The only historical issue that would ultimately matter is if it were found that
Joseph Smith did not have the First Vision. After that all else is largely
irrelevent. Re: Otis Spurlock
Otis Spurlock -If the answer to your question doesn't coincide
with your current thoughts on the subject, do you simply discard the response?
If so, you're not looking for 'open and honest', you're
looking for someone to tell you things are the way YOU expect them to be. You
need to be honest enough with yourself to accept that the truth may not be the
same as your preconceived notions. You ask us to be that way. I'm asking
you to be that way. Otherwise, your goal isn't really 'open and
honest'.Full-on double rainbow -Same thing. Also,
sometimes the most accurate response we can give you is 'I don't
know'. It's not about being evasive, it's about not knowing,
doctrinally, the answer to a question. We can give you our suspicions and
opinions, but that's not doctrine. So, for example, when asked why the
Blacks could not hold the priesthood before 1978, the only doctrinal answer we
can give is 'I don't know'. I have my opinions, but that's
I'm not sure the Church needs another one-sided website. People need
honest and open answers to various questions concerning history and doctrine.As Elder Marlin Jensen recently stated, the Church is in a crisis right
now over many historical issues and the Church plans to be more open and honest
in addressing them.This website does nothing to further that goal.
I'm all for honest and open discussion. Is that the goal of mormonvoices?
Also will mormonvoices gives responses beyond: we don't know why or how
that started but...