White-washed History And Full Disclosure?

[wenglund]

Hi SD,

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my questions. Your answer give me a better understanding of where you are coming from.

Just for clarification, my questions weren't intended to suggest that one not search for truth, or that one avoid seeking truths that may have costs, or that emotions should be the sole gauge for evaluating truth-claims. Rather, they were intended to suggest that quests for truth may be enhanced by asking oneself those question--so as to assure that the quest is forward in its direction (rather than scatter-brained or hither-and-yon), the quest has a meaningful and edifying purpose (rather than whimsical), and is functional in how it assesses and evaluates the data.

However, I am glad you mentioned a specific issue that has been bothering you, because that will help me to more clearly demonstrate what I had in mind with my questions. Here, again, is what you said:

I'm just trying to reason it out in my head how Joseph could justify marrying Helen at 14 years of age, thereby effectively blocking her opportunity to marry somebody else, and holding her in limbo until she became mature enough to have sex with, and then only with Joseph, as if carrying his baby would be better than carrying the baby of her future husband. Wasn't there some other way that Helen's family and Joseph's family could have been Celestially connected without using polygamy? Like adoption, you know Helen's father and Joseph could have been sealed together as brothers instead. I don't understand the useful purpose of polygamy to a 14 year old girl who wouldn't be ready to procreate for another 3-4 years. This doesn't seem to be fulfilling the law of bringing forth righteous seed in my eyes. That's what I want the answers to.

What I have found useful fo myself is to ask:

1) What are the facts in this case, and what are opinions, and how certain can I be of the facts/opinions?

2) Was Helen sealed to Joseph, or legally married?

3) If the former, then would that allow Helen to marrying someone else when the time was right?

4) Was Joseph sealed to other women who were married to other men, and if so, doesn't that answer question #3 in the affirmative (i.e. Helen could marry other men when the time was right)?

5) Was the intent of the sealing or marriage in this case to save Helen sexually for Joseph and "bring forth righteous seed" or to eternally connect Joseph's and Helen's family (I don't see how adoption would accomplish that, though I do see how a sealing would)?

6) If the latter, would that be problematic for you, particularly if question #3 can be answered in the affirmative?

However, let's assume the very worst, and suppose that Joseph married Helen to save her sexually for himself so as to "bring forth righteous seed", or perhaps even that Joseph had sexual relations with Helen after they were "married" so as to "bring forth righteous seed". How certain can you be about this opinion (not to be confused with "fact" or "truth")? What importance or meaning does this opinion hold for you? What purpose will it serve in your life? More importantly, what are the chances of that you can come know the "truth" (as opposed to conjecture or opinion) of what all happened and why in this case? Will the benefits in searching this that truth outweight the possible costs (I am think more in terms of time spent pursuing this as time lost not pursuing other things)? What if this "truth" isn't knowable with much certainty any time soon or at all in this life? What would that mean to you were that the case? In other words, can you still have a meaningful, happy, and productive life without knowing the "truth", whatever opinion you may adopt about it? (I am just trying to put this issue into perspective with other matters in your life)? Can you still be a faithful and believing member? Will you hold anyone responsible for your having coming to your opinion (whatever that may be) and not being told the "truth" (whether the "truth" is knowable in this life or not)?

I will patiently await your answers when you return to this forum. I do very much value discussing this with you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Anijen]

I always love it when somebody seems to know the intentions of another better than they do! I would like to know what "my intentions" are...since it seems you know already? Throughout this thread, I have suggested SD continue in her quest for truth, and I wish her the best with whatever she finds...

Are my "intentions" different than that?

Feeling the heat? I didnt mention your name either. And honestly yes one can see another persons intentions by the nature of thier posts.

If one looked at my post they we see a BYU Cougar fan, loves the gospel, and will defend it.

If one looks at Pahorans post he is very articulate and defends his beliefs too.

