Wrestling With Polyandry

[why me]

I know it's quite natural. Just wish, some on the board would be a little less on the defensive side, it takes some people awhile to come around to belief again, if it ever happens. But do understand how some disbelievers seem to attack the church, and I'm sure you realize that it's because they feel like they're thought of as the bad guy, they tend to get irate because they don't believe unbelief is their fault. You are helping TBM's see a little clearer and also a few GA's are getting in on the action too and alleviating so many sufferers (hopefully I didn't give you a headache just now)

We need to remember that people are just that, people. Most disbelievers who have come to this board seem to have been believers. And they would go on the attack if they could. But the board does not allow it to happen. On these boards, one must have thick skin. As one who has posted on critic boards, I have been banned, mocked, bashed and laughed at. No problem. It just comes with the turf. And certainly, I don't let it bother me.

The Internet critic boards paints the church as the core of all that is evil in this world. Shouldn't members be defensive just a little?

[DonBradley]

Of course members should be on the defensive when the Church is being attacked. What Tacenda is bringing up is that often we can be defensive out of habit, even when the Church really isn't being attacked: others are just expressing their perspectives.

Don

[tagriffy]

Of course members should be on the defensive when the Church is being attacked. What Tacenda is bringing up is that often we can be defensive out of habit, even when the Church really isn't being attacked: others are just expressing their perspectives.

Don

That's a distinction that needs to be kept in mind. I think the Saints have felt themselves besieged by critics for so long that any "critical" perspective is seen as an attack.

[Calm]

That's a distinction that needs to be kept in mind. I think the Saints have felt themselves besieged by critics for so long that any "critical" perspective is seen as an attack.

I would differ with that. When the Romney campaign drew such criticism in the first round, most LDS from what I saw were shocked. They had no idea of the invective that was out there already and that just got put on public view by political scene. I think there are a very limited number of LDS who have been exposed to high levels of criticism either by choice because they hang out where they will encounter it or have simply run across it on the Internet and some of those have responded by assuming that all criticism falls in the same category. Others have not and have instead tried to figure out what is driving the criticism and how to address it in a nondefensive manner.

[tagriffy]

I would differ with that. When the Romney campaign drew such criticism in the first round, most LDS from what I saw were shocked. They had no idea of the invective that was out there already and that just got put on public view by political scene. I think there are a very limited number of LDS who have been exposed to high levels of criticism either by choice because they hang out where they will encounter it or have simply run across it on the Internet and some of those have responded by assuming that all criticism falls in the same category. Others have not and have instead tried to figure out what is driving the criticism and how to address it in a nondefensive manner.

OK. Maybe it's just an idea that I got from participating on so many boards, starting all the way when I was back on AOL.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Please re-read my post. You completely misunderstood the whole thing

The entire point was that even IF Joseph was a "fallen prophet" which he was not, it would be irrelevant to the validity of his revelations.

If the folks at CARM see that as something in their favor, they are drastically mistaken, and even stupider than I thought.

It is the "if" I began with then moved on to entire thread, and comments that followed followed. But who am I to judge. The is just a topic we have so little understanding a context. On another note about how the Church hides it'

S history...read in the Church Priesthood book and read out loud the part where Presideindnt Snow was convinced to marry under the convenient (President Snow was opposed to any marriage before this, wanting to devote all of his time to preaching the gospel) so he did as Joseph told him was best marrrying two sisters in 1843. In his first 10 years in the Church, 7 years of that was serving missions. Sorry for misunderstanding, I how you love this gospel.

[why me]

Of course members should be on the defensive when the Church is being attacked. What Tacenda is bringing up is that often we can be defensive out of habit, even when the Church really isn't being attacked: others are just expressing their perspectives.

Don

But then someone in her position should know the source of the defensiveness. There needs to be some understanding on her part in such situations. The critics can also bring up that our responses should be christlike, which implies low keyed, kind, charitable and loving. But the critics are allowed to be devilish.

[ERayR]

Of course members should be on the defensive when the Church is being attacked. What Tacenda is bringing up is that often we can be defensive out of habit, even when the Church really isn't being attacked: others are just expressing their perspectives.

Don

To me it doesn't matter from which direction error comes from it needs to be answered. Often someone's opinion is challenged they become defensive and take offense.

[mfbukowski]

It is the "if" I began with then moved on to entire thread, and comments that followed followed. But who am I to judge. The is just a topic we have so little understanding a context. On another note about how the Church hides it'

S history...read in the Church Priesthood book and read out loud the part where Presideindnt Snow was convinced to marry under the convenient (President Snow was opposed to any marriage before this, wanting to devote all of his time to preaching the gospel) so he did as Joseph told him was best marrrying two sisters in 1843. In his first 10 years in the Church, 7 years of that was serving missions. Sorry for misunderstanding, I how you love this gospel.

I am still not sure what you are saying. There are missing words and letters and unfortunately that is all I have to go on.

I am not sure what "it" is.

I am not saying anything about polygamy or even polyandry. I have a testimony that Joseph was a prophet. All I am saying is that even IF- IF Joseph was "fallen" at the very end and did some things he should not done- IF

IF -

Then it still would have no relevance for the revelations which came before his transgressions IF indeed he DID transgress- and we are in no position to judge him.

I don't know how I cam make it any clearer.

[mfbukowski]

But then someone in her position should know the source of the defensiveness. There needs to be some understanding on her part in such situations. The critics can also bring up that our responses should be christlike, which implies low keyed, kind, charitable and loving. But the critics are allowed to be devilish.

Dang, I knew there was a "catch".

I have a lot of work to do on that one !

[ERayR]

Dang, I knew there was a "catch".

I have a lot of work to do on that one !

Na, reproving betimes with sharpness . . .

[Closet Doubter]

William law did not call Joseph out by taking the matter up before the council of the twelve. He chose a different route.

Glenn

He didn't need to take it up before the Q12. The fact that it wasn't approved by the three presidents (Joseph, Sidney, and William) means it wasn't approved and therefore not valid doctrine. When Joseph didn't follow the procedure laid out by the Lord in D&C 107, William Law sought to expose the non-doctrinal practice through the press (Nauvoo Expositor). When Joseph destroyed the press in order to keep the practice in the shadows it appears the Lord decided it was time to remove Joseph.

[ERayR]

He didn't need to take it up before the Q12. The fact that it wasn't approved by the three presidents (Joseph, Sidney, and William) means it wasn't approved and therefore not valid doctrine. When Joseph didn't follow the procedure laid out by the Lord in D&C 107, William Law sought to expose the non-doctrinal practice through the press (Nauvoo Expositor). When Joseph destroyed the press in order to keep the practice in the shadows it appears the Lord decided it was time to remove Joseph.

Law did need to take it up with the twelve as that is the procedure for handling these problems in the Church.

You assume to know a lot and take much upon yourself when you pronounce the will of the Lord. It is a precarious position.

[T-Shirt]

He didn't need to take it up before the Q12. The fact that it wasn't approved by the three presidents (Joseph, Sidney, and William) means it wasn't approved and therefore not valid doctrine. When Joseph didn't follow the procedure laid out by the Lord in D&C 107, William Law sought to expose the non-doctrinal practice through the press (Nauvoo Expositor). When Joseph destroyed the press in order to keep the practice in the shadows it appears the Lord decided it was time to remove Joseph.

Really? Have you read the Nauvoo Expositor?

[Closet Doubter]

Really? Have you read the Nauvoo Expositor?

Actually, I have. I am not 100% sure that what I found several years ago on the internet is accurate but I haven't found anyone stating it is not really the expositor edition but an anti-mormon fabrication. I found it to be tedious, with most of what they wrote to be long winded but for the most part accurate based on the history we now know. Here is some of the writing from one article:

"As for our acquaintance with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we know, no man or set of men can be more thoroughly acquainted with its rise, its organization, and its history, than we have every reason to believe we are. We all verily believe, and many of us know of a surety, that the religion of the Latter Day Saints, as originally taught by Joseph Smith, which is contained in the Old and New Testaments, Book of Covenants, and Book of Mormon, is verily true; and that the pure principles set forth in those books, are the immutable and eternal principles of Heaven, . . . We hope many items of doctrine, as now taught, some of which, however, are taught secretly, and denied openly, (which we know positively is the case), . . . considerate men will treat with contempt; for we declare them heretical and damnable in their influence, though they find many devotees."

[Glenn101]

He didn't need to take it up before the Q12. The fact that it wasn't approved by the three presidents (Joseph, Sidney, and William) means it wasn't approved and therefore not valid doctrine. When Joseph didn't follow the procedure laid out by the Lord in D&C 107, William Law sought to expose the non-doctrinal practice through the press (Nauvoo Expositor). When Joseph destroyed the press in order to keep the practice in the shadows it appears the Lord decided it was time to remove Joseph.

What I mean by calling Joseph out before the council of the twelve was bringing Joseph up on charges of adultery and polygamy, since it is evident that Joseph was already practicing polygamy.

It is not evident that the Lord decidedthat it was time to remove Joseph. That would have been done via the Council and by revelation so that there would have been no question in anyone's mind about the practice.

Glenn

[DonBradley]

But then someone in her position should know the source of the defensiveness. There needs to be some understanding on her part in such situations.

Of course they should be more understanding. And if they were, they probably wouldn't be attacking our religion in the first place.

The critics can also bring up that our responses should be christlike, which implies low keyed, kind, charitable and loving. But the critics are allowed to be devilish.

Think about this. If we have a book we accept as scripture that tells us not to be contentious, doesn't that obligate us to not be contentious? If they don't accept it as scripture, how does it obligate them not to be contentious? There is nothing hypocritical about others who don't share our standards calling us on it when we fail to live them. I hope that others will expect us to live our standards, and that we will expect this from ourselves as well.

I am perfectly fine with outsiders, including our critics, expecting us to live up to our own standards whether they live up to them or not. If the Gospel doesn't obligate us to live higher standards than we would without the Gospel, then what exactly is the Gospel for?

And if it is our critics who stir us up in remembrance of the standards expected of us, what's wrong with that? Weren't the Nephites--by divine design--stirred up in remembrance of God by the Lamanites? And aren't our standards real and correct, no matter who reminds us of them?

Don

Edited June 7, 2013 by DonBradley

[DonBradley]

Also, I think it behooves us as Latter-day Saints to discuss the Gospel, whether we are preaching it, expounding it, or defending it, in ways that allow and invite the Spirit into the discussion.

Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you that while I was out of the Church there were times when I felt the Spirit (whether I could admit that's what it was or not) when Gospel principles were discussed in the right way. I found this dizzying (particularly on one occasion when the missionaries tracted me out). But I never felt the Spirit, or even further inclined toward the Gospel, from being flamed by apologists on a message board. To the contrary, some of the times I felt furthest from the Restoration were when I was in discussion with irascible believers. Why? Because you can't convert someone to the Gospel of Jesus Christ by inviting the spirit of the Devil into the discussion--which is exactly what Christ says we do when we engage in contention.

Imagine that we went out as missionaries and engaged nonbelievers the way we often do critics on these boards: how many of them would feel and recognize the Spirit, gain a testimony, and join the Church? Would any?

Don

Edited June 6, 2013 by DonBradley

[Tacenda]

Also, I think it behooves us as Latter-day Saints to discuss the Gospel, whether we are preaching it, expounding it, or defending it, in ways that allow and invite the Spirit into the discussion.

Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you that while I was outfoff the Church there were times when I felt the Spirit (whether I could admit that's what it was or not) when Gospel principles were discussed in the right way. I found this dizzying (particularly on one occasion when the missionaries tracted me out). But I never felt the Spirit, or even further inclined toward the Gospel, from being flamed by apologists on a message board. To the contrary, some of the times I felt furthest from the Restoration were when I was in discussion with irascible believers. Why? Because you can't convert someone to the Gospel of Jesus Christ by inviting the spirit of the Devil into the discussion--which is exactly what Christ says we do when we engage in contention.

Imagine that we went out as missionaries and engaged nonbelievers the way we often do critics on these boards: how many of them would feel and recognize the Spirit, gain a testimony, and join the Church? Would any?

Don

This and then some!!

[Senator]

. I found this dizzying (particularly on one occasion when the missionaries tracted me out). But I never felt the Spirit, or even further inclined toward the Gospel, from being flamed by apologists on a message board.

Come now Don. You weren't being flamed; you were being reproved betimes with sharpness........

[why me]

Also, I think it behooves us as Latter-day Saints to discuss the Gospel, whether we are preaching it, expounding it, or defending it, in ways that allow and invite the Spirit into the discussion.

Don

But the thing that irks me about it all is when critics who were once members begin to scold members for their tone on the board when discussing with them historical issues if the member gets somewhat emotional. I think that this tactic is a little cowardly. A former member should also know how to discuss in a non-flaming way. But to use their ex status as an allowance to attack the church and the poster and then be critical when members also do it, is hypocritical.

[Tacenda]

But the thing that irks me about it all is when critics who were once members begin to scold members for their tone on the board when discussing with them historical issues if the member gets somewhat emotional. I think that this tactic is a little cowardly. A former member should also know how to discuss in a non-flaming way. But to use their ex status as an allowance to attack the church and the poster and then be critical when members also do it, is hypocritical.

Oh no, you're the "saint" here, not the critics or disbelievers, remember? So act accordingly.

[ERayR]

Oh no, you're the "saint" here, not the critics or disbelievers, remember? So act accordingly.

Reproving betimes with sharpness. But only when needed.

[Glenn101]

Also, I think it behooves us as Latter-day Saints to discuss the Gospel, whether we are preaching it, expounding it, or defending it, in ways that allow and invite the Spirit into the discussion.

Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you that while I was out of the Church there were times when I felt the Spirit (whether I could admit that's what it was or not) when Gospel principles were discussed in the right way. I found this dizzying (particularly on one occasion when the missionaries tracted me out). But I never felt the Spirit, or even further inclined toward the Gospel, from being flamed by apologists on a message board. To the contrary, some of the times I felt furthest from the Restoration were when I was in discussion with irascible believers. Why? Because you can't convert someone to the Gospel of Jesus Christ by inviting the spirit of the Devil into the discussion--which is exactly what Christ says we do when we engage in contention.

Imagine that we went out as missionaries and engaged nonbelievers the way we often do critics on these boards: how many of them would feel and recognize the Spirit, gain a testimony, and join the Church? Would any?

Don

Don, I entirely agree with your take on this. I read a saying many years ago that goes like "Never argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level, then beat you with experience." Now I hasten to add that I am not inferring that any of the critics are fools. Far from it. But the point I am trying to make is that if one responds to a rather ranting critical piece in kind, there will be no substantive discussion taking place and neither side will gain anything, except maybe becoming more hostile to one another.

No one has ever won an argument. There is another saying on this, but I do not remember it exactly, but even if you can verbally beat someone into submission, you still will not have won their hearts, and to me, that is the most important part of the Gospel, winning a persons heart.

I really do not think that critics, even the harshest, have an overall negative impact on the gospel. Nor does the information available on the internet. There are stories of people seeing something like the Book of Mormon Musical or reading anti-LDS literature, and still becoming converted to the Gospel. The internet does make negative information readily available, but it also makes positive information just as available. The person seeking the truth will find it.

So, be kind to the critics, love your enemy, do good to them that spitefully use you, etc. I read those things in a book somewhere.

Glenn

[why me]

I think that the people who were in plural marriages were learning by experience and through prayer. And yet, they were not perfect. I think that this account by one of the wives speaks volumes. It is brief and to the point:

The relationships of families are not always certain, during these early days of plural marriage when, as Amasa Lyman observed years later, "We obeyed the best we knew how, and, no doubt, made many crooked paths in our ignorance."1 The secretiveness necessitated by the threat from without and dissention from within the Church makes unusual in a contemporary account even as much of a note as Zina makes when referring to her brother William's having as his second wife Harriet Clark, Caroline's sister. Ann Maginn will become his third wife, but whether she is or is not at this time is not certain. The same is true for the Partridge sisters, Eliza and Caroline, both of whom will become wives to Amasa Lyman, who lies sick at Zina's house when the girls come visiting.

http://lds-mormon.com/zina.shtml

How true. Can we give Joseph a break? It seems that many husbands and wives were learning by doing. Of course the link is not the most favorable site toward the lds church but at least the site gives a good quotation from Amasa Lyman about the practice of polygamy and imperfection along the way.

Edited June 9, 2013 by why me