Npr: The Latest From John Dehlin

[USU78]

Running around naked doesn't seem so bad to me, but I get your point. I think it's the dealkiller because it was more recent. Those stories from the OT are much easier to dismiss for various reasons.

 

But that is an argument that lacks integrity.

 

So why should anybody take it seriously?

 

Or impute to its proponent anything other than brattiness?

[stemelbow]

But that is an argument that lacks integrity.

 

So why should anybody take it seriously?

 

Or impute to its proponent anything other than brattiness?

I don't see why it lacks integrity, quite like you. The OT carries all sorts of stories, some of which are allegory. People can dismiss the stories as not really happening and still maintain faith. But when they face the reality of how early LDS practiced polygamy they feel there is a definite lack of love and kindness. If that's lacking, then how could faith be a part of it? I think that's kind of how it works for them.

[teddyaware]

Some interesting prophetic behaviors which the believing Christian has to come to terms:

 

Hosea's marriage to the prostitute, Gomer:  Hosea 1:2

Isaiah running around naked for 3 years:  Isaiah 20:2-3

Moses a polygynist:  Numbers 12:1

Micah running around naked:  Micah 1:8

Samuel executes King Agag:  1 Sam 15:22-23

 

That's just a few bits of strangenesses, yet . . .

 

Mormon polygyny is a dealkiller, apparently.

 

Please explain why, if you can.

 

Or how about Abraham performing a deadly rite of child sacrifice on his own son (a most abominable heathen practice) and that he was really going to do it until an angel stopped him.

 

Or how about a drunken Noah having sex with his own daughters.

 

Most non-LDS believers overlook things such as  these because in spite of them they still have strong feelings in their hearts (faith) the Gospel is true and that good explanations will eventually be forthcoming. Meanwhile, some Latter-day Saints lose faith in the Restoration because our "strange events" occured too close in proximity of time to now for them to be able to stomach. I, for one, have perfect faith the prophet Joseph Smith will be vindicated as innocent before God in the presence of all his accusers. I will not throw the proverbial 'baby' out with the bath water (deny my own powerful testimony) just because I do not as yet understand all the mysteries of God.

Edited February 4, 2015 by teddyaware

[Hamba Tuhan]

Isaiah running around naked for 3 years:  Isaiah 20:2-3

...

Micah running around naked:  Micah 1:8

 

Wow, I hadn't realised how 'prophetic' my behaviour sometimes is ...

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't see why it lacks integrity, quite like you. The OT carries all sorts of stories, some of which are allegory. People can dismiss the stories as not really happening and still maintain faith. But when they face the reality of how early LDS practiced polygamy they feel there is a definite lack of love and kindness. If that's lacking, then how could faith be a part of it? I think that's kind of how it works for them.

In other words, they rationalize that with the Old Testament "strangeness," there is quite possibly more under the surface than meets the eye, which may well make it understandable and even acceptable -- if everything were known about it.

 

The same could be said about the practice of plural marriage in the early days of the Church. I get your point about the recency of it making a difference, but the possibility is there nonetheless.

[bluebell]

 

Or how about a drunken Noah having sex with his own daughters.

 

 

That was Lot.

[stemelbow]

In other words, they rationalize that with the Old Testament "strangeness," there is quite possibly more under the surface than meets the eye, which may well make it understandable and even acceptable -- if everything were known about it.

 

The same could be said about the practice of plural marriage in the early days of the Church. I get your point about the recency of it making a difference, but the possibility is there nonetheless.

Agreed. Thanks.

[Calm]

Or how about a drunken Noah having sex with his own daughters.

Not Noah but Lot...who was not considered a prophet

Sigh...too slow today. Maybe I will just go watch Netflix.

Edited February 4, 2015 by calmoriah

[Kenngo1969]

Some interesting prophetic behaviors which the believing Christian has to come to terms:

 

Hosea's marriage to the prostitute, Gomer:  Hosea 1:2

...

Micah running around naked:  Micah 1:8

...

 

Wow, I hadn't realised how 'prophetic' my behaviour sometimes is ...

[USU78]

In other words, they rationalize that with the Old Testament "strangeness," there is quite possibly more under the surface than meets the eye, which may well make it understandable and even acceptable -- if everything were known about it.

 

The same could be said about the practice of plural marriage in the early days of the Church. I get your point about the recency of it making a difference, but the possibility is there nonetheless.

 

The integrity argument arises out of the utter refusal to consider the "more to this story" possiblities, simply because the actors are, by and large, a.  male; b.  Anglo-American; c. Mormon; and d. religious, IMNSHO

[KevinG]

DQ so far has three members it seems--a black man, a woman, and a tiny white guy who pretends he has something interesting to say.

