Deseret News | Churches grow not because of doctrine

Reader comments
Churches grow not because of doctrine

Page:
1
2
Next >

Anonymous | 5:06 a.m. Oct. 22, 2009

Thoughtful column full of wonderful insights. My favorite:

"We challenge them to live the most obvious commandments, so they can then spend the rest of their lives learning to obey the harder, deeper ones."

I'm going to pick up a copy of "The Rise of Christianity" today.

Understood | 5:56 a.m. Oct. 22, 2009

It is well understood that the Mormon Church grows in numbers because of multiple factors. It is an agressive unit. It looks for those who have little to no faith, to fill that void in their lives.

Read The True Believer and you will recognize what makes the numbers go up. If a person already has an anchor, then they do not go out looking for another one.

Agressive, organized, and great spin doctors. It has to grow in a free society.

Dennis | 7:11 a.m. Oct. 22, 2009

Almost all of us are in the Church because of the culture. It has nothing to do with "doctrine".
We can all shoot holes in virtually every doctrine being taught by every religion in existence. Even Mormonism.
Being part of the "Ward Family", is the real anchor of the Church.

Comments continue below

speaking for myself | 8:41 a.m. Oct. 22, 2009

I won't presume to speak for others - but I joined the Church because of the doctrine and because of the confirmation of the Holy Ghost that this was true, not because of the social aspect of the Church.

Did I know all of the doctrine then? No, naturally not. But I knew the doctrine that mattered most - that the Gospel had been restored and that there were prophets again on the Earth to lead and to teach the Word of God. I knew this for myself.

I was converted in a small California city while I was in high school. I didn't have any friends in the ward. I didn't go to church events (other than my Sunday meetings)and I didn't participate in the young men's program. Part of it was because I was not a scial person and part was because that ward wasn't overly welcoming.

Nevertheless, I knew that the Church was true and I still do.

The social aspect of the Chrurch is there to help people once they have been converted, it is not there to convert them.

re: Dennis | 8:54 a.m. Oct. 22, 2009

I'm at least one who begs to differ. If not for the main doctrines, I wouldn't be in the LDS Church. I HATE the culture, and I'm not big on ward social activities. I think one of the worst things that can happen (and has happened) with Church members is doing things out of culture or tradition. My old religion gets along just fine that way, but it will necessarily backfire in the LDS Church.

RE : Converted | 9:11 a.m. Oct. 22, 2009

"When thou art 'converted', strengthen my brethern "(Luke 22:32 KJV)in context,"But I[Jesus]have prayed for you,Simon,that your faith may not'fail,'and when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:32 NIV) This not about conversion,it is Jesus praying for Peter to strenghten his faith and then telling(directed) him to strenghten the diciples faith. How can one loose when Jesus prays for his followers. Jesus did turn Peter around.

Anonymous | 9:20 a.m. Oct. 22, 2009

Mr. Card: Mormon's have long jumped on the Rodney Stark bandwagon but you should know that Stark has backed away from these assertions. He no longer thinks Mormonism is the viable religion it once was. Too, there have been numerous scholarly conferences debunking Stark's research, predicting Mormonism to be a major world religion. Convinced of these arguments, Stark was forced to recant his position.

RE: Anonymous | 9:24 a.m. Oct. 22, 2009

True Christianity is based on on the resurrection of Christ,not on a social movement or club. The resurrection is what seperates Christianity from all other world religions, it is not what you do for God but What God did for those who beleive. It is not the 4-h club." In reply Jesus declared "I tell you the truth,unless a man is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God." (John 3:3)

Perhaps a twig | 9:30 a.m. Oct. 22, 2009

Mr. Card says,

"Let the Spirit do what the Spirit does, while we do all that is within our power to help strangers become our brothers and sisters, fellow seekers and partakers of the tree of life."

I think it's a good intention...but their are consequences that are less positive. The flip side of feeling embraced into a community or tribe is the exclusivity and conditionality felt by those outside of it; often made up of family members and friends who choose not to ignore doctrine. So doctrine IS important. In the case of Mormonism, their doctrine is difficult to defend, hence the endless rationalizations and subterfuge by leadership and prominent members.

