Popular Post cinepro Posted January 26, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) Brian Hales has a fascinating essay about how some members of the Church are dealing with the polygamy essays. He quotes Bushman, who observes that for some LDS, learning the details about early Mormon polygamy is "like learning you have cancer." “It is Like Learning You Have Cancer”: Helping those with Doubts He makes some interesting points, but there is one critical issue that Hales is blind on, and it looks like the next step that needs to be taken for LDS to deal with polygamy will be to overcome it. Namely, it's the idea that LDS are disturbed primarily as a result of misinformation about early Mormon polygamy. Hales says: Due to the abundance of misinformation and half-truths promoted on the internet by critics and antagonists, Church leaders have found it necessary to openly discuss meaty topics like plural marriage. As with so many other things about the Church, if there are any "antagonists" that are spreading "misinformation" or "half-truths", I suspect it is an honest mistake since spreading "information" and "whole truths" would probably be much more effective if they're trying to upset faithful LDS. There may have been a time when anti-Mormons deliberately spread lies about the Church, and if they bothered LDS, the best way to combat such lies were to tell the truth. But I suspect those days are past. The sooner Hales and other apologists realize this, the sooner they can start dealing with the actual problem: some LDS are bothered by the truth about LDS history. And the more truthful it is, the more they are bothered by it. But other than that, it's a great blog post. Edited January 26, 2015 by cinepro 8 Link to comment
rockpond Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Brian Hales has a fascinating essay about how some members of the Church are dealing with the polygamy essays. He quotes Bushman, who observes that for some LDS, learning the details about early Mormon polygamy is "like learning you have cancer." “It is Like Learning You Have Cancer”: Helping those with DoubtsHe makes some interesting points, but there is one critical issue that Hales is blind on, and it looks like the next step that needs to be taken for LDS to deal with polygamy will be to overcome it.Namely, it's the idea that LDS are disturbed primarily as a result of misinformation about early Mormon polygamy. Hales says: As with so many other things about the Church, if there are any "antagonists" that are spreading "misinformation" or "half-truths", I suspect it is an honest mistake since spreading "information" and "whole truths" would probably be much more effective if they're trying to upset faithful LDS. There may have been a time when anti-Mormons deliberately spread lies about the Church, and if they bothered LDS, the best way to combat such lies were to tell the truth. But I suspect those days are past.The sooner Hales and other apologists realize this, the sooner they can start dealing with the actual problem: some LDS are bothered by the truth about LDS history. And the more truthful it is, the more they are bothered by it.But other than that, it's a great blog post. In the blog post does Hales clarify what misinformation and half-truths are being promoted by antagonists and critics? Everything that I once thought was misinformation and half-truth turned out to be accurate. And that's what hurt. 4 Link to comment
Popular Post USU78 Posted January 26, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 26, 2015 Finding out about XIXth Century Mormon polygyny is equivalent to getting the news that you've got Stage IV+ non-Hodgkins Lymphoma? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 15 Link to comment
Buckeye Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Brian Hales has a fascinating essay about how some members of the Church are dealing with the polygamy essays. He quotes Bushman, who observes that for some LDS, learning the details about early Mormon polygamy is "like learning you have cancer." “It is Like Learning You Have Cancer”: Helping those with DoubtsHe makes some interesting points, but there is one critical issue that Hales is blind on, and it looks like the next step that needs to be taken for LDS to deal with polygamy will be to overcome it.Namely, it's the idea that LDS are disturbed primarily as a result of misinformation about early Mormon polygamy. Hales says: As with so many other things about the Church, if there are any "antagonists" that are spreading "misinformation" or "half-truths", I suspect it is an honest mistake since spreading "information" and "whole truths" would probably be much more effective if they're trying to upset faithful LDS. There may have been a time when anti-Mormons deliberately spread lies about the Church, and if they bothered LDS, the best way to combat such lies were to tell the truth. But I suspect those days are past.The sooner Hales and other apologists realize this, the sooner they can start dealing with the actual problem: some LDS are bothered by the truth about LDS history. And the more truthful it is, the more they are bothered by it.But other than that, it's a great blog post. It would be helpful if Hales clearly set out the "meat" that some members are choking on, which Hales believes these members would find nourishing if only their stomachs and palettes were more mature. It matters quite a bit whether the meat is:Polygamy Polyandry The angel / sword The law of Sarah Pressure placed on HMK to accept Joseph or risk her family's salvation Joseph's dishonesty with the public Joseph's dishonesty with the church Joseph's dishonesty with Emma Etc.Granted, whatever meat exists, I'm sure some members will still choke on it. But it strikes me as wholly unnecessary to allow members to choke on something that is not really meat, but rather bone, gristle, fat, or even rancid meat. To the degree that we can, lets get that non-meat garbage off of the plate as it is unhealthy for the children of God to digest. 4 Link to comment
