StallionMcBeastly

I'm not trying to dodge, I apologize if it came off that way. No one was accusing BY of murder, just that he advocated for blood atonement, which he did. I don't quite understand your second paragraph. I have a hard time discussing things in church history that bother me. I feel like I can't discuss it with anyone because I instantly get called anti or apostate. It happens here on the board and in real life. It would be nice to share my opinion without the feeling of being attacked. I'm happy to hear other people's views. I don't want to destroy the church. I love the Gospel and the church. I can't accept the mainstream way of believing the Gospel, but I still think there's a place for me.

It is an honest question.

Brigham Young taught that some people could not attain salvation without spilling their own blood. That is not troubling to you?

Lol I wasn't claiming I win, just that we can disagree respectfully. I respect your opinion even though it's different than mine. I don't understand why you're still being condescending.

And I find your hardcore approach to the Gospel unreasonable, but I'm not going to demean you for it, I accept that we view things differently and that's ok. We're both trying to live the Gospel the way we think God wants.

That situation doesn't compare. Duff shared his opinion and provided statements from JoD to support his conclusion.

Condescension doesn't belong in a reasonable discussion. He made comments that many disagree with. That should be met with polite discussion instead of antagonism and condescension. Duff has been polite in his comments. His intentions aren't malicious, but he's being treated as such.

I too do not understand the condescension against you. It's strange.

It's not false.

Anyone who has a differing ideas than the mainstream church is anti-mormon. ... nice. Or is it anyone who brings up unfavorable church history?

Anyone who has a differing ideas than the mainstream church is anti-mormon. ... nice. Or is it anyone who brings up unfavorable church history?

Why don't you answer the question rather than name call?

I don't mean that his casual conversation with his wife is believed to be the word of God. I mean I don't believe that every talk a GA gives (in his position as Prophet/Apostle) is the word of God - which does seem to be a main belief within the Church.

A study of Church History shows that the Prophet speaking is not the same as Christ speaking. Christ doesn't make mistakes - church leaders have made mistakes. I don't have a problem with studying the words of prophets. It's the obsession that is bothering me.

That's a very unfair characterization. I don't accept everything that's uttered from the mouth of a GA as the very word of God. How could I? Church history has taught me that I should not do that. My logic and reason won't allow me too. I follow every commandment of the Gospel. My lifestyle has not changed, just my way of viewing the prophets/leaders of the church. If anyone fails to tow the line of mainstream thought/doctrine/policy they are labeled as a heathen who wants to sin. We have to allow more freedom of thought and discussion within the church.

We'll have countless lessons talking about how great a certain prophet or apostle was/is without a mention of Christ. That truly is disturbing. The follow the leaders mantra has gone too far. It's an important principle, but not when it's taken to the extreme it has been.

Sure. The culture of GA worship leads to more time and attention spent talking about following the prophet than following Christ. In my experience, (maybe everyone else has had it differently) I've had more lessons about obedience to the prophet than about Christ. That's troubling to me.

In my experience it seems to be quite rampant.

GA worship is harmful spriritually and also harmful to critical thinking. The church isnt as black and white as we are taught in Sunday School. Looking at history makes that abundantly clear IMO

We most definitely have developed a culture of hero worhship - much to our detriment IMO.

double post

Finally! Someone speaks truth around here.:-)

I have most certainly proved it. There is no correlation between masturbation and homosexuality.But it's ok, keep your head in the sand if it's more comfortable. :-)

I have no problem with him warning of masturbation. Warning people that masturbation can lead to homosexuality is completely unfounded. TFP asked what Kimball got wrong about sex, so I brought up this issue. I'm not attacking Kimball, just some of his statements. These are a few things I disagree with amongst the myriad of teachings of his I love. I have a problem with Kimball's tone in his book regarding sexual sins. IMO they do more damage to spirituality than good.

Well, what does logic say? Almost all men masturbate. According to a gallup pole about 3% of the population is homosexual. There sure isn't a strong correlation. This absolutely contradicts Kimball's statement.. especially considering that many gays claim they were born with homosexual feelings. Combining these facts with my own anectodal experiences it seems that his position has no leg to stand on.We could go on an argue the meaning of "too often leads too", but we'll have to agree to disagree in this topic. To me it's obviously false, and to you apparently it's not. That's fine :-) Merry Christmas