Who has been where I am? Questioning. Where did you end up?

[_Who Knows]

...The future looked pretty bleak.

Why? What about the future looked bleak?

I wonder if this is something that separates the questioners into the TBMs and exmos. The future never looked bleak to me. It only looked better.

[_Who Knows]

I think that a member who can believe that the Bible is the word of God should be able to retain his testimony of the Book of Mormon and of the church.

Or anything, really, for that matter. lol.

[_Jason Bourne]

(A little more information about me (I am being quite careful, because I think anonymity is important in my situation), but I am a fairly well-established professional with the respect of many in my ward and stake for my service in the ward and in the stake. Of the five members of my family who joined the church, the others have had nothing to do with the church for at least twenty years (but none have resigned simply because they are too lazy and don't care, so they are part of the 13 million.)

by the way -still totally active and holding a calling.

Isn't this rather cowardly and hypocritical, to pretend to be supportive of the church in your home stake, but attack it anonymously here? Do you think that you demonstrate admirable character traits with your post?

I, by contrast, started studying anti-Mormon literature with the encouragement of my mission president while a missionary in Illinois. I had the great fortune of having access to the private collections of Kimball Young at Northwestern and Gerald Urban at Trinity College in Deerfield, as well as access to Mr. Urban and NIV translators expert in anti-Mormon theory. The Young collection had the earliest manuscripts of the Tanners' works, and this is where I was first exposed to it.

Since then, no priesthood leader has ever discouraged me from reading or writing anything about Church history. And, I use my own name when I post. And, my feelings and writings are as consistent here as they are in Church on Sunday.

Bob Crockett

See what did I tell you mms. Bob is heavy handed about the hypocrite issues. And maybe he is right. Course he just dismisses the fact the one who questions-note mms is questioning not criticizing. Course for Monothilic Mormons like Bob questions and doubt and anger for the organization not disclosing more is criticism.-is in peril of membership, friends etc. The Church frowns on any dissent at all.

Hey Bob I am so happy that you have known all the issues and are so well informed and still a strong believer. Do you not think that others can reach a different conclusion then you and then struggle to find ways to reconcile it?

[_rcrocket]

(A little more information about me (I am being quite careful, because I think anonymity is important in my situation), but I am a fairly well-established professional with the respect of many in my ward and stake for my service in the ward and in the stake. Of the five members of my family who joined the church, the others have had nothing to do with the church for at least twenty years (but none have resigned simply because they are too lazy and don't care, so they are part of the 13 million.)

by the way -still totally active and holding a calling.

Isn't this rather cowardly and hypocritical, to pretend to be supportive of the church in your home stake, but attack it anonymously here? Do you think that you demonstrate admirable character traits with your post?

I, by contrast, started studying anti-Mormon literature with the encouragement of my mission president while a missionary in Illinois. I had the great fortune of having access to the private collections of Kimball Young at Northwestern and Gerald Urban at Trinity College in Deerfield, as well as access to Mr. Urban and NIV translators expert in anti-Mormon theory. The Young collection had the earliest manuscripts of the Tanners' works, and this is where I was first exposed to it.

Since then, no priesthood leader has ever discouraged me from reading or writing anything about Church history. And, I use my own name when I post. And, my feelings and writings are as consistent here as they are in Church on Sunday.

Bob Crockett

See what did I tell you mms. Bob is heavy handed about the hypocrite issues. And maybe he is right. Course he just dismisses the fact the one who questions-note mms is questioning not criticizing. Course for Monothilic Mormons like Bob questions and doubt and anger for the organization not disclosing more is criticism.-is in peril of membership, friends etc. The Church frowns on any dissent at all.

Hey Bob I am so happy that you have known all the issues and are so well informed and still a strong believer. Do you not think that others can reach a different conclusion then you and then struggle to find ways to reconcile it?

Your wrong. [Just posting consistently with the average grammatical level of this wonderful Board.]

I do not dismiss questioners. Not at all. I do not dismiss criticizers. Not at all.

But, a person who posts anonymously and who characterizes their criticisms as mere "questions" [the archetypical Tomasi and Harmony position] is disingenuous. Isn't that in the typical troll's toolkit? A "question" really trolling for more? And the disingenous post really only works if anonymous, no?

I nonetheless welcome questions and criticisms as tending to lead to the explication of the truth. That is why I am here, and as you might note I don't get offended by the personal insults and slings hurled my way.

And, I do not know all the issues and do not claim to know all the issues, nor have I have ever claimed such.

Edit: I don't contribute to a lot of threads only because I really am not interested in a critique of the MAD board. I disagree with the MAD board, but for other reasons than you would find stated here. Too much of this board is simply obsessed with MAD. Too many WoW personalities here.

[Guest]

I am not an apologist. I lack sufficient expertise to defend the church on any topic. I am no more an apologist than you are an apologist for apostasy. I am not here to defend the tactics of other boards.

Okay, enough about what you intend to not do here. You still haven't answered why you're here. Or, let me rephrase that, actually: what results will be accomplished by your posts, in your opinion? If you are primarily concerned about how mms' post will be taken by some hypothetical audience, how do you think your posts will be taken by the same audience?

I do not accuse anybody of the trivial charge of having an agenda. (I admit to having done that once before in my writings; an editorial insert; it was wrong.) The reason I don't make such a charge is that everybody has an agenda. I have an agenda. You have agenda. So what? How will such a charge possibly improve an argument?

If I have an agenda, I sure as heck don't know what it is.

I don't think you have any evidence except anecodotal to suppor the charge.

I don't think you have any evidence except anecdotal to support the claim that studying anti-mormon literature is encouraged; care to provide any statement by the Church that encourages the members to go to the archives and study anti-mormon literature? Besides, if I'm not mistaken, not all Church-owned materials are available to the public; to my knowledge, they didn't make the Mark Hoffman forgeries publicly available, at least not when they thought they were authentic. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I have a rich library of materials -- both pro and con. (I lack a lot, of course; who can collect it all? I can't.) I have done research in special collections of Utah's major universities, California's UCLA and Bancroft, the National Archives, as well as the Church. Other than the very rare throw-away comments by some, I have never come across an institutional statement from the Church that articles critical of the Church should not be read. In fact, I point out, the Church is mandated by revelation to collect and archive attacks against the Church. They are maintained in the archives, and researchers do not have to identify themselves as members of the Church to gain access to the archives. In other words, the best weapons against the church are held out by the church to researchers. Strange, huh?

See above. Also, read this and this

My point is merely to demonstrate the moral inconsistency of pretending to be an active member, holding a calling on the one hand, and posting anonymous public attacks on the other hand. The substance is not the issue, but I strongly suspect that the substance would not be posted -- except only by the morally superior -- if one used one's name.

You have yet to explain why you consider mms to be attacking the Church. In my opinion, he is merely sharing his personal experience.

Internet posting is filled with the dishonest and the cowardly, along with the honest and courageous. For every Tal Bachman, Dan Vogel, Brent Metcalf, and Kevin Graham who are unafraid of using their own names when posting, we have you, Jason Osbourne, MMS, Mr. Scratch and Rollo Tomasi. Like I say, we get the moral and the immoral.

For a jury trial lawyer, you sure say a lot of slanderous BS that is based on nothing. Just because someone is unwilling to reveal their real name doesn't mean they are dishonest or immoral.

Interesting. What I do is tack my name on my claims, or cite authority.

And even though you think that's sufficient to make your argument better than mine or mms', you still refuse to admit you are employing the fallacy of appealing to authority.

Incidentally, I know what it means to employ such a fallacy, and let me assure you that you are employing it. You seem to think that just because you have revealed your name to us, you automatically have better arguments. I'm sorry, but introducing yourself by your proper name does not make it so. Not to mention that I have not seen you government-issued ID, so why don't you scan it and post it here; at least you will then have some basis for stating that you tack your name on your claims.

Who have I condemned for lazy research?

Oh, I suppose the self-aggrandizing that involved mentions about how you are so consistent and eager to study, while receiving encouragement from your priesthood leaders, unlike the dishonest, immoral and inconsistent people like the OP was just an off-hands comment and not the main thesis of your post?

I know you would like me to go away.

And you know that just how?

Incidentally, nothing can be further from the truth. I'm having lots of fun talking to you because.. well.. people like you are my weakness.

Nope, he has not give nme the "burden of doubt."

At least he's being consistent and not giving it to anyone here, according to him. Of course, what he had written previously is not consistent with that claim of his, but perhaps he's banking on all of us suffering from short-term memory loss.[/url]

[_asbestosman]

I wonder if this is something that separates the questioners into the TBMs and exmos. The future never looked bleak to me. It only looked better.

And yet when I read of Exmo experiences, I see that some like you seem to have an okay experience while others like Runtu have particularly difficult times.

I for one see nothing to gain from leaving the church and about everything to lose: salvation not to mention familial happpiness both now and in the eternitites.

[_Jason Bourne]

Isn't this rather cowardly and hypocritical, to pretend to be supportive of the church in your home stake, but attack it anonymously here? Do you think that you demonstrate admirable character traits with your post?

I, by contrast, started studying anti-Mormon literature with the encouragement of my mission president while a missionary in Illinois. I had the great fortune of having access to the private collections of Kimball Young at Northwestern and Gerald Urban at Trinity College in Deerfield, as well as access to Mr. Urban and NIV translators expert in anti-Mormon theory. The Young collection had the earliest manuscripts of the Tanners' works, and this is where I was first exposed to it.

Since then, no priesthood leader has ever discouraged me from reading or writing anything about Church history. And, I use my own name when I post. And, my feelings and writings are as consistent here as they are in Church on Sunday.

Bob Crockett

Thanks, Bob. Appreciate your input. You and I disagree on what is considered an "attack" on the church and I am not sure what you mean by "pretend"--did you not read about my conversation with my Bishop? That's okay, though. Sounds like you are good guy going the extra mile for what you believe by trying to help others out here. Best, MMS.

MMS I have talked to my bishop, SP, close LDS friends and wife. But because I do not publically declare myself here Crocket brands me a hypocrite. But those who count in my life know where I am at.

[_rcrocket]

I reiterate. You do not know what it means to employ the fallacy of appealing to authority.

[_Who Knows]

I wonder if this is something that separates the questioners into the TBMs and exmos. The future never looked bleak to me. It only looked better.

And yet when I read of Exmo experiences, I see that some like you seem to have an okay experience while others like Runtu have particularly difficult times.

I for one see nothing to gain from leaving the church and about everything to lose: salvation not to mention familial happpiness both now and in the eternitites.

Yeah, i was just wondering out loud...

[_Who Knows]

Looks like zoidberg needs a lesson on links. :)