DiscussMormonism.com

Imwashingmypirate wrote:because I can't handle following a thread that explodes and becomes horrible this is for everyone.]

What is it about Church History that you have a problem with?

Chap wrote:I regret to inform you that there are a number of readers of this board who have strong suspicions that the doctrines (and in some cases even the factual assertions) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints may not be wholly reliable. Sometimes they may allow these doubts to peep out round the edges of even their most innocuous posts.

Hi Wayneman,
Welcome to the board. :)

I can tell you based on my own personal experience & with other family and friends (including internet friends) who become disillusioned with Mormonism, that we never expected perfect leaders and knew they were fallible men. Their personal sins, & off the record statements would not affect my faith. That is such a common fallacy used by LDS when someone expresses shock and disgust over Joseph Smith's history.

However, you do understand that all the claims of Mormonism rest on the testimony of Joseph Smith so his character and history plays a huge part in your testimony. If you were not given correct information about his experiences with God and those teachings, could that affect your testimony to learn the unvarnished truth? There are Mormons who claim they don't have a testimony of history so learning disturbing parts of his life shouldn't make someone leave the faith. Of course they have a testimony of history! Without the history of Joseph's First Vision, angelic visitations, translation, and experiences with God, we wouldn't have a religion.



If Joseph had affairs, that would not affect my faith. It's that he claimed GOD TOLD HIM TO DO IT that hurts my faith. That he used the same seer stone and method to treasure hunt as he did to translate the Book of Mormon. That his teachings and doctrines from God might be just his opinion.

I would expect God's mouthpiece to not use a personal weakness for the female flesh by radically changing the definition of marriage and leading the church astray with the harmful degrading practice of polygamy. I would expect God's Prophet to not appear like a charlatan and cult leader in his history, commanding married women and young teenagers to marry him secretly or lose their exaltation!
I would expect God's prophet to tell his wife Emma of his secret plural marriages and get her consent before living "the principle" instead of deceiving and betraying her. Let her choose if she wants to remain married to a man living that "restored principle."

Investigators are only asked to pray about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and are forced into having an umbrella testimony of the church right from the start. They are not told the Prophets could be just giving opinions. They are taught that the heavens have been opened and God's word continues through them! "The prophet can not lead the church astray."

Here is what it comes down to for me. (and I believe many others)
We believed that these men were God's mouthpiece when they proclaimed to speak as such. We were not allowed to enter the Lord's house if we did not sustain them as Prophets, seers, and revelators. When you learn from studying church history that these revelations, Conference talks, and "doctrine" from previous LDS Prophets are now only opinion 100 years later, it destroys your faith in the claims of the LDS church.
There can no longer be such a thing as "a true church" or "restoration" when LDS Prophets continue to change these restored truths and doctrines and use "continuing revelation" to cover up past mistakes. LDS Prophets have such a poor record on revealing and interpreting the scriptures, I'm not sure how anyone could retain a testimony in their divine calling to communicate with God.

Imwashingmypirate wrote:What is it about Church History that you have a problem with?

Dr. Shades wrote:

Imwashingmypirate wrote:What is it about Church History that you have a problem with?

Click here to find out.

Seven wrote:Hi Pirate, :)
I should have read your off topic comment first.
I was confused by the question. (I thought you were telling me to stop attacking the church) I'm not a frequent poster here so I wasn't sure what side of the fence you were on. Awww, no worries. I'd say I am more on the fence in some aspects.

I'll quote one of my comments from this thread started by Moshka in the Celestial forum. It best sums up my problems with church history.
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... a&start=21

Hi Wayneman,
Welcome to the board. :)

I can tell you based on my own personal experience & with other family and friends (including internet friends) who become disillusioned with Mormonism, that we never expected perfect leaders and knew they were fallible men. Their personal sins, & off the record statements would not affect my faith. That is such a common fallacy used by LDS when someone expresses shock and disgust over Joseph Smith's history. No man is perfect. So thus why would it be wrong to say our leaders should be perfect.

However, you do understand that all the claims of Mormonism rest on the testimony of Joseph Smith so his character and history plays a huge part in your testimony. If you were not given correct information about his experiences with God and those teachings, could that affect your testimony to learn the unvarnished truth? There are Mormons who claim they don't have a testimony of history so learning disturbing parts of his life shouldn't make someone leave the faith. Of course they have a testimony of history! Without the history of Joseph's First Vision, angelic visitations, translation, and experiences with God, we wouldn't have a religion.

I agree, JSH should have an effect on our testimony and in some respects it has impacted mine but not enough to cause me to leave. Perhaps because the Gospel is and should be about the saviour and the plan of salvation. Yes Joseph Smith wasn't all that rightous in my opinion(Haha I once said that in Sunday School, I got looked at in a strange manner) but really, are any leaders of an church rightous? The only trully rightous being on this Earth was Christ and my brain even questions that. One must take care because people are slandered and everyone has different views of a certain situation.


If Joseph had affairs, that would not affect my faith. It's that he claimed GOD TOLD HIM TO DO IT that hurts my faith. That he used the same seer stone and method to treasure hunt as he did to translate the Book of Mormon. That his teachings and doctrines from God might be just his opinion.
I agree, it is sad to think that God would be used as an excuse, but how do we know God really did tell him to? Yes perhaps God told him to introduce polygamy, but if he abused that, is that God's fault? I do not believe he would have said God told him to have affairs but I do believe God would have told him to be polygamous. People skew the truth.

