Another Mormon publicly displays their ignorance of past church teachings

[helemon]

http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/view/letters/1934652.shtml
As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (more commonly known as Mormons), I was surprised to learn from Pastor Susan D. Wynn (letter to the editor, Sept. 4) that everything I have been taught in church -- and everything I taught as a missionary in France -- was seemingly wrong.

Specifically, the writer relied upon rumor to wrongly assert we believe Adam is God the Father; that Adam came to the Garden of Eden with one of his many wives; that Adam is the "only Mormon God"; that Jesus Christ is the literal offspring of Adam (that "character" from the garden); and so forth.

Those rumors are not what we believe. Indeed, one of our Articles of Faith reads: "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." Other readily available teachings would put to rest the other false assertions made about the Mormons by those without understanding.

If anyone would like to know the truth about Christian/Mormon doctrine, I invite them to visit the web site http://www.mormon.org. And, of course, we would be happy to be invited to send two nice young men or women to your homes for brief discussions about our faith.

David R. Carlson

Vale, Ore.

Carlsonlaw@fmtc.com

Should we love bomb him with the truth? :D

[helemon]

http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/view/letters/1915480.shtml

I am responding to the Aug. 28 article in the Kennebec Journal about Mormonism, "200 Years Since Smith Birth, Mormonism Surges." The reporter from the Los Angeles Times identified Mormonism as a "branch of Christianity." According to two authoritative books, "Handbook of Today's Religions," by McDowell and Stewart, and "The Kingdom of the Cults," by Walter Martin, Mormonism is a heretical cult. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the deity.

Here is what the Mormons believe (among other things), according to their own documents: 1) God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man. He passed through a school of Earth life similar to that through which we are now passing. 2) The universe is inhabited by different gods who procreate spirit children, which in turn are clothed with bodies on different planets. 3) When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. 4) Jesus was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in heaven.

Please be warned that the Mormon definitions of Jesus Christ, the Heavenly Father and the Spirit, differ vastly from Christianity's and are unbiblical.

Pastor Susan D. Wynn

Living Streams Fellowship

Farmingdale

[helemon]

http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/view/letters/1934659.shtml

I think it is shocking that you would print the Sept. 4 letter to the editor by Pastor Susan D. Wynn about how Mormons are not Christians. Even more journalistically negligent is to allow, as your source, a book called "The Kingdom of the Cults," as referenced by the leader of a competing church, who called Mormons "heretics."

I thought we were 1,000 years beyond the day when some religious pseudo-authority could expect action solely by throwing around the word "heretic." You could at least have asked any Mormon if the things in that letter were true, because they weren't.

To wantonly offend one of the largest religions in the U.S. is not only journalistically irresponsible, but academically negligent and bad for business. I expect a strong retraction.

Colin Jensen

San Francisco, Calif.

colin@auctionvideo.com

[hamar]

http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/view/letters/1934652.shtml


Should we love bomb him with the truth? :D

Absofinglutely! Give him some of his churchs own history and quotes from BY and see what kind of cogdis that creates for him. He makes me want to puke. :Puking

[why me]

http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/view/letters/1915480.shtml
Can we claim that this pastor is a christian? Probably not. It is strange that another christian church which I am sure focuses their faith on love your neighbor would attack the LDS chruch and its members by claiming for the upteenth time that mormons are not christians. After all...who has a definition as to what a christian is or is not? This pastor needs to read her bible and begin to consider the welfare of her own flock and not mind other flocks. She is a TBH---a true blue hypocrite. Sorry this has nothing to do with my feelings toward mormonism---I could be the worse mormon or apostate but if I were a pastor my words would be love for others and respect for others. Not some biased account of who and what is a christian. Regardless how one believes in the new testament and its teachings, if your fellow christ and his message and act on his message...you are a christian imo. This pastor needs to go back to bible school and learn love. Is she a christian? Now that should be investigated....

