Replies

This information may make no difference to you, but it does to me.

I have never - never - posted an article or vanity regarding the Latter Day Saints.

I ignored them for the longest time until the issue of LDS Scouting came up and the issue of whether LDS Scouting is the same as traditional Boy Scouting. Quite simply it's not. Without getting into it deeply, the LDS, as the BSA's first institutional sponsor, signed an agreement in 1913 which permitted it to change the BSA program. The BSA changed its policy and never again permitted an organization to change the standard BSA program. LDS has its own short manual for LDS Scouting, called the Green Book.

LDS Scouting is different than traditional Boy Scouting in many ways - LDS Scout leaders are trained by the LDS Bishop; other training is optional. Traditional Scout leaders are trained through a series of training sessions run by the BSA. Youth leaders in LDS Scouting are selected by the Bishoporic. Youth leaders in traditional Scouting are selected by the youth. I could continue. The result is that the two programs are very different on paper resulting in them being very different in practice. The LDS Scout program accomplishes the goals it specifically sets for itself in the Green Book - "to complement the purposes of the Aaronic Priesthood quorum and primary classes in building testimonies in boys and young men."

The purpose of the Boy Scouts of America is ""to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law."

At any rate, that was my introduction - LDS parents and Scout leaders stating that LDS Scouting was identical to traditional Scouting. It's not. I've been a Council Commissioner, on Regional and National BSA Committees, and held other local, District, Council, Regional, and National postions, and it's not. I'm not saying one is better, because you judge the effectiveness of something based upon whether it accomplishes its purpose.

I just stepped in because when LDS Scout parents and LDS Scouters said that LDS Scouting was the same as traditional Scouting, they were mistaken. The programs are two different programs.

My next post on an LDS post was a polite question to Paragon Defender. I had seen his links and went to a couple of them as he asked FR members to do. I asked him about the www.lds.org site's biography of Joseph Smith listing only one wife, Emma. The conversation did not go well. I was accused of being a propgandist.

Since then, I've only posted a couple of times, but only in comments.

I post because of Paragon Defender.

Somebody could post something that was documented and factual and Paragon Defender would essentially call them a liar.

It's one thing for an LDS member to say "that fact is not relevant to my faith and testimony." It's one thing for an LDS member to say "during the 1820s, it was culturally acceptable to be involved in mysticism and magic, and that doesn't mean that Joseph Smith didn't find golden plates and translate them." It's one thing to say "Smith had to deny polygamy because, although it was revealed to him by God, the laws of man were not prepared for it and he could not lead the church from jail."

However, it's another thing to say "YOU LIE!" when someone posts something that's historically accurate, but the church has chosen not to make part of its current version of history under the "faith-promoting" standard. For example, Benton and Packer's policy - and I can find the speeches where they made these statements - directed LDS historians not to re-publish certain LDS documents on the grounds that they had already been published. They specifically addressed the 1830 version of the Book of Mormon (likely because of the two to three thousand changes) and the early version of Doctrines and Covenants (ditto, likely because of changes). They don't have a problem with republishing other old documents.

Those parts of the church history have been thrown down a black hole.

If somebody brings up the changes, or old teachings of the church, it's appropriate to say "we don't teach that any longer." I realize that may raise issues with the infallibility of prophets, but it's more appropriate than yelling "YOU LIE!"

It's at the point where somebody publishes inconvenient LDS history, or LDS doctrine that isn't mainstream, and a LDS apologist jumps in with "YOU LIE!" or "PROVE IT!" that I get testy.

And, if pressed, I can start to cite to links to the campaign when the LDS church decided to emphasize "Jesus Christ" to make the church more mainstream, changing its logo, using a public relations firm to issue a press release to ask the media not to use the term "Mormon" any longer.

And the other stuff - the quote from Brigham Young about Joseph Smith have all of the base human defects that a man could have except when he was receiving prophecies, and comparing that to the "To the Man" white-washed version of the Joseph Smith that apparently some FR members believe can only be posted on FR.

I don't have a motive or reason to post a article on the LDS church, but if LDS members are going to call those who post truthful facts about LDS history liars, then if I have the time, I'm going to step in.

I support the right of LDS members to believe what they wish.

I do not support the right of LDS members to attack others because they dare to print things that are not within the "faith-promoting" approved history of the church.