Complete Honesty Versus Protection Of Faith

[Somebodyz]

Somdbodyz:

IF someone is interested the history of most churches is available. We do a good job in teaching it, not perfect, but good.

I've recently bought the 2nd Joseph Smith Papers (journals). We shouldn't be expected to teach Church history on a Sunday. If a person wants to learn the history of any religion, they can do so. It isn't hidden.

Personally I think we do more than most churches I've been too, in teaching some of the history, the history that edifies, and brings us closer to God.

[rodheadlee]

yeah, I'll take Storm Rider and Calmoriah for my Gospel Doctrine teachers any day.

[wenglund]

You guys act like it is all or nothing. Tell them

I think it can be more subtle then that. For example on a lesson about following the spirit we can share a short story about how one of these wives felt this challenge of polygamy/polyandry was too big a sacrifice and then how after seeking God's direction recived an answer to proceed and the strength to do so

If I as a member hear in some place about polyandry and I am wanting to verify it but only using faithful sources where do I go on LDS.ORG, Ensign, manuals, to find it?

Simply stated when it comes to Polyandry, Should the church at least acknowledge it?

Somebody is clearly obsessed with polyandry. Again, I think you have found your new religion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

What other church teaches a history lesson on a Sunday? What other church teaches it's history to it's members at all?

Why are we expected to be different in this manner?

What other church claims a living prophet, who completely restored Christianity? The history of this church has everything to do with doctrine and scripture. It is relevant.

Plus, other churches do teach their history. One of the first books I was handed, in a Christian Reform Church, was a book that traced the history of that church. This was taught and discussed in a newcomers class that lasted several weeks (similar to Gospel Essentials).

[CV75]

Simply stated when it comes to Polyandry, Should the church at least acknowledge it?

Not with the same priority emphasis with which it teaches other points of history in context of the Restoration, Book or Mormon and of more current and relevant practices to our time. At this stage, I don't see the relevancy of teaching it.

[CV75]

The history of this church has everything to do with doctrine and scripture. It is relevant.

Not everything--it only sets up a reference point for time, place and personalities . The doctrines are eternal. If there is no doctrine being taught, irrelevant history is just that.

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

The Church Jesus the Christ established

We've never claimed it is a complete restoration. We do believe God has yet to reveal many great and important thing pertaining to the Kingdom of God

No it doesn't, anymore than the persecutions of the early Christian had everything to do with doctrine.

Edited July 8, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[why me]

I find it very hard to believe that the church is "hiding" its history when we have the publication of the Joseph Smith Papers, which has been in the works for the last seven or so years, and with the opening of the Church History Library. It seems to me it's pretty much out in the open. Even before these events scholars such as Truman Madsen had access to many of these documents and spoke on what they found.

I don't think people realize when they talk about church history the extent of materials we are dealing with; and with those there needs to be corroboration and verification of their authenticity. Something critics of the church don't really care about.

I think Deborah that people do not consider the JSP at all when they claim that the lds church hides its history. Neither do they consider RSR when it was sold in Desseret Books. What they do consider is what the exmormons are saying and what the critics are saying. Or what John Dehlin is saying. This is all that matters for many. And also, it works for them to keep complaining about the church hiding its history. What will satisfy them is if the church begins to have a monthly article about it all in the ensign or in the manual. Or if the lds begin to study a Quinn or Palmer book during sunday school. That may satisfy them. But...unless that happens there will still be dissatisfaction.

[why me]

If I as a member hear in some place about polyandry and I am wanting to verify it but only using faithful sources where do I go on LDS.ORG, Ensign, manuals, to find it?

Fairlds.org

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%3DCMr5T9DPIuen4gSZoc3IBg%26usg%3DAFQjCNEhgqAEvW3F8Big8yIownuVZY_Ytw&ss=6960j5825910j13&cx=006480910542272568972%3Adjiv3kx8zqo&ie=UTF-8&q=polyandry&sa.x=15&sa.y=12#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=polyandry&gsc.page=1

[why me]

Simply stated when it comes to Polyandry, Should the church at least acknowledge it?

Yes, they should. No doubt about it. And then let the chips fall where may. However, it needs to be stated that if the church did introduce it they would need to explain why women took upon themselves two husbands since polyandry is about women who have more than one husband. It took the women to say yes to Joseph even though they were married.

[Libs]

Not everything--it only sets up a reference point for time, place and personalities . The doctrines are eternal. If there is no doctrine being taught, irrelevant history is just that.

Yes, but it is claimed that the doctrine came through a specific prophet (Joseph Smith). Polygamy, PofGP, Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham all came through a specific person. His history, his character, his claims are all very relevant.

[Deborah]

What will satisfy them is if the church begins to have a monthly article about it all in the ensign or in the manual.

What is amazing is how many things have been discussed in the Ensign over the years, but people not interested in such things at the time glossed over it and forgot it. It has been shown here that certain articles have contradicted the claims of many but like anything until you become interested you ignore it.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Deborah

[blackstrap]

In my opinion,polygamy cannot be practised by the general membership.The demographics simply deny it.Unless there is a way to birth 3 times more females than males the aspect of the 'lost boys' as experienced by the FLDS would quickly rear its head.

Edited July 8, 2012 by blackstrap

[why me]

What is amazing is how many things have been discussed in the Ensign over the years, but people not interested in such things at the time glossed over it and forgot it. It has been shown here that certain articles have contradicted the claims of many but like anything until you become interested you ignore it.

The ensign at one time had a monthly question section where difficult issues were discussed. It was a great part of the ensign and very open about the issues. But for some reason, this became watered down and the articles in general became a little dull. Something or someone changed the direction of the ensign. But the 70s and 80s were a great moment for the magazine.

[CV75]

Yes, but it is claimed that the doctrine came through a specific prophet (Joseph Smith). Polygamy, PofGP, Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham all came through a specific person. His history, his character, his claims are all very relevant.

No more relevant than the personal history of any other prophet, including Jesus. There is very little reliable history about an of them beyond establishing that they existed. Salvation is about faith in the living God and Christ, not about faith in histories about them, as if history reported by people is more reliable than the guidance of the Spirit.

[Memmo]

Somebody is clearly obsessed with polyandry. Again, I think you have found your new religion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, you are missing the point. It's not that people get hung up with a fascination over the ins and outs of polygamy, etc. For those of us who have a strong testimony, those things really are irrelevant and unimportant. However, for those who have stumbled over these things, their existence calls into doubt the very truthfulness of the church and even the existence of God and Jesus Christ. To tell these people to stop wasting their time and focus on coming closer to Christ is often futile. The doubts that have been raised cause them to doubt whether Christ himself even exists. It's hard to focus on following a message when the validity of the message is in serious doubt.

[why me]

Wade, you are missing the point. It's not that people get hung up with a fascination over the ins and outs of polygamy, etc. For those of us who have a strong testimony, those things really are irrelevant and unimportant. However, for those who have stumbled over these things, their existence calls into doubt the very truthfulness of the church and even the existence of God and Jesus Christ. To tell these people to stop wasting their time and focus on coming closer to Christ is often futile. The doubts that have been raised cause them to doubt whether Christ himself even exists. It's hard to focus on following a message when the validity of the message is in serious doubt.

I think that these people lost sight of the ball. The ball is basically this: the book of mormon and the 11 witnesses. And how this book came to be. The foundation of the church rests on this foundation, not on polygamy or MMM or any other happening in church history. Why did David Whitmer want his testimony on his tombstone? To testify to a fraud? And why did Oliver come back to the fold bear his testimony of the book of mormon and what happened at that time? Because he wanted to testify to a fraud? These answers create the foundation for belief and not polygamy. This is why the people you mentioned lost sight of the ball or dropped the ball. The foundation is what the church is built on.

Edited July 8, 2012 by why me

[CV75]

Wade, you are missing the point. It's not that people get hung up with a fascination over the ins and outs of polygamy, etc. For those of us who have a strong testimony, those things really are irrelevant and unimportant. However, for those who have stumbled over these things, their existence calls into doubt the very truthfulness of the church and even the existence of God and Jesus Christ. To tell these people to stop wasting their time and focus on coming closer to Christ is often futile. The doubts that have been raised cause them to doubt whether Christ himself even exists. It's hard to focus on following a message when the validity of the message is in serious doubt.

There are so many things whereby a person may become distracted from the Spirit and begin to doubt the validity of the truthfulness of the Church. However, the one solution to any and every one of them is the ministration of the Spirit. After all, this is a Gospel that transcends history. What a person must remember is his own history with the things of the Spirit, and he will be guided through resolution. That may involve additional research and study (by faith) but that cannot be done for him. What the Church does relative to this is ensure that “each [member has] a friend, a responsibility, and nurturing by the good word of God." (President Hinckley, 2004 General Conference)

Edited July 8, 2012 by CV75

[Jaybear]

I think that these people lost sight of the ball. The ball is basically this: the book of mormon and the 11 witnesses. And how this book came to be. The foundation of the church rests on this foundation, not on polygamy or MMM or any other happening in church history. Why did David Whitmer want his testimony on his tombstone? To testify to a fraud? And why did Oliver come back to the fold bear his testimony of the book of mormon and what happened at that time? Because he wanted to testify to a fraud? These answers create the foundation for belief and not polygamy. This is why the people you mentioned lost sight of the ball or dropped the ball. The foundation is what the church is built on.

Whitmer said the Smith was a fallen prophet. Doesn't make much sense to cite him to support an argument that polygamy is an irrellevant distraction.

[why me]

Whitmer said the Smith was a fallen prophet. Doesn't make much sense to cite him to support an argument that polygamy is an irrellevant distraction.

Whitmer did get distracted and I am sure that he knew it at the end which is one reason why he wanted his testimony on his tombstone as insurance. People get distracted from the foundation. The foundation for whitmer was his experience with the book of mormon as stated in the testimony of the three witnesses. But instead, he let polygamy distract him from the foundation: the book of mormon.

[why me]

There are so many things whereby a person may become distracted from the Spirit and begin to doubt the validity of the truthfulness of the Church.

What you wrote seems abstract. The basic is not just the spirit but something more tangible: how the book of mormon came to be and in the 11 witnesses, plus emma. No one gave up the ghost by denying the book and their experience. In fact, just the opposite. That is history and very tangible. All the rest is just fluff.

[Memmo]

I think that these people lost sight of the ball. The ball is basically this: the book of mormon and the 11 witnesses. And how this book came to be. The foundation of the church rests on this foundation, not on polygamy or MMM or any other happening in church history. Why did David Whitmer want his testimony on his tombstone? To testify to a fraud? And why did Oliver come back to the fold bear his testimony of the book of mormon and what happened at that time? Because he wanted to testify to a fraud? These answers create the foundation for belief and not polygamy. This is why the people you mentioned lost sight of the ball or dropped the ball. The foundation is what the church is built on.

I agree with you here. Just trying to make the point that when we tell those who have been distracted to just look to Christ, or the BOM, or some other foundational element, we are not helping very much. When the existence of those foundational elements is thrown into doubt, theY cease providing the guidance needed to stay strong. This is when a true crisis of faith happens. None of us knows for sure (or at least very few of us) that this is true. When one little thing throws doubt on a testimony, the whole shebang can come crumbling down quite easily.

[Jaybear]

Whitmer did get distracted and I am sure that he knew it at the end which is one reason why he wanted his testimony on his tombstone as insurance. People get distracted from the foundation. The foundation for whitmer was his experience with the book of mormon as stated in the testimony of the three witnesses. But instead, he let polygamy distract him from the foundation: the book of mormon.

Huh? Are you saying it doesn't matter whether Smith was a fallen prophet?

[CV75]

What you wrote seems abstract. The basic is not just the spirit but something more tangible: how the book of mormon came to be and in the 11 witnesses, plus emma. No one gave up the ghost by denying the book and their experience. In fact, just the opposite. That is history and very tangible. All the rest is just fluff.

if only the tangible counts, then all you need to do is substitute something you deem tangible for “the Spirit,” and the same principle will hold true. The Church is still here no matter how it got here, and no competing claim that it isn’t here is necessary. And thus we have the validity of the truthfulness of the Church, on a tangible-only basis. You have to remember though, when you do this, that good and bad are not tangible either.

“There are so many things whereby a person may become distracted from the [any relevant fact that the Church exists] and begin to doubt the validity of the truthfulness of the Church.”

[Carborendum]

A coworker had known me for a couple of years. We went to lunch together quite often. We worked together almost every day. We were very familiar with each other. Then when someone asked me how many kids I had, I answered. My friend jumped into the conversation and asked,"How come you never told me that?"

You never asked.

"Well, yeah, but..."

What do you expect? Hello, my name is Joe. I have six kids. I'm a Mormon. I enjoy camping..."

Recently Anderson Cooper "Came Out". Many backed him up by saying all his friends and family knew he was gay. "He wasn't in the closet. He was in the 'none of your business'".

If a new member starts asking me about stuff that might be "faith challenging" I'd be happy to tell him. But I really think his time could better be spent doing other things.