churchistrue Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 It says I'm not allowed to. Is that because I'm new? Is there a probationary period?
ERayR Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 It says I'm not allowed to. Is that because I'm new? Is there a probationary period? Yes. I believe it is 25 posts in the Social Hall.
Calm Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 25 posts in general, no need to just post in Social...just easiest...
Garden Girl Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 Why don't you tell us a little about yourself? Or did you, and I just missed it?Just general, like gen area your from, approx age, particular interest/hobby/talent? LDS? Whatever you're comfortable sharing... and my favorite, are you a dog person or a cat person? GG 1
churchistrue Posted March 19, 2015 Author Posted March 19, 2015 I posted this on NOM as an introduction. I know this crowd here is not going to be super supportive of my objectives, but I come with a white flag. I come to have respectful conversation. I have been developing a philosophy over time that I feel very passionate about. I am in the process of formalizing the material I've worked on over many years and putting it together in a book or website. I have a strong belief and passion about two things.1. That the foundational historical claims are completely false.2. That the church is good, wonderful, beautiful and worthy of continued affiliation.I also believe that with how quickly information is being publicized and accepted on church history that acceptance of #1 is exploding and will continue to permeate church membership. People need a better way to retain their beliefs of #2 while shedding their views on absolute truth of historical claims.I really like a lot of what the Adam Miller/Terryl Givens types are saying. The church is great. It's the body of Christ. It teaches us to serve. It provides a mechanism to worship God. etc etc. But on the side of the truth claims, I think they have the wrong tactic. They are still using what I consider dishonest (probably too strong of a word) or inferior (to put it in more PC terms) methods to address difficult historical facts. Maybe I'm too harsh on them, but I think they know the historical claims are not true, but their technique is to obfuscate and bracket. Obfuscate just enough that it seems too hard to know for sure, then bracket. This works for certain personality types, but for many it feels dishonest and is not resonating. I am developing a way to communicate the importance and value of the church while completely rejecting historical claims. Not obfuscating. Not bracketing. But completely rejecting.So, I just wanted to introduce myself here. Ask for your initial thoughts on this. I would love to find some like minded people to help me with this. I'll be posting to request information for research purpose. If anyone by chance is equally passionate about the same kind of philosophy, I'd love to discuss and maybe we can work on some things together. If you have a particular question on one topic state it in a new thread. The General Folder isn't the place for personalized why I left/why I joined the church.
The Nehor Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 Nope, I will not be supporting your objectives.
bluebell Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 Are you saying that you believe a bad tree (the church) can bring forth good fruit (all good things that come from being a member of the church)?
Ham Clam Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 Didn't expect that introduction with your username. 1
churchistrue Posted March 19, 2015 Author Posted March 19, 2015 Didn't expect that introduction with your username.It's a play on the adage "the gospel is true but the church isn't" meaning the doctrine is true but the church, the people in it, culture, etc. are flawed. I'm the opposite. The church is true.
churchistrue Posted March 19, 2015 Author Posted March 19, 2015 Are you saying that you believe a bad tree (the church) can bring forth good fruit (all good things that come from being a member of the church)?I wouldn't call the church a bad tree. But I guess you're onto the gist of what I'm saying.
Calm Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) "Maybe I'm too harsh on them, but I think they know the historical claims are not true"My thought is that you are libelling good men.You should stop projecting your own doubts and disbelief on others and instead let them speak for themselves.Why is it so hard for some to believe that others can have deep committed beliefs that they themselves reject? How is your position any different from the one that says people only leave the Church because they want to sin as in their hearts they know the Church is true. Edited March 19, 2015 by calmoriah 1
bluebell Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 I wouldn't call the church a bad tree. But I guess you're onto the gist of what I'm saying. I guess i'm not sure how something could be conceived from some pretty serious lies and not be 'bad'.
MorningStar Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 After you pay me a $50 fee, that gets you in. It's an unwritten rule. First we post back and forth a bunch. 1
churchistrue Posted March 19, 2015 Author Posted March 19, 2015 "Maybe I'm too harsh on them, but I think they know the historical claims are not true"My thought is that you are libelling good men.You should stop projecting your own doubts and disbelief on others and instead let them speak for themselves.Why is it so hard for some to believe that others can have deep committed beliefs that they themselves reject? How is your position any different from the one that says people only leave the Church because they want to sin as in their hearts they know the Church is true.Hi Calmoriah. It's not my intention to libel anyone. I'm speculating about someone's beliefs. I fully believe many, many people have deep and committed beliefs on the literal aspects of the Mormon historical narrative. I have close loved ones in that group.
The Nehor Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 Why not take your disbelief and form your own church. That way you will not need your brilliant method of tearing down the foundations of the church to get started. You can begin without all that unnecessary debris and form a true church that does not need a gospel.Oh right.....that would require effort and work to reach out and pull people into this wonderful organization you envision if we could just clean it out. Easier to try to cannibalize another church instead and feed on the carcass. What is with all the parasites lately trying to do this? Are we doing another Nauvoo breakoff era? 1
Recommended Posts