Complete Honesty Versus Protection Of Faith

Tacenda · July 9, 2012

Deleted

Edited July 10, 2012 by Tacenda

why me · July 9, 2012

What paper is that? I've only seen mention of the one by Gregory Smith and that topic is polygamy.

Maybe it is this one:

http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/katich-a-tale-of-two-marriage-systems.pdf

why me · July 9, 2012

Here are many Fairlds papers on polyandry:

http://www.google.com/cse?siteurl=www.fairlds.org%2F&ref=www.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dfairlds.org%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CFMQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.fairlds.org%252F%26ei%3DwAv7T_CjH8jR4QSUmLly%26usg%3DAFQjCNEhgqAEvW3F8Big8yIownuVZY_Ytw&ss=2643j1221169j9&cx=006480910542272568972%3Adjiv3kx8zqo&ie=UTF-8&q=polyandry&sa.x=3&sa.y=9#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=polyandry&gsc.page=1

Calm · July 9, 2012

The Sam K one which is the one why me linked to above. I thought you said you had read it:

http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/katich-a-tale-of-two-marriage-systems.pdf

KevinG · July 9, 2012

The more I study early church practices surrounding the Principle the more I realize the less I know. The picture that comes from getting past my contemporary prudish biases and starting to understand the motives and actual practices becomes one of families being connected in a dynasty of royal priesthood that extend even into today's church.

Those who cannot see marriage or familial connections as anything but sexual are doomed to fail in comprehending eternal marriage at all- monogamy, polygamy or polyandry.

In fact I suspect one reason we will not see multiple sealings again in mortality is because we are failing so miserably at monogamy.

Calm · July 9, 2012

Well observed.

Tacenda · July 9, 2012

The Sam K one which is the one why me linked to above. I thought you said you had read it:
http://www.fairlds.o...age-systems.pdf

I did? I could have. I'll check it out if so and see! Thank you.

why me · July 9, 2012

The Sam K one which is the one why me linked to above. I thought you said you had read it:
http://www.fairlds.o...age-systems.pdf

I hope that he looks at the other material from FAIR.

http://www.google.com/cse?siteurl=www.fairlds.org%2F&ref=www.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dfairlds.org%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CFMQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.fairlds.org%252F%26ei%3DwAv7T_CjH8jR4QSUmLly%26usg%3DAFQjCNEhgqAEvW3F8Big8yIownuVZY_Ytw&ss=2643j1221169j9&cx=006480910542272568972%3Adjiv3kx8zqo&ie=UTF-8&q=polyandry&sa.x=3&sa.y=9#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=polyandry&gsc.page=1

But my guess is that his female friend is set to leave and nothing will prevent her from doing so.

Craig Paxton · July 9, 2012

Any organization that must be built on a foundations of lies and half truths or needs to hide difficult truths from its membership in order to maintain belief in the organization can not be what it claims to be

KevinG · July 9, 2012

Any organization that must be built on a foundations of lies and half truths or needs to hide difficult truths from its membership in order to maintain belief in the organization can not be what it claims to be

I agree completely.

Faith does not need protection from the truth. However there are more than enough unscrupulous enemies of faith who will attempt to portray prudent respectful privacy as conspiracy.

Closet Doubter · July 9, 2012

Here is the problem as I see it: people who read the internet seem to think that we should be shouting about all that the critics claim that we hide. We should be shouting from the rooftops that mormons will be gods, if they live righteously. But do mormons actually believe this? Some say yes, some say no. If families are together in the eternities, how can they be together if they are gods over their own planets. Now some claim that the idea of god just means that we will have the knowledge to be equal with god. Thus, we will be gods.
I think that we do not seem to know all about it which would make it difficult to shout it from the rooftops.

We don't need to be shouting all the controversial doctrines all the time but we should be able to learn about these things that are true from our own sites and not from the "Anti" sites. We are our own worst enemy when a person realizes they have to go to the non church sites to learn stuff that the church is either hiding or choosing not to talk about.We used to know about it.

