Are you a NOW mormon?

[NOWmormon]

.

[NOWmormon]

Keep going down this wide path you seem to have stumbled on and you will find out the real meaning of neglect and wounded.

D&C 1:14
14 And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;

Threats. Really?

[NOWmormon]

Hello NOWMormon,
Do you have some links from the lds.org site that spell out that list about Joseph you provided?
or a collection of links.
I'd like to study this, but I looked, and can't find the information you shared.

It is posted on lds.org, but buried.

Here is the link--scroll down to Joseph Smith and plural marriage.
And make sure you look at the footnotes.

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marri ... g&old=true

[NOWmormon]

.

[buffalo_girl]

I still don't believe Scott is who he says he is.

How does your assumption change what you would say to someone who actually is in spiritual crisis?

[NOWmormon]

.

[NOWmormon]

I am just starting to go through your replies to my post.

While I appreciate them, most of the responses I have read so far are very judgmental, without compassion (n to saying they all are, just the majority I have read so far.

I am a member of the true church.
I have a testimony.
I am a High Priest.
I served a full foreign mission.
I was married in the temple.
I have been dedicated to the church, the Lord and it's member throughout my life.

I reach out to you and judgement is what you give me.

Listen to the words of my very first post:
I feel betrayed, deceived and hurt.

These aren't the words of an "anti-mormon" or "this kind of newbie".
I finally have the courage to open myself up and become vulnerable and this is how you treat me.

How can you be proud of that?

Would the Lord treat me this way?
His brothers and sisters came to Him for help, guidance, healing.

When you bear your testimony and say that you know the Lord's church is true, do you believe that?
Can't other members of this same church also reach out to you, his flock?

When I asked if you were a NOW mormon (neglected or wounded) I was looking for similarities, that maybe I was not alone. That maybe this was a safe place for me.

Instead, I get comments like --where have you been,this has been around for years? ....and after 50 years you still don't have a testimony?

Shame on you.

Thank you for making me feel so loved and supported.

[NOWmormon]

Gosh...I'm sort of shocked by the responses to Scott's spiritual PTSD!

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[shadow]

I still don't believe Scott is who he says he is.

How does your assumption change what you would say to someone who actually is in spiritual crisis?

I already gave my 2 cents to anyone who is in that particular crisis so if you want to know what I'd say then go back and read what I said O:-)

[ebenezerarise]

Not addressing concerns, ignoring your gut feelings, pretending that you have it all figured out, burying your head in the sand, looking away from the negative, or being superior and condescending are real examples of time and life wasted.

Asking questions, seeking for knowledge, dealing with uncertainty in sincerity, coming to terms with negative historical facts, and exposing yourself to all truth is a very good use of one's time and fulfilling.

-Finrock

Methinks you miss the point entirely.

The world is quick to judge Joseph in all things....except for his contributions to spiritual thought, the nature of God, the reality of revelation, etc. He was -- bar NONE -- a world changing figure and the foremost religious mind of the 19th century.

So yeah...let's talk about how many teenage girls he bedded, shall we?

Sheesh.

[ebenezerarise]

The Church for many years purposefully and with intent downplayed, ignored, or left out much of the controversial history not just in Church related material but also in scholarly material produced by Church funded institutions like BYU, so that it can focus solely on faith promoting stories. The Church manipulated LDS historians and scholars for years by making them believe that if they wrote material, even if factually true, that was negative towards the Church, these historians and scholars were not faithful members. These comments and this form of manipulation came from the apostles of the Church.

Let's see you back that up.

You ever hear of BH Roberts?

[simpleton]

Controversy is good actually, it either makes you run away because you do not want to deal with it, or as Joseph did as an example, he went and tried out the admonition, " if any man lacketh wisdom let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberally". And then claimed to have received the answer to his prayer. From no other than the Father and the Son...(Which of course set the religious world on fire)
So Scott man up and figure it out for yourself. He (Joseph) is either telling the truth and was the instrument in God's hands through whom the fullness of the everlasting was revealed again to mankind, or, he was an imposter from hell or at least influenced from hell. That is the interesting thing about this situation, there is no in between. Joseph is either a prophet of the living God, or a representative of the devil.
I hold to the first. I do not apologize for his teachings and principles that he lived that some seem to do here. Why color coat it and try to squirm and squeeze out of what Joseph practiced and preached. I do not think he failed in the living of any of the principles that he taught, and yes that even includes the "awful horrible" polygamy.
I concur with Brigham, that every single person will have to get Joseph's consent to pass into the kingdom that was born in this dispensation. And that includes every single Prophet, Apostle, Seventy, Elder, High Priest, woman, child etc.

