JLHPROF Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 10 minutes ago, rodheadlee said: Put yourself in Joseph Smith 's shoes. What would you do if you were commanded to start plural marriages? Whatever God required.
SeekerB Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 7 hours ago, Jeanne said: Did you share it? Did you mention it to anyone...was it taught? Is it now in the church library? Did Seminary teachers take a look? Is anything in these CD"s in the manuals now? This wasn't some secret source of information. It was a church published collection of church and classic books, scriptures, gospel topics, and reference materials. Anyone could buy it and look stuff up. I re-installed it last year. unfortunately I couldn't get the updates since it is too old, so not everything I once had is there, but lots of stuff is. Thirty years of The Ensign. The Millennial Star, Times and Seasons from 1839. The Improvement Era from 1897 to 1955. Very interesting reading, that one. There are thousands of books, magazines and other published works on these CDs. Anyone could buy it, including Seminary teachers. It isn't possible to tell if everything is in the church library. Is anything in these CDs in the manuals now: YES. I remember reading "A View of the Hebrews", the Spaulding Manuscript, among other things. You can only teach so much in a 30 minute lesson once a week.
SeekerB Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 6 hours ago, Nevo said: Yeah, I had GospeLink too (and LDS Collectors Library) and it definitely didn't have "a tremendous amount of content that people claim had been hidden." It consisted almost entirely of faith-promoting church books and LDS and world classics. Nothing edgy there at all. Signature Books' New Mormon Studies CD-ROM (1998) on the other hand . . . I've heard that people leave the church after learning from anti-mormons that Joseph Smith had multiple wives. Well, that info is in there many times. So is the seer stone in the hat. The process is described in detail multiple times by early members of the church who watched Joseph translate with it. Anyone who desired to study early church history would find this stuff out.
James Tunney Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 5 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Your statement is as inaccurate as the misleading art you refer to. I guess you are free to believe whatever you want to.
california boy Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 5 hours ago, rodheadlee said: Put yourself in Joseph Smith 's shoes. What would you do if you were commanded to start plural marriages? Marry a 14 year old girl and other mens wives of course. And then not tell my wife. I don't think nearly as many people have a problem with polygamy as they do with how it was practiced. At least that iw what bothers me the most. 4
california boy Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 2 hours ago, SeekerB said: I've heard that people leave the church after learning from anti-mormons that Joseph Smith had multiple wives. Well, that info is in there many times. So is the seer stone in the hat. The process is described in detail multiple times by early members of the church who watched Joseph translate with it. Anyone who desired to study early church history would find this stuff out. Sometimes I think Mormons don't want to understand what the problem is. We were never taught that Joseph Smith was going around marrying other men's wives and 14 year old girls. Yes I knew Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, but really? Other men's wives? 14 year old girls? Can anyone here with a straight face say they were taught Joseph Smith married other men's wives and 14 year old girls as many times as we were taught that an angel with a flaming sword forced Joseph Smith to practice polygamy?? Anyone who says differently certainly grew up in a different church than I did. And how many gospel doctrine classes did you sit through for YEARS where the instructor said the main way Joseph Smith translated the plates is to not even look at them, but stuff his head in a hat and look at a rock. I have seen countless illustrations and movies produced by the church for decades. NOT A SINGLE ONE HAD JOSEPH SMITH STICKING HIS HEAD IN A HAT. That is the problem. People accuse anti Mormons of skewing the truth and telling half lies. Giving their own slant on "real" Mormon history. Well pot, meet kettle. Look. I did not join this board to tear anyone's faith down. And I really don't care much what people or how people believe the gospel. There are a lot of great things about the church. But page after page of "enemies of the church distorting the truth, telling half lies and deceiving people by only telling part of the story. Well guess what. You figure out the other half of that coin. If you are going to condemn one side of that coin, how can you possibly defend the other side of that coin. 4
california boy Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 On May 28, 2016 at 3:51 AM, USU78 said: I agree to this extent: any fool can post any distortion, misrepresentation, over simplification or out and out lie he wants. Truth gets obscured Quotes like this is exactly what I am talking about. The church itself has distorted how Joseph Smith translated the plates every time they publish an illustration of the gold plates on a desk and Joseph Smith with quill in hand studying the plates. Show me the illustrations of Joseph sticking his head in a hat. Since that is how the majority of the plates were translated, not showing that method would be a distortion, misrepresentation, oversimplification and out and out lie about how the translation took place. It should have been the other way around. The version that should have been more obscure is the one that is touted as the MAIN way the plates were translated. Since actually using the plates was only done rarely according to historical record then THAT is the story that should have been told rarely. Now if we all had grown up with lessons and visuals of Joseph Smith sticking his head in a hat, and just recently the church started being more open that sometimes Joseph actually looked at the gold plates, then you would have had a valid point. Instead, what you are blaming other of, is the exact thing the church itself is guilty of. Do you get the problem now??? 1
Jeanne Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 13 hours ago, rodheadlee said: Put yourself in Joseph Smith 's shoes. What would you do if you were commanded to start plural marriages? Do it the way he was supposed to. Not in secret..and Emma was supposed to be a little more involved. Threatening flaming swords of destruction didn't help.