When you mention that we don't even know anymore if we will become gods, if we don't know about it now, that is a change in our doctrine because it used to be taught unequivocally prior to President Hinkley publicly stating it is just an interesting couplet that we don't know much about and that he didn't know if we even teach it.

Tacenda · July 9, 2012

We don't need to be shouting all the controversial doctrines all the time but we should be able to learn about these things that are true from our own sites and not from the "Anti" sites. We are our own worst enemy when a person realizes they have to go to the non church sites to learn stuff that the church is either hiding or choosing not to talk about.We used to know about it.
When you mention that we don't even know anymore if we will become gods, if we don't know about it now, that is a change in our doctrine because it used to be taught unequivocally prior to President Hinkley publicly stating it is just an interesting couplet that we don't know much about and that he didn't know if we even teach it.

This is exactly what I've been talking about, but didn't know how very well. Thanks Closet Doubter. And to add to that, I believe our whole premise in this church rests on that concept, that's the extra that people say we are adding to other's religions when we say we believe their church is true but we have more to add.

Bill “Papa” Lee · July 9, 2012

I know of someone personally, who is all set to leave the church, who has written her resignation letter, whom I've told to come on this board and read, and she did, and still is going forth with it solely on the character of Joseph Smith. What do you say to someone like that? I'm sure it happens often on that one concept.

Joseph was a great man...not because he did not have weaknesses, but what he did despite them. God uses flawed men because there is nothing else to work with. This is why we have Christ as our example.

DBMormon · July 9, 2012

_{_.}

_{_{ipb.global.registerReputation( 'rep_post_1209144321', { domLikeStripId: 'like_post_1209144321', app: 'forums', type: 'pid', typeid: '1209144321' }, parseInt('0') );}}

_{We don't need to be shouting all the controversial doctrines all the time but we should be able to learn about these things that are true from our own sites and not from the "Anti" sites. We are our own worst enemy when a person realizes they have to go to the non church sites to learn stuff that the church is either hiding or choosing not to talk about.We used to know about it.}
_{When you mention that we don't even know anymore if we will become gods, if we don't know about it now, that is a change in our doctrine because it used to be taught unequivocally prior to President Hinkley publicly stating it is just an interesting couplet that we don't know much about and that he didn't know if we even teach it}

Where should it be? I would have said your quote was mine 24 hours ago.... but I see first hand now the problem in this expectation.

It is in the writing of the leaders who said it. It is in their speculation they uttered to give shape to what we know but it is not doctrine.... where should you find it?

Edited July 9, 2012 by DBMormon

wenglund · July 9, 2012

In her mind, Joseph is morally corrupt after she finds out about his polygamy with young girls and other men's wives.

Even granting, for the sake of discussion, that she is right to usurp Christ's role and to judge the morality of Joseph, and that her sentence of "morally corrupt" is reasonable, this still is irrelevant to whether Jesus is the Christ, whether the gospel of Christ has been restored, whether Joseph is a prophet and restored the gospel, and whether the gospel is of God and will work for her in bringing her to Christ and enabling her to become like him.

Yet, she seems intent on giving up all the good that the gospel has to offer for her, and for something that doesn't, or shouldn't, impact her spiritual progression. She's cutting off her own nose to spite someone else's personal relationship. Emotional reactions can be irrational in that way.

Still, it appears that she had already left the restored gospel, and began following her own gospel--a gospel that makes her instead of Christ the judge of other people's morality, and this using her own limited, 21st century, human understanding instead of God's, as the criteria for judging; and a gospel where she instead of God dictates the basis upon which not only Joseph's morality is judge, but also the verity of the gospel/Church, etc.; a gospel that makes someone else's morality the ultimate issue of importance and the end objective of that gospel, rather than centering on Christ and making becoming like him her goal.

This was certainly her choice. However, it contravenes what the restored gospel is really about and how it works. She can choose to follow her own private gospel, but will reap as she sows.

Though, if she wishes to come to Christ and to become like him, then she needs to humbly abandon her own private gospel, and follow the Savior on the path he has set forth. She can't very well come to Christ by following a gospel that is her's and that leads to her.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

wenglund · July 9, 2012

Any organization that must be built on a foundations of lies and half truths or needs to hide difficult truths from its membership in order to maintain belief in the organization can not be what it claims to be.

Which excluded the Church--at least to the reasonably minded.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Libs · July 9, 2012

Yet, she seems intent on giving up all the good that the gospel has to offer for her, and for something that doesn't, or shouldn't, impact her spiritual progression. She's cutting off her own nose to spite someone else's personal relationship. Emotional reactions can be irrational in that way.

If Joseph Smith is not a prophet, there is no "restored gospel"...so, no one is "cutting off their nose to spite their face", but rather having a very logical reaction to the idea that, taking Joseph out of the picture, means the church is not true (at least, not in the way it was previously believed). That doesn't mean one cannot still believe in God and the gospel of Jesus Christ, but it does mean that the LDS Church is no longer the "framework" for those beliefs.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Libs

why me · July 9, 2012

We don't need to be shouting all the controversial doctrines all the time but we should be able to learn about these things that are true from our own sites and not from the "Anti" sites. We are our own worst enemy when a person realizes they have to go to the non church sites to learn stuff that the church is either hiding or choosing not to talk about.We used to know about it.

What church is shouting their controversies from the rooftops. And our members of other faiths learning about their controversial history? I don't think so. So, maybe the lds church should be different. Maybe we can be the first church to teach all aspects of lds history, the controversies, the non controversies etc. I have never met a catholic who left the catholic church when they discovered the history of some of the popes or the crusades or the inquisition. And they certainly do not read these things from an official history of the catholic church sponsored by the vatican. But I could be wrong.

Edited July 9, 2012 by why me

Tacenda · July 9, 2012

Even granting, for the sake of discussion, that she is right to usurp Christ's role and to judge the morality of Joseph, and that her sentence of "morally corrupt" is reasonable, this still is irrelevant to whether Jesus is the Christ, whether the gospel of Christ has been restored, whether Joseph is a prophet and restored the gospel, and whether the gospel is of God and will work for her in bringing her to Christ and enabling her to become like him.
Yet, she seems intent on giving up all the good that the gospel has to offer for her, and for something that doesn't, or shouldn't, impact her spiritual progression. She's cutting off her own nose to spite someone else's personal relationship. Emotional reactions can be irrational in that way.
Still, it appears that she had already left the restored gospel, and began following her own gospel--a gospel that makes her instead of Christ the judge of other people's morality, and this using her own limited, 21st century, human understanding instead of God's, as the criteria for judging; and a gospel where she instead of God dictates the basis upon which not only Joseph's morality is judge, but also the verity of the gospel/Church, etc.; a gospel that makes someone else's morality the ultimate issue of importance and the end objective of that gospel, rather than centering on Christ and making becoming like him her goal.
This was certainly her choice. However, it contravenes what the restored gospel is really about and how it works. She can choose to follow her own private gospel, but will reap as she sows.
Though, if she wishes to come to Christ and to become like him, then she needs to humbly abandon her own private gospel, and follow the Savior on the path he has set forth. She can't very well come to Christ by following a gospel that is her's and that leads to her.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So she can't be a believer of Christ and follow His gospel without the church?

wenglund · July 9, 2012

We don't need to be shouting all the controversial doctrines all the time but we should be able to learn about these things that are true from our own sites and not from the "Anti" sites. We are our own worst enemy when a person realizes they have to go to the non church sites to learn stuff that the church is either hiding or choosing not to talk about.We used to know about it.
When you mention that we don't even know anymore if we will become gods, if we don't know about it now, that is a change in our doctrine because it used to be taught unequivocally prior to President Hinkley publicly stating it is just an interesting couplet that we don't know much about and that he didn't know if we even teach it.

