Calm Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 1 hour ago, california boy said: Yeah tough questions that no one wants to answer. You haven't been paying much attention it would seem. Or maybe you just didn't like the answers, so somehow that transforms them into dishonest answers.
california boy Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 6 minutes ago, Calm said: You haven't been paying much attention it would seem. Or maybe you just didn't like the answers, so somehow that transforms them into dishonest answers. Calm, I am not saying that if you dig through church materials, you can find information on Joseph Smith's wives and how he lived polygamy. What I have stated is this. Why don't the other wives stand with Emma on temple square? Why is it so hard for the church to tell the members in Sunday school class that Joseph Smith was marrying other men's wives? Why is it so hard for the church to tell the members in Sunday School class that some of those wives were as young as 14 years old? Why is it so hard for the church to not tell the members in Sunday school class that Joseph cohearst her into marrying him by promising her eternal salvation along with her parents. I also didn't say the answers that have been given were dishonest. The answers I have been given are to questions that I have not asked. What I said is that I would like honest answers to these questions.
probablyHagoth7 Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, california boy said: . Edited May 31, 2017 by probablyHagoth7
Gray Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 16 hours ago, sheilauk said: What's particularly Mormon about that? most people want to avoid uncomfortable topics (like in politics) in any setting where they otherwise have to get along, eg at work. church is for worship and fellowship not controversy. I think the extent to which we avoid it might be unusual. But, I'd love to hear someone chime in who has experience in a variety of faith traditions.
Gray Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 18 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said: A suggested tweak, if I may... The church is a woman. As such, the church doesn't need to so much to be overcome, but loved, served, and eventually (through the latter two) understood. (A guess from a hypocrite who has little clue about women, and still struggles at times to understand the church.) We all need to be loved and understood - that's a human thing, not specific to women. 18 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said: My current take on things: overcoming, per the New Testament, comes through the testimony of Christ, in deeming our surrendered life to be a divinely-generous trade for something much, much better. Uncomfortable issue? Fine, Let's wade through the toughest part together, if needed. But instead of in a live class where a one-size-fits-all approach could instead hurt others, the greater good might be served if such discussions took place one on one (or in a smaller cohort of people wrestling with the same concern). Example: I had a home teaching family once. Although we were already friendly, the husband and I became close during that process. Perhaps the closest adult friend I ever had in that part of the country. It was close enough, that he approached me one day in his backyard, and brought up the fact that he was wrestling with something, that just happened to do with freemasonry. It just so happens that I had recently finished a fair amount of research on that very issue. I offered him just enough of a different perspective to help shift his engagement with the topic from doubt/fear to something that resonated more with hope/faith. Back to the question you were addressing. It is mistaken to assume that the most effective learning always takes place in a classroom. As suggested elsewhere here, the best learning often takes place in private study, and in service, and in communion with God. And sometimes the best thing we can do for people is to take their doubts, transmute them briefly to empowering questions, equip them with a few resources, and point them to prayer. I've gabbed more than enough. Thoughts? I would agree that it's easier to discuss these issues outside of the large group setting, but I think it has to be with people you trust. I also agree with you about learning - at least that's how it works best for me.
clarkgoble Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 9 hours ago, california boy said: If more wives are discovered, then simply add them to the list. It is no reason not to talk about how Joseph Smith practiced polygamy and what we do know. What do you mean a "real" marriage? Either he married them or he didn't. To claim that there is more than one definition of marriage kinda goes against the church's entire stance that they have a problem with how others define marriage doesn't it. It makes the church's stance on marriage even more of a hypocrisy. I have no trouble with that - and that is exactly what most books, like say Compton's In Sacred Loneliness does. Lists them and notes the controversies. 1
JulieM Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 15 hours ago, bluebell said: I was impressed a couple of weeks ago at our Stake Conference when the visiting 70 (and sadly i don't remember his name) mentioned in his general session talk about how JS didn't actually translate the plates by just sitting and reading them. I'm not sure why that's impressive really. What would someone even take away from that? Did he state how the translation did take place? Did he mention the seer stone and how Joseph used it for the process? If so, that would actually be something to be impressed about, IMO.
