Believing members: If it weren't true, would u want to know?

[_wenglund]

This is for believing current members.

Ray does not count, he obviously does not believe it enough to be a member again.

Regardless of what you believe, know, or how you feel, please answer this question:

If the church was not true, would you want to know?


Yes or no and a brief explanation.

Additionally, if YES, how would you react to the information?

Tal Bachman asked me this same hypothetical question several months ago on this board, and I gave him an honest answer (similar to what abestosman has said), which he, over the course of the subsequent discussion, found less than satisfactory.

From what I have read of this thread, it appears that the same thing has happened with PP regarding believing members who have responded to his query.

This caused me to wonder what PP had hoped to accomplish by asking the question? What response would he find satisfactory and helpful? Was he thinking soliptically, like Tal, that his question would invaribly lead reasonably minded people to the same conclusion about the Church he has reached?

Perhaps PP can answer this for us.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_The Nehor]

Hi Ajax...

You brought up some very good points.

First, it sounds like you do understand that in polygamy, unless you are powerful, rich, or high up in the church heirarchy, you don't get a wife at all.

The alpha males are getting all the young attractive girls and women.

If you aren't rich and powerful, you are out of luck.

Interesting to note, polygamy was outlawed by the Romans, NOT because they cared for women but because the less powerful men wanted to have the chance for a wife, and because they realized society does not do well when half the men do not have a partner.

You're making conclusions as well. You're saying that I want women serving and adoring me.

Actually I was trying to be lighthearted ... rather than saying you want a bunch of women for sex, (smile). I do think many men who think polygamy is ideal have visions of being worshipped and adored by a bunch of beautiful women... having all their needs met, being catered to and doted upon. But I apologize if you have something different in mind. :-) Guys who do not really care about the happiness of women, but only want their ego boosted and their sexual needs fulfilled, tend to have a bit of a distorted perspective, in my opinion. (I'm not saying YOU fall into this catagory... I'm speaking generally here).

In the harem lifestyle, there is no partnership, emotional intimacy, or unity and oneness between partners. It is a society of women and children with a male visitor/sperm donor.

Sounds like we agree that there is more to the story than many have suggested!

:-)

~dancer~

So my dreams of lying on a chair by the pool being fanned and fed grapes by nubile women is out? Darn.

[_ajax18]

I'm just leaving the next world open to new discoveriers, new ways of thinking, in which everyone can be satisfied.

Would you be this open to "new ways of thinking" if polyandry had been preached in the scriptures as the norm?

I suppose that's hard to know since it didn't happen that way. I suspect I'd have been skeptical of authority at first. Yet I did mention that polyandry really didn't bother me that much, at least not the unfair that the woman has more than one spouse part. I didn't particularly like having male roommates though, so I guess she'd have to be rich enough to house me separately.

[_Yoda]

I suspect I'd have been skeptical of authority at first.

I find it interesting that you would be "skeptical of authority" with the concept of God-revealed polyandry, but not God-revealed polygamy. I wonder why that is?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Liz...

Would you be this open to "new ways of thinking" if polyandry had been preached in the scriptures as the norm?

I don't think the polyandry comparison is a good one.

A good comparison would be... one guy has to share his ONE wife with the high counsel (the more powerful men of the area). He will be doing the dishes while his wife is sleeping in the next room with the Stk President. In other words, he gets to be with her maybe a couple of days a month.... the rest of the time he gets NOTHING; no warmth, no tenderness, no help, no care, no intimacy, no physical contact, no sex, no love, no NOTHING.

In polyandry both partners can be satisfied, and there is equality.

Not so with a harem lifestyle.

~dancer~

[_ozemc]

How do you figure? I see tons of problems with Islam. Islam allows polygamy, although we don't get on their case about as much as we do Mormons. Islam has a peculiar founder that claims to have spoken with God and for all practical purposes the people follow his words as if it were God's words. Lastly I don't really see Islam as being organized enough to pin it down on anything.

And Mormonism doesn't have "a peculiar founder that claims to have spoken with God and for all practical purposes the people follow his words as if it were God's words."?

I see lots of problems with Catholicism. Catholicism had the idea of an infallible pope, indulgences, witchhunts, and all sorts of crazy stuff in their history. I understand that they've been around longer and thus accumulated a lot of problems, but I see a lot of problems in their faith. I don't think it would take long to tear either one of these down. I thought Talmage did a pretty good job of it in his book, "The Great Apostasy."

Mormonism has the idea of an infallible Joseph Smith. His words are taken as canon to this day.

Then we have the protestants and once again I don't see where they're really organized enough to pin them down on anything. From what I've seen these people church and preacher shop just like you would shop for other essentials. They don't have a ward they go to. They just go to whatever preacher they like best.

Maybe they consider it "going to the church they feel God is leading them to." As opposed to going to some building based on your address.

And then Mormonism has tons of extra problems.

I'll concede your point because honestly I don't know all the details, but what does it matter? If they both have problems, that still leads to atheism. I don't really see that as a solution to the original problem of death or finding meaning in life and suffering. My point being that I don't think people who leave the LDS church because they've found problems in the religion are going to find a different religion that is problem free.

Of course, as no religion is problem free. The point is the freedom to worship as you see fit.