Musings and Thoughts from My Meeting with Members of the Ex-Mormon Community

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I would LOVE to be able to talk with him...not going to happen I know...but just saying

Yes and we all know which way you would like to pull him, too.

Peer pressure. Doesn't work for me, and I hate that it does for anyone. Our Father is the one he should talk and listen to.

[Gray]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There are many people that say the same thing about polygamy.   Does that mean we can conclude that polygamy is a godly choice right now and that the church's current teachings about living polygamy are ungodly?

The fruits of polygamy seem to be, for the most part, bad. In some cases, very, very bad.  That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. Just like some gay people seem to find value in lifelong celibacy (as do some straight people, like in the Catholic church). 

Edited March 10, 2017 by Gray

[Jeanne]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

Well first you have to believe that you have something to repent of.  While I have much to repent of, loving my boyfriend is not one of those things.  I feel no guilt for loving him.  I feel no condemnation from God for loving him.  And I feel no power Mormon dogma has towards gays and upon me.  Sorry to disappoint you, but I only feel peace and love.  I could not love a God that would rip him from my arms.  So your judgement of what happens to gays  may be sure for you.  Loving someone and caring for them feels just as sure to me.  One day, we will see which God we worship.  

I can't imagine anyone having to repent and/or apologize for loving someone.

[Johnnie Cake]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes and we all know which way you would like to pull him, too.

Peer pressure. Doesn't work for me, and I hate that it does for anyone. Our Father is the one he should talk and listen to.

Really? You KNOW?  You're making a lot of assumption's with your statement...You're assuming that I have ulterior motives to pull or push him in one direction or another?  Believe me or not...but you are so far off the mark from knowing what my intentions would be were I able to talk with this person.  I have no desire to push or pull him in any direction what-so-ever either to or from the church.  Geezze

[Johnnie Cake]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

The fruits of polygamy seem to be, for the most part, bad. In some cases, very, very bad.  That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. Just like some gay people seem to find value in lifelong celibacy (as do some straight people, like in the Catholic church). 

Hey wait a minute...I'm the fruit of Polygamy...and I think I'm pretty amazing.  had there never been polygamy...I wouldn't exist... 

[Jeanne]

23 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes and we all know which way you would like to pull him, too.

Peer pressure. Doesn't work for me, and I hate that it does for anyone. Our Father is the one he should talk and listen to.

You must not be seeing the peer pressure.  All your meetings..willingness to conform and be accepted is part of being a member.  Your friends, family and neighbors are members and your bishopric is part of those peers.  It is somewhat impossible to think outside the box for all your peers!

 

[Ahab]

17 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Really? You KNOW?  You're making a lot of assumption's with your statement...You're assuming that I have ulterior motives to pull or push him in one direction or another?  Believe me or not...but you are so far off the mark from knowing what my intentions would be were I able to talk with this person.  I have no desire to push or pull him in any direction what-so-ever either to or from the church.  Geezze

And now I suspect that you think you should be believed, yet again.

But, sure, on the slight chance that I am wrong about you, I will apologize.

[JLHPROF]

29 minutes ago, Gray said:

The fruits of polygamy seem to be, for the most part, bad. In some cases, very, very bad.  That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. Just like some gay people seem to find value in lifelong celibacy (as do some straight people, like in the Catholic church).

You could make the same argument about Christianity or Religion.  In fact, many atheists do.
Just because the adversary corrupts a truth making the fruits rotten, doesn't make the truth any less good and true.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

There are many people that say the same thing about polygamy.   Does that mean we can conclude that polygamy is a godly choice right now and that the church's current teachings about living polygamy are ungodly?

If the choice was between never marrying or being in a polygamist marriage, then that teaching would be ungodly.  So much of the happiness in the gospel as well as the very human desire for companionship is built around a marriage and family relationships that to rip that option off the table is problematic.  If you took marriage and family away from the gospel plan, what would you have left?  Yet that is exactly what the church has done to someone who is gay. 

Edited March 10, 2017 by california boy

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

All your meetings..willingness to conform and be accepted is part of being a member.

Yes but I feel no pressure to remain a member, from anyone.  

I left another religion before even though that bothered a lot of people, and I would do so again if I ever felt that it was warranted.