JD VOL. 7- 289 BY
Joseph Smith holds the keys of this last dispensation, and is now engaged behind the veil in the great work of the last days. I can tell our beloved brother Christians who have slain the Prophets and butchered and otherwise caused the death of thousands of Latter-day Saints, the priests who have thanked God in their prayers and thanksgiving from the pulpit that we have been plundered, driven, and slain, and the deacons under the pulpit, and their brethren and sisters in their closets, who have thanked God, thinking that the Latter-day Saints were wasted away, something that no doubt will mortify them—something that, to say the least, is a matter of deep regret to them—namely, that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are—I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent. He holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation—the keys to rule in the spirit world; and he rules there triumphantly, for he gained full power and a glorious victory over the power of Satan while he was yet in the flesh, and was a martyr to his religion and to the name of Christ, which gives him a most perfect victory in the spirit world. He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. Many will ex-
claim—“Oh, that is very disagreeable! It is preposterous! We cannot bear the thought!” But it is true.
I will now tell you something that ought to comfort every man and woman on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans and calling forth his brethren to be baptized for the very characters who wish this was not so, in order to bring them into a kingdom to enjoy, perhaps, the presence of angels or the spirits of good men, if they cannot endure the presence of the Father and the Son; and he will never cease his operations, under the directions of the Son of God, until the last ones of the children of men are saved that can be, from Adam till now.
Should not this thought comfort all people? They will, by-and-by, be a thousand times more thankful for such a man as Joseph Smith, junior, than it is possible for them to be for any earthly good whatever. It is his mission to see that all the children of men in this last dispensation are saved, that can be, through the redemption. You will be thankful, everyone of you, that Joseph Smith, junior, was ordained to this great calling before the worlds were. I told you that the doctrine of election and reprobation is a true doctrine. It was decreed in the counsels of eternity, long before the foundations of the earth were laid, that he should be the man, in the last dispensation of this world, to bring forth the word of God to the people, and receive the fulness of the keys and power of the Priesthood of the Son of God. The Lord had his eye upon him, and upon his father, and upon his father's father, and upon their progenitors clear back to Abraham, and from Abraham to the flood, from the flood to Enoch, and from Enoch to Adam. He has watched that family and that blood as it has circulated from its fountain to the
birth of that man. He was foreordained in eternity to preside over this last dispensation, as much so as Pharaoh was foreordained to be a wicked man, or as was Jesus to be the Savior of the world because he was the oldest son in the family.

[Col. Flagg]

Very little of what Joseph Smith restored is in practice today by the institutional church.

Problems:

1. Temple marriage - Joseph taught that marriages were to be a public, community event/celebration to be enjoyed by all family members and friends and that the sealing came after - nowadays, we marry couples in the temple itself and prevent any non-member or non-temple-worthy individuals from participating.

2. Blacks & the priesthood - the church's own essays (which are buried, you have to really look for them) pretty much throw Brigham Young under the bus as a racist). At least this was restored and corrected in 1978.

3. Temple endowment - how many times has it been changed? Dozens? I'm just glad I wasn't old enough to have to go through the blood-oath stuff pre-1990, good heavens.

4. Tithing - It was originally instituted at 2%, then Joseph went to the Lord about it and it was changed to 10% of surplus (the true, proper and scriptural law) and then Pres. Snow changed that to 10% of all your worth in the 1930's when the church was drowning in debt and on the verge of bankruptcy because of land speculation within the hierarchy.

5. The Law of Common Consent - completely ignored today, it used to be a scriptural requirement for anything done with church funds, where members would voice support or opposition for how church monies were used. If it were in practice today, we wouldn't have a $5 billion monument to King Noah in downtown Salt Lake (City Creek mall/plush condos).

6. Financial transparency - a full accounting used to be given to the members during General Conference of all funds received and disbursed and the sources and destinations of said funds. This was stopped in the 1960's when the church began to use tithing money to invest to make money.

And there are many others examples too.

Contextually wrong on all 6 accounts.

