Anything I missed?

[_sock puppet]

When I take issue is when people attack another faith. What do you think about that?

My take on civility is a bit different on a discussion board that is dedicated to issues about that faith. If I were to be at a summer picnic that you were at and for some reason you said something Mormonish, I'd probably just smile and ask you to pass me the potato salad. That's because we're there just to enjoy the outdoors, picnic food, and the company of others. The fact that you say, opened the door, would not lead me to walk through it the other way.

However, what draws individuals to this board is that it is a place for discussing Mormon issues. So Mormonism is fair game here. Someone who does not like negative comments about Mormonism does not have to remain to read more of them. Participation is voluntary. I do not think that a Mormon believer that comes here has standing to complain that there are anti-Mormon comments posted here, even if he or she considers them attacks on the Mormon faith. I do think that since Mormon issues are the topic of MDB, then comments both pro and con are very appropo.

[_Jason Bourne]

In all sincerity Jason, do you believe the critical information on the internet is in fact true?

Well, sure. I mean some critical sites are over the top and tell half truths and so on. Some are not truthful. But sure there are internet sites that tell factual truths about things in LDS history that the Church is not going to present in the missionary discussions.

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl:

Are you insinuating that I would say face to face the very same things that I post?

I know, I know. It was a pretty dastardly accusation on my part....

Whatever else may or may not be true... Jersey Girl rocks.

Thanks, Roger!
:-)

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon:

That's not a simple question to answer. In the first place, I think your use of the word "attack" is subjective.

Okay, but that would make it a matter of opinion either way, right?

Obviously you used the word, so you think it best describes what you see happening, but I doubt if the posters of which you speak would characterize it as you have.

They probably do not characterize it as I have, but there are probably a great number of people who do.

But something you also need to consider with that, is that the internet (or at least this website) allows a safe place to do exactly that. What you see coming out as words on a screen represent--for many of the ex-Mo's--a lot of pent up frustration that can't be released in any other (appropriate) manner. It's not necessarily directed at you specifically. You have to understand that much if not most of what they say to you is not personal. How could it be? How well do they even know you? How well can you know anyone online? Certainly your personality comes across to an extent, but when you realize that people have the freedom to really say what they think with minimal consequences, it helps when it comes to just letting some things go.

I agree with you here. Although I do think it is difficult for some (myself included) to never take anything said here personally; especially when it is a direct insult or something. But you are correct, we really do not know each other (except in some very rare cases).

I don't know what has transpired because I don't read every thread here, and if people get involved in a back and forth, I usually don't even bother to read it unless something captures my attention.

The basic gist of it is people like Joseph and Polygamy-Porter post hundreds of inane threads with such titles as "the Church hates Linux!" and "Joe Smith was fraud, fornicator, and child molester." These threads are usually either beyond stupid (does the church really hate Linux?), or beyond offensive (would they say the same things they do about 'Joe Smith' to a Muslim about the Prophet Muhammad?)

Schmo is a good guy. He's an atheist but from what I can tell he doesn't take anything too seriously.

He is another story. Schmo deliberately spells Mormon like mor.mon because, in his own words, it does not deserve to be capitalized! Whereas, of course, Ted Bundy, Hitler, Stalin, or any other of the most evil proper nouns do deserve to be capitalized. When I explained how offensive it was, he did it just to continue to be offensive.

But my larger point in response to your question is that really... if you take a step back you realize this is just a discussion board on the internet. (no offense to shades!) If you're getting seriously offended by whatever transpires here, my suspicion is you're taking it a bit too seriously. People are people, and as I said, this site offers a safe place to say things we probably wouldn't if we were standing face to face (well.... with the exception of Porter! : )

Yes, you are right. I did and do let offensive posters get to me, and I shouldn't.

Think about this, Simon... when the missionaries show up at my door and attempt to convert me to Mormonism, aren't they attacking my faith?

You are entitled to hold this opinion, however I strongly disagree.

They are telling me that the knowledge I have as an Ev is incomplete, that the Jesus I think I know is incomplete and that I do not belong to the one true church.

I understand what you are saying, but the problem I have is this: although other Christian denominations do not proselytize at your front door, they must think you are at some level incomplete in your belief system. If this were not the case, there would be only one denomination of Christianity.

