Yep, all part of god's plan.

Hmmmm...Heaven or Hell? Oh boy.

Precisely the problem I have with orthodox Mormonism ... individuals are expected to subordinate their consciences to human authorities (and Mormons, just like those of other fundamentalist religions all throughout history, have already proven themselves perfectly willing to do so, with great wickedness, in terroristic, utterly grotesque violence).

The problem is that, if man is to be held accountable for his actions, and is to have agency (free choice), there must be no requirement more important than that he follow his conscience (i.e. his ability to distinguish between right and wrong). Were human beings ever required to follow a voice other than that of their own individual consciences, that would mean, necessarily, that they were not ALWAYS making free, autonomous choices and therefore could not be rightly be held accountable for all their actions. This would fly in the face of the Mormon doctrine of agency (that people past the "age of accountability" are personally responsible for all their actions while alive on Earth).

So, you can't say you believe in agency (personal responsibility and accountability) and at the same time say there is a voice that must be followed even if it contradicts that of one's own conscience (at least not without being mistaken, deliberately deceitful, or hypocritical).

Nevertheless, justamere10 believes the voice of one's individual conscience may not be that to which people owe ultimate obedience. To me, this extremely important and disturbing inconsistency proves his hypocrisy, and by extension, that of a great many in the Mormon orthodoxy.

Only because he has to, in my opinion. I think justamere10, and many orthodox Mormons, like most fundamentalists, has rather pronounced totalitarian tendencies. As someone said a while back, I could be wrong, but I really think justamere10 only tolerates tolerance because in the American democracy he's working (consciously or unconsciously) to undermine he (and others of like mind) are still required to do so.

this was me I think. And it is the reason why I distrust fundamentalists of any stripe, political or religious. In the former case they are responsible only to history and that vague indefinable concept called "the people". In the latter case they are responsible only to a divine being whose true will they alone know and whose law as received by them applies to everyone. In other words, they can justify anything and are responsible for nothing.

No matter how badly you want to dodge the fact, justamere10, there is a connection between politics and action, action and values, and values and religion.

Anyone who wants to pontificate about the "beliefs" of a particular religion without examining the actual behavior of the adherents is missing the entire point of religion ... i.e. to make people better people and the world a better place.

"By their fruits ye shall know them."

Attempting to separate religious doctrine from personal behavior, to say "watch what I say, not what I do," to teach that "words speak louder than actions," etc., is emblematic of the inverted ethics entirely too prevalent within modern American culture (and Mormon culture in particular).

In my view, you show your true colors, justamere10 – the depth of your denial, and your lack of commitment to truth, your inability to "walk your talk," and your lack of credibility on religious questions – by the way you flee from the ethical requirement to address the abject wickedness enabled and supported so enthusiastically these past 7.5 years by the actions of such a large percentage of the members and leaders of our church.

For some people heaven might be hell if you gotta behave while you're there. :-)

Latter-day Saints believe that there are truths to be found in all religions. We are encouraged to study broadly and seek after a personal understanding of all things. It is written in our canon that "the glory of God is intelligence". We strive to be as godlike as we can become (falling far short of the goal of course) so lifelong learning is very important to us. That is why the LDS Church owns and operates the largest private university in the USA, and operates thousands of seminaries and institutes all over the world.

Those who do not know us but seek to do us harm often come up with all kinds of dark conspiracy theories, most of which couldn't be further from the truth. In fact you might be able to learn some truth from them, because we are often the exact opposite of what our enemies say we are.

"The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth." D&C 93: 36

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/93/36#36

"And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith; • • • And do thou grant, Holy Father, that all those who shall worship in this house may be taught words of wisdom out of the best books, and that they may seek learning even by study, and also by faith, as thou hast said;" D&C 109: 7,14

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/109/7,14#7

Dictionary definitions of fundamentalism:

1.a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2.the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3.strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.

-----
1. Latter-day Saints are not Protestants, they are Restoration Christians. The Bible is in our canon, we love it and we study it, but we do not believe that it is infallible. Evidence of that is the tens of thousands of Christian denominations, each with their own definition of one or more verses in the Bible. For clarity, mankind needs more than the Bible. There are other books of scripture in LDS canon and we have a living Prophet and Apostles, as existed anciently.

2. We are not part of the fundamentalist movement though we do believe in many of the same principles.

3. We believe that God has provided a "Plan of Salvation" or "Plan of Happiness" to His children. That Plan comes to us complete with a set of instructions. Those instructions are often called "commandments." We believe that those who keep God's commandments have hope of living with Him in a state of happiness and fulfillment forever.

I didn't read the entire thread but I was wondering if you watched the South Park episode about Mormons?

If you did what did you think about it?

I hope you understand that I don't seek to do you harm. I seek to get your church to focus on the souls of its flock and get out of politics and leave the rest of us alone. And that would include ceasing this wandering the world trying to inflict that ridiculous work of third-rate 19th century fiction on us. But then proselytizing is not just a Mormon thing but reflects the arrogance of Christians in general so it's not like it's only you.

As for what your enemies say you are, I think you're in trouble on that one if my experience is any guide. What i have learned from this thread mainly from you and from the insights of shoeshoe has pretty much confirmed every suspicion, fear, and prejudice I ever had about the "official" Mormon Church. You, along with the sites you reference consititute the mother lode when it comes to ammunition for those enemies to whom you refer. I've got to say that I've rarely been proven so right.

As I explained earlier, it is my observation that the LDS Church does focus "on the souls of its flock". Now if only politicians and secular judges would focus on politics and stay out of religion, churches would not need to get so involved in issues that politicians have created to give them brownie points with minority groups or to advance their agenda to do away with God, Jesus Christ, and moral values. But if people who happen to be members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints instead of members of other religious denominations got out of politics, Democrats (I assume you are one) wouldn't have Harry Reid (a Mormon) at their head.

You didn't get "suspicion", "fear", and "prejudice" from the Latter-day Saints, you got it by trusting that our enemies are telling you the truth about us. (Assuming that truth matters to you. But perhaps you are fearful that those who believe in God and the teachings of Jesus Christ really do have the truth after all and you might be wrong? If you can convince yourself that there is no God or that He gave no commandments, then you are free to do whatever you want to do that is contrary to Christian morality and goodness, with no concern about your eternal wellbeing; perhaps that is the golden grail that you seek...)

Have you read and prayed about the Book of Mormon yourself then to have formed such an opinion? Or are you trusting our critics and enemies for your conclusion about a book that many millions of people believe to be true and have benefitted a great deal from?

But of course you are free to believe what you want and to make your own choices about things that may have eternal consequences. Christians tend to care about everyone, that's why they are so eager to share with you portions of the knowledge of God and His plan of happiness that they are aware of. We understand if you reject what we have to say and cling to other things, that's all part of God's Plan, for each person to have the freedom to choose from among opposites: good or evil, virture or vice, light or darkness, etc. Those who consistently choose the things that are closest to the character of God have a great hope that they will live with God forever in an eternal state of happiness and contentment. The discipline of making right choices during our brief mortal life and sacrificing the forbidden pleasures of this world seems small, the burden is light for those who believe and fix their eyes on eternity, they tend to live happy mortal lives of service to others.

What is it again that a sinful lifestyle has to offer in old age when pleasure is not so appealing, and forever beyond the grave?

I have not seen it, but my guess is that you are asking others to respond. It seems strange to me how some people look to works of fiction to learn 'the truth' about things rather than looking to the actual people themselves. But maybe it's just the entertainment factor that a lot of people are seeking rather than truth...

could not have said it better myself...personally, it saddens me that we have entire groups of people like this group, but there are others, who believe things (not faith, dogma) that simply disqualify themself from participating in the political process, dont know any other way to say it...

but this is America...

No I was wondering what you thought not others? But since you didn't see it, Is it true that Mormons believe that Native Americans were actually White and came from jerusalam?

Your question is very broad and general but within that context I would say "no".

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ is the sacred record of a group of Hebrews ("Nephites") who were led by a prophet from Jerusalem to America. Their record spans the time from their departure from Jerusalem about 600 BC to the time their last prophet hid the metal records about 421 A.D. The record mentions another group ("Mulekites") who were likewise led by God to America about the same time. The two groups met each other and merged several hundred years later.

There is also an insert summarizing another group ("Jaredites") that left the Tower of Babel perhaps as long as 5,000 years ago and were entirely destroyed by civil war not long before or about the same time the Nephites arrived in their promised land.

The Jaredites may be those known to archaeologists as the Olmeca. Today's Maya may be descended from the Nephites (just speculation.) It is thought that there were other people living in the Americas when the Nephites arrived, so today's Native Americans may or may not have DNA from the Nephites.

I hope that helps, thanks for asking.

