CES Letter Claims Strength List

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 hours ago, Devobah said:

This lead to him losing his testimony mainly over things like quotes from past leaders of the church (my guess is that had more to do with Blacks and the priesthood than anything else), and the normal (if you can call it that) things that other people would struggle with.

I had the opposite reaction- I wondered why they weren't taught anymore and that lead me to the Fundamentalists. Then I got a hold of the Orthodox RLDS arguments and gravitated that way. But I always had an anchor- my testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the calling of Joseph Smith. That is why the first thing the missionaries encourage the ones they are teaching to do is to gain a witness of the Book of Mormon. I could no more deny the Book of Mormon than that the sun is shining, even in the midst of my winding journey. Fortunately, I have made my way back to where the keys reside.

Edited July 26, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[mburgess1982]

8 hours ago, Devobah said:

I won't pretend to be any sort of psychiatrist, but I think that our brain can latch onto things very easily. When people hear about the criticisms against the church, 9 times out of 10 they aren't hearing it from leaders or apologists, they are hearing about it from the critics (the Tanners, Ed Decker, Grant Palmer, Jeremy Runnells (take your pick)). The follow up question is usually "Why haven't I heard about this before?" Now they could immediately go to things like FAIR, Mormonr (relatively new site that I love), or other apologetic sources, but in their mind, the distrust is already there between them and the Church, and it is VERY difficult to rebuild that. Some rebuild their beliefs; some leave. Some stop attending to get some space. The path that everyone takes is different. 

 

 

Yeah the path that everybody takes is different, I've seen it personally so many times with family members. My 2 brothers left, one because he had weak faith and read some anti faith, anti Mormon material that shook him and he felt he had been duped. Now he doesn't even know if he believes in God anymore. My other brother went to medical school, and after he finished he felt like he was way smarter than everybody else and he went down the intellectual route. Now he is in the faith is nonsense, "prove to me its true, show me a sign" camp. My mother in law had a very strong testimony, and I think she still does deep down inside, but she had a huge fight with some of her sisters and her bishop and ended up walking away out of bitterness. My brother in law had a pride issue as well and ended up falling in love with this website called pure Mormonism by Alan Rock Waterman. He would always read his articles and then tell me about how the church was doing this or that wrong and that this Alan guy was correct because he was using scripture to back up his claims etc. He ended up leaving and took his wife with him and they claimed they were going to go to another Christian church and yet they haven't been to any church in 10 years

 

[ttribe]

I see a fair amount of "We know why they REALLY left" commentary in this thread. Pretty disappointing, actually.

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I see a fair amount of "We know why they REALLY left" commentary in this thread. Pretty disappointing, actually.

If it’s people that are close to you (generally speaking)and they told you why they no longer see themselves as members, I assume you, ttribe, are okay with saying “you know why they left”?

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, mburgess1982 said:

Yeah the path that everybody takes is different, I've seen it personally so many times with family members. My 2 brothers left, one because he had weak faith and read some anti faith, anti Mormon material that shook him and he felt he had been duped. Now he doesn't even know if he believes in God anymore. My other brother went to medical school, and after he finished he felt like he was way smarter than everybody else and he went down the intellectual route. Now he is in the faith is nonsense, "prove to me its true, show me a sign" camp. My mother in law had a very strong testimony, and I think she still does deep down inside, but she had a huge fight with some of her sisters and her bishop and ended up walking away out of bitterness. My brother in law had a pride issue as well and ended up falling in love with this website called pure Mormonism by Alan Rock Waterman. He would always read his articles and then tell me about how the church was doing this or that wrong and that this Alan guy was correct because he was using scripture to back up his claims etc. He ended up leaving and took his wife with him and they claimed they were going to go to another Christian church and yet they haven't been to any church in 10 years

 

Don't lose hope, some do return. Don't burn any bridges, love them through it.

[Tacenda]

18 hours ago, Devobah said:

I saw a comment on a video talking about LDS Truth Claims and LDS Critics. The comment talked about how the person is dealing with the people and not the arguments themselves. The commenter (I'm assuming male) said that he wanted to research arguments against the church so that he would have answers. This lead to him losing his testimony mainly over things like quotes from past leaders of the church (my guess is that had more to do with Blacks and the priesthood than anything else), and the normal (if you can call it that) things that other people would struggle with.

I won't pretend to be any sort of psychiatrist, but I think that our brain can latch onto things very easily. When people hear about the criticisms against the church, 9 times out of 10 they aren't hearing it from leaders or apologists, they are hearing about it from the critics (the Tanners, Ed Decker, Grant Palmer, Jeremy Runnells (take your pick)). The follow up question is usually "Why haven't I heard about this before?" Now they could immediately go to things like FAIR, Mormonr (relatively new site that I love), or other apologetic sources, but in their mind, the distrust is already there between them and the Church, and it is VERY difficult to rebuild that. Some rebuild their beliefs; some leave. Some stop attending to get some space. The path that everyone takes is different. 

The Church has a tough job to do, but the primary thing is to prepare the souls of men to return the presence of Heavenly Father. I've seen people take a Doctrine and Covenants class and think that this and Church History are the same thing. They aren't. Church History is not just revelations. Just as a History of any other Church is not just councils and creeds and bigger events in their history. 

Am I happy that the Church is coming forward with a less sanitized view of history? Of course! Do I wish they had done it earlier? Of course, again! I was lucky to serve in a section of the world where the doctrines of the Church were the only thing that was attacked. Mainstream Christian arguments are easy (and often time they speak out of both sides of their mouths. My favorite was always "You believe God was a man!" Then I'd turn around and say, "Well y'all believe that Jesus was also a man, right? Or are you a Docetist?"), but Church history leads to infighting and is hard a lot of the time to combat. 

 

I am a born in the covenant member. My problem is that I loved the church for the social, and the service opportunities. I guess I never had to research the church or read the BoM and ask because I only ever believed it to be the only true church on the earth. I was a very bad member in the respect of not doing my due diligence in praying about the BoM, I may have but don't recall an answer, if I did. I just believed what I was taught or told. 

I remember always being told in church to work on our testimonies or we'll lose it possibly. I use to think that was strange. I remember hearing about the anti Mormons and wondering how they could be anti. I was surrounded by members all my life, so I'd only ever had friends with the same faith as me. I did have a friend in high school that wasn't a member but we weren't close close. 

I did have a period in my life where I became inactive, during high school and right after because my family moved to a small town and far away from friends and some family and most in the town didn't like outsiders much. This was in Utah but about 5 hours away from my previous address and no visits from either the bishopric or the RS presidency, my poor mom. And the YW's class I attended weren't that nice. We ended up moving back, but I believe it changed me, my self esteem was obliterated because on the first day of school awful rumors started about me, the new girl. So I lost interest for a while. And when we returned I was not the same. 

My ward tried to reactivate me by calling me to co teach a Primary class and the rest is history. I did try to overcompensate for the short inactivity period and went full on into activity and meeting a returned missionary and being married in the temple. Then going onto serving in every calling called to and never missing paying tithing etc. 

Because of my shallow, somewhat, testimony and then finding out about the certain unknowns, my testimony crashed. One day I was getting ready for the day during my faith transition/crisis and I remember standing by the bathroom door and I asked myself in my head, what if the church isn't true. And that's when it happened, and I no longer believed. 

I still hold hope in a maker and Jesus though. And I'd like to return to church one day, and feel the great spirit I felt, especially during singing, or a good talk. And who knows, maybe belief again. 

Sorry for the novel. 

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And the YW's class I attended weren't that nice. We ended up moving back, but I believe it changed me, my self esteem was obliterated because on the first day of school awful rumors started about me, the new girl. So I lost interest for a while. And when we returned I was not the same. 

 

Ah, Tacenda, I am so sorry that happened to you.  Something similar happened to me in 6th grade, no bullying or rumors, just away from home for half the year and never accepted at school and barely at church…or so it felt.  Other stuff was going on that probably had a harder effect (separated from my parents because of mom’s health), but yeah, at the end of that period I wasn’t the same person.   Sometimes I wonder what would I be like it that hadn’t happened.  It’s hard on kids when they lose one of their anchors.

Edited July 27, 2024 by Calm

[Frank11]

On 7/25/2024 at 4:23 PM, mburgess1982 said:

The thing is you get nothing with doubt other than confusion, and feelings of "I've been duped". You have to choose which path to go down to experience the fruits of that path. Unfortunately too many are too scared to step down the path of faith because their fear of being wrong is greater than their desire to believe
 

Does this also apply when Jehovah's Witnesses stand at the door and declare that it is a proof of love if you cut off contact with your relatives who have fallen away?
Trust and obedience are always portrayed positively, doubting almost always negatively. But both are very important human qualities. We have to be able to trust and accept the risk of being disappointed, otherwise we will never make progress, that's true. But we must also be allowed to doubt, especially if it goes against our conscience and we do not see the hand of God in a commandment or instruction.  

There are at least two things that the attack on the World Trade Center and the Mountain Meadows Massacre have in common. One is the sad common anniversary, September 11th, the other is that the perpetrators did not have enough doubt that this could really be God's will. Whatever dynamics develop before such an act, when I am confronted with a gun in front of a 7-, 8-, 9-,... year old girl, you should have all the doubts in the world.

 

[Rain]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

If it’s people that are close to you (generally speaking)and they told you why they no longer see themselves as members, I assume you, ttribe, are okay with saying “you know why they left”?

From what I've seen few either know or believe what those close say.  Just in mburgess' post he describes people leaving because of "weak faith",   "he felt like he was way smarter than everybody else",  "walking away out of bitterness" and  "a pride issue". How many of those people actually said they left because of weak faith or the other things said?

When I visited my parents in June I talked with my mom. She listened with love and I trusted her, but we didn't get much past I don't believe in the church anymore. Part of that was time. Part was only so much to take in at a time. I doubt that conversation will come up again. I don't feel a need for her to know more and I recognize it is painful for her so I won't push it on her. I'll let her start any more conversations if she wants to. We left with good feelings about each other still intact.

I think a big part of it is most just do not allow others to get different answers than we do. If your answer is different than mine and I know mine is right then you must be "prideful", "sinning", "offended" etc.  The church, or the way leaders and members talk, just doesn't allow for people to get different answers. The church is the "only true and living church", Jesus is the "only way", and the prophet is "only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys". That doesn't allow for those who have left to leave for good reasons.

 

Edited July 27, 2024 by Rain

[webbles]

3 hours ago, Frank11 said:

There are at least two things that the attack on the World Trade Center and the Mountain Meadows Massacre have in common. One is the sad common anniversary, September 11th, the other is that the perpetrators did not have enough doubt that this could really be God's will. Whatever dynamics develop before such an act, when I am confronted with a gun in front of a 7-, 8-, 9-,... year old girl, you should have all the doubts in the world.

I don't believe the bolded is true for MMM.  They didn't do it because of God's will.  They did it to hide their mistakes.  Do you have any references to show that the MMM perpetrators did it because they believe it is God's will?

[Frank11]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

I don't believe the bolded is true for MMM.  They didn't do it because of God's will.  They did it to hide their mistakes.  Do you have any references to show that the MMM perpetrators did it because they believe it is God's will?

Of course, the motivation arose from human motives, such as fear of expulsion, etc., but in the case of a collectively planned murder, the group needed a divine license to kill the settlers if they did not want to be considered murderers before God.

The settlers had to be counted as guilty blood, because they had already sworn not to shed innocent blood in Joseph Smith's time. 
We know most of this from John D. Lee's diaries, including this report before the first attempted attack, which was still planned with the Paiutes. 

“On Thursday evening, Higbee, chief of the Iron Danites, and Klingensmith, Bishop of Ceder City, came to our camp with two or three wagons and number of Danites all well armed. I can remember the following as a portion of those who came to take part in the work of death which was so soon to follow, viz: [19 names listed]...

As soon as these gathered around the camp I demanded of Brother Higbee what orders he had brought. Brother Higbee reported as follows:

‘It is the orders that the emigrants be put out of the way. President Haight has counseled with Bishop Dame, and has orders from him to put the emigrants to death; none who is old enough to talk is to be spared....'
“The Danites then in Council now knelt down in a prayer circle and prayed, invoking the Spirit of God to direct them how to act in the matter. After prayer Brother Higbee said:
‘Here are the orders,' and handed me a paper from Haight.... Brother Higbee was then to give the order: ‘Do your duty to God!'

The perpetrators were not monsters without a conscience, they were faithful, obedient Christians. They had "noble" motives: protection of the church, a mission from God, etc., which can outwit a conscience if you don't doubt.

[webbles]

3 hours ago, Frank11 said:

Of course, the motivation arose from human motives, such as fear of expulsion, etc., but in the case of a collectively planned murder, the group needed a divine license to kill the settlers if they did not want to be considered murderers before God.

The settlers had to be counted as guilty blood, because they had already sworn not to shed innocent blood in Joseph Smith's time. 
We know most of this from John D. Lee's diaries, including this report before the first attempted attack, which was still planned with the Paiutes. 

“On Thursday evening, Higbee, chief of the Iron Danites, and Klingensmith, Bishop of Ceder City, came to our camp with two or three wagons and number of Danites all well armed. I can remember the following as a portion of those who came to take part in the work of death which was so soon to follow, viz: [19 names listed]...

As soon as these gathered around the camp I demanded of Brother Higbee what orders he had brought. Brother Higbee reported as follows:

‘It is the orders that the emigrants be put out of the way. President Haight has counseled with Bishop Dame, and has orders from him to put the emigrants to death; none who is old enough to talk is to be spared....'
“The Danites then in Council now knelt down in a prayer circle and prayed, invoking the Spirit of God to direct them how to act in the matter. After prayer Brother Higbee said:
‘Here are the orders,' and handed me a paper from Haight.... Brother Higbee was then to give the order: ‘Do your duty to God!'

The perpetrators were not monsters without a conscience, they were faithful, obedient Christians. They had "noble" motives: protection of the church, a mission from God, etc., which can outwit a conscience if you don't doubt.

I'm going through his transcribed diaries at https://archive.org/details/mormonchronicled0001leej/mode/2up  and can't find that section.   Any ideas where in his diaries?

[CV75]

My first experience with published information critical of the Church (I had heard plenty of negative personal opinions about it for years before joining) was as a new convert at college (1975). Either shortly before or shortly after my baptism, I found maybe three books in the campus library just to see what non-religious viewpoints I could find. One or two were fairly outdated, the other less so (but none published within a decade of my reading them). Perhaps my personal experience with family, relatives and others "inoculated" me, if not against factual challenges, then against attitudes. As a result, the information I encountered did not register as troublesome for me; the fruits of faith spoke louder than the allegations and evidence as provided.

Fast forward 30 - 35 years, and people are drinking from an online firehose, shell-shocked with parallel priorities offering very little if any grounding or centeredness (not that the grounding and centeredness could not have been gotten elsewhere). Relatively speaking, where did my grounding in faith come from while facing opposition from all corners, and prevented from attending Church or even visiting with the missionaries?

Where could those who have become so troubled as to leave the Church have otherwise gotten the centeredness to stay?

 

[webbles]

5 hours ago, Frank11 said:

Of course, the motivation arose from human motives, such as fear of expulsion, etc., but in the case of a collectively planned murder, the group needed a divine license to kill the settlers if they did not want to be considered murderers before God.

The settlers had to be counted as guilty blood, because they had already sworn not to shed innocent blood in Joseph Smith's time. 
We know most of this from John D. Lee's diaries, including this report before the first attempted attack, which was still planned with the Paiutes. 

