The greater fraud?

[_kairos]

Chapel Mormons are like Stepford wives, so mind controlled they lack even a desire to hear or seek truth because they believe they have it and refuse to consider anything that would create doubt or cognitive dissonance. They are led in their faith to simply trust leaders and feelings and lead a good, worthy ,righteous life as best they can and all will be well. They can be relatively happy if they stay in the "village". They really do not know they are being fed a fraud and that is sad. Only if they see or hear or read something and pursue investigation to chk it out is their a possibility of them discovering the truth about Mo'ism. Stepford /chapel Mormons' world are often shattered when their spouses discover the fraud and pursue getting out of the church, going inactive, becoming a closet apostate etc.

The internet Mormons know of the fraud and do anything to keep from having their beliefs shattered-they are angry, in denial, and will pour it on those "anti-mormons" in terms of any kind of "attack" that will keep the wolf of truth from coming through the door and devouring their belief system.

[_bcspace]

The fraud is found in the fact that there is no such dichotomy.

[_beefcalf]

bcspace:

Let me go over this real quick-like

1) people who are not Mormons
2) people who are Mormons

A) people who do not know about the problems in LDS doctrine/history
B) people who do know about the problems in LDS doctrine/history

1+A = most people on the planet.
1+B = most critics on this board. You may call them anti-Mormon, I would say pro-Truth

2+A = __________________
2+B = __________________

If I understand his theory correctly, Shades has given the label 'Chapel Mormons' to 2+A, and the label 'Internet Mormon' to 2+B.

Do you dislike his labels or do you dispute his categorization?

[EDIT to add:]
please... please... do not say 'There are no problems in LDS doctrine/history"

[_asbestosman]

There are no problems in LDS doctrine / history.

By the way, if I understand the dichotomy correctly, only an "Internet Mormon" would deny the dichotomy. Oh well. I would have preferred just being a faithful Mormon instead of an "Internet Mormon" or a "Chapel Mormon".

[_Ray A]

Chapel Mormons are duped and don't yet know it. Internet Mormons are duped and choose to remain that way.

That's almost worth a sig. line.

[_beefcalf]

There are no problems in LDS doctrine / history.

Asbestosman,

I would like to ask you for a tiny display of empathy. Not sympathy, and not agreement. Just a quick note from you that would help me to realize that you can see things from another angle. In return, I will attempt to empathize with your perspective should you so desire...

(Choosing just one of what I believe to be dozens upon dozens of 'problems' with LDS history and doctrine...) please let me ask if you can understand how a reading of D&C 132 (all of it, but perhaps focussing on 61-63), a reading of Jacob 2, and an honest inquiry into polygamy as actually practiced by Joseph Smith might lead some to conclude that Joseph Smith was breaking all the rules of polygamy he himself dictated? And perhaps can you understand why some would arrive at the conclusion that this would invalidate any claims he might have made about holding the mantle of prophet?

I am hoping to hear you say something like... "Yes, I can understand why you would feel this way, but what you need to realize is..." and then tell me something which, for you, mitigates this difficult issue.

I anxiously await your response.

Thanks!

[_asbestosman]

I am hoping to hear you say something like... "Yes, I can understand why you would feel this way, but what you need to realize is..." and then tell me something which, for you, mitigates this difficult issue.

I anxiously await your response.

Thanks!

I was mostly being a smart-aleck when I wrote what you quoted. While I don't believe that there are any problems in LDS doctrine / history as far as contradictions or serious sins by the prophets I do acknowledge that there are controversial aspects. I don't know about the ins and outs of polygamy especially as actually practiced by Joseph Smith so I'm not going to be able to comment intelligently on it. For all I know, many of the stories about it are exaggerated at best.

[_Kishkumen]

The fraud is found in the fact that there is no such dichotomy.

A great many dichotomies are more or less artificial constructs that serve as heuristic devices. Why be such a nitpicker?

[_beefcalf]

I don't know about the ins and outs of polygamy especially as actually practiced by Joseph Smith so I'm not going to be able to comment intelligently on it.

I appreciate the forthrightness of your response.

From some of the few things I read from you, here, I assume that you are a believing member of the church. If I may be so presumptuous as to further postulate on the ramifications of that first assumption, I would say that you likely believe that your salvation and exaltation are dependent upon your participation in the saving ordinances of the Temple, and that you very likely hold the belief that Joseph Smith was, indeed, a true prophet of God.

So... let me ask you this. If the charge is made, and evidence is presented, which purports that Smith may not have been what he claimed to be, doesn't it seem a little strange that you aren't powerfully motivated to investigate these claims to determine their veracity? To find out as much as you can possibly discover, and have as much information as possible available with which to make an informed decision about what you believe?

If you had your entire life savings in the bank down on the corner of Main Street and Broadway, and you heard rumors that the bank was about to become insolvent, would you not investigate these claims? I suggest that you would.

If your son was accused of sexual assault upon a girl in your neighborhood, would you sit idly by and allow others to investigate, or would you attempt to find the truth for yourself? My guess is that you would seek answers for yourself.

Your very presence on this forum tells me that you must obviously be aware that some people hold the opinion that Smith was something of a philanderer. Doesn't that bother you enough to try to get to the bottom of it?

I am honestly baffled that anyone who professes to believe in Smith could hear these charges and not attempt to discover everything possible to either support or refute those charges.

So why not you?

[_asbestosman]

I am honestly baffled that anyone who professes to believe in Smith could hear these charges and not attempt to discover everything possible to either support or refute those charges.

So why not you?

What am I supposed to do? I'm not a student of history, nor a crime scene investigator. I believe there is much misinformation on Joseph Smith. I don't have the resources to investigate every claim someone makes against my faith.