White-washed History And Full Disclosure?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So you just ignore posts that you cannot explain or that contradicts your anti-Mormon tirade? I would be interested to see your answers to my posts #236 and #238. Or shall we just let them stand since you are unable to defend your position?

I 2nd this. ALso tshirt did a fine job of expounding on my thoughts . Clearly Bob you do not understand the LDS faith. Please leave what ever you think you know about mormonism at the door.

[Bernard Gui]

I referred to "Godhood," and you quoted statements in reference to becoming "like God." What does "like God" mean to the uninformed? Are they told what Joseph Smith taught about what it means to become "like God"? Does "like God" have the ring of becoming Christlike, holy and pure, with the mind and character of God/Christ, to the casual listeners to the missionaries?

I take that as a "no," you do not want to revise your claim. That is unfortunate. I have shown you

in two official LDS publications that you are mistaken, yet you want to parse the word "like."

Of course, one cannot become God...he already occupies that space. If one becomes "like God,"

one becomes, well, like him. One would have to be quite thick not to understand that or not to ask

for a clarification.

Might they think differently if they were quoted the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 346 & 347? Do you think that when the uninformed investigator hears "like God," that he translates that into the LDS belief that, you can become equal to Almighty God in every way? That you can be an Almighty, Heavenly Father just like the one of this earth? Do you think that is what the uninformed investigator pictures in his mind, when they're told they can be "like God"? Do you think he imagines Godhood with full divinity, when he here's God-likeness? I don't. Therefore, the investigator is uninformed. He has no idea what Joseph Smith really meant, when he hears the missionary's use of the words, "like God."

In my experience as a missionary, the concept of Eternal Progression leads to interesting discussions where such questions as "Do you believe that you can become a God?" are asked and answered in the affirmative

and with lengthy and fruitful followups.

Your version of the true LDS doctrine is simply...a caricature, and a grotesque one at that. This reminds

me of the EV guy who told me Mormons believe when they become Gods they will storm heaven and

throw God off his throne. My oh my, how you guys dissemble while doing the anti-mo tango.

Bernard

[Silver Dragonfly]

I just spent most of the afternoon reading ALL 13 pages of this topic, and I have just ONE question that I hope someone here can clarify for me.

If "some members" don't know about polyandry, or Joseph's wives besides Emma, or about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, why are "some apologists" laying the blame on them for not having the initiative to discover these historical facts for themselves?

As a member, it would not have occurred to me to question anyone on these topics, simply for the fact that I have spent very little time in Gospel Doctrine class, or Sunday School for that matter. I have had a calling in Primary since joining the church, and none of these topics are covered in the manuals I have available to me. Also, this is not material that is presented during General Conferences, or in Visiting Teaching lessons.

I have learned about these subjects through visiting apologetic websites such as this. And now I don't really know what to think, except foolish for not having known about these things beforehand.

I have asked my much wiser mother about Joseph's polygamy, and she has insisted that it is an anti-Mormon lie. I told her I found out from an LDS site, and she tells me that it's obviously a fake front for anti-Mormon lies. I asked my sister a couple months ago (like May or June) about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and she told me there is no such thing that ever occurred. Then when the Ensign article came out, she made a complete 180 degree about-face and now insists she never told me any such thing.

I can't go to my bishop with my questions, so I thought I would bring it to you apologists, since it was from you that I discovered it in the first place.

I often think that it is wrong to believe the church is being taught uniformly in every region, and in every ward. Since nobody is a professional Gospel Doctrine teacher, and very few members actually sit through an entire course of lessons without being called to serve in some sort of teaching capacity themselves, how is it that we are solely to blame for our ignorance of what some apologists claim is common knowledge among the saints? When I hear that, I feel very slighted, because I spend lots of time studying the gospel, and yet I never knew about the roots of polygamy until the Internet. Is it really my fault that I didn't ask the right questions? And wouldn't have made me look like a doubting Thomas or a trouble maker if I had asked these questions out loud in Sunday School? I can't be the only one just discovering this....