[peter_mary]

http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/view/letters/1934652.shtml


Should we love bomb him with the truth? :D

I sent this tid-bit to Mr. Carlson:

Dear Mr. Carlson,

I read with interest your letter to the editor in the Kennebec Journal online regarding the “false rumors” of Pastor Susan Wynn on Mormonism. Since you stated so emphatically that Ms. Wynn’s remarks were merely false rumors, I thought you might find the following of interest, and at least provide her the benefit of the doubt when lambasting her or others for presenting factual accounts of Mormon doctrine, albeit outdated Mormon doctrine.

For example, in a sermon preached by Brigham Young on April 9, 1852 and captured for posterity in the Journal of Discourses, the Prophet of the Church stated rather clearly and emphatically:

"When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do.... When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family....
"It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael....
"Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven." (1 J.D. 50-51).

Or how about:

“Do any of you know anything about the creation of this world? Oh yes, we understand a good deal about from the account given in the Bible. But let us turn our attention to the God with which we have to do. I tell you simply, He is our Father; the God and Father of Lord Jesus Christ, and the Father of our spirits. Can that be possible? Yes, it is possible, He is the Father of all the spirits of the human family…

“I tell you more, Adam is the Father of our spirits. He lived upon an earth; he did abide his creation, and did honor to his calling and Priesthood; and obeyed his Master or Lord, and probably many of his wives did the same, and they lived, and died upon an earth, and then were resurrected again to Immortality and Eternal life…

“I reckon that Father Adam was a resurrected being, with his wives and posterity, and in the Celestial Kingdom they were crowned with Glory[,] Immortality[,] and Eternal Lives, with Thrones, Principalities and Powers: and it was said t him[:] It is your right to organize the elements; and to your Creations and Posterity there shall be no end, but you shall add Kingdom to Kingdom, and Throne to Throne; and still behold the vast eternity of unorganized matter…

“I will tell you, when you see your Father in the Heavens, you will see Adam.” Brigham Young, “I Propose to Speak upon a Subject That Does Not Immediately Concern Yours or My Welfare,” 8 Oct. 1854, rpt. In Essential Brigham Young, 86-89.

Subsequently, a debate raged for years between Young and Orson Pratt on the original nature of God. Pratt maintained that Adam was formed by God…Young maintained that Adam WAS God, and that AS God, he also fathered Jesus Christ.

You are correct that this is not what the Mormons believe today. The Church has since rejected this teaching. However, for many of us, this creates an uncomfortable realization. Let me quote from Orson Hyde, of the Quorum of 12 Apostles in Brigham’s day, and in direct reference to the teachings of Brigham Young:

“To acknowledge that this is the Kingdom of God, and that there is a presiding power, and to admit that he can advance incorrect doctrine, is to lay the ax at the root of the tree. Will He [God] suffer His mouthpiece to go into error? No. He would remove him, and place another there. [B]ro. Brigham may err in the price of a horse, or a House and lot, [but] in the revelations from God, where is the man that has given thus said the Lord when it was not so? I cannot find one instance…We ought to be wedded to the truth—to the Priesthood—and to the authority of God. The presiding power in Heaven rebukes Angels, and what is the result, then[,] if the presiding power cannot rebuke us, who are we? [B]ro Brigham is responsible for the doctrine taught in this Church…” Orson Hyde, quoted from “Great Salt Lake City, Council of the Twelve in Historian’s upper room, April 5, 1860, 10 a.m.,” Thomas Bullock, scribe, Brigham Young Papers.

It is apparently clear to all but Orson Pratt that Brigham Young was teaching revealed doctrine, else he would be removed from his seat of authority by none other than God Himself.

