DKM88

Honestly, I wouldn't know where to start. There are so many things that it would take too long to discuss them one by one. Read this and then we can discuss. It outlines the ideas objectively without influence from either side.

That's erronious information. Freemasons didn't exist until the 1400's or somewhere around there. Joseph Smith was a mason and ascribed to the idea that masonry existed in the days of Adam and were passed down from generation to generation by holy men. Knowing this makes the temple experience actually makes sense. Of course, Joseph Smith was wrong about masonry always existing and masonry accepts this. You should listen to George Miller. He's an active, TR holding, member of the Church, and he's also a Freemason. Here are some podcasts he's done. They are very informative and enlightening. Search Results

Excellent. So I'm just not quite as advanced as everyone else here in the gospel. That must be it. The Book of Abraham seems like there's nothing authentic about it. I'll "turn it off." The blacks ban from the priesthood doesn't appear to be from God. I'll "turn it off." Joseph's hidden wives and the women he married that were already married to faithful members of the church is shaking my testimony. I'll "turn it off." Mormons connection to masonry is undeniable, but we deny it. I'll "turn it off." Thanks.

So what you're saying is you learned to "turn it off?"

Very nice. You are insinuating that because Mormon women are educated that there must be a lack of oppression. Just because a woman has a BA or MA doesn't mean things are magically equal. It means she's probably more able to critically think her way to understanding that things aren't exactly peachy in Mormondom. Some women are fine living in patriarchal societies and organizations and never fighting for anything. That's fine if they're like that. But not all women are. Your insinuations say a lot about you. Good job.

The whole idea of polygamy treats women like cattle. And even though we have outlawed it, it's still practiced in the temple and is assumed to be practiced in the Celestial Kingdom. Sorry, but I have daughters and I would NEVER expect them to accept that. The idea that women are educated has absolutely nothing to do with equality. It means that women went to school. That doesn't mean that when they go to Church or in their homes they are treated as equals. The man presides in the home and at Church. The woman must listen to the man as he listens to God. If I were a woman I'd take that as my father in heaven doesn't want to communicate with me directly. How sad is that? Women are equal in the Church if they learn to accept their roles. That's what it really boils down to.

So we should be skeptical with science but not with religion? That doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that Hawking is wrong about saying we no longer need God in science? Are you more right than he is? Are you qualified to make that statement? What evidence do you have that you didn't "evolve" from a lower form of human? Everybody knows that the idea of Adam and Eve, two people, used to populate a whole planet is impossible. You learn that in Biology 100 at BYU. There have been many apostles pre-Joseph Fielding Smith & McConkie that believed in evolution and that the Adam & Eve story was a metaphor for our separation from God. It's impossible that the story is true, as we understand the physical and biological world. Are you ok with the idea that we evolved from single celled organisms but we, the children of God, inhabited human bodies once they were deemed "evolved enough" to house our spirits?

Ok. Scott said they wouldn't be "third class" citizens. What does that tell you? I didn't want to harp on it, so I left it at that. But since you insist...why didn't he say second class citizens? I find it funny. Sure, maybe he simply misspoke, but it's still funny that people were complaining that women weren't treated as equals and he said "hey, you won't be third class in heaven" (so maybe second class?) Point is, we are behind on equality between sexes in the Church.

Can you verify that his predecessor is employed by "anti-Mormons?" Oftentimes we consider people searching for verifiable facts to be uninspired or anti. I also encourage you to read what scholars say on the subject. You may be surprised (although not pleasantly).

Excellent point.

