Blogger on "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

[cdowis]

21 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Simply study the scripture prayerfully yourself without the theologians, philosophers and Mormon doctrine. Read whole chapters and don't skip about.

OK, and that includes ALL of the word of God, including the Bible and modern revelation.

[Robert F. Smith]

34 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe because the church is a day late, and a dollar short Robert? It's hard to put the toothpaste back in? How you manage to do it, and others is probably what keeps me going, still can't figure it out. Just waiting for the church to keep being more open, and going to see if they'll provide room for people like me. Thought of being a better attendee coming up in Gospel Doctrine class, since the young man I've been helping isn't coming to church as much because of impending surgery and lot's of pain. But I feel a bit guilty for wanting to go out of curiosity sake to see if they teach things that are in the Gospel Topic Essays. I have a strong feeling they really won't get into it. 

Most people don't want to create havoc or controversy.  They don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or shock the Saints who just don't know any better.  They may want to introduce deeper topics only when people appear ready for them.  Milk before meat is a significant consideration.

However, the notion that the Gospel Topics Essays, the Joseph Smith Papers Project, etc., are all just a day late and a dollar short, begs the question:  Was this information readily available to any truly interested person?  Of course it was, and we have discussed this many times on this board.  The response is always:  Well, why wasn't it taught in regular Sunday School classes, or preached in Conference or ward and stake meetings?

For one thing, the professional cadre of historians did not already exist and it took time for a religion of pioneers and farmers to reach the degree of academic sophistication and understanding to begin doing all of these wonderful and praiseworthy things now.  Which also goes back to the false notion of the infallibility of the LDS leaders:  Why couldn't they be perfect?  Because they weren't.  No prophets ever are.  Not in the Bible, and not in modern times.  Learning is incremental, and the Mormons have done an excellent job.  It is possible to expect much more than is reasonable, and that is simply unfair.

Is that explanation enough for some people?  Of course not.  Some will fault the LDS Church in the harshest possible way.  Each person must make a judgment call.  I say, let the chips fall where they may.

[Robert F. Smith]

39 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Except that wasn't the point of the Zelph article.  You're trying to present that as supporting your position and it doesn't. 

Once again you falsify what I said:  Anecdotal instances do not support anyone's position, but Zelph on the Shelf clearly believed that " Conversion and Deconversion Are Emotional, Not Logical.”  Why would he say that if he doesn't believe it based on long experience?  Was he mistaken?  My point wasn't that he proved anything thereby, but only that anti-Mormons cannot even own up to the conclusions of their fellow anti-Mormons.

39 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I've reviewed the long list of articles you posted and don't see how they provide evidence for your hypothesis that people leave the LDS for social reasons but not for valid intellectual reasons.  If you have something that does back up that position, feel free to share. 

.....................................................

Once again, rather than quote my actual claim, you invent a different, straw-man notion in order to shoot it down and excuse your deliberate failure to engage the scholarly comments.

I have never said "that people leave the LDS for social reasons but not for valid intellectual reasons."  In fact, I have said the opposite.  You claim to be offended by my calling you out when you dissemble.  Why then do you deliberately lie about what I have said, rockpond?  That is a very simple question.

Everyone is supposed to abide by proper etiquette except you?  If you want respect, you need to learn how to give it.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again you falsify what I said:  Anecdotal instances do not support anyone's position, but Zelph on the Shelf clearly believed that " Conversion and Deconversion Are Emotional, Not Logical.”  Why would he say that if he doesn't believe it based on long experience?  Was he mistaken?  My point wasn't that he proved anything thereby, but only that anti-Mormons cannot even own up to the conclusions of their fellow anti-Mormons.

Once again, rather than quote my actual claim, you invent a different, straw-man notion in order to shoot it down and excuse your deliberate failure to engage the scholarly comments.

I have never said "that people leave the LDS for social reasons but not for valid intellectual reasons."  In fact, I have said the opposite.  You claim to be offended by my calling you out when you dissemble.  Why then do you deliberately lie about what I have said, rockpond?  That is a very simple question.

