The Church Hides Its History....

[ERayR]

Okay, I thought it was you.

Just happen to listen to a podcast discussing polygamy and they mention that polygamy was originally "the new and everlasting covenant". I don't have any reference at the moment, but just curious if you'd come around to it or not. Have you come around to some of JS's "sealings" being marriages also yet? Since it shows in some of the wives testimonies that they say they married him?

I have no problem with some of JS sealings being marriages but who gets to choose? Nobody alive today was there.

Have you come around to some of JS sealings not being marriages?

Spend some time in D & C 132 leaving polygamy clear out of the room. You will see that it is not polygamy.

Edited June 10, 2013 by ERayR

[canard78]

PSo what is stronger, the witness of the Holy Spirit or "discovering" what you perceive as historical fact? What is happening when the witness of the Spirit is put aside for faith in the arm of flesh? What exactly are you putting aside? I think it is valid exercise to re-contextualize your testimony of the Church and the purpose of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve; this could easily be a refining of your understanding of the Gospel and Jesus' Church and its purpose. It is a whole other thing to cast the Church aside completely and dwindle in unbelief.

It's a good question. I've not yet found a final answer to which one. I certainly feel that God is comfortable and supportive of my journey. I believe I have the potential to become a more rounded and perhaps a better 'saint' as I follow this process. I agree that a witness is a strong contributor to the dilemma. I'm not able to casually dismiss that those things ever happened. As such I have made the point that these things are not "easily discarded" as is so often characterised.

Also, bear this in mind from D&C 46:

13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

Not all members have been given 'spectacular spiritual experiences.' Some simply don't have the spiritual gift for that kind of experience. I'm not sure why, but that's perhaps something God understands best. To each their 'talents' - we multiply them as much as we can. I am grateful to have been given the gift of verse 13.

I have several friends both active and no longer active who have simply never had an 'undeniable personal witness' of the Church/Book of Mormon/Joseph Smith. They believe because of their positive experiences, because of the testimony that have in the people around them, of the good it does to their lives. This is also apparently enough to "have eternal life if they continue faithful."

My thought processes are currently much broader than Mormon origins - I just tend to confine that part of my thoughts to this board. Mormon origins could be completely lacking in any 'skeletons in the cupboard' and I'd still be evaluating Mormonisms place in the great plan of the redeemer and church of the Lamb. I don't consider Mormonism and the church of the Lamb to be synonymous. I never have (including during my days of simpler conviction in the church).

So I would never deny the clear spiritual experience I have had. I would not dismiss them. But I am spending a lot of time evaluating their implications.

[canard78]

And yet, the spiritual experiences that you had did play second fiddle to what you discovered about lds history. And why would such history negate your spiritual experiences? And why do many former lds on the internet boards attempt to write off their experiences as warm fuzzies? I am not the greatest member that is for sure but regardless of how I do life, I can't discard my spiritual experiences. I believe them to be real and genuine.

I also believe yours to be real and genuine as I believe mine to be. When I reflect on what have been a full range of experiences, from the quiet personal impressions to the mind-blowingly intense close-brushes with the divine, I would never patronise myself by calling them simply "warm fuzzies."

For me it remains simple. There is either a God who I have communed and communicated with... or there is no God at all.

I firmly believe that God is happy with me currently traveling the path to Godliness in the 'vehicle' called Mormonism. He and I are able to work together in this environment to the best possible outcome.

But none of that makes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the "only true and living church."

I suppose I disagree with a talk such as Elder Packers from 1971:

The other view, the one most widely held, is that all of them are right, that they are all alike. If there is a typical response to our missionaries, it is, “I already have a church. One is just as good as another and it doesn’t matter really which one we belong to, or if we belong to any. We will all end up in the same place anyway.”

Surely no one who really thinks would hold to that position. Nevertheless, many people accept it when they would not for a moment apply it or relate it to any other phase of their life. They would not, for instance, take the same position with regard to education. Who would not smile at a statement that all schools are alike, that one is just as good as another, and that a person deserves the same diploma no matter which school he attends, or which course he takes, or for how long?

Would you agree to send students to just any school, taking any variety of courses, and then award them specialized degrees, anything they wanted—in architecture, law, medicine? Such an attitude would suggest that a man would be just as good a surgeon by not studying for it as he would by following the prerequisite courses. No person who has given it real substantial thought would take such a position, and neither you nor I would want to be under the knife of a surgeon who had been trained, or maybe I should say “untrained,” in such a pattern.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1971/10/the-only-true-and-living-church?lang=eng

While I understand the point he's making, the metaphor has problems. I naturally wouldn't send my child to a law school to become a world class ballet artist. I'd send them to a ballet school. There is an excellent TED talk by Ken Robinson on the individuality of education and the need to customise to individual needs. You can watch it here: http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

The whole talk is outstanding, I highly recommend it. He tells the story of a Gillian Lynne (choreographer of Cats). She had trouble at school and the teachers thought she had a learning disorder and was taken to the doctor. This wise, wonderful doctor said: "Mrs. Lynne, Gillian isn't sick; she's a dancer. Take her to a dance school." Robinson goes on to say: "Somebody else might have put her on medication and told her to calm down."

We are not all here on earth to become lawyers. Nor are we all here to become Mormons. We are here to make ourselves as much like God as possible and we do that by becoming our very best selves as possible. As close to 'perfect' as possible.

Elder Packer suggests that "Surely no one who really thinks would hold to that position." Not so. My conclusions are the result of really, really thinking/pondering/praying for a long time. So at present I remain in Mormonism and embrace its principles. I believe it to be an environment that is productive to becoming the best 'me' possible. But I do not consider Mormonism to be the path nor the only way to travel it.

[canard78]

Thanks for your contribution Fookebiobre... I feel edified.

[DBMormon]

To jump back in. some points - (edited to add - This post deal with feelings of those who doubt and the perceptions they have. It doesn't necessarily reflect reality and is meant to help others see why some, including myself at times, struggle with doubt) please

1.) If we pretend for a moment that we belong to scientology. A false cult that looks to reap rewards off the backs of it's members. How would they handle troublesome history and theology. They would ignore it, mention as little as possible and only talk about sporadically to appease those who are struggling with discovered information. This is the problem people perceive when they encounter a "lot" of info they were never made aware of through the institution. It feels "cultish"

Follow the Leaders = "follow the brethren"

Keep going, don't stop = pray and read your scriptures more - have more faith.

drink the koolaid = "stay away from anti mormon propaganda, it's all lies"

We have the secrets to life that no one else has = "we are the only true and Living Church"

Also brinking up up one informed teacher shared in a lesson despite the manual doesn't solve the problem

(edited - Any solutions to Faith Crisis must deal with this perception and work to change expectations and assumptions and show why this is a false way to view the Church.)

So lately I have been thinking about the translation. I recently read the Interpreter article which overall does a great job I think of just laying the info on the table.

but one piece is major problem for me

the author on page 150 - http://www.mormonint...on-translation/

During the latter part of his life, Joseph Smith clearly referred to the instruments used for translation as the Urim and Thummim. Joseph Smith said in the Elders Journal in 1838, “I obtained them and the Urim and Thummim with them, by the means of which I translated the plates, and thus came the Book of Mormon.

I can not no matter how hard I try make this author's interpretation work.

How is Joseph clearly using Urim and Thummim to mean both instruments?

Rather it seems obvious to me that in this instance and others he would prefer to ignore the seer stone completely and have others believe the book was translated "The means by which" was the instrument he found with the plates - the Nephite interpreters or Urim and Thummim

So to me and others who struggle it FEELS like an effort to hide our history starts early with examples like this and dishonesty about polygamy, polyandry, making Adam God a bad policy despite prophets and apostles teaching it as Doctrine (even in the temple), president Hinckley denying any knowledge God was once a man, ect.... Those discoveries just don't fit our paradigm. We can't make them compute

On my good days (most) I justify it and on my bad days it feels wrong (Wrong instituted in place of "cultish" so as not to offend or seem extreme)

Edited June 10, 2013 by DBMormon

[Stone holm]

Thanks for your contribution Fookebiobre... I feel edified.

You do? I was about ready to report as spam.

[Calm]

Already reported, but I've got an urge to go out and get a bunch of black T-shirts too for some reason....

[Calm]

drink the koolaid ...., Koresh or jim jonesish (minus the mass sucicide)

You using such terms and equating it to the way the Church behaves makes your credibility with me plummet. If you are intent on trying to get typical members involved in your efforts, you need to work on avoiding language that makes you sound like a fanatic yourself.

i grew up near San Fran and we studied Leo Ryan in high school and I well remember hearing not long afterwards he had been assassinated along with so many others. If you believe there are even hints of the People's Temple in the LDS faith, then I encourage you to run, not walk for the door. If not, then I would suggest you kindly stop using such inflammatory language which is a real insult to those of us who knew people who were killed that day.

Edited June 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[Senator]

I believe that ERayR's quote is more about those who are members and believing but not 'anxiously engaged in a good cause", maybe "cultural LDS" rather than those struggling with doubts.

Glenn

And who would they be? I just love judging and categorizing people...

[DBMormon]

You using such terms and equating it to the way the Church behaves makes your credibility with me plummet. If you are intent on trying to get typical members involved in your efforts, you need to work on avoiding language that makes you sound like a fanatic yourself.

You miss the point of the post. We need to separate what is reality and what is our emotion in a topic. I agree some will not be able to filter that and feel I am attacking the Church. What I am trying to say is that for those who struggle, this is what it feels like. The doubter struggles with his emotion of such views. Notice mu use of the word "feel" I will edit and bold and add a disclaimer, this is the root of what I seek to address in the podcast and in discussion. How those who doubt " feel" and Why do those prone to doubt see the expectations and assumptions as "realistic" and if they are not realistic... and if they aren't... why?

It is how I addressed it in the opening post as well.

I deal with feelings and on most occasions I acknowledge that it may be my assumptions and expectations that are wrong. In this post I shared how many of us have felt.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Calm]

You miss the point of the post.

I don't care. You dishonour the people who were victims, those who died and those families and communities left behind by using them for your inflammatory purposes. It is just wrong. I highly doubt that one person who feels the way you claim they do has a clue about what really went on during that time and how it was and more likely their knowledge comes from the sound bites that unfortunately have entered into our culture, trivializing a great tragedy into a bit black humour so they can be oh so clever in their criticism.

People who use others' tragedies for propaganda or polemic purposes or even worse entertainment exhibit a unique kind of self-centernessed and arrogance, especially when it's used to equate themselves or their situation with the victims in some ridiculous way, and in my view it is something that they need to repent of.

Let me remind you that "drinking the koolaid" is not about "feelings" or even more bizarre warnings of some kind that translate for LDS to "stay away from anti mormon propaganda, it's all lies", but about murder and suicide. The flavouraid was poisoned, once one drank that, one was dead and gone without a trace of feelings left and certainly had no reason to fear exposure to lies.

Edited June 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[tagriffy]

You do? I was about ready to report as spam.

I already did.

[canard78]

To jump back in. some points

1.) If we pretend for a moment that we belong to scientology. A false cult that looks to reap rewards off the backs of it's members. How would they handle troublesome history and theology. They would ignore it, mention as little as possible and only talk about sporadically to appease those who are struggling with discovered information. This is the problem people percieve when they encounter a "lot" of info they were never made aware of through the institution. It feels "cultish"

Follow the Leaders = "follow the brethren"

Keep going, don't stop = pray and read your scriptures more - have more faith.

drink the koolaid = "stay away from anti mormon propaganda, it's all lies"

We have the secrets to life that no one else has = "we are the only true and Living Church"

Also brinking up up one informed teacher shared in a lesson despite the manual doesn't solve the problem

So lately I have been thinking about the translation. I recently read the Interpreter article which overall does a great job I think of just laying the info on the table.

but one piece is major problem for me

the author on page 150 - http://www.mormonint...on-translation/

During the latter part of his life, Joseph Smith clearly referred to the instruments used for translation as the Urim and Thummim. Joseph Smith said in the Elders Journal in 1838, “I obtained them and the Urim and Thummim with them, by the means of which I translated the plates, and thus came the Book of Mormon.

I can not no matter how hard I try make this author's interpretation work

How is Joseph clearly using Urim and Thummim to mean both instruments?

Rather it seems obvious to me that in this instance and others he would prefer to ignore the seer stone completely and have others believe the book was translated "The means by which" was the instrument he found with the plates - the Nephite interpreters or Urim and Thummim

So to me a effort to hide our history starts early with examples like this and dishonesty about polygamy, polyandry, making Adam God a bad policy despite prophets and apostles teaching it as Doctrine (even in the temple), president Hinckley denying any knowledge God was once a man, ect....

On my good days I justify it and on my bad days it feels very "cultish" as in scientology, Koresh or jim jonesish (minus the mass sucicide)

The name 'Urim and Thummim' became a general 'catch-all' for interpreters of all sorts (one of his seer stones or the Nephite bow/spectacles). Remember how 'Hoover' became the catch-all name for any vacuum cleaner. In the end some people would go to buy a 'Dyson hoover' at the store. Like the article you reference says:

The Urim and Thummim is not a unique instrument: God did not provide the Urim and Thummim, but instead provided a Urim and Thummim. There can be more than one instrument called “Urim and Thummim.”

(italics in original)

The U&T as a phrase was introduced as a phrase by WW Phelps around 1832.

On the other hand...

Joseph was in court in 1826 and again in 1830. Dan Vogel discusses this asserts that (according to "Mormonites" Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate (Utica New York) 2 (9 April 1831):120) a newspaper record shows Oliver testifying in court of Joseph translating with the Nephite interpreters. Eye-witness accounts contradict this. But if Oliver was mentioning Interpreters rather than seer stones, this may have been the start of them trying to distance Joseph from his scrying days by instead referring to them as a U&T.

The first 'wave' had little issue with the scrying/head in hat translation. There appear to be no complaints. But as word spread and more broader views were added, the move to drop the language of seer stones/scrying started. Understandably so I suppose.

[canard78]

You do? I was about ready to report as spam.

Let's welcome all contributors... I thought this in particular was a real addition to the conversation

And I鈥檓 rarely wanting for more information about parody those positions this morning and occasionally for more information about debate them further When writing a summary, this usually talented a period of time to learn more about assess going to be the content everywhere over the your essay He drank away the your cash and will by no means provide the my hand too wine at this time Application may

[DBMormon]

I don't care. You dishonour the people who were victims, those who died and those families and communities left behind by using them for your inflammatory purposes. It is just wrong. I highly doubt that one person who feels the way you claim they do has a clue about what really went on during that time and how it was and more likely their knowledge comes from the sound bites that unfortunately have entered into our culture, trivializing a great tragedy into a bit black humour so they can be oh so clever in their criticism.

People who use others' tragedies for propaganda or polemic purposes or even worse entertainment exhibit a unique kind of self-centernessed and arrogance, especially when it's used to equate themselves or their situation with the victims in some ridiculous way, and in my view it is something that they need to repent of.

How do you compare things if your unable to compare things? By making certain comparisons to specific behaviors untouchable by disallowing the whole event to be mentioned, you make it difficult to point to examples where certain types of behavior occurred in the past.

In other words I can't discuss the Jim Jones example of getting people to follow regardless of the problems without upsetting someone over the end result. The end result was not the point but rather the comparison of how those with doubts relate the behavior of keeping the masses where you want them and withholding info that serves that purpose.

I am really sorry your upset but If unable to make such comparisons then we take the problem one step further

[canard78]

How do you compare things if your unable to compare things? By making certain comparisons to specific behaviors untouchable by disallowing the whole event to be mentioned, you make it difficult to point to examples where certain types of behavior occurred in the past.

In other words I can't discuss the Jim Jones example of getting people to follow regardless of the problems without upsetting someone over the end result. The end result was not the point but rather the comparison of how those with doubts relate the behavior of keeping the masses where you want them and withholding info that serves that purpose.

I am really sorry your upset but If unable to make such comparisons then we take the problem one step further

But I still think Cal has a point. You sometimes complain that you're not taken seriously on this board by certain posters. But to be honest I found your comment a little disconcerting and not in the tone of one who is 'defending the castle.' You could do yourself a favour and be a little more measured in the things you say. I didn't even know the full implications of some of the comparisons being made.

[Calm]

Comparisons are only useful if valid. If you are insisting that comparing the LDS faith to Jonestowns or the members' who are experiencing doubt to feeling as if they were members of Jonestown is a valid comparison, then I have no doubt you have no clue what you are talking about and the world would be better if you were to stop trying to use such.

People had feelings of doubt before Jonestown, people encountered charismatic leaders before Jonestown, Jonestown is not the only example out there to be misused by people trying to inflate the value of their own experience by equating it with people who were murdered or driven to suicide.

http://www.jones-town.org/victims.html

On November 18, 1978, the world was changed forever! Nine hundred and eighteen (918) American citizens, three hundred and five (305) children of which forty (40) of them were infants, American Congressman Leo Ryan and a United Press International news and film crew all lost their lives in that Paradise of Pain forever rendered infamous by it's name: "Jonestown"

Edited June 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I didn't even know the full implications of some of the comparisons being made.

He compared "drinking the koolaid (flavoraid)" with being told to avoid anti-mormon lies....of all the ridiculous comparisons I've seen on the board, that one has to be at the top. When the Jonestown victims drank the poisoned flavoraid, they died, the end. Parents were told to inject children with it if they were too young to drink it.

There are plenty of other organizations and events and I am sure he can find one as slimy and despicable as he wants to make his point about how people feel, but at least it should be remotely realistic of a comparison and not just one that sounds clever because of the idiotic soundbites it's collected.

If someone feels the below is representative of their time in the LDS faith, then why are they still there? If they don't, then why in the world are they equating their experience with it?

These were two that actually "drank the koolaid", won't post the image, you will have to go to it: http://4.bp.blogspot...town babies.jpg

Edited June 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

He compared "drinking the koolaid (flavoraid)" with being told to avoid anti-mormon lies....of all the ridiculous comparisons I've seen on the board, that one has to be at the top. When the Jonestown victims drank the poisoned flavoraid, they died, the end. Parents were told to inject children with it if they were too young to drink it.

There are plenty of other organizations and events and I am sure he can find one as slimy and despicable as he wants to make his point about how people feel, but at least it should be remotely realistic of a comparison and not just one that sounds clever because of the idiotic soundbites.

If someone feels the below is representative of their time in the LDS faith, then why are they still there? If they don't, then why in the world are they equating their experience with it?

Thanks for the clarification. I'd seen the 'keep drinking the koolaid' reference on a few other sites in the past. I had no idea it was such a sick event to compare to.

DB - I'm sure you probably didn't mean it in that way and probably hadn't considered the implications of the comparison. But I agree with Cal. Even as someone who has no emotional connection to this event, I recoil at the comparison.

I have seriously considered at times in the past year or so whether I want to continue my association with the church. I know you went through a similar experience previously.

At no point has there been any pressure/threat/issue with that. The discomfort I've felt with the idea of leaving has been entirely of a personal/spiritual/familial nature. You or I could walk out with no 'axe' hanging over us if we chose to. Of course it would hurt friendships and families. But any who even tries to draw a comparison between being in an LDS community and being in a crazy fringe group such as the one cited above should not be given any airtime.

I know you are not drawing that comparison. I know you are saying that others do. Don't give them any credence or further rope. Simply dismiss it out of hand.

[Stone holm]

Let's welcome all contributors... I thought this in particular was a real addition to the conversation

Yeah, at first I thought there was a bit of humor until the posts kept coming and coming, at which point I just found it annoying. But agree let's welcome all.

[Tacenda]

deleted, sorry

Edited June 10, 2013 by Tacenda

[Stone holm]

On the thread in "News" on this board, there is a discussion concerning the FLDS group "Yearning For Zion", I definitely see a comparison there. And their leader Warren Jeffs, could be a reincarnation of this Jones monster. I think that's a good comparison. And think that appropiate. I think the YFZ is very well near this condition if someone doesn't do something. But some think that it will hurt their rights to go in and rescue...............it may be too late someday.

I don't see this as a valid comparison at all. I remember the Jones debacle which was truly in a completely different league than most anything ever laid at Christianities doorstep since the Inquisition or Salem.

[Nemesis]

There is a reason why where have this rule.

Violating standard rules of debate such as extreme comparisons and hyperbole

We don't allow it and we suspend members for doing it.

Nemesis

[Calm]

Thanks for the clarification. I'd seen the 'keep drinking the koolaid' reference on a few other sites in the past. I had no idea it was such a sick event to compare to.

DB - I'm sure you probably didn't mean it in that way and probably hadn't considered the implications of the comparison. But I agree with Cal. Even as someone who has no emotional connection to this event, I recoil at the comparison.

I have seriously considered at times in the past year or so whether I want to continue my association with the church. I know you went through a similar experience previously.

At no point has there been any pressure/threat/issue with that. The discomfort I've felt with the idea of leaving has been entirely of a personal/spiritual/familial nature. You or I could walk out with no 'axe' hanging over us if we chose to. Of course it would hurt friendships and families. But any who even tries to draw a comparison between being in an LDS community and being in a crazy fringe group such as the one cited above should not be given any airtime.

I know you are not drawing that comparison. I know you are saying that others do. Don't give them any credence or further rope. Simply dismiss it out of hand.

Thank you for understanding. For some reason today, I had just hit my limit on hearing the coy "drink the koolaid" remark...usually followed by a giggle or two or a naughty look if someone has a hint of where it came from....and from someone whose stated intent is to improve communication and understanding, who was apparently claiming familiarity with the historical situation in order to draw comparisons....such a use was just totally wrong.

[Calm]

I don't see this as a valid comparison at all. I remember the Jones debacle which was truly in a completely different league than most anything ever laid at Christianities doorstep since the Inquisition or Salem.

I agree, they have not reached the level of isolation or political maneuvering among the high and mighty Jones managed and the government inflated the issues at the YFZ ranch, not downplayed them into oblivion. There is also a significant difference in that these people have grown up in this life, it is a relatively stable life for them, very different from what was going on with the People's Temple.

There are reasons to be concerned about YFZ, but they are only similar with the People's Temple on a superficial level. To figure out what needs to be done to help these people, one should look for a better, more accurate comparison.