Why the church should open its archives (not what you think)

[_harmony]

That would be a terrible, terrible position to be in to have loved ones treat you poorly based on your religious convictions or lack thereof. Such phenomenon is not limited to those who decide to leave Mormonism. They are nothing special, nothing unique in that regard. It is terrible, but it's not a problem inherent in Mormonism. It's life.

For a believing Mormon, there is nothing scarier than a family member leaving the church. For a Baptist family, it is not as a big a deal. For a strong Catholic, it's almost as bad as a Mormon. For a Jew, it's devastating. For a Muslim, it's grounds for death.

Mormons aren't unique, but they should be, they would be, if they were living their religion. The commandment is: love one another. That's not "love one another if they're doing what you consider to be the right thing". That's love one another, no matter what. And there is precious little love exhibited by Mormons when a family member leaves the church.

It makes me want to stand up in SM and talk about the true spirit of the gospel. Or scream, one or the other.

[_bcspace]

---I don't believe you, BCSpace, and here's why. The church has already changed its doctrinal position on "who the Book of Mormon is about"; but that made no difference to you. It was once doctrine that it was about the blood ancestors of the American Indians. Now it's not anymore. Yet you don't care.

And what change would that be? One of the definitions of 'principle' is 'most important'. Therefore, there was no need for a wording change, but now that it's occured, there is still no conflict with with the original. I see it more of a dumbing down for folks like you.

You didn't care when it said that endowment ceremony contained rituals and oaths which every human being had to receive to get into heaven, but then dropped a full third of them once the results of a member poll came back saying that the ritual suicide enactments (which I went through) freaked members out.

Obviously you're not privileged to be party to esoteric conversation, but I would only ask where is the doctrinal change here? It never ceases to amaze me how quickly those who remove themselves from the Lord's Church forget.

You didn't care when Hinckley denied (lied about) the doctrinal status of eternal progression.

What lie was that? To be sure he bungled a milk before meat issue, but so what? Why should that bother me? I might stumble in front of the media myself if it were me. I totally sympathize with him.

You don't care that the Book of Abraham, whatever else it may be, is NOT what it claims to be.

I don't think that's been proven at all. To be sure there are some difficult questions to answer, but my experience has been that countermos and antiMormons always fall short of their claims.

You don't care about what it means for his credibility, that Smith showed himself to be a very comfortable, talented, aggressive liar on the subject of his sex life.

That's what you'd like to think yes. But it seems to me that you are guilty of presentism here.

You don't care, because your faith isn't what you think it is. It is a psychological state, not a subscription to certain propositions. The "propositions" are mirages; they're just totems which can mutate into whatever shape you need to stay in that state. In themselves, they are meaningless, contentless.

Sounds like you've been tainted by the philosophy of the entertainment world and do I detect a hint of hippie in there somewhere?

And your comment about you walking if it were published in "The Ensign" is baloney, too; the proof is that as late as 2002, "The Ensign" republished the church's official doctrinal position on evolution, and all you did was spontaneously come up with ways to make it mutate in your imagination into something that wouldn't dissolve your psychological state. You even post a link to LDSnews which offers absolutely no "out" for you on this, yet you remain so blind to it that you can't even see that.

As I recall, evolution wasn't correctly described in that article, hence there is still no statement against evolution. One would think you'd be happy that I've found a way for evolution and LDS doctrine to co-exist without mutating anything at all.

If Mormonism were a fraud, BC, how - really - would you know?

The same way anyone else would. But I've had too much experience with exmos like you and other antiMormons to go running off a cliff the instant there is some apparent bad news or a question that can't be immediately answered. If it'll help assuage your hurt feelings, I can honestly say that I believe if the LDS Church isn't true then no church/religion/philosophy is true.

[_bcspace]

I invite you right now to give us just three "doctrines" which haven't been changed at some point throughout the course of Mormon history, or are currently being shifted or backed away from, by Mormon leaders. What are they?

The Godhead? Changed.

Baptism? Changed.

Marriage? Changed.

Blacks? Changed.

Who the Lamanites are? Changed.

Who can give blessings? Changed.

The "plan of salvation"? Changed.

Everything's already changed, Nehor. Why would one more change matter to you?

It wouldn't.

CFR. Especially ones that don't build on previous doctrine or that aren't ones where typcial Christian doctrine was used to fill in where there was no revelation in the first place. Keep in mind that, Biblically, Jesus changed a whole lot of the rules that he himself had given before his advent.

I think you are too caught up in a type of cost/benefit analysis approach rather than a principled approach.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

For a believing Mormon, there is nothing scarier than a family member leaving the church. For a Baptist family, it is not as a big a deal. For a strong Catholic, it's almost as bad as a Mormon. For a Jew, it's devastating. For a Muslim, it's grounds for death.

This is an extremely simplistic view of the situation, harmony. As I stated before, I have family members who have left the Church. There are much, much "scarier" things that they could do. I am a believing Mormon. My other family members are believing Mormons. We all agree there are much scarier possibilities than that some of us may or have left the Church. There are Baptist families who are the exact same way. There are Jewish families who are the same. Muslim grounds for death? Sure, for some, but again, not all. Religion in Muslim countries is a much more politically charged phenomenon than what you'll see with the presbyterian family down the street. The level of ostracism isn't equal in all cases, it's not a mechanical reaction unique to each particular creed. The same type of issues can arise in a family when a person switches political affiliations.