Everyone is supposed to abide by proper etiquette except you?  If you want respect, you need to learn how to give it.

If I misstated your position, it was not intentional.  I continue to re-state it as a means of making sure we are still talking about the same thing.  So, if I have got it wrong, please help me understand.  I'm not clear what you mean by "the opposite".

As for the Zelph post she (the author is not a he) explained why she left the church and it was for what she refers to as logical reasons though she also describes the emotion around it.  That's what the title refers to. I provided a quote from the article a couple posts back to clarify that. 

Finally, if you insinuate one more time that I am an anti-Mormon I'll report your post and I'll be done with this exchange. 

[Anakin7]

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Jesus quoted and spoke concerning the Old Testament.

    True but remember that there was no authorized bound complete canon - O.T/N.T till approx 390 AD. Thank you for your comment. May True Grace be with you and those you love.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by Anakin7

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Was this information readily available to any truly interested person?  

It was available but it's hard for someone to realize that they are interested in a topic that they didn't know exists because they already believed they had been given the full and complete story. 

For example, how would someone think of researching Joseph Smith's polyandry when they had been taught that plural marriage didn't start until Brigham Young and the saints arrived in the Salt Lake Valley?

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Anakin7 said:

    True but remember that there was no authorized bound complete canon - O.T/N.T till approx 390 AD.

Just curious, can I assume that this is an admission that Rev 22:18-19 does not refer to the non-existent Bible, but to the Book of Revelation.

[Anakin7]

16 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Just curious, can I assume that this is an admission that Rev 22:18-19 does not refer to the non-existent Bible, but to the Book of Revelation.

 From my Lights - yes.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Just curious, can I assume that this is an admission that Rev 22:18-19 does not refer to the non-existent Bible, but to the Book of Revelation.

Anakin is LDS, why would he argue it means the whole bible?

[Anakin7]

Thank you Calm, yes I am a LDS Sentinel Kryptonian Jedi Knight Saint and do not adhere to Rev 22:18-19 as referring to the whole Bible.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace 

Anakin7

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Anakin7 said:

Thank you Calm, yes I am a LDS Sentinel Kryptonian Jedi Knight Saint and do not adhere to Rev 22:18-19 as referring to the whole Bible.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace 

Anakin7

I hope you understand no one has a clue what you are talking about right?  I mean I get what you are talking about in the Revelation quote, but I would be interested in the star wars stuff and what all that means to you.

[california boy]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

Your first example... the Zelph on the Shelf folks.  First... they are bloggers so let's give them the weight that they deserve.  Second, they aren't speaking to your point of why they left (I have listened to interviews with them and I know why they left and it was for doctrinal reasons, not social) they are addressing how one should speak to your loved ones about your disaffection from the church.  So this example doesn't prove your point.

Then I moved on to the second example:  Quora.com.  I clicked the link and read the first two anecdotal accounts that were on that page.  The first one (Mark) stated that he actually STAYED for social reasons even though he wanted to leave for intellectual reasons.  And he eventually did.  The second person (Cameron) to tell their story on there also explains that he left for intellectual reasons.  So this example also doesn't prove your point.

I don't believe you have anything substantial to support your conclusion.

I really can't believe that you are still trying to get Robert to admit that he has no support for his assertion.  This, again, is what he said.

Quote

 

Most Mormons who leave the LDS faith do so based on their social comfort level, and any judgment made about the BofM is merely ancillary to that social feeling

 

I also read through all of his links.  And like you, not only did I not find any data, I found little in what he did link to support his statement.  At this point, these things are clear.

1. Robert's assertion has absolutely no data to support it.  It is simply his own opinion.

2. He continues to try to support his statement with opinions of others that really are irrelevant to his statement.

3.  He consistently labels people anti-Mormon that disagree with his theories.  In his own twisted mind, he figures if he calls you anti-Mormon than that makes his position the right one.  After all, anti-Mormons can never be right.  

