From an LDS Scholar "...when determining whether or not Joseph could have written the Book of Mormon, we should actually be looking at the first edition...and not the current version...which has been altered by people other than Joseph Smith." Thoughts?

Neither do I. I have a replica edition of the First Edition 1830 BoM and I'll take it over the POS modern version that the Missionary's hand out and that is sold in Book Stores any day of the week and twice on Sunday (literally on the latter)!
.
And you're right. If it was, as Joseph Smith said, "The most correct book . . . " then why were ANY modifications required?

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 20th, 2009

>I always am leery of comments by unnamed "LdS scholars". I am not even sure how one qualifies for such a distinction.<
.
He explained his reasons for remaining unnamed in his 2008 Sunstone Interview:
http://www.mormonthink.com/files/sunstone.pdf
.
(Deconstructor's reasons for remaining unnamed are similar from what I understand)
.
Perhaps if the LDS Church would stop Excommunicating Scholars who ask or investigate difficult questions the practice of remaining unnamed won't be so prevalent.
.
>I disagree with that statement in part. Joseph Smith Jr made numerous corrections to the 1830 edition (and other early printings) while he was still alive<
.
Yes, which also brings the claims of it's divine origins into question. If it was divine and "correct" why does it need to constantly be changed?
.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 2nd, 2009

This is a big topic I would recommend that you read the pull quote in it's full context by using this link:
.
http://www.mormonthink.com/josephweb.htm#sgnificant
.
>The only changes to the Book of Mormon (in English) since the murder of Joseph have been in the non-canonized parts (chapter headings, foot notes, Introduction, etc)<
.
This is glaringly and blatantly incorrect. While this may be true in the majority of cases, there have indeed been substantive changes made as well. Again, another big topic so here's the link to the source:
.
http://www.mormonthink.com/bomweb.htm#mostcorrectbook

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 2nd, 2009

Most changes aren't dated on that page, so without immense research (ie read every verse of every edition) I couldn't tell who was Prophet at the time of the change. The 1981 edition reintroduced corrections which Joseph made to the 1830 edition.

• Report

by laie_techie on April 3rd, 2009

Joseph Smith made those changes in 1835. He only did it one time - no great mystery there.
.
All the changes that followed were done by others.
.
However, in the First Edition the LDS involved refused to let the printer fix the grammatical errors:
.
"When the printer was ready to commence work, Harris was notified, and Hyrum Smith brought the first installment of manuscript ... On the second day - Harris and Smith being in the office - I called their attention to a grammatical error, and asked whether I should correct it? Harris consulted with Smith a short time, and turned to me and said: 'The Old Testament is ungrammatical, set it as it is written.' ... .
.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 3rd, 2009

"Cowdery held and looked over the manuscript when most of the proofs were read. Martin Harris once or twice, and Hyrum Smith once, Grandin supposing these men could read their own writing as well, if not better, than any one else; and if there are any discrepancies between the Palmyra edition and the manuscript these men should be held responsible."
(Memorandum, made by John H. Gilbert, Esq., September 8, 1892, Palmyra, N.Y., printed in Joseph Smith Begins His Work, Vol. 1, Introduction)
.
The clear implication was that they considered the text sacred and inerrant despite these flaws.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 3rd, 2009

There’s a big difference between “sacred” and “inerrant,” Mister_IT. Even if Hyrum and Oliver thought the Book of Mormon to be “inerrant,” the Book’s own title page (written by the prophet Moroni) takes the opposite position.
 
