Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cinepro

Would You Teach A Historical Truth If You Knew It Would Cause Doubts?

Recommended Posts

The Church made a video about the disaffliation of bro. Marsh, although I can't seem to find it right now! haha! i'll continue the hunt! IIRC it talks about how he felt passed over when Joseph Smith sent some Q12 to England in 1837 resulting in DC 112, this video doesn't deal anything with milk!

It's on the "Doctrine and Covenants and Church History DVD" set.

http://store.lds.org/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product3_715839595_10557_21082_-1__195953

Share this post


Link to post

By not letting your certainty bother me when I know you haven't grasped some of what I know about what God thinks.

So you avoid the clash by psychologically creating the "other" as uninformed... or at least less informed than you... and make the lovely assumption that if they knew what you knew they would simply agree with you.

Moreover you do this in a religious context by correlating their absence of knowledge (measured by variance from your perspective on an issue) with a greater degree of separation from deity than you are privileged to enjoy?

Then you wrap all this in a bow of absolute certainty and fact with the notion that "you know" the issue is entirely base on "the others" ignorance and limited access to God.

I bet you have never lost an argument.

Edited by Bikeemikey

Share this post


Link to post

It's on the "Doctrine and Covenants and Church History DVD" set.

http://store.lds.org...1082_-1__195953

The Church put up this website which give a pretty comprehensive bio of Thomas Marsh, including the story of his apostacy.

The Faith And Fall of Thomas Marsh

Here's how they summarize it:

Within a few months, Marsh, as had many others, fell prey to a spirit of apostasy. He was among several Latter-day Saints who became disturbed by the increasingly violent relationship between Church members and their Missouri neighbors. Also contributing to his deepening dissatisfaction was the infamous “cream strippings” incident, which occurred in August or September 1838, involving Marsh’s wife, Elizabeth, and Lucinda Harris, wife of George W. Harris. According to George A. Smith, the women had agreed to exchange milk from their cows for making cheese. But counter to their agreement, Elizabeth allegedly kept the cream strippings—the richer part of the milk that rises to the top—before sending the rest of the milk to Lucinda. According to Smith, the matter went before the teachers quorum, then the bishop, and then the high council, all of whom found Elizabeth to be at fault. Marsh, not satisfied, appealed to the First Presidency, who agreed with the earlier decisions. Further offended by this chain of events, the already frustrated Marsh was said to have declared “that he would sustain the character of his wife, even if he had to go to hell for it.”18

Sometime in the fall of 1838, Marsh left Far West with his family and began actively opposing the Saints. He swore out an affidavit in October 1838 that detailed his concerns about acts of violence and destruction he believed were being planned or carried out by members of the Church against their neighbors in Caldwell and Daviess counties, as well as stating his fear that “all the Mormons who refused to take up arms, if necessary in difficulties with the citizens, should be shot or otherwise put to death,” and that “no Mormon dissenter should leave Caldwell county alive.”19 Orson Hyde added his signature in support of Marsh's disclosures.

The footnote for the cream-strippings story says:

The only full account of this oft-repeated story was given by George A. Smith in a discourse in Salt Lake City on April 6, 1856. Smith prefaced it by saying “sometimes it happens that out of a small matter grows something exceedingly important.” See Journal of Discourses, 3:283-284 for cream-stripping story.
Edited by cinepro

Share this post


Link to post

So you avoid the clash by psychologically creating the "other" as uninformed... or at least less informed than you... and make the lovely assumption that if they knew what you knew they would simply agree with you.

Moreover you do this in a religious context by correlating their absence of knowledge (measured by variance from your perspective on an issue) with a greater degree of separation from deity than you are privileged to enjoy?

Then you wrap all this in a bow of absolute certainty and fact with the notion that "you know" the issue is entirely base on "the others" ignorance and limited access to God.

I bet you have never lost an argument.

We're supposed to become absolutely certain that we know what God thinks about things, don't cha know. It's what all of us should be striving for, and not only should we know what he thinks but we should also agree with him.

Not that I've gained all knowledge about everything there is to know, yet, but God has taught me a lot of things I am certain about that some other people apparently don't know about, yet, even when some people think they know the truth when they really don't, yet, and their false ideas don't throw me (and are not supposed to throw me) into a state of uncertainty about what God has taught me.