And, by the way, I am pretty sure Catholics don't view your faith as "complete" -- but they are not evangelical from what I understand.

The problem I have, is that the vast majority of Christians know next to nothing about Mormonism.

Most have the faculties and resources to learn.

Milk before meat, right? That's part of the deception that upsets people and eventually creates feelings of betrayal.

A few oversimplifications there!

Although I see Joseph Smith as a con-man,

You are entitled to that opinion, but again I strongly disagree because:

Con men do not die for their cons.
Con men do not suffer a lifetime of persecution, tarring and feathering, eradications from home and family.

This is a discussion for another thread, of course, but just know that I do not see him as a con man.

Usually, they give back blank stares and eventually they recite their testimony.

Yes, I wish some missionaries were a little more prepared.

In short, I will grant, Simon, that the Book of Mormon is something unusual. It is too easily brushed aside by my fellow Evangelicals as an obvious creation of Joseph Smith. But if Joseph Smith is solely responsible for the Book of Mormon, he was certainly a savant. I am not saying he couldn't have produced it. I am saying I think there is a better explanation and in light of that better explanation it seems unlikely to me that he did it by himself.

To your credit, there are other "unusual" books out there -- like the Koran. I don't think Joseph Smith was a savant, although he could have been and just hid it very well. Every account I have read by people who knew him (even enemies) painted him as a pretty normal guy.

[_Simon Belmont]

You need to choose your words more carefully. You are NOT respectful of whatever people choose to believe. There are people here who believe that the LDS Church is unhealthy for folks. Instead of respectfully "listening" to them, you respond like a cold hearted, one dimensional jerk.

They can believe that the Church is unhealthy if they wish, as long as they do not attack it. If you want to see "cold hearted" then take a look at posters like Joseph, Polygamy-Porter, Some Schmo, etc. etc. who call Joseph Smith such things as "liar, fraud, child abuser" that is cold hearted.

Your "love" is conditional. You don't "love" the folks here who are angry or hurting. You extend no compassion, no empathy, no understanding of their expressions. Love is an ACT, Simon.

There comes a point when expressions are more harmful to oneself than the original thing they are expressing against. I am a very compassionate person, and honestly, if posts by these "angry and hurting" individuals were not so hateful and bigoted, I would reach out to them in a heartbeat.

Stop acting like a jerk, Simon. It's not just "another faith group" to them. It's THEIR former faith group. Some "attack" it because they believe they were screwed over by it.

I am sorry, Jersey Girl, but that just simply is not true. No one was "screwed over by [the Church]." I can understand someone feeling that way because their parents or their bishop or another leader told them something they didn't like, but people are people. They make mistakes. We need to forgive and forget, not come on the Internet and spew hatred.

Some criticize it because they disagree with it.

They are allowed to disagree. One can disagree without being hateful. For example, I disagree with Burger Kings menu price increase. I can choose not to go there, or I can choose to bathe in my anger until it becomes a part of me. What would you choose?

Stop acting like a total jerk.

If you were half as hard on the real jerks here as you are on me, I would take you up on that.

I see NO caring in you for others, NO compassion, NO understanding nor interest in understanding.

I am interested in understand, but I have a hard time speaking kindly to those who say things just to be offensive and hateful.

And yet, there is no part of you that has the capacity to relate to those who are pissed off over a religious organization that they feel screwed them over in multiple ways, took their years, their good faith, and their money.

There is a small part. It is the same part that has the capacity to relate to my children, who decided they wanted a Chocolate ice cream cone, but then decided they didn't like it anymore and they wanted vanilla.

You rag on them for the "choices" that they have made and tell them that those choices and the feelings associated with those choices (in hindsight) are their responsibility.

And you yourself are full of crap.

Look, I make choices all the time that come back to bite me later. I say "damn, that was a sucky thing to do" and I get over it. I don't come onto the Internet and bash someone else's religion!

The ex-Mo's on this board have made the choice to investigate their own church. They've made the choice to step away from their own church based on those investigations. They've made the choice to speak what they believe is the truth and YOU cannot tolerate the feelings associated with the range of their expressions.

That is untrue. I maintain that people can feel however they want, as long as they are not being bigots.

It's evidence of some guy on an anti-anti bender who can't step away and come up for air. How's that working out for you, Simon?

Not well, it's 12:30 here.

You know many of us from other boards.

The only people I recognize from ZLMB are: harmony, truth dancer, Gadianton, and Ray A.

I really don't know you people aside from this board, Jersey Girl. I thought we were cool; I thought we had a connection.

[_Jersey Girl]

The only people I recognize from ZLMB are: harmony, truth dancer, Gadianton, and Ray A.

I really don't know you people aside from this board, Jersey Girl. I thought we were cool; I thought we had a connection.

I'd like you to read this post: http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=360786#p360786

[_Roger]

Simon:

There are too many tangents we could go down so I am going to focus on just a couple things for now. by the way, I appreciate the tone of your responses.

I understand what you are saying, but the problem I have is this: although other Christian denominations do not proselytize at your front door, they must think you are at some level incomplete in your belief system. If this were not the case, there would be only one denomination of Christianity.

And, by the way, I am pretty sure Catholics don't view your faith as "complete" -- but they are not evangelical from what I understand.

There are Evangelical Catholics so far as I know, but I get your point. The difference is this... in spite of some of the practical differences between my faith and that of Catholics for example (notice I did not say my church and the Catholic Church) we still agree on the basic attributes of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We agree that the triune God has always been God (Psalm 90:2), that there is no other God (Isaiah 43:10 & 44:6-8) and that Jesus' Atonement on the cross is what paid the price for our sins (in full), and salvation is a free gift that cannot be earned. You and I cannot agree on those things and the reason is because of your additional revelation given mostly by Joseph Smith. That additional revelation so completely and radically alters the attributes of the orthodox God and the plan of salvation that we are not even in the same ballpark.

It would be like me coming along and telling Muslims, hey guess what! I just heard from Allah the other day and he told me he's not really the only God, he's one of a bunch of Gods, a council of Gods you might say. The nicer Muslims would smile and think I was insane and the rest would chop my head off. Joseph Smith altered the orthodox Christian God even more than that.

The problem I have, is that the vast majority of Christians know next to nothing about Mormonism.

Most have the faculties and resources to learn.

You're right about that. I learned, so it's possible. But the way the LDS church sells itself through its missionary program is--IMHO--deceptive. They tell you to read the Book of Mormon because it is the most benign of their scriptures. They don't tell you to read and pray about the D & C or the POGP. Heck, the Book of Mormon sounds almost orthodox, Simon. You won't read that God has a corporeal body or that he was not always God or that Jesus and Satan are our elder spirit brothers in there!

A few oversimplifications there!

I don't think so. You may not like the terminology but I'm only simplifying what your church teaches.

Although I see Joseph Smith as a con-man,

You are entitled to that opinion, but again I strongly disagree because:

Con men do not die for their cons.
Con men do not suffer a lifetime of persecution, tarring and feathering, eradications from home and family.

This is a discussion for another thread, of course, but just know that I do not see him as a con man.

Well since I started this thread I'm fine discussing that right here.

In general, I would agree that "con men do not die for their cons." But there's some mitigating factors in this case.

1. Although you want to see him as a martyr, Joseph Smith did not willingly die. On the contrary, he attempted to kill or wound others in an effort to live. I grant that I would have done the same thing, so don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Joseph should have just let the mob kill him, I'm saying his attempt to stay alive by force demonstrates that he was not willing to die for the con if he could avoid it.

2. Despite your claim to the contrary, some con men do suffer in order to keep the con alive. Let's not go too far, do you think Warren Jeffs really is a prophet? Do you think he's suffered to keep the con going? Oh, you say, but he really thinks he is a prophet! Well maybe. I guess we really don't know what he thinks for sure, do we? The point is, con men can and do choose to suffer rather than reveal the con. Just ask any police interrogator! The jails are filled with guilty men who don't confess.

3. Even though I think Joseph Smith was indeed a con-man (in fact I'm convinced he was), I think he just might have believed there really were ancient Nephites and that the Book of Mormon was really ancient. If I am right about that, then despite the treasure hunting (which he probably knew was nonsense) he may have actually believed in the Book of Mormon. Curious what makes me think that?

To your credit, there are other "unusual" books out there -- like the Koran. I don't think Joseph Smith was a savant, although he could have been and just hid it very well. Every account I have read by people who knew him (even enemies) painted him as a pretty normal guy.

No, I think you'd have to agree that your founding prophet was anything but a normal guy! "No man knows my history," Simon! Your founding prophet was a treasure hunting necromancer turned alleged divinely inspired translator turned failed prophet (no copyright sale in Canada; no temple in Independence to name just a couple) turned failed bank manager and counterfeiter turned failed land speculator turned failed militia captain turned jail captive turned escapee turned polygamist turned candidate for President of the United States, just to name a few things! He was anything but a normal guy.

Finally, in regard to this:

They can believe that the Church is unhealthy if they wish, as long as they do not attack it.

And what if they "attack" it? What then? In the first place, saying harsh words on a website hardly constitutes much of an "attack" in my humble opinion. In the second place, this website is not set up to keep defenders of the LDS church from getting their feelings hurt. That's not what this site is about. For the most part, we're grown-ups here.

If you want to see "cold hearted" then take a look at posters like Joseph, Polygamy-Porter, Some Schmo, etc. etc. who call Joseph Smith such things as "liar, fraud, child abuser" that is cold hearted.

You need to understand, Simon, that that is really what they believe. You're in a free speech zone here. People can exalt Joseph Smith freely (like you do) and others can slam him freely. There's nothing cold-hearted about it. I honestly think Joseph Smith was indeed all those things and more. On the other hand, I recognize that he loved people and many people loved him back. I recognize that he had charisma oozing out of him. He had an unassuming power over people that took them by surprise, usually pleasantly so. He offered aid to friends. He took in and cared for the children of his friends. He was loyal and tried to be as generous as his poverty allowed him to be. But the good can't just erase the bad, Simon. He was a liar. He openly denied polygamy when he was engaged in it. He was a fraud and pretty much admits so as he writes about his youth. And I know you disagree with this, but he was indeed a pedophile. You may think his marriage to Helen Mar was purely dynastic, but I say the evidence is against that. We may (and surely do) disagree about Joseph Smith, but you have to come to grips with the fact that people disagreeing with you and expressing what they believe does not mean they are cold-hearted. It means they are freely telling you what they really think and at least on this website, no one is going to shut the conversation down over that.

All the best.

[_Simon Belmont]

There are Evangelical Catholics so far as I know, but I get your point. The difference is this... in spite of some of the practical differences between my faith and that of Catholics for example (notice I did not say my church and the Catholic Church) we still agree on the basic attributes of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We agree that the triune God has always been God (Psalm 90:2), that there is no other God (Isaiah 43:10 & 44:6-8) and that Jesus' Atonement on the cross is what paid the price for our sins (in full), and salvation is a free gift that cannot be earned. You and I cannot agree on those things and the reason is because of your additional revelation given mostly by Joseph Smith. That additional revelation so completely and radically alters the attributes of the orthodox God and the plan of salvation that we are not even in the same ballpark.

From your point of view, I can understand what you are saying. However, we do in fact believe that God the Father, and God the Son (Jesus Christ) have always been God -- the only God we need be concerned with. We also believe in the universality of the atonement. Again, this topic alone could be several threads by itself, but let me just say this: I have two friends and one academic colleague who happen to be Evangelical (two Baptist, and one Presbyterian). I go to their services and auxiliary activities (Christmas parties, etc.) all the time. What is taught there is remarkably similar to what is taught at my services. I guess I just do not see the wide gap between our beliefs that some traditional Christians see. Oh well, I am happy to call them Christian, even if they will not return the favor. (p.s. this is not about you, specifically)

the rest would chop my head off. Joseph Smith altered the orthodox Christian God even more than that.

Thankfully, we Mormons no longer engage in physical violence that was so prevalent in frontier America.

You're right about that. I learned, so it's possible. But the way the LDS church sells itself through its missionary program is--IMHO--deceptive. They tell you to read the Book of Mormon because it is the most benign of their scriptures. They don't tell you to read and pray about the D & C or the POGP. Heck, the Book of Mormon sounds almost orthodox, Simon. You won't read that God has a corporeal body or that he was not always God or that Jesus and Satan are our elder spirit brothers in there!

