Why I Left / Breaking the News

[_Jason Bourne]

You are a disgrace to your Church Jason

Hhahhhahahaaaahahhaaaa!!! Me? Wow. If you really believe what you claim you sure do not show it online. Hhhhahahahahahaaaa!!!

(how do you like coming back in your direction?)

Gee, what prompted my comments to you about being a pompous ass? See what you wrote to me under no instigation on my part?

You're neurotic fixation on the LoF is becoming a real drag. Its old, its tired, its threadbear, and its just another one of your own rice paper thin pretexts for your unique kind of cafateria Mormonism

Well here is the deal coggy old boy, I may have some issues with some doctrine issues as well as the way the Church deals with its history. But I bet I live the gospel as well if not better than you do. I think you are the cafeteria Mormon here dude. It does not seem you really exemplify many of the teachings of the master you claim to worship, at least here.

Try to enjoy the daylight.

Kiss off

[_Droopy]

I'm not sure which part of the above you are in agreement with however, polytheism in NO WAY requires worship of multiple gods.

Show me a single polytheistic religion in antiquity which multiple gods were not worshiped. Then point me to a single polytheistic religion of antiquity in which worship of multiple godswas not a clear option.

The LDS concept of plural gods is not polytheistic in any accepted sense. But then again, the pre-exilic Jews were not monotheistic, nor were the First Century Christians before the Church was Hellenized.

So perhaps we're all polytheists now.

[_Jason Bourne]

Nah. BY really thought Adam was God. Can't slide by this one.

You have no idea what he really meant.

Yes I do. Once again words have meanings and he left plenty about this. And we have journal entries from LDS members who understood what he meant as well.

The various statements are confusing in the extreme, and may involve different characters sharing similar name titles and functions at different times.

A disingenuous apologetic ploy. But I know many apologists who will admit BY taught this. Their argument is it was his own view and never became doctrine.

Very frankly Jason, I think a really deep theological and philosophical discussion about this would be too far over your head and too injurious to your personal agenda of doubt regarding the Church and some of its fundamental doctrines to be anything but an exercise in futility.

I totally understand this despite your attempt to demean me. I have no agenda accept for truth. I wonder what your agenda is.

You won't listen to reasoned arguments any more than Dartagnon will.

When you present one I will consider it.

Everyone who disagrees with you is stupid,

Wow. Can you say pot and kettle?

pompous asses,

No just people who act like you do. And that comes out only when you put on your nastiness first.

disgraces to the Church,

I think the way you behave with posters here most of the time is disgraceful.

and don't make enough nice in the face of your quasi-exmo subversion of faith and testimony of others to assuage you holy moral wrath.

Whatever. But once again you attack with viciousness. I talk to nobody in real life that is LDS abou these things. Nobody. The only ones that know about some of my concerns are my bishop, my SP and my wife. Oh I do have one very good friend who I have talked to lightly about this. His love and compassion has been a great help to me.

No wonder you defend Harmony so vigorously.

See you just cannot help yourself. The only time I defend Harmony is when she is unjustly attacked. I also debate with her when needed. But what the hey man. What does she have to do with this thread;. Stick to the point man.

[_Droopy]

Hhahhhahahaaaahahhaaaa!!! Me? Wow. If you really believe what you claim you sure do not show it online. Hhhhahahahahahaaaa!!!

Neither do you you hypocritical little dissimulating Trap Door Spider. Like your babe in arms Harmony, if the members of your Ward and your leaders knew what you said here, and how you behaved, and what your really thought about central Gospel subjects...well...

Well here is the deal coggy old boy, I may have some issues with some doctrine issues as well as the way the Church deals with its history. But I bet I live the gospel as well if not better than you do. I think you are the cafeteria Mormon here dude. It does not seem you really exemplify many of the teachings of the master you claim to worship, at least here.

Self righteous spiritual self aggrandizement. Yes, the sign of a true Saint. Go back to your magic mirror and continue with your mental self abuse...

Kiss off

Did you used to post at ZLMB?

[_Jason Bourne]

Neither do you you hypocritical little dissimulating Trap Door Spider. Like your babe in arms Harmony, if the members of your Ward and your leaders knew what you said here, and how you behaved, and what your really thought about central Gospel subjects...well...

You are really slipping man. Well I am not going to degenerate to your level any further. As for my leaders, there are no issues that I have discussed here that I have not discussed with them. Not one.

