The New Anti-Mormons Are Lds

[3DOP]

Saemo is a little nervous about the synod this week and the changes that it may bring. If the changes are huge, it will be hard for saemo to claim that the lds changes its doctrine like the wind over an ocean unlike the catholic church. I do think that they are nerovous on the catholic forum. However we can see from saemo's posts that this poster does not respect the lds church nor its members.

 

I  am also waiting to see what changes will come from the synod. I am hoping for no changes but I do think that some change will be likely, mainly about divorced catholics and perhaps contraception.

 

 

I appreciate your attention to the news and your ability to see what is going to be tried, but this "synod" doesn't have authority to overturn 2,000 years of teaching on the sacrament of Matrimony. This isn't changing the Friday penance to something of your choice if you want to eat meat. This is not pastoral. This is not disciplinary. It is faith and morals.

 

The constant teaching of the Catholic Church would deny that even a pope or ecumenical council has authority to change church teaching on the Sacrament. This is sooooo deeply rooted. Why did the pope let the entire island of England leave the Church? If divorced and remarried people could receive Holy Communion, what was all the fuss about with Henry VIII? How stupid has the Church been to have taught that it was adultery for nearly 2,000 years? Who could think the true church could pull such a colossal blunder to its own detriment?

[mormonnewb]

If someone asked me what I thought, no matter what their calling, I would be honest and tell them. Why else are they asking? I have spoken with members of the Stake presidency about issues, why would a prophet be different? Would you not be honest? Aren't we supposed to honest in our dealings as per temple interviews and articles of faith? Do you have any evidence for your cynicism? Or is it just your usual negativity? And yes, if this is the Lords Church, which I believebit is, He will deal with the Prophets, one way or anothera

My best evidence comes from the time I spent a few hours with four of the Brethren at an event. I even had an opportunity to speak one-on-one with Pres. Uchtdorf. And while I could have brought up my concerns about SSM, OW or historical controversies, I shook his hand shakily and muttered (probably incomprehensibly):

"This such an honor, President Uchtdorf. My wife and I are recent converts and we very much enjoy your conference talks."

I then ran into a corner and texted my wife, "I met Uchtdorf! I'm the man!"

Now, if a hopeless apostate like me was turned into a 13-to Justin Bieber fan when I met an apostle, you'll have a hard time convincing me that the faithful would use their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take a prophet to task.

And for the record, none of these four men were walking around the event asking, "Am I doing a good job? Come on, tell me! I won't get mad." So unless they are constantly being put into close contact with people far ruder than me (assuming there are such folks), I don't think the topic of their faults comes up much.

[mfbukowski]

My best evidence comes from the time I spent a few hours with four of the Brethren at an event. I even had an opportunity to speak one-on-one with Pres. Uchtdorf. And while I could have brought up my concerns about SSM, OW or historical controversies, I shook his hand shakily and muttered (probably incomprehensibly):

"This such an honor, President Uchtdorf. My wife and I are recent converts and we very much enjoy your conference talks."

I then ran into a corner and texted my wife, "I met Uchtdorf! I'm the man!"

Now, if a hopeless apostate like me was turned into a 13-to Justin Bieber fan when I met an apostle, you'll have a hard time convincing me that the faithful would use their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take a prophet to task.

And for the record, none of these four men were walking around the event asking, "Am I doing a good job? Come on, tell me! I won't get mad." So unless they are constantly being put into close contact with people far ruder than me (assuming there are such folks), I don't think the topic of their faults comes up much.

I think it is clear from the context of this morning's talks that they are very aware of the "the church no longer gets revelation" theme found here on the internet, as well as obviously the changes already being made in how women participate in general conference.  Practically the whole session was dedicated to the former of these

 

It is very clear to me that they are highly aware of all these issues.  It's hard for me to even imagine how you get the impression that they are isolated from dissent.

 

There was even a talk on the fact that they are NOT isolated from dissent.   Maybe you should just listen better.  They ARE responding to concerns voiced by folks like you, and for we who are not newbies, it is quite obvious

 

Just think- someone in the church office building is probably typing a report on this very thread.

Edited October 6, 2014 by mfbukowski

[sheilauk]

They do not spend most of their time on pleasant walkabouts. What you describe isn't really an opportunity to discuss policy. They do spend a lot of time talking to mission presidents, members of the 70s, stake presidents and auxiliary leaders. Those people spend a lot of time talking to members. I believe they do examine the Church and look to improve where necessary (I dont think there's as much wrong with it as some seem to feel). I think concerns filter up but take time. And I believe the Lord inspires and talks to them. I am in a political party and have much interest in politics and business and in the secular world, trust is and should be hard won. The Church is not a business nor the Government and should not be approached as such. The Lord asks us to trust Him and put our lives in His hands. For me that includes having faith in His Church. If that makes me "righteous" in your eyes, I'm sorry. I am far from "righteous". I have been a member of other churches and a member of none and this Church is different. Have faith.

[Hamba Tuhan]

It's hard for me to even imagine how you get the impression that they are isolated from dissent.

 

Because -- obviously! -- the only rational explanation for why the latter-day prophets haven't already repented of their backward ways and sided with the dissenters is if they aren't really aware of the dissent.

[mormonnewb]

I think it is clear from the context of this morning's talks that they are very aware of the "the church no longer gets revelation" theme found here on the internet, as well as obviously the changes already being made in how women participate in general conference. Practically the whole session was dedicated to the former of these

It is very clear to me that they are highly aware of all these issues. It's hard for me to even imagine how you get the impression that they are isolated from dissent.

There was even a talk on the fact that they are NOT isolated from dissent. Maybe you should just listen better. They ARE responding to concerns voiced by folks like you, and for we who are not newbies, it is quite obvious

Just think- someone in the church office building is probably typing a report on this very thread.

Yes, the Brethren know that there are SOME PEOPLE not pleased with them. Long before Dehlin and Kelly, there were Tanners, et al. They have always had detractors. Yet, criticism from outsiders doesn't really matter much.

Justin Bieber must know that there are MILLIONS who consider him a marginal talent (at best). However, I'm confident that there is NOT ONE person in his inner circle who expresses such thoughts. In fact, that's how they got into his inner circle -- by telling him that he's the greatest entertainer of all-time. As a result, I very seriously doubt that he is currently taking voice lessons (or studying for his real estate license).

The same is true of the Brethren. They're not receiving revelation to make people like me GAs or 70s. They choose their people based on the righteousness (ie, do they believe the Brethren walk on water, or at least, Jell-o). After all, isn't the common perception of what it means to "sustain" leaders?

And, by the way, they are not wrong for doing so. All good leaders build teams consisting of people who believe in their leadership. (It's interesting that Christ chose a cynic like Thomas, but that's a discussion for another time).

[mormonnewb]

Because -- obviously! -- the only rational explanation for why the latter-day prophets haven't already repented of their backward ways and sided with the dissenters is if they aren't really aware of the dissent.

We agree. It isn't lack of knowledge that prevents them from doing the right thing.

[Hamba Tuhan]

We agree. It isn't lack of knowledge that prevents them from doing the right thing.

 

So all the above whingeing about the prophets suffering from rock star-like naivety was just a cover for your real complaint?

[sheilauk]

We agree. It isn't lack of knowledge that prevents them from doing the right thing.

by the right thing you mean what YOU want them to do of course.

[mormonnewb]

So all the above whingeing about the prophets suffering from rock star-like naivety was just a cover for your real complaint?

Let's be clear. The Brethren know about the issues facing members. Some of them are in the NY Times, so how could they not know? Yet, it is still possible to be aware of complaints and to be insulated from constructive criticism.

For example, let's say a stake president tells an apostle about a local member who recently resigned over the OW issue. The apostle then asks the SP, "What do you think?" What are the chances that the SP says, "I agree with her. You guys are totally wrong on this one"? The chances are 0.000000043% (approximately). In fact, if the SP were to say so, he would not be SP at the end of that day.

So, yes, the Brethren hear plenty of criticism from people that they aren't inclined to listen to. But when it comes to their trusted "advisors," they can trust that those men agree with them.

[sheilauk]

Yes, the Brethren know that there are SOME PEOPLE not pleased with them. Long before Dehlin and Kelly, there were Tanners, et al. They have always had detractors. Yet, criticism from outsiders doesn't really matter much.

Justin Bieber must know that there are MILLIONS who consider him a marginal talent (at best). However, I'm confident that there is NOT ONE person in his inner circle who expresses such thoughts. In fact, that's how they got into his inner circle -- by telling him that he's the greatest entertainer of all-time. As a result, I very seriously doubt that he is currently taking voice lessons (or studying for his real estate license).

The same is true of the Brethren. They're not receiving revelation to make people like me GAs or 70s. They choose their people based on the righteousness (ie, do they believe the Brethren walk on water, or at least, Jell-o). After all, isn't the common perception of what it means to "sustain" leaders?

And, by the way, they are not wrong for doing so. All good leaders build teams consisting of people who believe in their leadership. (It's interesting that Christ chose a cynic like Thomas, but that's a discussion for another time).

Of course YOU wouldn't just jump at the chance of leadership if it were offered you. You couldn't possibly be a better leader and if YOU were leader YOU wouldn't choose people like you to be your counsellors.

How do you know they are not paying attention to what is being said, dissent or otherwise, by members? How do you know all the personalities and views of the 70s and others?

[mormonnewb]

by the right thing you mean what YOU want them to do of course.

No, by "right thing," I mean the thing that the Church will eventually do in 15 years, but only after the saints have been branded "polygamists," "racists," "homophobes," "sexist," etc.

And I don't think it should take a prophet to see history repeating itself again and again and again.

[ERayR]

Would you still believe in God ERayR?

 

I didn't think that was in question.

[Hamba Tuhan]

And just like rock stars, they run the risk of making grievious errors because NO ONE feels they have the right to tell them differently.

 

And yet you seem to feel you have that right ... maybe even a sacred obligation?

 

So, yes, the Brethren hear plenty of criticism from people that they aren't inclined to listen to. But when it comes to their trusted "advisors," they can trust that those men agree with them.

 

And yet their most 'trusted adviser' seems to harbour no reservations whatsoever about correcting an apostle: 'But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men'.

[mormonnewb]

Of course YOU wouldn't just jump at the chance of leadership if it were offered you. You couldn't possibly be a better leader and if YOU were leader YOU wouldn't choose people like you to be your counsellors.

How do you know they are not paying attention to what is being said, dissent or otherwise, by members? How do you know all the personalities and views of the 70s and others?

If I were ever called to ANY position of leadership in this Church, I would resign my membership IMMEDIATELY because I would finally know without a doubt that our leaders are NOT inspired by God.

[ERayR]

I don't see that LDS seek to remain in communion with the faith that was practiced earlier, otherwise, polygamy would still be practiced and people of African decent would not hold the priesthood. Granted the priesthood ban can be viewed as practice not doctrine, but polygamy remains a doctrines. See D&C 132. Not practicing a doctrine means not living a doctrine, which means what? Back to God being fickle. Today, one thing, tomorrow, might be another. Hold your breath waiting to see what changes?

Mormon faith has to be individualistic, and also pragmatic based on individual views, otherwise, there is no way to create a continuity from one generation to the next.

 

Your not understanding that is where you go off the rails.

[ERayR]

You'll notice that the woman did not just sit back and say, "Well, if HF wants me to be helped, He will tell the Savior of my troubles and He will come to me if its in their will." She reached out to the Man of God for her blessing. Sound famliar?

 

I also notice that she was not lobbying to change the church.  Her simple desire was for help and healing, an example we would do well to emulate.  Simply ask for help to understand rather than change to fit our whims.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, the Brethren know that there are SOME PEOPLE not pleased with them. Long before Dehlin and Kelly, there were Tanners, et al. They have always had detractors. Yet, criticism from outsiders doesn't really matter much.

Justin Bieber must know that there are MILLIONS who consider him a marginal talent (at best). However, I'm confident that there is NOT ONE person in his inner circle who expresses such thoughts. In fact, that's how they got into his inner circle -- by telling him that he's the greatest entertainer of all-time. As a result, I very seriously doubt that he is currently taking voice lessons (or studying for his real estate license).

The same is true of the Brethren. They're not receiving revelation to make people like me GAs or 70s. They choose their people based on the righteousness (ie, do they believe the Brethren walk on water, or at least, Jell-o). After all, isn't the common perception of what it means to "sustain" leaders?

And, by the way, they are not wrong for doing so. All good leaders build teams consisting of people who believe in their leadership. (It's interesting that Christ chose a cynic like Thomas, but that's a discussion for another time).

Lots of words, saying nothing. You make a full circle.  That last sentence negates the rest of the post entirely.

 

It is as if you never even read the post to which this is supposed to respond.

 

Whatever.

[rodheadlee]

I think you have touched on the very core of why so many members seem to be anti-Mormon.  And there are strong reasons why this has happened.

 

 

That is because they feel lied to about how the BoA came about.  It is now pretty apparent that the claim made by Joseph Smith was just not accurate.  There was no translation.  The papyrus was not written by the hand of Abraham himself.  So members feel if the BoA was given to us under false pretense, then can one rely on the writing to be true?  Or was it made up as well.  Certainly a valid position for some members to take.

 

 

 

There are two issues in play here.  One is, does the church ever receive revelation any more?  Or is everything decided by committee.  Some members may feel that the church they bought into was run by revelation and why do the church leaders have such a difficult time stating the Proclamation is by revelation unless it is not. Are we now only going to get one revelation from God in a lifetime? when there are so many issues that a revelation is needed, not a committee decision.

 

The second issue is where did this doctrine of not allowing gay marriage come from?  It doesn't appear to be revelation.  Last time that happened the doctrine was denounced.

 

 

 

I assume you are referring to whether polygamy is an eternal doctrine or not.  With the possibility of polygamy becoming legal in the US, many Mormons are scared it will be reintroduced.  Or maybe even worse, told that God changed His mind on polygamy being an eternal principle.  

 

 

 

Another major issue for some members.  Is the church run by revelation or not?  Does revelation mean coming to an agreement and it feeling like the right decision?  Certainly a less clear type of revelation than angels appearing, God and Christ themselves directly involved in running the church.  How does the Mormon church become any different than any other Christian church.  Don't they too claim to be led by God in the decisions they make?

 

There is another issue at play here as well.  When the priesthood ban was in effect, many members felt in their heart that the ban was wrong, but felt it was their duty to tow the church line.  Now when the reasons for the ban seem to be denounced, maybe many members wish they would have voiced their opposition at the time.  Now it seems history is repeating itself.  Some members believe that the law of chastity is "no sex outside of marriage".  They are having a problem marginalizing gay members in a similar way it marginalized blacks.  Telling gay members they have to be celibate their whole life and are not entitled to the blessings of a temple marriage seems wrong again.  The church has never been against marriage, now it is, but just for the gay children of God. Last time they kept their mouth shut, and regretted doing so.  They don't want to make the same mistake again.  

 

I just want to state that these opinions are not necessarily my opinions.  I only see the arguments being made about these very points you presented, and see the reasons why people are having a difficult time coming to terms with these and other issues.  Are these members anti-Mormon or are they just struggling with some very difficult issues?