I don't see how my scenario was mocking and over the top. I was making a point. And I believe the point was made. Which was that MANY members of the Church believe that since they have the full truth, the holy spirit would never reveal any truth to anyone else, and if anyone claimed to have an experience with the holy spirit they are simply wrong. In other words, WE, the Mormons, are the judge of whether an experience was from God from a non-member. I have looked into it, and I find it less than convincing. Joseph was 100% wrong on the manuscript that we have. So it's safe to assume that the rest wasn't magically 100% correct. I'm sure you have read Dr. Gee's work on this. You also should know that his predecessor has basically discredited him in a respectful way and completely disagrees with his findings. Although, recently Dr. Gee gave a speech that was published by the Church where he basically said that the truthfulness of the Church doesn't rest of whether the Book of Abraham is legit or not. So it seems that the Church is moving in the direction of phasing out the legitimacy of the book, and for good reason. Here are some points to consider when attempting to determine what sources may have been used in the production of the Book of Abraham: • Abraham 1; Facsimile #1, #3: Abraham’s biographical information in Abraham 1 and Smith’s claim of what these two Facsimile pictures portray comes from The Works of Flavius Josephus. Smith owned an 1830 edition of this book. Smith’s detailed explanations for the individual Egyptian characters on these two Facsimiles in the Book of Abraham have been thoroughly discredited by Egyptologists. • Abraham 2, 4-5: Eighty-six percent of the verses in these three chapters came from Genesis, 1, 2, 12, and 11:28-29. This material came from a 1769 edition or later printing of the KJV, including its errors. • Abraham 3; Facsimile 2: The text of Abraham 3 and Facsimile 2 has some remarkable resemblances to the astronomical concepts, phrases, and other motifs found in Thomas Dick’s, Philosophy of a Future State. Smith owned an 1830 copy of this book. • Abraham 3; Facsimile 2: Thomas Taylor’s 1816 book, The Six Books of Proclus on the Theology of Plato, especially volume 2, also has most of the motifs in Abraham 3 and Facsimile 2. **** and Taylor both contain a number of exact phrases found in Abraham 3 and Facsimile 2. Importantly, Smith’s Newtonian astronomy concepts, mechanics, and model of the universe that he borrowed from these Newtonian books have been thoroughly discredited by Einstein’s twentieth-century model of the universe. • Strange names: The few Hebrew names and phrases found in the Book of Abraham reflect Smith’s study with Hebrew scholar Joshua Seixas during the winter of 1835-36, in Ohio.

Also, how does my statement about how men can become Gods dishonest? Are you a member of the Church? Finally, do you believe it was God's view that polygamy should be an institution of the Church? More importantly, do you believe God sanctioned polyandry? I don't. I can sort of wrap my head around polygamy, but I don't believe in a God that would sanction polyandry...not for one second.

1. I concede your point that most things in religion sound "funny." 2. Do you have any proof that Brigham Young wasn't racist? It's ok that he was! I'm perfectly fine with that. What American wasn't racist at that time?! Is it that hard to believe? Joseph Smith ordained Blacks to the priesthood. Why did God all of the sudden change his mind when Joseph died?! More than likely, Brigham was racist. But I'm cool with that. 3. I believe it was Richard G. Scott that said women won't be "third-class" citizens in heaven. The fact is, in our current world of equality, women are second class. The only way to get around it is to redefine equality. We aren't in the 1800's anymore. Oh, and polygamy...need I say more? Many of your arguments hearken to the 'pay, pray, and obey' mindset of many members today. Be open! Be truthful! It's a wonderful thing, I promise you.

Well, in my humble opinion, it's a lot better than hiding the truth in hopes people get baptized, only to go inactive because they feel lied to when they find out the darker history.

According to you? According to the Journal of Discourses? You see, you have to break out of the shell. It's ok to believe that people screw up royally in the Church. It's alot better than saying God did it and we're just too stupid to get it.

And YOU are the one that makes the determination for other people?

I see. And if I claim to have a spiritual experience confirming that Bigfoot is real and I claim that it was the Holy Spirit, or some equivalent, you would call me a liar because only one type of believe is able to receive spiritual confirmation for things?

