Posted on 07/20/2008 9:36:13 PM PDT by Graybeard58
Mormons focus on accessible, social aspects of their religion. Although the Mormon system of doctrine is genuinely attractive to many of its members, many have argued that the primary "glue" of Mormonism is the heritage, culture, and family ties, not the doctrine and theology.
In other words, the typical allegiance to the Mormon organization primarily stems from something other than doctrinal concerns. The average Mormon sitting in a pew does not care how or why their religion works, they only care that it works for them.
They are not concerned with the real character of Joseph Smith or how the LDS scriptures coincide with biblical teachings. A common element often overlooked when Christians share their faith with Latter-day Saints is that many Mormons are not Mormon merely for doctrinal reasons. This view of not being concerned with theology is considered to be atheological. If a person does not care about their theology, they miss the importance of rooting their entire life in the true knowledge of God and a coherent, rational, theological worldview.
A person's relationship with God is built on the foundation of what one believes about God and what it means to be right with God. This is the most important determining factor in shaping the way a person lives.
An atheological person does not seriously reflect on their own foundational worldview assumptions (e.g., what is truth, who is God, does this matter?), nor do they see how doing so would be relevant to everyday life.
South Park, a fictional, satirical cartoon, depicted a Mormon named "Gary" with the following words:
"Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense. And maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up. But I have a great life and a great family and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don’t care if Joseph Smith made it all up. Because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And even though people in this town might think that’s stupid, I still choose to believe in it."
Grey Echols, a Mormon, writes the following in a review of By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus:
"This is a well written book which manages to not push an 'anti-Mormon' agenda. However as an LDS I do not think others should read it. Why? Because it could destroy your faith in the church. I am not trying to be clever. If you enjoy all of the good things the church has brought into your life, do you care where it came from?
No other church has so short a history that it can be examined so closely by science. Otherwise we would find that they are all created on the backs of con-artist. I am willing to bet every religion was founded by a fraud. So who cares. Does religion bring us together? Does it bond a nation, a town, a family? If so then let it be.
The truth is fleeting, and life is short. If believing in Santa makes children smile then believing in God makes adults smile. When children find out Santa isn't real, you kill a certain spark you can never get back. When you expose a church as a fraud, you kill a little spark in all of us."
+=+=+
Go ahead - try to tear down the Bible so your founder's tales sound better.
++++++++++++++
I am not tearing down the Bible. I just think it would be fair for you and yours to use the same standard on the bible as you do on Latter-Day revelations from Heavenly Father.
You see, it is your standards, when applied to the Bible that tears it down.
Or should we do as you say and not as you do?
F - even smith’s personal diary in his handwriting contradicts the official account,
+++++++++++++++
please show me
First off, you are using Joseph’s direct writings, and the second hand writings of others and comparing them to just Paul’s first hand writings.
=+=+=
Who cares
++++++++++++++=
I do.
But thank you.
We have applied the same standard to the works of the LDS as we did the Bible, the standards of Truth and Consistency.
The works of the LDS were found sadly lacking....
So he is comparing apples to apples?
I can see where that would be a problem for you. As I am rapidly learning by reading them, first hand sources are the last thing the LDS wants to go by.
+++++++++++++++
If you study what I said, then remember that you forgot to highlight the part that says some of the accounts are from others (look at post 146 to see what he highlighted and what he passed over by leaving it small, I do not know how to add bold type) you would see that you would have to say that:
apples + oranges = apples
Did you intend to mislead on purpose, or was it a mistake on your part?
The truth is that mormonism teaches that in order to gain the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, (an equivalent to what most Christians regard as "Heaven") one must be baptized, confirmed in the LDS faith and must take part in secret ordinances in the LDS temples. One of those ordinances is "marriage for eternity", or "sealing for time and eternity".
One cannot enter this "Heaven" otherwise, except for very few rare instances.
The mormon practice of baptizing the dead is, in their terms, to give the souls of those departed who did not have the opportunity to avail themselves of these LDS ordinances the opportunity now, to thus enter the mormon equivalent of Christian "Heaven".
So, the bare bones of what your friend's daughter was livid over is, in effect warranted.
One cannot go to the mormon equivalent of "Heaven" unless they are married by LDS rules. The reply that you got was a "half-truth" obscured by leaving out the important facts. It's mind-boggling that someone would try that tactic on this forum when there are so many of us watching.
Are you misleading on purpose, or just following someone who is misleading you?
Misleading is your game, not mine.
No it's not, it is ingrained from cradle to grave, it becomes an automatic response to repeat the same thing over and over, even when caught, even in front of others who know better. When finally cornered the tactic is to shift focus, change subject, obfuscate and finally cry bigot or pull the victim card.
I was taught this some two weeks ago by one who knows the game and knows it well because he played it himself for many years. What is so amazing to me is how correct he was and how I missed the pattern that is actually so obvious.
Misleading is your game, not mine.
+++++++++
YOU and YOURS are the ones that are saying that the second hand accounts should have the same weight as first hand accounts.
Those who only use the accounts written by Brother Joseph to the accounts only written bey Paul cannot make the clams that you folks make.
You rely on second hand information and then infer that Brother Joseph wrote it.
BTW that he WAS ME.
I marked in bold where you were saying both Smith and Paul's DIRECT work, again apples to apples...
I can't see why this is hard, but I understand, your training runs long and deep, heavy on the rhetoric, very, very lite on the logic...
Anyway, fresh meat is always welcome. ;)
Again you put forth BOTH. You cannot not have it both ways. If they are using DIRCT FIRST HAND WIRTINGS from both Paul and Smith, the second hand accounts are irrelevant if first hand accounts are referenced for both men.
Keep swinging...
That one is ill prepared, not even knowledgable of his own cult’s documents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.