The New Anti-Mormons Are Lds

[3DOP]

Friends, I think we have witnessed the formation of the Church of Rory of Latter-day Storm Riders. I want to be the first to wish you much success!

 

Mormomonewb,

 

I appreciate your sense of humor in spite of our differences of opinion. Very funny. I may have to print this out to show my friends that I have been so designated! Heh.

 

Allow me some more time to consider the more serious misgivings you expressed (post #156) about the perceptions you have based on an earlier post of my own. You raise some good points. I will try to do them justice. For now, thank you for your thoughts. My intent is to get back to you before Monday.

 

Regards, Rory 

[Guest]

We're not at the rudder of the ship. We're at the bow yelling, "Iceberg! Iceberg!"

What is the iceberg that you think you see...the danger of an iceberg is what lies below the surface.

[mormonnewb]

I take it that you are not enjoying the messages of the conference? I think that the messages from the speakers are very relevant for this thread.

I was not terribly surprised that we tripled-down on our losing same-sex marriage hand.

Although I did find the "Joseph Smith was perfect" talk to be interesting in light of the Church's move towards greater openness.

As for relevance to this thread, I find it interesting that the afternoon session ended with a reminder of the parable of the tares, in which Christ explicitly warned us about trying to root out the bad seeds in our midst. He tells us that, in the fullness of times, the true enemies of God will be dealt with accordingly. But for now, an effort to cast out the "apostates" and "anti-Mormons" will do just as much damage to the faithful. Yes, very relevant indeed.

[mfbukowski]

I was not terribly surprised that we tripled-down on our losing same-sex marriage hand.

Although I did find the "Joseph Smith was perfect" talk to be interesting in light of the Church's move towards greater openness.

As for relevance to this thread, I find it interesting that the afternoon session ended with a reminder of the parable of the tares, in which Christ explicitly warned us about trying to root out the bad seeds in our midst. He tells us that, in the fullness of times, the true enemies of God will be dealt with accordingly. But for now, an effort to cast out the "apostates" and "anti-Mormons" will do just as much damage to the faithful. Yes, very relevant indeed.

Well we still welcome tares here.

[ERayR]

nd I certainly hope Jesus maintains control and it is not wrested from his followers.

[Tacenda]

This is not only wrongheaded thought, but it is outright dangerous. Perhaps, that is why your very own church does not follow it and often acknowledges past misdeeds.

I can not think of anything more pathetic than the person who is incapable of perceiving their own faults. Such a person can NEVER grow. And the same is true for companies, nations, churches and families. Likewise, it's healthy to be able to see the faults of our ancestors so that we don't repeat unhealthy patterns.

For example, in generations past, parents would often beat their parents, and use the Bible in support of their actions. Today, many of us think that corporeal punishment is more harmful than helpful. Are we denigrating our ancestors by choosing a better way? Or should we continue to beat our precious babies with belts and "switches" to show respect for Nana and Papa?

It is possible to respect your ancestors and yet, acknowledge that they were not perfect. The same thing is true for our churches.

I couldn't have said it better. The mindset we need to worry about is just as you have pointed out here, I won't say names. I guess we're apostates for thinking that way.

[mfbukowski]

So you are waiting to go to an "endearing church" to tell you that they have been wrong about serious moral issues and are changing their minds, after they have used theological lies to hurt and condemn innocent people, for periods of centuries and millenia. I have my doubts that many would be drawn by such a move. But maybe you would go and there are others like you? Maybe? But I doubt it would flourish for the reasons I mentioned above. The things I mentioned which involve hatred because of skin color, sexual orientation, and gender would be fatal flaws in my opinion. You can't hate and suppress the innocent for long stretches and still be God's Church. I think many would be looking for a New Restoration. I think it would adversely affect attendance and attitudes, and especially from those faithful who would feel betrayed and who were certain that the Church was never guilty of hatred and was speaking God's truth for those millenia and centuries. 

 

So in short, what you would find endearing, I would find to be an insult to the community of the saints that came before us, because in effect, if a church of this generation says a church of past generations was maliciously wrong in such matters, it isn't confessing one's own sins anyway. It is spitting on the graves of our spiritual parents.

Perhaps this has already been said, but you accuse your own church of the same sorts of changes

 

Could this perception be a problem within you?  You yourself have essentially left the mainstream church because it has changed.  I don't blame you for that- I left for the same reasons.

 

But now I have found a church which is relevant to the times, and acknowledges an open canon, and that God's message changes as we ourselves change.  That does not appeal to you- then fine.

 

But why attack others who find it admirable?

[ERayR]

We're not at the rudder of the ship. We're at the bow yelling, "Iceberg! Iceberg!"

 

Yup and in many instances your glasses are magnifying it so that what you are actually looking at is small icecubes and perceiving them as icebergs.

[rodheadlee]

We're not at the rudder of the ship. We're at the bow yelling, "Iceberg! Iceberg!"

Your're assuming our leaders are blind.

[rodheadlee]

I couldn't have said it better. The mindset we need to worry about is just as you have pointed out here, I won't say names. I guess we're apostates for thinking that way.

You're apostates for thinking our leaders are blind old fools, hiding history, being racists, misogynist, falling to see that SSM could be sanctified. Not you personally, the Mormon Liberal Left. Then we cry out for more meat, we're tired of milk. I hate to say it but the meat we have been given we reject, we don't digest it. There is more concern for how the BoA was translated than for the truths given within, many reject the Proclamation of the Family as scripture because it's not canonized or try to twist it as not pertaining to SSM. Many don't even except all the truths in D&C 132. And now because the Church discounted the popular reasons for the Priesthood ban many look at it that all policies and doctrines should be discounted if it conflicts with their image of  what the Church should be. Some don't even think the Prophet and Apostles get Revelation from above, just hunches. The secular scholar, academic or professor is more respected than the leaders of the Church.

 

I pray for all of us to hang onto the iron rod because we are in for a really rough ride. 

[3DOP]

Perhaps this has already been said, but you accuse your own church of the same sorts of changes

 

Could this perception be a problem within you?  You yourself have essentially left the mainstream church because it has changed.  I don't blame you for that- I left for the same reasons.

 

But now I have found a church which is relevant to the times, and acknowledges an open canon, and that God's message changes as we ourselves change.  That does not appeal to you- then fine.

 

But why attack others who find it admirable?

 

Hi Mark,

 

I am sure it is possible that I am being inconsistent. Goodness knows I have blind spots. God help me. Of course, I believe I am being consistent and I am willing to attempt to defend my position in more detail later in the thread. Shoot, after years of silence, I LOVE defending my position as a Catholic who has become convinced that the obedience of faith requires that I disobey visible authority. I guess I can thank Pope Francis for more or less forcing me out of the closet in recent months! Start a thread on 3DOP! Call it "Rory of the Latter-day Storm Riders." But most LDS would have a terrible time understanding canonical implications and stuff like that. Although I would try to explain, I think most would be quickly bored. So as much as I enjoy talking about myself, this thread is primarily about whether arguments and criticisms that used to be considered anti-Mormon are now being voiced by those who identify themselves as LDS. I have a method here and if you look for it, it will be found in a candid reply I made to someone who has contributed one post to the thread with a very reasonable question. The poster was called omni. I'll summarize again though. I think the Latter-day Saint who goes the direction of the cultural Catholic and cultural Mormon is further from true Catholicism. It is all about believing that God has wonderful ways of making converts to the Catholic faith that I can't imagine. For the time being, I am trying to make contributions to keeping non-Catholics as ideologically compatible with the Catholic faith as I can, in my own little way, by God's grace.  

 

You talk about an open canon and God changing His message? Sure. As a Mormon, I would acknowledge the consistency of that within the lifting of the priesthood ban on blacks. God revealed a change for reasons that remain hidden. God is not obliged to reveal the motives for His precepts and laws. If we are faithful, we have no doubt that they are all motivated by His love. The same LDS crowd that lobbies for women priests and same-sex marriage seem to me to me to indicate they think that it was racism that caused the ban. I could not go so far as an LDS. Do you think the cultural Mormons will, if they get their ways, even by apparent revelation, not accuse the Church of suppressing women and hating homosexuals? Neither of our churches should yield to these extremists that are intent on using the pressure of worldly respect to make changes. You guys have a little more wiggle room than do Catholics because of your open canon. I get that. But I don't see such a revelation to be much less than conceding to political pressure, and I think the LDS who want such "revelation" will not rest satisfied with a revelation that doesn't acknowledge that the Church has been homophobic and anti-women, just as they now seem to insist that your fathers in the faith were racists. 

