ERayR Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 I wouldn't worry about it. It is not that unusual. However, whether or not Joseph was a polygamist or the church is not that forthcoming about it, does not lessen one's testimony of the book of mormon. We need to understand that the church is run by human beings who make mistakes. But this is not Joseph's fault nor the fault of the book of mormon. If one has a testimony of the book of mormon, it should not lessen that testimony. The 11 witnesses are a testament to what they saw and experienced. That hasn't changed.I would not agree it was a mistake.
ERayR Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 People are busy. Not every has an interest in history.Then why all the fuss about it?
why me Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 I would not agree it was a mistake.Well, let me put it this way. The movie was about Joseph's life. And polygamy was a part of Joseph's and Emma's life. To omit that aspect of his life does a disservice to the women who were married to him. And it does a disservice to that aspect of his life which played a very important role in nauvoo. 1
why me Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) Then why all the fuss about it?A poor member researching Joseph Smith and wishing to read more about him, suddenly discovers that he was a polygamist, being married to many other women, including the wives of other men. And these poor members get a very convincing "the church is lying to you...the church is deceiving you...etc". Edited July 18, 2012 by why me
Jaybear Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Then why all the fuss about it?What he says ....A poor member researching Joseph Smith and wishing to read more about him, suddenly discovers that he was a polygamist, being married to many other women, including he wives of other men. And these poor members get a very convincing "the church is lying to you...the church is deceiving you...etc".Telling the member that its "their fault", whether or not true, is not going to make the pill easier to swallow.
Damien the Leper Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Now this is the point. There is nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to polygamy. The church acts like we need to be ashamed of the practice. We don't. In fact, that part of our history would be very popular in africa where polygamy has more respect. Nothing to be ashamed of at all. I think that we should shout it out for all to hear: the mormon church practiced polygamy because god commanded the sacrifice and as a godly people, the saints made the sacrifice and obeyed God's will.I whole heartedly agree with you. Polygamy isn't gossip...it's doctrine. Don't forget the polygamists in India either.
Damien the Leper Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 A poor member researching Joseph Smith and wishing to read more about him, suddenly discovers that he was a polygamist, being married to many other women, including he wives of other men. And these poor members get a very convincing "the church is lying to you...the church is deceiving you...etc".I vote that there needs to be a church history class that is taught at church in which all information is provided through ALL historical archives and the FP Vault. Lets cover ALL our bases so as to avoid unnecessary speculation.
Damien the Leper Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 What he says ....Telling the member that its "their fault", whether or not true, is not going to make the pill easier to swallow.This isn't the point. The point is that the information should be openly provided and expressed so as to avoid any accusations of deceit or lying. It is precautionary.
Jaybear Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 There are reasonable and logical answers, and those that aren't, regardless whether the opinions are firm or not.There are also people for whom this is their business and whose opinions ought to count, and then there are people like you whose business this isn't, but who simply wish to exploit the least opportunity to criticize the object of their prejudice.Thanks, -Wade Englund-Fascinating. I state my opinion that the LDS Church has no legal obligation of disclosure, and eschew those would claim that the LDS Church has a clear moral obligation of disclosure, and you throw this BS in my face. I have tried, and tried, but you are obviously incapable of having a civil and rational discussion with a nonbeliever.
why me Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 What he says ....Telling the member that its "their fault", whether or not true, is not going to make the pill easier to swallow.You are right. It is not their fault but the fault of men and women who oversee lds history, movie production etc and seem to be ashame of Joseph's polygamy. And I have no idea why. The spiritual experiences of these women and the sacrifice they made are a testament to faithfulness.
Calm Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 It is precautionary.My opinion is that church leaders are balancing caution about modern polygamy fundamentalists with teaching church history sufficiently detailed. I would say in the past they erred on the side of the first. The current statement about plural marriage on lds.org may be a sign that they are beginning to lean the other way, but may not be. Most current stuff referring to Joseph's plural marriage has been out there for quite some time. 2
why me Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 I vote that there needs to be a church history class that is taught at church in which all information is provided through ALL historical archives and the FP Vault. Lets cover ALL our bases so as to avoid unnecessary speculation.And I think that it will come someday. The bigger question is: what are these people ashamed of? Why keep it in a closet? Now of course it is on a lds.org and I posted the link on a different thread. But the movie was a lost opportunity as was the joseph smith manual. But I just don't understand the mindset in the church office building and how they correlate information.
mrmandias Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 There is definitely concealment going on when the Church commissions a feature-length movie about the Prophet that never so much as hints about any other wife than Emma, when biographical sketches of the Prophet in Church manuals and magazines invariably omit any reference to his plural wives, when the Church's Joseph Smith website is silent on the subject. I don't know how anyone can maintain that these omissions are accidental.That wasn't my point, dude, nor was it the argument I was responding to. If you insist on feeling aggrieved and shift the ground of the discussion anytime your sense of grievance is threatened, you should eventually just realize that discussion is a waste of time and let yourself feel well and properly grieved without having to type on a keyboard first.
CV75 Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 But it can be read that way. And that is the point. There would be nothing wrong with a mention of Joseph's polygamy at the opportune moment. Then, there would be no accusations of concealment.But there is no practicality and pertinence in avoiding accusations of concealment when the #1 point is to bring the honest in heart to Christ.
why me Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 My opinion is that church leaders are balancing caution about modern polygamy fundamentalists with teaching church history sufficiently detailed. I would say in the past they erred on the side of the first. The current statement about plural marriage on lds.org may be a sign that they are beginning to lean the other way, but may not be. Most current stuff referring to Joseph's plural marriage has been out there for quite some time.The information on lds.org is a good start. The polygamy issue is one of faith promotion. The sacrifice of these women and of Joseph to live that principle was enormous. Joseph could have lost his marriage over it. And he didn't want to do it. But, obeying god's will was first, regardless of the reaction of emma. And that was a tremendous sacrifice knowing that he would hurt emma. 1
Damien the Leper Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 And I think that it will come someday. The bigger question is: what are these people ashamed of? Why keep it in a closet? Now of course it is on a lds.org and I posted the link on a different thread. But the movie was a lost opportunity as was the joseph smith manual. But I just don't understand the mindset in the church office building and how they correlate information.I still agree with you. I don't see the problem of it being of more open discussion. Could it be that the COB doesn't trust the membership with their own testimonies...even if only to a minor extent? I would certainly hope not.
mrmandias Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Now this is the point. There is nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to polygamy. The church acts like we need to be ashamed of the practice. We don't. In fact, that part of our history would be very popular in africa where polygamy has more respect. Nothing to be ashamed of at all. I think that we should shout it out for all to hear: the mormon church practiced polygamy because god commanded the sacrifice and as a godly people, the saints made the sacrifice and obeyed God's will.I see your point, but the truth is that a good many Saints are uncomfortable with the practice, especially women, and don't want their noses rubbed in it. And, since there is no particular need to do so in a feel-good flick, and since there is no real doctrinal need to emphasize it at all, the purveyors of Church B-movies don't. I'm not really too upset by this. 1
mrmandias Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 A poor member researching Joseph Smith and wishing to read more about him, suddenly discovers that he was a polygamist, being married to many other women, including the wives of other men. And these poor members get a very convincing "the church is lying to you...the church is deceiving you...etc".It isn't very convincing at all, as dozens of citations in this thread alone can attest. I mean, D&C 132. Seriously.
Damien the Leper Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 I see your point, but the truth is that a good many Saints are uncomfortable with the practice, especially women, and don't want their noses rubbed in it. And, since there is no particular need to do so in a feel-good flick, and since there is no real doctrinal need to emphasize it at all, the purveyors of Church B-movies don't. I'm not really too upset by this.Tough shiz! We aren't a PC church about controversial issues and that includes this one.
why me Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 I see your point, but the truth is that a good many Saints are uncomfortable with the practice, especially women, and don't want their noses rubbed in it. These women need to understand that polygamy was not just a sacrifice from women but also from men too. Joseph could have destroyed his marriage because of it and yet, he felt compelled to obey god. And the women involved felt the need to sacrifice for the principle too and quite a few received a powerful witness to the principle before they said yes. Women today need to understand the will of god and what genuine sacrifice is and how the early saints sacrificed much for the will of god. What sacrifice are the lds being called to do today: home teaching? 1
Damien the Leper Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 It isn't very convincing at all, as dozens of citations in this thread alone can attest. I mean, D&C 132. Seriously.But the D&C does not address the historical part of JS polygamy. We know the doctrine is there but ALL members should be well informed that Joseph had more than a dozen wives. If you can't handle the information...then you're going to have to find your own way of coping with the reality.
Darren10 Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Thank you for asking.But...Duncan is correct. I am on a short leash and been thread banned already today on this topic in another thread. Perhaps we can engage another day when things cool off. Good night sir.Overall it's wise to play it cautiously than to dive in half-mindedly. However, I brought up your thread ban because you kept whimpering about having been banned and thus not being able to tell your story because you were banned. i thought it important to point out tha the thread in question was locked upon request and that you banned yourself from that thread after being warned to tone it down and then by creating a race baiting post. If it was so important to you to tell your story, why didn't you? Why haven't you until now (up until page 2)? This threads about you and the very topic you want to expound upon. So, pleae feel free to do so.
Deborah Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Everything? Nah. Lets start with materiality. Since many people have left the Church, or choice not to join, after learning about the details of the practice, one can easily make the case, that this history is material to making an informed decision about whether to believe that Smith is a prophet.Or an excuse to leave when one has already been moving in that direction. 3
why me Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 It isn't very convincing at all, as dozens of citations in this thread alone can attest. I mean, D&C 132. Seriously.This section is very important. And plural marriage can be mentioned when studying this section. Nothing to be ashamed of. And a great lesson on sacrifice can take place. Imagine a sunday school class with a great teacher asking the class what sacrifice they are making today for god. And as the class responds...the teacher asks...how many of them would be a polygamist if the lord was felt to command that principle. Would the class be willing to make such a sacrifice and then tie it in to the early saints in nauvoo and in utah who were called to make such a sacrifice.And then speak about joseph being a polygamist, risking his marriage to obey god. And the other women who agreed to be his polygamist wives and the sacrifice they felt compelled to make because they felt that god commanded the principle and received a testimony as such.
mrmandias Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Tough shiz! We aren't a PC church about controversial issues and that includes this one.The evidence suggests that we are, at least on some things.Any faith that has Jacob 2 on the books can't credibly respond 'man up, pansy' to everything.
Recommended Posts