You can get a free Book of Mormon, or read the book online at http://www.mormon.org

i am speechless

Click the link below to anonymously read the Book of Mormon online. Or go there and click "Listen" in the top left corner to have it read to you.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents

If ONLY Reid, the king of the Blue Dog Dems (Republicans in sheeps clothing), the invertebrate "Wimp-o-crats" and "Dumb-o-crats" who do practically nothing, it seems, but cave, cave, cave to the demands of the big, bad, bully neoconservatives and the scary right wing FOX smear machine, were NOT at the head of the once great Democratic Party!

With any luck, Reid and the Quisling Queen Nancy Pelosi, together with the rest of the Bush Crime Family's friends and accomplices, the scare-di-crat Blue Dog Dems, the sine qua non of the neoconservative's half-realized plan to destroy the Constitution as anything but a quaint historical curiosity, will soon be long gone.

I say good riddance to them.

Mormon doctrine does, in fact, state that the American Indians were descended from people who lived in ancient Israel.

However, it seems that this orthodox Mormon doctrine is now being disputed as evidence acquired by newly developed techniques of modern DNA analysis seems to contradict the notion that native Americans are the descendants of Israelites (apparently, the DNA of actual native Americans bears far greater similarity to that of the ancient peoples of central Asia).

bigblock67camaro and others may want to read the following wikipedia article, for further information on this question:

Genetics and the Book of Mormon

That's the way orthodox Mormon apologists dismiss the DNA evidence that the doctrine of "American Indians as Ancient Isrealites" is mistaken ... but that's NOT what orthodox Mormonism taught until the advent of modern techniques of DNA anaylsis.

American Indians were often referred to simply as "Lamanites" (one of the clans of ancient Israelites posited by traditional Mormon doctrine to be the literal descendant of the American plains Indians and others).

I remember one prominent, older, ultra-orthodox member of our ward (the term used for an LDS "congregation"), who used to give a class to new members who were preparing for their temple endowments, who seemed always to prefer and use the term "Lamanites" when referring to native Americans. As I recall, he used to make reference to "Lamanite" branches of the (LDS) church, etc. (the LDS church as gone back and forth about whether of not to organize distinct wards or smaller "branches" according to ethnicity, providing Sunday church services in different languages to encourage continued participation by those who don't speak English, etc.).

All the LDS teaching I ever heard on this subject (one that, as I recall, came up more than occasionally in church materials and publications, Sunday school and elders quorum discussions, etc.) plainly stated that the American Indians (i.e. those in the Continental U.S. at the time the LDS religion was founded) – ALL of them, not some of them – were the descendants of this group of ancient Israelis.

So, while it may be true that there were "other people living in the Americas when the Nephites (a family of ancient Israelites that left Israel long ago and landed in on the American continent, according the the Book of Mormon) – again – that's NOT the way this doctrine was taught in the LDS church before DNA analysis began to cast serious doubt on it.

Your theocratic side is showing even more than usual today. Government has been in the marriage business forever. Where do you think all those hundreds of necessary laws and statutes regarding property rights, children, inheritence, hospital visitation, divorce, tax status, and the rest of the web of mutual marital rights and obligations came from? Not the Mormon Church.

Marriage is a legal construct and it has been that way in one form or another for some time now. The only role the Mormon Church or any religious organization has is to sactify or not depending on the dictates of their religion and the wishes of the couple in question. Religion has no bearing on whether or not a couple can be legally married.


No, i got them from you.

Prayer is the adult equivalent of writing to Santa.

Save it for Sunday school. I thought your pupose here was to enlighten us on the doctrines of the Mormon Church, not lecture us on "forbidden pleasures" and the character of God.


A sinful lifestyle? Are you speaking generally or do you feel you know enough about my "lifestyle" to judge it sinful? Oh, by the way, I'm not a Democrat although I do tend to vote for them since other more agreeable (and viable) options are scarce in these parts.

This is exactly correct.

As to whether marriage is a civil or religious institution, I ask readers to consider the following question:

Why is it that when marriages end the people involved have to go to court and not to church?

The obvious answer is clear, and instructive:

Since marriage in our secular culture is fundamentally a contractual obligation (and therefore basically a civic institution), when one or both parties to the contract wish to dissolve the contract the dispute is handled in court ... the appropriate place for all contractual disputes to be decided.

Religious marriages are additional commitments made by the two parties to God, in addition to the (contractual) commitment each has made under the laws and auspices of the state in which the marriage is registered. The additional religious commitments are NOT necessary in a secular society like ours in order for two people to be considered "married." ALL married people MUST meet the requirements to get a marriage license, issued by the state; this is not optional. SOME people also then get an additional religious blessing of their marriage (in Mormonism, this is called a "Sealing"), according to the particular beliefs and requirements of the church to which they belong.

However, many people choose NOT to obtain any religious blessing of their marriage at all, and these people, in our secular society, are just as married as those who do take the extra optional step of having a religious wedding and entering into whatever additional commitments those vows require.

Many religions do not consider civil marriages to be "real marriages," however.

According to a book I checked out of my LDS ward library, Mormon Polygamy: A History, by Van Wagoner (which I really should return, after all this time ... oops):

"Mormon marriages prior to the fall of 1835, when priesthood authority began to be evoked in marriage ceremonies, were adjudged invalid" (p. 44).

Also, according to this book (which I repeat ... I found in my LDS ward library) Joseph Smith was not only polygamous, but also polyandrous, i.e. a man who shared the same wife with another man (this happened approximately 11 times, or so, if I recall correctly, according to the book). So, Joseph Smith, the original modern prophet of the LDS church, in addition to taking multiple wives who were single women when they married Smith (the well known polygamous practice within the early Mormon church), also took as wives several women who were already married to other men and who continued to live with their prior husbands after their polyandrous marriage to Smith.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with any of that. But my point is that Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages appears to be a well kept secret (among many that the LDS leadership view as potentially embarrassing or "faith destroying") within the church. I'd never heard it mentioned once during my nine years of active membership.

Thank you. I don't know why the justameres in our country seem to have such a hard time getting their head around this concept.


And that is totally their right. They can make whatever rules they like for their believers. The way a certain church or religion views marriage only become a problem when that church or religion tries to get the government to impose its particular view on the general population.

The part about Joseph Smith was interesting. Sharing out wives, huh? I wonder how the wives in question felt about it. As long as everyone was good with it seems okay. But I'm pretty sure that kind of behaviour today would fall under Justamere's definition of leadiing a "sinful lifestyle". hehe

Mormons believe that the apostolic sealing power was restored to this earth by those who held those keys of Priesthood authority anciently. Today, in holy temples, a worthy man and woman can kneel at the altars of the temple and there be sealed together not only for time (until death do you part) but for all eternity.

Such sealings are performed only by carefully selected High Priests who have been authorized by the living Prophet to seal in heaven as it is sealed on earth. Such men must pronounce those sealings word for word as revealed by God. It then becomes a binding covenant upon Him that can be broken only by one or both of the spouses failing to live worthily, or choosing to divorce. Their children are also sealed to them. In that manner families can be together forever, one of the greatest of blessings that has been restored in these the Fulness of Times.

So, in LDS temples there are sealings for time only that are recognized by the state, and sealings for time and all eternity that are recognized by God.

Some hotshot critics of the LDS Church and its members continue to push worn out talking points such as the DNA thing. I'm not a scientist or a scholar but it seems to me in my meager understanding of DNA that you have to have DNA from TWO parties to make a comparison. Where did the DNA from a Nephite come from to make a comparison today with a Native American?

But here are a few words from those who know about such things:

DNA in South America - anything to do with the Mormons?

According to Scott R. Woodward, executive director of Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, a DNA marker, called the "Cohen modal haplotype," sometimes associated with Hebrew people, has been found in Colombia, Brazil and Bolivia.

But it probably has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon -- at least not directly...

Woodward sees that it is essential to read the Book of Mormon story closely to understand what type of DNA the Book of Mormon people would have had. The Book of Mormon describes different migrations -- the most prominent being Lehi's family. But determining Lehi's DNA is difficult because the book claims he is not even Jewish, but a descendant of the biblical Joseph.

According to Woodward, even if you assume we knew what DNA to look for, finding DNA evidence of Book of Mormon people may be very difficult. When a small group of people intermarry into a large population, the DNA markers that might identify their descendants could entirely disappear -- even though their genealogical descendants could number in the millions.

This means it is possible that almost every American Indian alive today could be genealogically related to Lehi's family but still retain no identifiable DNA marker to prove it. In other words, you could be related genealogically to and perhaps even feel a spiritual kinship with an ancestor but still not have any vestige of his DNA.

Such are the vagaries, ambiguities and mysteries of the study of DNA.

"It's an amazingly complex picture. To think that you can prove (group relationships) like you can use DNA to identify a (criminal) is not on the same scale of scientific inquiry."

Like the Book of Mormon itself, buried for centuries in the Hill Cumorah, genetic "proof" may remain hid up unto the Lord.


http://mormontimes.com/DB_index.php?id=1064


-------
Here is a microbiologist's discussion on DNA and the Book of Mormon.

http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/D ... ormon.html

I've detected an error in what I said earlier.

