Bitter apostates

by Laika 73 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • problemaddict
    problemaddict

    Oh my! A mormon apologist? Say it ain't so!

    Cold steel with all due respect, while the shunning program Mormons engage in is not as ridgid, or as communal, it does exist. Mormon theology is based on the same faith in things that can't be proven theology as JW's. Maybe even moreso. A cursory read of the earlier texts of the BoM, reveal Joseph Smith writing with an almost comical in and out of old english kind of tooling. In fact, much of the book of mormon is restated KJV verses.

    They claim to be the reestablishment of the first Christians just like JW's. Where you guys I think jump them in wackiness, is the idea that you can become a divine being (God), over your own universe at the higher escaleons of heaven. As God is man can become.....I believe is the GBHS phrase of note. Baptizing the dead, the colonization of Indians, not to mention, Joseph Smiths magic stones and the plates being taken back to heaven. Noone can see these things to see if they ever existed, yet they spawned an entire movement. Its impressive that he got so many people to believe him. Especially when there is no evidence of most of what the BoM claims archeologically speaking from these two mysterious groups of people. Olmec? I dont' think so. No elephants in south america.

    I have nothing but respect for LDS ideals, just like I do for most JW's. However, I cannot see how if one believes in the bible, tha one could possibly except the LDS chuch as the restablishment of the true Christian congregation. At least you guys don't mind making money, getting neck deep in politics, and going to war for whatever nation you belong to.

    I also at least applaud the exercise in attempting to find after the fact evidence for what you already belive using actual scholars and guys with training. JW's leaving this to the random smart apologist has really hurt them.

    The parallels with JW's are actually staggering. Brigham Young was kind of like your Juge Rutherford even. :)

  • sd-7
    sd-7
    Same meat, different gravy.

    LOL, that is hilarious!

    Hey, speaking as one who has actually read the Book of Mormon and D&C and the Pearl of Great Price, I don't think I could ever believe that. I was going to get into a detailed discussion of why I don't believe that, but I only read the books and talked to their missionaries for awhile maybe 11 or 12 years ago, so...far from an expert on the details. But the concepts and structure are too similar to JWs to be a coincidence.

    Returning to the original post, yeah, I'm absolutely angry about having decades of my life stolen from me by a cult. I should be, anyone who was in that situation should be. There are days when the anger is too much to handle and it messes things up at home with the Mrs. But I'm not so much angry at the people as the fact that a handful of people are responsible for this much evil and no one can touch them. People going along with that is just too much to bear.

    But I understand that most JWs are just trying to do the right thing. I don't like the condescending attitudes and the hate speech in the literature, or being shunned by people I once broke bread with. It's a bitter thing to taste, knowing that these same people rode in your car, laughed with you, maybe even listened to your problems at one time. But I get it. I know in their shoes I would've done the same thing, not knowing any better. I try to forgive as much as the pain will allow me to. But they're still on the side of the enemy, and if I have to engage them in a battle for the mind, I will. Otherwise, let 'em mind their business and I'll mind mine. Not in the mood for making disciples, just want to be left alone and not invited to any of their meetings or conventions, just want to be able to enjoy my life free of their judgments and their issues.

    I generally don't discuss my beliefs about God and the Bible with JWs, with my wife, because I'm sure she wouldn't like it much. I'm not against the concept of there being a God, I just don't believe the Bible is or should be considered an accurate portrayal of such a being. If it is, there's just no way he wouldn't have obliterated us all over again by now. We've done stuff a lot worse than people in Noah's day or people like Nimrod. Either way, he seems pretty angry and arbitrary, and there are clear contradictions in the Bible that lead me to believe it is simply not of divine origin, but at best, a few dozen men's attempts at explaining their concept of God on paper, with some history as a backdrop. Just as JWs have a right to their beliefs, I have a right to mine. We can both call each other absurd or evil, but objective reality provides the proof of who is right and who is wrong. As long as reality is reality, how I feel about it is small change by comparison. I'll get over it eventually, but my life is richer by far than it was as a JW and I don't regret leaving at all, even with all the problems along the way. I'll take that over a lie any day of the week.

    --sd-7

  • garyneal
    garyneal

    All About Mormons "Dum, dum, dum, dum, dum" from chewisniewski on Vimeo.

    Sorry, but if this is even remotely accurate, it would be tough sledding indeed to get most outsiders to believe it.

    All About Mormons "Dum, dum, dum, dum, dum" from chewisniewski on Vimeo.