bluebell Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 1 hour ago, Gray said: I think the extent to which we avoid it might be unusual. But, I'd love to hear someone chime in who has experience in a variety of faith traditions. it would be interesting to know if there are any religions that discuss their history in church on Sundays. 1
bluebell Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 35 minutes ago, JulieM said: I'm not sure why that's impressive really. What would someone even take away from that? Did he state how the translation did take place? Did he mention the seer stone and how Joseph used it for the process? If so, that would actually be something to be impressed about, IMO. He did a little bit. It wasn't the topic of his talk though. He used it as an example of how there are things in the gospel that we think we understand but are now realizing that we didn't understand them correctly and we need to dig deeper. That was the topic of his talk-our ability to adapt. I thought it was impressive because i've never heard a general authority, in his closing talk, discuss any controversial history (like JS translating with his face in a hat) during stake conference. I've lived in 4 different states and always attend stake conference and this was a first for me. 1
rockpond Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 8 minutes ago, bluebell said: it would be interesting to know if there are any religions that discuss their history in church on Sundays. Don't most of them? ...Bible, Quran, Torah, etc. 1
JulieM Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 4 minutes ago, bluebell said: I thought it was impressive because i've never heard a general authority, in his closing talk, discuss any controversial history (like JS translating with his face in a hat) during stake conference. I've lived in 4 different states and always attend stake conference and this was a first for me. So, are you saying that he did state this in stake conference? He stated that Joseph translated "with his face in a hat"? If so, I agree that is impressive.
pogi Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, california boy said: Why don't the other wives stand with Emma on temple square? Why is it so hard for the church to tell the members in Sunday school class that Joseph Smith was marrying other men's wives? Why is it so hard for the church to tell the members in Sunday School class that some of those wives were as young as 14 years old? Probably for the same reason that Joseph himself was hesitant about disclosing this information: Quote I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen [see D&C 121:40]. 8 hours ago, california boy said: Why is it so hard for the church to not tell the members in Sunday school class that Joseph cohearst her into marrying him by promising her eternal salvation along with her parents. I don't think coercion (assuming that is what you meant by "cohearst") is the right word. Coercion implies the use of force or threats to persuade someone. That was never done. You might as well argue that Jesus coerced us all by promising eternal salvation for doing what he says. Edited May 31, 2017 by pogi 1
Gray Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 48 minutes ago, bluebell said: it would be interesting to know if there are any religions that discuss their history in church on Sundays. I think it's probably rare. Our history is a big part of our doctrinal framework (the restoration). I think for most churches the focus is largely on the scriptures.
bluebell Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 7 minutes ago, Gray said: I think it's probably rare. Our history is a big part of our doctrinal framework (the restoration). I think for most churches the focus is largely on the scriptures. And for most churches, their history is so far 'back there' that no one can really relate to it anymore. I don't know any Christian that has a problem with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob's polygamy, for example. They don't seem to see it as relevant to them or their religion's truth claims. 2
pogi Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 48 minutes ago, rockpond said: Don't most of them? ...Bible, Quran, Torah, etc. What are the names of the apostles wives in the Bible? How old were they? We only know that Peter was married because he had a mother-in-law. For all we know, they could have been closet polygamists too. It seems that we demand more history from the latter day church than we do from the Bible. 1
rockpond Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 6 minutes ago, pogi said: What are the names of the apostles wives in the Bible? How old were they? We only know that Peter was married because he had a mother-in-law. For all we know, they could have been closet polygamists too. It seems that we demand more history from the latter day church than we do from the Bible. It's true... we expect it because, for starters, it exists and is known (unlike the questions you asked). And, more importantly, we expect it because of our restoration claims. The authority of the church today rests upon what has happened over the past (almost) 200 years.
bluebell Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 49 minutes ago, JulieM said: So, are you saying that he did state this in stake conference? He stated that Joseph translated "with his face in a hat"? If so, I agree that is impressive. I don't remember the exact words that he used. He talked about how JS didn't use the urim and thumim how we assume he did (because of the paintings we have) and how he didn't sit and read it to someone else (like the pictures we have) and I think he mentioned the hat but that's as much detail as he gave. I should have taken notes. What I remember most was how surprised I was that he went there. Like i said, it wasn't the topic of his talk and he was just using it as an example of how our understanding changes as we get more information.
rockpond Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 9 minutes ago, bluebell said: And for most churches, their history is so far 'back there' that no one can really relate to it anymore. I don't know any Christian that has a problem with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob's polygamy, for example. They don't seem to see it as relevant to them or their religion's truth claims. Admittedly, I have discussed polygamy with VERY FEW other Christians. But those I did discuss it with have told me that their position is that polygamy is a sin but that God called those men to be prophets despite their practice of polygamy.
Gray Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) 33 minutes ago, bluebell said: And for most churches, their history is so far 'back there' that no one can really relate to it anymore. I don't know any Christian that has a problem with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob's polygamy, for example. They don't seem to see it as relevant to them or their religion's truth claims. Right. And it doesn't matter to Lutherans that Martin Luther said/did some detestable things, because their doctrine isn't about Martin Luther at all. I do know some Christians who have a problem with polygamy in the OT, but many will justify just about anything in the Bible. I think where Mormons and conservative Christians start to have some common ground on "troubling history" type issues is when you start to get into academic Biblical studies, which doesn't support many conservative Christian notions about the Bible. But, those issues have been pretty well hidden from view for most people for quite some time. They may start to see some turmoil as those issues start to enter the consciousness of laypeople. That sort of mirrors what we've experienced with difficult issues in LDS history. Edited May 31, 2017 by Gray 1
bluebell Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Don't most of them? ...Bible, Quran, Torah, etc. If learning about and reading scripture counts as discussing history, then our church discusses history all of the time! Most people don't believe that that is discussing history though. Every religion has history that is separate from their scriptures (because most of a religion's history is not 'the word of God' but rather how they implemented and gone about living 'the word of God'). The Baptists have a Baptist history that is not contained in the bible. The same for the Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists, etc. Same for Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism and their sacred writings. 2
bluebell Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Admittedly, I have discussed polygamy with VERY FEW other Christians. But those I did discuss it with have told me that their position is that polygamy is a sin but that God called those men to be prophets despite their practice of polygamy. I've heard that too. Every person that has said that to me (which has only been like 2 or 3 probably), has also said that JS's practice of polygamy is evidence that he wasn't a true prophet. Polygamy wasn't a deal breaker in their religion, but they see it as a deal breaker in mine. If there's one thing that all of our religions have in common, it's bias. Edited May 31, 2017 by bluebell 4
bluebell Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 7 minutes ago, Gray said: Right. And it doesn't matter to Lutherans that Martin Luther said/did some detestable thing, because their doctrine isn't about Martin Luther at all. I'm not sure that's completely accurate. I have see some works by Lutherans who do care about their history (i've never read them completely, just skimmed through them), and i've seen some Lutheran apologetics dealing with their history and with some of Luther's troublesome quotes, so to that extent some Lutherans do see a connection between their theology and the founder of their theology. But I think that most Christians find the history of their religions to be irrelevant because, like you said, they have decided that who their doctrine comes through or how it was implemented in previous years simply doesn't matter. I think there are good arguments for why all of that does matter to some degree, but lots of Christians disagree. It would be interesting to discuss that topic, but it's not important in this thread.
Gray Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, bluebell said: I'm not sure that's completely accurate. I have see some works by Lutherans who do care about their history (i've never read them completely, just skimmed through them), and i've seen some Lutheran apologetics dealing with their history and with some of Luther's troublesome quotes, so to that extent some Lutherans do see a connection between their theology and the founder of their theology. But I think that most Christians find the history of their religions to be irrelevant because, like you said, they have decided that who their doctrine comes through or how it was implemented in previous years simply doesn't matter. I think there are good arguments for why all of that does matter to some degree, but lots of Christians disagree. It would be interesting to discuss that topic, but it's not important in this thread. I'd be interested to see what you've read, but Luther doesn't occupy the same space for them as Joseph Smith does for us. Sorry for the derail.
bluebell Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, Gray said: I'd be interested to see what you've read, but Luther doesn't occupy the same space for them as Joseph Smith does for us. Sorry for the derail. That is very true. Luther and JS are not equals in any theological discussion. It's been a long time since i've looked for the Lutheran stuff but it was all online so I could probably find it again. I'll dig around and see what comes up. 1
rockpond Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 1 hour ago, bluebell said: If learning about and reading scripture counts as discussing history, then our church discusses history all of the time! Most people don't believe that that is discussing history though. Every religion has history that is separate from their scriptures (because most of a religion's history is not 'the word of God' but rather how they implemented and gone about living 'the word of God'). The Baptists have a Baptist history that is not contained in the bible. The same for the Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists, etc. Same for Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism and their sacred writings. I consider it history. But I agree with you that some don't. As I mentioned in another post, because we are a restoration church (with the restoration taking place over the past 200 years) our recent history takes on more significance.
Recommended Posts