I have serious issues with this attitude in the church and statement's like this:

[falafel]

Then there is falawful, who is a not-so-smart, very-well-educated, and too-dumb-to-know-he's prideful-about-being-humble kind of poster.

Son of bitch!

[clackamascoug]

Answer my questions clack. I think you'll get a decent response around here if you're sincere. It's a risk, but you don't have to agree with everyone to be valued. This place needs diversity.

You'll probably be challenged if you stick around, but if you take the challenges positively you might find you were glad you had the chance to both defend and change your positions. And please don't take my suggestion that you might change as an insult. Thats what we all here.... none of us are static.

I'll get to it... Band of Brothers occupied my night, and I'm off to church.

[SoonerCoug]

I'll get to it... Band of Brothers occupied my night, and I'm off to church.

My church was cancelled due to snow three days ago.

[Surfah]

Son of bitch!

This is exactly how a FOB Elder from Tonga used to say this phrase on my mission. He said it often. It cracked me up.

[soccerMAN]

Like I said... Natural Selection - God loves the process more than he loves the individuals.

That is messed up. I mean really messed up.

[Non Sequitur]

To me, this transformation alone would not be enough, nor would I ever tell anyone I think it should be enough for them. But I can see how for some people it would be (though I find that sad).

As someone who has been there, I can say that it is enough. Maybe not for everyone, but I can say that for many it could easily be. Mormonism is not just a religion it is a lifestyle, especially if you live in Utah. I stayed married an additional ten years after leaving the Church. For ten years I hung out with the same Mormon friends, went to the same Ward activities to support my wife, endured home teachers, family home evenings, family prayers, family scripture study, no R-rated movies, no wine or coffee in the house (out of respect for my life), and the list goes on. For ten years I stayed married because I was raised to believe that when you get married, you get married for life. I no longer believe that. When my wife filed for divorce, I was sad and heart-broken, but I was also hugely relieved. Looking back, I realize that if we had been smart, we would have divorced ten years earlier.

[wuapinmon]

If not for Wuap, I don't think I'd visit this place. Clack, I got off on the wrong foot here and still manage to stub my toe. You will learn but what I'd really like for you is to open your perspective a bit.

There are a lot of sophists here, but not Wuap. He is the real deal.

[statman]

I've gone down that road, and the standard rebuttal is always that the doctrine didn't change, just that Brigham Young got the doctrine wrong. The more interesting debate is why have prophets if they can get doctrine wrong.

I wouldn't say he got it wrong. I would say he said something he wasn't supposed to say. There is a whole lot to our doctrine that we know only bits and pieces of - that will be clarified hereafter.

And to just throw something out there - Adam-God isn't so controversial if one thing turns out to be true - if Adam is the Holy Ghost, it all kind of makes sense. Of all the top-10 gospel biggies, Adam is the only one who's never appeared to someone as a resurrected/transfigured being. (Christ, Moses, Abraham, Noah, Peter, James, John, John the Baptist, Elijah - yup. Adam - nope). Maybe he hasn't been resurrected yet? Why not? If he was the third member of the Godhead, it would explain why...

[RC Vikings]

I've gone down that road, and the standard rebuttal is always that the doctrine didn't change, just that Brigham Young got the doctrine wrong. The more interesting debate is why have prophets if they can get doctrine wrong.

For me to make sense of it all I need to believe that prophets are inspired from God but the line from God to the prophets is a whole lot more fuzzy then most people believe. That way when they get it right I can say "See I told you they were inspired" and when they get it wrong I can say "they are just men like us working through prayer".

[il Padrino Ute]

I've gone down that road, and the standard rebuttal is always that the doctrine didn't change, just that Brigham Young got the doctrine wrong. The more interesting debate is why have prophets if they can get doctrine wrong.

The LDS church has been able to claim that it is being run by imperfect men and by doing so, it adds more of a human element to how it functions.

I remember having a discussion about Papal infallibility with a kindly old priest in my last city on my mission. He wanted to meet with the missionaries to talk with us about our theological beliefs so he could understand what we were doing, as some of his parishioners were concerned that we were certainly of the devil trying to lead people into the depths of hell. We met several times and he came to the conclusion that we were harmless and that any message about the works of God is a good thing. But I digress.

Anyway, according to him Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church regarding morality and faith. He said that he had never heard of a pope claimed it, though there had apparently been times when ecumenical councils ha. He personally didn't believe that the Pope couldn't make doctrinal mistakes but understood why there would be some who would believe it.

Of course, there are far to many who, IMO, believe that the prophet doesn't nor hasn't made any mistakes when it comes to doctrine, but that is their own doing, as I don't ever remember hearing that the prophet doesn't screw up from time to time.

[Rosebud]

I wouldn't say he got it wrong. I would say he said something he wasn't supposed to say. There is a whole lot to our doctrine that we know only bits and pieces of - that will be clarified hereafter.

And to just throw something out there - Adam-God isn't so controversial if one thing turns out to be true - if Adam is the Holy Ghost, it all kind of makes sense. Of all the top-10 gospel biggies, Adam is the only one who's never appeared to someone as a resurrected/transfigured being. (Christ, Moses, Abraham, Noah, Peter, James, John, John the Baptist, Elijah - yup. Adam - nope). Maybe he hasn't been resurrected yet? Why not? If he was the third member of the Godhead, it would explain why...

But I thought doctrinal problem with the theory was that Adam had been resurrected and achieved godhood on another planet.

[UtahDan]

As someone who has been there, I can say that it is enough.

I hear what you are saying. I just think it ought not be so. I think it is clear that you very accurately describe reality.

[TheBYUGuy]

God loves the process more than he loves the individuals.

BUMP.

This is a good thread. The only thing I have to add is that clackamas and I believe in different Gods, apparently.

[UtahDan]

Mormonstories.org has a new three part podcast with a faithful LDS woman whose husband lost his testimony last year where she talks about her experience. Might shed some additional light on this discussion.

http://mormonstories.org/?p=852

[UtahDan]

From Andrew at Mormon Matters:

One effect of the LDS church’s strong emphasis on ideals is that it tends to encourage Idealism, and to turn Mormons into Idealists. Like ideals, Idealism and Idealists are both wonderful and terrible. Idealism and Idealists have fought oppression, slavery, and tyranny all over the world. However, Idealism and Idealists are also responsible for ethnic cleansing, re-education camps, and flying airplanes into buildings. One hallmark of an Idealist is his willingness to sacrifice his own life, and the lives of others, to achieve or enforce his ideals. This is true regardless of the particular ideal or Idealist involved; both Abraham Lincoln and Osama Bin Laden were/are willing to take the lives of successionists or infidels, respectively, to obtain their ideals.

The bottom line is that Idealism and Idealists unfortunately often promote the notion that ideals are more important than people. In a religious context, this ideals-over-people concept usually manifests itself through Pharisaical behavior, in taking up stones to cast at a real or perceived sinner. Unfortunately, we often see verbal stones cast by LDS members when a family member chooses not to comply with LDS ideals. This ideals-over-people mindset ought to be.

This is not to say we should abandon ideals altogether; as noted above, ideals can serve noble and worthy purposes. Jesus attempted to resolve our tendency to put religious ideals above people by showing us that loving and serving people is our highest ideal. We see that exemplified in the story where the Pharisees brought an adulteress before Jesus and asked how she should be punished. His gentle response to her neither abandoned his ideal nor cast stones at her for failing to meet it.

I especially like the bolded comment.