Interesting blog by our own MsJack

[_aussieguy55]

http://ldstalk.wordpress.com/2012/03/08 ... -mormonism

Great blog and even more interesting is the exchange between MsJack and CD-Host

That pesky Adam-God doctrine

[_why me]

MsJack needs to look into her own church's history and offer an apology based on her own church's teachings. Or she can apologize for all the sins that protestantism did toward the Mormons when protestants and their preachers were calling for destruction of Mormon private property.

But I assume that she will not call for any prostestant apology.

[_consiglieri]

MsJack needs to look into her own church's history and offer an apology based on her own church's teachings.

Ms.Jack's blog post is well thought out and I heartily endorse it.

Why should she have to rectify every perceived wrong to Mormons before stating her opinions on her own blog post?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Aristotle Smith]

MsJack needs to look into her own church's history and offer an apology based on her own church's teachings.

Ms.Jack's blog post is well thought out and I heartily endorse it.

Why should she have to rectify every perceived wrong to Mormons before stating her opinions on her own blog post?

Not to mention the fact that MsJack doesn't pull punches when dealing with the unsavory parts of her tradition's history. She has often discussed both the good and the bad when it concerns Evangelicalism/slavery and Evangelicalism/women's rights.

[_MsJack]

MsJack needs to look into her own church's history and offer an apology based on her own church's teachings. Or she can apologize for all the sins that protestantism did toward the Mormons when protestants and their preachers were calling for destruction of Mormon private property.

But I assume that she will not call for any prostestant apology.

One, my co-blogger Tim already has a post on the blog directed at evangelicals called "We need to apologize."

Two, this type of response to my OP has been addressed in the comments:

I realize that the blog is called LDS & Evangelical Conversations and I am an evangelical Christian, but I didn’t write this post as an evangelical. I’m not even certain that what I’m proposing would be an entirely desirous thing for evangelicals to want of Mormonism. I did my best to create a post that was religiously neutral, and never referenced another religion or compared Mormonism’s troubles in this area to that of other religions. So to respond to this post by arguing that the plight of Christianity or evangelicalism or other religions in this area is worse than that of Mormonism is to not respond to my post at all.

In my opinion, the best comments on this issue have not been from CD-Host or myself, but from Katie L. You're missing a real treat if you don't read her thoughts on the matter.

In any case, I welcome honest, constructive, and critical feedback on the post--I was very surprised to find that most of the LDS readers liked my proposal. It's certainly an idea that I'd like to hone and tease out more, though I'm going to be pretty busy until Wednesday at least and have little time for discussion right now.

[_bcspace]

That pesky Adam-God doctrine

No longer pesky as it has been established that BY would have had to reject several critical LDS doctrines and that an Adam-God does not take into account other statements by BY showing that the Adam who fell and God the Father are two separate beings.

Adam Sr. Adam Jr. is your best bet for a hypothesis. The overall issue is of no value as neither is LDS doctrine.

[_RayAgostini]

Ms.Jack's blog post is well thought out and I heartily endorse it.

Agreed.

[Guest]

Actually, Ms Jack nailed the Church with two things (and I'll add a third thing they should do):

1) The Church should just acknowledge that the doctrine taught denying blacks the priesthood was a racist, man-made doctrine and apologize for all those things that were taught and endorsed about it during the years it was believed. It would clear the air and separate the current Church from them. I also don't buy the argument that other Churches should be required to apologize (after all, which is the "true" Church here?!?). Come on Mormons, be the better man.
2) The Church really should discard all works-based salvation. There is nothing man can do to repay God (and it is silly to try). They should recognize that we are saved by grace and the things we do (works) are done purely because we love God.
3) (Yes, this is mine.) The Church should recognize other prophets that have arisen in the modern era and teach what they said and about their lives in the churches. I would recommend two such men (though there are quite a few more): Gandhi and MLK. A statue of each man would be a nice touch too on temple square.

[_Buffalo]

That pesky Adam-God doctrine

No longer pesky as it has been established that BY would have had to reject several critical LDS doctrines and that an Adam-God does not take into account other statements by BY showing that the Adam who fell and God the Father are two separate beings.

Adam Sr. Adam Jr. is your best bet for a hypothesis. The overall issue is of no value as neither is LDS doctrine.

By that same token, the doctrine that Jesus and the Father are two separate people is also non-doctrinal, since it contradicts previous doctrine that they were literally one.

Also, the doctrine that the HG is a "personage" is in direct contradiction to previous revealed doctrine. So again, we may safely abandon it.

[_Nightlion]

Not to mention the fact that MsJack doesn't pull punches when dealing with the unsavory parts of her tradition's history. She has often discussed both the good and the bad when it concerns Evangelicalism/slavery and Evangelicalism/women's rights.

Yeah, maybe, but do all the babies run screaming out of doors about anything in Protestant history? Like they WANT Mormons to do? Like they insist Mormons do?
I think creative history surrounding the life of Joseph Smith is epic. Every fact needs double verification before people trip over the slow running tots.

Another thought is the demonstrable fact that Joseph Smith really loved his friends an associates. And the thought of not having them close to him would have caused him great pain and therefore he sealed up to himself those whom he loved most. Regardless if it were man or woman child or aged ones. Has no one noticed this in Joseph before as a motive for sealing people to himself?

He loved good company and would just as soon be in hell with them and kick out the devil and make a heaven of it if he had to.