Found the truth, what next?

[_Blixa]

Just a quick note on English idioms. English does not have a singular and plural "you." It was pretty clear that justme was using a plural you in her remarks since she prefaced them with the phrase, "In my experience, and reading those of others..." That indicated that she was speaking generally and not addressing a single individual's situation.

Reading comprehension, indeed.

[_Dr. Shades]

WINSTON:

I would also like to add my approval of Scottie's message, with one slight alteration: Use the book "In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith" by Todd Compton instead. That book, for some reason, seems to work on females better than any other.

[_Ceeboo]

When one considers the OP, it is mind-bending to see how often these threads seem to head into a direction that is utterly bizarre, telling, and extremely disturbing on so many levels.

Wow!


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_stemelbow]

Just a quick note on English idioms. English does not have a singular and plural "you." It was pretty clear that justme was using a plural you in her remarks since she prefaced them with the phrase, "In my experience, and reading those of others..." That indicated that she was speaking generally and not addressing a single individual's situation.

Reading comprehension, indeed.

That's fine actually. the message I would hope to get out is simply don't assume your spouse will behave that way, Winston. That's afterall why I replied to her comments in the first place. While Just Me's anecdotal experience is quite telling and sounds terrible, there is no reason to assume your spouse will do the same--afterall you love her, I'm sure and know her.

Anyway thanks for the lesson. I get it. I got it. I was just hoping to clarify for Winston himself.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

Comparing these two responses I would have to say:
I know there are still some Stemelbow type members who attend the LDS church, but I know plenty more YahooBot types in the church.

I have to respond to this. Actually, in real life, there are more LDS members who I know who would respond the way Stem did. Now, the Internet is a different story. Unfortunately, the Internet seems to bring out the worst in some people. I sincerely hope that Yahoo Bot's performance here, like Will Schryver's, is all an act. I would hate to think that either of these men are that hateful in person to members of their family, friends, co-workers, and acquaintences who might be struggling with the Church.

Most Mormons I know are very genuine, caring people. Yes, you will find some jerks, but I think you can find jerks in and out of the Church.

Winston, welcome to the board. Like Jason, Harmony, Just Me, and several other members of the MDB community here, I also regularly attend the LDS Church, hold a calling, and am considered an active member. However, there are points about the Church, like polygamy, blacks and priesthood, etc. that I take issue with. For me, personally, the pure gospel of Jesus Christ, and the goodness found in the knowledge that He lives overrides these other factors in my decision to continuing to attend Church. My husband, children, and extended family are very active, and I have grown up in the LDS Church. My personal view is that I don't think that God really cares where I worship Him as long as I do. So, rather than upset the apple cart, and attempt to reinvent the wheel, the decision that has brought me the most peace is to continue attending.

Everyone is different, and has to make the decision that is best for them, and for their family circumstances. I am just sharing what has worked for me. I hope things work out for you, and you are in my prayers.

Yes, many members will be thoughtful and kind up until they are backed into a corner where their very belief is questioned.. Then watch out, horns and fangs suddenly appear.

[_stemelbow]

Yes, many members will be thoughtful and kind up until they are backed into a corner where their very belief is questioned.. Then watch out, horns and fangs suddenly appear.

Its probably the aggressive "backing" someone into a corner or a condescending "you don't know what you're talking about" that seems to get most LDS people to respond unfavorably. come to think of it that seems to be the reason why many respond unfavorably to opposition.

[_Scottie]

Its probably the aggressive "backing" someone into a corner or a condescending "you don't know what you're talking about" that seems to get most LDS people to respond unfavorably. come to think of it that seems to be the reason why many respond unfavorably to opposition.

I agree with you.

When you suddenly learn 800 new problems with the church, the natural reaction is to unload all 800 at once. The believer feels that as soon as they answer 1 question, they are bombarded with 10 more. It's often times comes out as an attack rather than a discussion. Any of us would bare teeth and fangs if approached like this!

In my listening to Mormon Expression, whenever Mike is on the program, he rarely gets one sentence out to explain why such-and-such isn't a problem before the other 3 panelists are bombarding him with new problems on why his solution isn't really a solution. You can hear him in the background saying, "But...." only to be cut off by the others. He handles it much better than I would!

[_Themis]

Of coruse that’s your perspective at it protects your beliefs on the matter (;

Not really. I believed the church was true until after exploring the evidence and seeing just how much apologists wanted to make it look like we had less then we really did. I do think some critics can go over board as well.

Your conclusion, though dogmatic enough, remains contested.

LOL the your dogmatic argument comes out. I wonder how I got so dogmatic when I had to change cherished beliefs based on the evidence. You know some contest the idea of a spherical earth, old earth, etc. Many apologists even agree that Joseph put his head in a hat when claiming to translate the Book of Mormon we have today. How am I dogmatic about this when this is the only evidence we have? Do you have evidence he did it in some other manner?

I would hope you would have the wherewithal to realize that what you conclude may change as scholarship is pursued on the matter. But oh well. I know in discussing this with you, I’ll get nowhere.

Of course scholarship can change, but it needs new evidence to do this. Why should the unlikely possibility that new evidnece might show up cause me to change conclusions that even many if not most knowledgeable apologists agree on. I like to change views on a subject when new and sufficient evidence warrants a change.

Oh boy. Its easiest to be dogmatic. There is plenty left to pursue in understanding this topic. I think it takes a great deal of assuming to reach the conclusions that are often reached on this topic. But it’s a deep one, a popular one among critics, and I admit to being less interested so I’ll leave it at that.

Ah how dogmatic of me. You want to go with a position of we don't know enough so I will believe what I want, while I changed beliefs I did not want to, because I think more then enough evidence warranted it on this and other issues. Having plenty of potential new things to learn does not mean we don't have enough now to conclude Joseph made it up. It takes a lot of making up unlikely possibilities to find a place to maintain belief. I wonder who really is being more dogmatic. :)

Such doesn’t necessary follow. Let’s stop being dogmatic and discuss if you wish.

It was partially meant in jest, but many members don't get it becuase it goes against what they think God would be like.

But there’s a lot to dispute on that. And ultimately, whether Joseph Smith acted appropriate all the time doesn’t really help much in the whole of it. We all can accept that he wasn’t perfect, as they say.

There are a number of sources that show Joseph not acting like people think he should. Marrying young girls and married women is a problem for many. It's hard for them to think why God would want or need to command Joseph to marry women he shouldn't be. I haven't seen anyone explain that yet. It does match very well what we would expect from someone falsely claiming God.

The jury is still out for me. I didn’t realize you had read Brant’s new book. When did you read it?

I wasn't aware that he had to write a book before discussing some of his theories. I have never been impressed with this apologetic, and it was to obviously done to protect Joseph, while it was equally obvious that Skousen went with the evidence even though I think he knew it might not make Joseph look to good. His fits the evidence while other theories always have to many other problems when they try to fix certain problems.

[_Themis]

I agree with you.

When you suddenly learn 800 new problems with the church, the natural reaction is to unload all 800 at once. The believer feels that as soon as they answer 1 question, they are bombarded with 10 more. It's often times comes out as an attack rather than a discussion. Any of us would bare teeth and fangs if approached like this!

When you are presenting all these problems at the same time they are finding out you don't believe anymore, you are creating an environment in which it will be extremely hard for them to be objective and as unbiased as possible. Emotions will be very strong, and they will not be good ones. Letting them see a little at a time without thinking you don't believe any more lets them digest the information hopefully in a more objective way. In time I think one should let them know that they may not believe in the same manner as they did before.

[_KevinSim]

Yep. I say "why not?" I mean I don't see the church as God Himself. I also accept the notion that the Church in the past years have made errors, some pretty big errors, as it is often directed by men sans inspiration. God gives when He sees fit, in my estimation.

Stem, I actually agree with you. The more I've thought about banning blacks from the priesthood prior to 1978, I'm drawn more to the conclusion that God had nothing to do with it, that it resulted from the prejudices of Brigham Young that he misinterpreted as divine inspiration.

On the other hand, my wife thinks there had to be some reason why the Church banned blacks then. And that's okay. She and I agree on the important points of the Gospel; we can certainly disagree in some areas; and we do in fact disagree in a number of areas.

I won't even assert that she's wrong. I certainly don't know everything, so as far as I know she might be right. I just know I'm leaning in the direction of the other viewpoint, and will keep leaning toward it until I'm persuaded of a different position.

Kevin Sim