Sign in to follow this  
Arcobaleno Nero

Arcobaleno Nero

Recommended Posts

Guest lt

hi, welcome....please remember what you read here may not be accurate, even though this is an lds site it is not church owned therefore allot of anti's post there anyi religouse garbage here at times as well...There are allot of very good nonmormons here as well.....you will learn to sort out who is who over time...enjoy the site and again..Welcome.

Laureltree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Arco,

If you're looking to learn about the LDS faith you've come to the wrong place. Too many of the posters here are anti-mormons who don't really understand LDS doctrine. At least a few of the remaining posters are members of the LDS faith who lean towards being anti-mormon. There aren't many LDS here who can help you and those who can don't have a lot of time to refute the anti-mormon garbage as well as answer serious inquiries. Sorry.

Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all. I am investigating the LDS church. I don't know how really this message board works but I think it may be fun at least to try.

Welcome to the board. If you are investigating mormonism then this is probably the best place for you because you will hear different points of view.

There are mormons that don't think this is a good place to be for new mormons or people, like yourself, who are investigating the church. On this board you will hear the opinions of people who are in the church and people who don't like the church. You get to hear both sides of the discussion here.

On other boards you will hear only a pro-mormonism argument, without any onjections. If you live in a world where people tell you what you want to hear all the time, then you'll like those boards. If you are investigating mormonism then you need to hear both sides of the story so you can make an intelligent decision. If you don't hear the anti side of the discussion then you are joining a religion that you don't know that much about. There is a lot of anti-mormon stuff out there, most of which is based on mormonisms history and doctrine being extremely controversial. If you want to learn, then this will be a good place.

However there are some people here who call themselves mormons, who represent everything their church is not because they have their own agenda. Some are good people, some are not. In time you'll learn exactly what I'm talking about. Happy posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are investigating mormonism then you need to hear both sides of the story so you can make an intelligent decision. If you don't hear the anti side of the discussion then you are joining a religion that you don't know that much about.

These statements require one to belive that the "anti-side" is an accurate representation of LDS beliefs. Generally, it is not. My experience in discussing things LDS with anti-mormons extends back for about 20 years and seldom do they accurately portray or discuss my/LDS beliefs. If you want to know what the LDS faith teaches then ask those who believe. If you want to know if what we believe is true then ask God. Its that simple. This is not the place to learn what the LDS faith teaches. Talk to the missionaries. Read the Book of Mormon and the Bible. Attend church. Read the general conference editions of the Ensign. These are excellent places to start. From there you can branch out and are encouraged to do so. Start with the basics and go from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My friends, I have not come here to "learn LDS doctrine". I know where I can find all that. I have come here to join in the discussions and debates.

I am not a wash cloth that can be tossed around. I have my beliefs and my opinions and they are quite firm.

Thank you for your replys! I am glad that so many of you gave me a welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Arcobaleno Nero@Jun 13 2004, 06:44 PM

Hello all. I am investigating the LDS church.

Why, what did we do this time?

For the record, I was in Nauvoo at the time and had nothing to do with it, whatever is was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These statements require one to belive that the "anti-side" is an accurate representation of LDS beliefs. Generally, it is not. My experience in discussing things LDS with anti-mormons extends back for about 20 years and seldom do they accurately portray or discuss my/LDS beliefs. If you want to know what the LDS faith teaches then ask those who believe. If you want to know if what we believe is true then ask God. Its that simple. This is not the place to learn what the LDS faith teaches. Talk to the missionaries. Read the Book of Mormon and the Bible. Attend church. Read the general conference editions of the Ensign. These are excellent places to start. From there you can branch out and are encouraged to do so. Start with the basics and go from there.

And yet there are a lot of things the missionaries will not tell people. Mormons are great at marketing the good elements of their church, but tend to leave out the things that they are ashamed of, as most people would. It is the people who are not fans of the mormon church who will tell of the historical inaccuracies, shameful past of the church, false prophesies, and all the other things mormons will not voluntarily tell others.

If you wanted to know about American history, and understand its fullness, would you only read about the parts that America has shined? And leave out such things as Slavery and Vietnam? A person cannot make an intelligent decision about anything until they understand both sides of the argument. To do otherwise is living in a fairy tale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I agree with TR2. If you don't read about these things now, you will most likely run into them later. Just because you find out certain things about the history of the church doesn't mean you won't join. A lot of people are able to reconcile these things. But some cannot.

I'm not sure where you are in life, but I'm sure glad I found out while my child is still a toddler. Not because I feel it would harm him to grow up in the church; but I think it would be difficult to teach your child one thing, then do a 180.

Anyway, welcome. I'm sure you will find much stimulating conversation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by shanstress70@Jun 15 2004, 09:09 AM

I have to say I agree with TR2.  If you don't read about these things now, you will most likely run into them later.  Just because you find out certain things about the history of the church doesn't mean you won't join.  A lot of people are able to reconcile these things.  But some cannot.

I'm not sure where you are in life, but I'm sure glad I found out while my child is still a toddler.  Not because I feel it would harm him to grow up in the church; but I think it would be difficult to teach your child one thing, then do a 180.

Anyway, welcome.  I'm sure you will find much stimulating conversation!

Arco---I will second what TR2 and shantress said, with one additional comment: As TR2 said, the mormon missionaries and other TBM's (totally believing mormons) will tell you one side of mormonism. This is the version that ignores some of the history that is not supportive of some mormon claims. The rest of what you hear could be put into two categories. The first is factual information that is neither anti- nor pro-. It just is what it is, historical or scientific stuff that one can use to judge for himself against mormon claims. Examples of this would be things like several versions of the JS story, DNA and linguistic evidence regarding the origins of native americas, the correct translating of certain Egyptian papyrus. You will run into more information like this. Much of this is ignored by most mainstream mormons because it doesn't seem to add much to their sense of faith. However, it is neither faith promoting, nor faith destroying. It depends upon how you want to interpret it.

The second is arguments based on some of the controversial facts that claim that mormonism is a fraud because of their interpretation of these facts. You will on occasion run into anti's that simply misrepresent completely the position and doctrines of the LDS church. Your mission, should you chose to accept it will be, to sift through the plethora of history and doctrine, and try to decide whether mormonism, taken as a whole, will make your life better.

Personally, as one who has been through the forest of claims by all sides, I would combine a healthy skepticism with an openness to spiritual prompting. Only relying on feelings can lead you down a primrose path to disillusionment.

There are some mormons who accept some aspects of mormonism, but not others. Whether one could feel comfortable having some reservations about the church, and still joining is an issue I never had to face. I was born into the church, and later developed my reservations after learning some of the other stuff never taught in our Sunday School classes. I still consider myself LDS, I just have my own version of it which fits what I can bring myself to contiunue to believe in.

Some would try to convince you that there is only one way to think about mormonism, but you will find that there is a broad range of opinions on many doctrines in this church. There is even a categorization of this difference. There are Liahona mormons and Iron Rod mormons, and a continuum of intermediate positions. The Liahona mormons tend to take much of mormonism figuratively, and often with an open minded and intellectual bent. The Iron Rod mormons think that the Liahona mormons are all going to hell in a hand basket. It is anathema to the Liahona perspective to insist that t ANYONE is necessarily going to hell for anything in particular. So, as Starsky reminded us in another thread, we need to be TOLERANT of eachother's differences, otherwise CHAOS reigns.

(BTW--the terms Liahona and Iron Rod come from two things mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The Liahona was a sort of magical, spiritual instrument that Lehi and his family used to guide them in the wilderness. The Liahona reference is analogous to one being guided by his own sense of right and wrong, rather than by some prescribed set of rules. The Iron Rod analogy comes from a dream Lehi had where the faithful were seen clinging to an Iron Rod as they tried to avoid the pit falls and dangers of the world---the comparison being that Iron Rod mormons see no problem in insisting on quite a literal interpretation of the rules, and a strict adherance to them)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the board Arcobaleno Nero!

Sometimes it's fun to pick and choose your battle threads... ;)

:) Lindy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question. If one feels the promptings of the spirt. (who bares the truth on all things) then why would it matter really that I allow myself to get washed up in all the debate of what is translated correctly or who is twisting what up?

I mean if I question a topic or area then I pray and ask. Then I get the answer strait from the horses mouth. I believe with faith one can skip the middle man and know for himself. If a prophet of God says something then first ask if that is truly His prophet, then that should quiet your doubts....if not then ask concerining the particular thing that bothers you.

Snow, who is doug?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Setheus@Jun 30 2004, 08:40 PM

I have a question. If one feels the promptings of the spirt. (who bares the truth on all things) then why would it matter really that I allow myself to get washed up in all the debate of what is translated correctly or who is twisting what up?

I mean if I question a topic or area then I pray and ask. Then I get the answer strait from the horses mouth. I believe with faith one can skip the middle man and know for himself. If a prophet of God says something then first ask if that is truly His prophet, then that should quiet your doubts....if not then ask concerining the particular thing that bothers you.

Snow, who is doug?

I think this is closer to how I feel as well.

Chieda ed il ye recieve. I colpi ed esso saranno aperti a voi. Se c'è ne di voi difettano della saggezza...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Setheus@Jun 30 2004, 07:40 PM

Snow, who is doug?

Doug is one of the old-timers from this board. About 30 years old. Returned missionary. Went off the deep end and became a Baptist. Attends church at the Anchor Baptist Church in Salt Lake with the good pastor Corkish. I went to church there once. They have anti-Mormon hate literature in their foyer.

After becoming Baptist Doug became a rabid antiMormon. My favorite discussion with him involved the idea that... "by their fruits ye shall know them." I posted a huge list of the many ways that Mormons excell or are noteworthy and he rejected the idea that Mormons were healthier than non-Mormons. I posted proof but he still maintained that Mormons were relatively unhealthy while the Bible belt state, where evangelicals dominate were much healthier. Finally I proved the Mormon dominated areas were the healthiest while Bible Belt states were the least healthy.

Actually the way the entire argument started was that Doug believed in the idea of once saved always saved. He also believed that Mormons, including his dead mother, go to hell. So, I asked what would happen to a saved baptist that converted to Mormonism. Doug claimed that he would still be saved but God would probably kill him early through a heart attack - and that started the discussion about health and "by their fruits..."

What happened then was Doug, like most all anti-Mormons, had an honesty problem. He kept plagarizing others work and saying that it was his. We busted him over and over again and then I ridiculed him so mercilessly that he left the message board but then he kept coming back with new user names and we kept busting him. - Same thing with Trident, but I caught him too.

Then after awhile, he came back claiming that some spiritualist named Gunther or something had helped him contact his dead mother who - surprize - wasn't in hell after all so he was taking the discussions so he could get rebaptised.

Then he left and came back with new usernames - most recently he was posting as Major Spike Thomas, a methodist. I caught him and embarrassed, he left again.

Then this Arcobaleno Nero (black rainbow - I think that is from a Tom Hulce film) shows up and after just two posts he strikes me as maybe being Doug. So out of the blue, as a brand new poster he insults me with a bad joke and I post in response - "What would the good pastor Corkish (his pastor) think?"

... and bam! Black Rainbow disappears for 2 or 3 weeks. Then I post about him again tonight and he responds lickity split, like he monitors the board hourly to see if he is really busted.

Now, I don't remember if Doug went on his mission to Italy or not. Rodney went to Italy I think but I don't know why Rodney would be changing his name.

Is that more than you wanted to know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snow, who is doug?

Doug used to be a TBM who had a change of heart. I don't believe anybody on this board now was around when me and him would have our discussions. He was a real hardcore mormon. He was the last guy I would have ever expected to turn anti-mormon. The discussions with him were some of the most interesting and thought provoking that I've ever had on this board. Most mormons didn't like him because he went after what was most sacred to the LDS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Snow, I am not this Doug. And how did I insult you with a joke? I am sorry if I did so.

I am taking discussions of the LDS church and I live in Ancona Italy.

This doug seems like he is confused and thank you for allowing me to know all that you posted. Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tr2@Jul 1 2004, 09:14 AM

Snow, who is doug?

I don't believe anybody on this board now was around when me and him would have our discussions. He was a real hardcore mormon. He was the last guy I would have ever expected to turn anti-mormon. The discussions with him were some of the most interesting and thought provoking that I've ever had on this board. Most mormons didn't like him because he went after what was most sacred to the LDS.
Maybe not but the archives were full of your discussions. You were as beligerent to him as you were to anyone who disagrees with you. He thought correspondingly little of you in return.

The discussions with him were some of the most interesting and thought provoking that I've ever had on this board.

Thought provoking?

---He claimed that God would probably kill a Baptist that converted to Mormonism - though the Baptist would still be saved.

---He claimed that faith was all that was required to be saved but that even though Mormons had the faith he demanded, they went to hell anyway because... well, he couldn't explain that part.

---He believed his dead mother was in hell because she had the required faith but... well she was Mormon so God sent her to hell anyway. Sorry mom.

---He believe that a German spiritualist contacted his dead mother who wasn't in hell anymore but later changed his mind.

---He believed that the ancient Jews DID NOT believe in a flat-earth view.

Thought-provoking yes, and the thought is "honk if your crazy." He was honking nuts.

Most mormons didn't like him because he went after what was most sacred to the LDS.

You antiMormons always think we don't like you just because we are opposed to the lies you tell and bigoty you propogate. It's an immature view. We like you fine. You're like the insane great-uncle I never had and Doug was like the looney spinster aunt I always wished for. It just your politics of hate that we dislike - not you - you're a sweetie pie - your ideas are the culprit.

Doug's main issue, like all anti's was his honesty. His downfall was that after being busted repeatedly, he cut and paste from a website and claimed that it was from a book he was writing. It gave me all the ammunition I needed to make his message board existence unbearable.

To his credit... he worked hard to make interesting posts or at least curious posts that he felt strongly about. I think that the board was much better off with him than without him. However, unless he comes back under his own name, I'll just have to keep outing him.

Black Rainbow,

I have no idea if you are Doug or not. Your post just struck me that it was a good possibility. Don't worry about the insult. It was just a snide remart - a joke most likely - about my wife. It didn't bother me one bit.

Say, did you know that TR2, Trident got a 20% raise recently? He is very proud.

PS...

He was the last guy I would have ever expected to turn anti-mormon.

The LAST guy? I say you lack insight. Certain types are whacked. They can be whacked towards the Church and if they turn on you, they can become whacked against the Church. The LAST guy or gal that I would expect to turn against the Church would be someone without a victim complex, a reasonable thinker type without a identity crisis and lack of self-esteem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jul 1 2004, 07:02 PM

"Doug's main issue, like all anti's was his honesty." (Snow)

Though not ALL of us, right? ;)

By my definition you don't even come close to being anti.

An "anti" has a flawed character. Dishonesty, from what I have seen, is part and parcel of their personality.

You, you may be a critic but there's nothing wrong with honest disagreements. True, when you first started posting I pegged you for an anti-type but changed my mind fairly quickly. There is plenty you disagree with, not always rightly - in my opinion, but you have experience and reasoning to back you up. Your opinion seem to flow from your reasoning. An anti's opinions flow from his hate-mormonism stance and he will adopt any line of reasoning he finds convenient to suit his already drawn conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have a question for you. It's pretty obvious that the purpose/agenda behind many anti's is that they want to convert Mormons to Mainstream Christianity. Now, what would be more effective in the conversion process:

#1. The standard fare we've all read where quotes are taken out of context, sensationalized, and thrown back in the faces of the faithful.

Or

#2. Those who honestly disagree, use source material IN context, resist the temptation to sensationalize, and open a dialogue for discussion.

I think that option #2 may be the more effective means. And if that is correct, why don't more anti's use method #2 as opposed to method #1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me think about that for a while, but while I do let me offer this:

1. They can't help themselves. This is what I mean. After having my internet opponents jump my case a few times because of some incautious statement I made - that they took advantage of to put me down, I simply changed my posting style to give them less vunerable material to work with. By way of contrast take our resident anti-Mormon; Trident knows he has a reputation for dishonesty and although it is warranted, he resents it. But, when I caught him in a a big lie, he responded "I'd rather be dishonest than stupid" Obviously that is it a stupid thing to say thus showing both dishonesty and stupidity but I had caught him red-handed and he just couldn't help himself. He wanted to lash back at me so badly that he called all LDSTALK posters stupid and said that he had been deliberately dishonest just to make us look stupid. Of course - it backfired.

2. They don't realize how stupid it really comes across. Trident told us that he believed that the Bermuda Triangle mysteries were caused by the upset spirits of murdered slaves and that the paranormal phenomena stopped once some Christian pastors got in a boat and went out and repented on behalf of slave traders. Now, you, I and any reasoning human being knows that us pure silliness - and any reasoning human being would know that saying you believed it would cause other reasoning human beings to know that if you believed it, you were a foolish child - yet Trident said it anyway.

3. It works when done with a specific target audience in mind. Take Benny Hinn. Obviously the reasoning segment of the human species sees him for the Jim Baker/Jimmy Swaggart/Pat Robertson/Oral Roberts/Robert Tilton/Elmer Gantry diridgible that he is. Yet there is a whole segment of the population that eats that kind of thing up. Likewise, there is a whole passel load of slugs who will eat up the tripe that anti's sling so the tripe-slingers keep slinging it. They aren't aiming to convert decent, reasonable people to their cause. They are looking to scrape the bottom of the barrel and the bottom of the barrel buys it.

Other than that, I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this