Many have posited that Brigham was speaking without the benefit of revelation, and that subsequent Prophets have felt comfortable undoing what previous Prophets have done (polygamy stands as one of the most glaring examples of this practice.) Nevertheless, IF Brigham Young was a prophet, how does one explain the following:

“President Young queried whether the brethren thought he was too liberal in launching out on this doctrine [Adam-God] before the Gentiles. He was positive of the truth of the doctrine, but thought we should be cautious about preaching doctrines unless we fully understand them by the power of the Spirit, then they commend themselves to the hearts of our hearers. Spoke of the vain theories of men with regard to the Great first Cause. Said there were many revelations given to him that he did not receive from the Prophet Joseph. He did not receive them as Joseph Smith did but when he did receive them he knew of their truth as much as it was possible for him to do of any truth.” Minutes of the Salt Lake City School of the Prophets, 9 June 1871.

So positive was Brigham of the truth of this doctrine, he proposed to retool the temple endowment ceremony to include this doctrine, but the ongoing debate with Orson Pratt, and his death, prevented the change from occurring.

In spite of what this may seem, it is not my intent to suggest that your faith is wrong. I once shared your same views. However, it was this very type of inconsistency in what the Church knows about itself that was a portion of what caused me to come to other conclusions. See, it doesn’t seem rational or reasonable that we could honor Brigham Young as a Prophet of God, and yet reject the flag-ship doctrine that established his prophetic calling! Brigham was clear in his teaching, and many in the Quorum of the 12 supported him in that view. Other minds prevailed after his death, and the doctrine quickly fell out of favor. But the question that is fair to ask is, “If he was in fact a Prophet of God, then how could he err so egregiously on points of doctrine?” Further, how can the Church claim the privilege of prophetic revelation, yet insist on determining what is true by committee, rather than revelation? See, the Adam-God theory was rejected later because the other brethren couldn’t any longer defend it in good faith. So it quietly went away. Is that how God operates? It seems to many of us that it would be a rather weak God who guided his Church that way.

So the other question, then, that begs to be asked is, “If this is what a Prophet taught, then ultimately, shouldn’t those who are true to the faith still hold such beliefs?” Pastor Wynn is making this assumption (though rationally faulty) when she makes her statements regarding what the Mormons REALLY believe. It IS what the Mormons really BELIEVED at one time, and you could argue that any who deviate from those Prophetic utterances have deviated from Mormonism. Indeed, this is the fundamentalist Mormon argument in favor of the continued practice of polygamy…the flag-ship doctrine of Joseph Smith that was also later rejected for practical rather than divine reasons.

I simply provide these thoughts to you with the hope of expanding your personal awareness of the History of your Church, so that the next time you choose to stand so far out on a limb condemning the reasonable criticisms of others concerning the LDS Church, that you might do so with increased understanding and awareness. Unfortunately, Pastor Wynn was not so removed from the truth as your letter would have suggested.

Sincerely,

[Peter_Mary]

Don't know if he'll consider it "love bombing" or just "bombing" :rolleyes: , but I'll let you know if I hear back from him. I'll send the same letter to the other writer, too...

Peter_Mary

[peter_mary]

I got a nice response from Mr. Jensen, one of the letter writers. Thought I'd share it. While it does demonstrate some of the "group-think" in the Church, he resisted the temptation to "flame" me, and provided a rational, thoughtful response, which I thanked him for.

Peter_Mary

Let me respond by simply saying that while it appears that Brigham Young believed these things, that has and had no bearing on the doctrine of the LDS church. Let me second say that I am familiar with those quotes, and they've never bothered me at all actually. I was required to study them in one of my classes (actually a PE class) back at BYU, and I don't recall anyone in the class squirming. So it's simply inaccurate and self-flattery to imply that I wrote that letter to the editor out of brainwashed ignorance. On the contrary, "Pastor" Susan Wynn was repeating the rote arguments I've heard all my life, and no real newspaper would print such without at least disclaiming that nothing called "The Kingdom of the Cults" is to be considered an authority on who's who in Christianity. Overall, Ms. Wynn was arguing those points as evidence Mormons aren't Christians, and only attempts to evidence that one Mormon once believed such things, which is patently irrelevant.

As a discussion metaphor, I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam-God_theory

So, first point: if those comments were 100% historically true, they're still not "Mormon Doctrine." Mormon doctrine is the stated doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and that Adam is God is simply not Mormon Doctrine. Susan could even have tried to argue that any Mormons believe Adam is God, but she didn't, and if she had tried she would have seen that there's probably no one out there that does believe that.

2) These arguments always revolve around the argument that if a prophet said it, it must be the infallible doctrine of the church. To argue otherwise requires that, if you believe in the Bible, that when Paul publicly argued with Peter over the necessity of circumcision, Paul was no longer a Christian and is now in hell. That is the extension of the argument that if Brigham Young thought Adam was God, Mormons today are responsible for defending that notion. But that's not how we see the role of a prophet. Joseph Smith made some unwise business decisions, Brigham Young offended some people, and the current prophet, in my opinion, is taking way too long getting centralized employee-training onto the web. But outside of the times when the Lord was speaking directly to Brigham Young, telling him what to say to the world, Brigham Young's word wasn't any more inspired than anyone else's. Again, in the New Testament, not everything Peter and Paul said was infallible canon (otherwise they could never have disagreed.) In the same note, it sounds like you were around in the Bruce R McConkie days, and if you remember one of his points on his famous list of things every man has to consider is to realize that the prophet's only the prophet when he's prophesying.

And, as a point of reference, I don't own a Journal of Discourses; neither does my local church; neither does anyone I know. I know they sell them, but if they were a reference point for doctrine, the church would distribute them. As such, I'm pretty confident that what you wrote wasn't directly typed from a Journal of Discourses--you probably got it from some webpage that got it from some webpage that got it from another webpage. In fact, the ellipses were in the same place..., so we know that's true. :)

Okay, lemme get back on the subject. My own reading of history doesn't show that Orson Pratt and Brigham Young fought over this topic, rather that the two of them argued over whether it, as metaphor, was comprehensible to the masses. Meaning it was a PR debate.

Anyway, yes, I am familiar with these theories, and the history around it. I did simplify down to 100 words for my letter to the editor, because the topic at hand wasn't about whether Brigham Young believed these things, but whether Mormons believe these things, and the answer to that is a simply No.

Thanks for writing.

[Born Free]

I got a nice response from Mr. Jensen, one of the letter writers. Thought I'd share it. While it does demonstrate some of the "group-think" in the Church, he resisted the temptation to "flame" me, and provided a rational, thoughtful response, which I thanked him for.

Peter_Mary
P_M,

This response just enabled me to get a bead on another tactic used by any group wanting to maintain mind-control.

Rather than pretending criticisms don't exist, there is some tactical value in exposing the young to them early, well before their own critical faculties are developed. That way the existence of the material is no surprise, and any emotional shock has been dissipated and even turned against the 'anti-Mormon' argument. This tactic then largely precludes the TBM from ever revisiting the criticism in their maturity, and countenancing the full impact of the content.

The writer clearly has not gone close to thinking through the implications of the gap between what one 'Prophet of God' said is completely out of synch with what another 'Prophet of God' has stated. He fails to see that he and all followers are just that, truely proverbial sheep, following blindly. It exhibits either extremely low IQ, or extremely well learned response patterns that preclude thinking at any level in selected areas.

I loved in listening to some of Byron Katie's material her reference to seeing our 'story' as a religion. Our particular biase or filter on the world become so foundational, that the very consideration of jettisoning it feels like the risk of annihilation (which of course it is of the ego). Mormonism is very adept at getting those filters in place early and deep, and anchored with emotion.

Daryl

[peter_mary]

P_M,

This response just enabled me to get a bead on another tactic used by any group wanting to maintain mind-control.

Rather than pretending criticisms don't exist, there is some tactical value in exposing the young to them early, well before their own critical faculties are developed. That way the existence of the material is no surprise, and any emotional shock has been dissipated and even turned against the 'anti-Mormon' argument. This tactic then largely precludes the TBM from ever revisiting the criticism in their maturity, and countenancing the full impact of the content.

Daryl

I think this is spot-on, and I expect the Church to use it more and more as information becomes more readily available (i.e. the internet). The popularity of the FAIR boards is also indicative that Mormons are, at least in some circles, willing to inundate themselves with some edgy stuff, becoming desensitized in the process.

See, if you fundamentally lack the ability to ask, "What if this is true," or "what if I've been wrong?" then you actually have no trouble dealing with the controversial stuff. You just turn your jet-propelled, turbo-charged rationalizers on, and you can spin any matter of faith into a solution that fits your existing paradigm.

I expect to see more and more Mormons who are satisfied with the wrote answers on the Kinderhook plates, polyandry, temple changes, and on and on...

Oh well...they can have their club if they want it.

Peter_Mary

[free thinker]

In the same note, it sounds like you were around in the Bruce R McConkie days, and if you remember one of his points on his famous list of things every man has to consider is to realize that the prophet's only the prophet when he's prophesying.

And when is he speaking as a prophet? Well that is simple. When we say he is!!

And since we have a current prophet, he can let us know at any time that what was taught before was not necessarily inspired. Cuz he is a prophet. etc. etc etc and so on and so forth. :cool:

I love it. A completely unassailable position.

free thinker

[why me]

Now people lets be fair. The guy responded and his response was rather good, in that he was polite and showed his logic in the matter. The guy did not have to respond to P_M at all. Since he did respond, it shows some civil engagement with the general public including former mormons. (I am assuming the P_M was honest in who he was). But the guy's interpretation is different from P_M's but nonetheless it is still legitamate as P_M's take on it is. I suppose that these things will be debated until time ends with no clear winners or losers. It is just that--a debate or a dialogue. But my hat goes off to the guy because he did responded in some length to P_M's letter and my hat goes off to P_M because he wrote a letter hoping for a reply to his own concerns and questions.

But I still say that the Pastor should be ashamed of herself. There is no room for such talk as to whether this church or that church is christian. One can discuss doctrine of different faiths and differences but one should not say that this or that church is not christian because of this or that doctrine, especially in the way that she said it.

[Born Free]

In the same note, it sounds like you were around in the Bruce R McConkie days, and if you remember one of his points on his famous list of things every man has to consider is to realize that the prophet's only the prophet when he's prophesying.

And when is he speaking as a prophet? Well that is simple. When we say he is!!

And since we have a current prophet, he can let us know at any time that what was taught before was not necessarily inspired. Cuz he is a prophet. etc. etc etc and so on and so forth. :cool:

I love it. A completely unassailable position.

free thinker

BUT, they had better not ever complain about the view. :duh

From my perspective, it looks like they are perpetually at risk of disappearing up their own fundamental orifice. :eek:

Daryl

[silverfox]

Am I confused or does this....

"So, first point: if those comments were 100% historically true, they're still not "Mormon Doctrine." Mormon doctrine is the stated doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and that Adam is God is simply not Mormon Doctrine."

....conflict with the 14 fundamentals in following a prophet?

What is or isn't "doctrine"????? Refer to the second and sixth bullets below. Once I read this I viewed the words of early prophets as well as modern day prophets much differently. I couldn't shrug them off as easliy as some TBMs do. So where is the line drawn as to what is or isn't doctrine or scripture? Sounds like it is left up to the individual member to figure that out which just results in continuing debate.


http://www.postmormon.org/forum_vb/showthread.php?t=168&highlight=fundamentals

FOURTEEN FUNDAMENTALS IN FOLLOWING THE PROPHETS
By President Ezra Taft Benson
BYU Devotional Assembly
Tuesday, February 26, 1980, 10:00 a.m.

FIRST: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

"Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

"For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith."

"For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you."

Did you hear what the Lord said about the words of the prophet? We are to "give heed unto all his words"--as if from the Lord's "own mouth."

