Mormonism is Black and White, All or Nothing

[_why me]

What if your questioning leads you to believe the Prophet is leading the church astray? What happened to those who questioned doctrines or followed their consience to fight polygamy in the 19th century? What would have happened if I had spoken out against the racism in the church? If answers to my prayers go against the church doctrines, how do I approach that without being hauled into a church court?

It depends on how you would do it. I spoke out often in priesthood meetings when I was younger. But I did it in a good non-contentious way. All knew my political slant and I had no problems. If church members are racist in a ward, there is nothing wrong in speaking out. However, I fail to see racism in the leadership of the church. The lds church is not racist.

As far as the prophet is concerned....well...you will need to build a good case. If not, you would face a problem.

[_Inconceivable]

Members are punished, excommunicated even, for the same offenses for which Joseph Smith is excused!

Pure nonsense. Joseph Smith never committed any excommuicatable offense and neither you nor anyone else has ever produced a shred of direct, verifiable evidence that he did. Slander on.

Evidence?

You've got to be kidding, Coggs. We're talking about the same Joseph Smith that you and Warren Jeffs believe to be a prophet of God. I am almost curious as to what you think really took place between Joseph Smith and 23 or so Emma clones.

What is your take??


Have you ever taken part in a standard temple recommend interview? What part of it don't you understand?

Joseph Smith would fail the interview and be forbidden to enter the temple to perform ordinances that he "revealed".

You're right that he could not be convicted of any excommunicatable offence because he made the rules. It would be rediculous to conceive that he would be willing to excommunicate himself.

However, I see no conceiveable way he could even qualify for baptism in his own church today.

If he had not died in a shootout, the laws of the land that he disregarded surely would have caught up with him.

When convicted for his immorality, he would have justifiably spent the rest of his life in a state or federal prison.


Would someone please post a standard Temple Recommend Interview from the Handbook of Instructions for Cog's?

[_Inconceivable]

[/b]Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.[/b]

What I understand he is trying to get across here is that the sum and all it's parts is the church and kingdom of God. If it is a fraud, not just the sum, but all the parts are a fraud as well. It's not a GO/NO GO for launch. It's a launch. And if there is one bad tile or O-ring and it blows, it's all gone. All of it.

But the statement also reminds me of that spoiled child that, if offended, would attempt to ruin everyone's day by kicking over the sandcastle or take his ball and go home.

Now, I think the church is a fraud. But I define "the church" differently than it's leaders that made the above statements. It is not Christ's church but an organization built upon the deceptions of it's founders - mingled with scripture. It is a culmination of error as well as truth. That's all.

I can extract the good from the evil and take what I desire from it - it is not and was never theirs to give - particularly if they were a fraud.

If the church is "a fraud", they have no spiritual authority to curse or destroy truths that exist.
If the church is a fraud, they also have no logical relational connection to any other potential truths - A kind and loving God may still exist. There may even be a Christ that taught the principles of charity.

If the church is a fraud, it simply means that the organization will eventually have little or no value to it's former members and they will eventually seek peace and purpose elsewhere.

[_why me]

[/b]Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.[/b]

What I understand he is trying to get across here is that the sum and all it's parts is the church and kingdom of God. If it is a fraud, not just the sum, but all the parts are a fraud as well. It's not a GO/NO GO for launch. It's a launch. And if there is one bad tile or O-ring and it blows, it's all gone. All of it.

But the statement also reminds me of that spoiled child that, if offended, would attempt to ruin everyone's day by kicking over the sandcastle or take his ball and go home.

Now, I think the church is a fraud. But I define "the church" differently than it's leaders that made the above statements. It is not Christ's church but an organization built upon the deceptions of it's founders - mingled with scripture. It is a culmination of error as well as truth. That's all.

I can extract the good from the evil and take what I desire from it - it is not and was never theirs to give - particularly if they were a fraud.

If the church is "a fraud", they have no spiritual authority to curse or destroy truths that exist.
If the church is a fraud, they also have no logical relational connection to any other potential truths - A kind and loving God may still exist. There may even be a Christ that taught the principles of charity.

If the church is a fraud, it simply means that the organization will eventually have little or no value to it's former members and they will eventually seek peace and purpose elsewhere.

Your post is confusing. First you say that the church is a fraud. Then, you use the 'if' word. Why use 'if' at all? Do you have proof that the church is a fraud. If so, please share it with us. Then you can contact the new stations and let them see your evidence. Perhaps they will print it to mock Romney. I am looking forward to seeing your conclusive evidence that the church is a fraud.

[_why me]

You've got to be kidding, Coggs. We're talking about the same Joseph Smith that you and Warren Jeffs believe to be a prophet of God. I am almost curious as to what you think really took place between Joseph Smith and 23 or so Emma clones.

What is your take??


Have you ever taken part in a standard temple recommend interview? What part of it don't you understand?

Joseph Smith would fail the interview and be forbidden to enter the temple to perform ordinances that he "revealed".

You're right that he could not be convicted of any excommunicatable offence because he made the rules. It would be rediculous to conceive that he would be willing to excommunicate himself.

Joseph Smith would not have failed the interview, if you are referring to polygamy.

He was a man and a human being. I don't know maybe at times he would have failed the interview, so what? If a person repents of his sins, that person can certainly be forgiven. What is your point? As I understand it, Joseph Smith was a pretty good human being. Yes, he had his enemies. Such is the life of many past prophets.

[_Dr. Shades]

I'm not sure where anyone gets the idea that the church teaches black and white thinking. For example, here is an excerpt from a conference talk in 2003 by Gordon B. Hinckley about Loyalty. As you can see, the prophet discourages such black and white thinking and preaches the importance of thinking for yourselves and choosing those apsects of Mormonism that work for you while ignoring those that don't. [SNIP!]

LOL, SatanWasSetUP! Good catch!

Are you saying prophets have not preached their own opinions, tried to pass them off as doctrine when it clearly was not, and NOT been disciplined for it? Margaret Toscano tried to teach about Heavenly Mother, she was excommunicated. Brigham Young tried to teach that Adam was God, he was not excommunicated.

Margaret Toscano tried to pass off her own doctrinal preoccupations and leftist ideological nostrums as serious LDS theology, and she did this without any authority to teach doctrine for the Church and its members, not to mention her open hostility to settled doctrine. BY's speculations on the relation of Adam to other members of the Godhead was never official doctrine, never put before the members for sustaining vote, and was only taught publically in extremely fragmented and cryptic form.

You mean, like Margaret Toscano's?

Joseph Smith was accused of committing adultery multiple times, the rules of polygamy written in D&C 132 says a man must marry unwed women, otherwise it is adultery, Joseph married women who were already married, which was adultery even by the rules of polygamy, yet no disciplinary courts were held. Disciplinary courts are held on a regular basis for members accused of adultery.

Keep foaming at the mouth until you have to shave. You very simply don't know what you're talking about, and the more you talk about it, the more imprudent and ignorant you appear. You don't understand how the Church is organized and governed, or the rules governing how new or novel doctrines or explanations are set out.

Where can I read the rules governing how new or novel doctrines or explanations are set out, and how does Joseph marrying non-virgins in spite of his revelation correspond to those rules?

[_harmony]

Are you saying prophets have not preached their own opinions, tried to pass them off as doctrine when it clearly was not, and NOT been disciplined for it? Margaret Toscano tried to teach about Heavenly Mother, she was excommunicated. Brigham Young tried to teach that Adam was God, he was not excommunicated.

Margaret Toscano tried to pass off her own doctrinal preoccupations and leftist ideological nostrums as serious LDS theology, and she did this without any authority to teach doctrine for the Church and its members, not to mention her open hostility to settled doctrine. BY's speculations on the relation of Adam to other members of the Godhead was never official doctrine, never put before the members for sustaining vote, and was only taught publically in extremely fragmented and cryptic form. You're so far over your head here your ears are about to pop.

Toscano's ideas were/are based on the logical conclusion of doctrine as currently taught in the LDS church. If we have a Heavenly Father, then it follows that we also have a Heavenly Mother. The church has not disputed this concept. What she was ex'ed for was that she was disobedient to her SP. She continued to publish even after she was told to stop.

On the other hand, Brigham taught that Adam was Heavenly Father, which is hugely speculative and/or downright blasphemous, depending on your point of view.

Toscano's teaching had the solid backing of established doctrine. Brigham's had no backing whatsoever.

Mark Peterson, Joseph Fielding Smith and others taught racist theories in an attempt to justify the priesthood ban. These statements are now considered simply "their opinions" yet they were never disciplined for attempting to pass off their opinions as doctrine.

That's because they never tried to pass them off as official doctrine. They were official explanations, and no more. Had they been considered doctrine, they would have become a part of the official teachings of the church, and required of the membership to believe as a matter of fundamental principle. They never were. Further, no single apostle or Prophet, no matter what his own views, can independently put forward new doctrine or doctrinal explanations one his own in an official capcity for the church as a whole. Had this ever been official doctrine, the entire First Presidency and quorum would have been united in proclaiming it, and some official statement or proclamation would have been made. The young earth creationist views of some apostles and prophets fall into this category as well.