Your taking this banal and myopic perspective is what is really self-defeating. Millions of people in the Church are progressing just fine towards becoming like Christ regardless of what off-hand comment President Hinckley may have made years ago. What's your problem?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

why me · July 9, 2012

Any organization that must be built on a foundations of lies and half truths or needs to hide difficult truths from its membership in order to maintain belief in the organization can not be what it claims to be

What does it mean to hide? How often should the lds church have all the controversial information claimed by the critics in their magazines or manuals? Once a year? Once every five years? How often? Should the lds church be depended on critics? Should the lds church give their magazine editorship over to the critics? Because quite frankly the lds church will never win this argument. The critics are too demanding and they demand the impossible. No church can live up to what the lds critics want the lds church to do.

why me · July 9, 2012

When you mention that we don't even know anymore if we will become gods, if we don't know about it now, that is a change in our doctrine because it used to be taught unequivocally prior to President Hinkley publicly stating it is just an interesting couplet that we don't know much about and that he didn't know if we even teach it.

How old was President Hinckley when he made that statement? 94? I think that you should give the guy a break. The poor guy goes on larry king or mike wallace, is surprised by a question and answers it with his old mind. And to this day, people like you bring it out of a hat like a rabbit to make a point.

Deborah · July 9, 2012

If Joseph Smith is not a prophet, there is no "restored gospel"..

The problem I have is that Joseph gave us doctrine which makes so much sense and which in and of itself convinces me of the truth of the church claims. In fact I had a testimony of these things (ie pre-mortal existence, degrees of glory, Godhead, baptism for the dead, etc) before I had a testimony of Joseph Smith. I then realized that it was Joseph Smith who gave us these things and if they are true then he is a true prophet.

Deborah · July 9, 2012

DB, I would ask what is it that your testimony was previously based on. What in those things changed? If nothing which convinced you previously has changed then why are you letting some out of context information from an anti site sway you? If something has changed, are you sure you have complete information and understand the full context (polyandry being the perfect example).

One reason the church doesn't talk so much about some things is because unlike the critics, who think they know, we don't really know all the facts or all the reasons behind something and rather than teach half truths we would rather people build their testimonies on the Spirit of things that we do know.

wenglund · July 9, 2012

If Joseph Smith is not a prophet, there is no "restored gospel."

Not exactly.

Even still, what Joseph may have done in the privacy of his own bedroom, has absolutely nothing to do with whether he was a prophet of God or not, and certainly not anything to do with whether the gospel was restored or not, nor is it in any way a valid test for determining who or who isn't a prophet or which gospel is true.. From the perspective of the gospel of Christ, God is the one who decides who is or isn't his prophets and which gospel is his, not us. And, he is the one, and not us, who gets to decide how we may determine if a prophet is of God or not and which gospel is of him. To think otherwise is to have no clue what the gospel of Christ is all about and how it is supposed to work, and to supplant instead one's own private gospel. People failing in faith over such reasons simply underscores their cluelessness and and adherence to their own private gospel. Sorry.

...so, no one is "cutting of their nose to spite their face", but rather having a very logical reaction to the idea that, taking Joseph out of the picture, means the church is not true (at least, not in the way it was previously believed).

There is nothing logical about it. It is wrought with emotionalism, fallacies, and irrationality. It rejects all that is good about the gospel and all the good that has been done by the gospel, for reasons that are entirely irrelevant to the gospel. If this isn't cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, it at very least is the height of dysfunction and banality.

That doesn't mean one cannot still believe in God and the gospel of Jesus Christ, but it does mean that the LDS Church is no longer the "framework" for those beliefs.

One cannot profess to believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and yet follow one's own private gospel (as the case may be).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 9, 2012 by wenglund

Sign In

Complete Honesty Versus Protection Of Faith

Recommended Posts

Tacenda

why me

why me

Calm

KevinG

Calm

Tacenda

why me

Craig Paxton

KevinG

Closet Doubter

Tacenda

Bill “Papa” Lee

DBMormon

wenglund

wenglund

Libs

why me

Tacenda

wenglund

why me

why me

Deborah

Deborah

wenglund

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse