Meadowchik wrote: SMAC refuses to accept that the statement from Joseph Smith clearly contradicts his claim. Another poster distorts the entire thread as being about Sam Young himself, when it was categorically about the question of whether "apostasy is worse than murder" in the LDS church.
I got booted from three of the current threads over there, so I've decided to give myself a bit of a break. At some point, I guess, they'll have to ban me permanently.
But it was a circular discussion. To me what they ended up doing was shouting down teachings of the past. The teachings pointed out by grindael here. That's a good thing. Who should ever believe that nonsense? I maintain their current view has made mincemeat of the sons of perdition teaching--no one would ever really be up high enough to be a son of perdition today, on their view. If President Nelson turned around and disavowed his belief, they'd still likely conclude he simply didn't know enough and thus could be forgiven. If so, then what's the point of the teaching? Nothing. It's meaningless.
Meadowchik wrote: SMAC refuses to accept that the statement from Joseph Smith clearly contradicts his claim. Another poster distorts the entire thread as being about Sam Young himself, when it was categorically about the question of whether "apostasy is worse than murder" in the LDS church.
I got booted from three of the current threads over there, so I've decided to give myself a bit of a break. At some point, I guess, they'll have to ban me permanently.
But it was a circular discussion. To me what they ended up doing was shouting down teachings of the past. The teachings pointed out by grindael here. That's a good thing. Who should ever believe that nonsense? I maintain their current view has made mincemeat of the sons of perdition teaching--no one would ever really be up high enough to be a son of perdition today, on their view. If President Nelson turned around and disavowed his belief, they'd still likely conclude he simply didn't know enough and thus could be forgiven. If so, then what's the point of the teaching? Nothing. It's meaningless.
Indeed. And the problem with past teachings is the absence of direct repudiation of bad past teachings. Even if the past teaching is not right, now, that doesn't mean they were wrong then. And then those who learn the history of polygamy quickly see the prophet and church actively lying and covering it up, which can suggests to the pious that church teachings are intentionally duplicitous, saying one thing outwardly to guard the true principle for the elect.