Blossom76

Well there is a lot of it on this forum for a start

@NeedleinA Perhaps it would do you some good to see it from the investigators point of view? We as investigators are told Your baptism is invalid - only the LDS church have the authority to baptise on the earth We are the only true and living church on the face of the earth - your church you belong to now and every other church on earth is wrong Big claims, very big claims, and also if you think about it from the investigators point of view - highly insulting claims. The church can't make claims like this and expect people not to question/criticise those claims and that authority and then ask for proof. It is also not logical for members to expect investigators not to ask these questions and raise concerns and criticisms. The LDS church insulted every single church on the face of the earth at the very beginning of its existence and it continues to do so by holding those claims, which is fine, if it is true and can be proven. I shouldn't nor should anyone else be treated with unkindness for seeking said proof.

Wow! Seriously???? ?

@Jane_Doe I mean 'I don't have to be okay' with things I see in history that I find questionable, I need to know that I can say 'yeah that stuff is crazy, that stuff is weird' but I can look at it and say 'no thank you' and still be allowed to be mormon and accepted by the church.

I think the other side of it is, "I have a real concern about something in church history/doctrine/whatever it is that I want to understand or that I am not okay with. I have some facts in front of me saying XYZ, I already know that I am probably going to be attacked for asking my questions/raising concerns so the way I ask is already defensive because previous interactions have shown me it will be". I can't ask the hard questions at church, honestly I think they'd probably ask me to leave if I did or at the bare minimum try their best to avoid me, I have already experienced this, its not nice and I don't want to go through it again. There is a very strong culture in mormonism of not asking questions and being chastised for it or even being called anti-mormon if you do. Is it everyone's experience, probably not, but it is a large majority and needs to be acknowledged. And in all honesty what I am looking for when I see things I find questionable about the church is simply "But I don't have to be okay with this right?"

I'm no expert at all, but as interesting as this is (and honestly it is interesting and very cool) I like the other side of the argument, what if it WAS in North America, I'm addicted to watching Wayne May at the moment, he presents the theory that the Book of Mormon did take place in North America, his videos are super cool to watch and very well presented, worth a look if you have the time.

I'd really like that, thank you ?

This is awesome, thank you so much

In all seriousness, I am just trying to find the right church to belong to so I can worship God in a way that is acceptable to him, in the best way I possibly can. In order to do that I need to do research. The LDS church claims to be the only true and living church on the face of the earth, it also claims to be the only church with the authority to perform valid baptism. Now, while I would love to just believe that on face value, its just not going to happen, I need to convince myself that these claims are true. And if they are true, then there should be no need for all this hostility. I am not attacking the church at all, if my honest questions offend someone to the point where they get defensive because they find the issue uncomfortable, then that is a reflection on their personal faith, not mine. For such big claims there ought to be some sort of solid evidence for it, for example the lines of authority and what is and is not scripture and what the early church did or did not do or did do and said they didn't - that stuff matters to me, because it establishes character. Claims like the LDS church make are going to attract attention, they are going to cause people to go 'that's excellent news, I'd like to learn more', is everyone going to read the history of the church in that quest for knowledge? Probably not, but that does not mean that those who do should be treated as insincere. This is not fun for me, this is a very very serious issue, my eternal soul is at the centre of all this, I won't just take big claims on face value, I will look into it, my soul is worth it. PS this is by no means meant negatively on @Jane_Doe or @Just_A_Guy it was just a good example to explain to you all where I am coming from.

My guess is its a thread why so many people attacked me it, it gets to the point where you can't respond to everyone and the one person who may have said something that actually helps without being a jerk about it - well its very easy for those comments to get lost in a sea of others who are being nasty.

This is perhaps the biggest problem I am facing on this website. People assume I am saying the church is wrong because of blah blah, that is absolutely 100% not true. If something is inconsistent and I want further information on it, that shouldn't be a problem. I am tired of the defensive attacks from (probably well meaning) LDS members saying things like 'oh so the whole church is false then, you got your answer' its a very petty and childish attitude.

Just to be clear, I don't dismiss anything about catholic history, it (along with doctrine I don't agree with) is the reason I'm looking into the LDS faith in the first place. /but I'm certainly not going to 'jump ship' to another church with the same unethical problems. I'm going to look at it properly

At the same time I am entitled to say what I'm thinking and feeling, it doesn't just seem inconsistent, it is inconsistent. I am tired of being told I'm 'attacking' this church, I'm not but I am looking into it properly before making a life long decision.

I quoted the Joseph Smith papers and asked if anyone else had seen what I was looking at, I tried to be as nice as possible, it was hardly an attack. I'll try to 'sugar coat' simple facts more heavily in the future. The only thing I can see someone might have a problem with was 'I can't trust what the church writes about its own history' and seriously from what I can tell, I still can't! Its kinda like 'well it says this, but we had to say that because people would have had a hissy fit over it if we told the truth'.

Thats not what I asked, I didn't get why in 1843 - Polygamy all good, go for it, in 1844 - polygamy bad don't do it, even though they still were.

Well that's very judgy isn't it? And by the way I live in Australia mate, I wasn't ignoring you - I was asleep and from what I can tell this is the first post of yours in this thread? And I've love to see that TV episode, that would be awesome, where do I even watch them?

Thank you, that's actually an informative answer! I can understand why Jospeh would have done that if that's how it happened. I don't agree with it, to me, if God said 'do this' then there is nothing to be ashamed of and Oliver Cowdery can just 'grow a pair deal with it' BUT I can understand why Joseph would have denied it. And I'm not saying every problematic statement is an attempt at deception, I'm just looking at the history and asking questions when I see something that makes no sense to me.

That's exactly my point, it was allowed by God in 1844 and the Joseph Smith Papers say that it was not. That's inconsistent and also its not true

I'm not attacking anything and I'm not concluding that the entire church is lying to me about everything it says. But I am looking very sincerely and seriously at the history of the church, using church publications and there are a lot of inconsistencies. Quite honestly I am sick of the attitude I am getting from most members when I post something. And I am trying to get the full picture. That's why I'm posting my questions!

Thanks, I'll try to do that, I also posted that without my glasses on lol, if you have looked at it can you please share your feelings and opinion on it with me? I just don't understand why the church was outright denying polygamy when the prophet himself was engaged in the practice at the time.

I'm not accusing anything, and it is interesting AND it does raise questions to do with trusting church publications, because its inconsistent - again

I'd be interested to hear viewpoints on this as well, I'd like to think they'd go to heaven and in the LDS view one of the higher levels of heaven, but I'm not the best person to ask so hopefully someone with more experience will chime in on this one.

As a few of you know I"m super into church history, I've been reading the Jospeh Smith Papers because a lot of members told me to trust them over the 'History of the Church Books' and I've already found something interesting! This is written in 1843 and it clearly says the church does condone polygamy as pertaining to the Law of the priesthood if any man espouse a virgin, & desire to espouse another and the first give her [2 words illegible] if he [3 words illegible] & they are virgins, & have vowed to no other man, then is he justified, he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him for he Cannot Commit adultery with that, that belongeth unto him & to none else & if he have ten virgins given <unto> him by thee this Law, he Cannot Commit adultery for they belong to him, & they are given unto him therefore, <is he justified> http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-12-july-1843-dc-132/8 This was written in 1844, it clearly says the church is against polygamy 4 All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptised into this church, should be held sacred and fulfiled. Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death when either is at liberty to marry again. http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/doctrine-and-covenants-1844/441 But the church was practicing polygamy then, from 1831 until 1890ish, so that's not exactly honest. This leads me back to my previous problem I had with "History of the Church' being I can't trust what the church writes about its own history. Has anyone else looked at this before?

If you love Me, you will obey what I command (John 14:15), who decides which parts of Gods word to obey and which parts to disregard

Gods word says a lot of things we don't follow, even from the New Testament not marrying your brothers wife if he dies and they had no children is against Gods word Mark 12:19, as is women praying without their head being covered 1 Corinthians 11:5 women shouldn't speak in church 1 Corinthians 14:34 women shouldn't wear jewellery or make up 1 Peter 3:3 don't pray in public Matthew 6:6. I don't think its as simple as Gods word says such and such. My favourite verse in the New Testament is Galatians 2:21 19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”