Just want to vent

[_Blixa]

You have my sympathy, Merc. I'm sorry things are so frustrating right now. Hang in there and be a good dad and vent here when you need to.

[_truth dancer]

Hey Merc,

Sorry to hear things are tough at home.

Please read my sig line... I think it is profoundly true, and may apply to your situation.


:-)

~td~

[_Morley]

I am so sorry to read this, Mercury. There are some of us who have trudged this path before. It may not seem so right now, but things will eventually get better. I can genuinely say that my own life has never been better. PM me if you need to talk.

[Guest]

Yahoo Bot,

Has it ever occurred to you that the Church makes truth claims, and promises to its members based on these truth claims, and that many of its truth claims are demonstrably false?

Why would someone like Mercury be ascribed any fault whatsoever for his leaving the Church once he learned that he and his wife had been systematically lied to by an institution they trusted?

The Church has been shown to misrepresent the truth to its members (and to non-members) fairly regularly and consistently over time, starting with Joseph Smith. The LDS Church and its members have no moral standing whatsoever when it comes to telling the truth or keeping promises. The Church does neither.

The LDS Church has massive culpability in terms of detrimental reliance for the havoc brought into the lives of its BIC members. (Like those caught up in Scientology, those who joined the LDS Church as adults should have known better.)

The LDS Church is a corporation that has been lucky enough to retain the legal status of a religious organization. Were this facade stripped away, I would imagine that folks suing the remaining Corporation for return of tithing contributions obtained under false pretense and other direct and indirect damages would pick its bones clean in short order.

Ahh, my little naïve rabbit, you comprehend so little. A GED might be valuable at this point.

Marriage is a contract of sorts, but a powerful contract that cannot be abrogated simply by saying "I quit." It has implications of property rights and the protection of children.

Getting married by the parish priest is a statement and a commitment that you are bound to the Catholic faith. Before you are married by the priest, you actually commit to the priest and the future wife that you will raise your children as Catholics.

Now, you may think Catholicism (or any religion, for that matter) is a perverse fraud, but unless the wife goes along with your thinking she is entitled to hold you to your commitment to the Church. If, having failed to convince your wife of the frauds of Catholicism, you break your promise, your stop supporting the faith, you denounce it, you become addicted to porn and go gay -- well, you've done exactly what you've said you would not. Your wife has every right in the faith to denounce you to the priest and kick you out (although, if she divorces you in the Catholic faith, she cannot remarry).

So it is with the Mormon faith (or other major religions). You may think as the degenerate apostate that you are that Mormonism is a perverse fraud and you don't want your children involved with it. But, if you can't get your wife to go along with your thinking, you are -- at least as she sees it and legitimately so -- on the outs.

Now, I think the wife should put up with the husband's lack of faith for the simple reason that having some other man raise your children is a far, far worse problem than the spiritual faithlessness. But I can easily and certainly see the wife's position in this if she wants to give you the bums' rush.

As far as your comments about the LDS Church are concerned, and its fraudulent nature and so forth, I only remark that you possess no credentials to say such and are anonymous. I would suspect you still go to Church and admit home teachers and hold a calling.

[_Yahoo Bot]

You are contradicting yourself. You claimed to know Mormon history, then back off on a position. We all know the Kinderhook plates are fake... the church admits this. If you wish to claim there were plates that Joseph Smith translated correctly, it's done by ignorance of the facts. The Kinderhook plate known to exist is authentic... an authentic fake. You choose to "take no position" to evade acknowledging the history you claim to know so much about... your need to avoid taking a stand is transparent. I disagree that you "know" Mormon history as you claim, because if you did you'd take a position. Your "moronic" position is to avoid an answer.

The reason your posts are utterly devoid of sensibility and not the sort that a decent apologist would ever address is that you want to simply cram down my throat what you think my argument and understanding should be.

I don't give a hoot in hell whether others think the Kinderhook plates are authentic. I don't take a position on them because I don't need to do so. There is insufficient historical basis to think that Joseph Smith thought them authentic, and if that basis is missing, then why do I need to take a position on their authenticity?

It's like arguing whether the St. Helena excavated the true cross. She might have; she might not have. But that event in history has no meaning to me one way or the other.

Now you can argue with me all you want about whether William Clayton's journal entry is enough to show that Joseph Smith thought the plates authentic. I don't think it enough for lots of reasons I have previously given you in spades galore.

[_Hoops]

Getting married by the parish priest is a statement and a commitment that you are bound to the Catholic faith. Before you are married by the priest, you actually commit to the priest and the future wife that you will raise your children as Catholics.

Now, you may think Catholicism (or any religion, for that matter) is a perverse fraud, but unless the wife goes along with your thinking she is entitled to hold you to your commitment to the Church. If, having failed to convince your wife of the frauds of Catholicism, you break your promise, your stop supporting the faith, you denounce it, you become addicted to porn and go gay -- well, you've done exactly what you've said you would not. Your wife has every right in the faith to denounce you to the priest and kick you out (although, if she divorces you in the Catholic faith, she cannot remarry).

You are simply, utterly, and spectacularly wrong.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Getting married by the parish priest is a statement and a commitment that you are bound to the Catholic faith. Before you are married by the priest, you actually commit to the priest and the future wife that you will raise your children as Catholics.

Now, you may think Catholicism (or any religion, for that matter) is a perverse fraud, but unless the wife goes along with your thinking she is entitled to hold you to your commitment to the Church. If, having failed to convince your wife of the frauds of Catholicism, you break your promise, your stop supporting the faith, you denounce it, you become addicted to porn and go gay -- well, you've done exactly what you've said you would not. Your wife has every right in the faith to denounce you to the priest and kick you out (although, if she divorces you in the Catholic faith, she cannot remarry).

You are simply, utterly, and spectacularly wrong.

Tell that to the unhappy wife. Like I say, I don't think wives should leave under these circumstances without the husband doing something more evil that simply losing faith. I'm not talking about taking up the booze, either. Serious and illlegal conduct is to me the only basis for leaving and letting somebody else raise the kids, or going gay.

[_Hoops]

Tell that to the unhappy wife. Like I say, I don't think wives should leave under these circumstances without the husband doing something more evil that simply losing faith. I'm not talking about taking up the booze, either. Serious and illlegal conduct is to me the only basis for leaving and letting somebody else raise the kids, or going gay.

I know of no Catholic nor Protestant, either authority or lay person, who recommend a divorce in the circumstances you describe. Catholics are married under the auspices of the church, but the church never comes before a marriage covenant. I'm not Catholic so maybe they have a different take on this, but I would be surprised if they do.

In fact, Protestants are explicitly counselled to put the marriage before the church. And you wonder why Protestants think LDS worship the church?

[_Yahoo Bot]

In fact, Protestants are explicitly counselled to put the marriage before the church. And you wonder why Protestants think LDS worship the church?

There are certainly differences in Protestant worship, but the concept of not being unequally yoked is a distinct New Testament concept that EV's rely upon to offer faithful wives the option to leave if they want.

I'm sure that concept does not apply to Episcopalians or Methodists or most Lutherans whose pastors don't give a hoot in hell as to whom you're married.

If you want a faithless, religion-free marriage with no commitments to God, just get married by an Episcopalian. Don't go Catholic or EV. That's death to a [personal attack deleted] such as yourself.

[_thews]

You are contradicting yourself. You claimed to know Mormon history, then back off on a position. We all know the Kinderhook plates are fake... the church admits this. If you wish to claim there were plates that Joseph Smith translated correctly, it's done by ignorance of the facts. The Kinderhook plate known to exist is authentic... an authentic fake. You choose to "take no position" to evade acknowledging the history you claim to know so much about... your need to avoid taking a stand is transparent. I disagree that you "know" Mormon history as you claim, because if you did you'd take a position. Your "moronic" position is to avoid an answer.

The reason your posts are utterly devoid of sensibility and not the sort that a decent apologist would ever address is that you want to simply cram down my throat what you think my argument and understanding should be.

You failed to take a position while claiming to be knowledgeable of Mormon history. What part of ignorance don't you understand?

I don't give a hoot in hell whether others think the Kinderhook plates are authentic. I don't take a position on them because I don't need to do so. There is insufficient historical basis to think that Joseph Smith thought them authentic, and if that basis is missing, then why do I need to take a position on their authenticity?

You are ignorant of the facts and it's why you don't take a position and claim to not care... it's because you have no position to take and simply cannot acknowledge that William Clayton is trustworthy and Joseph Smith attempted to translate a known hoax. Again, you don't know squat about actual Mormon history as you claim you do, because if you did you could take a position.

It's like arguing whether the St. Helena excavated the true cross. She might have; she might not have. But that event in history has no meaning to me one way or the other.

More parallel logic blather to move away from your failure to acknowledge the truth.

Now you can argue with me all you want about whether William Clayton's journal entry is enough to show that Joseph Smith thought the plates authentic. I don't think it enough for lots of reasons I have previously given you in spades galore.

You failed to take a position... now you claim to have given me previous answers? On what? Your non-position?