BartBurk wrote: The critics could only make hay out of it if there were something remiss. I'm sure your local parish and diocese make their books public, why shouldn't the Mormon Church do the same?
The LDS critics are hardly ever happy. They moan and groan about everything. When Rough Stone Rolling was published they moaned and groaned about what was left out and what should have been written. No happiness at all about that book from the critics. It would be the same with the books. More moaning and groaning. Critics are experts in telling the LDS church what it should do and not do.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
why me wrote:The LDS critics are hardly ever happy. They moan and groan about everything. When Rough Stone Rolling was published they moaned and groaned about what was left out and what should have been written. No happiness at all about that book from the critics. It would be the same with the books. More moaning and groaning. Critics are experts in telling the LDS church what it should do and not do.
So, why me, I keep reading your defenses of the LDS Church, and yet you seem to be Catholic based on a number of other comments. What gives? Why in the world do you care what LDS critics do or do not do? Why aren't you defending Catholocism on some Catholic board?
This is not to say that I don't like seeing you participate here, because I do. I'm just a little confused about you and your story.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
BartBurk wrote:I left the LDS Church mainly because the LDS Church essentially mandated belief in the white-washed history of Mormonism. I'm not suggesting the LDS have to spill all of the beans about their history mainly because the beans have been spilled in so many places. They just need to quit demanding that people believe it. .
Thanks Bart. Now I want to ask you a question. What would you change about the catholic mass? I am interested to know your opinion. Surely something can be changed.
The Catholic mass is beautiful. In 50 minutes they can do more for me spiritually than the LDS Church can do in three hours. And of course I have the body and blood of Christ available instead of just bread and water!
My family is all still Mormon. I have an interest in seeing their lot improved since they'll probably never leave.
Sethbag wrote:Bart, all of this talk about what the church "should" do sounds like you think the church is still true or something, and it's just "not doing it right".
I didn't leave the church because it's not doing it right, I've left (at least mentally checked out, and by and large stopped attending) because it's not true, and never was.
Let's suppose the church acted like you say, and made the changes you want made, made temple attendance possible without interviews, with no tithing requirement, church services were changed in the ways you recommend, etc.
Would that make Joseph Smith have actually seen and talked to, and been empowered by the Creator of the Universe, instead of having merely claimed to be as an imposter?
That's the thing. In these forums I read a lot of disgruntled former members who go on about all the changes the church ought to make, and the problem is, none of that bears at all on whether the church is actually true or not.
Personally, I think the church should go right on hating gays, boring people on Sundays, extracting their 10% from people who can ill afford to pay, teaching silliness like the global flood, no death till the Fall, Book of Abraham as authentic ancient text, Word of Wisdom absurdity like no green tea but all the donuts you want, treating women like 2nd class citizens, and in many other ways acting every bit the stagnant, manmade organization that it is and always has been. It just makes it that much easier for people to see it for what it really is, to the extent that some within the church manage to pull it off. For those outside the church, its true nature could not be any more obvious. And that's a good thing, IMHO.
WhyMe Thanks Bart. Now I want to ask you a question. What would you change about the catholic mass? I am interested to know your opinion. Surely something can be changed.
Sadly WhyMe, you do not know anything about Catholic mass, or any ancient Christian Mass. They do not change on a whim like LDS Temple ceremony. Catholic, Greek, Armenian, Russian Mass did not change for a while, say, few hundred years. How often Temple Ceremony was changed since I attended in 1976?
why me wrote:The LDS critics are hardly ever happy. They moan and groan about everything. When Rough Stone Rolling was published they moaned and groaned about what was left out and what should have been written. No happiness at all about that book from the critics. It would be the same with the books. More moaning and groaning. Critics are experts in telling the LDS church what it should do and not do.
So, why me, I keep reading your defenses of the LDS Church, and yet you seem to be Catholic based on a number of other comments. What gives? Why in the world do you care what LDS critics do or do not do? Why aren't you defending Catholocism on some Catholic board?
This is not to say that I don't like seeing you participate here, because I do. I'm just a little confused about you and your story.
I was born catholic but converted to the LDS church as a late teen after receiving a powerful witness to the Book of Mormon. Now I can go to mass or attend the LDS service. I am not a dogmatic person and tend to keep my eyes and heart open. However I do give people like Bart a hard time on the catholic board because they tend to claim with authority that the LDS church is false. But the LDS church has not been proven false. Likewise for this board with the former Mormons. I don't mind at all if people leave the LDS faith like Bart as long as they don't rag on the LDS faith.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
BartBurk wrote: The Catholic mass is beautiful. In 50 minutes they can do more for me spiritually than the LDS Church can do in three hours. And of course I have the body and blood of Christ available instead of just bread and water!
everything can be looked at critically if a person desires to do so. The LDS service depends on the people involved. The catholic mass can depend on the priest involved. But the catholic mass can of course be changed as it was after vatican II. Very few people in the 1950's envisioned a change in the Mass. And the change was radical when it happened. And throughout the seventies, more changes were in order: the folk mass for one. I still remember as a boy listening to christian folk music during the mass. But that mass died out.
So you would change nothing now. I think that the standing and kneeling can create a problem for the elderly people. Of course they don't have to do it but...it can be a problem.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Morrissey wrote: Since my wife continues to pay tithing and fast offerings out of our joint income pool, I have a legitimate expectation for LDS Inc. to divulge what it does with the money it receives in tithes and other offerings.
The same as our case. That is not her money. It is our.
This is worth of a separate thread.
I know of nothing poorer Under the sun, than you, you Gods! ... Should I honour you? Why?
why me wrote: I don't mind at all if people leave the LDS faith like Bart as long as they don't rag on the LDS faith.
I still don't think you understand the difference between "rag" and valid criticism. I think you eschew both, and put them in the same basket.
But in the terms of Mormons like whyme any criticism we have of Mormonism after we've left is invalid. Of course you can't criticize the LDS while you remain LDS without opening yourself up to excommunication on charges of apostasy. The bottom line is you can never criticize the LDS without being out of line ...
And that is what people like Michael Ash don't get. There is no space for valid criticism of the LDS Church within Mormonism. They don't want the true history of their church to be aired at all. And so when people find out about the real history they don't have any good outlet for their questions. They claim that some things that are true aren't useful so don't talk about those things. I can understand they wouldn't want people to encourage morally sinful behavior, but the unwillingness to explore the difficulties within their own religion is an attempt to stifle the search for truth.
