I know there are a lot of LDS people here

[colton]

ROFL. Oh, OK, so just based on what all the doctrine states I am correct, but that is all that has been revealed, it could be different. Hard to have a discussion with responses like this. Sorry.

When I left the church my bishop sat me down and asked me why I was leaving. I gave him many things that didn't make sense to me to the point I couldn't continue as an active member, including these (abridged).

1-The inconsistency of the "missing pages". The small plates are very vague, written different than any historical test (names were important back then). Essentially the story becomes much more detailed towards the end of the section where the small plates were still being translated.

2-J. Smith was convicted of glass looking in NY over two years before he translated the BOM. Essentially he put special stones into a hat and told farmers if they gave him $ he'd find treasure on their lands, and of course, he never did. This was three years before "translating" the BOM in much the same manner. An additional charge of glass looking was brought but JS fled out of NY before the trial.

3-Historical inaccuracies in BOM, glass mentioned but did not exist. Horses, cimeters (Scimitars), elephants, steel, silk, Barley, wheat, goats, pigs, etc., did not exist at the time or had not been brought to the Americas.

4-Moroni and Comoros (Moroni and Comorah) were in William Kidd treasure hunt books that were very popular at the time.

5-No one but JS physically saw the golden plates (spirtual eyes).

6-Jaredites and Nephites shared names despite the Jaradites being of a different time, place, and language than the Nephites.

7-The Book of Abraham/Egyptian burial scrolls

8-A lot more, but the above were the ones that concerned me most

My bishop has answers for everything, and every answer, while probable, seemed unlikely. My response after our discussion, in shorthand, was essentially the aphorism "When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses not zebras". Every justification I hear is zebra. But the worst one was, well, yeah, that may not make sense but that is just what has been revealed. Sorry, carries no weight.

I'm really not following how your response relates to my point that sealings do not FORCE couples (or polygamous groups as the case may be) to be together in the hereafter, they only offer the PROMISE of that blessing, or why that would cause you to ROFL.

As for your 8 points, if you'd like my opinion on them I'm willing to write something up. Let me know, almost all of those are issues I've thought about before. Some of them are legit concerns while others are not at all (in my opinion).

 

[b_line]

I'm really not following how your response relates to my point that sealings do not FORCE couples (or polygamous groups as the case may be) to be together in the hereafter, they only offer the PROMISE of that blessing, or why that would cause you to ROFL.

As for your 8 points, if you'd like my opinion on them I'm willing to write something up. Let me know, almost all of those are issues I've thought about before. Some of them are legit concerns while others are not at all (in my opinion).

I'd like to see your answers.

 

[b_line]

The problems I have with the church:

1. Racism is not ok in any organization that purports to be run by God. It is inexcusable.

2. Marrying other people's spouses is evil. A prophet or apostle should never do that.

3. Marrying under age women is unacceptable. The 1800's were different than today, but people still didn't get married at a 14, especially not to a man in his 30 ' s.

4. Why is it OK for the prophets and leaders of the church to selectively follow teachings in the scriptures, but not the members? For example, women should shut their mouths while in church, and gay people are sinning. Why is it that we allow women to talk, but don't allow gay people to be gay? Are we not responsible to follow the letter of the law?

 

[JAZZGASM]

I'm really not following how your response relates to my point that sealings do not FORCE couples (or polygamous groups as the case may be) to be together in the hereafter, they only offer the PROMISE of that blessing, or why that would cause you to ROFL.

As for your 8 points, if you'd like my opinion on them I'm willing to write something up. Let me know, almost all of those are issues I've thought about before. Some of them are legit concerns while others are not at all (in my opinion).

An angel forces JS to practice polygamy with a sword. Threatens Emma with damnation. To reach exaltation you must be sealed in the afterlife. Who gives that up? Where is the choice? I have heard in so many lessons in heaven it will just be accepted. I do not need your responses to my 8 items. My point is that any question I have had gets similar responses that just don't pass muster. When something makes no sense, and the response is "that is just what has been revealed, I can't help but laugh. Sorry.

 

[colton]

Do I fully agree with this policy? I'm not sure. As mentioned, I see some reasons for it and I see some reasons against it. I do think it makes sense to make sure people who want to join the church support the official church doctrine on this and other matters, but perhaps gay marriage shouldn't be singled out quite in this way. Also, I think it does make perfect sense to not put 8 year olds in a position where they would need to affirm they support the church's teachings on homosexual behavior (which they likely can’t even fully understand at that age) while living with someone who clearly feels otherwise. It seems to me that 14 year olds might be mature enough to deal with it, though, so maybe if I had designed the policy I would have set the age requirement lower than 18. I don’t think church members should just blindly agree with this policy, then, and perhaps some bounce-back from church members is good. Perhaps the policy could be reshaped to be less hurtful to those caught in the situation. It's also not clear to me from reading the policy language what will be the case for children in joint custody situations, where (by way of example) they live part time with a parent who is an active LDS member, and part time with a parent who not LDS and in a gay marriage. Unless I've missed something, that should be made more explicit, and in my opinion not treated quite the same as children who live full-time with parents in gay relationships. So I guess my bottom line for this thought is that church leaders are not perfect and undoubtedly this policy is not perfect. Maybe there could be a more humane (not quite sure if that's the exact right word, but I'll go with it) way of dealing with the situation than this, and other options should certainly be pondered and considered by church leaders.

The church clarified the bolded section today, which is good. The new policy only applies to children "whose primary residence is with a couple in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship." https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?lang=eng

So children in a shared custody situation such as I mentioned will not be prohibited from being baptized at age 8.

 

[colton]

I'd like to see your answers.

OK, sure. My opinions on Jazzgasms's 8 points, or on your 4 points?

 

[b_line]

OK, sure. My opinions on Jazzgasms's 8 points, or on your 4 points?

JAZZGASM mostly.

 

[green]

The church clarified the bolded section today, which is good. The new policy only applies to children "whose primary residence is with a couple in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship." https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?lang=eng

So children in a shared custody situation such as I mentioned will not be prohibited from being baptized at age 8.

Why was there not revelation in this matter? Seems to be pretty important to me and they didn't consult God? Or did they consult God before hand and he never answered back?

 

[colton]

Why was there not revelation in this matter? Seems to be pretty important to me and they didn't consult God? Or did they consult God before hand and he never answered back?

Broken record.

 

[colton]

Broken record.

Sorry if that was snarky. But you've already posted the same thing about 6 different times in at least two different threads. It's clear LDS leaders don't receive revelation the way YOU think they ought to. So, if you're looking to stay active in the church you need to ponder whether there are other ways they might be receiving revelation that are still consistent with LDS teachings. (I think there are.) I.e. maybe it's your preconceived notions that are the problem, trying to force God to be what YOU want him to be like. If you're looking to leave the church, then you've got your reason. It's that simple.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Sorry if that was snarky. But you've already posted the same thing about 6 different times in at least two different threads. It's clear LDS leaders don't receive revelation the way YOU think they ought to. So, if you're looking to stay active in the church you need to ponder whether there are other ways they might be receiving revelation that are still consistent with LDS teachings. (I think there are.) I.e. maybe it's your preconceived notions that are the problem, trying to force God to be what YOU want him to be like. If you're looking to leave the church, then you've got your reason. It's that simple.

He is going through what many of us have gone through when we realized that the explanation for God's involvement in the church has to be massaged each time it is faced with a new event. Your faith is clearly strong, but many of us have come to see the requirement of faith as a trick that allows religion to get away with gaps in logic and/or fact that we would never accept from any other institution.

 

[colton]

OK, sure. My opinions on Jazzgasms's 8 points, or on your 4 points?

JAZZGASM mostly.

OK, I'll post some opinions on those as I have time throughout the coming week. (I guess there were actually only 7 points, because the 8th was "A lot more".)

1-The inconsistency of the "missing pages". The small plates are very vague, written different than any historical test (names were important back then). Essentially the story becomes much more detailed towards the end of the section where the small plates were still being translated.

This is the only one of the 7 that I didn't really understand. Don't know if Jazzgasm would care to elaborate, or if you (b_line) have thoughts on what he may have meant by that. But I think I'm missing the point because "the story becomes much more detailed towards the end of the section where the small plates were still being translated" seems backwards to me. The end of the small plates is the short books leading up to the Words of Mormon, and they get less and less detailed, not more and more detailed.

2-J. Smith was convicted of glass looking in NY over two years before he translated the BOM. Essentially he put special stones into a hat and told farmers if they gave him $ he'd find treasure on their lands, and of course, he never did. This was three years before "translating" the BOM in much the same manner. An additional charge of glass looking was brought but JS fled out of NY before the trial.

I'm pretty sure that I've already had an in-depth conversation here about "glass looking" fairly recently. (...searching...) Yes, it was in this thread: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?42196-Question-About-Joseph-Smith. And it was jazzgasm that brought it up there, but apparently he didn't read my response that refuted his claim that Joseph Smith was convicted of glass looking or anything else in 1826.

As I wrote in post 34 of that thread:

I've read a bit about the 1826 trial in the past few days (the Wikipedia article, a few pro-LDS sources, a few anti-LDS sources, and a possibly impartial source). My conclusion is that the 1826 event wasn't actually a trial, rather it was a hearing of some sort. (Possibly a pre-trial hearing, where things didn't end up proceeding to a trial.) And, since it wasn't a trial, even though the judge apparently ruled against Joseph Smith, Smith wasn't actually convicted of anything. Evidence that he wasn't convicted includes the facts that he didn't have to pay any fines, any court costs, or do any jail time.

As I also wrote in that thread,

Anyway, what had surprised me the most about your assertion was the claim that Smith had been convicted of fraud or something similar. To my knowledge he wasn't ever convicted of any crime, and that's still my opinion after reading about the 1826 event. That's quite possibly not what you yourself were most interested in--it seems like the thing that you found most interesting was the evidence that Smith had used a "seer stone" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seer_stone_(Latter_Day_Saints)) prior to translating the Book of Mormon. That part doesn't surprise me as much... if he used a seer stone for translating much of the Book of Mormon, and quite possibly for receiving some of the early revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants (some discussion of that here https://rationalfaiths.com/joseph-smiths-use-of-seer-stones-in-the-revealing-of-the-book-of-mormon/), then it seems plausible that he could have received other early revelations via a similar process.

I still stand by that opinion. Those particular charges against Joseph Smith don't trouble me at all. (There are other things which DO trouble me, and I'll have no problem admitting that when I get to them.)