What modern beliefs will be merely "opinion" in 10

Post by **_ajax18** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:40 am

I wonder if they'll keep coming after nonmembers and inactives so hard in the future. Will there come a point where members start to simply rebel and say, "No, I will not do activation and missionary work." I know a lot of otherwise stalwart tithe paying members who really don't like this. I wonder how hard the church will push them on this.

I've debated on just not telling anyone where I move to the next time I move. I wonder how long it would take them to find me. Any guesses?

Post by **_Fortigurn** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:01 am

The LDS church on this issue faces the same problem as the Catholics and JWs. When they finally back down and abandon some of these ideas as wrong, they're left to explain the embarrassing fact that other Christian groups tried to tell them for decades that they were wrong, but were dismissed because the LDS church is supposedly led by prophets.

There's no win-win situation here for the LDS church.

Post by **_Lucretia MacEvil** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:35 am

bcspace wrote:I predict that nothing published by the Church today as scripture or doctrine will be considered opinion 100 years from now.

I predict that nailing down what LDS scripture/doctrine is will continue to be more difficult than nailing jello to the wall, so you'll always have plenty of room for rationalization on this issue.

Post by **_Runtu** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:16 am

Lucretia MacEvil wrote:I predict that nailing down what LDS scripture/doctrine is will continue to be more difficult than nailing jello to the wall, so you'll always have plenty of room for rationalization on this issue.

Abolutely right. What I've seen among apologists is the uncanny ability to take even clear evidence against the church and turn it into some kind of support. For example, we know that the Book of Abraham facsimiles have nothing to do with Joseph's "translation" of them. We know what they mean, and we have his direct translations. They don't match even remotely. Robert Ritner has shown in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies how shoddy and dishonest the apologists' scholarship has been. And yet we have people saying even today that Joseph's translation was "spot on."