why me Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Actually, I don't disagree with that. I think he definitely had some inspiration, at times. (Then, other times, perhaps, not so much..)I would agree that the kirkland bank idea was not that inspired. And I do think that he was a terrible businessman. No inspiration there at all. But when I look at the religious angle, I see much inspiration. Can you find another religious leader that was more inspired than Joseph Smith in creating a very detailed cohesive religion? Many have claimed outside the church that Joseph was the greatest religious leader that the United States has produced. Do you agree?
why me Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) I am beginning to find this complete honesty idea a complete bogeyman. And it is something that started with the internet and the rise of exmormon internet boards. It is quite interesting that the lds church can never forget the past and concentrate on the present and future as all churches do because exmembers demand the constant education of the past to the membership. I know of no other church that has this pressure.Do baptists teach slavery to their membership and the role of the baptist church in southern slavery? Is this done in their literature and from the pulpit on a constant basis or is the baptist church concerned with the present? Do other protestant sects concentrate on their treatment of the native americans as preachers were preaching their destructioin in the early and middle 19th century? And protestant racism? I can go on and on about this but it does seem that other churches are allowed to not concentrate on their past.But the lds church, needs a constant lesson on the past, according to the critics. The lds need to teach and learn their past in all priesthood and relief society lessons and in sunday school too to satisfy the lds and former lds malcontents and critics.I really believe that the members on this thread who are being fed antimormon ideas need to do a reality check. Maybe I should contact the vatican and ask them to please begin a catholicstories podcast where catholic scholars and excatholics can educate their catholics brothers and sisters in the hidden parts of the catholic faith so that finally the catholic church can claim honesty too. Likewise for all other faiths. Lets pinprick their past and have them come to terms with their past and not allow ignorance to rule the day. And lets educate believing baptists, methodists, catholics, buddhists, muslims etc about their true history. But...I don't see this happening anytime soon. Nor do I see these churches and faiths ready to do this. They are in the present looking to the future.But still lets have the lds church do it. I want them to publish a thousand page book detailing every aspect of their past with critic interpretations...this book should not be faith promoting at all but more exmormon orientated complete with all possible exmormon interpretations of lds history possible with a brief commentary from Richard Bushman for the faithful who will need to read it and study it for sunday school. Does this sound good? Can we all agree? Will our questioning friends now be happy? Will the exmembers now feel jiustified they left? Their peace and happiness are truly my concern. Edited July 10, 2012 by why me
Kenngo1969 Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I am beginning to find this complete honesty idea a complete bogeyman. ...Sing it with me, now!Honnnnnnn-esty ... is such a loney word! (I had an emoticon with a microphone ready to go, but the system wouldn't let me use it! Mods, we need a singer emoticon for the crooners on the Board! )
Calm Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) I c/p this from some site. So I didn't create the heading, sorry about that.When you do that you need to include a link per board rules....I doubt the mods are picky if it is a widely available text, but it is good to give credit imo to the people who do the work to get the info to us.I found the website you are looking at. It is a site whose purpose is to discourage people from believing in the LDS faith. If you are spending your time visiting such sites and trusting that their account is accurate, then it is little wonder you are having difficulties. I found some extensive inaccurate, incomplete and improperly edited quotes on that site. Do not believe everything you read on it and if you continue to choose to use it as one of your research sources, then be sure and do additional research to find the original sources and see what was actually said.If you are interested in Nancy Rigdon, you should read this: http://pool.fairmormon.org/images/d/db/John_C._Bennett_draft.pdf Edited July 10, 2012 by calmoriah
Calm Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) One more comment, Tacenda....rather than just reading some criticism somewhere and coming and asking here if it is true or not, why don't you visit FAIR first and read what references that site has? All I am doing is taking the names and topics you are asking about and doing a simple search at that site. It is not any more difficult for you to do it and if you are taking the time to visit anti-mormon sites, you should give proLDS sites the same amount of effort. Then come here if you feel the need to discuss the pros and cons you have been presented with....it would make for much more effective discussion and learning for all concerned. Edited July 10, 2012 by calmoriah 3
DBMormon Posted July 10, 2012 Author Posted July 10, 2012 Maybe I should contact the vatican and ask them to please begin a catholicstories podcast where catholic scholars and excatholics can educate their catholics brothers and sisters in the hidden parts of the catholic faith so that finally the catholic church can claim honesty too. Likewise for all other faiths. Lets pinprick their past and have them come to terms with their past and not allow ignorance to rule the day. And lets educate believing baptists, methodists, catholics, buddhists, muslims etc about their true history.I like this idea.... I think it could be a popular podcast that leads to more possible LDS converts....lol
Tacenda Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 One more comment, Tacenda....rather than just reading some criticism somewhere and coming and asking here if it is true or not, why don't you visit FAIR first and read what references that site has? All I am doing is taking the names and topics you are asking about and doing a simple search at that site. It is not any more difficult for you to do it and if you are taking the time to visit anti-mormon sites, you should give proLDS sites the same amount of effort. Then come here if you feel the need to discuss the pros and cons you have been presented with....it would make for much more effective discussion and learning for all concerned. That is one sided in my opinion. So FAIR is the only factual authority? The story about Nancy Rigdon is wrong? I highly doubt the author I mentioned would write a book without credible facts. The problem I find with some apologetics is they twist things and mold things to give the appearance that it's all hunky dory. But I will be more diligent in providing more info on the sites I use and reread the board guidelines.Thank you!
DBMormon Posted July 10, 2012 Author Posted July 10, 2012 Tacenda,If you have followed my threads at all, let me share two thoughts1.) I do not struggle with the issues. What I mean by that is polyandry has suffcient answers for me to not be bothered by it. Priesthood not given to all men prior to 78 doesn't bother me as the answers are suffcient, seer stones, treasure digging do not bother me as answers are complete enough for me to see this as a non issue; book of abraham, kinderhook plates, masonry/temples, ect, ect.... do not bother me in the least I feel ok and satisfied with the answers. I think for 80% of these issues the answers are completely satisfactory and I feel like once one allows these men who lead to be human at times then the other 20% can be understood and leave room for the church to be true.2.) My issue had always been what I saw as a cover-up. And while perhaps a leader being human here or one there, I finally understood the "Church" wasn't being deceiving no more then Jesus was when he taught in parables, asked his apostles to keep somethings to himself, and answered non-believers and believers based on their ability to accept truth. Was Jesus Deceiving? I in no way shape or form see it that way and yet I don't cut the church the same slack because critic have twisted and emphasized my having been deceived, I have not been shoved into that tunnel of perception. Davis Bitton (church historian) said On the other hand, your typical anti-Mormon is no disinterested pursuer of the truth. If you are confronted with a "problem," some kind of "non—faith-promoting" take on church history, the chances are that your willing helper can lay no claim to having done any significant research in Mormon history. Oblivious to the primary sources, unread in the journal literature, the critic has picked up the nugget from previous anti-Mormon writers and offers it as though it were a fresh discovery. Most of the time it is anything but new—it is a stock item in a litany of anti-Mormon claims that serves their purpose. It is a broken record.What was the religion they had subscribed to? If the Latter-day Saints in 1840 or 1870 or 1950 or 2004 were instructed to lie, cheat, and steal, to be thoroughly bad people, let's hear about it. Such a case cannot be made by any fair-minded investigator, but I don't doubt for a minute that those capable of making disgraceful, libelous "documentaries" like The God Makers would like people to believe the worst of the Mormons. The makers, promoters, and distributors of such scandalous misrepresentations are possessed of a spirit—but it is not the spirit of fairness, not the spirit of charity, not the spirit of truth.Anyway good luck..
altersteve Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 That is one sided in my opinion. So FAIR is the only factual authority? The story about Nancy Rigdon is wrong? I highly doubt the author I mentioned would write a book without credible facts. The problem I find with some apologetics is they twist things and mold things to give the appearance that it's all hunky dory. But I will be more diligent in providing more info on the sites I use and reread the board guidelines.Thank you!No real apologist tries to make anything sound "hunky dory." But the point is that you should seek out the answers from all perspectives and come to your own conclusions. Don't just read critical stuff and base your opinion solely on that.
KevinG Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I never mentioned the LDS church but if the shoe fits......and the trap is sprung.
KevinG Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 And I agree...we are ALL supposed to be prophets.I knew it! The LDS Church is in it for the prophets!
KevinG Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 If you want the unvarnished truth don't go to pro or con Mormonism sites. Get on your knees, ask for revelation, obey what you receive... then you will get more. Continue this course until united with your Father in Heaven. 1
Tacenda Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) If you want the unvarnished truth don't go to pro or con Mormonism sites. Get on your knees, ask for revelation, obey what you receive... then you will get more. Continue this course until united with your Father in Heaven. Oh, I wish it were that easy! I guess you and others have a better conduit to Him than myself. I guess you could say I feel somewhat overlooked in that regard.But I'm open to trying it as you explained, asking for revelation , and listening for the answer, obey what I've received and build on that, thanks I'll try it that way! Edited July 10, 2012 by Tacenda
KevinG Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Oh, I wish it were that easy! I guess you and others have a better conduit to Him than myself. I guess you could say I feel somewhat overlooked in that regard.But I'm open to trying it as you explained, a little at a time,and listening for the answer, obey what I've received and build on that, thanks I'll try it that way!Uh yeah- I made that sound too easy. It is simple but not easy. One of my greatest challenges is being patient enough to wait for the answer in God's timeframe - which I am learning is considerably more expansive than my limited patience.D&C 93 says it much better than I did. Its worth reviewing.
Tacenda Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Uh yeah- I made that sound too easy. It is simple but not easy. One of my greatest challenges is being patient enough to wait for the answer in God's timeframe - which I am learning is considerably more expansive than my limited patience.D&C 93 says it much better than I did. Its worth reviewing. I haven't been diligent in my prayers lately, probably because I feel they are repetitious. But I needed reminding, and I like the steps you laid out.
KevinG Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I haven't been diligent in my prayers lately, probably because I feel they are repetitious. But I needed reminding, and I like the steps you laid out.You and me both sister!
Calm Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) That is one sided in my opinion. So FAIR is the only factual authority? The story about Nancy Rigdon is wrong? IBut I will be more diligent in providing more info on the sites I use and reread the board guidelines.Thank you!That was not what I said. I was suggesting you be more balanced by referring to more than just a anti site.I highly doubt the author I mentioned would write a book without credible facts.Why not? I am not saying this author does this, but it does happen so I always assume an author is not presenting the whole story and go look for other POV or even better if I can manage it, look for the original sources myself. Not only is it possible that an author does not list all the relevant facts, but even if they do manage, their commentary may leave something to be desired. The problem I find with some apologetics is they twist things and mold things to give the appearance that it's all hunky dory. And polemics don't alter stuff to support their POV? That site you are apparently relying on to tell you the truth doesn't bother to mention the DNA studies when discussing Joseph's potential children and puts up an edited version of the letter to the Whitneys that makes it look like a love letter to Sarah when it was addressed to her parents and didn't even mention her by name. FAIR btw, puts up the whole letter.Compare the typically edited letter (this version is the one usually found on anti sites in my experience):"... the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty. ... Only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater friendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I will tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. ... I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont, dont fail to come to night, I subscribe myself your most obedient, and affectionate, companion, and friend. Joseph Smith."Now compare the full letter available at FAIR: Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.— I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and <if you> three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me; now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you come <can> come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at <the> window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I <know> it is the will of God that you should comfort <me> now in this time of affliction, or not at[ta]l now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I <will> tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you wi will pardon me for my earnest=ness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night. I subscribe myself your most obedient, <and> affectionate, companion, and friend. Joseph SmithNow tell me which one is twisting and molding to change the appearance to support their claims? Edited July 10, 2012 by calmoriah 2
Deborah Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 That is one sided in my opinion. So FAIR is the only factual authority? The story about Nancy Rigdon is wrong? I highly doubt the author I mentioned would write a book without credible facts. The problem I find with some apologetics is they twist things and mold things to give the appearance that it's all hunky dory. But I will be more diligent in providing more info on the sites I use and reread the board guidelines.Thank you!Are you serious? You don't question anti-Mormon sites but you think FAIR is twisting things? Anti means finding something against and you don't think they give a slanted twist? Even "credible" facts can be twisted to appear what they are not. All FAIR is doing is giving a counter argument to the many negative things being promulgated. If you want to know what someone actually believes it's far more reliable to go to those who do believe than those whose purpose is to tear down.
Tacenda Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) Calmoriah and Deborah.... I just have a problem when the apologists give answers that seem to defend the wrongful doing. I guess that's really the crux to this. In my opinion the old saying "if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it is a duck". I feel like we shouldn't give any excuses for bad behavior. And the so called anti sights may do as you say cut out some things, I'll give that to you most certainly, and both sides have alterior motives. But shouldn't one look at the other side. I guess when you're raised with only the LDS sanctioned side and it is sketchy at best, well for the lay person & non scholarly person such as I, then I sorta climb on the bandwagon of those that give me the picture, whole or not. Does that make any sense? Edited July 10, 2012 by Tacenda
why me Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Sing it with me, now!Honnnnnnn-esty ... is such a loney word! (I had an emoticon with a microphone ready to go, but the system wouldn't let me use it! Mods, we need a singer emoticon for the crooners on the Board! )I think that you understood my point. It has become a bogeyman. In fact, it can never be realized since the claim will always be present even with a thousand page book about lds history from a critic point of view. Something will always be left out and thus, the claim of hiding or being dishonest will still be there. Amazing that the lds church needs to live its past while other churches with a far more jaded history do not. But here is what I know: if one lives a mormon life one will not go wrong. True, such a life goes against the grain of this world, but it is a good life. And is life in the present. I can only say that something has gone right and members have not been led astray.
thesometimesaint Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Tacenda:There is no excuse for doing wrongly, but knowing that we sometimes will gives us empathy.
why me Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Calmoriah and Deborah.... I just have a problem when the apologists give answers that seem to defend the wrongful doing. I guess that's really the crux to this. In my opinion the old saying "if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it is a duck". I feel like we shouldn't give any excuses for bad behavior. And the so called anti sights may do as you say cut out some things, I'll give that to you most certainly, and both sides have alterior motives. But shouldn't one look at the other side. I guess when you're raised with only the LDS sanctioned side and it is sketchy at best, well for the lay person & non scholarly person such as I, then I sorta climb on the bandwagon of those that give me the picture, whole or not. Does that make any sense?What wrong doing are apologists defending?
KevinG Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I think that you understood my point. It has become a bogeyman. In fact, it can never be realized since the claim will always be present even with a thousand page book about lds history from a critic point of view. Something will always be left out and thus, the claim of hiding or being dishonest will still be there. Amazing that the lds church needs to live its past while other churches with a far more jaded history do not. But here is what I know: if one lives a mormon life one will not go wrong. True, such a life goes against the grain of this world, but it is a good life. And is life in the present. I can only say that something has gone right and members have not been led astray.Rules for Radicals... RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
Tacenda Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) What wrong doing are apologists defending?In my opinion having affairs with married women, even goes against section132 in the D & C. And please, it's been established that some were consumated. I'm sick of people denying the truth. Did God command polygamy for no reason? Just a sick game or test of faith when it hurts so many? No, I thought it was too raise up righteous seed. Well where is the seed of JS polyandry? With the exception of Patty Session's daughter Josephine being offspring, speculation of course. But in my estimation I believe JS practiced birth control, natural methods, because it wasn't a doctrine yet. So I believe JS is an adulterer. I said it & I own it. Edited July 10, 2012 by Tacenda
Calm Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 But shouldn't one look at the other side.All I've ever said is don't just look at the anti side.
Recommended Posts