USU78 Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I would agree about the attendance numbers and activity rates, I don't know anything about the Mall thing. There is a midsingles conference (25-35) in a Canadian city here in June, according to the facebook page about it there is roughly 105 attending or might attend of which there is 70 girls going, so if everyone shows up...30 girls are going to be wondering where are the men?More single women "of a certain age" show up at church mixer than men of the same age.Color me shocked. SHOCKED!
paulpatter Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Those of us who have lived for multiple decades came "to grips with reality" long seasons ago--about virtually everything in this mortal state. You seem to think, based on this post and others you have authored, that humankind and the institutions they manage in mortality are capable of achieving perfection. Forgive me, but that is egregiously naive. Joseph Smith made mistakes and every LDS prophet since his day has made mistakes. Indeed, I know of no LDS prophet who has been translated. As a colleague at BYU liked to tell me, "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."I also like this quotation from Samuel McChord Crothers (Universalist Minister): "Try as hard as we may for perfection, the net result of our labors is an amazing variety of imperfectness. We are surprised at our own versatility in being able to fail in so many different ways."
Duncan Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 More single women "of a certain age" show up at church mixer than men of the same age.Color me shocked. SHOCKED!I would love to know why that is but that is another thread! haha!
Mudcat Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I am not sure if this is a good example of 'covering up' the past. so much as avoiding it.I don't see a lot of difference between the two Steve. If parts of the past are 'avoided' then their is a failure to disclose parts of the past. You may see a failure to disclose as simple avoidance. I took a few minutes to search lds.org for a number of those that were potentially the celestial wives of Joseph Smith.Fanny AlgerLucinda Morgan HarrisLouisa BeamanZina Huntington JacobsPresendia Huntington BuellAgnes CoolbrithSylvia Sessions LyonMary Rollins LightnerPatty Bartlett SessionsMarinda Johnson HydeElizabeth Davis DurfeeSarah Kingsley ClevelandDelcena JohnsonEliza R. SnowSarah Ann WhitneyMartha McBride KnightRuth Vose SayersFlora Ann WoodworthEmily Dow PartridgeEliza Maria PartridgeAlmera JohnsonLucy WalkerSarah LawrenceMaria LawrenceHelen Mar KimballHanna EllsElvira Cowles HolmesRhoda RichardsDesdemona FullmerOlive FrostMelissa LottNancy WinchesterFanny Young I think there might be a bit of debate on if a name or two should be on the list provided. But I think there may be a general consensus on many listed. However, I didn't meet with any success on the issue save one, that naturally being Emma. To be frank I wasn't exhaustive in my search though. I gave up after 7 or 8 random selections.I think you would be quite right is saying that there may be an aversion to certain parts of the past. However, if such aversion leaves one with the understanding that Joseph Smith had only one wife then this would be a misunderstanding. If a misunderstanding goes uncorrected by a necessity to avoid something. I don't know what you would call that? You seem to want to call it avoiding something. Maybe you would agree with at least that this sort of aversion could possibly be completely intentional.The response, in many cases, would be to question your faith and/or to ask why you were questioning theirs.I have only brought the topic up a handful of times with LDS in an offline/real world scenario. Either family or missionaries and haven't yet received that as an answer. The typical response is Emma, however there were two that were aware of the more complex scenario.I suppose if someone responded in a manner, as you have suggested. I would certainly welcome any questions they had regarding my faith, but would also be curious as to why they felt me asking them about to the number of wives that Joseph Smith had would be considered as questioning their faith?
Mortal Man Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Any other examples are welcome."Your search for polygamy has returned 0 results in JosephSmith.net.""Your search for plural marriage has returned 0 results in JosephSmith.net."