“On Thursday evening, Higbee, chief of the Iron Danites, and Klingensmith, Bishop of Ceder City, came to our camp with two or three wagons and number of Danites all well armed. I can remember the following as a portion of those who came to take part in the work of death which was so soon to follow, viz: [19 names listed]...

As soon as these gathered around the camp I demanded of Brother Higbee what orders he had brought. Brother Higbee reported as follows:

‘It is the orders that the emigrants be put out of the way. President Haight has counseled with Bishop Dame, and has orders from him to put the emigrants to death; none who is old enough to talk is to be spared....'
“The Danites then in Council now knelt down in a prayer circle and prayed, invoking the Spirit of God to direct them how to act in the matter. After prayer Brother Higbee said:
‘Here are the orders,' and handed me a paper from Haight.... Brother Higbee was then to give the order: ‘Do your duty to God!'

The perpetrators were not monsters without a conscience, they were faithful, obedient Christians. They had "noble" motives: protection of the church, a mission from God, etc., which can outwit a conscience if you don't doubt.

Took me a while but I did track this down.  It is NOT from his diaries.  It is from "The Mormon Menace" which is not written by Lee.  It is based on Lee's confession that is in "Mormonism Unveiled" but has been modified.  You can read it at https://archive.org/details/mormonmenace00leej/page/314/mode/2up.  The quoted part starts on 315 and ends on 319 (there is a lot that is skipped in your quote).  So, I wouldn't use that quote.  It is extremely suspect.

If you go to the original source in "Mormonism Unveiled", it is slightly different.  If you are curious to read it, it can be found at https://archive.org/details/mormonismunveile00leej/page/232/mode/2up from pages 232 to 236.  Biggest change is "Do your duty to God".  Lee said that it was just "Do you duty".  No reference to God.  Lee does mention a lot of praying and Higbee forcing Lee to commit the massacre by invoking God, but that is extremely suspect since Lee was a willing participant.  So, the entire discussion about prayers, etc in that passage is probably made up by Lee to prove his innocence.

Also, that report is not before the first attempted attack.  It is right before the massacre.  It is after they had made the mistake of attacking the migrants at Mountains Meadow and after they showed that there were white men involved in the attack.

[Frank11]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

I'm going through his transcribed diaries at https://archive.org/details/mormonchronicled0001leej/mode/2up  and can't find that section.   Any ideas where in his diaries?

I had this from the Mormon Think Quotes, though it seems to be a summary. The diaries were given as the source. But I found a detailed report here. Whether this is from the diaries or other sources I can't tell.  

https://clyx.com/books/lee/the_mormon_menace_the_confessions_of_john_doyle_lee_danite/chapter_xx_the_muster_of_the_danites.htm

[Frank11]

21 minutes ago, webbles said:

Took me a while but I did track this down.  It is NOT from his diaries.  It is from "The Mormon Menace" which is not written by Lee.  It is based on Lee's confession that is in "Mormonism Unveiled" but has been modified.  You can read it at https://archive.org/details/mormonmenace00leej/page/314/mode/2up.  The quoted part starts on 315 and ends on 319 (there is a lot that is skipped in your quote).  So, I wouldn't use that quote.  It is extremely suspect.

If you go to the original source in "Mormonism Unveiled", it is slightly different.  If you are curious to read it, it can be found at https://archive.org/details/mormonismunveile00leej/page/232/mode/2up from pages 232 to 236.  Biggest change is "Do your duty to God".  Lee said that it was just "Do you duty".  No reference to God.  Lee does mention a lot of praying and Higbee forcing Lee to commit the massacre by invoking God, but that is extremely suspect since Lee was a willing participant.  So, the entire discussion about prayers, etc in that passage is probably made up by Lee to prove his innocence.

Also, that report is not before the first attempted attack.  It is right before the massacre.  It is after they had made the mistake of attacking the migrants at Mountains Meadow and after they showed that there were white men involved in the attack.

Okay, I'm with you.

But there is a larger group of partly high-ranking perpetrators here who acted in unison.

They all have the gift of the Holy Spirit, John D. Lee I believe also has the second anointing, the blessing of which he would lose if he shed innocent blood. 

What justification did they see for themselves to commit this act as people of faith, in your opinion? 

 

[manol]

11 hours ago, Rain said:

I think a big part of it is most just do not allow others to get different answers than we do. If your answer is different than mine and I know mine is right then you must be "prideful", "sinning", "offended" etc.  The church, or the way leaders and members talk, just doesn't allow for people to get different answers. The church is the "only true and living church", Jesus is the "only way", and the prophet is "only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys".

I'm under the impression that religions, philosophies, paradigms, belief systems, organizations, etc. that make strong claims of having "the only correct beliefs" seldom tend to "allow all men [and women] the same privilege" of following the dictates of own conscience, even if doing so is explicitly written into their canon. 

"The kingdom of heaven is like a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:" - Jesus Christ

"Judge not, that ye be not judged." - Jesus Christ

To be fair, in the realm of religion, I think people often react out of genuine fear for the souls of those who have "fallen away".  I doubt anyone who fears for the soul of a loved one is reassured by the above quotes from Matthew.  Unfortunately I have no idea how to reassure someone whose belief system instills that sort of fear in them, but I can sympathize, because that's what my paradigm was for decades.  Maybe over time they will begin to draw a bigger circle which is fearlessly inclusive of loved ones who believe differently from them:

"For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect."  (D&C 128:18)

Edited July 28, 2024 by manol

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Frank11 said:

Okay, I'm with you.

But there is a larger group of partly high-ranking perpetrators here who acted in unison.

They all have the gift of the Holy Spirit, John D. Lee I believe also has the second anointing, the blessing of which he would lose if he shed innocent blood. 

What justification did they see for themselves to commit this act as people of faith, in your opinion? 

 

Out of curiosity, have you read the Turley books on the MMM?

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, manol said:

I'm under the impression that religions, philosophies, paradigms, belief systems, organizations, etc. that make strong claims of having "the only correct beliefs" seldom tend to "allow all men [and women] the same privilege" of following the dictates of own conscience, even if doing so is explicitly written into their canon. 

"The kingdom of heaven is like a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:" - Jesus Christ

"Judge not, that ye be not judged." - Jesus Christ

To be fair, in the realm of religion, I think people often react out of genuine fear for the souls of those who have "fallen away".  I doubt anyone who fears for the soul of a loved one is reassured by the above quotes from Matthew.  Unfortunately I have no idea how to reassure someone whose belief system instills that sort of fear in them, but I can sympathize, because that's what my paradigm was for decades.  Maybe over time they will begin to draw a bigger circle which is fearlessly inclusive of loved ones who believe differently from them:

"For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect."  (D&C 128:18)

At the same time, organized religions usually accompany the tenet of freedom of conscience with something like, “religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations …for fellowship and good standing…” I think there needs to be checks and balances to be properly organized.

And example of checks and balances: While drawing a large circle is a sign of charity and trust in the Lord, I have also found that drawing a smaller circle -- beholding the individual with love -- helps me see the Lord’s hand yet in their lives, offering me hope and charity to emulate.

[webbles]

3 hours ago, Frank11 said:

Okay, I'm with you.

But there is a larger group of partly high-ranking perpetrators here who acted in unison.

They all have the gift of the Holy Spirit, John D. Lee I believe also has the second anointing, the blessing of which he would lose if he shed innocent blood. 

What justification did they see for themselves to commit this act as people of faith, in your opinion? 

 

Their justification was probably protecting their families.  There is an army currently marching on Utah.  Fear is running rampant.  Cedar City is the first settlement in Utah coming from California.  Once the settlers realize that the wagon train knows that they were involved, the decision is made to massacre them.  Because if the wagon train was allowed to go, they would reach California and tell everyone about how they were attacked and an army would march on Utah.  This decision was a fast one as well and it didn't follow the normal council process.  In Parowan, the council had said no to any further escalation.  They sent a rider to Salt Lake to find out what Brigham Young had to say.  After the council, Haight (the Cedar City stake president) met with Dame (the Parowan stake president but also the head of the militia) and told him the news that the wagon train knew about the settlers involvement.  Dame made the decision, unilaterally, at that point that the wagon train couldn't go peacefully.  Haight then returned, gathered members of the militia, and sent them to do the massacre.

But by the time they were fearing for their families, they had already made tons of mistakes.  The very first mistake was getting angry at the wagon train and wanting to punish them for some misdeed.  It is possible the misdeed was real but also possible it was imagined.  They should just forgiven the wagon train and allowed it to leave.  But instead, they concocted a plan to have the Paiute Indians attack and harm the wagon train (not a full massacre at this point).  That was the first bad mistake and they just kept making them.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

At the same time, organized religions usually accompany the tenet of freedom of conscience with something like, “religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations …for fellowship and good standing…” I think there needs to be checks and balances to be properly organized.

And example of checks and balances: While drawing a large circle is a sign of charity and trust in the Lord, I have also found that drawing a smaller circle -- beholding the individual with love -- helps me see the Lord’s hand yet in their lives, offering me hope and charity to emulate.

Would you mind wording this differently.  I read and think I know what ýou are saying and then the next point makes me think I've got it wrong, in a couple of places.  So would you reword it so maybe I can see what I'm missing please?

[webbles]

15 hours ago, Frank11 said:

I had this from the Mormon Think Quotes, though it seems to be a summary. The diaries were given as the source. But I found a detailed report here. Whether this is from the diaries or other sources I can't tell.  

https://clyx.com/books/lee/the_mormon_menace_the_confessions_of_john_doyle_lee_danite/chapter_xx_the_muster_of_the_danites.htm

I found the page you are referring to at Mormon Think.  That page has some really poor sources.  The first quote is not from his diaries but from the Mormon Menace.  The second quote isn't from Lee at all.  It is a summary of what Lee talked about in Mormonism Unveiled (though it looks like it came from Mormon Menace).  The last sentence is a quote, though (the quote makes it sound like Brigham had advised them before they did the massacre but Lee is actually saying that Brigham later advised them to do that, so it is a poor quote without context).  The fourth quote is the one we already discussed.  The fifth quote says it is from Mormon Menace.  And the sixth quote is from Mormonism Unveiled.

So, they have 3 sources from Mormon Menace (2 that are stated to be from his diary), one from a summary of Lee's account (but stated to be a quote from Lee and is missing context), and one from Mormonism Unveiled.  Since Mormon Menace is not Lee's original confession and it has been corrupted, they should change all the sources to be from Mormonism Unveiled.  And they should correct the sourcing to say it is from Mormonism Unveiled and not from Lee's diaries.

Edited July 28, 2024 by webbles

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Rain said:

Would you mind wording this differently.  I read and think I know what ýou are saying and then the next point makes me think I've got it wrong, in a couple of places.  So would you reword it so maybe I can see what I'm missing please?

It might be easier on both of us if you list the points you think I'm making, and I will try to clarify. But here goes:

I am saying that there are checks and balances in organized religion and in the gospel in general.

For example, the principle of freedom of conscience and the principles of community rules balance each other. The principle of including everyone and the principle of focusing on the one balance each other. Each principle is an expression of charity and alleviates fear, and their pairing compounds this expression.

[Teancum]

On 7/23/2024 at 8:09 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

My approach was different- I only examined critical information written by those with testimonies of the Restoration and Book of Mormon (Fundamentalists, RLDS, etc...). I had, and have, absolutely no use for the arguments of unbelievers.

Of course not. Why challenge yourself with something that may challenge your cherished beliefs? 🙄

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Of course not. Why challenge yourself with something that may challenge your cherished beliefs? 🙄

I did. I challenged those things I wasn't absolutely certain of. I am absolutely certain of the Restoration, Joseph Smith Jr, and the Book of Mormon. The arguments against Brigham, plural marriag, priesthood ban, etc... can be found in sources faithful to those three key foundation stones