Is The Church Ashamed Of The Prophet Joseph Smith?

[CCRW]

brianspro, is that you? I didn't think I'd ever hear from you again!

 

No .. You can find pretty much anything you'd like about me in social (please join in I'd like to find something common to help me)

 

Care to put a specific deadline on your prediction? I track these things with a timer app now.

 

It's been happening since Joseph Fielding Smith. I have a sweet tooth, it was already too lean for my taste back in the 90's

Edited April 13, 2015 by CCRW

[Scott Lloyd]

As part of the discussion in our high priests meeting, the prophecy of the angel Moroni was brought up that Joseph would be both good and evil spoken of among all people. I commented that to see the fulfillment of the part of the prophecy pertaining to evil speaking of the Prophet, one need only do a Google search. I said that some of the evil speaking is even seen among some who style themselves as members of the Church and that when I see such a thing, I am prompted to ask the commenters, "How does it feel to be bringing about the fulfillment of Moroni's prophecy?"

 

Incidentally, before the Joseph Smith detractors get too gleeful, they should bear in mind that two of the Church's major websites are www.josephsmith.net and www.josephsmithpapers.org.

 

 

Though that could just be an attempt to keep others from taking the names for a porn site and then holding the church hostage, as what happened with mormon.com.

Need I suggest that you check out those URLs?

 

They are indeed major websites, not just placeholders. One of them is the website associated with the Joseph Smith Papers project of the Church History Department, one of the most elaborate undertakings of the Church in modern history.

[Tacenda]

So you're saying the Church of Jesus Christ today is indistinguishable from any average Protestant sect?

 

No, and I shouldn't have said that the poster of long ago was 100% correct in his prediction.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Fullständigt meninslös att tro att någon kan sätta ett datum där kyrkan falla sönder. Tio år är i alla fall ett ögonblick i människans existens.

Well, you should have been around to tell that to brianspro when he was making his silly prediction.

 

Men en sak är säker, kyrkan har slutat framföra den uppfattning att den är den enda sanningen och att alla andra trosuppfattningar fördöms av gud.

 

The official account by Joseph Smith of the First Vision is what it is. It's canonized scripture and the Church has not backed away from it in any wise.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

It's a testable, quantifiable observation, so yes.

 

Even I'm not that *a*n*a*l retentive, and I'm an accountant.

Edited April 13, 2015 by ttribe

[Scott Lloyd]

No, and I shouldn't have said that the poster of long ago was 100% correct in his prediction.  

He wasn't even 1 percent correct.

[why me]

I dont think that the church has downplayed Joseph Smith. In fact, just the opposite. We do have the Joseph Smith Papers now. This is a sign just how important the church puts on Joseph Smith and for members to learn more about his life and teachings. The idea that the church is heading more mainstream is far from reality. In fact, it is heading in the opposite direction with its stress on clean living and living the commandmants and its stress on the traditional family.

 

But Joseph Smith is still put in center place when it comes to the church and the restoration.

Edited April 13, 2015 by why me

[Senator]

 

I have seen it posted here by members that singing "Praise to the Man" makes them uncomfortable,

 

That was probably me.  (There, saved you the time of having to search out a post.)

 

 

......and I still feel that way.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Senator

[Scott Lloyd]

I dont think that the church has downplayed Joseph Smith. In fact, just the opposite. We do have the Joseph Smith Papers now. This is a sign just how important the church puts on Joseph Smith and for members to learn more about his life and teachings. The idea that the church is heading more mainstream is far from reality. In fact, it is heading in the opposite direction with its stress on clean living and living the commandmants and its stress on the traditional family.

 

But Joseph Smith is still put in center place when it comes to the church and the restoration.

Well, he's in a fundamental, indispensible place. Jesus Christ is at the center.

[Senator]

 

 

But Joseph Smith is still put in center place when it comes to the church and the restoration.

 

Along side Jesus Christ!

[The Nehor]

Wade would be with you on that one as well Nehor ... does he still post here?

Have not seen him in a while and Wade I disagreed more then we agreed.

