Recording of an excommunication

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

That was all I needed to hear. They could have brought him in just for that and I'd have voted to ex him.

What if he has said Radiohead? Would that have been O.K.?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

What if he has said Radiohead? Would that have been O.K.?

Anything short of Afterglow or MoTab would have been insufficient.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by scottie

If you're referring to his cocaine dealers analogy, then I agree that was bizarre, but his point is legit in my opinion. He first explained how he felt that spiritual witnesses/feelings are found in all things, i.e., not reserved only for things Mormon. Then I think he used the drug dealer example (poor example maybe) to bring up a conflict of interest, so to speak, going on with Moroni's promise -- of course Moroni or Joseph Smith is going to tell you that if you have a good feeling about the BOM that that's God telling you it's true.

I do think it is an interesting paradox that we learn spiritual truth through good feelings but discourage any number of behaviors not withstanding that they feel good. His crack example was a wee bit over the top though.

I think I have said before that I do have spiritual witnesses but that what I experience physically is not distinguishable from how I feel when the national anthem is played. I hope those feelings are from God. I choose to believe they are. See my signature line.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Failure to inoculate strikes again.

I agree. I too wish people would inoculate themselves with stronger testimonies.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Has the church ever officially denied JS's polyandry? I know they like to avoid the topic, but have they ever claimed it didn't happen?

I agree here. I dispute the claim that the LDS Church "suppresses information." Perhaps some have such a binary world that if the LDS Church isn't having open free days with its archives and publishing pamphlets called "1001 Things You Don't Know about Joseph Smith" they equate that to suppressing information. There is little doubt that the Church would prefer that information not be well promulagated, but I don't buy into the entire lies and deceits. I think most of the folks who write the sunday manuals genuinely believe what they write. I don't believe there are excerpts about polyandry and then the oversight commitee cuts them out and invites the authors into a room with bright spotlights and one chair.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

I agree here. I dispute the claim that the LDS Church "suppresses information." Perhaps some have such a binary world that if the LDS Church isn't having open free days with its archives and publishing pamphlets called "1001 Things You Don't Know about Joseph Smith" they equate that to suppressing information. There is little doubt that the Church would prefer that information not be well promulagated, but I don't buy into the entire lies and deceits. I think most of the folks who write the sunday manuals genuinely believe what they write. I don't believe there are excerpts about polyandry and then the oversight commitee cuts them out and invites the authors into a room with bright spotlights and one chair.

So you saying not opening the archives is not suppressing information? Please explain.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So you saying not opening the archives is not suppressing information? Please explain.

I don't think the Church has any responsibility to share it's archives with anyone who wants in. I personally would prefer they open the archives, but I have never believed how the Chruch treats its archives instantly equates to suppressing information. As the SP said, just about all the information critics of the Church use can be found in books published by Deseret Books.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

I don't think the Church has any responsibility to share it's archives with anyone who wants in. I personally would prefer they open the archives, but I have never believed how the Chruch treats its archives instantly equates to suppressing information. As the SP said, just about all the information critics of the Church use can be found in books published by Deseret Books.

I agree, but it gives the impression of suppression, which might be worse.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

I don't think the Church has any responsibility to share it's archives with anyone who wants in. I personally would prefer they open the archives, but I have never believed how the Chruch treats its archives instantly equates to suppressing information. As the SP said, just about all the information critics of the Church use can be found in books published by Deseret Books.

So the church has the right to suppress information (which I agree) therefore it is not suppression of information? that's a bizarre argument.

Come on, don't give me the tripe about Deseret Books. If you really believe that, you have your head in the sand. Of the top 20 "controversial" books about Mormon history that have salience and a strong measure of respect (among non-mullahs), how many were published by Deseret Book?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So the church has the right to suppress information (which I agree) therefore it is not suppression of information? that's a bizarre argument.

Come on, don't give me the tripe about Deseret Books. If you really believe that, you have your head in the sand. Of the top 20 "controversial" books about Mormon history that have salience and a strong measure of respect (among non-mullahs), how many were published by Deseret Book?

Published by or sold at DB? I don't know the answer to either and the answer may be the same for both.