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?
If I had information that the Catholic priest in question liked to sleep with little girls, then yes, I would have a problem introducing a child to that priest. Same thing with a protestant minister.
Since Peter is a liar....it is obvious that christianity is a lie.
I don't think anyone on this thread is claiming that the Mormon religion is untrue based solely on the character of Joseph Smith (or Simon Peter for that matter), although it is a consideration (at least to me).
"Joseph Smith was called as a prophet, dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb" -South Park
stemelbow wrote: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.
When Darth J is thinking of stemelbow naked, Darth J might be thinking of some pretty thin skin.
why me wrote: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?
I certainly wouldn't recommend to a young woman that she accept a job as a housekeeper for Joseph Smith. We know where that ends up.
Since Peter is a liar....it is obvious that christianity is a lie.
Quite possibly the most inane thing you have ever written. Oh, wait: light cotton.
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.
I wouldn't let my child anywhere near a Catholic priest - at least not without my direct supervision.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Given its history, would you feel the same way introducing a child to a catholic priest? Or a protestant minister?
I'm not sure that's a very good defense. I would have some qualms about either. :) Not as much as I would about Joseph. He was one man with a bad reputation. Priests and Ministers are men in a large group, some of whom have done some bad things.
Have you met Joseph Smith? Or is your information from second hand accounts?
History is all pretty much second hand information. Historical corroboration is the best we can do.
Since Peter is a liar....it is obvious that christianity is a lie.
I'm not a believer, but I think it was Jesus's teachings that Christians are supposed to believe. Peter was just an apostle.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
Runtu wrote: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.
I didn't say your comments were a complaint about the Church. I honestly don't know where you are getting that. Certainly not from me.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote:I didn't say your comments were a complaint about the Church. I honestly don't know where you are getting that. Certainly not from me.
I got it from your comment, wherein you quoted me and then pontificated about people complaining. Are you saying that your comments were completely unrelated to the quote you cited from me? If so, why did you quote me?
stemelbow wrote: Who are these many apologists who expect Joseph Smith to be perfect?
I meant that many apologists accuse some of thinking that Joseph needed to be perfect.
this si really a debated issue. But oh well. Even if Joseph Smith was nothing but a treasure seeker as a kid, then it really would not stand to reason that he is a worse person then another, or the average.
I never said he was just a treasure seeker. I expressed an opinion that he was not as honest as the average person, based of course on facts from his treasure seeking days to when he was murdered.
Easy to conclude when one finds reasons to conclude Joseph Smith was bad or below average. But keep in mind after viewing all the available evidence you have there are still plenty who see Joseph Smith as better than average. its the conclusions that differ. Let's at least be honest about that.
Plenty today(unfortunately) see Hitler as a great and good man. I could go on and on. Also I am not suggesting that Joseph was as bad as I think Hitler was. So I think I am being very honest.
stemelbow wrote:But the history and origins of the church are important to many faithful LDS as well. 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.
Bias plays an enormous role in how one views the evidence and the conclusions they come up with. It doesn't help the Church that so many who are biased in favor of the Church can eventually change their beliefs regarding some of it's claims.
Themis wrote:Bias plays an enormous role in how one views the evidence and the conclusions they come up with. It doesn't help the Church that so many who are biased in favor of the Church can eventually change their beliefs regarding some of it's claims.
It is something of a miracle that people can step out of their strong pro-LDS biases and re-evaluate the evidence. It's extremely humbling to acknowledge that you might have been wrong about something as basic as your religious beliefs and worldview.