Hello Kimg901,
I can see how you would get the impression you offered above had you been reading the threads here. I think it is quite a wrong impression and I will offer a few thoughts on this. In the interest of honesty, I will also put a rhetorical trick below because I think it is of value.
First, I have weighed and measured Mormonism. I have asked what history and logic have to say about big questions like truth and falsity of Mormonism, what is Mormon theology, and what is a prophet. From this perspective it would be inaccurate to say that I think “old lds prophets words mean nothing next to the new prophet.” I place great value upon the thoughts and ideas of old LDS leaders especially Joseph Smith. Blake Ostler’s book series Exploring Mormon Thought IMO does a fabulous job of emphasizing the importance of LDS leaders in the production of a coherent LDS theology. That being said, Ostler’s book and my posts are attempts at analytical presentations of the religion and …
Second, there is a part of me that I do not frequently share on this board. This me sat in sacrament meeting today and listened to the lady speak about her struggles, fears, and doubts. This me taught about the atonement and the “Lord’s supper,” and how this impacts me and my walk with Christ, my walk with my family, and my walk through life. As I quoted President Joseph Fielding Smith, there was no “weighing and measuring” as analyst are wont to do. This is a huge part of me that does not appear often in the pages of Catholic Answers.
Next, as one responsible for about 3-5% of the posts on Mormonism you have read here, I am responding most often to the posts of those who spend 90% of their Mormon related time criticizing my faith. While I reject the views of Joseph Smith on geography and Brigham Young on Adam-God, it would be inaccurate to say that I reject the bulk of the legacy left by these two men who I respect. The bulk of the posters here are trying to make Mormonism seem ridiculous and ugly, and … in response to this I reply that what they offer is not Mormonism. They then quote volumes of **** collected over the last 150 years by critics of my church. It is ****, not because old LDS leaders said it, but because it is chosen for its anti-Mormon impact.
These are the posts written by disaffected ex-Mormons or by people who never have been Mormon but who have made their mark on the internet by pushing unadorned bigotry-from which anti-Mormons get their juiciest information. Relying on them for the straight story on the CoJCoLDS is like relying on a political candidate to tell you all the good points about his opponent. Now it may well be that a man leaving one religion for another can write fairly, without bitterness, about the one he left behind. But it stands to reason that most people who suddenly think they have an urge to write about their change of beliefs just want to vent their frustrations or justify their actions. Their posts should be read and used with discretion, and they should not be used at all as explanations of the beliefs of their old religion if the posts betray the least hint of rancor.
You are as likely to get a faithful picture of Mormonism here as you would of Catholicism at a Former Catholics for Christ convention. The posts here critical of my church are quite similar to the thoughts and ideas of anti-Cathoilcs. To my knowledge I have posted on only one board I believe to be anti-Catholic. I consistently defended Catholicism and truthfully claimed I was considering returning (or joining I cannot remember) Catholicism. I choose that board because there was one brilliant poster who had some knowledge that I thought I could use. It was a short lived endeavor. He was convinced I was already on the road to Rome and all the other posters were not valuable. BTW, the Catholic Answers tracts are better than the average post here, but suffer from the similar shortcomings (and the truth is there are LDS boards where Catholicism gets unfair treatment).