jwhitlock Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 As with so many other things about the Church, if there are any "antagonists" that are spreading "misinformation" or "half-truths", I suspect it is an honest mistake since spreading "information" and "whole truths" would probably be much more effective if they're trying to upset faithful LDS. There may have been a time when anti-Mormons deliberately spread lies about the Church, and if they bothered LDS, the best way to combat such lies were to tell the truth. But I suspect those days are past. Best demonstration of irony that I've seen yet. As an aside, I consider presenting information that is technically true, but given in the wrong context, to be basically lying. But that's just me. I'm sure anti-Mormons and some critics think otherwise. 2 Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 “It is Like Learning You Have Cancer”:The sooner Hales and other apologists realize this, the sooner they can start dealing with the actual problem: some LDS are bothered by the truth about LDS history. And the more truthful it is, the more they are bothered by it. And we wonder why God revoked the law and the corresponding blessings...with an attitude like that towards a proffered blessing he probably thought we were ungrateful children who didn't deserve it. We can fool ourselves into believing that polygamy was revoked to "save the Church" but in the end God could have easily saved the Church with polygamy intact. No, polygamy was revoked because the people didn't want to live it anymore. Same reason for many other changes. Link to comment
cinepro Posted January 26, 2015 Author Share Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) Best demonstration of irony that I've seen yet. As an aside, I consider presenting information that is technically true, but given in the wrong context, to be basically lying. But that's just me. I'm sure anti-Mormons and some critics think otherwise. I don't know what you do for a living, jwhitlock, but I am 100% sure you do not work for LDS public affairs. Edited January 26, 2015 by cinepro 4 Link to comment
Buckeye Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 And we wonder why God revoked the law and the corresponding blessings...with an attitude like that towards a proffered blessing he probably thought we were ungrateful children who didn't deserve it. We can fool ourselves into believing that polygamy was revoked to "save the Church" but in the end God could have easily saved the Church with polygamy intact. No, polygamy was revoked because the people didn't want to live it anymore. Same reason for many other changes. Actually, according to President Woodruff, the Lord revoked the command for the exact opposite reason - the saints had suffered enough. See OD-1. You can disagree with his stated reason, but then how does ones explain that the Lords' anointed had to lie to the people as to the real reason for the revocation? And the funny thing is, most every member I know, especially women, has zero desire to obtain additional blessings through reintroduction of the principle. 1 Link to comment
Buckeye Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 I don't know what you do for a living, jwhitlock, but I am 100% sure you do not work for LDS public affairs. If he worked for PA, his response would be "the problem with polygamy is that most members do not read section 132 in the proper tone." Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Actually, according to President Woodruff, the Lord revoked the command for the exact opposite reason - the saints had suffered enough. See OD-1. You can disagree with his stated reason, but then how does ones explain that the Lords' anointed had to lie to the people as to the real reason for the revocation? And the funny thing is, most every member I know, especially women, has zero desire to obtain additional blessings through reintroduction of the principle. Thank you. Exactly my point:1. The Lords anointed DID lie - of the 15 Apostles the majority of them continued to practice, perform plural marriages and in some cases take additional wives. The Manifesto revoked absolutely nothing but was a political manoeuvre. 2. The fact that some members have zero desire to obtain additional blessings from God shows exactly the problem I refer to. 1 Link to comment
rockpond Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Thank you. Exactly my point:1. The Lords anointed DID lie - of the 15 Apostles the majority of them continued to practice, perform plural marriages and in some cases take additional wives. The Manifesto revoked absolutely nothing but was a political manoeuvre. 2. The fact that some members have zero desire to obtain additional blessings from God shows exactly the problem I refer to. Well, as long as we're speculating we also need to include the possibility that the Lord revoked polygamy because it was never meant to be a part of the doctrine. 2 Link to comment
Rob Osborn Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Its about faith. You look at petty much any genealogy record from the mid to late 1800's from SLC and surrounding area and everyone was having large families by faithful members. So many accounts of large families building up a righteous generation. I have no problem admitting I come from large polygamous families on both my mother and father's sides. They were great men, faithful men, men of valor and high esteem. They were able to build up that righteous generation that Zion needed at that time. I stand by them. Its our history, its our doctrine and we should be proud! Edited January 27, 2015 by Rob Osborn 2 Link to comment
juliann Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 The sooner Hales and other apologists realize this Whoa there. Do you want to name someone other than Hales who thinks that way? In my opinion, Hales goes beyond what I would consider to be "apologetics." He is creating a theology around polygamy which starts and ends with his belief that there will be more exalted women than men. He states in a recent podcast that it is predicted in a D&C verse, which says nothing more than all men and women must enter into marriage. Aside from noting the extra women thing was used as an early rationale for polygamy, I'm not aware of any well known "apologist" who would touch that with a ten foot pole. Link to comment
