Some Mormons Search The Web And Find Doubt

[Calm]

Here a link to 340...I am confused as well:

[gree0232]

I'm not saying that they should apologise for mistakes individuals made but should apologise for say, correlating true history out of the curriculum, if indeed it once was there, atleast I believe someone mentioned Ensign articles, lesson manuals etc. But understand they have done an excellent job of that, with the Joseph Smith Papers, thanks to the late Larry H. Miller, who provided the funding for it. And I'm going to make a guess, that he thought it necessary for things to come out in public, maybe, emphasize maybe, because his own mother went through her own faith crisis.

Apologising through an article in the Ensign would be nice. Maybe have an article about reasons some doubt and it's not because they want to sin or have sinned. Just a simple squeezed in apology, that maybe even the TBM won't pick up but the hurt individual will. Not an apology like in the newsroom or something, or a press meeting, nothing like that.

That is exactly the point: The history of the church is not hidden or changed. The history of polygamy would be delivishly difficult to hide at any rate, and the sections in D&C remain unchanged. The documentation and early church history, inclusive of much acrimony, are stored in archives that anyone can get access to and 'discover the truth for themselves'.

The only valid complaint can be that, in modern ages, when so much is available online, that the church could be EVEN MORE transparent by placing the documents on line - which they dutifully have done.

Indeed, my experience with the whole polygamy discussion has been twofold (both before and after joining the church).

#1 - people 'outside' or even doubters inside, have used the polygamy issue as a means of smearing the church in declaration of their own 'righteousness'. Well, its far easier to call something wrong than it is to set policy and head into the correct wind if you will.

#2 - There is a distinct subset of people, both inside and outside the church who remain advocates of polygamy and routinely cite the LDS experience as an example of successful 'polygamy'. These same people tend to forget to examine the fLDS experience with polygamy and the obvious exploitation and 'exiles' that are numerous and plainly obvious.

In fact, IMHO, what is lacking in many who raise the issue of polygamy is a serious examination of the subject, the circumstances in which it works, and those in which it clearly does not. As we see in this thread, we have a real world, current occurring example of polygamy that has gotten zero actual examination: Islam.

One of the effects of polygamy was Osama Bin Laden, the result of one of the brood of off spring produced from multiple wives and showered in wealth. Is that worth examining?

Are the reasons for abandoning the practice as stated in our equally public historical documentation worth discussion? Or is it better to simply demand an apology for a problematic history that provides ample lessons about the perils of the course and the wisdom of abandoning it as the modern era has deemed in appropriate to grant women equal status?

[ERayR]

That is exactly the point: The history of the church is not hidden or changed. The history of polygamy would be delivishly difficult to hide at any rate, and the sections in D&C remain unchanged. The documentation and early church history, inclusive of much acrimony, are stored in archives that anyone can get access to and 'discover the truth for themselves'.

The only valid complaint can be that, in modern ages, when so much is available online, that the church could be EVEN MORE transparent by placing the documents on line - which they dutifully have done.

Indeed, my experience with the whole polygamy discussion has been twofold (both before and after joining the church).

#1 - people 'outside' or even doubters inside, have used the polygamy issue as a means of smearing the church in declaration of their own 'righteousness'. Well, its far easier to call something wrong than it is to set policy and head into the correct wind if you will.

#2 - There is a distinct subset of people, both inside and outside the church who remain advocates of polygamy and routinely cite the LDS experience as an example of successful 'polygamy'. These same people tend to forget to examine the fLDS experience with polygamy and the obvious exploitation and 'exiles' that are numerous and plainly obvious.

In fact, IMHO, what is lacking in many who raise the issue of polygamy is a serious examination of the subject, the circumstances in which it works, and those in which it clearly does not. As we see in this thread, we have a real world, current occurring example of polygamy that has gotten zero actual examination: Islam.

One of the effects of polygamy was Osama Bin Laden, the result of one of the brood of off spring produced from multiple wives and showered in wealth. Is that worth examining?

Are the reasons for abandoning the practice as stated in our equally public historical documentation worth discussion? Or is it better to simply demand an apology for a problematic history that provides ample lessons about the perils of the course and the wisdom of abandoning it as the modern era has deemed in appropriate to grant women equal status?

The real problem IMNSHO is the imposing of 21st century mores on 18th century people.

[Duncan]

It's okay, I don't think the church would ever apologise anyway. But know if it did, there'd be a lot of healing that could be gained by it.

what do you mean? apologize for who and for what?