Milk before meat is a universal idea. For example, when I attend a Baptist service, they worship God with hymns, and read verses from the Bible and apply their teachings in the lessons and sermons. We do that too.

Imagine if my friends Minister began teaching about all of the Human follies of the great reformers like Wycliffe, Calvin, Luther, etc.?

It is not the place or the time to talk about such things. The point is, humans are not perfect and never will be. It is too easy to look at Joseph Smith in hindsight and see all of his mistakes. I do not deny that he made mistakes, of course, but if that is all we see then of course we will vilify the Church.

Well since I started this thread I'm fine discussing that right here.

It's your thread.

1. Although you want to see him as a martyr, Joseph Smith did not willingly die.

He did not willingly die, but he was pretty sure he was going to. I am aware that, one of the most hateful anti-Mormons ever, Ed Decker wrote that Joseph "died in a blazing gun battle in which he killed at least two men and wounded another.... Joseph Smith was no martyr." But do martyrs resist death? Obviously all of Christianity view St. Paul as a martyr, but Ash notes:

Paul resisted being put to death through Rome’s legal and judicial system, apparently taking advantage of every provision of Roman law that might bring an acquittal

Joseph Smith's "fight or flight" response overtook him, just like it must have for every other martyr throughout history. You agree that you would fight back to preserve your life, and I would certainly do so as well. It is unfair to say that, because Joseph Smith did, he is disqualified for being a martyr.

2. Despite your claim to the contrary, some con men do suffer in order to keep the con alive. Let's not go too far, do you think Warren Jeffs really is a prophet? Do you think he's suffered to keep the con going?

He has suffered. Everyone is different, and can handle different amounts of suffering. I humbly submit that no one can handle multiple taring and featherings, threats on his life, threats against his family, (the list goes on and on) as Joseph did without admitting the con.

Oh, you say, but he really thinks he is a prophet! Well maybe. I guess we really don't know what he thinks for sure, do we?

We don't know what he thinks, but I believe he really believes he is a prophet. That is my opinion.

3. Even though I think Joseph Smith was indeed a con-man (in fact I'm convinced he was), I think he just might have believed there really were ancient Nephites and that the Book of Mormon was really ancient.

For me, there are two options: he believed it and was wrong, or he believed it and he was right.

No, I think you'd have to agree that your founding prophet was anything but a normal guy! "No man knows my history," Simon!

No man knows any historical figure's history, Roger!

Your founding prophet was a treasure hunting necromancer

Yes, which was extremely common in rural America in Joseph Smiths day.

turned alleged divinely inspired translator turned failed prophet (no copyright sale in Canada; no temple in Independence to name just a couple)

Prophecy is conditional, I assume we do not need to go over the many "failed prophecies" in the Bible?

turned failed bank manager and counterfeiter

The Kirtland Safety Society was not unlike the multitude of other frontier banks in the 1820s and 1830s. Most of them failed.

turned failed land speculator

Turned highly successful city planner (Nauvoo).

turned failed militia captain turned jail captive turned escapee turned polygamist turned candidate for President of the United States, just to name a few things! He was anything but a normal guy.

You're right, he was an extraordinary guy. Anyone can list the bad attributes of any historical figure, but the fact remains that he did a lot of good things, too.

Finally, in regard to this:

And what if they "attack" it? What then?

Then they have no right to complain when the "Mopologists" defend their faith.

[_AtticusFinch]

No.

You missed nothing.

Simon still follows a false prophet, but wishes Joe still allowed polygamy....as it might be only chance he has for getting laid.

NL still sees things in mountains, though he claimed he also saw the figure of Sylvester Stallone in a potato chip.

The LDs Church is still false.

This board is still a hoot

[_Simon Belmont]

No.

You missed nothing.

Simon still follows a false prophet, but wishes Joe still allowed polygamy....as it might be only chance he has for getting laid.

NL still sees things in mountains, though he claimed he also saw the figure of Sylvester Stallone in a potato chip.

The LDs Church is still false.

This board is still a hoot

Case in point, Roger.