Scottie Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 And despite the lengths the Church goes to to provide access to that information, it still gets blamed for "hiding" the truth. At what point do you realize you'll never make those folks happy and stop investing in such a losing venture?What lengths has the church gone to?JS is STILL portrayed as only being married to Emma. On lds.org, are ANY of his plural wives listed, or just Emma? JS is still portrayed as reading the golden plates. The quote above stating that the Expositor was full of "lies"??Oh yes... what AMAZING lengths!!
Black Moclips Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 The lesson is here. The following paragraph is how the Expositor incident is described in the manual:Whitewashing history? Why would you ever think that?LOL. Now that was just down right prophetic.
dblagent007 Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Regardless of whose fault it is, there IS a problem out there. The church needs to take notice of this and takes steps to rectify THE PROBLEM and quit trying to justify itself by blaming the apostates.The Church knows that there is a problem, but there is no answer to it. Innoculation is fine in theory, but I think the Church realizes that many, many more will be lost trying to innoculate them than they would otherwise lose. I think that innoculation will be forced on the Church at some point because the losses of those that felt betrayed will just get too high.
ttribe Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 What lengths has the church gone to?JS is STILL portrayed as only being married to Emma. On lds.org, are ANY of his plural wives listed, or just Emma? JS is still portrayed as reading the golden plates. The quote above stating that the Expositor was full of "lies"??Oh yes... what AMAZING lengths!!Oh quit acting incredulous Scottie. Wade's summary is reasonable: Post Link
Senator Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Just the general category who claim prior ignorance of the Prophet's practice of plural marriage when it was hidden in plain sight in the Doctrine and Covenants.It is indeed. But when the chance comes in our formal settings to discuss this very verse of scripture, we are admonish to not really talk about it. That doesn't help things.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 It is indeed. But when the chance comes in our formal settings to discuss this very verse of scripture, we are admonish to not really talk about. That doesn't help things.The lesson manual I taught from in a pertinent Sunday School lesson a few weeks said not to make it the focus of the lesson, but it did provide information that could be used to instruct those who were interested. Not the same thing as being "admonished to not really talk about it."
Scott Lloyd Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 LOL. Now that was just down right prophetic.What was quoted from the lesson manual is at least as good as the myopic presentism you tried to pass of as an appropriate way to deal with the matter.
Scottie Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 What was quoted from the lesson manual is at least as good as the myopic presentism you tried to pass of as an appropriate way to deal with the matter.So, critics are called out for saying that the LDS hides the history, then when apologists are presented with an example of the church outright lying to its members, it's okay??Are you not mortified and appalled at your church for publishing outright fabrications?? Or do you believe the Expositor WAS full of lies?
Scott Lloyd Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Yep, all those exit stories at RfM are because they didn't bother to read the scriptures. If they did, what excuse do they have for claiming they didn't know Joseph received the revelation instituting plural marriage and practiced it?
Scott Lloyd Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 So, critics are called out for saying that the LDS hides the history, then when apologists are presented with an example of the church outright lying to its members, it's okay??I don't concede the Church lied.Are you not mortified and appalled at your church for publishing outright fabrications??See above. Or do you believe the Expositor WAS full of lies?Yes.
Senator Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 The lesson manual I taught from in a pertinent Sunday School lesson a few weeks said not to make it the focus of the lesson, but it did provide information that could be used to instruct those who were interested. Not the same thing as being "admonished to not really talk about it."Eh, pretty darn close.Care to share the information provided in the manual?
Black Moclips Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 What was quoted from the lesson manual is at least as good as the myopic presentism you tried to pass of as an appropriate way to deal with the matter.Boy, you really like that word presentism. I wasn't even intending to put that line in either. But it was sort of unnecessary really when you think about it. Most people today know you can't do stuff like that. Lol. Wow, there it is again. And just for the record, the manual was an extended version of my option 1. I know you disagree. But you can't help, I know. I've been there.
wenglund Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 You guys can stick your heads in the sand all you want and pretend there isn't a problem. Until you stop fighting it, the RfM exit story section is going to continue to grow with those who left because they felt they were lied to.I just don't get this need to diminish the problem! I mean, come on... there is OBVIOUSLY a problem, right? I'm first hand proof if you need it. I did not know that JS had married other wives. I thought polygamy didn't start until BY. It shocked me to my core. You can blame me if you like, or you can look at the PROBLEM in the LDS religion that hundreds of others are dealing with.We're not sticking our heads in the sand. Rather, we actually understand what the real problem is. The RFM exit story section will continue to grow as long as people, such as yourself, do not get what the Church is really about and what indirect part history plays therein. If you were shocked to the core in finding out the polygamy started prior to BY, and if your faith in the restored gospel was somehow shattered because of that relatively harmless bit of information, then I am sorry that it happened. But, it is entirely irrelevant to you securing for yourself and your family the ultimate objective of the gospel, and thus irrelevant to the gospel. And, the Church can only do so much in preventing people, like you, from losing faith for all the wrong reasons. At some point, you all need to accept at least some responsibility yourselves, and I believe you may just do so if, or once, you finally figure out what the restored gospel is really all about and exploit it to your full advantage and the advantage of your families.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Scottie Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 If they did, what excuse do they have for claiming they didn't know Joseph received the revelation instituting plural marriage and practiced it?Does it matter? Once again, you are missing THE PROBLEM and seeking justification.Back again to my job example. We could very easily continue to say "did you tighten that bolt down too tight, even though the instructions CLEARLY say not to?" After 1000 or so failures because the bolt was tightened too tightly, we have to examine the design and make changes. We can't keep blaming the installers. Even though it works for the expert installers, it was obviously a poor design for the novices.Perhaps the church has a poor design for getting information to the general membership. The information may be there, but it's not getting to them for some reason.
mnn727 Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 That wasn't Black Moclips's point, as far as I can tell. His point was that these people didn't even know he had plural wives.I've heard this claim before but having taught classes, both SS and PH in 6 wards I have never heard of 1 person not knowing JS had plural wives, yet on message boards people claim "MOST Mormons do not know" -- sorry that has not been my experience and I really doubt its true.