I would expect God's mouthpiece to not use a personal weakness for the female flesh by radically changing the definition of marriage and leading the church astray with the harmful degrading practice of polygamy. I would expect God's Prophet to not appear like a charlatan and cult leader in his history, commanding married women and young teenagers to marry him secretly or lose their exaltation!
I would expect God's prophet to tell his wife Emma of his secret plural marriages and get her consent before living "the principle" instead of deceiving and betraying her. Let her choose if she wants to remain married to a man living that "restored principle."

In the Scriptures throughout the Bible there were weak men, prophets and mouth peices of God that succumbed to sin. Why shoud Joseph Smith be any different? I agree, it is dissapointing and it does affect the desire for perfection and infallable faith, but Faith has nothing to do with other individuals. It is something we each strive to grow and keep strong within ourselves regardless of man or material. It is spiritual. Jospeh Smith is not the centre of Mormonism in the LDS church, no matter how people see it. How can he be? It would not be the church of Christ otherwise. People misinterpret and misunderstand. It is up to us to seek true understanding and have the right attitude and faith. I know that if I go to a place in my life, I can look at it from several viewpoints and each point can bring about a totally different experience, yet it is still one experience. And which I choose as the actuall experience is the difficult part. But everything can beseen in many lights and can even contrdict itself. And, I am quite sure Emm knew. How could she not? And she stood by him till his death. She even continued the polygamy in the reformed church with her son. There is no way she didn't know.

Investigators are only asked to pray about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and are forced into having an umbrella testimony of the church right from the start. They are not told the Prophets could be just giving opinions. They are taught that the heavens have been opened and God's word continues through them! "The prophet can not lead the church astray."
The truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is important because it is another testimony of Jesus Christ, without the Book of Mormon there would be no church. It is useful to each of us and important. A sure testimony of the Book of Mormon is essential. And it stregnthens the testimony of prayer. I agree that Investigators don't know much about the gospel and it is a shame but they have an amazing testimony. I wish I had been an investigator. Their faith in Christ and plan of salvation is so strong it is amazing. And that is because they have seen both sides. They can see the difference between the light ad the dark, but for us that have been in the church by the choice of our parents don't see that difference and don't have the oppurtunity to start with the basics. It's like learning Maths, you have to start at the start ad learn line upon line and build up. This is the same for everything. And if the Prophets speak by opinion then they are certainly wise and knowledgable because their words are inspirational. Again it depends on how the listener takes it. I think of it lik the sacrament. We each have a different view to how reverent we should be and what we should do to prepare. But what it the person blessing the sacrament is unworthy? Does that mean we do not recieve the blessings of the sacrament? Or does that just mean that if we are rightous in our desires and work on feeling the spirit and partaking the sacrament in a right way when we ourselves are worthy that we will recieve the blessings even if the person that blessed it shouldn't have? To me it is irrelevent because my relationship is with God, Christ and the Gospel not with the man who is fallable blessing it.
Someone said at Institute that he is easily offnded by the irreverence in Sacrament. Seriously, he had a cheek to talk. He rarely attends and doesn't live the gospel as he should, but that is between him and God he is free to do as he wishes. But his view caused him to be offended and caused him to feel that he couldn't feel the spirit in Sacrament. But I attend the same sacrament and I don't hear the children being noisy. And if I hear or see people being ireverent, it doesn't bother me. To me we are individual and should be a calm in the storm. We can worship at any time in any place. Besides he shouldn't sit at the back if he doesn't want to see or know what everyone is doing. My point is that it is relative and we choose ourselves how to take things and no way is wrong. It is not wrong that he felt people were irreverent and it is not wrong that I don't hear it. It is just our attitudes and how we recieve things. Thus prophets are divine and do speak for God, but that doesn't mean they can't abuse that. But that is on their on back, not our own. We will not be judged for what we do not know.

Here is what it comes down to for me. (and I believe many others)
We believed that these men were God's mouthpiece when they proclaimed to speak as such. We were not allowed to enter the Lord's house if we did not sustain them as Prophets, seers, and revelators. When you learn from studying church history that these revelations, Conference talks, and "doctrine" from previous LDS Prophets are now only opinion 100 years later, it destroys your faith in the claims of the LDS church.
They are not opinion. We are a continuing society which changes. The bar continually needs to be raised. What was needed at that time is not neceserily what we need now.

There can no longer be such a thing as "a true church" or "restoration" when LDS Prophets continue to change these restored truths and doctrines and use "continuing revelation" to cover up past mistakes. LDS Prophets have such a poor record on revealing and interpreting the scriptures, I'm not sure how anyone could retain a testimony in their divine calling to communicate with God.

Dr. Shades wrote:

Imwashingmypirate wrote:What is it about Church History that you have a problem with?

Click here to find out.

Imwashingmypirate wrote:Anti mo literature wont find the answers to your soul.

We are told to follow Christ, not run ahead of him and find out what he has to offer and ask men what they think and then decide whether we want to follow him or not. People will look for reasons to justify their actions.

Why is it that people that leave the church have to pull others with them also rather than let people find their own paths? People trying to pull me out makes me wonder why they are and they have nothing to replace it with. They pull you out and leave you hanging ad when they dwell on how the church is wrong and how they want people to leave, they become miserable. They are in darkness because they are not seeking inner truth, they are merely trying to pull others out with them and causing those people to go through the same motions making them miserable also.

Is this man happy to spend so much time looking for the negatives of one faith? Surely that must be depressing. But justifying at the same time.

Surely one should find he right way rather than try to prove their past or someone elses path is the wrong way. What good is it doing to them?

"Imwashingmypirate" And, I am quite sure Emm knew. How could she not? And she stood by him till his death. She even continued the polygamy in the reformed church with her son. There is no way she didn't know. [/color]

They are not opinion. We are a continuing society which changes. The bar continually needs to be raised. What was needed at that time is not neceserily what we need now.

I thought you would have completely different reasons