MONSON STORY

[_Franktalk]

In my case, it's the only religion I know well enough to feel comfortable talking about in depth.

Fair enough. But for those who reject the doctrines of the LDS church there must be some common argument that applies to other churches as well. Or they may reject the unique doctrines and accept the doctrines of another. I accept that most people will not be religious. There are many reasons for that. I also accept that many will fall. Some seed falls on bad ground and the root is not enough. As you can tell from my posts I mostly deal with my beliefs and I defend my understanding. I come here to lay out my beliefs in the light to examine them. It is mostly for my benefit. Truth protects itself and is independent of any argument that I could come up with. I don't consider myself an expert on this Church or any other. But that does not stop me or others from talking about some subjects to death. In your response I am reading into it that your knowledge of the church is raw information and is not spiritual in nature. I find this common among the people who fight against the church. As I have stated before it is reasonable to reject the church on grounds of logic. I may try and correct some understanding of doctrine or at least describe my understanding but I can not make anyone feel differently about the church. That is not my goal.

It's fun.

Yes it is. I think we can discuss very serious matters in a lighthearted way. I may judge someones understanding but I do try and stay away from judging a person. And of course it is my belief that the person is that soul that exist deep inside of some and on the surface of others.

Easier said than done. If I made a church, would you attend? If not, why would I believe anyone else would?

If I went to church because it was a logical choice then your church would probably be a good one. There are many who would attend on that basis. I see most churches today follow that model. More marketing rather than universal truth. Most ministers stumble all over them self when they try and discuss universal truth.

If I break your leg with a sledgehammer, and then handed you a free crutch, is that crutch "charity" on my part?

That is an excellent point. I see that many feel that the church is damaging the members. I accept that as the view of many. In that light it is more than reasonable to argue against the church. So now the issue becomes the underlying reasons for that damage. Here I can see a wide range of ideas and personal experiences but so far I can not see enough for me to properly analyze what is going on. That is one of the reasons I am here. Where many see the church as lying to them I see it differently. This is too big an issue to discuss here. But in a nut shell the attempt by the church to be guided by the Spirit is correct. Although the weakness of the flesh manifest in most things.

You must join none of them, for they are all wrong.

I understand the idea but I don't agree. I could join any church and gather what ever fruit was there and ignore the chaff. It is a matter of goals and attitude as to what a church will bring you. I have no desire for any church to lead me in any way. That is done through a different path. Those who do go to church as their guide will mostly find error. If however you go for fellowship then the LDS church is a fine place to go.

[_Franktalk]

An honest question. I'll try an honest, sincere answer: Personally, I have great appreciation for most church members that i know. They are welcome to their beliefs, whatever they are. However, the corporate entity is what I have little respect for. LDS Inc is entirely self-serving,even in their charities. From which many might benefit via their "generosity."
You must be aware of LDS the purpose?! To convert the world to Mormonism! 50,000 missionaries, & Member-missionaries are actively involved in doing so. Most members do not recognize LDSism negatives, so they remain to enjoy the positives, oblivious to the toxicity in which they survive.
You are correct, there are many false-teaching-churches, many bigger. But few as insidious and conniving as LDS Inc. (In my opinion.)

No church of man will be devoid of problems. I do see an attitude in the church which is troubling. One that the church will grow and become the Kingdom. That is against scripture. But it is common among churches. It will take me years to separate out the arguments against the church. But I will say that I think your comments are a little extreme. The church is not burning people at the stake.

Frank, the "Right one" is where the attendee feels comfortable, well served and not pressured to perform to reach heaven and avoid hell. In my seriously considered opinion, neither place exists. A good church is above all a Social Centre staffed with qualified, trained personnel. Such places are emerging. However most are still tied into Theology. Time will come when that won't be the case. . .

I hope this somewhat satisfies your curiosity. I'm not looking for agreement. . .
Best regards, Roger

I understand your desire but I see things differently. I don't make a belief system and then try and find some church that matches. I seek truth and then examine churches to see which one looks like it holds to that truth. My desire is for truth but not my own. We may disagree on what truth is. That is expected. What I do see is that the church in many cases does not follow its own doctrine. That is expected as well. No church of man can be perfect.

