Hello, I'm Gunar

[Gunar]

I am Gunar and live in a little village in Schleswig-Holstein.

I am a member of the church and go just through very difficult times. I must find something out about me and the church and am afraid of the answer.

I am a 61 years old, single and love good German cooking meal.

Edited May 5, 2013 by Gunar

[NeuroTypical]

Hi Gunar,

Sorry you're having a troubling issue. Welcome to the forums.

[Gunar]

Hi Gunar,

Sorry you're having a troubling issue. Welcome to the forums.

I struggle with personal Problems and some church doctrines. And things I have had read at the Internet about the "dark side" of the church.

[NeuroTypical]

I gathered that Gunar.

Are you interested in hearing responses from believing members?

[Roseslipper]

Hello and nice to meet you and welcome to the the forum Theres always going to be anti-Lds information out there, things that might shake your faith. I know it has happened to me. That's why it is important for us all to develop our knowledge, and grow our testimonys, learn to seek for divine inspiration by prayer, scripture reading to get to a place were you know for sure, THat The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day- Saints is true. We as people are not perfect, But look at (it as the gospel). Seek, pray, ponder, search!! By their good fruits you shall know if it is good, or bad as well.

There's Anti this anti that, anti on everything out there

[Gunar]

I gathered that Gunar.

Are you interested in hearing responses from believing members?

I have heard the same arguments of members again and again:

Pray, follow the rules and God will give you wisdom.

I prayed, followed the rules 100% (after my understanding); but I got wisdom neither from God nor answers of God.

When I spoke with the home teachers, one of them thought I would not have had enough faith. Therefore everything my fault?

I went to the internet pages of FAIR and Farms, and the feeling to be taken be pissed off. Because facts became consciously different interprate so that they matched again.

An example:

Joseph Smith said in History of The Church; that a revival movement took place (according to Smith in spring 1820) in HIS RESIDENTIAL AREA.

FAIR says now that this revivalist movement took place in the neighboring town.

The newspapers of the area only only reported of a revivalist movement between winter 1823 and spring 1824. And this one took place in the place of residence of Smith

Himself has FAIR either been mistaken or lied consciously with that.

And with such questions I have often struggle.

I would not like to leave the church; however, this has to have to leave feeling, her. To remain faithful to myself.

[Guest]

I have heard the same arguments of members again and again:

Pray, follow the rules and God will give you wisdom.

I prayed, followed the rules 100% (after my understanding); but I got wisdom neither from God nor answers of God.

When I spoke with the home teachers, one of them thought I would not have had enough faith. Therefore everything my fault?

I went to the internet pages of FAIR and Farms, and the feeling to be taken be pissed off. Because facts became consciously different interprate so that they matched again.

An example:

Joseph Smith said in History of The Church; that a revival movement took place (according to Smith in spring 1820) in HIS RESIDENTIAL AREA.

FAIR says now that this revivalist movement took place in the neighboring town.

The newspapers of the area only only reported of a revivalist movement between winter 1823 and spring 1824. And this one took place in the place of residence of Smith

Himself has FAIR either been mistaken or lied consciously with that.

And with such questions I have often struggle.

I would not like to leave the church; however, this has to have to leave feeling, her. To remain faithful to myself.

Welcome to the Forums!

I have a question for you: What does it matter exactly where the Revivalist Movement occured? The fact remains that that period of American History saw an influx of Revivalist activity in many parts of the country especially in the more populous areas. How does that have any bearing on the truthfullness of the restored gospel?

And as a sidenote: I was just talking to my sister not even an hour ago... I told her that my niece has an Android problem which caused her to get nosebleeds. Of course, I mispoke. Did that make me a liar?

Edited May 6, 2013 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

An example:

Joseph Smith said in History of The Church; that a revival movement took place (according to Smith in spring 1820) in HIS RESIDENTIAL AREA.

Right; the canonized version does not place it in either Palmyra or Manchester specifically. Smith merely says "in the place where we lived" and "the whole district of the country". Perhaps it loses something in the translation to German; but he is not referring to a specific jurisdictional entity like a city, township, county or state. He's using generic terms for the general geographical region.

FAIR says now that this revivalist movement took place in the neighboring town.

The newspapers of the area only only reported of a revivalist movement between winter 1823 and spring 1824.

How much of the FAIR article did you read? It shows entries from the Palmyra Register mentioning four revivalist movements in the region during the summer/autumn of 1820 alone, plus an indirect mention of at least one more (the meeting itself is not covered; the article deals with the death by intoxication of a gentleman who had just returned from a local camp meeting). We know from other accounts of Smith's that he had actually been pondering over this issue for two years prior to the first vision. We know there was a significant Methodist conference just fifteen miles from the Smith farm in 1819.

And yet, our critics want you to believe that upstate New York, in a region dubbed (by secular historians) the "burned over district" during a period described to every American schoolchild as "the Second Great Awakening", was some kind of irreligious haven? Who's whitewashing the history here? Not the Mormons.

I would not like to leave the church; however, this has to have to leave feeling, her. To remain faithful to myself.

Are there unsavory aspects of LDS history? Yeah. Does the Church tend to downplay its institutional shortcomings? No question.

But just because the Church isn't always a perfect historian, doesn't mean that the histories offered by our critics are in any way superior. At least in the example you put forth above, it is the critics--not the Church or Joseph Smith--that have lied to you.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Gunar]

Welcome to the Forums!

I have a question for you: What does it matter exactly where the Revivalist Movement occured? The fact remains that that period of American History saw an influx of Revivalist activity in many parts of the country especially in the more populous areas. How does that have any bearing on the truthfullness of the restored gospel?

I say something and it does not correspond to the truth; it is either a mistake, a misunderstanding, or a lie.

If the apologists of the church tells about Joseph Smith one statement, however something else; and this despite the crushing evidence; either they have been mistaken, either understood a little wrongly or simply lied.

Facts are facts and these can not be argued away!

You asked why this is so important. Well, it is not the single umptieth case where something else was said. I had taken this only as an example.

There is a proverb in Germany which one rhymes in German. It is:

One does not think who lies once "! Also if he speaks the truth a thousand times "! In German "Wer einmal lügt, dem glaubt man nicht! Auch, wenn er tausendmal die Wahrheit spricht"!

And what concerns the topic complex "first vision" alone, is there many statements which are not coherent in themselves.

And as a sidenote: I was just talking to my sister not even an hour ago... I told her that my niece has an Android problem which caused her to get nosebleeds. Of course, I mispoke. Did that make me a liar?

Only you can judge this. I do not know all facts.

[estradling75]

Only you can judge this. I do not know all facts.

Interesting...

You will not judge Anatess who is right here to ask and get the straight story from...

Yet you are willing to judge the record of events nearly two hundred years ago... You can't know all the facts from back then... You can not even fully understand the cultural differences... Yet you think you know enough to judge the events and people in question.

Interesting...

[Guest]

I say something and it does not correspond to the truth; it is either a mistake, a misunderstanding, or a lie.

If the apologists of the church tells about Joseph Smith one statement, however something else; and this despite the crushing evidence; either they have been mistaken, either understood a little wrongly or simply lied.

Facts are facts and these can not be argued away!

You asked why this is so important. Well, it is not the single umptieth case where something else was said. I had taken this only as an example.

There is a proverb in Germany which one rhymes in German. It is:

One does not think who lies once "! Also if he speaks the truth a thousand times "! In German "Wer einmal lügt, dem glaubt man nicht! Auch, wenn er tausendmal die Wahrheit spricht"!

And what concerns the topic complex "first vision" alone, is there many statements which are not coherent in themselves.

Let me ask this question again... How does this in any way alter the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel?

It's either the Book of Mormon is true or not true. What happened in Palmyra or New York or elsewhere have no bearing on the Book of Mormon. Because - it is there for you to read. It didn't become a book by magic.

As applied to my example of the Android causing the nosebleed... I mispoke, I have no medical background, I have a computer background, so I thought the doctor said Android. My husband who has no medical background but is into body building interpreted what I said as the Deltoids caused the nosebleed. My sister who is a nurse said it must have been the "______" (some gland in the nose that swells - I can't remember the term she used). Unless we talk directly to the doctor who was the exact source of the information, or if we can logically extrapolate from what we know about medicine as in the case of my sister, we will not know what exactly caused the nosebleed.

In any case, whatever it is and wherever it is, it does not change the TRUTH that my niece gets nosebleeds.

Hence, wherever that Revivalist happened - whether it is 5 miles from Smith's farm or 50 miles - it does not change the fact that The Religious Climate of the time caused Joseph Smith to ask God which religion he needs to join which led to the discovery of the Plates which then led to you holding a book called "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ".

So, let me ask you one more time - how does the exact location of the Revivalist Movement determine the Truthfulness of the Testament of Jesus Christ as contained in the Book of Mormon?

Sometimes, you need to stop analyzing the really wierd-looking tree infront of you so you can actually see and understand the design of the forest.

Edited May 6, 2013 by anatess

[Gunar]

Interesting...

You will not judge Anatess who is right here to ask and get the straight story from...

Yet you are willing to judge the record of events nearly two hundred years ago... You can't know all the facts from back then... You can not even fully understand the cultural differences... Yet you think you know enough to judge the events and people in question.

Interesting...

About the first vision and its attendant circumstances I have investigated two years. I can say therefore certainly that they is lied here. Did you e.g. know that there are four different versions of the first vision? Everyone written by JS or dictated by him to his secretary Clayton. Or, that Smith to 1828 went to the church of the Metodists? Where God had cleared him up allegedly and this, about the badness of the churches anyway.

His mother in a letter to her brother or, that but the book of Mormon; not but the first vision mentioned?

All arbitrary indications and proof added up, devoted my verdict!

[Just_A_Guy]

Gunar, why did you ignore my previous post?

About the first vision and its attendant circumstances I have investigated two years. I can say therefore certainly that they is lied here.

It will be interesting to see you prove that.

Did you e.g. know that there are four different versions of the first vision? Everyone written by JS or dictated by him to his secretary Clayton.

Yes; I distributed copies of all four versions to my Gospel Doctrine class earlier this year. Your point?

Or, that Smith to 1828 went to the church of the Metodists? Where God had cleared him up allegedly and this, about the badness of the churches anyway.

Assuming the fifty-year-old reminiscence is accurate, I have no problem with the idea that Smith may not have perfectly obeyed every commandment the Lord gave him. Having eloped with his wife a couple of years before, by 1828 Smith had moved onto his father-in-law's property and was trying to make peace with his in-laws and demonstrate himself as a suitable match for Isaac Hale's daughter. He was working on getting a mortgage for some property to purchase a farm of his own. Attending his father-in-law's church was questionable--especially if, as some Methodists claim, attending a probationary class is tantamount to declaring one's intent to join--but given the pressure Smith was under, his action is at least understandable even if ultimately wrong-headed in light of the Lord's injunction to him.

But ultimately, do you know what I see from that story? I see a young man who was desperate to build bridges with his in-laws; but when the Methodists tried to force him to renounce everything he'd seen and done to that point--he wouldn't do it. He stood by his testimony. You see that again and again, up to the end of his life.

His mother in a letter to her brother or, that but the book of Mormon; not but the first vision mentioned?

I think it's pretty well established that Smith initially viewed the import of the First Vision primarily as a personal forgiveness of sins. It was only in retrospect that he began to recognize it as the beginning of an avalanche of modern-day revelation (which he hints at in his 1838 history); and it was several more decades before the Church at large recognized it (versus the restoration of the Book of Mormon) as the seminal event of the restoration.

All arbitrary indications and proof added up, devoted my verdict!

"Arbitrary" is right.

[estradling75]

About the first vision and its attendant circumstances I have investigated two years. I can say therefore certainly that they is lied here. Did you e.g. know that there are four different versions of the first vision? Everyone written by JS or dictated by him to his secretary Clayton. Or, that Smith to 1828 went to the church of the Metodists? Where God had cleared him up allegedly and this, about the badness of the churches anyway.

His mother in a letter to her brother or, that but the book of Mormon; not but the first vision mentioned?

All arbitrary indications and proof added up, devoted my verdict!

Classic deflection... Instead of answering why you claim unwillingness to judge someone in the here and now that you can talk to and get answers and clarification from. And yet are willing to state that because of accounts written nearly 200 years ago by people from whom you can not ask for clarification or get answers from that they are lied shows a fundamental failure of logic and reason.

But to answer your question... Yes I know of the 4 different accounts of the first vision and the differences don't bother me at all.

Let me share and personal example of why. Recently I was in an automobile accident (minor fender bender no injuries) As a part of resolving this I had to give two recorded statements about what happened. The first one was the day of and it was to the other persons insurance. They asked questions I answered, and I told what I had observed and experienced. The next recording was about a week later to my insurance. They asked questions I answered, and I told what I had observed and experienced. I answered honestly and truthfully both times.

If you were to collect both recordings and then looking through them to find cause to call me a lier and dishonest. You would find plenty of differences to make accusations from. Because some of the details in the two reports are different. They are not carbon copies of each other even though it is the same person doing the describing and same event being described. Some of the differences would be caused by because I answered different questions between the two of them. Another was that the first felt more hostile so I was more guarded then in the second. And time had passed. Some details that I thought were important the day of faded in favor of details that I didn't think were important until I had time to think about it more.

Now lets say this records that I made survive two hundred years and someone from that time wants to discredit me. They can do so, and I wouldn't be around to explain how silly they are being in trying to call me a lier or how foolish they are even trying to discredit that the event did happen.

[Guest]

Classic deflection... Instead of answering why you claim unwillingness to judge someone in the here and now that you can talk to and get answers and clarification from. And yet are willing to state that because of accounts written nearly 200 years ago by people from whom you can not ask for clarification or get answers from that they are lied shows a fundamental failure of logic and reason.

But to answer your question... Yes I know of the 4 different accounts of the first vision and the differences don't bother me at all.

Let me share and personal example of why. Recently I was in an automobile accident (minor fender bender no injuries) As a part of resolving this I had to give two recorded statements about what happened. The first one was the day of and it was to the other persons insurance. They asked questions I answered, and I told what I had observed and experienced. The next recording was about a week later to my insurance. They asked questions I answered, and I told what I had observed and experienced. I answered honestly and truthfully both times.

If you were to collect both recordings and then looking through them to find cause to call me a lier and dishonest. You would find plenty of differences to make accusations from. Because some of the details in the two reports are different. They are not carbon copies of each other even though it is the same person doing the describing and same event being described. Some of the differences would be caused by because I answered different questions between the two of them. Another was that the first felt more hostile so I was more guarded then in the second. And time had passed. Some details that I thought were important the day of faded in favor of details that I didn't think were important until I had time to think about it more.

Now lets say this records that I made survive two hundred years and someone from that time wants to discredit me. They can do so, and I wouldn't be around to explain how silly they are being in trying to call me a lier or how foolish they are even trying to discredit that the event did happen.

I tried to explain this same thing using different accounts of my niece's nosebleed.

We are wasting our breath here. Gunar has no intention of finding truth. He is simply trying to find ways to discredit the truth. If a person is intent on finding reasons not to believe the Restored Gospel, he will be flooded with a million and one reasons. Because, just like nobody can prove that Jesus Christ is God to a non-Christian, nobody can prove that Joseph Smith is a prophet to non-Mormons. Simple as that really.

[NeuroTypical]

About the first vision and its attendant circumstances I have investigated two years. I can say therefore certainly that they is lied here. Did you e.g. know that there are four different versions of the first vision?

Dang Gunar - you need better sources. Yours are antimormon sources, and 20 years out of date at that.

Here is a partial list of all the first five tiers of 1st vision accounts:

1st Tier: Those accounts that can be directly tied to Joseph Smith.

• 1832 From Kirtland Letter Book

• 1835 From Joseph Smith Diary, Nov. 9, 1835.

• 1838 From James Mulholland “Journal” (Official Version, edited)

• 1842 From Wentworth Letter in Times and Seasons

2nd Tier: Those accounts that were contemporary with Joseph and Joseph was likely aware of their content:

• 1835 Oliver Cowdery: From Messenger and Advocate

• 1840 Orson Pratt: An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions

• 1842 Orson Hyde: Ein Ruf Aus Der Wüste (A Cry from the Wilderness)

• 1843 Pittsburgh Gazette Interview

3rd Tier: Accounts by Joseph's contemporaries who were "in the know". There are many of these, but some of the key accounts were by:

• Oliver Cowdery

• Martin Harris

• Orson Pratt

• Parley Pratt

• Orson Hyde

• William Smith

• Lucy Mack Smith

• George A. Smith

• Heber C. Kimball

• Brigham Young

• John Taylor

• Wilford Woodruff

4th Tier: Hearsay contemporary accounts & accounts of unknown provenance.

5th Tier: hearsay accounts well after Josephs Death by non-contemporaries and accounts that were edited by non-contemporaries.

I have to giggle when people claim there is something wrong with multiple versions of something. This criticism maybe had some teeth to it maybe back in the 1990's before it was properly answered, but no longer. Consider:

I was talking to my wife the other day. "I was talking to this guy named Gunar - he thinks that differences in Joseph's account of the 1st vision actually matter," I said. She agreed with me that it didn't.

Then, a few days later, I brought up the subject again. "Just_A_Guy agrees - there's nothing to it!" I said. She gave me a strange look, and asked "Who's Just_A_Guy?" I told her that he's another guy that I'm discussing the issue with. "You never mentioned that you were talking to more than one person - what are you hiding from me!" she raged, and I had to spend the night on the couch while she cooled down.

Then, just today, I tried to broach the subject with her again. I mentioned that the thread now had a dozen posts on it. "Posts?! Threads?! What are you talking about?" my wife yelled at me. "I thought you were talking to people face to face!"

Well, I tried to explain to her, but she wasn't hearing any of it. She called me a liar, a deceiver, said I kept changing my story to fit the circumstances, and then divorced me. What a dreadful comeuppance!

Oh, wait. None of that actually happened, because my wife is not an idiot. Good grief, people! The fact that learned, articulate, reasonable people think there is something to this dumb notion just amazes me! Are you telling me that unless Joseph Smith told exactly the same story each and every time he related it, he's lying somehow?

Goodness people - think for a minute! "Jesus told me not to join any church" doesn't contradict "I saw angels". That's not a contradiction - that's relaying different chunks of information. You can tell one person that you talked to Jesus, and you can tell someone else that you saw God and Jesus - and be telling the truth both times. It's not a contradiction unless you say you didn't see God, and then later say you did.

Is it really that hard to understand that maybe Joseph was a little unsure how much info he should give people? If you've looked into the differing accounts, you will see that in 1832 he said "and there were many things which transpired that cannot be written", and in 1839, he said "and many other things did he say unto me which I cannot write at this time." Couldn't it be possible that he was being very careful about relating all the details about what happened? Maybe, just maybe, he erred on the side of caution when telling people exactly what went on? He was what - 14 years old at the time? Tell me, can you think of an important event that happened to you when you were 14? Are you 100% sure that you described EXACTLY what happened in COMPLETE DETAIL, leaving nothing out, each and every time you talk about it? A better question: The last time you told the story, did one of your parents say "Well honey, I'm sure it seemed like that to you, but here's how it really happened..."?

There is one contradictory item. The 1832 account that states that Joseph was in his 16th year, while the other accounts agree he was 14 (i.e. in his 15th year). Gunar - shall we form another mob?

[Just_A_Guy]

Gee, here I was about to offer to buy LM and his wife lunch to compensate for causing marital discord; and then I find out none of it's true?

[Guest]

Gee, here I was about to offer to buy LM and his wife lunch to compensate for causing marital discord; and then I find out none of it's true?

Yes, he lied to you. The nerve...

[Just_A_Guy]

And notice how LM mentions an "1839" statement from Joseph Smith. But that account actually came from 1838.

Trickery. Trickery, I tell you!

[NeuroTypical]

Lunch! Sweet!

[Gunar]

At first once, I would like to apologize that I was not here for a long time.

I had problems of a physical kind which are in an indirect connection with the church. I am on the way of the recovery now because I have taken a decision.

As of yesterday I am no more a member of the church.

And I feel good with this decision.

I have a cousin, a former member of the church which I will marry. She is transsexual and I think some already know her here.

Therefore I think; it would be the best if would ban by the Admin.

Or is anybody interested here in an honest discussion about history and doctrines of the church? I do not think so.

[selek]

Or is anybody interested here in an honest discussion about history and doctrines of the church? I do not think so.

Oh, please.

Get off your soapbox and wipe false-piety from your chin.

"Honest discussion" does NOT mean unthinking obesiance or nodding like a bobble-head doll in agreement with your opinions and prejudices.

You were given honest- and factual- answers and either flatly ignored them, changed the subject, or implied that they were dishonest.

Those who come here posturing about "honest discussion" are nearly always deathly afraid someone will call their bluff.

The other posters here did just that- and now you're hoping that the admins will ban you rather than admit that you weren't interested in "honest discussion" after all.

If you were looking to have your anti-testimony legitimized, you've come to the wrong forum.

If you're looking for an excuse to justify your apostacy, you don't need us to do that for you.

We're not the ones you're going to have to convince.

Edited May 11, 2013 by selek

[Gunar]

Oh, please.

Get off your soapbox and wipe false-piety from your chin.

"Honest discussion" does NOT mean unthinking obesiance or nodding like a bobble-head doll in agreement with your opinions and prejudices.

You were given honest- and factual- answers and either flatly ignored them, changed the subject, or implied that they were dishonest.

Those who come here posturing about "honest discussion" are nearly always deathly afraid someone will call their bluff.

The other posters here did just that- and now you're hoping that the admins will ban you rather than admit that you weren't interested in "honest discussion" after all.

If you were looking to have your anti-testimony legitimized, you've come to the wrong forum.

If you're looking for an excuse to justify your apostacy, you don't need us to do that for you.

We're not the ones you're going to have to convince.

Sounds like you're full of prejudice. BTW, I'm always interested in honest discussions, not only about the LDS church.

[pam]

I'll make this an easy decision for you Gunar. You didn't validate your account within 7 days as required to continue to be an active member of this site. Therefore all privileges to post as a officially validated member of this site are lost.

Good luck in your marriage to your cousin Gerlinde.

Thread closed.