mfbukowski Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: Very well put. My concern is the members of the Church should be less concerned with offending the sensibilities of postmodern philosophers and more concerned with upholding the testimony of the scriptures concerning the objective reality of divine revelatory truth. I hope I'm wrong but what I seem to be hearing is that all perceptions of reality are just as valid, worthwhile and acceptable as God's own perception of reality. But the problem is Mark probably understands all of this very well and is frustrated because there's something truly valid about what he's saying but we're just not "getting it." Therefore, I'm open to further instruction. Please show me scientific evidence for revelatory truth. Pick any truth you like That God is a man? That we can hear voices we ascribe to the "spirit"? That the Book of Mormon comes from invisible historical people? Any objective truth which is scientifically verifiable through scientific experimentation will do. THAT is what you are asserting. How much does God weigh? He has a body right? Where is it? Why doesn't he show himself? Does he really look exactly like the resurrected Christ? Are there objectively 3 persons on the God head? Is the Holy Ghost male? Can he be examined to prove that? Yes I believe all these things are true- that means that putting together all these paradigms results in a cohesive explanation for what we cannot see objectively. I know they are true because God has testified of these things in my heart- SUBJECTIVELY, not objectively. But now you are asserting these "truths" are "objective"? Remember the purpose of this is to explain your words to secular atheists so that they could look at what you say and say "HMMMM- ok, well I can see that works as a theory, I don't know if I believe it, but I suppose that if I saw the world that way then just maybe......." They will NEVER listen to their hearts if they think that what they feel "in their hearts" is not true THE PROBLEM is that what WE think is "TRUE" is ridiculous to them and they will not even listen because it is not even worth listening to And you turn around and talk about revelation being "objective" and they think you are insane. WE CANNOT SHOW THAT the world of Revelation is real to anyone this way. They think these are hallucinations and you cannot answer a single question they ask because of the way you think about these things. THE LANGUAGE OF REVELATION IS NOT SECULAR LANGUAGE. We can bemoan the horrible word of secularism and zip ourselves up in a little artificial world in our little hermetically sealed world and let the church die, or we can learn how to speak differently about these things without losing their "truth" It's up to us.
california boy Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: More hate, california boy? I was replying to a CFR, and it was not cut and paste. I read most of those articles when they came out years ago, long before the internet could access them -- otherwise I'd have a URL for each, so that you could read them for yourself, without going to a library. It is really not news, but the accepted view in academe. Why does that enrage you? Oh yeah, I forgot. The first thing you go to is hate. Never mind. hugs.
mfbukowski Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 4 hours ago, pogi said: . Postmodernism teaches that if "the truth" is not working for you, then it is not true. CFR- not the case Show me one theorist who says that. You have no understanding of postmodernism. THIS is what postmodernism says about truth- "You can't say much about it, BUT WE KNOW WHAT THE WORD MEANS" I guess I have to do it yet again. Sigh. Please listen to each word ok? Quote back only what he actually says not what you think he means- you do not know what he means.