And no, I have never lost an argument because even when I learn something I didn't know, yet, I am still winning, and gaining.

Share this post


Link to post

The Church put up this website which give a pretty comprehensive bio of Thomas Marsh, including the story of his apostacy.

The Faith And Fall of Thomas Marsh

Here's how they summarize it:

The footnote for the cream-strippings story says:

ah! I love your guts! so it seems the deal with the milk is one of a variety of issues

Edited by Duncan

Share this post


Link to post

Yes. I say teach the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Otherwise something may come back to bite you on the caboose. I guess it's true that some people just can't handle the truth.

Share this post


Link to post

ah! I love your guts! so it seems the deal with the milk is one of a variety of issues

Little green men are given diplomatic immunity on this planet, don't cha know.

Just don't do what he does and expect to get away with it !!!

Share this post


Link to post

By not letting your certainty bother me when I know you haven't grasped some of what I know about what God thinks.

Dangerous? How is my certainty that I know the mind of God dangerous? Sounds like you need to give that some more thought.

Certainty combined with ignorance is doubly dangerous. You cannot know the mind of God, all you can possess is a feeling that you are pleasing to God or "in" with God if you prefer. The opposite feeling is also yours.

When I see the world of fellow human beings in need of a dressing down, then my "in" with God has passed credibility. How many times has this happened down the ages? The OT is built on such a mindset. It exists today in the Middle East on all sides, and nobody agrees with anybody else outside of their religious world view.

One of the truest things said on this forum that I have seen was just posted: "God can take care of his own business." "He" doesn't need any of us counseling others on how they are wrong. God tells each person one on one how they are wrong, and God doesn't appear to push what "he" is saying any anyone's face. Consequences are the infallible teacher. God Is that patient. But we rarely are....

Share this post


Link to post

We're supposed to become absolutely certain that we know what God thinks about things, don't cha know. It's what all of us should be striving for, and not only should we know what he thinks but we should also agree with him.

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

We are supposed to emulate the life of Christ and be loving.

We are also meant to develop faith (which is not certainty).

As for having absolute certainty that we know what God thinks about things... well that sounds a lot like perfection, and given the nature of revelation as taught in our church, we are only able to have certainty about what God thinks in relation to ourselves... unless we have a prophetic mantle. As such your certainty about Gods thoughts about you may not apply to Gods thoughts about others.

Not that I've gained all knowledge about everything there is to know, yet, but God has taught me a lot of things I am certain about that some other people apparently don't know about, yet, even when some people think they know the truth when they really don't, yet, and their false ideas don't throw me (and are not supposed to throw me) into a state of uncertainty about what God has taught me.

Of course other people's ideas (that are different to your own) should not "throw you"... but that has nothing to do with a falsity or error in belief that is different to yours. The capacity to hold to our beliefs comes from the private religious conviction and testimony that you personally have. It is the unique truth that has been revealed to you that matters... such a personal religious truth is "personal" and, as such, has no bearing on the evaluation of the beliefs of others. General conformance by others to personal revelation unique to you is not required. Personal revelation is not a tool capable of measuring the quality or veracity (truth or falsity) of beliefs of others.

Unless you have a prophetic mantel you and I only receive personal revelation.

Edited by Bikeemikey

Share this post


Link to post

Certainty combined with ignorance is doubly dangerous. You cannot know the mind of God, all you can possess is a feeling that you are pleasing to God or "in" with God if you prefer. The opposite feeling is also yours.

When I see the world of fellow human beings in need of a dressing down, then my "in" with God has passed credibility. How many times has this happened down the ages? The OT is built on such a mindset. It exists today in the Middle East on all sides, and nobody agrees with anybody else outside of their religious world view.

One of the truest things said on this forum that I have seen was just posted: "God can take care of his own business." "He" doesn't need any of us counseling others on how they are wrong. God tells each person one on one how they are wrong, and God doesn't appear to push what "he" is saying any anyone's face. Consequences are the infallible teacher. God Is that patient. But we rarely are....

Are you trying to dissuade me from sharing what God has taught me, QB? Sheesh. You don't have to be offended.

Share this post


Link to post

Personal revelation is not a tool capable of measuring the quality or veracity (truth or falsity) of beliefs of others.

