LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's a mixed blessing that some active LDS actually disagree with certain current doctrines of the church, while enjoying the benefits of association with the group. I still cannot help wondering why, for example, SR44 would not speak his mind on the writings of the guy who was using the "religious genius" quote deceitfully to advance the legend of Joseph Smith once he understood the truth was not in line with what he had been told, particularly as he appears to be a highly respected and well spoken Mormon. For my own ethical system, this type of evasion causes me to be highly suspicious of his motives.

Nor do I understand why we don't hear within the church outspoken Mormon leaders of integrity rising in support of gays, or a real attempt to promote understanding of atheists or any prominent member instigating real debate on controversial subjects within the church. Frankly, the current Pope is way out in front of them on many issues.

Giving monies on a continuing basis in support of a church whose values cause you alarm, while quietly grumbling that you don't agree with its use of the funds to harm segments of humanity is just an attempt to have it both ways, and not terribly admirable in my opinion. I feel this way about any organization which is in the business of limiting my basic freedoms, secular or sectarian.
 
I treasure my religious beliefs, they are based on faith, not evidence. I know that there are discrepancies, and I can live with those. I find that being a member also makes me happy.

In the long run, and as long as people do not try to force their personal beliefs on others, does anything else matter?

Sin is hurting other people unnecessarily. everything else is peccadillo."

- Robert A Heinlein, Glory Road

Norm
 
Last edited:
It's a mixed blessing that some active LDS actually disagree with certain current doctrines of the church, while enjoying the benefits of association with the group. I still cannot help wondering why, for example, SR44 would not speak his mind on the writings of the guy who was using the "religious genius" quote deceitfully to advance the legend of Joseph Smith once he understood the truth was not in line with what he had been told, particularly as he appears to be a highly respected and well spoken Mormon. For my own ethical system, this type of evasion causes me to be highly suspicious of his motives.

Nor do I understand why we don't hear within the church outspoken Mormon leaders of integrity rising in support of gays, or a real attempt to promote understanding of atheists or any prominent member instigating real debate on controversial subjects within the church. Frankly, the current Pope is way out in front of them on many issues.

Giving monies on a continuing basis in support of a church whose values cause you alarm, while quietly grumbling that you don't agree with its use of the funds to harm segments of humanity is just an attempt to have it both ways, and not terribly admirable in my opinion. I feel this way about any organization which is in the business of limiting my basic freedoms, secular or sectarian.

Very well said.

Can I add that this "continuous revelation" thing is like something out of 1984. "Practicing homosexuals have always been and will always be evil, but at some point in the future I hope that at old man will get a message from god which will turn that on it's head."
 
Very well said.

Can I add that this "continuous revelation" thing is like something out of 1984. "Practicing homosexuals have always been and will always be evil, but at some point in the future I hope that at old man will get a message from god which will turn that on it's head."
As I understand it, the claim is that it was true at the time, yet despite later prophetic revelation, those homosexuals of the time remain sinners while those after such a prophecy don't. Or so Janadele would have us believe.

I think Cat Tale is far more representative of mormonism as a whole. If Janadele presents extremist mormon thought, Cat Tale does a huge amount to redress that balance.
 
Thanks for posting, Cat Tale!

...Can I add that this "continuous revelation" thing is like something out of 1984. "Practicing homosexuals have always been and will always be evil, but at some point in the future I hope that at old man will get a message from god which will turn that on it's head."

I have the impression we'll have to wait for such a revelation about the openly fraudulent source of the BoA before Mormons will be free to recognise this text as a hoax.
 
I think Cat Tale is far more representative of mormonism as a whole. If Janadele presents extremist mormon thought, Cat Tale does a huge amount to redress that balance.

It's like the difference between a run-of-the-mill Lutheran and a snake-handler.
 
Hi jsfisher, of course I've spoken up in the past, and I feel that it's time to speak up again. No, Janadele does not speak for the Church, she speaks for Janadele and only Janadele. I have been shocked by some of the things she has said here on this thread in the name of the Church. Not to mention some pretty big untruths about what LDS believe, particularly pertaining to the afterlife. For example:

deaman asked "Is the end result that you will be a Goddess with your Husband?" To which she responded that she was a widow and he was a Presbyterian. Okay, but she said her deceased husband came to her son and asked to be baptized. Thus, since she believes that he asked for the baptism, and her son performed the baptism, then he'd be LDS right? So her answer should be Yes. "D&C 132 vs. 19-20"] Then shall they be gods, because they have no end..."

The other bizarre thing she brought up is the Hollow Earth. When Pakeha asked her if the hollow earth idea forms part of LDS doctrine, she ventured out on her own and basically said yes. Above she gave a list of scriptures from the D&C and then she told Pakeha the D&C is LDS scripture so therefore the hollow earth is doctrine. I gave a review of the scriptures, nope, no hollow earth there. :boggled:

Her determination not to engage in critical thought, but merely cutting and pasting and out and out plagiarism led to frustration and the opinion that Latter-day Saints "are incapable of independent thought." And Adman was not the only one to come to that conclusion. Making people angry or upset about the Church is not LDS teachings or doctrine. And what I don't understand is why she kept coming back! She just kept creating more and more hostility.

Her hostility in this thread has been unconscionable, and totally outside LDS teachings. Take, for example, D&C 4 where it talks about how the members of the Church should have "faith, hope, charity and love," toward mankind. Or the 13th Article of Faith that states that we should do "good to all men." Elder Christofferson says we "need to be civil and listen to one another and try to understand." Attitudes like I've seen here from Janadele, if I weren't already a member and know that she's the exception and not the rule, would have turned me away from the Church. I am embarrassed as a LDS, but not only embarrassed but deeply hurt. Along with just having other things to do in my life, that's one of the reasons I quit coming to this thread -- I just couldn't bare the pain of watching what was happening.

I treasure my religious beliefs, they are based on faith, not evidence. I know that there are discrepancies, and I can live with those. I find that being a member also makes me happy. The people have the same basic social needs (don't drink, don't smoke, dress conservatively), great work ethic, community service, strong emphasis on family...

Since the church is a church of continuing revelation, there can be changes (i.e. blacks receiving the priesthood, the coming and going of polygamy...) Maybe somewhere in the future there will be a prophet who retires to his prayer room and receives the same kind of message that President Kimball received about blacks, only it will be about the homosexual community. I don't know, all I know is that there have been some rather large changes within the church over the course of its history. The mere fact that the Church is beginning to address the issues with more seriousness, and setting up a website, etc. seems to tell me that maybe, just maybe things will change. I know the site says the church isn't softening on the subject, but from my many years within the church I'd say I'm seeing some ice breaking.

I have no ill feelings toward Janadele, personally. But the mere fact that she goes around starting threads on various forums about the LDS Church, and then refuses to discuss it in her own words leaves me saddened by the reflection it casts upon those of us who do openly and freely discuss our religion. I hope that Janadele can find the comfort she appears to be seeking.

One thing that I do take away from this entire thread is a greater love for those who are different from me. I've never exhibited any animosity toward anyone, at least I hope not. I have met some really nice gay guys lately, and you know what? They're just like everyone else with a need to love and be loved. Come on now, what would Jesus do? He loved everyone regardless of their differences, so why can't we?
Thank you for this. Your sentiments and views do not fall on deaf ears.

My general take:
I truly believe that most mormons are very nice people. But that isn't because they are mormons. It is because they are people.



I greatly appreciate your view that mormonism can evolve with evolving times. Adaptability is an admirable trait. Yet, in religion, it is also a major challenge. If a religion claims to have access to a higher truth, then why does it seem their views change to match the views of the time. If that religion held real truth, wouldn't they be leading the way to the moral society? Wouldn't they already have those answers?

For other situations (e.g., politics, science, ...), where there isn't an assumption of moral authority or secret links to the authority, such adaptability is a strength. Yet in religion, such adaptability is a huge warning sign that they are not divinely inspired.
 
The reason we don't hear as often from non-extremists is that they're just ordinary people with real lives, and a lot less to prove.
 
How about:

Those who believe in Jesus, call themselves Christians

Thsoe who believe in Joe Smith, call themselve Mormons.
 
How about:

Those who believe in Jesus, call themselves Christians

Thsoe who believe in Joe Smith, call themselve Mormons.

Nah, I'm not inclined to mock the Mormon membership as a whole.

The vast majority of Mormons are just regular humans (I am almost certain of this). It is easy to pick out a few supremely bad examples to ridicule, but I won't take those very few as exemplars for the entire religion.
 
Nah, I'm not inclined to mock the Mormon membership as a whole.

The vast majority of Mormons are just regular humans (I am almost certain of this). It is easy to pick out a few supremely bad examples to ridicule, but I won't take those very few as exemplars for the entire religion.

I'm from Merthyr Tydfil, the Mormon stronghold in Wales. The Mormons I knew were normal people, not hate-filled homophobes.
 
Last edited:
Seriously, if I offended anyone, my apologies. I was just having a bit of fun.

Mormons, or members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, are human beings.

Human beings come in a wide variety of personalities.

All of us here are at JREF are Human Beings.

All of us may profess any label we wish, but we are Human Beings.
 
What kinda trips me out is that Christians, of most varieties, seem to look upon our human being-ness as a shameful, horrid thing.
 
Seriously, if I offended anyone, my apologies. I was just having a bit of fun.

I was not offended, but I thought we might be heading towards a dump-on-all-Mormons thread arc.


For some reason, though, I now have an overpowering urge to make up a pathetic pun in honor of Joseph Smith. Something like, a glowing stone garners no mock.

You may groan in unison.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom