Who Cares?

[_stemelbow]

I know. Can you believe someone actually published that and said it was a true story?

Sure. Dummies abound. Can I believe its even a true story? You betcha. I''m so faithful(read gullible for DJ).

[_Quasimodo]

Well since neither of us really know it doesn't really matter. If there is a God, and He made himself known to the first of humanity, whether Adam or not it matter not, or He didn't. If there is no God, then certainly the idea of God had to start somewhere. See? We're both right.

I don't think so. You're making presumptions based on faith "if there is a God" (i.e. no proof).

If you would like to believe that, that's fine. Please don't include me in that sort of fuzzy thinking.

[_why me]

I suspect that, for most church members, the origins and history of the church are not important. It is the here and now and how the church affects how people live that is more important to most church members.

But what of us for whom the past is important? Are we supposed to put our concerns back on the shelf and try to make things work? I tried to do that, but it didn't work. I suspect that most people like me see a connection between the origins of the LDS church and how it works in our lives. After my crisis of faith, I came to recognize that, despite what I had said in testimony meeting so many times, I hadn't been happy in the church.

.

In a way, the origins are important for most members but the history isn't. I think that most members do not care about history. But then again, most protestants and catholics care very little about their church's history. Most live in the here and now. And so, for most people, the past is not important. What catholic would be happy with their church's history? Not many. And how many protestants would be happy with their church's history? Not many. All have sins in their closet.

And so, what is your point? That Mormons should be an exception and be interested in their history? If one searches enough, one can always find a negative to run with since the human being is imperfect and they make imperfect church history.

[_why me]

Well said, Runtu. As a lawyer, I am more interested in the more immediate past than most historians (or even in helping clients plan their legal situation for the future). The remoteness of the past does not legitimize it. That is, the passage of time does not sanitize, for example, the Mormon church from its tawdry past. The passage of time merely allows the facade to look better.

Just as a bad tree does not give good fruit, one of the analogies used in the Bible and If I recall correctly the Book of Mormon, the COJCOLDS is yet yielding rotten fruit because of the malignancies that plagued its formation and early years--primarily those malignancies being named JSJr and Hyrum Smith.

Bulldinky. All churches have a tawdy past. The baptist church? yes, The methodist church? yes. The catholic church? yes etc etc etc. And lest we forget it were the protestants that were burning down Mormon homes. Where were their preachers preaching love?

Again you write nonsense. What rotten fruit is the lds church yielding?

[_why me]

Hey Runtu,

Given the history, I would be very uncomfortable introducing Joseph Smith to my teenage niece (or any young lady).

I could never believe a man like that could be a spokesman for God on religion or anything else.

For me, that is the major argument (among others) against the LDS church.

Given its history, would you feel the same way introducing a child to a catholic priest? Or a protestant minister? Have you met Joseph Smith? Or is your information from second hand accounts?

Since Peter is a liar....it is obvious that christianity is a lie.

[_sock puppet]

Are you trying to make the atheists' point, stemelbow?

Atheism was started by a liar...the devil himself. my point is each religion, if defined by any man, or started by man, is one started by a proven liar. All people lie at some point.

Some might take exception to the rule, like Christians, but, assuming Christianity is true, there are so many flavors of Christianity, only one can be started by Christ. Which one is clearly in dispute.

Why can only one be started by Christ?

Since he started the church Peter headed up after his ascension to heaven, then obviously per your logic Christ could not have started the one JSJr did.

[_Quasimodo]

In a way, the origins are important for most members but the history isn't. I think that most members do not care about history. But then again, most protestants and catholics care very little about their church's history. Most live in the here and now. And so, for most people, the past is not important. What catholic would be happy with their church's history? Not many. And how many protestants would be happy with their church's history? Not many. All have sins in their closet.

And so, what is your point? That Mormons should be an exception and be interested in their history? If one searches enough, one can always find a negative to run with since the human being is imperfect and they make imperfect church history.

It's so much more convenient to turn a blind eye to history if you want to believe.

The trouble that Mormons have is that their history is so recent and that there are so many negative testimonials from people that knew Joseph personally.

That, combined with the fact that the church stands or falls by the veracity of it's "true" prophet (something other religions don't have to deal with) makes Mormon history something best to be ignored by the faithful.

[_keithb]

Bulldinky. All churches have a tawdy past. The baptist church? yes, The methodist church? yes. The catholic church? yes etc etc etc. And lest we forget it were the protestants that were burning down Mormon homes. Where were their preachers preaching love?

Fine. I agree. All the religions did terrible things at one point during their history. How does this help your point?

[_sock puppet]

In evaluating the truth claims that tumbled out of JSJr's mouth, how can you not evaluate his character in coming to a conclusion about the veracity of those claims?

I think in principle this is easy. Afterall when we argue with each other about certain positions we are to argue the positions and not deflect to complaining about the individual (albeit often hard in practiced as evidenced by the posters on this board;-)). While it is hard, sometimes for some people, it is easy to figure out how/why its a good rule.

So when god supposedly is talking in the scriptures (hat tip to McGuire for setting me straight that just because a verse has "thus saith the Lord" the rest of the verse might not be the Lord's words) about not being able to use an impure vessel, that god is all wet, right?

[_Runtu]

But the history and origins of the church are important to many faithful LDS as well.

As I have acknowledged. What Zee and I are talking about is an attitude we've both encountered that says looking at the history and origins of the church is a bad thing.

The issue isn't so simple as that. The difference between one who knows the history and bleieves, and one who knows the history and doesn't believe, as a result, is one of personal conclusions and biases. That's pretty much it.

Of course. Some of us have reached better, more reasonable conclusions than others. ;-)

I do find it interesting that people find many various things to complain about in regards to the church that really aren't worth complaining about. Some complaints are understandable, some are not. When I see them and see that there really isn't much reason or purpose to the complaints. I wonder why myself.

Let's see: I post that it's best not to try and get people to understand your position if they aren't interested, and you see that as a complaint "in regards to the church." I honestly don't know where you are getting this. Certainly not from me.