From the wikipedia article I quoted:

An introductory paragraph added to the Book of Mormon in the 1981 revision states in part: "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

So, apparently, the traditional LDS teaching was that ancient Israelites were the principle ancestors of the American Indians, that is, the ancestors of most indigenous people in America, but not of all native Americans, as I had stated.

I seems, however, that this DNA controversy nevertheless caused the LDS orthodoxy to change its story a couple of years ago so as to accomodate newly discovered scientific facts that contradict traditional LDS teachings.

The passage from wikipedia quoted above continues:

That addition [quoted above] from 1981 was changed in a 2006 edition, that stated only that "the Lamanites ... are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

The Lamanites begin as "principle ancestors" and then become "among the ancestors" of the American Indians after DNA studies reveal serious problems with the original LDS teachings on the subject.

Seems to me it's pretty clear that the LDS church itself now admits its traditional doctrine regarding the ancestry of the American Indians was incorrect (otherwise, why revise the Book of Mormon?).

I guess that proves it's possible for LDS dogma to be false, or at least not entirely accurate ... which is one of the main points I've been trying to make in this thread.

It's this secrecy, this reliance on cover-ups and "spinning" the truth instead of just telling the truth, this lack of integrity, this hypocrisy, that is what so bothers me about my church.

Too bad ... because there's a whole lot of good fruit on the LDS tree, also. Great lessons and powerfully good examples in a number of areas that will likely go unheard and unlearned because the church's hypocrisy is so repellant to so many.

Millions of active Latter-day Saints all over the world see no hypocrisy in the church they choose to be members of, and feel no desire whatsoever to spin the truths they know into something else. But yes, there is some bad fruit among our membership, a few discontented souls who have abandoned their faith and choose to spin the truth to fit into their own contrary notions. Most people defend and praise the organizations they freely choose to belong to, but there always seem to be a few discontents who instead of just leaving what doesn't work for them attack, put down and find fault where others see no problem beyond normal human fallibility.

Such is human nature...

As for me, I am perfectly content with the Church I choose to be a member of, I highly recommend it to every sincere truth seeker looking for a place to settle, and good like-minded company.

Call me strange, but I've always thought that offering constructive criticism of what one sees as not working within an organization one belongs to, along with honest praise of what is being well done within that organization, is the responsible thing to do as a member of that group.

According to justamere10, apparently, if you can't say only nice things, you should just shut up and say nothing at all!

(Note that this is actually just a religious version of the nationalistic slogan: "My country right or wrong," or its familiar equivalent reframed for religious fanatics: "My religion ... love it, or leave it.")

Isn't that called ... fascism?

I don't think you can call that "Christian," and I know you can't call it American.

By your consistent example of authoritarian intolerance for dissent and almost allergic negative reaction to honest criticism and sincere calls for transparency, openness and real truth seeking, justamere10 ... you keep illustrating wonderfully my point about the serious and troubling hypocrisy, denial, and lack of integrity and trustworthiness that, unfortunately, are still so deeply ingrained in orthodox LDS thinking, behavior, and culture.

Very disappointing. Very sad.

Most people who are genuinely interested in making positive changes within organizations they choose to affiliate with make those suggestions to the members and leaders of that organization. Few go into the public arena and mock and spin tales and conspiracy theories about the organization and its members.

But of course they are free to do so if that fits their real agenda.

Agreed. But who is doing this?

For someone who has in this thread always rightfully resented people impuning your motives or speculating about your "true" feelings and attitudes you are pretty free when it comes to doing exactly that to others.

Of course in those cases when one is trying to defend the indefensible impugning the motives of the questioner is one of the key weapons in the arsenal.

Good grief.

1. I have gone to church authorities with my complaints, and have discussed them at length with church leaders, many times, over many years.

Of course, if working on the "inside" fails, the common practice – in a free society – is then to go "outside" to seek support to make the positive changes one sees as necessary.

Why do you seem to need to have this explained to you?

2. You started a thread on a public message board called "Ask a Mormon." I'm a member of this board. I'm a Mormon. You asked me to participate. I'm participating. Now you don't want me to participate. Please make up your mind.

3. Why in the world do you and other orthodox Mormons get so awfully upset and get your feelings so hurt when anyone has the temerity to "go public" here in the United States of America, the world's "beacon of democratic freedom" that these same orthodox Mormons make such a big deal about being "the best country in the world," and dare to use that very freedom to "love my organization when it is right, and right it when it is wrong," to dare to (constructively) criticize someone's particular "sacred cows" with careful arguments and credible evidence?

4. You hypocritically decry my use of my God-given right to criticize what I perceive to be wrong and to follow my own conscience ... while ostensibly supporting these same things precisely BECAUSE they're God-given rights!

I think it's too bad that you apparently lack the strength of character to welcome and learn from criticism, without which people and institutions DO NOT GROW. Welcoming and protecting criticism is the basis of free societies everywhere. Apparently, you recoil at that notion, but still pretend to somehow love the freedom that absolutely requires the full embrace of it.

Why is that?

---

Frankly, I'm repulsed by what I experience as the sanctimonious, superior attitude you exude as you dress your self-righteousness as completely justified, good, and necessary ... since you're doing it "in the name of God" and I, because I disagree with you, are your enemy.

I've told NO "tales" or "conspiracy theories," here. I've told the truth as I see it, about my church, the good AND the bad, very carefully, to the best of my ability, and with supporting evidence in an honest search for the actual truth about it. I think it's very, very instructive that you think this is such a terribly bad and awful thing to do.

I think it's pretty obvious that, despite your words (words are cheap), you care rather little about free choice, justamere10. If you and others like you had your way, I think you'd see to it that NO opinions critical of the LDS church, or anything YOU and YOU ALONE decided was truly important, were EVER allowed to be spoken or heard here or anywhere else. You should be ashamed of that, in my view.

I think you're acting like a bully, frankly, or rather, a bully wanna-be who would if he could be a king dictating what to others must be believed and what cannot be criticized. I don't like bullies, and I DO think it's right and justified for people, if they're able, to defend themselves in just about any way possible against the tyranny and oppression such people would inflict.

Still, I could of course be wrong in these perceptions and conclusions. Maybe deep down you feel differently, and/or there's something I'm just not seeing. I hope so. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I've misjudged someone.

Is it even remotely possible shoeshoe that it is you and your views that are flat out wrong? Is it possible that it is the living Prophet of God who leads the Church of Jesus Christ in the direction He wants it to go? Do you somehow think you are going to change a worldwide church by putting it down in this medium?

Yes, you can drum up some kind of "support" here (if that is your objective) from those who have the same political leanings as you do and recognize fellow follower talking points, code words, and ideology. But that's not going to change the LDS Church is it? Nor do I understand why you would even want to try since you value LDS doctrine so little.

But I guess it's faddish to put down the Mormons, it does seem to make you popular here among the few who write...

sadly, you dont recognize that we arent putting down anything...it appears that there are those who systematically destruct your belief system in general and specifically that of your particular church, which by the way, takes the fairy tale approach to things even further than most religions...

but you are right about one thing, as long as your head is filled with the dogma that it is filled with, absolutely nothing will change your mind, no matter how logical and intelligent.

When one believes that the Living Prophet of God is calling the shots there can be no dissent. There simply can't be. It is totalitarianism taken to its highest possible degree. One is answerable to no law, no person, not even to the naggings of one's own conscience in the event that any of these things should come into conflict with what the Living Prophet of God declares is the will of the Almighty. No wonder you are so frustrated with us, Justamere.

I don't think I said it was the President of the LDS Church (we call him the "Prophet") who is "calling the shots", that is not our belief. We do believe that he is God's chosen representative on the earth, the Chief Apostle, and that he receives revelation from God for the entire Church. It is Jesus Christ who stands at the head of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that is our belief.

If God "calling the shots" is "totalitarianism" I'm all for it, though He always allows us the freedom to choose for ourselves, and to take the consequences of our choices when we act contrary to His counsel.

I see nothing logical or intelligent about breaking the commandments given us by the God who made this entire universe.

But yes, Randys, I recognize that you are not putting down anything, you are simply supporting the things you think at right for you.

God offers us that freedom. Too often those who belive in him do not extend to us the same consideration.

anytime you debate any religion, you are debating with someone or an institution that by definition and at their core hates and discriminates against many people, gays are the most obvious...

the greatest hypocrisy in life is organized religion, it is a walking, talking contradiction...

By the way, you do not frustrate me in the slightest, I know that you are too steeped in your own world to be a sincere truth seeker about the Mormons or probably about any other Christian denomination either, though I could be wrong in that.

I always write for the lurkers. Critics who write their opinions are the fireworks who draw them in. I seldom know for sure but perhaps among those silent ones are one or more sincere truth seekers who will click a link in my signature and learn the truth about the Church I affiliate with. All I can do is try...

Thanks for helping bring in the crowds, if all we do together is provide some entertainment, then we have served our fellow man in that manner.

Are you feeling that you are being forced to do something you don't want to do?

