216 replies to this topic

[ERayR]

Tacenda, on 09 August 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

Thanks for your opinion. I'll for sure consider buying either the book or read on an ereader!

There you go again headed for a book with a critical point of view.  Not much in the way of testimony building there.

[Ahab]

CV75, on 09 August 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

This defense of how most people see polygamy::


Doesn't square with this one:

We can all find the meaning of the word in a common dictionary, but some people have some other idea in their mind for what it means.

Better now?

Quote

I don't think you understood my post any more than you understand the world "out there." Now that I think of it, Ms. Brooks doesn't either, if she squares a nation-wide American audience's general understanding of the subject with a cultural Mormon's and frets and replies accordingly.

You can think I don't understand as long as you want but I think I do and I'm willing to live with that.

[William Schryver]

Valentinus, on 09 August 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

I have little reason to believe 1) that the church leadership has any real knowledge as to why the church has/had certain policies, practices and teachings and 2) they are in the position to know. They do as they are told and they are not to ask questions.

This is incoherent.

Perhaps you could try again to express just what it is you're trying to say.

[William Schryver]

pmccombs1, on 09 August 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

I enjoyed the book. I don't think that many faithful Mormons would care for it, though. Yes, it is highly critical of the Church, but I did not think it was anti-Mormon. I've met Daymon and I know he takes Mormonism very seriously; he honors and respects the prophet, Joseph Smith, and the work that Joseph did. My opinion is that Daymon's viewpoint is worth considering.

Smith is just one of the many fifth-columnists out there who have chosen, by design, to feign faithfulness while simultaneously working to undermine both the faith of the Saints and the progress of the Church.

[teddyaware]

We are told to not discuss sacred things that happen inside the temple outside of the temple. This is considered a form of unhealthy secretiveness and deception by some LDS critics. Is this lying?

Jesus often spoke in parables and not plainly, so that those who heared him would hear not and, those who see would see not. Was he being misleading?

Daniel, Ezekiel and John spoke and wrote with strange, enigmatic symbolism. Could those who do so be considered unforthright and decetively cryptic?

Jesus also taught to his followers to not cast one's pearls before swine, necessitating that a Christian might be placed in a position where being forthright and open about things he or she knows would be commiting a serious sin. Why? Because the unworthy (or unready) person might take those sacred things and tear them apart, and then trample them under his feet.

The Church teaches us to be honest but also discreet.

[CV75]

Ahab, on 09 August 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

Better now?

No, I still don't think you get it.

[CV75]

Ahab, on 09 August 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

I'll also usually go a second mile to try to help someone understand what I'm teaching, and remember, and apply what I'm teaching.

I really don't think you get it!

[Hamilton Porter]

Joanna Brooks makes me vomit some times. I remember when an NPR caller asked her if blacks were allowed to be Mormons. Instead of answering the question first, she went our history, showed how smart she was, then by the time no one cared anymore, she said "Yes."

[Tacenda]

ERayR, on 09 August 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

There you go again headed for a book with a critical point of view.  Not much in the way of testimony building there.

I am critical of things people do in the church that are wrong. If this book is respectful, but points to areas that need work, like what may be a problem of materialism in the church operational system of which I'm only assuming, I've forgotten the content of the John Dehlin interview, what's wrong with that?  The church in the past has conducted surveys from members to get feedback on certain procedures, for instance, things done in the temple. Therefore, they just might see other areas in the church that might need changes.

Edited by Tacenda, 09 August 2012 - 07:11 PM.

[ERayR]

Tacenda, on 09 August 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

I am critical of things people do in the church that are wrong. If this book is respectful, but points to areas that need work, like what may be a problem of materialism in the church operational system of which I'm only assuming, I've forgotten the content of the John Dehlin interview, what's wrong with that?  The church in the past has conducted surveys from members to get feedback on certain procedures, for instance, things done in the temple. Therefore, they just might see other areas in the church that might need changes.

So am I critical of things that are not right in "Zion".  If you doubt me I could probably connect you with a couple of Gospel Doctrine teachers who would verify that claim.

  However, I do not need people who make it their life being critical of the church to tell me what to be critical of.

[Tacenda]

ERayR, on 09 August 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

So am I critical of things that are not right in "Zion".  If you doubt me I could probably connect you with a couple of Gospel Doctrine teachers who would verify that claim.

  However, I do not need people who make it their life being critical of the church to tell me what to be critical of.

Are you saying I've made my life about being critical of the church or random people?

[ERayR]

Tacenda, on 09 August 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

Are you saying I've made my life about being critical of the church or random people?

Not saying either.  What I was saying is you seem to search out and read the material of church critics and antis, who make their life about being critical of all thing Mormon, then come back here with their criticisms.  I am saying that I don't need or care what their criticisms are.  I study scripture and rely on personal revelations.  I have had some startling understandings come to me in those moments and more than once have had to reevaluate.  I then take this to my church classes and participate in class, both learning and teaching.  It is marvelous.

[Tacenda]

Hamilton Porter, on 09 August 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

Joanna Brooks makes me vomit some times. I remember when an NPR caller asked her if blacks were allowed to be Mormons. Instead of answering the question first, she went our history, showed how smart she was, then by the time no one cared anymore, she said "Yes."

