Quote:
Originally Posted by tsubotsubo
If someone's an anti-mormon, they will generally talk about the murdering and adultery done by prophets, they often talk about sexism and racism in the church, they talk about specific events like the forgeries sold to GBH, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, Emma Smith and Brigham Young's hatred of each other, changing of the Book of Mormon, DNA evidence against the BoM, different accounts of the 1st vision, the apparent ruthlessness of the likes of George Q. Cannon and Brigham Young, the mormon funded brothels, the church leaders being polygamous after they stopped polygamy, Brigham Young's 11-year old as an apostle, changing of the temple ceremony, George Q. Cannon's order to kill sexual sinners, Boyd K. Packer recommending to physically harm gay people, Jospeph Smith marrying 14 year-olds and sending men on missions to marry their wives, mormon women being depressed, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young prophesying about moonmen and the date of the 2nd coming, and getting it wrong, people having their calling of election made sure leaving the church, the Book of Abraham not being translated correctly, etc. and the church apparently hiding this from its members.
|
Nonsense.
The majority of these incidents did happen, and painting everyone who is interested in them with the same brush is shallow and prejudiced. Many people, like myself, have a passion for the Church’s history, and know more about these incidents than people, like you, who only want to end the discuss because you perceive them as anti-Mormons.
Based on your post, you are not qualified to determine who has an agenda or not, just because they bring up these historical truths.
Quote:
|
They don't realize that one or two of these 'facts' actually aren't true, and all the ones which are true may have been taken out of context, are a misunderstanding, a mistake, or, to be frank are nothing to do with the religion and do not disprove the religion (although they are unethical and bad).
|
And the collective “you” do not seem to realize that many people do want to discuss these items, because they are true, but wanting to discuss them does not automatically make someone an “anti-Mormon.“
Quote:
|
They don't seem to understand that if someone believes in a religion with all this 'darkness' in it so strongly there must be something more than appears on the cover.
|
And ‘they” who approach these historical facts, and conflate them with anti-Mormons, do not seem to understand you can never know for certain what a person’s purpose is. The only way you could determine this is to start a discussion with the person, without a pre-conceived agenda to prove someone is an “anti-Mormon,“ “an agnostic/atheist who doesn’t understand the Church," or other labels that try to dismiss what a person can offer. You don’t have to be LDS to be able to bring something to the discussion.
I admit I have seen people who, usually, have just discovered some of these items, and believe they are going to come onto a LDS website with this shocking information, and everyone on the website is going to be so upset they’re going to lose their testimony. These people are unfortunate, as their shock is real, but their information, though often true, is tired and boring. But this does make him an anti-Mormon. "He" is usally stunned by just learning a historical truth and is frantic about it.
Admittedly, many of these people leave the Church; however, many of them do not, and frankly, once they've learned more about the Church's true history, their testimony is stronger than ever.
I’ve also seen Latter-day Saints pretend to be investigators, and make comments about how impressed with the Church they are, and how it must be true because of “a”, “b” or “c.” These people obviously are not anti-Mormons; however, they are as dishonest as those you are so quick to judge.
This means nothing regarding whether the Church is true or not. Unfortunately, people like the collective “you” who claim these things never happened or are out of context, do the Church a disservice, as there are many Latter-day Saint historians who write about these incidents, and know they did happen.
The history of the Church is what it is, and insisting that if we discuss it means we’re anti-Mormon is rude. While you may have personally talked with people that you describe, you have not talked to people who do not have an agenda other than the historical truths. And there are more of us than many here seem to be willing to admit.
Elphaba