I'm feeling that you and other theocrats need to stop trying to make your religious beliefs and prejudices the law of the land. If you truly trusted in God you would go research some genealogy or something and let Him take care of anything that needed taking care of.

that would be like telling them to stop breathing

the very purpose for organized religion is to create and implement controls...it has never been good enough for them to limit it to the pulpit, just look at your history, the Old West for example...

the opiate dens that existed were shut down by the old bitty's and their preachers...it was a sin to do this, it was a sin to do that...prostitutes, etc...

everything, marriage, another control...more money for the church, more control for the church...doesnt matter which church

and now most are honest enough to admit they want SC justices who will implement into law their dogma...to permanently prevent gays from marrying, to permanently put an end to a woman having a choice of what to do with her own body...to permanently put an end to secularism everywhere...to permanently install school in prayer along with the abolishment of the teaching of evolution and the introduction of teaching of creationism...

I know you can read, justamere10 ... what's the problem? Is it a memory thing? What?

I'm quite certain that at least half a dozen times in my posts I've openly acknowledged that I could be "flat out wrong," as you put it. How many times have you done so, justamere10? Answer: Exactly zero (at least since I've been posting in this thread).

How many times do you use the phrases "in my experience ...," "in my view ...," "I think ...," etc. to indicate that you understand thay yours opinion is not the last word on the subject at hand, that you could in fact be mistaken? I try to do so quite frequently. I'm quite confident that readers of this thread know as well as we both do how how an actual count and comparison of these instances would turn out.

Here we go again – ONE MORE TIME – just for you, justamere10:

Yes, it is ENTIRELY possible that I'm 100% wrong, and everything orthodox Mormons say about the LDS church is completely true, period. Ordinarily, I'd put the likelihood of any particular fundamentalist belief system as actually being the one and only correct and true way to know God at much less that 0.1% (given at least 1000 fundamentalist belief systems that have ever existed throughout history, at most one of which can actually be correct in its claim to being the one and only truly and fully correct religious path); with orthodox Mormonism, given my own long involvement with it and my sincere personal struggle to discover whatever truth there may or may not be in it, I'm willing to bet much higher, around 15% (I think that's being generous, actually).

Because you think you know what's right and best for every last person on Earth – that you have the right and ability to judge what is the one and only fully legitimate spiritual answer for all of us, that your way is the only correct way for EVERYONE on the planet to know and understand God, that yours and only yours is the one and only true religion on Earth – that makes the possibility that your own point of view may be mistaken in any real way simply impossible for you to fathom, much less admit to yourself, much less admit out loud.

I find the depth your hypocrisy truly amazing, justamere10. But your consistent willingness to demonstrate it so often, so blatantly, and so publicly is even more amazing to me.

AGAIN – I'm not putting down the LDS church. My intention is to put it up as much as down. Because – AGAIN – as I've said numerous times – in my estimation the Mormon church has roughly equal numbers of remarkably positive and negative qualities, and deserves roughly equal amounts of praise and criticism.

It's just that you can't seem to stomach even the slightest real criticism of any aspect of our church, and so I end up having to defend my criticism so much I don't have the time to write more about the positive side. (Anyone who is interested in reading my positive comments only has to go back and look them up in this thread; it's not at all hard to find them).

OMG ...

How many times do I have to say it, justamere10?!?

Please, please ... PLEASE read what I've written.


I think this last comment by justamere10 illustrates very well the "Mormon persecution complex" that, in my experience, still plays an important role in LDS thinking and psychology.

The Mormon church was awfully and violently persecuted (members and leaders brutally abducted, murdered and massacred, burned out of settlements, etc.) for decades in its early years. The saints had no one else to depend on AT ALL during this time, but themselves ... going so far as to retreat 1000 miles into the western wilderness to a desert (Utah territory) that no one in his right mind would want to own (or steal), hoping doing so would finally bring them peace, quite, and privacy to worship as they saw fit. Then, as if that wasn't enough, for several more decades the U.S. government itself decided to get into the act of going after and persecuting the Mormon church.

I believe that because of this very real, merciless, terribly unjust, and seemingly endless persecution, there developed in Mormon culture, in addition to a deeply ingrained work ethic and sense of independence, an almost paranoiac inter-group loyalty and severe suspicion of the "outside" world that I say still exists unconsciously today within church culture.

I think one gets a glimpse of this by looking at the culture of the FLDS church recently in the news, which has so much in common with the mainstream Mormon church of the late 19th century. Indeed, they were one and the same, until the FLDS split from the LDS church over the issue of polygamy (the FLDS thought the practice was holy and should therefore not be terminated). justamere10 will no doubt vehemently deny these facts because, especially given the recent notoriety of the FLDS church, they tend to embarrass the LDS church.

As evidence, here's how Brigham Young referred to the mainstream LDS settlements that later split off to form the FLDS church:

---

"This [the area populated by those who would later split off to form the FLDS church] will someday be the head and not the tail of the church."

---

"... the head and not the tail ..." Clearly, these people were not some "wacky fringe element" within the main LDS church, they were regarded by the president of the LDS church as members whose uprightness and standing within the LDS church was well above average.

Click here to confirm this fact.

Though perfectly understandable, this protective tendency toward secrecy and coverup and away from humble, open transparency is one of the things that I think most hurts the credibility of the LDS church and gets in the way of the its mission, as many people find this overt or subtle lack of candor off-putting and wonder what the church is trying to hide and why it's trying to hide it.

Wow. There. justamere10 actually said it out loud. He not only doesn't have a problem with totalitarianism ... he's all for it ... as long as it's threocratic totalitarianism, and his is the theology in charge.

So, here we have it. justamere10 is, by his own free and enthusiastic admission, an LDS totalitarian.

In a way, this is really refreshing. I've never heard an orthodox Mormon actually cop to this tendency so directly and unapologetically as justamere10 has done here.

I think it's quite clear that all kinds of brutal autocrats throughout history have committed untold numbers of the most atrocious violent crimes through surrogates who believed them to be unimpeachable and incontrovertible authorities of what is right and just. We see it happening among extreme Islamic fundamentalists everyday, today. Is there any doubt that Christians are just as capable of the same disgusting blasphemous misuse of God's name ... as indeed they've already demonstrated multiple times throughout history, the LDS church itself being among them?

Is there any question that if this Christian "God Warrior" were to be able to round up a bunch of followers, a cache of AK-47's, and plenty of ammo that we'd see the same thing here as we see continually from the "Islamofascists" that justamere10's conservative friends like to attach the blame for so many of the our country's and the world's current problems?

Do realize, justamere10, that this is exactly how a great many "Christians" (more properly called "Christianists," "Dominionists," or "Christofascists" – I wrote about this extensively in an earlier post) do in fact view and conduct themselves, today?

In an earlier post you stated complete disbelief that Christians were just fundamentally incapable of such things.

Can you admit your obvious error on this point, after seeing the video linked above?

We shall see ... (but I highly doubt it).

Boy, Randys sure is lucky. I wonder why justamere10 doesn't extend the same admission to me and my intentions?

Why not me? What's wrong with me? Is it my breath? (no wait, he can't smell my breath). Maybe my race or country of origin? (no, can't see me or know that).

I'm just dumbfounded. Why is it that justamere10 is so nice to you, Randys, but so mean, mean, mean to me?

I think I'll go eat some worms.

---

Wait a minute ... I got it!

I'm ALSO a Mormon, just like him! But I'm a BAD Mormon! I'm a "traitor" because I disagree with him!

THAT'S IT!! THAT MUST BE IT!!

Or, maybe there are scores of readers who weren't yet suspicious of orthodox Mormonism who, after witnessing your excellent example of the rampant hypocrisy, and unChristian, authoritarian tendencies within the LDS orthodoxy, will now never go near the church, out of the distaste they developed for it by lurking in this thread.

To the lurkers:

My experience as an active member for about nine years showed me that the LDS church has many, many wonderful qualities, and I know for a fact that it can make (and has made) many people much, much better people, and much, much happier people ... notwithstanding the many counterbalancing negatives that in so many cases, in my view, terribly restrict the great good that the church is capable of doing.

You SHOULD check it out the LDS church, if you're lurking in this thread, if you're looking for a church to belong to, to see if it's for you or not. Many, many people have found it to be literally the answer to their prayers.

Just be sure to know going in that you will NOT be getting the full story about church doctrine, culture, or history from just about anyone you meet in church, and that you might want to research some of the points I've tried to make in the various posts I and others have written here, posts written in direct response to justamere10's view (which so well echo's that of the LDS orthodoxy) that there's nothing significant to criticize about the LDS church, and even if there were, it would be very, very wrong and bad to criticize it or let the church's ugly skeletons out of the closet.

It's just NOT "faith promoting" to do such an awful thing as to publicly ask probing questions that might embarrass the church, or for investigators (as potential new members are known) to receive "meat before milk;" in other words, you're not likely to hear anything but the nice parts, not anything like the whole truth about the LDS church, within the LDS church (unfortunately).