Mormons aren't unique, but they should be, they would be, if they were living their religion. The commandment is: love one another. That's not "love one another if they're doing what you consider to be the right thing". That's love one another, no matter what. And there is precious little love exhibited by Mormons when a family member leaves the church.

I agree that Mormons in general can do better regarding this issue. Some do better than others. Those who leave ought to realize they bear some responsibility as well, and they can make efforts to smooth relationships. It's not as one sided as either side most often presents it.

[_Loquacious Lurker]

Tal Bachman:You don't care about what it means for his credibility, that Smith showed himself to be a very comfortable, talented, aggressive liar on the subject of his sex life.

That's what you'd like to think yes. But it seems to me that you are guilty of presentism here.

Excuse me, what? It used to be "okay" to have sex with people other than your wife and then lie about it? When did that stop?

Presentism? Really? I don't remember polygamy being the norm in the United States, or anywhere in Europe. Therefore, it was unacceptable in Joseph Smith's day, governed by the mores of Western Civilization, no more or less than it is in our own. "Presentism" does not apply when the mores of a bygone era are inextricable from those of this one.

Also, lying used to be okay? I thought God said, "Thou shalt not bear false witness." on Mt. Sinai.

[_Tal Bachman]

No one should take coggins seriously as far as an observer of LDS changes.

---Uh, yeah. You don't see me bothering anymore, do you?

[_Jason Bourne]

The Godhead? Changed.

Perhaps you could be more specific. There are certainly doctrinal developments on this issue. Most Mormon would explain this as line upon line and precept on precept. Some of this I agree with. However there are other issues that I think are substantial and in fact I think this the most important issue as far as Mormonism is concerned. Some of the doctrinal progression here I find troubling.

Baptism? Changed.

How so?

Marriage? Changed.

Yes. A big issue.

Blacks? Changed.

Personally I think this was a mistake based in tradition and prejudice that was perpetuated by the same.

Who the Lamanites are? Changed.

How so?

Who can give blessings? Changed.

I am not clear on this one either. How so?

The "plan of salvation"? Changed.

I don't think so.

[_Tal Bachman]

The Godhead? Changed.
Most Mormon would explain this as line upon line and precept on precept.

---Well of course they would - we were all programmed to think of just that thought-terminating cliché whenever Big Brother changed "the eternal truth", weren't we?

Baptism? Changed.

How so?

---For decades, baptism played a different role in Mormon theology and worship than it does now. An early member could have been baptized half a dozen times or more. Just as one example, consider how many Mormons submitted to re-baptism, as a sign of re-dedication, during the so-called "Mormon Reformation" period. Nowadays, however, the Mormon church does not permit re-baptism except in case where the person's been kicked out of the church.

Blacks? Changed.

Personally I think this was a mistake based in tradition and prejudice that was perpetuated by the same.

---It really doesn't matter what you or I "think" was the root of the problem. The point is that LDS doctrine on blacks changed. And by the way, it was the First Presidency itself which used the word "doctrine" for years.

Who the Lamanites are? Changed.

How so?

---For one thing, they've gone from being "the blood ancestors of the American Indians", to "not necessarily being that" at all.

Who can give blessings? Changed.

I am not clear on this one either. How so?

---The black convert Elijah Abel was given the priesthood by Joseph Smith. Later, those of African descent were prohibited from having the priesthood. Moreover, in the early days, women were allowed to participate in the laying on of hands. This is now discouraged.

The "plan of salvation"? Changed.

I don't think so.

---Well, I've got a little homework assignment for you, then. Why not go research "the plan of salvation" as it existed in Mormon theology in May, 1830? And then we'll compare it to the story as it exists now.

Of course it's changed. Everything's changed but the authoritarianism. Mormonism didn't officially even have a tri-partite Godhead doctrine until "The Lectures on Faith" were magically de-canonized almost a century after Smith started his religion.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

It seems in Tal's view any true God would appear to a prophet (and perhaps to everyone in general?) and give said prophet a box of "all true knowledge." This box would contain a full, complete theology of truth applicable in all times and places, in all cultures and situations. This theology would be a Cartesian system with no possibility of dismantling; any sane thinker would be compelled by reason itself to acknowledge the truth of this theology. Any deviations from what is found in this box represent falsehood.

I don't subscribe to that.

[_RockHeaded]

No one should take coggins seriously as far as an observer of LDS changes.

---Uh, yeah. You don't see me bothering anymore, do you?

Actually Coggins made some good points, you didn't bother because you had nothing to counter with.



I too would like to see the Utah Mormon archives opened to the public. I am tired of them changing the history. They will NEVER open their archives because if they did their house of cards would fall apart. They know this and it would be stupid of them to do it. Just like the Anti Mormons who deal in half truths to persuade people to their way of thinking the Utah Church knows if their members knew the whole story their membership would dwendle.

Christianity is about following Christ and being honest with one another (and other stuff :) ). If people have to be decieved in order to follow any belief then there is deffinately something wrong with it.


Okay this is my first post here but I did recognize some of you. It's nice to be among friends again. :)


RockHeaded

P.S. has anyone seen Shirts? I think I ran him off when I first moved to Idaho Falls :(