 

So anyway...however my observations relate to my own personal journey as a Catholic, the question still is about whether my observation in the opening post is accurate.

 

Your probably inconsistent, but devoted and admiring adversary,

 

Rory

 

PS: On second thought, Please do NOT start a thread with my name in it. Too embarrassing. Heh. But as this thing winds down we can talk about me and my relationship to the Catholic Church here if you like. A blessed Lord's Day to you as an LDS with some lingering Catholic sympathies. Come on back and the first Sunday in October is in many places, the Feast of the Holy Rosary. Remember me in your prayers and I'll try to do the same for you in mine. May we go to church together.

[Yirgacheffe]

So you are waiting to go to an "endearing church" to tell you that they have been wrong about serious moral issues and are changing their minds, after they have used theological lies to hurt and condemn innocent people, for periods of centuries and millenia. I have my doubts that many would be drawn by such a move. But maybe you would go and there are others like you? Maybe? But I doubt it would flourish for the reasons I mentioned above. The things I mentioned which involve hatred because of skin color, sexual orientation, and gender would be fatal flaws in my opinion. You can't hate and suppress the innocent for long stretches and still be God's Church. I think many would be looking for a New Restoration. I think it would adversely affect attendance and attitudes, and especially from those faithful who would feel betrayed and who were certain that the Church was never guilty of hatred and was speaking God's truth for those millenia and centuries. 

 

So in short, what you would find endearing, I would find to be an insult to the community of the saints that came before us, because in effect, if a church of this generation says a church of past generations was maliciously wrong in such matters, it isn't confessing one's own sins anyway. It is spitting on the graves of our spiritual parents.

So the answer is yes a church should never admit it was wrong about anything.

[ERayR]

So the answer is yes a church should never admit it was wrong about anything.

 

No but its stance on moral issues should be firm.

[Yirgacheffe]

No but its stance on moral issues should be firm.

Like changing from acceptance of to condemnation of slavery?

[3DOP]

So the answer is yes a church should never admit it was wrong about anything.

 

Your conclusion does not seem to me to reflect what I believe. I am sorry that I have not made my positions clear to you, even with careful explanations. Last try for the evening. (I have to pick up someone at the airport right now.)

 

If there is a circumstance wherein it has been established that a church has been maliciously wrong for centuries and more in misrepresenting God's law, it seems like a mere admission of wrong would be inadequate.

 

In this instance, there is a considerable number of souls who believe that the LDS and Catholic churches represent the love of God while at the same time reserving the priesthood for men only and marriage as only for one man and one woman. If God's eternal law has been violated in these areas, not because of revelation, but because of malice, I don't see how such a "church" survives without conceding that it never was God's true church and of course, it isn't now. That is why I said that I thought it would force many into looking for a New Restoration.

 

Of course neither you nor the culturals, whether they are Mormon or Catholic care about going to a church because it is true. They just like it. I guess that's fine. For those who care about truth, its very hard to believe that the one truth resided in the same place as malice for centuries and millenia.

 

You are free to disagree with that, but I don't think you even believe in one true church anyway do you? We aren't even talking about the same things when we refer to a church. So all I am saying is if I have been a part of a hating church, I would leave it if I found that it had been a hating church. I think it would destroy everyone's confidence in a "one true church" to discern that only after the world brought a bunch of pressure, it finally admitted, very late, in the 21st century that it had been maliciously wrong for its entire existence and had contributed to the hatred society held towards innocent souls for a long long time. 

Edited October 5, 2014 by 3DOP

[Yirgacheffe]

Your conclusion does not seem to me to reflect what I believe. I am sorry that I have not made my positions clear to you, even with careful explanations. Last try for the evening. (I have to pick up someone at the airport right now.)

 

If there is a circumstance wherein it has been established that a church has been maliciously wrong for centuries and more in misrepresenting God's law, it seems like a mere admission of wrong would be inadequate.

