Skip to main content

View Diary: Random stuff about Mormons (98 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Your reasons are not proof. They are innuendo (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    they are speculation and you are skeptical. You can be doubtful but you cannot provide proof, no one can. Because the diarist is anonymous. We do not know the diarist's gender, location and career much less his/her religion.

    •  Gender? (0+ / 0-)

      I think I have good reason to say the diarest is a man.

      A woman would not so cavalierly dismiss the current belief in polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom.  And of course you know that Brigham Young said you could not reach the highest level in the Celestial Kingdom without practicing polygamy.

      I am not alone in my assessment.....

      I'd bet you $10,000 the guy is LDS.

      •  A Mormon apologist would have tried to prove (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        that the Book of Mormon is based on historical and scientific evidence. This diarist does not, the diarist instead says:

        As for the Book of Mormon (BoM, from now on) itself, it's generally agreed by scholars that it has little, if any, connection to known history. None of the places or events described in the BoM can be found, dated, or proven.
        Mormons believe the Book of Mormon to be:
        Church members officially regard the Book of Mormon as the "most correct" book of scripture, in that "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than any other book."

        This diarist deviates from that premise by saying BOM cannot be proven.

        •  As I have said, (0+ / 0-)

          it is pretty slick.

          Many educated Mormons are finding themselves agreeing with the idea that the Book of Mormon is not historically accurate or even an historical account.  It is not too outrageous to hear this.

          I could write a 20 page paper on this diary.....Others here have made good points....

          •  Then they cannot remain Mormons (0+ / 0-)

            Because apostasy is a reason for excommunication from the LDS Church:

            Apostasy can also result in excommunication. Apostasy is not inactivity in Church programs. A person who drifts away and becomes inactive is not apostate. Apostasy involves will-full rebellion, overt criticism of the Church, fighting against the Church.
            More here:
            Open repudiation of the Church, its leaders, and teachings is one ground for excommunication.
            The diarist openly repudiated a central teaching of Mormonism. Here it is once again:
            Church members officially regard the Book of Mormon as the "most correct" book of scripture, in that "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than any other book."
            See the link for this in my above comment.
            •  Of course (0+ / 0-)

              The key here is "open" criticism of the Book of Mormon.

              Many closet doubters, my friend.

              •  Cognitive-Dissonance (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                You are trying to combine two mutually contradictory ideas into your thesis. Let's look at them shall we?

                First idea: The diarist is an LDS apologist/Mormon

                Second idea: The diarist is a closet doubter

                So what we have is this:

                A closet doubter of Mormonism is in fact an LDS apologist and Mormon. How do you reconcile the two?

                •  Both are quite possible (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  It is not a black or white proposition--at least for quite a few LDS members.

                  In fact, the diarest may be trying to convince himself and come to terms with why he is still in the Church.  

                  •  I guess one thing is clear from all of this (0+ / 0-)

                    You must have a degree in arm-chair psychology.

                    You realized that the diarist is attempting to leave the church and now is in the process of convincing himself to say, all from the comfort of your home, without even meeting the diarist in person, or having sessions with him and then evaluating him.

                    Congratulations! You did it from the opposite end of your computer without even knowing the diarist's skin color or real name.

                    I should contact you if I have any problems. Do you mind Kosmailing me your number? After all you are a miracle worker and from what I have seen, work wonders.

                    On second thought...long distance diagnosis has been severally criticized:

                    So guess what I am feeling right now?

                    •  You could be right about the (0+ / 0-)

                      Diarest being a closet doubter.  My fellow sleuths may disagree as well.  

                      My point is that it was possible to be a closet doubter and an apologist.

                      No need to defend the Church to me.....If someone wants to do that, fine, just do it honestly.


                      •  WTF! Now you are just misrepresenting (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        You speculated the diarist may be a closet doubter. Here are your exact words:

                        The key here is "open" criticism of the Book of Mormon.

                        Many closet doubters, my friend.
                        by MKS on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:48:33 PM PDT

                        So I never said the diarist was a closet doubter.

                        This conversation is over. You are just irrational, no need for us to go in circles. But if you talk of honesty, you should practice what you preach.

                        Don't come back and tell me you weren't talking about the diarist, because I can show you the thread and the thread in question was about the diarist.

                        •  Yes, I did speculate the diarest (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          was a closet doubter.  But I did say you could be right about being a closet doubter (that he is not), or at least that was what I was trying to say.

                          I see where what I wrote could be confusing.

                          Peace be unto you.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site