folks tired at the end of the day. Rest and busy-ness (business!) are opposites and always have been, even if the "busy" has to do with Church duties. The Sabbath is for man and not man for the Sabbath; some of our people work 7-9 hour Sundays away from their families, and youth are increasingly called to firesides and evening meetings during dinner time, keeping parents hopping. "Rest from worldly duties" is equivocation; it's an excuse to break the Sabbath and spend hours upon en serving it. My opinion.

Look, I used to think just like that. Something changed and those ideas just don't work for me anymore. If I am to know the truth when I see it, this isn't it. These old excuses I used to repeat to myself, that I see you have also discovered, don't work for me anymore. Something has changed with how I see things; this isn't what I expect fro Christianity, or from a Lord and Savior. Nobody needs to see like I do, though. I've been known to be wrong before and probably am once again.

Edited January 28, 2013 by pmccombs1

[Freedom]

No, it wouldn't have a business administrative center.

Why not, and how would it function

It would have no corporate financial resources.

Why not? You make it sound like a prosperous private sector is somehow evil

Not through corporate retail channels, no. That's serving money interests.

Money interests are your interests. It is how we get food, housing and healthcare.

It does not promote corporate-feeling programs that offer second-bests in place of actual healing of family and communities. In order to trademark something, you have to ply commerce with that thing. Trademark is to protect interstate commerce. That's not how you heal families and communities.

Uhh, are you suggesting that the church makes money off of family home evening?

Poverty has always had to do with personal choices and disabilities. Jesus said that through the low things, the high ones would be put to shame. It was by working through just these very people of poor choices and disabilities that he showed forth his power, and also through those who chose the low road of poverty even when whole and sound.

I do not know anybody who, in their right mine, chooses poverty. We are to be self sufficient. We are to work and be productive. Those who are not are poor.

No, closed canons do, as do dumbed-down and impoverished vocabularies and meta-texts generated by computer systems.

I have no idea what you are trying to argue here.

Rest and napping are not synonyms. You project a lot of unwarranted assumptions into my observations in order to build up some strange straw men! There are all manner of restful ways of serving the Lord, and none of these leave folks tired at the end of the day. Rest and busy-ness (business!) are opposites and always have been, even if the "busy" has to do with Church duties. The Sabbath is for man and not man for the Sabbath; some of our people work 7-9 hour Sundays away from their families, and youth are increasingly called to firesides and evening meetings during dinner time, keeping parents hopping. "Rest from worldly duties" is equivocation; it's an excuse to break the Sabbath and spend hours upon en serving it. My opinion.

Look, I used to think just like that. Something changed and those ideas just don't work for me anymore. If I am to know the truth when I see it, this isn't it. These old excuses I used to repeat to myself, that I see you have also discovered, don't work for me anymore. Something has changed with how I see things; this isn't what I expect fro Christianity, or from a Lord and Savior. Nobody needs to see like I do, though. I've been known to be wrong before and probably am once again.

We go to church for 3 hours, have a fireside every two months, and have priesthood training twice/year. When would you suggest the bishops carry out church business if not on Sunday? Are we do just abandon those in need to are trying to seek the assistance of the church? I have no idea what you are proposing,. You seem to be an anarchist at heart. Real people in the real world work and this work takes time but it produces results. Clearly the success of the members of the church prove you to be wrong.

[bdouglas]

Pros:

The work Joseph Smith produced, the corpus of scripture: BOM, D&C, and PofGP. No man wrote those books. They came from God--or at least so I think.

Cons:

What the church has become today--or rather, the "bewildering contradictions" (H. Nibley) evident (to me at least) in the corporate church and church culture today. To cite only one: the amount of money the Twelve and 1st prez are paid. I live close to the vacation home of one of the Twelve, one who was not well-heeled at the time of his call, and it took some serious money to build this vacation home. This bothers me. I have to wonder if being a "prophet, seer and a revelator" is consistent with getting paid 700k/year--or whatever the amount is, and it is not a small amount.

