Is the Mormon Church dishonest...?

[_jon]

Obiwan says:
''I speak for myself.... I'm quite happy with what the Church does, and find it completely appropriate and reasonable...''

...that the Church spent absolutely no tithing funds on humanitarian aid in 2010.

[_Obiwan]

Of course I'm not going to accept the D&C as in error, because of the simple fact of the full historical record of teachings on this subject. Adam was always Michael in Mormonism. The Church correcting what clearly appears to be a simple writing error, is nothing sinister nor abnormal. Any LDS scholar that knows or has Joseph's teachings and writing on this subject BEFORE and AFTER knows very well that it was a simple writing mistake.

Which is it? Either it's a mistake or it's not. Either it's an error or it's not.

So which version was in error... the pre-Sec 132 version or the post-Sec 132 version?

I already have made clear a "couple of times" that it's apparently simply a "journal writing mistake". Thus, the D&C simply indicates what was intended. The history in question makes clear all of this, that it was a simple journal writing error. Or are you telling me it's not normal human error to accidently repeat something they already said when writing?

[_Obiwan]

My writing is perfectly fine, having done it for years. It may not be perfect, but I only hear anything negative from people like you. Normal people understand my writing perfectly well, and my writing is perfectly "intelligible". You having some "pet peeve", or finding another "excuse" to bash Mormons is not really my problem. I improve my writing as I can when respectfully shown. For example, I used to have a bad habit of using "your" improperly. I would use "your" instead of "you're" as I should have sometimes, I have since corrected that.

Anyway, I'm not interested in faultfinders. I know my writing is very clear despite whatever grammar imperfections. Thus, why don't you find something else more useful to bash me on with your bigotry and elitism?

I don't believe I was being "elitist" or "bigoted". You can (and do) write any way you wish. You brought up the subject. I was just responding.

I was just trying to point out that your message is often lost in incoherent language.

The only way we (the readers on this board) have to judge the validity of what anyone is saying here is by the written posts that they make. If the post is hard to understand or if the grammar is very poor, the post will not be taken too seriously.

Small grammar errors does not translate into "incoherency" or being "hard to understand".
My grammar is not even close to "that bad". Again, fault find something else more useful.
Of course, I'm not afraid of friendly and respectful mentions of something "specific" I could improve.

[_Runtu]

Small grammar errors does not translate into "incoherency" or being "hard to understand".
My grammar is not even close to "that bad". Again, fault find something else more useful.
Of course, I'm not afraid of friendly and respectful mentions of something "specific" I could improve.

My problem with your posts is that I understand them. I'd probably take you more seriously if you weren't so intent on putting as much hostility and contempt as possible into every post. Who needs that?

[_Obiwan]

Obi wan, I read the Fair article you linked and it only concludes that there were two methods - U&T and Stone in Hat.

If you actually read each of the topics links (which you apparently didn't) they mention much more historical detail of the different ways and things that occured while translating the plates, and certainly NOT ONLY "two methods".

Elder Nelson in the Ensign in 1993 acknowledged the same two, and only the same two methods - U&T and Stone in Hat.

Doesn't make the "only" ways.

Whilst I can accept the explanation for Adam/Michael as a writing error, the picture used to depict the translation method used in Church materials is deliberately untruthful.

Well, that's good you can actually accept something reasonable.
As to the picture, you are wrong. As I explained, the picture is a "representation" of what was occuring, that is "translating"..... It's not representing ALL THE METHODS that translation was done by. Creating such a representation in "Art" would be impossible, thus they focus on the "idea", rather than the "methods". Are you telling me you don't intellectually understand the difference between the two ideas?

[_Obiwan]

I speak for myself.... I'm quite happy with what the Church does, and find it completely appropriate and reasonable. I don't have your conspiracy fantasy mind, so I don't have any problems. I can clearly see what the Church does with the money, and if there are problems they report it.

The stigma only exists in minds like yours, not reasonable and common sense minds of people who actually know the Church, are in it day to day, and SEE IT ALL. It is YOU who "stinks".

Reasonable and common sense minds want to know where their money goes. Would you give money to my charity if I refused to tell you where I spent the money? What if I told you God tells me where to spend the money, but I can't tell you what God tells me to do with it? Would you take my word for it?

