From Scott - the NOWmormon

[gclayjr]

Rensai,

Come on really? You see them as exactly the same? Did the OT prophets publicly denounce polygamy and lie about practicing it?

No, but they may lie about being married to their sister [Abraham]... or maybe not so much lying as concealing that which he felt was not appropriate at the time ...especially if he didn't want to be killed!

Regards,

George Cay

[buffalo_girl]

I don't think this is an unfair characterization at all. I think the relative anonymity of the Internet empowers people to loses their senses and forget they will be held accountable for their words and actions and choices. I've seen some people act like someone totally different when they are online. And that speaks volume of their true character.

Our Bishop conducted this last 'Fifth Sunday' combined PH/RS lesson. He brought up how our internet behavior influences others - including nonmembers. Facebook is less anonymous, but 'wolf pack' behavior as witnessed on this LDS Forum certainly gives anyone reason to hesitate wanting to 'know more' about the LDS Church or even to continue attending should one already a member have 'difficult questions'.

[David13]

I don't think this is an unfair characterization at all. I think the relative anonymity of the Internet empowers people to loses their senses and forget they will be held accountable for their words and actions and choices. I've seen some people act like someone totally different when they are online. And that speaks volume of their true character.

Our Bishop conducted this last 'Fifth Sunday' combined PH/RS lesson. He brought up how our internet behavior influences others - including nonmembers. Facebook is less anonymous, but 'wolf pack' behavior as witnessed on this LDS Forum certainly gives anyone reason to hesitate wanting to 'know more' about the LDS Church or even to continue attending should one already a member have 'difficult questions'.

There is a vast and big difference between someone with "difficult questions" and someone with no belief, but just criticism and scoffing.
This is faith, you know, not rocket science.
Either you want to believe it or not. There is no need for anyone to come along and tell the believers that they shouldn't believe it, or that they should believe something else.
That is not a question. That is coming to give an answer. An answer that wasn't asked for. No question pending, as they say.
dc

[djinwa]

I took some excerpts from the posts on this thread. Shows how we get faith. First, decide in advance what you want to believe. Then ignore your feelings if they don't agree with your preconceived notion. But it is okay to have feelings if they agree with your beliefs (e.g. read the BOM to get the right feelings). Any contrary feelings are of Satan. Avoid any websites with the "wrong" information.

Also remember that the prophets receive revelation, except that they lie, so you can't know which is revelation. JS was right, BY lied, OT prophets lied, no big deal. Just believe no matter what, and call it the TRUTH!

I'd take HP's advice and give your feelings a rest.

....read The Book Of Mormon. It's the keystone of our religion, and has changed my heart and mind .

If I were looking for truth and answers to my questions in regards to faith - I wouldn't be going to the websites that you are going to.......Truth is truth and a foggy history of the past doesn't change the truth that exists and is eternal. Hang in there and be careful where you seek your answers.

But you obviously have a testimony that this church is Christ's true church. It's one thing to be hurt by a leader in the church but to doubt the church is true because of leader hurt you or disappointed you it's just a lack of faith and you listening to the promptings of Satan.

A persons feelings can never be safe till one goes to the right source for truth.

I approached Joseph's polygamy and other church issues from a completely different viewpoint because of that. I start with believing he's a prophet and the scriptures are true.

I think it makes much more sense to take Joseph at his word and believe him over BY.

So if you can't accept the idea that a prophet might lie you have a problem.

And Rensai, as I've said on other occasions to others, your explanation leaves Joseph profoundly unprophetic about the church. Thats a bigger problem than deception which at least has some precedence.

This is faith, you know, not rocket science.
Either you want to believe it or not.

[shadow]

I took some excerpts from the posts on this thread. Shows how we get faith. First, decide in advance what you want to believe. Then ignore your feelings if they don't agree with your preconceived notion. But it is okay to have feelings if they agree with your beliefs (e.g. read the BOM to get the right feelings). Any contrary feelings are of Satan. Avoid any websites with the "wrong" information.

Also remember that the prophets receive revelation, except that they lie, so you can't know which is revelation. JS was right, BY lied, OT prophets lied, no big deal. Just believe no matter what, and call it the TRUTH!

I'd take HP's advice and give your feelings a rest.

....read The Book Of Mormon. It's the keystone of our religion, and has changed my heart and mind .