Every one of these conclusions are in every post he has been making.  I gave up.  At this point, it is pointless.  The question I would ask you is "at this point, do you really expect to have an honest answer to Roberts statement by him?"  It is a false statement and he can not support it by any actual data.  

 

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again you falsify what I said:  Anecdotal instances do not support anyone's position, but Zelph on the Shelf clearly believed that " Conversion and Deconversion Are Emotional, Not Logical.”  Why would he say that if he doesn't believe it based on long experience?  Was he mistaken?  My point wasn't that he proved anything thereby, but only that anti-Mormons cannot even own up to the conclusions of their fellow anti-Mormons.

Once again, rather than quote my actual claim, you invent a different, straw-man notion in order to shoot it down and excuse your deliberate failure to engage the scholarly comments.

I have never said "that people leave the LDS for social reasons but not for valid intellectual reasons."  In fact, I have said the opposite.  You claim to be offended by my calling you out when you dissemble.  Why then do you deliberately lie about what I have said, rockpond?  That is a very simple question.

Everyone is supposed to abide by proper etiquette except you?  If you want respect, you need to learn how to give it.

Well actually you did say people leave based on their social comfort level.  Here is your statement.

Quote

Most Mormons who leave the LDS faith do so based on their social comfort level, and any judgment made about the BofM is merely ancillary to that social feeling

Since you are now claiming that it is a false statement, we all agree that your statement is false.  

You are a piece of work.  Really.  Now are you going to call me and Rockpond anti-Mormon again for actually quoting what you said like you did earlier in this thread when you called me anti-Mormon for agreeing with what an Apostle of God said?

[california boy]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

It was available but it's hard for someone to realize that they are interested in a topic that they didn't know exists because they already believed they had been given the full and complete story. 

For example, how would someone think of researching Joseph Smith's polyandry when they had been taught that plural marriage didn't start until Brigham Young and the saints arrived in the Salt Lake Valley?

It is actually a little more than that.  The LDS church taught a narrative that just wasn't true.  For example, the narrative has always been that Joseph Smith translated the gold plates by the gift and power of God.  The translating of those gold plates are the Book of Mormon.  Every single illustration of Joseph Smith translating included a set of gold plates.  While all of this was being taught as the official teaching on how the Book of Mormon came forth, the church HAD the actual stone that was claimed to be the seer stone used to write the BoM.  Historical documents always supported the fact that the majority of the BpM was not even translated, but rather by magically appearing on this stone when it was placed in a hat. The golden plates that we sing about, saw illustrations of Joseph Smith using and were told were how the BpM was received actually played a very minor role in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.  And it is the members fault for not knowing this?  

No wonder people are leaving the church over this issue and others like it.  Not only were they told a false narrative, but they are now being blamed for being deceived.  Who thinks that is fair?

[LittleNipper]

11 hours ago, cdowis said:

OK, and that includes ALL of the word of God, including the Bible and modern revelation.

One needs to understand the Bible first before looking at other text. The Bible is the standard and not an associated text. The Old Testament is what Jesus read from and expounded on to the New Testament writers.

[LittleNipper]

10 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

    True but remember that there was no authorized bound complete canon - O.T/N.T till approx 390 AD. Thank you for your comment. May True Grace be with you and those you love.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

 

The Tanakh and the Talmud

 

What we know as the Old Testament today is called the Tanakh by the Jews. It is composed of 39 individual books, starting with Genesis and ending with Malachi, and grouped into the Torah (Teaching), Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings), hence the abbreviation TaNaKh.

The Tanakh's supporting volume is called the Talmud, a central text of Rabbinic Judaism. The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah, the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law, and the Gemara, an elucidation of the Mishnah and related rabbinic writings. The whole Talmud spans 6,200 pages of standard print and contains the opinions of thousands of rabbis on a variety of subjects, including law, ethics, philosophy, customs, history, theology, lore and many other topics.

According to the Talmud, the Tanakh was canonized around 450 BC by The Great Assembly, a group of 120 Jewish scribes, sages, and prophets. Of course there is dispute of this idea, and,according some modern scholars the process of canonization of the Tanakh became finalized between 200 BC and 200 AD. The oldest existing Christian document we have today that lists thebooks of the Old Testament is from Melito, Bishop of Sardis, and is dated about 170 AD. This is much, much older (and therefore carries more authority) than, for instance, the Council of Trent which was an important council of the Roman Catholic church.

.

[Stargazer]

On ‎1‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 1:03 AM, california boy said:

Ok. Let me give you a more direct answer.  As you know, there are people that are leaving the church because the church does not allow gay couples to marry in the temple.  They look at that dogma very similar to the time when the church did not allow blacks to be married in the temple.  There is no scriptural support for either position.  The BOM, D&C, POGP don't even mention homosexuality or barring blacks from being married in the temple.  There is no scripture in all the standard works including the Bible that directly forbids gays from marrying in the temple.   It is just a dogma that the church leaders have come up with.  It is no different than the JW's coming up with the idea that because the Bible says we can't drink blood, then we can't have blood transfusions.  That you can clearly understand.  But when it is dogma in your own church, there are all kinds of reasons why that dogma is somehow different.

Just to be clear, I am only willing to spell out what I mean by the statement that there is dogma in the church that can't be supported by either scripture or revelation.  I am completely unwilling to discuss whether the POF is a revelation or whether the church should even allow gay couples to marry.  I am unwilling to discuss your interpretation of scriptures that are in the Bible concerning homosexuality or whether having a dark skin is a curse from God.   If you can point to a verse in the scriptures that clearly disallow gay marriage or can point to a revelation declared by church leaders that specifically forbids gay marriage in the temple then I will respond.  If you want to talk about other reasons why gay marriage is not allowed in the temple then I will not respond.  

Sorry the disclaimer is longer than the post. lol.  But I have no intentions of derailing this thread on yet another thread on gay marriage.  And I want to make that perfectly clear.  

Of course I'm coming to this really late and by now it's irrelevant because someone already commented with what I'm about to write, but I've not read through all 23 pages of this thread to see if anyone has said what I'm about to say.  I only went four pages ahead and I might have missed something.  Apologies for the duplication of effort if it is indeed duplication.

You write: "If you can point to a verse in the scriptures that clearly disallow gay marriage or can point to a revelation declared by church leaders that specifically forbids gay marriage in the temple then I will respond."

Since there is no such revelation or scripture then I cannot provide one, so I don't expect you to respond to this.

I don't know what your definition of dogma is, but the primary sense that seems to be how the term is used in connection with religion has nothing to do with interpretation of scripture, but:

Quote

More generally it is applied to some strong belief that the ones adhering to it are not willing to rationally discuss. This attitude is called dogmatic or dogmatism and is often the case in religiously related matters, but is not limited to theist attitudes alone.

See the Wikipedia article on dogma for this general sense.  But that is how I have always understood it, being the unwillingness to rationally discuss a belief.  I.e. an assertion without discussion, kind of.

Now, you make the amazing statement that it is dogma that gays cannot be married, because it cannot be supported by a direct revelation.  You say that it isn't enough to say that the Bible forbids homosexuality, and you won't discuss it.  That, to me, at least, is being dogmatic. 

As a point of logic, if the Bible forbids homosexual acts, then it is follows that since marriage implies a sexual relationship, marriage between two persons of the same sex is also inescapably forbidden.  If you insist that the Bible or modern revelation must contain a specific prohibition that cannot be logically inferred from previous principles then you are asking for an even more complex system than ever existed in the Law of Moses, where there were, what, as interpreted by Rabbis throughout the ages, there are 613 commandments, 24 of which deal with forbidden sex: see Judaism 101: Sex.