I'm a true American, don't ya know! A true independent thinker who only cares about whether or not I think I know what is right, regardless of the opinions of other people...other than God, that is.

And if push came to shove I would probably even stop following God if I thought God was wrong about something! 

[Jeanne]

13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes but I feel no pressure to remain a member, from anyone.  

I left another religion before even though that bothered a lot of people, and I would do so again if I ever felt that it was warranted.

I'm a true American, don't ya know! A true independent thinker who only cares about whether or not I think I know what is right, regardless of the opinions of other people...other than God, that is.

And if push came to shove I would probably even stop following God if I thought God was wrong about something! 

Good on you...I respect that your answer is very honest  so thank you.  I hope that the God you know is always there for you.

[Gray]

42 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Hey wait a minute...I'm the fruit of Polygamy...and I think I'm pretty amazing.  had there never been polygamy...I wouldn't exist... 

I rest my case.

 

Just kidding!

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You could make the same argument about Christianity or Religion.  In fact, many atheists do.
Just because the adversary corrupts a truth making the fruits rotten, doesn't make the truth any less good and true.

The fruits of polygamy within the LDS church are also mostly rotten, in my estimation. 

[rongo]

First Vision: he related a miracle he witnessed when he was twelve. His brother was given a healing blessing by two men that had immediate and miraculous effects. His dad wasn't then able to use his priesthood, so he was in the room, and his mother. To him, even 15 years after the event, he has always told the same story about how many people were in the room and what happened, so he finds the differing number of people, different reasons for asking God, etc. to be unacceptable. This is a visit from God and Jesus, after all! Surely he would have been completely consistent in these details! I pointed out that his differing reasons (forgiveness, which church is true, etc.) weren't mutually-exclusive, and that what stood out to him at different times over the years could certainly change (i.e., forgiveness could be more on his mind in 1832 than in 1838, and the settings and audiences are an obvious factor influencing the accounts). The audiences (personal writing, church members, non-members, Chicago Democrat/newspaper, etc.) also quite easily can account for emphases/de-emphases of God, Jesus, both, angels, etc. I shared with him some some insights from other secondary accounts, such as John Taylor's debate at Bolougne-sur-Mer, Orson Pratt's early pamphlets, Orsamus Turner and Abner Cole, Palmyra Reflector mentions of the Smith family pre- and post- 1820, etc. --- that show that public attention and opinion about the Smith family indeed turned drastically against them in 1820, and that details consistent with the canonized account were known and in circulation long before 1832. 

---

Book of Abraham: I think I helped him see some things differently on this one (he felt coming in that the Book of Abraham was a huge nail in Joseph Smith's coffin). We went through Facsimiles 1, 2, and 3 in depth, and we discussed the usual (Anubis, lion couch, canopic jars/sons of Horus, embalming vs. sacrifice, mixed genders and Ma'at, Isis, etc.). He was very impressed that I knew all of the issues and had information he didn't know, including bulls-eyes that critics avoid or minimize. He said he didn't care about the text of the BoA at all, only the facsimiles (because that's all that critics focus on), and I pointed out to him that there are reasons why critics avoid the text (additional bulls-eyes, e.g., Shagreel, Apocalypse/Testament of Abraham, etc.). He felt that if the Book of Abraham were true, Egyptologists would embrace it with open arms. I asked him if he seriously thought that Egyptologists at Yale, University of Chicago, etc. would be open to the possibility that Joseph Smith got some things right, and he had to admit that there would be strong institutional and professional peer pressure against that --- even if they were convinced. He asked what an Egyptologist would translate the facsimiles to say, and I told him it would be similar to what Michael Rhodes and John Gee have published --- which bear no resemblance to the Book of Abraham. Why? Because there is more to it than the facsimiles, for one thing, and mechanical translations of Egyptian are not the whole message. We had a long discussion of the particular papyri, the Soter family, and the unique things about the JSP that indicate that these were a special case with a special message (he was interested to know that there is a painting with Lucy Mack showing Fac. 1 as in our scriptures, despite Egyptologists' past insistence that Joseph Smith had altered it). I'm not doing the discussion justice; it was wide-ranging. He did ask at the end if I am claiming that Egyptologists have conspired to suppress the Book of Abraham or lie about knowing otherwise, not giving it a fair hearing or treatment, and I told him emphatically, "No. They haven't given it a hearing at all, let alone a fair hearing." I went through the 1912 critics' treatments up to the present, and showed how superficial and non-treatment dismissal they were. I also mentioned the copy of the New York Times cover in 1912 ("Museum Walls Proclaim Joseph Smith a Fraud!") and other things as part of discussing how "experts" (who really were experts) have not wanted to be perceived as taking the Book of Abraham seriously, and have thus superficially dismissed it.