 

In this instance, there is a considerable number of souls who believe that the LDS and Catholic churches represent the love of God while at the same time reserving the priesthood for men only and marriage as only for one man and one woman. If God's eternal law has been violated in these areas, not because of revelation, but because of malice, I don't see how such a "church" survives without conceding that it never was God's true church and of course, it isn't now. That is why I said that I thought it would force many into looking for a New Restoration.

 

Of course neither you nor the culturals, whether they are Mormon or Catholic care about going to a church because it is true. They just like it. I guess that's fine. For those who care about truth, its very hard to believe that the one truth resided in the same place as malice for centuries and millenia.

 

You are free to disagree with that, but I don't think you even believe in one true church anyway do you? We aren't even talking about the same things when we refer to a church. So all I am saying is if I have been a part of a hating church, I would leave it if I found that it had been a hating church. I think it would destroy everyone's confidence in a "one true church" to discern that only after the world brought a bunch of pressure, it finally admitted, very late, in the 21st century that it had been maliciously wrong for its entire existence and had contributed to the hatred society held towards innocent souls for a long long time. 

So a church could admit it was wrong about something but not that it was maliciously so?   BTW what does it mean, a church is true?

[teddyaware]

I couldn't have said it better. The mindset we need to worry about is just as you have pointed out here, I won't say names. I guess we're apostates for thinking that way.

You have me wondering what the difference is between an apostate and one who openly admits they have lost their testimony? I suppose the main difference would be an apostate is bitter and can't leave the Church alone, continuously feeling a compulsion to publicly denigrate and lambaste the Church and its leaders; while the mere unbeliever simply walks away from the Church and goes on with life.

You also have me wondering why someone who no longer believes the Church is true, and is bitter about the whole thing, should think they're qualified to know what's best for the Church?

[mfbukowski]

Hi Mark,

 

I am sure it is possible that I am being inconsistent. Goodness knows I have blind spots. God help me. Of course, I believe I am being consistent and I am willing to attempt to defend my position in more detail later in the thread. Shoot, after years of silence, I LOVE defending my position as a Catholic who has become convinced that the obedience of faith requires that I disobey visible authority. I guess I can thank Pope Francis for more or less forcing me out of the closet in recent months! Start a thread on 3DOP! Call it "Rory of the Latter-day Storm Riders." But most LDS would have a terrible time understanding canonical implications and stuff like that. Although I would try to explain, I think most would be quickly bored. So as much as I enjoy talking about myself, this thread is primarily about whether arguments and criticisms that used to be considered anti-Mormon are now being voiced by those who identify themselves as LDS. I have a method here and if you look for it, it will be found in a candid reply I made to someone who has contributed one post to the thread with a very reasonable question. The poster was called omni. I'll summarize again though. I think the Latter-day Saint who goes the direction of the cultural Catholic and cultural Mormon is further from true Catholicism. It is all about believing that God has wonderful ways of making converts to the Catholic faith that I can't imagine. For the time being, I am trying to make contributions to keeping non-Catholics as ideologically compatible with the Catholic faith as I can, in my own little way, by God's grace.  

 

You talk about an open canon and God changing His message? Sure. As a Mormon, I would acknowledge the consistency of that within the lifting of the priesthood ban on blacks. God revealed a change for reasons that remain hidden. God is not obliged to reveal the motives for His precepts and laws. If we are faithful, we have no doubt that they are all motivated by His love. The same LDS crowd that lobbies for women priests and same-sex marriage seem to me to me to indicate they think that it was racism that caused the ban. I could not go so far as an LDS. Do you think the cultural Mormons will, if they get their ways, even by apparent revelation, not accuse the Church of suppressing women and hating homosexuals? Neither of our churches should yield to these extremists that are intent on using the pressure of worldly respect to make changes. You guys have a little more wiggle room than do Catholics because of your open canon. I get that. But I don't see such a revelation to be much less than conceding to political pressure, and I think the LDS who want such "revelation" will not rest satisfied with a revelation that doesn't acknowledge that the Church has been homophobic and anti-women, just as they now seem to insist that your fathers in the faith were racists. 

 

So anyway...however my observations relate to my own personal journey as a Catholic, the question still is about whether my observation in the opening post is accurate.