 

We are a diverse church, despite arguments to the contrary.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Who doesn't love some good Dairy Queen?

Oh man, peanut buster parfait. Yumo.

[USU78]

Oh man, peanut buster parfait. Yumo.

 

For me?  The brown topper

[teddyaware]

Not Noah but Lot...who was not considered a prophet

Sigh...too slow today. Maybe I will just go watch Netflix.

 

You are correct. But Noah did get drunk and Lot, though not a prophet, was one of the few righteous souls to be spared, with his family, from the destruction of Sodom.

[Duncan]

I'm also a proud member of Team DQ.

 

 

Dairy Queen is the Best!!!!!!!!

[mormonnewb]

Some interesting prophetic behaviors which the believing Christian has to come to terms:

Hosea's marriage to the prostitute, Gomer: Hosea 1:2

Isaiah running around naked for 3 years: Isaiah 20:2-3

Moses a polygynist: Numbers 12:1

Micah running around naked: Micah 1:8

Samuel executes King Agag: 1 Sam 15:22-23

That's just a few bits of strangenesses, yet . . .

Mormon polygyny is a dealkiller, apparently.

Please explain why, if you can.

But none of those stories are conveniently left out of scripture. What kills testimonies is not the "facts" but the perception of being deceived.

[Scott Lloyd]

But none of those stories are conveniently left out of scripture. What kills testimonies is not the "facts" but the perception of being deceived.

What kills testimonies is quite graphically depicted in the parable of the sower and the imagery of Lehi's dream about the tree off life, the iron rod and the great and spacious building -- if one has eyes to see, ears to hear and a mind to comprehend the symbolism involved.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

For me?  The brown topper

Ice cream pizzas….we took under our wing one of the children of an immigrant family and she became our daughter's best friend.  Two great benefits for us (best benefit was the friendship of course), homemade Korean food to die for and when they went into a DQ franchise an ice cream pizza on occasion.

Edited February 4, 2015 by calmoriah

[USU78]

But none of those stories are conveniently left out of scripture. What kills testimonies is not the "facts" but the perception of being deceived.

 

So . . . where is the evidence that Saul/Paul so much as introduced his Greek acolytes to the books of 1 Samuel, Isaiah, Micah, or Numbers' existence, let alone the inconvenient stories about the prophets?  Why aren't you hollering about Mr Benjamanite's leaving out the "facts" of Agag's beheading, etc?

 

Your argument lacks integrity.

 

And you open yourself up to accusations of racist, anti-Christian, anti-Mormon attitudes, whether you possess them or not.

[mormonnewb]

What kills testimonies is quite graphically portrayed in the parable of the sower and the imagery of Lehi's dream about the tree off life, the iron rod and the great and spacious building -- if one has eyes to see, ears to hear and a mind to comprehend the symbolism involved.

Then why is the Church making its own effort to inoculate the saints in regards to polygamy, BoA, BOM translation process, etc.? Couldn't the leaders just spout off your list and save a lot of effort in the process?

Or do the leaders just enjoying giving us something to discuss on this board?

[USU78]

Then why is the Church making its own effort to inoculate the saints in regards to polygamy, BoA, BOM translation process, etc.? Couldn't the leaders just spout off your list and save a lot of effort in the process?

Or do the leaders just enjoying giving us something to discuss on this board?

 

"Innoculate" presupposes there is something virulent there . . . which there ain't, except to the extent the boobirds and antis impute evil intentions to people whose jockstraps they're unworthy to wash.

[Scott Lloyd]

Then why is the Church making its own effort to inoculate the saints in regards to polygamy, BoA, BOM translation process, etc.? Couldn't the leaders just spout off your list and save a lot of effort in the process?

Or do the leaders just enjoying giving us something to discuss on this board?

So you acknowledge, then, that the Church is not just maliciously and deceitfully "leaving things out."

 

Seems like another case of being damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

Edited to add:

 

Despite the frequency and volume of Church efforts at so-called "innoculation," the scriptural imagery I cited above will still apply in all ages until the Savior returns to reign personally on the earth. Christ taught it during his mortal ministry and revealed it to Lehi and Nephi so that we could be forewarned of what to expect.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[mormonnewb]

So . . . where is the evidence that Saul/Paul so much as introduced his Greek acolytes to the books of 1 Samuel, Isaiah, Micah, or Numbers' existence, let alone the inconvenient stories about the prophets? Why aren't you hollering about Mr Benjamanite's leaving out the "facts" of Agag's beheading, etc?

