Being And Becoming A "well Read Member

[HappyJackWagon]

 

 I am not looking to excuse Joseph in misleading publicly on the topic of plural marriage, but could any of us do better?  

I don't know. Since I don't claim to be a prophet of God with the power to discern and disseminate God's will to the people, it would not be a useful comparison.

 

What if we compared Joseph and revealing the practice and doctrine of polygamy with other prophets? Did Noah lie to his wife and say, "I'm not really building an ark." Or did Moses reveal the 10 commandments to just a select few within his inner circle? What if Samuel the Lamanite phrased his prophesies and calls for the Nephites to repent in a way that they would not be mad at him or persecute him?

 

Is God a respecter of persons or not? Did God give the commandment of the WoW but say it is not a commandment because he was concerned that members wouldn't be able to keep that commandment? Back to Moses: were the 10 commandments originally given as counsel because he knew the commandments would be hard for the people to live?

 

We sure seem to do a lot of fantastic gymnastics to explain Joseph's behavior and efforts in a way that excuses his weakness when we should simply say "Joseph got some things right and some things wrong. Figure out for yourself which of his teachings were of God and which weren't."

[Tacenda]

Resurrecting this because of a question.  Why do members and even members on this board still say that Masonry comes from Solomon's Temple when LDS apologists for example, Greg Kearney and John Lynch say that it isn't true? 

 

How come recently in a thread, this is talked about as if true and no one speaks up.  Maybe members need to be well read so they don't believe anyone's opinion on things w/o the facts.  But really just blown away how you defenders on this board actually let it go or even contribute to it?  And if you CFR on that, it might take a minute to round it up so be patient. By some of you sitting back and letting this misinformation stay out there is contributing to once faithful members leaving because they can't trust a believing member to tell the truth. 

[Calm]

I would assume mostly it is a lot of posters aren't interested in masonry history as well as if someone has studied it and wants to believe it is historical, it is felt that is their choice.

Others phrase it as not a direct descent but elements here and there carried through various means.

I am not a specialist in masonry, haven't studied it and could at best state that scholars generally agree that masonry did not directly descend from temple rites...doesn't add anything to the conversation. I figure people on the board and those reading surely know that much so why repeat the obvious?

[Levi951]

Some books that come to mind:

• Joseph Smith: The First Mormon (1977)
• Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith (1984; 2nd ed.,1994)
• In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (1997)
• Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (2005)

Those books are for "balanced insight." The mere fact of Joseph's polygamy has been discussed in numerous books and articles (including church manuals and magazines).

I have only read Rough Stone Rolling that was pretty good. Another good one I have is Opening The Heavens, Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820-1844 which is really good because you have lots of accounts from different sources. 

[Kaleb Webb]

 

 

Another good one I have is Opening The Heavens, Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820-1844

You own this book? I have a pdf version, but I haven't been able to find a print copy for less than $850. It's a great read.

[hagoth7]

...Why do members and even members on this board still say that Masonry comes from Solomon's Temple when LDS apologists for example, Greg Kearney and John Lynch say that it isn't true? 

 

How come recently in a thread, this is talked about as if true and no one speaks up.  Maybe members need to be well read so they don't believe anyone's opinion on things w/o the facts.  But really just blown away how you defenders on this board actually let it go or even contribute to it?  And if you CFR on that, it might take a minute to round it up so be patient. By some of you sitting back and letting this misinformation stay out there is contributing to once faithful members leaving because they can't trust a believing member to tell the truth. 

Another option:

 

I believe Nephites migrated to northern Europe during the Hagoth diaspora, and that European Masonry is thereby a garbled remnant of Nephite temple worship. There is considerable evidence to suggest this is the case.

 

So some of the parallels between Masonry and modern LDS practices shouldn't be a shock. Joseph simply restored something that had become garbled through centuries of history.

[why me]

I think that the critics have won the day with this one: the church hides its history etc Sure, there are books out there that if members would have read them they would have been much more informed about what was happening at that time. But these books are rarely publized by critics. They more or less stick to their own books for support and give the impression that these authors are the first to give the truth. And of course, many searching members believe such mantras. I have pointed out on many occassions a book by O'Dricoll. He wrote a biography of Hyrum that had Joseph's polygamy in it and hyrum's reaction to it etc This was published in 2003. But who read it. I believe that it was publised by the church publisher and it still can be bought from deseret. 

