Apostles Or Professional Guessers?

[Marcus]

...Critics tend to shrink wrap everything into a tidy little package with little or no nuance or wiggle room for understanding. Of course, they will accuse believers of the same...

So, mentalgymnast 'accuses' critics, but he doesn't call it that, he just states it as a fact.

And then he anticipates that critics will 'accuse' believers similarly, but of course he's the only one doing the accusing. The disingenuous pretzeling required by mentalgymnastical thinking must be exhausting.

[Marcus]

Money, power, women. Yep, it always comes down to this.

Moral police. Brown shirts.

Regards,
MG

Since it is history, it's worth repeating out loud, otherwise it may be repeated in action.

Definitely.

[Dr. Shades]

This should be engraved in stone and then placed in a highly visible public area somewhere.

This list might flesh things out a bit more:

The First Vision.

The one where he saw an angel, the one where he saw Christ, the one where he saw many angels, or the one where he saw God & Christ?

Revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants (as a whole).

The ones that weren't good enough to stand as they were written in the Book of Commandments?

The Book of Mormon.

The 1830 version, the 1837 version, the 1840 version, or the 1981 version?

Continuing revelation through prophets.

Like the revelation from God to implement the 2015 baptismal exclusion policy for children of gay parents? You know, the one the church follows today?

In the instance concerning Emma the historical situation was anything but clear.

An angel with a drawn sword commanding you to sleep with other women or be killed is very, very clear. In fact, I can't think of anything more clear than that.

There was a complicated struggle going on between Joseph and Emma, with a revelation written down in the middle of it all.

All immediately solved by the angel with a drawn sword.

Latter-day Saints would look at the list I've provided as being actual examples in which God has spoken in a great deal of clarity.

Only the ones who don't know their own church's history.

But even then, as Joseph himself said, God speaks to mankind in their 'own language' (what does that actually mean?) and according to their "own understanding"...and on top of that, in a "broken" language.

Except when it comes to making sure Joseph Smith sleeps with women other than his wife. In that case, it's crystal clear. (Funny how the angel didn't command Joseph to spread the word to boil one's water before drinking it, or to wash one's hands before performing surgical operations, or that slavery is bad, but hey, Joseph God has His priorities, right?)

Critics tend to shrink wrap everything into a tidy little package with little or no nuance or wiggle room for understanding.

But I'm sure you never do that, do you?

Of course, they will accuse believers of the same.

But that accusation is entirely untrue when it applies to you, right?

[MG 2.0]

This list might flesh things out a bit more:

The First Vision.

The one where he saw an angel, the one where he saw Christ, the one where he saw many angels, or the one where he saw God & Christ?

Revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants (as a whole).

The ones that weren't good enough to stand as they were written in the Book of Commandments?

The Book of Mormon.

The 1830 version, the 1837 version, the 1840 version, or the 1981 version?

Continuing revelation through prophets.

Like the revelation from God to implement the 2015 baptismal exclusion policy for children of gay parents? You know, the one the church follows today?

In the instance concerning Emma the historical situation was anything but clear.

An angel with a drawn sword commanding you to sleep with other women or be killed is very, very clear. In fact, I can't think of anything more clear than that.

There was a complicated struggle going on between Joseph and Emma, with a revelation written down in the middle of it all.

All immediately solved by the angel with a drawn sword.

Latter-day Saints would look at the list I've provided as being actual examples in which God has spoken in a great deal of clarity.

Only the ones who don't know their own church's history.

But even then, as Joseph himself said, God speaks to mankind in their 'own language' (what does that actually mean?) and according to their "own understanding"...and on top of that, in a "broken" language.

Except when it comes to making sure Joseph Smith sleeps with women other than his wife. In that case, it's crystal clear. (Funny how the angel didn't command Joseph to spread the word to boil one's water before drinking it, or to wash one's hands before performing surgical operations, or that slavery is bad, but hey, Joseph God has His priorities, right?)

Critics tend to shrink wrap everything into a tidy little package with little or no nuance or wiggle room for understanding.

But I'm sure you never do that, do you?

Of course, they will accuse believers of the same.

But that accusation is entirely untrue when it applies to you, right?

For believing members of the church with a testimony there are certain certainties that come into play which add to the core testimony and belief in the restoration. Those that I've mentioned would be right up there on the top. Understandably, you and other critics of the restoration would look for and find insurmountable (your reasoning) holes in those certainties.

One might consider that you and other critics also have your own certainties which lead you away from having a testimony/belief in the restoration of the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In these matters it pretty much comes back to 'different strokes for different folks". I don't fault you for the certainties that you have which have led you away from the church. In fact, I would hope that those certainties are certain in the sense that you don't have to spend much time second guessing yourself.

I find it interesting that some critics spend so much time on what was once their religious community (those that were members anyway) rather than the myriads of other things they could be doing with their time. John Dehlin and some others I can understand to some extent. It provides a comfortable living for them. I would guess most critics here are not making any money doing this. As it is, those that are members of the church have been encouraged to reach out and try and correct misunderstandings and give a positive message/view of the restoration. That is our call.

I sometimes wonder whether directly or indirectly critics ever have second thoughts or find themselves second guessing their decisions to leave the church and its teachings/ordinances/covenants in the rear-view mirror. Participating on a board such as this with a majority looking for and trying to maintain their reasons for disbelief seems to be one possible reason for being here. And honestly, I wonder why Physics Guy with all that he has going on...and Limnor also...would pick a Mormon Board to hang out on and criticize Mormonism in particular. It's interesting.

There are a few here that I have at times questioned their sanity. They are consumed...consumed...with fighting against that which they no longer believe.

It's not like anything said or brought up here is going to change the trajectory of the church and its success in bringing souls to Christ.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

And honestly, I wonder why Physics Guy with all that he has going on...and Limnor also...would pick a Mormon Board to hang out on and criticize Mormonism in particular. It's interesting.

I post here because it’s an environment where ideas don’t get a free pass and I want my thinking to survive critique. Originally it was because I wanted to talk about the origin of the book but lately it’s discussion about beliefs in general.

Come to think of it, my reasons for posting aren’t that different than yours. I don’t like seeing God described in ways I think are inaccurate. If something about God is being misrepresented, I’d rather try to articulate it carefully than leave the caricature standing.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

And honestly, I wonder why Physics Guy with all that he has going on...and Limnor also...would pick a Mormon Board to hang out on and criticize Mormonism in particular. It's interesting.

It's psychologically fascinating that Fibber chooses to haunt a Mormon board famously rooted in discernment, and where Fibber's credibility is currently sitting at exactly zero.

[Gadianton]

I find it interesting that some critics spend so much time on what was once their religious community (those that were members anyway) rather than the myriads of other things they could be doing with their time. John Dehlin and some others I can understand to some extent. It provides a comfortable living for them. I would guess most critics here are not making any money doing this.

Isn't that circular? Isn't that like asking why a golfer wastes time at the golf course? Maybe you meant to ask why do members who leave become critics, instead of doing other things. Given the numbers on this board, it seems like there would be a whole lot of disaffected members who are not posting here.

As it is, those that are members of the church have been encouraged to reach out and try and correct misunderstandings and give a positive message/view of the restoration. That is our call.

How many misunderstandings do you think you've corrected? Most of the time it appears you're teaching false doctrine in order to make the Church look less weird to outsiders. Perhaps that counts as something, but it doesn't count as "correcting misunderstandings".

[MG 2.0]

How many misunderstandings do you think you've corrected?

Not a few. Although I do find myself having to rehash...or be expected to rehash (a term I introduced a while back)... so many things that are recycled in one form or another time after time after time.

There are times I choose to bypass going that route.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

As a reminder, there are a few posters that I do not interact with anymore. One of them having been proven to be a habitual liar. The one that can't help himself and doesn't seem to show any remorse at all. If that poster could interact civilly without feeling the impulse/need to use a pejorative every time he posts in response to something I have to contribute (fibber!!) it might be possible to forgive and forget.

I don't expect that this will happen though. Too much water under the bridge, I suppose.

He'll keep coming back! One amongst a few trolls that follow me around. With nothing useful to say, I might add.

I have my own set of unwanted groupies. Makes me feel kinda special.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I don’t like seeing God described in ways I think are inaccurate.

Or according to your own exegesis and interpretation.

If something about God is being misrepresented, I’d rather try to articulate it carefully than leave the caricature standing.

There it is. "Misrepresented". Personal beliefs and interpretation.

I think we might both agree that the only ONE that could provide accurate revelation and guidance would be God himself.

Where are you going to get that? If I was only one among many Christians with various points of view concerning God that have come down through the ages and the creeds I would be a bit careful in taking the position that my own exegesis and interpretations were the correct ones in all respects. But then again, being in that position, I might not even be able to entertain that notion. Hard to know.

I think there is something to be said about modern prophets and apostles.

Regards,
MG