Church previously denied a John Taylor revelation on polygamy now admits it

[Mag’ladroth]

Listening to FAIR, erstwhile online Mormon apologists, and now MG on this board make excuses for this is like watching the “Stepford Wives” in real life. Everyone has received the talking points and now goes forth.

Excuse 1: “Taylor isn’t talking about polygamy in the letter! “Eternal covenant” isn’t polygamy!”

Excuse 2: “They didn’t say it didn’t exist just that it wasn’t verified! They knew it existed Taylor’s son just needed them to verify it!”

Etc etc etc.

All of this is of course is refuted with some critical thinking skills.

[Moksha]

And even then, as you well know, that claim should be thoroughly investigated and checked out. A lot of 'stuff' out there that is bogus in part or whole.

Regards,
MG

Does that include Wendy Nelson's claim that Jesus has returned and the LDS leaders have been talking with Him?

[bill4long]

And even then, as you well know, that claim should be thoroughly investigated and checked out. A lot of 'stuff' out there that is bogus in part or whole.

Regards,
MG

Does that include Wendy Nelson's claim that Jesus has returned and the LDS leaders have been talking with Him?

If they are, maybe they could ask Jesus where Zarahemla and Cumorah are located.

[MG 2.0]

Does that include Wendy Nelson's claim that Jesus has returned and the LDS leaders have been talking with Him?

If they are, maybe they could ask Jesus where Zarahemla and Cumorah are located.

One thing for sure. Jesus, if He is God...knows the truth of the matter. I'm good with that.

Apparently, you're not?

Regards,
MG

[Mag’ladroth]

If they are, maybe they could ask Jesus where Zarahemla and Cumorah are located.

One thing for sure. Jesus, if He is God...knows the truth of the matter. I'm good with that.

Apparently, you're not?

Regards,
MG

Well

1. Your Prophets and Apostles and Standard Works say Jesus is one of the three primary gods of this world. So he should know.

2. In order to show the entire religion of Christianity was wrong and truly bring unity to His church? Why wouldn’t he do this?

[MG 2.0]

One thing for sure. Jesus, if He is God...knows the truth of the matter. I'm good with that.

Apparently, you're not?

Regards,
MG

Well

1. Your Prophets and Apostles and Standard Works say Jesus is one of the three primary gods of this world. So he should know.

2. In order to show the entire religion of Christianity was wrong and truly bring unity to His church? Why wouldn’t he do this?

I'm not in the business in criticizing what God does one way or the other. Granted, I do have some questions for Him if I ever get a chance to do a 'one on one' with Him however. There are some things that I'm happy with the fact that an all knowing God actually knows and understands more than I do.

Unlike some here, I realize that in some respects, my pay grade does not allow me to be on everything that goes on. There is a certain degree/amount of faith that 'believing' entails. And that requires a bit of opposition in all things that provide tension between knowing and not knowing...for a fact.

I think where some folks get themselves in a quandary is when they find something that doesn't make sense completely...and they let that supersede all the things that God has revealed and/or do make sense...and they find themselves doing a whole lot of second guessing.

To the point that they give up on God.

Are you a Christian?

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

I think where some folks get themselves in a quandary is when they find something that doesn't make sense completely...and they let that supersede all the things that God has revealed and/or do make sense...and they find themselves doing a whole lot of second guessing.

To the point that they give up on God.

Like those senior Mormons who refuse to trust God and serve a senior mission for Him. Those folks don’t really believe that if they took that leap of faith, that He would have their back. They have found themselves doing a lot of second guessing. They search for their own justifications. They’ve given up on God at that point.

[Mag’ladroth]

Well

1. Your Prophets and Apostles and Standard Works say Jesus is one of the three primary gods of this world. So he should know.

2. In order to show the entire religion of Christianity was wrong and truly bring unity to His church? Why wouldn’t he do this?

I'm not in the business in criticizing what God does one way or the other. Granted, I do have some questions for Him if I ever get a chance to do a 'one on one' with Him however. There are some things that I'm happy with the fact that an all knowing God actually knows and understands more than I do.

Unlike some here, I realize that in some respects, my pay grade does not allow me to be on everything that goes on. There is a certain degree/amount of faith that 'believing' entails. And that requires a bit of opposition in all things that provide tension between knowing and not knowing...for a fact.

I think where some folks get themselves in a quandary is when they find something that doesn't make sense completely...and they let that supersede all the things that God has revealed and/or do make sense...and they find themselves doing a whole lot of second guessing.

To the point that they give up on God.

Are you a Christian?

Regards,
MG

I would be what is called a “conservative” (whatever that means) Protestant. Particularly a Presbyterian. I hold a BSc in Mech E. and I’m working on an MDiv-ThM bridge program.

However, I find LDS answers like the above deeply illogical and unsatisfactory. Knowledge isn’t opposed to faith, no Church Father said that, no one in the Bible says that, only Mormons do when the screws are put to their attempts to systematize and defend their doctrine.

The book of Acts emphasizes in its opening that Luke is writing to Theophilus and naming peoples and places so he can trust and know that Luke is telling the truth.

According to you and the COJCOLDS Theophilus should’ve just taken “trust me bro, God said.” As an answer.

In addition to this I’m supposed to simply take alleged “prophets seers and revelators” at their word despite documented lies, clear flip flops on doctrine, rejection of history to include documented history of Christianity, and dishonest apologetics and just whistle my way past the graveyard and accept point 9 from the “A Uniform System For Teaching Investigators.”

I’m new to interacting with LDS as they were until recently, content being peculiar but the more aggressive they get and the more of their documents I read, the less I am convinced that this isn’t just some giant 19th century joke like Scientology.

[I Have Questions]

I'm not in the business in criticizing what God does one way or the other. Granted, I do have some questions for Him if I ever get a chance to do a 'one on one' with Him however. There are some things that I'm happy with the fact that an all knowing God actually knows and understands more than I do.

Unlike some here, I realize that in some respects, my pay grade does not allow me to be on everything that goes on. There is a certain degree/amount of faith that 'believing' entails. And that requires a bit of opposition in all things that provide tension between knowing and not knowing...for a fact.

I think where some folks get themselves in a quandary is when they find something that doesn't make sense completely...and they let that supersede all the things that God has revealed and/or do make sense...and they find themselves doing a whole lot of second guessing.

To the point that they give up on God.

Are you a Christian?

Regards,
MG

I would be what is called a “conservative” (whatever that means) Protestant. Particularly a Presbyterian. I hold a BSc in Mech E. and I’m working on an MDiv-ThM bridge program.

However, I find LDS answers like the above deeply illogical and unsatisfactory. Knowledge isn’t opposed to faith, no Church Father said that, no one in the Bible says that, only Mormons do when the screws are put to their attempts to systematize and defend their doctrine.

The book of Acts emphasizes in its opening that Luke is writing to Theophilus and naming peoples and places so he can trust and know that Luke is telling the truth.

According to you and the COJCOLDS Theophilus should’ve just taken “trust me bro, God said.” As an answer.

In addition to this I’m supposed to simply take alleged “prophets seers and revelators” at their word despite documented lies, clear flip flops on doctrine, rejection of history to include documented history of Christianity, and dishonest apologetics and just whistle my way past the graveyard and accept point 9 from the “A Uniform System For Teaching Investigators.”

I’m new to interacting with LDS as they were until recently, content being peculiar but the more aggressive they get and the more of their documents I read, the less I am convinced that this isn’t just some giant 19th century joke like Scientology.

I find it interesting Mag’ladroth, - you are not faithless, you’re not an ex-Mormon, nor inactive Mormon. You’re not an atheist, nor agnostic. You’re not an avowed LDS critic. And yet you still draw the same conclusions about Mormonism as everyone within those named groups.

That’s significant.


Were you raised Presbyterian by your parents, or did you find that faith in some other way?

[Mag’ladroth]

I would be what is called a “conservative” (whatever that means) Protestant. Particularly a Presbyterian. I hold a BSc in Mech E. and I’m working on an MDiv-ThM bridge program.

However, I find LDS answers like the above deeply illogical and unsatisfactory. Knowledge isn’t opposed to faith, no Church Father said that, no one in the Bible says that, only Mormons do when the screws are put to their attempts to systematize and defend their doctrine.

The book of Acts emphasizes in its opening that Luke is writing to Theophilus and naming peoples and places so he can trust and know that Luke is telling the truth.

According to you and the COJCOLDS Theophilus should’ve just taken “trust me bro, God said.” As an answer.

In addition to this I’m supposed to simply take alleged “prophets seers and revelators” at their word despite documented lies, clear flip flops on doctrine, rejection of history to include documented history of Christianity, and dishonest apologetics and just whistle my way past the graveyard and accept point 9 from the “A Uniform System For Teaching Investigators.”

I’m new to interacting with LDS as they were until recently, content being peculiar but the more aggressive they get and the more of their documents I read, the less I am convinced that this isn’t just some giant 19th century joke like Scientology.

I find it interesting Mag’ladroth, - you are not faithless, you’re not an ex-Mormon, nor inactive Mormon. You’re not an atheist, nor agnostic. You’re not an avowed LDS critic. And yet you still draw the same conclusions about Mormonism as everyone within those named groups.

That’s significant.


Were you raised Presbyterian by your parents, or did you find that faith in some other way?

I was not raised Presbyterian. I was raised in what I would describe as a mixed religious household. My mom was a nurse and devout IFB Baptist and my father was an accountant and apathetic about religion in general. He preferred baseball and politics which rubbed off on me as well.

I found Presbyterianism when I went to college with a goal of becoming a patent lawyer. I took an Intro to Philosophy class for what I thought was an easy A on my Humanities requirement. Instead I was forced to read Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, etc. and conveniently enough the professor was a Presbyterian and essentially the rest was history.

Even after I was baptized I only got a B- in the class