Daniel Peterson Rips It Up

[Nemesis]

Get on topic

[ERayR]

How about this...

The evidence is pretty conclusive that Joseph Smith was untruthful about his practice of polygamy.

 

Tar and feathers are hard and painful to remove and he had been through that before.

[Brian 2.0]

Get on topic

I didn't think were off topic... we're talking about the comments relating to Daniel Peterson "ripping it up"... but then I re-read the OP and I guess we should only be talking about horse bones.

[Calm]

How about this...The evidence is pretty conclusive that Joseph Smith was untruthful about his practice of polygamy.

I don't have a problem with it. I don't even have a problem with him sleeping with his polyandrous wives. I do feel uncomfortable about the two youngest, but Helen makes it clear she was post puberty (she looked older than her age) and I realize it is a presentism issue I have..my problem, not theirs.

Add-on: I think it extremely unlike based on what Helen says that there was sex, and the lack of children with anyone but Emmaand the 11 kids with her seems to indicate if there was any with other wives it was uncommon.

You will have to ask those who believe he was not involved in plural marriage or was just sealed for eternity, not time with his wives, if what you wrote is justified in their minds.

Edited April 11, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Perhaps he saw it mentioned on your blog. You may be dealing with another stalker. Although you'll be able to recognize him after this.

He found out by hearing it discussed on the exmo boards where a exmo friend of a friend of Dan's mentioned he had heard it (sounds like it was a general announcement to the ward).

[Scott Lloyd]

He found out by hearing it discussed on the exmo boards where a exmo friend of a friend of Dan's mentioned he had heard it (sounds like it was a general announcement to the ward).

OK.

 

I know that Dan sometimes gives notices of upcoming speaking engagements. I thought this might have been one of them.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't really much care whether Joseph was having sex with his plural wives.

 

But he's often portrayed as living in essentially a perpetual orgy, and the distinct shortage of non-Emma-line offspring seems to make that very, very doubtful.

 

I was perhaps a bit sloppy in the way I phrased my answer.  I felt slightly awkward, frankly, being required to discuss such things in front of a bunch of fourteen-year-old boys and girls, and was trying not to go too far.  I was particularly focused on casting doubt on the accusation that Joseph was molesting very young girls.

Dealing with an ambush is challenging under any circumstance.

 

I think you came through it very well.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Anteojito]

I don't know. First, the critics would claim lust and libido as the prime movers for joseph. Also, one cannot claim as fact until one knows that it is a fact. One thing that I do know is that his first polygamous wife's father, mother and brother were okay with the marriage. In fact, they seemed rather proud that their daughter and sister was sealed to JS. I can't say that they considered it an unholy relationship.

But  one could make the same comments about Brigham Young, John Tyler and all the others that practiced it.

[Anteojito]

And thus the gotcha is demonstrated....

There is not gotcha. Joseph Smith received the practice of polygamy from God or he did not. If he did then there is nothing to be ashamed about and therefore nothing to hide. Brigham Young and others practiced polygamy and had sex with their wives. Why should it be any different for Joseph Smith?

[ERayR]

I don't have a problem with it. I don't even have a problem with him sleeping with his polyandrous wives. I do feel uncomfortable about the two youngest, but Helen makes it clear she was post puberty (she looked older than her age) and I realize it is a presentism issue I have..my problem, not theirs.

You will have to ask those who believe he was not involved in plural marriage or was just sealed for eternity, not time with his wives, if what you wrote is justified in their minds.

 

never mind

Edited April 11, 2014 by ERayR

[Scott Lloyd]

As long as we're on on the subject of Rip[ping] It Up, we might as well do it right.

 

You've just voiced what's been going through my head ever since I saw this thread title.

[BCSpace]

As long as we're on on the subject of Rip[ping] It Up, we might as well do it right.

 

 

Recall my post here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62974-music-when-will-this-generation-finally-die-out/?p=1209351749

 

[BCSpace]

I didn't think were off topic... we're talking about the comments relating to Daniel Peterson "ripping it up"... but then I re-read the OP and I guess we should only be talking about horse bones.

 

It being my thread, I will clarify the intended topic:

 

Anything I said in the OP.  Anything that was said by anyone in the videos.  The nature and production of the videos.  The person who made the videos and the villainy thereof. The person(s) seen in in the videos and the greatness thereof (Dan, I don't do this often as I am no sycophant   ).  Any of the key words I tagged.  The thread title as well as what it may or may not remind you of.  Any tangent thereof so long as you can, in your own opinion and regardless of what anyone else thinks, relate it to any aspect of the LDS Church or it's doctrine.

 

Brian 2.0, I haven't seen an off topic post yet according to my intended topic though you may want to split off into another thread about the notion of "The evidence is pretty conclusive that Joseph Smith was untruthful about his practice of polygamy" and tag it if it goes much deeper so people can find the conversation more easily.

 

Keep up the good work! I am enjoying AND being edified by the various conversations within this thread.

 

The above generally applies to any threads I make.

 

Edited April 11, 2014 by BCSpace

[why me]

How about this...

The evidence is pretty conclusive that Joseph Smith was untruthful about his practice of polygamy.

And if I were Joseph I would too be untruthful about it. I would not want the general public to find out about it. The mobs would be at the gates since the mobs were already hostile toward the mormons. But we can assume that the policy was not secret to the women involved nor to their relatives. And I am sure that many mormons were in the know. What would have happened to the lds if the outsiders discovered the practice the polygamy among the early mormons? I do believe that their protestant morality would be all riled up.

[why me]

But  one could make the same comments about Brigham Young, John Tyler and all the others that practiced it.

The saints began to practice polygamy much more openly when they separated themselves from the 'gentile' crowd when they journeyed westward with BY. They felt more free to practice it. But with joseph it was more undercover and so we have a problem. Many of women who were Joseph polygamous wives received a spiritual experience that it were a true practice of god before they consented to be a plural wife. But since it was not practiced openly, I think that we have not much detail about it. And here we have the problem.

 

And I think that this was the problem for dan. How to answer such questions from mike? One can only go to books written by people who either support the practice and defend jospeh or from those who claim that joseph was a sex addict.

Edited April 11, 2014 by why me

[Calm]

"And I think that this was the problem for dan. How to answer such questions from mike? One can only go to books written by people who either support the practice and defend jospeh or from those who claim that joseph was a sex addict.". On the contrary, there is an excellent 3 volume resource now with Brian Hales, but also good treatments in past works, some articles and such.

[frank_jessop]

Because there is currently no contemporary significant evidence from Joseph himself that we have currently so some who are comfortable with the idea of sexual plural marriage are not comfortable with making a definite historical claim...iow for them it is about methodology, not the actual claim.

Some people don't want him to have had sex with some because then it opens up the possibility that he had it with his polyandrous wives and even the two youngest wives, though I think that last is a huge stretch given what we do know.

As for the polyandrous, for some reaon it is more acceptable in our culture for a man to have sex with multiple women than it is for a woman to have sex with multiple men even if marriage is involved.

And some people feel that if JS had sex with any of his plural wives this makes him a liar based on somethings he stated at the time and they find that not an appropriate conclusion to draw even if one assumes he was lying to protect others as much as himself.

Thank you for posting this. I wanted to reply along the same lines, but refrained because I could not put the words to type as I wanted. You put it all to type very well. Hopefully, others will begin to understand or at the very least "know" why some people have a issue with it.

[why me]

"And I think that this was the problem for dan. How to answer such questions from mike? One can only go to books written by people who either support the practice and defend jospeh or from those who claim that joseph was a sex addict.". On the contrary, there is an excellent 3 volume resource now with Brian Hales, but also good treatments in past works, some articles and such.

I was referring to the books published on the subject. Unfortunately, Hales would be looked upon as being biased by the critics because he is linked to the lds church. What is basically needed are a few independent studies by historians on the subject who are not considered biased by either side. A middle of the road historian.

[Tacenda]

I c/p this post from NOM.  Apparently there are no answers....Dan did the best he could with what is out there.  I've finally had to come to terms with it myself.  The only answer is go to the Lord. The post had an attached copy of the original letter, but my "limited" status wouldn't allow me to put it here.  Anyone can see it on NOM, under "Letter from the First Presidency" topic. I thought it pertinent to the topic, Dan's hands were tied, he couldn't be honest, it sets people up for a big fall.  Not everyone is as faithful as a lot on the MDDB.   

 

Here is the post:

  

"I have systematically been going through my priesthood leaders to answer troubling questions about church history and clarify confusing doctrines or positions of the Church. I shared the letter I wrote to my bishop here. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=34368

My bishop told me that the SP wanted to meet with me. I waited and waited, followed up and waited before realizing several months later that the SP wasn't going to meet with me. Because I still have close friends and family members who are believing I thought it was important to not leave any stone unturned in trying to get answers to many of these tough issues. This way, I could show those people that I exhausted all avenues before leaving the Church. So I finally wrote a letter to Dieter Uchtdorf asking him to either help me understand the answers to my questions or to help me understand how he could maintain belief while still being aware of the issues (referenced Oct 2013 GC talk). I emphasized his role as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator in helping me and many others restore our faith in the Restored Gospel. I was surprised to receive a response and even more surprised by the content of the response."

Dear FarmerC,

Thank you for your recent letter addressed to President Dieter F. Uchtdorf. He has asked that I respond in his behalf.

You are posing the wrong questions to the wrong people. Regardless of what any of the General Authorities might tell you in person or in writing, your answer to the questions you pose must come directly from God Himself to you through the Holy Ghost, which direction you are entitled to as you honor the covenants you have made. Only God, not man, can provide the assurance and sure knowledge you are seeking. Being a long-time member as indicated in your letter, you will understand that concept and will have experienced it.

As you prayerfully and honestly consider your questions using the formula outlined in Moroni 10:3-7, you will know the truth by the power of the Holy Ghost. That knowledge will then become an unshakable anchor to you.

It is understood that this is not the response you were looking for; however, please know it is the sincere prayer of the First Presidency that you will receive the spiritual guidance you are seeking.

Sincerely,
Secretary to the First Presidency

"So if the Church can't clarify its doctrines and the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators have been reduced to General Authorities, then what is the purpose of belonging to a Church that claims to have prophets to help clarify and express God's eternal truths? In other words, after reading this response, what does the Church offer me that I can't get on my own?

Our questions have gone unanswered at every level. This provides my wife and I with the good conscience we need to resign our family's membership in the Church. Just thought I would share my experience in case anybody had considered doing the same thing."

 

[Duncan]

 

I c/p this post from NOM.  Apparently there are no answers....Dan did the best he could with what is out there.  I've finally had to come to terms with it myself.  The only answer is go to the Lord. The post had an attached copy of the original letter, but my "limited" status wouldn't allow me to put it here.  Anyone can see it on NOM, under "Letter from the First Presidency" topic. I thought it pertinent to the topic, Dan's hands were tied, he couldn't be honest, it sets people up for a big fall.  Not everyone is as faithful as a lot on the MDDB.   

 

Here is the post:

  

"I have systematically been going through my priesthood leaders to answer troubling questions about church history and clarify confusing doctrines or positions of the Church. I shared the letter I wrote to my bishop here. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=34368

My bishop told me that the SP wanted to meet with me. I waited and waited, followed up and waited before realizing several months later that the SP wasn't going to meet with me. Because I still have close friends and family members who are believing I thought it was important to not leave any stone unturned in trying to get answers to many of these tough issues. This way, I could show those people that I exhausted all avenues before leaving the Church. So I finally wrote a letter to Dieter Uchtdorf asking him to either help me understand the answers to my questions or to help me understand how he could maintain belief while still being aware of the issues (referenced Oct 2013 GC talk). I emphasized his role as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator in helping me and many others restore our faith in the Restored Gospel. I was surprised to receive a response and even more surprised by the content of the response."

Dear FarmerC,

Thank you for your recent letter addressed to President Dieter F. Uchtdorf. He has asked that I respond in his behalf.

You are posing the wrong questions to the wrong people. Regardless of what any of the General Authorities might tell you in person or in writing, your answer to the questions you pose must come directly from God Himself to you through the Holy Ghost, which direction you are entitled to as you honor the covenants you have made. Only God, not man, can provide the assurance and sure knowledge you are seeking. Being a long-time member as indicated in your letter, you will understand that concept and will have experienced it.

As you prayerfully and honestly consider your questions using the formula outlined in Moroni 10:3-7, you will know the truth by the power of the Holy Ghost. That knowledge will then become an unshakable anchor to you.

It is understood that this is not the response you were looking for; however, please know it is the sincere prayer of the First Presidency that you will receive the spiritual guidance you are seeking.

Sincerely,

Secretary to the First Presidency

"So if the Church can't clarify its doctrines and the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators have been reduced to General Authorities, then what is the purpose of belonging to a Church that claims to have prophets to help clarify and express God's eternal truths? In other words, after reading this response, what does the Church offer me that I can't get on my own?

Our questions have gone unanswered at every level. This provides my wife and I with the good conscience we need to resign our family's membership in the Church. Just thought I would share my experience in case anybody had considered doing the same thing."

 

 

interesting! In a sense I see what the First Presidency is saying. Pres. Uchtdorf isn't a historian, he was a Pilot. If this letter was addressed to say Richard Bushman or Dan Bachman you probably would have gotten a different response

[CA Steve]

It seems strange the letter does not mention the recent essays. Why take the time to publish essays on troubling issues if they are not going to be used in situations like this?

[ALarson]

interesting! In a sense I see what the First Presidency is saying. Pres. Uchtdorf isn't a historian, he was a Pilot. If this letter was addressed to say Richard Bushman or Dan Bachman you probably would have gotten a different response

I read this letter too (it's getting interest on several online sites).  This statement seems odd to me:

 

"You are asking the wrong questions to the wrong people."

 

Why not then refer this person to the right people (as you state, Duncan)?  Or, are they truly saying that these types of doubts and questions are now just between the person and God?  I do understand that this is what it really comes down to, but aren't our leaders here to also help with the answers?  

 

Edited to add that I'm surprised they didn't refer the writer of this letter to FairMormon.org as it's an excellent site with answers.

Edited April 11, 2014 by ALarson

[Mystery Meat]

I read this letter too (it's getting interest on several online sites).  This statement seems odd to me:

 

"You are asking the wrong questions to the wrong people."

 

Why not then refer this person to the right people (as you state, Duncan)?  Or, are they truly saying that these types of doubts and questions are now just between the person and God?  I do understand that this is what it really comes down to, but aren't our leaders here to also help with the answers?  

 

Edited to add that I'm surprised they didn't refer the writer of this letter to FairMormon.org as it's an excellent site with answers.

 

Funny, when I was reading the letter I thought it was perfectly said. I guess its all a matter of perception. It is what I would have told him and what I have told others. The only thing I would have added would have been "The Lord is the only one who can teach and provide you with sure knowledge. But such a witness and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit will only be made manifest if you are truly prepared to hear it."

[stemelbow]

The response to the letter from the secretary of the First Presidency is, IMO, unacceptable.  I hope if the First Presidency gets wind of this, they send out a more appropriate response.  At the very least point him to someone or to sources of some sort.  I mean its fine that it all comes down to faith and it's fine to point that out, but to brush someone off like that just seems inappropriate. 

[ALarson]

This letter seems to be a different topic (?).  Maybe it should be posted in its own thread.

 

lvjd66, I agree with what you wrote and as I stated above, I do know that this is what it comes down to.  But, don't the apostles speak to God and shouldn't they be willing to help someone struggling with some help, answers, and guidance?  At least to point them in a direction where they can study and read and find some answers on their own along with praying for answers. That's all I was saying here.  

 

Maybe the time has come when the leaders feel that each member is on their own to find the answers.  On their own to communicate with God.  That is actually not bad advice, of course.

 

There's another letter posted over on NOM (where this was originally posted) that a member received about a year ago.  It's interesting to read and see the different tone between the two letters.  So, maybe there has been a change in how they deal with those who doubt or question.