Another Question for LDS

[MelanieAnne]

Having my own horrid experience when I left the LDS Church, I believe what you posted AND what others have posted regarding THEIR experiences. Not because I want to believe the bad, but because I have seen the bad and have no reason to doubt you.

Thanks!

 

[Returning_Home]

Since the issue is the moving of goal posts, it is not deflecting the issue by pointing at them as they get carried on by…

Incorrect; I headed it off at the pass and admitted to what you were going to throw in our face as a response. The church, to my knowledge, has never really answered for the Inquisition (Spanish or Portugese) or the Crusades. Those are sticking points with some, but then again, they were also hundreds of years ago and it’s not the church’s current stance and attitude so obviously, something changed.

Indeed…and no matter how you spin it, having two hundred men attack a jail containing for (as they thought) unarmed men plus the jailor and his family with the stated and successful aim of murdering prisoners can NOT be characterized as 'Joseph being shot in the back as he attempted to escape the jail."

I’ve never said that he was attempting to escape from the jail so don’t put words in my mouth. I said he was killed defending himself, something martyrs aren’t normally known for. But that said, how many Roman soldiers did Jesus kill before he died? It was two, just Smith, right? He must’ve just been following Christ’s example.

As well, it is incredibly disengenuous to portray, say, PAUL as a martyr when he attempted to escape his own death so vehemently…there is no reason to assume that a man who worked so hard to twist the legal system around to stay alive would not have resorted to other means, if those other means were available. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, did not avail himself of the very legal means he could have in order to avoid his death; HE was ‘dumb’ enough to put himself in the hands of his enemies. Paul avoided that as long as he physically could.

I’ve also never advocated vigilante justice. As much as I loathe him, I don’t think Smith should’ve been murdered; he should’ve been permitted to live out his life as he chose.

How many people did Paul kill before he died? Was it two?

So why then is Paul a martyr…but Joseph not? Why is Peter, who not only sliced off an ear, but who, in a coward’s move, actually denied Christ three times, considered a martyr, but Joseph–who went through a LOT more pure torture than Peter did before his death, never once denied Jesus as the Christ–is not?

You’re ready, willing, and able to overlook the fact that Joseph KILLED two men defending himself so you can him a pass, and then have the audacity to say, in the same breath, that he’s the equivalent to Paul? That makes me physically ill, equating the cutting of an ear, the denial of Christ with murder.

Ultimately the whole thing comes down to…well," Peter was a martyr because we like him, and Joseph Smith was not because we don’t. "

Incorrect; Paul was chosen by God and Smith wasn’t and I’ll prove it with my following answer.

He couldn’t?

Wow. News to me.

Lessee…he predicted, way back in 1832, that the Civil War would begin in South Carolina. True, in that same year South Carolina was all for the issue of ‘nullification’…and was agitating for secession. Joseph Smith is quite honest about the fact that it was this public controversy that sent him to ask God about it…but the issue of Civil War wasn’t really in anybody’s mind at the time. President Jackson calmed everybody down…

But in 1960, just as Joseph prophecied, South Carolina was the first state to secede, and the war began there. Thus, a prophecy fulfilled.

He prophecied that the Saints would do well in the Rocky Mountains…and oddly enough, it looks rather like we have.

There are a BUNCH of others, but for the purposes of disproving your claim, all that is required is one., and I gave you two.

Yes, I’m sure it is news to you because you don’t actually have the facts to make a proper assessment of the facts.

I also hope you didn’t start out with your best evidence first.
The fact that a civil war was possible was possible in Smith’s day was common knowledge, given the agitation between the northern and southern states.

South Carolina was the most obstinate and passed a tariff nullification on Nov 24, 1832 and Smith’s revelation came a convenient month later on Dec 25, 1832. The Mormon newpaper, *Evening and Morning Star *even published an article called ‘Rebellion in South Carolina,’ (Jan 1833) showing that this possibility wasn’t divine at all.

He got everything right, eh? Where is the ‘full end of nations’ spoken of in verse six?
You might say that we’re somewhere between verses four and five (four mentions slaves and they were emancipated in 1862, so it must be after that).

I would then ask why we have no mention of the Spanish-American War, the Great War, the Spanish Civil War, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the proxy war between the US and Russia in Afghanistan, or the Gulf Wars.

That doesn’t make sense because this ‘revelation’ concerning the wnd of the world is only six verses and some 300 words whereas Revelation is 22 chapters covering 25 pages.
This one is a big fat fail because this ‘prophecy’ wasn’t published until after the Civil War (1876 D&C) and wasn’t canonoized until 1880. If the church didn’t have that much faith in his prophetic abilities then, how misplaced your faith is now!

This leads to the question: how many false prophecies does it take to be a false prophet?

Uhm, we don’t have mass. That could explain part of the problem you have.

Okay, I’ll call it what it is, then, cult indoctrination. That’s the reason you have two hours of Sunday school afterwards, isn’t it? We can’t have the congregation thinking for itself, can we?

 

[Returning_Home]

Indeed. She’s called me one too. Quite some time ago in connection with another thread I reported a fact told to me by someone I personally know, that HE knew from personal observation. It was about a Mormon Apostle and it portrayed said Mormon Apostle in an unflattering way (and possibly a “grounds for excommunication” way, but I don’t know that for sure.)

This was apparently unwelcome information, and so Diana called me a liar. She also went on to say very nasty, albeit imaginary, things about Catholic hierarchy. It is a mystery to me why this person is allowed to continue to post on these fora when she has such a history of calling other forum members liars.

I can understand people being upset at unwelcome news. I can also understand the urge to defend those persons you admire and question unflattering reports. What I cannot understand is the reflexive response to such situations of calling someone a liar.

A liar is someone who *knowingly * communicates false information. A person who innocently reports information that later turns out to be false did not lie, they were merely misinformed. “Lie” implies an intent to deceive. The fact that information is merely unwelcome to the recipient does not convert that information to a “lie”. Yet that has been a persistent characteristic of many Mormons posting to these fora, many of whom have been banned, and some, such as Diana, who have not been. Or at least not yet.

As for me, I do not take kindly to anyone impugning my integrity. Diana was promptly added to my ignore list. I don’t do this because I am a coward, or because I can’t handle persons of her ilk. I did it for a couple of reasons:

1. 
   *]Life is too short to put up with such persons if you don’t have to. Dialog with persons who reflexively label anything they don’t like as a “lie” is not productive. In fact, it is a waste of time, at least in my opinion.
   *]If most people, if not everyone, put such persons on their ignore list, the ignored persons would basically have no one to communicate with on these fora beyond eachother, and so, perhaps, they would go away.

1. 
   I have this to say about it: ground-level garden-variety Mormons often don’t know the facts about their faith. It’s up to us ‘anti-Mormons’ to dig up the facts and present it to them and even then, they often won’t accept it because it goes against what they are taught every Sunday. They are given the polished image of the their faith, not the ugly truth of it.
   
   That said, I still try to bear them no ill will because it’s really not their fault. It is, however, the fault of those who do know that it’s all a sham, and those are the quorums, apostles, and prophets for certain; those men all know it’s a lie and continue on anyway.
   
   If a Mormon calls you a liar when you’re telling them what the faith used to teach and believe and you’re backed by facts and reasonable conclusions, it’s just their defense mechanism triggering a response. That’s the reason most Mormon apologists will fight so hard against the facts of what their faith actually was versus what it’s become. And often, low-level members simply shut down because they don’t know how to process the information. For example, how many Mormons were involved in these discussions compared to how many remain? The weaker ones simply give up because it’s easier to accept the LDS version of reality instead of truly investigating it and ultimately renouncing the benefits the church gives: a strong sense of community and belonging, the priesthood, and the belief that all are part of a larger plan. All cults work that way, though, the us-versus-them mentality from the Branch Davidiots to Nazism., from Scientology to Mormonism. The psychological manipulation is always the same so I say don’t let it bother you; it’s a knee jerk reaction to the truth and it shows that you’re hitting a nerve.

 

[Returning_Home]

lol. Diana NEVER believes any story that paints the LDS in a bad light. Several members here have recounted bad things that happened to them, she calls all of liars.

She probably doesn’t know that the Mormon Jesus allowed Ted Bundy to join even with the blood of at least five women on his hands.

 

[dianaiad]

(Edited)

Please note: I said I didn’t believe the story. I realize that it might be difficult for the teller of the unbelievable tale to see a difference, but it is a very real difference. In fact, it’s huge.

It is, after all, quite possible for someone to relate a tale that is not true in all respects, and not be lying even a little bit. One must be aware that one is not telling the truth in order to be a liar, y’know.

I can understand people being upset at unwelcome news. I can also understand the urge to defend those persons you admire and question unflattering reports. What I cannot understand is the reflexive response to such situations of calling someone a liar.

A liar is someone who *knowingly * communicates false information. A person who innocently reports information that later turns out to be false did not lie, they were merely misinformed. “Lie” implies an intent to deceive.

Which, as you will notice (well, YOU won’t, since you have me on ignore, but perhaps someone else will comment so that you can see…) is why I wrote ‘I don’t believe this story,’ not ‘you are a liar.’

It helps, when one is criticising the writings of others, to actually read those writings rather than go by what others tell you.

By the way, after having gone over my posts to you, I am going to say that you are presenting them incorrectly. If you would, please, give an example of anything I have ever said about the ‘Catholic hierarchy’ that was untrue, I would appreciate knowing about it, and as for calling you a liar, well…I don’t remember doing so, but that also I would appreciate knowing about. If I did so and you were NOT actually lying, I owe you an apology.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Please note: I did not call this man a liar. I said I didn’t believe the story.

Same thing. If you say you do not believe him, it means you think he is not telling the truth. That means you think he is lying.

I realize that it might be difficult for the teller of the unbelievable tale to see a difference, but it is a very real difference. In fact, it’s huge.

No…it isn’t

Which, as you will notice (well, YOU won’t, since you have me on ignore, but perhaps someone else will comment so that you can see…) is why I wrote ‘I don’t believe this story,’ not ‘you are a liar.’

Again, to not believe him means you think he is telling a lie.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Just so those reading this thread know, “back in the day” when I posted the TRUTH about what a family member had personally observed about the actions he had SEEN of a Mormon Apostle, and Diana called me a liar about those things, she went on to say that such reports were repugnant (which they were, in her view of things) and she also compared this awful transgression of the Mormon faith to a member of the Catholic hierarchy (can’t remember if she named a bishop or a cardinal, it was way too disgusting to me) going into a bar “in full regalia” having a lap dance. I found this to be insanely offensive.

This is beyond the pale in my mind. Especially since the thing that she was objecting to actually happened, whereas what she was imagining was just that, a product of her imagination. A very nasty imagination, but totally imaginary none the less.

I didn’t lie. No one, in fact, lied. But Diana obviously thought that since she decided that I had lied, because “of course a Mormon Apostle could not possibly transgress” that she was eligible to make this sort of horrible accusation. THAT’s the sort of “good Mormon” Diana is. Just so you know. We can’t change the past, but we can keep that sort of thing in mind when we view the things that Diana posts now and in the future.

 

[twopekinguys]

Just so those reading this thread know, “back in the day” when I posted the TRUTH about what a family member had personally observed about the actions he had SEEN of a Mormon Apostle, and Diana called me a liar about those things, she went on to say that such reports were repugnant (which they were, in her view of things) and she also compared this awful transgression of the Mormon faith to a member of the Catholic hierarchy (can’t remember if she named a bishop or a cardinal, it was way too disgusting to me) going into a bar “in full regalia” having a lap dance. I found this to be insanely offensive.

This is beyond the pale in my mind. Especially since the thing that she was objecting to actually happened, whereas what she was imagining was just that, a product of her imagination. A very nasty imagination, but totally imaginary none the less.

I didn’t lie. No one, in fact, lied. But Diana obviously thought that since she decided that I had lied, because “of course a Mormon Apostle could not possibly transgress” that she was eligible to make this sort of horrible accusation. THAT’s the sort of “good Mormon” Diana is. Just so you know. We can’t change the past, but we can keep that sort of thing in mind when we view the things that Diana posts now and in the future.

If I remember correctly, wasn’t that story about some general authority drinking alcohol?

I remember her trying to make the disgusting analogy of the Bishop in full regalia getting a lap dance. She has a history of making those types of analogies. Which don’t exactly help her credibility.

She has also commented that anyone who is an exmormon has lost credibility to speak. It’s kind of calling someone a liar before they say anything.

Gotta love the ignore feature. I know I do.

 

[LongJourney]

LOL I’m not using it. I have an ignore feature in my mind. Amazing how they trip themselves up by using it, and don’t get posts that give them the information they are asking for.

 

[twopekinguys]

LOL I’m not using it. I have an ignore feature in my mind. Amazing how they trip themselves up by using it, and don’t get posts that give them the information they are asking for.

I don’t use it often, but there are a couple of posters on my ignore list that haven’t said anything worth while since their second post. If you know what I mean.

 

[LongJourney]

LOL!! Shhh!

 

[twopekinguys]

LOL!! Shhh!

Oops!! Did I say that out loud? My Bad!!

 

[MelanieAnne]

If I remember correctly, wasn’t that story about some general authority drinking alcohol?

I remember her trying to make the disgusting analogy of the Bishop in full regalia getting a lap dance. She has a history of making those types of analogies. Which don’t exactly help her credibility.

She has also commented that anyone who is an exmormon has lost credibility to speak. It’s kind of calling someone a liar before they say anything.

Gotta love the ignore feature. I know I do.

Yes, you are 100% correct. I was being “nice” and not recounting all the dirty little details of the previous situation.

I do not understand why persons who call all people who disagree with them “liars”, no matter what the subject, are allowed to continue on these fora. But it is what it is. I guess some manage to fly “under the radar”. That doesn’t mean we cannot call them as we see them.

Thanks, TwoPekinGuys, for being more valiant than I was!

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t use it often, but there are a couple of posters on my ignore list that haven’t said anything worth while since their second post. If you know what I mean.

That is what I was thinking. They just have nothing to add, so we get conversations like this:

Non-Mormon: Why do Mormons believe ‘A’
Mormon: That is no different than Catholics believing ‘B’
Catholic: We don’t believe ‘’B’
Mormon: yes, you do.
Catholic: no we don’t
Me: But that about ‘A’

There are two Mormons that do this A LOT, so I usually skip their posts. I get nothing from them. See post #363 for example.

 

[twopekinguys]

Yes, you are 100% correct. I was being “nice” and not recounting all the dirty little details of the previous situation.

I do not understand why persons who call all people who disagree with them “liars”, no matter what the subject, are allowed to continue on these fora. But it is what it is. I guess some manage to fly “under the radar”. That doesn’t mean we cannot call them as we see them.

Thanks, TwoPekinGuys, for being more valiant than I was!

Yep, I thought I remembered that thread.

When people resort to that sort of behavior, it deflects from the real topic at hand. You get all worked up about their bizarre analogies, and end up ignoring what the conversation is really about. It is a tactic I see repeated over and over.

Some posters will use this tactic to goad you into saying something they can then report, hoping to get you in trouble.

I just laugh it off because it is so predictable. But then again, the ignore feature for those posters works quite well also.

When enough people get that person(s) on ignore, and they aren’t getting the reactions they want, they will end up registering another screen name, and start it all over again. Fortunately, their posting styles betray them.

I must say, it provides alot of entertainment at times.

 

[twopekinguys]

That is what I was thinking. They just have nothing to add, so we get conversations like this:

Non-Mormon: Why do Mormons believe ‘A’
Mormon: That is no different than Catholics believing ‘B’
Catholic: We don’t believe ‘’B’
Mormon: yes, you do.
Catholic: no we don’t
Me: But that about ‘A’

There are two Mormons that do this A LOT, so I usually skip their posts. I get nothing from them. See post #363 for example.

Oh darn, I have that poster on ignore.

But I am familiar with their style.

 

[LongJourney]

LOL

When enough people get that person(s) on ignore, and they aren’t getting the reactions they want, they will end up registering another screen name, and start it all over again. Fortunately, their posting styles betray them.

And still they deny S/R

 

[why_me]

I have this to say about it: ground-level garden-variety Mormons often don’t know the facts about their faith. It’s up to us ‘anti-Mormons’ to dig up the facts and present it to them and even then, they often won’t accept it because it goes against what they are taught every Sunday. They are given the polished image of the their faith, not the ugly truth of it.

That said, I still try to bear them no ill will because it’s really not their fault. It is, however, the fault of those who do know that it’s all a sham, and those are the quorums, apostles, and prophets for certain; those men all know it’s a lie and continue on anyway.

Of course, returning home, can we also claim that the great majority of catholics don’t know the facts about their faith? And should it be up to ‘anticatholics’ to educate them? Mormons go to sunday school. Do catholics go to sunday school after Mass? My parish has no sunday school.

However, let me educate you: often on this forum I hear about the goodness of mormons and how nice they are as a people.

Of course, this comes from their faith in god and in being members of the lds church. The two are connected. Isn’t it amazing that such goodness can come from something that is a ‘sham’ and its ‘ugly’ truth?

 

[dianaiad]

Incorrect; I headed it off at the pass and admitted to what you were going to throw in our face as a response. The church, to my knowledge, has never really answered for the Inquisition (Spanish or Portugese) or the Crusades. Those are sticking points with some, but then again, they were also hundreds of years ago and it’s not the church’s current stance and attitude so obviously, something changed.

I’ve never said that he was attempting to escape from the jail so don’t put words in my mouth. I said he was killed defending himself, something martyrs aren’t normally known for. But that said, how many Roman soldiers did Jesus kill before he died? It was two, just Smith, right? He must’ve just been following Christ’s example.

We do not compare Joseph Smith to Jesus Christ. We compare him to men like Peter and Paul. Peter DID defend Jesus with violence. Peter DID deny Christ three times. Paul used every legal trick in his arsenal to keep from getting killed. They were human, and so was JS.

It is not reasonable for you, or anyone, to insist that Joseph Smith adhere to standards you do not insist upon for your own honored martyrs…like Peter and Paul.

I’ve also never advocated vigilante justice. As much as I loathe him, I don’t think Smith should’ve been murdered; he should’ve been permitted to live out his life as he chose.

How many people did Paul kill before he died? Was it two?

We don’t actually know. I would guess…none, because Paul was more a lawyer than a soldier. MOSES killed at least one, though, in the defense of someone else.

You’re ready, willing, and able to overlook the fact that Joseph KILLED two men defending himself so you can him a pass, and then have the audacity to say, in the same breath, that he’s the equivalent to Paul? That makes me physically ill, equating the cutting of an ear, the denial of Christ with murder.

I repeat; Joseph Smith didn’t kill two men. Sorry. There is no real proof that even one of those men that he shot at died. Sorry. Besides, what makes you think that ‘cutting an ear’ was the intended result? Consider where the ear is…you have two choices here: if all Peter wanted to do was cut an ear, then Peter was an uncanny swordsman with incredible control, in which case he had practice with a sword (a deadly weapon). People become that good with a sword for one reason and one reason only: so that they can use it–which is pretty good evidence that he didn’t see anything at all wrong with using it. On the other hand, the more likely one, Peter was NOT an expert swordsman. In that case, again considering where the ear is, it seems probable that Peter was aiming at something a little more life threatening—like the man’s throat–and he missed or was blocked.

People intending only to wound go for parts of the body less likely to prove fatal if interfered with–like arms or legs. NOT the neck and head.

continued on next post

 

[dianaiad]

continued from previous post;

Incorrect; Paul was chosen by God and Smith wasn’t and I’ll prove it with my following answer.

Yes, I’m sure it is news to you because you don’t actually have the facts to make a proper assessment of the facts.

I’m sorry, but since you are the one claiming that Joseph Smith killed two men, which is factually incorrect, I think that the issue of which one of us has ‘the facts’ is not as clear cut as you might want to make it.

I also hope you didn’t start out with your best evidence first.
The fact that a civil war was possible was possible in Smith’s day was common knowledge, given the agitation between the northern and southern states.

Irrelevent. The FACT is, he prophesied that the civil war would begin in South Carolina. It did. Whether you believe that he did this through divine means or common sense is moot; it was a prophecy, and it came true.

South Carolina was the most obstinate and passed a tariff nullification on Nov 24, 1832 and Smith’s revelation came a convenient month later on Dec 25, 1832. The Mormon newpaper, *Evening and Morning Star *even published an article called ‘Rebellion in South Carolina,’ (Jan 1833) showing that this possibility wasn’t divine at all.

What part of my writing that Joseph Smith was very honest about the reason he went to the Lord regarding this, and that he was quite aware of the situation, went whizzing by? It still remains: you claimed that he never had a prophecy that came true. This one did. oops.

He got everything right, eh?

Now THAT is moving the goal posts. I didn’t claim he got everything right. YOU claimed that he got everything wrong

Where is the ‘full end of nations’ spoken of in verse six?
You might say that we’re somewhere between verses four and five (four mentions slaves and they were emancipated in 1862, so it must be after that).

Since when do you, or anybody else for that matter, get to dictate a deadline for the fulfillment of prophecy? Can I decide that all the prophecies in Revelation are untrue because most of them haven’t happened yet?

I would then ask why we have no mention of the Spanish-American War, the Great War, the Spanish Civil War, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the proxy war between the US and Russia in Afghanistan, or the Gulf Wars.

That doesn’t make sense because this ‘revelation’ concerning the wnd of the world is only six verses and some 300 words whereas Revelation is 22 chapters covering 25 pages.
This one is a big fat fail because this ‘prophecy’ wasn’t published until after the Civil War (1876 D&C) and wasn’t canonoized until 1880. If the church didn’t have that much faith in his prophetic abilities then, how misplaced your faith is now!

This leads to the question: how many false prophecies does it take to be a false prophet?

It would have been a tad difficult for Joseph Smith to make that prophecy after the civil war, since he was murdered in 1944.

Again, though…do I get to discount all the prophecies in Revelation because that book didn’t make the canon for three hundred years after it was written?

Okay, I’ll call it what it is, then, cult indoctrination. That’s the reason you have two hours of Sunday school afterwards, isn’t it?

Sorry, Sunday school is a little less than one hour. The other hour is spent in Priesthood, Relief Society (women’s meetings) Mutual (for the youth) and Primary (for the children.)

We can’t have the congregation thinking for itself, can we?

I see…and Catholics do not teach their children anything about their religion, do they? No catechism classes, no parochial schools…no lay organizations for men and women, no Catholic youth groups, no pre-schools, nothing like that?