---

Joseph Smith/Nauvoo polygamy: Also wide-ranging, also can't do the discussion justice here. His main concern was the lying, especially on the part of others besides Joseph Smith who lied to cover it up. We both agreed that if God commanded it and also commanded them to keep it secret and even lie about it, that put them in a tough spot. I shared quotes from Brigham Young, John Taylor, George Q. Cannon, etc. about their revulsion and reluctance for polygamy (he knew this generally, but appreciated having quotes). He found the Gospel Topic essay to be inadequate, but agreed that it was probably the best the Church could have done under the assumption that the Church is true. He agreed that it was a good start. We really left it at a) God commanded it and commanded them to keep it secret at that time, which required them to lie about it. Not altogether satisfying, but that's the lay of the land. 

Polyandry and teenage wives were not a concern for him. He agreed that if we looked up how old our g-g-g-grandparents were when they were married, relative ages would be a non-issue. He felt that there was probably no sex between him and the teenage wives, and likely not much between him and others, although with them considering themselves to be married, one shouldn't be surprised if there were. His larger concern was D&C 132 vs. how Joseph Smith practiced it.

---

The Spirit: his worldview definitely leans towards "we're really just bags of chemicals, and feeling the Spirit is chemical reactions in the brain," so he has a hard time with verifiable spiritual experiences that aren't 100% a function of brain chemistry. We discussed this, but he's going to have to navigate this himself as to whether or not he will have spiritual experiences that transcend "simply brain chemistry" explanations.  

---

The Flood, Evolution, and Cosmology: His main issue isn't fundamentalism, but that the scriptures (to him) clearly require a fundamentalist interpretation and many Mormons and other Christians too easily simply sidestep that with varying degrees of "symbolism/allegory/etc." We discussed this, and he understands that Mormons (and other Christians) can be in good standing and accept a 4.6 billion year old earth, ~ 10 billion year old universe, organic evolution, etc. He just finds it to be a too easy surrender to irresistible science that cheapens a claimed belief in scripture. 

--- Church membership, finances and transparency: We discussed this, and agreed that the Church's tendency towards PR tactics and corporatism can be distasteful. I really just empathized here, but he did agree (while discussing City Creek) that it would also be awful, on the other hand, to imagine the hyper-critical microscopic scrutiny of people, especially those who don't like the Church and want to find things to complain about, if they had unfettered access to any Church financials they wanted. 

--- Moroni/Nephi: We discussed the slips in Lucy Mack's manuscript and the few printed slips transposing the names. He agreed that this can probably be chalked up to human error (who hasn't mixed up names before?).

---

Book of Mormon translation: He is bothered by the artwork surrounding the translation. He has no issues with Urim & Thummim or rock-in-a-hat (as he said, one is not more weird than the other), but thinks that the Church should not try to make the process look like something it wasn't. He was very interested in my statement in the course of this discussion that the U&T were primarily used for the 116 pages, the seer stone after that, but for the most part, neither the seer stone nor the plates were used for most of the BoM translation. He asked me for more information on this (he found that very interesting, not in a negative way), and I told him I would get back to him with some stuff. I wouldn't mind a hand with that, if anyone has sources handy . . .  

---

It was touching at the end. He told his bishop that he wanted him to know that he appreciates what he does for him and his family, and that he respects his office and felt that he owed it to that to make an attempt to hear the Church's side and attempts to explain. He thanked me for my time, and I told him it was no problem at all (and it really wasn't --- I live for things like this). He asked a couple of additional questions about KJV in the BoM, and I gave him the handout packet from our "Book of Mormon: Fact or Fiction?" stake fireside several years ago. Lots of stuff in there, including on that, and he was excited to see the DNA section (not a problem for him --- he said outright that if Lehi and his party really landed and mixed with indigenous peoples, their DNA would be indistinguishable today): "Oh, you have something on mitochondrial DNA! Good!"

