Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I see.... So you really are not God's chosen people; you are merely some people who choose God?
I never said anyone needs to. And while you are free to hold the opinion that no one would, I am free to observe otherwise. Either way, I don't understand your objection.I very much object to your last sentence. I don't think anyone wants to present your believes by lying about them, nobody needs to do that.
I don't get mad. But if I did, I just detailed why, and it is a legitimate reason.And you can write a 30 page treatise on the subject of why God was a man before He became God-bottom line, you believe God was a man before He became God. So I do not understand why you get mad when somebody states it.
It matters to me.It doesn't really matter why you believe it, that is the believe.
That is fine. I have no objection to you believing what you believe, nor to your choosing not to get mad when someone states what you believe. I still feel that you failed to understand why I, or other LDS, may object when others purport to share what we believe. I was speaking generally; you are being specific. And I think it's leading you to miss my point.We say God was always God--doesn't matter why that is what we believe. So when someone says Christians believe God always was God, nobody gets mad about it--it what we believe. If someone asks why, we say it's what the bible says ad we believe it.
I do. Why do you presume that I don't?If somebody asks why you believe He was a man first, then you give your explanation.
Maybe they found misinformation and thought they'd found good information. Impossible?People who come on here who were LDS are not making this stuff up. They are saying what they found.
Maybe the person did a lousy job of explaining.And they give quotes from the BOM where the statement is said. Then it's said that it's taken out of context, I can understand that, I know that happens even when quoting scripture. The thing is, when the context is explained, it sheds no light on the matter and the quote stands even when context is explained.
Actually, the bottom line is thisI determine what I believe, not you. And I determine what the thing I believe means, not you. If you take it upon yourself to say what I believe, or explain what it means, and you do so accurately, I will have no objection. But I reserve the right to object to any presumption of my belief, just as you do. Right?This is what is so confusing. We are the begotten children of God---the bible says Christ alone is the begotten Son of God. We are adopted creations called His children. We are not a part of God as Christ is--we are made in His image, we are not made from what He is anymore than Barbie can be considered begotten by humanity in spite of being made in our image. (I wish I looked like that!). So you can explain why you think we are His begotten children all you want--bottom line, it is what you believe and it is not what the bible teaches. But then you will get upset if it is stated as your believe---I don't get it!
Maybe that's what it means to you, but not to me. To me, it means that the person doing the investigation did his best to identify the credible accounts, regardless of whether or not those accounts favored any bias going in (there is usually bias going in), and presented those credible accounts, along with his conclusion formed on the basis of those accounts (as opposed to on the basis of his bias)."[M]ore objective" = the way I believe it. Right?
Your comment calls for an addition to my first statement. I said that the most objective histories didn't support the "dupe" claim, which is true. But it is also true that none of the histories didnot even those less objective ones. At least that I can recall. I may go back and look, just to be sure, but I would like to think that I'd remember a claim like that; it would stand out easily.In fact, this is the first time I've heard someone propose such a dupe.
Maybe that's what it means to you, but not to me. To me, it means that the person doing the investigation did his best to identify the credible accounts, regardless of whether or not those accounts favored any bias going in (there is usually bias going in), and presented those credible accounts, along with his conclusion on the basis of those accounts (as opposed to on the basis of his bias).
Research.How does one identify the "credible accounts" 150 years after the fact?
Where did the other details come from that you claimed (the donning of Joseph's uniform and the explicit charge of "faking the people" into believing he had been transfigured...)? And how could JS III have claimed those other things if he hadn't witnessed them? And did B.Y. borrow the horse or steal it? And did he feed/water it or not? What you would have had us all believe was some kind of iron-clad account of what happened sounds less and less credible the more you disclose. Just sayin'.The account I am talking about was one mentioned by Joseph Smith, III, of an incident that happened after his father was killed in which Brigham Young came and took their horse (Charlie), one that was easily identifiable as JS's horse, he kept him the whole day and brought him home in obvious distress (he hadn't been fed or watered during the day, it seemed). Joseph Smith, III, wasn't at the conference to see what happened, but the time frame coincides with the story that was told of Brigham Young "trasfiguring" into JS.
I consider this a credible account because when JS, III, told it, he did not know the "transfiguring" story. He just knew that their horse had been taken and mistreated.
History is history (at least when it is, in fact, history). People will "hear" in history what they want to hear. So we can't obsess too much over what we can't control.I wonder if you guys realize what this stuff sounds like to someone who was never exposed to LDS until just a few years ago...and I'm nearly 65.