[gree0232]

The real problem IMNSHO is the imposing of 21st century mores on 18th century people.

Sometimes, the basic summary makes the volumes previously seem entirely superfluous ;-)

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm not saying that they should apologise for mistakes individuals made but should apologise for say, correlating true history out of the curriculum, if indeed it once was there, atleast I believe someone mentioned Ensign articles, lesson manuals etc. But understand they have done an excellent job of that, with the Joseph Smith Papers, thanks to the late Larry H. Miller, who provided the funding for it. And I'm going to make a guess, that he thought it necessary for things to come out in public, maybe, emphasize maybe, because his own mother went through her own faith crisis.

Apologising through an article in the Ensign would be nice. Maybe have an article about reasons some doubt and it's not because they want to sin or have sinned. Just a simple squeezed in apology, that maybe even the TBM won't pick up but the hurt individual will. Not an apology like in the newsroom or something, or a press meeting, nothing like that.

Hi Tacenda,

I saw Larry Miller bear witness in detail back in 2010 (video shown after his death) as to why he made the effort to get the JSP project going. It was a very inspiring story with tremendous spiritual power, and he did not find it easy to get people on board. He had to sell the idea to the scholars and to Church officials. See the program at http://www.byutv.org/watch/0b1379b4-5a43-4d68-a8f3-a5b04aaa9313/the-joseph-smith-papers-season-finale . Miller begins telling his story about 7 - 8 minutes into the video.

Bob

[Robert F. Smith]

.............................................

#2 - There is a distinct subset of people, both inside and outside the church who remain advocates of polygamy and routinely cite the LDS experience as an example of successful 'polygamy'. These same people tend to forget to examine the fLDS experience with polygamy and the obvious exploitation and 'exiles' that are numerous and plainly obvious.

In fact, IMHO, what is lacking in many who raise the issue of polygamy is a serious examination of the subject, the circumstances in which it works, and those in which it clearly does not. As we see in this thread, we have a real world, current occurring example of polygamy that has gotten zero actual examination: Islam.

One of the effects of polygamy was Osama Bin Laden, the result of one of the brood of off spring produced from multiple wives and showered in wealth. Is that worth examining?

Are the reasons for abandoning the practice as stated in our equally public historical documentation worth discussion? Or is it better to simply demand an apology for a problematic history that provides ample lessons about the perils of the course and the wisdom of abandoning it as the modern era has deemed in appropriate to grant women equal status?

Rather than recklessly blaming Al Qaida and the FLDS on polygyny and wealth, one might very well examine what actually led to both of those dysfunctional groups, dysfunctions which are also characteristic of non-polygynous groups.

As for understanding LDS polygyny, you probably ought to read the factual accounts by responsible scholars:

Embry, Jessie L., “A History of Polygamy in Utah,” in A. Powell, ed., Utah History Encyclopedia (SLC: Univ. of Utah Press, 1994); has a good bibliography; online at http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/UHEindex.html , and http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/p/POLYGAMY.html .

Embry, Jessie L., Mormon Polygamous Families: Life in the Principle (SLC: Kofford Books, 2008).

Brown, Samuel M., In Heaven as It Is on Earth:Joseph Smith and the Early Mormon Conquest of Death (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).

[thatjimguy]

I think the worst part is leaders are asking him to keep it quiet. Being a leader himself, I would think he would be a moral man and I am not surprised he would have a problem with that. It makes me a little more convinced that no man should hold any office under authority of God. They all get corrupt, even when they may mean well.

[gree0232]

Gree, if you really want to discuss the impact of polygyny on Bin Laden I suggest you open a new thread. I give it about 3 hours before it's locked.

It's one of the most ridiculous 'drivers analyses' I've come across.

Not really - it was merely meant as a demonstration of the 'supporters' of polygamy and how they tend to downplay the obvious negative effects of the practice.

The larger point is exactly what the church states: "The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see2 Samuel 12:7–8 and Jacob 2:27, 30)."

The point is that of wisdom, that we seek knowledge not to justify our own very often selfish ends (and I am no less guilty of that than any man), but wisdom. In context and circumstance, many things that are proper would not be proper in others. As a veteran, I can tell you plainly that the behavior of the battlefield, for example, would not be something that would be appropriate off the battlefield.

Polygamy is a similar practice, at certain times NECESSARY, but, using the standard above, were I to attempt to advocate the necessary behavior of the battlefield in the context of normal life - I would correctly be branded an extremist and needlessly violent. Those who advocate polygamy openly in these days do so, IMO, by deliberately avoiding the wise call to consider context in application, and just as demanding violence in a movie theater based on my battle experience would be selfish in nature, so to do I believe that this who advocate polygamy are selfish in their advocacy ... not the least of which is because it ignores that which is central to our faith: Christ.

The final point of that is that the church need not 'apologize' for having been placed in circumstances of persecution and inequity before the law of our Nation, but it does need to explain why such a potentially dangerous decision was made ... and then stopped. I believe they have done so, and continue to do so.

That a high ranking leader would not know this? But a convert to the church of just a few years would ... strikes me as extremely odd.

[canard78]

Not really - it was merely meant as a demonstration of the 'supporters' of polygamy and how they tend to downplay the obvious negative effects of the practice.

The larger point is exactly what the church states: "The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see2 Samuel 12:7–8 and Jacob 2:27, 30)."

Our own church leaders have made the statement that Mohammed was inspired by God. The sanction for polygyny comes from the Koran. Polygyny in Islam may well be sanctioned by God. Mormon doctrine does not teach that only Mormon's receive God's will and word.

The point is that of wisdom, that we seek knowledge not to justify our own very often selfish ends (and I am no less guilty of that than any man), but wisdom. In context and circumstance, many things that are proper would not be proper in others. As a veteran, I can tell you plainly that the behavior of the battlefield, for example, would not be something that would be appropriate off the battlefield.

Polygamy is a similar practice, at certain times NECESSARY, but, using the standard above, were I to attempt to advocate the necessary behavior of the battlefield in the context of normal life - I would correctly be branded an extremist and needlessly violent. Those who advocate polygamy openly in these days do so, IMO, by deliberately avoiding the wise call to consider context in application, and just as demanding violence in a movie theater based on my battle experience would be selfish in nature, so to do I believe that this who advocate polygamy are selfish in their advocacy ... not the least of which is because it ignores that which is central to our faith: Christ.

The final point of that is that the church need not 'apologize' for having been placed in circumstances of persecution and inequity before the law of our Nation, but it does need to explain why such a potentially dangerous decision was made ... and then stopped. I believe they have done so, and continue to do so.

That a high ranking leader would not know this? But a convert to the church of just a few years would ... strikes me as extremely odd.

I've listened to an interview with the journalist. It was the full detail and the way that Joseph practiced polygamy that came as the main shock to Mattsson. Not the simple fact that our church had polygamy at all in the past.

[gree0232]

Our own church leaders have made the statement that Mohammed was inspired by God. The sanction for polygyny comes from the Koran. Polygyny in Islam may well be sanctioned by God. Mormon doctrine does not teach that only Mormon's receive God's will and word.

I've listened to an interview with the journalist. It was the full detail and the way that Joseph practiced polygamy that came as the main shock to Mattsson. Not the simple fact that our church had polygamy at all in the past.

None of that has anything whatsoever to do with the reality of the circumstances that Bin Laden, or indeed the fLDS church, are raised and the risks that this imposes of the disaffected results in children. Indeed, that is EXACTLY what I claim, that those who advocate polygamy, tend to ignore the downside of the practice ... a downside obvious enough that the church abandoned it with divine purpose, leaving a prophetic warning of what would happen to those who ignored his guidance ... a prophecy coming unerringly true for the fLDS church.

Again, I find it nearly impossible that Mattsson, after years a high ranking church leader, would be ignorant of what Joseph Smith did. It would be like claiming as a convert that I was unaware that Solomon was a polygamist ... one who lost his wisdom by praying to a false God to appease one of his wives.

Is the validity of Heavenly Father's millenia long story made worthless by that admission?

Again, how do I know this as a covert of three years, but not an area authority?

IMHO, Mattsson went looking for an excuse, and we can all find an excuse to rationalize. Its a human thing, not a polygamy thing at all.

[canard78]

None of that has anything whatsoever to do with the reality of the circumstances that Bin Laden, or indeed the fLDS church, are raised and the risks that this imposes of the disaffected results in children. Indeed, that is EXACTLY what I claim, that those who advocate polygamy, tend to ignore the downside of the practice ... a downside obvious enough that the church abandoned it with divine purpose, leaving a prophetic warning of what would happen to those who ignored his guidance ... a prophecy coming unerringly true for the fLDS church.

I've no interest in discussing bin laden's influences. Like I said, open a thread if it interests you. There will be others willing to discuss it.

