I am actually taking a break from reading the book of mormon to write this note.

I wanted to read it one more time just to be sure I haven't been in crazy town all this time.

Reading it another time through, I ask myself,

how anyone with sane mind could think that the stories contained in the book of mormon actually happened...?

All the drama the church is going to put Runnells through just for simply pointing out the absolute ridiculousness of it all.

Perhaps the church would be better off if it simply said yes there is room in the church for people to use the book of mormon as a faith booster but actual belief in it's veracity isn't required to be a member in good standing.

Isn't it headed there anyway for goodness sake?

Sure it would be better off, but you can always count on the dumbs***s at the top to make the wrong decision, every time.

They can't loosen up on the truth claims of the BOM ("the most correct book") without abandoning JS as a prophet. And if they admit that, everything goes. The 1st Vision goes, and there's no restoration. No restoration, no priesthood, no divine authority, no need for temples, and no reason for the plebes to pay all that beautiful tithing.

The church is like a poorly constructed building, with the weight of the entire structure on just one or two load-bearing walls. Joseph Smith is one. Knock it down and the whole thing crashes.

+1!!

"how anyone with sane mind could think that the stories contained in the book of mormon actually happened...?"

If you can believe that the stories in the Bible actually happened, it's easy to accept the same for Book of Mormon stories.

randyj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "how anyone with sane mind could think that the
> stories contained in the book of mormon actually
> happened...?"
>
> If you can believe that the stories in the Bible
> actually happened, it's easy to accept the same
> for Book of Mormon stories.


Absolutely! There is a very long held human system of belief by faith in mythology. The God Myth is long established in human history.
A good book on the subject is:
"The Power of Myth" By Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers.

It's an interview.

At least with the bible there are actual, verifiable locations. Such as Jerusalem, Jericoh, etc. The stories may be myths, but at least the setting is accurate. Find me an actual BOM location.

LOL

IN B4 someone compares the Holy Bible

to the pile of sh!t that is the Book of Mormon

LOL

IN B4 read Joseph Campbell NOT Moses

IN B4 read Bill Moyers NOT St. Paul

I was looking over the CES letter this morning and a lot of what's in it is wording comparing the bom with the bible (1611 version) and an old hebrew version from before christ.

But here's a serious question that is confusing me, why should the BOM match up with some old hebrew document anyway? Maybe the 1611 version (with the fixes) is a better version of scripture than the older ones? Sorry but I'm having a hard time seeing how the the Mormons wrong here?

The King James Bible contains idiosyncrasies that should not be present in the BOM if the "golden plates" were real and if it was truly inspired by God and correctly translated. Instead, the BOM includes the same idiosyncrasies (because much of it was simply copied from the King James Bible). Newer and better translations of the Bible do not have the idiosyncrasies, and neither do the older manuscripts. In other words, the BOM has errors in it that were introduced in the King James translation. This should not be the case if the story behind its creation is true. In other words, this indicates that the BOM story is not true.

+100

since it is accepted that it is the original version that is the "most correct"-they try to get back as close as possible to the original manuscripts.

BOM works the opposite way. Where there have been discrepancies the Mormon church changes them---they do not want to work backwards but forward.

Then TSCC is admitting it's a lie. According to Gordon and Holland, if it isn't 100 percent true, the church is a lie. Done and done.

Why does Jerermy Runnells get excommunicated for asking questions and the Mormons taking over the wildlife refuge are still considered faithful?

shakinthedust Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why does Jerermy Runnells get excommunicated for
> asking questions and the Mormons taking over the
> wildlife refuge are still considered faithful?

Let's be clear: Jeremy is not being ex'd for asking questions.
Jeremy is being ex'd for publicly showing that the church has no honest, reasonable answers to his questions. He showed that they're dishonest and idiotic. They hate that.

If the magic hat had a "control C" Copy, and a "Control P" paste, Joe could have taken the "exact" Jebus words and inserted them into the BOM. But Jebus hadn't invented Microsoft yet, the next best was to take words from the KJB. The Words, doctrine, Bible talk, etc. were pretty good. So "Control C" and "Control P" from the KJB to BOM. In other words, just "COPY" the magic words from KJB, "Paste" them into the BOM. Isn't it WONDERFUL!!!!! Jebus helped Joe use "Word" (Also known as "Word in a Hat") a 150 years before everyone else on the planet! Another proof the BOM is TRUE.

The church is between a rock and a hard place. If they loosen up and admit they have been wrong, they lose their most dependable hardcore conservative followers. If they tighten the reins, the people already on the fringe will decide to leave.

They walked a careful line down the middle under Hinckley, but under Monson they seem to have taken a turn toward the hardline.

reediculows Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Perhaps the church would be better off if it
> simply said yes there is room in the church for
> people to use the book of mormon as a faith
> booster but actual belief in it's veracity isn't
> required to be a member in good standing.
>
> Isn't it headed there anyway for goodness sake?


Yep, it's headed that way anyway. Just as there were Mormons squirming over "the negro issue" before 1978 there are Mormons now squirming over the literalness of the BofM. Another example is the squirming over Temple weirdness before the 1990 changes.

Contra official Mormonism, the 'Prophet' follows the people. They'll catch up (with a few road kill like Runnells along the way).

Human

I am convinced the church has decided to just abandon the middle of the road and liberal members entirely now. I suspect the know they are losing these people fast anyway, so why not clamp down and get them out of the church quickly rather than having them hanging on asking questions an maybe trying to reform the church from the inside.

I agree. They're throwing out just enough info to scare away any sane truth-seekers, while at the same time tightening the reins and kissing the butts of their hardcore, homophobic, I'm-better-than-the-Gentiles members. In time they're only going to be left with crazies, there will be a leadership vacuum, and the "church" will be a shadow of it's former self. It won't disappear, but the "church" side of the corporation will be a drain instead of funding their for-profit investments.

They don't care about quality of membership, as long as tithing gets paid -- and even that's not a huge problem, because the corporation has diversified its investments and profit streams to keep TSCC bank accounts full no matter what.

It's all about power, control, and obedience/loyalty tests.

I don't think it's just liberal members. Everyone in my family that has left leans more right than left. Anyone with a sense of logic and intelligence should figure it out

of my family and friends.

Many of them have left the church or no longer believe it's "truth" claims.

Many see the church in the same light as those who want to use the federal government to get the control they want.

Cult Behavior: Control Information

It's not about Jeremy but the information. Since the TSCC cannot control the information TSCC must instill fear in associating with the information.

Jeremy will become the scape goat and example for identifying and exposing the information that TSCC cannot refute.

“how anyone with sane mind could think that the stories contained in the book of mormon actually happened...?”

The stories whether they happened or not are morally bankrupt.

You are not wrong, the BOM truly is “crazy town”.
Start at the beginning.

Nephi is basically commanded by God to break the Ten Commandments multiple times. Nephi, lies, steals, murders (a completely defenseless man I might add) and threatens murder (think Laban’s servant) all because God has a caveat to the Ten Commandments unknown to anyone about saving future generations from un-belief. Maybe Moses left that part out?

Why couldn’t the most powerful being in the universe impress Laban to peacefully hand over the Brass plates? No need to break any previous commandments.

It only gets worse from there (think the murder of Korihore) as you look at these stories from a moral point of view.

According to the God of the BOM he is a jealous murdering bastard if you do not believe in him. Don’t give up the brass plates, you die, get haughty with the wealth you gained by being righteous, you die, his son comes to visit and you are on the shite list, you die, tell folks that based on logical reason and evidence there is no god, you die, decide to not follow the prophets, curse you with black skin then you die.

Seriously! Does this not sound familiar? (Insert thoughts of ISIS here)

Now ask yourself, based on modern Christan teachings is this what Jesus would do?

I explained this very thing to a coworker yesterday. I used to be trained to “not” see the true moral implications. Now that I can see the true lack of morality in BOM stories I am appalled at the brainwashing it took to achieve my previous ignorance and acceptance that God could do whatever he wanted regardless of what he said and you just need to be good with that!

And BTW send in your protection check i.e. That will be 10% of gross thank you very much! If not then,,,,well you die!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2016 01:07PM by AmIDarkNow?.

