? for TBMs. Best and worst arguments against the church?

Post by **_Gazelam** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:20 am

Trinity wrote:Kimberly Ann, are you my twin?

;)

Betty Crocker, Little Debbie.....Little Debbie, Betty Crocker.

Post by **_Mephitus** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 6:03 am

GIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry.....im a little obsessive about invader zime. Even to the point that im getting gir tattoo'ed on my left shoulder once i get the extra money.

Post by **_Seven** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:25 am

I am an inactive member, and not TBM, but still searching both sides.

For my testimony the toughest job apologists have is defending the character of Joseph Smith. Behavior that LDS would condemn of anybody else, is honored as "sacred" and defended because Joseph did it. My belief in the claims of Mormonism are tied directly to Joseph Smith being a man I can trust ..... In other words, not a cheater, adulterer, liar, or treasure seeker.

The weakest areas in apologetics in my opinion are polygamy, white washing of history, Book of Abraham, and defining when the Prophet speaks for God.

The weakest arguments I see from critics are not related to history but to the modern day LDS church. If I see critics degrade Christian prinicples taught by the LDS church as destructive, I find the arguments weak.
I also believe the GAs have real testimonies and are sincere in what they preach. I believe they intentionally white wash history to keep members from losing faith but I don't believe it is for selfish reasons.

_marg · Post by **_marg** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:20 am

Seven wrote: I also believe the GAs have real testimonies and are sincere in what they preach. I believe they intentionally white wash history to keep members from losing faith but I don't believe it is for selfish reasons.

Isn't white washing history being flagrantly dishonest? This is what I see over and over in posts by Mormons, a disrespect for honesty, or to put it another way a high tolerance for dishonesty. Honesty doesn't seem to be regarded as very important to them. And I suspect this common trait, has something to do with the indoctrination of Mormonism.

I don't see this sort of thing from exmormons. They seem to highly value, honesty and personal integrity.

Post by **_Fortigurn** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:11 pm

The LDS church has to get rid of the idea that either it, or any of its leaders have ever been led by direct Divine revelation. No more 'prophets', no more 'visions', no more 'testimonies of the spirit'. That little issue has caused nothing but disaster for every church which has tried it.

The Catholics are struggling to explain how allegedly 'infallible' declarations of the past are now no longer valid or infallible, the JWs can't explain why 'God's organisation' and 'God's channel of communication to men' has repeatedly changed its teachings back and forth over the years (not to mention made many false predictions), and the Mormons are back up against the wall trying desparately to fend off the same issue.

Post by **_Pokatator** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:47 pm

Seven wrote:I am an inactive member, and not TBM, but still searching both sides.

For my testimony the toughest job apologists have is defending the character of Joseph Smith. Behavior that LDS would condemn of anybody else, is honored as "sacred" and defended because Joseph did it. My belief in the claims of Mormonism are tied directly to Joseph Smith being a man I can trust ..... In other words, not a cheater, adulterer, liar, or treasure seeker.

The weakest areas in apologetics in my opinion are polygamy, white washing of history, Book of Abraham, and defining when the Prophet speaks for God.

The weakest arguments I see from critics are not related to history but to the modern day LDS church. If I see critics degrade Christian prinicples taught by the LDS church as destructive, I find the arguments weak.

I also believe the GAs have real testimonies and are sincere in what they preach. I believe they intentionally white wash history to keep members from losing faith but I don't believe it is for selfish reasons.

It seems to me that you have a problem with how Joseph Smith dealt with honesty, trust issues and his behaviors for selfish reasons but when it comes to the recent/modern "prophets" you are willing to cut them a break for doing the same stuff as Joseph. Personally, I don't see any difference in honesty, trust and selfish reasons issues by Joseph than I do in Hinckley and etc. I do think that the adultery issue is strictly Joseph's problem. Don't you think that Joseph was sincere and had a real testimony in what he taught and preached?

Let me put that in another way, I believe it is possible that Joseph saw angels, even the Godhead, even the Golden Plates, but I don't believe they really existed. I believe that a real pyschotic can really see what they want to.......for selfish reasons. I do believe that todays church leaders white wash church history, not because they are pyschotic, but because they have selfish reasons to do so. If they do it to save someones' faith in a false system what is not selfish about that?