readstoomuch Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I wish we owned polygamy better than we do. I certainly understand why it is mostly not talked about. We get caught up in not understanding the implementation of a controversial doctrine and great social change in the Mormon culture in the 1840`s. The same could be said about many things taught in the Old Testament, including David, Solomon, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob`s polygamy. I honor them as prophets and great leaders. My understanding of women and their role in building the kingdom of God is different today than then and I am glad that it has evolved. I also have reservations about the idea that there are more women than men in the celestial kingdom. On the other hand, women seem to stay active in the Church in greater numbers than men (personal observations, so studies to quote). Link to comment
sunstoned Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Its about faith. You look at petty much any genealogy record from the mid to late 1800's from SLC and surrounding area and everyone was having large families by faithful members. So many accounts of large families building up a righteous generation. I have no problem admitting I come from large polygamous families on both my mother and father's sides. They were great men, faithful men, men of valor and high esteem. They were able to build up that righteous generation that Zion needed at that time. I stand by them. Its our history, its our doctrine and we should be proud!Valor, esteem and pride are not the words that pop into my mind when Mormon polygamy is mentioned. Polygamy was conceived and practiced in secrecy. It's very existence is rooted in lies. Lies to Emma, to the church, lies to the government, and lies to the public. It was never legal, and was finally shut down by congress, backed by Johnston's army. Even then it didn't die, but continued in secrecy and more lies. It is a sad blight on the history of the church and the country. 1 Link to comment
canard78 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I agree with USU78. Finding out a close friend and family member had aggressive, advanced cancer was devastating. I can't imagine how many more times worse it was for him. There's no comparison. Yes, finding out Joseph married teenage house maids and other men's wives gave me a "sick to my stomach" feeling. I was troubled and concerned by it. But to compare it to such a debilitating, destructive and lethal killer disease... Get some perspective Mormons!!It reminds me of the "First World Problems" website. I won't link to it because some of them are a bit PG-13 in content. But they go something like this:"I have too much chips for my dip, but if I open more dip, I’ll have too much dip for my chips." #firstworldproblems 2 Link to comment
why me Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Brian Hales has a fascinating essay about how some members of the Church are dealing with the polygamy essays. He quotes Bushman, who observes that for some LDS, learning the details about early Mormon polygamy is "like learning you have cancer." “It is Like Learning You Have Cancer”: Helping those with DoubtsHe makes some interesting points, but there is one critical issue that Hales is blind on, and it looks like the next step that needs to be taken for LDS to deal with polygamy will be to overcome it.Namely, it's the idea that LDS are disturbed primarily as a result of misinformation about early Mormon polygamy. Hales says: As with so many other things about the Church, if there are any "antagonists" that are spreading "misinformation" or "half-truths", I suspect it is an honest mistake since spreading "information" and "whole truths" would probably be much more effective if they're trying to upset faithful LDS. There may have been a time when anti-Mormons deliberately spread lies about the Church, and if they bothered LDS, the best way to combat such lies were to tell the truth. But I suspect those days are past.The sooner Hales and other apologists realize this, the sooner they can start dealing with the actual problem: some LDS are bothered by the truth about LDS history. And the more truthful it is, the more they are bothered by it.But other than that, it's a great blog post.I don't think that it has too much to do with tellling the truth but with telling the correct interpretation. The church has not denied that polygamy existed at the time of Joseph Smith. But they havent exactly been forthcoming with its history and its reasons. History is all about the interpretations of facts. The next battle will be on whose interpretations are correct. Of course, some of the polygamy issues could have been discussed when for two years or so, Joseph Smith was discussed in priesthood and relief society. But....nothing of the kind was in the manual. It was a blown opportunity. The problem that the church had in the recent past (lets say the last 25 years) was the lack of information in the ensign about such issues of lds history that may seem controversial. By the way, the polygamy problems were mentioned in a biography of hyrum published in 2003. But how many members have read it? Much is in that book. http://deseretbook.com/Hyrum-Smith-Life-Integrity-Jeffrey-S-ODriscoll/i/5053130 If members need to be feed with spoon during sunday school, well....what to do? Edited January 27, 2015 by why me 1 Link to comment
why me Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Valor, esteem and pride are not the words that pop into my mind when Mormon polygamy is mentioned. Polygamy was conceived and practiced in secrecy. It's very existence is rooted in lies. Lies to Emma, to the church, lies to the government, and lies to the public. It was never legal, and was finally shut down by congress, backed by Johnston's army. Even then it didn't die, but continued in secrecy and more lies. It is a sad blight on the history of the church and the country.And yet, one has to wonder if the mormons were not so persecuted at that time of Joseph Smith, would the issue have been more openly practiced? Once the saints headed west, all came out in the open. Why? No one around to murder them and burn their homes? We need to see history in context and use our imagination to see why things were done the way they were. Only then can we come to an understanding about why people acted the way they did and reacted to the events that were surrounding them. Edited January 27, 2015 by why me 1 Link to comment
