Dismayed

[jwhitlock]

Jwhitlock:

 

I think that's what they used to call talking out of both sides of your mouth. Say one thing to one audience and another thing to a different audience.

 

I would say that the BYU televised version of "church history" is the more readily consumable to todays audience. From what was presented today the question of Helen's status would never have come up in the viewers mind. One would be left to assume that she and Horrace were first time partners and that she had never been previously married to Joseph Smith no less.  There are sins of omission you know........... 

 

Even more ironic. Your audience here on this thread knows full well the significant extent that the church is making historical documents available. Yet you're presenting the BYU channel to us as the primary source of history and claiming that the church is not up front with it.

 

Let's be up front with what your agenda is here. To quote from your OP:

 

"This is why it's difficult to keep a straight face when apologetic TBMs attempt to say that the church is upfront and forthcoming with their history. It just doesn't wash....."

 

To support this ludicrous claim - here to this audience that knows better - you clearly infer that the BYU channel must be the singular source of all church history. There must be no other source if the church is not being up front about its history.

 

Quite the straw man you set up here - and ironic that you do the very thing that you accuse the church of in trying to make your "point".

[jwhitlock]

Let's be frank.  There are hundreds of quirks and conflict and difficult issues in Mormonism.  80-90% of members (my guess... yes) that are unaware of most of them and certainly not aware of much below a surface understanding.

 

Combine that with the Church prefers to allow these members to continue to stay uninformed.  Too risky to tell them the whole truth.  We don't want members to move to more complex thinking.... too risky

 

We don't really want to try too hard to tell members about mormonsandgays.org, gospel topics articles, or acknowledge past DOCTRINE is todays DISAVOWED theory.  We prefer members learn problems very slowly or not at all because anything otherwise is too risky.  Someone states Evolution is a heresy.... well  it's incorrect but shhhhhhh don't correct that publicly.

 

Someone said we know by revelation that Jesus was born on April 6th?  incorrect... but shhhh no sense in correcting that.

 

Meanwhile those who do know are looked upon as apostaes, brainwashed by anti mormon propaganda, "misinformed, menatlly challenged, or intentionally trying to deceive"

 

In the end we really don't value truthseekers or critical thinkers... we in cultural practice enable blind obedience 

 

Utter horse apples.

 

Edit:

 

I'm going to expand on this a bit, since you have an ongoing problem with the kind of stuff you post above. It's one thing to try and address the problematic things in the church and deal with them. It's a totally different thing to take things and basically mock like you're doing above, as if it validates your concerns to do so. You're cutesy phrasing serves no purpose other than to to denigrate the church and its members; it doesn't give any indication of any desire on your part to seriously address your "concerns". Actually it sounds more like you want to validate your concerns as being irreconcilable with what you think the real true church ought to be.

 

So feel free to keep up this kind of tone. But don't expect to get much respect in doing so. 

Edited May 12, 2014 by jwhitlock

[jwhitlock]

My point here is that the portrayal of Horrace and Helen's childhood, romance and marriage is just plain inaccurate.

 

More than over-simplified, it is a bent perspective, engineered not to have to deal with a difficult subject that might disturb the "faith promoting" story line to which the church sacrifices it's integrity. 

 

If someone wants to say that the church doesn't "hide" it's history that's fine. But just remember you only win the argument when you have convinced the heart of the person who is searching. And I see red flags all over this issue in general. I come here and I "hear" one thing. I see what is actually presented by the church and I "see" and "feel" something very different. 

 

And I'll reiterate again, you're being misleading in your accusation against the church.

[mormonnewb]

The people at BYU who make the programming decisions would be my guess.

I guess I could be wrong. I am sure everything they met is vetted in First Presidency meetings weekly. Yeah.....that makes sense.

So the Church is only responsible for the six decisions made by Pres Monson? Is that going to be its defense if there is an accident during a temple construction? "Ladies and gentlemen, the Church can not be held liable for this accident because President Monson was not driving the bulldozer that day."

In fact, in your paradigm, none of us are actually members of the Church. I wasn't baptized by the Prophet. Not did he sign off on my baptism. As I understand it, he handed the keys to someone who handed the keys to someone and so on. And as a result of this key passing, I'm official.

Likewise, Pres Monson handed the keys to the BYU editing room to someone who passed the keys, etc. Ipso factum editum, the BYU film is OFFICIAL. Ta da!

[The Nehor]

Likewise, Pres Monson handed the keys to the BYU editing room to someone who passed the keys, etc. Ipso factum editum, the BYU film is OFFICIAL. Ta da!

Nope, this would also make every BYU lecture on campus official church doctrine. Think that is the case too?

[jwhitlock]

So the Church is only responsible for the six decisions made by Pres Monson? Is that going to be its defense if there is an accident during a temple construction? "Ladies and gentlemen, the Church can not be held liable for this accident because President Monson was not driving the bulldozer that day."

In fact, in your paradigm, none of us are actually members of the Church. I wasn't baptized by the Prophet. Not did he sign off on my baptism. As I understand it, he handed the keys to someone who handed the keys to someone and so on. And as a result of this key passing, I'm official.

Likewise, Pres Monson handed the keys to the BYU editing room to someone who passed the keys, etc. Ipso factum editum, the BYU film is OFFICIAL. Ta da!

 

To take this absurd line of reasoning a step further, evidently you must think that President Monson is directly responsible for your performance - or lack thereof - in your own personal church responsibilities.

 

And that includes what you post on this board as a member of the church.

[Kenngo1969]

I have a hat.  Through it I can detect these things.

 

You're right, I am mind-reading.  But has anyone found any source to the contrary?  That they were emotionally devastated about it all?

 

This kind of thing happens even nowadays.  I know a man who was married for time-only to a widow who had been sealed to her first husband.  They had children together, and these children, by the terms of the sealing ordinance, belong to the first husband, not the second.  He seemed to be content with this, trusting that God would make all things the way they were supposed to be. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969].

 

This actually corresponds very neatly with the ancient practice of Levirate marriage.  This is where a woman whose first husband had not given her a child would be married to a close relative of her husband, and the resulting child would be the heir of the first husband, not the second.

Oh, my goodness!  I'm trying so hard to remember the last time I heard such a ridiculous notion as God being able to make things right!  Why, that's almost as ridiculous as that nonsense about Him being Omnipotent and Omniscient, respectively!

 

Preposterous, I say!

Edited May 12, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[SamIam]

mis-post

Edited May 12, 2014 by SamIam

[The Nehor]

And that includes what you post on this board as a member of the church.

To be fair my posts are official doctrine.

[SamIam]

Let's be frank.  There are hundreds of quirks and conflict and difficult issues in Mormonism.  80-90% of members (my guess... yes) that are unaware of most of them and certainly not aware of much below a surface understanding.

 

Combine that with the Church prefers to allow these members to continue to stay uninformed.  Too risky to tell them the whole truth.  We don't want members to move to more complex thinking.... too risky

 

We don't really want to try too hard to tell members about mormonsandgays.org, gospel topics articles, or acknowledge past DOCTRINE is todays DISAVOWED theory.  We prefer members learn problems very slowly or not at all because anything otherwise is too risky.  Someone states Evolution is a heresy.... well  it's incorrect but shhhhhhh don't correct that publicly.

 

Someone said we know by revelation that Jesus was born on April 6th?  incorrect... but shhhh no sense in correcting that.

 

Meanwhile those who do know are looked upon as apostaes, brainwashed by anti mormon propaganda, "misinformed, menatlly challenged, or intentionally trying to deceive"

 

In the end we really don't value truthseekers or critical thinkers... we in cultural practice enable blind obedience 

 

I would like to submit that the attitude above might be better informed by looking for scripturally significant circumstances that embrace the principles that apply to this perspective.  It does reflect a philosophy that is becoming more and more prevalent and is a natural telestial mentality approach but contrary to popular notions it is not critical thinking but to become such must embrace a higher means of address.  

 

One of my favorite set of verses for this principle is found in 1 Corinthians 8.  I’m not going to do a verse by verse but just hit a few key verses that illustrate both sides of this discussion.

 

The first verse kicks it off with a perfect intro:

 

1 Corinthians 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

The essence is that his audience is well informed concerning idols.  Idols have no capacity to grant or deny blessings, or in any way affect those who choose to ignore them for the empty, powerless entities they are.

 

That idols are nothing is the point of knowledge and it can be used in two ways.  It’s true no doubt, but there is a “puffed up” way to deal with ownership of that knowledge or there is an edifying charitable way to deal with that knowledge.

 

Naturally, the common telestial response is I know some “stuff” and I think my “stuff” is important to share with everyone I meet that touches upon that subject of my “stuff” cause you need to informed about my “stuff”

However, the verse alludes to an edifying charitable way of dealing with this knowledge.  I commend the chapter to all as it does an excellent job but let’s proceed.

 

1 Corinthians 8: 2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.]

Should be clear enough... But the essence is that knowing something is only part of the issue.  It reminds me of this quote by Joseph Smith:

 

“Had I inspiration, revelation, and lungs to communicate what my soul has contemplated in times past, there is not a soul in this congregation but would go to their homes and shut their mouths in everlasting silence on religion till they had learned something.

 

“Why be so certain that you comprehend the things of God, when all things with you are so uncertain?

 

 

For continuity I recommend these verses 1 Corinthians 8:3-9 for further consideration:

 

However, lets look carefully at these verses that begins to develop the distinctions of puffed up knowledge and edifying charity in the use of knowledge.

 

1 Corinthians 8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

 

11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

 

12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

 

This is pretty black and white.  We could rephrase it to say that when those of you who think you have knowledge about the history of the church or those who know Joseph’s foibles, or those that constantly remind that prophets are men and make mistakes etc, when you who still retain intact your testimonies though you know “stuff” start reciting and spouting off this wonderful “stuff” you know, is there any chance that others who have yet to develop strength of testimony sufficient to embrace your “stuff”  might consume your stuff to their detriment.

 

Is there any chance that your exuberance in sharing your "stuff" openly and with little discretion as to who your audience is may actually cause those who consume it to perish and suffer in testimony and fall away?

 

Verse 12 puts a very nice bow around this and calls it a sin against the brethren and Christ.  Repeat – it is a sin and offends Christ.

 

1 Corinthians 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

 

Now we finally reach the edifying and charitable response.  If you are aware that your “stuff” that you are so proud of knowing could in any way cause another to offend, or fall away, or they begin spouting your “stuff” to others without proper understanding then you need to find some other way of charitably preventing their loss by your actions... of course I can safely add … unless ye offend Christ with your sin.

 

For myself I consider this a significant and very important principle to grasp and apply liberally and often.  It’s a good thing to know “stuff” but when the potential exists that we might cause even the tiniest of sheep to become lost for our being puffed up then I’m with Joseph that all should “shut their mouths in everlasting silence on religion till they had learned something.”

 

...and what they need to learn is charity.

[jwhitlock]

To be fair my posts are official doctrine.

 

Supported, of course, straight from Living Scriptures.

[The Nehor]

Supported, of course, straight from Living Scriptures.

No, they hate me. I copied one of their videos for a friend and I am now consigned to Outer Darkness.

[jwhitlock]

No, they hate me. I copied one of their videos for a friend and I am now consigned to Outer Darkness.

 

Your punishment is just.

 

Real friends don't torment you by giving you copies of Living Scriptures. I only send copies to my enemies.

[The Nehor]

Your punishment is just.

 

Real friends don't torment you by giving you copies of Living Scriptures. I only send copies to my enemies.

I liked those tapes as a kid and look at how I turned out........oh......wait......oooohhhhhhhh........it all makes sense now.

[mormonnewb]

Nope, this would also make every BYU lecture on campus official church doctrine. Think that is the case too?

Who said anything about official church doctrine? You questioned whether the Church was RESPONSIBLE for the film.

Now we imagine the church is responsible for BYU television documentaries?

I answered your question. Yes, the Church is RESPONSIBLE for the videos it creates and broadcasts. Is this really up for debate?

[jwhitlock]

I liked those tapes as a kid and look at how I turned out........oh......wait......oooohhhhhhhh........it all makes sense now.

 

As I suspected. Giggling at them is an indication of extensive brain cell burnout.

[The Nehor]

As I suspected. Giggling at them is an indication of extensive brain cell burnout.

Then how come in my madness I have become the smartest person alive?

[Tacenda]

I liked those tapes as a kid and look at how I turned out........oh......wait......oooohhhhhhhh........it all makes sense now.

You can say that again!

[mfbukowski]

Why is it that the same folks who yell about "consenting adults" doing what they like for gay marriage don't like it when polygamists do the same?

 

It's really nobody's business.

Edited May 12, 2014 by mfbukowski

[jwhitlock]

Then how come in my madness I have become the smartest person alive?

 

I gather you're a fan of Amadeus.

[Avatar4321]

My point here is that the portrayal of Horrace and Helen's childhood, romance and marriage is just plain inaccurate.

 

More than over-simplified, it is a bent perspective, engineered not to have to deal with a difficult subject that might disturb the "faith promoting" story line to which the church sacrifices it's integrity. 

 

If someone wants to say that the church doesn't "hide" it's history that's fine. But just remember you only win the argument when you have convinced the heart of the person who is searching. And I see red flags all over this issue in general. I come here and I "hear" one thing. I see what is actually presented by the church and I "see" and "feel" something very different. 

 

It's inaccurate? So they didn't fall in love and get married?

[jwhitlock]

Who said anything about official church doctrine? You questioned whether the Church was RESPONSIBLE for the film.

I answered your question. Yes, the Church is RESPONSIBLE for the videos it creates and broadcasts. Is this really up for debate?

 

And magically, BYU morphs into the official Church.

 

Which is exactly what Palerider in the OP wanted us to think.

 

Edit:

 

And with that, it's time for me as a TBM to put on my Sunday clothes and go lie in my bed for the night, with my arms folded over my chest.

 

Since President Monson is responsible for everything in the church, I'd hate to let him down.

Edited May 12, 2014 by jwhitlock

[mfbukowski]

....Too risky to tell them the whole truth.  We don't want members to move to more complex thinking.... too risky...

....In the end we really don't value truthseekers or critical thinkers... we in cultural practice enable blind obedience

Critical thinkers? I find this very ironic.

I find it is the self-styled "intellectuals" who don't have a clue. No one has the "whole truth" and to think so is just plain naive.

[mfbukowski]

My point here is that the portrayal of Horrace and Helen's childhood, romance and marriage is just plain inaccurate.

And of course, as a mind reader with a time machine, only you know the real truth. Is that your point?

I suppose we could get out the ouija board and do some interviews

[mfbukowski]

I think we have a little epistemological problem here