SECOND: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

THIRD: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

FOURTH: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident, which happened to him:

I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President (Heber J.) Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home....Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray." (CR, October 1960, p. 78)

FIFTH: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

SIXTH: The prophet does not have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture.

Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel, but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, "Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you." (D&C 21:4).

SEVENTH: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

EIGHTH: The prophet is not limited by men's reasoning.

NINTH: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

TENTH: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.

ELEVENTH: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

TWELFTH: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

THIRTEENTH: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency--the highest quorum in the Church.

FOURTEENTH: The prophet and the presidency--the living prophet and the First Presidency--follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.

[peter_mary]

FOURTEEN FUNDAMENTALS IN FOLLOWING THE PROPHETS
By President Ezra Taft Benson
BYU Devotional Assembly
Tuesday, February 26, 1980, 10:00 a.m.

FIRST: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.



I LOVE this little devotional from Ezra Taft Benson, because it is among the single most self-aggrandizing bits of Church-speak I have EVER encountered! Imagine the audacity to stand up before an audience and lay down the law as to why we should follow the prophet...it is tautology at it's finest. Let me boil it down to it's most critical essence:

"The Prophet says, "Do what the Prophet says."

Gosh...how do you argue with THAT! :rolleyes:

Peter_Mary

[peter_mary]

Since he did respond, it shows some civil engagement with the general public including former mormons. (I am assuming the P_M was honest in who he was).

You read (or could have) what I sent him...I was clear in my letter that I formerly believed what he does, but have since come to other conclusions.

The ironic thing is, he invited me to come and post on a forum that he and his wife run for faithful mormons to talk about stuff (not unlike how we do things, only they are Church-positive). In perusing the posts on the thread he started concerning his letter to the the Kennebec Journal Online, he was challenged as to why he indicated he was from San Francisco in his letter, when in fact he is from Provo, attending BYU. He confessed that he thought it would bring him more credibility if he said he was from where he was born, i.e. Northern California, rather than where he currently resides. People would just assume that if he's a BYU student, he's a blind zealot, but if he can convince people he's from somewhere else, then maybe they'll believe him.

Anyone else see the irony therein? And why_me hopes I was honest about ME! :rolleyes:

Peter_Mary

[why me]

People would just assume that if he's a BYU student, he's a blind zealot, but if he can convince people he's from somewhere else, then maybe they'll believe him.

Anyone else see the irony therein? And why_me hopes I was honest about ME! :rolleyes:

Peter_Mary
But you must know P_M that what he said was basically true. I am sure that even on this site all BYU or 'Utard' people would be suspect of zealotry. And so it does make sense for him to say that he was from the place of his birth for the reasons that he mentioned. The thing is is that he responded to your letter rather throughly with his own beliefs. Of course we could disagree with him over doctrinal intent but still he gave his ideas gracefully to you. He could have just ignored you. But in truth, he should have said that he was from 'Utard' and be done with it and accept the abuse that it would have incured. And he did give you an invite to post on his thread if I understood correctly. He sounds like a real upright guy. We could invite a tbm to post here but I think that it would cause too much trauma for some. Very few would want to hear the same old stuff again. I guess the question is. what could he have done not to be looked down upon by people who may disagree with him? Quite frankly I don't understand the whole adam/god thing. I remember hearing about it a few years ago but I never went in for deep doctrine. My little brain is to small for such comphending. Are you going to post on his site?

[peter_mary]

But you must know P_M that what he said was basically true.

Why_me...now you are rationalizing "truth telling," my friend. Seems to me that it is ironic that he was lambasting the 'pastor' on the site for being deceptive about what Mormons believe, and at the very same time, deliberately misleading people about where he lives. The pastor was misleading for the purposes of strengthening her argument...and so was he. They were guilty of the same damn thing, and that bugs me.

Are you going to post on his site?

Haven't decided. I might...and I would be respectful.

Peter_Mary

[flotsam]

P_M,
What's the URL for this guy's forum?

[why me]

Why_me...now you are rationalizing "truth telling," my friend. Seems to me that it is ironic that he was lambasting the 'pastor' on the site for being deceptive about what Mormons believe, and at the very same time, deliberately misleading people about where he lives. The pastor was misleading for the purposes of strengthening her argument...and so was he. They were guilty of the same damn thing, and that bugs me.



Haven't decided. I might...and I would be respectful.

Peter_Mary
P_M, When you pasted that one sentence about what I said about him saying what was basically true and poor postmo here can misinterpret it to mean that I agree with his gospel line, rather than agreeing with him about being trampled upon for now living in 'Utard'. After all, when someone writes Utard it basically means that the mos living there are Utardans, which is of course not the best way to describe a people. That was my point. I think that people are quick to judge the 'Utards'. Do you see what I mean. I also said that he should have been up front where he is now from but I think that he realizes his mistake---to err is human. I also would like to know his forum webpage. Have fun in Idaho! How are the spuds this year? :)

[silverfox]

P_M, When you pasted that one sentence about what I said about him saying what was basically true and poor postmo here can misinterpret it to mean that I agree with his gospel line, rather than agreeing with him about being trampled upon for now living in 'Utard'. After all, when someone writes Utard it basically means that the mos living there are Utardans, which is of course not the best way to describe a people. That was my point. I think that people are quick to judge the 'Utards'. Do you see what I mean. I also said that he should have been up front where he is now from but I think that he realizes his mistake---to err is human. I also would like to know his forum webpage. Have fun in Idaho! How are the spuds this year? :)

You got it wrong...well from my point of view anyway. I call Utah "UTARD" mostly because of the politics/church influence here. It has NOTHING to do with thinking any ONE is Utardan.

The liquor laws are too strict, IMO. You can't walk on the Main Street Plaza (owned by the church) with any beer logo on you shirt without being escorted off of it by church security. (it's a VERY public street and the only short access to get through the block but many have to go around because they are wearing spaghetti straps, halter tops, etc)

And the Mormon church uses their influence waaaaaay too much in politics.

That is why I call it Utard. It is very different than anywhere I have ever lived and I have lived in staunch Catholic and ethnic communities. Never before have I seen so much influenced by one organization.

The mountains are beautiful and they are what lured me here and they are a big part of why I stay. Well, that and because my roots are deep here with grandkids and all. Had I left the church sooner I most likely would have moved out of state. But I can't stand the thought of being away from my kids and grandkids.

[free thinker]

Joseph Smith made some unwise business decisions, ...


The last time I checked, bank fraud was considered criminal, not inept.

We just sent Bernie Ebbers to prison for the rest of his life for this type thing.

free thinker

[cactus jack]

Free Thinker, I agree. But isn't it a bit late to try and put ol' Joseph in the klink?

[helemon]

http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/view/letters/1968236.shtml
This is to set the record straight regarding the letter by the Rev. Susan D. Wynn (Sept. 4) in which she wrote that Mormons believe that Adam is God the Father.

Brigham Young, leader of the Mormons in Utah in the second half of the 19th century, did in fact teach this doctrine. Young claimed that this was revealed to him by God. Copies of Young's writings stating this have been posted on the Internet.

In 1976, however, church president Spencer Kimball declared that the Adam-God doctrine was false. So while David R. Carlson (letter, Sept. 10) is correct that the Adam-God doctrine is not taught by the Mormon church, he failed to mention that it had been taught and accepted as divine revelation at one time.

Wynn was correct that Mormon doctrine holds that God the Father is a "glorified and perfected Man" (Mormon Doctrine, p. 319), and that there are multiple gods (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370).

These points went unchallenged by Carlson.

Interested readers might want to do some research about the events reported in the Book of Mormon and the archeological evidence as to whether these events ever really happened.

Owen Buck

Winthrop