I'm figuring out the very same thing.
My interpretation of much of the bible is the same mess up as the BoM.
The violence is my cue that there's no God present.
Violence is more of a consequential result in mankinds behavior and choices, rather than God's.
This is where people lose the true awareness of a Creator offering free will. They can't link up the results and consequences with themselves (take responsibility) thereby dumping it all on God.
Meanwhile, a loving Creator offers a choice: know and choose love and truth, or it's opposite.
This is what I see present in most all religions, including mormonism. Which is why their books reflect their own choices and behavioral results.

the God of both can be vindictive and murderous.

I see the new testament as an attempt to break away from eye for an eye and evil god mold.

I agree, it attempts to break away, but the Roman Babylonian influenced concepts crept in, along with the evil God.
The New Testament frequently swings God around to be an evil violent God. In spite of its attempt, it still ends up an eye for an eye, with the person being relieved of any real awareness of the consequences or results of their choices. Jesus is still the eye-for-an eye sacrifice, relieving people of making any real significant change. Hence, there's been little to no social changes in 2,000 years in spite of the alleged sacrifice changed from animals to Jesus.

I think it shows how the eye-for-an-eye teaching, (perhaps an old testament version of the law of compensation) never was swallowed up in Jesus. Because responsibility cannot be given over to anybody else. It is personal, and has to be taken on personally. Humans never want to deal with their own personal shit. It's too scarey to feel all that and take responsiblity!

I consider the new testament teaching about choice (Jesus taught about choice) in direct opposition with the results of the saved teaching.

In my own personal relationship with self and Creator, the lack of personal responsibility which creeps into the New Testament and modern day belief system still staggering. All they did was transfer the eye for an eye onto Jesus cross; then walk away clean of responsibility.
The violence (evil) which they wish to wash themselves of, still shows up in the new testaments violent scenarios which they further use to represent God or Jesus as the saving good guy who uses even more violence to protect or save them.

The fragments of Loving teachings from Jesus become rearranged because people were still too afraid of dealing with their own personal issues of taking personal responsibility by feeling and knowing the painful results of their choices and personally choosing something different. --- loving responses/choices.

This lack of personal responsibility has split off to such an extent that many Christians, while living, don't need to deal with personal responsibility issues, choice/consequences. They'll be judged at death and get assigned locations based on how good they are. I notice that in mormons/baptist/catholic systems. They think they know God's laws and therefore become obedient. But their limited laws are still not internalized in a personal relationship, (giving it away to a prophet or savior thereby still never having to deal with an internal relationship involving their own choices and results) therefore still avoiding personal responsibility of choices and their results. Everybody gets to blame everybody else. Somebody's always gotta be the sacrifice for their lack of ability (or desire) to deal with their own lack of personal responsibility. The Christians are the Atheists sacrifical lamb. The non-Christians are the Christians sacrificial lamb...and on and on it goes, while no group is willing to look at personal responsibility. The buddhist system leads to a revolving reincarnating door which never seems to get them off the wheel of samsara/suffering. It's all the same.

I've noticed the same common theme among more of the westernized Evangelist or Pentecostal systems, using solely the new testament. It's similar in their belief that their sins are completely taken over by Jesus and they're completely saved from afterlife judgment.
This further splits them off from personal responsiblity by avoiding the Law of Compensation, which doctrine Jesus taught. They claim that legalism is all done away in Jesus cross.
This is a clever avoidance of personal responsiblity to dig into their own shit and ask a Creator more instruction. They have a middle-man who did it all for them. The avoidance of dealing with personal responsibility/choices is understandble.

But, even though they've ascribed Jesus loving violent saving grace on the cross, and in a return to destroy their enemies, they still can't reach the deeper levels of personal responsiblity of how their choices reflect their results in the first place, so they have a savior coming to destroy what they can't bear to deal with because they've already given it all over to somebody else..... Jesus. The psychological need to avoid personal responsiblity is staggering at all levels, as it's played out in all levels of the story which they attribute to God.

An eye for an eye is still evident, although the presentation has been changed winding up in the end days. If people would take personal responsibility the end time doctrine would disappear. They don't think of that. Such is the aversion to deal with personal choice and it's results in their life or in society.

Rather than viewing Creation/God providing freedom to choose, along with the results of choice, (freedom = love) they manage to avoid responsibility for the results of their choices by creating newly evolving scenarios of nonsense which always includes ascribed violence from God and Jesus to redeem them of the circumstances for which they won't take responsiblity for.

