Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Trouble In Africa: Fb Conversation With Prospective Afican Missionary


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

This is a FB conversation I had earlier this morning with my African FB friend, whom I'll call Peter. And before you shoot the messenger...I hope you all have a new found appreciation for the real culprit...Church correlation and the real impact it is having on the youth of the church who first learn that the church they trusted to be honest and forthright...has been anything but... in fact been less than honest...so before you blame me for answering Peter's questions, something I did not take delight in, perhaps some of your rath should be turned towards the lack of honest forthright information...

Peter:

I just don't know why the church is hiding this information from us here in Africa

Johnnie Cake:

I don't believe they hide it but they clearly don't teach it or emphasize the difficult issues. For example they teach that polygamy ended in 1890 but that's not entirely true and they know it. The church continued to allow polygamist marriages in the Salt Lake Temple for an additional 14 years...It all very complicated

Peter:

Oh! I thought Polygamy ended at that moment!

I'm really confused

Johnnie Cake:

Well that's the official story. But that's not exactly true

10:04am

Peter:

So what actually happened?

10:13am

Johnnie Cake:

Well it officially ended for the majority of church members in 1890. But continued for 14 years for a select few. Even Wilford Woodruff, the prophet who issued the manifesto, took another wife after the first manifesto.

But them again public pressure became so great that the church issued a 2nd manifesto in 1904 and basically said no really this time we really mean it. After that they excommunicated anyone who participated in it

10:16am

Peter:

So much for someone led by revelation? So the movie 19th Wife is true?

10:20am

Johnnie Cake:

Well. I've seen that movie...I would call it a hollywoodize version of loosely based on some truth but mostly not true.

The modern parts are fiction and the parts during pioneer times is an over dramatized version of events that BY's wife claimed to have occured.

10:22am

Peter:

Okay I see. My mom said its so evil. I've never liked Brigham Young though

10:23am

Johnnie Cake:

It was loosely based on Brigham Youngs 19th wife who divorced him

10:24am

Peter:

How many wives did he have!!!

10:25am

Johnnie Cake:

LOL I think 55... How many have u been taught Joseph Smith had?

10:27am

Peter: 1

10:27am

Johnnie Cake:

Oh dear

10:28am

Peter:

Emma Smith Did he have more?

10:29am

Johnnie Cake:

Ummm

10:29am

Peter: A lot more? Haha

10:30am

Johnnie Cake:

This is hard... I hate being the one telling u this stuff

10:30am

Peter:

Hahaha. Would you prefer I read it online? I tend to not believe stuff I read online. Please tell me. I have to know

10:32am

Johnnie Cake:

Well u deserve to know and it's very sad that u haven't been taught this stuff cuz it makes it so hard to learn it like this. But Joseph had 33 wife's. The youngest was 14, the oldest 56

10:32am

Peter:

Lies!!! Are you serious? How is it that we only know of Emma Smith then?

10:33am

Johnnie Cake:

I wish it were lies. But unfortunately it's the truth

10:34am

Peter:

Oh my gosh :sad: I feel so weak...Next you'll tell me the Book of Mormon is false...

10:34am

Johnnie Cake:

U can go to the church web sight familysearch.com and search Joseph smith. It will list them all....Well...

10:35am

Peter:

Wow. Totally shocked. Doesn't surprise me that much from the Priesthood ban stuff I read though. (provided by the posters at MD&D) Well???

10:36am

Johnnie Cake:

I really shouldn't be the one telling u this stuff. I know how hard it is to hear this stuff. But I've been where u r

10:36am

Peter:

I feel really frustrated right now???... I don't know what to say

10:37am

Johnnie Cake:

I understand. It's hard. I feel very bad

10:37am

Peter:

Don't feel bad please. I had to hear this :sad:

Edited by Johnnie Cake
Posted

Johnnie Cake:

Well that's the official story. But that's not exactly true

Just as the practice of plural marriage among the Latter-day Saints began gradually, the ending of the practice after the Manifesto was also gradual. Some plural marriages were performed after the Manifesto, particularly in Mexico and Canada. In 1904, President Joseph F. Smith called for a vote from the Church membership that all post-Manifesto plural marriages be prohibited worldwide.
http://www.lds.org/topics/polygamy-plural-marriage?lang=eng
Posted (edited)

Peter:

Emma Smith Did he have more?

10:29am

Johnnie Cake:

Ummm

10:29am

Peter: A lot more? Haha

10:30am

Johnnie Cake:

This is hard... I hate being the one telling u this stuff

10:30am

Peter:

Hahaha. Would you prefer I read it online? I tend to not believe stuff I read online. Please tell me. I have to know

10:32am

Johnnie Cake:

Well u deserve to know and it's very sad that u haven't been taught this stuff cuz it makes it so hard to learn it like this. But Joseph had 33 wife's. The youngest was 14, the oldest 56

10:32am

Peter:

Lies!!! Are you serious? How is it that we only know of Emma Smith then?

After God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831 and commanded him to live it, the Prophet, over a period of years, cautiously taught the doctrine to some close associates. Eventually, he and a small number of Church leaders entered into plural marriages in the early years of the Church. Those who practiced plural marriage at that time, both male and female, experienced a significant trial of their faith. The practice was so foreign to them that they needed and received personal inspiration from God to help them obey the commandment.
same link as above

(not suggesting Peter has been negligent, just pointing out the info is on lds.org now)

Edited by calmoriah
Posted

This is a FB conversation I had earlier this morning with my African FB friend, whom I'll call Peter.

You know, I gave you the benefit of the doubt on the other thread, but this dialogue sounds pretty contrived to me. I'm not buying it.

(The Lifetime movie "The 19th Wife" aired in Africa? And it was widely seen?)

Posted

That's a tough situation. On the one hand, it's easy to blame the members for not studying carefully (even the stuff that's in their scriptures). On the other hand, it's easy to see the Church as "hiding" the information, or not sharing it as openly as we might like them to.

It's especially odd for any member to be disturbed by Joseph Smith's polygamy if they know about and accept Brigham Young's.

Posted

It's especially odd for any member to be disturbed by Joseph Smith's polygamy if they know about and accept Brigham Young's.

One can understand it if the paradigm they are coming from is that they weren't told....

I used to be shocked by people not knowing about Joseph's plural marriage (polyandry is in a different category), but the numbers who have claimed to be are so high now I am not shocked anymore but just accept it as typical...though I am still dumbfounded that somehow it is not being picked up by just reading the D&C...though I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised about that as many haven't been that good of scripture readers no matter how much the Church has urged them to be.

Posted (edited)

You know, I gave you the benefit of the doubt on the other thread, but this dialogue sounds pretty contrived to me. I'm not buying it.

(The Lifetime movie "The 19th Wife" aired in Africa? And it was widely seen?)

I appreciate your skepticism ... But have you ever heard of satellite?

A+E Networks UK is a joint venture of A&E Television Networks and the United Kingdom's largest subscription television provider British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB) through the Sky Ventures division. Previously it operated under the names The History Channel UK and AETN UK.[6][7] A+E Networks UK operates channels throughout the European region, as well as the Middle East and Africa.

Note that they even have satellite access in Africa and lifetime is a subsidiary of A+E

Edited by Johnnie Cake
Posted

Having taught school for several decades , I am well aware that a person can be told in several different ways about some concept or bit of history and yet be unable to recall any time when they were told. We humans are very good at selective hearing , especially if our minds are occupied with important stuff like dates and sports and celebrities .

Posted

Having taught school for several decades , I am well aware that a person can be told in several different ways about some concept or bit of history and yet be unable to recall any time when they were told. We humans are very good at selective hearing , especially if our minds are occupied with important stuff like dates and sports and celebrities .

Wait ... :huh: I thought history is about dates. :unknw:Ohhhhh! You mean the other kind of "date" ... OK. I get it now! Sorry for the misapprehension! :D Carry on! ;)
Posted

I've yet to meet one African Mormon who gives a hud about polygamy. Especially considering it's still practiced in parts of Africa.

Posted

I have been a little surprised of late about members not being aware that Joseph Smith had plural wives. I also believe that we can have unnecessary faith crises because people are not informed. Having said that, I am not sure of the best way to educate people without undue emphasis on things which are not currently particularly necessary for an individual's progress. I do think that we should be doing a better job of innoculating people via a more thorough and less sanitized historical understanding. However, my wife would thoroughly disagree with this approach she feels that such past blemishes should just be ignored. The problem is striking the right balance and the right timing. My guess would be that it should not be done in Sunday School, but rather in Priesthood, Relief Society, and possibly Seminary or Institute. There is a lot of unnecessary pablum recitation in Seminary and Institute that might be replaced with a very well written script. Unfortunately, I am not at all convinced that the persons writing the manuals have the requisite skills to write the script -- quite frankly a lot of the manual writing is pretty darn awful.

Posted

You know, Johnnie Cake, maybe it's just the exceedingly skeptical, "would-be lawyer" side of me, but I have a really hard time granting the "purity" of your motives when someone comes to you and says, "Wait ... you mean, the Church used to do [x]?" And instead of attempting to provide any perspective or context or helpful information about [x], your response, instead, is to say, essentially, "I know, right? And you don't even know the half of it. Not only did the Church used to do [x], they also did [y] and [z]." If I didn't know better, granting the truth of your Facebook friend's existence, I'd say that you essentially ran into him as he has one hand on the doorknob on his way out of the Church, and instead of putting your arm on his shoulder and offering to help him, what you're really doing is hastening his exit by kicking him in the rear as he leaves.

This was my feeling also when I read the "conversation." No attempt was made to provide the numerous sources to read more about the issues, nor offer any modicum of positive perspective... only the negative "you should have been told... I feel bad... "blah blah blah...

GG

Posted (edited)

This was my feeling also when I read the "conversation." No attempt was made to provide the numerous sources to read more about the issues, nor offer any modicum of positive perspective... only the negative "you should have been told... I feel bad... "blah blah blah...

GG

I simply answered his questions truthfully....he wouldn't be in the midst of a faith crisis if his church leaders had simply done the same thing. I shared our conversation here because I wanted posters here to see what church correlation has done by making BY a monogamist, sanitizing its history and denying knowledge of past justifications for whole doctrines. Well this is what you get...this is the direct consequence of church policy...they have no one to blame but themselves?

I'm really surprised however that y'all can't see the problem. I don't understand the push back. Rather than focusing on me or Peter why isn't the conversation directed at what needs to change to prevent this level of ignorance in far flung areas of the church. Here we have a potential Mormon missionary who loves the church, believed it to be all it claimed but is now having serious doubts and posters question my integrity or question his existence ...in effect taking aim at the messenger...very frustrating

Edited by Johnnie Cake
Posted

I've yet to meet one African Mormon who gives a hud about polygamy. Especially considering it's still practiced in parts of Africa.

This. Until recently, I had a housemate from Africa. He joined the Church there at age 17 in a nation with a tiny LDS presence and later served a mission in a different African nation with a large number of stakes. His own father was a polygamist, and he was intimately familiar with every conceivable criticism against the Church because people had thrown everything they could at him, first during his own conversion process and later as a missionary. I have also spoken at length with another sister in our stake who joined the Church in a third African nation, and she said that the first time she was seen speaking to missionaries in the street, she had complete strangers come up to her afterward to tell her how evil, racist, etc. the Church was.

