Let's see where we can get with this

[_Buffalo]

Well, manipulating young girls into having sex with him by promising salvation or threatening damnation (and social ruin) seems to be predatory to me. You may disagree of course.

And he may disagree that he did that.

He may also disagree that Joseph was married to Emma Hale. But it's a matter of historical record. He really did do that.

You said earlier that it's okay for Joseph to sin and still be a prophet. I think that's reasonable in general, but how far does that go? Is it okay to be a sexual predator? An outright rapist? A murderer? A serial killer? Not saying Joseph was all of those things, mind you.

I don't know. I'm not really one for setting up a standard and saying, "here's how far we go and no further".

Well, let's start at the end. Can a serial killer be God's prophet?

And if that's the standard you have for prophet, shouldn't the standard for member be lower? Currently the church holds the members to a much higher standard than it does the church's founding prophet.

Holding high standards on behavior is good.

Is it good to hold the leaders to a lower standard than the general membership?

[_Themis]

I think if you reviewed the OP you might get why that is. My faith is my evidence for my religious preference.

I think I stated more then once in this thread that your conclusions, as were mine at one time, are based on your interpretations of your spiritual experiences. This is the evidence you think Trump's all else. I get that. I did it to. My faith is my evidence is stating opposites since faith is not evidence other then you have belief and action for a particular belief.

That does not mean I have all the answers to the questions that are raised by my Church's truth claims at all. that merely means many questions are unanswered.

My complaint is that you almost exclusively look for terrible possibilities that favor what you have already concluded. physical evidence really does not matter to you on these issues. I do like believer like DB, Consig, etc. They don't make this mistake when discussing an issue.

That some presume to answer them all in the negative (or so often in the negative) doesn't mean the questions are answered, necessarily, it means some have presumed answers, but those answers may not be the case.

You do have a tendency to view all believers a certain way. I know this is done by many on both sides. Take for example your discussion about Joseph being a sexual predator. Some call him a pedophile, which I think he clearly was not. Sexual predator is closer, but I am hesitant because many of the meanings that people would apply to it I don't think would apply to Joseph. Sex was a motivator, but I think he had real feelings beyond just sex for these women. I don't think the evidence supports any sex with Helen, although I am sure it would have later on, whether becuase Heber and Violet did not want it at her age or not I don't know.

Well, you're a better man than I am.

I never said it or meant it.

[_stemelbow]

Is it good to hold the leaders to a lower standard than the general membership?

I think nearly every question you put to me is loaded. i think Joseph Smith was held to a pretty high standard--higher than most others. He couldn't translate because he and his wife had a tiff--that kind of thing.

[_stemelbow]

I think I stated more then once in this thread that your conclusions, as were mine at one time, are based on your interpretations of your spiritual experiences. This is the evidence you think Trump's all else. I get that. I did it to. My faith is my evidence is stating opposites since faith is not evidence other then you have belief and action for a particular belief.

I don't think my experiences that make up my faith, which I see as evidence, Trump's all else.

My complaint is that you almost exclusively look for terrible possibilities that favor what you have already concluded. physical evidence really does not matter to you on these issues. I do like believer like DB, Consig, etc. They don't make this mistake when discussing an issue.

I hope they accept your hugs then.

You do have a tendency to view all believers a certain way.

News to me. I normally see many believers quite differently.

I know this is done by many on both sides. Take for example your discussion about Joseph being a sexual predator. Some call him a pedophile, which I think he clearly was not. Sexual predator is closer, but I am hesitant because many of the meanings that people would apply to it I don't think would apply to Joseph. Sex was a motivator, but I think he had real feelings beyond just sex for these women. I don't think the evidence supports any sex with Helen, although I am sure it would have later on, whether becuase Heber and Violet did not want it at her age or not I don't know.

That's a far more considered view then normal for critics.

I never said it or meant it.

I said it and meant it. And for that I say, good for you.

[_Buffalo]

Is it good to hold the leaders to a lower standard than the general membership?

I think nearly every question you put to me is loaded. i think Joseph Smith was held to a pretty high standard--higher than most others. He couldn't translate because he and his wife had a tiff--that kind of thing.

He was allowed to break every rule for polygamy in D&C 132. Leaders from BY on have condemned polyandry, but Joseph gets a pass. Anyone else would have been excommunicated a hundred times over if they'd done half of what Joseph did.

As to your example, that's a self-imposed standard that many members still use on themselves.

[_Molok]

i think Joseph Smith was held to a pretty high standard--higher than most others.

Do most people crown themselves king of the world dumbass?

[_Themis]

I don't think my experiences that make up my faith, which I see as evidence, Trump's all else.

It looks pretty close. I remember DCP saying he would need a signed confession in Joseph Smith handwriting to accept the church is not true. That to me was fairly extreme.

News to me. I normally see many believers quite differently.

typo. I meant non-believers.

That's a far more considered view then normal for critics.

I know plenty who do.

[_keithb]

The Church would rather disappear than take that position, I think. You raise an interesting point. There is a line in which church positions can’t really be changed or evolve if the Church is to remain in tact—at least from the Church’s perspective.

So, you think, given the choice between adapt or die, the institutional church would opt for death? I'm not so sure I believe that. It is my experience that institutions seek to remain relevant rather than opting out of the game entirely. But I'll allow there may well be exceptions to this and that, perhaps, the LDS Church is such an exception.

This has actually been one of the topics with regards to religion that I have been thinking about a lot lately: will the Mormon church and religion in general ever disappear entirely? My answer is that I think it will, given enough time. Here are some reasons:

1. Statistically speaking, most religions that people have ever believed in have gone "extinct", just like most species that have ever existed on the earth are now extinct. Based on sheer probability alone, the chances of the Mormon religion surviving another 500 or 1000 years are pretty slim.

2. I think that all religions are in trouble of extinction due to advancements in science. To me, the push of science will continue to constrict the space that religion is able to exist in until most of the supernatural parts of religion are eliminated. It used to be that people accepted religion because they wanted answers: why do we have lighting? why do people do bad things? what happens when we die? Before science, the only source of the tough answers to questions like these was from religion. Now, we have already answered many of these questions, including the one about lighting. And, we're on the cusp of answering many more of these question.

A specific example of this that I'm reminded of comes from FMRI studies of the brain. The amount that this field has progressed in the last 10 years or so is astonishing, and it continues to advance every day. Among other things, scientist who study the brain using FMRI (among whom I have many colleagues) have been able to show quantitative differences in the brains of people with autism, depression, and schizophrenia. Remarkably, scientists have even been able to show differences in the brains of people with conditions once ascribed to "personal choice", like sexual promiscuity -- which calls into question how much conscious control people have over conditions like sexual addiction.

The point is that, as more and more of these questions -- particularly moral ones -- end up with scientific answers, religion is going to have a harder and harder time finding a niche, especially as this information is made increasingly accessible to the public and the public in general becomes better educated (especially in developing nations).

3. The Mormon church has the unique and undesirable position of having it's origins in recent history. While other religions, like the Protestants and general Christianity, have the cloak of time to protect them somewhat from scrutiny, most of the events of the Mormon origin story happened recently enough that written records were prevalent.

So, my guess is that Mormonism will one day cease to exist. It will be interesting to see if time proves me wrong or right.

[Guest]

Keith,

I'm going to disagree with, but only slightly.

There will always be adherants to some form a mystical or supernatural comfort blanket. Religion is one example.
For example, there are still a few people around who believe in and follow David Koresh. The structure may have gone but some people will hold on to the beliefs.

Mormonism is based on money.

That's the one thing that would cause the Church a problem in terms of its longevity. And they are being clever about it. They have a significant principal sum that is invested and which they protect at all costs.
When times are tight they shed non-profit making costs, a good example being the janitors. I also believe that the Church leadership has had more than one feisty debate about cancelling, postponing or scaling back the project on City Creek Mall (I wonder where Christ weighed in on that?).

And they employ business and finance managers as Leaders and Apostles.

The Church is surviving primarily on it's returns on investments. Active membership runs somewhere less than 40% and only a proportion of those will be tithe payers. A proportion will also be receiving funds rather than giving funds. It's a problem.

You can see the emphasis that is constantly there about paying your tithing. FP letters, conference talks, lessons etc. Pay your tithing. In truth the Church really does need it, but not for the reasons members think. Without it they have to use the interest on the invested principal sum. When financial crisis hits (and the current one is longer and deeper than for a generation) then the Church has to dip into the principal sum as there isn't enough interest to pay the wages, as it were. .

It's a formula that results corporately in bankruptcy.

Outgoings > Incomings = Bust

Now the Church can survive this for a while because it has a large principal sum invested. But that is currently being eroded and tithing income is declining. It's worth pointing out that tithing income is reducing at the same time as the Church claims increasing membership. That means converts in the main are of the need money variety rather than the give money type.

It will be the money that causes the biggest headaches in COB.

"you can buy anything in this world for money"
Even a religion it seems.

[_keithb]

Is it good to hold the leaders to a lower standard than the general membership?

I think nearly every question you put to me is loaded. i think Joseph Smith was held to a pretty high standard--higher than most others. He couldn't translate because he and his wife had a tiff--that kind of thing.

Stem,

If you committed polyandry, would you be excommunicated (probably)? If TSM committed it, would he be excommunicated (probably)?