Let me put it another way: Some people can't close their minds in favor of a "warm feeling." Call it what you will - spirit, reassurance, buzz - it's not unique, but rather the common denominator for ALL organized religions, cults, political parties, suicide bombers, etc. What IS distinguishable is doctrine. So, partake of the "God/group drug" or cultivate an inquiring mind? That is the choice, especially here in Utah.

Tree of life? Mormonism is more a small branch - one of many.

The Light and the Way Out | 9:37 a.m. Oct. 22, 2009

I don't believe the doctrine and hated the culture. That was why I got out.

To re: Dennis | 9:44 a.m. Oct. 22, 2009

I'm curious regarding what you HATE so much about the Mormon culture. Is it the 3-hour block where you may be expected to contribute a lesson or prayer, or participate in a discussion about doctrines with imperfect fellow members? Is it the occasional ward activities where you might be expected to chit chat with your neighbors? Is it the calls to help your neighbors move in or out, or to provide service at a cannery or church farm? Or, do you look down your nose at other members because you feel their commitment or knowledge or open-mindedness or gospel sophistication is so inferior to yours?

Do you think those of us who do love the cultural aspect of the church have never had occasion to be offended by another member, or that we have no conflicts with other ward members? You may want to read the Gospel of John in the New Testament, which focuses on unity and love. So many other scriptures encourage us to strengthen and support each other.

"No man is an island" is especially applicable in any Christian church, where brotherly love and cultural bonding are obligations of the covenant.

To Dennis... | 10:29 a.m. Oct. 22, 2009

As usual, critics with no facts and examples. Don't you guys ever tire of taking generalized pot shots without facts? Please give us the example of your "holes" in the doctrine. I, for one, am in the Church mostly because of correct doctrine and not the culture, thank you very much. Just to let you know you are not speaking for me.

@To re: Dennis | 9:44 a.m. | 10:35 a.m. Oct. 22, 2009

"No man is an island" but every group is.

Start questioning doctrine and see how your group treats you.

Convert/Member | 10:40 a.m. Oct. 22, 2009

If my "conversion" (which Mr. Card has confused with the term testimony) were based on the members of wards I have lived in I would not be a strong, active, member of the LDS Church today. The culture and the gossip and judgements of people not in authority would have chased me out years ago. I am a convert, the only member in my immediate and extended family. I joined and belong because I know that this is the Lord's church. The doctrine is what makes sense and is what continues to teach me a way of life that comes as close to Christ as possible in this earthly existence. Mr. Card had best stick to writing his fiction. That is where his experience and expertise lies.

To Perhaps a twig | 10:55 a.m. Oct. 22, 2009

Which doctrines of Mormonism are so difficult to defend? Those that require faith? Every religion has those doctrines, which will never be acceptable to those with no willingness to apply faith. Those that require support from the scriptures, specifically the Holy Bible? There are different but reasonable interpretations that can be applied to probably any scripture you can cite to shoot down Mormonism. Those that don't conform to modern values? God's ways are higher than man's, and always will be.

I suppose it's easier to defend traditional Catholic or Protestant doctrine, right? Like the idea that God created billions of people out of NOTHING, subjected the vast majority of them to cultures where Jesus Christ is completely unknown, then judges them according to their faith in Jesus, necessarily condemning them to tortuous hell for eternity.

DSB | 12:24 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

I believe those who think themselves better than others for standing on doctrine while demeaning a supposed "Mormon culture" for such things as gossip, judgementalism, narrow-mindedness, or a host of other human faults should check their own eyes for various and sundry motes. To shun and ridicule your fellow Mormons for those faults is to shun and ridicule the entire human race, because these are the shortcomings of people everywhere, of any group of significant size. It is also to shun and ridicule a significant piece God's plan for us here on earth, which is to work toward overlooking shortcomings, learn to love without a requirement of perfection, and strengthen each other as we become better in any given area.

It's a great and wonderful plan, full of opportunities for growth and fulfillment within the family of mankind, especially if you accentuate the positive in others and avoid judgmentalism of all kinds.

If I've implied a judgment, it's with the acknowledgment of my own shortcomings, some of them severe. If I saw you on the street or at a church function, I hope we could socialize with love despite our respective differences.