:-\ What is false?

[eddie]

Very little of what Joseph Smith restored is in practice today by the institutional church.

Problems:

1. Temple marriage - Joseph taught that marriages were to be a public, community event/celebration to be enjoyed by all family members and friends and that the sealing came after - nowadays, we marry couples in the temple itself and prevent any non-member or non-temple-worthy individuals from participating. The Temple Ceremony is done correctly.

2. Blacks & the priesthood - the church's own essays (which are buried, you have to really look for them) pretty much throw Brigham Young under the bus as a racist). At least this was restored and corrected in 1978.

3. Temple endowment - how many times has it been changed? Dozens? I'm just glad I wasn't old enough to have to go through the blood-oath stuff pre-1990, good heavens. We are a progressive church, any changes were given to the Prophet by direction of Jesus Christ.

4. Tithing - It was originally instituted at 2%, then Joseph went to the Lord about it and it was changed to 10% of surplus (the true, proper and scriptural law) and then Pres. Snow changed that to 10% of all your worth in the 1930's when the church was drowning in debt and on the verge of bankruptcy because of land speculation within the hierarchy. I have no problem with paying 10%, its a debt we owe.

5. The Law of Common Consent - completely ignored today, it used to be a scriptural requirement for anything done with church funds, where members would voice support or opposition for how church monies were used. If it were in practice today, we wouldn't have a $5 billion monument to King Noah in downtown Salt Lake (City Creek mall/plush condos). Its a beautiful edifice which enhances the beauty of Salt Lake City, our church headquarters. Unfortunately it also causes much murmering.

6. Financial transparency - a full accounting used to be given to the members during General Conference of all funds received and disbursed and the sources and destinations of said funds. This was stopped in the 1960's when the church began to use tithing money to invest to make money. Lay not up your treasures on things that rot and rust. Don't worry about the money, its being handled correctly.

And there are many others examples too. Thanks for NOT sharing. Time to re-evaluate who's side you are on.

Contextually wrong on all 6 accounts.

:-\ What is false?

[Robin Hood]

The church has no interest, nor should it have, in being objective.
Historians often masquerade as objective commentators, but there is rarely such a thing.
The church is subjective and will present it's history in the best possible light..... and so it should.

It does have an interest in presenting historical facts objectively. That is why the Church is presenting historical facts about the Church more objectively today. The Church has learned from its very huge mistake of trying to promote only faithful stories and ignoring anything unsavory from its past. This mistake of the Church has lead to much heartache and grief in the lives of people. This heartache, sense of betrayal, and grief is real. To downplay it, pretend it is nothing, or act like people are unfaithful because they don't like being deceived (even if a little) is nonsense, anti-Christ, and demonstrates a lack of compassion.

-Finrock

Completely disagree.
The church is not an historical society trying to grapple objectively with available information.
It is a church with a message about the restoration of the gospel through a true prophet, and that is it's starting point.
As President Packer pointed out, objectivity is not part of it's remit.

We disagree fundamentally about what the Church and this religion is about it seems. Being objective and loyal to truth is at the core of being a Mormon. As a life long member, that has been the most consistent message I have received and learned. It isn't about being loyal to egocentric and sociocentric paradigms, but our religion is about being loyal to truth, principles, and goodness, no matter the cost.

-Finrock

It appears you're clearly struggling with the meaning of the word "objective", which suggests you have totally unjustified expectations of the church, or of any church for that matter.
Are Muslims objective about the life of Muhammed? Are Catholics objective about the divinity of Jesus? Are athiests objective about the existence of God?
You are attempting to require a characteristic from the church which is blatantly unreasonable, and then crying foul when it is pointed out it doesn't have it.
The church is not objective and was never meant to be. It is committed to it's mission and message.

This means it will always, and rightly, emphasise the positive and minimise the negative, focus on the good and ignore the bad, promote the historical records of heroism and discipleship while ignoring behaviour of a less faith promoting kind.

We are a church, not an historical society; of which there are already plenty.

[Finrock]

It does have an interest in presenting historical facts objectively. That is why the Church is presenting historical facts about the Church more objectively today. The Church has learned from its very huge mistake of trying to promote only faithful stories and ignoring anything unsavory from its past. This mistake of the Church has lead to much heartache and grief in the lives of people. This heartache, sense of betrayal, and grief is real. To downplay it, pretend it is nothing, or act like people are unfaithful because they don't like being deceived (even if a little) is nonsense, anti-Christ, and demonstrates a lack of compassion.

