- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
– Being treated like an idiot and hiding some of the foundational stories – FAIR losing its credibility by defending the indefensible (like trying to say the uncomfortable history is in plain sight. It’s not, else I’d not have gone 30+ years being oblivious to it.)
– Problematic foundational stories. Especially having so much of the NT KJV in the BoM plus 19thC-isms
I’ve always grown up with my testimony based primarily on the Book of Mormon and trusting everything else from there. I never thought it possible that Joseph could have fabricated it. I’m now considering it to be possible. That would probably shatter everything else. I know we’ve discussed it elsewhere, but if it’s a fabrication it’s a deal breaker. I can handle plates + inspired elaboration on plates. Maybe even inspired part fiction/part history. If I conclude Joseph wrote it entirely from his own head, then game over. I don’t care how ‘good’ the stories on it are. Everything else falls for me.
History doesn’t bother me much, we have to deal with mundanities first… But there are other things… how many times in GC do we hear urban myth or stories that can never be verified because the names and locations are omitted.
Also change conference talks and style, they’re dated.
cwald wrote:The only true and living church.
14 fundalmentals of the prophet.
Two lines of communication.
“Wolves in Sheep clothing.”…the way leaders treat those who doubt.
Financial transparency.
Pharasicial practices like white shirts.
+1 on all of the above.
I have several but at the core my biggest issues surround: Cultural norms that are treated as doctrine.
Orson wrote:Not trying to explain or give the answers
I can’t help but make the observation that so many items on DA’s list can be categorized and addressed under broader terms.For example one major problem is expecting a near constant direct line of revelation to church leaders. I won’t deny that this idea is heavily embedded in LDS culture, but I would point to this as the problem to address instead of trying to explain every false statement made by a church leader…I see the scriptural “problems” in the same vein, namely that the human element involved in recording revelation makes all writing subject to error. The problem certainly compounds on itself when multiple statements are made that collectively lead members down this path of false expectations. I think all of my issues boil down to the basic concern that prophets, apostles, the LDS culture and traditions, and even canonized scriptures can be seriously wrong or inconsistent and God is not necessary going to step in and correct them no matter how wrong or misleading they are. So the best apologetic argument and strongest criticism of the Church are one and the same in my opinion namely that so-called prophets and apostles are only human and not necessarily inspired much of the time both now and in the past. Apologists will typically take the angle that even if they were wrong in some isolated cases this doesn’t really prove they couldn’t still be legitimate prophets guided by revelation when absolutely necessary but my point is that I don’t see why I should trust them that much in the case of doctrines like temple marriage and all the temple worthiness points now that I am fully aware of all these problems with their story.
Websites for wards. Stop using words like obey, authority, command, follow all the time. They sound cultish.
Reading articles and other people’s talks out.
Identical architecture, chapel & temple artwork.
Mangled hymns.
You know, one more thing.. l would like to say, if I had started this thread, it would have been locked in a New York second. Thanks Bill. 
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
DevilsAdvocate wrote:I think all of my issues boil down to the basic concern that prophets, apostles, the LDS culture and traditions, and even canonized scriptures can be seriously wrong or inconsistent and God is not necessarily going to step in and correct them no matter how wrong or misleading they are.
I agree.:thumbup: DevilsAdvocate wrote:So the best apologetic argument and strongest criticism of the Church are one and the same in my opinion namely that so-called prophets and apostles are only human and not necessarily inspired much of the time both now and in the past. Apologists will typically take the angle that even if they were wrong in some isolated cases this doesn’t really prove they couldn’t still be legitimate prophets guided by revelation when absolutely necessary…
I would say even if they’re wrong most of the time that doesn’t necessarily make them “fraudulent” prophets.DevilsAdvocate wrote:but my point is that I don’t see why I should trust them that much in the case of doctrines like temple marriage and all the temple worthiness points now that I am fully aware of all these problems with their story.
I agree and I think the point is you shouldn’t trust any man simply because he says you should. I believe the church teachings are in line with this (D&C 121 comes to mind), I like “
listen tothe prophet, followthe Spirit. I have been hearing this same message in church and many places lately. Can you imagine how your reaction to all of these things may have been different if you had always been taught this variation – and that church leaders are human and can make mistakes? I realize this may turn everything on its head from some perspectives, but in my opinion it stable ground on which to build. You don’t just trust a voice of authority on different doctrines, you plant a seed of faith and watch for fruit to take shape.
cwald, then it’s a good thing I was off the computer all day. 😆 The topic is fine, as worded. Talking about suggestions for improvement in areas is fine. Rants that are only rants and not interested in solutions or coping mechanisms are not OK. That’s the distinction here – and the reason why this post is fine.
My own immediate thoughts:
Expectations that Zion equals unanimity of thought and opinion – and the resulting use of apostate far too liberally (locally, especially)
Chosen generation rhetoric – and the condescension it breeds
Political alignment of the dominant culture in the US
Better but still not good treatment of homosexuality and homosexual members
Political influence in areas not internal to the Church
Gender and marital roles – even as that has been loosening lately in some ways
Pressure to keep single adult members (especially those over 30) single, even at the expense of joy and marriage, if not temple married
Those are the ones that come to mind right away with no prior thought.
Just about everything already mentioned plus (just in case they weren’t mentioned): President Hinkley’s involvement in the Hoffman affair. Where was prayer and revelation?
Lack of archaeological evidence for the BOM. There is evidence for some of the Bible.
The BOM being called a translation when it could more properly be called a revelation. Reformed Egyptian I also have a hard time with.
Another big issue for me would be the fact that one of the key foundational points of the church is priesthood authority as a direct line: Jesus > Peter, James and John > Joseph/Oliver… > > > Me. I have no explanation for why something so significant appears nowhere in writing until 1835. To the point that Cowdery’s co-witnesses had no idea. The men trusted to see the plates and have an angelic visit couldn’t be trusted to know that angelic visitors returned to confer it. Whitmer categorically says that he doesn’t even believe it happens, that it’s a contrivance. I believe the evidence for this is hugely compelling.
If there was no angelic visit in 1829, then we have no more authority than the protestants.
No Book of Mormon credibility, no priesthood… no Mackay at church.
TBH, it’s becoming an increasingly likely prospect
I remember a big thing that initially caused me to think the church possibly not inspired in all things was the perpetual education fund. For years I had been taught in church that we should stay out of debt, and avoid it except for house purchases. Then here is the church setting itself up as a loan company! They even charged interest and asked for members to donate to the initial capital.
What would happen if someone defaulted on the loan? Would the church send the baliffs round to turf someone out of their house, and take their possessions as repayment???
Thinking all these things through made me think the leadership had a case of ‘do as i say not as i do’
Just about all of the other items listed but my first gut reaction is too much focus on JS and not enough on JC. One apostle said that the most important thing the missionaries can teach is that JS was and is a prophet. I would think that God loving his children and that Jesus is the Christ would be THE most important thing that the missionaries should teach. brit-exmo wrote:I remember a big thing that initially caused me to think the church possibly not inspired in all things was the perpetual education fund.
For years I had been taught in church that we should stay out of debt, and avoid it except for house purchases. Then here is the church setting itself up as a loan company! They even charged interest and asked for members to donate to the initial capital.
What would happen if someone defaulted on the loan? Would the church send the baliffs round to turf someone out of their house, and take their possessions as repayment???
Thinking all these things through made me think the leadership had a case of ‘do as i say not as i do’
My understanding was that it was okay to take out debt for housing, education, and a modest amount for reliable transportation. For example, here’s an article from The Ensign… “For most persons, debt generally is a necessary obligation for purchasing a home, a vehicle for transportation, or in some cases for education.”
http://www.josephsmith.net/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=624e57b60090c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.josephsmith.net/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=624e57b60090c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD brit-exmo wrote:I remember a big thing that initially caused me to think the church possibly not inspired in all things was the perpetual education fund.
For years I had been taught in church that we should stay out of debt, and avoid it except for house purchases. Then here is the church setting itself up as a loan company! They even charged interest and asked for members to donate to the initial capital.
What would happen if someone defaulted on the loan? Would the church send the baliffs round to turf someone out of their house, and take their possessions as repayment???
Thinking all these things through made me think the leadership had a case of ‘do as i say not as i do’
It’s funny how we all have different perspectives on things. When I heard about the PEF, I thought “This is one of the best ideas I’ve heard from the Church in a long, long time” and promptly donated to it. Perhaps I have a little more faith in it because I know quite well the guy the Church has running it. Anyway, some say “to-MAY-to” and some say “to-MAH-to.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.