Answers To Common Questions - New Era, March '15

[Danzo]

I don't know what they thought, but think it's reasonable to assume that most who weren't "in the know" took the leaders words at face value.

 

Interesting.  I think that would be a good topic of research.  

Does anyone on the board know what most of the saints (those who were not in the know ) thought about the manifesto, and the leaders statements in the 1890s?

[JLHPROF]

MEANT by whom?

 

The LORD?

 

President Woodruff? (at the time? Later?)

The members of the church?

 

It probably meant different things to different people at different times

 

Even today, It means different things to different people.

 

I think only the opinion of the first one on my list makes any difference.

 

And I agree.  The Lord told Wilford Woodruff what to write, and yet it wasn't written as a revelation, but as a press release.  And then Pres. Woodruff and his quorum proceeded to ignore it.

 

I think the big misconception is that in 1890 the Lord told Pres. Woodruff to end polygamy.  I think the truth is that the Lord told Pres. Woodruff to write the Manifesto.

So my question stands.  Was the Manifesto actually meant to end Polygamy when it was issued?  I don't think that was the intent of either the Lord or Pres. Woodruff.

[why me]

Thanks Rockpond.

I pose the same question to you as I posed to rockpond. If you were a member back in nauvoo would you want polygamy to be publically preached from the pulpit? Or would you want it to remain private among the saints? We need to remember the context of what it meant to be a member at that time: threats, fear, persecution, press hostility etc. I would prefer to have it covered up so that I can live in peace.

 

And as we can see from history once the mobs discovered polygamy being practiced among the mormons, the saints were driven out and then afterwards, it was practiced openly. And joseph and hyrum were murdered. Oh, how easy to judge Joseph Smith who just wasn't a prophet but the mayor of nauvoo.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Interesting. I think that would be a good topic of research.

Does anyone on the board know what most of the saints (those who were not in the know ) thought about the manifesto, and the leaders statements in the 1890s?

I have journals from two ancestors who were living polygamy at the time and they both interpreted the manifesto at face value.

[why me]

Do you find OD1 to be ambigious?  The editorial staff of the Deseret Evening News sure didn't.  Just days after the Manifesto they published the following editorial:

 

 

I would have to agree, I don't see anywhere in OD1 where it states new plural marriages will be allowed in Mexico, Canada, and even Utah.  

 

 

 

 

I don't see how this remotely is the same as home teaching, giving a talk, or serving a mission.  Practicing polygamy is an excommunicatable offense, and while it may not have been in 1890, it was soon after.  The same cannot be said for home teaching.

Do you read church resources? The best resource is from the church itself:

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng

 

I do believe that the historical perspective is all there. We always need to be aware of historical perspectives from the viewpoint of that time in history. I think that anyone reading the link, will see that nothing was clear cut or simple. Such is history. But how many people will read the link? And how many people who wish to find fault with the church at this time will be convinced about the historical perspective at that time when the manifesto was issued. Here is just a portion from the link:

 

The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage

For much of the 19th century, a significant number of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practiced plural marriage—the marriage of one man to more than one woman. The beginning and end of the practice were directed by revelation through God’s prophets. The initial command to practice plural marriage came through Joseph Smith, the founding prophet and President of the Church. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which led to the end of plural marriage in the Church.

The end of plural marriage required great faith and sometimes complicated, painful—and intensely personal—decisions on the part of individual members and Church leaders. Like the beginning of plural marriage in the Church, the end of the practice was a process rather than a single event. Revelation came “line upon line, precept upon precept.”¹

Antipolygamy Laws and Civil Disobedience

For half a century, beginning in the early 1840s, Church members viewed plural marriage as a commandment from God, an imperative that helped “raise up” a righteous posterity unto the Lord.² Though not all Church members were expected to enter into plural marriage, those who did so believed they would be blessed for their participation. Between the 1850s and the 1880s, many Latter-day Saints lived in plural families as husbands, wives, or children.³

In many parts of the world, polygamy was socially acceptable and legally permissible. But in the United States, most people thought that the practice was morally wrong. These objections led to legislative efforts to end polygamy. Beginning in 1862, the U.S. government passed a series of laws designed to force Latter-day Saints to relinquish plural marriage.⁴

In the face of these measures, Latter-day Saints maintained that plural marriage was a religious principle protected under the U.S. Constitution. The Church mounted a vigorous legal defense all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court ruled against the Latter-day Saints: religious belief was protected by law, religious practice was not. According to the court’s opinion, marriage was a civil contract regulated by the state. Monogamy was the only form of marriage sanctioned by the state. “Polygamy,” the court explained, “has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe.”⁵

Latter-day Saints sincerely desired to be loyal citizens of the United States, which they considered a divinely founded nation. But they also accepted plural marriage as a commandment from God and believed the court was unjustly depriving them of their right to follow God’s commands.

Confronted with these contradictory allegiances, Church leaders encouraged members to obey God rather than man. Many Latter-day Saints embarked on a course of civil disobedience during the 1880s by continuing to live in plural marriage and to enter into new plural marriages.⁶ The federal government responded by enacting ever more punishing legislation.

Between 1850 and 1896, Utah was a territory of the U.S. government, which meant that federal officials in Washington, D.C., exercised great control over local matters. In 1882, the U.S. Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which made unlawful cohabitation (interpreted as a man living with more than one wife) punishable by six months of imprisonment and a $300 fine. In 1887 Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act to punish the Church itself, not just its members. The act dissolved the corporation of the Church and directed that all Church property over $50,000 be forfeited to the government.

This government opposition strengthened the Saints’ resolve to resist what they deemed to be unjust laws. Polygamous men went into hiding, sometimes for years at a time, moving from house to house and staying with friends and relatives. Others assumed aliases and moved to out-of-the-way places in southern Utah, Arizona, Canada, and Mexico.⁷ Many escaped prosecution; many others, when arrested, pled guilty and submitted to fines and imprisonment.

This antipolygamy campaign created great disruption in Mormon communities. The departure of husbands left wives and children to tend farms and businesses, causing incomes to drop and economic recession to set in. The campaign also strained families. New plural wives had to live apart from their husbands, their confidential marriages known only to a few. Pregnant women often chose to go into hiding, at times in remote locales, rather than risk being subpoenaed to testify in court against their husbands. Children lived in fear that their families would be broken up or that they would be forced to testify against their parents. Some children went into hiding and lived under assumed names.⁸

Despite countless difficulties, many Latter-day Saints were convinced that the antipolygamy campaign was useful in accomplishing God’s purposes. They testified that God was humbling and purifying His covenant people as He had done in ages past. Myron Tanner, a bishop in Provo, Utah, felt that “the hand of oppression laid on the parents, is doing more to convince our Children of the truth of Mormonism than anything else could have done.”⁹ Incarceration for “conscience’ sake” proved edifying for many. George Q. Cannon, a counselor in the First Presidency, emerged from his five months in the Utah penitentiary rejuvenated. “My cell has seemed a heavenly place, and I feel that angels have been there,” he wrote.¹⁰

The Church completed and dedicated two temples during the antipolygamy campaign, a remarkable achievement.¹¹ But as federal pressure intensified, many essential aspects of Church government were severely curtailed, and civil disobedience looked increasingly untenable as a long-term solution. Between 1885 and 1889, most Apostles and stake presidents were in hiding or in prison. After federal agents began seizing Church property in accordance with the Edmunds-Tucker legislation, management of the Church became more difficult.¹²

The Manifesto

After two decades of seeking either to negotiate a change in the law or avoid its disastrous consequences, Church leaders began to investigate alternative responses. In 1885 and 1886 they established settlements in Mexico and Canada, outside the jurisdiction of U.S. law, where polygamous families could live peaceably. Hoping that a moderation in their position would lead to a reduction in hostilities, Church leaders advised plural husbands to live openly with only one of their wives, and advocated that plural marriage not be taught publicly. In 1889, Church authorities prohibited the performance of new plural marriages in Utah.¹³

Church leaders prayerfully sought guidance from the Lord and struggled to understand what they should do. Both President John Taylor and President Wilford Woodruff felt the Lord directing them to stay the course and not renounce plural marriage.¹⁴

This inspiration came when paths for legal redress were still open. The last of the paths closed in May 1890, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Edmunds-Tucker Act, allowing the confiscation of Church property to proceed. President Woodruff saw that the Church’s temples and its ordinances were now at risk. Burdened by this threat, he prayed intensely over the matter. “The Lord showed me by vision and revelation,” he later said, “exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice,” referring to plural marriage. “All the temples [would] go out of our hands.” God “has told me exactly what to do, and what the result would be if we did not do it.”¹⁵

On September 25, 1890, President Woodruff wrote in his journal that he was “under the necessity of acting for the Temporal Salvation of the Church.” He stated, “After Praying to the Lord & feeling inspired by his spirit I have issued … [a] Proclamation.”¹⁶ This proclamation, now published in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 1, was released to the public on September 25 and became known as the Manifesto.¹⁷

The Manifesto was carefully worded to address the immediate conflict with the U.S. government. “We are not teaching polygamy, or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice,” President Woodruff said. “Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.”¹⁸

The members of the Quorum of the Twelve varied in their reactions to the Manifesto. Franklin D. Richards was sure it was “the work of the Lord.” Francis M. Lyman said that “he had endorsed the Manifesto fully when he first heard it.”¹⁹ Not all the Twelve accepted the document immediately. John W. Taylor said he did “not yet feel quite right about it” at first.²⁰ John Henry Smith candidly admitted that “the Manifesto had disturbed his feelings very much” and that he was still “somewhat at sea” regarding it.²¹ Within a week, however, all members of the Twelve voted to sustain the Manifesto.

The Manifesto was formally presented to the Church at the semiannual general conference held in the Salt Lake Tabernacle in October 1890. On Monday, October 6, Orson F. Whitney, a Salt Lake City bishop, stood at the pulpit and read the Articles of Faith, which included the line that Latter-day Saints believe in “obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” These articles were sustained by uplifted hand. Whitney then read the Manifesto, and Lorenzo Snow, President of the Quorum of the Twelve, moved that the document be accepted as “authoritative and binding.” The assembly was then asked to vote on this motion. The Deseret News reported that the vote was “unanimous”; most voted in favor, though some abstained from voting.²²

Rank-and-file Latter-day Saints accepted the Manifesto with various degrees of reservation. Many were not ready for plural marriage to come to an end. General Relief Society president Zina D. H. Young, writing in her journal on the day the Manifesto was presented to the Church, captured the anguish of the moment: “Today the hearts of all were tried but looked to God and submitted.”²³ The Manifesto prompted uncertainty about the future of some relationships. Eugenia Washburn Larsen, fearing the worst, reported feeling “dense darkness” when she imagined herself and other wives and children being “turned adrift” by husbands.²⁴ Other plural wives, however, reacted to the Manifesto with “great relief.”

[why me]

Interesting.  I think that would be a good topic of research.  

Does anyone on the board know what most of the saints (those who were not in the know ) thought about the manifesto, and the leaders statements in the 1890s?

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng

 

Of course, this is a church source and so, very few people will believe it.   Much better to get the critic interpretation.   I find it amazing just what the church has published about it. However, it seems many members do not wish to research what the church has written about historical events or find it just a waste of time. The manifesto caused much confusion and fear among the saints and also divisions. Nothing is so clear cut as we can see from the link.

 

As we can see from the link, the persecution of the saints continued in utah and polygamy was the cause of this persecution. There was no religious freedom in the US even in the 1880s. What to do? is the question the leaders asked and the members at that time asked the same question. Life was terrible for polygamous families as husbands were imprisoned or fled the law and yet, kept their polygamous relationships intact. We need to see just what life was like for people who were facing government persecution. We need to take a step outside ourselves and see and feel what members were experiencing to understand the manifesto and what followed before and after it.

Edited March 3, 2015 by why me

[Tacenda]

I pose the same question to you as I posed to rockpond. If you were a member back in nauvoo would you want polygamy to be publically preached from the pulpit? Or would you want it to remain private among the saints? We need to remember the context of what it meant to be a member at that time: threats, fear, persecution, press hostility etc. I would prefer to have it covered up so that I can live in peace.

And as we can see from history once the mobs discovered polygamy being practiced among the mormons, the saints were driven out and then afterwards, it was practiced openly. And joseph and hyrum were murdered. Oh, how easy to judge Joseph Smith who just wasn't a prophet but the mayor of nauvoo.

If it's of God then it wouldn't need to be hidden. Never let his light be hidden.

I don't think it was right Why Me, it never was in the Bible, Abraham nor any of the other prophets were commanded to live it. Please show me where the prophets of old mentioned in the church essays, were ever commanded to live polygamy.

I'm probably not the right person to have asked this question.

[carbon dioxide]

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation,” he later said, “exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice,” referring to plural marriage. “All the temples [would] go out of our hands.” God “has told me exactly what to do, and what the result would be if we did not do it.”¹⁵

 

 This part sort of gets me depressed.  The saints were doing the best they could and the Lord could have protected them from the government in their unconstitutional actions.  All he needed to do would have been to fire off a portion of the Yellowstone volcano and buried much of the east of the US in volcanic ash.   The only think I can think of why God did not stand up to the government was the Saints were not living polygamy and other things to the level that would have allowed God to pound the Federal government for their abuses.

[why me]

If it's of God then it wouldn't need to be hidden. Never let his light be hidden.

I don't think it was right Why Me, it never was in the Bible, Abraham nor any of the other prophets were commanded to live it. Please show me where the prophets of old mentioned in the church essays, were ever commanded to live polygamy.Di

I'm probably not the right person to have asked this question.

Did you read the link? Whether prophets of old were commanded to live it is not the question. The question is more centered in the Manifesto and why it was written and the historical circumstances for it. As for the prophets of old, well, it seems that the lord condoned it and permitted it. Well, anyway, here is a link from a bible based source:

 

http://biblemesh.com/blog/how-should-we-respond-to-old-testament-polygamy/

 

The picture gets even dicier when one considers the practice of the kings of Israel. King David, the “man after God’s own heart,” had eight wives. God not only seemed to “permit” this activity, but in one instance at least, actually took responsibility for it. In 2 Samuel 12 when the prophet Nathan confronts David over his sin with Bathsheba, we read: “This is what the Lord God of Israel says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I have given you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your bosom . . . and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah, and as if this wasn’t enough, I would have given you even more.”  David’s son, Solomon, however, went overboard, flouting a stipulation in Deuteronomy 17 that kings not accumulate “too many” wives. For the record, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

 

Now it is time for me to be blunt. Please do your own research in these matters. And not just from critic sources. I have provided you with two links: one about the manifesto from a church source and now from a bible based source. As we can see, life is not always what it seems.

Edited March 3, 2015 by why me

[carbon dioxide]

http://biblemesh.com/blog/how-should-we-respond-to-old-testament-polygamy/

 

From that article

 

"Although monogamy was clearly God’s intent from the beginning, the picture blurs pretty quickly after Adam and Eve’s first sin and expulsion from the Garden."

I can never understand why people think that this to be the case.  Though God gave Eve to Adam in the garden, three is no claim that monogamy was being used as the standard or was the intent from the beginning.  People are reading something the story that is not there.  I don't see any evidence of anyone in the Bible ever suggesting that monogamy was God's intent from the beginning.  I think I will trust Abraham and Jacob over somebody today claiming they know God's intent better than those two fine righteous men.

Edited March 3, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[why me]

 This part sort of gets me depressed.  The saints were doing the best they could and the Lord could have protected them from the government in their unconstitutional actions.  All he needed to do would have been to fire off a portion of the Yellowstone volcano and buried much of the east of the US in volcanic ash.   The only think I can think of why God did not stand up to the government was the Saints were not living polygamy and other things to the level that would have allowed God to pound the Federal government for their abuses.

There is also free agency. The govenment was free to exercise their free agency in again persecuting the mormons. However, the mormons learned a valuable lesson in all this and it made them stronger. As we can see, the lds church continued to grow and prosper. God could have also saved his son from a cruel death but he didn't. Free agency was respected.

 

The link offers one interpretation but it is addressed to tacenda's claim that god did not sanction OT polygamy. That was my point for the link. Every Tom, Harry and Jane as a biblical interpretation and that link is no different.

Edited March 3, 2015 by why me

[Tacenda]

There is also free agency. The govenment was free to exercise their free agency in again persecuting the mormons. However, the mormons learned a valuable lesson in all this and it made them stronger. As we can see, the lds church continued to grow and prosper. God could have also saved his son from a cruel death but he didn't. Free agency was respected.

 

The link offers one interpretation but it is addressed to tacenda's claim that god did not sanction OT polygamy. That was my point for the link. Every Tom, Harry and Jane as a biblical interpretation and that link is no different.

Deuteronomy 17:17 God tells the KINGS (which David was) not to multiply wives unto himself.  David disobeyed that command.  AND God cannot contradict Himself.  (quote from a former member of a polygamist group that I dialogue with, I don't want to take credit for this statement)  

[haggard]

The magazine targeting the rising LDS generation (New Era) decides to tackle some challenging issues but:

a) Gives shallow answers which includes misleading information

b) Misses the easy step of linking to the essays and other approved sources

https://www.lds.org/new-era/2015/03/be-a-missionary-now/answers-to-common-questions?lang=eng

Questions include (amongst others):

- Mormon men have lots of wives, right?

- Why are Mormons against gay people?*

- Are you really Christians or more like a cult?

- Doesn’t scientific evidence prove that the Book of Mormon couldn’t possibly be true?

- Do you all just blindly obey whatever you’re told?

*They link to mormonsandgays.org after the answer to this one, which is a good start. Shame they missed the opportunity to do the same with the Book of Mormon science essay and the polygamy essays.

Any member who does an honest and thorough investigation into these questions (and the founder Joseph) will result in a "shaken faith",   It's inevitable. And any prospect who does the same will end up shocked with their results as well. So when young church members google "Joseph smith and his wives" and find out the truth about him, that it is not what they were told in church it appears as though the church was misleading them.   

 

So what is the solution? The church stays they course, if they were truly honest about it all members would be leaving in droves.

[omni]

https://www.lds.org/topics/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng

As we can see from the link, the persecution of the saints continued in utah and polygamy was the cause of this persecution. There was no religious freedom in the US even in the 1880s. What to do? is the question the leaders asked and the members at that time asked the same question. Life was terrible for polygamous families as husbands were imprisoned or fled the law and yet, kept their polygamous relationships intact. We need to see just what life was like for people who were facing government persecution. We need to take a step outside ourselves and see and feel what members were experiencing to understand the manifesto and what followed before and after it.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, if the leaders of the church had complied with federal law and completely stopped authorizing new plural marriages after OD1 then they would have received less/no persecution with regards to polygamy.

[why me]

Deuteronomy 17:17 God tells the KINGS (which David was) not to multiply wives unto himself.  David disobeyed that command.  AND God cannot contradict Himself.  (quote from a former member of a polygamist group that I dialogue with, I don't want to take credit for this statement)  

I think that your friend got it wrong. God did not forbid polygamy in the OT. In fact several important men in the OT were polygamists. Here is an explanation from a bible based group:

 

Question: "Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible?"

Answer: The question of polygamy is an interesting one in that most people today view polygamy as immoral while the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns it. The first instance of polygamy/bigamy in the Bible was that of Lamech in Genesis 4:19: “Lamech married two women.” Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. In 2 Samuel 12:8, God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (essentially wives of a lower status), according to 1 Kings 11:3. What are we to do with these instances of polygamy in the Old Testament? There are three questions that need to be answered: 1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? 2) How does God view polygamy today? 3) Why did it change?

1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? The Bible does not specifically say why God allowed polygamy. As we speculate about God’s silence, there are a few key factors to consider. First, while there are slightly more male babies than female babies, due to women having longer lifespans, there have always been more women in the world than men. Current statistics show that approximately 50.5 percent of the world population are women. Assuming the same percentages in ancient times, and multiplied by millions of people, there would be tens of thousands more women than men. Second, warfare in ancient times was especially brutal, with an incredibly high rate of fatality. This would have resulted in an even greater percentage of women to men. Third, due to patriarchal societies, it was nearly impossible for an unmarried woman to provide for herself. Women were often uneducated and untrained. Women relied on their fathers, brothers, and husbands for provision and protection. Unmarried women were often subjected to prostitution and slavery. The significant difference between the number of women and men would have left many, many women in an undesirable situation.

So, it seems that God may have allowed polygamy to protect and provide for the women who could not find a husband otherwise. A man would take multiple wives and serve as the provider and protector of all of them. While definitely not ideal, living in a polygamist household was far better than the alternatives: prostitution, slavery, or starvation. In addition to the protection/provision factor, polygamy enabled a much faster expansion of humanity, fulfilling God’s command to “be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth” (Genesis 9:7). Men are capable of impregnating multiple women in the same time period, causing humanity to grow much faster than if each man was only producing one child each year.

http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html

 

But of course, everyone has an interpretation. But there were many important godly figures in the OT who were polygamists and it seems that god was okay with it. Some claim that moses was a polygamist because in the OT he had two wives. It is unclear whether the first wife died.

[KevinG]

Not sharing the most salacious rumors about Joseph Smith = hiding the truth.

 

The anti-Mormons and worry trolls are really having to dig these days, especially with the essays on LDS.org

 

Funny how I read Rough Stone Rolling, and didn't have a faith crisis.  Then again I don't subscribe to prophetic inerrancy, or buy into every internet analysis of Joseph Smith's life.

[haggard]

Ok, this will be my last comment.  I am absolutely amazed at what some members are willing to rationalize to justify what the church does.  We are not talking about an entire book on polygamy to answer the question correctly.  Two more sentences would have been a factual answer to when polygamy ended as has been demonstrated by a few posters on this thread.  

 

I taught seminary for a number of years.  There is an entire YEAR devoted to church history.  In all of those years, I did know that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.  What I never knew is that he married a 14 year old girl in secret, and other men's wives not telling Emma.  That is a big difference.  And I was the teacher.  Yet some here are defending the fact that the church can not or does not have the ability to teach that history truthfully and honestly even when it is easy to do so?  At this point, one has to ask, what kind of church do we have here that is unwilling to add a couple of sentences to make such a simple answer honest and complete.  And THAT is the question many are asking themselves as they walk away from the church.

 

What has become glaringly apparent is that some members are willing to believe and stay in the church no matter what the churches says or claims.  They take it as their own mission to defend the church in all things at all costs.

 

Some don't trust all that the church teaches, but are willing to stay in the church because they like the community and believe that the church strengthens and enriches their lives even if the church is not always truthful about it's history.  They feel that they can not defend the church in all things and for all of the past mistakes.

 

And some, sadly walk away from the church, because they believe that the church of Christ should be honest and truthful place to learn about its history and doctrine.

Great post!  When we are told not to believe the liars, the "anti-mormons" and the "enemies of the church" influenced by satan, and it turns out that the "enemies of the church"  actually are telling the truth and the church is lying, who is one to believe? 

 

Oh yeah, it's been misinterpereted or misunderstood right? No, the church is guilty of purposely deceiving people and when members figure it out it is the member's fault, not the LDS church........i'm just amazed that I used to defended this nonsense!!!

[KevinG]

........i'm just amazed that I used to defended this nonsense!!!

 

Thanks, but we're probably better off without your defense given the level of understanding you demonstrate.

 

Pretty quick out of the gate with the derision and "smarter than the average Mormon" claims.  12 posts.  

[why me]

Great post!  When we are told not to believe the liars, the "anti-mormons" and the "enemies of the church" influenced by satan, and it turns out that the "enemies of the church"  actually are telling the truth and the church is lying, who is one to believe? 

 

Oh yeah, it's been misinterpereted or misunderstood right? No, the church is guilty of purposely deceiving people and when members figure it out it is the member's fault, not the LDS church........i'm just amazed that I used to defended this nonsense!!!

The antimormons have a certain interpretation of the facts when commenting about church history. And thus the problem. One can read Rough Stone Rolling and get a faith based interpretation or one can read a critic's interpretation of the same facts. Which one to believe when it comes to interpretations? So where did the church lie? Can you tell us where the lies are? I showed that Joseph's polygamy has been in the seminary manual for decades. Likewise for the the gun in the prison. Also, the various accounts of the first vision have been published for years and years in various books sponsored by the lds church.

 

So, you bought into the critic interpretation. And that is fine. And what is there to figure out? How did Joseph write the book of mormon? And where? And why did the witnesses confirm their spiritual experience on their deathbeds? Have you figured it all out? Here is a fact: the early lds suffered persecution upon persecution and yet, they still had faith in the person they called prophet. As did Hyrum. And from that small seed planted in New York we are now looking at a world wide church that teaches wonderful family values, values that most likely you still would teach your own children.

 

When all is said and done, not much to figure out. 

[KevinG]

The gun in prison is my favorite.  Especially when I can direct "shocked" worry trolls to the Church history museum, first exhibit, first room on the right, first case...  and they can see the pepper box pistol for themselves.

[JLHPROF]

The gun in prison is my favorite.  Especially when I can direct "shocked" worry trolls to the Church history museum, first exhibit, first room on the right, first case...  and they can see the pepper box pistol for themselves.

 

Ah, but where is the bottle of wine?

 

Oh, that's right - History of the Church 7:101...but who knows, maybe it was grape juice.

Edited March 3, 2015 by JLHPROF

[rockpond]

Funny how I read Rough Stone Rolling, and didn't have a faith crisis.

 

Many read it and don't experience challenges to their faith.  Some do.  Might be worth asking ourselves "why" and considering the implications.

[why me]

Many read it and don't experience challenges to their faith.  Some do.  Might be worth asking ourselves "why" and considering the implications.

It is interesting. How many catholics read their history and have a faith crisis? Not many. Catholic history goes back over 2000 years and most of the problems occured hundreds of years ago. People don't feel so close to such distant history. However the lds church is a young church with only a recent history. As such, this history is still rather close and people can engage it much better than a history that goes back 2000 years. If members would read church sponsored books such as the biography of hyrum published in 2003, they would have learned much about the history at that time. Or they could have read Leonard Arrington's book, The History of the Latter Day Saints and learnt even more. But who reads these days? Or they could have read the JoD of BY published by the church. I can go on and on. I suppose that members now need to be spoon fed. But really, they should read church books about lds history. Much is there. I already pointed out the seminary manual about the Doctrine and Covenants.

[rockpond]

It is interesting. How many catholics read their history and have a faith crisis? Not many. Catholic history goes back over 2000 years and most of the problems occured hundreds of years ago. People don't feel so close to such distant history. However the lds church is a young church with only a recent history. As such, this history is still rather close and people can engage it much better than a history that goes back 2000 years. If members would read church sponsored books such as the biography of hyrum published in 2003, they would have learned much about the history at that time. Or they could have read Leonard Arrington's book, The History of the Latter Day Saints and learnt even more. But who reads these days? Or they could have read the JoD of BY published by the church. I can go on and on. I suppose that members now need to be spoon fed. But really, they should read church books about lds history. Much is there. I already pointed out the seminary manual about the Doctrine and Covenants.

 

Yes, I suppose that one answer is to suggest that members just haven't read enough church sponsored book in their free time between taking care of kids, school, work, church meetings/activities, home/visiting teaching, and fulfilling callings.

 

That is definitely one possibility.

[cinepro]

The gun in prison is my favorite.  Especially when I can direct "shocked" worry trolls to the Church history museum, first exhibit, first room on the right, first case...  and they can see the pepper box pistol for themselves.

 

The cover-up continues...

Edited March 3, 2015 by cinepro