I'd say my religion is a net benefit, by the type of people it teaches its members to be. I know I've seen great blessing in my life, and am a better person bec

I'd say my religion is a net benefit, by the type of people it teaches its members to be. I know I've seen great blessing in my life, and am a better person because because of what I've learned trying to live my religion. I have various answers to the points you brought up. They probably aren't satisfactory to you. You probably have more points, and I won't have answers to some of them. And that's OK by me. And have mistakes been made? Most definitely. That doesn't take away from the truths I've learned (you might disagree, and that's understandable). I compare it to math because there are principles taught in the church, and teachings about how the plan of salvation works, and certain principles. And you can approach them in various ways and they fit together nicely. Like being able to complete a mathematical proof in different ways. It's the consistency that drives the comparison. And although I do have unanswered questions, they gradually get answered over time (we're talking years here), and I'll probably go to my grave with unanswered questions. I'm OK with that. ----------------------- To address your criticisms. Which conviction are you talking about - is it the one where the "victim" testified that Joseph Smith (the founder) was innocent?[0] He was in the courts a lot of times (as you know), leading to his eventual death. That's the first court case that comes to mind when you say convicted felon. I'm also not surprised that the text didn't match. You know about the portion of Isaiah quoted in 2 Nephi that doesn't match the Joseph Smith translation of same part of the Bible, right? I don't consider that a mark against him as a fraud, given the nature of his transactions (e.g. the process with the stones, of which there is copious documentation). (Edited for clarity:) Your statement about the gold plates could be read that there was proof he never had the gold plates (tablets). For the record, he was consistent about his statement about their existence (sorry for the awkward phrasing - he didn't have them all the time, and I'm trying to not be ambiguous...). Interestingly enough, the people he showed them (the plates) to never recanted their testimony about said plates, even though they left the church. You must know the standards the restored church encourages, so believing that it's a net negative signals to me that you might think it's because of moral issues the church takes a stance on, like pornography, drugs, sex outside of marriage, the divinity of gender and that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of god? I'm guessing? Otherwise, I'm not sure how you could call the church a net negative... Edit: I do encourage perusing the church's official history stuff[1]. I say this not to convince you that I'm right, but because they've put up a lot of stuff in recent years; you might be pleasantly surprised at the number of contentious history items that had formerly been basically ignored or undocumented that are now up there. [0] https://www.lds.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smiths-1826-trial?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smiths-1826-... [1] https://www.lds.org/study/church-history?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/study/church-history?lang=eng