ksfisher Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 10 hours ago, Rivers said: Interesting. I was never specifically told that Joseph wasn't a polygamist. I actually first learned of Joseph's polygamy from my seminary teacher. I really don't remember a time when I didn't know. 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 Did you all grow up around Utah then? Maybe it was commonly taught there and not Massachusetts or the east coast.
USU78 Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 23 hours ago, rockpond said: John 14:26 The Spirit is supposed to be teaching us "all things". John 3:8 Quote The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. Take off the windbreaker. You'll learn something. 1
sdc999 Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 I was aware of polygamy as were the people, non-mormons, that wanted to bring it to my attention. It wasn't the ignorance of the occurrence, it was the ignorance of the facts. I was 'educated' by bishops, missionaries and family, amongst others, that polygamy was 'necessary' because of all of those men that died on the trek. Those women needed to be taken care. Those women could not own land and this was a way for them to exist. I staunchly defended this position to my non-member parents that looked at me like I was from Mars. VGJ said it made him 'look like a liar'. I would disagree. You and I didn't look like liars. We were liars. Not in a malicious way but an misinformed way.
Tacenda Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 But what kind of polygamy...to all those that say they were taught it.
BlueDreams Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: But what kind of polygamy...to all those that say they were taught it. How do you mean. I was taught it, but honest I was also pretty young and don't remember much beyond a flippant point about multiple wives. Also read a more sanitized version (i.e. With fewe/no mention of the complicated sealings) in a popular lds fiction series. At that point I also had some basic info from the internet. It wasn't in vast details, it was just there as basic fact. with luv, bd
mfbukowski Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 5 hours ago, sdc999 said: I was aware of polygamy as were the people, non-mormons, that wanted to bring it to my attention. It wasn't the ignorance of the occurrence, it was the ignorance of the facts. I was 'educated' by bishops, missionaries and family, amongst others, that polygamy was 'necessary' because of all of those men that died on the trek. Those women needed to be taken care. Those women could not own land and this was a way for them to exist. I staunchly defended this position to my non-member parents that looked at me like I was from Mars. VGJ said it made him 'look like a liar'. I would disagree. You and I didn't look like liars. We were liars. Not in a malicious way but an misinformed way. Another Utah thing. Where I grew up, no one even knew what a Mormon was, and neither did I. I can't imagine having "friends" poke fun at your religion, or having others trying to change my religion by slandering it. Very strange place. Very polarized place.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 On 3/1/2016 at 8:47 PM, Robert F. Smith said: I've never been in a ward or stake in which there existed such head-in-sand leaders. Very odd, Junkie. Very odd. Nor have I. And I agree it seems very odd -- to the point of bizarre.
Duncan Posted March 2, 2016 Author Posted March 2, 2016 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Nor have I. And I agree it seems very odd -- to the point of bizarre. I know where he lives and based on others I know from that place..............I can see it I can totally see it
Tacenda Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Nor have I. And I agree it seems very odd -- to the point of bizarre. How would you even know if it's never brought up in the first place? Please do tell where you discuss JS's particular polygamy in more depth than he just did, in which class? Maybe you spoke of it in Elder's Quorum or High Priests classes? Because I can nearly guarantee it's never been brought up in a RS class.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 34 minutes ago, Tacenda said: How would you even know if it's never brought up in the first place? Please do tell where you discuss JS's particular polygamy in more depth than he just did, in which class? Maybe you spoke of it in Elder's Quorum or High Priests classes? Because I can nearly guarantee it's never been brought up in a RS class. Well junkie just told us that it was brought up where he lives -- and that absolutely false information was given by his "leaders." That is what strikes me as bizarre.
Tacenda Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Well junkie just told us that it was brought up where he lives -- and that absolutely false information was given by his "leaders." That is what strikes me as bizarre. Got it, thanks for explaining. But he is probably telling the truth, because that is what many have been brought up to believe. That polygamy was for taking care of the widowed women or descriptions close to it. But this subject has been done over and over again. And I think that Elder Ballard wants that to change. Good for him and the church for putting out the church essays to clarify things.
consiglieri Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 On 3/1/2016 at 7:49 PM, Robert F. Smith said: What would truly worry me would be if leaders all said the same (or nearly the same) thing on any given subject. You mean like today . . .?
Scott Lloyd Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Another Utah thing. Where I grew up, no one even knew what a Mormon was, and neither did I. I can't imagine having "friends" poke fun at your religion, or having others trying to change my religion by slandering it. Very strange place. Very polarized place. I guess it depends on the crowd you run with. I never encounter the sort of thing you mention here except on Internet message boards and "reader comment" sections in online editions of newspapers. And earlier, in letters to the editor and in phone calls on talk radio. Those are the sort of things you have to go looking for. I've lived here my whole life except for mission and a five-month out-of-state internship, and I've not seen the polarization you speak of. None of my kids have ever mentioned having to defend their faith from attacks at school. I see a lot of apathy, but not polarization. Edited March 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: Got it, thanks for explaining. But he is probably telling the truth, because that is what many have been brought up to believe. That polygamy was for taking care of the widowed women or descriptions close to it. But this subject has been done over and over again. And I think that Elder Ballard wants that to change. Good for him and the church for putting out the church essays to clarify things. I don't dispute what junkie said. I'm just saying I don't think what he describes is all that pervasive. If there's a problem it's not that Church members are being given false information, it's that they are content and comfortable in their own ignorance and don't bother trying to learn anything more about it until they are ambushed with half-truths and sophistries from the Church's antagonists. Then, sometimes, they go into a tailspin and, whereas they could not be bothered to study much about Church history or doctrine before, they suddenly become eager consumers of all things anti-Mormon. Edited March 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
smac97 Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 On 2/29/2016 at 4:08 PM, Duncan said: I was telling the elders here about a zone conference that I had had when I was out about a certain subject and the President explained his views on it. One of the elders had said his Bishop had told his youth group something opposite from what I was told. This is not the first time I have heard differing opinions from different leaders over time about various subjects. How are we to know what is true? One ward the Bishop could say something and then you move, go on a mission etc. and get told something completely different. Do you just say, the heck with i'll do what I think is best or what? You'll have to be more specific. What is the "certain subject?" Is the leader speaking about "a certain subject" that is within his ecclesiastical stewardship? Is the leader speaking in his capacity as an ecclesiastical leader, or is he just stating his opinion? Is the leader speaking about "a certain subject" that has been addressed by General Authorities? Are the leader's remarks consistent with the counsel given by General Authorities, the policies and guidelines of the Church, the scriptures, etc.? I think these details matter. A lot. Thanks, -Smac 1
Duncan Posted March 2, 2016 Author Posted March 2, 2016 1 minute ago, smac97 said: You'll have to be more specific. What is the "certain subject?" Is the leader speaking about "a certain subject" that is within his ecclesiastical stewardship? Is the leader speaking in his capacity as an ecclesiastical leader, or is he just stating his opinion? Is the leader speaking about "a certain subject" that has been addressed by General Authorities? Are the leader's remarks consistent with the counsel given by General Authorities, the policies and guidelines of the Church, the scriptures, etc.? I think these details matter. A lot. Thanks, -Smac um, how shall I put this euphemistically............self abuse.................. so yes to the first, I don't to the second, some have I suppose and who knows to the last. All I have heard is varying opinions by various leaders who've addressed it in my hearing anyways. My MP took the opinion that it wasn't against the LoC, don't call me at 2am bawling your eyes out because you did it but come to him if it is happening like 3 times a day and he'd give you a book to read ( I remember the gist of what he said) but it wouldn't keep you out of the Temple. Whereas this elder's Bishop told them it's a violation of the LoC, you can't take the sacrament and you need to meet with him, something along those lines. In conclusion it just seems all over the place, I don't think anyone agrees that it's good to do but beyond that is apparently speculative depending on who you get for a leader at that time
Robert F. Smith Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 52 minutes ago, consiglieri said: You mean like today . . .? Au contraire, mon ami.
mfbukowski Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I guess it depends on the crowd you run with. I never encounter the sort of thing you mention here except on Internet message boards and "reader comment" sections in online editions of newspapers. And earlier, in letters to the editor and in phone calls on talk radio. Those are the sort of things you have to go looking for. I've lived here my whole life except for mission and a five-month out-of-state internship, and I've not seen the polarization you speak of. None of my kids have ever mentioned having to defend their faith from attacks at school. I see a lot of apathy, but not polarization. Fair enough. I felt it when I lived in SLC, but maybe that is different.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Fair enough. I felt it when I lived in SLC, but maybe that is different. I'll admit that, ironically, Salt Lake City proper can be a pocket of non-Mormonism (and even anti-Mormonism) within a richly Mormon milieu. But if you get out into the suburbs, where I live, you really don't see it much.
mfbukowski Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't dispute what junkie said. I'm just saying I don't think what he describes is all that pervasive. If there's a problem it's not that Church members are being false information, it's that they are content and comfortable in their own ignorance and don't bother trying to learn anything more about it until they are confronted with half-truths and sophistries from the Church's antagonists. I kind of think the point is that other places do not have "church antagonists"- of any church. Nobody cares anywhere else. In So Cal the fact that you go to church at all makes you kind of odd, but no one really cares. The mere fact that "church antagonists" exist in Utah at all, kind of proves the point. The first exposure I had to "anti-Mormon literature" was in Utah when I was living there. When I was a Catholic living in a very Catholic area, there was no "Anti-Catholic" literature. Nobody cared. I purchased my first Sunstone at Deseret Book in SLC and was shocked! My first exposure to demonstrators against the church at conference was in SLC. I heard stuff about the church on the radio. I saw stuff about the church on TV. Yes occasionally there is a story about the Vatican, but there it was a daily thing. The mere fact that your employer is an important news source in SLC kind of proves that Utah is a very different place than, say California. I cannot imagine anything like that here, or in NYC, or anywhere else. The fact that the "other" newspaper in town concentrates on mild to moderate "anti-Mormon" stories is further substantiation. New York has its newspapers, but none of the majors are focused around religion or are owned by a church. I can't think of another city where the two major newspapers are divided along religious lines- especially along the lines of a particular religion. To me, that shows "polarization" right there. I am not arguing with you, I am just trying to let you know that SLC is not "Anytown USA". I have relatives in Utah that love it. People are moving from here in droves because they love Utah. I would love to live in Southern Utah myself- or central- maybe Cedar City area. Beautiful! But I find SLC to be quite different. I would not want to live there again.
mfbukowski Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'll admit that, ironically, Salt Lake City proper can be a pocket of non-Mormonism (and even anti-Mormonism) within a richly Mormon milieu. But if you get out into the suburbs, where I live, you really don't see it much. Fair enough. I have seen enough to agree with you.
USU78 Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'll admit that, ironically, Salt Lake City proper can be a pocket of non-Mormonism (and even anti-Mormonism) within a richly Mormon milieu. But if you get out into the suburbs, where I live, you really don't see it much. Can be? Fun story: When I was 6 my family moved from Vallejo to Brigham. There had been trouble, but not on account of religion, in Vallejo most of the time we lived there. The day we moved in, I walked from my folks' house, across the street from the site of the then new high school construction, to the park 4 blocks away. I saw there at the baseball park where the Peaches play a kid about my age. Hispanic. I said hi, he said hi, then he asked if I were Mormon. Yup, sez I. "I hate f****** Mormons" was his reply. It ain't just Salt Lake City proper and it ain't only "can be." 1
Recommended Posts