LDS: Why do you come here?

To correct falsehoods proclaimed as "truth" about my Faith. In other words, to Defend the Faith.

Trial by Faith said:

To correct falsehoods proclaimed as "truth" about my Faith. In other words, to Defend the Faith.

Click to expand...

do these alledged "falsehoods" include the perserved edited,and published by the church, teachings of Mr.Smith, Mr. Young, Mr. Woodruff, Mr. McConkie, etc, etc, ?

BarryK said:

do these alledged "falsehoods" include the perserved edited,and published by the church, teachings of Mr.Smith, Mr. Young, Mr. Woodruff, Mr. McConkie, etc, etc, ?

Click to expand...

Common fallacy argument by dishonorable critics.

1. Not all statements are "doctrine", though they are falsely interpreted as such by dishonorable critics.

2. Most statements are taken out of context and false conclusions and assumptions are placed on them, thus making things say something that isn't being said by dishonorable critics.

3. Many statements are taken out of context of the Gospel itself, meaning the critic ignores other statements which "clarify" and make clear what actual LDS doctrine and teachings are, and what were actually meant by the statements. Two examples of this would be the so-called Adam/God and Sex with Mary statements.

Bottom line, is that dishonorable critics take a "little" truth and fact from mormonisms history, leaders words, teachings and doctrines, and then tell great lies from them. They mix truth with lie, and think they are telling the truth simply because they have "quote-mined" something. They think they are telling the truth simply because they "start" with some fact, but such in fact is not the case.

The only "true" truth against mormonism, but really only against some mormons, is that some had wrong opinions about some doctrine, and were basically all corrected on it, such as Orson Pratt and Bruce McConkie. Or they make some wrong opinions about "why" the Priesthood ban, and a few even making some racist by our standards or ethnocentric remarks. Though, even some of those are taken out of context, and wasn't at all intended to be racist, especially given other words said, that clearly weren't racist but positive and supportive.

That's all you all actually got on us that is "truthful". Everything else you all claim is nothing but perversion of the truth.

Of course, if we are simply talking about "critics" only (which few exist), then such do mostly represent us accurately, and we simply have to agree to disagree about what is doctrine from the Bible, etc. being no different than the disagreements already had over Biblical Truth within Christendom.

Yes, Phoebe Ann, I'm still here.

Thanks for asking.

I posted this in a similar thread awhile ago, so forgive me for repeating myself.

I come here to learn patience. I feel that discussing my beliefs in an environment that isn't exactly always conducive to doing so is one of best ways I can.

I am reminded that the Savior first taught in circumstances that were often hostile to Him. When I am confronted with challenges—although mine are on a much smaller scale—I feel I am growing closer to God.

Hi, Phoebe Ann.

I do not like to discuss Mormonism generally, and I do not expect to convert anyone. I don’t have anything to convert them “to”.

I come here for a couple of reasons.

Reading posts, researching subjects in order to answer posts, and writing responses (even if I don't publish them ) helps keep me aware of the significant topics and issues.

Most Mormons of my acquaintance know only the party line and the party method. I search out official (!) Mormon sources to respond to claims by lay Mormons, claims that are incorrect or misrepresented.


I also come here because I have a friend or two who come here, making posts that I learn from.

I am also intersted in some theological issues, but can't ever quite find acceptable answers in the other areas of christianforums. Sometimes, ironically, I come closer to an answer about my theological question here.

Trial by Faith said:

Common fallacy argument by dishonorable critics.

1. Not all statements are "doctrine", though they are falsely interpreted as such by dishonorable critics.

2. Most statements are taken out of context and false conclusions and assumptions are placed on them, thus making things say something that isn't being said by dishonorable critics.

3. Many statements are taken out of context of the Gospel itself, meaning the critic ignores other statements which "clarify" and make clear what actual LDS doctrine and teachings are, and what were actually meant by the statements. Two examples of this would be the so-called Adam/God and Sex with Mary statements.

Bottom line, is that dishonorable critics take a "little" truth and fact from mormonisms history, leaders words, teachings and doctrines, and then tell great lies from them. They mix truth with lie, and think they are telling the truth simply because they have "quote-mined" something. They think they are telling the truth simply because they "start" with some fact, but such in fact is not the case.

The only "true" truth against mormonism, but really only against some mormons, is that some had wrong opinions about some doctrine, and were basically all corrected on it, such as Orson Pratt and Bruce McConkie. Or they make some wrong opinions about "why" the Priesthood ban, and a few even making some racist by our standards or ethnocentric remarks. Though, even some of those are taken out of context, and wasn't at all intended to be racist, especially given other words said, that clearly weren't racist but positive and supportive.

That's all you all actually got on us that is "truthful". Everything else you all claim is nothing but perversion of the truth.

Of course, if we are simply talking about "critics" only (which few exist), then such do mostly represent us accurately, and we simply have to agree to disagree about what is doctrine from the Bible, etc. being no different than the disagreements already had over Biblical Truth within Christendom.

Click to expand...

How can someone so high in the Mormon hierarchy have "wrong opinions" about LDS doctrine? How can that be? My assumption is, from talking to LDS through the years, LDS who have espoused the same beliefs that Orson Pratt and Bruce McConkie have preached, that the LDS church did actually teach those things, as doctrine, for a good long time, just as they taught other things, like blood atonement and polygamy, and they now wish, as they wished with blood atonement and polygamy many years ago, to back away from those teachings, and so teach (present tense) that what they taught back then was misunderstood by, oh, so many people, and that only in the present day can those doctrines be really understood.

The LDS church now is a completely different entity than it was 150 years ago (which was a completely different entity than it was when it was established 30 years earlier), but is still stuck with the same revelations that call essential Christian beliefs into question, and has to find some way to reconcile them so they can try to appear similar to mainstream Christianity.

Sorry to disagree with you, but I have been discussing things with LDS since the mid 1970s, and what is taught here and now is very different from what LDS in the 70's believed.

I like coming here to see the different opinion's. Though haven't been on much.

A New Dawn said:

How can someone so high in the Mormon hierarchy have "wrong opinions" about LDS doctrine? How can that be? My assumption is, from talking to LDS through the years, LDS who have espoused the same beliefs that Orson Pratt and Bruce McConkie have preached, that the LDS church did actually teach those things, as doctrine, for a good long time, just as they taught other things, like blood atonement and polygamy, and they now wish, as they wished with blood atonement and polygamy many years ago, to back away from those teachings, and so teach (present tense) that what they taught back then was misunderstood by, oh, so many people, and that only in the present day can those doctrines be really understood.

The LDS church now is a completely different entity than it was 150 years ago (which was a completely different entity than it was when it was established 30 years earlier), but is still stuck with the same revelations that call essential Christian beliefs into question, and has to find some way to reconcile them so they can try to appear similar to mainstream Christianity.

Sorry to disagree with you, but I have been discussing things with LDS since the mid 1970s, and what is taught here and now is very different from what LDS in the 70's believed.

Click to expand...

A New Dawn said:

How can someone so high in the Mormon hierarchy have "wrong opinions" about LDS doctrine? How can that be? My assumption is, from talking to LDS through the years, LDS who have espoused the same beliefs that Orson Pratt and Bruce McConkie have preached, that the LDS church did actually teach those things, as doctrine, for a good long time, just as they taught other things, like blood atonement and polygamy, and they now wish, as they wished with blood atonement and polygamy many years ago, to back away from those teachings, and so teach (present tense) that what they taught back then was misunderstood by, oh, so many people, and that only in the present day can those doctrines be really understood.

The LDS church now is a completely different entity than it was 150 years ago (which was a completely different entity than it was when it was established 30 years earlier), but is still stuck with the same revelations that call essential Christian beliefs into question, and has to find some way to reconcile them so they can try to appear similar to mainstream Christianity.

Sorry to disagree with you, but I have been discussing things with LDS since the mid 1970s, and what is taught here and now is very different from what LDS in the 70's believed.

Click to expand...

my point exactly!!!

either these earlier revelations were from God, and they are true, or they are from a source other than God, and simply not true.

either these more recent revelatins are from God and they are ture, or they are from a source other than God, and simply not true

A New Dawn said:

How can someone so high in the Mormon hierarchy have "wrong opinions" about LDS doctrine? How can that be? My assumption is, from talking to LDS through the years, LDS who have espoused the same beliefs that Orson Pratt and Bruce McConkie have preached, that the LDS church did actually teach those things, as doctrine, for a good long time, just as they taught other things, like blood atonement and polygamy, and they now wish, as they wished with blood atonement and polygamy many years ago, to back away from those teachings, and so teach (present tense) that what they taught back then was misunderstood by, oh, so many people, and that only in the present day can those doctrines be really understood.

Click to expand...

1. What is so difficult about understanding the concept? Did not Peter chastise other "Apostles" for having a wrong opinion? Did not Christ Himself chastise the Apostles or an Apostle for an act or for a belief?

My question to you is "how can it be" that you DON'T recognize human error in the Bible from even Prophets and Apostles, yet you want to be critical of LDS Prophets and Apostles?

2. Do you understand the difference between "folk tales" in a religion compared to it's Actual Doctrines? Let's take the most common that crosses all religions, that is the Adam/Eve story and how such relates to Science, the Dinosaurs, the fact that man has existed longer than the Bible states etc. All people within religion have their "own" views on that issue, how they "reason" science with the Bible, yet NONE of those views are actually "doctrine" are they?

3. You have no idea what "percentage" of LDS believed certain things, more importantly, believed them the same way dishonorable critics believe about them. Take Orson or McConkies statements about the Catholic Church. The are almost the ONLY mormons who ever said those things, views which by the way came from Protestant religions first in relation to the Catholic Church. Since, they are nearly the ONLY mormons to have ever taught said views, what makes you think MOST mormons ever believed it, simply because "some" did?

Even further, on THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE, the Church actually DID already have an official stance and teaching. And that was that the Church of the Devil is a "spiritual" church contrary to the Church of the Lamb. It's not talking about a "literal" Church. Look up the concept in our scriptures at LDS . org. It tells you right there what the statement means, and it always meant that. Just because some LDS wanted to believe the Protestant anti-catholic teaching on the idea, doesn't mean the Church did. Even further both Orson AND McConkie were directly disciplined on those issues. So, that should make clear that the Church did not teach it.

4. You are aware that most LDS "believed" what the scriptures said on a subject, and most of the time only believed a leaders words if such "matched" what both the scriptures and the Holy Spirit revealed to them. Thus, you have no way of knowing how many believed what. For me, given that I've been LDS for a long time living in many places, I can tell you without a doubt that most LDS DID NOT and do not believe most of these fringe things, but especially the dishonorable critics versions of the subjects.

5. There is no "backing away" from things. It's simply that you do not understand how the Church works. Polygamy has precidence of being given and taken away in the Bible, and Blood Atonement was simply a Biblical teaching that you don't understand, thus you turn it into something ugly, and when the Church says it doesn't believe in it, you cry, when what the Church is actually saying is it doesn't believe "your version" of what was taught.

The LDS church now is a completely different entity than it was 150 years ago (which was a completely different entity than it was when it was established 30 years earlier), but is still stuck with the same revelations that call essential Christian beliefs into question, and has to find some way to reconcile them so they can try to appear similar to mainstream Christianity.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but the Church is exactly the same as it's always been. You not ever actually knowing the Church and thus thinking it has changed when you look at it differently now is not the same as it having ever changed. The only things that have "changed" with the Church is Polygamy and the Priesthood, and BOTH have Biblical precedence. And the only other "harm" you can actually do to the Church is that some LDS leaders had a wrong opinion or were slightly racist or ethno-centrist. But again, such had nothing to do with the Church, so, you are wrong in your judgment.

Sorry to disagree with you, but I have been discussing things with LDS since the mid 1970s, and what is taught here and now is very different from what LDS in the 70's believed.

Click to expand...

Sorry to disagree with you, but I've been a member since then also, and lived all over, and you are very much wrong in your opinion. Also, didn't I read you were RLDS/COC? Thus, how can you really say you knew the "LDS Church"? We are not at all the same, having significant ideological differences, and ways of doing things. Now, you may have known some LDS who have had whatever view, but frankly you haven't had a good "sampling" at all to properly judge what was and was not "the Church".

Further, it needs to be clear that "common views" with LDS members does not and never did make "LDS doctrine", even if some incorrectly thought it did. Case in point the idea that God the Father was once a man as Christ was. LDS believe this is a "true" principle, but as President Hinckley said, it IS NOT and never was "doctrine" of the Church. You all think he was lying, but he was actually telling the Truth.

You guys need to learn the difference between your views of the Church, compared to what the Church actually is and was. They are not the same, and especially concerning how you have "perverted" certain LDS statements, such as Adam/God, Blood Atonement, Sex with Mary, some racism statements, etc. Your perversions of LDS teachings never were doctrine either.

I hope I've clarified some, but I don't expect you to believe me of course, you all never do, preferring instead of believe your conspiracy theory's.

when youre brainwashed into believing something was a revelation from God and it really was some guy making stuff up for attention and feeding his "God complex" then you wont agree with people. read a book called "the god makers"

Trial by Faith said:

Sorry to disagree with you, but I've been a member since then also, and lived all over, and you are very much wrong in your opinion. Also, didn't I read you were RLDS/COC? Thus, how can you really say you knew the "LDS Church"? We are not at all the same, having significant ideological differences, and ways of doing things. Now, you may have known some LDS who have had whatever view, but frankly you haven't had a good "sampling" at all to properly judge what was and was not "the Church".

Click to expand...

I have studied church history for many years. I had neighbors at home when I was growing up who were LDS. I worked in Nauvoo when it was an LDS church mission, and I had 18 LDS missionaries (as well as the 30 retired missionaries) telling me how it was, how the D&C was supposed to be interpreted, and how what BY said was considered gospel. I guess they were all wrong.

Further, it needs to be clear that "common views" with LDS members does not and never did make "LDS doctrine", even if some incorrectly thought it did. Case in point the idea that God the Father was once a man as Christ was. LDS believe this is a "true" principle, but as President Hinckley said, it IS NOT and never was "doctrine" of the Church. You all think he was lying, but he was actually telling the Truth.

