DiscussMormonism.com

There is a reason Joseph Smith had a following. Early converts were not just people in a tough economic situation coming for a check and usually only attending church a couple times. And in my view there is a reason that these are the only converts the church gets these days and I don't believe it is just because there are no more people available willing to listen.

To me being a prophet means taking on the tough questions and providing what science cannot provide. This knowledge is gained through the spirit. It might even mean delving into deep doctrines. It could mean being wrong or not completely reaching an absolute truth, but still making an attempt and working toward the truth in an open and transparent manner.

Sadly in my experience, part of the LDS church being a global and highly scrutinized church means that we can't have that anymore. What we have are in my view are very boring rituals. And until I read some of TAOs answers I really hadn't been spiritually fed for some time. Is this the famine for the word of God that has been prophesied?

I appreciate Dan Peterson but defending the possibility of a historical Book of Mormon wasn't what bothered me about Church experience enough to turn to these boards for an outlet. And while the pervasive theme of this board is people who cannot come to grips who Joseph Smith married we've lost sight of why people ever followed Joseph Smith. He spiritually fed people. He took on the hard questions. He was very much a philosopher, something that is frowned upon in the modern church. I miss that part about religion. I wish we still had it. I might even enjoy going to priesthood meeting again.

I'll second this post about TAO.

I just hope he can continue to maintain what he believes and his disposition. Many posters who have been at the defensive end for a while seem to be quite jaded. Having to explain the same thing over and over again would get very tiresome and you would get to a point where you think every question is an attack.

Having to explain the same thing over and over again would get very tiresome and you would get to a point where you think every question is an attack.

Definitely, but what I think is unique is that TAO is not a chapel Mormon defending an empire. He's defending the idea of spiritual knowledge, by sharing his spiritual knowledge. To me this is a very strong position for an apologist. And from what I've read I don't see what he presents as boring and repetitive as you might find in an LDS Sunday School Manual.

For the best musicians, it's still all about the music and for the best apologists, the truth is still all about the spirit. It heals me just to think about it again and to reconsider that there are at least parts of the fairy tale that still might be true.

Erm... thanks guys =). Glad I'm able to help.

TAO wrote:Erm... thanks guys =). Glad I'm able to help.

Hang in there TAO, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I think you're the devil. :)

He is refreshingly different. Despite the fact that he says he can identify with BY, I don't think there is a malevolent bone in his body.