If I were looking for truth and answers to my questions in regards to faith - I wouldn't be going to the websites that you are going to.......Truth is truth and a foggy history of the past doesn't change the truth that exists and is eternal. Hang in there and be careful where you seek your answers.

But you obviously have a testimony that this church is Christ's true church. It's one thing to be hurt by a leader in the church but to doubt the church is true because of leader hurt you or disappointed you it's just a lack of faith and you listening to the promptings of Satan.

A persons feelings can never be safe till one goes to the right source for truth.

I approached Joseph's polygamy and other church issues from a completely different viewpoint because of that. I start with believing he's a prophet and the scriptures are true.

I think it makes much more sense to take Joseph at his word and believe him over BY.

So if you can't accept the idea that a prophet might lie you have a problem.

And Rensai, as I've said on other occasions to others, your explanation leaves Joseph profoundly unprophetic about the church. Thats a bigger problem than deception which at least has some precedence.

This is faith, you know, not rocket science.
Either you want to believe it or not.

The formula is found here, and it works, I've tried it.

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things

[Sarah]

I took some excerpts from the posts on this thread. Shows how we get faith. First, decide in advance what you want to believe. Then ignore your feelings if they don't agree with your preconceived notion. But it is okay to have feelings if they agree with your beliefs (e.g. read the BOM to get the right feelings). Any contrary feelings are of Satan. Avoid any websites with the "wrong" information.

Also remember that the prophets receive revelation, except that they lie, so you can't know which is revelation. JS was right, BY lied, OT prophets lied, no big deal. Just believe no matter what, and call it the TRUTH!

I'd take HP's advice and give your feelings a rest.

....read The Book Of Mormon. It's the keystone of our religion, and has changed my heart and mind .

If I were looking for truth and answers to my questions in regards to faith - I wouldn't be going to the websites that you are going to.......Truth is truth and a foggy history of the past doesn't change the truth that exists and is eternal. Hang in there and be careful where you seek your answers.

But you obviously have a testimony that this church is Christ's true church. It's one thing to be hurt by a leader in the church but to doubt the church is true because of leader hurt you or disappointed you it's just a lack of faith and you listening to the promptings of Satan.

A persons feelings can never be safe till one goes to the right source for truth.

I approached Joseph's polygamy and other church issues from a completely different viewpoint because of that. I start with believing he's a prophet and the scriptures are true.

I think it makes much more sense to take Joseph at his word and believe him over BY.

So if you can't accept the idea that a prophet might lie you have a problem.

And Rensai, as I've said on other occasions to others, your explanation leaves Joseph profoundly unprophetic about the church. Thats a bigger problem than deception which at least has some precedence.

This is faith, you know, not rocket science.
Either you want to believe it or not.

One thing I like to do is to replace the word "faith" with "trust." If we ask ourselves if we trust someone or not, it helps makes sense of our feelings. Do you trust God? If so, why? If not, why?

Do you trust any man to be called as God's mouthpiece for his Church? Do you trust the apostles he has called today? If you don't trust them, why not? Is it because they have withheld information?

I trust my Heavenly Father because I have learned from experience that he knows what information I need and when I need it. He has withheld information from me to test and to try me. He knows the trials I need to make me into a better person - a person like he is. If I was given everything without having to work for it, and not having to earn his trust in me, I would never progress in character and power. Sometimes withholding something from someone is the most loving thing you can do. Parents do it all the time. They know what their children are going to do with the gifts they give, and sometimes what they will do will not be good for them.

The Lord revealed in the Sermon on the Mount that His higher law doesn't just involve the behaviors - doing or not doing - it involves the heart. So no matter what the behavior - giving, receiving, requesting, withholding, expecting, withdrawing, punishing, taking - it is possible to engage in these behaviors motivated by love and not motivated by selfishness. The Lord participates in all of these behaviors, be we trust (have faith) that he is doing these things out of love. Now the challenge is to gain a testimony that you can trust the Lord's servants who lead this Church. Sometimes they might engage in behaviors that could be interpreted different ways if the intent was selfish, malicious or fearful. But can we believe that prophets love us enough to follow the Lord's counsel to not give the members as group what the group cannot appreciate?

What is it called when you try to give someone a gift that they cannot appreciate? I call it acting in fear or selfishness. If someone cannot appreciate your gift, then why do you want to give it to them?

What is it called when you give someone what they want to avoid loosing their love or to avoid punishment? It is also acting in selfishness or fear. If you give a gift to someone who feels entitled to that gift and who has not demonstrated an ability to appreciate that gift, you are only encouraging more bad behavior. The Lord and his servants know and understand what we as a group can or cannot appreciate right now. There are enough hints out there to help all of us understand what some of these higher laws might entail, and so we are being put through the test. What are YOU going to do with this information about Church history and polygamy? It is an individual and Church wide test in our day, but up until this point in time, the best thing for the Church as a whole has been to focus on other principles to prepare them to receive this information.

[buffalo_girl]

This is faith, you know, not rocket science.
Either you want to believe it or not. There is no need for anyone to come along and tell the believers that they shouldn't believe it, or that they should believe something else.

Frankly, I don't see where anyone asked you to believe one thing or another. Believe what you choose to believe.

I'm inclined to think the reactions to Scott's original expression of doubt denotes 'panic' in those who are quick to censor and deride.

"This is denial, not rocket science (or faith)."

God is perfectly capable of defending TRUTH. Let Him do the determination of where Scott stands with Him.

[David13]

This is faith, you know, not rocket science.
Either you want to believe it or not. There is no need for anyone to come along and tell the believers that they shouldn't believe it, or that they should believe something else.

1. Frankly, I don't see where anyone asked you to believe one thing or another. Believe what you choose to believe.

2. I'm inclined to think the reactions to Scott's original expression of doubt denotes 'panic' in those who are quick to censor and deride.

"This is denial, not rocket science (or faith)."

3. God is perfectly capable of defending TRUTH. Let Him do the determination of where Scott stands with Him.

1. "Frankly, I don't see where anyone asked you to believe one thing or another. Believe what you choose to believe."

Well, you are charitable. Thank you. I didn't think I needed your permission to believe or not anything. And I still don't think I do. I indeed do believe what I choose to believe. I suppose I always have. It's known as agency, isn't it? But thanks for your generous charity in granting permission. Let us get the same charity from those who leave the church but are obsessed with burdening those remaining in the church with their doubts, over and over again. Get them to show the same charity that you do, will you?


2. "I'm inclined to think the reactions to Scott's original expression of doubt denotes 'panic' in those who are quick to censor and deride."


I sure haven't seen any "panic" in anyone. Perhaps that wasn't directed at me, since I was not at all "quick" to post in this thread. If it was, you couldn't be more wrong. Try something else, rather than panic. Maybe you could try "discernment".

3. "God is perfectly capable of defending TRUTH. Let Him do the determination of where Scott stands with Him."


I'm not sure if you just figured that out or not. If you did, I'm glad to hear you did. Yes, that is true. What others are doing here is determining where the op stands with them. That is, is op believable. And that indeed is a determination for each of us to make on our own. You obviously have done so, and you just disagree with what others have come up with.
dc

[BTH&T]

I'm inclined to think the reactions to Scott's original expression of doubt denotes 'panic' in those who are quick to censor and deride.

"This is denial, not rocket science (or faith)."

God is perfectly capable of defending TRUTH. Let Him do the determination of where Scott stands with Him.

Not Trying to pick an argument, I may be one of those that you feel was cynical of Scott. I am neither panicked nor am I censoring or deriding.

I see where you are coming from and I have felt that there are times that others "jumped" on me when I posted something that was not agreed with by Them. That said, I cannot see where anyone was attacking Scott for his beliefs.

I question the sincerity of the post for multiple reasons and still feel that this was more likely than not, an attempt to bring up
an issue, posing as a question of faith.

This is just me, but I still can not understand all the problems with things that are irrelevant in the Eternal scheme of things.

Polygamy, Tithing, Past Church History, How the Church does or does not spend money, Prophets speaking in the name of the Lord, Going beyond the mark, all seem to be hot button issues here on LDSFF and I can not seem to see where these things are the real issues at hand.
Great tools for Satan to cause doubts in many I am sure!

When it comes to acquiring a testimony in Jesus Christ, God's love for us and His plan of Salvation, and the Book of Mormon; these are the things to build off of for EACH OF OUR PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP AND TESTIMONY OF GOD.
You are right it is between Scott and God for his questions of faith, just as it is for each of us.
My understanding that God works through people many times to defend truth, isn't that what this debate is? To search and find the truth.

[AI2.0]

I am thinking that this is not the correct venue for me and other members like me.

...At least a conversation has been started.
Maybe it will help users here bear each others burdens a little more.
Maybe it will eventually help you to welcome others who, like me, go to the temple with you, sit in general conference with you, home teach you, and ordain you.
I will look elsewhere.
I remember the words "Where can I turn for peace, where is my solace".
Obviously it is in Jesus Christ, our Savior and Redeemer.
and who does He reach out to?
Not the ninety and nine, which are safe, but the one.
And maybe "the one" is not lost, but searching for support, because the ninety and nine say "he has lost his testimony" and "Who cares?", like some of you told me.
The Sacrament prayer says we must keep the commandments which He has given us, so that we may have His spirit to be with us.
And what is the new commandment?--love one another.
Have you loved me?

Until we meet again, perhaps in other forums.
Adieu


Alma 60:36
...I seek not for power...I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God...And thus I close mine epistle.

I think Scott was right, this wasn't the right venue for what he wanted.

Some believe Scott was looking for answers, but if you read his OP on the other thread, the only question he asked was 'Are you are NOWMormon?' Read it, that is the only question he had. He started by explaining that the church had put out controversial essays and then he made a list of what HE believed were the conclusions to those essays. He had no questions on those things, it was settled in his mind that he had the answers. What he was looking for were 'like minded' people, in other words, those agreed with his conclusions and who felt the church had harmed them by not being forthcoming with information and then, sharing it in the form of these essays.

And I think it's pretty obvious that when he said a 'safe place' he meant a place where others would not question or challenge his conclusions but accept them as truth--which I think he quickly surmised, was NOT this place, because some of us were not going to go along with his 'truth'.

Anyway, I wish Scott only the best, I hope he can find what he's looking for, but I also hope that he will one day be willing to revisit his conclusions and see if maybe he might need to read and study, pray and search a little more to find truth--and most importantly, Go to God in humble prayer for answers, not validation for conclusions made in haste. I think he owes it to himself, after 50 years as a member of this church. All those years, he was apparently a devout member, the gospel brought joy to his life, the scriptures taught him truths, he loved and served others, maybe even exercised priesthood power and experienced miracles and then, he comes to believe something and all that is thrown to the wind. Why is that? Who changed? The church didn't, it's still the same organization--but what changed was his opinion of Joseph Smith jr. Joseph was warned that his name would be had for good and evil and even during his lifetime saw many of those who'd once been dear friends and beloved companions turn against him. That's part of what so is sad...Satan is still able to do that today.

[shadow]

This is faith, you know, not rocket science.
Either you want to believe it or not. There is no need for anyone to come along and tell the believers that they shouldn't believe it, or that they should believe something else.

Frankly, I don't see where anyone asked you to believe one thing or another. Believe what you choose to believe.

I'm inclined to think the reactions to Scott's original expression of doubt denotes 'panic' in those who are quick to censor and deride.

"This is denial, not rocket science (or faith)."

God is perfectly capable of defending TRUTH. Let Him do the determination of where Scott stands with Him.

Sure, it's scary to think that "Scott" brought all this to light. I mean, I'm in my 40's and knew about Joseph's polygamy since my teenage years but since Scott came around I'm panicking #-o

Scott is the one who claims he wasn't aware of Joseph's polygamy and I think he's lying about it. And to the rest of us who have been aware of Joseph's polygamy, I don't know many who had a faith crisis over it. Throughout the Bible, Christianity is full of polygamy. Why would anyone be shocked that it happened in the latter days?

There have been a lot of questions asked of Scott that he's ignored/refused to answer. He probably panicked and left the building. But he won't be gone long, he'll reappear under a new name with a new story.

[Finrock]

I don't think this is an unfair characterization at all. I think the relative anonymity of the Internet empowers people to loses their senses and forget they will be held accountable for their words and actions and choices. I've seen some people act like someone totally different when they are online. And that speaks volume of their true character.

Our Bishop conducted this last 'Fifth Sunday' combined PH/RS lesson. He brought up how our internet behavior influences others - including nonmembers. Facebook is less anonymous, but 'wolf pack' behavior as witnessed on this LDS Forum certainly gives anyone reason to hesitate wanting to 'know more' about the LDS Church or even to continue attending should one already a member have 'difficult questions'.

There is a vast and big difference between someone with "difficult questions" and someone with no belief, but just criticism and scoffing.
This is faith, you know, not rocket science.
Either you want to believe it or not. There is no need for anyone to come along and tell the believers that they shouldn't believe it, or that they should believe something else.
That is not a question. That is coming to give an answer. An answer that wasn't asked for. No question pending, as they say.
dc

Please demonstrate where the OP was criticizing and scoffing. Please be specific. Also, please demonstrate where the OP was telling believers that they shouldn't believe or that they should believe something else. Please be specific.

Thank you.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

This is faith, you know, not rocket science.
Either you want to believe it or not. There is no need for anyone to come along and tell the believers that they shouldn't believe it, or that they should believe something else.

Frankly, I don't see where anyone asked you to believe one thing or another. Believe what you choose to believe.

I'm inclined to think the reactions to Scott's original expression of doubt denotes 'panic' in those who are quick to censor and deride.

"This is denial, not rocket science (or faith)."

God is perfectly capable of defending TRUTH. Let Him do the determination of where Scott stands with Him.

Sure, it's scary to think that "Scott" brought all this to light. I mean, I'm in my 40's and knew about Joseph's polygamy since my teenage years but since Scott came around I'm panicking #-o

Scott is the one who claims he wasn't aware of Joseph's polygamy and I think he's lying about it. And to the rest of us who have been aware of Joseph's polygamy, I don't know many who had a faith crisis over it. Throughout the Bible, Christianity is full of polygamy. Why would anyone be shocked that it happened in the latter days?

There have been a lot of questions asked of Scott that he's ignored/refused to answer. He probably panicked and left the building. But he won't be gone long, he'll reappear under a new name with a new story.

The way that one justifies belittling, mocking, or dismissing someone's concerns is by "mind reading" that they must not be sincere and they must be lying. The OP clearly defined what his motivations were. You are simply asserting that you think he is lying, unless you can demonstrate where he lied and how he was insincere. You would have to know his heart and his mind. Your words speak nothing at all about Scott because you are not in a position to know his heart or his mind. Your words only speak for yourself and demonstrate what is in your heart and in your mind.

But, regardless, even if Scott was lying and not sincere, as Latter-day Saints we still aren't justified in belittling, mocking ridiculing, or railing on another person.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

I am thinking that this is not the correct venue for me and other members like me.

...At least a conversation has been started.
Maybe it will help users here bear each others burdens a little more.
Maybe it will eventually help you to welcome others who, like me, go to the temple with you, sit in general conference with you, home teach you, and ordain you.
I will look elsewhere.
I remember the words "Where can I turn for peace, where is my solace".
Obviously it is in Jesus Christ, our Savior and Redeemer.
and who does He reach out to?
Not the ninety and nine, which are safe, but the one.
And maybe "the one" is not lost, but searching for support, because the ninety and nine say "he has lost his testimony" and "Who cares?", like some of you told me.
The Sacrament prayer says we must keep the commandments which He has given us, so that we may have His spirit to be with us.
And what is the new commandment?--love one another.
Have you loved me?

Until we meet again, perhaps in other forums.
Adieu


Alma 60:36
...I seek not for power...I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God...And thus I close mine epistle.

I think Scott was right, this wasn't the right venue for what he wanted.

Some believe Scott was looking for answers, but if you read his OP on the other thread, the only question he asked was 'Are you are NOWMormon?' Read it, that is the only question he had. He started by explaining that the church had put out controversial essays and then he made a list of what HE believed were the conclusions to those essays. He had no questions on those things, it was settled in his mind that he had the answers. What he was looking for were 'like minded' people, in other words, those agreed with his conclusions and who felt the church had harmed them by not being forthcoming with information and then, sharing it in the form of these essays.

And I think it's pretty obvious that when he said a 'safe place' he meant a place where others would not question or challenge his conclusions but accept them as truth--which I think he quickly surmised, was NOT this place, because some of us were not going to go along with his 'truth'.

Anyway, I wish Scott only the best, I hope he can find what he's looking for, but I also hope that he will one day be willing to revisit his conclusions and see if maybe he might need to read and study, pray and search a little more to find truth--and most importantly, Go to God in humble prayer for answers, not validation for conclusions made in haste. I think he owes it to himself, after 50 years as a member of this church. All those years, he was apparently a devout member, the gospel brought joy to his life, the scriptures taught him truths, he loved and served others, maybe even exercised priesthood power and experienced miracles and then, he comes to believe something and all that is thrown to the wind. Why is that? Who changed? The church didn't, it's still the same organization--but what changed was his opinion of Joseph Smith jr. Joseph was warned that his name would be had for good and evil and even during his lifetime saw many of those who'd once been dear friends and beloved companions turn against him. That's part of what so is sad...Satan is still able to do that today.

I don't think you know what is in Scott's heart and mind. The better option is to believe the best of people and give them the benefit of the doubt. His post was speaking about how he was feeling. We aren't in a position to say that he isn't feeling what he says he was feeling, unless we can read his mind and know his heart, which we cannot, unless you are claiming to have the power of God and that you discerned all of these things through the power of the Holy Ghost?

The way that we justify treating another person with dismissiveness or justify not acknowledging their feelings is by "mind reading" and stating that they aren't who they say they are, they don't believe what they say they believe, they aren't feeling what they say they are feeling, or by second guessing their motives or by changing their motives to something more sinister. When we exercise this "mind reading" skill, we can more easily dismiss another person and disregards their feelings.

-Finrock

[inho]

[the quote is omitted for the sake of space, see it above]

I don't think you know what is in Scott's heart and mind. The better option is to believe the best of people and give them the benefit of the doubt. His post was speaking about how he was feeling. We aren't in a position to say that he isn't feeling what he says he was feeling, unless we can read his mind and know his heart, which we cannot, unless you are claiming to have the power of God and that you discerned all of these things through the power of the Holy Ghost?

The way that we justify treating another person with dismissiveness or justify not acknowledging their feelings is by "mind reading" and stating that they aren't who they say they are, they don't believe what they say they believe, they aren't feeling what they say they are feeling, or by second guessing their motives or by changing their motives to something more sinister. When we exercise this "mind reading" skill, we can more easily dismiss another person and disregards their feelings.

Finrock, my intention is not to argue, but I am curious why do you address your words to AI2.0? Do you think he was "mind reading"? I thought he was just taking Scott's words at face value. I agree that we should give people the benefit of the doubt and not try to guess what they feel of think. All we know is what Scott wrote. He didn't ask any questions about church history and he didn't engage in conversations about it either. So is it really far-fetched to say that his mind was set and he was just looking for sympathizers?

[inho]

When Scott wrote his first post, I had this weird feeling about it. It sounded like an advertisement campaign. The term NOW Mormon that Scott coined sounded like a brand or trademark. He didn't seem to be interested to have a real conversation, he just wanted to find people who already thought like he. So I wasn't surprise when I found out that he has started a new webpage: www.mormonwounds.com/. His agenda is this:

The purpose of this site:

-Promote and secure acknowledgement and validation from church leadership of NOW Mormons

-Promote and receive compassionate public recognition, remorse and regret from church leadership for the Culture of Concealment historically perpetuated by the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

-MAKE THE ABOVE HAPPEN DURING GENERAL CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 2017.

[Elizabeth]

Shame on you Scott. Have you nothing constructive to do with your time? I was a practicing and active Anglican before the LDS Missionaries came to my door. Never would it occur to me to now spend my time persecuting the Anglican Church as you and others seem to consider your duty to do to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you want to leave, just leave.

When Scott wrote his first post, I had this weird feeling about it. It sounded like an advertisement campaign. The term NOW Mormon that Scott coined sounded like a brand or trademark. He didn't seem to be interested to have a real conversation, he just wanted to find people who already thought like he. So I wasn't surprise when I found out that he has started a new webpage: www.mormonwounds.com/. His agenda is this:

The purpose of this site:

-Promote and secure acknowledgement and validation from church leadership of NOW Mormons

-Promote and receive compassionate public recognition, remorse and regret from church leadership for the Culture of Concealment historically perpetuated by the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

-MAKE THE ABOVE HAPPEN DURING GENERAL CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 2017.

[AI2.0]

I am thinking that this is not the correct venue for me and other members like me.

...At least a conversation has been started.
Maybe it will help users here bear each others burdens a little more.
Maybe it will eventually help you to welcome others who, like me, go to the temple with you, sit in general conference with you, home teach you, and ordain you.
I will look elsewhere.
I remember the words "Where can I turn for peace, where is my solace".
Obviously it is in Jesus Christ, our Savior and Redeemer.
and who does He reach out to?
Not the ninety and nine, which are safe, but the one.
And maybe "the one" is not lost, but searching for support, because the ninety and nine say "he has lost his testimony" and "Who cares?", like some of you told me.
The Sacrament prayer says we must keep the commandments which He has given us, so that we may have His spirit to be with us.
And what is the new commandment?--love one another.
Have you loved me?

Until we meet again, perhaps in other forums.
Adieu


Alma 60:36
...I seek not for power...I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God...And thus I close mine epistle.

I think Scott was right, this wasn't the right venue for what he wanted.

Some believe Scott was looking for answers, but if you read his OP on the other thread, the only question he asked was 'Are you are NOWMormon?' Read it, that is the only question he had. He started by explaining that the church had put out controversial essays and then he made a list of what HE believed were the conclusions to those essays. He had no questions on those things, it was settled in his mind that he had the answers. What he was looking for were 'like minded' people, in other words, those agreed with his conclusions and who felt the church had harmed them by not being forthcoming with information and then, sharing it in the form of these essays.

And I think it's pretty obvious that when he said a 'safe place' he meant a place where others would not question or challenge his conclusions but accept them as truth--which I think he quickly surmised, was NOT this place, because some of us were not going to go along with his 'truth'.

Anyway, I wish Scott only the best, I hope he can find what he's looking for, but I also hope that he will one day be willing to revisit his conclusions and see if maybe he might need to read and study, pray and search a little more to find truth--and most importantly, Go to God in humble prayer for answers, not validation for conclusions made in haste. I think he owes it to himself, after 50 years as a member of this church. All those years, he was apparently a devout member, the gospel brought joy to his life, the scriptures taught him truths, he loved and served others, maybe even exercised priesthood power and experienced miracles and then, he comes to believe something and all that is thrown to the wind. Why is that? Who changed? The church didn't, it's still the same organization--but what changed was his opinion of Joseph Smith jr. Joseph was warned that his name would be had for good and evil and even during his lifetime saw many of those who'd once been dear friends and beloved companions turn against him. That's part of what so is sad...Satan is still able to do that today.

I don't think you know what is in Scott's heart and mind. The better option is to believe the best of people and give them the benefit of the doubt. His post was speaking about how he was feeling. We aren't in a position to say that he isn't feeling what he says he was feeling, unless we can read his mind and know his heart, which we cannot, unless you are claiming to have the power of God and that you discerned all of these things through the power of the Holy Ghost?

The way that we justify treating another person with dismissiveness or justify not acknowledging their feelings is by "mind reading" and stating that they aren't who they say they are, they don't believe what they say they believe, they aren't feeling what they say they are feeling, or by second guessing their motives or by changing their motives to something more sinister. When we exercise this "mind reading" skill, we can more easily dismiss another person and disregards their feelings.

-Finrock

For someone who chides others for 'mind reading', you seem completely oblivious of all the mind reading of others you do on a regular basis in your posts.
(Your knee jerk response will be to request that I provide examples--let me save you the time wasted responding to me-- I'm not going to do that. I'm simply feeling tired right now of being lectured by you)

I don't think you know what is in my heart, so don't you think you could take your own advice and give me the benefit of the doubt? How about giving it to your fellow posters instead of constantly looking for opportunities to criticize and judge us....

[AI2.0]

When Scott wrote his first post, I had this weird feeling about it. It sounded like an advertisement campaign. The term NOW Mormon that Scott coined sounded like a brand or trademark. He didn't seem to be interested to have a real conversation, he just wanted to find people who already thought like he. So I wasn't surprise when I found out that he has started a new webpage: www.mormonwounds.com/. His agenda is this:

The purpose of this site:

-Promote and secure acknowledgement and validation from church leadership of NOW Mormons

-Promote and receive compassionate public recognition, remorse and regret from church leadership for the Culture of Concealment historically perpetuated by the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

-MAKE THE ABOVE HAPPEN DURING GENERAL CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 2017.

Thank you so much for finding this out and sharing it. I think that answers my question. As I mentioned, looking back on his initial post, he only actually asked one question--'Are you a Nowmormon?'--other than that, he told us what he believed were 'settled' facts about the church and history. He wanted no input, probably because all he was looking for were people who thought like him.

Now, we know why. And call me a horrible cynic, but I don't think this is only about making a statement of some kind during the Conference season--that's just to get publicity. I bet his intentions are to get an 'admission of guilt' so that they can eventually, use the members of his group for a class action lawsuit to demand reparations. In other words, get a settlement of money from the church.

[BTH&T]

When Scott wrote his first post, I had this weird feeling about it. It sounded like an advertisement campaign. The term NOW Mormon that Scott coined sounded like a brand or trademark. He didn't seem to be interested to have a real conversation, he just wanted to find people who already thought like he. So I wasn't surprise when I found out that he has started a new webpage: www.mormonwounds.com/. His agenda is this:

The purpose of this site:

-Promote and secure acknowledgement and validation from church leadership of NOW Mormons

-Promote and receive compassionate public recognition, remorse and regret from church leadership for the Culture of Concealment historically perpetuated by the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

-MAKE THE ABOVE HAPPEN DURING GENERAL CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 2017.

Thanks for the information, I too was thinking the OP was trying to get more than understanding & sympathy.

[iWriteStuff]

When Scott wrote his first post, I had this weird feeling about it. It sounded like an advertisement campaign. The term NOW Mormon that Scott coined sounded like a brand or trademark. He didn't seem to be interested to have a real conversation, he just wanted to find people who already thought like he. So I wasn't surprise when I found out that he has started a new webpage: www.mormonwounds.com/. His agenda is this:

The purpose of this site:

-Promote and secure acknowledgement and validation from church leadership of NOW Mormons

-Promote and receive compassionate public recognition, remorse and regret from church leadership for the Culture of Concealment historically perpetuated by the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

-MAKE THE ABOVE HAPPEN DURING GENERAL CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 2017.

Thanks for the information, I too was thinking the OP was trying to get more than understanding & sympathy.

well, nerts. I erred on the side of compassion and got punked. Oh well. As Joseph Smith said,

"It is better to feed ten impostors than to run the risk of turning away one honest petition."

[Silver]

I'm a Mormon NOW. I used to be something else up to age 11, but NOW I'm a Mormon. More correctly, I am a member of THE Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and I could not possibly be happier. I have a testimony obtained via the ministration of the Holy Ghost. I know the precious principles taught in this church are true. I have also had sacred experiences -- that I may not mention in this venue -- that leave me with zero doubt. I truly and literally know that the Plan of Salvation is not just some feel good doctrine we tell ourselves.

If anyone else here is not NOW a Mormon, I invite you to consider or reconsider.

[Silver]

well, nerts. I erred on the side of compassion and got punked. Oh well. As Joseph Smith said,

"It is better to feed ten impostors than to run the risk of turning away one honest petition."

Yeah, I Googled him a few days ago and he's got stuff on reddit, too, in some Anti- section of that labyrinth.

[David13]

When Scott wrote his first post, I had this weird feeling about it. It sounded like an advertisement campaign. The term NOW Mormon that Scott coined sounded like a brand or trademark. He didn't seem to be interested to have a real conversation, he just wanted to find people who already thought like he. So I wasn't surprise when I found out that he has started a new webpage: www.mormonwounds.com/. His agenda is this:

The purpose of this site:

-Promote and secure acknowledgement and validation from church leadership of NOW Mormons

-Promote and receive compassionate public recognition, remorse and regret from church leadership for the Culture of Concealment historically perpetuated by the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

-MAKE THE ABOVE HAPPEN DURING GENERAL CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 2017.

A proposed professional victim.
A money making malcontent.
An intended disrupter.
A street wacko, stand on the corner and yell, "Joseph lied, Joseph lied,Joseph lied."
Just what the world needs. More professional losers.
Sick.

Don't go away mad. Just go away.
dc

Congratulations to Finrock. A fish caught hook, line, and sinker.

[shadow]

The way that one justifies belittling, mocking, or dismissing someone's concerns is by "mind reading"...
-Finrock

Or by discernment. You too can ask for this gift.