How To Keep Your Mormon Testimony

[juliann]

I am not an anti.

What is with you? I didnt' call you an anti. I said that being despised by antis is not a reason for banning. You are jumping at any offense that you can possibly summon.

Why do you labal anyone who challenges the status quo as such.

Find me one post where I do that. hint: I "challenge" the status quo at times.

I never dismissed women.

Yeah you did...and that is about as convincing as telling a black person to shut up and sit down because telling them they weren't like you didn't mean you were dismissing them.

And yes I have seem others banned for behavior less nasty then yours.

Really. Who? What were they banned for?

[Calm]

And thus I feel quite confortably telling you that if you think it easy in LDS culture, due to the way the leaders teach and the culture created, for people to do what you say you are blind as a bat.

Has someone claimed it was easy (in the sense of being comfortable to do it) at the beginning? Most of the stories here sound to me that they had to get in desparate straits before being able to come to this position. I even had the example of my mother before me and it took me quite sometime to be public about it and I tend to be quiet in a new ward until the people know me well enough to not be threatened by it.

But that doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be done. And it certainly doesn't mean that if someone chooses not to say 'no' and then has problems because of that refusal, that it is not his or her responsibility for making that choice. Whatever happened to the concept of agency here and accepting the consequences of our actions?

[juliann]

And thus I feel quite confortably telling you that if you think it easy in LDS culture, due to the way the leaders teach and the culture created, for people to do what you say you are blind as a bat.

How do you get through the rest of your life? Seriously! A lot of people have jobs that they have to go to every day where they really do have to toe the line and suffer consequences beyond "I don't want them to be mad at me"...like poverty...if they don't. It is one thing to say that "I" had a difficult time with whatever...it is quite another to say everyone does. I suppose this would be the point where I am supposed to say that if you think your experience is the only valid experience you are blind as bat...?

I'm not saying that there is not social pressure...but criminy, in what situation involving humans is there not social pressure? I'm not saying that I have not succumbed to it. What I am saying is that it is sign of maturity to deal with it responsibly...and that is difficult when people you respect and love are involved. I am grateful I learned the lesson...you are mired in anger about the lesson. I will happily accumulate the blind as a bat label along with the many others slung at me...but being on this board makes me more and more grateful everyday that I have learned to find joy in today.

[Jarrod]

That might take care of the 14 year old issue but not the other men's wives or the secrecy.

This is where it gets real interesting for me. You are obvious titilated to no end when a man gets to have extra women...but you guys get really huffy if a woman has extra men. And heaven forbid any of it was kept secret from you! What fun would that be? That would be like BY doing it!

Of all the completely lost and misguided assertions juliann has made on this board ("You're all fundamentalistic!!!"), this one is in the top three.

Juliann, Joseph Smith did some really perverted things, and then claimed that God made him do them. Joseph even convinced other people to do the same thing, breaking laws of the land and of the Bible in thr process. I've never been "titillated" by Joseph's debauchery, and I've never known about anyone who has been (except, perhaps, Joseph himself).

What gets me "huffy" isn't that Joseph coerced other women into having multiple partners or that it was kept secret (though I do find the idea pretty sickening); it's that you seriously believe that what Joseph did was sacred, and then you get all snarky with those of us who believe Joseph was really just committing adultery. Actually, I don't get "huffy" so much as I just shake my head in disgust.

[juliann]

What gets me "huffy" isn't that Joseph coerced other women into having multiple partners or that it was kept secret (though I do find the idea pretty sickening);

The attitudes toward women that are being unveiled here are quite interesting. So if a man does it he is in charge...if a woman does it she is "coerced". You have such a high opinion of females. I find that more than "sickening"...I find it frightening in this day and age....we are seeing way too much of this in way too many places.

Ever notice how the moral grandstanding over polygamy always pops up when they need a diversion from the current topic?

[Sput]

Juliann, Joseph Smith did some really perverted things, and then claimed that God made him do them.  Joseph even convinced other people to do the same thing, breaking laws of the land and of the Bible in thr process.  I've never been "titillated" by Joseph's debauchery, and I've never known about anyone who has been (except, perhaps, Joseph himself).

