Ex-mormon stories

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

PS: I hung out with my friend who is TBM, and she was telling me her sister is reading a book that the Adam and Eve story is more symbolism. That bothers her and her sister, because like me, they thought it really happened. So maybe this will trip her up. I don't know, I just try to keep my mouth shut. 

I think that's a false dichotomy. I think the story in Genesis 2 and variants on it are largely symbolic but I also think there were a real Adam and Eve, fall and garden as well.

[Kevin Christensen]

3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

This is what led me out. Hard facts showed me that the "true faith" wasn't what it claimed to be. I think this is the experience of a lot of people. So, is examination really the best method for the youth to follow? Or is it a question of examining until the presupposed result is reached?  

This is why Jesus tells the Parable of the Sower.  Same seeds (words) different soil, different nurture, different concerns applied to measure those words, and a vastly different harvest.  It's also why N. R. Hanson famously commented that "All data are theory-laden."   And Kuhn comments that "Anomaly emerges against a background of expectation."

And examination, Jesus explained, should begin with removing the beams from one's own eye first.  "Then shall ye see clearly," he says.  Personally, whenever I ran across something I didn't expect, I asked myself "What I should expect?"  And that turns out to be a more sensible and enlightening choice than declaring without further ado that the sky is falling.  And not incidentally, Jeremy Runnells's friend titled his response to my Interpreter response to Runnells, "The Sky is Falling."  And I was not impressed.  Hence my response to that response.

Why should anyone expect to go through life without ever finding that what they learned as a child or youth wasn't unchangeable, unalterable, complete, and utterly final?  We don't get that kind of stability in any other kind of knowledge.  Why suppose it different with religious knowledge?  This is an inescapable part of the human condition.  It is one of the things that helps me appreciate the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth.  Human minds can and should develop and cope with change and uncertainty and human fallibility and potential for progress.  LDS in particular have no excuse because right up front, in section 1 of the D&C the Lord bluntly states that "the authority of my servants" is subject to these conditions: 

Quote

these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

That tells me that my religious knowledge is subject to change, the leaders at all levels can make mistakes, both moral and intellectual, that I should not expect that all knowledge is securely situated on the shelf, and that further knowledge comes from time to time, conditionally with respect to our seeking it.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Bernard Gui]

Using reason and logic without a moral compass can be very dangerous. Many have used them to evil ends.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[mnn727]

Funny thing is that one of the reasons I converted was because of Anti-Mormon claims. You see I had been going to Church with the missionaries for months before I read an Anti-LDS book and my first thought was "We (notice the use of 'we') don't believe that". It proved to me that in order for people to feel they have to lie about what we believe. then there has to be truth to our actual beliefs.

Just part of my testimony.

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Funny thing is that one of the reasons I converted was because of Anti-Mormon claims. You see I had been going to Church with the missionaries for months before I read an Anti-LDS book and my first thought was "We (notice the use of 'we') don't believe that". It proved to me that in order for people to feel they have to lie about what we believe. then there has to be truth to our actual beliefs.

Just part of my testimony.

Do you mind me asking what the anti info was that you read about? And did it turn out to be true? I use to think along the same lines as you. That the church must be true, Satan is working hard against it using anti Mormons etc. So it must be true. But what I now think is some of these anti's are Christian and believe we really are going to hell for believing in a different Jesus, or there are anti's that are ex-Mormon and they see outside the box and see that their family/friends are not aware or uninformed and they'd like them to know the church they believe in. And I see that they are extremely angry since now they may be losing family over a religion. Or some have been hurt by church leaders and feel that the members need to be aware that it's not the most correct religion out there. Many things can make one anti.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That narrative is false.  Arrington, Bushman, and many others regularly published very accurate information on what the early Saints did.  Most importantly, they put it in historical context.  This was back in the day when the internet did not exist.  Journals were published and learned societies regularly met and discussed such matters.  The LDS Church itself has always published milktoast versions of LDS history, and even today one has to look diligently to find the "shocking" details, but they have always been there, and people were not being excommunicated for writing about them.  With the exception of Lavina Fielding Anderson, I can't think of anyone ex'ed for anything other than blatant anti-Mormon writings.

In assaying the lies and deceptions of Runnells, one has first to at least be well-informed about LDS history (very few are), and then seek out the actual reviews of his work.

Seer stones weren't taught in sunday school.  Polyandry was not taught in sunday school.  I was a witness to what Nelson and other 70's did to Grant Palmer at East High Seminary.  Nelson's daughter was in our class and he didn't like that Palmer was bringing up these hard to find details that obviously make the story more human and less heroic.  Packer, didn't want instructors to bring up historical facts that cast doubt on the sugar coated historical narrative the church pushes.  So, please do not blame the members and those who left because they didn't somehow see through the candy land story and were shocked when they did.  That narrative is false, plain and simple. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

This is why Jesus tells the Parable of the Sower.  Same seeds (words) different soil, different nurture, different concerns applied to measure those words, and a vastly different harvest.  It's also why N. R. Hanson famously commented that "All data are theory-laden."   And Kuhn comments that "Anomaly emerges against a background of expectation."

And examination, Jesus explained, should begin with removing the beams from one's own eye first.  "Then shall ye see clearly," he says.  Personally, whenever I ran across something I didn't expect, I asked myself "What I should expect?"  And that turns out to be a more sensible and enlightening choice than declaring without further ado that the sky is falling.  And not incidentally, Jeremy Runnells's friend titled his response to my Interpreter response to Runnells, "The Sky is Falling."  And I was not impressed.  Hence my response to that response.

Why should anyone expect to go through life without ever finding that what they learned as a child or youth wasn't unchangeable, unalterable, complete, and utterly final?  We don't get that kind of stability in any other kind of knowledge.  Why suppose it different with religious knowledge?  This is an inescapable part of the human condition.  It is one of the things that helps me appreciate the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth.  Human minds can and should develop and cope with change and uncertainty and human fallibility and potential for progress.  LDS in particular have no excuse because right up front, in section 1 of the D&C the Lord bluntly states that "the authority of my servants" is subject to these conditions: 

That tells me that my religious knowledge is subject to change, the leaders at all levels can make mistakes, both moral and intellectual, that I should not expect that all knowledge is securely situated on the shelf, and that further knowledge comes from time to time, conditionally with respect to our seeking it.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I was first exposed to these troubling issues in 7th grade and was further exposed in high school by Grant Palmer.  I wasn't shocked because I was inoculated.  Palmer was demoted and had to move to another high school for doing what others are doing today.  However, it wasn't until I looked at it critically that I changed my mind.  It doesn't make any sense logically.  What does make sense is that man invented Christianity and the other religions.  Surely if one imagines a powerful god, that god should have the power to forgive "sins" without having to have his son murdered.  Further, it doesn't make any sense to me that there always has to be an authoritarian priest class that God favors over the masses.  Seems like man creating something in order to rule over others.   

[Pete Ahlstrom]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They leave the true LDS faith to embrace reason and Scientology, flat earthism, and the worship of nanobots.

Who are these people?  Do you have examples or are you just stating what you think could happen?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

36 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Using reason and logic without a moral compass can be very dangerous. Many have used them to evil ends.

Doesn't that presuppose the moral compass can only be found in religion or more specifically, the mormon religion?

[Robert F. Smith]

17 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Seer stones weren't taught in sunday school.  Polyandry was not taught in sunday school.  I was a witness to what Nelson and other 70's did to Grant Palmer at East High Seminary.  Nelson's daughter was in our class and he didn't like that Palmer was bringing up these hard to find details that obviously make the story more human and less heroic.  Packer, didn't want instructors to bring up historical facts that cast doubt on the sugar coated historical narrative the church pushes.  So, please do not blame the members and those who left because they didn't somehow see through the candy land story and were shocked when they did.  That narrative is false, plain and simple. 

Once again, you miss the point, Pete.  The milktoast version of LDS history taught in Sunday School is deliberately so -- milk before meat.  No one ever imagined that the more controversial issues could be dealt with when the basics had not been mastered --- which takes us back to the notion of the "Sorcerer's Apprentice."  The more controversial stuff is indeed attractive, but it can become an obsession for those ill-prepared for it.  Presentism is the biggest problem, and we see it expressed all the time on this board.  Real history makes no sense without context.  It is utterly childish to imagine that anyone can make sense of so-called "polyandry" without understanding what that meant in practice.  The same applies to Joseph's many wives, which Fawn Brodie had made famous, without realizing that (despite her claims) there were no offspring.  Same for seerstones and witch hazel rods, which were all too common then -- the rods still are quite common in rural environs.

Those who left "candy land" did so not do so due to shock at the unvarnished truth -- which they never really perceived anyhow -- but because they failed to learn first principles, such as gaining a testimony via the Holy Spirit.  Most such people were raised by rigid parents who did not really know the Gospel, and they were never taught to think for themselves -- leaving them vulnerable to the lies of the anti-Mormons.  The result is sad but predictable.

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Funny thing is that one of the reasons I converted was because of Anti-Mormon claims. You see I had been going to Church with the missionaries for months before I read an Anti-LDS book and my first thought was "We (notice the use of 'we') don't believe that". It proved to me that in order for people to feel they have to lie about what we believe. then there has to be truth to our actual beliefs.

Just part of my testimony.

That's a good indication of a burgeoning testimony -- when an investigator, perhaps subconsciously, starts taking ownership of the faith he is investigating.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

43 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Do you mind me asking what the anti info was that you read about? And did it turn out to be true? I use to think along the same lines as you. That the church must be true, Satan is working hard against it using anti Mormons etc. So it must be true. But what I now think is some of these anti's are Christian and believe we really are going to hell for believing in a different Jesus, or there are anti's that are ex-Mormon and they see outside the box and see that their family/friends are not aware or uninformed and they'd like them to know the church they believe in. And I see that they are extremely angry since now they may be losing family over a religion. Or some have been hurt by church leaders and feel that the members need to be aware that it's not the most correct religion out there. Many things can make one anti.

Half truths. Out-of-context citation. Happens all the time.

Those who are wise recognize it for what it is.

 

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I was told the Tanners were bad people spreading anti Mormon lies. Many missionaries were told the anti stuff were lies too. I was never told the full truth about the Mountain Meadow Massacre, this I also learned in my forties. I remember hearing about it once and it wasn't explained. You will never hear it even at the Jacob Hamblin home in Santa Clara, Utah which is nearby and Jacob had a hand in it, come to find out. 

I haven't seen where the CES letter lies. But Jeremy has corrected items I've heard. When I read the Gospel Topics about Nauvoo polygamy, it's all the truth. Are you trying to tell me that I should feel good about it since it's coming from the source? I'm suppose to feel good about the history with the blacks not receiving the PH at one time because they are black? And now just learning Mormons had slaves in Utah? And I believe paid tithing by giving a black slave? I'm suppose to feel good that Joseph Smith wanted to be king of the kingdom? This in the Council of the Fifty. This is suppose to make me feel good, because it's the truth? 

I'd like a prophet to follow in Christ's footsteps, Jesus Christ was a humble man who went around to the poorest of the poor, or the sickest among sick, and hung around the lowest people. 

Hi Tacenda.

Those things don't make the gospel false. Like every other Church, the LDS Church puts its best foot forward. What Church prints its part in the killing of non-trinitarians in the Reformation? Many people become Catholics, yet imho, there are far more egregious crimes committed by that Church than by the LDS. Like you I have become somewhat unenamored by some of what went on under BY. But just to conclude that the LDS were out for blood and killed a bunch of pioneers in cold blood is not fair either. When some context is added, it allows some leniency in outlook I think. The MMM pioneers were coming from Arkansas where a well-liked missionary had just been killed. Further, the Church knew the Federal government was sending troops, so the possibility of spies being sent also enters the picture. 

Similarly, the Tanners are publishing a one-sided outlook without giving proper context for statements, etc. Sometimes, they even edit out relevant context in favor of their despicable ......s. They have proven themselves not to be fair nor objective sources. I believe this is what Robert is alluding to. I don't know or even really believe that Runnels is "lying." Lying implies purposefulness. I believe that Runnels became angry because he was not well-versed in Church history and assumed all the anti-materials he was finding were true. So he ended up re-publishing and re-hashing lies. I believe this is what Robert is alluding to. I believe the Spaulding manuscript story is a good example of how lies about the Church get spread around in anti-circles and passed off as truth which people like Runnels end up spreading around in their anger.

You are right that Joseph Smith became a little infatuated with power, but I believe he was trying to be a force for good which would stop persecution of the Church. You have to expect that Church members would expect him to do something about persecution of the Church. But being voted king of the temporal kingdom of the Church doesn't appeal to me - like it doesn't to you. 

Yeshua said "The greatest among you shall be the servant of all." However, you have to remember that the Lord made David king of Israel. But this was the very Achilles heel for David, and led to his downfall. Joseph was a good man, but had faults. Nevertheless, the Lord used him for his purposes in restoring His gospel, but because of Joseph's faults we do not have all of it - which may have contributed to the Church making false assumptions about the Lamanites or other things. 

Quote

Joseph and Brigham were hypocrits while telling members to follow the WoW, they still partook, even sold alcohol. IMO, they might have used a religion to have concubines, or spiritual and living wives, at least Joseph Smith. Again, IMO they used parts of the Bible they liked and left the parts out they didn't like.

In the days of Joseph and BY, the Word of Wisdom was just that - advice for blessings. It didn't prohibit beer. Wine was advised against but was not prohibited either. We don't know the quality of the water Joseph received in jail. We don't know the stress he was under, etc.  I don't fault him for having some wine - I fault the Church for later making it like a sin to drink of cup of wine or a glass of beer where that was not the original intent of the WoW. That is something which seemed to come in with Prohibition. Now if the Church wants to make that a condition for a temple recommend that is their right as holders of those keys, but imho it really is not the "WoW." But to call Joseph and BY hypocrites is not fair nor accurate. What the WoW later became is not their doing.

Quote

Maybe you missed it, but what I'm saying is that the church putting these things in the light and they being nearly 100 percent what the anti's were saying all along, isn't helping. 

If there was no FairMormon, or Gospel Topics section, or even information about Joseph Smith's wives listed on family history on LDS.org. I might still be a believing Mormon. I might have just chalked it all up to anti stuff. 

The truth didn't set me free, or it did. And now is time to find faith all on my own. And start over, but it's kind of difficult when everyone around you isn't on that path. And you feel all alone unless you hang out with those that feel the same and they are now ex-Mormons, but I still want to hang out with my people, because they are my family and friends and neighbors. 

It puts people in a rock and a hard place so-to-speak. 

PS: I hung out with my friend who is TBM, and she was telling me her sister is reading a book that the Adam and Eve story is more symbolism. That bothers her and her sister, because like me, they thought it really happened. So maybe this will trip her up. I don't know, I just try to keep my mouth shut. 

It is obvious that the story of Eden is symbolic. The tree of life is not some literal tree you can go eat fruit off of, and receive eternal life. Jesus told us He was the true vine tree, and the life. It is a story which teaches the gospel in a nutshell. It is using symbolism to teach us the fall and its consequences and the need for a Savior, the tree of life. I am not saying there was not an Adam and Eve. I'm just saying the early things of the OT were supposed to teach and prepare people about things to come. To say that Jesus was lying because He taught in parables is not fair. Nor is it fair to say God is lying because He taught in symbolism. 

Hosea 12:10

10 I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

So are you saying that it is also unacceptable to you to learn Abraham, Israel, and many other priests of God had multiple wives? Like you I find it somewhat disturbing that Joseph kept it secret. If he was commanded to teach it like I believe he was, he seemed to do a poor job of that, and never published sec. 132. So I am not unsympathetic to your conclusions. Nevertheless, I have to conclude that God would have at some point told his people it was an abominable sin if it was. He did consider the sake of marrying for dynastic purposes to be a perversion of His wishes I think, and talks with disfavor about marrying "many wives." I just don't think it is an issue worth leaving the Church over. That is like a Jew saying, well David and Solomon took it too far, so I am not going to the temple anymore. Instead, they teach us that they did take it too far, and how to be better in the future. Neither Joseph nor BY were perfect men who were learning as they themselves taught. I accept them as imperfect, and appreciate what they did for the truth in their own ways. To expect perfection of them is unfair I think. If the Church ever enters polygamy again, I hope they do it much better, and learn from the excesses, and the problems it caused the Church to teach that exaltation is dependent upon temporal polygamy. No one in Joseph's shoes would have been perfect, because no prophet has ever been perfect except Yeshua. Finding fault in them doesn't make the truths of the Church untrue. Hopefully, you can learn the truth of their imperfection. and that will set you free.

Edited August 22, 2017 by RevTestament

[Kevin Christensen]

23 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I was first exposed to these troubling issues in 7th grade and was further exposed in high school by Grant Palmer.  I wasn't shocked because I was inoculated.  Palmer was demoted and had to move to another high school for doing what others are doing today.  However, it wasn't until I looked at it critically that I changed my mind.  It doesn't make any sense logically.  What does make sense is that man invented Christianity and the other religions.  Surely if one imagines a powerful god, that god should have the power to forgive "sins" without having to have his son murdered.  Further, it doesn't make any sense to me that there always has to be an authoritarian priest class that God favors over the masses.  Seems like man creating something in order to rule over others.   

Notice the clustering of blanket authoritarian pronouncements, and the shortage of supporting evidence.

I like the notion that "surely if one imagines a powerful God" that God would be able to arrange things just the way I, from my unassailably secure vantage point, think they ought to be.  And if reality falls short, then that is a moral failing on the part of that imaginatively constructed God.  Though, given human limitations, perhaps I ought to grant that real God might be a bit different that what that limited imagination tosses up like a clay pigeon.

And two whole sentences on the significance, meaning, purpose, rationale, and working out and impact of the atonement.  No stone unturned, no path unexplored, no experience overlooked, no insight left unexposed.  In just two sentences.

It turns out that what actually does rule over people, are the paradigms, metaphors, ideologies and paradigms they use to structure and organize what subsequently passes for logic.

Quote

One of the ruling illusions of Western metaphysics is that reason can somehow grasp the world without close attention to language and arrive at a pure, self-authenticating truth or method. Derrida’s work draws attention to the ways in which language deflects the philosopher’s project. He does this by focusing on metaphors and other figurative devices in the texts of philosophy…

His method consists of showing how the privileged term is held in place by the force of the dominant metaphor, and not, as it might seem, by any conclusive logic.

Madan Sarup, Post-Structuralism and Post Modernism (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1993), 51-52.

One of the things I like about the Perry Scheme is that it embraces the process of growth from and through human limitations. For instance, at Position 6 (of 9), Commitment forseen:

Quote

He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand symbol as symbols and acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Pete Ahlstrom]

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again, you miss the point, Pete.  The milktoast version of LDS history taught in Sunday School is deliberately so -- milk before meat.  No one ever imagined that the more controversial issues could be dealt with when the basics had not been mastered --- which takes us back to the notion of the "Sorcerer's Apprentice."  The more controversial stuff is indeed attractive, but it can become an obsession for those ill-prepared for it.  Presentism is the biggest problem, and we see it expressed all the time on this board.  Real history makes no sense without context.  It is utterly childish to imagine that anyone can make sense of so-called "polyandry" without understanding what that meant in practice.  The same applies to Joseph's many wives, which Fawn Brodie had made famous, without realizing that (despite her claims) there were no offspring.  Same for seerstones and witch hazel rods, which were all too common then -- the rods still are quite common in rural environs.

Those who left "candy land" did so not do so due to shock at the unvarnished truth -- which they never really perceived anyhow -- but because they failed to learn first principles, such as gaining a testimony via the Holy Spirit.  Most such people were raised by rigid parents who did not really know the Gospel, and they were never taught to think for themselves -- leaving them vulnerable to the lies of the anti-Mormons.  The result is sad but predictable.

How is polyandry or seer stones considered meat? It looks like scandal worthy of a cover-up, but maybe I'm just not in the believing paradigm any more?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I was told the Tanners were bad people spreading anti Mormon lies. Many missionaries were told the anti stuff were lies too. I was never told the full truth about the Mountain Meadow Massacre, this I also learned in my forties. I remember hearing about it once and it wasn't explained. You will never hear it even at the Jacob Hamblin home in Santa Clara, Utah which is nearby and Jacob had a hand in it, come to find out. 

I haven't seen where the CES letter lies. But Jeremy has corrected items I've heard. When I read the Gospel Topics about Nauvoo polygamy, it's all the truth. Are you trying to tell me that I should feel good about it since it's coming from the source? I'm suppose to feel good about the history with the blacks not receiving the PH at one time because they are black? And now just learning Mormons had slaves in Utah? And I believe paid tithing by giving a black slave? I'm suppose to feel good that Joseph Smith wanted to be king of the kingdom? This in the Council of the Fifty. This is suppose to make me feel good, because it's the truth? 

I'd like a prophet to follow in Christ's footsteps, Jesus Christ was a humble man who went around to the poorest of the poor, or the sickest among sick, and hung around the lowest people. 

Joseph and Brigham were hypocrits while telling members to follow the WoW, they still partook, even sold alcohol. IMO, they might have used a religion to have concubines, or spiritual and living wives, at least Joseph Smith. Again, IMO they used parts of the Bible they liked and left the parts out they didn't like.

Maybe you missed it, but what I'm saying is that the church putting these things in the light and they being nearly 100 percent what the anti's were saying all along, isn't helping. 

If there was no FairMormon, or Gospel Topics section, or even information about Joseph Smith's wives listed on family history on LDS.org. I might still be a believing Mormon. I might have just chalked it all up to anti stuff. 

The truth didn't set me free, or it did. And now is time to find faith all on my own. And start over, but it's kind of difficult when everyone around you isn't on that path. And you feel all alone unless you hang out with those that feel the same and they are now ex-Mormons, but I still want to hang out with my people, because they are my family and friends and neighbors. 

It puts people in a rock and a hard place so-to-speak. 

PS: I hung out with my friend who is TBM, and she was telling me her sister is reading a book that the Adam and Eve story is more symbolism. That bothers her and her sister, because like me, they thought it really happened. So maybe this will trip her up. I don't know, I just try to keep my mouth shut. 

I'm sorry that you were raised without being told the truth about Mormon history, and am also sorry that you now have no sense of the actual context of that history, so that Brigham and Joseph seem to you to be just hypocrites.  You sound like you are "all at sea," tempest tossed and unable to grasp onto anything certain, except for kinfolk and friends.  Unfortunately, there are others raised that same way, people who were not taught to ask questions or rock the boat, and who were taught to be TBMs.

I'm sorry that no one bothered to tell you that 19th century Mormons smoked and drank, and might even have a chaw of tobacco in their cheek.  Or that Sacrament was passed with wine, not water.  That's right, Jesus, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young all drank wine and didn't see anything wrong with it.  I'm sorry too that you are so confused about the Creation and Garden Story that you believe that real events cannot include symbolism -- such as the highly symbolic temple rites which we actually perform on a regular basis.

I am sorry that you do not understand the real Jesus, who is not just some humble country bumpkin, but a formidable, powerful rabbi who left the Jerusalem elite no where to hide, and who did not hesitate to preach his own lordship in his home synagogue, and who also did not hesitate to physically attack the money changers in the temple precincts -- who forced the powers that be to kill him in the most horrible way.

I am also sorry that you did not know that the first and  most famous book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre was written by a faithful Mormon, Juanita Brooks, who was not excommunicated for it -- she was the wife of the county sheriff.

I am finally most sorry that the anti-Mormons failed to place any of LDS history in real context, but that is what liars do, isn't it?

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I'm sorry that you were raised without being told the truth about Mormon history, and am also sorry that you now have no sense of the actual context of that history, so that Brigham and Joseph seem to you to be just hypocrites.  You sound like you are "all at sea," tempest tossed and unable to grasp onto anything certain, except for kinfolk and friends.  Unfortunately, there are others raised that same way, people who were not taught to ask questions or rock the boat, and who were taught to be TBMs.

I'm sorry that no one bothered to tell you that 19th century Mormons smoked and drank, and might even have a chaw of tobacco in their cheek.  Or that Sacrament was passed with wine, not water.  That's right, Jesus, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young all drank wine and didn't see anything wrong with it.  I'm sorry too that you are so confused about the Creation and Garden Story that you believe that real events cannot include symbolism -- such as the highly symbolic temple rites which we actually perform on a regular basis.

I am sorry that you do not understand the real Jesus, who is not just some humble country bumpkin, but a formidable, powerful rabbi who left the Jerusalem elite no where to hide, and who did not hesitate to preach his own lordship in his home synagogue, and who also did not hesitate to physically attack the money changers in the temple precincts -- who forced the powers that be to kill him in the most horrible way.

I am also sorry that you did not know that the first and  most famous book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre was written by a faithful Mormon, Juanita Brooks, who was not excommunicated for it -- she was the wife of the county sheriff.

I am finally most sorry that the anti-Mormons failed to place any of LDS history in real context, but that is what liars do, isn't it?

I forgive you!

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Hi Tacenda.

Those things don't make the gospel false. Like every other Church, the LDS Church puts its best foot forward. What Church prints its part in the killing of non-trinitarians in the Reformation? Many people become Catholics, yet imho, there are far more egregious crimes committed by that Church than by the LDS. Like you I have become somewhat unenamored by some of what went on under BY. But just to conclude that the LDS were out for blood and killed a bunch of pioneers in cold blood is not fair either. When some context is added, it allows some leniency in outlook I think. The MMM pioneers were coming from Arkansas where a well-liked missionary had just been killed. Further, the Church knew the Federal government was sending troops, so the possibility of spies being sent also enters the picture. 

Similarly, the Tanners are publishing a one-sided outlook without giving proper context for statements, etc. Sometimes, they even edit out relevant context in favor of their despicable ......s. They have proven themselves not to be fair nor objective sources. I believe this is what Robert is alluding to. I don't know or even really believe that Runnels is "lying." Lying implies purposefulness. I believe that Runnels became angry because he was not well-versed in Church history and assumed all the anti-materials he was finding were true. So he ended up re-publishing and re-hashing lies. I believe this is what Robert is alluding to. I believe the Spaulding manuscript story is a good example of how lies about the Church get spread around in anti-circles and passed off as truth which people like Runnels end up spreading around in their anger.

You are right that Joseph Smith became a little infatuated with power, but I believe he was trying to be a force for good which would stop persecution of the Church. You have to expect that Church members would expect him to do something about persecution of the Church. But being voted king of the temporal kingdom of the Church doesn't appeal to me - like it doesn't to you. 

Yeshua said "The greatest among you shall be the servant of all." However, you have to remember that the Lord made David king of Israel. But this was the very Achilles heel for David, and led to his downfall. Joseph was a good man, but had faults. Nevertheless, the Lord used him for his purposes in restoring His gospel, but because of Joseph's faults we do not have all of it - which may have contributed to the Church making false assumptions about the Lamanites or other things. 

In the days of Joseph and BY, the Word of Wisdom was just that - advice for blessings. It didn't prohibit beer. Wine was advised against but was not prohibited either. We don't know the quality of the water Joseph received in jail. We don't know the stress he was under, etc.  I don't fault him for having some wine - I fault the Church for later making it like a sin to drink of cup of wine or a glass of beer where that was not the original intent of the WoW. That is something which seemed to come in with Prohibition. Now if the Church wants to make that a condition for a temple recommend that is their right as holders of those keys, but imho it really is not the "WoW." But to call Joseph and BY hypocrites is not fair nor accurate. What the WoW later became is not their doing.

It is obvious that the story of Eden is symbolic. The tree of life is not some literal tree you can go eat fruit off of, and receive eternal life. Jesus told us He was the true vine tree, and the life. It is a story which teaches the gospel in a nutshell. It is using symbolism to teach us the fall and its consequences and the need for a Savior, the tree of life. I am not saying there was not an Adam and Eve. I'm just saying the early things of the OT were supposed to teach and prepare people about things to come. To say that Jesus was lying because He taught in parables is not fair. Nor is it fair to say God is lying because He taught in symbolism. 

Hosea 12:10

10 I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

So are you saying that it is also unacceptable to you to learn Abraham, Israel, and many other priests of God had multiple wives? Like you I find it somewhat disturbing that Joseph kept it secret. If he was commanded to teach it like I believe he was, he seemed to do a poor job of that, and never published sec. 132. So I am not unsympathetic to your conclusions. Nevertheless, I have to conclude that God would have at some point told his people it was an abominable sin if it was. He did consider the sake of marrying for dynastic purposes to be a perversion of His wishes I think, and talks with disfavor about marrying "many wives." I just don't think it is an issue worth leaving the Church over. That is like a Jew saying, well David and Solomon took it too far, so I am not going to the temple anymore. Instead, they teach us that they did take it too far, and how to be better in the future. Neither Joseph nor BY were perfect men who were learning as they themselves taught. I accept them as imperfect, and appreciate what they did for the truth in their own ways. To expect perfection of them is unfair I think. If the Church ever enters polygamy again, I hope they do it much better, and learn from the excesses, and the problems it caused the Church to teach that exaltation is dependent upon temporal polygamy. No one in Joseph's shoes would have been perfect, because no prophet has ever been perfect except Yeshua. Finding fault in them doesn't make the truths of the Church untrue. Hopefully, you can learn the truth of their imperfection. and that will set you free.

Thanks Rev!

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, mnn727 said:

Funny thing is that one of the reasons I converted was because of Anti-Mormon claims. You see I had been going to Church with the missionaries for months before I read an Anti-LDS book and my first thought was "We (notice the use of 'we') don't believe that". It proved to me that in order for people to feel they have to lie about what we believe. then there has to be truth to our actual beliefs.

Just part of my testimony.

My son Cellistissimo attended an Ed Decker presentation with a non-member friend who was writing her senior paper on Mormonism. After the meeting, she compared what was said there with the Mormons she knew and decided there was a discrepancy. As a result, she joined the Church and he was privileged to baptize her. 

[The Nehor]

54 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Who are these people?  Do you have examples or are you just stating what you think could happen?

Albanian ex-convicts I know. Got caught and convicted for an internet scam involving alpaca ranching and prostitution.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

How is polyandry or seer stones considered meat? It looks like scandal worthy of a cover-up, but maybe I'm just not in the believing paradigm any more?

I have no patience with those turn-of-the-century Mormons who hadn't enough faith to realize that so-called polyandry and seerstones were no real threat to the faith, but those were defensive, paranoid times, and most of those in charge of teaching the Gospel had no knowledge of these matters anyhow.  There were no trained historians in those days, and the context could easily be lost.  Indeed, it is only in recent times that some of that context has been recovered.

As to "meat,"  one might compare young yeshiva students in Judaism.  They are not allowed to study the "mysteries" until they are much older.  The rabbis are explicit about that.  Why?  Because they will miss the basics and therefore miss the context of the mysteries.  This is true in any field, but particularly in religion.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Doesn't that presuppose the moral compass can only be found in religion or more specifically, the mormon religion?

No, it's just an observation that reason and logic are not necessarily the only and best path to truth. For example, a very reasonable case can be made for euthanasia. It is being increasingly used to eliminate fetuses with Down's syndrome. After all, who would want to live like that?

Edited August 22, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Pete Ahlstrom]

7 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Notice the clustering of blanket authoritarian pronouncements, and the shortage of supporting evidence.

I like the notion that "surely if one imagines a powerful God" that God would be able to arrange things just the way I, from my unassailably secure vantage point, think they ought to be.  And if reality falls short, then that is a moral failing on the part of that imaginatively constructed God.  Though, given human limitations, perhaps I ought to grant that real God might be a bit different that what that limited imagination tosses up like a clay pigeon.

And two whole sentences on the significance, meaning, purpose, rationale, and working out and impact of the atonement.  No stone unturned, no path unexplored, no experience overlooked, no insight left unexposed.  In just two sentences.

It turns out that what actually does rule over people, are the paradigms, metaphors, ideologies and paradigms they use to structure and organize what subsequently passes for logic.

Madan Sarup, Post-Structuralism and Post Modernism (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1993), 51-52.

One of the things I like about the Perry Scheme is that it embraces the process of growth from and through human limitations. For instance, at Position 6 (of 9), Commitment forseen:

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I liken the scriptures to myself and found their teachings on this point to be illogical.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

This is what led me out. Hard facts showed me that the "true faith" wasn't what it claimed to be. I think this is the experience of a lot of people. So, is examination really the best method for the youth to follow? Or is it a question of examining until the presupposed result is reached?  

No.  The examination must be freewheeling, and no one can predict the results.  In the case of Mike Quinn, for example, he has found his faith enhanced (as have I), and still bears his testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Very few people leave the LDS faith because of "hard facts" in conflict with what they were taught.  Loss of faith usually happens for other reasons, primarily due to being caught up with the things of the world.  Being a Mormon is not easy, and it is not meant to be.

[RevTestament]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks Rev!

Hopefully, some day soon you will return to full status, and I can rep you.  

I truly hope you did find at least some of what I said beneficial...