Are Mormon historians rewriting history, what is the truth?

[why me]

On 21.12.2016 at 7:39 PM, provoman said:

 I just looked, and I can get Rough Stone Rolling from Deseret Book. I think it is accurate to say (willing to edit my comment if wrong) that Deseret Book is connected/associated with the LDS Church. If Bushman is such a bad seed, and Rough Stone Rolling so objectionable, then I confidently suspect that Deseret Book would not carry the book.

Are we mortals fallible? Yes. Was Joseph Smith perfect? No, and I he appears to suggest as much in his own history. Is Joseph Smith the Prophet of God, through whom the Gospel was restored. Yes.

Deseret Book is quite open with the books they sell. If one would have read some biographies that were sold in that bookshop, people would not have such a loss of testimony about church history. The biography of Hyrum Smith is just one example where the lds historian wrote about Hyrum's polygamy and how he struggled with it. This book was published at around 2003.

https://deseretbook.com/p/hyrum-smith-life-integrity-jeffrey-s-odriscoll-76848?variant_id=21674-paperback

And it can be bought from Deseret Books.

Edited December 27, 2016 by why me

[why me]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think the news of this policy made the difference between my son ever wanting to return to activity in the church. He was much like your daughter and very mad that the church was doing this. I was quite surprised at his reaction. I believe it is a major deterrant for members who are middle wayers and those who are possible converts, to have anything more to do with the church. It was the nudge that many people needed in order to cut ties for good. 

 

This is not surprising. I believe that the young generation today have been greatly influenced by the mainstream media about this issue of gay rights. Twenty years ago, the church's stance would have gotten very little opposition. But now, with the constant gay rights campaign in the American media, many young people can not use their critical thinking skills to see alternatives to the main narrative today. University students in particular have a problem in challenging the liberal social mores advocated on college campuses. I think that some in the media have labeled many such students as snowflakes because of the lack of critical thinking skills that prevents them from seeing other ideas that may not support their own narrative. Most college professors in the US are very progressive or liberal in their outlook. Any student who would come out and challenge their narratives would face many obstacles.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4059428/Muslim-University-Maryland-students-demand-prayer-rooms-major-building-ask-names-kept-Donald-Trump.html

Interesting link. And quite a list of demands. Interestingly, muslims are not that supportive of gay rights. But one can hear crickets if this will ever be discussed on campus. So, why are mormons being picked out for criticism?

Edited December 27, 2016 by why me

[why me]

I think that the lds church will soon be the church where its members can read the history of their own church. The JSPs are a case in point. I know of no other church that is now more open than the lds church about its history. I was just looking at one book recently published about Martin Luther. The author wrote about his anti-semitism and dislike for the papacy. And also for the koran. I am not sure just how many lutheran young people know this about their founder. But of course they can read about it in books publsihed outside the lutheran church.

For some strange reason, it is the lds church which get the pressure to face their own history and who have members leave over lds history.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

The church allows its members to have eternal polygamist marriages but disallow the children's baptism when their parents have polygamist marriages on earth.

The Church does not administer what goes on in heaven after she seals people while they are on earth.

In no case is a person, by being married to one living spouse, a polygamist/apostate, an adulterer or a fornicator by virtue of that couple's marriage covenant. But in all cases of ssm, the Church administers to the members as apostate, and she does is not perform such marriages on earth for either time or eternity because it does not constitute the most fundamental unit of the Lord’s family.

10 hours ago, california boy said:

Read my posts.  I have never said anything about changing the policy.  I only am pointing out the total lack of consistency with any other policy.  I have heard, IMO the strained theories, but frankly they make little sense to me.  They lack consistency with other policies concerning parents that are living in sin.  For some reason a lot of members have a problem simply saying, "Yes the church treats gay couples and their families different than anyone else."  It is a much more honest answer IMO.

It’s really very simple, but you seem to be complicating it for yourself.

Members may face Church discipline when living in sin, but must face Church discipline when in apostasy. Ssm is a form of apostasy because, like joining another church and advocating its teachings, it is more than a willful and serious moral offense, it is an actual covenant to behave in a specific way that runs contrary to the Church’s interests and beliefs and the other members’ spiritual well-being.

The Church does administer to everyone according to the same standards. So yes, the Church treats apostates differently than members in poor standing or members in good standing (duh!), no matter how fine a people they generally or individually may be.

And yes, there are differences within the post-excommunication relationship between the Church and apostate families according to the kind of apostasy. Because the Church recognizes all parents (apostate or not) as primarily responsible for their children’s spiritual and religious upbringing, and since ssm is so diametrically opposed to the LDS marriage covenant, it is impossible for the Church to walk hand-in-hand with them in raising their children according the Church covenants.

So the child must wait until he can have his own relationship with the Church. And because parental ties are so powerful an influence in belief and behavior, the child needs to disavow the parents’ apostate covenant in order to manifest a godly walk and conversation in line with joining the Church.

And as with all policy, I’m sure there are exceptions in extenuating circumstances.

 

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, why me said:

 So, why are mormons being picked out for criticism?

Prop 8

[cdowis]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

The church allows its members to have eternal polygamist marriages

The law of polygamy still exists within the church, only the POLICY has changed which disallows living polygamy here in mortality.  I'm sue you already knew that.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, why me said:

This is not surprising. I believe that the young generation today have been greatly influenced by the mainstream media about this issue of gay rights. Twenty years ago, the church's stance would have gotten very little opposition. But now, with the constant gay rights campaign in the American media, many young people can not use their critical thinking skills to see alternatives to the main narrative today. University students in particular have a problem in challenging the liberal social mores advocated on college campuses. I think that some in the media have labeled many such students as snowflakes because of the lack of critical thinking skills that prevents them from seeing other ideas that may not support their own narrative. Most college professors in the US are very progressive or liberal in their outlook. Any student who would come out and challenge their narratives would face many obstacles.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4059428/Muslim-University-Maryland-students-demand-prayer-rooms-major-building-ask-names-kept-Donald-Trump.html

Interesting link. And quite a list of demands. Interestingly, muslims are not that supportive of gay rights. But one can hear crickets if this will ever be discussed on campus. So, why are mormons being picked out for criticism?

Well you are right about one thing.  Poll after poll has affirmed that the more educated a person is in EVERY age category the more likely they are to support equal rights for gay couples.  Ironically the church is largely responsible for the educating of America on gay rights issues.  With the passage of Prop 8, gay marriage was brought to the forefront of countless news and talk shows across the country.  Both sides got to make their case in the bright light of day.  The more people heard BOTH sides of this issue, the more the country moved towards supporting gay marriage.and other gay rights issues.  

The gay community owes a great deal of thanks to the Mormon church for the passage of Prop 8.  Sometimes God uses imperfect men to accomplish His greatest work.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Well you are right about one thing.  Poll after poll has affirmed that the more educated a person is in EVERY age category the more likely they are to support equal rights for gay couples.  Ironically the church is largely responsible for the educating of America on gay rights issues.  With the passage of Prop 8, gay marriage was brought to the forefront of countless news and talk shows across the country.  Both sides got to make their case in the bright light of day.  The more people heard BOTH sides of this issue, the more the country moved towards supporting gay marriage.and other gay rights issues.  

The gay community owes a great deal of thanks to the Mormon church for the passage of Prop 8.  Sometimes God uses imperfect men to accomplish His greatest work.

 

Quote

Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of His Church to help it along. They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else.... Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of the truth; while others remain unconverted ... the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for a wise purpose. The Lord will open their eyes in His own due time. God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people.... We have no quarrel with the Gentiles. They are our partners in a certain sense (Conference Report, April 1928, p.59).

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

In no case is a person, by being married to one living spouse, a polygamist/apostate, an adulterer or a fornicator by virtue of that couple's marriage covenant.

 

Why not?  Isn't someone married to two or more women by the power of God married to two women???  Wouldn't that make them a polygamist?  Sure those polygamist marriages are not recognized by the government, but neither were the multiple marriages of Joseph Smith.

[california boy]

20 minutes ago, cdowis said:

The law of polygamy still exists within the church, only the POLICY has changed which disallows living polygamy here in mortality.  I'm sue you already knew that.

You got to love the irony of that don't you think?

[cdowis]

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

You got to love the irony of that don't you think?

I love the irony of quantum mechanics.  It violates almost everything we know about reality, but yet it is there, and has no regard on whether we "believe" on it or not.

 

Edited December 27, 2016 by cdowis

[Gray]

On 12/23/2016 at 9:30 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Oliver Cowdery is exactly right. The argument that this is for the benefit of the child doesn't hold up to even basic scrutiny. The policy is inconsistent and harmful to children (insofar as one believes the church is a net positive).

CDOWIS said-

Consider the man and woman who are living together outside of marriage. Maybe one is a member, maybe not, it doesn't really matter. While they are living together "in sin" they do not qualify for baptism. They are "fundamentally living a lifestyle" which is contrary to doctrines of the church. Yet their child can be blessed, baptized, receive the priesthood etc. Their lifestyle does not prevent the child from receiving the saving ordinances.

This question has been asked so many times I hesitate to ask it again but I've still never heard a reasonable answer. Why is the child living with unmarried parents able to receive saving ordinance while the child of a SS couple cannot?

If your only answer is the arbitrary and recent label of apostasy, then you don't really have an answer.

I think the strategy is to try to limit the exposure of members of the church to happy, healthy gay families. Such exposure could lead to a spirit of inclusion and love, and finally, full acceptance of such families. This is how hearts are changed, and certain senior leaders are trying to at least postpone the inevitable.

[Gray]

On 12/24/2016 at 3:56 PM, mfbukowski said:

Of course it does not address that because that is not the issue.

Children of hetero couples do not have the central conflict of being taught one thing in the home by seeing it every day, and another in church.  THAT is the conflict.

The conflict results when a homosexual couple desires their children to be taught that homosexuality is wrong while they practice it at home

The fault is with the homosexual couple who would send their children to a place where the poor children are forced into trying to resolve conflicting lessons at such an early age.

I personally feel that if I was gay, I would view sending my children to the LDS church to be tantamount to child abuse.   What kind of parenting is that???

Were I gay I would have NOTHING to do with such a church!

CAN anyone here actually cite an example of such a child who is actually coming to church with gay parents?

Not every congregation in the church teaches that message about gay people.

[Tacenda]

Take that, Stoddards!!!!!!!

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865669945/Essays-on-Mormon-history-doctrine-find-new-visibility-in-official-app-Sunday-School.html?clear_cache=1

Thank you Tad Walch from Deseret News!! Informative news like this helps me feel less strange... or, less an oddball... or, less the person that the devil is working on... or, less the person too engrossed in Mormon history warts or...

 

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Or because I stand on the side lines, not effected by the decision in any way: 0-0  A meaningless no pointer.  

It's like watching a 0-0 between Swansea and Crysal Palace. 90 minutes of boredom. Or  watching 9 innings of a 0-0 game between the Minnesota Twins and the Oakland A's. Less entertaining than watching grass grow.

Will the church ever listen to my opinion? Yeah, when H--- freezes over. Do I care? Yeah, when .......   never mind

It appears Church decisions have a great impact on you. What can the Church do to make you care? 

Edited December 27, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Members may face Church discipline when living in sin, but must face Church discipline when in apostasy. Ssm is a form of apostasy because, like joining another church and advocating its teachings, it is more than a willful and serious moral offense, it is an actual covenant to behave in a specific way that runs contrary to the Church’s interests and beliefs and the other members’ spiritual well-being.