[mms]

I just spent most of the afternoon reading ALL 13 pages of this topic, and I have just ONE question that I hope someone here can clarify for me.

If "some members" don't know about polyandry, or Joseph's wives besides Emma, or about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, why are "some apologists" laying the blame on them for not having the initiative to discover these historical facts for themselves?

As a member, it would not have occurred to me to question anyone on these topics, simply for the fact that I have spent very little time in Gospel Doctrine class, or Sunday School for that matter. I have had a calling in Primary since joining the church, and none of these topics are covered in the manuals I have available to me. Also, this is not material that is presented during General Conferences, or in Visiting Teaching lessons.

I have learned about these subjects through visiting apologetic websites such as this. And now I don't really know what to think, except foolish for not having known about these things beforehand.

I have asked my much wiser mother about Joseph's polygamy, and she has insisted that it is an anti-Mormon lie. I told her I found out from an LDS site, and she tells me that it's obviously a fake front for anti-Mormon lies. I asked my sister a couple months ago (like May or June) about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and she told me there is no such thing that ever occurred. Then when the Ensign article came out, she made a complete 180 degree about-face and now insists she never told me any such thing.

I can't go to my bishop with my questions, so I thought I would bring it to you apologists, since it was from you that I discovered it in the first place.

I often think that it is wrong to believe the church is being taught uniformly in every region, and in every ward. Since nobody is a professional Gospel Doctrine teacher, and very few members actually sit through an entire course of lessons without being called to serve in some sort of teaching capacity themselves, how is it that we are solely to blame for our ignorance of what some apologists claim is common knowledge among the saints? When I hear that, I feel very slighted, because I spend lots of time studying the gospel, and yet I never knew about the roots of polygamy until the Internet. Is it really my fault that I didn't ask the right questions? And wouldn't have made me look like a doubting Thomas or a trouble maker if I had asked these questions out loud in Sunday School? I can't be the only one just discovering this....

Brace yourself, Silver Dragonfly, as you will probably not like what you are going to read in response to your post. Most of the apologists, here, cannot allow themselves to believe you are not to blame for your "ignorance." The problem, of course, is that there are likely hundreds to thousands just like you, many of whom lurk on this site without posting and feel just as insulted as you do but are afraid to enter the fray. These folks will feel even more conflict about the Church because now the "faithful apologists" are calling them idiots. It is not a good situation at all and it does not appear that the matter will be resolved anytime soon. Best to you from one who knows precisely how you feel.

[sunstoned]

I just spent most of the afternoon reading ALL 13 pages of this topic, and I have just ONE question that I hope someone here can clarify for me.

If "some members" don't know about polyandry, or Joseph's wives besides Emma, or about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, why are "some apologists" laying the blame on them for not having the initiative to discover these historical facts for themselves?

As a member, it would not have occurred to me to question anyone on these topics, simply for the fact that I have spent very little time in Gospel Doctrine class, or Sunday School for that matter. I have had a calling in Primary since joining the church, and none of these topics are covered in the manuals I have available to me. Also, this is not material that is presented during General Conferences, or in Visiting Teaching lessons.

I have learned about these subjects through visiting apologetic websites such as this. And now I don't really know what to think, except foolish for not having known about these things beforehand.

I have asked my much wiser mother about Joseph's polygamy, and she has insisted that it is an anti-Mormon lie. I told her I found out from an LDS site, and she tells me that it's obviously a fake front for anti-Mormon lies. I asked my sister a couple months ago (like May or June) about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and she told me there is no such thing that ever occurred. Then when the Ensign article came out, she made a complete 180 degree about-face and now insists she never told me any such thing.

I can't go to my bishop with my questions, so I thought I would bring it to you apologists, since it was from you that I discovered it in the first place.