No Man is an Island | 12:57 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

Why don't you tell me which doctrines I need to question, since I don't currently have a problem with them? And yes, I've already "studied out in my mind" doctrines pertaining to polygamy, godhead, faith vs works, temple rituals, work for the dead, and probably anything else you think would really shake my faith. In all cases, my testimony is strengthened. I've asked questions in church that implied disagreement with a quoted church authority (the quotes are inevitably from non-approved sources, although from revered church leaders reflecting common LDS perceptions). I was never shamed or outcast in any way.

And, I know other members who struggle with some doctrines, and some who have wacky ideas, in my opinion. As an accepted member of "the group," I don't seek to impose my opinion or my judgment on them, and do not ostracize or ridicule them.

Perhaps you're referring to individuals who push their anti-doctrinal views on others, or who teach as doctrine their personal conclusions and don't like the church's admonishment against active apostasy. Anyone who hates their own group will have a negative experience with other members.

Doctrine... | 1:08 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

My family joined when I was 7 year-old and I enjoyed the culture and continue to love the people. The church did a great job giving me the Book of Mormon and instilling a firm and immovable testimony that it is the word of God, which is why I am out now. My trust in the teachings of the Book of Mormon made it impossible for me to accept the teachings of the LDS church. So doctrine may not matter going in, but I bet it has a lot to do with people getting out.

re: to re: Dennis 9:44 a.m. | 1:10 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

I don't hate any of the things you just named. I am a convert, and I love all those practices, especially discussing doctrine with others and service projects. I actually (gasp!) enjoy giving talks and lessons, too.

What I do hate is: "Why don't you have kids yet?" "Why aren't you on a mission?" "Why aren't you married?"

And those things are rarely done in a mean-spirited way, but it shows some people act like they're just supposed to happen automatically, when they're major life decisions. People should mind their own business over things like that and let others pray about it themselves.

I'm still not big on social activities. However, I don't think my knowledge or commitment is superior to anyone else's.

I also hate assumptions.

kenny | 2:12 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

Its the doctrine that got you there. Its the Ward Family that keeps you there.

RE: To Perhaps a twig | 2:19 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

"To perhaps any scripture[s}you can cite" Article of Faith, 8. We beleive the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...." "currently I have the Greek NT variants on the Gospels of John and Matthew and Galatians,(2nd-12th century)so translating Greek is no problem for me,I can even tell you when and what was added centuries later. My question to you, can you tell me "exactly" when and what Scriptures are missing? I have read things like the gospel of Thomas,it is not a gospel but a list of sayings(Logion). And everything Paul wrote was not inspired,like his laundry list.

To Perhaps to a twig | 3:14 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

To poster at 2:19 - is that supposed to be a response to my earlier question, or just a recitation of your incredible intelligence and final authoritative interpretation of all scripture?

I didn't know that Jesus and the original apostles spoke Greek. If the original text does such a good job of laying to rest all arguments over interpretation of scripture, what reason was there for the debates that resulted in the Nicene Creed, and if you're not Catholic, how could they have possibly misinterpreted those unmistakable original transcripts for so long?

If only you had been around in the fourth century, surely you could have prevented all the doctrinal misunderstandings that have occurred over the past two millenia.

To: To perhap a twig | 3:23 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

Pauls defense of God.: What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all, For he says to Moses "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" It does not thererfore depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy." (Romans 9:14-16 NIV) "But who are you O, man to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it ,Why did you make me like this? Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noblepurposes and some or common use?(Romans 9:20,21 NIV) If God's overiding purpose was to save man,he would remove the devil. "Martin Luther"

To Re: Dennis | 3:41 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

So, what you hate is the imperfections and sensitivities of other LDS members. Well, all I can say is "welcome to the human race." Most of us hate those kinds of intrusive questions by less sensitive members. It has nothing to do with "Mormon culture," but rather with human nature. If you were part of any group that had common expectations of its members, and then did not conform in all ways, you would get such questions from some people.

As you said, they did not intend to offend, so by being offended anyway you've chosen to judge by the action rather than the heart. Maybe they're judging you for not conforming according to their standard, and maybe you hate the "Mormon culture" because of your judgment of others' insensitivities. Either way, possibly neither of you is willing to overlook a perceived imperfection, which is hurtful in the process of building a society of unified, supportive members.

Supposed adherence to doctrine while shunning social association with members and non-members alike is contrary to some of the most significant doctrinal principles of the gospel - loving, forgiving, supporting, and strengthening one another.

To Perhaps a twig | 3:58 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

To poster at 3:23: Is this your scriptural defense of a God who would take the oblivious peace of nonexistence and create a living, feeling being that is consigned to misery from the moment of birth to the end of eternity? You seem to imply that God has no reasoning for salvation, and that anyone who seeks to know the pathway of salvation needs to shut up and beg to be among the lucky ones on whom God's potentially fickle mercy may come to rest.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll continue to believe in a God with a plan, and I believe there are inspired and correct interpretations of scriptures, including those you've used, to support my belief system.

If God's overriding purpose was to ensure every man's salvation with a smooth, obstacle-free ride to heaven, then yes, he would remove the devil. If His overriding purpose is our growth and development, then the plan in place, including the devil, may be a better plan.

RE: To perhaps a twig 3:14 | 3:59 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

You did not respond to my question,"What Scripture is exactly missing"? or the Plain and precious parts. But I will respond to yours, 1. I am an average Christian who studied Greek in college. 2. The Greek OT Septugint(Apostles Bible) was read and quoted by the Apostles,Example, Paul in (ICor 1:19) is quoting the (Septuagint IS 29:14),Just google it.
3. I am catholic but not Roman Catholic, I go to a creedal(Nicence creed) church. 4. There have always been false teachers and prophets,the facts do not matter to them. In 325 A.D. the Arians(todays Jehovah's witnesses)were one of the main issues, councils came up when there was a need.

Anonymous | 4:30 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

I'm the original "re: Dennis," and I hope to clarify some things.

I don't hold grudges against anyone for some of the things they say. I won't freeze anybody out for anything offensive. I just hate when it happens.

I worry about "tradition" creeping into the Church that's not in harmony with doctrine.

I don't like large, social gatherings in general. A small gathering on a game night is cool by me. Service projects are great no matter who's there. I'm just not good socially around a lot of people.

Yes, we're all human, including me.

@To Perhaps a twig | 10:55 | 4:56 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

I posted the “Perhaps a twig” comment this morning and I will answer your question of “which doctrines of Mormonism are so difficult to defend?”

Here you go:

“Polygamy” - Would you be willing to share your wife with multiple, younger more virile men? Obviously your religion still believes it or they wouldn’t practice it in the Celestial Kingdom.

“The Curse of Cain” - Please defend the view that Black people are inferior.

“Elohim” - So is that your God’s name? Who created him when he was a man?

“Men on the moon” - Joseph Smith said the moon was inhabited and “dressed very much like Quaker style.” Please defend that kind of wisdom.

“Joseph Smith’s initial vision” - There were two. One describes seeing only Jesus, the other he sees both Jesus and God. Which one is accurate?

I could go on but start with those. And by the way, “having faith” is not a defense.

To: pehaps a twig 3:58 | 5:03 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

Paul says the same thing in (Ephesian 2:4-6)"For he chose us in him before creation of the world to be holy and blameles, In his sight,In love he PREDESTINED us to be "adopted" as his sons through Jesus Christ in accordance to his pleasure..."
We just don't know who he has been predestined. If you do not like the God of the Bible and make your own god in your mind,that is idoltry. I would simply ask for mercy.

@No Man is an Island 12:57 | 5:16 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

Hey, if you don’t have a problem with Mormonism, fine.

If you question your leaders, good for you.

If believing God is a man and lives on a planet called Kolob fits nicely within your scheme of acceptable perception, great!

It’s your life.

To Perhaps a twig | 5:59 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

To poster at 10:55 - Of course you could go on. I could also go on and on about doctrines of other religions that do not conform to my religion's interpretation of scripture.

Regarding polygamy, I assume you consider yourself more enlightened than Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I don't want to practice polygamy, having been raised in a culture that cherishes virtuous monogamous relationships. But, I know that among the most righteous, universally respected people who ever lived on the planet, some of them practiced polygamy, apparently with the approval of God. I don't presume that my modern-day perspective of marriage and sexual relations is the ultimate reality of universal truth. Every believer in the Old Testament who claims that polygamy is inherently evil must very conveniently ignore its practice by those who established possibly the most significant covenant with God in the history of mankind.

My understanding of polygamy is that procreation is a primary concept of the practice. No one with the slightest intelligence would argue that one woman with multiple husbands accomplishes that purpose, but then again my religion believes God actually has a purpose.

