Robert D. Crockett of Latham & Watkins wrote: Well, that just links it to your highly subjective view.
I represent a couple of the largest religious organizations in the world. They put out their own publications, and one of them has their own version of general authorities. Both religions are subject to substantial criticism but when the publish their public relations material the think they are telling the truth.
Anybody can make mistakes, but demanding that the church tell its side of the story truthfully is just a handwave of an argument.
You're correct. Truth is subjective and overrated. Truth is for chumps. No such thing as truth. Thanks for clearing that up, Yahoo.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Feb 08, 2013 1:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
Yahoo Bot wrote: You're correct. Truth is subjective and overrated. Truth is for chumps. No such thing as truth. Thanks for clearing that up, Yahoo.
Rather, your faithlessness and anonymous attacks on people have caused you to distort lies and unethical and anti-social behavior into truth and justice.
I mean, what normal, grounded, rational person would justify what you do as proper?
Robert D. Crockett of Latham & Watkins wrote: Rather, your faithlessness and anonymous attacks on people have caused you to distort lies and unethical and anti-social behavior into truth and justice.
I mean, what normal, grounded, rational person would justify what you do as proper?
See you in Church on Sunday! :)
Last edited by Guest on Fri Feb 08, 2013 1:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
Yahoo Bot wrote:The missionaries and many in the Church believe that the gold plates were translated with the help of the U & T. I mean, all one has to do is read the Pearl of Great Price. Joseph Smith never contradicted that view with anything he wrote.
Sure, others say it differently. Most of you degenerate apostates rely (you probably don't realize it) upon the statements of David Whitmer after he was long out of the church. David describes one way of translation -- the hat; the seer stone etc. But that doesn't rule out the U&T. Really know, this is a trivial dispute. There are much more weighty and controversial topics than this stuff.
Hmmm...is Elder Nelson a degenerate apostate? Because it was his talk on LDS.org that informed me that the Book of Mormon was translated almost solely (certainly mostly) by method of placing a stone in a hat. That seems an authoritative source of truth, don't you think?
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
Aristotle Smith wrote:In other words, the apologists, new order Mormons, bloggernacle Mormons etc. would love to tell the truth in Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society meetings, but gosh darned, the plebes who populate those classes just wouldn't like it! So, we just dish out the pablum because that's what they want, it's really just us informed people being charitable and patient with our dumb brothers and sisters, God bless 'em.
Another issue to consider is how fast they will be tossed out of these meetings if they started to introduce this material. Seems they are best off introducing accuracy first on the internet and then in smaller doses in the class room. Stemelbow is right, some will turn off new input immediately if it conflicts with previous instructions.
Hi Aristotle. They aren't interested because they don't know they should be interested. Taking the scenic route isn't going to tell them anything they don't already know. That the Church is true.
It's very hard, no matter what position you are in, to know what you should know that you don't know.
As you say, drop hints regarding one or two of the more juicy nuggets in church history and you'll get a few all of a sudden very interested but others even less interested than they already were.
If it's not of concern spiritually for you, why are you here discussing this type of stuff?
I'm here for a couple of reasons. The main reason is to get a chance to discuss with people who come from a different perspective than I. I wish to learn and understand others and where they are coming from. Thanks for asking. Another reason why I'm here is to see what all the fuss is about--why are people so critical (as in what are the reasons) about the Church? I want to get a good grasp of why others perceive my beliefs as wrong, sometimes dangerous, or destructive. Its interesting. But rest assured, polyandry is not really a spiritual concern for most members.
When you say 'no one' who are you speaking on behalf of. You? Your ward? Your Stake? The whole Church?
Oh good catch. I shouldn't have said "no one" even though that's what it seems like so often. I don't know how accurate it would be to say next to no one, but it sure seems close to me.
If Church is for worship, why are there lessons - the same lessons that get repeated year in and year out?
To remindof the "important" aspects of our faith, for the most part--at least that's what I think.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
That is at the most a slim connection, but I can appreciate that you took it here. rest assured most LDS have very little interest in polyandry, at least in my experience. Its not that they see it as a fruit of Joseph Smith--right or wrong. And surely, DJ, you can see why I would think you are left out of the "our" in my quote, right?
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote:Perhaps, at least part of the reason some of these details are not discussed is because people aren't interested. I can't get too many people to be interested enough to discuss some of these details myself, however much I try.
TOTAL BS. I teach a Sunday School class and whenever I bring up new stuff that they never heard before, the class loves it. And as class member, I have brought up Masonry in EQ and other equally interesting things and you can hear a pindrop. The instructor has the full attention of the class awaiting an answer.
Most people are tired of hearing the same old, rhetoric every single class. They are generally interested in these topics. I gurantee if you bring up how Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by putting a stone in a hat, the entire class will be interested.