Arguments against the LDS Church

[_Runtu]

For me, the one issue that resulted in my loss of faith remains the biggest issue against the church, in my opinion. It's already on your list - it's the failure of personal revelation, and revelation in general. Come on, man, that's the whole reason the restoration was supposedly needed, and what sets it apart.... and the apologists themselves prove, time after time, that it just doesn't work reliably.

No one should take Juliann's blather seriously. The idea that the only thing critics have to say about the church is that Joseph Smith was "bad" and that the church is "bad" is a figment of her own wishful thinking.

No, I don't take it seriously any longer. And you're right about two things:

1. The apologists prove that LDS prophets are no more inclined to reveal God's will than anyone else.

2. The realization that your "personal revelation" can testify to demonstrable falsehood is devastating.

[_beastie]

Even my believing family can't stand the fact that the church spends millions upon millions on things like the Joseph Smith building (isn't it basically a hotel for the elite?) while expecting its poorest members to tithe AND to find money to build their own buildings.

[_Runtu]

Even my believing family can't stand the fact that the church spends millions upon millions on things like the Joseph Smith building (isn't it basically a hotel for the elite?) while expecting its poorest members to tithe AND to find money to build their own buildings.

No, the Joseph Smith building is just an office building with a really nice lobby (and that's because the lobby is on the historical register). I worked on that building, and there had been some debate about what to do with it. I am convinced the church would have preferred to knock it down, but there was pressure from preservationists to restore it.

[_beastie]

No, the Joseph Smith building is just an office building with a really nice lobby (and that's because the lobby is on the historical register). I worked on that building, and there had been some debate about what to do with it. I am convinced the church would have preferred to knock it down, but there was pressure from preservationists to restore it.

Maybe I'm misremembering what my family was irritated about. Did the church build some fancy hotel?

Oh, and back to the list - this might already be implied on some of the points, but I want to emphasize that the church, despite its emphasis on the family, actually can be quite destructive to that same family. It seems to encourage hasty, youthful marriages, and then put additional stress on those same families by requiring so much time spent on callings, away from families, having lots of kids fast, paying tithing, and intruding in the bedroom.

[_Fortigurn]

Teaching kids to sing "Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, don't go astray. Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, he knows the way."

That's the most unfortunate Mormon song I've heard about since I read 'If you could hie to Kolob'.

[_Jersey Girl]

To me, apologetics is the art of making excuses. And you seem to have heard the same ones I have, for some odd reason.

And then, what really grates on my nerves, is when the TBM says - 'oh, that's been dealt with'. When in fact, then only thing that has happened is a 'plausible' alternative has been given.

Sorry, just starting to read the replies here. If "that's" been "dealt with" then somebody please tell me why LDS Apologists continue to manufacture theory after theory regarding:

Book of Mormon Geography (Curmorah's in NY, no wait, maybe not)
Joseph Smith method of translation of Book of Mormon
Book of Abraham Papyri (Now we have it, now we don't!)
Book of Abraham symbolism
Book of Abraham translation (He said he could translate it , now he's seeing it with his spiritual eyes)
Why Joseph Smith couldn't translate the KH Plates (because they were fake..really? is that what Joseph Smith said?)
Blacks prevented from holding the Priesthood
Joseph Smith freaking polygamy
Speaking as a man, not a prophet (how do they know which is which, when to follow or not?)

Okay, sorry..I will try to contain the rant. Just don't hold me to it.

Jersey Girl

[_hermanuno]

Beastie basically covered one of mine. The "families are forever" and the emphasis on families while in reality adults don't have time for families unless they learn to say no to church callings.

The thought that God would let millions of people twist in the wind for about 2000 years until the time was right for a 14 year old boy to ask which church is right. SHAAZAAAAM! Millions have been left suffereing and living pointless lives but now God, no it was Jesus! No it was the HG. NO wait! Maybe it was Moroni! No, it was God. No the Godhead! ......anyway, God appears to 14 yo Joe and gives the world priesthood back!

12 year old boys get priesthood. Then, you advance because of age. Not ability, knowledge, accomplishment but by age.

Strange adult men asking 13 yo boys about spanking their monkey.

God testing everyone by giving them a sex drive but then convincing everyone sex is dirty unless doing it for procreation.

Polygamy is God's plan. Not anymore!

All black people are punished by God because of the actions of one man.

Contradictory teachings of prophets.

[_Runtu]

The real issue for me is that many Mormons believe that there are simply no legitimate arguments against the church's veracity. We see this in charity's and Juliann's sneering about there being only 2 issues and also in bcspace's statement that the only "evidence" against the church comes from lazy research.

I think this dismissive attitude probably does the church more harm than good because it discourages engaging the evidence and makes the struggling member rightly feel that his or her concerns are not being addressed.

[_Sethbag]

Runtu, but don't you see, that all evidence against the Church is in fact from lazy research? It must be, because in order to see this evidence as supporting the church instead, you must really work at it, and apparently people too lazy to work on it like that will see it as against the church. ;-)

[_Runtu]

Runtu, but don't you see, that all evidence against the Church is in fact from lazy research? It must be, because in order to see this evidence as supporting the church instead, you must really work at it, and apparently people too lazy to work on it like that will see it as against the church. ;-)

I had that same thought. It's sort of a reverse Occam's Razor, isn't it? If it requires more mental exertion to support, it must be true. Or something like that.