What gets me "huffy" isn't that Joseph coerced other women into having multiple partners or that it was kept secret (though I do find the idea pretty sickening); it's that you seriously believe that what Joseph did was sacred, and then you get all snarky with those of us who believe Joseph was really just committing adultery.  Actually, I don't get "huffy" so much as I just shake my head in disgust.

wow what sensationalism in your post jarrod. you almost shook my testimony. sigh.

Guess youll be sitting at his Judgement.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ever notice how the moral grandstanding over polygamy always pops up when they need a diversion from the current topic?

Why bother with intelligent argument when overwrought histrionics will do?

[Scott Gordon]

Juliann, Joseph Smith did some really perverted things, and then claimed that God made him do them. Joseph even convinced other people to do the same thing, breaking laws of the land and of the Bible in thr process. I've never been "titillated" by Joseph's debauchery, and I've never known about anyone who has been (except, perhaps, Joseph himself).

I'm sorry Jarrod, but Joseph Smith did not do "some really perverted things." I see acts of kindness and love. I see struggles to stay alive. I see freedom of choice as one of his hallmark teachings. I see miracles. I see multiple people having spiritual manifestations. I see women having revelations from God on this very issue. I don't see debauchery and wish you would keep your moralizing to yourself.

Scott

[Calm]

Ever notice how the moral grandstanding over polygamy always pops up when they need a diversion from the current topic?

I was about to ask that the topic of polygamy be taken to another thread because the topics currently be discussed have enough emotional baggage attached to them we don't need more thrown into the mix.

[Jarrod]

What gets me "huffy" isn't that Joseph coerced other women into having multiple partners or that it was kept secret (though I do find the idea pretty sickening);

The attitudes toward women that are being unveiled here are quite interesting. So if a man does it he is in charge...if a woman does it she is "coerced". You have such a high opinion of females. I find that more than "sickening"...I find it frightening in this day and age....we are seeing way too much of this in way too many places.

Ever notice how the moral grandstanding over polygamy always pops up when they need a diversion from the current topic?

You raise an interesting point, juliann. But once again, you impute faulty assertions onto people who did not make them.

I mentioned that women were coerced, and I didn't use the same term when talking about men who practiced polygamy. From this you deduced that I have a low opinion of females? Nice try, but you're not going to hang that one around my neck. Honestly, where do you get this stuff?

You raised an issue over the idea that men were not coerced while women were. I did not make this suggestion juliann, you did. Is there any truth to it? Perhaps. I don't recall reading where Joseph told other men that an angel would slaughter him if the men didn't cheat on their wives. The only accounts I've read that involve coercion tell of women being sweet-talked by Joseph, where the women (or girls) were given 24 hours to decide, where their whole family was promised salvation if the woman chose to marry Joseph. It sounds like coercion to me. But it also sounds like fathers and husbands were coerced as well, with Joseph telling them that they would all miss out on salvation if they all didn't agree to the tryst. Sounds like entire families were coerced.

The "attitudes toward women" supposedly being "unveiled" here have only come from you, juliann. If you find them sickening, then stop producing them. I find it truly bizarre that you fabricate ideas, impute them to others, then call these ideas sickening. I suggest you consult with the source of these ideas if you want them to stop.

Juliann, your comments are often so totally irresponsible and far from the mark that I can only believe you're just intentionally spouting nonsense to get a rise out of people here.

[Scott Lloyd]

Juliann, your comments are often so totally irresponsible and far from the mark that I can only believe you're just intentionally spouting nonsense to get a rise out of people here.

Not unlike your own remarks about Joseph Smith.

Is this a case of imitation being the sincerest form of flattery?

[Teancum]

How do you get through the rest of your life?  Seriously! 

What has that got to do with it?

A lot of people have jobs that they have to go to every day where they really do have to toe the line and suffer consequences beyond "I don't want them to be mad at me"...like poverty...if they don't.

I would hope that the Church of Jesus Christ woudl have higher standards then what can be a vicious working world at times.

I'm not saying that there is not social pressure...but criminy,  in what situation involving humans is there not social pressure? 

Your attitiude is pretty much suck it up and quit ______ about it.

What I am saying is that it is sign of maturity to deal with it responsibly...and that is difficult when people you respect and love are involved.  I am grateful I learned the lesson...

I happy for you that you are just so beyond the rest of us.

you are mired in anger about the lesson.

No I am not angry at all. I was defending the idea that Bob should have just asked to be released and the fallacious attitude that it is so easy in the Church to do so. That is it. This post by you is the first that you have even slightly ackowledged that indeed it is difficult and maybe for some it may just be a tad bit harder for them then you.

  I will happily accumulate the blind as a bat label along with the many others slung at me...but being on this board makes me more and more grateful everyday that I have learned to find joy in today.

Me too.

Teancum

[Dale]

That might take care of the 14 year old issue but not the other men's wives or the secrecy.

This is where it gets real interesting for me. You are obvious titilated to no end when a man gets to have extra women...but you guys get really huffy if a woman has extra men. And heaven forbid any of it was kept secret from you! What fun would that be? That would be like BY doing it!

Of all the completely lost and misguided assertions juliann has made on this board ("You're all fundamentalistic!!!"), this one is in the top three.

Juliann, Joseph Smith did some really perverted things, and then claimed that God made him do them. Joseph even convinced other people to do the same thing, breaking laws of the land and of the Bible in thr process. I've never been "titillated" by Joseph's debauchery, and I've never known about anyone who has been (except, perhaps, Joseph himself).

What gets me "huffy" isn't that Joseph coerced other women into having multiple partners or that it was kept secret (though I do find the idea pretty sickening); it's that you seriously believe that what Joseph did was sacred, and then you get all snarky with those of us who believe Joseph was really just committing adultery. Actually, I don't get "huffy" so much as I just shake my head in disgust.

Lot of untuths in what you are saying. The polyandrous sealings did not allow for multiple partners at the same time. The women were faithful to their earthly husbands.

With Sylvia Sessions it was reported on he death bed that she told he daughter she was a daughter of the prophet Joseph Smith. I hold she told he daughter that she was spiritually adopted as Joseph Smith's daughter. But that Sylvia's husband was the regular husband.

Todd Comptom uses Angus Cannons I guessed 1904 report of something Brigham Young had reported hearing before his death in 1877. He was 75 years old. And he said Brigham Young had reported hearing that Patty Session similarly claimed that he had heard she had claimed that Josephine was Joseph's daughter also.

We don't know Brigham Young heard it from Patty Sessions even. So we have a rumored comment which Brigham Young may or may not have gotten from Patty is not her original statement. It got filtered therough several minds, and if Brigham Young picked up a rumor in circulation it's possible it got filtered through a lot of minds. All Patty may have said is that Josephine was an adopted offspring of joseph Smith which got distorted in the rumor mill.

I know Evangelicals who say God tolerated but did not condone Old Testament polygamy. So what clear laws of the Bible was Joseph breaking? As far as U.S. law goes after his death in the Temple lot case the decision of the judge legally atleast exonerated Joseph Smith of charges he broke U.S. law.

Joseph Smith respected women. Another asked that the polygamy topic be moved which I respect though I could not leave the comment stand without making some remarks in regards to a persons sincere concern. I won't make any more comments about polygamy on this post.

[Calm]

This post by you is the first that you have even slightly ackowledged that indeed it is difficult and maybe for some it may just be a tad bit harder for them then you.

You'd have to take her comments completely out of context of her other posts in the past to get this idea. She has made some pretty extensive comments addressing just this.

Simply because she focused on one aspect, doesn't mean she thinks the rest are nonexistent.

[charity]

noggin, Pahoran is absolutely correct. I took out my endowment in 1961. Please do not try to deceive those who have never been to the temple with mischaracterizations.

[Bernard Gui]

Why was it difficult, and basically impossible for me to say no to church work?

In the temple, pre 1990, I took out my endowments.

So did I. February, 1977. Memorised the entire ceremony verbatim.

Ditto. September, 1966.

Pahoran is correct. Noggin is not.

Bernard

[Daniel Peterson]

Pahoran is absolutely correct on this point. Noggin is simply wrong.

[Scott Lloyd]

Summer 1974 for me. And I sustain what Pahoran et al have said.

[Scott Lloyd]

He saw it as figurative language. Similar to what Jesus used in Matthew 5:29.

Or to the expression in Ruth 1:15, perhaps.

[Dunamis]

This thread is becoming personal and off-topic. Temple content deleted. Thread closed.