Duncan Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 "Your search for polygamy has returned 0 results in JosephSmith.net.""Your search for plural marriage has returned 0 results in JosephSmith.net."pure speculation but maybe they figure that you can find information about this on other websites and I base that on JosephSmith.net's use of the words "basic" and "brief"
CA Steve Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I don't see a lot of difference between the two Steve. If parts of the past are 'avoided' then their is a failure to disclose parts of the past. You may see a failure to disclose as simple avoidance. I do not see a lot of difference between them either except in terms of the OP. I thought he was looking for something more overt than your example. In the end the results are very similar. I do not see the failure to disclose as simple avoidance otherwise we would be equally as uniformed about the plural wives of subsequent prominent LDS leaders.I have only brought the topic up a handful of times with LDS in an offline/real world scenario. Either family or missionaries and haven't yet received that as an answer. The typical response is Emma, however there were two that were aware of the more complex scenario.I suppose if someone responded in a manner, as you have suggested. I would certainly welcome any questions they had regarding my faith, but would also be curious as to why they felt me asking them about to the number of wives that Joseph Smith had would be considered as questioning their faith?Perhaps a quick review of some of the responses to this very thread would yield a few examples of people reacting as if their faith had been questioned.By the way here is what I found at LDS.org for Joseph Smith Jr
bookofmormontruth Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I do not see a lot of difference between them either except in terms of the OP. I thought he was looking for something more overt than your example. In the end the results are very similar. I do not see the failure to disclose as simple avoidance otherwise we would be equally as uniformed about the plural wives of subsequent prominent LDS leaders.Perhaps a quick review of some of the responses to this very thread would yield a few examples of people reacting as if their faith had been questioned.By the way here is what I found at LDS.org for Joseph Smith Jr
DH Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Those of us who have lived for multiple decades came "to grips with reality" long seasons ago--about virtually everything in this mortal state. You seem to think, based on this post and others you have authored, that humankind and the institutions they manage in mortality are capable of achieving perfection. Forgive me, but that is egregiously naive. Joseph Smith made mistakes and every LDS prophet since his day has made mistakes. Indeed, I know of no LDS prophet who has been translated. As a colleague at BYU liked to tell me, "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."I also like this quotation from Samuel McChord Crothers (Universalist Minister): "Try as hard as we may for perfection, the net result of our labors is an amazing variety of imperfectness. We are surprised at our own versatility in being able to fail in so many different ways."Reminds me of what King Benjamin said, "And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them" (Mosiah 4:29). A friend of mine likes to say that people are "bundles of contradictions," meaning that a person may do something really good one minute, then turn around and do something bad the next.I suspect that one reason why certain Latter-day Saints have a hard time dealing with "warts and all" type LDS history is that they only want to see their heroes doing good. They get into black-and-white thinking where a person is either all good or all bad, but the problem is that people are not really like that. I know that Joseph Smith made mistakes, and he undoubtedly committed sins (he even admitted it). What people need to realize is that even though he and other Church leaders screw up from time to time, that doesn't invalidate the good things they do. On the other hand, just because they are good people, and called of God to lead the Church, does not mean I have to support them when they do screw up.Recently I read a biography of George Washington. It showed him to be a great man, but it also showed him as a human with flaws. After reading that book, not only to I know more about him, but I also have a greater respect for him, because I better understand what he did to help found this nation, and because I have an idea of what challenges he had to deal with and overcome. The fact that he had faults doesn't mean I can't respect him. It does mean I can identify more with him. Likewise, when I read about Church leaders and history, I want an actual history, not a hagiography. I find it encouraging that God can take flawed human beings and still use them to accomplish his purposes. It gives me hope that maybe he can use me, even though I am far from perfect.
Thinking Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Suppose I have a picture of myself as a teenager in the 70's that I don't want anybody else to see. I carefully place it between the pages of a book that, although it is in plain sight on the book shelf, has never been read by anybody in the household. By chance a family member opens the book and finds the picture. He asks me why I was hiding the picture. I reply that I wasn't hiding the picture, but it was where anybody could find it if they just looked.
Libs Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I suspect that one reason why certain Latter-day Saints have a hard time dealing with "warts and all" type LDS history is that they only want to see their heroes doing good. Not at all. This was not true for me. I accepted that Joseph Smith probably had flaws. Every person does. The problem is much more nuanced. Exactly how many "warts" and how large is acceptable, before one starts to wonder if Joseph is truly a prophet? That's the dilemma.My problems with Joseph were big things (IMHO) having to do with polygamy...the how, and with whom, part of it. I know some people will think this is silly, but I was shocked at what I learned, and had never heard before. This was not a simple flaw (not like lying or cursing or spitting on the sidewalk). I found these flaws to be quite large...too much for me to simply wave it away, as a small "wart".So, I very much disagree that it is always black and white thinking. Not to say there's not some of that, as well. But, a lot of the things that ex-members were learning (some for the first time) are really quite devastating to our faith.
consiglieri Posted March 7, 2011 Author Posted March 7, 2011 I also see Joseph Smith acting like a real prophet, recieving real revelation, and producing the Book of Mormon, which I accept as a real revelation. Given that, I'm willing to put up with imperfections I see everywhere every day. I'd better, since I come far short of being able to offer perfection to anyone else. Come to think of it Joseph Smith said some interesting things about that very thing.Have I mentioned lately I like the way you think, Kevin?All the Best!--Consiglieri
consiglieri Posted March 7, 2011 Author Posted March 7, 2011 FWIW, Kevin, your response is a welcome antidote to Consiglieri's tiresome posts. Well said. Thanks.It might surprise you to know that Kevin thinks along the same lines as I do.All the Best!--Consiglieri (Italian for Tiresome Poster)Edited to add: I'm sure you noticed Kevin agreed with me in the first sentence of his excellent post.
consiglieri Posted March 7, 2011 Author Posted March 7, 2011 If the Church covered up its history like in this example we wouldn't even know about it because it would be,you know, covered up.Things fall apart. The center cannot hold.Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
consiglieri Posted March 7, 2011 Author Posted March 7, 2011 Can Nack or Consili please address my earlier post; I am pretty sure this isn't as clear as you guys make it - that is unless it is preferrable to drop the subject, which would be fine also. Just don't leave me hanging, that is all .Thanks, sorry for the hassle.Best Wishes,TAONo problemo, Tao.We denounce [the Adam
Jeff K. Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Consig, interesting juxtaposition.Care to provide context?
consiglieri Posted March 7, 2011 Author Posted March 7, 2011 Consig, interesting juxtaposition.Care to provide context?The context is obvious, I would think.Modern Church leaders have gone on record as denying the Adam-God Theory; Elder McConkie going so far as saying those who believe it "don't deserve to be saved."Does this sound in any way like a "cover up" to you?All the Best!--Consiglieri
Jeff K. Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Context is never really obvious. And any historian will tell you that. If we want to know the entire impact on why a specific talk or article is written we should attempt to understand the history behind it. Otherwise we take out of context what was meant, and rather fill in our own agenda as to what was said. The more context we have the better we understand what is going on at the time, and the closer we are to the true meaning of both talks and actions.Since it is so obvious to you, perhaps then you can tell us what you believe the context to be and how you came to that conclusion?
consiglieri Posted March 7, 2011 Author Posted March 7, 2011 Since it is so obvious to you, perhaps then you can tell us what you believe the context to be and how you came to that conclusion?Here is the context--Church leadership felt too many of its members were being exposed to the fact that Brigham Young taught the Adam-God Theory.Denials were therefore in order.Your turn . . .All the Best!--Consiglieri
Duncan Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 The context is obvious, I would think.Modern Church leaders have gone on record as denying the Adam-God Theory; Elder McConkie going so far as saying those who believe it "don't deserve to be saved."Does this sound in any way like a "cover up" to you?All the Best!--ConsiglieriA coverup would to me have people in the know and deny that say Pres. Young ever taught such an idea. What you provided is leaders saying in essence, yes he taught that but it isn't true. A coverup has something that happened, and then someone denying it ever happened for whatever reason. Fpr example a cover up has me "losing" most my GI Joes as a teen and asking my family what happened to them, "We don't know" only to find out years later that my younger sister gave them to her boyfriend...she lied, they all lied! haha!
consiglieri Posted March 7, 2011 Author Posted March 7, 2011 What you provided is leaders saying in essence, yes he taught that but it isn't true.To my knowledge, no LDS Church leader has ever publicly said Brigham Young taught it but it isn't true.All the Best!--Consiglieri
cinepro Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 The context is obvious, I would think.Based on the close timing of the statements, and the reference to the devil getting "converts to cultism", I suspect that during the 1970's there was a perceived danger of fundamentalists using Brigham Young's Adam/God statements as part of their pitch to recruit LDS to the polygamous cause. That would be my guess. I was very young at the time, and didn't live in Utah.
Duncan Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 To my knowledge, no LDS Church leader has ever publicly said Brigham Young taught it but it isn't true.All the Best!--ConsiglieriBut didn't you provide a quotation from Pres. Kimball saying that it isn't true?
consiglieri Posted March 7, 2011 Author Posted March 7, 2011 But didn't you provide a quotation from Pres. Kimball saying that it isn't true?Are you starting to understand the "cover up"?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.