You guys have to realize something. When you start saying things like "this was revealed from God, but we weren't ready, so it was retracted" or "we don't know why, but the Lord guided it all", it's going to sound kind of funny. What if you asked a JW about blood transfusions and they gave their explanation of why they are evil. You'd probably say they were idiotic. They will claim it's God's will that we get rid of all blood transfusions and that they "know" this is what God wants and it's true. You would say they were a freaking looney toon for saying that. Others outside the Church may say the same about your responses to things that seem a bit "out there." What's wrong with saying, "Hey, I know Brigham Young was racist. It wasn't God's will that Blacks didn't receive the priesthood because Joseph Smith ordained blacks to the priesthood. There was even a black seventy in his day. Brigham Young was simply an American with typical racial views. Luckily, it's changed now." What's wrong with saying, "Yes, women are second class citizens in Mormondom. It's really a throw-back to the 1800's, but it's steadily changing. Slowly but surely." What's wrong with saying, "Yeah, the Church has always taught that men become Gods. GBH said in an interview that he 'didn't know' if we taught that or not. But it's always been taught, at least in a round about way. It may be strange, but the whole idea of eternal progression is core to our doctrine." What's wrong with saying, "Polygamy was a disaster. Polyandry was even worse. It's a major black spot for the Church. It was a mistake made by men that probably became a bit overzealous in their leadership roles. It's been discontinued, so there aren't any issues with it anymore." The problem is we consider the Church to be perfect. The Church is run by men. They make executive decisions all the time that aren't right. So who do you blame? I guess we could just say that the Lord's will was done and we just don't understand it. But I think that's a bit of a cop out.

My comment about not doubting me was more tongue-in-cheek than anything. Doubt is what keeps up going, oftentimes. It causes learning and carving new paths. I think everyone should be a skeptic. As far as evidence that God exists, I really have none. I can put together a lot of things and string together a semi-coherent story, and it might make sense that he exists. I have a literal hope that he exists and I attempt to live my life as if he does. If God is up there, I'm not sure he'd be displeased with that.

That depends on what you define "core doctrine" as. If you ask the Church, the only things that are doctrine are found within the canonized books. Everything else is opinion, albeit well-informed for the most part. Some people would consider the concept of Heavenly Mother as core doctrine. Others would consider Adam-God theory as core doctrine. Others would consider polygamy as core doctrine. Others might consider the seed of Cain not receiving the priesthood as core doctrine. You get the point. There have been many things that members have considered "core" doctrine and when it changed their testimonies were shattered. Some doctrines are ignored or denied that were previously very much at the head of the philosophies of the one true church. Brigham Young himself said that Adam was God and that doctrinal fact would never change...whoops.

But what if Bigfoot was my God? What if I sincerely believed in him, that he exists, that he's going about doing good works? Would you say that I'm not privy to spiritual experiences because I have a different belief than you? I hope you see what I'm getting at here. There's no intent to be disrespectful.

Many said the same about polygamy, Adam-God theory, blacks in the priesthood, etc. God works in mysterious ways, my friend.

Dublan and Juarez here.

You shouldn't doubt me, HiJolly. I don't deny the faith of anyone. All I've stated is facts. I believe in God. I have faith that he exists. I've seen no evidence that he exists or doesn't exist, so I have to have faith. There are other things, however, that bear evidence that they may not be what they claim to be. I can't deny facts, and it's up to me where they lead me. I choose not to ignore facts but to stay in the Church. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. I think the time will come, probably sooner than later, that the Church accepts a lot of things that you all don't accept. The fact that they stopped excommunicating intellectuals for stating facts (fighting against the Church is a different story) shows you that times are changing. The Church no longer claims that homosexuality is a sin or even a choice (except Boyd K. Packer, of course). The Church fought against gay marriage in CA, but were silent in NY. I'm not trying to get too far off the path here, but I think that as science and the dissemination of information becomes more a part of our lives and new generations rise up, the Church will change.

I agree with you completely on the issue of truth. See, we are probably closer to being alike than we think. We just express ourselves differently!