Danse Macabre wrote:I attend a big study group from time to time. Michael Quinn and Todd Compton and others like have been speakers and participants over the years, so it's the kind of group that eats up the kind of stuff discussed on this board, though we don't bother much with the wild speculation, it's more scholarly if you will. I was not surprized to discover that a bunch of people from my ward - a bunch of old fogey High Priests and their wives attended the same group from time to time. I run across people like me - or people like you now - that know all the "stuff" all the time in church. Sure - I believe that your experience but that hasn't been my experience. I guess it's a matter of who you hang out with.
Big study group? Why weren't you told to cease holding the group, like we were? Shut down from above. No study groups outside of regular church meetings. That was in the early 70's.
Sounds like your situation isn't anything like mine. Different rules for different folks. Maybe your stake paid more tithing in, so you were allowed latitude we weren't.
Danse Macabre wrote:The point is not that it's edgy, the point is that we talk about whatever we want and it's no big deal. You, it seems, thinks its a big deal - that you are the possessor of some secret knowledge that only the intiated are privy to and somehow that makes you special. What I see here, and what apparently passes for critical thinking here, is about as dogmatic as Mormons or Catholics or whoever you think you are more informed than.
This is pure unadulterated horse manure. If you're straying outside the material that's in the manual, you aren't following the directions in the manual.
harmony wrote: Well, if you label everything but the official story as "conspiracy theories" and "nutty conspiracy theories", no wonder you have "discussions."
There you go then - I allude to a conspiracy theory (which by definition the Spalding Rigdon theory is) and nutty theories (which many think it is) and you somehow turn that into "everything." It's almost like your conditioned.
There's only one official story, Danse. All the rest are unofficial, which makes them outside the manual, which makes them heresy and false doctrine. Anything other than the official is unacceptable. It's almost like you're conditioned.
There you go then - I allude to a conspiracy theory (which by definition the Spalding Rigdon theory is) and nutty theories (which many think it is) and you somehow turn that into "everything." It's almost like your conditioned.
Where do you stand regarding the Spalding/Rigdon theory? Do you think it's nutty and if so, why? Do you think it has merit and if so, why?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Danse Macabre wrote: ..I certainly understand that one can slumber through life without much critical thought, inquiry and in-depth learning...
I on the other hand have always been the curious sort and learning or hearing one thing led me to the next and to the next. I find so many people like myself at every step that I am no longer surprized.
I run across people like me - or people like you now - that know all the "stuff" all the time in church. Sure - I believe that your experience but that hasn't been my experience. I guess it's a matter of who you hang out with.
You sound very sure of yourself.
But I am at a loss as to who you think you might be, or the people you believe you run parallel with.
Willing to give any clues? So far I'm not too sure you've ever actively attended the Mormon church. I've attended in several foreign countries as well as through-out the US - I've yet to attend priesthood meeting where we can get much further than discussing whether abstaining from Pepsi is elective or doctrinal
Inconceivable Go to this link To see Ensign Feb 2008, 39–41, Family of Joseph Smith Jr. and Emma Hale Smith, you might want to see the PDF version since it has pitchers of the children.
I have to ask if "Chapel" Mormons (or any part of a religious sect that's more traditional) can survive on the Internet? Can "Chapel" religious anythings avoid the possibly damaging stuff their ancestors weren't previously exposed to? I don't think so.....one trip to google and typing in "Joseph Smith" may produce some "anti" (read: truth speaking) site....and as many people know, it's all down hill from there for some people.
Some have labeled me a "chapel Mormon" and I've been posting for years. Still surviving. Of course I survived significant doses and antiMormon literature as a teen and have been debunking such ever since.
in my opinion most LDS will only search outside the safety net of the Mormon sites if another believer teaches them something disturbing. That is why New Order Mormons, apologists, and church history buffs are more dangerous to Chapel Mos than the anti Mormon sites will ever be.
In my case, it was learning about Joseph Smith's polygamy from an active believing Mormon that sparked my curiousity and the dam broke after that. I would have never googled polygamy or Joseph Smith had I not been upset by what this person casually shared with me. Had it come from an exMo, I would have never believed it.
I also had serious doctrinal concerns over plural marriage returning. I only stayed with church friendly sources at first and it was the church apologetic site (FAIR) that confirmed these weren't anti Mormon lies.
I believe most LDS will not google anything Mormon related for fear of "anti Mormon" sites and they generally can find what they are looking for in the safety of LDS.org. Even if they happened to come across church history accidentally, they would most likely dismiss it as lies from Satan.
When I had first started delving into church history, relatives assumed I had been duped by anti Mormon websites and warned me that I can't believe everything I read out there on the net. (like I wasn't smart enough to know that?) I hadn't been reading any non LDS websites at that time.
Anything not published by the church on Mormonism is not trusted. Even books I had read by LDS authors in good standing were not valid because it wasn't spoon fed to them by leaders.
Just the other day I was having a discussion with a TBM relative and they were making disparaging remarks about Christians who speak in tongues. I lightly mentioned how the early Mormons used to speak in tongues all the time and wondered what had changed the practice. You should have seen this person lash out at me-
"Where did you ever hear something like that?" "what kind of anti Mormon books are you reading????!!!"
No matter how I assured her it was basic history and nothing to be ashamed of, she was convinced I had read something anti Mormon and nothing would change her mind.