We can clearly see "where" the money goes. And the Church has strict checks and balances, is ran by moral people, and is audited. Any problems, and it's reported. Further, anyone who has served in Church leadership also knows where the money goes. The Church is full of checks and balances, and thus there is simply no fraud or otherwise. And the extreme rare case something occurs, it's found out and reported. We aren't like other religions in which it's "easy" to corrupt the funds. We aren't like other religions in which people are tossed to and fro thus character is hard to judge. Ultimately, there is no reason or need to "open the books" for all prying eyes to see and judge.

Further, nothing is in the "darkness"..... Everyone who is in the requisite leadership positions, has things well open to them. Just because there are select groups of people at each level of the Church who monitor things, thus checks and balances at every level, doesn't somehow mean everything is in "darkness". Some things for not all to see does not make "darkness". Anymore than the Temple being "private" from all seeing eyes somehow makes "darkness".

You guys simply don't know what you are talking about, and so because of your ignorance, you false judge the Church, as if it's doing some "evil" or "dark" thing. Please, you're just anti-mormons whining. Own up to it.

[_Obiwan]

Obiwan says:
''I speak for myself.... I'm quite happy with what the Church does, and find it completely appropriate and reasonable...''

...that the Church spent absolutely no tithing funds on humanitarian aid in 2010.

Only showing that you know nothing about how the Church runs.
"Tithing" is not spent for humanitarian aid, it's spent for other things.
Fast Offerings however ARE used for humanitarian aid, and also other charitable enterprises in the Church are used for humanitarian aid.

The Church is spending more on humanitarian aid then ever before, because of unemployment, various natural disasters, and wars. You shouldn't open your mouth and lie, when you don't actually know what you are talking about.

[_Hades]

We can clearly see "where" the money goes.

Then please explain to us, whining anti-Mormons, where the money goes.

[_Hades]

Obiwan says:
''I speak for myself.... I'm quite happy with what the Church does, and find it completely appropriate and reasonable...''

...that the Church spent absolutely no tithing funds on humanitarian aid in 2010.

Only showing that you know nothing about how the Church runs.
"Tithing" is not spent for humanitarian aid, it's spent for other things.
Fast Offerings however ARE used for humanitarian aid, and also other charitable enterprises in the Church are used for humanitarian aid.

The Church is spending more on humanitarian aid then ever before, because of unemployment, various natural disasters, and wars. You shouldn't open your mouth and lie, when you don't actually know what you are talking about.

How much money is the church spending on humanitarian aid, and what causes are they supporting?

[_Obiwan]

Small grammar errors does not translate into "incoherency" or being "hard to understand".
My grammar is not even close to "that bad". Again, fault find something else more useful.
Of course, I'm not afraid of friendly and respectful mentions of something "specific" I could improve.

My problem with your posts is that I understand them. I'd probably take you more seriously if you weren't so intent on putting as much hostility and contempt as possible into every post. Who needs that?

As I've already explained, I respond ACCORDING TO the hostility I see from those here.
If you all weren't being "immoral", then I would be responding differently.
And I know this is what I'm doing because for some 13 years I've posted all over the net, on many of different forums, every day, and with those that are actually "respectable", I post respectable toward them, and we have great discussions. We may not ever believe or agree, but we have respectable discussions.

You need to learn that anti-mormonism is "evil". It's a perversion and a darkness that is rotting your souls and infecting the world with hate and contention. I would recommend you all grow to become "critics" rather than anti-mormons. Critics don't bear false witness, they don't degrade, make unfair characterizations of people and things, etc. etc., they just disagree. If you can't understand the difference between the two kinds of people, then I would recommend you learn. I for example post over at Christianforums.com and basically every non-LDS that posts about Mormonism is anti-mormon, yet there is ONE lowly person who's not LDS, doesn't believe in our religion, yet she basically never misrepresents us. In fact, she often gets in trouble with the others because she sees them misrepresenting us, and she corrects them. Again, she believes we are false, not the true church etc. is even a critic at times, but she has "character" in her actions and behaviors, and thus she is not anti-mormon.

Ceeboo for example I likely wouldn't consider as someone who's anti-mormon. However, seeing some of his posts here, I wonder. But at least at MADB he wasn't an anti-mormon in his behaviors and words, and so he got respect. Sorry, but I don't give respect to the disrespectful.

by the way, it's good that you understand my posts..... Why don't you educate your fellow jerks, and tell them to stop misrepresenting and lying about people? You've prooved that my posts ARE in fact understandable, and you are apparently no friend of mine. Clearly then, they are just being anti-mormon, finding any excuse to degrade, rather than be truthful.