Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
I note that the church that Emma (JS?) founded is in many ways more enlightened and forthright than the big LDS movement (I hesitate to say mainstream in this context), and lacks many of the skeletons. Apparently they have repudiated the Book of Mormon's racism and any other racism in JS's writings. They are all but agnostic on the Book of Mormon's origins, forthrightly recognizing the absurdity of any claim to historicity. They are aggresively eccumenical. Am I correct that they were not polygamists? Did they have a priesthood ban? If so, they seem to have explicitly addressed and repudiated and condemned that too. Not a bad legacy for Emma (and Joseph?).
|
Can I get a show of hands as to how many people really take Seattle Ute seriously on discussions of Mormonism. I am well aware of problems with BoM historicity, etc., and the potential to interpret BoM teachings in certain places as racist, but because the great Seattle Ute spins it that one would have to be a moron to see things any other way is ridiculous. Sorry, maybe it is just late, but it seems most of Seattle Ute's posts, that I recall at least, have the same pompous - 'hey I am a big smart guy, my opinion is beyond repraoch and therefore you would be an idiot to try to claim different views when it comes to Mormonism's veracity, historicity, etc.'. Give me a break, there are so many things that are unsettled and uncertain that I believe no one can really say one way or another on veracity claims. Your act is tiring. Maybe I should go to bed as I am tired and grumpy.