I often think that it is wrong to believe the church is being taught uniformly in every region, and in every ward. Since nobody is a professional Gospel Doctrine teacher, and very few members actually sit through an entire course of lessons without being called to serve in some sort of teaching capacity themselves, how is it that we are solely to blame for our ignorance of what some apologists claim is common knowledge among the saints? When I hear that, I feel very slighted, because I spend lots of time studying the gospel, and yet I never knew about the roots of polygamy until the Internet. Is it really my fault that I didn't ask the right questions? And wouldn't have made me look like a doubting Thomas or a trouble maker if I had asked these questions out loud in Sunday School? I can't be the only one just discovering this....

You are not alone, and many have experienced the jolt of realization that people and an organization that they trusted have not been forthright in telling the truth. You will find no sympathy and little compassion on this board. The most of the posters here will blame you for not somehow knowing there was more to the story that cannot be found in the approved materials the church endorses.

The last year I was active was the year church history was being taught in SS. The instructor asked the question of what were some of the major milestones for the church during the Nauvoo time frame. I answered that polygamy was introduced. He replied that was not part of the lesson, and moved on. Now this is just one experience in one ward, but the experience was a turning point for me. If aspects of church history cannot be discussed in an adult church history Sunday school, then something is really wrong.

[HiJolly]

Brace yourself, Silver Dragonfly, as you will probably not like what you are going to read in response to your post. Most of the apologists, here, cannot allow themselves to believe you are not to blame for your "ignorance." The problem, of course, is that there are likely hundreds to thousands just like you, many of whom lurk on this site without posting and feel just as insulted as you do but are afraid to enter the fray. These folks will feel even more conflict about the Church because now the "faithful apologists" are calling them idiots. It is not a good situation at all and it does not appear that the matter will be resolved anytime soon. Best to you from one who knows precisely how you feel.

Oh, give over, mms. I've had the exact same experience with my Mom denying polyandry and polygamy of JS, and the whole shooting match. You've got a big attitude problem, and everybody sees it as soon as you post. You really tire me with all this polemic vitriol. You bring it on yourself, not in the facts you present, but in the attitude you present it with. <sigh>

Silver Dragonfly, it's education time. Can your testimony remain bright? I hope the Spirit has helped you in your desire to learn more. God lives, Joseph was an inspired prophet, and the Church is true. Don't give up something you know through gnosis for something you don't know based in other people's opinions.

Proverbs 3:5-6

Peace in Christ,

HiJolly

[Lee]

I didn't read all 13 pages but enough I think to unerstand. I also expect to get chewed up good for being too simple.

This is Joseph Smith's first vision.

True? Then Joseph Smith is a true prophet and the Church is true.

False? Then Joseph Smith is a false prophet and the church is false.

Just like the rest of us Joseph Smith will have to answer for what he did or didn't do in this life.

Joseph Smith- History

Chapter 1: 11- 20

11 While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

12 Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.

13 At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to â??ask of God,â? concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.

14 So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.

15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destructionâ??not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any beingâ??just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the otherâ??This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)â??and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: â??they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.â?

20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, â??Never mind, all is wellâ??I am well enough off.â? I then said to my mother, â??I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.â? It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom; else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy?

[ProvoGirl]

I didn't read all 13 pages but enough I think to unerstand. I also expect to get chewed up good for being too simple.

This is Joseph Smith's first vision.

True? Then Joseph Smith is a true prophet and the Church is true.

False? Then Joseph Smith is a false prophet and the church is false.

Just like the rest of us Joseph Smith will have to answer for what he did or didn't do in this life.

Joseph Smith- History

Chapter 1: 11- 20

11 While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

12 Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.

13 At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to â??ask of God,â? concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.

14 So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.

15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destructionâ??not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any beingâ??just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the otherâ??This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)â??and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: â??they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.â?

20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, â??Never mind, all is wellâ??I am well enough off.â? I then said to my mother, â??I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.â? It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom; else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy?

The confusing thing is that there are several versions of the First Vision. So which one is the way it happened? And why was it not actually written until many years after the event? Those are facts that are disturbing to me and leads me to the conclusion that Joseph was not the inspired Prophet I always believed him to be. I'm a lifelong member and found this out at the ripe old age of 48.

