stemelbow wrote:Thanks for the answers. some are very interesting.
I did not say all posts or complaints are going after the 19th century church. I do say there are quite a few though.
Could you link a few examples here? I'm not sure what you mean by seperating the church of th e19th century and that of today. Perhaps an example or two would help me see the difference.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
stemelbow wrote:I did not say all posts or complaints are going after the 19th century church. I do say there are quite a few though.
I think justme's question might be good to answer. Former believers tend to want to discuss issues of why they don't believe anymore. For most of us it is not due to anything my bishops have done or said. It is not even over any current social or political stances the church today has. It's all about whether the church Joseph created was from God or not. This means that the focus will mostly be on him, and BY to a lesser extent.
stemelbow wrote:Thanks for the answers. some are very interesting.
I did not say all posts or complaints are going after the 19th century church. I do say there are quite a few though.
Actually you used the word 'many' - should we discuss how 'many' is many or did you mean a few, again...;-)
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Stem, it's because Mormonism, like no other Western church, is so dependent upon its history. It's the "restored church, run by prophets and apostles by revelation." Whereas the Lutherans don't care how flawed Luther is, because their faith is in no way dependent upon him. You don't have to accept Luther as a true anything to get into Lutheran heaven.
This is not true. Luther had a doctrine and a philosophy upon which the Lutheran Church is built. So in order to get into "Lutheran heaven" one must pass the scrutiny of Luther himself as it were. In other words, the current Buffalo Chip is a double-standard. He ought to also be active on antiLutheran boards.
bcspace wrote: This is not true. Luther had a doctrine and a philosophy upon which the Lutheran Church is built. So in order to get into "Lutheran heaven" one must pass the scrutiny of Luther himself as it were. In other words, the current Buffalo Chip is a double-standard. He ought to also be active on antiLutheran boards.
He had some doctrinal differences with the Catholic church. I believe one was that by faith alone one can be saved. If correct then you are wrong. I believe the catholic think a little more like the LDS except they do have some other religions that they consider members would be saved in Ceeboo can correct me on this if I am wrong(probably :))
Stem, it's because Mormonism, like no other Western church, is so dependent upon its history. It's the "restored church, run by prophets and apostles by revelation." Whereas the Lutherans don't care how flawed Luther is, because their faith is in no way dependent upon him. You don't have to accept Luther as a true anything to get into Lutheran heaven.
This is not true. Luther had a doctrine and a philosophy upon which the Lutheran Church is built. So in order to get into "Lutheran heaven" one must pass the scrutiny of Luther himself as it were. In other words, the current Buffalo Chip is a double-standard. He ought to also be active on antiLutheran boards.
BS. You can stand up a Lutheran church and say Luther was a fraud and I reject his opinions. That will have no effect on your salvation from a Lutheran perspective. They're Jesus focused, unlike Mormonism, which requires a declaration of allegiance to and faith in Joseph Smith.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Brigham Young and Joseph Smith receive a lot of criticism because there is such a vast pool of issues that can easily be mocked, criticized, and ridiculed. Today's church is much tamer, much more mainstream, but there is still a lot open to criticism. The leaders today are much more careful about putting themselves out there and creating policies and spouting doctrines that are easy to refute. They leave that to the apologists.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
stemelbow wrote:I think its clear that many critics here view the Mormonism of BY's time and go after the more modern version as if is the Mormonism of 150 years ago. I'm serious here, there are plenty of criticisms offered against Mormonism here, but many of them do not seem to address Mormonism of today. Why? Is it because its easier for you to attack 19th century Mormonism than 21st century Mormonism?
I think critics just happen to post on an issue that's on their mind at the moment; they are not making decisions on whether it's "easier" to criticize the early church or the modern one. There really isn't any question about one being easier than the other. The underlying issues are often the same in substance, although the form may be different.
Are you suggesting that the modern church is "harder" to criticize because it has fewer problems? IMHO, there is controversy to be found in just about every aspect of the modern church. The only thing above criticism is the primary song, "If You Chance to Meet a Frown." I love that song.
The person who is certain and who claims divine warrant for his certainty belongs now to the infancy of our species. Christopher Hitchens
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. Frater
stemelbow wrote:Thanks for the answers. some are very interesting.
I did not say all posts or complaints are going after the 19th century church. I do say there are quite a few though.
Could you link a few examples here? I'm not sure what you mean by seperating the church of th e19th century and that of today. Perhaps an example or two would help me see the difference.
bcspace wrote: This is not true. Luther had a doctrine and a philosophy upon which the Lutheran Church is built. So in order to get into "Lutheran heaven" one must pass the scrutiny of Luther himself as it were. In other words, the current Buffalo Chip is a double-standard. He ought to also be active on antiLutheran boards.
I think Lutherans and other Protestants would beg to differ. Sure Luther and other reformers taught doctrinal ideas. But their teachings were built some on previous orthodoxy and a different understanding of the Bible on significant issues. But none claimed new revelation or new authority. Adherents today accept other denominations baptisms as valid and do not require new baptism due to its invalidity because of a lack of doctrine. And none teach that Luther or any reformer will be a judge they have to pass by to get to heaven unlike the LDS church. Do Lutherans ask potential new adherents if they accept Luther as some divine dispenser of truth like The LDS Church does its new members about Joseph Smith?