Self righteous spiritual self aggrandizement. Yes, the sign of a true Saint. Go back to your magic mirror and continue with your mental self abuse..

.

Do feel better now? Just so you know I forgive you for your meanness.

I apologize for mine. I should not let you get under my skin. I will try to do better. Please forgive me.

Did you used to post at ZLMB?

I asked you before...what is ZLMB?

[_Droopy]

A disingenuous apologetic ploy. But I know many apologists who will admit BY taught this. Their argument is it was his own view and never became doctrine.

I don't beleive, any more, that BY actaully belived it, the reason for this being:

1. The beliefs completely contradict a plethora of central Church doctrines, which BY understood perfectly well. Hence, the idea is illogical and anti-rational.

2. BY, on many other occasions, taught the accepted view of the separate and distinct personages of the Father, Jesus, and Adam, and Adam's place in Priesthood hierarchy as well as his position as progenitor of the human family in mortality.

3. It is quite possible that the terms "Adam", "God", and "Father" were used interchangeably by BY to designate offices or name titles held by these different personages officiating in different Priesthood callings at different times. Adam, in many ancient New Testament apocryphal texts and Jewish Pseudopigrapha, is indeed a god or godlike figure, either in the preexistence or following the final judgement and culmination of mortal life. Micheal, associated with Adam by modern revelation, is also portrayed as a godlike figure of great power and authority.

What prevents God the Father, from being an Adam, or Adam from being a god in the preexistence?

That's right, nothing. I suspect that what happened to this teaching si that BY knew more than he could teach, taught parts of it at different times in different contexts, and left the entire thing a confusing mess.

He may have also mixed up some of the concepts and confused them. He may be at fault for some of the confusion. Well, OK. I'm just no longer sure he believed and taught things he completely contradicted in his public sermons and must have known were in complete logical contradiction to settled Gospel doctrine.

Whatever the explanation, I tend to reject the one that makes BY an idiot or a lunatic who couldn't keep simple logical consistencies between rudimentary Gospel doctrines in order.

I doubt this matters much to you, as you are on a dedicated hunt to ferret out and amplify each and every historical and doctrinal problem or apparent inconsistency you can find, the purpose of which one can only guess, but the tender buttons that get pushed when I, or bc, or anyone else calls you on it are evidence that the issues run deep.

[_Jason Bourne]

I don't beleive, any more, that BY actaully belived it, the reason for this being:

1. The beliefs completely contradict a plethora of central Church doctrines, which BY understood perfectly well. Hence, the idea is illogical and anti-rational.

Yes I understand this. But keep in mind this was time of a lot of radical teachings in the Church. Doctrine was developing and changing over time. Many things that were taught and said then we have left behind.

2. BY, on many other occasions, taught the accepted view of the separate and distinct personages of the Father, Jesus, and Adam, and Adam's place in Priesthood hierarchy as well as his position as progenitor of the human family in mortality.

I

understand this as well.

3. It is quite possible that the terms "Adam", "God", and "Father" were used interchangeably by BY to designate offices or name titles held by these different personages officiating in different Priesthood callings at different times. Adam, in many ancient New Testament apocryphal texts and Jewish Pseudopigrapha, is indeed a god or godlike figure, either in the preexistence or following the final judgement and culmination of mortal life. Micheal, associated with Adam by modern revelation, is also portrayed as a godlike figure of great power and authority.

I have studies this issue as well as the two adam theory and it does not work in my opinion.

What prevents God the Father, from being an Adam, or Adam from being a god in the preexistence?

I think this is the point BY was making. Adam was a God in the prexistence, he had spirit children, created this earth,came to it to provide bodies for his spirit children and so on. Given the doctrine of becoming Gods, having spirit children of our own and peopling a world with them this idea actaully make a lot of sense in the LDS scheme of things.

That's right, nothing. I suspect that what happened to this teaching si that BY knew more than he could teach, taught parts of it at different times in different contexts, and left the entire thing a confusing mess.

Well the major problem that I have it is seems the prophet ought to know who and what God is and be fairly clear about it.

He may have also mixed up some of the concepts and confused them. He may be at fault for some of the confusion. Well, OK. I'm just no longer sure he believed and taught things he completely contradicted in his public sermons and must have known were in complete logical contradiction to settled Gospel doctrine.

But don't you see the problem with a prophet, the man we believe really does speak for God, creating so much confusion. One point the EV critics make abou this is that this can cause a person to worship a false God which will send them to hell. Now I do not really buy that argument but I understand the point of view.

I doubt this matters much to you, as you are on a dedicated hunt to ferret out and amplify each and every historical and doctrinal problem or apparent inconsistency you can find, the purpose of which one can only guess, but the tender buttons that get pushed when I, or bc, or anyone else calls you on it are evidence that the issues run deep.

See now, why did you have to add this. You were doing quite well. A nice well thought out post. But then the personal attack. Do I threaten you? What is that causes you such contempt for me. The only time I get rude is when you are first. Really. I think most who see our interchanges will agree.

But I am done with returning it to you. Really, I am sorry I cause you so much consternation. I am sorry I create such a bitter almost hatred of me. I hope you can forgive me. But here is the deal.

There is nobody more troubled over the questions I have and where I am at than me. The sorrow and tears and prayers for direction and help as things have developed in my life you cannot imagine. I have tried to find good answer. I am sad that so many ring hollow now. I am sorry that yours are not convincing me. I really do want good answers. The fact that right now many of the responses to difficult issues do not work is not that I am looking for any reason to not believe. They just, honestly, seem to lack. Believe me, I would almost give anything to be where I used to be. So that is it. See me as you wish. God knows my heart and he is who I have to answer to, not you. Continue to attack personally if you wish. I may point it out but I will really try hard to resist responding in like kind.

[_Jason Bourne]

by the way Droopy

Did you not notice I was taking the same position as you on the polytheism position, and the history if Israel and development of Monotheism. See we do agree at times. :-)

[_Yoda]

what is ZLMB?

It is the message board that was the precursor to MAD, and later, Shady Acres. I didn't post there, but Shades, Beastie, Jersey Girl, Harmony, DCP, Bob Crockett, and several others here posted there. Beastie was a Mod on Z for a while.

If Cog is asking if you posted there, I'm assuming he probably posted there as well.

[_Roger Morrison]

Please excuse my intrusion Bros. I've more or les followed this page down, and was going to thank you both for the amusement and chuckles i enjoyed. Then I read Jason's last post. And i apologize for taking your dialogue so lightly. Jason wrote:

There is nobody more troubled over the questions I have and where I am at than me. The sorrow and tears and prayers for direction and help as things have developed in my life you cannot imagine. I have tried to find good answer. I am sad that so many ring hollow now. I am sorry that yours are not convincing me. I really do want good answers. The fact that right now many of the responses to difficult issues do not work is not that I am looking for any reason to not believe. They just, honestly, seem to lack. Believe me, I would almost give anything to be where I used to be. So that is it. See me as you wish. God knows my heart and he is who I have to answer to, not you. Continue to attack personally if you wish. I may point it out but I will really try hard to resist responding in like kind.

I do respect you both, although i feel more distant from Coggins. Jason i can empathize with your heartfelt consternation, and respectfully suggest, "there is no going back," generally speaking, from personal-discovery.

Jason, more than "...answering to "God"..." IMSCO it is essential that you answer, honestly to yourself. Responsibility requires it. While we can be encouraged by information/knowledge to evaluate our thoughts and actions we/I the person(s) that changes gears from the neutral-information into drive there is no bennefit received by us, or our dependents who ever they might be.

I think it is the "God" premise we have inherrited that brings the most confussion into many minds. Having grown up steeped with belief in an imagined "God", it is very difficult to set that teaching aside. Some can, and do. Others can't and don't. I could, and did.

Now, strange as it might seem to some, I have a greater appreciation of creation than I did as a 'creationist'. I know there is no magic; there is no favouritism; there are no exceptions to natural laws, until intelligence discovers a counter-law, so-to-speak. I think Paul alludes to that, "...when i was a child, i thought as a child...when i became a man, i put away childish things...now we see poorly through the glass, in time we will see clearly."

When i raised my hand, on April 5th, as not sustaining LDS leaders as Prophets, Seers and Revelators, it was done for no other reason than to bring to mind the absurdity of that terminology. "God", Science, Truth, Understanding, Knowledge, Inspiration comes to anyone who exercises their intelligence.

For anyone, or any institution to profess a direct, personal exclusive link to "God", in this day, and age cannot be taken seriously. Jesus alluded to the simple evolutionary process, "...ask...seek...knock...find..." No elitism, no exclusivity. One doesn't even have to believe in "God" as I understand things. Just plant the seed and harvest.

Last point, and i think this might be the biggie: Family, and social enjoyment seem a great hurdle that many can't take in stride... Warm regards, Roger