95 replies to this topic

[Deborah]

Teancum, on Sep 28 2006, 04:12 PM, said:

But do you really think that justifies hiding it?  The main leaders were certianly doing it and lying about it.

Not if they were under oath not to reveal anything at that time.

[Teancum]

Dadof7, on Sep 28 2006, 07:37 AM, said:

Teancum, on Sep 28 2006, 05:52 AM, said:

Dadof7, on Sep 27 2006, 10:42 PM, said:

If you were to press me about information that was none of your business on an issue that would cause harm to people if I revealed it you are darn straight I'd lie to you.�?� �?�  Like a rug!�?�  �?�  Abraham was obviously justified in doing so.

So you do you agree the statements being discussed were dishonest, a lie, a cover up?  And are you saying that the Church was justified in such actions?

Teancum

Hello?  

wrrrrrrrrrrrroooowwwww!

Hello?  

Buzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Is this mic on?

Testing. Testing.

thump! thump! thump!

*ahem*

"Yes!  The Demurred, they lied, the obfuscated, they pulled an Abraham, they deflected, they deceived.  And it was the right thing to do in that situation."

(Please don't ask me for a fourth time, it reflects badly on your reading comprehension.)



*I do hold out the possibility that I don't have all the facts.  I've been lied to by anti-mormons before and come down too hard on Brigham.  IF that is the case here as some like Dale believe then shame on me for taking them at face value.

Ok,

So you think the lie was just fine.

I guess I disagree.  To me, if this was really from God, it was sure ungodly then way they brought it out.

Teancum

[Teancum]

Deborah, on Sep 28 2006, 03:15 PM, said:

Teancum, on Sep 28 2006, 04:12 PM, said:

But do you really think that justifies hiding it?  The main leaders were certianly doing it and lying about it.

Not if they were under oath not to reveal anything at that time.

Wow.  An oath to whom?  Each other?  I highly doubt you would apply these situational ethics so easily to any other group doing such things.

Teancum

[Tarski]

Deborah, on Sep 28 2006, 02:53 PM, said:

NoSmiles, on Sep 28 2006, 09:55 AM, said:

What about other things? Is there a pattern? How about Joseph�¢â?¬â?¢s involvement with money digging?

You use a perjorative term like "money digging" to describe what sounds more like a mining endeavor. What pray tell is wrong with looking for a mine, which many people did?

You do realize that he used the very seer stone used in translating the BoM for looking for treasure for a group of treasure hunters don't you? (not "mining"   ).  They never found any and it appears that he may have never really thought that he could find such treasure. I hope you also realize that he confessed and apologized for it to his soon to be father in law. In anycase, I think is is weird and embarrassing for the church.

Edited by Tarski, 28 September 2006 - 03:25 PM.

[Teancum]

Deborah, on Sep 28 2006, 03:15 PM, said:

Teancum, on Sep 28 2006, 04:12 PM, said:

But do you really think that justifies hiding it?  The main leaders were certianly doing it and lying about it.

Not if they were under oath not to reveal anything at that time.

I conspire with Jimmy to commit a crime.  Rob a bank let's say.  I let two other people that work at the bank know I am going to rob the bank and tell them if they keep my secret and leave the door unlocker and swear an oath to me to do so I will share the take.

I rob the bank.

The police figure out someone left the door unlocked.

So they question all the employees.  Whenthey get to the two I know they deny they left the door unlocked.  They have an oath with me after all.  

They are also asked if they know any suspects.  They so, nope.

I guess they were not lying.

Teancum

[NoSmiles]

Deborah, on Sep 28 2006, 02:53 PM, said:

NoSmiles, on Sep 28 2006, 09:55 AM, said:

What about other things? Is there a pattern? How about Joseph�¢â?¬â?¢s involvement with money digging?

You use a perjorative term like "money digging" to describe what sounds more like a mining endeavor. What pray tell is wrong with looking for a mine, which many people did?

I am not saying money-digging or mining it is wrong or right. I am speaking of JosephÃ?¢â?‰?¢s ability to speak the truth.  Why has he tried to mislead people from the truth of his actual history?

[Deborah]

Teancum, on Sep 28 2006, 04:20 PM, said:

Wow.  An oath to whom?  Each other?  I highly doubt you would apply these situational ethics so easily to any other group doing such things.

I have made covenants not to reveal certain things in the temple. I've taken an oath not to do so. Is it situational ethics to decline to respond in the affirmative if someone blurts out what they shouldn't and I'm asked to confirm?

I don't even know if an oath was made but it sounds like some kind of covenant was made to God and to the prophet that certain things would not be revealed publically at that time.

[Deborah]

Tarski, on Sep 28 2006, 04:24 PM, said:

You do realize that he used the very seer stone used in translating the BoM for looking for treasure for a group of treasure hunters don't you? (not "mining"  ).

Oh, my, what gleeful gloating!

Of course I first have to believe those stories, which I don't. Hearsay and second hand information.

[Deborah]

NoSmiles, on Sep 28 2006, 04:42 PM, said:

Why has he tried to mislead people from the truth of his actual history?

And who are you to say what his actual history is. There have been so many stories, so much speculation, that much of what has been said cannot be believed. I believe the "actual" history is in the doctrines Joseph taught and in the fruits of his church.

[T-Shirt]

Cowpie, on Sep 28 2006, 03:12 PM, said:

I mean you've taken it to a whole new level, and I really don't understand your logic in doing so, but it's okay, what you speak of is more of the sort of clandestine drama that demonstrates the lack of faith in God to lead and care for his people, if you accept that kind of God, or ultimately question the nature of a God who requires lying and deceipt on his behalf.

What on earth are you talking about?  Let's pretend for a minute that you are Joseph Smith and that the Lord has revealed the principle of plural marriage to you.  He instructs you that it is not for the entire Church at this time, but only for a select few.  You covenant not to reveal it to the world and put those who are instructed about it under the same covenant.

One of these persons, later, gets angry and breaks his covenant and begins telling people about the practice.  In the process, he also embellishes and distorts the truth of the matter, thus creating all manner of rumors.  The accusations fly.

You and those who have been instructed are still under covenant.  What actions do you take when confronted with these accusations?

T-Shirt

[fox_goku]

Dadof7, on Sep 27 2006, 09:16 PM, said:

After lurking on several discussion about these statements, I've come to the conclusion that the Brethren were purposefully dismissive and deflected the questions on technicalities because:

1) The Principle was just being established by God and they were not instructed to reveal it publicly, and
2) It was no one elses d@#* business but those who entered into it.

If I were married to two women and someone was prying into my personal business I'd tell them I've been one hundred percent two hundred percent faithful to my wife!  

So, are we to conclude that lying for the Lord is OK?  Are we to conclude that the end justifies the means?  Are we to conclude that the true Church is founded on deceit?  

Something is wrong with this picture.

[Thinking]

Deborah, on Sep 28 2006, 03:15 PM, said:

Teancum, on Sep 28 2006, 04:12 PM, said:

But do you really think that justifies hiding it?  The main leaders were certianly doing it and lying about it.

Not if they were under oath not to reveal anything at that time.

Matthew 5:33-37
"Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God�¢â?¬â?¢s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."

[NoSmiles]

Deborah, on Sep 28 2006, 04:24 PM, said:

NoSmiles, on Sep 28 2006, 04:42 PM, said:

Why has he tried to mislead people from the truth of his actual history?

And who are you to say what his actual history is. There have been so many stories, so much speculation, that much of what has been said cannot be believed. I believe the "actual" history is in the doctrines Joseph taught and in the fruits of his church.

Who am I?  I am someone who was asked to believe that JS was a prophet.  I was told to judge him by his works.  So I have the right to judge the works of JS.  What I recently found out that what the church teaches about Joseph Smith is not necessarily true.  They are more concerned about teaching faith promoting things than teaching truth. So I am left to find the facts about its history myself.  I can no longer trust the church to tell the truth about its history.  I now understand why the church needs so many lawyer officers.

There have been stories and there has been speculation but there are also facts.  I try to find the facts and then make my judgment.  The facts on polygamy and the facts about JS's money-digging / mining career clearly indicate that JS was less then truthful and tried to hide his true history.

[Thinking]

Deborah, on Sep 28 2006, 04:24 PM, said:

And who are you to say what his actual history is. There have been so many stories, so much speculation, that much of what has been said cannot be believed. I believe the "actual" history is in the doctrines Joseph taught and in the fruits of his church.

