Npr: The Latest From John Dehlin

[mormonnewb]

Never mind.

Edited February 4, 2015 by mormonnewb

[mormonnewb]

"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.

See? Now you and I agree. I am definitely unworthy to wash any of your jockstraps. So if I'm ever called to the JQ, I will politely decline the calling.

[teddyaware]

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.

 

Twice in the New Testament (1 Corinthians & Hebrews) Paul told the saints of his day he wasn't able to teach them the "meat" of the Gospel because they were only yet "babes" in the faith and not able to ingest and digest the deeper teachings of God. In addition, another reason why Paul was unable to teach the inexperienced 'newbies' of the Church the deeper teachings is because if they were to learn of the "mysteries" before they were sufficiently mature in the faith, and prepared to receive them, they would all blow a gasket, and in angry denunciation proclaim as great evils the deeper knowledge of the kingdom God. 

 

You assume too much when you say Paul would have been totally forthcoming in all he taught because, by his own word, he wisely and deliberately kept back a great deal of truth. 

Edited February 5, 2015 by teddyaware

[JLHPROF]

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."

 

Not often I agree with you, but I agree on this one.  I wish the Church would have just owned plural marriage from the beginning.  Those who find the topic uncomfortable would not feel blindsided, those who can't come to terms wouldn't have joined the Church only to leave (thus being under greater condemnation), and so many half truths wouldn't have wound their way through the Church narrative.

 

I believe Joseph did absolutely nothing wrong and I wish the Church had been open about it from the beginning.

[Tacenda]

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.

Oh man, when you put it that way....

The only thing I can come up with is, the bible times seem like eons ago or...

Joseph asked if polygamy should be restored. IMHO, I don't think it was ever a commandment. Also, it just seems odd that God didn't go to him first, JS went to God first, he had it on his mind.

Why would he want to restore polygamy? IMO, it wasn't commanded if you really think about it. If you think it was will you give me scripture that it was to be lived like Joseph Smith lived it, specifically please.

Christ built a new church, did away with the old laws and ordinances. And besides, I thought prophets get it wrong sometimes.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Tacenda

[USU78]

Not often I agree with you, but I agree on this one.  I wish the Church would have just owned plural marriage from the beginning.  Those who find the topic uncomfortable would not feel blindsided, those who can't come to terms wouldn't have joined the Church only to leave (thus being under greater condemnation), and so many half truths wouldn't have wound their way through the Church narrative.

 

I believe Joseph did absolutely nothing wrong and I wish the Church had been open about it from the beginning.

 

It's curious that some of the newly or recently and, in some cases, not so newly or recently baptized somehow fail to understand the significance of what nearly everybody who's heard of Mormons understands implicitly.

 

As I've stated elsewhere on this board, I grew up knowing about the clandestine "visits" by fathers to their other families under the noses of the federal marshals, the apostate Smith brothers' and other reorganites' nasty antipolygyny rhetoric, the very public lawsuits, and the very much in-your-face position of the Church on polygyny during the period ca 1850-1900.

 

And the talk both about JSJr's wives being split up amongst the Twelve, as well as the private Abrahamic tests of some of the Twelve and some few others that constitute the bulk of polyandry, which made it into Gospel Doctrine lessons as recently as 5-10 years ago very much give the lie to this notion of concealment.

 

I daresay it's far likelier that nobody thought it was necessary to talk about polygyny, since everybody knew already, but it wasn't particularly interesting from a doctrinal standpoint.

[USU78]

Also, it just seems odd that God didn't go to him first, JS went to God first, he had it on his mind.

 

You mean, like the Word of Wisdom . . . and the First Vision?

 

Both of them started with JSJr seeking, and ended with JSJr finding.

[Tacenda]

You mean, like the Word of Wisdom . . . and the First Vision?

Both of them started with JSJr seeking, and ended with JSJr finding.

True, very true.

[Tacenda]

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.

You blame the symptom, I blame the root.

[USU78]

You blame the symptom, I blame the root.

 

I blame the matriarch who abandoned her new-won faith, chose to live among but not be one of her coreligionists, and taught her younger children bitterness and hatred rather than choosing to cope.

 

You have no idea how much pain that woman's bad decisions has caused, and how few of her descendants in the 5th generation are remotely healthy emotionally or spiritually.

 

It's easy to take potshots, but doesn't take a lot of integrity or depth of understanding.

 

Hers is the fault, not the Church, for her unhappy life inside but apart from her neighbors.

[JLHPROF]

Joseph asked if polygamy should be restored. IMHO, I don't think it was ever a commandment. Also, it just seems odd that God didn't go to him first, JS went to God first, he had it on his mind.

 

The entire restoration came that way.  If Joseph hadn't gone into the grove the restoration might have come through different channel.  No, the scriptures are clear.  God expects us to ask first.

