Chapel Mormons

[Dr.JD]

In the least, critics have as much reason to believe that Brigham Young was involved, as the church has reason to believe that Brigham Young wasn't involved.

Sorry, I have never seen one iota of evidece to suggest that brigham young ordered the MMM. His ordering the MMM defies the laws of time and space.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In the least, critics have as much reason to believe that Brigham Young was involved, as the church has reason to believe that Brigham Young wasn't involved.

Unfortuantly if the evidence is not there then traditionally it has been seen that the person is innocent.

I agree that people do look at the evidence and can come to reasonable alternative explination. I just find the "material" lacking when it comes to paint BY as the person behind it all. There is not stronge evidence that links him to the MMM. There are questions though, that do remain unanswered and I think taht is were the critics come in.

[Scottie]

Here is my take on the Chapel vs Internet Mormon.

I see it as a label we can use to determine how we should address a member of the church. It would be somewhat like the labels of active, semi-active and inactive. These labels do serve a purpose. They let someone know just how to treat a person. As a ward leader, you would certainly speak differently to a fully active member than you would an inactive member, right?

Same with Internet/Chapel Mormons. I can't talk to a Chapel Mormon about the same kinds of things that I can an Internet Mormon. The foundations just aren't there to make sense of most subjects.

[wenglund]

I think the church has a certain amount of accountability to inform its members.

True.

However, as previously intimated, the Church's accountability ought reasonably to be tied to the intents and purposes of the gospel (i.e. the three-fold mission), and nothing more.

In other words, since the Church is about helping to bring people to Christ and assist them in becoming like Christ, they then are accountable for informing the members sufficintly to enable them to achieve those objectives. I, personally, believe the Church meets that obligation quite well.

Whereas, since the Church isn't intended to be a history major or a historical society, or anything of the sort, it ought not be obliged to inform its members about all and various historical matters related to the Church, though not pertinent to the intents and purposes of the Church.

For whatever reason, you and other members and former members seem not to get this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Redefined]

Sorry, I have never seen one iota of evidece to suggest that brigham young ordered the MMM. His ordering the MMM defies the laws of time and space.

That is probably why you don't see Brigham Young in the history books as early prisoner executions of Utah.

[notHagoth7]

Maybe that is an argument for the church to focus on "informing" its members. Otherwise you get the "crazies" that were simply "misinformed".

I think you'll find relatively few who consider people crazy simply because they happen to be misinformed.

[Redefined]

True.

However, as previously intimated, the Church's accountability ought reasonably to be tied to the intents and purposes of the gospel (i.e. the three-fold mission), and nothing more.

In other words, since the Church is about helping to bring people to Christ and assist them in becoming like Christ, they then are accountable for informing the members sufficintly to enable them to achieve those objectives. I, personally, believe the Church meets that obligation quite well.

Whereas, since the Church isn't intended to be a history major or a historical society, or anything of the sort, it ought not be obliged to inform its members about all and various historical matters related to the Church, though not pertinent to the intents and purposes of the Church.

For whatever reason, you and other members and former members seem not to get this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If I was never taught about Emma Smith in the first place, maybe I could understand that the church is simply avoiding unnecessaries. (I even was taught that she left the church because of succession beliefs.) But polygamy wasn't just an insignificant event of Joseph Smith's life. . . it arguably was a determining factor in his life events.

[Dr.JD]

That is probably why you don't see Brigham Young in the history books as early prisoner executions of Utah.

Redefined, explain to me how a horsemen could have made it to salt lake and back in time.

[Dr.JD]

If I was never taught about Emma Smith in the first place, maybe I could understand that the church is simply avoiding unnecessaries. (I even was taught that she left the church because of succession beliefs.) But polygamy wasn't just an insignificant event of Joseph Smith's life. . . it arguably was a determining factor in his life events.

First of all let met state that it was my stake president that taught me about Joseph's wives. But I don't know why. How does talking about his other wives bring me closer to salvation.

[Deborah]

Whereas, since the Church isn't intended to be a history major or a historical society, or anything of the sort, it ought not be obliged to inform its members about all and various historical matters related to the Church, though not pertinent to the intents and purposes of the Church.

I would add that most people, LDS or not, do not care about history and don't bother to study it even if they have the opportunity. Most live in the here and now and what effects them in their lives. It seems to me the only time alleged members of the church become interested in the history is when they leave the church and get hung up on all the anti-Mormon literature out there. And then all of a sudden it becomes important, even though as pointed out, many of these things have been published in church related sources and available for those who are interested.

[Jeff K.]

If I was never taught about Emma Smith in the first place, maybe I could understand that the church is simply avoiding unnecessaries. (I even was taught that she left the church because of succession beliefs.) But polygamy wasn't just an insignificant event of Joseph Smith's life. . . it arguably was a determining factor in his life events.

Of course you want them to be a determining factor in Joseph Smiths life, unlike a visit from God and Jesus Christ, Moroni, the Book of Mormon, Temple Ordinances, Cities of Nauvoo and Kirtland.....

Frankly you seem to be whining about being informed, when in effect knowledge or the depth of knowledge has little to no impact on the level of spirituality. John the Baptist was not the most "informed" of men in regards to Mosaic law and history, and yet, it was he that baptized Jesus.

Maybe you guys just need to get over yourselves and stop blaming others for your decisions.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That is probably why you don't see Brigham Young in the history books as early prisoner executions of Utah.

HUh? Can you restate this. I don't know what you just said.

[Scott Lloyd]

In the least, critics have as much reason to believe that Brigham Young was involved, as the church has reason to believe that Brigham Young wasn't involved.

Sorry, but this is flat-out nonsense. The only "reason" they might have to believe Brigham was involved is a predisposition to hate the man and the religious faith associated with him.

[Redefined]

Of course you want them to be a determining factor in Joseph Smiths life, unlike a visit from God and Jesus Christ, Moroni, the Book of Mormon, Temple Ordinances, Cities of Nauvoo and Kirtland.....

Frankly you seem to be whining about being informed, when in effect knowledge or the depth of knowledge has little to no impact on the level of spirituality. John the Baptist was not the most "informed" of men in regards to Mosaic law and history, and yet, it was he that baptized Jesus.

Maybe you guys just need to get over yourselves and stop blaming others for your decisions.

Are we all on the same page here? Last time I checked (maybe it has changed) polygamy is a substantial part of the LDS church, they may not practise it anymore because "God discontinued the practise from the earth", but they still believe it as a fundamental doctrine that is practised in Heaven. So there shouldn't even be a problem here with the teaching. It is not just an insignificant factor of the church. . . like say. . . if Joseph Smith was the best at wrestling or not.

[Senator]

How does talking about his other wives bring me closer to salvation.

It doesn't directly.

However it broadens one's understanding God's dealing with men, and in doing so brought them closer to salvation. Might such understanding bring greater depth to our own salvific endeavors?

[Redefined]

Sorry, but this is flat-out nonsense. The only "reason" they might have to believe Brigham was involved is a predisposition to hate the man and the religious faith associated with him.

He said, she said. . . believe who you will.

[Somebodyz]

He said, she said. . . believe who you will.

No it's not he said, she said. He was many many miles away at the time. There is no evidence, that he was involved. If you know different, start a thread and show it.

[wenglund]

If I was never taught about Emma Smith in the first place, maybe I could understand that the church is simply avoiding unnecessaries. (I even was taught that she left the church because of succession beliefs.) But polygamy wasn't just an insignificant event of Joseph Smith's life. . . it arguably was a determining factor in his life events.

This gives me a better understanding of why you just don't seem to get it. You evidently have confused that which the Church ought to be accountable for (which is what I was conversing with you about), with that which may have been said at church and via Church material as well as with what may have been significant at times in the lives of Church members.

If you are interested in ever finally getting it, and if you wish to avoid errant confusion on the matter going forward, then try using this simple rule of thumb:

If a given set of information is deemed by the Church to be pertinent to coming to Christ and become like Christ, then the Church is accountable for providing that information to the best of their abilities. Beyond that, they ought not be held accountable, and this regardless whether the Church or its members chose to offer additional information.

Does that help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tainted_Elements]

I only used the MMM as an example-theres a lot of other things, Joseph's wives etc....

Someone said, 'who teaches their history at church on a Sunday?'.

Um, we do! What is 'Our heritage' for then? And why is a historical background given in the manual? If history is taught, why not teach all of it not just the bits the church feels comfortable with?

I know that there are members in my ward who dont read well, or who are of a different social economic group to others. They are simple people. Some of them DO need to be 'spoon-fed' as you put it. Have you not considered these people? Just because they are not as academic as others does this not mean they have a right to know too?

[Scott Lloyd]

He said, she said. . . believe who you will.

The fact of the matter is you have no credible evidence implicating Brigham Young in the massacre. On the other hand, there exists conclusive documentation to show that Brigham Young sent an express message, one that arrived too late, directing the Iron County settlers to do just the opposite of what they did, that is, to let the emigrants go in peace.

It is fatuous to assert as you have done that the evidence is just as strong on either side. You are clinging to myth if you really believe this.

[Jason]

Are we all on the same page here? Last time I checked (maybe it has changed) polygamy is a substantial part of the LDS church, they may not practise it anymore because "God discontinued the practise from the earth", but they still believe it as a fundamental doctrine that is practised in Heaven. So there shouldn't even be a problem here with the teaching. It is not just an insignificant factor of the church. . . like say. . . if Joseph Smith was the best at wrestling or not.

Eternal marriage is a fundamental doctrine of the Church. Plural marriage? Not so much.

It was admittedly a major doctrine in the 19th century, but that was more than 100 years ago.

[Scott Lloyd]

Someone said, 'who teaches their history at church on a Sunday?'.

Um, we do! What is 'Our heritage' for then? And why is a historical background given in the manual?

It is to provide enough historical background to fulfill the purpose of the class, which is to strengthen testimonies, instruct Church members in the doctrines of the Kingdom, motivate people to righteousness and invite them to more fully come to Christ. Neither the book nor the course is intended to be an exhaustive recitation of history. Such is available elsewhere for those who are interested. But Sunday School and other parts of the Sabbath Day worship service have a specific ecclesiastical purpose, and it does not include warts-and-all expose. I'm sorry if that doesn't fulfill the agenda you think it should, but the caravan moves on.

[Jeff K.]

Are we all on the same page here? Last time I checked (maybe it has changed) polygamy is a substantial part of the LDS church, they may not practise it anymore because "God discontinued the practise from the earth", but they still believe it as a fundamental doctrine that is practised in Heaven. So there shouldn't even be a problem here with the teaching. It is not just an insignificant factor of the church. . . like say. . . if Joseph Smith was the best at wrestling or not.

The page you are reading from must be "Anti-Mormon For Dummies". Polygamy a substantial part of the Mormon church?

Lets look at it logically. It isn't practiced and yet its a substantial part of the church?

It was practiced from around 1830 to 1890, oh sixty years and around 1910 having the serious act of excommunication being involved. It involved a relatively small portion of the overall Mormon population.

But wait, that of course trumps, Jesus and Heavenly Father appearing to Joseph Smith, Moroni, the Book of Mormon, Temple Marriage in general for time and all eternity, the idea of a Christ like civilization in the New World...

And polygamy is "substantial" relative to those items? I think God would disagree with you.

Is a Mormon's testimony based on polygamy? No.

Is a substantial portion of a Mormon's testimony based on polygamy? No.

Indeed, polygamy for Mormons is not really all that substantial or important.

So who is it important to?

Why non Mormons who don't like Mormons of course. For people who aren't Mormons it is a substantial part of their dogma and doctrine. To non LDS it is a substantial portion of their study. To non Mormons it is one of the most important doctrines out there.

You ex Mormons and your polygamy, you love it, you caress it, you fan its flames, it means a great deal more to you than it does to Mormons.

[Redefined]

Eternal marriage is a fundamental doctrine of the Church. Plural marriage? Not so much.

It was admittedly a major doctrine in the 19th century, but that was more than 100 years ago.

"Plural marriage? Not so much." What does this even mean? Is polygamy a fundamental part of the Celestial Kingdom or not? Can men still TODAY be sealed in the temple to more than one woman. . . or not?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Just because they are not as academic as others does this not mean they have a right to know too?

I want to talk about this one point. No one has said that they don't have a right to know something. That has nothing to do with this. THe fact is that the church has published much of it's history and people choose not to look at it. THat is simply what happens alot. I don't even have time to read most of that stuff. I really didn't even care to know most of what I do know, but I find it more interesting to see the spin that critics put on certain aspects of our history. THat is what I think is interesting.