Well, sure, there's a commandment that says Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder, but there isn't one that says you're not allowed to push someone off the Cliffs of Dover.  So if I push someone and he happens thereby to fall off a cliff, and the fall kills him, well that's his problem, since he shouldn't have fallen off a cliff.  My push was only a minor physical action and didn't hurt him -- it was the fall that did him in, and that's not my fault.  

Members of the Church who leave it because the Church won't seal same-sex couples in the temple or even accept same-sex marriage, and who use the "no specific commandment or revelation" issue as an excuse, don't have a leg to stand on.  You're entitled to disagree of course.

But I don't expect you to respond.  :-)

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

It is actually a little more than that.  The LDS church taught a narrative that just wasn't true.  For example, the narrative has always been that Joseph Smith translated the gold plates by the gift and power of God.  The translating of those gold plates are the Book of Mormon.  Every single illustration of Joseph Smith translating included a set of gold plates.  While all of this was being taught as the official teaching on how the Book of Mormon came forth, the church HAD the actual stone that was claimed to be the seer stone used to write the BoM.  Historical documents always supported the fact that the majority of the BpM was not even translated, but rather by magically appearing on this stone when it was placed in a hat. The golden plates that we sing about, saw illustrations of Joseph Smith using and were told were how the BpM was received actually played a very minor role in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.  And it is the members fault for not knowing this?  

No wonder people are leaving the church over this issue and others like it.  Not only were they told a false narrative, but they are now being blamed for being deceived.  Who thinks that is fair?

"Joseph Smith translated the gold plates by the gift and power of God" and that doesn't include the Urim and Thummim, the seer stone, and later, using no physical object at all?  If I said that that the Jaredites had light in their vessels by the gift and power of God (which they certainly did), would this be belied by the fact that they had two glowing stones inside each vessel?  I don't think so.

If you don't have a testimony that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, obtained through personal revelation, then I suppose the discovery that at various times he used different methods for that translation might be a bit of a shock -- but when I joined the Church I was definitely told about the Urim and Thummim.  Actually, the U&T sounded a bit weird to me, but because of that personal revelation that I received regarding the divine origin of the Book of Mormon, I accepted the U&T as a mechanism provided by God, despite its weirdness.  When I later found out the seer stone, and then later that towards the end Joseph was translating without even the plates before him, it seemed perfectly reasonable.  What would stop God from revealing to His prophet whatever He wanted to reveal, regardless of whether the subject of the revelation was even in the room or not?

But if one is a Frank Sinatra devotee, and insist upon things being your way, as opposed to God's way, then I guess all these little details could shake your faith.

[rockpond]

26 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

"Joseph Smith translated the gold plates by the gift and power of God" and that doesn't include the Urim and Thummim, the seer stone, and later, using no physical object at all?  If I said that that the Jaredites had light in their vessels by the gift and power of God (which they certainly did), would this be belied by the fact that they had two glowing stones inside each vessel?  I don't think so.

If you don't have a testimony that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, obtained through personal revelation, then I suppose the discovery that at various times he used different methods for that translation might be a bit of a shock -- but when I joined the Church I was definitely told about the Urim and Thummim.  Actually, the U&T sounded a bit weird to me, but because of that personal revelation that I received regarding the divine origin of the Book of Mormon, I accepted the U&T as a mechanism provided by God, despite its weirdness.  When I later found out the seer stone, and then later that towards the end Joseph was translating without even the plates before him, it seemed perfectly reasonable.  What would stop God from revealing to His prophet whatever He wanted to reveal, regardless of whether the subject of the revelation was even in the room or not?

But if one is a Frank Sinatra devotee, and insist upon things being your way, as opposed to God's way, then I guess all these little details could shake your faith.

Regardless of how your personal testimony allowed you to process new information, the fact remains that the narrative taught was wrong.  That's CB's point. 