It was one of those life-altering events.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The confusing thing is that there are several versions of the First Vision. So which one is the way it happened? And why was it not actually written until many years after the event? Those are facts that are disturbing to me and leads me to the conclusion that Joseph was not the inspired Prophet I always believed him to be. I'm a lifelong member and found this out at the ripe old age of 48.

It was one of those life-altering events.

Hmmm, Thats too bad then. have you not read many of the threads that cover this exact topic. Why are there 6 versions. Why do you think. Does it mean that it is false? THat is quite a hasty conclusion to come to, you have been a member for 40 years and this little nugget sways your whole testimony. WOW. So there are 4 diffrent gospels in the Bible all tell a diffrent version than the other, so by your logic the Bible clearly is false??

I didn't read all 13 pages but enough I think to unerstand. I also expect to get chewed up good for being too simple.

This is Joseph Smith's first vision.

True? Then Joseph Smith is a true prophet and the Church is true.

False? Then Joseph Smith is a false prophet and the church is false.

You knew this was comming. What are you saying here? Are you claiming the Chuch is false becuase JS is a false prophet. IF so makeing totally lame oneliners does nothing.

[mms]

You've got a big attitude problem, and everybody sees it as soon as you post. You really tire me with all this polemic vitriol. You bring it on yourself, not in the facts you present, but in the attitude you present it with. <sigh>

HiJolly

Bring what on myself? "Polemic vitriol" such as your post above. The irony is always so thick, here. How about rather than pontificating on my "attitude" and on what "everybody sees" (since you apparently have authority to speak for "everybody"), you tell me what about my post above is inaccurate. or is that too much to ask?

[gmormon]

I just spent most of the afternoon reading ALL 13 pages of this topic, and I have just ONE question that I hope someone here can clarify for me.

If "some members" don't know about polyandry, or Joseph's wives besides Emma, or about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, why are "some apologists" laying the blame on them for not having the initiative to discover these historical facts for themselves?

As a member, it would not have occurred to me to question anyone on these topics, simply for the fact that I have spent very little time in Gospel Doctrine class, or Sunday School for that matter. I have had a calling in Primary since joining the church, and none of these topics are covered in the manuals I have available to me. Also, this is not material that is presented during General Conferences, or in Visiting Teaching lessons.

I have learned about these subjects through visiting apologetic websites such as this. And now I don't really know what to think, except foolish for not having known about these things beforehand.

I have asked my much wiser mother about Joseph's polygamy, and she has insisted that it is an anti-Mormon lie. I told her I found out from an LDS site, and she tells me that it's obviously a fake front for anti-Mormon lies. I asked my sister a couple months ago (like May or June) about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and she told me there is no such thing that ever occurred. Then when the Ensign article came out, she made a complete 180 degree about-face and now insists she never told me any such thing.

I can't go to my bishop with my questions, so I thought I would bring it to you apologists, since it was from you that I discovered it in the first place.

I often think that it is wrong to believe the church is being taught uniformly in every region, and in every ward. Since nobody is a professional Gospel Doctrine teacher, and very few members actually sit through an entire course of lessons without being called to serve in some sort of teaching capacity themselves, how is it that we are solely to blame for our ignorance of what some apologists claim is common knowledge among the saints? When I hear that, I feel very slighted, because I spend lots of time studying the gospel, and yet I never knew about the roots of polygamy until the Internet. Is it really my fault that I didn't ask the right questions? And wouldn't have made me look like a doubting Thomas or a trouble maker if I had asked these questions out loud in Sunday School? I can't be the only one just discovering this....

Knowledge is a process! I don't know yours or your mother's background in the church, so I can not respond to why or why not you have never heard about some of these events or teachings. However the concept that a member of the church will have instantanious knowledge of all events or teachings of the church is bogus. We are a people who believe in seeking after knowledge, which is what you are doing now by reading and posting on this site. And as you come across new information I pray and hope you will do do diligence in seeking out a deeper understanding of these things. There are those who believe the church is covering up or not forthcoming, but they seem to forget the "Threefold Mission of the Church" is its main goal not teaching a detail history.