Doctrines and fruits are history? Now that's some serious dancing!

Isn't it amazing that I, NoSmiles and others can study the LDS Church's own history, read something that doesn't make sense, question it, then be told that what we found was probably just speculation. Do you see the irony? The apologist is speculating that the history is just speculation!

[KevinG]

Teancum, on Sep 28 2006, 03:18 PM, said:

I guess I disagree.  To me, if this was really from God, it was sure ungodly then way they brought it out.

Teancum

Yes it was ungodly that those engaging in a counterfeit practice of seduction, when caught and disfellowshipped, decided to accuse Joseph of the very crimes they themselves committed.

It was ungodly that a practice instituted by God and instituted among a called people was forced into the public eye and categorized as evil by those were bitter about being caught in their own sins and sought revenge upon the Saints.

- - -

I read the Bushman volume and would recommend it to anyone.  It  points out the Emma was informed and consented to several marriages, and may or may not have known about some subsequent.

Of course don't let evidence or good scholarship ruin the perfectly good mantra of "Joseph Lied".  

The extreme camps of Joseph as liar vs. Joseph as perfect are both spouting idiocy.

[KevinG]

Thinking, on Sep 28 2006, 08:44 PM, said:

Deborah, on Sep 28 2006, 04:24 PM, said:

And who are you to say what his actual history is. There have been so many stories, so much speculation, that much of what has been said cannot be believed. I believe the "actual" history is in the doctrines Joseph taught and in the fruits of his church.

Doctrines and fruits are history? Now that's some serious dancing!

Isn't it amazing that I, NoSmiles and others can study the LDS Church's own history, read something that doesn't make sense, question it, then be told that what we found was probably just speculation. Do you see the irony? The apologist is speculating that the history is just speculation!

There's the problem...

Doesn't make sense to me = evil and wrong.

Doesn't agree with my understanding = hiding the truth and lying.

[Thinking]

Dadof7, on Sep 28 2006, 10:05 PM, said:

Thinking, on Sep 28 2006, 08:44 PM, said:

Deborah, on Sep 28 2006, 04:24 PM, said:

And who are you to say what his actual history is. There have been so many stories, so much speculation, that much of what has been said cannot be believed. I believe the "actual" history is in the doctrines Joseph taught and in the fruits of his church.

Doctrines and fruits are history? Now that's some serious dancing!

Isn't it amazing that I, NoSmiles and others can study the LDS Church's own history, read something that doesn't make sense, question it, then be told that what we found was probably just speculation. Do you see the irony? The apologist is speculating that the history is just speculation!

There's the problem...

Doesn't make sense to me = evil and wrong.

Doesn't agree with my understanding = hiding the truth and lying.

Let�¢â?¬â?¢s see...

Christ warns us to be on the lookout for false prophets who come to us in sheep�¢â?¬â?¢s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. This guy Joseph Smith says he�¢â?¬â?¢s a prophet, yet he�¢â?¬â?¢s marrying all these other women, including teenage girls and some women who already have husbands. He denies it publicly but there�¢â?¬â?¢s no doubt he has multiple wives. This doesn�¢â?¬â?¢t make SENSE with my UNDERSTANDING of what a prophet should be. Maybe he�¢â?¬â?¢s not a prophet after all.

[KevinG]

Thinking, on Sep 29 2006, 04:58 AM, said:

This doesn�¢â?¬â?¢t make SENSE with my UNDERSTANDING of what a prophet should be. Maybe he�¢â?¬â?¢s not a prophet after all.

Proverbs. 3: 5 �?�¶ Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

[Deborah]

Thinking, on Sep 29 2006, 05:58 AM, said:

This doesn�¢â?¬â?¢t make SENSE with my UNDERSTANDING of what a prophet should be. Maybe he�¢â?¬â?¢s not a prophet after all.

"8 And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out at a window, and saw, and, behold, Isaac was sporting with Rebekah his wife.
9 And Abimelech called Isaac, and said, Behold, of a surety she is thy wife: and how saidst thou, She is my sister? And Isaac said unto him, Because I said, Lest I die for her. " Genesis 26

Abraham had a similar experience. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all had multiple wives. So I guess they weren't prophets either.

[Orpheus]

Respectful discussion about Polygamy and beliefs and practices of the LDS past and present will be allowed.

No more trash talking will be allowed.