If one looks at the posts of Charity and Deborah they will see a love of the gospel and a desire to share and help understanding.

If one looks at Urroner's and Nehor's post you will also see what appears to be two good TBM's with a way cool senses of humor.

If one looks at Chris Smiths post they will see a very intellectual, seemingly good intentions serious poster.

If one looks at the Dude and Sethbag one will see agnosticism but fun to read and both are bright.

If one looks at Dr. Stuess you cant help but see his love for books (OT) his great links and his desire for knowledge, he also has a pretty excellent sense of humor.

If one looks at Rhino and Jersey girl you will see two EV's who post semi often and are not disrespectful.

If one looks at Nephi you will see a guy who seems to have a great heart but my opinion some doctrinal issues. If one looks at RusskiCanuk one will see a smart man (I don't agree with sometimes)

I could go on

[wenglund]

I don't think of this as an example however of the truth setting you free, but rather having potent information presented in a less supportive atmosphere. If the complete history was always present, rather than been sequestered into the faith promoting and troublesome walls of separation, then this potency would have been diminished greatly.

For instance, this morning I was reading about Lowell Bennion and what lead up to his being fired as director of the University of Utah Institute of Religion. The thought of this could have soured my morning outlook, but instead I was soothed by the knowledge that I could sooner or later discuss this matter with others knowledgeable and supportive about Mormon issues.

That makes sense--particularly the more sensative a person is to such things. As little of a fan as I am of Hillary Clinton, I do like the notion of a supportive "village", not just in raising children, but for assisting adults in a variety of ways. In that sense, this web site, as well as Home Teaching, and Quorum gatherings, etc., take on new and positive meanings.

BTW Wade, I have missed reading your stuff lately.

That is very kind of you to say. Please know that I missed reading your stuff as well. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mms]

Feeling the heat? I didnt mention your name either. And honestly yes one can see another persons intentions by the nature of thier posts.

If one looked at my post they we see a BYU Cougar fan, loves the gospel, and will defend it.

If one looks at Pahorans post he is very articulate and defends his beliefs too.

If one looks at the posts of Charity and Deborah they will see a love of the gospel and a desire to share and help understanding.

If one looks at Urroner's and Nehor's post you will also see what appears to be two good TBM's with a way cool senses of humor.

If one looks at Chris Smiths post they will see a very intellectual, seemingly good intentions serious poster.

If one looks at the Dude and Sethbag one will see agnosticism but fun to read and both are bright.

If one looks at Dr. Stuess you cant help but see his love for books (OT) his great links and his desire for knowledge, he also has a pretty excellent sense of humor.

If one looks at Rhino and Jersey girl you will see two EV's who post semi often and are not disrespectful.

If one looks at Nephi you will see a guy who seems to have a great heart but my opinion some doctrinal issues. If one looks at RusskiCanuk one will see a smart man (I don't agree with sometimes)

I could go on

Errr. Uhhhh. Whose feeling the heat?

Then let us ask you: at what point did you "intend" to tell Silver Dragonfly that you are not actually a current member of any bishopric anywhere, but have been an apostate for ten years?

"Whitewashed history and full disclosure" indeed!

Regards,

Pahoran

Seriously? C'mon, Pahoran, you can surely do better than that.

[wenglund]

You might be surprised, but I agree with you. I think that investigators or members should know better than to expect the LDS Church to fully disclose its history, especially history that may lead members out of the church.

Actually, this is not what I was suggesting. Perhaps you are once again reading your opinion into what I am saying.

Rather, a more accurate and bias-neutral way to understand my comments would be to say that it isn't right for either party to expect those with one point of view to base their actions and decisions on the reasoning of the opposing point of view. And, since in this case, feelings of having been mislead and betrayed do just that, then logically those feelings aren't right. This applies both ways.