It when I was a youth that I started looking into early church history and teachings and it was because I ran across a controversial subject like you. It was a old John D Lee pamplet hand out by some anti-mormons. I took the pamplet and started researching it, of course back then, the 60's, there wasn't as many noted historians with all the answers, but there was enough for me to find answers to my questions. I have grown in the church and have found my testimony is based on the Gospel, not history.

I hope you continue your studies and find your testimony grow also. And please don't accept what you read here and other blogs and dicussion boards as the gospel truth. Inspite of what some might think we all are still learning

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I just spent most of the afternoon reading ALL 13 pages of this topic, and I have just ONE question that I hope someone here can clarify for me.

If "some members" don't know about polyandry, or Joseph's wives besides Emma, or about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, why are "some apologists" laying the blame on them for not having the initiative to discover these historical facts for themselves?

As a member, it would not have occurred to me to question anyone on these topics, simply for the fact that I have spent very little time in Gospel Doctrine class, or Sunday School for that matter. I have had a calling in Primary since joining the church, and none of these topics are covered in the manuals I have available to me. Also, this is not material that is presented during General Conferences, or in Visiting Teaching lessons.

I have learned about these subjects through visiting apologetic websites such as this. And now I don't really know what to think, except foolish for not having known about these things beforehand.

I have asked my much wiser mother about Joseph's polygamy, and she has insisted that it is an anti-Mormon lie. I told her I found out from an LDS site, and she tells me that it's obviously a fake front for anti-Mormon lies. I asked my sister a couple months ago (like May or June) about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and she told me there is no such thing that ever occurred. Then when the Ensign article came out, she made a complete 180 degree about-face and now insists she never told me any such thing.

I can't go to my bishop with my questions, so I thought I would bring it to you apologists, since it was from you that I discovered it in the first place.

I often think that it is wrong to believe the church is being taught uniformly in every region, and in every ward. Since nobody is a professional Gospel Doctrine teacher, and very few members actually sit through an entire course of lessons without being called to serve in some sort of teaching capacity themselves, how is it that we are solely to blame for our ignorance of what some apologists claim is common knowledge among the saints? When I hear that, I feel very slighted, because I spend lots of time studying the gospel, and yet I never knew about the roots of polygamy until the Internet. Is it really my fault that I didn't ask the right questions? And wouldn't have made me look like a doubting Thomas or a trouble maker if I had asked these questions out loud in Sunday School? I can't be the only one just discovering this....

See the many threads about polygamy. There have been many recent discussions on these very topics. Im talking, go back 3 pages and you should see them in tha main discussion forums. Sorry to say that not every member is familiar with all things that are historical. I cant claim to be familiar with every little detail. But htese things of the LDS history are no secret either.

[wenglund]

Brace yourself, Silver Dragonfly, as you will probably not like what you are going to read in response to your post. Most of the apologists, here, cannot allow themselves to believe you are not to blame for your "ignorance." The problem, of course, is that there are likely hundreds to thousands just like you, many of whom lurk on this site without posting and feel just as insulted as you do but are afraid to enter the fray. These folks will feel even more conflict about the Church because now the "faithful apologists" are calling them idiots. It is not a good situation at all and it does not appear that the matter will be resolved anytime soon. Best to you from one who knows precisely how you feel.

I don't know that it serves any useful purpose for anyone to look to blame anyone or anything for this. Each of the parties (Silverfly and the Church) were acting in good faith and according to their reasonable purposes.

Wouldn't it make more sense at this time to simply help Silverfly's resolve her current difficulties so she can move forward, rather than pointing fingers?

Granted, there are others like her, and one may reasonably figure that the Church may prevent such difficulties from occuring were they to mention various aspects of Church history in their lessons.

However, while that is certainly reasonable from the perspective of those who have or may experience such difficulties, it may not be reasonable in terms of the Church as a whole and the priority of its three-fold mission (as previously explained).

Given this divergence in reasonable points of view, it seems to me that the best resolution that respects and is favorable to both sides, is to address the difficulties on a case-by-case basis as they arise. And, I think organizations like FARMS and FAIR, and web sites such as this, are well suited to that end. Am I wrong?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

There are those who believe the church is covering up or not forthcoming, but they seem to forget the "Threefold Mission of the Church" is its main goal not teaching a detail history.

That is true. If you begin with assumption that JS is a true prophet, and accept the premise that full disclosure of "troublesome" history, such as JS's marriages to other women, will (erroneously) lead some investigators and members to conclude otherwise, then full disclosure by the LDS Church of this "troublesome" history is actually contrary to the threefold mission of the church.

[HiJolly]

Bring what on myself? "Polemic vitriol" such as your post above. The irony is always so thick, here. How about rather than pontificating on my "attitude" and on what "everybody sees" (since you apparently have authority to speak for "everybody"), you tell me what about my post above is inaccurate. or is that too much to ask?

<sigh>

Nothing's inaccurate, because it's all your opinion, no facts or evidence presented. Just as I did not bother to present evidence as to what you bring on yourself. It's pretty pointless, not because its not accurate, but because like me, you cannot prove my opinions to be innacurate. Because they're subjective. Nevertheless, you've left plenty of evidence on these boards, indeed. It's all there for anyone to read. And develop their own opinions. I've read plenty of people's opinions concerning your posts.

Rather than tell you what is inaccurate, I'll do this:

Brace yourself, Silver Dragonfly, as you will probably not like what you are going to read in response to your post.

Reading minds, mms? SD's post was nothing like your first post. Much nicer.

Most of the apologists, here, cannot allow themselves to believe you are not to blame for your "ignorance."

Who's pontificating? Where'd you get "most"?

The problem, of course, is that there are likely hundreds to thousands just like you, many of whom lurk on this site without posting and feel just as insulted as you do but are afraid to enter the fray.

Well obviously you're not referring to yourself, so.... That leaves some questions unanswered, doesn't it?

These folks will feel even more conflict about the Church because now the "faithful apologists" are calling them idiots.

I don't. Well, ok, maybe I did once, but I've repented, and it wasn't you. More mind reading. At least I didn't read your mind.

It is not a good situation at all and it does not appear that the matter will be resolved anytime soon. Best to you from one who knows precisely how you feel.

I know how she feels, too, but you don't see me posting landmines like you do. Wonder why that is. Could it be.... ...attitude?

Ok. Did that help? Let me read your mind: "no!" Whew. It would've been so hypocritical of me to say that, wouldn't it?

I think it would be refreshing and possibly even fruitful if you could conduct youself with kindness and love. More like John W, (pardon me for singling one self-proclaimed apostate poster out). Proof that you don't have to return vitriol for vitriol.

HiJolly

[Jaybear]

Given this divergence in reasonable points of view, it seems to me that the best resolution that respects and is favorable to both sides, is to address the difficulties on a case-by-case basis as they arise. And, I think organizations like FARMS and FAIR, and web sites such as this, are well suited to that end. Am I wrong?

That is not a "resolution" that is continuance of the status quo.

[gmormon]

That is true. If you begin with assumption that JS is a true prophet, and accept the premise that full disclosure of "troublesome" history, such as JS's marriages to other women, will (erroneously) lead some investigators and members to conclude otherwise, then full disclosure by the LDS Church of this "troublesome" history is actually contrary to the threefold mission of the church.

Jaybear, I don't know you other than from your postings here. So please give me a complete history of your church's history and its beleifs,or maybe you can give me your own personal history and personal beleifs. Keep it concise and to the point and please tell me all the dark secrets, and by the way make it a spiritual journey. Looking forward to a good read

[mms]

I think it would be refreshing and possibly even fruitful if you could conduct youself with kindness and love.

I took a look and it seems that you have reserved your request for "kindness and love" for one whose "attitude problem" comes from a "critical" perspective as opposed to an "apologetic" one. Maybe you can point me to a post from the past in which you exercised similar judgment (to that in this thread) toward one of your apologist friends? If you cannot, just what has it been that has stopped you from requesting the same from your "friends" on this board when they have clearly abandoned the "kindness and love" you so righteously espouse? Or do you take the view, as others here do, that apologists have the special privilege of ignoring "kindness and love" because they are doing good with their "polemic vitriol", while some like me are only doing damage?

[selek]

I took a look and it seems that you have reserved your request for "kindness and love" for one whose "attitude problem" comes from a "critical" perspective as opposed to an "apologetic" one. Maybe you can point me to a post from the past in which you exercised similar judgment (to that in this thread) toward one of your apologist friends? If you cannot, just what has it been that has stopped you from requesting the same from your "friends" on this board when they have clearly abandoned the "kindness and love" you so righteously espouse? Or do you take the view, as others here do, that apologists have the special privilege of ignoring "kindness and love" because they are doing good with their "polemic vitriol", while some like me are only doing damage?

mms, you came in here throwing brick bats and started screaming when you got winged by one of your own ricochets.

You came in here, hostile and combatative, and whined when you were answered with the same.

SD has done nothing of the sort, and the reaction she received was radically different.

The reception you received and the reception SD received are directly proportional to the tactics you each espoused.

The proof is in the pudding- you are the antagonist and the aggressor- and you have earned the stripes with which you were beaten.

Stop pointing the finger at everyone else and own up to your shortcomings. You'll find life to be a lot more pleasant.

[wenglund]

That is true. If you begin with assumption that JS is a true prophet, and accept the premise that full disclosure of "troublesome" history, such as JS's marriages to other women, will (erroneously) lead some investigators and members to conclude otherwise, then full disclosure by the LDS Church of this "troublesome" history is actually contrary to the threefold mission of the church.

That is certainly one way to looking at it.

And, I suppose that either side may ascribe under-handed motives/intents behind the opposing point of view, though to what useful end? Would it be fair and accurate, let alone respectful and productive? I don't think so. To me, such tactics mearly feed into the dysfunctional blame-game.

From the Church's point of view, as well as certain believing members like myself, the non-disclosure of "troublesome history" is not to avoid possible aversive reactions by some investigators and members, but for lack of relevance to salvation (which is the essence of the Church's three-fold mission). The same is true for much of the "non-troublesome history" of the Church that doesn't get taught either. Because of time and other constraints, and in good faith, we teach what we believe will best help to bring people to Christ and become like him. Is that unreasonable and underhanded?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[gmormon]

Jaybear responded to my posting saying:

That is true. If you begin with assumption that JS is a true prophet, and accept the premise that full disclosure of "troublesome" history, such as JS's marriages to other women, will (erroneously) lead some investigators and members to conclude otherwise, then full disclosure by the LDS Church of this "troublesome" history is actually contrary to the threefold mission of the church.

I responded to his posting by saying:

Jaybear, I don't know you other than from your postings here. So please give me a complete history of your church's history and its beleifs,or maybe you can give me your own personal history and personal beleifs. Keep it concise and to the point and please tell me all the dark secrets, and by the way make it a spiritual journey. Looking forward to a good read

Wade responded to Jaybear response to my previous posting in reply to Silver Dragonfly's post

That is certainly one way to looking at it.

And, I suppose that either side may ascribe under-handed motives/intents behind the opposing point of view, though to what useful end? Would it be fair and accurate, let alone respectful and productive? I don't think so. To me, such tactics mearly feed into the dysfunctional blame-game.

From the Church's point of view, as well as certain believing members like myself, the non-disclosure of "troublesome history" is not to avoid possible aversive reactions by some investigators and members, but for lack of relevance to salvation (which is the essence of the Church's three-fold mission). The same is true for much of the "non-troublesome history" of the Church that doesn't get taught either. Because of time and other constraints, and in good faith, we teach what we believe will best help to bring people to Christ and become like him. Is that unreasonable and underhanded?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade I like your response better. Thanks!

[mms]

I don't know that it serves any useful purpose for anyone to look to blame anyone or anything for this. Each of the parties (Silverfly and the Church) were acting in good faith and according to their reasonable purposes.

Wouldn't it make more sense at this time to simply help Silverfly's resolve her current difficulties so she can move forward, rather than pointing fingers?

Granted, there are others like her, and one may reasonably figure that the Church may prevent such difficulties from occuring were they to mention various aspects of Church history in their lessons.

However, while that is certainly reasonable from the perspective of those who have or may experience such difficulties, it may not be reasonable in terms of the Church as a whole and the priority of its three-fold mission (as previously explained).

Given this divergence in reasonable points of view, it seems to me that the best resolution that respects and is favorable to both sides, is to address the difficulties on a case-by-case basis as they arise. And, I think organizations like FARMS and FAIR, and web sites such as this, are well suited to that end. Am I wrong?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

I have not ignored your efforts in this regard (having read the threads in which you present the logic) and have found your logic compelling. Ultimately, thank goodness, the apologists who regularly post here will not choose how to address this matter. As has been the case in the past, the Church will deal with this issue as is required by THE IMPACT THE ISSUE HAS ON THE NUMBERS OF SAINTS being affected by it.

So, people can argue all day long about responsibility, and people can take the position (as recently taken by William Schryver) that they do not care who leaves the Church over the issue of not being familiar with certain aspects of history and feeling "deceived" by the Church, and will not even try to talk them into staying. However, one thing of which I am confident is that we will not see the Brethren taking the position that "[t]his is simply the separating of the wheat from the tares. Goodbye and good luck in your telestial eternity." We will not see this because they ARE concerned about the issue and their concern will grow as they see more and more people walk out the doors or express through letters and otherwise their surprise at what they have learned and did not learn earlier.

So, although the discussion here is interesting, I expect that the position that "you should have known" so often espoused here will ultimately become irrelevant as the Brethren become more and more willing (because of the loss of testimonies and members) to express that, in fact, "you probably should not have known" and, as Elder Oaks recently stated, the Church is willing to move forward with the times and become more "forthright" with its "warts and all" history, as opposed to presenting the "adoring history" that it has. In sum, the argument is mostly useless (and I have admittedly contirbuted to the useless "blame" argument), as time will bear out one position or the other, as the more important issue of consequence is addressed.

[HiJolly]

I took a look and it seems that you have reserved your request for "kindness and love" for one whose "attitude problem" comes from a "critical" perspective as opposed to an "apologetic" one. Maybe you can point me to a post from the past in which you exercised similar judgment (to that in this thread) toward one of your apologist friends? If you cannot, just what has it been that has stopped you from requesting the same from your "friends" on this board when they have clearly abandoned the "kindness and love" you so righteously espouse? Or do you take the view, as others here do, that apologists have the special privilege of ignoring "kindness and love" because they are doing good with their "polemic vitriol", while some like me are only doing damage?

I cannot, you are right. I suppose I don't remonstrate them because I myself am exercising restraint on myself, and I can only do so much. As you can see, last night I lost a certain amount of my own restraint, and it has served to provide opportunities for you to continue in your chosen path. My bad.

HiJolly

[mms]

you have earned the stripes with which you were beaten.

Stop pointing the finger at everyone else and own up to your shortcomings.

Selek, did you miss the times I have "own[ed]" up to my own "shortcomings"? Or have you intentionally ignored them so you can continue your ever so ironic, self-aggrandizing, purportedly righteous rant?

Talk about pointing fingers. How about you take a look for where I have owned up to my shortcomings and then look to see whether those who have continued their self-satisfying attacks on me have owned up to their's? Look before you leap, Selek. Indeed, you are skilled at the leaping, but not so skilled at the looking.

[wenglund]

That is not a "resolution" that is continuance of the status quo.

Doesn't that depend on how things are handled and turn out on a case-by-case basis?

Please recognize that amicable resolutions do not necessitate perfect agreement among differing points of view, nor does it even necessiate a change in over-all circumstances. Some times it consists in each side merely coming to a better understanding of the opposing view, respecting it, and being fine with it. And, to me, in the case in question, the "resolution" comes in diminishing or discipating the personal "difficulty", not necessarily in changing the status quo. Am I wrong?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-