Cast your vote...

[_Stormy Waters]

If you passionately believe that Mormonism is a false religion, and that those embracing it are seriously deluded, then it should be your duty to declare it from the rooftops.

Hypothetically, if you knew that people were drinking poisoned water from an infected dam owned by your family, would you hesitate warning potential victims by saying, "I don't want to offend my family"?

No, I'm not back at church. But unlike you, I don't s*** on it.

Wait, I thought we were supposed to declare Mormonism was false from the rooftops no matter who we offend?

[_RayAgostini]

Wait, I thought we were supposed to declare Mormonism was false from the rooftops no matter who we offend?

You are.

If you believe that it is conclusively false, without question, then you are under obligation to declare it to the world.

Any more questions?

[_Bond James Bond]

I thought this was going to be a political thread.

I say do what your Bishop says. He's divinely inspired. Maybe.

[_RayAgostini]

Here's a guy you might all like to emulate.

Mormonism Exposed.

He's more than a few chips short of a Happy Meal. lol.

But hey, you think that Mormonism is a blatant fraud, sham, disgrace to humanity, illogical, not worth two thoughts?

Then say so! Stop pussy-footing.

Or do you "Halt between two opinions"?

[_Drifting]

Hi Ray, how's it going with your courage of your convictions, back at Church yet?

No, I'm not back at church. But unlike you, I don't s*** on it.

So, you're critical of someone who doesn't fully believe in the Church for not leaving/stopping attending. Yet you, who believes in the Church, doesn't attend.

That's two-faced.

[_RayAgostini]

So, you're critical of someone who doesn't fully believe in the Church for not leaving/stopping attending. Yet you, who believes in the Church, doesn't attend.

That's two-faced.

Is that what I said? Do you need a lesson in reading comprehension? Did I say that "someone who doesn't fully believe in the Church", and leaves it for that reason, should be condemned?

No, that's not what I said, so pay attention!

I said that those who conclusively believe that Mormonism is a fraud, a lie, a deception, a con, "foisted upon humankind", are obligated to speak out, and not be afraid of even offending family.

That leaves some leeway for the "halfways", those who might still be considering that it might be true. People like Dr.W seem quite assured that it's a sham, fraud, disgusting fake only to bring misery to humanity.

He needs to start a website warning everyone of this "clear and present danger", or he's just fatuous, empty, hypocritical GAS.

[_DrW]

You see Ray, belief is not the problem. What one does believe in does not matter. It is the lack of belief, in one of the monumental religious scams of all time, that is the problem.

Tell me you don't teach Gospel Doctrine, and that you'd never accept a call to teach Gospel Doctrine.

As a matter of fact, I did teach GD at one time. It was in a time before not sticking with the manual was a punishable offense. I would work quite hard to put together powerpoint lessons using (mainly) approved LDS materials, and things worked quite well.

I looked at it in the same way I looked at training young marines who were headed for the battlefield in Viet Nam. Although I didn't really agree with what they were being asked to do, or why, it was my job (as a volunteer in both cases), to prepare them to the best of my ability, and that is what I did.

My wife really liked how this was done and ended buying a laptop and projector so she could use this method as a Relief Society instructor on and off up until a year or so ago.

You needn't be concerned about my teaching a GD class now, however. That job in my home ward has just been taken over by a well-to-do-professional who became involved with a female colleague at work. He recently kicked his wife and female children out of the family home and filed for divorce. My business partner and I, now overseas, both know this individual and can't believe that he is even allowed to hold a TR under the circumstances, let alone called to instruct the faithful.

Perhaps he continues to be a full tithe payer.

[_DrW]

So, you're critical of someone who doesn't fully believe in the Church for not leaving/stopping attending. Yet you, who believes in the Church, doesn't attend.

That's two-faced.

Is that what I said? Do you need a lesson in reading comprehension? Did I say that "someone who doesn't fully believe in the Church", and leaves it for that reason, should be condemned?

No, that's not what I said, so pay attention!

I said that those who conclusively believe that Mormonism is a fraud, a lie, a deception, a con, "foisted upon humankind", are obligated to speak out, and not be afraid of even offending family.

That leaves some leeway for the "halfways", those who might still be considering that it might be true. People like Dr.W seem quite assured that it's a sham, fraud, disgusting fake only to bring misery to humanity.

He needs to start a website warning everyone of this "clear and present danger", or he's just fatuous, empty, hypocritical GAS.

Ray,

Apparently you do not believe in Family First, no matter what.

I do.

The website ides is not a bad one, though. Perhaps I should start one, just a you suggest. Lord knows there is more than sufficient content out there.

(No, really.)

[_RayAgostini]

Ray,

Apparently you do not believe in Family First, no matter what.

I do.

The website ides is not a bad one, though. Perhaps I should start one, just a you suggest. Lord knows there is more than sufficient content out there.

(No, really.)

When I was in my early teens, I made a wooden cross, then attached a scriptural quote to it, written out on paper, based on Matthew 10:

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.(Matt. 10)

The actual quotation on my self-made cross only contained verse 39. So yes, I do think it's okay to believe in "family first", but if that family isn't built upon a firm gospel foundation, as exemplified in the Beatitudes, I don't think it will last, or its chances are low. And this is the thing about Mormons. For nearly two centuries now they have believed in the family as the centre and foundation of society, even if at times it included polygamy, which was prohibited in the Book of Mormon:

22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.
35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds. (Jacob 2)

"Family first", requires some standards to be met, for me. So I wouldn't remain loyal to just any family, and this seems to have been the basis of Jesus' teaching, that a man's enemies will be those of his own household.

So in that sense, "family first" isn't the most important thing. If your family was full of criminals and dope addicts, would you estimate it as "family first". My point is that there are conditions.

Good night.

[_Chap]

So in that sense, "family first" isn't the most important thing. If your family was full of criminals and dope addicts, would you estimate it as "family first".

No. I'd say that compared to more normal families, that one had a high probability of having been produced by parents who did not put their families first.

And I really, really think that when it comes to matters relating to difficult issues in family life, it is often those who have come closest to solving such issues with moderate success who are the most reluctant to sermonize at other people who are facing them. The reverse also seems to apply.