Edited January 28, 2013 by bdouglas

[why me]

Really quite simple, he had a candle and a manuscript in the hat...... but that leaves the question of how he was able to turn the pages.

Anyway, those who laugh at JS because he used a hat in the translation process have discovered that hat has become a two edged sword.

That has always been my point too. The hat trick is quite faith promoting. We can also take it a little further down the road: why spend time writing a book when one will just stick their head in a hat to rewrite it? Or if sidney wrote it and gave it to Joseph as the fall guy, does sidney really want Joseph to stick his head in his hat to rewrite it?

Something was going on in the process.

Edited January 28, 2013 by why me

[why me]

I live close to the vacation home of one of the Twelve, one who was not well-heeled at the time of his call, and it took some serious money to build this vacation home. This bothers me. I have to wonder if being a "prophet, seer and a revelator" is consistent with getting paid 700k/year--or whatever the amount is, and it is not a small amount.

We can only guess because we don't know the GAs name. But you do. I think that the problem is in how the money was had. In America, a good inheritance can go a long way. I think that most of the GAs are rather well off when they get their callings. They must give up all and head on the road for most of the year. I don't think that they get much money as a GA.

[bdouglas]

You didn't read my post. Not all GAs come to their calling with money. Some come from backgrounds that pay a lot, but a few do not.

The idea that GA get a modest "stipend" that covers living expenses only--well, it just isn't true. I know from a family member who was a Seventy. But I'm not talking about Seventies, I'm talking about the Twelve and 1st Prez. I know they carry heavy burdens and I know the church has a multitude of businesses and operations, etc., etc. Maybe this shouldn't bother me, maybe I'm missing something, or maybe I'm just being thin-skinned, or something else. But right now it rubs me the wrong way.

Edited January 28, 2013 by bdouglas

[why me]

You didn't read my post. Not all GAs come to their calling with money. Some come from backgrounds that pay a lot, but a few do not.

I don't know that until I see their bank accounts. But my point is that money can be had though inheritance and from a loan or from a good investment. We all must live and think of our family.

[Robert F. Smith]

I realize that for most spiritual confirmation will be number one, but please expand. I also realize that many of the same evidences will continue to pop up, that's okay, I as it will probably confirm which are the strongest. I'll go ahead and give mine in no particular order:

Pros:

1. The eleven witnesses.

2. Internal complexity of the BoM.

3. NHM/Nahom

4. No apostles or members of the presidency have left the church (since the beginning days of the restoration) after rising to the top and seeing the man behind the curtain.

Cons:

1. Polygamy/polyandry.

2. Blacks and the priesthood.

3. BoM (anachronisms, King James style English used, scripture taken directly from a future New Testament, all spot on specific prophesies occurred before Joseph's time period or involved him).

4. BoA obvious mistranslations.

5. Changing doctrine (Adam/God theory, blood atonement, black less valiant).

6. Gays-current doctrine teaches they didn't choose to be gay, so why would God deny them marriage and all the blessing that come with it?

7. Becoming god-like...I've just never been able to wrap my mind around this one.

8. Kinderhook plates

Spiritual confirmation of some kind may be very important in conversion, but where does one go from there? Moreover, what happens to BICs as they grow up? Do they begin to say (with Mike Quinn) "The unexamined faith is not worth having"? And how does a closer examination play out in real life? I often read that research shows that, unlike many other religions, LDS with higher education feel quite comfortable as Mormons.

Meantime, your pro #4 appears to be false, thus raising a question as to your familiarity with LDS Church history.

Except for #7, your cons all seem be the result of rumormongering (you perhaps being victimized by it), rather than real history & doctrine.

[rpn]

How do you know the GA owns the vacation home? And do you know whether someone gave it to him as a gift, or whether he earned it in deferred compensation he only got when he retired?