She's a writer and words and their meaning are her life. Of course she's going to explain something to mainly the listening audience, because she probably knew they might want to know since the question makes the LDS church appear racist.

[mapman]

I thought her article was interesting.  I would agree with the commentators that think that the answer she was trying to give was too complicated for the context.  I don't get the animosity towards her, though.  She never said she lied just that she was concerned that she was being misleading.  I thought her overall point was good, though.  It is part of human nature to sometimes answer questions misleadingly, not some sort of Mormon conspiracy to deceive.

As for her book, I haven't read it, but if it is anything like the other things I've read by her it probably has some critiques of the church but is ultimately positive and affectionate towards it.  I listened to her recent Mormon Stories interview and she was very clear that she has a testimony of her Heavenly Parents and prayer and was happy to be active in the church again.  I disagree with her often, but in my opinion she is definitely on the church's side.

EDIT:  Her book is going to be sold in Deseret Book too.

Edited by mapman, 09 August 2012 - 08:06 PM.

[ERayR]

Tacenda, on 09 August 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

She's a writer and words and their meaning are her life. Of course she's going to explain something to mainly the listening audience, because she probably knew they might want to know since the question makes the LDS church appear racist.

She is also an egotist who likes to multiply words, saying in many what could be said better in a few.

[Tacenda]

ERayR, on 09 August 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

She is also an egotist who likes to multiply words, saying in many what could be said better in a few.

This could be said about so many out there. Some might even be scholars and apologetics.

[Tacenda]

ERayR, on 09 August 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

Not saying either.  What I was saying is you seem to search out and read the material of church critics and antis, who make their life about being critical of all thing Mormon, then come back here with their criticisms.  I am saying that I don't need or care what their criticisms are.  I study scripture and rely on personal revelations.  I have had some startling understandings come to me in those moments and more than once have had to reevaluate.  I then take this to my church classes and participate in class, both learning and teaching.  It is marvelous.

After reading "In Sacred Loneliness" by Todd Compton. My eyes were opened and I felt like a scorned lover. Since then I read more than just the church approved material. Don't want to be side swiped again.

To be honest I have been more of a Ensign reader then scripture reader sometimes.  It would be fun to sit in on one of your GD classes btw.

[ERayR]

Tacenda, on 09 August 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

After reading "In Sacred Loneliness" by Todd Compton. My eyes were opened and I felt like a scorned lover. Since then I read more than just the church approved material. Don't want to be side swiped again.

To be honest I have been more of a Ensign reader then scripture reader sometimes.  It would be fun to sit in on one of your GD classes btw.

The problem with, and we have posted on this before, is the agenda driving them and the misinformation and misinterpretation presented as fact.  Take the hard road if you must.

[cwald]

Tacenda, on 09 August 2012 - 08:12 PM, said:

This could be said about so many out there. Some might even be scholars and apologetics.

You beat me to the punch.

[Pahoran]

Ahab, on 09 August 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

Wow, I rarely catch you in error.  I think I'll take a screen print of this event, at least mentally.

The flaw in your argument is in this little ditty:  To argue that a Mormon widower -- who is doing exactly the same thing -- is somehow practicing "polygamy" only because he believes something different about a post death reunion with his first wife -- is special pleading, and is not a valid argument.

First of all, the Mormon widower who marries another spouse eternally isn't doing exactly the same thing as someone who marries "until death do you part", whether those words are part of the ceremony or just a matter of fact because it is without true priesthod authority.

From the standpoint of LDS doctrine, that is true.  But that argument only works for those who accept our doctrine, which our critics do not.  For those who don't accept our doctrine, eternal marriage may be anything from a silly idea to a sweet romantic notion to something startling that they've never heard of before -- but in no case is it intrinsic to what marriage is.  Our marriages are recognised as marriages by the wider world only to the extent that they have key elements in common with all other marriages.

And in that regard, the Mormon widower who remarries is indeed doing exactly the same thing as any other widower who remarries.

Thus, a man who is sealed to one, two, three, five, eight or any other number of deceased spouses while being currently married to one living woman is practicing monogamy as that word is universally understood.

Ahab, on 09 August 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

Secondly, it's not only because he believes his marriage is something different, but because it is different, as a matter of fact.

And No, I'm not gloating over your error, I'm just surprised and noting the fact that you are wrong, in this case.

That's all right.  My point is that the correct response to anyone who claims that a Mormon widower remarrying is an instance of polygamy is, "Really?  Do you believe that his current and previous marriages are actually of eternal duration, and that he will be reunited with both of his wives and living eternally with them?"  Because if the critic does not believe that (and they never do) then they don't believe that he is actually married to more than one woman.  And thus, they don't believe he is engaged in polygamy.

Thus, when they say they do, they are not telling the truth.

When Mormons talk to Mormons about marriage, we are entitled to talk about marriage in LDS terms.  When Catholics talk to Catholics about marriage, they are entitled to talk about marriage in Catholic terms.  But as soon as we talk to each other about marriage, we have to be sure that we are talking about the same thing, which means that we have to talk in the terms that everyone understands.

And in terms of a "common ground" discussion of marriage, a remarrying widower is a monogamist, not a polygamist.

Regards,
Pahoran