Do you really think that’s worse than finding out about Joseph Smith’s approach to young women? The part about telling them that an angel with a flaming sword had threatened to destroy him if he didn’t restore polygamy, with them?
I hear this vague statement a lot, but seldom do I see any actual change in attitude or belief in further conversations. What specifically did you learn in this thread?
I certainly learned more about JS himself and his personal history. I learned how at least some non-members feel about the Church and some of their reasons for leaving. I discovered some more resources to explore. I learned a lot about myself as well. I thought I was going to get angry at what people may have had to say about my faith and beliefs in this thread, but I found I didn’t get angry. I was simply curious. I am surprised at some people’s reaction to what I have to say, but I appreciate it none the less. If no one ever disagreed with me I would never have a chance to examine myself and evolve as a person. I am never afraid to discuss things with people who have differing opinions or backgrounds than me. I always come away from the exchange having learned something, especially about myself. I don’t think the point was to change anyone’s beliefs, that is definitely not what my intention was, but I think it was productive regardless.
I taught Gospel Doctrine classes, went on a mission and was the president of the priests’ quorum, the teachers’ quorum, and the deacons’ quorum. I went to my four years of seminary. Unlike some people here, I actually read sites I link to.
It is rude for you to tell people who have made careful decisions to leave a church which tells lies and hides the truth that a [del]Flying Spaghetti Monster[/del] “Heavenly Father” loves them and wants them back.
Into mind reading now? I have Mormon friends, who are friends because they don’t attempt to insult my intelligence. I think you are deluded not because of anything having to do with my history with the church, but because your approach is juvenile and condescending.
You came into this thread, throwing out mindless trash which you picked up teaching your six year olds in the primary class. “Near beer,” indeed. Next, you’ll be telling us Christ drank grape juice, something which many Mormons say with a straight face.
You’ve give us all lectures on research, and you don’t even know the first thing about Mormon history.
The fallback is the testimony. It always is, yet I have yet to find a Mormon who actually thinks much about that.
This is best described in this site run by Mormon members.
The section goes into a lot of depth about “testimonies” and how they are clearly not signs from your Flying Spaghetti Monster.
And, people are still waiting for those cites. Near beer and all.
We’ll also see if she learns how to back up insanely idiotic statements with primary sources.
Please tone it down, TokyoBayer. I understand that you find this subject upsetting and that you objected to April R’s post (which was not that offensive; at most it was a little insensitive and condescending). But here you’re drifting towards BBQ Pit territory. Please keep your posts in this thread appropriate for Great Debates.
nm
Sorry, TB, I guess I don’t know as much as you do. I will continue to improve myself as much as I can.
Find and all, but we’re still waiting for you to provide cites.
Well, every person has their own breaking points for belief. For me, I remember being very disturbed when I learned about post-Manifesto polygamy. It revealed the 1890 proclamation (which is canonized and sits with the rest of the scriptures on the altars of the temples) to be a sham, little more than a political convenience rather than a communique from God. It was one of the first times I thought, “Wow, the church lied.”
But everyone has their own personal individualized things about Mormonism that will bother them. I don’t know if gender-based generalizations are useful, but I’ve noticed that men seem to get worked up more over the ahistorical nature of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham whereas women get more bothered by the anti-gay doctrine and political agenda. But everyone is different.
Quote what you think I should cite and I will look if I can provide some. I don’t know what you want me to cite, so please show me and I will see what I can do!
From the little I read in wiki, and it was little, it appears that the official stance was no more illegal plural marriages, and this was adhered to even in places where plural marriages continued to be performed and the locals thought it was legal. I don’t see where there was any lying.
Some people in the Church wanted to stick with it even though it was no longer sanctioned, and that is where you get part of the reason the LDS Fundies split off. The Church didn’t lie, but they also didn’t split up the already existing plural marriages and did perform some plural marriages in places where it was believed to be legal or at least not prosecutable. At least that is my understanding from what I just read.
Because the Manifesto is canonized as scripture, many Mormons get the impression that as of 1890 God and the mainstream LDS church no longer required or supported polygamy. So it comes as a surprise to some that mainstream Mormons outside of the US continued to practice polygamy and that even in Salt Lake City the apostles continued to take new brides in secret. Apparently the 1890 Manifesto was nothing more than a deliberately misleading press release.
I said that D&C 89 endorses beer. You replied that I was not “being truthful” and that I was “spreading falsities” and that I “don’t really know what [I am] talking about,” and then proceeded to claim that “barley for mild drinks” refers to O’Douls. From a simple reading of the text, it seems clear that the scripture endorses beer; therefore, if you are going to use such strong accusatory language against me, you ought to provide a cite to back it up.
I believe that, specifically, is a cite that TokyoBayer is requesting in post #104. There may be more.
Yeah, I think he’s asking for a Near Beer cite and possibly an acknowledgement from April R that her cite about polyandry said the exact opposite of what she claimed it did.
Also, April R, what you quoted there said explicitly that the apostles secretly performed plural marriages in Utah, where they knew it was illegal and against the Manifesto of 1890. They did lie. I don’t see how you can read your post and not see that.
I hope I didn’t come across as hurt or defensive in that last post. I’m actually enjoying this conversation a lot. April’s condescending tone, and her tendency (3 times in this thread so far) to quote sources that refute her own statements, is just so stereotypically, well, Mormon. It almost invokes Poe’s law, except that she’s so much like I was a few years ago that I believe she is sincere. There are Mormons on this board who are deliberately rude and evasive and there are a few that are so damn friendly that it’s no fun to engage them. April is neither of those. Her self-refuting quotes and the oh-so-thick Mormon-speak have really made me laugh out loud on several occasions.
How do you change your mind so many times on so many things and still consider any of it to be the word of God rather than a bunch of stuff that some guys made up?
What I see is that some apostles performed plural marriages, either with or without the knowledge of the President of the Church is not clear. Some of those same apostles were probably among those who left the mainstream LDS Church to star the FLDS Church. Whatever the Church did, the US government thought it was good enough to grant Utah statehood, and the abolition of plural marriage did happen though gradually.
I didn’t come here to try and prove anything. I was concerned that there was some gross exaggeration, deceptive name calling (as in magical underwear and hats) and purposeful misinformation being presented and I just wanted to start a conversation from a different POV. I know I have not been a member of the Church very long nor do I know everything there is to know about it. I cited sources that not only confirmed my point of view, but also provided counter points. Just like anything, you can take the same set of data and interpret it to fit your own ends. You see it one way, I see it another. The near beer thing is something I got from another website, I will go look for it now. But it was just an opinion so I didn’t cite it as authority, because it wasn’t. It was the best answer I had to the question proposed. It would surprise me none if the early Church members drank beer, or wine, or smoked tobacco. These things happened, we have moved beyond that and progressed. That is the whole purpose of this life. To be able to move past earthly pleasures and get to a point where we feel complete in the Spirit. Why is that so far fetched? It fits with the Christian/LDS worldview just fine. I have a Loooooong way to go, but I am humble enough to admit when I don’t know it all but I am open to learning more.
I am not the only one in this thread who can be accused of being condescending, except I did not have the intention of being condescending, but those of you who belittled my belief by using phrases such as “magical underwear” and calling what I believe to be like the Flying Spaghetti Monster were being purposely condescending. Dare I say that is blatantly hypocritical. So point fingers all you want, but you are also being what you accuse me of being.
Barley for Mild Drinks? | Times & Seasons <<< near beer reference. Again not my idea, just something I thought made sense from another source.
again condescending and belittling