[Kenngo1969]

... Joseph asked if polygamy should be restored. IMHO, I don't think it was ever a commandment. ...

Yeah.  Forget that whole "angel-with-a-drawn-sword" thingy.

[Scott Lloyd]

The entire restoration came that way.  If Joseph hadn't gone into the grove the restoration might have come through different channel.  No, the scriptures are clear.  God expects us to ask first.

So true.

 

In fact, the longer I've lived, the more convinced I've become that the most productive means of seeking and receiving personal revelation is to develop a mind that formulates the sort of questions that will be the catalyst for such revelation. Very often this takes great effort, study, prior research, acquisition of knowledge, meditation and pondering.

 

Joseph Smith followed this pattern from the very first, with his Bible study, investigation of existing Christian sects, extensive pondering before approaching God in the prayer that brought forth the First Vision. The visit of Moroni was preceded by Joseph's fervent prayer to know of his standing before God, having learned earlier that God had a work for him to do.

 

And so it went. And so it goes today.

[Avatar4321]

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

d&C 132 was left out of scripture?

[Tacenda]

I blame the matriarch who abandoned her new-won faith, chose to live among but not be one of her coreligionists, and taught her younger children bitterness and hatred rather than choosing to cope.

You have no idea how much pain that woman's bad decisions has caused, and how few of her descendants in the 5th generation are remotely healthy emotionally or spiritually.

It's easy to take potshots, but doesn't take a lot of integrity or depth of understanding.

Hers is the fault, not the Church, for her unhappy life inside but apart from her neighbors.

My ancestor didn't take to kindly to her husband bringing home a second wife from his mission in England. When they arrived on the doorstep and he introduced the new wife, my ancestor threw fermenting milk on them and then slammed the door in their faces, I really don't know the rest of the story, it wasn't really spoken of in my home, maybe not very faith promoting.

I'm sorry if I took a potshot, I didn't mean to, I just believe what I believe. I guess you put people like me in the same group with your great great grandmother, I'm sorry her bad behaviour started the demise of her family the way it did. Such a sad, sad story, I don't take it lightly at all.

[teddyaware]

You blame the symptom, I blame the root.

 

If I were not on "limited," i'd post you the following privately, but I can't. .So at the risk of being slapped down for being a nanny, I most humbly and sincerely offer the following in response to your many agonizing posts where you seem to be crying out for help...

 

l'll tell you where I think you've made your mistake: When it comes to the Church you once loved and deeply believed, you seem to have cast every wonderful teaching and blessing away by putting all your eggs into one disorienting (for you) doctrinal basket called polygamy.

 

There is an abundant nourishing feast of delicious delicacies of spiritual food and drink set before set before you just for the taking, fully capable of filling your soul with salvation, truth, light, joy and peace. But in a sort of obsessive version of a gospel hobby -- something the saints have always cautioned against -- you seem to have hinged virtually everything in your spiritual life on Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy, apparently assuming that there is no possible way there could be an explanation in the future that will clear the prophet of any seeming wrongdoing.

 

But what if the day comes when you learn, by the Lord's own mouth, that  plural marriage was intended to be an extremely difficult Abrahamic test, a refiner's fire, that in Joseph's own words would prove to damn more souls than it would save. And in a manner of speaking, isn't that precisely what's happening? Saints who have jumped to the conclusion that there is no innocent explanation for the Church's practice of plural marriage are, to one degree or another, cutting themselves off from the fount of truth because of something they do not understand and have incorrectly presumed to be an evil.

 

What if after all the disillusionments and grave doubts of the disaffected it turns out that Joseph Smith did nothing wrong in the eyes of God, and that the reason why plural marriage doesn't 'sit right' with them is simply because they are spiritually unprepared to understand one of the great mysteries of the Gospel. It was the apostle Paul who warned the saints of his day that the spiritually unprepared would choke and gag on the meat of the Gospel if perchance they happened hear any of it it in their spiritually immature and unprepared state. So, sadly, rather than reserving judgement and continuing to feast at the abundant and delightful table set before them, they cast away all the beautiful, inspiring and perfectly logical teachings of the Restored Gospel in fulfillment of Paul's warning,  perceiving in their limited understanding that the deeper things of God are evil rather than holy. 

 

My advise? Feast at the abundant table of the Restored Gospel of Christ and put your gospel hobby aside for at least six months, then come back and and reexamine your hobby to see if you still see things in the same way. 

Edited February 5, 2015 by teddyaware

[carbon dioxide]

Joseph asked if polygamy should be restored. IMHO, I don't think it was ever a commandment. Also, it just seems odd that God didn't go to him first, JS went to God first, he had it on his mind.

Why would he want to restore polygamy? IMO, it wasn't commanded if you really think about it. If you think it was will you give me scripture that it was to be lived like Joseph Smith lived it, specifically please.

Christ built a new church, did away with the old laws and ordinances. And besides, I thought prophets get it wrong sometimes.

It seems to me that Joseph Smith and the membership in general in the 19th century came to view it as a commandment.  Why would they suffer so much for something that was just optional or a suggestion?  Christ did away with the law of Moses but many things existed apart form that law.  Polygamy and tithing for example existed before Moses came around so they are not intimately tied to the law of Moses. 

[why me]

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?

In the 70's when Leonard Arrington published his book Mormon Experience by Knopf, many church members read it. In that book much was written about polygamy during Joseph's time and why it came to be practiced. Many saints read that book. Nothing much happened. People who read remained faithful members because the interpretation was very faith promoting and it made sense. No folk tales in his interpretation of polygamy and other issues in church history. The problem today is that nay tom, george or jane can post information and their diatribes on the internet. And reading these diatribes and various interpretations of facts can be disheartening for many members. I think that the church is not playing catch up when it comes to the internet and information. Of course, members could have read various biographies of Hyrum where polygamy was discussed but it seems that they do not do this. Instead, they read books by exmembers who are critical of the lds church and have a message to tell. In the past members knew the different ways that the book of mormon was said to be translated and the accounts of the first vision etc. No problem at all in the past.

 

The basic point is simple: we have the book of mormon. How did this book come about is the question. If that book is false then the church is false. If all 11 witnessed lied, then the church is false. But so far, the 11 witnesses have not been proven liars and the book of mormon translation process has not been proven false.

 

Here is the mormon experience which many members read when it was published.

 

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/515417.The_Mormon_Experience

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Mormon-Experience-HISTORY-LATTER-DAY/dp/0252062361

 

Here is some news about the church in africa and what it has done for one village at a time:

 

 

 

Maybe you can use some of these ideas to give back to the african american communities.

 

http://ldscharities.org/pages/how-can-i-help?lang=eng

Edited February 5, 2015 by why me

[why me]

My ancestor didn't take to kindly to her husband bringing home a second wife from his mission in England. When they arrived on the doorstep and he introduced the new wife, my ancestor threw fermenting milk on them and then slammed the door in their faces, I really don't know the rest of the story, it wasn't really spoken of in my home, maybe not very faith promoting.

I'm sorry if I took a potshot, I didn't mean to, I just believe what I believe. I guess you put people like me in the same group with your great great grandmother, I'm sorry her bad behaviour started the demise of her family the way it did. Such a sad, sad story, I don't take it lightly at all.

And yet, some did take kindly to polygamy. As you have just said, you have no idea what happened next. Also, how do you know if the story happened the way you said it did? Do you have a journal or is it just what was passed down generation to generation. I think that you have become somewhat addicted to critic sites with the podcasts and information. You probably read these sites daily, attempting to reinforce your opinions against the lds church. But much is overlooked. First read Mormon Experience where polygamy is mentioned along with many other things. And after you have read it, ask yourself some questions. Do I believe in this interpretation of the facts? Does Leonard present the case well? Is lds history all that bad as the critics say? etc.

[readstoomuch]

And yet, some did take kindly to polygamy. As you have just said, you have no idea what happened next. Also, how do you know if the story happened the way you said it did? Do you have a journal or is it just what was passed down generation to generation. I think that you have become somewhat addicted to critic sites with the podcasts and information. You probably read these sites daily, attempting to reinforce your opinions against the lds church. But much is overlooked. First read Mormon Experience where polygamy is mentioned along with many other things. And after you have read it, ask yourself some questions. Do I believe in this interpretation of the facts? Does Leonard present the case well? Is lds history all that bad as the critics say? etc.

The Mormon Experience is an

Outstanding book. Also the Story of the Latter Day Saints. They won't steer you wrong.

[readstoomuch]

And yet, some did take kindly to polygamy. As you have just said, you have no idea what happened next. Also, how do you know if the story happened the way you said it did? Do you have a journal or is it just what was passed down generation to generation. I think that you have become somewhat addicted to critic sites with the podcasts and information. You probably read these sites daily, attempting to reinforce your opinions against the lds church. But much is overlooked. First read Mormon Experience where polygamy is mentioned along with many other things. And after you have read it, ask yourself some questions. Do I believe in this interpretation of the facts? Does Leonard present the case well? Is lds history all that bad as the critics say? etc.

The Mormon Experience is an

Outstanding book. Also the Story of the Latter Day Saints. They won't steer you wrong.

[readstoomuch]

Duplicate.

Edited February 5, 2015 by readstoomuch

[Tacenda]

And yet, some did take kindly to polygamy. As you have just said, you have no idea what happened next. Also, how do you know if the story happened the way you said it did? Do you have a journal or is it just what was passed down generation to generation. I think that you have become somewhat addicted to critic sites with the podcasts and information. You probably read these sites daily, attempting to reinforce your opinions against the lds church. But much is overlooked. First read Mormon Experience where polygamy is mentioned along with many other things. And after you have read it, ask yourself some questions. Do I believe in this interpretation of the facts? Does Leonard present the case well? Is lds history all that bad as the critics say? etc.

Yes the story was written down and even online to read.

I once checked out one of Leonard Arrington's books at the Library, huge volume, but didn't finish.

I know I'm addicted to this stuff, and it's a vicious circle, but I only feel like it's only partly my fault, the other part the church's.

I listened to a Mormon Matters podcast today, I'm not alone, the most recent one discusses many things about our religion and the issues, not anti though. I'll link later if you need me to, but I'm sure you have the capability to listen or read the intro.

Not to get too personal here, I don't know how active you are in the church to get a feel for the members to know how well they study the books you've presented. For all you know there may be plenty that are in my same boat. I've wanted so bad for the bishop to reach out to me and offer someone like you that knows their stuff to give me guidance face to face. But I'm not about to ask, so don't tell me to.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the John Dehlin case. The other day on another board someone opened a topic and posted that some people are coming back to belief again. People that had issues similar to myself. So whatever is happening, it is working, especially since it probably was too hard to break away from a way of life, which is my situation.

[why me]

Yes the story was written down and even online to read.

I once checked out one of Leonard Arrington's books at the Library, huge volume, but didn't finish.

I know I'm addicted to this stuff, and it's a vicious circle, but I only feel like it's only partly my fault, the other part the church's.

Not to get too personal here, I don't know how active you are in the church to get a feel for the members to know how well they study the books you've presented. For all you know there may be plenty that are in my same boat. I've wanted so bad for the bishop to reach out to me and offer someone like you that knows their stuff to give me guidance face to face. But I'm not about to ask, so don't tell me to.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the John Dehlin case. The other day on another board someone opened a topic and posted that some people are coming back to belief again. People that had issues similar to myself. So whatever is happening, it is working, especially since it probably was too hard to break away from a way of life, which is my situation.

I think that many people do come back when they discover the realities of the open road. The lds community can bring meaning to everyday life, espcially in a world that can present life as meaningless or without substance.

 

I don't think that ward members are doing too much reading these days outside of skimming on the internet. Many have no time to read because of work and family commitments.  But in the past there was more time to read and do other things, especially church things. But the Mormon Experience is a good book and not very thick. Instead of listening to podcasts that may be critical or reading critical sites, you can sit down and read the book. 

 

I sometimes get the impression that you want to leave and you search for information to give you strength to do so. But......

 

Did you know that John's brother Joel is Chief Information Officer for the lds church? Isn't that a hoot! He is very active in the lds church.

 

https://tech.lds.org/people/19-joel-dehlin

Edited February 5, 2015 by why me

[mormonnewb]

In the 70's when Leonard Arrington published his book Mormon Experience by Knopf, many church members read it. In that book much was written about polygamy during Joseph's time and why it came to be practiced. Many saints read that book. Nothing much happened. People who read remained faithful members because the interpretation was very faith promoting and it made sense. No folk tales in his interpretation of polygamy and other issues in church history. The problem today is that nay tom, george or jane can post information and their diatribes on the internet. And reading these diatribes and various interpretations of facts can be disheartening for many members. I think that the church is not playing catch up when it comes to the internet and information. Of course, members could have read various biographies of Hyrum where polygamy was discussed but it seems that they do not do this. Instead, they read books by exmembers who are critical of the lds church and have a message to tell. In the past members knew the different ways that the book of mormon was said to be translated and the accounts of the first vision etc. No problem at all in the past.

 

The basic point is simple: we have the book of mormon. How did this book come about is the question. If that book is false then the church is false. If all 11 witnessed lied, then the church is false. But so far, the 11 witnesses have not been proven liars and the book of mormon translation process has not been proven false.

 

Here is the mormon experience which many members read when it was published.

 

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/515417.The_Mormon_Experience

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Mormon-Experience-HISTORY-LATTER-DAY/dp/0252062361

 

Here is some news about the church in africa and what it has done for one village at a time:

 

 

 

Maybe you can use some of these ideas to give back to the african american communities.

 

http://ldscharities.org/pages/how-can-i-help?lang=eng

You do realize that African AMERICANS have clean drinking water and access to modern medicine, right? These videos mean no more to me as they mean to you. Yes, I'm glad that my Church is following the call to care for "the least of these," but I'd be just as happy if the recipients were Asian, South American, or even white.

Even more, why are YOU bringing race into this discussion?