Sure, I wish the mopologists would understand what the Catholicopolgists have generally come to understand: any human organization (even a Kingdom of God that is run by humans) is going to have some very, very sad events happen because the leaders are human.
A curious statement. "Mopologists" actually do understand this and mention it quite often but the critics can't seem to accept it. It's even built into the way the LDS Church handles doctrine as well as authority (D&C 107).
Bc, by "built into the way the LDS Church handles doctrine", do you mean it is subject to change based of a past wrong understanding by a leader or leaders as in the Priesthood Ban or Adam being the God to which we pray?
The continual fight by mopologists to excuse and exclude Young and Smith from any culpability in the MMM, for starters.
When you have actual evidence of culpability let us know. It is not enough that deep down in your soul you believe they are culpable and want evidence to come into being ex nihilo.
I find it interesting that you argue for 'actual evidence' and that it is not enough 'that deep down in your soul you believe'. Doesn't Mormonism require the opposite?
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
When you have actual evidence of culpability let us know. It is not enough that deep down in your soul you believe they are culpable and want evidence to come into being ex nihilo.
I find it interesting that you argue for 'actual evidence' and that it is not enough 'that deep down in your soul you believe'.
Doesn't Mormonism require the opposite?
Is belief in God on trial with the same amount of jeopardy implied?
I find it interesting that you argue for 'actual evidence' and that it is not enough 'that deep down in your soul you believe'.
Doesn't Mormonism require the opposite?
Is belief in God on trial with the same amount of jeopardy implied?[/quote]
I was pointing out that your desire for actual evidence rather than a soul based belief is inconsistent. You flip between the two depending on what it is you want to argue for or against.
In this thread you demand actual evidence rather than a soul based belief. Let's see if you stick to that on all subjects or whether you do the Mormon Flip Flop Fandango (there are actual doctrinal evidences that this 'dance' actually does exist) and switch to an approach of forget the evidence it's all about faith.
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
The continual fight by mopologists to excuse and exclude Young and Smith from any culpability in the MMM, for starters.
When you have actual evidence of culpability let us know. It is not enough that deep down in your soul you believe they are culpable and want evidence to come into being ex nihilo.
You have described yourself, bcspace. Brooks, Bagley, Turley to an extent ~ no question exists at all about culpability for Young and Smith, only the extent. Your faith defense is no defense.