rockwoodchev

Was not aware of the rule about not posting to "anti" sites... I suppose it makes sense, but is there a definition of what is considered to be "anti". There are many sites out there and some that are 100% anti, but many that would be somewhere in the middle. I don't see things in terms of white/black anymore so there are lots of gray and off-white web-sites. How do you distinguish the difference?

This was my least favorite of the 3. Angels and Demons was just awesome. This was good for all the masonic stuff that was in it. Learned a bunch, but of course you never know if it is all true or not. There is a ton of tie-in with King Follet doctrine in the book that I found very cool. Won't go into anything at the end, but it will keep you going.

Good catch...

Papa Married a Mormon is a fantastic story. It has been years since I've read the Great Brain series, but this website has regenerated my interest. Shouldn't take very long to read them all again.

Hi everyone, I'm bumping this thread back up in interest. I just found a really cool website that has a ton of information about Fitzgerald and all the books he has written. Sounds like a group of people has gotten together to re-promote the series. Should be fun to watch. Finding Fitzgerald - Home

This is 100% true. There was no "Lamb to the Slaughter" The death occured based on a lawless mob reacting to the lawless action of Joseph by ordering the destruction of "The Expositor" that was about to expose Joseph's polygamy.

I totally agree 100% He was very angry and not typical friendly Elder Holland at all. He has done such an incredible job of reaching out to all sort of people, of making them feel welcome, and then he comes off with this talk of anger and hatred. I am surprised to have ever heard the words "pathetic", "deranged", "paranoid" spoken at GC and I wonder if the muster of the talk will be carried through to the print version. I think he just solidified justification of the true and 100% believers in the divinity of the BOM, but for those people who are struggling or questioning, he just alienated them. The anger of this talk in the DAMU tonight is extreme.

Told and Reported by Elder Paul H. Dunn

Hi, I'm curious about this topic as it could be one of the reasons I don't feel comfortable most of the time on LDS.NET as a participant. When I read these descriptions this week, I went and listened to the podcast that is mentioned. It seemed to describe for me what is going on. Both sets of these categories tend to thumb their noses at the other group. I think that just happened with the post 2 before this one. The person, I think is describing himself as a chapel Mormon and was clearly thumbing his nose at the Internet Mormon. When I hear many of the Internet Mormons (and I think the apologists fall into this camp) they tend to clearly thumb their noses at the chapel mormons wondering how they can believe some of the silly things they do. I tend to fit into neither camp clearly and get very uncomfortable when anyone gets judgmental of someone else for their beliefs. Anyway.. I hope to discover more about this. I've learned much about the real history of our church and find myself drifting away from either Chapel or Internet Mormonism. Thanks for your opinions. I'm interested to see what you all have to say.

There have been some very interesting articles in the press over the last few days about these two terms. Both here, and here I've never thought about the differences between the two, but after reading the explanations as well as listening to the podcast that is mentioned, I think he is onto something. The one thing that didn't ring true for me was the fact that many "internet mormons" are able to function as a "chapel mormons". However, I don't think it is possible a chapel mormon to function as only a chapel mormon, once they have opened up and dealt with the myriad of topics that come up and become accepted if you send much time on the blogs and forums. What do you think?

Just to clarify there is no such weapon as a Glock 9. Glock makes several models that shoot 9mm rounds, but there is no model 9 from what I've able to find.

Hi everyone, I was involved in this thread at the very beginning, but have been absent for awhile. I wanted to hi-jack this with just a slight twist and possibly open up a different line of thought. I was preparing a seminary lesson last week and ran into another example where IMHO, we as LDS are using a portion of the Bible to prove our point while at the same time skipping over other parts. We tend to pick and choose our Bible quotes. I'm teaching Revelations 14. Here is how it reads for some applicable verses. I'm including all verses in chapter 14 that deal with angels. So... We have a total of 6 angels doing various things here. 1. Fly in the heavens to preach the gospel 2. Warn that Babylon has fallen 3. Warn against following the beast 4. Come out of temple crying in a loud voice 5. Come out of temple with a sickle 6. Come out of the alter. Total of 6 angels and the chapter has a bunch of other stuff as well that is really cool, including some good stuff about the 144,000. Anyway... The lesson material just takes the first angel and declares that this is clearly Moroni and this is why Moroni sits atop almost all the temples we have around the world. John clearly testified that the Gospel would come forth via Moroni. Here is the lesson material. The only other portion that is talked about in chapter 14 is a small piece that talks about resting from our labors following obtaining our reward which takes verses 8-14 as the text.I raised this with my wife during my prep time. She was a bit shocked at this as well. Her first reaction was "What about the poor other 5 angels??? Don't we care about them or what they did?" I thought it was a great reaction. IMHO, this is once again a case where LDS teachings do exactly what we claim others do, which we don't. That is of taking small pieces of the NT and bending them to our beliefs, or taking a section of out context. What caught me off guard was my reaction. I would expect that by this point that these things would no longer get me upset. I was really upset at this and it caused me some anger and angst. Anyway... Thought I'd share.

I think my point is this. There is much literature that has been published by the church, that can be deemed as accurate. There is much literature not published by the church that can be deemed just as accurate. As an example, much of the book of "Mormon Doctrine" has been dissolved and not kept as doctrine as the church anymore. Another example: The book Rough Stone Rolling was not published by the church but is accurate history of the church that contains things that no one really knows anymore. It is, in my opinion, that people know some of the important history and early church doctrines that still affect us today.

I have run into other areas where the two can sometime clash. It is evident in the NT when there are some really interesting doctrine contained in the text, but in the CES material, they will just skip that section. I have not kept track of them, but it isn't very hard to figure them out. It is really weird when there will be 2-3 chapters, lets say on the doctrine of Grace. There is 4 pages of NT verse about how grace will be the only thing we need to save us. The CES material for the exact same section will have a small 2-3 paragraphs talking about Grace, and then launch into modern day prophets talking about Works, Obedience, Sacrifice, and such. It really is clear that there is a difference between the two "doctrines". By reading the NT, I would say it is split in teaching about Grace vs. Works at a split about 90-10 between the two. LDS teaching is mostly about Works, and a minor bit about Grace. This debate between the two becomes very evident when teaching on a daily basis the NT over a 9 month period. Only 3 more weeks on the year to go... I love it! Can't wait to get into Revelations. This is my 2nd time to do it. Yup. This is my 5th year of doing early morning....

Help me out here. I'm not sure what you mean here. Paul wrote several letters. I agree 100% that he was writing a letter to the people in Galatia and warning them not to go back to the former law. I don't get this above section. Please help clarify. Thanks I agree with you. It was the old way they have moved away from, and Christ that they were moving to. So... I struggle a bit this this. You take material that was written to the Romans and combine it with material written to another group and combine it to make your point. While I agree that this is the only tool that we have to work with, it is in a sense putting our will onto Paul's works and words. I like the way you've explained it though. Nicely done. Sorry, you didn't clear this up in my mind. The CES manual says Don't believe in the old way, but believe in Christ and His way. Elder Packer says "The LDS Church is the only true church and Paul agrees with me" That... I don't get and don't agree with. Paul didn't even know about multiple Christian Churches. He certainly didn't know about some of the points made in Elder Packers talk. We have simply taken a section of the Bible and bent it to our own needs.