"These days I can smell the fear in Mormonism."

[_I have a question]

Does it matter where Joseph learned that the Father had a tangible body? I don't think it does.
Perhaps he got it through reflection of a passage like this: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/New Testament/john/5.19?lang=eng#18

Another nice try.
Does it matter where he learned it?

Well, as has been comprehensively demonstrated, the Church systematically teaches that Joseph learned that the Father had a tangible body during the First Vision. Would it matter if Joseph learned it some other way? Yes, because that would mean the Church was systematically teaching an untruth. Now, unless I'm mistaken, you have reached a personal conclusion that Joseph Smith didn't learn that from the First Vision. Or at least you strongly doubt he did.

So, how do you feel about personally harbouring a notion that the teaching programmes of the Church are misleading members about such a core piece of doctrine?
(Keeping in mind the Church's own definition of 'Lying')

[_hagoth7]

If some find such pictures offensive, I would encourage them to be patient. With the rise of the internet, criticisms such as the above will likely help artists and publishers take more consideration into what the history actually says.

Are you predicting that any future paintings that the church commissions or publishes regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon will show Joseph with his head in his hat?

Prediction?
Most would say it's well above my pay grade to make a prediction about the church, let alone about something that specific.

[_hagoth7]

Does it matter where Joseph learned that the Father had a tangible body? I don't think it does.
Perhaps he got it through reflection of a passage like this: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/New Testament/john/5.19?lang=eng#18

Another nice try.
...Well, as has been comprehensively demonstrated, the Church systematically teaches that Joseph learned that the Father had a tangible body during the First Vision. Would it matter if Joseph learned it some other way? Yes, because that would mean the Church was systematically teaching an untruth.

If it was as systematic as you claim, why did one in three of the manuals cited in this thread somehow slip up and not ascribe the teaching as deriving from the First Vision? Me thinks thou dost make a mountain out of a molehill.

Is anyone seeing why I earlier said that running through at list of one hundred objections might become little more than a waste of bandwidth? Are you seeing why? We can't even get past the first three minor issues, let alone to honorentheos' three paragraphs. Just a gill of charity here might grease the skids a bit so we could move along. Please.

Now, unless I'm mistaken, you have reached a personal conclusion that Joseph Smith didn't learn that from the First Vision....

I wouldn't call it a conclusion. Because it's tentative and open to correction. But it's my personal opinion, which isn't binding on anyone.

So, how do you feel about personally harbouring a notion that the teaching programmes of the Church are misleading members about such a core piece of doctrine?...

Again. A loaded question. I actually don't harbor the notion that the teaching programs of the Church are misleading members, intentionally or otherwise.
Those who read JSH and D&C 130 would never be confused by the smoke screens you're throwing up here.

May I ask, why do you dislike the church so much as to not want to grant it the smallest degree of charity? The slightest benefit of the doubt? Did someone offend you? Have I somehow offended you? Do you feel that God somehow let you down somewhere along the way? (I hope not, but would sincerely like to know.) Please feel free to launch a separate thread.

[_Goya]

May I ask, why do you dislike the church so much as to not want to grant it the smallest degree of charity? The slightest benefit of the doubt? Did someone offend you? Have I somehow offended you? Do you feel that God somehow let you down somewhere along the way? (I hope not, but would sincerely like to know.) Please feel free to launch a separate thread.

Perhaps he wished to sin.

[_I have a question]

I actually don't harbor the notion that the teaching programs of the Church are misleading members, intentionally or otherwise.
Those who read JSH and D&C 130 would never be confused by the smoke screens you're throwing up here.

Smoke screen?
I'm simply pointing out what the Church actually teaches. You are holding that very first Primary manual up as your "Get Out Of Jail Free" card on this, but it simply isn't the panacea you hope for.

The Church teaches members explicitly that Joseph learned God has a tangible body from the First Vision. If that isn't the case and Joseph didn't glean such an insight from that experience (and you believe he didn't and Chap has demonstrated that he cannot possibly have done so) then it's an inescapable conclusion that the Church is misleading ('lying' by its own definition) members.

We can, by all means discuss wether or not that's an intentional deception, or merely the frailties of the people who produced and signed off on that material. But at the moment, the only person putting putting up a smoke screen is you! :big grin:

As for being charitable towards the Church, I'm simply holding the Church up to the same standards and behaviours it demands of its members...

Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty, and we will have to account for our lies. Satan would have us believe it is all right to lie. He says, “Yea, lie a little; … there is no harm in this” (2 Nephi 28:8). Satan encourages us to justify our lies to ourselves. Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-princ ... y?lang=eng

[_DrW]

May I ask, why do you dislike the church so much as to not want to grant it the smallest degree of charity? The slightest benefit of the doubt? Did someone offend you? Have I somehow offended you? Do you feel that God somehow let you down somewhere along the way? (I hope not, but would sincerely like to know.) Please feel free to launch a separate thread.

hagoth7,

Sorry for jumping in here, but I have been following your responses on this thread and just couldn't "keep quite" any longer.

Surely you must realize that your paragraph, as quoted above, is a laundry list of defensive TBM cliches. To those who have left the Church, these "standard issue" TBM response questions are seen as borne of willful ignorance and misunderstanding, bad assumptions, and arrogance.

You must have read on this board enough to know that these questions are right out of the apologists' playbook. They are seen by most who have left the Church as largely irrelevant substitutions for the questions that should be asked in this situation, and even as a bit humorous.

Did people in the Church offend me now and then? Absolutely.

Do I feel that God somehow let me down somewhere along the way? No - no more than did Zeus or Apollo.

None of the reasons you listed were even factors in why I left the LDS Church. I left as a matter of personal integrity. Once I grew up, the questions I asked about the LDS Church - the questions that are relevant - led me to the realization that I could no longer, in good conscience, be associated with the LDS Church because:

- Starting with its founder, it has a more than 180 year track record of institutional fraud, racism, bigotry, and misogyny, stemming largely from doctrines and policies based to no small extent on "revealed" scriptures that were simply made up by one or more of the founders of the LDS Church, who lied (and not very convincingly) about the provenance of said scriptures.

- The LDS Church continues to lie about its history and its foundational truth claims have been falsified. Yet the Church demands money from members, and those who do not pay in full are barred from full participation in its "sacred" rituals, most of which were simply copied from the Freemasons.

- The LDS Church has failed to disclose even basic information about the disposition of the revenues it collects from its members, while engaging in profit making commercial enterprises that often benefit Church leaders (who serve on boards) and insiders (who make sweetheart deals involving LDS Church businesses).

I am no longer associated with the LDS Church because it is an organization built on lies, unfounded belief, and a large dose of nepotism and I see it as corrupt to its core. And I am not the only one.

[_hagoth7]

I'm simply pointing out what the Church actually teaches. You are holding that very first Primary manual up as your "Get Out Of Jail Free" card on this, but it simply isn't the panacea you hope for.

I didn't claim it was a panacea.
It does offer a glimmer of what I believe is actually going on, however.

The Church teaches members explicitly that Joseph learned God has a tangible body from the First Vision. If that isn't the case and Joseph didn't glean such an insight from that experience (and you believe he didn't and Chap has demonstrated that he cannot possibly have done so) then it's an inescapable conclusion that the Church is misleading ('lying' by its own definition) members.

No actually. As I have alluded to earlier in this thread, it's possible the Church knows something about the First Vision I don't.
It's also possible a simple error was made in some of the manuals. I don't know which it is. But it seems a harmless difference in either case.
Anyone can read JSH and D&C 130 and come to their own conclusions.

We can, by all means discuss wether or not that's an intentional deception, or merely the frailties of the people who produced and signed off on that material. But at the moment, the only person putting putting up a smoke screen is you! :big grin:

My apologies for being somewhat dismissive by referring to your assertion a smoke screen. That was perhaps unkind of me.

As for being charitable towards the Church, I'm simply holding the Church up to the same standards and behaviours it demands of its members...

Lying is [b]intentionally deceiving[/b] others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty, and we will have to account for our lies. Satan would have us believe it is all right to lie. He says, “Yea, lie a little; … there is no harm in this” (2 Nephi 28:8). Satan encourages us to justify our lies to ourselves. Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-princ ... y?lang=eng

Again. How are you so sure it was intentional deception? What's your basis for laying such a claim at the feet of the church? Based on my background in developing instructional materials, and on the decency I've seen in church leadership from the top down, I say you're missing something. To insist that the only reasonable explanation is intentional deception, well, I suppose you can run with that if it really blows your hair back. Scream it from the housetops if you wish.

But this may all be much as Runtu said about people's reactions to his writing, "it says more about them than it does about me."
Much of this is, in my opinion, an inkblot test.

I don't intent to address that matter any further.