Click to expand...

When BY said that his words were to be considered scripture (even though they were not canonized), who are you to say that those teachings were not taught as doctrine? It's real convenient for you to come here, over 100 years later, and tell us that what was taught as doctrine, never was doctrine, when the dead aren't alive to tell us, yes it was.

You guys need to learn the difference between your views of the Church, compared to what the Church actually is and was. They are not the same, and especially concerning how you have "perverted" certain LDS statements, such as Adam/God, Blood Atonement, Sex with Mary, some racism statements, etc. Your perversions of LDS teachings never were doctrine either.

I hope I've clarified some, but I don't expect you to believe me of course, you all never do, preferring instead of believe your conspiracy theory's.

Click to expand...

First, I have never discussed "sex with Mary" or "Adam/God", or even the racism inherent in the LDS church. I have discussed blood atonement and polygamy. I'd appreciate it if you didn't go off on a rant to the whole forum when you quote my post and preach at me. Thanks.

Second, you need to go take a few church history courses from someone who has a real church history degree and get your facts straight. You rant at us like we are making things up when you haven't even got the facts of your own church history straight.

A New Dawn said:

I have studied church history for many years. I had neighbors at home when I was growing up who were LDS. I worked in Nauvoo when it was an LDS church mission, and I had 18 LDS missionaries (as well as the 30 retired missionaries) telling me how it was, how the D&C was supposed to be interpreted, and how what BY said was considered gospel. I guess they were all wrong.

Click to expand...

Yes yes. We all know dishonorable critics are the ONLY "experts" on LDS History.
You shouldn't confuse your "over-inflation" of what you've heard from others with the "truth". One is not the same as another.

When BY said that his words were to be considered scripture (even though they were not canonized), who are you to say that those teachings were not taught as doctrine? It's real convenient for you to come here, over 100 years later, and tell us that what was taught as doctrine, never was doctrine, when the dead aren't alive to tell us, yes it was.

Click to expand...

Yet, there are things in the Bible which basically NONE of Christianity considers "doctrine". "Scripture" is only records of God's words and otherwise. All scripture does not make all doctrine.

Further, Brigham Young also warned the Saints to NOT lean on every word he or other leaders said, because even he wasn't perfect, but to instead for us to discover God's Word for OURSELVES.

Why do you guys always mention his one quote but "omit" this one?

First, I have never discussed "sex with Mary" or "Adam/God", or even the racism inherent in the LDS church. I have discussed blood atonement and polygamy. I'd appreciate it if you didn't go off on a rant to the whole forum when you quote my post and preach at me. Thanks.

Click to expand...

If you read what I said you know I specifically addressed those two subjects you mentioned. The other issues are simply my further mention as to specific issues dishonorable critics usually dwell on. So, get over yourself. Just because someone reply's to a post of yours doesn't mean every single word they say is only for you alone.

Second, you need to go take a few church history courses from someone who has a real church history degree and get your facts straight. You rant at us like we are making things up when you haven't even got the facts of your own church history straight.

Click to expand...

Please..... See my first statement above. When I finally DID study LDS history instead of the quote mining by dishonorable critics THAT's when I actually learned about "actual" mormonism. Sorry, but your mormonism is not the "true" mormonism. Your's is a perversion of the truth.

Trial by Faith said:

Please..... See my first statement above. When I finally DID study LDS history instead of the quote mining by dishonorable critics THAT's when I actually learned about "actual" mormonism. Sorry, but your mormonism is not the "true" mormonism. Your's is a perversion of the truth.

Click to expand...

Where did you learn "actual" mormonism from? I'm betting it's not from the church historians who have been excommunicated because they couldn't spout the party line anymore, the ones who actually know who happened. Because it is from them and other real church historians (people with real degrees in history) that I learned my LDS history from.

JesusCrustHC said:

when youre brainwashed into believing something was a revelation from God and it really was some guy making stuff up for attention and feeding his "God complex" then you wont agree with people. read a book called "the god makers"

Click to expand...

Your mistake is assuming that the God Makers books and movies actually tell the "truth" about mormonism. They do not.

Even Jewish Anti-Defamation leagues have condemned the God Makers books and movies.

Anyway, read up if you want to know what we "really" believe instead of what the God Makers says we believe.

The Truth About "The God Makers," Table of Contents

Trial by Faith said:

Your mistake is assuming that the God Makers books and movies actually tell the "truth" about mormonism. They do not.

Even Jewish Anti-Defamation leagues have condemned the God Makers books and movies.

Anyway, read up if you want to know what we "really" believe instead of what the God Makers says we believe.

The Truth About "The God Makers," Table of Contents

Click to expand...

no thanks. i know plently of ex-mormons that can answer my questions as to what you all believe. you put up a good front though.