DiscussMormonism.com

Gadianton wrote:by the way: how did they figure it was revealed "as early as 1831?" Did one church historian find Joseph Smith's first documented sexual indiscretion, turn do the other and then say, "Look brother, it turns out God had given the law of polygamy earlier than we expected!"

In 1831, when Joseph Smith sent missionaries to Missouri to teach the Indians, he said, "Verily I say unto you that the wisdom of man in his fallen state, knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my holy priesthood. but ye shall know when ye receive a fulness by reason of the anointing: For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles."

The speculation is that, because some of the missionaries were already married, this is a commandment to take plural wives.

The full text of the revelation is here.

ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just
*****************************

How many lds-inc members marry 'lamanites' so they can breed white & delightsome kids?

Seems they are avoiding this one...

Fascinating, Runtu. The Tanners are way off here in their commentary. One more drop in the bucket of the church leaders' racism isn't such a big deal. What's far more interesting, is the creative ways in which Joseph Smith and his boys found to be dirty old men. Basically, that revelation is saying, "if our women won't put out, we know where to go!"

An acquaintance of mine a few years ago at a party was talking up taking a trip to Nicaragua, where according to him, beautiful women are easy to get in abundance for an American man due to his economic status. According to him, American women were too much trouble for what you're getting physically.

Spurven Ten Sing wrote:
I agree with the bishop. Barefoot is best and the healthiest way to walk or run. God made us BF for a reason. Stop hating on the feet, feline.

For this individual, it became a matter of importance that he suffered from a neuroma which was apparently painful enough for him to consider going to church barefoot. But he felt the perceived pressure from his priesthood leaders that convinced him that he had no choice other than to wear his shoes. He said:

I had to obey!

Poor fellow.

Sounds like some possible authority issues in addition to being offended.

My point is that there may have been other factors in the equation as to why this former Bishop decided that the church wasn't for him. I'm sure that in other cases of people leaving or becoming disaffected with the church that there are other reasons and motivating factors that move them in the direction of apostasy. Seems as though this was the case with this man.

His doctrinal reasons for leaving seem to be somewhat shallow and weak. It's amazing how quickly some people decide to jump ship. You have to wonder whether there may, at least with some individuals, be some other factors involved in their decision to abort.

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast wrote:
Poor fellow.

Sounds like some possible authority issues in addition to being offended.

My point is that there may have been other factors in the equation as to why this former Bishop decided that the church wasn't for him. I'm sure that in other cases of people leaving or becoming disaffected with the church that there are other reasons and motivating factors that move them in the direction of apostasy. Seems as though this was the case with this man.

His doctrinal reasons for leaving seem to be somewhat shallow and weak. It's amazing how quickly some people decide to jump ship. You have to wonder whether there may, at least with some individuals, be some other factors involved in their decision to abort.

Regards,
MG

I don't think you have enough information to accurately assess this. Whats more interesting is to watch members like yourself always looking for some other reason to blame their loss of belief on then the evidence. You will always be able to find something not becuase it is a factor, but because we all have little things that may bug us in regards to the church in some way. Also since none of are perfect if one reveals some weakness you will jump on that. People do leave for many different reasons, but your post says more about you then it does about him, since he gave what he felt are his reasons, and you like so many others always distrust what they say becuase of what it may say about the church and it's claims. I can understand this even if it is wrong.

Themis wrote:

mentalgymnast wrote:
Poor fellow.

Sounds like some possible authority issues in addition to being offended.

My point is that there may have been other factors in the equation as to why this former Bishop decided that the church wasn't for him. I'm sure that in other cases of people leaving or becoming disaffected with the church that there are other reasons and motivating factors that move them in the direction of apostasy. Seems as though this was the case with this man.

His doctrinal reasons for leaving seem to be somewhat shallow and weak. It's amazing how quickly some people decide to jump ship. You have to wonder whether there may, at least with some individuals, be some other factors involved in their decision to abort.