In other words (and to use some of your own words), I think that investigators or members should know better than to feel mislead and betray when the Church determines, in good faith, not to include in its salvific lessons certain non-salvific aspects of Church history (whether "troublesome" or otherwise); and likewise, the Church should know better than to feel mislead and betrayed when certain Church members determine, in good faith, that "troublesome history" is sufficient cause for loss of faith and leaving the faith.

Is that more clear?

The questionable assumption I made, and which you have not yet expressly disagreed with, is that surely the powers that be understand and are aware that many people, including faithful members, would find the technique factually troublesome.

For example, did it not occur to you, that the rest of the world finds this to be a strange process by which to translate golden plates? If so, then surely if you were in charge of the web page, you would not want to expound on this process, or for that matter, with JS's marriages as such facts may be viewed as troublesome to others (in addition to being unnecessary to the salvation of LDS members.)

Of course it occured to me, just as it occured to me that the mere suggestion of inspired translation (of any sort) of an ancient religious text would be considered "strange" by many people, as would also visitation of angels and divine beings, etc. However, I don't see "strangeness" as much of a factor in making decisions about certain content on the Church's web site, particularly since the site contains a wealth of data that many people would find "strange". Rather, I think those decisions are based on other criteria--like what I previously suggested.

I don't think are views are as far apart as you may suspect.

With this followup clarification, I hope at least in terms of understanding we are less far apart, even if we dont' agree completely in our respective points of view on this issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ProvoGirl]

Then let us ask you: at what point did you "intend" to tell Silver Dragonfly that you are not actually a current member of any bishopric anywhere, but have been an apostate for ten years?

"Whitewashed history and full disclosure" indeed!

Regards,

Pahoran

Why in the world, does his moniker bother you so much? I think it's kinda clever. I bet his name is Rick IRL and he just added the 'Bish' part to it. Get it? BishopRick.......Bishopric....?

BishopRic has been open and very cordial on here. It doesn't sound as if he has anything to hide. Silver Dragonfly doesn't appear to be an idiot. Actually, she seems to have quite a bit of common 'Horse Sense' and I would imagine that she will be able to figure this whole thing out and filter through the history of the Church. Whitewashed, warts and everything combined.

[Pahoran]

Hi, ProvoGirl. Nice of you to actually deign to discuss something, instead of merely chortling.

Why in the world, does his moniker bother you so much? I think it's kinda clever. I bet his name is Rick IRL and he just added the 'Bish' part to it. Get it? BishopRick.......Bishopric....?

Yes, I got it. Ha ha. Joke over.

The answer, of course, is that his monicker doesn't bother me in the slightest. What bothers me is the potential for others to be deceived thereby. He hasn't been above exaggerating his claims after all. Remember "once a bishop always a bishop?"

BishopRic has been open and very cordial on here.

Cordial?

Are you sure we are talking about the same fellow?

It doesn't sound as if he has anything to hide. Silver Dragonfly doesn't appear to be an idiot. Actually, she seems to have quite a bit of common 'Horse Sense' and I would imagine that she will be able to figure this whole thing out and filter through the history of the Church. Whitewashed, warts and everything combined.

I agree that she is no idiot.

But when I see the barracudas circling as though they smell blood in the water, I do think the swimmer needs to be alerted to their presence.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ProvoGirl]

Hi, ProvoGirl. Nice of you to actually deign to discuss something, instead of merely chortling.

Yes, I got it. Ha ha. Joke over.

The answer, of course, is that his monicker doesn't bother me in the slightest. What bothers me is the potential for others to be deceived thereby. He hasn't been above exaggerating his claims after all. Remember "once a bishop always a bishop?"

Cordial?

Are you sure we are talking about the same fellow?

I agree that she is no idiot.

But when I see the barracudas circling as though they smell blood in the water, I do think the swimmer needs to be alerted to their presence.

Regards,

Pahoran

I remember as a young girl (gee, I'm starting to sound like Pres. Monson! ) a certain gentleman that was always referred to as Bishop ______. It had been 30 yrs or more since he held that calling and in his old age wasn't as active as he was when he was younger. He use to go my dad's gas station and sit for hours and talk and would ride with my dad down to the diner where they would have a cup of coffee. Everybody called him Bishop til' the day he died. So, I can relate to the "once a Bishop, always a Bishop" thought. Though, I didn't read where BishopRic said that....I'm not saying he didn't, I just didn't read it. I actually don't read a lot on here. It's hard enough to find the time just to chortle!

As far as calling people 'barracudas'. That could be said about the TBM's, Fence-sitter's, as well as the Exmo's. It seems to me there were many people jumping on that bandwagon just chomping at the bit ready to offer advice with their own 'spin'.

[Pahoran]

I remember as a young girl (gee, I'm starting to sound like Pres. Monson! ) a certain gentleman that was always referred to as Bishop ______. It had been 30 yrs or more since he held that calling and in his old age wasn't as active as he was when he was younger. He use to go my dad's gas station and sit for hours and talk and would ride with my dad down to the diner where they would have a cup of coffee. Everybody called him Bishop til' the day he died. So, I can relate to the "once a Bishop, always a Bishop" thought. Though, I didn't read where BishopRic said that....I'm not saying he didn't, I just didn't read it. I actually don't read a lot on here. It's hard enough to find the time just to chortle!

Well that's the point, you see. Ricky was never a bishop; by his own information he was only ever a bishop's counselor, and his bishop was incapacitated for a while. I've never heard "once a bishop's counselor, always a Bishop," have you?

As far as calling people 'barracudas'. That could be said about the TBM's, Fence-sitter's, as well as the Exmo's. It seems to me there were many people jumping on that bandwagon just chomping at the bit ready to offer advice with their own 'spin'.

Some are looking to offer advice; others see a vulnerable Church member and are looking to dismember her. (With no apologies to Martha Beck, who originated this little pun.) So the "barracuda" metaphor does become somewhat apt, doesn't it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[ProvoGirl]

Well that's the point, you see. Ricky was never a bishop; by his own information he was only ever a bishop's counselor, and his bishop was incapacitated for a while. I've never heard "once a bishop's counselor, always a Bishop," have you?

Some are looking to offer advice; others see a vulnerable Church member and are looking to dismember her. (With no apologies to Martha Beck, who originated this little pun.) So the "barracuda" metaphor does become somewhat apt, doesn't it?

Regards,

Pahoran

Yes, it does. But, like I said....it seems that it is not only the EXMO's circling. I see the apologists just as hungry and ready to 'save' the questioning member.

You know, Pahoran. Are you always so serious and so quick to assume and judge? I mean, maybe Rick (if that is his name) really was a Bishop for a short time and maybe he was tagged with that nick name and it stuck. You don't know that, that isn't the case. You seem to want to 'assume' that he adopted that title just to deceive the vunerable. I think he just wanted to have some fun with his moniker so he calls himself that with no real ulterior motive.

As far as this 'dismembering' thing.....it can't happen unless they choose that. I don't believe that the things that are posted on here will really pull someone away from the Church. If the information they learn here, be it pro or con, causes a person to study....that's a good thing. I think having all the information is important and then allow them to come to their own conclusions....because they will, anyway.

[Severian]

Now I'm starting to question everything I was ever taught, and I don't know if that's going to be a good thing or a bad thing.

If one does not question, one does not learn. These message boards are a great place to ask questions.

[consiglieri]

I agree with Severian.

There comes a time in the life of every seeker of truth when they must "question everything they have been taught."

It's part of growing up.

And though it may not have been taught this way in Church, it is also part of developing your own testimony.

It is a good thing, not a bad.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[gmormon]

I remember as a young girl (gee, I'm starting to sound like Pres. Monson! ) a certain gentleman that was always referred to as Bishop ______. It had been 30 yrs or more since he held that calling and in his old age wasn't as active as he was when he was younger. He use to go my dad's gas station and sit for hours and talk and would ride with my dad down to the diner where they would have a cup of coffee. Everybody called him Bishop til' the day he died. So, I can relate to the "once a Bishop, always a Bishop" thought. Though, I didn't read where BishopRic said that....I'm not saying he didn't, I just didn't read it. I actually don't read a lot on here. It's hard enough to find the time just to chortle!

As far as calling people 'barracudas'. That could be said about the TBM's, Fence-sitter's, as well as the Exmo's. It seems to me there were many people jumping on that bandwagon just chomping at the bit ready to offer advice with their own 'spin'.

Bishop is a priesthood office. Counselor to the bishop isn't. Being a member of the Bishopric does not give you the authority or the title of Bishop. I have often called old Bishops by the title as a show of respect, I have never called a current or released counselor by this title.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If one does not question, one does not learn. These message boards are a great place to ask questions.

I concour. If I had not questioned it all, I still would not be a member of the church, or in other words becuase of the questions and answers I had I still remain a member. This does not mean that my answers were better than others, but for me they lead me to were I need to be.

[wenglund]

If one does not question, one does not learn. These message boards are a great place to ask questions.

Good point. In fact, Joseph's questioning God on various things is how we ended up with much of the D&C.

Likewise, as someone intimated earlier in the thread, if one's faith is not being tested, eventually it won't grow.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ProvoGirl]

Bishop is a priesthood office. Counselor to the bishop isn't. Being a member of the Bishopric does not give you the authority or the title of Bishop. I have often called old Bishops by the title as a show of respect, I have never called a current or released counselor by this title.

((((grooaann!)))

Nobody is saying that he thinks he has the 'authority'. And good for you, that you have never called a counselor by the title of Bishop. Let me pat you on the back!

My point, (personal story) was that sometimes the 'nickname' is given to people and it will stick for many years and they may be referred to by such nickname by friends, loved ones, old neighbors etc.

I'm assuming here....(and I never do that it breaks the 3rd agreement) that Bishopric still has people call him that from time to time from his old neighborhood (that would mean his old area of SLC). On a whim, he adopted the moniker because it fits with his given name....Rick.

Sheesh! Some people have absolutely no sense of humor!

[BishopRic]

((((grooaann!)))

Nobody is saying that he thinks he has the 'authority'. And good for you, that you have never called a counselor by the title of Bishop. Let me pat you on the back!

My point, (personal story) was that sometimes the 'nickname' is given to people and it will stick for many years and they may be referred to by such nickname by friends, loved ones, old neighbors etc.

I'm assuming here....(and I never do that it breaks the 3rd agreement) that Bishopric still has people call him that from time to time from his old neighborhood (that would mean his old area of SLC). On a whim, he adopted the moniker because it fits with his given name....Rick.

Sheesh! Some people have absolutely no sense of humor!

Thanks, PG! You're right, it's always been a play on words that stuck. Btw, I was an "acting bishop" for a time while the "real bishop" was recovering from an accident...so I was actually called "Bishop Rick" while serving as bishop.

[selek]

Sheesh! Some people have absolutely no sense of humor!

And some people will denigrate anything revered or sacred in order to rationalize their predations.

Little Ricky's "nickname" is intentionally misleading (he's directly and by implication appealed to an authority he never had and of which he is blindingly unworthy).

It's also intentionally offensive- only a brain dead turnip could realistically believe that an avowed, vocal, and belligerent apostate flouting such a name wouldn't be offensive to a believer's sensibilities.

In my opinion, Little Ricky's deliberate misuse and abuse of the title of Bishop has clearly set the tone for his entire ravening performance on these boards.

I also frankly beleive that if he were mocking your beliefs- instead of justifying and rationalizing your own betrayal of the faith- you'd be far less eager to defend him.

Frankly, you are living proof that apostates will support nearly any depravity so long as it feeds either their egos or their vendetta against the Church.