 

But the critics still give the mantra over and over again and unfortunately it is believed.Those who wish to question themselves out of the church will listen to critic podcasts, read critic sites, delve into books critical of mormonism and believe the information without question and even when lds members lead them to faithful books that have been published with the information in it, like robots they will still give the critic mantra. People wish to believe what they wish to believe.

Edited February 4, 2015 by why me

[why me]

Resurrecting this because of a question.  Why do members and even members on this board still say that Masonry comes from Solomon's Temple when LDS apologists for example, Greg Kearney and John Lynch say that it isn't true? 

 

How come recently in a thread, this is talked about as if true and no one speaks up.  Maybe members need to be well read so they don't believe anyone's opinion on things w/o the facts.  But really just blown away how you defenders on this board actually let it go or even contribute to it?  And if you CFR on that, it might take a minute to round it up so be patient. By some of you sitting back and letting this misinformation stay out there is contributing to once faithful members leaving because they can't trust a believing member to tell the truth. 

Because people are people. And what is the difference. We need to remember that this is just an internet board that is full of people with varying degrees of intelligience. And it really doesn't matter if the information is corrected. The people may still repeat the same old idea. I can use you as an example. How often have people tried to get you to see things differently and yet, you go back to the same old understandings that you had before you came to the board? I can say the same for myself too. The internet is the internet. It can screw up the best minds as they read countless posts of average joes and janes.

 

The trick is not to take all this too seriously.

[Stone holm]

I remember back in the early '90s at Notre Dame in a symposium on Western American or Frontier history -- I was asked about an assertion that was going around that the Church was trying to suppress the Lucy Mack History.  My response was, "If they are, they are doing a very lousy job of it, because all the Mormons with libraries that I know of have it."

[cinepro]

I think that the critics have won the day with this one: the church hides its history etc Sure, there are books out there that if members would have read them they would have been much more informed about what was happening at that time. But these books are rarely publized by critics.

 

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense at all.  You're saying that the critics haven't tried to "publicize" books that discuss the more difficult aspects of Church history, but the Church does?  

 

Every time I have seen a critic put together a list of good LDS books, it is almost exclusively books that deal with the more difficult issues of LDS history.  

Conversely, books that share this information (most notably "In Sacred Loneliness", "Mormon Enigma" etc.) are not sold by Deseret Book or referenced in official Church publications. 

 

Yes, there have been a few notable exceptions (and the Hyrum bio may be one, although I had never heard of it so I don't know how much anyone had "publicized" it), but to say that the Church has been trying to publicize books about difficult LDS history while the critics haven't is really backwards. 

[Duncan]

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense at all.  You're saying that the critics haven't tried to "publicize" books that discuss the more difficult aspects of Church history, but the Church does?  

 

Every time I have seen a critic put together a list of good LDS books, it is almost exclusively books that deal with the more difficult issues of LDS history.  

Conversely, books that share this information (most notably "In Sacred Loneliness", "Mormon Enigma" etc.) are not sold by Deseret Book or referenced in official Church publications. 

 

Yes, there have been a few notable exceptions (and the Hyrum bio may be one, although I had never heard of it so I don't know how much anyone had "publicized" it), but to say that the Church has been trying to publicize books about difficult LDS history while the critics haven't is really backwards. 

 

honestly I would be surprised if that critic has read all of those books

[Mystery Meat]

It is more important to be well versed in the scriptures and modern day teachings than it is to be well read in things that have no eternal consequence for you or me.

 

That is all.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I say put down the books and go out and play some sports or listen to some good music.

[why me]

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense at all.  You're saying that the critics haven't tried to "publicize" books that discuss the more difficult aspects of Church history, but the Church does?  

 

Every time I have seen a critic put together a list of good LDS books, it is almost exclusively books that deal with the more difficult issues of LDS history.  

