Complete Honesty Versus Protection Of Faith

[ERayR]

Exactly. And, not only will talking about it do nothing to help in those ways, it may also distract attention and time and energy away from those worthy things, and chance leading people away from Christ.

Sadly, though, some people just don't get this. They have the upside-down notion that since talk of polygamy may have caused certain people to lose faith, that talking about it more will somehow change this and make things better.

Whereas, in truth, loss of faith is best reversed and/or prevented by talking more of Christ and the things of Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not only that it is almost always the sexual aspects that are the topic of discussion. The critics and anti-Mormons want to dwell in Joseph's bedroom.

[why me]

Whereas, in truth, loss of faith is best reversed and/or prevented by talking more of Christ and the things of Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

However there is a point for it to be mentioned especially if members do not know aspects of Joseph's life. A good opportunity would have been the Joseph Smith manual that members were learning a couple of years ago. And also the Joseph Smith movie that has been recently released was another opportunity that was missed. There are moments when it could be mentioned. Like I said on a different thread or perhaps it was this thread that biographies of Joseph Smith that will be authored by lds authors and published by desseret would be a good place to do it.

At times these points can be skipped over by lds historians. For example, on this site, the historians skip over things that maybe should not be skipped over. Listen to the podcast that reads: History of the Saints Part I

http://yldsr.com/

Edited July 7, 2012 by why me

[DBMormon]

At some point along the way those that want to can now and always have been able to get the "full" story. " I will be a broken record and say" it is not the churches mission or job to be history teacher. It is the churches mission to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, his atonement, his resurrection and the saving ordinances. There is not even enough time to get that done without pandering to the desire of some for the intimate details from Joseph's bedroom.

I hate this we are not history teachers reasoning... the church uses plenty of history in what it does... the restoration is paraded about on history. We use lots of history... Pioneer stories, Joseph protecting the plates, Brigham Young this, Parley Pratt that... I am frustrated by using one reason when it serves purpose A and then use another approach when it serves purpose B.

We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.

We Must Not Excuse Our Dishonesty

Why am I personally taught to live by these but it is not universal?

I get the reasons and some of them are reasonable but like said earlier, the whole story should not be avoided completely. Maybe not in Gospel essentials class, maybe not in the missionary lessons but somewhere. It appears to a moron like me that if someone doesn't stumble upon polyandry, the church is ok with that and would prefer as many as possible not be aware of it. just my opinion, not painting with a broad brush.

[wenglund]

Not only that it is almost always the sexual aspects that are the topic of discussion. The critics and anti-Mormons want to dwell in Joseph's bedroom.

And yet they think Joseph is the perve.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I hate this we are not history teachers reasoning... the church uses plenty of history in what it does... the restoration is paraded about on history. We use lots of history... Pioneer stories, Joseph protecting the plates, Brigham Young this, Parley Pratt that... I am frustrated by using one reason when it serves purpose A and then use another approach when it serves purpose B.

We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.

We Must Not Excuse Our Dishonesty

Why am I personally taught to live by these but it is not universal?

I get the reasons and some of them are reasonable but like said earlier, the whole story should not be avoided completely. Maybe not in Gospel essentials class, maybe not in the missionary lessons but somewhere. It appears to a moron like me that if someone doesn't stumble upon polyandry, the church is ok with that and would prefer as many as possible not be aware of it. just my opinion, not painting with a broad brush.

I am thinking that the issue of polygamy has become so important to you as to have lost proportion and perspective--even to the point of rendering you seemingly impervious to reason, and may even have entered the realm of idolitry. Perhaps you have unwittingly created your own god and religion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

I hate this we are not history teachers reasoning... the church uses plenty of history in what it does... the restoration is paraded about on history. We use lots of history... Pioneer stories, Joseph protecting the plates, Brigham Young this, Parley Pratt that... I am frustrated by using one reason when it serves purpose A and then use another approach when it serves purpose B.

We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.

We Must Not Excuse Our Dishonesty

Why am I personally taught to live by these but it is not universal?

I get the reasons and some of them are reasonable but like said earlier, the whole story should not be avoided completely. Maybe not in Gospel essentials class, maybe not in the missionary lessons but somewhere. It appears to a moron like me that if someone doesn't stumble upon polyandry, the church is ok with that and would prefer as many as possible not be aware of it. just my opinion, not painting with a broad brush.

I give up you must be right it is total deceit and dishonesty. If you really feel that way why do you hang around wasting your time?

History is not taught in the church as a history lesson. It is taught to emphasize a gospel principle. Since polygamy is no longer a gospel principle that is taught a history lesson on it is not needed. Surely you are able to see the difference.

[selek1]

I hate this we are not history teachers reasoning... the church uses plenty of history in what it does... the restoration is paraded about on history. We use lots of history... Pioneer stories, Joseph protecting the plates, Brigham Young this, Parley Pratt that... I am frustrated by using one reason when it serves purpose A and then use another approach when it serves purpose B.

We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.

We Must Not Excuse Our Dishonesty

Why am I personally taught to live by these but it is not universal?

I get the reasons and some of them are reasonable but like said earlier, the whole story should not be avoided completely. Maybe not in Gospel essentials class, maybe not in the missionary lessons but somewhere. It appears to a moron like me that if someone doesn't stumble upon polyandry, the church is ok with that and would prefer as many as possible not be aware of it. just my opinion, not painting with a broad brush.

The problem with your peculiar definition of "complete honesty" is two-fold. First, it is a standard neither you nor anyone else can reasonably attain. For example, why have you consistently failed to post your full name, complete home address, and social security number on the boards? By your definition, you have committed (at the very least) a lie of omission.

The second problem is that the Church has no intent to deceive. Neither you nor any other critic has demonstrated that the Church's alleged withholding of information is done in order to mislead or create a false impression.

You have zero evidence that the Church is attempting to "lead people in any way to believe something that is not true."

In fact, by promoting this execrable meme, you- not the Church- are engaged in deception.

The quotes you are so egregiously abusing relate to intentional and deliberate dishonesty- not to differing priorities.

[why me]

I hate this we are not history teachers reasoning... the church uses plenty of history in what it does... the restoration is paraded about on history. We use lots of history... Pioneer stories, Joseph protecting the plates, Brigham Young this, Parley Pratt that... I am frustrated by using one reason when it serves purpose A and then use another approach when it serves purpose B.

But this is where it can be taught. And perhaps it is in BYU church history classes. Polyandry is a part of church history--- it is not at this moment a part of church doctrine. So, it should be among the historical tidbits that mormons can learn. How can it be introduced in manuals: Joseph, who married other men's wives, restored the true church of christ.

Would that be okay? Or what about this: Joseph Smith, who was married to 33 women, was the first prophet of the lds

church.

What do you think of these two examples?

Edited July 7, 2012 by why me

[DBMormon]

_The problem with your peculiar definition of "complete honesty" is two-fold. First, it is a standard neither you nor anyone else can reasonably attain. For example, why have you consistently failed to post your full name, complete home address, and social security number on the boards? By your definition, you have committed (at the very least) a lie of omission.

Exactly.... That is just it. There is conflict here on the surface

con·flict (knflkt)

n.

1. A state of open, often prolonged fighting; a battle or war.

2. A state of disharmony between incompatible or antithetical persons, ideas, or interests; a clash.

3. Psychology A psychic struggle, often unconscious, resulting from the opposition or simultaneous functioning of mutually exclusive impulses, desires, or tendencies.

4. Opposition between characters or forces in a work of drama or fiction, especially opposition that motivates or shapes the action of the plot.

intr.v. (kn-flkt) con·flict·ed, con·flict·ing, con·flicts

1. To be in or come into opposition; differ.

2. Archaic To engage in warfare.

On one hand there is a standard in the gospel to not share everything... milk before meat, sacred experiences, strengthen faith ect...

On the other hand there is a directive that to be honest is to not withhold info, not avoid revealing any truth even if it hurts you and others.

I am simply exploring the line. don't be too harsh guys ease up. I realize there are two philosphies or ideals at work here, just seeing what determines the line and pushing the envelope a little.

[ERayR]

Exactly.... That is just it. There is conflict here on the surface

con·flict (knflkt)

n.

1. A state of open, often prolonged fighting; a battle or war.

2. A state of disharmony between incompatible or antithetical persons, ideas, or interests; a clash.

3. Psychology A psychic struggle, often unconscious, resulting from the opposition or simultaneous functioning of mutually exclusive impulses, desires, or tendencies.

4. Opposition between characters or forces in a work of drama or fiction, especially opposition that motivates or shapes the action of the plot.

intr.v. (kn-flkt) con·flict·ed, con·flict·ing, con·flicts

1. To be in or come into opposition; differ.

2. Archaic To engage in warfare.

On one hand there is a standard in the gospel to not share everything... milk before meat, sacred experiences, strengthen faith ect...

On the other hand there is a directive that to be honest is to not withhold info, not avoid revealing any truth even if it hurts you and others.

I am simply exploring the line. don't be too harsh guys ease up. I realize there are two philosphies or ideals at work here, just seeing what determines the line and pushing the envelope a little.

Question: When your wife goes out and gets a new hairdo and comes home and says "honey how does it look". You look at it and it is totally unflattering do you tell her it is a horrendous hairdo or to you say It looks good dear.

[Libs]

This seems like a pile on. <sigh>

For what it's worth, DB (which will probably not be much in this group), I agree with you that the church needs to do a better job of informing members about the true history of the church. There are a lot of possible ways it could be done, in a very faith promoting way. As someone who stumbled, in part, because of lack of information, I agree with you that it would be extremely helpful (for some).

[wenglund]

I am simply exploring the line. don't be too harsh guys ease up.

Try taking your own advise. We are meeting you at your own unyeilding level of harshness towards the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

This seems like a pile on. <sigh>

For what it's worth, DB (which will probably not be much in this group), I agree with you that the church needs to do a better job of informing members about the true history of the church. There are a lot of possible ways it could be done, in a very faith promoting way. As someone who stumbled, in part, because of lack of information, I agree with you that it would be extremely helpful (for some).

And extremely unhelpful for many others.

[cwald]

This seems like a pile on. <sigh>

For what it's worth, DB (which will probably not be much in this group), I agree with you that the church needs to do a better job of informing members about the true history of the church. There are a lot of possible ways it could be done, in a very faith promoting way. As someone who stumbled, in part, because of lack of information, I agree with you that it would be extremely helpful (for some).

It would have been helpful to me. IMO, the perceived cover up is almost always worse than the crime. And yeah, it does seem like a cover up to me.

[Libs]

It would have been helpful to me. IMO, the perceived cover up is almost always worse than the crime. And yeah, it does seem like a cover up to me.

I wouldn't claim it's exactly a "cover up", but it can be difficult information to deal with, which may be part of the reason it is left out. I really wish I had learned about it in church, though..

[ERayR]

I wouldn't claim it's exactly a "cover up", but it can be difficult information to deal with, which may be part of the reason it is left out. I really wish I had learned about it in church, though..

Again it would be extremely unhelpful to many others and could/would caused them problems.

[Tacenda]

It would have been helpful to me. IMO, the perceived cover up is almost always worse than the crime. And yeah, it does seem like a cover up to me.

As long as temples are built on this earth, the church cannot hide that we believe in the new and everlasting covenant in the temple which is stated in D&C 132 and is all about polygamy. And for you naysayers, it's even printed in the heading of the section, here...

"Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illiniois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage convenant, as also plurality of wives"...

RLDS or now Community of Christ, had it good, they only had one temple, when they let a few of their teachings go.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Tacenda

[Kenngo1969]

I haven't examined the thread exhaustively so if these points have already been made, please forgive the duplication.

Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints possess all truth? No. "We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to [His kingdom]," says the Article of Faith. Another Article of our Faith says that if anything is "of good report," we "seek after" it. Why would we need to seek after something if we already possess it ("all truth")? Other sources indicate, essentially, that if it's true ... whatever its source (whether it comes from a so-called "spiritual" source or a so-called "secular" source) ... we believe it. Similarly, we are taught to "seek out of the best books words of wisdom," and to "seek learning by study, and also by faith," and that the Holy Ghost (according to Moroni 10:5) can manifest all truth unto us, and that the Holy Ghost manifests truth unto us both in our hearts and in our minds.

Has science discovered all truth about the known world? No. Currently-accepted theories of scientific truth work well according to what we know now, which doesn't preclude the discovery of additional truth which will necessitate adjustments to the theories. Is the Holy Bible or the Book of Mormon (or some other Church-produced or Church-"approved" source) the "best book" from which to seek scientific truth? No. When I want to know scientific "truth," I consult a valid, sound scientific source, while when I want to know religious "truth" I consult a religious source (I study the scriptures when new questions arise because I consider them valid and sound: I've found answers to previous questions in them before). The Church of Jesus Christ doesn't teach E=mc². Is it withholding information, or should I go to a source in which such truth is more likely to be found?

When I want to know spiritual truth, I consult a spiritual source. When I want to know historical "truth" (although I don't think such a thing exists: I believe Steven R. Covey's maxim that we don't see things [especially something as opaque as the past] as they are; we see them as we are) I consult historical sources. When I want to know scientific truth, I consult a valid, sound scientific source. The Church of Jesus Christ is concerned primarily (if not solely) with the first of those three sources. Given this state of affairs, why should I (or why should anyone) rely on the Church for historical or scientific truth? For every one person who makes a claim that the Church of Jesus Christ "withheld this" or "didn't tell the whole truth about that," there are at least ten people in the Church who aren't even remotely concerned with such issues. If someone wants the fuller context behind something the Church teaches, s/he can come to such venues as FAIR or the Maxwell Institute for that. Why should the Church start treating the exceptions (those who are concerned that more context should be presented) like it treats the rules (those who are content, even without such context)?

Edited July 7, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Libs]

Again it would be extremely unhelpful to many others and could/would caused them problems.

Well, neglecting it is causing a lot of people harm, as well. Are those people less worthy of attention than those who might stumble, if they heard it in church? And, if they will stumble hearing it in church, they will almost certainly stumble, if they hear it, first, from a critic. Chances are very high, in this internet age, that they will hear it from an outside source. Seems more practical to just present it, first, in church, in as faith promoting way as possible.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Libs

[Kenngo1969]

As long as temples are built on this earth, the church cannot hide that we believe in the everlasting covenant in the temple which is stated in the D & C 132 and is all about polygamy. And for you naysayers, it's even printed in the heading of the section of the D & C. RLDS had it good, they only had one temple, when they let a few of their teachings go.

Really? Could've fooled me! How does that even work logically, since, even when plural/celestial marriage has validly been practiced in mortality, only a comparatively small group of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has practiced it. To think that I've been misreading Doctrine and Covenants 132 all of this time! I always thought that it's about temple/celestial marriage, whether plural or not! Who knew?

P.S. I feel like I've been deceived! There's only one thing left for me, in good conscience, to do: I'm leaving! Will the last person to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints please turn out the lights?

Edited July 7, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Duplicate!

Edited July 7, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

It would have been helpful to me. IMO, the perceived cover up is almost always worse than the crime. And yeah, it does seem like a cover up to me.

So the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be responsible, not only if it withheld information (which I don't concede has happened), but also any time anyone perceives a "cover up"? Boy, the Church really can't win! (Perhaps your faulty perception is due to a malfunction in your XLM-7000 B Mind-Control Chip . Maybe an adjustment is in order ...)

[wenglund]

This seems like a pile on. <sigh>

I see a difference between "piling on" and someon being in an obvious minority opinion.

For what it's worth, DB (which will probably not be much in this group), I agree with you that the church needs to do a better job of informing members about the true history of the church. There are a lot of possible ways it could be done, in a very faith promoting way. As someone who stumbled, in part, because of lack of information, I agree with you that it would be extremely helpful (for some).

With all due respect, sometimes the stumblers in faith aren't the best ones to speak about what is the best way to avoid loss of faith. As previously intimated, in cases such as yours, where there is a loss of faith in relation to a lack of information, it isn't really the lack of information that has caused the loss of faith (though it may seem that way to those who have lost faith), but rather the fussing and fretting over and attending to typically irrelevant information, which in turn distracts attention away from the true source of faith--i..e Christ and the Spirit. To use an earlier analogy, in a way it is like blaming one's failure to succeed in math on the lack of disclosure about the personal lives of the 30 most famous mathematicians. If one's attention is focused on the personal lives of mathematicians rather than on learing and doing math, then it should come as no surprise if one struggles and fails at math. And, logically, that struggle or failure in math isn't because of the lack of disclosure about the personal lives of mathematicians, but from being distracted from studying mathematics by attending to irrelevancies like the personal lives of mathematicians. Those who are succeeding in math would know better.

Make sense?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[blackstrap]

Maybe the Church should produce a book "everything the critics wanted you to know about Mormons but we were afraid to tell" Then again,the Church could just produce a bibliography which would list all the resources needed to full explain "problem" areas in Church history and doctrine.It could be attached to the Gospel Essentials manual with a notice at the heading of each chapter directing investigators to it in bright red printing. Would that be good enough?

Edited July 7, 2012 by blackstrap

[blackstrap]

Having NOT read the appropriate sources,I am curious to know when the idea of sealing to other men's wives(polyandry) was dropped. Was it before the end of polygamy?