[_hagoth7]

May I ask, why do you dislike the church so much as to not want to grant it the smallest degree of charity? The slightest benefit of the doubt? Did someone offend you? Have I somehow offended you? Do you feel that God somehow let you down somewhere along the way? (I hope not, but would sincerely like to know.) Please feel free to launch a separate thread.

Perhaps he wished to sin.

(I would imagine you're saying that tongue in cheek.)

Such accusations trouble me. I heard someone claim something like that out loud in a meeting I was once in. I had to figuratively bite my tongue, because it stirred my blood more than a bit. Had I been sitting in the back, where my response could have been heard, I would have spoken up. From where I was sitting, however, most in the room wouldn't have been able to hear my response, including the person who voiced their opinion, and a classroom may also not the best setting to discuss such differences of opinion.

As most know full well, saints are sinners who keep on trying. That was part of the message of last conference.

[_Fence Sitter]

Reading how Hagoth7 defends the church leaves me wondering what it is that a prophet does that cannot later on be viewed as a mistake or mere men.

Must be nice for God's future prophets to have that get out of jail free card to play.

[_hagoth7]

May I ask, why do you dislike the church so much as to not want to grant it the smallest degree of charity? The slightest benefit of the doubt? Did someone offend you? Have I somehow offended you? Do you feel that God somehow let you down somewhere along the way? (I hope not, but would sincerely like to know.) Please feel free to launch a separate thread.

hagoth7,

Sorry for jumping in here,

No apology needed. Good to hear from you again.

...but I have been following your responses on this thread and just couldn't "keep quite" any longer.
Surely you must realize that your paragraph, as quoted above, is a laundry list of defensive TBM cliches.

If it comes across as trite, I am sorry.

To those who have left the Church, these "standard issue" TBM response questions are seen as borne of willful ignorance and misunderstanding, bad assumptions, and arrogance.

If I have come across as arrogant, I again apologize.

You must have read on this board enough to know that these questions are right out of the apologists' playbook. They are seen by most who have left the Church as largely irrelevant substitutions for the questions that should be asked in this situation, and even as a bit humorous.

Then please help me. What are the questions that should be asked?

Did people in the Church offend me now and then? Absolutely.

I am very sorry for that. And I remember reading, not long after joining this community, how others in the church offended your wife. I am very sorry for that too.

None of the reasons you listed were even factors in why I left the LDS Church.

Fair enough. I can only speaking from my own experience. I didn't begin to doubt the church years back until others offended me deeply. I recall from your story about your wife that it was the same for her. For me, I came to a point where I realized I hadn't seen darkness in every corner of the church until after I had chosen to take offense. And from what little I had learned about psychology, I realized I may be more involved in a cycle of pain avoidance than anything else, and began to question my own questions. And to doubt my own doubts. And to eventually realize that there was enough evidence for good in my neighbors, and in the church, and in the kidness of leaders, and in the Nephite record, that belief is actually a viable intellectual choice.

I left as a matter of personal integrity.

I don't doubt that you're a man of integrity.

Once I grew up,...

Meanwhile, I politely refuse to grow up...Perhaps some day. :0)

...the questions I asked about the LDS Church - the questions that are relevant - led me to the realization that I could no longer, in good conscience, be associated with the LDS Church because.. - The LDS Church continues to lie about its history and its foundational truth claims have been falsified. Yet the Church demands money from members, and those who do not pay in full are barred from full participation in its "sacred" rituals, most of which were simply copied from the Freemasons.

I actually believe Freemasonry is nothing more than a relic of Nephite temple worship in ancient/medieval Europe, transferred to Europe around the time of Hagoth. (Yes, I believe Nephites existed, and still exist. And yes, I believe they may well be among your forefathers - and that you are now likely one of them.) So I believe Joseph restored the Nephite elements.

- The LDS Church has failed to disclose even basic information about the disposition of the revenues it collects from its members, while engaging in profit making commercial enterprises that often benefit Church leaders (who serve on boards) and insiders (who make sweetheart deals involving LDS Church businesses).

If you can't in good conscience give there, I can certainly respect that. I would imagine you give generously where you deem appropriate.

I am no longer associated with the LDS Church because it is an organization built on...a large dose of nepotism...

I choose to believe the church is good based on its fruits. There is goodness and kindness in local leaders and members. I don't care if someone's cousin or brother is serving with someone else, fine. I don't have an issue with that. Aaron served with Moses. Nephi and his brothers served side by side.
I do appreciate your concerns. Thank you for sharing them. I hope I haven't been dismissive of them.