Popular Post The Nehor Posted January 27, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 27, 2015 I would prefer having two wives to having cancer. This may be a controversial stand but I am making it anyways. 5 Link to comment
Stargazer Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I would prefer having two wives to having cancer. This may be a controversial stand but I am making it anyways. I can agree with this. I also think that my wife would have chosen having a sister wife over having cancer, too. Not that it was something available as a choice. Link to comment
Thinking Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA It can be a very traumatic experience to find out information that threatens to change your belief system. That somebody would laugh at an analogy that attempts to quantify the pain is unacceptable and insensitive. 1 Link to comment
Tacenda Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 And we wonder why God revoked the law and the corresponding blessings...with an attitude like that towards a proffered blessing he probably thought we were ungrateful children who didn't deserve it.We can fool ourselves into believing that polygamy was revoked to "save the Church" but in the end God could have easily saved the Church with polygamy intact. No, polygamy was revoked because the people didn't want to live it anymore. Same reason for many other changes.Kingston group still does and FLDS, heck they even live the United Order. Seems the LDS group quit both and shun these groups like the plague. And there are many more out there living the law of polygamy, and believe that in order to be saved they must live it, I wonder where they got that notion? It sure isn't biblical. Link to comment
Tacenda Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I agree with USU78. Finding out a close friend and family member had aggressive, advanced cancer was devastating. I can't imagine how many more times worse it was for him. There's no comparison. Yes, finding out Joseph married teenage house maids and other men's wives gave me a "sick to my stomach" feeling. I was troubled and concerned by it. But to compare it to such a debilitating, destructive and lethal killer disease... Get some perspective Mormons!!It reminds me of the "First World Problems" website. I won't link to it because some of them are a bit PG-13 in content. But they go something like this:"I have too much chips for my dip, but if I open more dip, I’ll have too much dip for my chips." #firstworldproblemsI disagree, it's a cancer of a different sort. A cancer of losing a faith paradigm. One so deep, but unlike cancer, you usually suffer w/o sympathy and even feel like it's all your fault, and even feel like if people knew about it they would run away from you as if you had something they might catch. So an emotional cancer, incurable nearly. God bless those that have dealt with someone with the physical cancer though, my heart goes out to them. 1 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Brian Hales has a fascinating essay about how some members of the Church are dealing with the polygamy essays. He quotes Bushman, who observes that for some LDS, learning the details about early Mormon polygamy is "like learning you have cancer." “It is Like Learning You Have Cancer”: Helping those with DoubtsHe makes some interesting points, but there is one critical issue that Hales is blind on, and it looks like the next step that needs to be taken for LDS to deal with polygamy will be to overcome it.Namely, it's the idea that LDS are disturbed primarily as a result of misinformation about early Mormon polygamy. Hales says: As with so many other things about the Church, if there are any "antagonists" that are spreading "misinformation" or "half-truths", I suspect it is an honest mistake since spreading "information" and "whole truths" would probably be much more effective if they're trying to upset faithful LDS. There may have been a time when anti-Mormons deliberately spread lies about the Church, and if they bothered LDS, the best way to combat such lies were to tell the truth. But I suspect those days are past.The sooner Hales and other apologists realize this, the sooner they can start dealing with the actual problem: some LDS are bothered by the truth about LDS history. And the more truthful it is, the more they are bothered by it............................................................. Whatever the source of unease or shock, I like Hales' notion that LDS members may have to "pay a price to know" the facts -- which some find more disturbing than others. Still other Mormons will surely ignore the issue as not relevant to their current concerns. If some apostatize over such matters, so what, cinepro? We should expect that, and we should understand that this life is a tough probationary state. All of us must be buffeted by unpleasant facts and learn how to adjust to them -- like learning that Santa Claus is not real, or that Jesus is not nearly as shallow a concept as we may have learned in Primary. For those who live on borrowed light, this may be a particularly difficult part of keeping their Second Estate. 2 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Kingston group still does and FLDS, heck they even live the United Order. Seems the LDS group quit both and shun these groups like the plague. And there are many more out there living the law of polygamy, and believe that in order to be saved they must live it, I wonder where they got that notion? It sure isn't biblical.While it may be true that the Davis County Cooperative Society (Kingston Group) exists, does that mean that it practices the United Order (Law of Consecration & Stewardship)? One cannot say that the FLDS have done so. What they practiced was tyrannical rule by the lecherous few, including their child-molesting Prophet who is now in prison. The LDS Church long ago made an accommodation to mainstream American society by abandoning polygamy as well as communism, and replacing them with monogamy and capitalism. Mormons are now more American than Americans, and still growing like gangbusters. 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts