treehugger Posted July 18, 2012 Author Posted July 18, 2012 Perhaps you are unaware that LDS temple-goers are under covenant not to discuss the sacred ordinances. The author also is not allowed by covenant to provide evidence that Emma Smith "would have been under covenant." You apparently misread or misunderstood the sentences I have bolded above. This is completely unrelated to any likely reason for her failure to admit that her husband did practice polygyny. That is probably connected with her long-time cognitive dissonance over the plural marriage which had caused her such emotional torment, and which she had raised her son Joseph III to disbelieve. The RLDS Church had been dedicated to the proposition that evil Brigham Young had introduced plural marriage, and that Joseph Jr had certainly not done so. It had become an article of faith, and she did not have the heart to tell her son the truth (he is the one who interviewed her). Eventually, the RLDS Church Historian Richard Howard was authorized by the Presidency and Twelve of the RLDS Church to write an official article finally disclosing the truth, and it remains a traumatic matter for some faithful RLDS members.I am aware that I can freely, openly and am encouraged to discuss with my non-member friends that I am Sealed to my wife. 1
Calm Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) Scott has given me permission to pass on this info. He is too busy himself to engage in the thread, the FAIR conference is coming up and life gets even more hectic for him at this time than the rest of the year plus this year with all the political stuff has been rather insane anyway from what I've observed.From Scott:The slide title is wrong. I was in a hurry and it was late.That particular section got added at 10:30 the night before. It is not in my original talk. I wasn't going to include it because I thought it might come across as rude as it suggested people had not done their homework. But, then I decided I had to say it as it is an issue.Besides, the point is that people can find out about these things from church sources. You only need ONE reference to make the case.What he left out was that it was the last thing he added before going to bed as well and in the morning all he did was print up the talk, he did not take the time to proof his last minute addition. Did he make an error? Yes. Is it understandable? Yes? Should this relatively minor error (since he did prove his point) be used to judge all of FAIR's apologetics (or any other instances) when the information is more precise elsewhere? No....at least in my opinion. Edited July 18, 2012 by calmoriah 1
Recommended Posts