[_Themis]

Yet another non answer answer. There are some real masters on these boards of avoiding any personal opinions or beliefs but instead attack others opinions. Let us see what the next response will be.

Just to be clear I am waiting for an answer to my question about what motivates the anti's to spend time here. The second part is what church should we flock to if the LDS church is so wrong?

Any bets on the type of answer that will arrive?

I already stated I think you know what people have said on this, and I notice you avoiding answering whether you do or not. That is an answer that you do, but you don't really want to accept it. As to anti's. I think there may be a couple around here, but then I probably define it differently then you.

If you really want a answer, then take a look in the mirror. What motivates you is going to be similar to what motivates others. People like to express their opinions on issues that are of interest to them. This is a place to do that. I am not sure why some think that when one no longer believes that they should lose interest in things that were a big part of their life, and usually still are in regards to family and friends. I am also not sure why you have a problem with people expressing why certain beliefs are wrong, or that they need to come up with new ones to replace old ones.

[_Drifting]

Frank,

I'm here (am an anti?) because I enjoy discussion and debate of something that has been and continues to be an integral thing in my life. I find that here I get to discuss items and topics about Mormonism that simply would not be tolerated in the Church environment. Worse, I would be singled out and 'dealt with' as a trouble causer if I brought the topics or discussion points up.

For instance, when sat in a class about the teachings of Joseph Smith, raise your hand and enquire why it was necessary for Joseph to marry 33 women, a third of whom already had living husbands. See how that is handled.

As for what Church one should run to if leaving Mormonism, why on earth is it a prerequisite that you need to go to any other religion?

[_Franktalk]

For instance, when sat in a class about the teachings of Joseph Smith, raise your hand and enquire why it was necessary for Joseph to marry 33 women, a third of whom already had living husbands. See how that is handled.

What you see as important I could care less about. That speaks volumes about the difference between us.

[_Drifting]

For instance, when sat in a class about the teachings of Joseph Smith, raise your hand and enquire why it was necessary for Joseph to marry 33 women, a third of whom already had living husbands. See how that is handled.

What you see as important I could care less about. That speaks volumes about the difference between us.

This may cause me to lose sleep. Then again....

[_Themis]

For instance, when sat in a class about the teachings of Joseph Smith, raise your hand and enquire why it was necessary for Joseph to marry 33 women, a third of whom already had living husbands. See how that is handled.

What you see as important I could care less about. That speaks volumes about the difference between us.

It certainly does. I am sure they are plenty of scientologists who don't care about evaluating L Ron Hubbard to see if his claims are accurate, just as you are not interested in evaluating Joseph's or LDS truth claims.

[_Franktalk]

It certainly does. I am sure they are plenty of scientologists who don't care about evaluating L Ron Hubbard to see if his claims are accurate, just as you are not interested in evaluating Joseph's or LDS truth claims.

What if a prophet of God was told to go somewhere and he went the other way. How are we supposed to deal with this? Do we go with what God said or do we go with what the prophet did? To me it is a simple matter. To others it is not so simple. They wish to make the prophet perfect and without error. But we have many examples where prophets are weak in the flesh just like any other man. Could it be that the lessons in the Bible that deal with this very issue were placed there for a reason?

[_Dr. Shades]

This is too big an issue to discuss here.

Au contraire; there is NO issue too big to discuss here.

If however you go for fellowship then the LDS church is a fine place to go.

Sure. If fellowship is all you want, then don't accept any callings or pay any tithing.

[_Drifting]

It certainly does. I am sure they are plenty of scientologists who don't care about evaluating L Ron Hubbard to see if his claims are accurate, just as you are not interested in evaluating Joseph's or LDS truth claims.

What if a prophet of God was told to go somewhere and he went the other way. How are we supposed to deal with this? Do we go with what God said or do we go with what the prophet did? To me it is a simple matter. To others it is not so simple. They wish to make the prophet perfect and without error. But we have many examples where prophets are weak in the flesh just like any other man. Could it be that the lessons in the Bible that deal with this very issue were placed there for a reason?

Why then, are members routinely exhorted to 'follow the Prophet' if he can't be trusted above the level of 'any other man'?