Spanner wrote:
Brilliant! there is a link to this website?
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33702&p=815800&hilit=quasimodo#p815800
Spanner wrote:
Brilliant! there is a link to this website?
Water Dog wrote:
The letter is marketed as merely a list of honest questions. No agenda, just a humble member asking some honest questions.
For example, take the priesthood ban. I pick this subject because it's one I am also quite critical of. He accuses the church of being intentionally deceitful about this history and lying. I see no evidence of this. He's not humbly asking a question but putting words in people's mouths. It's not a lie for current leaders to say "Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice."
He does the same with every other subject as well. Take Anachronisms. Sorenson wrote a 826 page book which details very good arguments against Runnel's tired old list of anachronisms.
He deals with this in a very flippant manner, which is to say sarcastically and not at all. His letter is dishonest. It's not a letter at all, but pure anti-Mormon propaganda.
It is is a very well written and well crafted document.
bcspace wrote:['Crafted' is the operative word here. You guys are so invested in your apostasy that there's too much pride for you to admit you allowed yourselves to be swayed by erroneous information, or even outright lying and deception. This was seen recently in a series of threads on the plural marriages/sealings of Joseph Smith when such was demonstrated.
Some of you hold yourselves up as being so intelligent that there can essentially be no other motive than a desire to sin.
Bob Loblaw wrote:Modern scripture explicitly states that the curse of Cain was the denial of priesthood and that the mark of the curse was black skin. Why all this nonsense about it not being scriptural or doctrinal?
Do these people not know their own scriptures?
Water Dog wrote:BY never specified whether the policy was based on revelation or what was believed to be revelation and received by who, or just his own opinion. Leaders after BY certainly believed it was doctrinal and based on revelation, but there is no historical record to establish the origin...
Water Dog wrote:Tatumn wrote:He testifies in the name of Jesus Christ that it is so, based on the same promptings, whispers, voices still and small, and all other rumblings that testified to him that the Book of Mormon was true, Joseph Smith was a prophet, Jesus was the Christ, and that he himself was to succeed Joseph as a prophet, seer, and revelator; all of this while in an official capacity to speak on the matter. Nothing outside the purview of an LDS prophet.
Conjecture.
Water Dog wrote:The modern leaders say it isn't, wasn't, he was wrong, and they don't know where this false doctrine originated from.Tatumn wrote:Note that Brigham DOES say that it's been this way since Cain. It's not new.
Water Dog wrote:And yet Joseph Smith didn't implement any such ban and he ordained black men into the priesthood... so this doesn't really add up.
Water Dog wrote:... either it's rooted in BYs interpretation of scripture or in statements from Joseph Smith, which is it?
Water Dog wrote:Some of this history I'm not really familiar with.
Bob Loblaw wrote:Modern scripture explicitly states that the curse of Cain was the denial of priesthood and that the mark of the curse was black skin. Why all this nonsense about it not being scriptural or doctrinal?
Do these people not know their own scriptures?
Tatumn wrote:Bob Loblaw wrote:Modern scripture explicitly states that the curse of Cain was the denial of priesthood and that the mark of the curse was black skin. Why all this nonsense about it not being scriptural or doctrinal?
Do these people not know their own scriptures?
By his own admission there are aspects of the argument he's not been exposed to. Water Dog is, however, completely capable of doing the necessary reading.
Indeed, a beautiful man-butterfly of apostasy may emerge from these discussions.