That depends on the the sin involved.  Some sins require church discipline and many of them are not apostasy.  If the Church wants to frame SSM as apostasy it is within its right to frame it as such.  For me personally I like to keep my terms neat and clean.  To me SSM is no more apostasy as a person deciding to become a porn star is apostasy.   I really don't see a difference between a gay couple married together and a gay couple living together not married.  One is not worse than the other since I don't give the marriage any validity.  By treating the married couple differently, one is giving some weight to the marriage. I think its better just to completely ignore the marriage.  It is as though it did not happen.  Sort of like baptism without priesthood authority.  Its no more valid than baptizing a bag of sand.  

Apostasy is the rejection of the Church itself or its authority.  Rejecting the Book of Mormon, the restoration, Jesus Christ, ect is apostasy.  Not paying tithing, breaking the sabbath, premarital sex, homosexual practices whether "married" according to the laws of the land or not is not apostasy but they are all sins of different degrees. All apostasy is sin but not all sin is apostasy.  The Church is free to do whatever it wants.  I have no say in the matter but if someone was to ask me to defend the Church on its labeling SSM as apostasy I can't do it either.  I don't see it in the apostasy spectrum but violation of the law of chastity spectrum.  Its far easier to argue against SSM on those grounds than broaden apostasy into other areas.  Either way they result in the same conclusion which is excommunication if one does not repent.

Edited December 27, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Why not?  Isn't someone married to two or more women by the power of God married to two women???  Wouldn't that make them a polygamist?  Sure those polygamist marriages are not recognized by the government, but neither were the multiple marriages of Joseph Smith.

The married spouses would each have to be alive in mortality to qualify as polygamists, and the Church does not practice this. Some LDS do get remarried after a spouse dies but that is the extent of the Church’s jurisdiction; whatever the Lord ratifies on the other side of the veil is His and the participants’ business, not the Church’s.

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

That depends on the the sin involved.  Some sins require church discipline and many of them are not apostasy.  If the Church wants to frame SSM as apostasy it is within its right to frame it as such.  For me personally I like to keep my terms neat and clean.  To me SSM is no more apostasy as a person deciding to become a porn star is apostasy.   I really don't see a difference between a gay couple married together and a gay couple living together not married.  One is not worse than the other since I don't give the marriage any validity.  By treating the married couple differently, one is giving some weight to the marriage. I think its better just to completely ignore the marriage.  It is as though it did not happen.  Sort of like baptism without priesthood authority.  Its no more valid than baptizing a bag of sand.  

Apostasy is the rejection of the Church itself or its authority.  Rejecting the Book of Mormon, the restoration, Jesus Christ, ect is apostasy.  Not paying tithing, breaking the sabbath, premarital sex, homosexual practices whether "married" according to the laws of the land or not is not apostasy but they are all sins of different degrees. All apostasy is sin but not all sin is apostasy.  The Church is free to do whatever it wants.  I have no say in the matter but if someone was to ask me to defend the Church on its labeling SSM as apostasy I can't do it either.  I don't see it in the apostasy spectrum but violation of the law of chastity spectrum.  Its far easier to argue against SSM on those grounds than broaden apostasy into other areas.  Either way they result in the same conclusion which is excommunication if one does not repent.

But what ssm has in common with a couple of the other conditions of apostasy is the entailment of a covenant. People who join another church are not necessarily sinning, especially in a moral sense. While ssm doesn’t exist in the Lord’s design of things, to ignore changing the Lord’s design and entering covenants opposing the Lord design does no one any good.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I think the strategy is to try to limit the exposure of members of the church to happy, healthy gay families. Such exposure could lead to a spirit of inclusion and love, and finally, full acceptance of such families. This is how hearts are changed, and certain senior leaders are trying to at least postpone the inevitable.

Except no senior leaders has either said or implied such nonsense!

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I think the strategy is to try to limit the exposure of members of the church to happy, healthy gay families. Such exposure could lead to a spirit of inclusion and love, and finally, full acceptance of such families. This is how hearts are changed, and certain senior leaders are trying to at least postpone the inevitable.

I'm not sure it's quite that conniving, but I'm sure you're more or less right. The policy definitely comes out of a fear of changing mainstream values and a belief that the church needs to remain unchanged.

[california boy]

49 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

That depends on the the sin involved.  Some sins require church discipline and many of them are not apostasy.  If the Church wants to frame SSM as apostasy it is within its right to frame it as such.  For me personally I like to keep my terms neat and clean.  To me SSM is no more apostasy as a person deciding to become a porn star is apostasy.   I really don't see a difference between a gay couple married together and a gay couple living together not married.  One is not worse than the other since I don't give the marriage any validity.  By treating the married couple differently, one is giving some weight to the marriage. I think its better just to completely ignore the marriage.  It is as though it did not happen.  Sort of like baptism without priesthood authority.  Its no more valid than baptizing a bag of sand.  

Apostasy is the rejection of the Church itself or its authority.  Rejecting the Book of Mormon, the restoration, Jesus Christ, ect is apostasy.  Not paying tithing, breaking the sabbath, premarital sex, homosexual practices whether "married" according to the laws of the land or not is not apostasy but they are all sins of different degrees. All apostasy is sin but not all sin is apostasy.  The Church is free to do whatever it wants.  I have no say in the matter but if someone was to ask me to defend the Church on its labeling SSM as apostasy I can't do it either.  I don't see it in the apostasy spectrum but violation of the law of chastity spectrum.  Its far easier to argue against SSM on those grounds than broaden apostasy into other areas.  Either way they result in the same conclusion which is excommunication if one does not repent.

This makes much more sense and fits into existing doctrine. Homosexual acts whether in marriage or not are violations of the law of chastity. Nothing more 

[california boy]

27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But what ssm has in common with a couple of the other conditions of apostasy is the entailment of a covenant. People who join another church are not necessarily sinning, especially in a moral sense. While ssm doesn’t exist in the Lord’s design of things, to ignore changing the Lord’s design and entering covenants opposing the Lord design does no one any good.

 

For a church that doesn't recognize the vows that Sam sex couples make, they seem to take those vows pretty seriously. 

More irony to be sure

Edited December 27, 2016 by california boy

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Not every congregation in the church teaches that message about gay people.

HUH?

Where did I say ANYTHING like that and how is that in any way relevant to anything??

Since when is this board a poll where we register the opinions of individual wards or even the church in general?

[why me]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Well you are right about one thing.  Poll after poll has affirmed that the more educated a person is in EVERY age category the more likely they are to support equal rights for gay couples.  Ironically the church is largely responsible for the educating of America on gay rights issues.  With the passage of Prop 8, gay marriage was brought to the forefront of countless news and talk shows across the country.  Both sides got to make their case in the bright light of day.  The more people heard BOTH sides of this issue, the more the country moved towards supporting gay marriage.and other gay rights issues.  

The gay community owes a great deal of thanks to the Mormon church for the passage of Prop 8.  Sometimes God uses imperfect men to accomplish His greatest work.

And that was my point. Going through Uni and its liberal/progressive orientation would create a follow the herd mentality. And lets face it, religion, especially the christian faith is looked upon as backward. But again, the muslims get a free pass because no one dares be critical about Islam because of the Islamaphobia  term. Long before Prop 8 states were adopting progressive values and those states who were opposed, got overturned by the supreme court. When will the gay rights community challenge Islam? Here is an interesting book written by an Islamic feminist: https://www.waterstones.com/book/the-battle-for-british-islam-reclaiming-muslim-identity-from-extremism-2016/sara-khan/tony-mcmahon/9780863561597

The forst twenty minutes are very interesting to listen to.

Edited December 27, 2016 by why me

[why me]

California Boy: Why did the gay community ignore the Orlando tragedy and its links to Islamism? My point is simple. The lds church is cotton candy when compared to the homophobia found in Islamism and other aspects of the faith. And yet, the gay community seems to enjoy attacking the weakest link, ie, the lds church.