Hogwash. What is true is true to everyone, although circumstances play a part in whether or not something is true.

Unless you have a prophetic mantel you and I only receive personal revelation.

Personal revelation from God to us involves God telling us about something as it actually is, and it is that way for everyone even if they don't agree with the way God thinks about it.

Share this post


Link to post

Hogwash. What is true is true to everyone, although circumstances play a part in whether or not something is true.

Personal revelation from God to us involves God telling us about something as it actually is, and it is that way for everyone even if they don't agree with the way God thinks about it.

I appreciate your zeal but would hesitate to get so all encompassing. Personal revelation can be used to validate the veracity of what others relate to you as it affects you. It becomes problematic when you start evaluating it for someone else unless you are responsible for them.

Personal revelation from God to us involves God telling us about something as it actually is,affects us.

Share this post


Link to post

I appreciate your zeal but would hesitate to get so all encompassing. Personal revelation can be used to validate the veracity of what others relate to you as it affects you. It becomes problematic when you start evaluating it for someone else unless you are responsible for them.

Personal revelation from God to us involves God telling us about something as it actually is,affects us.

We're talking about truth here when we're talking about something as it actually is. Can you think of an example of what you're talking about? I'm sure it's true for everyone else in the context God is thinking about and you just don't see it that way.

Share this post


Link to post

We're talking about truth here when we're talking about something as it actually is. Can you think of an example of what you're talking about? I'm sure it's true for everyone else in the context God is thinking about and you just don't see it that way.

A witness that the Book of Mormon is true is one thing that should be true for everyone. However some deny it. How a certain scripture in the Book of Mormon affects you may not be the same for everyone. Its still true but in different ways.

Share this post


Link to post

A witness that the Book of Mormon is true is one thing that should be true for everyone. However some deny it. How a certain scripture in the Book of Mormon affects you may not be the same for everyone. Its still true but in different ways.

You're the one talking about how things "affect" people. I'm simply saying that what God says applies to everyone in the context God is thinking about it, so it follows that we need to know what God thinks and how he thinks about it. Not that we all learn everything there is to know at the same time, or on the same level, but all truth is in harmony and works together.

Share this post


Link to post

Hogwash. What is true is true to everyone, although circumstances play a part in whether or not something is true.

Personal revelation from God to us involves God telling us about something as it actually is, and it is that way for everyone even if they don't agree with the way God thinks about it.

Truth is truth, but truth can be seen differently depending upon ones perspective. In addition all truth has not yet been revealed, so that when partial truth is all that has been revealed one may draw incorrect conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post

Truth is truth, but truth can be seen differently depending upon ones perspective. In addition all truth has not yet been revealed, so that when partial truth is all that has been revealed one may draw incorrect conclusions.

ERayR, on 25 July 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

You assume to usurp a task from me that I take very seriously. If you can assure me of absolution I will turn it over to you, Otherwise. . .

Ahab:

I'm not usurping or even volunteering to do your thinking for you. I'm just telling you what God has told me he thinks.

.. and you can either agree or not agree with him/me/us.

Careful I had this conversation with ahab on another thread. At great risk to myself I assumed he had erred. You may want to evaluate it differently.

Share this post


Link to post

He was there to refute the story. In law this is called admission by silence .

Also, I was mainly referring to your "Much maligned" part of the quote. He admitted that he was the one in the wrong. Even to the extent of traveling to Utah.

Was he? I think you've got the timeline muddled. I'll have to go and check but George A. Smith told the milk strippings story a year before Marsh arrived in Utah.

He gave a contrite apology yes. But the church don't tell the story of his humility, only that he was a petty apostate who left over milk (which actually has very little evidence beyond the gossiping of the leaders). So given they only tell a part of the story - a part that has questionable accuracy and is the worst of it if true, not the best of it.

Share this post


Link to post

Truth is truth, but truth can be seen differently depending upon ones perspective. In addition all truth has not yet been revealed, so that when partial truth is all that has been revealed one may draw incorrect conclusions.

Not for Ahab. His truth has to be applicable to the entire world. Ignoring this principle from a General Authority:

“While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men; and it is one of God’s instrumentalities for making known the truth yet he is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. God raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend. … All the great teachers are servants of God; among all nations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them.”

Elder B.H. Roberts

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/08/a-latter-day-saint-perspective-on-muhammad?lang=eng

The truth of God has been expressed by many people in different ways. Ahab's understanding of the truth is still true... but only for him. Just as mine is only true for me.

Share this post


Link to post

Cinepro, I just want to say this op was beautiful. FAIR has taken on a project. It is a discussion board where people can come with doubts to get help in a faithful arena. Check out how similar their guidelines are to yours points. There was a group of us who put this together and as we discussed what works and how a "guide" should assist thise in doubts this was the cream that rose to the top. I will add, I wish all could grasp what helps and what doesn't. Too often people are quick to simply answer the doubter's question and make it seem so negative on the questioner for having doubts and questins in the first place. These rules apply even if one is angry or "feels" betrayed

http://www.fairmormo...aith-crisis-101

Thanks for sharing this DB.

I hope that the church is more accurate and less selective with its official publications. But until then, it's appreciated that members like you make it their personal mission to reach out to those who need it.

We talk of "the church" as if it's some distant organisation. We are the church. It is ours. So if we want "the church" to do something about it, we're the ones best placed to do it. But it would be nice to get the leaders, the logo and COB involved in the process eventually.

Share this post


Link to post

I have an inkling the milk story is folklore, or hugely exagerated.

He doesn't agree with me? On the milk strippings? I wasn't aware that he confirmed the story?

The Mrs Harris from the strippings incident was Lucinda Morgan Harris, wife of George W. Harris. From Thomas B. Marsh's (5 May 1857) letter to Heber C. Kimball begging forgiveness for his past wrongs:

I cannot live long so without a reconciliation with the 12 and the Church whom I have injured O Bretheren once Bretheren!! How can I leave this world without your forgiveness Can I have it Can I have it? Something seems to say within me yes O then hasten and signify it by writing the word yes to me & then O Joy I shall be content. I have met with G.W. Harris and a reconsiliation has taken place with us, and when that was accomplished I was so overjoyed that I was constrained to say in my heart this is an evidence that the Lord loves me after all my rebellion & my sins.

Share this post


Link to post

The Church put up this website which give a pretty comprehensive bio of Thomas Marsh, including the story of his apostacy.

The Faith And Fall of Thomas Marsh

Here's how they summarize it:

The footnote for the cream-strippings story says:

I love the revelations in context website. I'm excited to see how it develops. I also hope that they start linking directly to it within the online lesson manuals. I had heard they were going to, but it's still not there. I suppose it's in BETA format. My mum is a SS teacher and always goes to this first. She wants to give a more rounded view of our history and appreciates having RiC as a 'safe' way of sharing a little more 'meat.'

Share this post


Link to post

Hogwash. What is true is true to everyone, although circumstances play a part in whether or not something is true.

Personal revelation from God to us involves God telling us about something as it actually is, and it is that way for everyone even if they don't agree with the way God thinks about it.

You need to watch this video: Was just posted in another thread OP.

http://www.mormondia...entry1209282609

There is an interesting state that suggests: truth is that which yields a desired result more effectively than other options.

This whole true to everyone thinking is very limiting in my mind.

Edited by Bikeemikey

Share this post


Link to post

I know you won't agree. But I think he did make the wrong choice.

No doubt you do. I would be surprised otherwise. Of course, he didn't agree with you either, but I'm sure that's beside the point.

Because in all likelihood the wife wasn't really asking him to choose her or the church. She was expressing insecurity and uncertainty. She wanted to know that he cared for her and wasn't sidelining her. Anyone can attend a church meeting. Only he was able to be her husband. And if he moved out because she threatened his ability to go to more meetings then he missed an opportunity to show her what true love was.

Actually, she gave him an ultimatum: leave the Church or move out. She even included a deadline for his decision. When he wouldn't deny his faith, she threw him out of the house (it belonged solely to her) and initiated divorce proceedings.

Share this post


Link to post

Mormonism is especially good for people who seek certainty.

Yes, because 'Mormonism' is especially good at providing certainty. Though I think I can understand why people who find that the 'more sure word of prophecy' somehow cramps their personal style might wish to look elsewhere.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...