John 3:16 questions

No revelation was changed. The church sustains the laws of the land and went through every legal measure to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation banning plural marriage. When those attempts failed, the Church ceased the practice in 1890. Of course, those who had existing families were not required to throw them out to the cold. If you are insinuating that Church Presidents married multiple wives after 1890, you are mistaken.

 

Once again, I apologize for neglecting to disable my auto singature. When I talk of religious issues, I speak as a private individual, not as a distance learning professional or university faculty or administrator.

I sought to address spurious information about my church made by a single poster, but did not intend to hijack this thread. I did not expect to engage another poster, but I am willing to answer honest inquiries (or dispel bad information) from anyone. I would suggest that the desire to continue this conversation (if such exists) would be better served on a different thread. If this were to occur, Dave, please do your homework first. Recycling tired old Walter Martin-esque ineptness accomplishes little good.

Everybody: Please note that in four years, I have NEVER attacked anyone else's belief's, even when I disagree and do not ever intend to do so.

 

Tony,

Any church, body or belief that claims to be the repository of THE TRUTH should expect to be challenged.

Every first Sunday of the month, when Mormon members get up to give their testimony ( or for that matter, when anyone speaks in the church publicily), the ending patter goes something like this: 'I testify that this is the TRUE CHURCH, the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph Smith is God's prophet, and Gordon Hinkley is God's living prophet.'

These are truely amazing statements. They are not just religious statements. These have enormous implications for humankind. And to question them is not an attack on yours or anyone else's faith.

Truth, in whatever form it takes, should be open to discussion and criticism. We cannot say this is my faith and take offense when it is questioned.

I have not tried to give a detailed reason for many of the statements raised on this thread; just to highlight that there are many many problems associated with the main claims of your church which claims to be God's representative here on earth. The claims of your church make it a target for criticism and such claims deserve the closest scuntiny.

And for the records, I am an atheist, am not a 'converted' exmember of the Mormon church, yet have a close association with this institution on an ongoing basis. And I have read extensively both sides of the arguments and will continue to...

Discussion closed...to save our readers (metaphorically speaking)

 

And I will close my end as well with this...

David, I absolutely respect your (and anyone's) right to question or scrutinize the beliefs, doctrines and practice of any institution (be it religious, political or otherwise). I applaud your interest in considering this issue when, as an atheist, you would have no real stake in the outcome. I agree that any system based on faith makes claims that make it a target for criticism. Over the centuries, Christianity, Judaism, democracy, federalism, socialism, communism, existentialism phenominalism, scientific hypotheses and every other system are rightfully scrutinized, criticized and challenged. I would NEVER counsel anyone (inside or outside of my Church) to cease questioning or examining one's faith or claims to truth.

If you interpret my correction of erroneous data and sloppy scholarship produced by your anti-Mormon Internet "researchers" as an attempt to discourage discussion, criticism and scrutiny, then you have misinterpreted by intentions. Neither your postings nor Little Fauss' posting demonstrated any knowledge of "both sides" of these issues--only warmed-over anti-Mormon arguments that have been around (and have been fully addressed and refuted) for decades. To claim that Oliver Cowdery needed to read a publicity brochure to describe something that he (and hundreds of others) had seen with his own eyes is not "critical examination". To claim that Joseph Smith had 30 wives without mentioning that most were sealed to him after his death is not “critical examination”.

Anyone who has seen my postings on this forum knows that I prefer to address misinformation and have pointed out where people have failed to do their homework when they claim that distance learning is inferior to "traditional" learning, that the Ed.D. is a "practitioner" degree, while the Ph.D. is a research degree, that unaccredited degrees have the same utility as accredited ones, that one only needs a doctorate to land a tenure track university faculty position, or misinformation about my Church.

I will not prohibit dialogue, but feel, as you do, that this is not the right thread for this one. Most are not that interested in our religious discussions and I tend not to be interested in the political ones. I thank our Degreeinfo colleagues for their kind indulgence during this sideline discussion.

Best wishes to Dave, Little Fauss and the rest...

Tony