Posted

I have been a little surprised of late about members not being aware that Joseph Smith had plural wives. I also believe that we can have unnecessary faith crises because people are not informed. Having said that, I am not sure of the best way to educate people without undue emphasis on things which are not currently particularly necessary for an individual's progress. I do think that we should be doing a better job of innoculating people via a more thorough and less sanitized historical understanding. However, my wife would thoroughly disagree with this approach she feels that such past blemishes should just be ignored. The problem is striking the right balance and the right timing. My guess would be that it should not be done in Sunday School, but rather in Priesthood, Relief Society, and possibly Seminary or Institute. There is a lot of unnecessary pablum recitation in Seminary and Institute that might be replaced with a very well written script. Unfortunately, I am not at all convinced that the persons writing the manuals have the requisite skills to write the script -- quite frankly a lot of the manual writing is pretty darn awful.

My friend after long years of experience I can assure you there is no way to teach the "hidden" history that would satisfy everyone. Those that hear it now and leave would still do so.

Posted

There is a lot of unnecessary pablum recitation in Seminary and Institute that might be replaced with a very well written script. Unfortunately, I am not at all convinced that the persons writing the manuals have the requisite skills to write the script -- quite frankly a lot of the manual writing is pretty darn awful.

It is a shame, imo, that so much effort was put into producing stuff like Johnny Lingo that has stuck in everyone's memory (even those of us who have never seen it) for some reason and not into historical videos that could have been used to teach from an informed and nuanced position even if the teacher wasn't that up on historical stuff.
Posted

One can understand it if the paradigm they are coming from is that they weren't told....

I used to be shocked by people not knowing about Joseph's plural marriage (polyandry is in a different category), but the numbers who have claimed to be are so high now I am not shocked anymore but just accept it as typical...though I am still dumbfounded that somehow it is not being picked up by just reading the D&C...though I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised about that as many haven't been that good of scripture readers no matter how much the Church has urged them to be.

I've come across some on this board that don't believe D&C 132 has anything to do with polygamy when it's right in the heading!
Posted

Is this a 100% truthful statement?

If you're being snarky....no I did not feel bad (evil). If you're asking honestly...I do feel sincere pain for what this young man is going through having gone through a similar faith crisis years ago. Despite what some here may think...losing ones faith and belief is perhaps the most painful experience one can have other than perhaps the death of a close friend or family member. The only positive is that once one works through the loss...life becomes amazing

Posted (edited)

If you're being snarky....no I did not feel bad (evil). If you're asking honestly...I do feel sincere pain for what this young man is going through having gone through a similar faith crisis years ago. Despite what some here may think...losing ones faith and belief is perhaps the most painful experience one can have other than perhaps the death of a close friend or family member. The only positive is that once one works through the loss...life becomes amazing

And it is really so unnecessary. By keeping focused on the important things, that testimony received from the Holy Ghost, all that could be avoided. Well most of it anyway.

Edited by ERayR
Posted

It is a shame, imo, that so much effort was put into producing stuff like Johnny Lingo that has stuck in everyone's memory (even those of us who have never seen it) for some reason and not into historical videos that could have been used to teach from an informed and nuanced position even if the teacher wasn't that up on historical stuff.

Well, I kind of like Johnny Lingo. I was thinking more of some of the obtuse questions and stuff which really insults the intelligence of teenagers and college students. And the "How does this make you feel..followed by something that you would have to be brain dead not to know the really superficial response that was being requested" type stuff.

Posted

And it is really so unnecessary. By keeping focused on the important things, that testimony received from the Holy Ghost, all that could be avoided. Well most of it anyway.

That's the problem, people feel they put too much faith in an institution run by men and not in God, atleast I did.

I feel cheated out of a belief system I'd have given my life for, even made promises to give everything for the institution. The institution may not have lied outright but the sin of omission could be close to it.

Posted (edited)

Thank you for verifying that you are a fraud and a transparent and not very bright one. If the mods want to ding me again for saying so so be it. That conversation did not take place between two real people. It is a perfect "compassionate" Antimormon fantasy. Please stop validating this weirdo by believing him.

"Lord, we thank thee for this Johnnie Cake and ask thee to send us something better so we can toss this one out."

Edited by The Nehor
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...