Are Mormon historians rewriting history, what is the truth?

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

Some things that I used to think were anti-Mormon lies that are now becoming part of the mainstream narrative (with nuanced explanations)

--Joseph Smith was involved with money digging

--Joseph Smith translated BOM with head in hat looking at seerstone, money digging style and not using the Urim and Thumim 

--aspects of polygamy related to sexual relationships that are not allowed to be discussed here

--the fact that the temple endowment was borrowed from Masonry

--there are multiple versions of the First Vision account that are difficult to harmonize

 

Maybe I was naive.  But I did believe those were anti-Mormon lies up through my early adult life.  (life long member, RM, BYU grad)

 

If you listen to the Stoddards, money digging and discussion of the Smith's magical world view is nothing more than a smear with no foundation in truth.

Quote

40 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

--the fact that the temple endowment was borrowed from Masonry

SMAC97- This is a "fact"?

SMAC- Whether or not you want to call it a "fact" would you deny that the connection between Masonic rituals and the temple endowment have been very well documented? Are you claiming the endowment didn't borrow from the Masons or are you just playing devils advocate here?

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

There was a time not so long ago where things that were not faith promoting were label anti-mormon lies.  

That sounds like an absurd oversimplification.  

Quote

But I suppose there is room for disagreement.  We didn't attend the same church building.

I have spent the vast majority of my life living in Utah County, so I have known many, many active and observant Latter-day Saints.  I have never heard such overwrought nonsense as "things that are not faith promoting were label anti-mormon lies."

Quote

I guess we can at least agree that there has been a change of some sort with respect to the church's view on the seer stone. 

Some change, yes.  There is an increased measure of openness about the seer stone.  But the notion that the Church or its constituent parts have characterized it as an "anti-mormon lie" just does not seem credible to me.  The seer stone does not appear to be a core component of the Restored Gospel.  As this 2015 Ensign article states:

Quote

Brigham Young told an audience of his thoughts about receiving a seer stone. “I don’t [k]no[w] that I have ever had a desire to have one,” he reflected.22 Brigham’s statement expressed his understanding that seer stones were not essential to being a seer.

Nevertheless, the stone is now featured in the Church History Museum.  And was discussed at length in the above 2015 article.  And is also discussed in the Church's essay about the translation of The Book of Mormon.  And was previously discussed in Elder Nelson's 1993 Ensign article, and in Richard Lloyd Anderson's 1977 Ensign article.  And it is also repeatedly referenced in several LDS manuals.

I think the Church's 2015 publication of a color photograph of the stone was an interesting event.  This Trib article makes some decent points:

Quote

Even some devout Latter-day Saints say they knew nothing of Smith's use of the stone in producing the Book of Mormon from buried gold plates and are rather troubled by it — although The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has addressed the issue previously, including in a recent Gospel Topics essay on its website.

Blame some misunderstanding on artists' depictions and lack of historical awareness, assistant LDS Church historian Richard E. Turley Jr. writes in a forthcoming article for the faith's official Ensign magazine.

"Each artistic interpretation is based upon its artist's own views, research and imagination, sometimes aided by input and direction from others," Turley writes. "Unlike what is depicted [in one work], [scribe] Oliver Cowdery stated that he did not see the plates until after the translation was finished."

I think the second and third paragraphs above are important.

The article continues:

Quote

The problem with the "brown, striated stone," acclaimed Mormon historian Richard Bushman writes at By Common Consent, is that "it crosses a boundary we had held on to between religion and superstition."

Mormons have known about "the gold plates and the angel and the Urim and Thummim [considered 'interpreters'] long enough to assimilate them into respectable religion,' says Bushman, author of the Smith biography "Rough Stone Rolling." "Those are the ways of God."

On the other side of the divide, he writes, "are witchcraft and spells and tarot cards. Those are silly superstitions that the benighted believe in. We want none of that."

The seer stone, "sitting there like it had just been dug up," Bushman adds, "drags across the line into the realm of the superstitious."

But the historian is not troubled by a rock of revelation or other religious artifacts.

"I rather like them. They are part of Mormon materiality," he writes. "They suggest there is a technology of revelation, somewhat resembling iPads [given out to Mormon missionaries], that assist us in getting divine intelligence. I don't subscribe to Protestant stuffiness about proper ways for God to act and disreputable ones. I am willing to go along with the ways of God even if they are unconventional by Enlightenment standards."

I like Bushman's remarks here.  

Quote

The seer stone was seen as probably not used in translation at some point in the past.  

How do you account for Richard Lloyd Anderson's 1977 Ensign article?  I quote (emphases added):

Quote

The person who best reflects Martin Harris is probably Edward Stevenson, since he spent nearly two months with the Witness after going to Ohio to escort him back to Utah in 1870. On the means of translation Stevenson reported, “He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone.”

After Martin Harris lost the part of the translation done in 1828, Oliver Cowdery became chief scribe for the entire Book of Mormon as it is now printed. Toward the end of this new work of 1829, David Whitmer on occasion watched and afterwards spoke of the seer stone. 

...

David Whitmer’s idea of translation is similar to Samuel Richards’s. Yet this view does not appear until 1875, nearly a half-century after Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery worked in David Whitmer’s home. His many statements on translation harmonize with his Address to All Believers In Christ, published in 1887 to supersede second-hand reports. There he gave his most detailed view of “the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated”:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light. And in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe. And when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God and not by any power of man. The characters I speak of are the engravings on the golden plates from which the book was translated.” 11

It is tempting to accept the above statement at face value. However, since David Whitmer had not personally translated, his accuracy on details depends on whether he correctly understood what Joseph Smith told him in the first place, and whether he correctly remembered such details after that.

...

There are many questions that we cannot answer from the evidence we have at this time: Exactly how, for example, does the Urim and Thummim work? Was there a basis of truth behind David Whitmer’s viewpoint that writing appeared on the Interpreters? Or did the stones somehow focus the thought of the translator? Or did the stones serve to confirm translation? These things the Lord has not revealed to the Church at large, and the answer must remain, “We don’t know.”

And how do you account for Elder Nelson's 1993 article, which likewise quotes Whitmer's stone-in-a-hat narrative?  It seems to me that the Church has acknowledged the apparent role of the seer stone in the translation process for at least the last 40 years.  So when you say "The seer stone was seen as probably not used in translation" (emphasis added), to what are you referring?  Which manuals/materials published by the Church?  Which statements by General Authorities?

Quote

And now the church has made statements that the stone was used in translation.  Do we agree there?

Not really.  You are juxtaposing some past time when "{t}he seer stone was seen as probably not used in translation" against the current situation where the seer stone is seen as probably used in the translation process.  But I think I have demonstrated that the Church has acknowledged that role for about the last four decades.  This makes your juxtaposition somewhat problematic.

Perhaps we differ in that your use of the passive voice ("was seen") may pertain more to information held by members of the Church, some (many?) of whom were not aware of the apparent role of the stone in the translation process.  If so, then I can agree with you there.  I can even go so far as to say that some of the illustrations promulgated by the Church which show Joseph "translating" The Book of Mormon have been incomplete, perhaps even "misleading" by omission.

Take a look (all of these images are hosted at LDS.org or other "official" Church websites):

That said, I am not willing to attribute malice or some intent to deceive here.  I think the 2015 Ensign article sums things up well:

Quote

Over the years, artists have sought to portray the Book of Mormon translation, showing the participants in many settings and poses with different material objects. Each artistic interpretation is based upon its artist’s own views, research, and imagination, sometimes aided by input and direction from others.  Here are a few scenes produced throughout the years.

Artist’s rendition of Joseph Smith studying the plates. Joseph recalled that he “copied a considerable number” of characters from the plates. After he translated these characters “by means of the Urim and Thummim,” Martin Harris took the characters to Charles Anthon and other scholars to confirm the translation (Joseph Smith—History 1:62–64).

Artist’s portrayal of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery working on the translation of the Book of Mormon. Unlike what is depicted here, Oliver Cowdery stated that he did not see the plates until after the translation was finished. Witnesses of the process reported that during the translation, the plates were shielded from view, such as by being covered with a linen cloth.

Artist’s rendition of Joseph Smith translating while wearing the breastplate with the attached interpreters or spectacles, later referred to as the Urim and Thummim.

Artist’s depiction of Joseph Smith and a scribe translating with a blanket between them. Although no blanket is mentioned in most descriptions of the translation process, one was apparently used at an early point to shield the scribe from a view of the plates, spectacles, or breastplate. During the latter part of the translation effort, a blanket may have been used to shield the translator and scribe from other individuals curious to observe the translation.

So the illustrations published by the Church have not included depictions of the seer stone being used.  I'm not sure why.  Maybe it's the "weirdness" quotient.  Then again, maybe not.  This image (previously published, IIRC, in the Church's illustrated D&C for children) is also pretty "weird":

A 19th-century farmer wearing an ancient breastplate?  With attached spectacles?  And perusing a sent of ancient writings engraved on metal plates?  If the Church has the gumption to publish this, then the stone-in-a-hat thing would seem to be rather easy.

What I don't get, though, is how the omission of the seer stone in such artistic depictions is a big deal.  Again, from this Trib article:

Quote

Blame some misunderstanding on artists' depictions and lack of historical awareness, assistant LDS Church historian Richard E. Turley Jr. writes in a forthcoming article for the faith's official Ensign magazine.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Edited December 21, 2016 by smac97

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have been aware of this since childhood.  I think his involvement is often distorted and characterized in such a way as to appear lurid, or else put Joseph in the worst possible light.

I recommend that you review the Church's essay on this subject, as you apparently still harbor some material misconceptions about the translation process.  Here is a relevant excerpt:

It's an amazing claim, either way, though, isn't it?

I'm not sure what you are referencing here, but since it goes against board rules, I'll pass on further discussion.

This is a "fact"?

Again, I have been aware of this since childhood.

So as a child you were party to discussions about such things?  How often are discussions about the sex lives of 19th-century LDS polygamists discussed in LDS circles?  Not often, I'd wager.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm on my phone at the gym,so I can't multi quote. 

I'm quite aware of the BOM translation process now. My reference to anti Mormon lie vs Urim and Thumim was relative to what I was taught what the U and T was. 

 

As for Masonry temple endowment connection, the anti Mormon lie was that Joseph Smith borrowed elements of it vs what we understood was the truth which was that the correlation is due to Masonic ceremony being stolen from Solomons Temple and passed down. I think that has been properly debunked a day the mainstream narrative is that Joseph borrowed aspects of Masonic ceremony which should be considered generic teaching tools not absolute truth revealed from God.

 

As for the question about whether I was privy to some of this discussion as a youth, such as talks of polygamy and sex. Yes. Teens talk about sex.  And ask for verification from adults when challenged by anti Mormon classmates. But also I mention my youthful naive view endured well into my adulthood and through a mission and byu graduation.  

[churchistrue]

One more. That the BoA translation is dubious. 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I'm on my phone at the gym,so I can't multi quote. 

I'm quite aware of the BOM translation process now. My reference to anti Mormon lie vs Urim and Thumim was relative to what I was taught what the U and T was. 

The 19th-century Saints, including Joseph Smith, apparently used "Urim and Thummim" interchangeably with "seer stone" to describe what we now think of as the "seer stone."

You claim that you previously thought of "Joseph Smith translated BOM with head in hat looking at seerstone, money digging style and not using the Urim and Thumim" as - in your words - "anti-mormon lies" (emphasis added).  My point is that your understanding of the translation process appears to be incorrect, both previously and currently.  The current scholarship indicates that both the seer stone and the U&T were used.

3 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

As for the question about whether I was privy to some of this discussion as a youth, such as talks of polygamy and sex. Yes. Teens talk about sex.  And ask for verification from adults when challenged by anti Mormon classmates. But also I mention my youthful naive view endured well into my adulthood and through a mission and byu graduation.  

Okay.  I question, given the lurid/titillating context of the discussions you describe, how much value and informed knowledge were involved in those discussions.  Not much, methinks.

Thanks,

-Smac

[churchistrue]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The 19th-century Saints, including Joseph Smith, apparently used "Urim and Thummim" interchangeably with "seer stone" to describe what we now think of as the "seer stone."

