Is the Internet Confounding the Revision of History

[_charity]

I came here in peace, seeking fellowship with fellow believers to discuss matters of faith without contention. I did not come here to be drawn into endless debates with those who feel that I (and my beliefs) are quite beneath them.

This is not a place for only "fellow believers." This is a place where, no matter what you beliefs, there is going to be at least someone who feels that your beliefs are pretty dumb. And this is actually a place of endless debates.

[_hopeofzion]

This is not a place for only "fellow believers." This is a place where, no matter what you beliefs, there is going to be at least someone who feels that your beliefs are pretty dumb. And this is actually a place of endless debates.

Does this mean I must take part in them?

Respectfully, I would say the following. The title of your site is "Mormon Discussions." The word discussion has a totally different meaning to me than the word "argument." Where contention and disrespect for one another is rampant, the Spirit of God cannot be, and little good can come of it. If people simply think people with a different point of view are dumb, then they are simply wasting their time.

[_GoodK]

Doug, I hope you can understand that sometimes tone and attitude do not translate accurately on the internet or in emails.
I don't know if this is a continuation of your ad hominem and diagnosis of my pysche, or if you really do feel hostility from me. If you really do feel this way, I hope you can understand I am here for the same reason as you say you are, to seek fellowship with other likeminded, amateur polemicists, and to discuss matters of faith.
I notice your website has it's own message board, perhaps you should post there if you are only seeking agreement.

GoodK,

Is it possible that you may be guilty of what you accuse me of. Are you being humble? Or is your attitude one of arrogance and someone who thinks they have the answer already? You be the judge.

Humility is not the goal of my posts, but it was hardly arrogant to question your unfalsifiable claims and point out the arrogance in your comments.
I seek clarity, not agreement.

I came here in peace, seeking fellowship with fellow believers to discuss matters of faith without contention. I did not come here to be drawn into endless debates with
those who feel that I (and my beliefs) are quite beneath them. If this is NOT how you feel, then your attitude/words betray your true nature.

Like I said, it is hard to determine someone's attitude in an internet discussion board. It is even harder to diagnose them pyschologically. You have attempted to do both in this thread, and have failed miserably.

This interaction did NOT begin by me responding to a post of yours, trying to convince you that you were wrong, or that you should believe as I do. Rather, you responded to my post, which was in no way a challenge to those who don't even believe in the Scriptures. It was an attempt at a peaceful discussion with those that do believe in them. That does not mean I wouldn't welcome discussion with those who are not Believers, but I will not engage those who seem hostile, as it is useless.

Yes. You must be correct. I butted into a conversation I had no business being a part of. Perhaps that is why I participate here, so I can interject my unwelcomed opinions at will. But like I said, I simply asked for clarity on one of your opinion, which apparently translated to a solicitation for some rather lengthy responses offering nothing clarifying about your assertions.

GoodK - What is the absolute truth in this case is that you know nothing about me, whatsoever, and so your pronounced judgments upon me are quite meaningless. You don't know what I have been through, what I know, the mistakes I have made, the things I have suffered, the experiences I have had, what kind of person I am, or how and why I believe as I do. I suggest to you that it is entirely possible for someone to believe in God, the Scriptures, and to have a personal relationship with Him, and not be either crazy or an idiot. Until you deliver yourself from that belief, we have no basis for a discussion.

You are certainly correct. I do not know anything about you personally. Neither do you know anything about me. Apparently you are missing the priceless irony here, so here is your original diagnosis of me, which warranted my diagnosis of you:

A teacher cannot teach anything at all to the student who will not invest in, or care anything for what they have to teach. When you are hungry, you will eat. Not before. you're a big girl. I cannot force feed you....

In fact, I wonder why you are even here on a Mormon discussion board. Not that I have any desire for you to go. Not that you don't have a right to be here, or to question anything you wish. And not because I feel the least bit threatened by your challenges. But I have honestly never really understood why any person would devote even one ounce of their time or energy arguing and debating about something they choose not to believe in, with people who do choose to believe in it. Except they have experienced some personal injury, or are angry over something in their past, which drives them. Sometimes we feel compelled to confront wrongs, or speak our mind. This isn't always wrong, but I would recount the native american parable about two wolves within us (we choose which one to feed). Instead of dealing with what is really driving going on inside, which needs to be dealt with in order to bring them true peace so that they can move on, some tend to externalize the problem, and channel their energies at other people, blaming religion, government, a church, a race, a belief system, or whatever. I am not the least bit interested in trying to prove anything to you, because you're not interested in proofs, and so it would be a futile exercise.

If there is a textbook case of arrogance, this is it.

You'll simply have to excuse the fact that I don't choose to expend time and energy trying to convince someone who is already hostile and clearly cannot be convinced by any argument, no matter how good. I've been through that process too many times already. A mind that is made up cannot be dislodged from its purpose. You have already belittled and tried to diminish a very precious testimony I shared, and you claim to be offended by the very notion that I (or others) could have a personal interaction or receive enlightenment directly from God. What is more is there to talk about?

Perhaps one day in the future, when you are less angry and more open, we can talk again.

Here you go, using the ad hominem and pretending like you have priceless gems of truth, that just aren't worth sharing with the likes of angry atheists.

No one that has read this thread could possibly make such a leap of faith as to assume you have something compelling supporting your claims.
If you did, you would have stated them already.

You will simply have to excuse the fact that when you say things like :

Not that I am a prophet.
What I feel I can share and believe to be true with all my heart is this: That God really loves them, and He is about to do something that will bring many of them out of a form of bondage, which many of them are in, (those who will), and draw them into a much closer relationship with Himself.



And this is all a part of the work of the Father... where he will draw all that are His into ONE, even the lost tribes of Israel. Zion!

But there are just a couple of things about the LDS I do know, that the Lord has shared with me.

then I will continue thinking your beliefs are beneath me, and intellectuals, at least until you can explain them better.
I will also post responses, like I did here, asking you where you derive such seemingly silly and unreasonable beliefs.
Maybe when you decide to answer with substance instead of ad hominems and 'you're a meanie' then I can begin to understand them.

[_charity]

This is not a place for only "fellow believers." This is a place where, no matter what you beliefs, there is going to be at least someone who feels that your beliefs are pretty dumb. And this is actually a place of endless debates.

Does this mean I must take part in them?

Respectfully, I would say the following. The title of your site is "Mormon Discussions." The word discussion has a totally different meaning to me than the word "argument." Where contention and disrespect for one another is rampant, the Spirit of God cannot be, and little good can come of it. If people simply think people with a different point of view are dumb, then they are simply wasting their time.

You do not have to take part in anything you don't want to.

You should know the inhabitants of this "house." There are a few faithful, fully believing and active LDS, there are others who are LDS, actrive and consider themselves faithful while acknowledging doubts. There are others who were formerly LDS and no longer are and call themselves critics. There are a few who are flaming anti-Mormons.

Contention often shows its ugly head. You have the option of leaving the thread when that occurs.

This is not "my" message board. But to tell you, it is not considered polite to enter the message board and start lecturing people on how they ought to conduct themselves. I don't often agree with what goes on here. Which is why I have limited my participation. But you chose to climb in the sandbox, and you can't start throwing the others out.

[_harmony]

What we are asking is for some official doctrine that supports your opinion and clearly states one is required to be in a factual, historical, accurate Book of Mormon in order to be considered a true Latter Day Saint, or that if one does NOT believe in a factual, historical, accurate Book of Mormon they are not considered "true Latter Day Saints."

Again, NO ONE is asking for your opinion or the opinions of the folks at FAIR. It doesn't matter.

You do not in any way, represent the prophet, the LDS church, or Jesus Christ.

~dancer~

Your continued "reminders" that I do not represent the prophet, the Church, or Jesus Christ is insulting. I have said over and over and over that I do not have such pretensions. Your continuing to harp on the issue makes it appear that you have not read my statements, have not understood them, or want others to misunderstand. So you can just drop it, or begin to look like you have ulterior motives.

So what are you expecting? That the prophet come on this message board and state an official policy?

Let me help you put it all together.

1. The founding event of the Church in this dispensation was the discovery of, the translation of and the publication of the Book of Mormon.

2. The Prophet of the Restoration made repeated claimes that the Book of Mormon came from an ancient record of a real people who inhabited this continent.

3. Every prophet of the Church since has stated that it has been revealed knowledge to him that the Book of Mormon is a historic document.

To deny all of that puts one on an opposite side of revealed knowledge, claims and assertions essential to belief in the Church.

IF you believe that the Book of Mormon did not come from gold plates, was not a record of ancient people, that witnesses did not see an angel who revealed the plates to them, that witnesses did not handle the plates themselves, that every prophet of this dispensation has lied, then what kind of a Latter-day Saint are you?

You certainly are not a believing Latter-day Saints. And I would suggest if you can say that all these lies and deceptions took place and you still believe, you really aren't being honest.

One more try here, being a Latter-day Saint is not analogous to being a member of any other Christian denomination. No other Christian is required to believe anything except that Jesus was the Redeemer. And even then, any other Christian can believe almost anything they want to about that. That Christ was part mortal, part divine, or all mortal. That He literally atoned for all sins, or it was some kind of siritual experience. That any particular commandent should be obeyed, or not. No other Christian church maintains that they are the true Church.

But if you claim to be a Latter-day Saint, you are required to accept God's revealed knowledge. If you say you want to be a Latter-day Saint, but you don't want to be held that standard, you have made your choice. It's God's way or the highway.


And this is not my opinion. "We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe he will yet reveal many great and marvelous things." That is one of the things that makes a Latter-day Saint.

What TD wants is quotes from church leaders that support your opinion, charity. Your opinion alone is worth ... well... not much. Put something official behind it, or continue to look like you don't understand what she's asking for.

[_charity]

What TD wants is quotes from church leaders that support your opinion, charity. Your opinion alone is worth ... well... not much. Put something official behind it, or continue to look like you don't understand what she's asking for.

If TD is wanting to know what the leaders of the Church say, she can look up what they say! It is all on line. I fully understand she wants to see in print where some general authority has said, "If you don't believe in the Book of Mormon as a historic document, then you can't be a member of the Church." Otherwise, she wants us to all accpet (well, probably she wants me to accept) the idea that it doesn't really matter what you believe, you can believe anything you want and still be a faithful, active Saint. So, you see, I understand what she asking for.

If TD, or anyone else wants to know what the leaders say, and don't listen to anyone else, then there is no point in them being on a message board. The General Conference talks, the Ensigns are all one line and in print and on audio. Why both to discuss with anyone here?

Now, to get to the nitty gritties, there is only ONE, repeat ONE place in the scriptures where I can think that something is stated that you believe or you aren't LDS. It is in Section 89 of the Doctrrine and Covenants, referring to the Word of Wisdom. "Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints." So obviously, there are some who can't be called Saints.

Are you going to find any leader who is going to exclude anyone for a matter of belief? No. Even in the cases of the most dire apostacy, members are only excommunicated if they TEACH or PREACH their anti-Mormon views. I think the leaders believe, and I do also, that as long as a person allies themselves with the Church, that there is hope they will overcome such errors and falsehoods as they are prone to. So we don't tell anyone they aren't really LDS and they can't come to Church.

We probably shouldn't even tell them they need to change their opinion. Just let them go along as they want to. If they begin to teach such a falehood, their bishop and stake president can deal with it. And we believing Saints know that at some future date, either here or there, they will have to admit their error.

[_Jason Bourne]

Now, to get to the nitty gritties, there is only ONE, repeat ONE place in the scriptures where I can think that something is stated that you believe or you aren't LDS. It is in Section 89 of the Doctrrine and Covenants, referring to the Word of Wisdom. "Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints." So obviously, there are some who can't be called Saints.

Early Church leaders did not view the WOW as binding. Joseph Smith drank wine, wanted a bar in the Nauvoo House, BY operted a brewery, BH Roberts had a drinking problem at times. THe WoW was not binding till Pres Grant made it so.

[_Runtu]

Early Church leaders did not view the WOW as binding. Joseph Smith drank wine, wanted a bar in the Nauvoo House, BY operted a brewery, BH Roberts had a drinking problem at times. THe WoW was not binding till Pres Grant made it so.

charity's reading of that passage is certainly novel, but I agree with you that the WoW was not binding until the 1930 GHI (If I recall correctly), but even then it's not binding except as a condition for obtaining a temple recommend.

[_charity]

Early Church leaders did not view the WOW as binding. Joseph Smith drank wine, wanted a bar in the Nauvoo House, BY operted a brewery, BH Roberts had a drinking problem at times. THe WoW was not binding till Pres Grant made it so.

The Word of Wisdom was not binding, until the Lord revealed His wishes to President Grant. President Grant didn't do it on his own initiative.

[_Runtu]

The Word of Wisdom was not binding, until the Lord revealed His wishes to President Grant. President Grant didn't do it on his own initiative.

And you know this how? Do you think that the church has always waited for revelation before changing policies? Hmmmm