He's a friendly, nice guy. I think if his wife stays active (friends and fellowship, etc.), he might figure things out and become active again. His issues are more fundamental than CES letter, ultimately: Is there even a God, and how can I know for sure? How can I trust what I think are spiritual witnesses? But, his attitude and Stimmung towards the Church is very good ---- much better than in many cases of Glaubensverlust. 

[Tacenda]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/03/utah-cops-swear-mysterious-voice-crying-for-help-led-them-to-unconscious-toddler-in-submerged-car/#.VP8ydn_Pubc.facebook

Just wanted to post this that I saw on FB just now, my sister re-posted from awhile back. I had forgotten or maybe didn't know about this. Gives me hope there is an afterlife for those atheist or agnostics on this thread. I struggle ever since losing my faith in the church. 

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

The fruits of polygamy within the LDS church are also mostly rotten, in my estimation.

Because members of the LDS Church are just as susceptible to the adversary as non-members.
Poor execution still doesn't make the principle of polygamy bad.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Because members of the LDS Church are just as susceptible to the adversary as non-members.
Poor execution still doesn't make the principle of polygamy bad.

But I thought the purpose was to raise a righteous posterity...for which Joseph had none from his poly marriages.

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because members of the LDS Church are just as susceptible to the adversary as non-members.
Poor execution still doesn't make the principle of polygamy bad.

Maybe it's like communism. It works out well mostly in the imagination of its proponents. 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

But I thought the purpose was to raise a righteous posterity...for which Joseph had none from his poly marriages.

Yes, in the approx. 2 years Joseph lived polygamy no children appear to have been conceived from him.

In fact, of the 30+ polygamous men during Joseph's life in Nauvoo only 2 children were born to plural wives.
There must be some reasonable explanation why almost no children were born.  Clearly these marriages weren't celibate since there were some children during these 2 years.

I believe it was simply an issue of circumstance - lack of opportunity and situation.
How many of Joseph's wives did he actually live with?  How much private time did Joseph enjoy in Nauvoo?  We can pretty much trace his steps every single day of those two years from journal entries and meeting minutes.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Maybe it's like communism. It works out well mostly in the imagination of its proponents.

Maybe we just suck at living as God lives.  Too darned mortal.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, in the approx. 2 years Joseph lived polygamy no children appear to have been conceived from him.

In fact, of the 30+ polygamous men during Joseph's life in Nauvoo only 2 children were born to plural wives.
There must be some reasonable explanation why almost no children were born.  Clearly these marriages weren't celibate since there were some children during these 2 years.

I believe it was simply an issue of circumstance - lack of opportunity and situation.
How many of Joseph's wives did he actually live with?  How much private time did Joseph enjoy in Nauvoo?  We can pretty much trace his steps every single day of those two years from journal entries and meeting minutes.

Time and circumstance....and Dr Bennett.

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Maybe we just suck at living as God lives.  Too darned mortal.

Well that's true, but maybe polygamy isn't actually godly? There are other species that practice it, like lions and sea lions. It works out well for the alpha, but there are always negative consequences for the rest. 

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Time and circumstance....and Dr Bennett.

Poppycock.
John C. Bennett was excommunicated in May of 1842 and left Nauvoo.
After his departure Joseph married an additional 23 wives, none of whom ever conceived by Joseph that we can prove.

That ridiculous claim comes from the apostate Sarah Pratt who said that "Joseph Smith allowed Bennett, a medical doctor, to perform abortions on Smith's polygamous wives who were officially single."

Of Joseph's 10 plural wives taken before Bennett's departure only Agnes Coolbrith and Louisa Beaman were single.  There is no evidence connecting either of them to Bennett.

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Poppycock.
John C. Bennett was excommunicated in May of 1842 and left Nauvoo.
After his departure Joseph married an additional 23 wives, none of whom ever conceived by Joseph that we can prove.

 

Evenso is it possible that the knowledge of Dr. Bennett benefited these women beforehand...they knew how to refrain from pregnancy..he was often referred to by many  IMO

[Tacenda]

26 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Time and circumstance....and Dr Bennett.

And I've read accounts that there were children, but apparently their offspring probably haven't been tested.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Tacenda