Scottie Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 We're not sticking our heads in the sand. Rather, we actually understand what the real problem is. The RFM exit story section will continue to grow as long as people, such as yourself, do not get what the Church is really about and what indirect part history plays therein. If you were shocked to the core in finding out the polygamy started prior to BY, and if your faith in the restored gospel was somehow shattered because of that relatively harmless bit of information, then I am sorry that it happened. But, it is entirely irrelevant to you securing for yourself and your family the ultimate objective of the gospel, and thus irrelevant to the gospel. And, the Church can only do so much in preventing people, like you, from losing faith for all the wrong reasons. At some point, you all need to accept at least some responsibility yourselves, and I believe you may just do so if, or once, you finally figure out what the restored gospel is really all about and exploit it to your full advantage and the advantage of your families.Thanks, -Wade Englund-I would dare say that very few who have left the church and felt like they were lied to would agree with your assessment of what the problem is.
Scottie Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 I've heard this claim before but having taught classes, both SS and PH in 6 wards I have never heard of 1 person not knowing JS had plural wives, yet on message boards people claim "MOST Mormons do not know" -- sorry that has not been my experience and I really doubt its true.I think we are focusing too much on one fact that may be hidden.The truth is there are MANY disturbing facts about the early church which are hidden from the members. This particular one is just the one that is most commonly brought up.I would also say that we are focusing too much on the word "hidden". I would say "distorted" is a more accurate term of how LDS portray these issues.
mnn727 Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 I just don't get this need to diminish the problem! I mean, come on... there is OBVIOUSLY a problem, right? I'm first hand proof if you need it. I did not know that JS had married other wives. I thought polygamy didn't start until BY. It shocked me to my core. Did you ever read the D&C?Doctrine and Covenants 132Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501?507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.
wenglund Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Perhaps the church has a poor design for getting information to the general membership. The information may be there, but it's not getting to them for some reason.All the pertinent information is getting to them. Sure, there will be those members, such as yourself, who may not have know about Joseph's plural marriages. But so what? That bit of history is entirely irrelevant and unnecessary for you and others to come to Christ and become like Christ, growing in character to a fulness of love and joy. What will it take for you to finally get this?Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Scott Lloyd Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Eh, pretty darn close.Not a bit. There's not anything in what I've said that even came close to an admonition not to talk about it. Providing information and saying it is there to help those who have questions is not an admonition not to talk about it.Care to share the information provided in the manual?It's on lds.org. Others have found it there and posted it on previous threads. I'm thinking you probably can find it as well.
Scottie Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Did you ever read the D&C?Doctrine and Covenants 132Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501?507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.Truth is, no. I really never did read the D&C. I was usually focused on obeying the Prophets challenges to read the BoM, so I usually read that instead of the D&C.While I don't have much to back this up, my gut feeling is that most people don't read the D&C. They learn about it in Sunday School and that is good enough for them.I could be completely wrong though.
ttribe Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Truth is, no. I really never did read the D&C. I was usually focused on obeying the Prophets challenges to read the BoM, so I usually read that instead of the D&C.While I don't have much to back this up, my gut feeling is that most people don't read the D&C. They learn about it in Sunday School and that is good enough for them.I could be completely wrong though.Seminary?
John Williams Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 I've heard this claim before but having taught classes, both SS and PH in 6 wards I have never heard of 1 person not knowing JS had plural wives, yet on message boards people claim "MOST Mormons do not know" -- sorry that has not been my experience and I really doubt its true."Most" would be an overstatement, but then I have met a lot of people who did not realize that Joseph had plural wives. And many I've spoken to who knew that he practiced polygamy believed erroneously that these were in no way "marriages" but were just "sealings," mostly to older widows.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Boy, you really like that word presentism. I wasn't even intending to put that line in either. But it was sort of unnecessary really when you think about it. Most people today know you can't do stuff like that. Lol. Wow, there it is again. And just for the record, the manual was an extended version of my option 1. I know you disagree. But you can't help, I know. I've been there. What is in the manual is greatly condensed, appropriate to the setting and limited time for the class, but it is not wrong. I can lay out all the facts and give you my conclusions, or I can save time by going directly to the conclusions.
Scottie Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 But so what?Exactly.I wish someone wouldn't have said "so what" and helped me with this.Sure, I could have done more. Sure, I could have read more. But I didn't. And, apparenly neither have a LOT of people who are now posting stories on RfM.It's funny to me how JS refusing alcohol before his leg surgery is considered important enough to our salvation to include in lessons, but not JS polygamy.Apparenly it is more important to the LDS church to be right than to figure out a way to help people.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.