Trying to control information sharing

[Jeanne]

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I remember back in 2012 when I first posted on this board, if I had mentioned all these bullets, I'd have been banned. Might even happen now. But I guess when faithful members post like Laura Hales, etc. Then it's great!

Yeah...kind of go figure..?????

[RevTestament]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm sure your not alone Rev, in fact I remember sitting in plenty of SS classes where there was always that guy that knew more than the rest of us. I think that guy, is all of you on here lol! You who speak so openly here, but I bet you have to bite your tongues constantly in Sunday School class.

There certainly was a time when that guy or often girl next to me knew more - especially when I first joined the Church. It took me a while to learn the BoM to be frank. Even though I had a testimony of it, I've only really begun to closely study it over the last two years with the exception of a brief stint while I was in college. I enjoy this forum, because I can speak freely without the constraints of SS class. I have done so on other internet forums, but usually didn't find many friends - that is until more recently at the last forum I was at until they kicked LDS posters into the World Religion forum. In some ways I am very alone. I don't interpret scripture even like other LDS posters do, as I think is evident from my posts here, but there are others that post here who are quite "unusual." Mark Bukowski has an unusual approach to teaching. Robert Smith is another fairly free spirit I enjoy reading. I like to think I go where the truth leads me - that is what led me to the Church, but yes, is sometimes frustrating as you say in SS class. I manage to make a stir in SS class at least once a year probably, and am back in the "dog house." Maybe one day I will learn to keep my mouth shut all the way....  

or if the Lord so wills it will turn into a megaphone.

[BlueDreams]

46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm sure your not alone Rev, in fact I remember sitting in plenty of SS classes where there was always that guy that knew more than the rest of us. I think that guy, is all of you on here lol! You who speak so openly here, but I bet you have to bite your tongues constantly in Sunday School class.

 

Hardly. I usually talk in SS and RS. Those are my favorite hours. I've been a teacher in SS more than once. I've also given talks and firesides that definitely poked at mormon culture more than once. I do think sometimes it's how it's done, not just what's being addressed. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Storm Rider]

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Transcripts of podcasts==awesome.  Who the hell wants to listen when you can read? 

http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/05/24/polygamy-questions-joseph-smith/

Dan Peterson interviews the Hales (http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/)

Two answers I find interesting.

First Laura:

I realize people get really defensive and upset when someone points out that the Church has hidden information from the members, or has tried to.  But it's true.  Is it better to hide information under the guise of "protecting the prophets"?  Does it protect anyone to try and hide it?  That is some backwards logic in my view.  We are better off telling people the truth and letting the chips fall where they may, I say.

She goes on:

Yeah for now.  (seriously I'm happy about this)

now Brian (responding to Dan's question):

I've noticed some locations are really behind the times on this.  Some still cry out things like heretic if it's brought up in Church.  Has anyone brought up polygamy and mentioned some details (like Joseph marrying teenagers, or other men's wives) and did not have someone get upset?  I haven't been successful.  These days it may not be the mention of polygamy so much as the devil's in the details.

I love it.  "what President Uchtdorf is reflecting is that the church can withstand scrutiny"

I still lament that it times past this wasnt' the case, but this is encouraging.

What do you all say?  Are we better off letting our members discuss troubling issues in Church?  Afterall Church is a place where we ought to share with each other the welfare of our souls.

There is a reason that a prophet is never respected in his own land.  Why is he not respected?  

Transparency is a wonderful term that almost everyone supports, until it is transparency about their own lives, actions, thoughts, and worlds is at stake.  At that point the vast majority draw a line and say, "Absolutely not!" or "That is none of your business".  We are pretty hypocritical about these things.  It is okay to support the concept of transparency for everyone else, but not ourselves.  If we want transparency from others then start being transparent about ourselves.  

As for me, I don't think transparency is needed nearly as much as some want it.  I choose to enforce the same standards of others that I expect of myself.   

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

There is a reason that a prophet is never respected in his own land.  Why is he not respected?  

Transparency is a wonderful term that almost everyone supports, until it is transparency about their own lives, actions, thoughts, and worlds is at stake.  At that point the vast majority draw a line and say, "Absolutely not!" or "That is none of your business".  We are pretty hypocritical about these things.  It is okay to support the concept of transparency for everyone else, but not ourselves.  If we want transparency from others then start being transparent about ourselves.  

As for me, I don't think transparency is needed nearly as much as some want it.  I choose to enforce the same standards of others that I expect of myself.   

I believe what is being discussed here is institutional transparency.  Not transparency into people's private lives. 

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

He was commanded to live polygamy and Emma didn't accept polygamy. There's no way to square that by merely living it differently. To say Emma would have accepted it misses the point that she didn't which was why he did things in secret. The only way for him to live it the way you suggest was to divorce Emma.

Do you think it is possible that marrying other men's wives and 14 year old girls might have aggravated the the situation a little with Emma?

[JulieM]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

We don't know the details of what happened with Fanny. I personally think he'd brought it to Emma before that and Emma had rejected it. My point is that there's no evidence Emma ever would have accepted it. By the time those requirements were given in D&C 132 Emma was already at the point of rejecting polygamy. At that time Joseph's only choice was to divorce her, which he didn't want to do. 

Now we can dispute counterfactuals of what he could have done years earlier. But that presupposes Joseph hadn't tried and that Emma would have accepted it. There's just no real evidence for that. I think the best interpretation is that Joseph, like most of the men he told about it, didn't want to practice polygamy. Joseph appears to have believed it was required of him despite not wanting to do it. Yet he was given an Abrahamic like test in his eyes. That he chose Emma might have been wrong, but given his love for Emma and she for him I'm not about to judge him over it. I don't know what I'd have done in those circumstances.

So to me, the events that justifiably trouble us all are already in large part the result of Emma and Joseph's choices. It's just not as simple as some make it out, as if there were some practice that would have resolved everything in a way that would bother no one. There's good reason to be uncomfortable with what he did. I certainly am. But I think saying there was an easy alternative is less obvious.

Clark, I have so much respect and admiration for you here on this forum.  But this topic is something I struggle with and I think we will not ever fully agree on what took place with how Joseph practiced it.  I believe it did not come from God and has not ever been commanded.  We should just agree to disagree.  I sincerely do respect you and respect your right to believe as you do.  I have issues with polygamy and I'm really trying to work through it.  Your comments have helped me though and have given me more to think about. 

Edited May 27, 2017 by JulieM

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Transcripts of podcasts==awesome.  Who the hell wants to listen when you can read? 

Amen and amen! It's like they actually want people to be able to go back over what was said, analyse it, think about it, research it further, and even share it.

[Glenn101]

   I can understand how some people who are converts to the church did not know about the polygamy issue, especially Joseph Smith's polygamy. But, until I actually started thinking about it, I did not understand how a person who had been an active member for most of their lives did not find out about Joseph's Polygamy until hit by the internet. I have been thinking back about the Sunday School classes and Priesthood classes that I have attended and the very few of the class members that actually read the lesson beforehand every week that the truth of the matter began filtering through my thick skull. So, maybe an apology of sorts is in order here.

I myself used to be an avid reader of all sorts of stuff. Mostly westerns and science fiction when I was younger. I did read the scriptures, haphazardly. I realized at one point in my life that I had never sat down and read any of them all of the way through, except the Book of Mormon, and set off on a course to read them all and did do around six times. But that is another story.

However, in all of that reading I did learn that Joseph Smith was a polygamist also, but not that he was sealed to some women that were already legally married. That came later and I did my research on that topic. But I was actually taught about polygamy by my mother. She had read books and articles about it. I do not know which ones now. But she had received a testimony of the gospel and of Joseph as a prophet and it did not faze her.

I read about the Mountain Meadows Massacre in the "True West Magazine" or maybe it was the "Real West Magazine." Getting more real information at that time was difficult. I lived in a rural area of North Carolina. Running water via a faucet on the back porch. An outhouse was the "rest room" but it stank in the simmer and too cold to relax in in the winter. The book mobile was my source of reading material.

The main point is that my early information about polygamy, etc. did not come via Priesthood or Sunday School manuals or classes. It came through extra-curricular learning activities. Polygamy was discussed pretty openly but not often among members of my local branch. It did not seem to perturb them although I remember a couple of comments from some women that it would take more than a little persuading for them to share their husbands. They were all content to leave it in the past and not worry about it.

As to the present, I still do not believe that polygamy or such should be taught as part of the Gospel Curriculum. It is not part of our current practices. I am afraid that such would almost always devolve into polarizing debates, much as we experience here on this board. Such information could be so much better handled in fireside talks and chats or the like, in my opinion in concurrence with the information that is being published in various forums by the church and some of the members.

That was a long winded dissertation with only two sentences actually on topic. But I got there.

Glenn

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Amen and amen! It's like they actually want people to be able to go back over what was said, analyse it, think about it, research it further, and even share it.

I can and do go back over podcasts that interest me, I analyze them, them about them, research them further and share them. 

Dehlin podcasts are a lot like the Sunday 3-hour block:  really long, often interesting, and worth pondering.  But the podcasts have the advantage of being able to replay them. 

[Glenn101]

37 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Clark, I have so much respect and admiration for you here on this forum.  But this topic is something I struggle with and I think we will not ever fully agree on what took place with how Joseph practiced it.  I believe it did not come from God and has not ever been commanded.  We should just agree to disagree.  I sincerely do respect you and respect your right to believe as you do.  I have issues with polygamy and I'm really trying to work through it.  Your comments have helped me though and have given me more to think about. 

JulieM, There is so much that we do not know about the practice. I have never been asked to take part in the practice and do not have a testimony about polygamy one way or the other. It has been noted that in some cases in the Old Testament polygamy was actually required. But it is not something that I want to get into a debate about right now. The main thing is that I have a testimony of the restored Gospel and of Joseph Smith as the prophet and the instrument that Christ used for that restoration. I have no doubt about that. I also have a complete trust in my Father in Heaven. I trust that He will never do us wrong and that He will never require us to do anything that is wrong, or even that we do not want to do.

I have found more things in the Old Testament accounts that are far more troubling to me than polygamy, but as Paul so famously said, we are looking through a glass darkly. I have to depend upon my faith to carry me when I cannot see clearly on my own.

Glenn

[probablyHagoth7]

56 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I can and do go back over podcasts that interest me, I analyze them, them about them, research them further and share them.  

Listening is my worst learning mode. (Too easily distracted by shiny visuals, emotions, or thoughts.)

I learn best when it's visual, and/or kinesthetic, and/or conceptual.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

   I can understand how some people who are converts to the church did not know about the polygamy issue, especially Joseph Smith's polygamy. But, until I actually started thinking about it, I did not understand how a person who had been an active member for most of their lives did not find out about Joseph's Polygamy until hit by the internet....

As to the present, I still do not believe that polygamy or such should be taught as part of the Gospel Curriculum. It is not part of our current practices. I am afraid that such would almost always devolve into polarizing debates, much as we experience here on this board. Such information could be so much better handled in fireside talks and chats or the like, in my opinion in concurrence with the information that is being published in various forums by the church and some of the members.

Long before I became familiar with anti-mormon  material, I knew about polygamy as a teenager in the 80s.  It was no big deal to me and I have always assumed that most members of the church knew about it.  The practice had to start somewhere and logically it would have started with Joseph Smith.  Thus the reason non-LDS people often see polygamy as being part of the church. 

I do believe that issues like polygamy should be discussed in Sunday classes.  I think church history as a whole should be taught as well.  Sure firesides could get into more detail but we know that a large number of members probably will not attend those things.  We need a membership that is familiar with issues.  Polygamy is part of our past and we can't escape from it even if one does not like the practice.  If the Church does not address the issue, those outside the church will address it and they will mold it in a negative way towards the church.  When many non-LDS people know more about the subject than LDS people there is a problem.  As a general rule, LDS should know our doctrines, practices, and history better than any non-LDS person they encounter. 

Edited May 27, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[Storm Rider]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

I believe what is being discussed here is institutional transparency.  Not transparency into people's private lives. 

I understand the desire to make such a distinction; however, the principle is transparency that is being demanded.  Please don't misunderstand that I am only addressing the principle.  My personal desire or preference would be to see some institutions have more transparency in certain areas, but I think this must be an internal decision and whatever the choice is I will respect it or vote with my feet.  When it comes to the Church of Jesus Christ I would not mind more transparency in some areas yet I trust the individuals involved to make proper decisions.  I don't expect perfection.

Rock, when it comes to the principle I believe it is either 100% or nothing.  I don't think it is appropriate to demand that all institutions be transparent when we want strict privacy.  I reject the distinction in other words.  I will choose with whom I will be transparent and with whom I will not.  I allow that same position to others, including institutions.  Maybe the distinction I see is the difference between public and private.  The more public the organization and/or person the more transparency is needed and vice versa.  

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I do believe that issues like polygamy should be discussed in Sunday classes.  I think church history as a whole should be taught as well.  Sure firesides could get into more detail but we know that a large number of members probably will not attend those things.  We need a membership that is familiar with issues.  Polygamy is part of our past and we can't escape from it even if one does not like the practice.  If the Church does not address the issue, those outside the church will address it and they will mold it in a negative way towards the church.  When many non-LDS people know more about the subject than LDS people there is a problem.  As a general rule, LDS should know our doctrines, practices, and history better than any non-LDS person they encounter. 

The biggest problem there is that we do not have enough time as it is just to get through most lessons properly. The issues are being addressed in other forums. But that is just my opinion. Yours seems to differ somewhat.

I do not believe that the polygamy issue is or will become much of an issue in most of the countries outside of the U.S.A. Polygamy is much more prevealent in other parts of the world than one would expect.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I understand the desire to make such a distinction; however, the principle is transparency that is being demanded.  Please don't misunderstand that I am only addressing the principle.  My personal desire or preference would be to see some institutions have more transparency in certain areas, but I think this must be an internal decision and whatever the choice is I will respect it or vote with my feet.  When it comes to the Church of Jesus Christ I would not mind more transparency in some areas yet I trust the individuals involved to make proper decisions.  I don't expect perfection.

Rock, when it comes to the principle I believe it is either 100% or nothing.  I don't think it is appropriate to demand that all institutions be transparent when we want strict privacy.  I reject the distinction in other words.  I will choose with whom I will be transparent and with whom I will not.  I allow that same position to others, including institutions.  Maybe the distinction I see is the difference between public and private.  The more public the organization and/or person the more transparency is needed and vice versa.  

You reject the distinction between institutional transparency and personal privacy? Wow! I don't even know what to say to that.

 

[Ouagadougou]

16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I remember back in 2012 when I first posted on this board, if I had mentioned all these bullets, I'd have been banned. Might even happen now. But I guess when faithful members post like Laura Hales, etc. Then it's great!

Banned?  Wow.  Haha I guess some really are not ready to discuss some of these topics.  

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Banned?  Wow.  Haha I guess some really are not ready to discuss some of these topics.  

Well, it is bullets after all. And you know how dangerous message boards are. 

[Calm]

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I remember back in 2012 when I first posted on this board, if I had mentioned all these bullets, I'd have been banned. Might even happen now. But I guess when faithful members post like Laura Hales, etc. Then it's great!

2007 thread about polyandry:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/27070-questions-about-polyandry/

2012 thread about seer stone in hat:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58318-joseph-smiths-seer-stone/

2004 Teancum gives a link to multiple versions of the First Vision and is not banned as far as I can tell:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/5288-first-visionfirst-actual-documentable-written/

2005 Adam-God

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/12304-oh-no-the-adamgod-theory-returns/

Do I need to continue? On each of these threads, believers, doubters, and non believers discussed the topic. No one was ever banned, faithful or nonbeliever or doubter for just "mention[ing]" these topics that I have seen.

[clarkgoble]

21 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Do you think it is possible that marrying other men's wives and 14 year old girls might have aggravated the the situation a little with Emma?

I am fairly sure it did. But that's not really what the question is. I suspect things in Nauvoo would have proceeded quite different had Joseph been able to do it more openly. So I definitely think Joseph's at fault for some of this.

Edited May 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[california boy]

22 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

The biggest problem there is that we do not have enough time as it is just to get through most lessons properly. The issues are being addressed in other forums. But that is just my opinion. Yours seems to differ somewhat.

I do not believe that the polygamy issue is or will become much of an issue in most of the countries outside of the U.S.A. Polygamy is much more prevealent in other parts of the world than one would expect.

Three hours every sunday is more than enough time to talk about anything the church wants to address.  They just choose not to point out that Joseph Smith was running around behind Emma's back marrying teenage girls and other guys wives.  So they let the internet do it for them.  It' that simple.  It is also quite understandable.  It is hard to tell that story and still paint Joseph Smith as an honest and moral person.  That is the problem  And that is the reason there is simply not enough time to cover "everything".

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Three hours every sunday is more than enough time to talk about anything the church wants to address.  They just choose not to point out that Joseph Smith was running around behind Emma's back marrying teenage girls and other guys wives.  So they let the internet do it for them.  It' that simple.  It is also quite understandable.  It is hard to tell that story and still paint Joseph Smith as an honest and moral person.  That is the problem  And that is the reason there is simply not enough time to cover "everything".

Three hours each Sunday is just the base.  There's also 20 hours of general conference each year. 

And the church had my eyes and ears for 4 years of seminary and 4+ years of institute.  

There was plenty of opportunity to teach me the real narrative.  It was a choice for the church to avoid certain subjects. 

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Three hours every sunday is more than enough time to talk about anything the church wants to address.  They just choose not to point out that Joseph Smith was running around behind Emma's back marrying teenage girls and other guys wives.  So they let the internet do it for them.  It' that simple.  It is also quite understandable.  It is hard to tell that story and still paint Joseph Smith as an honest and moral person.  That is the problem  And that is the reason there is simply not enough time to cover "everything".

Maybe they could add a fourth hour "Church History Class" for those who are interested.

[Glenn101]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

There was plenty of opportunity to teach me the real narrative.  It was a choice for the church to avoid certain subjects. 

What would you have done had you learned of the things you don't like much earlier in life?

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

2007 thread about polyandry:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/27070-questions-about-polyandry/

2012 thread about seer stone in hat:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58318-joseph-smiths-seer-stone/

2004 Teancum gives a link to multiple versions of the First Vision and is not banned as far as I can tell:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/5288-first-visionfirst-actual-documentable-written/

2005 Adam-God

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/12304-oh-no-the-adamgod-theory-returns/

Do I need to continue? On each of these threads, believers, doubters, and non believers discussed the topic. No one was ever banned, faithful or nonbeliever or doubter for just "mention[ing]" these topics that I have seen.

However, people have been banned for bringing up controversial topics, correct?