Some Mormons Search The Web And Find Doubt

[Storm Rider]

All of these questions and feigned surprise that individuals from all walks of life can doubt or can experience a crisis of faith never ceases to surprise me. I strongly suspect that if these same individuals were alive during the time of the Savior they would also doubt. Jesus walked among mankind, he expounded and scripture, performed miracles, prophesied of his eventual sacrifice and death. They sat at the feet of the Master and still crucified him. I have never perceived those who crucified Jesus as particularly evil or hardheaded; they were just simple humans who never chose to listen to the Spirit. Their faith was strictly in the arm of flesh and they could not conceive of this mere carpenter's son as being anything but a fraud. Why should we be surprised that there are individuals today that doubt, ignore all evidence that might lead to faith; or who once found the faith, but have since cast it aside because of a new found faith in their own intelligence or the supposed brilliance of other humans? There is nothing happening that is unique or new; this is just a repetition of what has always been.

[Calm]

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.

There are some that are probably just now being able to be seriously examined in detail accurately as there is new stuff in my understanding in Brian Hales' new released three volume work on Polygamy (both polygyny and polyandry).

[thesometimesaint]

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

I have no idea as to why any living adult memebrer of the Church doesn't know about polygamy. D&C 132 has been on our books for better than 100 years now.

[cinepro]

All of these questions and feigned surprise that individuals from all walks of life can doubt or can experience a crisis of faith never ceases to surprise me. I strongly suspect that if these same individuals were alive during the time of the Savior they would also doubt. Jesus walked among mankind, he expounded and scripture, performed miracles, prophesied of his eventual sacrifice and death.

I suspect if you went back with your New Testament/LDS view of the Savior and were able to walk with him and "sit at his feet", you'd experience a little bit of doubt yourself.

[Calm]

they were just simple humans who never chose to listen to the Spirit. Their faith was strictly in the arm of flesh and they could not conceive of this mere carpenter's son as being anything but a fraud. Why should we be surprised that there are individuals today that doubt, ignore all evidence that might lead to faith; or who once found the faith, but have since cast it aside because of a new found faith in their own intelligence or the supposed brilliance of other humans?

Are you saying this is Mattsson or someone else? Because if the first I would highly debate it with you and my evidence would be among other things this:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2004/12/book-of-mormon-principles-how-could-i-testify?lang=eng

[Peppermint Patty]

I have no idea as to why any living adult memebrer of the Church doesn't know about polygamy. D&C 132 has been on our books for better than 100 years now.

I'm pretty sure most LDS are aware of polygamy being practiced in the past. I'm pretty sure most LDS are not aware of the details, which can be troublesome for many. I'm still having some heartburn over letters, that I read years ago, that Joseph Smith wrote to several women requesting that they enter into marriage with Joseph.

[Duncan]

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

that's an interpretation and not necessarily a true one either. Blacks have been persecuted as were so many others in earth history

[cinepro]

I'm pretty sure most LDS are aware of polygamy being practiced in the past. I'm pretty sure most LDS are not aware of the details, which can be troublesome for many. I'm still having some heartburn over letters, that I read years ago, that Joseph Smith wrote to several women requesting that they enter into marriage with Joseph.

Here's an interesting example of how the Church and its members present polygamy to the world:

The main reason the Church practiced polygamy is because God commanded it at the time. I have wondered why a lot and as I have thought about it I have determined that God commanded this because of the large number of widows and families with single parents. Due to persecutions, mob violence, and war, many children lost their fathers or mothers. More than anything, this practice was to support these families giving food, shelter, and parental love and teaching. This is not the first time in the history of this world that the Church practiced polygamy and in all cases, the moment it is no longer necessary, God tells us to stop. This belief is supported by the official statement from the Church "The Lord’s law of marriage is monogamy unless he commands otherwise to help establish the House of Israel"

- Jordan

http://mormon.org/faq/plural-marriage

What are the chances of a member of the Church submitting an answer that mentions polyandry, Emma not knowing about many of the marriages, that young age of some of the sealings, etc. and having it approved?

Edited July 29, 2013 by cinepro

[canard78]

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.

But not a theory you believe? A theory that has been completely refuted.

Tacenda, they were not punished for Adams transgressions. They were restricted due to church leaders' prejudice.

[canard78]

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

I've read plenty of history on (old) FARMS, blacklds.org and FAIR that has disturbed me. Some LDS history needs no 'anti' spin to make me feel sick to the stomach.

Plenty of people's faith crisis has started with Rough Stone Rolling. Is Bushman a critic or an anti, I can't work out which?

[canard78]

Here's an interesting example of how the Church and its members present polygamy to the world:

What are the chances of a member of the Church submitting an answer that mentions polyandry, Emma not knowing about many of the marriages, that young age of some of the sealings, etc. and having it approved?

The new search provides a more safe and Church-specific search experience than Google, said Brother Ward. When you search from Google’s website, the results you get back may or may not be official content, he explained. Some results might be links to members’ personal blogs or even anti-Church sites.

The LDS.org search, however, only returns links to official Church-approved content that is currently available on LDS.org and other Church websites...

In other words, parents won’t need to worry that they or their children might stumble onto inappropriate content listed in other search engine results.

The new official search of all LDS sites is gives one result for a guy who mentions the word (in a list) as one of his answers on Mormon.org.

http://www.lds.org/search?q=Polyandry&domains=all〈=eng

Some keep saying that there are church resources available for polyandry: BYU and FAIR, because it's an historical issue, not a religious issue. But the new search of all safe sites seems to ignore this.

Edit:

His answer has been removed from Mormon.org.

Interesting that the search for polyandry offered D&C 132:51 as a result (specifically only that verse):

51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

Edited July 29, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

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.

Thanks. I mentioned seer stones in passing to a former stake president. He looked quizzical and said he'd only heard of Joseph rebuking Orem about it. I quickly backed off.

I'm not aware that a qualification for stake president or Area Seventy is a history course.

[canard78]

All of these questions and feigned surprise that individuals from all walks of life can doubt or can experience a crisis of faith never ceases to surprise me. I strongly suspect that if these same individuals were alive during the time of the Savior they would also doubt. Jesus walked among mankind, he expounded and scripture, performed miracles, prophesied of his eventual sacrifice and death. They sat at the feet of the Master and still crucified him. I have never perceived those who crucified Jesus as particularly evil or hardheaded; they were just simple humans who never chose to listen to the Spirit. Their faith was strictly in the arm of flesh and they could not conceive of this mere carpenter's son as being anything but a fraud. Why should we be surprised that there are individuals today that doubt, ignore all evidence that might lead to faith; or who once found the faith, but have since cast it aside because of a new found faith in their own intelligence or the supposed brilliance of other humans? There is nothing happening that is unique or new; this is just a repetition of what has always been.

This is nonsense. Christ is my chief cornerstone. Whatever "house of faith" I build on that cornerstone is less important than whether Christ is the foundation.

My old "house of faith" (the one built with bricks of apostles/scripture etc) has tumbled in the "earthquake" of church history. But my foundation of Christ is strong enough that I am able to create a new "house of faith" on it. Some of the bricks I'm using are the same as before. Some have been discarded and some are new.

I like my new house all the more.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm pretty sure most LDS are aware of polygamy being practiced in the past. I'm pretty sure most LDS are not aware of the details, which can be troublesome for many. I'm still having some heartburn over letters, that I read years ago, that Joseph Smith wrote to several women requesting that they enter into marriage with Joseph.

Reading love letter's from someone's that is long dead, and/or were never intended for public forum, smacks to me as a bit voyueristic.

As to JS we just don't know to what extent the Sealings permitted, but there is no proof that sexual relations were permitted. With BY OTOH there is no such question. Add in that JS was also Sealed to men, and the idea of sexual relations becomes problematic.

All that being said I'm glad we're where it is only family members we can Sealed to each other, and none but our living spouse has marriage rights to.

[canard78]

Are you saying this is Mattsson or someone else? Because if the first I would highly debate it with you and my evidence would be among other things this:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2004/12/book-of-mormon-principles-how-could-i-testify?lang=eng

Thank you Cal.

I sometimes wonder whether Storm Rider enjoys baiting. It seems to be a regular posting approach.

[canard78]

I have no idea as to why any living adult memebrer of the Church doesn't know about polygamy. D&C 132 has been on our books for better than 100 years now.

I have answered this one so many times. 132 shows the doctrine of polygamy but not the manner of its practice and says nothing about polyandry.

It's the discovery of the manner of Joseph's practice of it that Mattsson (and I) find most unsettling.

[Nemesis]

ok this thread is all over the place. Thread Closed there has already been several godwin's law violations.

Nemesis