Bobbieaware Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 16 minutes ago, rockpond said: Given the number of active, temple recommend-holding priesthood leaders who leave the church each year it is ridiculous to state that people leave because the just don't understand the LDS Faith. Ash's statement is simply his opinion and not supported by data. It's easy to say that people who leave don't understand the faith in the way YOU do or in the way that would have allowed them to stay (obviously). It's a different matter to look at each individual and determine whether he/she understood the faith in the way it was taught to them which ultimately caused them to leave when they realized it was false. As long as we, as a church, keep blaming faithful but departed members for "just not understanding the LDS faith" we'll never make progress in keeping people from leaving. The Brethren have begun publicly acknowledging that the narrative taught to members was not always accurate or sufficient. We ought to follow their lead in our interactions with others. If the teachings and doctrines of the LDS scriptures are true, then these people ARE leaving the Church because they lack a revelatory knowledge of the truth of the LDS faith. Those who are leaving may be perfectly capable of reciting most of the teachings of the Church In a wrote fashion, but that is not the kind of saving knowledge the scriptures talk about. Saving Gospel knowledge is a combination of intellectually knowing the teachings of the Church coupled with present, living revelation from the Holy Ghost that the teachings are actually true, alive and spiritually powerful. A mere intellectual recitation of a particular doctrine can be classified among what Paul called dead works; while a recitation of Gospel truth, coupled with the witness and power of the Holy Ghost, is a living work of the Spirit. 1
Bobbieaware Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Please show me scientific evidence for revelatory truth. Pick any truth you like That God is a man? That we can hear voices we ascribe to the "spirit"? That the Book of Mormon comes from invisible historical people? Any objective truth which is scientifically verifiable through scientific experimentation will do. THAT is what you are asserting. How much does God weigh? He has a body right? Where is it? Why doesn't he show himself? Does he really look exactly like the resurrected Christ? Are there objectively 3 persons on the God head? Is the Holy Ghost male? Can he be examined to prove that? Yes I believe all these things are true- that means that putting together all these paradigms results in a cohesive explanation for what we cannot see objectively. I know they are true because God has testified of these things in my heart- SUBJECTIVELY, not objectively. But now you are asserting these "truths" are "objective"? Remember the purpose of this is to explain your words to secular atheists so that they could look at what you say and say "HMMMM- ok, well I can see that works as a theory, I don't know if I believe it, but I suppose that if I saw the world that way then just maybe......." They will NEVER listen to their hearts if they think that what they feel "in their hearts" is not true THE PROBLEM is that what WE think is "TRUE" is ridiculous to them and they will not even listen because it is not even worth listening to And you turn around and talk about revelation being "objective" and they think you are insane. WE CANNOT SHOW THAT the world of Revelation is real to anyone this way. They think these are hallucinations and you cannot answer a single question they ask because of the way you think about these things. THE LANGUAGE OF REVELATION IS NOT SECULAR LANGUAGE. We can bemoan the horrible word of secularism and zip ourselves up in a little artificial world in our little hermetically sealed world and let the church die, or we can learn how to speak differently about these things without losing their "truth" It's up to us. The scriptures clearly and consistently teach that revelatory knowledge from the Holy Ghost is more powerful, convincing and real than the wisdom of men (science). If postmodern philosophers don't agree with the scriptures and have not yet experienced the overwhelmingly convincing witness of the Spirit, that doesn't make the principle that spiritually infused knowledge is much greater than the witness of sight any less true.
mfbukowski Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 7 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: If the teachings and doctrines of the LDS scriptures are true, then these people ARE leaving the Church because they lack a revelatory knowledge of the truth of the LDS faith. Those who are leaving may be perfectly capable of reciting most of the teachings of the Church In a wrote fashion, but that is not the kind of saving knowledge the scriptures talk about. Saving Gospel knowledge is a combination of intellectually knowing the teachings of the Church coupled with present, living revelation from the Holy Ghost that the teachings are actually true, alive and spiritually powerful. A mere intellectual recitation of a particular doctrine can be classified among what Paul called dead works; while a recitation of Gospel truth, coupled with the witness and power of the Holy Ghost, is a living work of the Spirit. EXACTLY and this proves my point THOSE truths are NOT "objective" They are living truths in your heart- written not in stone but in the fleshy softness of the heart. 2
Bobbieaware Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: EXACTLY and this proves my point THOSE truths are NOT "objective" They are living truths in your heart- written not in stone but in the fleshy softness of the heart. I have great faith that someday we'll see eye to eye.