Jeanne Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 (edited) 13 hours ago, rodheadlee said: Put yourself in Joseph Smith 's shoes. What would you do if you were commanded to start plural marriages? If it was really commanded, he should have done it the way God asked him to. Emma was supposed to be a little more involved and it was kept a secret. Threatening flaming swords of destruction didn't help either. Sorry about the double post..computer is so slow and I didn't see it take the first time. Edited June 1, 2016 by Jeanne 1
thesometimesaint Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 9 hours ago, california boy said: Marry a 14 year old girl and other mens wives of course. And then not tell my wife. I don't think nearly as many people have a problem with polygamy as they do with how it was practiced. At least that iw what bothers me the most. In the 1830's it was legal to marry a 14 year old. Sealings are not marriages. Sure. But how do you propose to practice it?
thesometimesaint Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 50 minutes ago, Jeanne said: If it was really commanded, he should have done it the way God asked him to. Emma was supposed to be a little more involved and it was kept a secret. Threatening flaming swords of destruction didn't help either. Sorry about the double post..computer is so slow and I didn't see it take the first time. From the record we do have Emma knew about some of them. She still didn't like or accept them. I'm not too sure what Joseph was supposed to do under those conditions.
JLHPROF Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: From the record we do have Emma knew about some of them. She still didn't like or accept them. I'm not too sure what Joseph was supposed to do under those conditions. God knew what should be done, and made a provision for the situation in D&C 132:64-65 64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law. 65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife. We may not like that Joseph became exempt from getting Emma's permission, but God understood that the fulfilling of law trumps emotion and explained the action Joseph should take.
california boy Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: In the 1830's it was legal to marry a 14 year old. Sealings are not marriages. Sure. But how do you propose to practice it? Just because something is legal does not make it moral. How about laying off of 14 year old children and other men's wives to start with. 2
Gray Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: In the 1830's it was legal to marry a 14 year old. Sealings are not marriages. It's a marriage when you're sealed as husband and wife rather than father/daughter or something similar. Hopefully we all understand, with the benefit of hindsight and improved moral understanding, that marrying a minor is not a good moral practice. Edited June 1, 2016 by Gray 1
Jeanne Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: From the record we do have Emma knew about some of them. She still didn't like or accept them. I'm not too sure what Joseph was supposed to do under those conditions. All he had to do was tell the truth...with Emma, it may not have set him free..but he lied by not telling her he had married already before she accepted it. It said and the D&C that he was to get her approval. I am just aimed here in the OP that there are just way to many secrets that started before the church was even organized.
JLHPROF Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 2 minutes ago, Gray said: It's a marriage when you're sealed as husband and wife rather than father/daughter or something similar. Seriously. We have specific records of the ceremonies (wording included) for time and eternity marriages, for time only marriages. At this point any notion of an eternity only sealing is pure speculation. Hales provides a couple of possible references, but no records. I find no real backing for the idea that Joseph was "sealed but not married" to his plural wives. 1
cinepro Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 (edited) On 5/31/2016 at 0:44 PM, USU78 said: If it were possible for cinepro to demonstrate that the assertions in the 2nd paragraph, above, were true, I'd CFR him. As it's impossible to prove or disprove such facile assertions, I won't ... especially given the "many members," "can be shared," and "degree to which" waffles. Just what's that supposed to mean? I said "that seems" to indicate I was expressing my opinion based on my own limited observations. It simply means that I'm guessing that more members are leaving the Church today based on true historical facts* than in the pre-internet days when attacks on the Church seemed to be based on conflicts of doctrine, scriptural interpretation, and Godmaker-esque distortions. *to the degree that such things exist in the world of post-modern apologetics of course. Edited June 2, 2016 by cinepro
Jim Stiles Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 On 5/29/2016 at 5:27 PM, cinepro said: I've never understood the idea that "people leave the Church because they want to sin." Uh, newsflash people. People can sin and stay in the Church. They do it all the time. I've been in wards with pathological adulterers, epic fraudsters , drug addicts, alcoholics, porn addicts and who knows what else, and all of them were more than happy to stay Mormon while they sinned. Sure, people who leave the Church might start doing stuff that was previously verboten when they were believing LDS, but that's not the same as someone saying "Gee, I really believe the Church is true, but I just really want to look at pictures of naked women, so I guess I have to leave first." That is true for other religions, including evangelical Christianity. What you see with the televangelists is just the surface.
USU78 Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 On 6/1/2016 at 6:05 PM, cinepro said: I said "that seems" to indicate I was expressing my opinion based on my own limited observations. It simply means that I'm guessing that more members are leaving the Church today based on true historical facts* than in the pre-internet days when attacks on the Church seemed to be based on conflicts of doctrine, scriptural interpretation, and Godmaker-esque distortions. *to the degree that such things exist in the world of post-modern apologetics of course. In other words ... you got nuthin'. What you do have is a specialized and ad hoc view of "true historical facts," a specialized and ad hoc not to mention ad hominem disdain for all answers to every bit of nonoriginal nonsense posted in infinite blogs and on innumerable discussion boards, which answers are the same today they were in Briggie Roberts' and in Professor Private's days, as well as a specialized and ad hoc not to mention grossly distorted view of what was de rigueur and "effective" in antiMormon arguments then as now. Vanitas vanitatum.
cinepro Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 On 6/2/2016 at 5:21 PM, USU78 said: In other words ... you got nuthin'. What you do have is a specialized and ad hoc view of "true historical facts," a specialized and ad hoc not to mention ad hominem disdain for all answers to every bit of nonoriginal nonsense posted in infinite blogs and on innumerable discussion boards, which answers are the same today they were in Briggie Roberts' and in Professor Private's days, as well as a specialized and ad hoc not to mention grossly distorted view of what was de rigueur and "effective" in antiMormon arguments then as now. Vanitas vanitatum. I don't know if I would say it's "nuthin'", since what you're describing is pretty much the foundation of personal testimony and LDS belief for the last 186 years. Personal experience + ad hoc "true historical facts" has served the Church pretty well, so I would show it a little more respect.
USU78 Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 8 hours ago, cinepro said: I don't know if I would say it's "nuthin'", since what you're describing is pretty much the foundation of personal testimony and LDS belief for the last 186 years. Personal experience + ad hoc "true historical facts" has served the Church pretty well, so I would show it a little more respect. Not much hope, given what we've observed, of either respect or, particularly, substantive critique. The same regurgitating the same the result the same regardless of patient explanation, contextualization, clarification or candor undeserved.
rodheadlee Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 On 6/1/2016 at 2:50 PM, california boy said: Just because something is legal does not make it moral. How about laying off of 14 year old children and other men's wives to start with. Yeah like divorcing your wife to marry some else.
california boy Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 1 hour ago, rodheadlee said: Yeah like divorcing your wife to marry some else. If you are referring to me, I never married someone else. And if you are referring to me, I married my wife based on a lie told to me by church leaders that if I only would marry a woman, I would no longer be gay. Lie Lie Lie. Now if you still want to compare me to someone who goes around marrying 14 year old girls, marrying other men's wives and deceiving his wife, feel free. I have plenty to talk about on this subject. 2
rodheadlee Posted June 5, 2016 Posted June 5, 2016 18 hours ago, california boy said: If you are referring to me, I never married someone else. And if you are referring to me, I married my wife based on a lie told to me by church leaders that if I only would marry a woman, I would no longer be gay. Lie Lie Lie. Now if you still want to compare me to someone who goes around marrying 14 year old girls, marrying other men's wives and deceiving his wife, feel free. I have plenty to talk about on this subject. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
california boy Posted June 5, 2016 Posted June 5, 2016 4 hours ago, rodheadlee said: People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I realize this is a well known phrase. What I don't know is what it has to do with church leaders that lied to me or a prophet who marries 14 year old girls, or a prophet who marries other men's wives, and lies to his wife about what he is doing or someone who posts on this board suggesting that I have remarried when I have not. Love to have you explain your comment. Like I said, I have a lot to say about the church leaders going around lying to young gay men that if they only marry, they will no longer be gay. If you really want to get into this with me, I would be more than happy to expound on this deception that lasted for decades and the number of failed marriages that resulted from these false promised made in God's behalf.
Recommended Posts