To Perhaps a twig | 6:15 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

So, if we believe God has a name, then we have to answer the question of how he came to be created as a man, but because you believe he had no progression to godhood, you don't have to account for how he came into existence? I really fail to see how either of us could adequately answer that question better than the other to anyone who wanted proof.

That God exists at all requires the faith of any believer.

So what if Joseph Smith believed the moon was inhabited or made of cheese? One of the great deceptions of anti-Mormons is to dig up these obscure silly quotes, as though we believe our prophets have no opinions of their own that may be incorrect. I'm not seeing this statement in any canonized scripture, and have not heard it preached in General Conference. I'm guessing that every prophet from the beginning of the earth who has passed away has enjoyed some laughter with the heavenly hosts about numerous faulty earthly perspectives and beliefs.

Mrs. Dave | 6:21 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

Eloquent truth.
Thank you.

@To Perhaps a twig | 5:59 p.m. | 6:29 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

You said, "Some of the most righteious, universally respected people to ever live on the planet practiced polygamy"...

I'm sure that was/is a great comfort to all those women who have suffered and are suffering under it. But hey, at least you are being honest when you say polygamy is unacceptable to you, even though it's acceptable to your God. That is very interesting. You see, that shows ambivalence. That is what I meant about defending difficult doctrine. If it were easy to swallow, such conflict would be absent. You just confirmed my point.

To Perhaps a twig | 6:35 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

Regarding the "Curse of Cain" maybe you should read Genesis chapter 4 if you don't believe God cursed Cain. The Mormons certainly didn't invent the "curse of cain" theory, nor were they as suppressive toward blacks as most other religions. Fact is, outside of organized black Christian churches, every other organized religion considered blacks inferior to whites until at various points in the 20th century.

Another great deception of anti-Mormons is that since we claim to be the restored gospel, our church must meet a standard of procedural and cultural perfection from its inception. I may be at odds with some of my fellow Saints when I claim to believe God expects us as a church to work through some issues, sometimes with great effort, to progress and grow, rather than having prophets who just sit around waiting for revelation to fall in their laps.

By the way, Joseph Smith did not prohibit blacks from holding the priesthood, and believed that any inferiority of blacks was due to inferior environment and opportunity. That was fairly radical thinking at that time, no matter how obvious it seems to us today.

To Perhaps a twig | 6:45 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

I never said polygamy was "unacceptable" to me, just that I have not been raised culturally to view it as desirable. Should I presume that any principle of heaven that I can't wrap my mind around with my mortal limitations can't be true?

Defending polygamy to a non-Christian may be difficult, although many non-Christian cultures and religions still practice polygamy. But to a true believer in the Old Testament, how difficult is the defense, really? How presumptuous to claim we know more about God's ways than Abraham! I would think you would have more difficulty decrying polygamy as universally evil to anyone who believes in the infallibility of the Bible.

To Perhaps a twig | 6:57 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

I didn't mean to imply that black people descended from Cain - just that Cain was certainly cursed according to the Old Testament. It was a common belief prior to the 20th century that blacks were descended from Cain, and therefore inherited the curse and a comparative inferiority to white people.

Some things we all accept today with little thought will probably seem silly in 150 years as well.

horizontal vs veritical | 7:11 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

In church we worship God and our inner most thoughts hopefully go upward to the divine while during the same 3 hour block we should be social and our aim should be to our neighbor and those around us,-------- so we are given power from on high, but we reach out to those around us----the gospel has a vertical and horizontal perspective.

@To Perhaps a twig | 6:35 p.m. | 7:14 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

You say, "Regarding the "Curse of Cain" maybe you should read Genesis chapter 4 if you don't believe God cursed Cain. The Mormons certainly didn't invent the "curse of cain" theory, nor were they as suppressive toward blacks as most other religions."

My point is your religion ran with it - it wasn't objectionable (more of that difficult to defend stuff).

As for your second point, "I may be at odds with some of my fellow Saints when I claim to believe God expects us as a church to work through some issues, sometimes with great effort, to progress and grow, rather than having prophets who just sit around waiting for revelation to fall in their laps."

I respect that.

You add, "By the way, Joseph Smith did not prohibit blacks from holding the priesthood, and believed that any inferiority of blacks was due to inferior environment and opportunity. That was fairly radical thinking at that time, no matter how obvious it seems to us today."