[Severian]

Sheesh! Some people have absolutely no sense of humor!

Yeah, what's up with that anyway?

[gmormon]

((((grooaann!)))

Nobody is saying that he thinks he has the 'authority'. And good for you, that you have never called a counselor by the title of Bishop. Let me pat you on the back!

My point, (personal story) was that sometimes the 'nickname' is given to people and it will stick for many years and they may be referred to by such nickname by friends, loved ones, old neighbors etc.

I'm assuming here....(and I never do that it breaks the 3rd agreement) that Bishopric still has people call him that from time to time from his old neighborhood (that would mean his old area of SLC). On a whim, he adopted the moniker because it fits with his given name....Rick.

Sheesh! Some people have absolutely no sense of humor!

The point was he never was a Bishop in name or calling. He was a councilor who took over for a Bishop while he was incapacitated. What I am saying is that Bishop is a priesthood office, and upon a Bishop's release he still holds the office of Bishop however not the keys. So calling a Bishop after his release is still appropriate,.

[ProvoGirl]

And some people will denigrate anything revered or sacred in order to rationalize their predations.

Little Ricky's "nickname" is intentionally misleading (he's directly and by implication appealed to an authority he never had and of which he is blindingly unworthy).

It's also intentionally offensive- only a brain dead turnip could realistically believe that an avowed, vocal, and belligerent apostate flouting such a name wouldn't be offensive to a believer's sensibilities.

In my opinion, Little Ricky's deliberate misuse and abuse of the title of Bishop has clearly set the tone for his entire ravening performance on these boards.

I also frankly beleive that if he were mocking your beliefs- instead of justifying and rationalizing your own betrayal of the faith- you'd be far less eager to defend him.

You totally lost me with that one.

Frankly, you are living proof that apostates will support nearly any depravity so long as it feeds either their egos or their vendetta against the Church.

I am not living proof of anything except that I'm living. You know me, not. You don't know if I'm an 'apostate'. I've never made that claim. I am still a member. I have held many callings. I challenge many things about the Church, specifically, the "White-washed History". which is what...(if my memory serves me)....this very thread is about.

I also think there is much ado about nothin' where it comes to Bishopric's moniker. It bothers you only because he is no longer a believer. I don't imagine Rick is intentionally trying to do anything but perhaps be a little bit entertained on here just like the rest of us. Like I said before...I think it's kinda clever. It wouldn't be nearly as clever if his name was Steve or Bob.

BishopSteve....hmmm.....doesn't sound real good. BishopBob.......nope. Doesn't have the same ring. Now, BishopRic......see? It sounds good! It kinda fits. lol.

Oh, come on, Selek. Lighten up. Are you really always this cranky?

[Silver Dragonfly]

Just for the record, I knew the background on BishopRic before I registered. I got the idea from reading exchanges between him and Pahoran. I don't know that it necessarily misleads, but I must confess that I didn't know until I read some of his posts. But, that can be said about anybody on here really.

That being said, I appreciate everyone's input in the discussion, and I tend to ignore the stuff that goes on between those who are familiar with each other, because it doesn't really have much to do with my situation. I am still willing to ask questions and share my views, but I hope to do so in as much kindness and respect as possible.

I had an short opportunity to speak to the Bishop today, and he will be making time between sessions tomorrow to meet with me so I can discuss my concerns. (I drive to the chapel to watch conference so that my kids can be with their friends, and we have a luncheon between sessions.) He doesn't seem to be forewarned by anyone, so maybe my mom didn't discuss me to him yet. (I hope). I just want to be the one who speaks first.

As far as barracudas, you guys have never met my mom....

If anyone is going to staunchly defend the church, it's going to be her, so I don't really have a problem answering questions from anyone who has decided to quit going to church...I've taken breaks before.

I know there are lots of reasons for people to decide it isn't for them and leave, but I want to work through this one issue before I jump headlong into anything else.

I'm just a little leery that I'm basically going to be laying out my surprise and shock at learning these things to my Bishop and I sort of envision him either saying he doesn't know what I'm talking about, or just telling me not to worry about it and let it rest. I don't want to just forget about it and move on, and I sure don't want to become a project for his wife.

Well, I guess I'll just wait until tomorrow and see what happens. I'll come back and let you know how it goes.

By the way, just to keep this topic current, I had the missionary discussions when I was 12, got baptized at 13, and the only image I got of Joseph Smith was the grove of trees official First Vision. Finding out there was more than one version given and that it wasn't even focused on much really confused me, because I thought it was how people got convinced to follow Joseph in the first place. I was taught that the Church is basically dependent upon that First Vision, and if it wasn't true then the Church isn't true. I believe Gordon B. Hinckley said it, but I'd have to look it up. I intend to come right out with that when I see the Bishop tomorrow, and maybe head on into the polygamy after that. I just hope he doesn't do what mom did and totally deny that Joseph practiced polygamy, because I printed out the fairwiki article to show him. I printed one off for my mom too, just in case.

My mom hasn't talked to me about this since, and even at Conference today she seemed a little standoffish.

Just the mere thought that I might think Joseph Smith was less than perfect has put up a wall between us. Why is it so important for the Church to make Joseph look proper by not exactly talking about his polygamy, but it's okay to discuss Brigham Young's polygamy and other prophets after him? What's the big deal if Joseph did it too? I'm just kinda wondering aloud here, trying to decide what to ask my Bishop tomorrow.

I guess it might have been more beneficial for all of us to have learned that Joseph Smith was the one who started polygamy AND practiced it himself, instead of letting people like me and my mom believe that it was Brigham Young, and only because of the trek out West, and only to help widows who had no one to speak for them, and only a small percentage practiced polygamy and it was quickly done away with once everyone got settled in Utah. This is the version I grew up with, this is what I believed until I came to fairlds and read up on it. Now I kind of wish I could unlearn it....

[Lee]

Just for the record, I knew the background on BishopRic before I registered. I got the idea from reading exchanges between him and Pahoran. I don't know that it necessarily misleads, but I must confess that I didn't know until I read some of his posts. But, that can be said about anybody on here really.

That being said, I appreciate everyone's input in the discussion, and I tend to ignore the stuff that goes on between those who are familiar with each other, because it doesn't really have much to do with my situation. I am still willing to ask questions and share my views, but I hope to do so in as much kindness and respect as possible.

I had an short opportunity to speak to the Bishop today, and he will be making time between sessions tomorrow to meet with me so I can discuss my concerns. (I drive to the chapel to watch conference so that my kids can be with their friends, and we have a luncheon between sessions.) He doesn't seem to be forewarned by anyone, so maybe my mom didn't discuss me to him yet. (I hope). I just want to be the one who speaks first.

As far as barracudas, you guys have never met my mom....

If anyone is going to staunchly defend the church, it's going to be her, so I don't really have a problem answering questions from anyone who has decided to quit going to church...I've taken breaks before.

I know there are lots of reasons for people to decide it isn't for them and leave, but I want to work through this one issue before I jump headlong into anything else.

I'm just a little leery that I'm basically going to be laying out my surprise and shock at learning these things to my Bishop and I sort of envision him either saying he doesn't know what I'm talking about, or just telling me not to worry about it and let it rest. I don't want to just forget about it and move on, and I sure don't want to become a project for his wife.

Well, I guess I'll just wait until tomorrow and see what happens. I'll come back and let you know how it goes.

By the way, just to keep this topic current, I had the missionary discussions when I was 12, got baptized at 13, and the only image I got of Joseph Smith was the grove of trees official First Vision. Finding out there was more than one version given and that it wasn't even focused on much really confused me, because I thought it was how people got convinced to follow Joseph in the first place. I was taught that the Church is basically dependent upon that First Vision, and if it wasn't true then the Church isn't true. I believe Gordon B. Hinckley said it, but I'd have to look it up. I intend to come right out with that when I see the Bishop tomorrow, and maybe head on into the polygamy after that. I just hope he doesn't do what mom did and totally deny that Joseph practiced polygamy, because I printed out the fairwiki article to show him. I printed one off for my mom too, just in case.

My mom hasn't talked to me about this since, and even at Conference today she seemed a little standoffish.

Just the mere thought that I might think Joseph Smith was less than perfect has put up a wall between us. Why is it so important for the Church to make Joseph look proper by not exactly talking about his polygamy, but it's okay to discuss Brigham Young's polygamy and other prophets after him? What's the big deal if Joseph did it too? I'm just kinda wondering aloud here, trying to decide what to ask my Bishop tomorrow.

I guess it might have been more beneficial for all of us to have learned that Joseph Smith was the one who started polygamy AND practiced it himself, instead of letting people like me and my mom believe that it was Brigham Young, and only because of the trek out West, and only to help widows who had no one to speak for them, and only a small percentage practiced polygamy and it was quickly done away with once everyone got settled in Utah. This is the version I grew up with, this is what I believed until I came to fairlds and read up on it. Now I kind of wish I could unlearn it....

Your having some problem with Joseph Smith's polygamy, right? Or maybe the fact that the church hasn't made this fact as public as you think it should have? My answer to the question is SO WHAT!!! The fact he practiced polygamy dosen't make him any less a prophet. If he hadn't done what The Lord commanded him he wouldn't have stayed prophet for long.

Elijah killed 450 men, prophets of Baal, that didn't keep him from being a prophet.

1 Kings 18:40

40 And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.

Jashua 6:21

21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ***, with the edge of the sword.

Jashua had everyone in Jericho killed by commandment of The Lord, except Rahab and her house. Didn't keep Jashua from being a prophet.

White-washed history? I'm not sure I'm buying that. I knew about Joseph's polygamy back when I was a student in seminary. Didn't bother me then and doesn't bother me now.

[AKS]

Your having some problem with Joseph Smith's polygamy, right? Or maybe the fact that the church hasn't made this fact as public as you think it should have? My answer to the question is SO WHAT!!!

Clearly some people think it's a big deal. Who are you to tell other people what is important?

I knew about Joseph's polygamy back when I was a student in seminary. Didn't bother me then and doesn't bother me now.

Well good for you.

[selek]

Your having some problem with Joseph Smith's polygamy, right? Or maybe the fact that the church hasn't made this fact as public as you think it should have? My answer to the question is SO WHAT!!! The fact he practiced polygamy dosen't make him any less a prophet. If he hadn't done what The Lord commanded him he wouldn't have stayed prophet for long.

Elijah killed 450 men, prophets of Baal, that didn't keep him from being a prophet.

1 Kings 18:40

40 And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.

Jashua 6:21

21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ***, with the edge of the sword.

Jashua had everyone in Jericho killed by commandment of The Lord, except Rahab and her house. Didn't keep Jashua from being a prophet.

White-washed history? I'm not sure I'm buying that. I knew about Joseph's polygamy back when I was a student in seminary. Didn't bother me then and doesn't bother me now.

Lee! Heel! Stay!

Each of us has a different take on a variety of issues- we wouldn't be human if we all thought alike. What is milk to you might be meat to someone else. It is not your place or mine to determine who should choke on what.

It's obvious that something that bothers SD doesn't bother you in the slightest. It's very likely that the reverse is true, as well.

Silver Dragonfly (unlike certain notorious posers and frauds) has not behaved like an anti. Yes, she has concerns, but she has not apostatized and is looking for answers.

Attack dogs are the last thing she needs at the moment.

If you really want fresh meat that badly, I suggest you try tearing off Little Ricky's leg. He, at least, is a predator seeking to sow doubt and disaffection.