Frankly, I think this quote is the best support I’ve ever heard for the changes found in the second edition!
:-)

• Report

by the Otter on April 5th, 2009

.
But Otter if they were a part of the "sacred" nature of the narrative in the First Edition how and why did they become "errors" in the Second Edition.
.
There's a glaring inconsistency here.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 10th, 2009

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." (Title Page of the Book of Mormon)

• Report

by laie_techie on April 11th, 2009

.
Yes, I'm familiar with that "escape clause" passage. Nice touch by Rigdon, Smith, Cowdery, or whoever wrote it. Very clever indeed!
.
BUT that still doesn't explain why they wouldn't let the printer correct the "sacred" errors in the First Edition YET they became important enough to correct in the Second and subsequent editions.
.
The pattern seems to be that the text is "sacred" until it's scrutinized and questioned by someone outside the LDS system then it's suddenly not-so-sacred that it can't be changed to silence the critics.
.
Then the critics criticize the change, find more issues and the pattern repeats, repeats, and repeats again.
.
And this has been the case SINCE the First Edition. So I think that this scholar has a point.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 11th, 2009

I agree in concept. However, practically speaking I'd be pretty impressed to see a First Edition of The Bible, The Koran, and many other ancient works, let alone the original manuscripts.
.
At least with the Book of Mormon we have the First Published Edition and, I believe, 5-pages of the original manuscripts.
.
This is one of the aspects of Mormon Studies that makes it so rewarding - the source material is still available in most cases.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 2nd, 2009

Thank you.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 5th, 2009

Except Nahom. :) Besides, most of the cities in the Book of Mormon were named by Nephites, while the Lamanites were the only people who servived. The Lamanites hated the Nephites with a deep fiery passion, and I have no doubt that they "destalinized" everything.

Besides, the thing about the civilization being mathematically impossible: 1) There were more gold plates that were written than Smith transalated. There was a whole roomful of them. Smith just transalated what God wanted him to transalate, so maybe there are more generations whose records we don't have. 2) You'd be surprised how many children Mormons could have lol. The largest Mormon family that I know personally was 18. Biologically. And back then, they started so very young.

• Report

by Seanne on May 10th, 2009

>The largest Mormon family that I know personally was 18<
.
WOW! I hope that the Father makes some SERIOUS money in his "day job" (apparently he has another job at night - if you know what I mean!)
.
;-)

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 11th, 2009

"No cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon still exist here in the Americas." How on earth do you know that? There are plenty of ancient mesoamerican cities that have been discovered, and more all the time. How do you know that none of these is a city from the Book of Mormon? Would you expect a stone inscription (in English) delaring "Welcome to the Book of Mormon City of Zarahemla"? My point is, we don't know what ANY of these cities were named anciently. What is truly interesting is how well these cities fit with what is described in the BoM, and that they were discovered long after JS's lifetime.

Also, the exact location of most of the cities named in the Bible is not known. Yes, we know where Jerusalem and a few others are, and there are a lot of other good guesses, but very few Biblical cities' exact locations are known. That's a fact.

• Report

by Tight E. Whitey on May 21st, 2009

>"No cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon still exist here in the Americas." How on earth do you know that?<
.
Gentlemen, Vernal Holley pretty much answered this question authoritatively as far as I'm concerned!
http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/holley/mormonmap.gif
http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/holley/modernmap.gif
http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/holley/holleymaps.htm
http://solomonspalding.com/docs2/2001vern.htm
http://sidneyrigdon.com/vern/vernP3.htm

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 21st, 2009

I'm not sure that I really understand your answer but I'm giving you full credit for answering none-the-less. Feel free to elaborate if you're so inclined.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 11th, 2009

Sorry to break it to you, Gino, but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a world religion, not a cult. Just in the past year, they had a quater of a million baptisms--converts, which don't count child baptisms--And, as I recall correctly, that was in the USA only. Catch me if I'm wrong, but I think those are the statistics.

Quarter of a million in one country. Hardly a cult.

• Report

by Seanne on May 11th, 2009

.
Numbers mean NOTHING.
.
And when you drill into the LDS Church's numbers you realize just how little it REALLY means. This is from Peggy Fletcher Stack of The Salt Lake Tribune; 06/22/2006:
.
Today, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has more than 12 million members on its rolls, more than doubling its numbers in the past quarter-century. But since 1990, other faiths - Seventh-day Adventists, Assemblies of God and Pentecostal groups - have grown much faster and in more places around the globe.
.
And most telling, the number of Latter-day Saints who are considered active churchgoers is only about a third of the total, or 4 million in the pews every Sunday, researchers say.
.
For a church with such a large, dedicated missionary corps constantly seeking to spread its word, conversion numbers in recent years tell an unexpected story.
.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 11th, 2009

According to LDS-published statistics, the annual number of LDS converts declined from a high of 321,385 in 1996 to 241,239 in 2004. In the 1990s, the church's growth rate went from 5 percent a year to 3 percent.
.
By comparison, the Seventh-day Adventist Church reports it has added more than 900,000 adult converts each year since 2000 (an average growth of about 5 percent), bringing the total membership to 14.3 million. The Assemblies of God now claims more than 50 million members worldwide, adding 10,000 new members every day.
.
Russia provides a dramatic example of different religious growth rates. After more than 15 years of proselyting there, LDS membership has risen to 17,000. During the same period, Jehovah's Witnesses membership has increased to more than 140,000, with some 300,000 individuals attending conferences.
.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 11th, 2009

Graphing activity: When the Graduate Center of the City University of New York conducted an American Religious Identification Survey in 2001, it discovered that about the same number of people said they had joined the LDS Church as said they had left it. The CUNY survey reported the church's net growth was zero percent. By contrast, the study showed both Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists with an increase of 11 percent.
.
"Because membership statistics are prepared and reported differently by various religious groups, the LDS Church does not publish comparisons of total membership to other faiths," said LDS spokesman Dale Bills on Friday.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 11th, 2009

On the question of how many Mormons are actively participating, Brigham Young University demographer Tim Heaton noted in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism that attendance at weekly sacrament meetings in the early 1990s was between 40 percent and 50 percent in Canada, the South Pacific, and the United States. In Europe and Africa, the average was 35 percent. Attendance in Asia and Latin America hovered around 25 percent.
.
By multiplying the number of members in each area by these fractions, David G. Stewart Jr. estimates worldwide activity at about 35 percent - which would give the church about 4 million active members.
.
http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=75079&catid=10

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 11th, 2009

.
AND I should have said: "Numbers mean NOTHING when it comes to determining a group is a cult or not."
.
For example by Steven Hassan's BITE criteria for determining whether a group is a Mind Control Cult or not, North Korea is the largest Cult in the world.
.
Since North Korea has a population of 23,479,088 (as of 2008) does that mean that they're NOT a cult?
.
I'm thinkin' not . . .
.
And I apologize for misstating my original premise.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 11th, 2009

So, a cult is basically "mind control?" can't any group of people be called that at all? Can't my poetry club at school be called a cult, because they all pressured me from writing cute little, light, rhyming poems into writing dark, depressing, free-verse poems? Can't the media be considered a cult? Can't ANY religion be called a cult, the Catholic Church, the Islamic faith, the othrodox Christian beliefs?

If I'm wrong, please enlighten me: What would be considered a cult, and what wouldn't?

• Report

by Seanne on May 14th, 2009

.
To be considered a Mind Control Cult certain criteria must be met. Steven Hassan has formalized and codified what used to be a less formal, less scientific model into his BITE Model which you can read about here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control#Steven_Hassan.27s_BITE_model
.
The best source of information on Cults is always former members - that's because they're no longer in a psychologically "snapped" state (which you can read about here http://www.rickross.com/reference/deprogramming/deprogramming7.html)
.
Several former LDS Church Members have done the BITE analysis on the LDS Church and there is now consensus that it is indeed a Mind Control Cult.
.
Here are the links:
http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=80005&catid=532
http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=80003&catid=532

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 14th, 2009

http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=80001&catid=532
http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=79855&catid=532
.
And, yes, to answer your question, if any of the groups you mention met the BITE criteria they too would be considered a Mind Control Cult.
.
For example Amway has been identified as a Mind Control Cult by both former minds and by Steven Hassan doing his own analysis.
.
The process is only partly subjective and to be "official" peer review and validation is required. The latter, of course, considered protection against subjectivity dominating the process.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 14th, 2009

I'm reading the BITE model, IT, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does not meet the following requirements:

-Need to ask permission for major decisions
-Need to report thoughts, feelings, and activities to superiors (It's encouraged, certainly, but not a "need.")
-Individualism discouraged; "group think" prevails
-Use of deception
-Access to non cult sources of information minimized or discouraged
-Spying on other members is encouraged
-Use of hypnotic techniques to induce altered mental states
-Manipulation of memories and implantation of false memories
-Rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism. No critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy seen as legitimate.
-No alternative belief systems viewed as legitimate, good, or useful (actually, many other belief systems are consisdered good and useful.)
-Manipulate and narrow the range of a person’s feelings
-Extremes of emotional highs and lows

• Report

by Seanne on May 14th, 2009

-Ritual and often public confession of "sins"

Sorry, there are just too many requirements missing from the BITE model. I don't think this Church should be considered a cult.

• Report

by Seanne on May 14th, 2009

You clearly did not read the peer reviewed assessments by former members.
.
Further as I stated plainly: "The best source of information on Cults is always former members - that's because they're no longer in a psychologically "snapped" state..."
.
You don't really believe that ANY member of any Mind Control Control that's made the list would do the BITE Model Assessment and say, "Oh yeah that's us!"
.
And I'm speaking from personal experience. I was IN a Mind Control Cult in the 1970/80's so I know what a "snapped" mental state is like. AND I know how I would have rationalized away about, oh, 90-99% of BITE for our group while I was in that state. So, no, your vote doesn't really count.
.
So you can chafe and burn all you like but the fact remains that the LDS Church has been consistently identified as a Mind Control Cult by former members - including Cult Professionals.
.
I've provided all the links and I encourage you to use them.
.
Bottom Line: The LDS Church is a Mind Control Cult.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 14th, 2009

haha I'm not chafeing or burning at all. I can tell you, I've never been encouraged to spy on other members. I've never been hypnotized (in fact, hypnosis is sort of frowned upon in the religion), I do relate everything that's taught to what I've learned in science and what my non-mormon friends tell me (so much fun to talk to other religions. It's a past time of mine), I do question my "betters" and what they teach me, I've never asked permission for major decisions...and nothing about confessions is ritualistic or public at all. When I was a kid i stole something from a kid in my class, and I confessed to him, the person I wronged. Nothing ritualistic about it. I'm sorry that my vote doesn't count; and former members can be...well, they left because they got a sudden hate for the LDS church, so they'll do anything to rip it down. they're the worst anti-mormons out there. I find their words no less credible than you find my vote because how hard they work to tear us up. fun debate tho

• Report

by Seanne on May 14th, 2009

>The following eight were just Joseph attempting to modify his previous statements<
.
Joe if you read the other versions that Joseph wrote after the original within the context of what was happening when they written it's clear that they were modified to adjust to a new challenge from within or without the LDS Church.
.
In other words, they were political revisionism.
.
It's also important to note that not all nine were written by Joseph Smith. Here are some useful links:
.
http://www.lds-mormon.com/fv.shtml
http://www.irr.org/mit/first-vision/fvision-accounts.html

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 4th, 2009

Hay thanks IT

• Report

by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on April 5th, 2009

…and yet all eight or nine (depending on who you ask) tell the same story. :-)

• Report

by the Otter on April 5th, 2009

Not exactly

• Report

by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on April 5th, 2009

Agreed. Otter the attempts to reconcile the 9 different account require some "creative license" to make all the pieces fit.
.
I like the way that this scholar presented this:
.
Picture yourself, for a moment, seated as a juror in a court of law where a criminal case is being tried. On the witness stand in his own defense, the defendant has just submitted to questioning by his attorney, during which questioning he related in detail his testimony as to what took place at the alleged crime scene. Now, as the cross-examination proceeds, the prosecuting attorney repeats the same questions. The defendant tells the story again, only this time he tells it differently. So, the prosecutor asks him to go through it all a third time. When he does, he changes his story again.
.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 5th, 2009

The clerk of the court is then asked to read aloud a statement the defendant signed shortly after his arrest, and this presents still another version of events. Summing up, the prosecutor points out that the defendant testified variously that a certain father and son were present at the scene, that only the son was present, and that neither was present; that he needed information and so asked a question, and that he already had the information and hence asked nothing; that a certain evil influence was present, and that it was not - and so on, with these and other aspects of the story changing each time it was retold. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury," the prosecutor concludes, "I leave it to you to decide whether the defendant is a credible witness on his own behalf."
("THE FIRST VISION" by John Farkas; http://www.bcmmin.org/firstv.html)

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 5th, 2009

I agree with your assessment of this hypothetical court case. However, I think it highly illogical to compare statements made by several different people to several different audiences over the course of a dozen years to statements made by a single individual to a single audience over the course of a few hours. Can you answer the following?
 
• When did Joseph say that the Father wasn’t present?
• When did Joseph say that the Son wasn’t present?
• When did Joseph say that no evil influence was present?
• When did Joseph say that he didn’t ask a question?
 
Here’s an excellent breakdown of nine different “versions” of the so-called “First Vision” (I hate that term—it was a Visitation, not a Vision; but I digress…), read side by side:
http://eldenwatson.net/harmony.htm
 
Just as the various overlapping Biblical narratives (e.g. the Gospels, among many others) form a perfect harmony, so do the modern narratives of Joseph’s experience. The only contradiction I found in the entire narrative was one the time Joseph said he was in his “16th year,” which still jives with his repeated statements that he was “about 12-15.” Besides that one tiny, rather irrelevant detail, I think it requires a lot more creativity to argue contradiction than harmony, here.
 
As always, HTH!

• Report

by the Otter on April 10th, 2009

It is all to common in the LDS faith to negate that the lack of evidence precludes existence.
& n b s p
"When did Joseph say that the Father wasn't present?"
Answering one of these is more than sufficient...
If you were to of had such an angelic incident happen to you, you can not argue that it would not be
burned into your memory. I would have to argue that if anyone ever saw an Angle or Jesus Christ or God, there is no way they would ever forget or misconstrue this memory. Having said that, not mentioning the existence of any other beings is proof enough. If God were to have been present, Joey would have said so. He needed to give credence as much as possible.

• Report

by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on April 10th, 2009

Otter, you are loosing credibility, http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/6092304
you've not cited any corruption in the bible. It is such a H U G E issue among the Mormon sect, yet no one can cite anything credible.

• Report

by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on April 10th, 2009

I will have to accept the fact that you have no evidence to backup your theory of corruption in the bible otter. Thanks for the enlightening conversation.

• Report

by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on April 10th, 2009

.
As I stated in a previous comment:
.
"...the attempts to reconcile the 9 different account require some "creative license" to make all the pieces fit."
.
Even faithful, practicing LDS Scholars (Bushman, Quinn, Palmer to name a few) admit that this is a "sticky wicket".
.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 10th, 2009

“If you were to of had such an angelic incident happen to you, you can not argue that it would not be
burned into your memory.”
 
Of course it would, JoeFraud. So again, tell me: when did Joseph say that the Father wasn’t present?

• Report

by the Otter on April 10th, 2009

Mister_IT, the same could be said for the Bible that you so wholeheartedly (and rightly) defend. That’s the problem: Joseph’s been dead for almost 165 years, so we can’t ask him why he said what he said, when he said it. It still doesn’t negate the fact that, with the possible exception of the “16th year” comment, his various accounts are only contradictory if construed as such.

• Report

by the Otter on April 10th, 2009

.
>Joseph’s been dead for almost 165 years, so we can’t ask him why he said what he said, when he said it. It still doesn’t negate the fact that, with the possible exception of the “16th year” comment, his various accounts are only contradictory if construed as such.<
.
OK, I'll give you that one Otter. Let's assume that this is just like the Bible and that the "contradictions" actually point to an over arching harmony.
.
In other words, it's a matter of interpreting the data not the data that's problem.
.
It's still just one of many, many, many data points that compromise Smith's claims to be a divine oracle.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 10th, 2009

Of course it would, JoeFraud. So again, tell me: when did Joseph say that the Father wasn’t present?
*
This is a ridiculous question and you are well aware of it. This is a last stand attempt at validating the inconsistency of the first vision versions.
*
At best - I mean really otter - AT BEST... the story would get less elaberate as time went on. If Joe were to be telling the truth. He would rember most of the info, the very first time he relayed it to someone. He would include all of the information. As time went on, he may loose some of the minor stuf... But seriously otter, come on... You can't be that blind to the truth? I mean look at it.

• Report

by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on April 10th, 2009

There are just to many other people - newspapers - historical documents to say otherwise. Your boy said that the vision was in a time of great evangelism. A great revival, yet the revival did not start till 4 years later. There is just to much overwhelming information in regard to just this one thing. It also just happens to be the vary foundation of this false religion.

• Report

by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on April 10th, 2009

>It also just happens to be the vary foundation of this false religion<
.
Which of course is why Biblical Christians find the contradictions so glaring and concerning "red flags" and why Latter Day Saints diminish them.
.
The other troubling thing is that Joseph Smith contradicts himself. In the Gospel accounts you don't find John contradicting his Gospel with his epistles or vice-versa. Ditto for Peter (his Gospel is "Mark" who we know from has his disciple and probably his scribe as most Fishermen were illiterate) Nor do we find Paul contradicting the Gospel account written by one of his key disciples - Luke.
.
So, I was going to let it drop, but in this regard the contradictions in the Gospel accounts are NOT like Smith's First Vision contradictions.
.
I can excuse the OTHER First Vision accounts contradicting each other to a degree but Smith's self-contradictions are a troubling concern. A "sticky wicket" to be sure!
.
Good catch Joe.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 10th, 2009

1) Smith never said any such thing; in fact, quite the opposite.
 
2) The “over 4,000 corrections” are mostly things like adding drop caps and standardizing punctuation, but then we’ve already discussed this ad nauseum.
 
3) You’ve still never provided any citation for your claim that the President of the Church made any such claim; in fact, the one citation someone provided on your behalf said exactly the opposite.
 
4) Not everything that people call “anti-Mormon propaganda” warrants such a moniker, but the quantity that does is pretty impressive—including (as demonstrated) this very answer.
  
As always, I’ll be happy to change my rating if you bother to correct the errors. Here’s hoping….

• Report

by the Otter on April 5th, 2009

Dave, Otter's made some valid points here.
.
There are some inaccuracies and imbalances in the evidence that you've presented. And one must ALWAYS provide citations to be considered a good scholar. There are no exceptions on this point.
.
I will up rate you too if you correct this weaknesses in your post as well. I didn't DR your answer but I will UP it if you fix it.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 10th, 2009

LOL. Well that's snarky but funny.
.
In this case this is a faithful, practicing, believing LDS Scholar who's fed up with the LDS Church white washing and spin doctoring it's own history and wants it to stop.
.
He thinks that this practice hurts more than it help - and I agree with him. Many others do too.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 2nd, 2009

Hey, I agree - what church doesn't. Religion may save your soul but churches just mess with your mind.

• Report

by sweetheart on April 2nd, 2009

There are some Churches that don't. In another question I posted a challenging statement from an address Timothy Keller gave at UC Berkeley. In his church he encourages parishioners to think and ask hard questions. Perhaps he's the exception. And he's not threatened by opposing stances and doubt. (Neither am I BTW)
.
Here's the link - I suspect that your answer to the question will be well thought out and profound - you seem like a thinker to me! I like that (if you couldn't tell).
.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1381610

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 2nd, 2009

OOh you are a smoothie!
When I say church I mean to say Church as in the Catholique Church, Episcopalian Church, etc - not anyone connected with their downtown bricks and mortar church.
I don't there are many who have not whitewashed, swept under the carpet any - now - unfortunate habits or pratices of the past.

• Report

by sweetheart on April 2nd, 2009

>I don't there are many who have not whitewashed, swept under the carpet any - now - unfortunate habits or pratices of the past<
.
And it pisses me off when they do it. I doesn't help anyone when folks white wash and spin doctor history.
.
Tell it like it is, let the chips fall where they will and learn from it. That's my preference.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 2nd, 2009