 

[rockpond]

44 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

"Joseph Smith translated the gold plates by the gift and power of God" and that doesn't include the Urim and Thummim, the seer stone, and later, using no physical object at all?  If I said that that the Jaredites had light in their vessels by the gift and power of God (which they certainly did), would this be belied by the fact that they had two glowing stones inside each vessel?  I don't think so.

If you don't have a testimony that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, obtained through personal revelation, then I suppose the discovery that at various times he used different methods for that translation might be a bit of a shock -- but when I joined the Church I was definitely told about the Urim and Thummim.  Actually, the U&T sounded a bit weird to me, but because of that personal revelation that I received regarding the divine origin of the Book of Mormon, I accepted the U&T as a mechanism provided by God, despite its weirdness.  When I later found out the seer stone, and then later that towards the end Joseph was translating without even the plates before him, it seemed perfectly reasonable.  What would stop God from revealing to His prophet whatever He wanted to reveal, regardless of whether the subject of the revelation was even in the room or not?

But if one is a Frank Sinatra devotee, and insist upon things being your way, as opposed to God's way, then I guess all these little details could shake your faith.

Regardless of how your personal testimony allowed you to process new information, the fact remains that the narrative taught was wrong or at least incomplete. That's CB's point. 

 

[Stargazer]

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Regardless of how your personal testimony allowed you to process new information, the fact remains that the narrative taught was wrong.  That's CB's point. 

 

I don't see that it was wrong.  If I say that a lamp is shining brightly, this is not belied by getting specific as to whether its mode of luminescence is incandescent, fluorescent, or LED, or as to how many lumens it's giving off.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Stargazer

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I don't see that it was wrong.  If I say that a lamp is shining brightly, this is not belied by getting specific as to whether its mode of luminescence is incandescent, fluorescent, or LED, or as to how many lumens it's giving off.

The issue we were discussing was this:

Robert, I believe, had said that all the historical information about the church was available to people who were interested enough to go look. 

I argued that members of the church would have no reason to go look for anything when they already knew it and had been taught the complete narrative in church. 

I gave an example of this related to polygamy. 

Then Book of Mormon translation was raised.  So I'm saying, if a church member is taught that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by looking through the U&T at the words on the plates why would that member ever think to go research other methods that were used to translate?

So, after decades of believing that the Book of Mormon was translated they learn that instead it was revealed through a stone in a hat, that change can be a bit unsettling.  Though, how they process it in terms of their testimony varies. 

Can we agree on that last paragraph?

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Of course I'm coming to this really late and by now it's irrelevant because someone already commented with what I'm about to write, but I've not read through all 23 pages of this thread to see if anyone has said what I'm about to say.  I only went four pages ahead and I might have missed something.  Apologies for the duplication of effort if it is indeed duplication.

You write: "If you can point to a verse in the scriptures that clearly disallow gay marriage or can point to a revelation declared by church leaders that specifically forbids gay marriage in the temple then I will respond."

Since there is no such revelation or scripture then I cannot provide one, so I don't expect you to respond to this.

I don't know what your definition of dogma is, but the primary sense that seems to be how the term is used in connection with religion has nothing to do with interpretation of scripture, but:

See the Wikipedia article on dogma for this general sense.  But that is how I have always understood it, being the unwillingness to rationally discuss a belief.  I.e. an assertion without discussion, kind of.

Now, you make the amazing statement that it is dogma that gays cannot be married, because it cannot be supported by a direct revelation.  You say that it isn't enough to say that the Bible forbids homosexuality, and you won't discuss it.  That, to me, at least, is being dogmatic. 

As a point of logic, if the Bible forbids homosexual acts, then it is follows that since marriage implies a sexual relationship, marriage between two persons of the same sex is also inescapably forbidden.  If you insist that the Bible or modern revelation must contain a specific prohibition that cannot be logically inferred from previous principles then you are asking for an even more complex system than ever existed in the Law of Moses, where there were, what, as interpreted by Rabbis throughout the ages, there are 613 commandments, 24 of which deal with forbidden sex: see Judaism 101: Sex.