So he didn't believe in the "Curse of Cain?" All subsequent Prophets did. Why the disparity? Who was wrong? Anyway, I thought it was about weakness in the pre-existence?

Question | 7:16 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

Who created matter? If matter has always existed, then is it inconceivable that God has always existed?

@To Perhaps a twig | 6:45 p.m. | 7:20 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

You said, "I never said polygamy was "unacceptable" to me, just that I have not been raised culturally to view it as desirable. Should I presume that any principle of heaven that I can't wrap my mind around with my mortal limitations can't be true?

I think you are walking a fine line between desirable and acceptable.

As for "mortal limitations," that's a good point.

@Question | 7:16 p.m. | 7:30 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

You say, "Who created matter? If matter has always existed, then is it inconceivable that God has always existed?"

That is the ultimate question now isn't it?

If Elohim was once man, or as man is, then became a God, as the best Mormons are expected to become, and those Mormons are led to believe they have a creator, then Elohim was not "as man is" for he did not have a creator. He simply IS...and is a total departure from the progression of godhood all members are expected to follow. If this is the case, Joseph Smith had it wrong.

To Perhaps a twig | 7:35 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

To my point-counterpoint, I believe Joseph Smith probably did believe in the "curse of Cain" idea, since it was fairly well accepted as fact at the time. The idea of "weakness in the preexistence" idea was a natural and probably uniquely LDS branch of the original thought, since one would think that God needed a place for the less valiant, and therefore they deserved the supposed inferiority of the alleged cursed lineage. Again, people just working through the process, trying to make sense of things, based on accepted thinking of the day.

Regardless, Joseph Smith held a much more tolerant and welcoming view of blacks than most whites in his day, and apparently Brigham Young was more in line with the thinking of his day regarding blacks, although still not one to condone inhuman treatment of them. I think there were so few blacks in the church at the time that nothing was settled as doctrine prior to Joseph Smith's martyrdom, and Brigham Young made some decisions based on his perspective at the time, and subsequent prophets held to tradition on this matter possibly more than they should have.

@To Perhaps a twig | 7:35 p.m. | 7:50 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

I think you what you said is well put. I may not agree with you but respect the civility and intelligence of your argument.

@To Perhaps a twig | 7:35 p.m. | 7:52 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

Follow up: Scratch my use of "argument" and replace it with "debate." Sounds less contentious.

To @Question | 8:01 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

You can believe God did not have a creator. Doesn't stop me from believing that God did have a creator, and progressed to his current state. Either way, we both have a "beginning" problem, and I've never heard a rational explanation from anyone of any religion for how either God came into existence as the only God, or how it all began if God progressed and looks to another as his God, and so forth back through eternity.

But, I do believe in God, and believe the "beginning" question is ultimately irrelevant to my progress at this stage of existence, so must possibly be looked at as a mystery to be understood when the comprehension of my mind is expanded beyond it's current state.

Anonymous | 10:47 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

thanks card..for stomping on what i believe in.

Anonymous | 12:38 a.m. Oct. 23, 2009

mORMONISM IS QUIRKY. yOU HAVE TO BE A BIT OFF TO BELIEVE THE WHOLE BIG TALE. dOESN'T IT SEEM A BIT CURIOUS THAT jOSEPH sMITH EVEN THOUGHT IT A BIT MUCH TO SWALLOW--THUS THE ELEVEN WITNESSES.

To Anon 12:38 | 7:43 a.m. Oct. 23, 2009

It seems a bit much for me to swallow that eleven supposedly dishonest witnesses would remain universally immovable in their testimony of what they saw, to their very deaths, especially considering some of them turned against Joseph Smith.

Why is Joseph Smith's "big tale" any more difficult to swallow than the tales of Moses? Do you believe them, and if so, aren't you "a bit off" by your own definition?

Jesus had 12 special witnesses.

Anonymous | 7:57 a.m. Oct. 23, 2009

The church has used the family as a marketing tool now for 25 years or so, and now marketing has evolved into doctrine. It may work for the ideal family, but my view is that those who fall outside the ideal family are essentially neglected and not handled well. The reality is that salvation is purely a personal thing. Everything else is intended to assist in that endeavor, and that means the church and the family. Useful tools. The means to the end and not the end. This has been lost.

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.