Again, I find it nearly impossible that Mattsson, after years a high ranking church leader, would be ignorant of what Joseph Smith did. It would be like claiming as a convert that I was unaware that Solomon was a polygamist ... one who lost his wisdom by praying to a false God to appease one of his wives.

Is the validity of Heavenly Father's millenia long story made worthless by that admission?

Again, how do I know this as a covert of three years, but not an area authority?

IMHO, Mattsson went looking for an excuse, and we can all find an excuse to rationalize. Its a human thing, not a polygamy thing at all.

"Nearly impossible." So not impossible then?

So to add to our list of disparaging comments about Mattsson from those unwilling to simply accept him at face value is "he was looking for an excuse."

An excuse for what?

If he already knew about Joseph's polygamy and wanted to 'torch' the church there are far "worse" things in our history to use as the headline reason for doubting.

If Joseph's polygamy is such common knowledge why do both Bushman and Turley say that many members do not know about it? So many that it would even surprise them. They are two of the most eminent LDS historians and who probably speak to far more members about this than the rest of us combined.

On Jeff Lindsay's excellent blog (one where he did not have to cast asspertions to address the story) a comment showed that GAs are not aware of our whole history:

In February, two historians with the JSP project came to our Davis County, Utah ward (certainly not Sweden) and gave a fireside on some of the more interesting things they have found. One of the historian/editors told us that there is no evidence that the golden plates were translated using any other method than the peep stones, When he taught that to his BYU class last semester, he received a VERY angry telephone call from one of the general authorities. The general authority, calling from SLC, told him to stop teaching lies and falsehoods to his granddaughter who was in that class, This historian was then faced with the awkward job of telling the GA the truth.

Also, he mentioned to us that he has two seminary teachers in his ward along the wasatch front. Seminary teachers, one would think, should know a lot about the church. It wasn't until the historian recently told them, that either of these two knew that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy,

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2013/07/weighing-mormonism-thoughts-for-mormon.html?m=1

[gree0232]

I've no interest in discussing bin laden's influences. Like I said, open a thread if it interests you. There will be others willing to discuss it.

"Nearly impossible." So not impossible then?

So to add to our list of disparaging comments about Mattsson from those unwilling to simply accept him at face value is "he was looking for an excuse."

An excuse for what?

If he already knew about Joseph's polygamy and wanted to 'torch' the church there are far "worse" things in our history to use as the headline reason for doubting.

If Joseph's polygamy is such common knowledge why do both Bushman and Turley say that many members do not know about it? So many that it would even surprise them. They are two of the most eminent LDS historians and who probably speak to far more members about this than the rest of us combined.

On Jeff Lindsay's excellent blog (one where he did not have to cast asspertions to address the story) a comment showed that GAs are not aware of our whole history:

http://mormanity.blo...mormon.html?m=1

Brother, are you attempting to play deliberately coy? There is a little principle called Occam's Razor that has a thing or two to say about the probability, and when your pretense rests upon the assumption that something is 'nearly' impossible, and that this somehow therefore makes it 'likely' is disingenuous at best.

Statistical impossibility. Imagine filling a dump truck with over 1 million fair dice (six-sided, weight evenly-distributed). Now imagine dumping all those dice on a huge Monopoly board. Would it be impossible for all 1 mission dice to turn up as ones? In a sense, YES. We call this a statistical impossibility because it is so improbable, that in all practical terms, it is impossible. Notice that is a subjective definition -- there is no objectively defined point where something is just "very improbable" then becomes statistically impossible. The second law of thermodynamics falls into this category. While we say that it is impossible that all the oxygen molecules in the room you are in right now will spontaneously collect in one corner of the room, causing you to die of hypoxia, it is more precisely statistically impossible, or very, very improbable.

http://www.relationshipwithreason.com/articles/philosophy/4-impossible

The idea that the LDS church hide its past on polygamy and its practice to the point where honest men where confounded and unable to find it, when its referenced in our scripture no less, would fall into the statistically impossible category, and the intent of leaving in the 'nearly' portion of the statement was in line with the understanding above.

Again, it is NEARLY impossible, and likely STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, that an area authority had NO IDEA that polygamy took place or the particulars of its practice - and then was left bereft of understanding or explanation - even as the church has taken great pains to make open the exact narrative of what happened and why - including publishing it on the internet.

Going back to Occam's Razor, its far more likely that the Mattson encountered several reasons that caste doubt on his belief, as it did with say ... Oliver Cowdry ... who interestingly enough, was one of the witnesses of the Golden Plates, a story that, despite his troubles with the church, he never disavowed ...

Strangely, historians, once again despite its prominent featuring in our scripture, could find absolutely no evidence of this or the other witnesses to the plates ... Ergo, we can either conclude that there is no Mormon scripture, or that the 'historians' in question are simply looking to undermine the church.

Now what would your intent be by dumping on doubt and deliberately avoiding what even recent converts know to be church doctrine?

Interestingly enough, Occam's Razor would offer some insights into what those motivations might be as well. I don;t think it takes too much to figure out that someone has an agenda when they ignore even the obvious ... like being shocked that the LDS church has a history with polygamy ... and because the entire history of polygamy is problematic at best ... even more shocked that the church's history with polygamy raised enough doubts that it was quashed by divine guidance and now an excommunicable offense.

Of course, Area Authorities, who would over see these discipline processes, are of course, absolutely ignorant of why such a process is in place?

And I had no idea that, as a uniformed Soldier, the Taliban would shoot at me in Afghanistan. No idea. Shocking!

Now, what are chances that this would be a true statement? And Mattson's? I didn't know what my own church taught? Even as I lead it?

Right.

Occam's razor. You decide.

[gree0232]

BTW - I do love the comments about questioning Mattson as being automatically disparaging, and, of course, anyone who blindly accepts him as a Prophet is to be showered in praise of course?

And the intent is, obviously, a merit based examinations of his claim?

Again, I would love to hear how an Area Authority, who would know that advocating polygamy was an excommunicable offense, but could not figure out why? Why would the church take the time to teach me about it as a complete stranger, and point me in the direction of the documents in question to see for myself? But not one of their own? And an area authority with access to the internet could find the doubts, but could not find ANYTHING else? He was google impaired ... but ONLY on the subject of the LDS narrative regarding polygamy ... eh?

Obviously, such questions are needlessly disparaging and meant only to make Mattson, and presumably his supporters, feel bad? Anyone who kicks the church is a 'good' guy, however implausible the basis of the kicking may be?

Interesting point of view. Not one I ascribe to though.

Edited July 29, 2013 by gree0232

[canard78]

Brother, are you attempting to play deliberately coy? There is a little principle called Occam's Razor

-SNIP-

Again, it is NEARLY impossible, and likely STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, that an area authority had NO IDEA that polygamy took place or the particulars of its practice - and then was left bereft of understanding or explanation - even as the church has taken great pains to make open the exact narrative of what happened and why - including publishing it on the internet.

Going back to Occam's Razor, its far more likely that the Mattson encountered several reasons that caste doubt on his belief, as it did with say ... Oliver Cowdry ... who interestingly enough, was one of the witnesses of the Golden Plates, a story that, despite his troubles with the church, he never disavowed ...

Strangely, historians, once again despite its prominent featuring in our scripture, could find absolutely no evidence of this or the other witnesses to the plates ... Ergo, we can either conclude that there is no Mormon scripture, or that the 'historians' in question are simply looking to undermine the church.

Now what would your intent be by dumping on doubt and deliberately avoiding what even recent converts know to be church doctrine?

-snip-

Now, what are chances that this would be a true statement? And Mattson's? I didn't know what my own church taught? Even as I lead it?

Right.

Occam's razor. You decide.

I wasn't being coy, probably sarcastic. I know plenty about Occam's razor. It doesn't apply to Mattsson as:

a) We don't know the probability of an Area 70 knowing the full detail of Joseph's polygamy.

b) We don't know what aspect of Joseph's polygamy Mattsson was surprised by.

c) We do know that Bushman and Turley have said that many members have no awareness at all of Joseph's polygamy so we can't call Mattson's claimed unawareness a statistical impossibility.

d) What you know and the source of your knowledge has absolutely no bearing on what Mattsson knows. You have different lives and information sources.

e) The Internet and access to information has come a long way since 2005 (when he started asking questions). No Facebook, blogging still niche, YouTube in its first year, Wikipedia had under 500k articles. If you joined a few years ago your information access was very different.

f) Mattsson was not a full-time general authority. He was similar to a stake president but with a different set of responsibities. He went round stakes doing conferences and having meetings while continuing to run his business in the week. Do you presume all 3,000 stake presidents also know the full story of Joseph's polygamy? I doubt it.

By the way. If you want to emphasise something on a forum it's usually better to underline or make it bold. Using CAPS makes it look like YOU ARE SHOUTING AT ME. Apologies if that makes me a 'nanny.'

[Tacenda]

that's the problem! haha! men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's or our transgression, I wouldn't apologize for any misdeed of anyone I never met, especially if I don't know or care about their wrong doings, why should I apologize for Joseph Smith or he for me? if anyone's sins need apologizing for me and by whom it's mine and for me

Why were the blacks punished for Cain's transgressions then?

[Tacenda]

what do you mean? apologize for who and for what?

Have you read through the thread? Please read or scan my posts below for the answers.

#363, #365, #367, #369, #371, #374

[ERayR]

Why were the blacks punished for Cain's transgressions then?

They weren't. According to that theory they were less than valiant in the premortal existence and were assigned to be Cains decedents. Not to punish them for what Cain did but for what they did or didn't do.

[ERayR]

Correct church history? No, correct methods of teaching church history in our curriculum. Do you read my words or words you think I'm saying? I'm saying acknowledge that there was a problem in portraying our history like it happened. I can't wait to read your comment back on this, and am curious how you might ignore what I'm truly saying again. Do you know why there are so many leaving? One big reason is to what I've been referring to and the request for acknowledgement from the leaders would hopefully lead to change for future generations. I don't believe I'm alone in this. Read the Givens comments also.

No in reality the only problem is portraying it they way critics and antis think it should be portrayed.

[rockpond]

No in reality the only problem is portraying it they way critics and antis think it should be portrayed.

Except the "critics" (as exemplified by Mattson) are now actively serving, tithe-paying, recommend-holding members & leaders in the church. I don't see that just brushing us off as "critics and antis" is very productive.

[Bob Crockett]

Occam's Razor

Run like hell when somebody relies upon this old chestnut. Or the word "paradigm,". or "appeal to authority," or such other nonsense.

don;t think it takes too much to figure out that someone has an agenda when they ignore even the obvious

Or that somebody has "an agenda." Everybody has an agenda; Mattison does, his leaders so; I do; you do.

The second law of thermodynamics

Or this!

I think it is just reasonable to say that Mattison's claims that he doesn't know about Joseph Smith's polygamy just means that he doesn't read for leisure, inspiration or information unrelated to work or his church calling, or that he ever attended Seminary or Institute. It is possible that an Area 70 could be such a person. I know of some bishops and stake presidents that are not well-read. Heck, I know a branch president who is an illegal alien; I doubt he knows this stuff.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[cinepro]

Again, I find it nearly impossible that Mattsson, after years a high ranking church leader, would be ignorant of what Joseph Smith did. It would be like claiming as a convert that I was unaware that Solomon was a polygamist ... one who lost his wisdom by praying to a false God to appease one of his wives.

As Canard, myself and others have pointed out, the NYT article was poorly worded. It wasn't the fact that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy that surprised Mattsson and others. It was the way he practiced it.

There are some very specific details of the practice in Nauvoo that some members find disturbing, and which the Church does not directly acknowledge in its publications.

You can insist that they shouldn't be disturbed by this information, but if your objective is to help these members overcome their concerns and maintain continued faith in the gospel and activity in the Church, you need to make sure that your response is working towards that goal.

Edited July 29, 2013 by cinepro

[Calm]

It's one of the most ridiculous 'drivers analyses' I've come across.

I accidentally gave it a rep too....he's said other things I wouldn't mind repping, but this is too much speculation and off topic imo for me to feel comfortable with it... Edited July 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I think the worst part is leaders are asking him to keep it quiet.

I think that would depend on why they asked him...

[Calm]

Run like hell when somebody relies upon this old chestnut. Or the word "paradigm,". or "appeal to authority," or such other nonsense.

Or that somebody has "an agenda." Everybody has an agenda; Mattison does, his leaders so; I do; you do.

Or this!

I think it is just reasonable to say that Mattison's claims that he doesn't know about Joseph Smith's polygamy just means that he doesn't read for leisure, inspiration or information unrelated to work or his church calling, or that he ever attended Seminary or Institute. It is possible that an Area 70 could be such a person. I know of some bishops and stake presidents that are not well-read. Heck, I know a branch president who is an illegal alien; I doubt he knows this stuff.

I couldn't list all of the names of Joseph's wives and specify which were married civilly to other men while sealed to him for eternity. It would not surprise me in the least that someone might be aware of his plural marriages without knowing ages and circumstances of why he married each wife...the reasons not apparently being the same nor were they just 'more like Emma' that probably many have assumed.