Who has been where I am? Questioning. Where did you end up?

[_mms]

Hi mms, you wrote:

I was not concerned about James or anyone else telling of his/her experience, and I certainly appreciate all who have, but if you look at the post I responded to, it specifically asked for evidence of the GA's being "traitors". I think you would have to agree that such a discussion would be more appropriate in another thread. I think you probably knew that and simply felt like arguing your point, for some reason. Regardless, James was succinct in his response and I appreciate that. (UL added by RM)

Little puzzled mms?? What made you think, "...(I) simply felt like arguing..." Not my nature, or style, LOL ;-) I guess possibly you took the GA traitor comment more seriously than I? One of those statements better let pass, in my experience. Ya know what I mean?

I am glad the thread has been helpful for you. There are some REALLY good folks here! Mo's ExMo's & NoMo's. I can't seem to get back to your post I'm replying to?? There was something else I wanted to address. Have to get back later. Warm regards, Roger (Thanks Jason :-)

Roger,

If you look up the thread a way, there is a post by me called "duplicate post"--it actually was an attempt to edit my post to delete the sentence you have underlined and rightfully taken issue with. Ultimately, I thought I had succeeded in deleting the sentence, but apparently did not double check. Point is that I read your other posts and realized that this was, indeed, not your style and I jumped too quickly. So, apologies, and, for the record, I thought I removed that unwarranted sentence.

mms

[_asbestosman]

So are people who were once fully active, believing members but change their minds and leave the church hypocrites too?

That's not the situation we're talking about with Bob. His focus on this bb, for as long as I can remember, is to attack anyone who posts with a moniker, but yet he has done the same himself.

If I'm reading Bob properly, the distinction is that he only attacks anyone who posts without revealing their name. Has Bob ever posted under a moniker without revealing his name after he started criticizing people for doing that very thing? That's all I was saying.

Either way, I'm no more impressed by his obsession than anyone else here.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I find this part of your original post interesting:

My major issue was the apparent belief by many over there that the average active member of the church should actually know about matters that have been intentionally avoided by the church in an effort to portray an "adoring history." It seemed so obvious to me that the church had significant responsibility and these people (apologists at MAD) would be so hard on people for not knowing about polyandry and Joseph Smith's plural marriage issues, etc....

....I talked to my Bishop (with whom I am pretty close). He knew nothing about any of the issues I am concerned with

My experience is that typical active members, including bishops, do not know about the "issues." What universe do the apologists live in to actually believe active members of the church know about the issues, and if they don't, should go searching? Members are fed a rotating diet of the same faith-promoting lessons that have been recycled for generations, while at the same time counseled to stay away from "anti-mormon stuff" which is typically defined as anything that isn't from an approve church source, and doesn't portray the church and its leaders as perfect. I don't know what ward these apologists attend, but it is far different than any ward I was ever a member of.

[_Roger Morrison]

mms, :

If you look up the thread a way, there is a post by me called "duplicate post"--it actually was an attempt to edit my post to delete the sentence you have underlined and rightfully taken issue with. Ultimately, I thought I had succeeded in deleting the sentence, but apparently did not double check. Point is that I read your other posts and realized that this was, indeed, not your style and I jumped too quickly. So, apologies, and, for the record, I thought I removed that unwarranted sentence.

No problem. This thread is moving so fast you'll soon have a tapestry. Wade made some good points for you. Although they seem to lead more to a spiritual reconciliation than an exploration. Maybe that's what you crave. It is much easier to remain "with the devil you know." As the old saying goes.

We each approach our decisions with our own unique weighing systems. Personally, i have never been in a deep-pit. LDS or otherwise. I guess my instincts are honed to avoid them, before falling in. As a sailor i can relate to Wade's "navigational" analogy. While there are principles common in most conditions of wind and current there are sufficient variables that there are disasters as well as making-it-to port.

In many cases one is saved by reflex-actions in a storm, when others fail by being indecisive. To each their own device. Recently read the best seller--if that means much--"Blink". The premise therein was the "gut-feeling" kind of thing, the sixth sense. (Some are lucky to have 4 ;-) Go with the first flash of insight.

Your questions are legitimate. Unfortunately to get answers that you don't already know, you have to venture beyond your normal bounds. There is nothing to fear! I think a few pages back, Truth Dancer gave out with good opinions re braving the 'new'... Difficult for many, as from birth most of us are conditioned to adhere to tradition. You are obviously at a point to step out of the box... You can always step back in... Some do, others don't. No stats... Warm regards, Roger

You mention several times the "spirit". I think your LDS conditioning might have left you with a poor understanding of "spiritual"? I respectfully suggest "spirit/spiritual" has little, if anything, to do with church-stuff. It has to do with being impressed/excited by beauty, wonder, profundity, the 'eureka!' feeling... IMSCO ;-)

[_rcrocket]

There are a couple of problems with this. A) No one has ever corroborated your "eyewitness information," and moreover, the facts of Quinn's biography suggest that you were engaging in vicious speculation and gossip. B) You have demonstrated a penchant for manipulating evidence (I.e., the MMM letter), which rather dampens your credibility, I'm afraid.

Perhaps you could substantiate this charge that I manipulated evidence? In a prior post a few days ago I asked you to please state your objections to my published pieces and you said nothing.