I never said anyone needs to. And while you are free to hold the opinion that no one would, I am free to observe otherwise. Either way, I don't understand your objection.
I don't get mad. But if I did, I just detailed why, and it is a legitimate reason.
It matters to me.
That is fine. I have no objection to you believing what you believe, nor to your choosing not to get mad when someone states what you believe. I still feel that you failed to understand why I, or other LDS, may object when others purport to share what we believe. I was speaking generally; you are being specific. And I think it's leading you to miss my point.
I do. Why do you presume that I don't?
Maybe they found misinformation and thought they'd found good information. Impossible?
Maybe the person did a lousy job of explaining.
Actually, the bottom line is thisI determine what I believe, not you. And I determine what the thing I believe means, not you. If you take it upon yourself to say what I believe, or explain what it means, and you do so accurately, I will have no objection. But I reserve the right to object to any presumption of my belief, just as you do. Right?
How does one identify the "credible accounts" 150 years after the fact?
History is history (at least when it is, in fact, history).
Where did the other details come from that you claimed (the donning of Joseph's uniform and the explicit charge of "faking the people" into believing he had been transfigured...)? And how could JS III have claimed those other things if he hadn't witnessed them? And did B.Y. borrow the horse or steal it? And did he feed/water it or not? What you would have had us all believe was some kind of iron-clad account of what happened sounds less and less credible the more you disclose. Just sayin'.
I respect that you have concluded that some people were duped. I am interested in the sources of these details, and why they have not been included in any history I've read, whether the history was objective or not, favorable or damning (to B.Y.).Other first-hand accounts located in church history. Remember, not everyone who was at the conference went west. The accounts say that BY rode in on JS's horse, in JS's uniform, affecting JS's speech patterns. And some of the people were duped by it.
I respect that you have concluded that some people were duped. I am interested in the sources of these details, and why they have not been included in any history I've read, whether the history was objective or not, favorable or damning (to B.Y.).
Or maybe different events are being conflated here?
That is all fine and understood, but you still haven't understood what I said. I was talking about objections to someone's presumption of one's beliefs. For example, If I say that I believe that the sky is green because its measurable RGB value places it within the green section of the RGB gamut (while not being "green" like a blade of grass), I will object if someone else (who is not me!) says something like, "Oh that TFT, he believes that the sky is green. Can you believe that nonsense?" Do you see the difference? My belief is qualified by context, but the presumption of my belief that was shared by someone else wasn't. It is a caricature only. And what's worse, the caricature was then leveraged to make fun of either me or my belief, or both. That is what I'm talking about when I speak of me (or other LDS) objecting to what only looks like our belief, even thoughin the simplest of terms aloneit can be said to be our belief.I should clarify that when I use the word "you" I do not mean it to be you in particular--you--meaning Mormons-
I am not saying we don't have the right to believe whatever we want. People object to what I believe all the time. And I am not anti-Mormon anymore than I am anti-Catholic---I am anti-doctrine, not anti-people. I love my stepdaughter--I can't agree with her ideas (I thought she was smarter than this!) but I love her and she has a right to her believes---I have a right to object to them! You can believe the sky is green for all I care, I will, however, insist on saying it's blue--who knows, someday I may be proven wrong and find the sky really is green and I have an eye defect----till then, it's blue.
I have not been talking about what you label "LDS history." I have been talking about the works of historians. Degree-toting and not. LDS and otherwise. Favorable and not. There is no justification for you laughing at my statement. And I am still interested in your sources.There is so much wrong with this post.
LDS history is so whitewashed, I'm surprised that you think that they would actually include a story that was unfavorable. But, to point out the obvious, LDS church history was written without input from the RLDS, and RLDS church history was written in isolation from the LDS. It doesn't seem strange to me, at all, that they do not contain the same information.
And, I don't know what you have read to suggest a reason for them not including it, if they did, indeed, use all available historical texts. From my history of the LDS, they act as if the RLDS do not exist and even if I did quote from one of the RLDS church history books, it would just be brushed off as "apostate".
I will try to dig up the sources. It has been 10 years since I left the church, and don't own as many resources as I used to.I have not been talking about what you label "LDS history." I have been talking about the works of historians. Degree-toting and not. LDS and otherwise. Favorable and not. There is no justification for you laughing at my statement. And I am still interested in your sources.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?