[JulieM]

All of this is interesting to read through combined with some people's experience with this last Sunday's lesson on Joseph Smith (I started another thread about using the essays in that lesson). I realize now that lesson was told through Presiden Ezra T. Bensen's eyes or quotes. I don't believe the church leaders are ashamed of Joseph Smith at all but it's very telling how members are discouraged from bringing up information from their own essays in lessons about Joseph Smith. His polygamy is still treated like it's anti-Mormon if someone brings it up (by other class members or ward leaders) or if someone wants to discuss it during a lesson. At least that's the reaction I saw this past week.

Why is that?

Edited April 13, 2015 by JulieM

[Russell C McGregor]

It is suspicious that Peterson does not cite a source; allowing the reader to investigate what the chart is being used for.

I see nothing "suspicious" at all.

Dan most likely saw it on a site that he prefers not to direct traffic towards.

 

It appears the chart originated using a BYU database designed to show frequency of phrases or words during General Confrrence.

Which is independent of the question of how others are choosing to use it, or to spin the data.

Regards,

Russell

[why me]

All of this is interesting to read through combined with some people's experience with this last Sunday's lesson on Joseph Smith (I started another thread about using the essays in that lesson). I realize now that lesson was told through Presiden Ezra T. Bensen's eyes or quotes. I don't believe the church leaders are ashamed of Joseph Smith at all but it's very telling how members are discouraged from bringing up information from their own essays in lessons about Joseph Smith. His polygamy is still treated like it's anti-Mormon if someone brings it up (by other class members or ward leaders) or if someone wants to discuss it during a lesson. At least that's the reaction I saw this past week.

Why is that?

I dont exactly agree with you. If one wants to, one can bring up the essays or anything else for that matter. Now I am not sure if the essays would be used by teachers but people being taught can bring them up for discussion if these essays are important for the subject of the lesson. In Priesthood, I brought up the essays and the multiple visions. No problem. And when section 132 is discussed I do bring up polygamy but then again, it is in the seminary manual about the D&C.

[Scott Lloyd]

All of this is interesting to read through combined with some people's experience with this last Sunday's lesson on Joseph Smith (I started another thread about using the essays in that lesson). I realize now that lesson was told through Presiden Ezra T. Bensen's eyes or quotes. I don't believe the church leaders are ashamed of Joseph Smith at all but it's very telling how members are discouraged from bringing up information from their own essays in lessons about Joseph Smith. His polygamy is still treated like it's anti-Mormon if someone brings it up (by other class members or ward leaders) or if someone wants to discuss it during a lesson. At least that's the reaction I saw this past week.

Why is that?

I wonder if they really are treating it "like it's anti-Mormon if someone brings it up."

 

It may just be that it's deemed peripheral to the message of the lesson and the teacher is trying to stay on track by avoiding getting embroiled in such a sensitive and off-topic subject.

 

I taught the gospel doctrine class for years, and I know I would have been annoyed if somebody had tried to hijack my lesson with a prolonged discussion about polygamy.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

I dont exactly agree with you. If one wants to, one can bring up the essays or anything else for that matter. Now I am not sure if the essays would be used by teachers but people being taught can bring them up for discussion if these essays are important for the subject of the lesson. In Priesthood, I brought up the essays and the multiple visions. No problem. And when section 132 is discussed I do bring up polygamy but then again, it is in the seminary manual about the D&C.

I can only go by what our ward is like and it's not encouraged to discuss the essays (yet). I hope that will change. But others have posted similar experiences with this lesson on Joseph Smith. I get this lesson may have not been the time to teach about more difficult topics and Joseph Smith. But will there be lessons for say Relief Societ or the Priesthhood that will openly discuss polygamy, versions of the first vision and other subjects from the essays?

[smac97]

Even I'm not that *a*n*a*l retentive, and I'm an accountant.

 

This thread is a generalized discussion of how Latter-day Saints are purportedly "ashamed" of Joseph Smith.  JHLPROF, however, has specifically accused members of this board of faulting him for "expressing what was a standard view of the Prophet Joseph 100 years ago."  Frankly, I find the accusation that Latter-day Saints are ashamed of Joseph Smith to be quite suspect, both in the abstract and in JHLPROF's particulars.  We can't really quantify the broader, more vague accusation against the Saints, but we can test the more specific allegations made by JHLPROF's, hence the CFR.

 

If he cannot substantiate his claim, then he should retract it.  Otherwise, let's hear what he has to say.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

JLHPROF, on 13 Apr 2015 - 1:02 PM, said:

 

I have seen it posted here by members that singing "Praise to the Man" makes them uncomfortable,

 

That was probably me.  (There, saved you the time of having to search out a post.)

 

 

......and I still feel that way.

Thanks for the prompt. I play the piano in priesthood meeting and, as such, I get to choose the hymns we sing. I think I'll choose "Praise to the Man" for next week.

 

It's a grand old hymn, very stirring, and it helps us retain in remembrance and honor the Prophet of the Restoration.

[ttribe]

 

This thread is a generalized discussion of how Latter-day Saints are purportedly "ashamed" of Joseph Smith.  JHLPROF, however, has specifically accused members of this board of faulting him for "expressing what was a standard view of the Prophet Joseph 100 years ago."  Frankly, I find the accusation that Latter-day Saints are ashamed of Joseph Smith to be quite suspect, both in the abstract and in JHLPROF's particulars.  We can't really quantify the broader, more vague accusation against the Saints, but we can test the more specific allegations made by JHLPROF's, hence the CFR.

 

If he cannot substantiate his claim, then he should retract it.  Otherwise, let's hear what he has to say.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

 

LOL!.  Okay, Smac.  Keep CFR'ing people's perceptions.  I'm sure it will consume many bytes of bandwidth.

[JulieM]

I wonder if they really are treating it "like it's anti-Mormon if someone brings it up."

Well the looks the sister got who brought up Joseph's polygamy were not kind looks.

[Scott Lloyd]

I can only go by what our ward is like and it's not encouraged to discuss the essays (yet). I hope that will change. But others have posted similar experiences with this lesson on Joseph Smith. I get this lesson may have not been the time to teach about more difficult topics and Joseph Smith. But will there be lessons for say Relief Societ or the Priesthhood that will openly discuss polygamy, versions of the first vision and other subjects from the essays?

Anyone can read the essays online any time.

 

Our sabbath day classes are a time when we instruct and motivate one another to more perfectly understand and apply the teachings of the gospel. And the time for such instruction is scarce.

 

Since plural marriage has been discontinued for more than a century, it scarcely has relevance to our understanding and applying the teachings of the gospel today.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well the looks the sister got who brought up Joseph's polygamy were not kind looks.

Not having been there, I would guess it was because she was perceived as drawing the lesson off track.

 

Has I been the teacher (or even a fellow class member) I would have endeavored to kindly and briefly responded to her question before referring her to the essays on lds.org. If need be, I would have given a gentle reminder to the class in general that the intent of the lesson was not to discuss plural marriage.

[Senator]

I wonder if they really are treating it "like it's anti-Mormon if someone brings it up."

 

It may just be that it's deemed peripheral to the message of the lesson and the teacher is trying to stay on track by avoiding getting embroiled in such a sensitive and off-topic subject.

That's probably true. However, it's likely due to the fact that there is no lesson in our standard Sunday curriculum when it is on-topic.

 

To me that's not right.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Senator

[stemelbow]

Anyone can read the essays online any time.

 

Our sabbath day classes are a time when we instruct and motivate one another to more perfectly understand and apply the teachings of the gospel. And the time for such instruction is scarce.

 

Since plural marriage has been discontinued for more than a century, it scarcely has relevance to our understanding and applying the teachings of the gospel today.

I'm curious why that is, though. Back when plural marriage was practiced, it was taught as a more heavenly way than monogamy. Nowadays we pretend it was "commanded of God" because with it came some valuable lessons that people needed to learn. The problem is we don't have room to discuss it, at all, basically. We can't learn what was supposedly learned form it, we don't treat it as revelation anymore, so much so any one at Church can freely disregard it as a big old mistake. Most members are afraid to talk about it, because, well, it's ugly, on the face of it. I don't blame them at all. But, the way it's treated these days, it seems like someday the Church will disavow it's practice completely--not saying that's a bad thing.

[Scott Lloyd]

LOL!.  Okay, Smac.  Keep CFR'ing people's perceptions.  I'm sure it will consume many bytes of bandwidth.

Sometimes, people's perceptions ought to be CFR'd.

 

If "perceptions" get repeated often enough, people begin to regard them as established fact -- like the "perception" that people are leaving the Church in unprecedented volume, a "perception" that was firmly contradicted at general conference last week by an apostle.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd