The most recent messages can be found here.
Mormon's are mostly representatives of society values that are subdued in most communities in America these days. Their faith is growing.....10,000,000 members worldwide is the last count.
So numbers (and representativeness of society values) should determine what truth is? If that is your belief, you shouldn't be a Mormon (unless you live in Utah of course). If you lived in Iran would you think the same about Islam? What about if you lived in Japan? Would you then conclude that Buddhism or Shintoism must be true because of the numbers and representation of society?
You're intent to "cultize" them is lost in any arguement! Fewer HIV members, fewer unwanted births, fewer drug addicts, fewer smokers, fewer suicides, fewer...........get it?
What are your sources for some of these numbers? Are you sure the births are really wanted? Or do LDS members partially pretend to want tons of kids because Mormon society smiles on those families? I know several Mormon individuals who didn't want more children, but had them anyway because of their religion.
Are you sure there are fewer suicides in Mormonism? I've read studies that indicate a far higher rate of suicide and depression among Mormons. Mormons have their highest concentrations of members in Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, & Arizona. Although these statistics don't provide a religion breakdown, perhaps it is an indication that your above statement is not accurate.
The new Relief Society President admits the fact that Mormon women still need to learn to be happy. An email list has been established for depressed Mormons and another for Mormon women who have been sexually abused. If these problems didn't exist do you think such lists would be created?
You cannot possibly be slamming Mormons for their religious beliefs, therefore, you are you seeking financial gain.
I'm not slamming Mormons at all. I examine Mormon beliefs (and the beliefs of other religions and philosophies) for both good and bad--hoping that the 'bad' beliefs can be changed to 'good' for the benefit of future and current members.
I'm certainly not 'seeking financial gain'. My computer doesn't spit out dollar bills when people read my pages. I have to pay my ISP to have these web pages that provide this information to others. If I was seeking financial gain, I would be doing something other than providing an internet site that doesn't sell anything or charge admission.
You loose this one as well, friend.
You're God is not better than my God......
In fact, I don't believe in a god!
Nor do I. So you are a Mormon who doesn't believe in God? Interesting...
But I know an attention seeking, money grabbing, disgruntled insecure and looser at life person, such as yourself, is not the "unbelieveable" person to persuade me toward ANYTHING.
Get off the net..........play more golf.....or chess....or anything.
Now I think I can see your motive. You seek to censor, control, and have everyone believe as you do and condemn those who don't. No thanks.
Apparently you have not heard Brigham Young's statement (the second prophet of the church) wherein he said, "anyone who follows the council of the prophet without first obtaining personal confirmation is in trouble". Joseph Fielding Smith stated, "Take everything I say and compare it with the scriptures, if there is a dispute follow the scriptures".
I suspect that you may have already heard these statements but they don't support your feable attempt to destroy that which is good.
You have missed the entire point (as well as the other links on the pages such as this one).
My point is Mormons should think but *some* don't based on statements made by *some* leaders.
You have also missed the real intent of the primary song which teaches the children to follow the Prophet's council. The Prohpet encourages us to do wholesome things such as search the scriptures, pray to our Heavenly Father, have faith in Jesus Christ, and so forth. Who's example would you have children follow, that of Hitler's, or Satan, or other unsavory individuals?
I wouldn't consider Satan to be any more of an 'individual' than say Zeus or the IPU. As to Hitler (and those like him)... Christianity was the religion that he associated with and your church is the only one that now claims him as a member (via Baptism for the Dead).
I have never responded to an article of this type, mainly becuase it tends to fall on deaf ears, however, I am tired of running into this type of flawed, negative garbage while searching for legitimate information.
The bottom line is that according to Church doctrine, members are responsible to obtain a confirmation of all things through prayer to God. Faithful Saints have read the Book of Mormon and prayed sincerely to God and have received a confirmation of the truthfulness of the Book. They have done the same thing concerning the Prophet. If you would spend your time productively searching the scriptures and honestly inquiring of God, you might learn something wholesome rather than wasting your days trying to tear down the greatest message ever sounded, that is that Jesus Christ is our Saviour and He lives!
Where exactly does he live outside of the imagination of some people?
From the tone of your articles, I must assume that you have had a bitter experience with the Church. I would urge you to take an honest look at yourself and see if maybe you were not responsible for whatever it was that started you on this trail of destruction.
I am completely responsible for my thoughts now. Unfortunately that wasn't always the case. I used to 'follow the prophet' even when he was clearly in error. The only thing I'm attempting to destroy with my website is ignorance.
For acknowledgement is the first step in the repentent process and only through faith and repentance can you receive a forgiveness of your sins and start on the road to Eternal Life. May God give you the strength to take heed to these words and the courage to turn your life around.
I'd rather not turn it around again. I'm happier than I've ever been before, and I have no plans to lead my kids down a path that I've previously wandered down (for far too long) and found seriously lacking in truth.
This is very typical though. Even though Hinckley claims that honesty 'is of the very essence of integrity', he has (as well as his spokesman) been dishonest by Elder Faust's definition of the word on numerous occasions.
There is no escaping the *FACT* that the LDS Church has had a real hand in creating this problem of population sprawl. That it will ruin their way of life I suspect is totally lost on the Utah TBM mindset. In a word: pathetic.
P.S. If you should write a letter [to the editor], let me know...I'd be delighted to sign it.
I'd like to, but it should probably come from somebody in Utah.
According to "Darwin", Darwin's deathbed conversion is a myth. Christians have done similar things with Huxley, Russell, and Einstein. It is easier to convert these people after they are dead than when they are alive and thinking.
See this review of "The Darwin Legend" too.
I have heard this at times too, but since the church is now officially funding FARMS the position may be changing to one that encourages defending and engaging in religious debate. If you ask me, FARMS does nothing but hurt the faith of some members. Many members rely on 'simple faith' until they begin to read things that FARMS and other apologists write. Once they have to start proving their faith, a can of worms is opened that is difficult to honestly close and rely on faith at the same time.
But, before I get excommunicated, I'd better shut up. You have done good work. Why are some people so threatened by Mormons? I mean this quite seriously.
I'm not sure if people are threatened by Mormons more than they are of people of other religious persuasions. Religions that grow fast, wield political influence, and have money are generally those most feared by those who don't believe in the particular religion. Mormonism happens to contain all three of these elements so perhaps that is why some may feel threatened. If you were Jewish, Muslim, or Catholic though you'd probably hear the same thing about those faiths and once again think that people felt threatened by your religion. ;)
I became a member of the Church last year, and there are a lot of things I still either do not understand--OR--well, wonder about. But, in fairness, I have yet to find a church which I did not wonder about at times. So far, even though I have a hard time with some of the ethics and morals concepts, I cannot shake--yes, I guess I have tried, but...--the feeling that there is Something Very Important here (in the Church.)
Thanks for the kind words. Keep investigating your feelings (and the facts).
A little of both.
For example, you have nothing here on the search for the historical Jesus except for a book by Crossan and a book by Mack. This leaves out huge amounts of work including the first two quests by Schweitzer and Bultmann. These are essentials. Also, there is nothing from any of the Jesus Seminar people (Crossan excluded). The Five Gospels, The Complete Gospels, The Acts of Jesus all by the Seminar. Crossan's Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. Funk's Honest to Jesus. Borg's Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time.
Yes, I realize I'm missing much on the subject. My flirtation with the topic was fairly short lived. To me, it become too boring and very irrelavant to the larger questions in life quickly so I haven't pursued the historical Jesus for a while. Also, much of the material is too speculative and focused on the past. When I want to read about speculations, I prefer works on more ultimate questions (like the beginning or ending of the Universe or the eventual fate of life on this planet) rather than how a religion may have begun.
What about John Shelby Spong? Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism. This Hebrew Lord.
Like I said... I have never run across a list that WAS complete.
I, too, have a web site about religion in general and Christianity specifically.
I have numerous links to both of those sites. For a few examples see: this page, this one, and this other. I also have a link to the conference talks housed on lds.org on the specific page of mine that you refer to.
Now my question to you is, why don't the sites you expect me to link to (which I gladly do) link back to my site? Did you send the same message to them asking why they don't link to me even though I link to them?
Can you give me a bit longer review/summary? For instance, what does Lerner say about the background radiation, the amount of helium in the observable universe, and the visable expansion that is currently viewable?
Many others, including feminists and scientific laymen such as myself, critique the "Big Bang" as simply a reiteration of the biblical, patriarchal, ejaculatory myth of creation found in the first few verses of Genesis.
That is a bit strange considering that, for the most part, those that discovered the Big Bang and now study the evidences for it are atheists and non-Bible believers.
In my experience, Big Science, Big Medicine, Big Government, Big Religion, Big Media, Big Art = Big Lies.
In my experience, opinions should be based on facts--not whether something is Big or Small.
I saw the author, Jared Diamond, interviewed last night on PBS News. Apparently he just won the 1998 Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction.
Again. . thanks
As far as your "earthly " wisdom is concerned "The FOOL SAITH IN HIS HEART THERE IS NO GOD." Psalms 14:1a (emphasis mine). For those who go about acting as they wish "And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat ,drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, THOU FOOL, THIS NIGHT THY SOUL SHALL BE REQUIRED OF THEE:" Luke 12:19-20a (emphasis mine). " For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." 1 Cor 1:18 " But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; " 1 Cor 1:27a.
I have already responded to folks like you a dozen times. Since you seem to like rules and regulations, here are a couple for you:
Rule #1 - You need to establish your authority before you can expect me to rely on it.
Rule #2 - Expect me to reject your authority--even after you think you have established it--if it makes no sense and is filled with contradictions.
This is certainly the case on a large number of issues with a large number of religions. As scientific methodology continues to explain our natural world one wonders why people continue to quickly jump to the conclusion that if they don't understand something (or don't bother to try and comprehend something) god must have done it.
What is your stance on this and do you believe that maybe "god" and mankind are one in the same? I did not see anything relating to this (I might have overlooked it), or does this theory/philosophy abmonish this question entirely?
This is sort of a pantheistic outlook. I see nothing wrong with pantheism, but I don't know why the pantheist feels the need to change the word "nature" or the meaning for "universe and everything therein" to "god".
In any event, between the two of them I found a couple of quotes that working together are the beginnings of my post-Mormon approach to a belief structure.
"What is morality?" she asked. "Judgment to distinguish right and wrong, vision to see the truth, courage to act upon it, dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by the good at any price. But where does one find it?" Atlas Shrugged, pp. 168
"And what is good, Phaedrus,
And what is not good—
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?"
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
I, too, think there is an objective reality. (I'm not so sure there is any sort of completely objective morality though.) However, Rand takes it a little too far Imo. At times, she applies her subjective feelings to some things and calls them objective. For instance, she claims that art and music are objective. I think Michael Shermer's analysis of her philosophy is very accurate.
To be perfectly honest, I have not even read a complete book by Orwell (yet). As far as I know he isn't specifically speaking about religion. He writes against totalitarianism. His main focus was political--although he may have been making a religious statement too. I don't know what religion he was born into. He was not a fan of Christianity. In "The Road to Wigan Pier", Orwell remarks that "As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents."