why me Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) I don't think that anyone believes a youth magazine is intended to delve deeply into church history. But one more sentence that says "some plural marriages continued to be performed until it was fully stopped in 1904. Now that doesn't sound so damning does it? It is still not an in depth answer, but it answers the question of when did polygamy stop in the church. Going to Wilipedia and finding out that church leaders continued to practice polygamy until 1904 tells the youth an entirely different answer. And tells them that if they want the truth, then turn to the internet, not the church. How can you not see that?Actually, they can go to their seminary manual, which all should have and read up on it. It is all there. Or they can go to the church website and search it, and they will discover it there. There is no reason to go to the wiki for the answer. I gave the links to the church site and to the manual in previous posts. However, I must say that people like yourself seem not to want to recognize what the church has said about it and what they do teach the youth in seminary and the young adults in institute. https://www.lds.org/topics/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2012-05-0406-ministry-of-wilford-woodruff-the-manifesto-of-1890?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng So, why go to the wiki? But here is the problem: people prefer to go to sites that are against the church. Maybe they wish to believe the worst. Maybe they are inclined to discover information that seems to be true and yet, aren't. But it does seem that the church has covered it quite well. So, I would send them to lds.org I think that whoever wrote the article mentioned in the new era, made a mistake. I don't think that it was an intentional mistake because much information is on the church websites above. I know one thing. I would not want to be a writer for the new era in answering such questions. There will be always someone attempint to start a thread about what I left out and blame the church for it. Who would want that job? Edited March 5, 2015 by why me 1
theplains Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 I really don't know what you are saying. Joseph said he did things offensive to God. He also said they were minor in nature. What issue are you trying to make here? Are we not all sinners? According to his account ... "During the space of time which intervened between the time I had the vision and the year eighteen hundred and twenty-three ... I was left to all kinds of temptations; and, mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God". With all these acts, offensive in the sight of God, how could he say that no one could accuse him ofany great or malignant sins? Maybe he had a 'sin' scale and didn't have the wisdom to see that a smallsin = a great sin = any sin = an offence to God. Thanks,Jim
JLHPROF Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 According to his account ... "During the space of time which intervened between the time I had the vision and the year eighteen hundred and twenty-three ... I was left to all kinds of temptations; and, mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God". With all these acts, offensive in the sight of God, how could he say that no one could accuse him ofany great or malignant sins? Maybe he had a 'sin' scale and didn't have the wisdom to see that a smallsin = a great sin = any sin = an offence to God. Thanks,Jim Oh I see - you are saying that ALL sins, even foolish youthful levity are great malignant sins in the eyes of God.So flipping someone off in traffic is basically the equivalent of genocide or child abuse.Yeah. That's right. I think Joseph got it right and you need to get some perspective on sin. God may not tolerate sin in the least degree, but some sin requires more repentance than others.
MormonFreeThinker Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) And tells them that if they want the truth, then turn to the internet, not the church. How can you not see that? LOL the internet and the Wikepedia are not real research, unless you read digitized newspapers, documents, and journals, but I don't think you do that. The Wikepedia is not reliable for controversial topics. Dan Vogel on December 4, 2014 at 11:58 am said:"Google is a great tool, but it makes some people lazy" Edited March 5, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
california boy Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 Actually, they can go to their seminary manual, which all should have and read up on it. It is all there. Or they can go to the church website and search it, and they will discover it there. There is no reason to go to the wiki for the answer. I gave the links to the church site and to the manual in previous posts. However, I must say that people like yourself seem not to want to recognize what the church has said about it and what they do teach the youth in seminary and the young adults in institute. https://www.lds.org/topics/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2012-05-0406-ministry-of-wilford-woodruff-the-manifesto-of-1890?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng So, why go to the wiki? But here is the problem: people prefer to go to sites that are against the church. Maybe they wish to believe the worst. Maybe they are inclined to discover information that seems to be true and yet, aren't. But it does seem that the church has covered it quite well. So, I would send them to lds.org I think that whoever wrote the article mentioned in the new era, made a mistake. I don't think that it was an intentional mistake because much information is on the church websites above. I know one thing. I would not want to be a writer for the new era in answering such questions. There will be always someone attempint to start a thread about what I left out and blame the church for it. Who would want that job? LOL the internet and the Wikepedia are not real research, unless you read digitized newspapers, documents, and journals, but I don't think you do that. The Wikepedia is not reliable for controversial topics. Dan Vogel on December 4, 2014 at 11:58 am said:"Google is a great tool, but it makes some people lazy" I don't disagree with either one of you. Certainly there are better sources for scholarly research and understanding of the history of polygamy than the New Era or Wikipedia. But I think you are both missing the point I have tried to make. Wikipedia has become the "go to" place for a lot of people, and especially the youth who grew up with the internet to find unbiased facts. And in general, the information on Wikipedia is fairly bslanced. What you propose is that youth, who think they can't trust what the church is telling them about polygamy to go to another church source to find what actually happened. Do you find this idea a bit problematic? If they feel they can't trust the church magazines, what makes you think they will feel they can trust seminary manuals which also don't tell the complete history of Joseph Smith and how polygamy began. Is all I am suggesting is that the church should do a better job about how it answers sensitive questions about it's history. Or, don't publish questions on complex issues that require much more context than the format of the New Era. Undermining the churches credibility by presenting answers that significantly differ with the full truth on this matter does not strengthen trust in the church. When youth loose trust in what the church is publishing, they go to other less favorable sources. When they find significant differences, they feel like they have been deceived about what really happened. Can you not see that?
Tacenda Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) deleted, wrong thread Edited March 6, 2015 by Tacenda
MormonFreeThinker Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 (edited) When they find significant differences, they feel like they have been deceived about what really happened. Can you not see that? they have to be careful about what they read. Many teenagers become 9/11 truthers because they read a lot of junk on the internet. They feel the government deceived them about "what really happened" (in their minds) The internet is full of unreliable websites, that is the problem. Edited March 8, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
Recommended Posts