Former Oklahoma City Temple President Apostatized

[_Seven]

3. How does one maintain integrity/honesty while continuing membership in a church without sharing with their children that they have lost faith in the integrity of the church, knowing that their children will likely make marital unions with other church member, thus involving themselves further in a religious community that may not function based on integrity?

Most of my children are too young to understand, but I have shared some of it with my oldest child. It’s been a great opportunity to teach my children that the world is much bigger than the Mormon church and that all the different beliefs on God or religions can be the vehicle that lead us to the same place if we are striving for it. It doesn’t matter what car we drive or path we take as long as it doesn’t harm us or another. What works for one person, may not be the right vehicle or path for another.

The marriage question has been a difficult one. Part of me wants my children to marry in the faith, because there’s a sense of safety in it. I am still a Christian, and I love the focus on family values in the church. My husband is a great man, and has never exhibited the prejudice and sexism I’ve experienced from the TBM family he was raised in. Maybe there is hope they could find an open minded person like him among the faithful LDS.

But part of me knows it’s very unlikely they will even want to marry in the temple if I am not a serious believer in the Mormon faith. Having parents with opposing views on the same issues will make it tough for them to develop the testimony needed to serve a mission or marry a TBM.

Like most of us, I would prefer my children to develop the same beliefs I have. But, if they gain a testimony and end up embracing Mormonism as my spouse does, I will respect and support their beliefs just as I do his. One thing is for certain though…none of them will be Chapel Mormons or the narrow minded TBMs who make up the majority of LDS today.

[_Seven]

4. How does one maintain integrity/honesty while continuing membership in a church without sharing with their children that they have lost faith in the integrity of the church, knowing that their children will likely go on missions and draw in other converts to that which lacks integrity?

It will be interesting to see how the church transforms over the next 100 years. I believe as more disillusioned members stay in the church, there will be more of a focus on Jesus Christ and His principles, and less on Joseph Smith/follow the Prophet/continuing revelation/true church. There will be more openness and discussion on history and doctrines members have never dared to question. LDS do not respect the views of any person who has left the faith and will never believe anything negative on the church if it comes from that source. But New Order Mormons are in a better position to educate Chapel Mormons.

I view New Order Mormons as the” rebel alliance.” The seed they raise will change the church.

[_Jason Bourne]

It depends. If they ignorantly swipe at Christianity to make themselves feel better about their house-of-cards religion then, yes, I have a problem with them. I also have a problem with people who believe vapid Spong has anything worthwhile to say.

CC has problems with a lot of things. And he has a history of vapid nasty posts that take non substantive swipes at things LDS as well as any other view that is not his.

But here is the deal CC. As I have found thing less than what I once thought they were for my LDS faith, tradition and heritage rather than throw the baby out with the bath water I have been examining Christianity with the same critical eye that has led me to modify my views about the LDS Church. And while I am sure I do not know as much about Christianity as you I have studied a fair amount and unfortunately find there are issues there as well that seem difficult to resolve. My quest however is far from complete. So I maintain my faith in Jesus Christ and feel that currently at least I can express that as well by remaining LDS as I can anywhere else.

I am a non-trinitarian, old earth Christian.

I am intrigued. Where can I find out more about this.

[_Calculus Crusader]

CC has problems with a lot of things. And he has a history of vapid nasty posts that take non substantive swipes at things LDS as well as any other view that is not his.

To the contrary, I usually provide citations for my criticisms of Smith's religion. For example, the criticisms of Smith I posted in this thread with attendant citations are certainly legitimate. Jedediah Grant was a confidant of Joseph Smith and "Egyptus" is a) Greek b) refers to the Nile, not "forbidden" and c) when used as a proper name refers to a male, not a female.

I am a non-trinitarian, old earth Christian.

I am intrigued. Where can I find out more about this.

Mark Mattison's "Jesus & The Trinity" is a good start (for the various forms of non-trinitarianism).

[_Calculus Crusader]

I am aware of Smith's problems. You don't see me defending much of what he did. I am simply pointing out your myth is no better than anyone Else's. Deal with it.

Please. Jesus is a historical figure. Lehi, Nephi, Laban, Abinadi, Mormon, Moroni, Mahonri Moriancumer, Shiz, Zelph the White Lamanite, the woman "Egyptus, daughter of Ham," etc. are not. Moreover, even if Jesus Christ were mistaken, he did not claim the wives of other men as his own; Joe did. Jesus Christ did not bilk dupes out of their money by pretending to find buried treasure; Joe did. Jesus did not claim to have a set of "golden plates" that he kept out of sight in a chest; Joe did. Jesus did not engage in polygyny while at the same time publishing official proclamations disowning it; Joe did. Jesus did not manipulate women into sleeping with him by claiming it was the will of "God;" Joe did. Jesus did not refer to one of his female disciples as a "whore from her mother's breast;" Joe did. The list goes on and on.

Mormonism is patently fraudulent; Christianity is not.

[_harmony]

Please. Jesus is a historical figure.

This is a hope, not a fact. While there may be some evidence that a man named Jesus existed during the appropriate timeframe in the appropriate place, there is nothing that proves he was the Son of God.

[_Jason Bourne]

With regards to what Jason said about maintaining integrity/honesty while staying a member of the church, here goes...

1. How does one maintain integrity/honesty while continuing membership in a church when they have lost faith in the integrity of the church?

2. How does one maintain integrity/honesty while continuing membership in a church without sharing with their family (spouse/children) that they have lost faith in the integrity of the church?

3. How does one maintain integrity/honesty while continuing membership in a church without sharing with their children that they have lost faith in the integrity of the church, knowing that their children will likely make marital unions with other church member, thus involving themselves further in a religious community that may not function based on integrity?

4. How does one maintain integrity/honesty while continuing membership in a church without sharing with their children that they have lost faith in the integrity of the church, knowing that their children will likely go on missions and draw in other converts to that which lacks integrity?


5. How does one maintain integrity/honesty while not being fully honest with spouse and children?

I will try to answer in more detail tomorrow. But simply put, I do not think the LDS Church is any more or less true than any other religious system. There is no one true faith or one totally fraudulent. I believe in God and believe he allows a number of various expressions of faith and religion because one form does not fit all the diversity we have among humans. I overall think the LDS Church is a force for good. I like religion, want it in my life and my families life. The LDS Church meets that desire for me.

[_Jason Bourne]

Please. Jesus is a historical figure.

Barely and even then the evidence is scant. And there is certainly no historic evidence of what Christianity claims for him outside the Bible.

Lehi, Nephi, Laban, Abinadi, Mormon, Moroni, Mahonri Moriancumer, Shiz, Zelph the White Lamanite, the woman "Egyptus, daughter of Ham," etc. are not.

Most likely. Am I arguing they are?

Moreover, even if Jesus Christ were mistaken, he did not claim the wives of other men as his own;

Well we certianly don't really have much detail about what Jesus did and did not do outside the Bible now do we. Perhaps if he lived a mere 170 years ago we would have a better idea and he would not get off so easy. 2000 years that happened when record keeping was difficult and almost non existent did can sure hide a lot of potential unsavory stuff.

Joe did.

Maybe Joe really believed God wanted this practice restored. It does after all have a biblical precedence. Your Bible even though you cherry pick what you want out of it.

Jesus Christ did not bilk dupes out of their money by pretending to find buried treasure;

Who knows?

Joe did. Jesus did not claim to have a set of "golden plates" that he kept out of sight in a chest; Joe did. Jesus did not engage in polygyny while at the same time publishing official proclamations disowning it; Joe did. Jesus did not manipulate women into sleeping with him by claiming it was the will of "God;" Joe did. Jesus did not refer to one of his female disciples as a "whore from her mother's breast;" Joe did. The list goes on and on.

Joseph did do a lot of unsavory things. What Jesus did is tough to say. You make an argument from the lack of historical evidence. That is fairly safe and cozy for you.

Mormonism is patently fraudulent; Christianity is not.

Hell man it looks like you reject most of what Christianity is today. And by the way, Christianity could be patently fraudulent. All we know really outside the Bible is Jesus was an itinerant preacher in a land and religion the spawned lots of those. And he was put to death by the Romans, we think.

Other than that for all you know his followers may have created a total fraud and perpetrated it on the world. Paul may have as well. Perhaps he used his form of Christianity to make his living. You just don't really know this.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Please. Jesus is a historical figure.

Barely and even then the evidence is scant. And there is certainly no historic evidence of what Christianity claims for him outside the Bible.

No, the evidence is good. The New Testament, Josephus, and Tacitus are more than sufficient to establish the existence of Jesus. (And those aren't the only sources.)

Lehi, Nephi, Laban, Abinadi, Mormon, Moroni, Mahonri Moriancumer, Shiz, Zelph the White Lamanite, the woman "Egyptus, daughter of Ham," etc. are not.

Most likely. Am I arguing they are?

Their non-existence belies your cranky claims concerning Christianity vs. Mormonism, sorry.

Moreover, even if Jesus Christ were mistaken, he did not claim the wives of other men as his own;

Well we certianly don't really have much detail about what Jesus did and did not do outside the Bible now do we. Perhaps if he lived a mere 170 years ago we would have a better idea and he would not get off so easy. 2000 years that happened when record keeping was difficult and almost non existent did can sure hide a lot of potential unsavory stuff.

The record keeping was just fine and whether you believe Jesus was the Son of God or not, the New Testament is sufficient to establish his character, your desperation to excuse the founder of your patently fraudulent religion notwithstanding.

Maybe Joe really believed God wanted this practice restored. It does after all have a biblical precedence. Your Bible even though you cherry pick what you want out of it.

Jesus Christ made it clear that marriage is between one man and one woman. If I were a practitioner of Judaism, then you might have a point but I'm not and you don't

Jesus Christ did not bilk dupes out of their money by pretending to find buried treasure;

Who knows?

The people who read the relevant sources. If Jesus were a grafter, then that surely would have appeared among the arguments of the critics of Christianity.

Joseph did do a lot of unsavory things. What Jesus did is tough to say. You make an argument from the lack of historical evidence. That is fairly safe and cozy for you.

I know it makes you grumpy that you can't equate your patently fraudulent religion with Christianity, despite your vain efforts to the contrary.

All we know really outside the Bible is Jesus was an itinerant preacher in a land and religion the spawned lots of those. And he was put to death by the Romans, we think.

We know.

Other than that for all you know his followers may have created a total fraud and perpetrated it on the world. Paul may have as well. Perhaps he used his form of Christianity to make his living. You just don't really know this.

I know from the documents and what's probable.

[_harmony]

No, the evidence is good. The New Testament, Josephus, and Tacitus are more than sufficient to establish the existence of Jesus. (And those aren't the only sources.)

The existence of a man named Jesus, yes, maybe. That he was the son of God is another thing altogether. That he died and rose from the dead is another thing altogether again.