Regards,
MG

I don't think you have enough information to accurately assess this. Whats more interesting is to watch members like yourself always looking for some other reason to blame their loss of belief on then the evidence. You will always be able to find something not becuase it is a factor, but because we all have little things that may bug us in regards to the church in some way. Also since none of are perfect if one reveals some weakness you will jump on that. People do leave for many different reasons, but your post says more about you then it does about him, since he gave what he felt are his reasons, and you like so many others always distrust what they say becuase of what it may say about the church and it's claims. I can understand this even if it is wrong.

This is the carbon copy response which I would expect. Usual talking points.

The point can also be made that we don't have enough information to know all the reasons why this gentleman decided to leave the church. We do know, for one, that he had some issues with getting his foot in the door of the chapel, so to speak.

Regards,
MG

Themis wrote:

mentalgymnast wrote:
Sounds like he was offended.

Regards,
MG

LOL Who wouldn't be offended by that. I am sure that is why he stopped believing and decided to resign as Bishop.

It is amazing what will offend people, isn't it? Some other examples come to mind. I'm sure you can think of some from early church history, etc.

Regards,
MG

I had a talk in G-Mail chat last night with my aforementioned friend about Steve Bloor's resignation letter. I pointed out that plenty of people have posted their exit letters online without attracting the attention of FAIR apologists, and since this letter was so "unoriginal" (as most of the apologetics crowd was claiming), I couldn't understand why people were making such a big deal out of it. I told him that I thought the truth was that it really does hurt when fellow brothers and sisters leave the fold, and this one especially hurt because this person was a local leader to others, so people were looking for reasons to find fault with his exit letter.

My friend was a little annoyed because, even though the thread had been moved to private, he was still subscribed to the thread and receiving updates in his inbox showing what people were saying to and about him, but he was unable to respond himself. He complained about this elsewhere on Steve Bloor's blog.

To this Steve replied:

Steve Bloor wrote:Thanks for your comments.

I am a novice to the whole internet blogging thing.

My intentions in putting up the letter were to help people who are questioning realise they are not alone. It was meant for UK only in a limited group setting.

However, John Dehlin publicised it more widely thinking he was being helpful.

Unfortunately, due to the threat of Church disciplinary action I have to pull the blog down from public viewing.

Sorry about that.

I’m also not sure how to notify all the many kind people, including yourself, who commented in the lively debate.

All the very best Steve

My friend responded:

Well, I’m certainly sorry to hear about the tough time you are going through. And I can sympathize with your blogging plight.

I know it’s rough being caught in the crossfire between “Mormon apologists” and the ex-Mormon community. We both tend to be a little bull-headed, and so eager to pick a fight that we trample over the people caught in the middle.

If this happened to you, I am sorry. I hope things work out ultimately for the best for you and your family.

If you have any questions or concerns, you have my email address (I presume) and you can feel free to contact me. I’ll try not to go into hard core defend-the-faith mode on you. But if you’d rather sort this out yourself or elsewhere (after all, you don’t know me from Adam), I certainly understand.

Good luck to you.

I'm more convinced than ever that Mr. Bloor pulled his blog post because he was overwhelmed with the responses he was getting from both sides of the community when he never expected his post to attract so much attention. (And because he was afraid of church discipline?)

Not because he was shaking in his boots over the responses he got from folks like why me.

Mentalgymnast -

I've never had a real problem with the accusation by believers that "other issues" were behind many people's leaving the church. Personally, I am more surprised when I meet someone who actually left the church for completely intellectual reasons. My reasoning for this lies in understanding how resilient our worldviews are and how strongly we tend to defend them against any and all attacks. It only makes sense that a person's natural defenses of their worldview would need to be weakened for some other reason first.

What I think is more telling is how many people DO leave the church for the same reasons once the defense mechanisms come down and they then discover the historical issues. You don't often hear someone say, "I was really struggling with the church and then I found out about Joseph Smith's polygamy/first vision/Book of Abraham/tapirs and that gave me the clarity of thought to see just how true and great the church really is!"

Kishkumen wrote:the exodus out the chapel door continues.

This is common anti-Mormon dogma. There is no "exodus out the chapel door."