 The same Holy Spirit that bore witness to me that what I read in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was the truth about Jesus Christ that caused me to drop to my knees and accept Christ as my Savior. This is the same Spirit that bears witness to me that the BoA is scripture, that these are the words and records of Abraham. I don't really care what it appears like to scholars and other members. As you said "it appears", the jury is still out and I'll accept them as scripture until this same Spirit or Jesus Christ Himself tells me different. My wife and I are converts, we had the Spirit bear witness to us of JS, The BoM, D&C, PoGP, the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints BEFORE we joined the Church. First the Gospels bore witness of Christ and then came the missionaries. Then came the mighty attack by Satan. Then came holding onto the iron rod through YEARS of Light fighting Darkness. The battle is not over until we endure til the end. It is so important to develop a personal relationship with The Father and The Son through the Holy Spirit. This is the only thing that will carry you through dark times. This is the only way you can confirm the truth of doctrines, policies and the truth of various scriptures or words from our leaders. The witness of the Holy Spirit is the only way you can know if our leaders are truly lead by Jesus Christ and if they truly receive their orders from Him regarding all things.

 

The best advice i heard this weekend was 1. Pray daily 2. Read the Scriptures daily, 3. Have FHE and 4. do your Temple work. 32 years later I'm still struggling to get a TR. I have a good idea of what you are going through and you all are welcome in my home anytime. even if we don't agree on doctrine or policy. It's all I have to offer.

[mfbukowski]

Let's be clear. The Brethren know about the issues facing members. Some of them are in the NY Times, so how could they not know? Yet, it is still possible to be aware of complaints and to be insulated from constructive criticism.

For example, let's say a stake president tells an apostle about a local member who recently resigned over the OW issue. The apostle then asks the SP, "What do you think?" What are the chances that the SP says, "I agree with her. You guys are totally wrong on this one"? The chances are 0.000000043% (approximately). In fact, if the SP were to say so, he would not be SP at the end of that day.

So, yes, the Brethren hear plenty of criticism from people that they aren't inclined to listen to. But when it comes to their trusted "advisors," they can trust that those men agree with them.

You know nothing about these interactions at all.  Pure fantasy.

[mfbukowski]

If I were ever called to ANY position of leadership in this Church, I would resign my membership IMMEDIATELY because I would finally know without a doubt that our leaders are NOT inspired by God.

So you have now confessed that any of your positions on these matters are not inspired of God, and you know so.

 

Good one.  Why bother posting if you KNOW you are posting time wasting errors just to ......  what?  Waste time?

 

It's not that you have any followers- if you notice you have no one agreeing with you, and you admit you are wrong. Total waste.

Edited October 6, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Hamba Tuhan]

They're not receiving revelation to make people like me GAs or 70s.

 

I wonder why not ...

 

If I were ever called to ANY position of leadership in this Church, I would resign my membership IMMEDIATELY because I would finally know without a doubt that our leaders are NOT inspired by God.

 

Oh, wait...

 

(Unless, of course, you're really just 'protesting too much'.)

[mormonnewb]

So you have now confessed that any of your positions on these matters are not inspired of God, and you know so.

 

Good one.  Why bother posting if you KNOW you are posting time wasting errors just to ......  what?  Waste time?

 

It's not that you have any followers- if you notice you have no one agreeing with you, and you admit you are wrong. Total waste.

I will not claim that my positions are inspired by God because this is a DISCUSSION board. I thought the purpose of discourse here was to use logic and reasoning and not simply pull the trump card of, "God told me I was right, so there!" That being said, I do THINK that I am right.

As far as not having any followers, since when was truth decided by popularity polls? Because if that is the case, we are ALL wasting time because the vast majority of the world's people think we're all nuts.

However, to play your game, I took a look at our respective rep points and you have about 10 times as many as I do. Impressive! Of course, you also have about 20 times as many posts. Therefore, on a per post basis, I have more 'followers" than you do. I guess that means that under your criteria for truth, I'm right after all.

[changed]

...pull the trump card of, "God told me I was right, so there!" ...

Personal spiritual guidance is essential, it's not a "trump" card.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I hope no one here has labeled me or any of my thread questions as anti Mormon, as I wouldn't want to be. I love the church and our leaders and especially love Thomas S. Monson and Jesus.