Church Historian Admits “Compelling Evidence to Doubt” Mormonism

[Salvete]

The title of this thread is clickbait.

[Salvete]

I’m sorry, MG.

I posted that for people with a brain in their head.

You’d have to. People who are without brains would be unable to use the internet.

[consiglieri]

I’m sorry, MG.

I posted that for people with a brain in their head.

You’d have to. People who are without brains would be unable to use the internet.

And yet MG continues to confound and amaze.

[Philo Sofee]

Not so. There is no compelling reason to believe any one of your three examples as being reason to disbelieve in the truth claims of the LDS Church. They COULD be used as showing counter examples to logic and reason.

Again, opposition in ALL things.

Regards,
MG

Reasons to disbelieve the truth claims of the LDS Church?.....Book of Abraham. Child Brides. Kinderhook plates. Seer stones. Bank Frauds. .Sec Fraud. Mountain Meadows. Mark Hofmann.The September 6. Patriarchal blessings. Failed healings. Constant changing doctrine. Anachronisms. Lack of historical evidence. Shoot out at Carthage. Non disclosure agreements. Hiding historical information. Hiding finances. Changing conference talks. Doublespeak. Lying about electroshock therapy. Ignoring scientific evidence regarding archeology, evolution, cosmology, physiology, biology. Encouraging hate for LGBTQ individuals including physical violence. Current apostles disavowing their own children over a simple lunch. Lying about growth to encourage and bolster a false view regarding truth claims. Women's rights. Human rights. Soft stance on slavery. Failed prophecy. Native American Genicide. Handcart disasters. Changing definitions of words. And that is just a start.

Yes, but do you have any actual reasons.......

[MG 2.0]

Not so. There is no compelling reason to believe any one of your three examples as being reason to disbelieve in the truth claims of the LDS Church. They COULD be used as showing counter examples to logic and reason.

Again, opposition in ALL things.

Regards,
MG

Reasons to disbelieve the truth claims of the LDS Church?.....Book of Abraham. Child Brides. Kinderhook plates. Seer stones. Bank Frauds. .Sec Fraud. Mountain Meadows. Mark Hofmann.The September 6. Patriarchal blessings. Failed healings. Constant changing doctrine. Anachronisms. Lack of historical evidence. Shoot out at Carthage. Non disclosure agreements. Hiding historical information. Hiding finances. Changing conference talks. Doublespeak. Lying about electroshock therapy. Ignoring scientific evidence regarding archeology, evolution, cosmology, physiology, biology. Encouraging hate for LGBTQ individuals including physical violence. Current apostles disavowing their own children over a simple lunch. Lying about growth to encourage and bolster a false view regarding truth claims. Women's rights. Human rights. Soft stance on slavery. Failed prophecy. Native American Genicide. Handcart disasters. Changing definitions of words. And that is just a start.

As Elder McKay mentioned in his talk there are compelling reasons that some people might find to leave the church. Some of those are in your list. Some of them aren’t.

Again, opposition in all things. For some the threshold/bar is going to be set at a different place than it is for others. Factors to consider as thresholds are managed are context, 1st hand vs. 3rd hand sources of information, environment, cultural predispositions, faith vs. knowledge, spiritual capacity, residual fundamentalism, and so on.

Responses of different folks to those things you list along with others that can be mentioned are going to vary.

And again, faith and belief would not even be a ‘thing’ if it was not a REAL choice between variables that have real world meaning between what we perceive to be good/evil and everything in between. Nuance plays an integral part also as does black and white thinking. Throw in a world full of ambiguity and you have REAL opposition.

No doubt about that.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Problem of evil. Revelation in our day through prophets, existence of God, etc.

The list could go on.

The antidote which he presented was clear. I’ve come to believe that many folks that leave the church have not developed a firm testimony of Jesus Christ. As a result, they are prone to cracks in their foundation that then lead to their structure of faith being at risk.

Regards,
MG

I've come to believe that most folks that stay in the church cannot see beyond the end of their nose. Check mate.

Or visa versa.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

You’d have to. People who are without brains would be unable to use the internet.

And yet MG continues to confound and amaze.

I would love to have you as a neighbor.

Regards,
MG

[Dr Exiled]

And yet MG continues to confound and amaze.

I would love to have you as a neighbor.

Regards,
MG

Preach to us MG. We need the hard word of the Lord to clarify and cleanse, and I think you are fit for the task at hand. Tell us where we lack and don't hold back. The outside lurkers want a show, perhaps demand a show.

[Shulem]

Preach to us MG. We need the hard word of the Lord to clarify and cleanse, and I think you are fit for the task at hand. Tell us where we lack and don't hold back. The outside lurkers want a show, perhaps demand a show.

1. Indeed, tell us the name of the king in Facsimile No. 3 and please explain why it's not contained in the royal Cartouche as prescribed by Egyptian convention based in religious rule.

2. Tell us why the snout was hacked off poor Anubis's face and why the headdress/headcloth was also smoothed out leaving a head of ridiculous proportion.

3. Tell us why the Church dates Egypt's beginning to both 2300 BC and 3000 BC at the same time in their educational curriculum.

Answer those questions so we can go back to playing childish Mormonism and scrub toilets while the church amasses billions more for a rainy day.

[PseudoPaul]

A lawyer is the Church Historian.

-_-

That’s four in a row now: Marlin Jensen, Steve Snow, LeGrand Curtis, and McKay.

That makes sense. Real historians value objectivity and critical thinking. Lawyers, like apologists, just argue in behalf of their client, regardless of where the evidence might actually lead.