What single honest act would hurt LDS the most?

[_SteelHead]

The single honest act that would hurt LDS (inc) the most?
Honestly, honesty. ;)

The same complete honesty they expect of us when asking "are you honest with your fellow men in all of your dealings?" would compel them to open the vaults, open the records and teach the honest truth, instead of only the things that are useful.

They would survive, as if anything my brief interaction on these boards has shown me it is that there are people who will choose to believe no matter what the church teaches, but it would be painful.

[_Darth J]

Remember Jack Nicholson's famous scene in "A Few Good Men" where, in court, he says, "You can't handle the truth!"

His irrelevant, narrative testimony that would never have been allowed in real court? Yes, I remember.

Remember Joseph Smith said there was much he'd like to reveal to the Saints, but they'd fly apart like glass, and couldn't handle it. (Sorry for no direct quote, but I think that's a good paraphrase.) Truth is, we can't handle truth, at least some of the more complex, higher truths. Christ told Peter, James and John to keep His transfiguration a secret until after He was resurrected. Paul warned of giving "meat" to those in the gospel who could only handle "milk". Look how many people go ballistic at the idea of continuing revelation in the form of a book translated by the Power of God, when the Bible itself says such will be forthcoming. You think the church should reveal all, when you argue and find fault with what has already been revealed. You can't even handle the "milk": you're most certainly not ready for the "meat". "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways saith the Lord; for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isa. 55: 8-9. Until we can realize what it is we're dealing with here, get an idea of the whole picture and what is going on, we'll never be able to understand God and what is going on in His church, even on the most basic level, let alone higher up.

That sure would be an impressive explanation if the LDS Church had more than correlated pabulum, Hallmark card type platitudes, and Readers Digest style anecdotes to offer. But it doesn't.

There is no "meat" in the LDS Church. It's not "milk before meat," it's water before milk.

[_logjamislds]

Re: "water before milk". Whatever. Since it seems a lot of L.D.S. gag even on the water, it's amazing we continue to grow and thrive as we do. Christ had this same problem again and again with the people He was trying to teach. In fact, at one time, the vast majority of His new disciples left Him, and only the apostles remained. John devotes two whole chapters to this phenomenon. (7 & 8.) We claim to be the restored gospel; do you imagine it would be any different with us? There is milk, and there is meat. You have to dig it out; the G.A.'s aren't going to spoon feed it to us, and rightly so. When one gets into it, I find this gospel to be mind-blowing in its complexity and infinity. by the way: working on that book, yet, or just wasting time posting more gnat-straining criticisms?

[_Buffalo]

The problem is the milk is actually watered down Elmer's Glue. And the church itself will never teach you the meat at all. The meat never comes.

[_Mercury]

The problem is the milk is actually watered down Elmer's Glue. And the church itself will never teach you the meat at all. The meat never comes.

Watered down elmers? I thought of Malk:

[_Darth J]

Re: "water before milk". Whatever. Since it seems a lot of L.D.S. gag even on the water, it's amazing we continue to grow and thrive as we do.

Grow and thrive as we do........hmmm.......

http://www.lds4u.com/growth2/Index.htm

"The church is doing a good job of baptizing people who are willing to go on missions, but a poor job of baptizing people who have lots of children that they raise in the church. It probably isn’t doing a very good job of producing new members who are active in the church and thus part of a growing social network. Many other religions are growing faster than Mormonism, and it is unclear how Mormonism would have a competitive advantage over those religions. Despite increasing the member base and missionary force by 50% over the last decade, the church has been unsuccessful at increasing the number of baptisms by even 1%. When we look at the actual growth rate of the church from 1983 to 2000 there is strong statistical evidence that the slowing growth is due to an underlying trend rather than random fluctuations."

Christ had this same problem again and again with the people He was trying to teach. In fact, at one time, the vast majority of His new disciples left Him, and only the apostles remained. John devotes two whole chapters to this phenomenon. (7 & 8.) We claim to be the restored gospel; do you imagine it would be any different with us?

No, I do not imagine anything other than every denomination that claims to be Jesus' church pantomimes the Bible in the way they think best.

There is milk, and there is meat. You have to dig it out; the G.A.'s aren't going to spoon feed it to us, and rightly so.

Right. The prophets and apostles need to focus more on telling stories about bringing cookies to widows, or determining how many earrings girls can wear.

When one gets into it, I find this gospel to be mind-blowing in its complexity and infinity.

As has often been said, everyone rises to their own level of incompetence.

by the way: working on that book, yet, or just wasting time posting more gnat-straining criticisms?

Yes, the observation that the Church has nothing interesting or enlightening to say is just straining at gnats. The lack of anything relevant to offer is just sort of trivial, in the grand scheme of things.

I told you, I'll get to work on that book as soon as I have some assurance that you are going to be my Martin Harris and bankroll me (you've never talked to Jesus in the form of a forest animal, have you?). Meanwhile, has anyone committed mass murder yet because of their fanatical devotion to your ersatz Koran passages?

[_logjamislds]

Joseph Smith needed Harris's "bankroll": you don't. Besides, you already have many advantages Smith didn't have; computers and word processors, education, and, apparently, a lot of time on your hands. Anyone sneaking around your house, trying to steal the source material for your "book"? I doubt it. If you can show me you have a level playing field with Joseph Smith, I might consider bankrolling your efforts. But, let's face it: you're never going to write that book, and I'm just going to keep playing ping-pong with you over every niggling criticism you come up with. I think it's getting to the point where we're wasting each other's time. And, as to your 3,000+ word effort; any explanation for that laughable anachronism about syphillus in the 5th. century A.D? If something like that had been in the first 3,000 words of 1 Nephi, you know good and well it would have been hooted to the high heavens. You get a pass, though, because no one seriously thinks you're inspired.

[_SteelHead]

Anachronism in the first 3000 word 1 Nephi...... Hmmm... Steel sword much?

[_Sethbag]

There is milk, and there is meat. You have to dig it out; the G.A.'s aren't going to spoon feed it to us, and rightly so. When one gets into it, I find this gospel to be mind-blowing in its complexity and infinity.

A big problem with what you've just said is that pretty much every source the LDS ever had that went beyond the water/milk level has been disavowed by LDS leaders, or else disparaged as "not official doctrine", and therefor essentially useless if you're an LDS who both listens to what current LDS leaders say about doctrine, and gives a crap about their beliefs being true.

Seriously, a Mormon who has been sensitized to the distinction between official and not official can go to exactly which sources to dig out this meat that you speak of?

[_Morley]

.... And, as to your 3,000+ word effort; any explanation for that laughable anachronism about syphillus in the 5th. century A.D? If something like that had been in the first 3,000 words of 1 Nephi, you know good and well it would have been hooted to the high heavens. ....

Anachronism? Let's look at the second verse of 1 Nephi:

1:2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.

Nephi was a Hebrew living in Jerusalem in 600 BCE. Yet the language of his father was Egyptian.

Please show me a non-Mormon historian or linguist who would not consider this to be anachronistic.