Is The Church Being Completely Honest?

[Kevin Christensen]

I've read that book.  It is fascinating.   As I understand it, it was dictated by him.   Surely there are many faith promoting sources that are written by clerks on behalf of leaders.  Does that in itself make them unreliable?

Just trying to understand why you would think it is unreliable based on what you have written

See Turley's discussion of the Lee Confessions here:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=7911

Nibley's "Is there a Danite in the House?" section of Sounding Brass as well.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1116&index=16

FWIW

Kevin Christernsen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Abulafia]

See Turley's discussion of the Lee Confessions here:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=7911

Nibley's "Is there a Danite in the House?" section of Sounding Brass as well.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1116&index=16

FWIW

Kevin Christernsen

Pittsburgh, PA

Thankyou. Will check the links.

[cdowis]

I've read that book.  It is fascinating.   As I understand it, it was dictated by him.   Surely there are many faith promoting sources that are written by clerks on behalf of leaders.  Does that in itself make them unreliable?

Just trying to understand why you would think it is unreliable based on what you have written

 

As I remember it was written by his lawyer.  Lee died before it was published and there is some indication that there were "enhancements" to Lee's statements.  It is unreliable because there is no way to authenticate what Lee actually dictated.

 

On a CFR, the one making the assertion has the burden to verify his sources and I am calling him out.

Edited March 26, 2014 by cdowis

[JLHPROF]

 

On a CFR, the one making the assertion has the burden to verify his sources and I am calling him out.

 

The only board guideline on CFR prohibits: "Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements"

 

I provided 5 references to the principle of the importance placed by early Church members on civil marriages in the early days of the Church.  If you felt some weren't "appropriate" that's your right and you can report me, but I provided sufficient references to satisfy a CFR under the board guidelines.

 

If you are looking for absolute proof I suggest you ask Joseph and his 30+ wives.

[JLHPROF]

 

JS was sealed to married women and did not consider it necessary for them to have  a divorce-- because It was a sealing,  for eternity only.

 

 

My turn - CFR that there were actually eternity only sealings (using a different ceremony than our current temple marriage ceremony).  And a reference to being sealed for eternity doesn't qualify unless it specifies only eternity (no time element) because I can say my wife and I are sealed for eternity (and we're sealed for time as well whether I mention it or not).

 

Or if you can't provide that, then please CFR that the sealings Joseph & the 30+ women went through were not marriages, because when I read sealing ceremony I'm pretty sure the man and woman are pronounced husband and wife.

 

I'll take either.

[thatjimguy]

The answers are:

 

1) JS translated with both the Urim and Thummim and the seer stone.

2) Both methods are by the gift and power of God.

3) Pictures of JS translating with the U&T are just as peculiar as pictures of JS translating with the seer stone to someone seeing them for the first time.  However, we've gotten used to the one so that only the second looks peculiar, Enemies of the Church like to capitalize on and emphasize this.

 

Said 45 year old person is too far gone by the time he or she gets to the point of heeding anti Mormon material because by then one has stopped being rational and reasonable.

 

I'm surprised that Givens would have such difficulty understanding this.

 

Going to disagree with this because when you start to distrust the original sources for truth, is it natural to look elsewhere. There is an older LDS bishop across the seas somewhere because of these things that made him question that he did not hear before. These people never stopped being rational and reasonable.

[ERayR]

Is The Church Being Completely Honest?

Of course not.  Church leadership is a couple of hundred old guys spending all their waking hours thinking of ways to deceive the rest of us.  (tongue planted firmly in cheek)

[JLHPROF]

Is The Church Being Completely Honest?

Of course not.  Church leadership is a couple of hundred old guys spending all their waking hours thinking of ways to deceive the rest of us.  (tongue planted firmly in cheek)

 

 

Tongue in cheek...now you know it's all about how you phrase things.  The more correct phrasing would be:

"Church leadership is a couple of hundred old guys spending all their waking hours thinking of ways to build membership, retention, and activity numbers even if that requires some mild bending or hiding of truth."

[cdowis]

My turn - CFR that there were actually eternity only sealings (using a different ceremony than our current temple marriage ceremony).  

 

Yawn.

 

My source is yourself.  I quote your own source -- that these sealings were done without a marriage license, which would be a legal requirement for a temporal marriage.  A temporal marriage is a legal event, requiring that license, and JS correctly indicated that a marriage license is unnecessary for a sealing.  A temporal marriage is "til death do us part".  Until recently a temporal marriage could be performed, under special circumstances, in the temple (my mother-in-law had such a marriage) and is performed for TIME only, my friend.

 

I am not going to argue the details with you.

Edited March 27, 2014 by cdowis

[JLHPROF]

I am not going to argue the details with you.

 

CFR x 2 not met.  But I agree with you.  It's becoming

[Stone holm]

Well, you have to put some qualifiers on that... The Church does not "highly esteem" gay marriages or polygamous marriages. The Church highly esteems all one man, one woman marriages. And if you are a church member, it is only highly esteemed when accompanied by a sealing. And if you are a church member in the United States the sealing must also be the civil marriage or else you are definitely not "highly esteemed".

Just to be clear.

Technically, even during periods where The Lord authorizes polygamy the marriage is still between one man and one woman, to my knowledge, which is sometimes faulty, the Church has never authorized group marriages.

[martin h]

I hear the argument that all of the issues that trouble members have long been available through church publications (as expressed above). Can you point to an official discussion on Joseph Smith's marrying the wives of other church leaders? I have even talked to 2 General Authorities about it and have not been directed an official church publication addressing that issue.

[JLHPROF]

I hear the argument that all of the issues that trouble members have long been available through church publications (as expressed above). Can you point to an official discussion on Joseph Smith's marrying the wives of other church leaders? I have even talked to 2 General Authorities about it and have not been directed an official church publication addressing that issue.

 

As I'm sure you're aware, to the best of my knowledge the Church has never addressed the topic of polyandry in an official publication.

 

And something that might suprise other board regulars, I don't think they should except in scholarly publications.  This is an example of something that the Church should address and take an official position on, but it is not a topic for the Sunday School manual.  At least that's my opinion.

 

The doctrines behind Joseph's living of polyandry are definitely complex, controversial, and no longer practiced or taught.  So while I don't think it should be hidden from members there really is no benefit in bringing it up to those who are unlikely to put the study and prayer into understanding it.  Those who are dedicated enough to the gospel to give it real thought can find all the information in reliable, generally unbiased, history books.