 

Your probably inconsistent, but devoted and admiring adversary,

 

Rory

 

PS: On second thought, Please do NOT start a thread with my name in it. Too embarrassing. Heh. But as this thing winds down we can talk about me and my relationship to the Catholic Church here if you like. A blessed Lord's Day to you as an LDS with some lingering Catholic sympathies. Come on back and the first Sunday in October is in many places, the Feast of the Holy Rosary. Remember me in your prayers and I'll try to do the same for you in mine. May we go to church together.

You are a wonderful man, my brother!

[california boy]

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.

 

 

There is more concern for how the BoA was translated than for the truths given within,

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.

 

 

 many reject the Proclamation of the Family as scripture because it's not canonized or try to twist it as not pertaining to SSM.

 

 

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.

 

Many don't even except all the truths in D&C 132.

 

 

 

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.  

 

And now because the Church discounted the popular reasons for the Priesthood ban many look at it that all policies and doctrines should be discounted if it conflicts with their image of  what the Church should be. Some don't even think the Prophet and Apostles get Revelation from above, just hunches. The secular scholar, academic or professor is more respected than the leaders of the Church.

 

 

 

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?

[3DOP]

So a church could admit it was wrong about something but not that it was maliciously so?   BTW what does it mean, a church is true?

 

The angels sang about peace on earth to men of good will. Intellectual errors are more easily excusable than bad will towards men. (I don't believe that any fit this category because I do not think truth and love are separable), but supposing a church is only loving to all, but has wrong teachings, few could recognize it as "the one true church". A lot of people like intellectual accuracy. It sounds like you probably don't have much appreciation for such a concern? Maybe you are among those who don't care about that? They seem to be on the increase. But if you add to error, hatred of good people living lives pleasing to God, it would probably be impossible that anyone could feel obliged to go to such a church. In the best case scenario we are discussing in this thread, that would be the situation that cultural Catholics or Mormons would have if their churches should do what they seem to want with regards to women priests and homosexual marriage. To have promoted that which is intellectually false while hating a good portion of innocent humanity for a long time is a good description of what it means for a church to be false.

 

I guess I am not saying what makes a church true. Hmmm. The true church will not hate anybody and will be accurate about what it teaches. It is not enough to be accurate. In fact, it is less important to be accurate than it is to have good will, to love. But to admit both hatred and error is to deny the right of your church to exist except as one among other hating, inaccurate churches. So...the true church (assuming we are not looking for a New Restoration) goes in the opposite way. It teaches what is accurate and loves everybody. 

 

Here's an interesting thing Yirgacheffe. Some people just like church. Weirdly enough to me, they like the idea; they like how it feels. They want to go to some church. My good wife is like that. There was a period in our marriage when we didn't really feel like we knew where to go, and I wanted to stay home, but she wanted to go. I understand that some people just want to go. I don't know what it is. Habit? I don't really understand other than that it is a way of at least groping toward the unknown God? Other people (me) don't really care about church, unless there is a very real concrete obligation. Maybe it derives from never visiting a church until I was 22 years old. Anyway, I am just saying that if a church admits they have been wrong and hateful, maybe somebody would want to go it because of some kind of sentiment or other. Not me. Unless a Church has always represented love and truth, I'll watch the football game.

Edited October 5, 2014 by 3DOP

[why me]

I couldn't have said it better. The mindset we need to worry about is just as you have pointed out here, I won't say names. I guess we're apostates for thinking that way.

Seeing faults is not the problem. It is actively going against church policy or more or less stating that one knows better about how the church should be. In other words, believing that one's own issues take precedence over the church body. We see this with various issues that have a priesthood or moral component. It is the belief that my own personal beliefs trump the decisions made by the prophet etc. Of course, I can question policies, I can even pray about them. But when I begin to advocate that the church is wrong and I attempt to lead others to support my own thinking....then I believe that a moral relativism comes into play.

Edited October 5, 2014 by why me

[Storm Rider]

Friends, I think we have witnessed the formation of the Church of Rory of Latter-day Storm Riders. I want to be the first to wish you much success!

 

Friend, you are not the Church.  You don't represent the Church and so much of what you say on this board is anything but what the Church teaches.  

 

Rory does not represent a Church so much as a desire to follow Christ that is easily recognizable.  It is easy for me to believe that is a member of the Body of Christ.  He and I may differ on some points, but I find that there is more that we have in common than what separates us.  Those teachings that separate us are significant, but they are not so significant that I cannot recognize our kinship to the Savior. 

 

Others throw up so much malarky (I am kind here) and spout offensive accusations that it is difficult to see or find the disciple of Christ in them.  I sense very little if any kinship with them as members.  That may make me a judgmental, arrogant, hypocrite and certainly a crotchety old man.  It may also be that I am right is my feelings.

 

One thing that I don't like about these communication medium is that it is anonymous. I cannot tell who is taking on a persona that is not really their true self. They play devil's advocate and all-around contrarian just to stir things up.  I know you do this at times, Newby; what I cannot tell is to what degree is contrarian and what is actually real.  

[mormonnewb]

That may make me a judgmental, arrogant, hypocrite and certainly a crotchety old man. It may also be that I am right is my feelings.

One thing that I don't like about these communication medium is that it is anonymous. I cannot tell who is taking on a persona that is not really their true self. They play devil's advocate and all-around contrarian just to stir things up. I know you do this at times, Newby; what I cannot tell is to what degree is contrarian and what is actually real.

You sell yourself short, my Brother. You ARE judgmental, arrogant and crotchety. But that's okay. I firmly believe that HF loves your kind as much as he loves his snarky, arrogant, irreverent, yet devilishly handsome children. And I KNOW that He has not granted you authority to cull the herd, notwithstanding your declarations in an earlier post.

As per your complaint about anonymity, can we assume that Storm Rider is your given name, or did you legally change your name during your Woodstock phase in the 1960s?

Contrarily,

Morm N. Newb

[mormonnewb]

Mormomonewb,

I appreciate your sense of humor in spite of our differences of opinion. Very funny. I may have to print this out to show my friends that I have been so designated! Heh.

Allow me some more time to consider the more serious misgivings you expressed (post #156) about the perceptions you have based on an earlier post of my own. You raise some good points. I will try to do them justice. For now, thank you for your thoughts. My intent is to get back to you before Monday.

Regards, Rory

"Mark" has been pushing you into the Church from one side of the aisle, so I thought I'd try to pull you in from the other. As I see it, we can never have enough smart, caring and passionate saints on Team Restoration.

Besides, as you've mentioned, your church is moving away from its traditions in an attempt to be relevant in the 21st century. But my church is making no such efforts. You can count on the fact that we'll be wrong to the very end (ie, 15 years after the Southern Baptists).

And even then, unlike your church, which is constantly giving some "mamby pamby" apology for its role in the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc, our church does no such thing. If we've ever done anything wrong (and we haven't), we'll just leave it out of our church literature because it is not "faith promoting."

Seriously, it does seem that you are more in tune with our leadership than your church's CURRENT leadership. More importantly, besides jerks like me that you will encounter on these boards, you will never find a better group of Christians with which to live your faith. So come on in. The water's fine (although you will have to be fully submerged THIS time).

[why me]

"Mark" has been pushing you into the Church from one side of the aisle, so I thought I'd try to pull you in from the other. As I see it, we can never have enough smart, caring and passionate saints on Team Restoration.

Besides, as you've mentioned, your church is moving away from its traditions in an attempt to be relevant in the 21st century. But my church is making no such efforts. You can count on the fact that we'll be wrong to the very end (ie, 15 years after the Southern Baptists).

And even then, unlike your church, which is constantly giving some "mamby pamby" apology for its role in the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc, our church does no such thing. If we've ever done anything wrong (and we haven't), we'll just leave it out of our church literature because it is not "faith promoting."

 

I don't think that the catholic church will change all that much. And if it does, it will only bring it closer to the lds tradition: divorced men and women can receive the sacrament, some birth control, etc. But nothing too major. As far as an apology from the lds church, it is rather difficult to apologize for MMM since it was a group of mormons but not exactly sponsored by the church. I suppose that the church can apologize for every cruel event members may commit but that may take a long time. There are not that much that is terrible in lds history. Wrong is rather an objective statement. What does it mean to be wrong? Wrong according to whom?