Mormon Infobia...

[_Drifting]

On a different thread Equality wrote:

The church's biggest problem is its disappearing youth and the loss of stalwart members who discover the gap between what the church says about itself and its history and the reality

The gap is caused by Mormon Infobia.

[_consiglieri]

There is only one truth.

I used to think this, FT, but more and more I am beginning to think there are many truths . . . and that each truth is independent in its own sphere.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. Although I haven't done a study on the subject, it is my impression the idea that the prophet will never lead the Church astray was first taught by Wilford Woodruff in conjunction with the 1890 Manifesto as an effort to buttress his decision to a concerned membership. Since then, it has been quoted ad infinitum, and has become the received "doctrine" of the Church.

But as Ben has pointed out, the D&C itself indicates strongly this cannot be correct.

I have sometimes thought that every dispension of the Lord's Church that the LDS believe has gone into sequential apostasy likely also believed their prophet would not lead them astray . . .

[_SteelHead]

Major points at which the church could have gone into apostasy (if you believe it was true in the first place):

1. Joseph Smith succession. Which resultant branch is actually true?
2. Abandonment of Polygamy. Which resultant branch is actually true?
3. Priesthood ban reversal. More fundamentalist splinter groups. Which resultant branch is actually true?

The "church" in Salt Lake has little claim to being the "true" branch as it has abandoned practices and policies that were at various times proclaimed immutable and eternal.

The FLDS follow the same type of logic and guidance from the spirit as promoted by Moroni's Promise and arrive at a different place.

Inconvenient that.

[_ldsfaqs]

Major points at which the church could have gone into apostasy (if you believe it was true in the first place):

1. Joseph Smith succession. Which resultant branch is actually true?
2. Abandonment of Polygamy. Which resultant branch is actually true?
3. Priesthood ban reversal. More fundamentalist splinter groups. Which resultant branch is actually true?

Which is true? Easy, the one that didn't apostatize and followed the scriptural proscriptions of succession and authority.
Guess which one meets both qualifications? The Salt Lake Church.
It's not a breakaway sect that denied certain doctrines and authority, and didn't create their own religion and leadership. It's also the only religion that followed the pattern set in the D&C for succession. Further, there was a religious manifestation verifying it's authority.

The "church" in Salt Lake has little claim to being the "true" branch as it has abandoned practices and policies that were at various times proclaimed immutable and eternal.

It's funny when I look back having used to believe stupid/ignorant things such as this before I actually came to know history and the scriptures.

If you actually knew your scriptures and knew the history of the Church in ancient and modern times, you would know that both the Priesthood AND Polygamy has been given and taken away according to the Will of God. In other words, the doctrines have always been the same, and still true, it's simply the "practice" thereof which has changed and been given and removed according to God's Will.

In other words, the LDS Church when it comes to the Priesthood and Polygamy hasn't changed ANYTHING that hasn't been changed MANY TIMES before.

Since those are the ONLY two "changes" the Church has gone through that makes the Church STILL TRUE. :)
Isn't it wonderful what MORE TRUTH does....???
Makes you realize how stupid you as a mortal can be.

The FLDS follow the same type of logic and guidance from the spirit as promoted by Moroni's Promise and arrive at a different place.

Inconvenient that.

False as usual..... Truth is always had by a multi-process, not simply the "spirit".
It's gained by the conformity of Scripture, Prophets, Revelation, and Common Consent. If any of these are not in conformity, then a thing is false. Further, Moroni's promise contrary to the ignorant anti's belief is based on both INTELLECT AND SPIRIT, not spirit alone.

If one is lacking intellectually speaking (as relates to the four-fold process), as the FLDS are, then clearly they are lacking in Truth and Authority. Them being ignorant and mortal as many are ignorant and mortal doesn't mean the Truth doesn't exist, and cannot be had through proper and balanced intellectual pursuit, a sound mind, and a righteous spirit.

[_Drifting]

It's funny when I look back having used to believe stupid/ignorant things...

Here is a little dilemma for you.

You confess repeatedly of being hoodwinked previously and of being tricked into believing falsehoods. You must accept therefore, that the potential exists that you are being hoodwinked into believing stupid/ignorant things now.
The only method that you are using to determine truth is a feeling confirming that what you believe to be true is actually true.

What is the trend when believing Mormon's gain the knowledge that the Church concedes is accurate but which it chooses not to let members have through its own programmes? That's right, they leave or go inactive. That very feeling that you profess to now feel is woefully inadequate in overcoming factual enquiry, logic and reason - the very gifts that God has blessed us with and told us to use.

[_SteelHead]

Faqs,
Most of what I have been able to find on the subject indicates that Joseph intended for his son to succeed him, not Brigham.

The methodology of apostolic succession that we have now had not been established.

CFR on the scriptural proscriptions of the succession and authority.

What proof do you offer that Brigham was the legitimate successor?

--edit--
Also, only 3 changes? I could list 1/2 dozen more without breaking a sweat. The three listed were just the biggies.

[_ldsfaqs]

It's funny when I look back having used to believe stupid/ignorant things...

Here is a little dilemma for you.

You confess repeatedly of being hoodwinked previously and of being tricked into believing falsehoods. You must accept therefore, that the potential exists that you are being hoodwinked into believing stupid/ignorant things now.

The ignorance and predjudices of youth it's perfectly "normal" to be foolish and to go stupid ways. But the wise person continues forward, continues to learn. I also know I'm not being hoodwinked now because first I've been a non believer, I'm a convert to the Church. I was a basic believer, and then anti-mormon and anti-religion. And now for nearly 20 years, fully faithful. And I know I'm not woodwinked because of what I've been able to learn, which is only sustained the last near 20 years. I still study anti-mormonism, I still study religious history, LDS and non-LDS, but I also study LDS scholarship, and nothing else compares.

The only method that you are using to determine truth is a feeling confirming that what you believe to be true is actually true.

You know, it always fascinates me how the anti-mormon continues to LIE to himself and to others with a strait face.
No one on the planet bases their testimony's on "feelings" alone.
However, what's important is the degree of evidence and the accuracy of such. Others lack, while Mormonism does not.

Further, as a former anti-mormon and anti-religion, do you REALLY think I would have any interest in rejoining a religion based on "feelings"??? Would you??? You forget that I've been you people, I thought much exactly the same as you. I came back to the Church because I learned more, learned that my previous judgments were ignorant, and learned it was literally true, and not another man-made religion. Yes, the spirit was involved in the process, but it was an intellectual exercise. I was only interested in the absolute and actual truth, not the truth of a particular "box" or perception.

See, I'm an expert at getting at and seeing the actual truth of a thing, rather than limited judgment, quote mining, etc. that people like you anti-mormons build your false narratives from.

Anyway, stop lying by claiming people base their faith whatever is on "feelings".
You don't base your judgments on feelings, and neither does the religious person.
Their judgment is based on STUDY and Faith. That is the Moroni promise.

What is the trend when believing Mormon's gain the knowledge that the Church concedes is accurate but which it chooses not to let members have through its own programmes? That's right, they leave or go inactive. That very feeling that you profess to now feel is woefully inadequate in overcoming factual enquiry, logic and reason - the very gifts that God has blessed us with and told us to use.

Actually, believe it or not, most Mormons are wiser, and when they start to learn things not emphasized on Sunday, they actually keep learning in a balanced and objective way, and they never get to the point of needing to leave the Church, because they were wiser in their pursuit of knowledge and truth, and it generally was a "lifetime" pursuit. People like Dan Peterson and many others in the Church. Generally only the idiot who HIMSELF kept himself ignorant for years, and then came upon information he didn't know how to process, and then he leaves. The person who was always a learner of Mormonism and other intellectual pursuits generally never leaves the Church.

[_ldsfaqs]

Faqs,
Most of what I have been able to find on the subject indicates that Joseph intended for his son to succeed him, not Brigham.

That's your opinion, but it's factually false. Of course Joseph wanted his sons to be one of his successors. That however is not the authority of the Church. Father's Blessings is not authority of the Church.

The RLDS/COC have no claim in this regard, let alone many other facts which clearly demonstrate the lack of authority. For starting example, the RLDS Church existed well before JSIII took it over. It was already in Apostasy.

The methodology of apostolic succession that we have now had not been established.

Actually it was, it's in the D&C.

CFR on the scriptural proscriptions of the succession and authority.

Look it up yourself. My spoon feeding you isn't going to convince you of anything. You will just ignore any evidence I provide anyway. A person needs to study out things for THEMSELVES..... If it's really that important for you to know. A message board post will not convince you of anything.

What proof do you offer that Brigham was the legitimate successor?

I don't have the time nor the resources to dictate all the history related. Learn for yourself please.

--edit--
Also, only 3 changes? I could list 1/2 dozen more without breaking a sweat. The three listed were just the biggies.

That's right, the ARE the "biggies"..... They are the only things that have any relation to doctrine of the Church. Any other "change" you speak of has no relevance to doctrine, and/or isn't factually accurate, but is anti-mormon misrepresentation.

[_Themis]

Faqs,
Most of what I have been able to find on the subject indicates that Joseph intended for his son to succeed him, not Brigham.

That's your opinion, but it's factually false. Of course Joseph wanted his sons to be one of his successors.

LOL So which is it?

[_Runtu]

LOL So which is it?

I wondered the same thing. I wonder what would have happened had Samuel and Don Carlos Smith not been out of the way already.