The priesthood ban was taught as doctrine for as many years as I've been alive, at least. It was bedrock to the church. Your and current apologists' protestations to the contrary, it was a basic doctrine of the church. Joseph Fielding Smith was particularly vehement about it. (And look it up yourself. I'm not spoonfeeding you the pablum you know is available). There would be no reason for McKonkie to say "we saw through a glass darkly" and that they were wrong, if it had not been taught as doctrine. They would simply have changed the policy and a revelation would not have been needed.

Joseph Smith was accused of committing adultery multiple times, the rules of polygamy written in D&C 132 says a man must marry unwed women, otherwise it is adultery, JOseph married women who were already married, which was adultery even by the rules of polygamy, yet no disciplinary courts were held. Disciplinary courts are held on a regular basis for members accused of adultery.

Keep foaming at the mouth until you have to shave. You very simply don't know what you're talking about, and the more you talk about it, the more imprudent and ignorant you appear. You don't understand how the Church is organized and governed, or the rules governing how new or novel doctrines or explanations are set out.

Your blindness is showing, Loran. We understand exactly how the church is organized and governed. Joseph would be ex'ed immediately in his own church, were he to show up today.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Precisely. Think Unitarians, RLDS, and the liberal Protestant denominaitions. People who want grey areas just want to keep their options open out in left field.

Coggins, the Mormon church wants it's membership to operate in black and white, while at the same time allowing it's leadership to operate in the grey. Members are punished, excommunicated even, for the same offenses for which Joseph Smith is excused! There is a terrible double standard that exists in the Mormon church to this day - prophets, when not in a prophetic mode, are excused for their transgressions because they're just men. But if I as a member committed transgressions, I wouldn't be excused for being just a woman. I would be held accountable, sometimes harshly, for my "sins".

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is teeming with hypocrisy.

KA

Not true at all. I see no counsel as to how to vote in local and national elections. The lds church is a world wide church and as such, it contains members of various political persuasions. You are generalizing in your post to prove a point that is baseless. The Mormons that I know are not drones or mindless idiots.

We are all excused for our transgressions if we repent. The leadership is no different than we are. The liberal churches seem to be falling by the wayside or have left the teachings of the Bible. Show me where in the Bible where there is grey thinking. Christ told sinners to sin no more. He did not say. It is okay to sin if a person has a headache or if a person is depressed. Sin no more is rather black and white. His actions at the temple also speak of black and white thinking. He saw no grey area with the moneychangers. Kimberlyann, you seem to be barking up the wrong tree on this one.

I'm not understanding your reply at all. What did my statement have to do with elections? Nothing, as far as I can tell. I'm talking about "immoral" behavior (at least what Mormonism considers immoral) - prophets are excused for theirs, and even pointing it out is, in my experience, considered a sin. It's called speaking ill of the Lord's anointed. But members are punished for their "immorality" even as prophets are excused for theirs.

Of course the things Jesus said were black and white. That's fine, though I don't think Mormonism has much to do with Jesus, anyway. Jesus didn't start Mormonism, and I'm sure if he were alive today the Mormon church would disgust him. Mormonism is a cult founded by the lying son of a bitch, Joseph Smith. Nothing more. And if it really were God's church on the earth, then it would indeed be all correct all the time and it could be as black and white as a zebra and that would be just dandy. But it's not. It has differing standards for members and it's supposed prophets, and that's called hypocrisy.

KA

[_Blixa]

Not true at all. I see no counsel as to how to vote in local and national elections.

Why me, you are not in the US are you? There have been several times when there has been plenty o' counsel on which issues one should vote for and support.

In the late 70's, the LDS church organized to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment in both the Utah and Nevada legislatures.

More recently, especially in California, but also in other states as well, the church has been organizing against state-sponsored amendments to change marriage laws.

Is there a direct order sent from Hinkley? No. But there is "counsel" given in many talks at the ward and stake level. There is also the organizing, with appeal to LDS "moral" imperatives, for a variety of "family issue" conservative organizations that you can read about on the Meridian website.

The Mormon church has always dabbled in the political---its probably most visible in the history of the state of Utah. You should read up on the history of the sugar industry in Utah, too, if you want an object lesson in the religious/economic/political nexus of Mormonism's excercise of terrestrial power.

[_Mister Scratch]

Not true at all. I see no counsel as to how to vote in local and national elections.

Why me, you are not in the US are you? There have been several times when there has been plenty o' counsel on which issues one should vote for and support.

In the late 70's, the LDS church organized to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment in both the Utah and Nevada legislatures.

More recently, especially in California, but also in other states as well, the church has been organizing against state-sponsored amendments to change marriage laws.

Is there a direct order sent from Hinkley?

Actually, Hinckley *was* giving the marching orders during the ERA fiasco. Cf. Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power---there is a whole, terrific chapter on this sordid affair.