Your argument lacks integrity.

And you open yourself up to accusations of racist, anti-Christian, anti-Mormon attitudes, whether you possess them or not.

The issue of deception does not come up with omitting certain persons from the narrative. I wouldn't expect for Paul to teach the Gentiles about every figure on OT history. However, to the extent he did teach about such figures, he would tell the WHOLE truth.

The story of Samson conveys a much different moral if we leave out that "messy Delilah" part. In fact, the Noah story would have been quite complete and we probably could have done without that "drunk and naked" part. In fact, given the misunderstandings about Ham, it really could have been left out.

Yet, for some reason, Moses was inspired to keep that part in. Perhaps, to demonstrate that HF can work through imperfect people.

[USU78]

The issue of deception does not come up with omitting certain persons from the narrative. I wouldn't expect for Paul to teach the Gentiles about every figure on OT history. However, to the extent he did teach about such figures, he would tell the WHOLE truth.

The story of Samson conveys a much different moral if we leave out that "messy Delilah" part. In fact, the Noah story would have been quite complete and we probably could have done without that "drunk and naked" part. In fact, given the misunderstandings about Ham, it really could have been left out.

Yet, for some reason, Moses was inspired to keep that part in. Perhaps, to demonstrate that HF can work through imperfect people.

 

Argument from silence.

 

And lacks integrity.

 

One thing you need to remember . . . the men and women you airily dismiss, are people's great-great and great and, in some cases, great-great-great grandparents, uncles and aunts.

 

Let me tell you of one such.  My great-great grandmother, born to Irish parents in South Wales, married the son of an escaped manslaughterer from Stoke-on-Trent, England.  They joined the Church in the 1850s.  In the late 1860s, they decided to emigrate to Zion, along with their young children, since their elder children had already left.  My g-g-grandfather was going to leave first, taking the oldest of the youngest children, and set up housekeeping, then send for her and the youngest children when everything was ready.  This was because of her then pending pregnancy with her 9th child.

 

The story is preserved in family lore (my mother swears by it, having it from her mother and maternal grandmother) is that the g-g-grandmother decided to make the journey, because she "just" learned about polygyny being openly practiced in Zion.  She didn't want her husband to greet her in Utah with another wife or two or three.

 

She made the trip, then buried her youngest child and husband at the top of Emigration Canyon, both having succumbed to mountain fever scant days after the birth.

 

Speaking no English, she made her way to Brigham City to join her elder children.  She never remarried, hating polygyny.  Blaming the Church for her misery.

 

Of her younger 3 children, only one had children herself, my great-grandmother.  Her brother never married until his '50s, and suicided 2 years later after taking care of his mother for 35 years.  Her younger sister remained a spinster, and an inveterate narcissist, one of the nastiest people my grandfather ever encountered.  She was certifiably insane, given the behaviors both reported by the family and the press.

 

And my great-grandmother, while a hard worker and terrific housekeeper, left a cold, cold heart as a legacy for her children and grandchildren . . . and I battle the casual yet uncommitted antiMormonism, the cool hatred and distrust of Mormon priesthood holders, that accompanies that cold, cold heart that is the legacy my grandmother's grandmother left me.

 

So, you see, I quite understand the thinking that you apparently have uncritically taken on.

 

But it's wrong and it's soul-killing . . . and that kind of dysfunction can create all sorts of generational mischief.

 

You can do better than follow such awfulness as my antecedents left me.

[mormonnewb]

So you acknowledge, then, that the Church is not just maliciously and deceitfully "leaving things out."

Seems like another case of being damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Edited to add:

Despite the frequency and volume of Church efforts at so-called "innoculation," the scriptural imagery I cited above will still apply in all ages until the Savior returns to reign personally on the earth. Christ taught it during his mortal ministry and revealed it to Lehi and Nephi so that we could be forewarned of what to expect.

Another half-point of agreement: The Church is not maliciously being deceitful.

I'll go even further and state that past Church leaders had the best intentions in mind when they chose to shield members from some of the messier aspects of the past. They wouldn't to, say, preserve the image of JS as a pious prophet of God. However, by painting a false narrative of JS and Emma as the perfect monogamous couple, they actually damaged JS' reputation.

While JS' reluctant obedience to the commandment of plural marriage could have been a point of pride for the saints, it's omission made the whole affair dirty and tawdry -- something that "proper Church publications don't speak of."

So yes, we agree on quite a lot.

Edited February 4, 2015 by mormonnewb