Conversely, books that share this information (most notably "In Sacred Loneliness", "Mormon Enigma" etc.) are not sold by Deseret Book or referenced in official Church publications. 

 

Yes, there have been a few notable exceptions (and the Hyrum bio may be one, although I had never heard of it so I don't know how much anyone had "publicized" it), but to say that the Church has been trying to publicize books about difficult LDS history while the critics haven't is really backwards. 

The critics are not broadcasting books such as the Hyrum biography by O'Driscoll because it is faith promoting. They are also not broadcasting Leonard Arrington's book Mormon Experience because it is faith promoting. Or even RSR because it is faith promoting. But they are broadcasting the books that you mentioned. That was my point. I have been on many discussion boards, and I haven't seen critics broadcasting good lds faith promoting history books that deal with information.

 

Is it a churh's responisbility to get involved in a history debate? What other church is doing this at the moment? History is best left up to scholars and historians and not to a church. The lds church needs historians to give a faith promoting interpretation of events. And these historians are now doing this with the JS papers and the Hyrum Smith Papers. What more should be done? Much. And it is happening. Thus, the catch up with the critics.

 

And although this list was produced on John's site, how can john still be claiming a hidden agenda or a hidden history angle? Mormon historians have been quite honest in their intepretations and facts.

Edited February 5, 2015 by why me

[Mystery Meat]

I say put down the books and go out and play some sports or listen to some good music.

 

Or play a really awesome video game?

 

I really enjoyed Destiny, Child of Light and The Last of Us.

[Storm Rider]

When I first read this title I imagined that this would address the lack of classics in personal libraries or the dearth of books other than gospel topics in LDS home libraries.  I am a little be surprised at the very narrow scope of this thread that would entitle a LDS to be called "well-read".  

 

I don't have many of the books mentioned from Mormon Enigma to In Sacred Loneliness.  What I do have is the Qur'an, Bagavad Gita, Tao Te Ching,  The Sacred Laws of Aryas, the Upanishads, Guru Granth Sahib, several books on Buddhism that I picked up in Sri Lanka, the Fiqh, the writings/sayings of the first four Caliphs of Islam, a collection of some 48 books on the writings of the Early Christian Fathers.  These books are then supplemented with several hundred other books of non-fiction, fiction, classics of history, literature, poetry, etc.  

 

I always thought I was getting close to being well-read, but then I find out that all I needed to do was read this almost worthless group of historical works on Mormonism that does almost nothing to enhance, strengthen, or enhance my relationship with God.  Who knew?!?

 

If I a serious LDS and wanted to follow the recommendation and statement of belief of the 13 Article of Faith do I still need to read these books or is it okay to ignore them and just accept that I will never be well read?

[Nevo]

I always thought I was getting close to being well-read, but then I find out that all I needed to do was read this almost worthless group of historical works on Mormonism that does almost nothing to enhance, strengthen, or enhance my relationship with God.  Who knew?!?

 

The context of "well-read" in the OP is a news release that was put out by the Church on 11 November 2014 that stated: "Much of what you'll find in the essays on polygamy has been published in diverse sources and known among long-term and well-read members, historians and Church leaders for many years" (link).

[JLHPROF]

When I first read this title I imagined that this would address the lack of classics in personal libraries or the dearth of books other than gospel topics in LDS home libraries.  I am a little be surprised at the very narrow scope of this thread that would entitle a LDS to be called "well-read".  

 

I don't have many of the books mentioned from Mormon Enigma to In Sacred Loneliness.  What I do have is the Qur'an, Bagavad Gita, Tao Te Ching,  The Sacred Laws of Aryas, the Upanishads, Guru Granth Sahib, several books on Buddhism that I picked up in Sri Lanka, the Fiqh, the writings/sayings of the first four Caliphs of Islam, a collection of some 48 books on the writings of the Early Christian Fathers.  These books are then supplemented with several hundred other books of non-fiction, fiction, classics of history, literature, poetry, etc.  

 

I always thought I was getting close to being well-read, but then I find out that all I needed to do was read this almost worthless group of historical works on Mormonism that does almost nothing to enhance, strengthen, or enhance my relationship with God.  Who knew?!?

 

If I a serious LDS and wanted to follow the recommendation and statement of belief of the 13 Article of Faith do I still need to read these books or is it okay to ignore them and just accept that I will never be well read?

 

The topic is becoming a well read member.  I took that to mean well read on Mormonism, not on other religions.

Especially since so many members are claiming they were never told about certain aspects of Mormonism.

 

I don't see how reading

 

the Qur'an, Bagavad Gita, Tao Te Ching,  The Sacred Laws of Aryas, the Upanishads, Guru Granth Sahib, several books on Buddhism that I picked up in Sri Lanka, the Fiqh, the writings/sayings of the first four Caliphs of Islam, a collection of some 48 books on the writings of the Early Christian Fathers

 

will increase a Mormon's understanding of their own religion and history.  And frankly I disagree that the books you have will do a better job to "strengthen, or enhance my relationship with God" than reading about your own religion.

[Gervin]

Another option:

 

I believe Nephites migrated to northern Europe during the Hagoth diaspora, and that European Masonry is thereby a garbled remnant of Nephite temple worship. There is considerable evidence to suggest this is the case.

 

So some of the parallels between Masonry and modern LDS practices shouldn't be a shock. Joseph simply restored something that had become garbled through centuries of history.

 

 

At the dedication of the New Zealand Temple on April 20, 1958 Gordon Hinckley stated:

“Here are two great strains of the house of Israel and the children of Ephraim from the isles of Britain, and the children of Lehi from the isles of the Pacific.”

 

Speaking in Samoa in 1976 Spencer Kimball stated:

 

 

“And so it seems to me rather clear that your ancestors moved northward and crossed a part of the South Pacific. You did not bring your records with you, but you brought much food and provisions. . . .I would like to say to you brethren and sisters of New Zealand, you are some of Hagoth’s people, and there is No Perhaps about it!’ “

Edited February 5, 2015 by Gervin

[Storm Rider]

The topic is becoming a well read member.  I took that to mean well read on Mormonism, not on other religions.

Especially since so many members are claiming they were never told about certain aspects of Mormonism.

 

I don't see how reading

 

will increase a Mormon's understanding of their own religion and history.  And frankly I disagree that the books you have will do a better job to "strengthen, or enhance my relationship with God" than reading about your own religion.

 

Before you get up on that high horse, you might actually try and learn how these groups feel about God.  We seek after the best books for words of wisdom and truth.  We know that God has taught truths to all people.  Learning how others apply those truths may teach us something of great value in our own lives and teach us to be better disciples of Christ.  Just a thought.  I realize that some LDS are completely content to never read or study any religion but their own.  That is a valid choice, but it is not the choice I have made.  You may disagree with my choice, but then you are not my judge and your opinion is but one of many.  Enjoy your life.   

 

Nevo, thank you for your comment; I now better understand the reason for the narrow context of the statement.  

[JLHPROF]

Before you get up on that high horse, you might actually try and learn how these groups feel about God.  We seek after the best books for words of wisdom and truth.  We know that God has taught truths to all people.  Learning how others apply those truths may teach us something of great value in our own lives and teach us to be better disciples of Christ.  Just a thought.  I realize that some LDS are completely content to never read or study any religion but their own.  That is a valid choice, but it is not the choice I have made.  You may disagree with my choice, but then you are not my judge and your opinion is but one of many.  Enjoy your life.   

 

Nevo, thank you for your comment; I now better understand the reason for the narrow context of the statement.  

 

Whoa, offended much?

I agree with you that there is much benefit in studying other religions and seeking learning out of the best books.

But when you place more spiritual value on the teachings of false religions than than you do in this almost worthless group of historical works on Mormonism" I am also allowed to voice my disagreement.

 

If we truly believe Mormonism to be the restored gospel of Jesus Christ then sure studying the teachings of Mormonism, doctrinally, historically, scripturally, etc will provide MORE spiritual truths than all the hidden truths scattered throughout other less God given religions.

There's truth everywhere, but more truth in Mormonism and it's "worthless" studies.