Complete Honesty Versus Protection Of Faith

[ERayR]

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.

Are they any more worthy?

And, if they will stumble hearing it in church from a critic , they will almost certainly stumble, if they hear it, first, from a critic in church.

As I see it, it is not central to the mission and purpose of the church and as the greatest potential harm comes from stressing something in church that is but peripheral, current practice is serving the needs of the most.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Being honest is not the same thing as dumping everything you know on a person at once. If you're teaching math to first graders, it's not dishonest of you to teach basic addition and withhold information about trigonometry. That's the "milk before meat" principle. However, you don't want to keep teaching basic math forever, once the students have learned it. Eventually you want to progress to trigonometry, calculus, etc.

When introducing myself...I don't tell them about everything I have ever said and done. Also polygamy has nothing to do with salvation. But when asked we should be honest about what we know and not speculate about what we don't. The MMM came up in Priesthood once, I told everyone is was cold blooded murder and no one should ever defend it. To which (after Priesthood) some tried to explain the reasons. I told them I don't care...it does not excuse the act.

[Tacenda]

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?

Everything we believe in this church rests on the premise of one day achieving Godhood. But for me I'll be happy as an angel, for you it's the Celestial Kingdom I'm sure. I use to aspire to that level but not since learning and reading what that means. Edited July 7, 2012 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

Everything we believe in this church rests on the premise of one day achieving Godhood. But for me I'll be happy as an angel, for you it's the Celestial Kingdom I'm sure. I use to aspire to that level but not since learning and reading what that means. Read the writings of Parly P. Pratt to see what I'm talking about.

No not quite right. Everything we believe in this church rests on the premise of one day achieving Godhood being the best we can be and attaining that which would bring us the most happiness.

[why me]

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.

As someone stated, it is in the D&C, the plurality of wives. I think that people read critic interpretations and these interpretations have a strong impact on some members. The critics write to create facts as doubts. But their facts can be hypotheticals that only sound like facts.

I believe that the church will deal with these issues. Already, as my link has shown, http://www.lds.org/s... smith polygamy Joseph's polygamy is on lds.org. No hiding there.

Edited July 7, 2012 by why me

[why me]

Everything we believe in this church rests on the premise of one day achieving Godhood. But for me I'll be happy as an angel, for you it's the Celestial Kingdom I'm sure. I use to aspire to that level but not since learning and reading what that means.

I think that you may mean "becoming like god".

[wenglund]

Everything we believe in this church rests on the premise of one day achieving Godhood. But for me I'll be happy as an angel, for you it's the Celestial Kingdom I'm sure. I use to aspire to that level but not since learning and reading what that means.

Making decision in this life regarding things we barely know about and understand even less in relation to the here-after, doesn't strick me as all that functional, let alone a very good use of our time on earth. To continue the math analogy, it is like making decisions about what we will accept or not of calculous during first-grade math. Better to focus on first-grade math and wait until we are adequately prepared for calculous to make decisions about calculous.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tacenda]

delete

Edited July 7, 2012 by Tacenda

[Freedom]

I attended several catholic masses. Not one of them mentioned incest, rape or genocide recorded in their religions text. Is this all the proof i need that the Catholic church is false? I attended dozens of evangelical services and never was there a mention of the torture and murder of blacks by prominent members of their faith over the past 200 years. Can we now close the book on this religion as well?

What is the starting point of knowing if God exists and the atonement is real? What, then is required, to accept the required ordinances? Do the lies of Abraham or the rebellion of Job have anything to do with it?

[Deborah]

Some time ago I started a thread asking the question would it have made a difference in your leaving the church if you had found out all the "secrets" the church has supposedly been hiding sooner rather than later. After pages and pages of discussion the conclusion was that the same people who left late in life would have left early if they had known some of these things sooner. As one facetiously said but he could have been having a good time sooner.

The conclusion I came to is it's not the history that turns people off it's the excuse for leaving.

[Libs]

As someone stated, it is in the D&C, the plurality of wives. I think that people read critic interpretations and these interpretations have a strong impact on some members. The critics write to create facts as doubts. But their facts can be hypotheticals that only sound like facts.

I believe that the church will deal with these issues. Already, as my link has shown, http://www.lds.org/s... smith polygamy Joseph's polygamy is on lds.org. No hiding there.

I already knew that much about polygamy. It's the details that are difficult to understand, like the ages of some of the "girls" (and no, that was not a normal marrying age for that time, as some try to say)..and also sealings to women who were already married. That was more easily explained, IMO, as dynasty sealings. It seems, in the beginning, there was some kind of misunderstanding that all of the families who would go to the CK, needed to be sealed to the prophet....or something like that?

[Libs]

Some time ago I started a thread asking the question would it have made a difference in your leaving the church if you had found out all the "secrets" the church has supposedly been hiding sooner rather than later. After pages and pages of discussion the conclusion was that the same people who left late in life would have left early if they had known some of these things sooner. As one facetiously said but he could have been having a good time sooner.

The conclusion I came to is it's not the history that turns people off it's the excuse for leaving.

I don't know if that can be said for everyone who leaves. It's difficult to say. I can't even be sure, myself, if it would have made a difference...but, it may have. I don't think a couple of anecdotal references can really be the judge of how many might have stayed or left.

I wasn't looking for an "excuse" to leave, that's for sure.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Libs

[why me]

I already knew that much about polygamy. It's the details that are difficult to understand, like the ages of some of the "girls" (and no, that was not a normal marrying age for that time, as some try to say)..and also sealings to women who were already married. That was more easily explained, IMO, as dynasty sealings. It seems, in the beginning, there was some kind of misunderstanding that all of the families who would go to the CK, needed to be sealed to the prophet....or something like that?

This is interesting. Joseph Smith and polygamy was mentioned in this timetable in the Ensign in 1980:

http://www.lds.org/l...mon translation

1843

July 12. A revelation on the “Eternity of the Marriage Covenant and Plural Marriage” (D&C 132) was recorded, giving fuller meaning to the “new and everlasting covenant” which had been mentioned as early as 1831. The Prophet had explained the doctrine to a few, and plural marriages had been performed in 1841.

Edited July 7, 2012 by why me

[why me]

I already knew that much about polygamy. It's the details that are difficult to understand, like the ages of some of the "girls" (and no, that was not a normal marrying age for that time, as some try to say)..and also sealings to women who were already married. That was more easily explained, IMO, as dynasty sealings. It seems, in the beginning, there was some kind of misunderstanding that all of the families who would go to the CK, needed to be sealed to the prophet....or something like that?

So, if the church publishes the ages of all the plural wives of JS that would be okay for you? And if the church would mention that some women practiced polyandry with Joseph, that would then be okay with you? And where should they put this information and in what context?

[ERayR]

I already knew that much about polygamy. It's the details that are difficult to understand, like the ages of some of the "girls" (and no, that was not a normal marrying age for that time, as some try to say)..and also sealings to women who were already married. That was more easily explained, IMO, as dynasty sealings. It seems, in the beginning, there was some kind of misunderstanding that all of the families who would go to the CK, needed to be sealed to the prophet....or something like that?

CFR on bolded portion and please don't give me average age statistics. I want you to show it was abnormal for girls 15 + years to marry.

[why me]

I wasn't looking for an "excuse" to leave, that's for sure.

But you found excuses to leave, right? We all need excuses to leave organizations that we belong to. It is just a question of finding the right excuses. If I wanted an excuse to leave the lds church, I could have used my exwife. That would have worked real well for me. But bad for her. Or I could have left when Benson became president. Or when I found out about Joseph getting angry with some of the men going to zion's camp. I can go on and on....

And as I catholic, I could have left over the child abuse scandals. Or vatican II. etc. We just need to find the right excuse as a justification.

[Libs]

CFR on bolded portion and please don't give me average age statistics. I want you to show it was abnormal for girls 15 + years to marry.

I didn't mean that it was "abnormal", but it was not "average". So, I assume you have already seen the stats on this?

[Libs]

So, if the church publishes the ages of all the plural wives of JS that would be okay for you? And if the church would mention that some women practiced polyandry with Joseph, that would then be okay with you? And where should they put this information and in what context?

There was a huge thick book on Joseph Smith that was studied for a whole year, in RS. That would have been a good place for it.

[why me]

I didn't mean that it was "abnormal", but it was not "average". So, I assume you have already seen the stats on this?

And yet:

Girls got married early at the time of Jesus,, so did the boys, the girls were 16 years roughly and boys 18 years roughly.

Answer

Actually, the Jewish Law was such that when a boy reached his 14th birthday he went through the ceremony known as a Bar Mitzvah after which he was deemed legally a man nd not a boy. So he was free to marry from that age.

Girls were different; they were deemed to reach adulthood from the time they started to menstruate. And were therefore able to marry. Because of a poor diet and primitive health care, this was, on average, later than western girls today, but could still be as young as 13.

Thus, Mary, who gave birth to Jesus, could easily have been this age when she was betrothed to Joseph, and could have given birth at 14 or 15 at the latest.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_ages_did_girls_and_boys_marry_in_the_time_of_Jesus

Edited July 7, 2012 by why me

[why me]

There was a huge thick book on Joseph Smith that was studied for a whole year, in RS. That would have been a good place for it.

I mentioned this already in a previous post. And for what purpose? Where would it have fit in?

[Deborah]

I don't think a couple of anecdotal references can really be the judge of how many might have stayed or left.

There were more than a couple of anecdotal references; as I said there were numerous pages over a couple of weeks on this.

I think if someone decides to leave the church and then spends enormous amounts of time researching its history, it's not because they are finally actually interested in the history.

[dougtheavenger]

...

We also had a discussion recently about what if withholding information protects the faith of the weak.

Recognizing that the Church chooses to share certain parts of it's history and chooses to withhold other parts, my hope is we can shed some light on when complete and absolute forthcoming of truth is important and when it is ok to with hold info.

..

Your post seems to presuppose that every bit of LDS history is known with absolute certainty and not subject to legitimate revision. This is an assumption that is unlikely to be true. All history is subject to examination, reexamination and legitimate revision; such as, whether Joseph Smith actually practiced polygamy. This is why Ugo Perego conducted DNA testing on supposed descendants of Joseph Smith through women other than Emma Hale Smith. In 5 of 5 testable allegations that Joseph Smith had children with women married to other men, the documented descendants of all five boys were found to be the descendants of the boys' mothers' lawful husband; meaning that Joseph Smith was not the father of any of them. To date DNA research has found 0 descendants of Joseph Smith through women other than Emma Hale Smith. These findings and reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from the findings are legitimate historical revision and reason enough to be cautious in what we say about LDS history.

Edited July 7, 2012 by dougtheavenger

[why me]

I didn't mean that it was "abnormal", but it was not "average". So, I assume you have already seen the stats on this?

And yet we have this when marrying is discussed in the 1830's and 40's:

It was the norm for women to get married in their early teens as soon as they reached puberty

.

When a woman reached 16 she was an old maid past marrying age. The average life expectancy for women was around their 20's and for the men not much better.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100116114431AA0AqH0

Edited July 7, 2012 by why me

[Libs]

But you found excuses to leave, right? We all need excuses to leave organizations that we belong to. It is just a question of finding the right excuses. If I wanted an excuse to leave the lds church, I could have used my exwife. That would have worked real well for me. But bad for her. Or I could have left when Benson became president. Or when I found out about Joseph getting angry with some of the men going to zion's camp. I can go on and on....

And as I catholic, I could have left over the child abuse scandals. Or vatican II. etc. We just need to find the right excuse as a justification.

All I'm saying is, it is not true that I was "looking for an excuse to leave". That was not at all in my mind, not even after I found out about Joseph's polygamy. That was not the straw that broke the camel's back. It was actually the Book of Abraham...my leaving was a sort of cumulative effect of many things that I hadn't known about. I thought I had the truth, but some of the things I was exposed to, caused me to doubt. It's really that simple.

The LDS apologists are arguing that ad hom arguments are sometimes relevant to making a judgment about something. I happen to agree with that. That principle applies to Joseph Smith and the Church. His character, the kind of person he was, is relevant to the truth claims he made, in regards to everything in Mormonism. That is not looking for an "excuse", but a legitimate concern, when looking into the truth claims of the Church.

[ERayR]

I didn't mean that it was "abnormal", but it was not "average". So, I assume you have already seen the stats on this?

The way you presented is that it was abnormal, insinuating that it was somehow very bad. Average tells us nothing. The average age of Josephs wives when married to him was just over 29 years of age. If we are going by average for marriage about 22 years of age Joseph's wives were older than "normal".

Now that we have the statistics out of the way we are still left with it was not abnormal for girls to marry at age 15+ especially in frontier America. Josephs marriages to the younger ones was arranged through and approved by parents. Now I know that doesn't give you much comfort but if you will stop for a moment and put aside the polygamy issues there was nothing out of the ordinary with any of the marriages. What is not "normal"/ordinary is they were polygamous unions. Now if you will table for a minute all of the 20 - 21 century biases and emotion about how evil polygamy is perhaps you could come away with a different picture.