You claim that you previously thought of "Joseph Smith translated BOM with head in hat looking at seerstone, money digging style and not using the Urim and Thumim" as - in your words - "anti-mormon lies" (emphasis added).  My point is that your understanding of the translation process appears to be incorrect, both previously and currently.  The current scholarship indicates that both the seer stone and the U&T were used.

Okay.  I question, given the lurid/titillating context of the discussions you describe, how much value and informed knowledge were involved in those discussions.  Not much, methinks.

Thanks,

-Smac

I never claimed there was a ton of informed discussions occurring. They mostly started and stopped with a trusted advisor ie parent,  seminary teacher,  mission companion, etc telling me the historical claim was an anti Mormon lie. And I don't why you keep arguing the U and T thing. I know very well what is understood now. The issue was what I understood previously and what was explained away as an anti Mormon lie. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Warren Jeff...

Given the known criminal abuse that went on in this man's relationships, using him as a comparison likely falls under violation of board rules.  You might want to find a more reasonable alternative if you want to be taken seriously and not banned when a mod reads your posts given what .I have seen from past posts like this.  Feel free to continue if you don't care.

"• Violating standard rules of debate such as extreme comparisons and hyperbole"

 

 

[theplains]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

After listening to this radio show..http://www.ldsanswers.org/lds-scholars-new-history-new-policy-new-church-defending-utah-ktalk-630-interview/.  It appears that this website... http://www.ldsanswers.org/dominant-church-history-narrative-not-true-lds-scholars-encourage-new-history-new-policy-new-church/ ...is throwing some of you LDS scholars, or historians under the bus. This Hannah Stoddard, and her father James F. Stoddard the Third, from their website said that Richard Bushman isn't a believer and that he took things out of context in his book "Rough Stone Rolling". In fact the interviewer on the radio show called what Bushman says, propaganda!

I'm not surprised. Those who leave the Church of Scientology are treated the same way - as
"suppressives."

Jim

[Oliver_Cowdery]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Given the known criminal abuse that went on in this man's relationships, using him as a comparison likely falls under violation of board rules.  You might want to find a more reasonable alternative if you want to be taken seriously and not banned when a mod reads your posts given what .I have seen from past posts like this.  Feel free to continue if you don't care.

"• Violating standard rules of debate such as extreme comparisons and hyperbole"

Are you saying its extreme to compare Joseph to Jeffs because it was Jeffs that violated the law?  Both Joseph and Jeffs violated the law.  Although they both violate the law in different ways.

That was kind of the point I was asking the board to consider. Let's think about this issue beyond it's legality. It is a thought experiment.  What if what Warren Jeff's did was somehow legal? It would still be entirely wrong.  Our gut reaction to Jeffs actions would be basically the same even if it were somehow legal to marry teens into secret polygamy.

Likewise even if we suppose that Joseph's 14 year old wife, and Young's 16 year old wife, and Woodruff's 15 year old wive, and Snow's 15 year old wife, and F. Smith's 17 year old wife were all married into polygamy legally it doesn't really change the moral calculus all that much.   Those marriages were still immoral regardless if there is some legal loophole to be found.  (My guess is that if we put our minds to it we could come up with all sorts of loop holes for the LDS prophets, especially the ones living in the Utah territory.  But I am trying to get us to consider the issue beyond just the legality.)

Jeffs does bring up a lot of negative emotions and cognitive dissonance for people.  I can pick some-other obscure polygamists who married young girls. Another example would still work but then I have to make everyone on this board google the name of a teenage marrying polygamist they never heard of.  No comparison is ever perfect.  

 

Really the rule that most of us here on this thread (and many other threads) are trying to avoid violating is this one:

Sexually themed threads or discussions of sexual behavior of LDS leaders, past or present

I still kind of consider myself new here.  But it appears that this rule is why we only debate the marriages here in such a round about way and avoid the "S" word.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Those marriages were still immoral regardless if there is some legal loophole to be found.

Thank you for sharing with us your personal opinion on this issue.  You climb upon your throne of judgement and, pretending to possess a full knowledge of all the details and circumstances,  you enter a judgement that they were immoral.

I prefer to see what happens at Judgement Day when they are judged by the Allmighty, omniscent God to whom the full set of circumstances are revealed.

[Gray]

8 hours ago, cdowis said:

Thank you for sharing with us your personal opinion on this issue.  You climb upon your throne of judgement and, pretending to possess a full knowledge of all the details and circumstances,  you enter a judgement that they were immoral.

I prefer to see what happens at Judgement Day when they are judged by the Allmighty, omniscent God to whom the full set of circumstances are revealed.

Is he climbing on a "throne of judgment" any more than when a conservative Mormon says something about a gay couple who are getting married? Or does climbing on a throne of judgement only happen when people have judgements you disagree with? Something to consider.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

10 hours ago, cdowis said:

I prefer to see what happens at Judgement Day when they are judged by the Allmighty, omniscent God to whom the full set of circumstances are revealed.

I do what I can in this life to prevent the spread of any theological proposition that is used to hurt children and teens.  That would include fighting against theological propositions such as the over reliance on faith healing, the November policy, the belief that it is better that a youth die than loose his or her virtue, bishop's having in depth interviews with teens about masturbation and sexual orientation, that a family should always be paying tithing in dire circumstances, and assertions that God would ever command old married men to marry young teen girls.

I find the actions of some religious leaders to be immoral because they hurt children who cannot consent.  I am not going to wait around for the final judgement to correct harmful theological beliefs.  To this day people are using Joseph's actions as justification for their own actions.  If we can't find it within ourselves to say marrying a 14 year old girl into secret polygamy is wrong than we are not part of the solution.  I need not be the only one on this throne.  There is plenty of room on this throne for you, and me, and everyone to reject  teachings and ideas that harm children.

But I always like to find some point of agreement.  It seems to me both of our positions on morality do not hinge solely on legality.  I think there is at least some agreement there.

 

Edited December 22, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[ERayR]

17 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I never claimed there was a ton of informed discussions occurring. They mostly started and stopped with a trusted advisor ie parent,  seminary teacher,  mission companion, etc telling me the historical claim was an anti Mormon lie. And I don't why you keep arguing the U and T thing. I know very well what is understood now. The issue was what I understood previously and what was explained away as an anti Mormon lie. 

It seems (to me) you were getting your answers from ill informed sources and blaming the Church for the lack.  An other example of expecting to be spoon fed.

[ERayR]

1 hour ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I do what I can in this life to prevent the spread of any theological proposition that is used to hurt children and teens.  That would include fighting against theological propositions such as the over reliance on faith healing, the November policy, the belief that it is better that a youth die than loose his or her virtue, bishop's having in depth interviews with teens about masturbation, that a family should always be paying tithing in dire circumstances, and assertions that God would ever command old married men to marry young teen girls.

I find the actions of some religious leaders to be immoral because they hurt children who cannot consent.  I am not going to wait around for the final judgement to correct harmful theological beliefs.  To this day people are using Joseph's actions as justification for their own actions.  If we can't find it within ourselves to say marrying a 14 year old girl into secret polygamy is wrong than we are not part of the solution.  I need not be the only one on this throne.  There is plenty of room on this throne for you, and me, and everyone to reject  teachings and ideas that harm children as immoral.

But I always like to find some point of agreement.  It seems to me both of our positions on morality do not hinge solely on legality.  I think there is at least some agreement there.

 

I see.  You have the mistaken idea that what doesn't fit your theological beliefs is wrong. 

[ERayR]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Is he climbing on a "throne of judgment" any more than when a conservative Mormon says something about a gay couple who are getting married? Or does climbing on a throne of judgement only happen when people have judgements you disagree with? Something to consider.

It certainly is.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I do what I can in this life to prevent the spread of any theological proposition that is used to hurt children and teens.  

OK, you are doubling down on this very serious accusation.  I remind you that this is not Facebook or Twitter but a moderated forum.

Sir, you are clearly accusing specific individuals, church leaders which you have named,  making a scurrilous accusation of "hurting children and teens."  This is a formal request for CFR on each individual that you have made that accusation.  May I point out in advance that marriage per se is not harming nor hurting that individual unless it is don in opposition to the will of the child and the the custodians of that child.

In terms of early marriage, may  I point out that the queen mother of Henry VII was 14 years old when he was born, the queen was 16 years old when Henry V was born (wiki).

I look forward to your verified proof of this very serious accusation, or withdrawing your scurrilous accusation.

Edited December 22, 2016 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, cdowis said:

OK, you are doubling down on this very serious accusation.  I remind you that this is not Facebook or Twitter but a moderated forum.

Sir, you accusing certain individuals of "hurting children and teens."  This is a formal request for CFR on each individual that you have made that accusation.  May I point out in advance that marriage per se is not harming nor hurting that individual unless it is don in opposition to the will of the child and the the custodians of that child.

I look forward to your verified proof of this very serious accusation, or its withdrawal.

I was talking to my neighbor about this. Her daughter is pretty angry as well at the church for doing this. But this neighbor agrees with the church that it would be hard to live with gay parents and know the church was against it and for them to be active in the church. But I just think it's kind of an excuse, I see both sides but if we look at the big picture, Jesus said leave your family and come unto Christ and I consider that to mean be baptised. So we have church on one hand and Jesus on the other. Which is correct?

[ERayR]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I was talking to my neighbor about this. Her daughter is pretty angry as well at the church for doing this. But this neighbor agrees with the church that it would be hard to live with gay parents and know the church was against it and for them to be active in the church. But I just think it's kind of an excuse, I see both sides but if we look at the big picture, Jesus said leave your family and come unto Christ and I consider that to mean be baptised. So we have church on one hand and Jesus on the other. Which is correct?

IMNSHO this is a false dichotomy.

[CV75]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

What I don't get, though, is how the omission of the seer stone in such artistic depictions is a big deal.  Again, from this Trib article:

It is clearly shown in the upper left corner of this depiction (the smallest stone directly under the mantle):

[cdowis]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I was talking to my neighbor about this. Her daughter is pretty angry as well at the church for doing this. But this neighbor agrees with the church that it would be hard to live with gay parents and know the church was against it and for them to be active in the church. But I just think it's kind of an excuse, I see both sides but if we look at the big picture, Jesus said leave your family and come unto Christ and I consider that to mean be baptised. So we have church on one hand and Jesus on the other. Which is correct?

Clearly he was not speaking to a minor child leaving the parents who are responsible for them until they obtain the age of minority, as is reflected in the policy.

The church will not compete with the parents on what the MINOR child is taught about the morality and legitimacy of their parent's marriage.

 

[churchistrue]

45 minutes ago, ERayR said:

It seems (to me) you were getting your answers from ill informed sources and blaming the Church for the lack.  An other example of expecting to be spoon fed.

Don't assume. I never said anything about blame. Or whether this was right or wrong. I was simply addressing the claim that it's unlikely something that became mainstream narrative was once known as anti Mormon lies. 

[Oliver_Cowdery]

48 minutes ago, ERayR said:

I see.  You have the mistaken idea that what doesn't fit your theological beliefs is wrong. 

No, that is not a good restate of my position.  I said that believes that do unnecessary harm to children are wrong.  

[ERayR]

10 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

Don't assume. I never said anything about blame. Or whether this was right or wrong. I was simply addressing the claim that it's unlikely something that became mainstream narrative was once known as anti Mormon lies. 

Okay it just came across that way to me.

[ERayR]

1 minute ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

No, that is not a good restate of my position.  I said that believes that do unnecessary harm to children are wrong.  

A good generic statement that is unarguable but who gets to decide what those are?

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Clearly he was not speaking to a minor child leaving the parents who are responsible for them until they obtain the age of minority, as is reflected in the policy.

The church will not compete with the parents on what the MINOR child is taught about the morality and legitimacy of their parent's marriage.

 

There are dozens of children being baptised every day that their parents don't believe in the church but will allow their child to be baptised in the LDS church. 

What is ironic here is that the some of these gay couples believe in the church and their children have their blessing that they be baptised in the church. But I see the point where their lifestyle disagrees with church doctrine.