Now they don't have to take responsibility because the good Jesus has taken it all and will come back to destroy the bad guys (violence). Meanwhile, their innocent and saved! Not one has explained the new testament purpose of choice, as all they have to be responsible for is choosing Jesus and their bad choices are gone. Jesus will destroy the remaining residual of bad choices that remain. Again, zero personal responsiblity!

The entire thing has always confused me, but just now trying to write the mess down has helped me figure the mess out in my own mind. I'm not sure if my words made any sense to anybody but myself. It's challenging to put into words. If I spend a little more time processing I may come up with a more coherent written description.

I think I understand why the Roman writings introduced the Triune God, which is a regurgitated Babylonian and Hindu system. It explains why much of the new testament has contradicted itself and not made sense to me.

It can muddy a real desire to develop a personal awareness of a Creator God.

Apologies for the length. I'm processing it all.

Do you think they've found traction due to a newfound alliance with many mainstream churches who are anti-gay?

I'm wondering if this alliance has bolstered the GA's strength toward choices that reflect that? Such as this particular cocky decision?

They're so delusional and cocky that it's unlikely they've given any thought as to how they'd possibly defend their on-going cover-ups.

Seriously, how are they going to defend it?

I'm thinkin many other previous posters are correct..... they're culling out the weak links in the group in an attempt to strengthen (fear tactics) the remaining believers (easily influenced members.)

s.o.s. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you think they've found traction due to a
> newfound alliance with many mainstream churches
> who are anti-gay?


Yes, a classic example of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

don't feel like logging in Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure it would be better off, but you can always
> count on the dumbs***s at the top to make the
> wrong decision, every time.
>
> They can't loosen up on the truth claims of the
> BOM ("the most correct book") without abandoning
> JS as a prophet. And if they admit that,
> everything goes. The 1st Vision goes, and there's
> no restoration. No restoration, no priesthood, no
> divine authority, no need for temples, and no
> reason for the plebes to pay all that beautiful
> tithing.
>
> The church is like a poorly constructed building,
> with the weight of the entire structure on just
> one or two load-bearing walls. Joseph Smith is
> one. Knock it down and the whole thing crashes.



Yes. I've said this many times as well.
The deception is so far over their heads that there's really no way out of this one.

Their trying their best option here, by culling out the dissenters. Their goal is likely to focus on better controlling the believers through fear tactics.

It's way too late though. All it would do is produce a deeper rift than there already is.

If they had an ounce of ethics, which they appear not to have, they'd come completely clean all all the shit lies and deceptions. They'd say that Smith made up the story and they protected it. He wasn't a real prophet.
But since we're all here, let's use this group as an example to society. Let's stay together as a social group, focusing on learning love rather than continue to uphold deceptions rather than their bizarre patterns of maintaining the lies.

If they did this I'd go back.
If they came completely clean by admitting it was lies, changed the name of the group to the Church of Love, I'd join.

Then they'd have a real foundation of honesty, especially if it was coupled with a desire to do the opposite loving behavior of what they've traditionally been deceiving.

But this will never happen. Becasue finacial transparency would be required at the same time and not one of the LDS elite wants the light turned on that shows the world that their hands are stuck inside the Widows pocket.

Yeah, they'd have to admit just how evil they really are.

Their inability to tell the truth is only exceeded by their greed for some type of spiritual/social power and money.

In other words, they really aren't ready to be honest or truthful.

So they'll send the sacrificial lamb, jeremy runnells, to the slaughter in hope of cleansing or freeing the remaining membership whom they still might be able to dupe.
It will only hammer the nails further into their coffin.

For those of you who don't know about the Jeremy Runnells issue...
http://cesletter.com/jeremy-runnells-faces-lds-excommunication.html

I thought Jeremy was already out of the CULT. The CES letter sounds like he certainly should be.
Well I hope Jeremy is happy about his being ex'd. He should have a celebration to end all celebrations to date for him.

I for one, say CONGRATS to Jeremy. I have sent the CES letter to several family members to get them out of the CULT.

"Find me an actual BOM location" - KOLOB!

"Why does Jerermy Runnells get excommunicated for asking questions and the Mormons taking over the wildlife refuge are still considered faithful?" - Ask yourself if the DANITES would be ex'd and that will answer your question. The CULT loves Mormon militias because they are truly violent like the BoM.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2016 06:12PM by verilyverily.