-Finrock

Completely disagree.
The church is not an historical society trying to grapple objectively with available information.
It is a church with a message about the restoration of the gospel through a true prophet, and that is it's starting point.
As President Packer pointed out, objectivity is not part of it's remit.

We disagree fundamentally about what the Church and this religion is about it seems. Being objective and loyal to truth is at the core of being a Mormon. As a life long member, that has been the most consistent message I have received and learned. It isn't about being loyal to egocentric and sociocentric paradigms, but our religion is about being loyal to truth, principles, and goodness, no matter the cost.

-Finrock

It appears you're clearly struggling with the meaning of the word "objective", which suggests you have totally unjustified expectations of the church, or of any church for that matter.
Are Muslims objective about the life of Muhammed? Are Catholics objective about the divinity of Jesus? Are athiests objective about the existence of God?
You are attempting to require a characteristic from the church which is blatantly unreasonable, and then crying foul when it is pointed out it doesn't have it.
The church is not objective and was never meant to be. It is committed to it's mission and message.

This means it will always, and rightly, emphasise the positive and minimise the negative, focus on the good and ignore the bad, promote the historical records of heroism and discipleship while ignoring behaviour of a less faith promoting kind.

We are a church, not an historical society; of which there are already plenty.

I'm not struggling with the meaning of the word "objective". You are stating your beliefs and your opinions. Your idea of a Church is what I expect of worldly institutions. God's kingdom is different and so should be His Church. In fact, His Church is different from worldly institutions. God's Church in the realm of the "ought to be" isn't concerned about branding a particular message, being popular, having an effective PR department, good lawyers, and being run like a well oiled corporation. Like I said, you and I differ in our understanding of what God's Church ought to be and ought to be concerned with.

Yes, many institutions and many Church's operate how you describe because they are concerned with the worldly systems and their priority is in the end to pay lip service to truth, if even that, but they deny the power of God and rely on their own prowess, intelligence, and good business principles.

The scriptures are an example of how God operates. The scriptures are not a compilation of stories and heroes who always win the day. The scriptures describe individuals, prophets and not prophets alike, who are flawed, who make mistakes, who struggle, and who acknowledge their weaknesses. Its from the scriptures where we learn that weaknesses are given to us from God. God is truth. God does not fear truth neither does He shy away from it or try to cover up truth when it doesn't reflect well on His prophets or His apostles. The central tenet of the Mormon religion is about receiving and accepting truth from whatever source it may come.

When an organization transitions to adoring and venerating mortals that is when you start seeing history being reconstructed, shaped, and formed by the powers that be. When an organization is concerned with truth and with bringing about God's purposes, you have no fear of what the world might think, there is no need to cover things up, to paint a rosy picture, or to neglect distasteful portions of an organizations past.

My lifelong membership in the Church has taught me that I should be loyal to principles and to truth. It has taught me that I should be ready to sacrifice my reputation, my all, in the pursuit of truth. My religion has taught me to be fair minded and to be humble. My religion has taught me to acknowledge my faults and to make amends and to repent when I am in error. These are central, fundamental, and critical principles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Luckily, the Church today is moving towards this direction. Despite what you believe and what your opinion on what a Church should be, today we have a Church which is being more open, less concerned about shaping an image and creating "heroes" that can be venerated, and they are helping in releasing unmolested information so that people can make informed decisions based on the whole truth. I personally, am not interested in the type of religious organization you describe and believe that the Mormon religion is. I'm glad that you are wrong and I'm glad that the apostles seem to realize the mistakes of the past and are making amends and repenting. I'm glad apostles have begun to acknowledged the faults of the past. We still have much work ahead of us as an institution but we are heading in the right direction.

-Finrock

[Col. Flagg]

Very little of what Joseph Smith restored is in practice today by the institutional church.

Problems:

1. Temple marriage - Joseph taught that marriages were to be a public, community event/celebration to be enjoyed by all family members and friends and that the sealing came after - nowadays, we marry couples in the temple itself and prevent any non-member or non-temple-worthy individuals from participating. The Temple Ceremony is done correctly.

2. Blacks & the priesthood - the church's own essays (which are buried, you have to really look for them) pretty much throw Brigham Young under the bus as a racist). At least this was restored and corrected in 1978.

3. Temple endowment - how many times has it been changed? Dozens? I'm just glad I wasn't old enough to have to go through the blood-oath stuff pre-1990, good heavens. We are a progressive church, any changes were given to the Prophet by direction of Jesus Christ.

4. Tithing - It was originally instituted at 2%, then Joseph went to the Lord about it and it was changed to 10% of surplus (the true, proper and scriptural law) and then Pres. Snow changed that to 10% of all your worth in the 1930's when the church was drowning in debt and on the verge of bankruptcy because of land speculation within the hierarchy. I have no problem with paying 10%, its a debt we owe.

5. The Law of Common Consent - completely ignored today, it used to be a scriptural requirement for anything done with church funds, where members would voice support or opposition for how church monies were used. If it were in practice today, we wouldn't have a $5 billion monument to King Noah in downtown Salt Lake (City Creek mall/plush condos). Its a beautiful edifice which enhances the beauty of Salt Lake City, our church headquarters. Unfortunately it also causes much murmering.

6. Financial transparency - a full accounting used to be given to the members during General Conference of all funds received and disbursed and the sources and destinations of said funds. This was stopped in the 1960's when the church began to use tithing money to invest to make money. Lay not up your treasures on things that rot and rust. Don't worry about the money, its being handled correctly.

And there are many others examples too. Thanks for NOT sharing. Time to re-evaluate who's side you are on.

Me thinks you need to re-evaluate your remarks and do a little research into these issues using scripture. I'm on the side of truth, what Joseph Smith taught and restored and the gospel of Jesus Christ. What side are you on?

[Finrock]

The Church for many years purposefully and with intent downplayed, ignored, or left out much of the controversial history not just in Church related material but also in scholarly material produced by Church funded institutions like BYU, so that it can focus solely on faith promoting stories. The Church manipulated LDS historians and scholars for years by making them believe that if they wrote material, even if factually true, that was negative towards the Church, these historians and scholars were not faithful members. These comments and this form of manipulation came from the apostles of the Church.

Let's see you back that up.

You ever hear of BH Roberts?

This talk given by Elder Packer to LDS scholars and historians is one example. It provides the framework for how the Church wanted history to be taught. In this talk LDS scholars and historians are essentially told by an apostle that if they recount history objectively then they are at risk at being "destroyers of faith." They are also counseled to focus on faith promoting stories and to leave out historical facts that are not faith promoting. The underlying message is that if you write objective history about the Church or if you write about negative aspects of the Church you are not a good member or a faithful LDS.

This speech in my view was very coercive and it provides context to what the Church's position was and how they wanted to shape and sugarcoat the Church's history. This policy was a mistake.

https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/ ... ct_eng.pdf

-Finrock

[DesertWonderer]

Very little of what Joseph Smith restored is in practice today by the institutional church.

Problems:

1. Temple marriage - Joseph taught that marriages were to be a public, community event/celebration to be enjoyed by all family members and friends and that the sealing came after - nowadays, we marry couples in the temple itself and prevent any non-member or non-temple-worthy individuals from participating.

2. Blacks & the priesthood - the church's own essays (which are buried, you have to really look for them pretty much throw Brigham Young under the bus as a racist). At least this was lifted in 1978.

3. Temple endowment - how many times has it been changed? Dozens? I'm just glad I wasn't old enough to have to go through the blood-oath stuff pre-1990, good heavens.

4. Tithing - It was originally instituted at 2%, then Joseph went to the Lord about it and it was changed to 10% of surplus (the true, proper and scriptural law) and then Pres. Snow changed that to 10% of all your worth in the 1930's when the church was drowning in debt and on the verge of bankruptcy because of land speculation within the hierarchy.

5. The Law of Common Consent - completely ignored today, it used to be a scriptural requirement for anything done with church funds, where members would voice support or opposition for how church monies were used. If it were in practice today, we wouldn't have a $5 billion monument to King Noah in downtown Salt Lake (City Creek mall/plush condos).

6. Financial transparency - a full accounting used to be given to the members during General Conference of all funds received and disbursed and the sources and destinations of said funds. This was stopped in the 1960's when the church began to use tithing money to invest to make money.

And there are many others examples too.

Let's say for the fun of it that you are correct.

Then let's add these facts to the equation as well: Abraham's church was different from Melchizedek's church. Moses' church was different from Abraham's. Christ's church was different than Moses'. Alma's church was different than them all. When I say different, I mean different offices, procedures, etc...i.e what you have noted above.

Using your logic, which, IF ANY, of the churches I listed were the true church?

[Robin Hood]

The Church for many years purposefully and with intent downplayed, ignored, or left out much of the controversial history not just in Church related material but also in scholarly material produced by Church funded institutions like BYU, so that it can focus solely on faith promoting stories. The Church manipulated LDS historians and scholars for years by making them believe that if they wrote material, even if factually true, that was negative towards the Church, these historians and scholars were not faithful members. These comments and this form of manipulation came from the apostles of the Church.

Let's see you back that up.

You ever hear of BH Roberts?

This talk given by Elder Packer to LDS scholars and historians is one example. It provides the framework for how the Church wanted history to be taught. In this talk LDS scholars and historians are essentially told by an apostle that if they recount history objectively then they are at risk at being "destroyers of faith." They are also counseled to focus on faith promoting stories and to leave out historical facts that are not faith promoting. The underlying message is that if you write objective history about the Church or if you write about negative aspects of the Church you are not a good member or a faithful LDS.

This speech in my view was very coercive and it provides context to what the Church's position was and how they wanted to shape and sugarcoat the Church's history. This policy was a mistake.

https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/ ... ct_eng.pdf

-Finrock

Rubbish!
This talk is aimed at seminary and institute teachers, and by implication BYU professors. All of these people are in the church's employ, are paid well, and are required to tow the line.
This is the same with any employer.

Context is everything Finrock. Try it sometime.

[Rose Garden]

My name is Scott, a lifetime member of the Church.

In an effort towards more transparency regarding its history, the Church has added controversial content on the official church website lds.org.
Much of this information is new to me, let alone shocking.

Particularly, that the founder Joseph Smith:
-Married multiple women
-As young as 14 years old
-Had sexual relations with some of them
-While some were already married to other men
-And his wife, Emma, did not know about all of them.

After a half century as a member of the Church, I am finally being told what Church leadership had known for almost two centuries.
Because they hid so much from me, I feel betrayed, deceived and hurt.

I suffer mormon wounds.

I am a NOW Mormon (Neglected Or Wounded Mormon).

And I know that I am not alone.

Are you a NOW mormon?

I didn't comment before because I wasn't certain that you would be coming back. But since you did, at least once, I'll give this a shot.

You were born into an LDS family. Some people were born into slavery. Others were born into wealth and royalty (what a curse!). Some were born into poverty and starved to death. Lots of people were born into an earth without today's technology and had to work hard day and night to keep their family alive. For the most part, it seems really unfair.

So here's the question: do you think that before you were born you didn't have a choice of where you would land? Do you think that you didn't choose to be born into an LDS family that would expose you to the teachings you were exposed to and lead you to believe the things you believed?

Regardless of what you believe about how much choice you had in the matter, if you want to claim neglect or wounding, then you need to reconcile your beliefs with those who were born into circumstances much more terrible than your own. In that perspective, your troubles are nothing to talk about. You should perhaps be grateful for what you are experiencing and grateful that you weren't born black in the Southern states in the 1700's.

I don't mean to belittle your struggles. I do believe that we have a choice of where we are going to go in this life and I believe that we choose exactly the challenges that we need the most. I believe you when you say you are wounded by the things that have taken place in this life. However, the answer is not to point fingers and fight against the forces that you feel have hurt you. The answer is to turn to the Lord, forgive others of their trespasses against you and repent of your own sins. It's the same challenge for you as it is for the slave in the 1700's, or the Jew in the holocaust, or the poor, starving boy in Africa.

[AI2.0]

The guy claims to be a member for more than 50 years and this is the first he's heard about this stuff?? The church started publishing the essays in 2003. I learned about it pre-internet time when I was in high school. Has he been living in his Mothers internet-less basement??

Yes, because everyone in the universe is expected to know exactly what you know at exactly the time you learned it.

Even if he's just trolling, it's people like you who are giving those who have been legitimately hurt by the church plenty of justification for never coming back. Please reconsider the way you're treating people who believe differently than you.

'Hurt by the church'? Any 'hurt' he feels is perceived and misguided. The 'church' is not some big ponzi scheme set up by a scam artist to hurt people. In the last 200 years, those who have been members of the church and those who have run the church are actually sincere in their belief!!! They actually believe it is the Lord's one and only true church on the earth, they don't believe they are scamming people. So, how can he be upset, except to be upset by how some people fulfilled their callings. They are not perfect, they make mistakes. Maybe it was wrong to only present church history and leaders in a positive light, but it's obvious that they did it because they thought that was the right way to handle their responsibilities. I'm tired of the 'Scotts' out there who criticize and blame good, sincere, well meaning people for being human. I'd like to see what 'Scott' would have done had he lived 100 years ago and had a sincere testimony of the church. Would he have put out all the history, warts and all--if he thought it might damage the tender faith of some members? Would he have insisted on putting everything out there even though he knew it might cause some to lose their testimonies because they MUST have leaders who are perfect? If you consider this from the FACT that these people sincerely believed the Gospel is true and they have witnesses by the Holy Ghost of these things, don't you think they will do their utter best to try to help others to receive a testimony too? Just because 'Scott' no longer believes, doesn't mean that others also don't believe and they are just cravenly misleading people.

Scott is wrong for thinking that he has a legitimate beef against the church. He doesn't because nothing was done to intentionally harm him. It's not the church's fault that he lost his testimony. It's not the church's fault that he is not able to recognize the need for faith and trust in God--that there will not always be answers in this life to our questions.

If 'Scott' is actually sincere, then I'm sorry his faith in the Gospel was so fragile and I'm sorry that he's looking now to sow discontent among other members as well.

[eddie]

Me thinks you need to re-evaluate your remarks and do a little research into these issues using scripture. I'm on the side of truth, what Joseph Smith taught and restored and the gospel of Jesus Christ. What side are you on?

Gordon B. Hinckley

How grateful, my brethren, I feel, how profoundly grateful for the tremendous faith of so many Latter-day Saints who, when facing a major decision on which the Church has taken a stand, align themselves with that position. And I am especially grateful to be able to say that among those who are loyal are men and women of achievement, of accomplishment, of education, of influence, of strength—highly intelligent and capable individuals.

Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.

[Finrock]

The Church for many years purposefully and with intent downplayed, ignored, or left out much of the controversial history not just in Church related material but also in scholarly material produced by Church funded institutions like BYU, so that it can focus solely on faith promoting stories. The Church manipulated LDS historians and scholars for years by making them believe that if they wrote material, even if factually true, that was negative towards the Church, these historians and scholars were not faithful members. These comments and this form of manipulation came from the apostles of the Church.

Let's see you back that up.

You ever hear of BH Roberts?

This talk given by Elder Packer to LDS scholars and historians is one example. It provides the framework for how the Church wanted history to be taught. In this talk LDS scholars and historians are essentially told by an apostle that if they recount history objectively then they are at risk at being "destroyers of faith." They are also counseled to focus on faith promoting stories and to leave out historical facts that are not faith promoting. The underlying message is that if you write objective history about the Church or if you write about negative aspects of the Church you are not a good member or a faithful LDS.

This speech in my view was very coercive and it provides context to what the Church's position was and how they wanted to shape and sugarcoat the Church's history. This policy was a mistake.

https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/ ... ct_eng.pdf

-Finrock

Rubbish!
This talk is aimed at seminary and institute teachers, and by implication BYU professors. All of these people are in the church's employ, are paid well, and are required to tow the line.
This is the same with any employer.

Context is everything Finrock. Try it sometime.

Easy to say "rubbish" and to attack a person, but its much harder to rationally discuss and exchange ideas in an honorable way. With that being said, which parts of what I've said are rubbish and why? Do you even understand the point that I'm making? Please support your assertion.

I understand that it is your opinion that the Church is a business and/or should be run like a business. I disagree with your opinion on this matter. You asserting that the Church is doing just what any other business would do is besides the point.

-Finrock

[shadow]

When an organization transitions to adoring and venerating mortals...
-Finrock

Like this?
17 Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.

18 Behold, he was a man like unto Ammon, the son of Mosiah, yea, and even the other sons of Mosiah, yea, and also Alma and his sons, for they were all men of God.

The church actually doesn't do much of that^^ .