Well, sure, there's a commandment that says Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder, but there isn't one that says you're not allowed to push someone off the Cliffs of Dover.  So if I push someone and he happens thereby to fall off a cliff, and the fall kills him, well that's his problem, since he shouldn't have fallen off a cliff.  My push was only a minor physical action and didn't hurt him -- it was the fall that did him in, and that's not my fault.  

Members of the Church who leave it because the Church won't seal same-sex couples in the temple or even accept same-sex marriage, and who use the "no specific commandment or revelation" issue as an excuse, don't have a leg to stand on.  You're entitled to disagree of course.

But I don't expect you to respond.  :-)

You are making an assumption that sex within marriage is allowed for straight couples, but sex within marriage is not allowed for gay couples.  Without a revelation from God, it is just a guess.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

"Joseph Smith translated the gold plates by the gift and power of God" and that doesn't include the Urim and Thummim, the seer stone, and later, using no physical object at all?  If I said that that the Jaredites had light in their vessels by the gift and power of God (which they certainly did), would this be belied by the fact that they had two glowing stones inside each vessel?  I don't think so.

If you don't have a testimony that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, obtained through personal revelation, then I suppose the discovery that at various times he used different methods for that translation might be a bit of a shock -- but when I joined the Church I was definitely told about the Urim and Thummim.  Actually, the U&T sounded a bit weird to me, but because of that personal revelation that I received regarding the divine origin of the Book of Mormon, I accepted the U&T as a mechanism provided by God, despite its weirdness.  When I later found out the seer stone, and then later that towards the end Joseph was translating without even the plates before him, it seemed perfectly reasonable.  What would stop God from revealing to His prophet whatever He wanted to reveal, regardless of whether the subject of the revelation was even in the room or not?

But if one is a Frank Sinatra devotee, and insist upon things being your way, as opposed to God's way, then I guess all these little details could shake your faith.

I get that many members are ok with finding out that Joseph Smith didn't translate the majority of the Book of Mormon by looking at gold plates as taught by the church, sung in songs, illustrated in every article about this subject.  Some members however feel like the church deceived them when they found out that most of the Book of Mormon came from Joseph Smith looking into a hat at a rock.  I hope you can get that as well. 

If it was just one thing, then I think it would be easier to accept.  For some it is one of many things that they are finding out about. They feel their trust in the church has been betrayed.  

I totally understand your point of view and how little you are bothered by finding out all of these discrepancies about church history.  That is certainly a valid point of view.  I can also see how big of impact it must be for those that feel like the church has not been honest in presenting it's history.  Each person has to decide for themselves how they will respond to this new information.  I am glad you have chosen to not be bothered by it all.  But I certainly can understand why someone would leave the church that they no longer believe in or trust.

[cdowis]

 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The issue we were discussing was this:

Robert, I believe, had said that all the historical information about the church was available to people who were interested enough to go look. 

I argued that members of the church would have no reason to go look for anything when they already knew it and had been taught the complete narrative in church. 

I gave an example of this related to polygamy. 

Then Book of Mormon translation was raised.  So I'm saying, if a church member is taught that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by looking through the U&T at the words on the plates why would that member ever think to go research other methods that were used to translate?

So, after decades of believing that the Book of Mormon was translated they learn that instead it was revealed through a stone in a hat, that change can be a bit unsettling.  Though, how they process it in terms of their testimony varies. 

Can we agree on that last paragraph?

The operative word is "also", translated by a stone in a hat.  You entire point is invalidated by your use of "instead", which is deceptive and simply not true.

Quote

Apparently for convenience, Joseph often translated with the single seer stone rather than the two stones bound together to form the interpreters. These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable and worked in much the same way such that, in the course of time, Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters.²¹  https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng

 

Thus, our member is "unsettled" by the anti-Mormon garage which says "instead", poisoning the mind and spirit of our friend by the enemies of the church who "forgot" to mention that BOTH instruments were used and virtually interchangeable.

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by cdowis