mfbukowski Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 1 minute ago, Bobbieaware said: The scriptures clearly and consistently teach that revelatory knowledge from the Holy Ghost is more powerful, convincing and real than the wisdom of men (science). If postmodern philosophers don't agree with the scriptures and have not yet experienced the overwhelmingly convincing witness of the Spirit, that doesn't make the principle that spiritually infused knowledge is much greater than the witness of sight any less true. Strawman NO ONE says that!!!!! IN fact what postmodern philosophers say is that those feelings in the heart are perfectly valid. You have it backwards. Postmodernism says emotion counts to justify propositions which are emotional in nature. It's not that they "don't agree with the scriptures"- I don't know where you get that idea. They don't agree that the world is flat or that donkeys speak or that Joshua stopped the sun, perhaps, but can and often do affirm that scriptures are useful for comfort, for living a good life, for giving good maxims for behavior etc 1
Bobbieaware Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: EXACTLY and this proves my point THOSE truths are NOT "objective" They are living truths in your heart- written not in stone but in the fleshy softness of the heart. If the Restored Gospel is true, are the same truths still subjective even for God?
mfbukowski Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: I have great faith that someday we'll see eye to eye. I know so too, it's just a question of who gives up on the attempt first.
Bobbieaware Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: Strawman NO ONE says that!!!!! IN fact what postmodern philosophers say is that those feelings in the heart are perfectly valid. You have it backwards. Postmodernism says emotion counts to justify propositions which are emotional in nature. It's not that they "don't agree with the scriptures"- I don't know where you get that idea. They don't agree that the world is flat or that donkeys speak or that Joshua stopped the sun, perhaps, but can and often do affirm that scriptures are useful for comfort, for living a good life, for giving good maxims for behavior etc That's seems to be the problem, everything is equally valid so nothing is better than anything else.
mfbukowski Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 Just now, Bobbieaware said: If the Restored Gospel is true, are the same truths still subjective even for God? I don't know what that could possibly mean. I have no clue how God thinks- that is beyond my ability to know. I think that what God knows, defines everything that humans can possibly define. That is what "omniscient" means. He knows all that there is to know, in a sense. His intelligence pervades the universe as we can know and defines all that can exist. God cannot be objectified- that is to turn the God of the universe into a THING we can "know" I am not smart enough to do that. GOD is a being that makes things objective through his intelligence- so ok I guess you could say that he is the only who creates objectivity. Perhaps he is the only one who sees things "as they really are" DC 93 Quote 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. In the beginning was the Word and the Word... was God..... And God CALLED the evening and morning the first day.... 1
mfbukowski Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 14 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: That's seems to be the problem, everything is equally valid so nothing is better than anything else. Nope, wrong again Postmoderns are definitely moral in fact morals often rule their lives. Equality for all! Human rights! Ecology! Save the whales! Eating animals is immoral! Etc etc 1
mfbukowski Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Nope, wrong again Postmoderns are definitely moral in fact morals often rule their lives. Equality for all! Human rights! Ecology! Save the whales! Eating animals is immoral! Etc etc The fact that we disagree about morality does not mean that it does not exist subjectively. They think that eating animals is immoral just as we think abortion is immoral- the difference is that they know that these values cannot be communicated to others. They see their values as subjective just as they see ours as subjective How do we decide who is right "objectively"? Good luck. Values are not objective except insofar as they are pragmatic- what works best for mankind by producing happiness Edited January 5, 2017 by mfbukowski 1
Bobbieaware Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Strawman NO ONE says that!!!!! IN fact what postmodern philosophers say is that those feelings in the heart are perfectly valid. You have it backwards. Postmodernism says emotion counts to justify propositions which are emotional in nature. It's not that they "don't agree with the scriptures"- I don't know where you get that idea. They don't agree that the world is flat or that donkeys speak or that Joshua stopped the sun, perhaps, but can and often do affirm that scriptures are useful for comfort, for living a good life, for giving good maxims for behavior etc Based on what I hear you saying, would I be wrong to say an adherent to postmodern philosophy (if he remains true to postmodern philosophical discipline) cannot actually say he knows the Gospel is true because the best he can hope for is to be able to say he would like the Restored Gospel to be true because he likes its teachings.
pogi Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: CFR- not the case You yourself have been going on and on about relativism. I assumed that idea was espoused in postmodernism. Is it not? So let me rephrase what I said slightly if it was unclear what I meant: ...if it doesn't work for you, then it is not true for you. Is that not what relativism says?
Bobbieaware Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Nope, wrong again Postmoderns are definitely moral in fact morals often rule their lives. Equality for all! Human rights! Ecology! Save the whales! Eating animals is immoral! Etc etc So then, in postmodern philosophy everything is equally good?
The Nehor Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 Perhaps a blog post about "The Alarming Truth Behind Post-Modernism" would have been more apropos. 1
pogi Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: How do we decide who is right "objectively"? We don't, but in Mormonism we don't doubt that absolute truth exists like relativism does. I think there are a lot of fair comparisons in Mormonism and postmodernism. Both postmodernism and Mormonism rely on concrete experience, neither of us expect to know truth objectively, we both acknowledge that our experience is subjective, we both acknowledge that there are only interpretations in this life. I don’t see any of these as a problem with Mormonism. The problem that I see between the marriage of Mormonism and postmodernism is that Mormonism ultimate goal is for us to know absolute truth (not in this life obviously), while postmodernism is skeptical of it. Mormonism relies on faith of absolute truth, while relativism laughs at the idea of it. The ultimate telos of Mormonism is to KNOW God in his fullness (aka absolute truth…”I am the truth”). Is that the telos of postmodernism? If not, then postmodernism does not belong in Mormonism. To know God (absolute truth) is eternal life. We don’t expect to reach that goal in this life, but it is none the less the goal of Mormonism. Our interpretation is ever clarified and added upon through further revelation. On an individual basis we become closer to understanding the absolute through personal revelation. Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little. That is the main difference that I see. Skepticism of absolute truth vs. faith in it. President Howard W. Hunter observed: With God our Heavenly Father, all truth, wherever found or however apprehended, is circumscribed into one great whole. Ultimately, there are no contradictions, no quarrels, no inscrutable paradoxes, no mysteries. (President’s Formal Charge of Responsibility , LDS Church News, 1994, 11/26/94 .) That is the Mormon view of truth, that all can be circumscribed into one great whole. That view of truth does not jive with relativism. Edited January 5, 2017 by pogi
mfbukowski Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 1 hour ago, pogi said: We don't, but in Mormonism we don't doubt that absolute truth exists like relativism does. I think there are a lot of fair comparisons in Mormonism and postmodernism. Both postmodernism and Mormonism rely on concrete experience, neither of us expect to know truth objectively, we both acknowledge that our experience is subjective, we both acknowledge that there are only interpretations in this life. I don’t see any of these as a problem with Mormonism. The problem that I see between the marriage of Mormonism and postmodernism is that Mormonism ultimate goal is for us to know absolute truth (not in this life obviously), while postmodernism is skeptical of it. Mormonism relies on faith of absolute truth, while postmodernism doubts it. The ultimate telos of Mormonism is to KNOW God in his fullness (aka absolute truth…”I am the truth”). Is that the telos of postmodernism? If not, then postmodernism does not belong in Mormonism. To know God (absolute truth) is eternal life. We don’t expect to reach that goal in this life, but it is none the less the goal of Mormonism. Our interpretation is ever clarified and added upon through further revelation. On an individual basis we become closer to understanding the absolute through personal revelation. Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little. That is the main difference that I see. Skepticism of absolute truth vs. faith in it. President Howard W. Hunter observed: With God our Heavenly Father, all truth, wherever found or however apprehended, is circumscribed into one great whole. Ultimately, there are no contradictions, no quarrels, no inscrutable paradoxes, no mysteries. (President’s Formal Charge of Responsibility , LDS Church News, 1994, 11/26/94 .) That is the Mormon view of truth, that all can be circumscribed into one great whole. That view of truth does not jive with relativism. The word is "jibe". Oh gosh I am so tired of this. No one listens. Rorty: "We know what truth is, we just cannot define it." Mormonism has no definition for truth but Alma 32 which is not a definition "Things as they are" is not a definition. Things are not true, sentences are true. There are no true chairs, cars, colors, or people. Those words were written by men, not God. "Things as they are " describes nothing. Everything is what it is Describe what blue is to a blind man. There are no words and no truth about what blue is, but it is a thing as it is. Things as they are are what is in your heart, as you perceive them subjectively. I understood all this in the first philosophy class I took. Language cannot describe blue or anything as it is. Things cannot be true, only sentences. That Rorty quote below is clear as any human can say it. I cannot any longer take responsibility for explaining it. Without understanding the limitations of Language in religious discourse, the athiests win. Prophets are humans who speak from their hearts and their words are for us to feel and interpret for ourselves, in our hearts. Get to 9 on the Perry Scale or it's all over. Kevin is nice about it, I guess I am too direct. Mfb out. 2
Bobbieaware Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I don't know what that could possibly mean. I have no clue how God thinks- that is beyond my ability to know. I think that what God knows, defines everything that humans can possibly define. That is what "omniscient" means. He knows all that there is to know, in a sense. His intelligence pervades the universe as we can know and defines all that can exist. God cannot be objectified- that is to turn the God of the universe into a THING we can "know" I am not smart enough to do that. GOD is a being that makes things objective through his intelligence- so ok I guess you could say that he is the only who creates objectivity. Perhaps he is the only one who sees things "as they really are" DC 93 In the beginning was the Word and the Word... was God..... And God CALLED the evening and morning the first day.... You started out saying it's impossible to even know how to answer my question, but then went ahead and did a pretty good job of answering it in a satisfactory way anyway. Can you see why many non-postmodern philosophy informed Church members would be rather skeptical of your approach when you say God is not a thing (something that exists) that can be known when the Savior says that by very definition eternal life is for men to have a most intimate infinite and eternal knowledge of him and his Father (God)? A knowledge so perfect and fully complete that we can know how to be exactly like him? Do you know if there are any members of the First Presidency and/or Quorum of the Twelve who subscribe to the postmodern philosophical approach to the nature of truth? Edited January 5, 2017 by Bobbieaware
Bobbieaware Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I don't know what that could possibly mean. I have no clue how God thinks- that is beyond my ability to know. I think that what God knows, defines everything that humans can possibly define. That is what "omniscient" means. He knows all that there is to know, in a sense. His intelligence pervades the universe as we can know and defines all that can exist. God cannot be objectified- that is to turn the God of the universe into a THING we can "know" I am not smart enough to do that. GOD is a being that makes things objective through his intelligence- so ok I guess you could say that he is the only who creates objectivity. Perhaps he is the only one who sees things "as they really are" DC 93 In the beginning was the Word and the Word... was God..... And God CALLED the evening and morning the first day.... You started out saying it's impossible to even know how to answer my question, but then went ahead and did a pretty good job of answering it in a satisfactory way anyway. Can you see why many non-postmodern philosophy informed Church members would be rather skeptical of your approach when you say God is not a thing (something that exists) that can be known when the Savior says that by very definition eternal life is for men to have a most intimate infinite and eternal knowledge of him and his Father (God)? A knowledge so perfect and complete that we can know how to be exactly like him? Do you know if there are any members of the First Presidency and/or Quorum of the Twelve who subscribe to the postmodern philosophical approach to truth? Also, would one expect a Nephite, who saw the Savior and felt the prints of the wounds in his hands, feet and side, to also adhere to the postmodern approach when they know as well as they are alive that the Savior lives? Edited January 5, 2017 by Bobbieaware
Yirgacheffe Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 On 1/2/2017 at 3:38 PM, Robert F. Smith said: This is a very common claim among detractors of religion, intent on denying any humanity to religious people, making them out to be hypocrites. In fact religious groups make prodigious efforts to help the needy (both in and outside of religious organizations). Non-religious people tend to spend money on themselves in meaningless conspicuous consumption, demonstrating their selfishness and lack of love for others. As Dustin points out, however, those who have left religion often have the culturally acceptable values of their former religion, but that only lasts for a generation, and their children abandon high moral and ethical principles without much of an afterthought. The "me-generation." If your premises are false, as here, naturally your conclusions will be false. What you say here, for example, is a non-response to the actual debate, and a major reason why some of your detractors wonder out loud whether you were ever a Mormon at all (you seem very poorly informed). However, your comments do confirm much of what Dustin said in his essay about the general tendency of ex-Mormons to have lost any religious moorings. One problem indicated by such negative stereotyping is the hate it conveys. Next thing, we find that relgions are falsely depicted as trying to "force" everyone to comply with their demands -- as in this recent statement by you in another thread: Just as this is a very common claim by affiliated people about the unaffiliated. And so it goes, you're a mindless, gullible, deluded believer/you're a selfish, immoral, self-centered slouch. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 9 hours ago, rockpond said: Given the number of active, temple recommend-holding priesthood leaders who leave the church each year it is ridiculous to state that people leave because the just don't understand the LDS Faith. Ash's statement is simply his opinion and not supported by data. The average person (whatever his religious background) may be a "faithful" member of any religious group without actually knowing very much about that religion. That may be "ridiculous" in your eyes, but it is a fact, and can be readily verified by asking such a person key questions -- just the way Jay Leno used to ask intelligent people on the street serious questions ("Jay Walking"), and receiving seriously flawed answers, among which were some real howlers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJlY9C7YWzI . 9 hours ago, rockpond said: It's easy to say that people who leave don't understand the faith in the way YOU do or in the way that would have allowed them to stay (obviously). It's a different matter to look at each individual and determine whether he/she understood the faith in the way it was taught to them which ultimately caused them to leave when they realized it was false. As long as we, as a church, keep blaming faithful but departed members for "just not understanding the LDS faith" we'll never make progress in keeping people from leaving. Certainly people who leave for social reasons are very much justified. Their personal feelings are their rationale, and they are experts on their own feelings and needs. I do not question their reasons for leaving, and that will always constitute the vast majority of those leaving. I specifically referred to those claiming to leave for doctrinal or dogmatic reasons as typically being flawed in their appraisals of the Mormon religion. I base that on my experience here on this board and in many other venues, when hearing or reading the reasons for people leaving. I agree with Ash as to their typically flawed understanding of the Mormon faith. 9 hours ago, rockpond said: The Brethren have begun publicly acknowledging that the narrative taught to members was not always accurate or sufficient. We ought to follow their lead in our interactions with others. You might want to quote what they have actually said about how LDS history has been taught by the Church. I too have been critical of some of the ways this has been done, but maybe not in the ways in which you imagine. We have had many long discussions of this question on this board, and we have frequently disagreed as to the true nature of Mormon history and whether it has been effectively taught in official manuals.
HappyJackWagon Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: The average person (whatever his religious background) may be a "faithful" member of any religious group without actually knowing very much about that religion. That may be "ridiculous" in your eyes, but it is a fact, and can be readily verified by asking such a person key questions -- just the way Jay Leno used to ask intelligent people on the street serious questions ("Jay Walking"), and receiving seriously flawed answers, among which were some real howlers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJlY9C7YWzI . Certainly people who leave for social reasons are very much justified. Their personal feelings are their rationale, and they are experts on their own feelings and needs. I do not question their reasons for leaving, and that will always constitute the vast majority of those leaving. I specifically referred to those claiming to leave for doctrinal or dogmatic reasons as typically being flawed in their appraisals of the Mormon religion. I base that on my experience here on this board and in many other venues, when hearing or reading the reasons for people leaving. I agree with Ash as to their typically flawed understanding of the Mormon faith. You might want to quote what they have actually said about how LDS history has been taught by the Church. I too have been critical of some of the ways this has been done, but maybe not in the ways in which you imagine. We have had many long discussions of this question on this board, and we have frequently disagreed as to the true nature of Mormon history and whether it has been effectively taught in official manuals. Sigh... Your judgments are tiresome. Is it impossible to think that good people can understand a religion yet not agree with it or believe in it?
Recommended Posts