What is Considered Doctrine in the LDS Church

[dianaiad]

I don’t really think that I made your point for you. I believe MelanieAnne.

Why? It’s not even her story. She tells us that a friend told her this. She doesn’t mention the apostle, the bar, the date…

why do you believe her?

I think that whoever this jasper was (the"apostle"), he was in his private club and felt “safe” and just did not think that the story would get out. Even “apostles” are stupid, sometimes. The mormon heirarchy has been stupid before (The Mormon Murders) and will probably be stupid again. After all, they are only “Gods in training.”

…so because Hoffman was a murderer, you think that some uncorroborated story from an unnamed bartender about an unnamed apostle HAS to be true?

Gee, I have thirty acres of prime Mississippi river front land I’d like to sell you.

 

[RebeccaJ]

…and that’s a great deal more likely than having an apostle (still unnamed, please notice) order an alcoholic beverage at a bar (still unnamed, please notice) and having the bartender (still unnamed, please notice) tell a friend this, and the friend telling the world this but afraid that some black helicopter owning members of the EUME (that’s "Evil Utah Mormon Empire) might get the bartender fired and THAT’S why she isn’t handing out the information that would confirm the story.

Diana, I worked in the Mormon business world for more than 25 years. I know how it works.

I wouldn’t tell a soul if I saw an apostle drinking, for the very fact that I would want to keep my job AND my career. The business network in SLC is VERY tied to the Mormon network. Which goes all the way to 47 E South Temple.

puu…leeeze.

You can poo poo it all you like, but careers are made and ruined very easily in the Mormon business world. In the upper areas of management, how much favor you have with Mormon hierarchy is the determining factor. I am sorry if you don’t believe this, but have seen it first hand, several times.

Have apostles in our past done stupid things? Yep. Didn’t end well for them, either—and that supports MY point, not yours!!

You should qualify that to CRIMINAL, very stupid things. In modern time, you have had one apostle excommunicated, and that was Lee, for child abuse, and after he was placed under warrant. He wasn’t really in the mormon royal ranks though. He was let into them.

I don’t think you have an understanding of just how elite your leaders are. How intertwined they are in blood relationships that go back generations. Paul Dunn lied his patooty off, for decades, and all that happened was an old man was quietly retired into emeritus status.

I highly doubt that anything would happen to an apostle who had a drink. Not untill or unless it went very public, and I can assure you, no bartender in an ELITE country club frequented by powerful business people is going to say squat about what they see and hear, in any large public way. They might tell a friend. They might tell a spouse. But they aren’t headed to the newspapers.

And the business people? Hell, their only concern is gaining as much favor as possible. They aren’t telling anyone anything either.

C’mon…which is more probable; that an apostle would order a drink at a bar when he knows just how serious the consequences would be if he were caught…or that a woman who dislikes Mormonism and Mormons would spin a story to make a point, even if that story were a little (or even a lot) exaggerated? Especially if she does it in a forum where she knows darned well that the only people who would object would be Mormons, (and her point is, after all, to upset the Mormons…) and that she would get complete support from all the Catholics? SHE isn’t losing anything. The consequences for her? Approval. Sympathy. Acceptance. She has nothing at all to lose and everything to gain.

Which is more probable? I mean, really.

I’d say an apostle in the Mormon business world has nothing to lose. They ARE the Mormon business world.

I’d believe Melanie over a Mormon who is defending an apostle. I have seen mormons defend some cruddy apostle behavior, just because they are “the brethren”. And it is the mormon rule to not think, speak or hear anything bad about them. No matter how bad it really is.

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

That’s fantastic! Congratulations. That must have taken some doing. Good luck in keeping up with your goal, and I hope you don’t get discouraged along the way.

I hope I don’t either!! LOL

 

[dianaiad]

I didn’t know that is how he died.

Yeah. I always thought it was both sad…and appropriate. He loved to drive his car, and he loved to drive it, well…fast. He had a ‘one vehicle’ crash while out driving one day, and died in it. So on the one hand, we don’t know how much he suffered–he died alone. On the other hand, he certainly went out doing something he loved doing.

My nice Mormon neighbor gave me a history of our neighborhood a few years ago. In it, it said it was settled by Danish immigrants who had converted to Mormonism. We have a lot of Danish names around here. Anyway, it said one of the quirky practices of the Danish converts is that they would hide coffee away so no one knew they were drinking it. So they were all drinking coffee, and not telling each other. That cracked me up.

Quite a few probably were. (grin)

I’m a southern Idaho Mormon; those folks were notorious for drinkin’, smokin’ and cowboyin–or sheepherdin’ . Got so that missionaries called from that area needed and extra month so’s to teach 'em what a fark was fer.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yeah. I always thought it was both sad…and appropriate. He loved to drive his car, and he loved to drive it, well…fast. He had a ‘one vehicle’ crash while out driving one day, and died in it. So on the one hand, we don’t know how much he suffered–he died alone. On the other hand, he certainly went out doing something he loved doing.

Quite a few probably were. (grin)

I’m a southern Idaho Mormon; those folks were notorious for drinkin’, smokin’ and cowboyin–or sheepherdin’ . Got so that missionaries called from that area needed and extra month so’s to teach 'em what a fark was fer.

Yeah, the same history, there was a business up the street that had a beer bar in front, and ice cream store in the back. There weren’t any non-Mormons around here then.But, it was in the era where one of your prophets said that “Danish beer” was ok to drink. More things that crack me up.

Mormons used to not be so uptight. If an apostle had a drink, who cared? BY was known for having the guys over for whiskey. Now mormons around here can’t even look at a bottle in a restaurant without feeling offended and hiding their children behind their skirts.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, I worked in the Mormon business world for more than 25 years. I know how it works.

I wouldn’t tell a soul if I saw an apostle drinking, for the very fact that I would want to keep my job AND my career. The business network in SLC is VERY tied to the Mormon network. Which goes all the way to 47 E South Temple.

Have you ever seen an apostle drinking, Rebecca?

However, you are wrong. All you would have to do is tell Sandra Tanner (well, perhaps not her, she has some honor…) tell the SLT, or the CRI, or…any number of people who would be delighted to spread the word. You would not lose anything. After all, you are an excommunicated Mormon and you still have your job and career; how would THAT jeopardize it further? You are being silly.

However, if you were still a TBM, you wouldn’t tell the world—but you had BETTER tell your bishop or your stake president. You would not be doing what you were supposed to do if you didn’t…and your job/career would still not be in any danger.

And you know it. I too am familiar with the way things work, and since I still AM a TBM and you are an excommunicant and, therefore, biased, perhaps your viewpoint is a bit off?

True, as a TBM my own viewpoint is biased as well, but the thing is, you and I both know that you wouldn’t have been fired, and of course a BARTENDER would not be!

You can poo poo it all you like, but careers are made and ruined very easily in the Mormon business world. In the upper areas of management, how much favor you have with Mormon hierarchy is the determining factor. I am sorry if you don’t believe this, but have seen it first hand, several times.

You should qualify that to CRIMINAL, very stupid things. In modern time, you have had one apostle excommunicated, and that was Lee, for child abuse, and after he was placed under warrant. He wasn’t really in the mormon royal ranks though. He was let into them.

Uhmmnnn…Lee wasn’t a member of the Quorum of Twelve apostles. He was a member of the Quorum of Seventy. While that made him a ‘general authority,’ it is a far cry from being an apostle. He was excommunicated for ‘apostasy and other conduct unbecoming a member of the church’ in 1989. He was arrested 1993, and in 1994 he was convicted of sexual assault on a young girl…he admitted to touching her breasts in 1989.It has been speculated that this played a part in his excommunication, and that might be true; certainly the church leadership was prominent in seeing to it that he was prosecuted. Of course, he was also off his rocker.

I don’t think you have an understanding of just how elite your leaders are. How intertwined they are in blood relationships that go back generations. Paul Dunn lied his patooty off, for decades, and all that happened was an old man was quietly retired into emeritus status.

Yep. And NOBODY FIRED THE FOLKS WHO OUTED HIM, either.

I highly doubt that anything would happen to an apostle who had a drink. Not untill or unless it went very public, and I can assure you, no bartender in an ELITE country club frequented by powerful business people is going to say squat about what they see and hear, in any large public way. They might tell a friend. They might tell a spouse. But they aren’t headed to the newspapers.

And the business people? Hell, their only concern is gaining as much favor as possible. They aren’t telling anyone anything either.

Perhaps not.

But tell me why I MUST accept as golden fact any such story? No facts, no names, no times, dates, places–just a second hand story from a woman who disagrees with the church and wants to believe it because, well…it confirms her opinion of Mormonism and Mormons?

That is a stupid reason to believe it. Straight out of the " ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ must be correct because, well, Jews aren’t nice people so anything that says nasty things about them must be right" playbook.

Doesn’t the fact that it is A: second hand and B: utterly lacking in ANY evidence, never mind proof bug you any? Or is the reason you believe it because you WANT to?

I’d say an apostle in the Mormon business world has nothing to lose. They ARE the Mormon business world.

I’d believe Melanie over a Mormon who is defending an apostle. I have seen mormons defend some cruddy apostle behavior, just because they are “the brethren”. And it is the mormon rule to not think, speak or hear anything bad about them. No matter how bad it really is.

That’s what I thought. The only reason you believe it is because it confirms what you want to think, not because there is any evidence or even any probability of it’s truth. In fact, you are far more guilty of knee jerk thinking than any Mormon.

Perhaps…“Iam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam (Rome), inde etiam rescripta venerunt. Causa finita est, utinam aliquando error finiatur.”

(or to sum up…" “Rome has spoken, the case is closed.”

 

[dianaiad]

Yeah, the same history, there was a business up the street that had a beer bar in front, and ice cream store in the back. There weren’t any non-Mormons around here then.But, it was in the era where one of your prophets said that “Danish beer” was ok to drink. More things that crack me up.

Mormons used to not be so uptight. If an apostle had a drink, who cared? BY was known for having the guys over for whiskey. Now mormons around here can’t even look at a bottle in a restaurant without feeling offended and hiding their children behind their skirts.

Yes he was.

And Joseph Smith drank wine. And the first members of the church drank, smoked…all the stuff that is supposed to be so objectionable.

The prohibition against alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee came about later, when BY was attempting to gather everyone together; we were demoralized, having just lost most of our homes, many of our family members, our prophet and his brother murdered by a mob…having to leave in the middle of winter and not having a real clue about where we were going.

By was a genius. ONE of the things he did was to encorperate us into a separate people; one with a specific and special identity; a ‘peculiar people.’ He wanted to make us different enough to have an identity apart from others—a ‘home.’

One of the ways he did it was to pick these specific aspects of the Word of Wisdom and make them covenants. Everybody ELSE drinks alcohol, smokes tobacco, drinks coffee and tea—but we won’t. We will promise not to; we don’t because we are Mormons, and we are different, and WE PROMISED.

There isn’t anything morally sinful about drinking (in moderation, of course) or smoking or having a cup of coffee or tea. There might be health consequences for overdoing them, but morally? Not really.

However, when you make a promise, THEN it is a sin to break it, especially if that promise is a covenant with God.

So…I don’t drink. I don’t smoke. I don’t drink coffee or tea, not even decaffeinated coffee or tea, BECAUSE I PROMISED NOT TO.

It has nothing to do with being ‘uptight’ about the substance you promise not to drink. It has everything about honor…and honoring your covenants.

 

[RebeccaJ]

However, if you were still a TBM, you wouldn’t tell the world—but you had BETTER tell your bishop or your stake president. You would not be doing what you were supposed to do if you didn’t…and your job/career would still not be in any danger.

Let me tell you a first hand experience Diana. I work in the tech field. One day, our HR dept comes to me and says, we think one of our mgrs is spending the day porn surfing in his office not working. This was at an offsite location, where the manager had no supervision onsite but himself. But, his employees had made complaints to HR.

HR asked me to look over his laptop to see if I could confirm this. I looked over his laptop, and found not just porn, but child porn. I took what I found to HR and said I would hang onto the laptop so that we didn’t recycle it back into use and lose any evidence. They came back about a week later and said that they were not going to report this guy, because he was a mormon bishop and they didn’t want to EMBARRASS THE CHURCH.

I took what I had to a lawyer and asked what to do. As it wasn’t my property. I reported it. But there was no evidence as HR took the laptop and had another IT employee, who was LDS, erase it.

Mormons don’t reports things about each other Diana. They HIDE them.

He told his family he was laid off. He remained a bishop.

That’s when I started looking for another job.

And you know it. I too am familiar with the way things work, and since I still AM a TBM and you are an excommunicant and, therefore, biased, perhaps your viewpoint is a bit off?

I am still a Mormon of record. Never been ex’d. Why do you think I was? lol. I quietly left, almost 25 years ago now. Just went inactive. Stopped going to church. Stopped believing in everything, including God. I had no idea you could remove your name until about 7 or so years ago. By then, I didn’t really care.

I think about doing it now, just because I am Catholic and don’t want any descendants thinking I was a Mormon.

True, as a TBM my own viewpoint is biased as well, but the thing is, you and I both know that you wouldn’t have been fired, and of course a BARTENDER would not be!

My experience, as I said in the Mormon business world, is otherwise.

Uhmmnnn…Lee wasn’t a member of the Quorum of Twelve apostles. He was a member of the Quorum of Seventy. While that made him a ‘general authority,’ it is a far cry from being an apostle. He was excommunicated for ‘apostasy and other conduct unbecoming a member of the church’ in 1989. He was arrested 1993, and in 1994 he was convicted of sexual assault on a young girl…he admitted to touching her breasts in 1989.It has been speculated that this played a part in his excommunication, and that might be true; certainly the church leadership was prominent in seeing to it that he was prosecuted. Of course, he was also off his rocker.

Yeah, not in the elite group. Could never be an apostle.

Yep. And NOBODY FIRED THE FOLKS WHO OUTED HIM, either.

It was a non-Mormon who outed him. Someone who he stole a story from and published it as his own. A retired someone.

That’s what I thought. The only reason you believe it is because it confirms what you want to think, not because there is any evidence or even any probability of it’s truth. In fact, you are far more guilty of knee jerk thinking than any Mormon.

Perhaps…“Iam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam (Rome), inde etiam rescripta venerunt. Causa finita est, utinam aliquando error finiatur.”

(or to sum up…" “Rome has spoken, the case is closed.”

I believe Melanie. I’ve never known her to lie.

Mormons however, tell a lot of lies.

I think you are the person going by Rome Has Spoken, though in the Mormon fashion, the Prophet Has Spoken.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It has nothing to do with being ‘uptight’ about the substance you promise not to drink. It has everything about honor…and honoring your covenants.

All well and good but it was under Lorenzo Snow that he and your apostles, together, agreed that “Danish beer” was not harmful or against your word of wisdom. In 1901. Long after BY had made you into a peculiar people (in a cult-like fashion).

fyi…“Danish beer” was a term employed to describe a new process that had been invented in Denmark. It is a type of pilsner. As much a beer as Budweiser or Coors.

 

[ParkerD]

I suppose I might as well clarify that Elder Lee was not an apostle. The term seems to be being used loosely here. Every LDS “general authority” is not an apostle.

 

[PaulDupre]

So…I don’t drink. I don’t smoke. I don’t drink coffee or tea, not even decaffeinated coffee or tea, BECAUSE I PROMISED NOT TO.

It has nothing to do with being ‘uptight’ about the substance you promise not to drink. It has everything about honor…and honoring your covenants.

But you make your children uptight and extremely judgemental towards people who choose to do those things.

I’ll never forget when my wife and I were visiting my sister in Utah. My sister is very good about keeping some coffee in the house for when we come to visit. But I fear her children have been poisoned by the LDS culture. My niece, Niki, who was at that time only 6 years old, came into the kitchen where my wife and I were drinking our morning coffee.

Niki (frowning with deeply furrowed brow): Is that coffee?

Me: Yes, it is.

Niki: I want to bear you my testimony.

Me (tongue firmly in cheek): Okay, go ahead.

Niki: I know this church is true. I know the Book of Mormon is the word of God, and I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and Isaythingsthingsnamethysonjeezchristamen.

Me: That was very nice, thank you.

Niki (confused, brow even more deeply furrowed): You’re welcome!

At which point she whirled around on her heel and stormed out of the room.

My wife and I dissolved into laughter and had the giggles for at least 5 minutes.

 

[twopekinguys]

Especially since I was not accusing any Catholic Cardinal of doing such a thing, but she was seriously making an accusation against an LDS apostle–and obviously doesn’t care whether it is truth or not; her entire purpose was to insult, discredit and destroy. Mine is simply to attempt to get you to understand the depth of the insult she offered.

She didn’t mention the Apostle’s name, and you didn’t mention a Cardinal’s name (in your example), Seems pretty equal ground. Yet you throw a hissy fit of gigantic proportiions, but it’s no big deal for you to throw out a totally disgusting example and we’re supposed to ignore it?

Again, you can’t have it both ways, You tried that on a previous thread, and that didn’t pan out for you. Maybe you should try a different tactic.

Check out this thread, if you’ve forgotten how you tried to have it both ways.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4908321#post4908321

 

[twopekinguys]

Changing the subject just a bit.

I won’t be checking out the forums for a few days, as I will be recovering from some surgery.

Hopefully I will be back soon.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Changing the subject just a bit.

I won’t be checking out the forums for a few days, as I will be recovering from some surgery.

Hopefully I will be back soon.

God bring you to a speedy recovery!

 

[RebeccaJ]

But you make your children uptight and extremely judgemental towards people who choose to do those things.

I’ll never forget when my wife and I were visiting my sister in Utah. My sister is very good about keeping some coffee in the house for when we come to visit. But I fear her children have been poisoned by the LDS culture. My niece, Niki, who was at that time only 6 years old, came into the kitchen where my wife and I were drinking our morning coffee.

Niki (frowning with deeply furrowed brow): Is that coffee?

Me: Yes, it is.

Niki: I want to bear you my testimony.

Me (tongue firmly in cheek): Okay, go ahead.

Niki: I know this church is true. I know the Book of Mormon is the word of God, and I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and Isaythingsthingsnamethysonjeezchristamen.

Me: That was very nice, thank you.

Niki (confused, brow even more deeply furrowed): You’re welcome!

At which point she whirled around on her heel and stormed out of the room.

My wife and I dissolved into laughter and had the giggles for at least 5 minutes.

I have nieces who have been taught to behave in the same rude manner.

 

[hosemonkey]

…so because Hoffman was a murderer, you think that some uncorroborated story from an unnamed bartender about an unnamed apostle HAS to be true?

I didn’t say that. I said that mormon “apostles” are certainly capable of being stupid.
BTW, how much do you want for the land?

 

[zaffiroborant]

What, that it is perfectly OK to level that sort of accusation at someone who is NOT Catholic, an accusation that could easily destroy lives—but that when someone shows you exactly how objectionable such an insult/accusation is by giving you an example that would strike your own beliefs, you object?

Sauce for the Mormon, in other words, is NOT sauce for the Catholic?

Well, get over it. As upset as you are about the example I gave you–and I simply gave you an example of how insulting and objectionable this story about the apostle in the bar was to us in terms that would provoke the same level of outrage in you. You will notice that, unlike Melanie, I am NOT claiming that any Cardinal would do such a thing!–THAT is how upset I am about Melanie’s story and her efforts to wiggle out of having to support it.

You might want to consider that if you don’t want to join the LDS church because of what I said—what does that mean to people who might be thinking about joining the Catholics, and are exposed to stuff like Melanie’s claim?

Especially since I was not accusing any Catholic Cardinal of doing such a thing, but she was seriously making an accusation against an LDS apostle–and obviously doesn’t care whether it is truth or not; her entire purpose was to insult, discredit and destroy. Mine is simply to attempt to get you to understand the depth of the insult she offered.

I wasn’t upset by your example of the Bishop although I thought it more extreme than the buying a drink thing. And after all you all were kind enough to drag up all the garbage in our history recently. No it was the ex’d part that hit me. Some of your later posts just underscored for me the feeling I got when I read your post.

The important ones would…namely those who had the authority to deal with the apostle involved. It may not matter to you, Melanie, but I don’t want an apostle serving who would break his covenants that completely.

As well, Many Mormons do drink. They aren’t GOOD Mormons if they do, but they are Mormons, none the less.

But you are quite right, and thank you for making my point for me. Now I believe that they truly are men of God…but if you view it from the perspective you have of them, that they are ‘hard-headed businessmen’ who would know how to get ‘hootch’ privately, **there is absolutely no sense in one of them actually GOING to a bar and courting the sort of firestorm consequences that would result if it were proven that he had gone there and had an actual alcoholic beverage. **

As to the coffee habit? Well…J.Golden was unique. However, you can be at ease; he didn’t die of caffeine poisoning. (and it’s not the caffeine, anyway!) He crashed his car.

The point is, Melanie, it didn’t happen. I no more believe that a Cardinal would behave in that manner than I do that an apostle would—and I believe that the universal shock and upset at my example SHOULD wake you up to just exactly how insulting, derogatory and IMPOSSIBLE your story is. You blew it, Melanie. You let your hatred overcome your good sense, and told a really dumb story.

He would lose his calling and get ex’d. BIG difference…just as the ‘normal’ Catholic who indulged in a lapdance (well, it’s not as if he were actually having intercourse, is it?) would have to repent…but the Cardinal who tried it would be in for a very different level of discipline.

With great power comes great responsibility…and great vulnerability. It wouldn’t mean anything if anybody saw ME in a bar. It makes a far better story if it is a general authority, though–and an apostle? Wow, that’s the SLT JACKPOT.

**We are talking about accusing someone of doing something for which the consequences are very serious. We aren’t talking about the jack-Mormon who indulges in a beer with his buddies after work. We aren’t even talking about the Sunday School President who might lose his Temple Recommend for six months or so.

We are talking about one of the leaders of the church; an apostle, who stands to lose everything he has ever worked for; his calling, his position, his reputation, even his membership in the church—and for what? Just how probable IS that? **

Just forget about whether I believe that he is really an apostle. Just use your head for a minute. If you had all that to lose, would YOU go in a bar (even an exclusive country club bar) and order an alcoholic beverage? I mean…REALLY?

.

I just don’t understand the thought that you’d just discard all the good a man has done, write him off because he failed somewhere. The man was a sinner the nerve, to heck with everything he’s said and done. What’s with that were the Apostles sinless? I don’t remember anything telling me this was the case. It seems to me that by putting so much emphasis on your apostles keeping their covenants you are trusting the arm of flesh.

I wasn’t going to snip your comments (you didn’t like it the last time I did it) but I had too many characters so I chopped. I’m worn out right now so it maybe I chopped badly I don’t know. And as I said before I’m not sure I can really articulate the trouble I have here hopefully I’ve done a bit better than the last post.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Although I have the poster who originally wrote this on ignore, I saw this quote in the post of another member, describing me:

“here is a woman who is a self described enemy of the Mormons”

This is patently false. I am no one’s enemy. I have never described myself as such, nor would it be possible for the person who wrote that to provide any evidence whatsoever to show that I have. Indeed, I challenge anyone to establish any sort of proof that I, at any time, described myself as “enemy of the Mormons”. Anyone who tries will fail because I never have done so and never would.

It’s true that I have many reservations about the Mormons ~ both their theology as well as the corruption in the church, particularly the within the hierarchy, which, at times, I believe has absolutely reeked of hypocrisy. I have personal knowledge of several instances of hypocrisy and/or corruption, and the incident of the so-called apostle in the bar is the LEAST troublesome of them all. The others involved such things as rape and other types of personal abuse and the corruption extended in some cases all the way to the First Presidency of the Church. So yes, there are many aspects of Mormonism that I have little respect for. But I have never described myself as an “enemy of the Mormons.”

Despite my reservations about the faith itself and the organization, I have many friends who are Mormons, going back over 40 years. I have worked with them in various cultural activities in the local area for years ~ giving my assistance where I could. To say that I am a “self described enemy of the Mormons” is a lie and it says a lot about the character of the person who wrote it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Although I have the poster who originally wrote this on ignore, I saw this quote in the post of another member, describing me:

This is patently false. I am no one’s enemy. I have never described myself as such, nor would it be possible for the person who wrote that to provide any evidence whatsoever to show that I have. Indeed, I challenge anyone to establish any sort of proof that I, at any time, described myself as “enemy of the Mormons”. Anyone who tries will fail because I never have done so and never would.

I wouldn’t worry about it. The LDS Church and its members have a long tradition of demonizing people who fight against their falsehoods and fallacies. They don’t address what you are saying. They attack you for saying it. Joseph Smith was well known for destroying people’s reputations, utterly, and completey, for not going along with his game.

That is their tactic. Always has been. Always will be.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I wouldn’t worry about it. The LDS Church and its members have a long tradition of demonizing people who fight against their falsehoods and fallacies. They don’t address what you are saying. They attack you for saying it. Joseph Smith was well known for destroying people’s reputations, utterly, and completey, for not going along with his game.

That is their tactic. Always has been. Always will be.

You make an excellent point Rebecca (as usual!) One would think that a faith that has honesty as one of their core beliefs ~ isn’t being truthful one of the printed Mormon rules? ~ would actually strive to behave accordingly, but I guess not. Maybe there is some unwritten “protect the church at all costs” exception.

The doubts about the incident involving the apostle is one thing. Proceeding to call me a liar, I suppose, could be expected, albeit rather extreme. But this last one is interesting because it is so very easy to disprove, so why would anyone go there? I find it remarkable that a person, in the process of attempting to denigrate someone with whom they disagree, would deliberately tell an obvious falsehood that could be easily verified within this forum if anyone wanted to spend the time to do so. Amazing really isn’t the right word, but it’s Lent and I’ll stick with that for now.