Quinn outed himself long before Dr. Peterson purportedly has some sort of conversation with a stake president about it.

There is zero documentary evidence to support this. Zilch. Nada.

"Documentary" evidence? Hmm. All I can say is that long before the day upon which you assail Dr. Peterson for having a discussion about Dr. Quinn, the latter had already come out. I was a witness to it at the MHA meetings. You can ask Dr. Quinn yourself if you doubt. He will not deny it.

I agree that DCP is a "swell" guy. He most definitely deserves the criticism and scrutiny he receives, however. Only fitting for a bigot, wouldn't you say? ; )

You're pretty comfortable traducing one's reputation behind your cloak of anonymity, aren't you? Me (manipulating evidence) and now Dr. Peterson (bigotry). Such character. This is the sort of character which haunts this board; you can see for yourselves. Cowards and libelors.

rcrocket

[_sunstoned]

Mms, these are my answers. I am an active Church member.

1) Book of Abraham (missing papyrus theory strikes me as mostly ridiculous (sorry) and catalyst theory makes me assume too much fallibility w/ Joseph Smith for me to conclude he was who I have been taught he was)

Most likely this was just made up like any allegory. However, like other allegories, there are symbolic truths that can be gleaned from it. Those are what is truly important.

2) Polygyny/Polyandry -- No reasons for these practices whatsoever and seems a true "wart of warts" on the history of the church;

They were warts. Fortunately the practice has been abandoned for over a Century.

3) Book of Mormon anachronisms and other related issues;

See answer to #1.

4) One true church;

We have truth but so do others. We are all on our own individual spiritual pathway. For me, the Christian worship and fellowship of the Church of Jesus Christ, assists me on my spiritual pathway. That is what is critical for me.

5) Blacks and Priesthood -- always been an issue for me and cannot resolve it.

No need to resolve it, it has already been abolished. But how to reconcile the practice? In good conscience you can't. It was wrong and is indefensible. We just have to forgive the fallibility of those in the past who fostered this discriminatory practice.

Hope this helps.

I like this. This is a open and honest way of looking at things.

[_Roger Morrison]

Thanks Sunstoned, i like that too. Not surprised it originated with Moksha. He has to be THE level-head and open-heart amongst us. Now, IF LDSism accepted nominations, as others churches do, eh ... Maybe too personal Mok, but what church positions have you held? Do now? Warm regards, Roger

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Perhaps you could substantiate this charge that I manipulated evidence?

Mr. S is referring to the William Bishop to John D. Lee letter you quote in your FARMS review of Bagley's book, in which you use ellipses to change what Bishop was saying in order to support your argument that no one should ever rely on Lee's Mormonism Unveiled (notably, Richard Turley didn't buy into this -- his Ensign article on the MMM cites Lee's book).

I was a witness to it at the MHA meetings.

No one has ever claimed to "witness" what you did. It's pure bull, in my opinion.

You're pretty comfortable traducing one's reputation behind your cloak of anonymity, aren't you?

One-note wonder Bob strikes again!

[_Trevor]

Yes, we shouldn't criticize the Brethren even when they are wrong. Why? Because of who they represent. If you do not believe that they were called of and represent God, then I guess criticizing them is fair game.

I think you are indulging in a false dichotomy here. Just because a man is called of and acts as a representative of God does not result in his being immune from criticism. In fact, if he is doing a crappy job at it, he may need to be criticized to help him correct his course. Being a representative of Deity does not absolve you of your humanity or the right of others to comment when you have erred.

As for criticising others, I'm sure President Hinckley wasn't saying...
I'm pretty sure the prophet was speaking about the evils of tearing people down and hurting them. I think the issue here is one of ambiguity in language.

Perhaps we are thinking of different Ensign articles. In the one I am referring to, Hinckley equated the act of criticizing with pride. He essentially said that in criticizing one arrogates to him or her self a superior position, which shows a lack of Christlike humility.

Of course, one could equally say that the claim that one is above criticism shows a far more profound lack of humility, but I am not sure this occurs to Hinckley and his crew. I am not saying it doesn't, but they certainly don't acknowledge this side of the issue.

[_rcrocket]

Perhaps you could substantiate this charge that I manipulated evidence?

Mr. S is referring to the William Bishop to John D. Lee letter you quote in your FARMS review of Bagley's book, in which you use ellipses to change what Bishop was saying in order to support your argument that no one should ever rely on Lee's Mormonism Unveiled (notably, Richard Turley didn't buy into this -- his Ensign article on the MMM cites Lee's book).

Perhaps you can set forth the quote as I made it, and then with the deleted material, and explain how it is I misused it. I really can't fathom your comments.

Just because a student of history, scholar, historian or writer challenges the bona fides of a particular source does not mean he or she cannot or should not cite it. I distrust Josephus for a number of reasons but that doesn't mean I can't refer to him when it corraborates other evidence. Moreover, citing Lee's Confessions is valuable to show admissions he makes against his own interest -- a valuable source of material.

As to Dr. Quinn, again, he will support me as to his self-outing and will not deny it or the timing. Why do you not write to his publisher and learn for yourself as I have learned directly from him? Instead of continuing to libel Dr. Peterson over something that did not occur.

rcrocket