  • problemaddict
    problemaddict

    Some of south parks finest work. With Scientology and the LDS in the rear view.....I have no idea what they are waiting for with the JW's.

    This is not flattering, but it is pretty accurate according to Mormon beliefs. I have read the BoM, DOC 1 and 2,and Words of Wisdom. My grandmother converted to Mormanism in her 80's, and interestingly enough her assets were almost entirely left to the LDS church.

    My mother studied with them before becoming a JW. I guess I could have been a mormon just as I was a JW.

    Cool steel, what you may be interested to know is I recently met a person touting the second book of mormon. He translated it in the 90's using the seer stones on loan to him from one of your Quorum of 12, and apparently has the gift. It speak all about the Mormon church needing to get back to its roots. Abandoning austentatious temples was key. Then he said it unlocks the mysteries of the robotic age.

    Since his story mimicks that of Joseph Smiths, I am sure it will be easy to join this new group and move forward with them on their quest for truth!

    I will say, the Mormons believing that they have acurrent prophet who is in direct contact with Goid as the need may be, is certainly "owning" their changes. With all of the Book of Mormon revisions for example, you can just say hey......God wanted those out....he told our prophet and they confirmed with the bishops and the Quorum of 12 agreed and now we are good to go!

    Much better than "new light" don't you think.

  • Cold Steel
    Cold Steel

    Laika: Also, doesn’t it bother you that the Mormon website whitewashes Joseph’s history by making out he was a faithful and devoted husband of only one wife?

    ...you didn't really answer my question...whether or not it bothers you that the Mormon website's biography implies he only had one.

    Hi, Laika. Didn’t mean to avoid the question. Actually, I must have missed that implication. If an LDS author or website would make such, I would be critical, but I don’t think it would bother me. We certainly don’t deny the doctrine, and it was a tough one to obey, but we have so many writers and variances of interests that it’s tough to ensure total consistency. If you can cut and paste the part you’re talking about, it will be easier for me to address the point.

    Oculos Aperire: Everyone of those Mormons in that vid look like they all have beautiful homes and tons of money... How do they all get so rich??

    I wish I knew, OA. I really wish I knew.

    Prologos: ...doctrines just as nuts as WT BtS.

    I don’t doubt you see it that way. Every doctrine in every religion seems nuts to others.

    Return of Parakeet: It’s not helpful or correct to paint all ex-dub atheists with the same brush, as much as you would like to squirrel them all into your convenient little categories. People are just a bit more complicated than that.

    Of course they are, but most of our disagreements on this forum stem from the fact that you don’t carefully read what I’m saying. I said: “Some who fall away from the JWs become atheists....”

    An excellent book to read about the history of the LDS and the horrifying FLDS sects it spawned is “Under the Banner of Heaven” by Jon Krakauer....

    Yeah...take a look at Doing Violence to Journalistic Integrity, a review of Krakauer’s book. A much better book is Prophet’s Prey, by Sam Brower, with a preface by Jon Krakauer. It's the result of seven years of research and is a much better book.

    DeWandelaar: Also... like all cults: let them prove they are the persons assigned by God...unlike Jesus and Moses they have no miracles to back them up....

    We don’t? Tell me, have you ever even cracked a book (other than an anti-Mormon book) that was written about the LDS church? We don’t have any miracles except for the healing of the sick, the appearance of angels, the casting out of devils, the raising of the dead, deliverance from our enemies, prophecies, speaking in tongues (not the gibberish of today’s Pentecostal sects), visions and, well, other than those, I’m stumped. As for cults, Pliny the elder referred to Christianity as “that wretched cult,” so even there we’re not too different.

    Of course, neither Jews nor Christians can “prove” their miracles, though they were witnessed by the people of the times of Moses and Jesus. In like manner, we LDS can’t prove our miracles, either. But we have plenty of witnesses who testified of them, and still testify of them. And there’s not a single miracle in the ancient church that hasn’t also been done in this dispensation in the modern church.

    MrFreeze: I know of a couple Mormons that were excommunicated and their Mormon family stopped speaking to them.
    Problemaddict: ...while the shunning program Mormons engage in is not as rigid, or as communal, it does exist.

    The difference is, the church doesn’t practice shunning, neither does it endorse or recommend it. Ritualistic shunning is wrong, whoever does it, and it goes counter to the gospel of Christ. It’s hard to show love to someone you’re emotionally stoning, isn’t it? Jesus didn’t practice it, and the ancient church didn’t practice it. It actually was popular in the various Baptist sects of the 1800s through probably the early 1960s. They’ve pretty much abandoned it now and even joke about it. The Jehovah's Witnesses are the only folks I know who still do it as official doctrine.

    LisaRose: Your attempts to say that Mormons are different and better than the JWs is hilarious. Same meat, different gravy.

    I never said we were “better,” but now that you mention it, our meat is organic and freshly ground, and the gravy is freshly made, not canned.

    Nugget: ... examine your own belief system with an open mind before trying to win converts here.

    Win converts? Moi? Look, I didn’t start this topic. For most of my time on this crazy board, I kept my religion secret. Then people started comparing it to the Jehovah's Witnesses, and I came out of the proverbial closet. And, btw, what makes you think I haven’t examined my own belief system? I became a convert to the church in 1971 when I was 18 years old, and I’ve never regretted it. Now I have people who haven’t read squat about “Mormonism” (except for some incendiary websites on the Internet). So you better watch it, or else I’ll take my converts and make my own forum!

    I would never think of becoming a Mormon and certainly have no intention of being controlled by another group of men on a power trip they validate with their own brand of made up scripture.

    Ah, well, our loss. I reckon it’s a matter of whose “made up” scriptures are better than other made up scriptures.

    Problemaddict: Where you guys I think jump them in wackiness, is the idea that you can become a divine being (God), over your own universe at the higher echelons of heaven. As God is man can become.....I believe is the GBHS phrase of note.

    This is actually one of the toughest issues people have with the LDS church, but it shouldn’t be in my view. The Eastern Orthodox have believed in a large part of the doctrine, which is called theosis or deification. In essence, it states that we, as the children of God, who are made in his image, after his likeness, male and female, can become like him. John teaches that because of the atonement of Christ, we all can be made perfect, inheriting all that the Father has. Jesus sits on the right hand of the Father, and those who gain eternal life, as co-inheritors, sit down with him.

    But then what? We just sit around and glow with the whiteness of the sun? Forever? And what of those resurrected to lower glories? Paul stated there are varying degrees of glory in the resurrection. He states that there are many different types of flesh on Earth, and that there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. There is one glory of the sun, another of the moon and another of stars, and each one varies in glory. Then he states: “...so also is the resurrection of the dead.”

    I don’t have room or time to go further, but one of the main doctrinal differences we have with the Jehovah's Witnesses is that we believe that the earth will become a glorious sphere like the sun, not just a garden. The garden will happen during the Millennium, but after that, Earth will undergo its own “resurrection” to a much higher glory. And it will be the home of those who gain eternal life. Whether people will get their own planet or universe is a speculative matter and no one knows what types of dominions we will oversee and what, exactly, we’ll do. But we will have an eternal progression in which that we will become one with God.

    For more, check out The Doctrine of Theosis, or Becoming a God.

  • Qcmbr
    Qcmbr

    Cold - where you now stand I once stood, the reasoning you use echoes how I thought. It is a terrible waste of an intellect and this is the crime of faith. It makes fools of us all.

    Religion is the description of a reality that exists only in the mind. Each imagined reality can be ranked on its regulatory cost, the arbitrary rules one must obey.

    JWs impose much stricter intellectual rules than Mormons do which means JWs have less room to think in. A JW meeting is a simple learning by rote from a script process of indoctrination. JWs make some silly claims that science and history do not validate (1914, 6000 year earth etc,) but they don't make many so the cog dis shelf consists of mainly practical situations caused by the rules ( shunning, blood ban etc.) This is the strength and the weakness of the JW religion.

    Mormonism is a different take on faith. Intellectually there is more latitude to think and speculate. The day to day rules are currently very positive and endearing. A Mormon meeting is a much more free wheeling affair with members making up their own presentation on a topic. Mormons make multiple silly claims that science and history do not validate ( Israelites in America, healing by Priesthood, ancient books translated etc.) but their day to day rules are generally pro society ( unless you are gay or an independent woman and formerly if you were black) so the cog dis shelf consists mainly of many historical issues (polygamy, Kirtland Bank, racism, Danites, Mountain Meadows etc.) This is the strength and weakness of the Mormon.

  • Cold Steel
    Cold Steel

    Problemaddict: Cool steel, what you may be interested to know is I recently met a person touting the second book of mormon. He translated it in the 90's using the seer stones on loan to him from one of your Quorum of 12, and apparently has the gift.

    Yes, it should be interesting to compare this guy’s translation with the one Joseph Smith produced. I heard of this guy some time ago and he’s completely rewritten his book several times. He says he used to be a security guard at the church office building in SLC.

    BTW, it’s not a “second” Book of Mormon. When Joseph Smith got the plates, two-thirds of them were sealed (see Isaiah 29). They won’t be translated until the Millennium.

    One of the verities of the LDS church is that only one man on Earth holds the keys of authority at a time. When Joseph received those keys, he said they had been restored for the last time. Just a few months before his death, he convened a meeting of the Quorum of the Twelve, and addressed them for three hours, during which he conferred the keys upon them. He then said, “I have sealed upon your heads all the keys of the kingdom of God. I have sealed upon you every key, power, [and] principle that the God of heaven has revealed to me. Now, no matter where I may go or what I may do, the kingdom rests upon you. But, ye apostles of the Lamb of God, my brethren, upon your shoulders this kingdom rests; now you have got to round up your shoulders and bear off the kingdom. If you do not do it you will be damned.”

    One reason we have those keys, as did the apostle Peter, is because whenever something comes from the Lord, it will come through a divine chain of command. The Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses believe they are that chain, but then, they never received any authority from anyone. They assumed it.

    My point is that the sealed plates will come forth in due time, and when it does, it will come through that chain of command—not some canned security guard. And BTW, I’m reading the original Book of Mormon on my Android, the one with no changes made to it; and I can only occasionally tell the difference. No doctrinal changes, only grammatical corrections and, once or twice, words added for clarification. Those who claim all these changes were made and that they somehow queer the Book of Mormon, just haven’t researched it. And the original Book of Mormon version can be found at all LDS bookstores and some folks actually prefer it because it doesn’t have all those chapters and verses.

    See: The Original Book of Mormon Transcript; Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon; Translation of the Book of Mormon

    Since his story mimics that of Joseph Smith’s, I am sure it will be easy to join this new group and move forward with them on their quest for truth!

    Yep...just don’t drink the Kool-Aid!

    I will say, the Mormons believing that they have a current prophet who is in direct contact with God as the need may be, is certainly "owning" their changes. With all of the Book of Mormon revisions for example, you can just say hey......God wanted those out....he told our prophet and they confirmed with the bishops and the Quorum of 12 agreed and now we are good to go!

    Nope. I don’t think the Lord was consulted. As an editor by profession, I think the revisions were called for. For example, the phrase, “...this people is grass” is completely correct in Hebrew, but bad grammar in English. So changing it to “this people are grass” isn’t something that would be appropriate to take before the Lord.

    GaryNeal: All About Mormons “Dum, dum, dum, dum, dum.” Sorry, but if this is even remotely accurate, it would be tough sledding indeed to get most outsiders to believe it.

    That’s okay...it’s not even remotely accurate. Most cartoons aren’t. Just as an aside, the simpleton Martin Harris (or so he was depicted in the cartoon), wasn’t such a simpleton after all. Yes, his wife told him he was being deceived and bitched at him constantly. Harris believed Smith, however, and later was one of three men who were permitted to see the plates, hear God’s voice declaring they were true and seeing the angel, the sword of Laban, and the interpreters (seer stones). Harris also NEVER recanted his story, and though he later left the church over a personal grievance, he stayed true to his story and told it each time as though it were the first. One wonders, if I were dependent on a man and his money, and his wife told him I was a crook, would I then admit I was a crook and attempt to get him to go along with my story? Dum, dum, dum. Each of those three witnesses, incidentally, were well respected and known for their integrity and honesty. Eight more men, also of honest reputation, saw the plates by themselves, with no angel, no voice. And none of those eight EVER recanted their testimonies. Those were details completely left out of the cartoon.

    SD7: ...yeah, I'm absolutely angry about having decades of my life stolen from me by a cult. I should be, anyone who was in that situation should be. There are days when the anger is too much to handle and it messes things up at home with the Mrs. But I'm not so much angry at the people as the fact that a handful of people are responsible for this much evil and no one can touch them. People going along with that is just too much to bear.

    Your story is much like others I’ve heard on this board, and anyone who’s been flimflammed out of great deals of money or years of their lives are bound to feel searing anger and even a need for revenge. But doing that is like hitting the tar baby. You can’t hurt them; in fact, with every swing there are those you left behind who think you strike for your own damnation. To quote the crazy Captain Ahab in Moby Dick: “Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering [beast]; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee!”

    Melville knew a great deal about resentment and loathing. (Also from Moby Dick: “All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil....”

    Perhaps they should be called “Moby Halls” instead of Kingdom Halls.

  • Qcmbr
    Qcmbr

    Cold - I feel we shall have to have this out on another thread, there are people reading this who may be swayed by your statments. Your committment is clear but you are willfully disregarding very basic and clear cut failure points that preclude Mormonism being other than a pious fraud. This weekend I shall endeavour to make a concise list of these for discussion.

    The pedant in me must point out your comments on the Keys and note how your statement contains a contradiction regarding how many people have the keys.

    Your notes on grammar seem odd in that you seem to ascribe much weight to the detail in the Book of Mormon at a minute level (the word 'is' , an error in the context cited, becomes ,for you, additional proof) but you completely miss the concept that the entire book betrays its construction by the constant, incorrect usage of old english forms - absolutely out of place in a translation - rendering entire sentences as contextual gibberish (a thread a while back jgnat posted an excellent deconstruction of the BoM from a linguistic POV.)

    You cannot stand in judgment of those who post here, many of whom have escaped through great sacrifice, mental pain and cost a destructive cult when you yourself are part of a very elaborate, and effective cult that has robbed its people of 10% income per annum and is guilty of racism, sexism, torture, homophobia, murder, polygamy, polyandry, fraud, theft, secret practices and unfulfilled promises.

  • nugget
    nugget

    Cold Steel, it isn't a matter of whose made up scriptures are better than others. There is no divinity here in either religion just control of the flock. As human beings we have the ability to think and reason to do the right thing not because of a religious rule but because we can empathise with others.

    We can also see the injustice and stress caused by religion that fears knowledge and free thought. It is not necessary for every one to think the same way to be good people. It does not follow that because you leave bad religion you automatically become filled with bitterness and hate. On the contrary you suddenly reralise how much goodness there actually is in the world around you.

  • Cold Steel
    Cold Steel

    Qcmbr, I suspect there won’t be much to debate, as religion doesn’t offer absolute truths. I’m not sure what you have in mind when you state that I am “willfully disregarding very basic and clear cut failure points that preclude Mormonism being other than a pious fraud.” If there were such clear cut failure points, don’t you think someone would have published them by now? I also think I’d be aware of them, having made these things a matter of some study.

    First, how many people would be interested in such an exchange? Second, what would be the parameters? Are we talking about the validity of the Book of Mormon, the reliability of the witnesses, the historical aspects? Geography? Or are we going to be talking moon men and Quakers? Give me a rough idea of what the discussion would revolve around, and how do we justify such a discussion on a Jehovah’s Witnesses forum.

    ...you completely miss the concept that the entire book betrays its construction by the constant, incorrect usage of old English forms—absolutely out of place in a translation—rendering entire sentences as contextual gibberish (a thread a while back jgnat posted an excellent deconstruction of the BoM from a linguistic POV.)

    Then he certainly knew that the Book of Mormon text was strung out as one long line, just what one would expect if transcribing the translation of an ancient text. Besides, I’m unwilling to discuss the ins and outs of translations. For example, critics complain that the term “Jesus Christ” was used in the translation. After all, both “Jesus” and “Christ” are both Greek terms. If you try to hold Joseph Smith to modern translation processes, I can’t argue that. But as Dr. Hugh Nibley notes: “A translation, according to Willamowitz’s classic definition, is ‘a statement in the translator’s own words of what he thinks the author had in mind.’”

    Nibley also states: “There is no such thing as a text that can be read but not translated; whoever can read a foreign language so that it means something to him can certainly express that meaning in his own words—and such an expression is no more nor less than a translation. If one cannot express it in one’s own words, one has not understood it.”

    LDS scholar Dr. John Tvedtnes writes:

    Jewish scholar Theodor H. Gaster intermingled KJV language and modern English in his Dead Sea Scriptures. When citing passages from the Dead Sea Scrolls that were also found in the Bible, he employed the older style of English. When Robert Lisle Lindsey began to work on the Gospel of Mark while living in Israel, he initially translated it “into simple modern Hebrew from the Greek text. The text was then distributed to Hebrew-speaking readers and comments invited.” Many of those who reviewed the work expressed “the desire that the Gospels, as ancient works, should be read in Old Testament Hebrew style.” Lindsey returned to the task and prepared a translation of Mark in biblical Hebrew that has received wide acclaim.

    It is possible that the Book of Mormon would have met with the same fate as Lindsey’s modern Hebrew version of Mark had Joseph Smith rendered it in nineteenth-century English. It would not have sounded scriptural to Americans and Englishmen familiar with the King James Bible. Another reason for using the KJV verbiage in the Book of Mormon is that it makes it easier for the reader to recognize when biblical books are being quoted by the Nephite prophets. In that respect, the language of the Book of Mormon fills the same role as Charles’s translation of apocryphal and pseudepigraphic texts.

    See Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon and Literary Style Used in Book of Mormon Insured Accurate Translation.

    You cannot stand in judgment of those who post here, many of whom have escaped through great sacrifice, mental pain and cost a destructive cult when you yourself are part of a very elaborate, and effective cult that has robbed its people of 10% income per annum and is guilty of racism, sexism, torture, homophobia, murder, polygamy, polyandry, fraud, theft, secret practices and unfulfilled promises.

    I am not your judge, Qcmbr. And if you think I’m going to get in a long, drawn out discussion of your emotional problems with the church, it’s not going to happen. Your bitterness cannot be contained and you clearly have issues. You have made your judgment of the church, and each one of your charges above represents a gross distortion of facts.

    Homophobia? Why, because we don’t seal homosexuals in our temples or marry them in civil ceremonies? Tithing? Like the LDS church is the only church on the planet that teaches it? Yet you call it robbery? Actually, this is what God calls those who withhold tithing: “Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house....” (Mal. 3:8-10) Look, if you want to discuss various aspects of our scriptures or doctrines, fine, but I suspect you’re cruising in charted waters. All of your criticisms have been addressed long ago.

    Over the course of my life in the church, I’ve been privileged to have met some of the church’s top historians and professors of ancient scripture. I’ve taken courses from, and have known, Cleon Skousen, Richard Anderson, Truman Madsen, Hugh Nibley, Wilford Griggs, Rodney Turner, Donl Peterson, Hyrum Andrus and many others. I’ve seen, heard and read things that lead to the unmistakable conclusion that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is exactly what it purports to be (and this based only on evidence). The evidence is there for anyone who wants to dig around for it, but the real way to know is to obtain a spiritual witness of the work, and I have a strong spiritual testimony, independent of all else, that the work is true. The cognitive dissonance aspect works both ways, and were I to reject what I know, my mind would explode. It would be more productive to try to convince me that the earth was flat!

    Well, what kind of evidence am I talking about? Not only the Book of Mormon’s geographical consistency with Old World deserts and byways from Jerusalem along the Frankincense Trail through the empty quarter and all the way to Bountiful, but non-Mormon sources, such as Father George McRae, onetime head of the Harvard Divinity School, who spoke on aspects of the LDS temple endowment—all the while not having any idea he was doing it! One of the most impressive evidences (and I’m tempted to use the word “proofs”) is Dr. Hugh Nibley’s DVD lecture series on the Pearl of Great Price. Of course, someone who didn’t know the church doctrines and ordinances could watch the series and not see anything in it at all. Like the proverbial pearl of great price, someone not knowing its value would esteem it of no value whatsoever, and that’s the way it was intended.

    Again, I don’t stand in judgment of anyone who leaves the church, but I do find that you are far more judgmental of the Latter-day Saints than I am of people who have left.

    Nugget: it isn't a matter of whose made up scriptures are better than others. There is no divinity here in either religion just control of the flock. As human beings we have the ability to think and reason to do the right thing not because of a religious rule but because we can empathise with others.

    I don't see that at all. What do our general authorities gain from controlling anyone? Was this Jesus' game as well?

    We can also see the injustice and stress caused by religion that fears knowledge and free thought. It is not necessary for every one to think the same way to be good people. It does not follow that because you leave bad religion you automatically become filled with bitterness and hate. On the contrary you suddenly realise how much goodness there actually is in the world around you.

    I concur. But some people who leave DO become filled with bitterness and hate. They feel deceived, abused, taken. And if I felt that way, I'd probably be bitter as well. But in all my years with the LDS church I have NEVER felt like I couldn't think or reason as I chose. This book I'm reading about a guy who leaves the Jehovah's Witnesses says, in the novel, that he feels like he's fishing in a pond with no fish. I've never felt like that. After more than 30 years in the LDS church, I still feel I'm learning things that are new and fresh. The JWs keep repeating the same old things in their meetings. Yet if they're happy, I'd rather have them stay in that religion than to leave and be unhappy. I don't get the feeling that most ex-JWs feel that way.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit