For those of you who have experienced major doubts...

[exUte]

Originally Posted by scottie

which issue with Joseph Smith or Church history was/is the hardest for you to resolve?

The most difficult for me has been the differences between JS's 1832 and 1838 accounts of the First Vision. I first learned about this while reading Rough Stone Rolling. I think most of us here know the differences, but for those who don't -- after a very quick glance this Wikipedia piece seems to spell it out fairly well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_V...been_presented

NOTE: This thread isn't about defending or attacking the different versions of the FV, rather it's about the #1 issue (if any) that's caused you to doubt/question, so try not hijack.

additional information at the time or his perspective of the event changed as he grew older and he moved from being forgiven of his sins to what the impact of his vision of diety really entailed.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

Your issues with the Church is it most redeeming characteristic, well that is right behind its obvious truthfullness of course.

The Bible, I think indubitably, represented a step forward for humankind (this may be truer for the Old than the New Testament). The Book of Mormon represented a calculated effort to turn back the clock, to reverse human progress and enlightenment.

The best humans were fast shedding a magic world view and JS's most lasting contribiution was to try and in some measure succed to put the brakes on and reverse human progress.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The Bible, I think indubitably, represented a step forward for humankind (this may be truer for the Old than the New Testament). The Book of Mormon represented a calculated effort to turn back the clock, to reverse human progress and enlightenment.

The best humans were fast shedding a magic world view and JS's most lasting contribiution was to try and in some measure succed to put the brakes on and reverse human progress.

How can you possibly spew that stuff. Are you chuckling to yourself as you type.

Reverse human progress???????? Is the mormon church really that pro-found an entity that it could reverse human progress.

Surely you aren't so full of yourself as to believe you can narrow it to individuals and decide for them whether the church advances or hinders their progress.

Perhaps I should add you to the illustrious threesome. Now it is Seattle Ute, Indy, Tex and Lingo.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The Bible, I think indubitably, represented a step forward for humankind (this may be truer for the Old than the New Testament). The Book of Mormon represented a calculated effort to turn back the clock, to reverse human progress and enlightenment.

I really did laugh out loud when I read this.

The Devil will tell you the Bible is true, if it makes you disbelieve the BoM.

[SeattleUte]

I'm not ranking belief systems, dipshits, The Jews acquired systematic written language because of the Bible, and became a people.

The bible as literature is one of the most important books in the world, in terms of how we became what we are. Some of the moral precepts introduced in both sections were important as well.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm not ranking belief systems, dipshits, The Jews acquired systematic written language because of the Bible, and became a people.

The bible as literature is one of the most important books in the world, in terms of how we became what we are. Some of the moral precepts introduced in both sections were important as well.

Whatever Emma.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

Whatever Emma.

Apartheid, polygamy, angels, gold books, blood atonement, secret handshakes, dark skin curses, sexism, curse of Cain/Ham. Progressive stuff, I'd say. All that was new to the world, wasn't it.

[Gifted Fish]

Originally Posted by exUte

additional information at the time or his perspective of the event changed as he grew older and he moved from being forgiven of his sins to what the impact of his vision of diety really entailed.

This explanation has been hard for me to understand -- perhaps it's just my attempt to impose my own logic on another, but I think if I really saw God and Christ, I would have a pretty vivid and detailed description of the event from the very first time I wrote it down. That coupled with various similar accounts by other individuals in the same time period make this event hard for me to avoid doubting.

In my estimation, the 1838 account became a lot more descriptive and authoritative once some of the wheels started coming off the wagon in Kirtland.

[ERCougar]

Great thread...

I don't have as much a problem with imperfect members as I do imperfect PROPHETS. And I don't even expect them to be perfect. But when Brigham Young (especially, but include Joseph Smith and others) gets up and prefaces some crazy (in my eyes) comment with "thus saith the Lord" (paraphrased...), it makes me wonder how much I can trust any but the blandest generic counsel from the prophets. Joseph Smith's polyandry would sort of fit in this category as well.

Denying AA's the priesthood is also very high on the list for me and is somewhat connected with the above. I think there was a lot of personal bias being misinterpreted as coming from God (I can't come up with any other plausible explanation for this), and it does cast a shadow over the legitimacy of all sorts of counsel and doctrine.

Overall, I find myself in Mudphud's camp--trying mostly to ignore the historical concerns and judge the modern church. And thus I stay.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The Bible, I think indubitably, represented a step forward for humankind (this may be truer for the Old than the New Testament). The Book of Mormon represented a calculated effort to turn back the clock, to reverse human progress and enlightenment.

The best humans were fast shedding a magic world view and JS's most lasting contribiution was to try and in some measure succed to put the brakes on and reverse human progress.

A calculated effort? What are you talking about? You are contending that Joseph Smith presetned the BoM as a calulated effort to turn the clock back on enlightenment? I find it hard to believe that you are serious about this.