Trying to control information sharing

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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. 

Interesting and an accurate observation on your part. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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. 

I agree that it definitely does take on more significance.  I'm just not sure that it should.  

Recent history is easier to study because there is more evidence available, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the history is more important or significant just because it's easier to learn about.  And, humans are prone to finding more relevance in history that is less historic (for lack of a better way to say it), but that doesn't mean the history is more significant either.  It's just an example of our bias toward things that we can relate to.  

I'm also not convinced that being a restoration church makes our history that much more significant.   Every church has a beginning somewhere (whether it considers itself a continuation of Christ's original church or not) and the beginning of every church should be significant in helping people to figure out whether or not it comes from God, shouldn't it?

[Gray]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree that it definitely does take on more significance.  I'm just not sure that it should.  

Recent history is easier to study because there is more evidence available, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the history is more important or significant just because it's easier to learn about.  And, humans are prone to finding more relevance in history that is less historic (for lack of a better way to say it), but that doesn't mean the history is more significant either.  It's just an example of our bias toward things that we can relate to.  

I'm also not convinced that being a restoration church makes our history that much more significant.   Every church has a beginning somewhere (whether it considers itself a continuation of Christ's original church or not) and the beginning of every church should be significant in helping people to figure out whether or not it comes from God, shouldn't it?

Most churches don't claim to have any unique authority, so their origins are of less importance. The focus is more on what is taught, rather than where the church came from.

The origins of the LDS church are directly tied to its claims to unique priesthood authority. 

Edited May 31, 2017 by Gray

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Most churches don't claim to have any unique authority, so their origins are of less importance. The focus is more on what is taught, rather than where the church came from.

The origins of the LDS church are directly tied to its claims to unique priesthood authority. 

Even though most churches don't claim 'unique' authority, don't they all claim to have authority from God? 

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Even though most churches don't claim 'unique' authority, don't they all claim to have authority from God? 

Yes, but based being believers in Christ, not based on belonging to a particular church. Of course there are exceptions. 

[Teancum]

On ‎5‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 10:39 AM, 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.

Let's be honest. The LDS Church would never had authorized the gospel topic essays, nor would an apostle like Elder Ballard made the comments he made but for the information age that makes it impossible to keep most of the controversial issue in LDS history under wraps or only available in selective libraries like the one at BYU.  The Church has simply been forced into this and I am sure would rather not have had to have been.

[Teancum]

On ‎5‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 2:09 PM, ksfisher said:

Only speaking for what my impressions are of my own ward, but I really don't see most people who show up on Sunday as being concerned abut these "troubling issues."  They're not troubled by them.  The members who are troubled are the ones who aren't attending.  I'm not sure how to reach out to them.  Most seem like they just don't want to be bothered.

I think you have no idea what may or may not be troubling to some members.  Most who are troubled but still attending don't speak up out of fear of being ostracized.  So yea there are many whose fanny's are in the pew who have questions. And many who attend who are not troubled are not because they don't take the time to drill into such things.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Even though most churches don't claim 'unique' authority, don't they all claim to have authority from God? 

Not quite in the way Mormons think of authority which is more akin to formalized government authority. The closest is the Catholics and related groups in the east. But even they don't quite give it the same thrust we do.

[Glenn101]

On 5/28/2017 at 10:31 PM, Jeanne said:

Doesn't matter anymore.  I grew up with primary pictures of Gold Plates..one version of a vision...where we the facts then?  The LDS church IMO deals with feelings..no facts.necessary..I am open to learning more but at heart of it all...the big question is why.  Why?  I had encylcopedias and dictionaries and after that I relied on teachers and authorities of the church..was an 8 year old going to a library to look up polygamy? Whether it was out there or not..it wouldn't have affected my life because it was not taught.

Does that have any bearing on whether Jesus is the Christ, the Atonement, whether Jesus and Heavenly Father appeared to Joseph Smith, whether Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God?

[Jeanne]

40 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Does that have any bearing on whether Jesus is the Christ, the Atonement, whether Jesus and Heavenly Father appeared to Joseph Smith, whether Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God?

Yes..it does....not about the atonement..but I have a problem with Joseph and prophecies..and things that were taught without all the colors so to speak.  My love for Jesus Christ hasn't changed..but I don't believe the said restoration had anything to do with the Savior.  It is kind of mess actually.

 

42 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

 

 

[ksfisher]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think you have no idea what may or may not be troubling to some members. 

In a general sense you are correct, as I'm not anyone else and really only know what I know.  I do, however, spend a lot of time talking to other people and trying to understand them.

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

And many who attend who are not troubled are not because they don't take the time to drill into such things.

Many who attend are not troubled because they understand that most troubling issues really have no bearing on their core testimonies.  Your implication that they are not troubled out of ignorance is not true in all cases.

Edited June 1, 2017 by ksfisher

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Yes..it does....not about the atonement..but I have a problem with Joseph and prophecies..and things that were taught without all the colors so to speak.  My love for Jesus Christ hasn't changed..but I don't believe the said restoration had anything to do with the Savior.  It is kind of mess actually.

I proffer it is not. If one just looks at the scriptures, I believe they make great sense. Where we run into "a mess" is in people's interpretation of them. Now if you want to include all the restoration stories, history, etc, I might accept what you say. I basically don't worry too much about all that stuff,  because men err. The scriptures are God's word. They are not a mess. They are quite intriguing, and I believe fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. When you take the puzzle out of the box, it looks like a mess, but once you begin fitting the pieces together, it makes an organized picture. I proffer that is what scripture is like. It's kind of like reading the tax code. You have to understand the bits and pieces to understand the whole, and to know where to apply the bits and pieces.

[Glenn101]

21 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Yes..it does....not about the atonement..but I have a problem with Joseph and prophecies..and things that were taught without all the colors so to speak.  My love for Jesus Christ hasn't changed..but I don't believe the said restoration had anything to do with the Savior.  It is kind of mess actually.

Jeanne, I have to voice a bit of disagreement with you on this. Let me explain. I received a spiritual confirmation that Jesus is the Christ and that He atoned for our sins. I received a spiritual confirmation of the restoration of the Gospel, of Joseph Smith as a prophet called of God, and the Book of Mormon. That all came before I learned some details of the plural wives of Joseph Smith. However learning those details did not change the fact that the Holy Ghost had confirmed the aforementioned truth to me.

My testimony of Jesus Christ and His Atonement came before I learned that He is the God of the Old Testament. He is the person that sent a flood to wipe out humanity and start all over again. He is the person that burned Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground because they had a "fulness of bread," whatever that is, and turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt just because she turned to look back at the scene of destruction. (Genesis, chapter 19) He is the person that killed 250 plus people because they openly declared their desire for the priesthood. (Numbers Chapter 16). He is the person that smote Miriam with leprosy (and note, only the woman was punished) when she and Aaron criticized Moses because he had married an Ethiopian woman (a plural wife). (Numbers, Chapter 12) He is the person that denied Moses the privilege of entering the promised land because he (Moses) had struck a rock with his rod to get water to come out rather than just commanding the rock in the name of the Lord. (Now how would that sound if talking about regular people?) (Numbers, Chapter 20)  He is the person that killed a man just for touching the ark to steady it. (1 Chronicles, Chapter 13) He is the person that allowed Elijah to have 450 priests of BAAL killed. (1 Kings Chapter 18). This was the person that ordered Saul to kill all of the Amalekites, man, woman, chlld, even the suckling infant. (1 Samuel, Chapter 15) This was the person that took Saul's wives and gave them to David after Saul's death.  He is the person that allowed a king (David) to remain on his throne after committing adultery and murder, but killed the child that was the result of the adultery. (2 Samuel chapters 11 and 12).

But, yet. I had received a testimony from the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ. There is nothing in the tales of the Old testament, no matter how horrific, that negates that testimony. But there are some things that have bothered me and still do. But they are things I have put on my "shelf" to hopefully understand later. I do not have all of the facts, but Jehovah/Christ does. (Now I was half afraid to actually write all of that stuff, afaid that I might be struck with something like fire and brimstone for putting that stuff on paper.

The Old Testament itself is a study in acts that I am uncomfortable with. I have a lot of stuff from it that I have put on that shelf. I actually hate to read it because it is so filled with violence and evil deeds. There are some inspiring parts also. But reading the Old Testament has been an educational experience for me. It has taught me not to expect perfection from human beings, even though they were called of God. Look at the story of Jacob/Israel and the way he favored one wife over all others and one son over all others, causing not a little jealousy. Then there is Jonah, who tried to run away from the task he had been given, that of saving from destruction a city deep in sin. There was Moses who neglected to have his son circumcised and was about to be put to death (by an angel, no less) but was saved by his wife's actions in doing the circumcision herself. There was Daniel, a prophet called of God who cut off the head of a captive king. There was King David again (before he became king), killing a man who claimed to have killed King Saul and Jonathan (even though he actually had not done so but was hoping to gain favor with David) for killing "the Lord's anointed." There was the prophet Noah who drank wine to excess after the flood and was lying sprawled out naked. Abraham allowed Sarah to get rid of Hagar, the wife she had given to Abraham. There was Abraham, deceiving Abimelech, King of Gerar about his relationship to Sarah. Isaac was a prophet, but was deceived by Jacob and Rebekah into giving Jacob the blessing that was Esau's birthright as the elder son.

The same is true of the New Testament prophets and apostles. Peter, James, and John had some strife about who was to become the chief apostle. Peter was cowed by some of the Jewish converts and was upbraided by Paul. Paul himself was given to boasting and was intolerant of those who were not as zealous in the mission field as he felt they should be. He also did not care to listen to women speak in church.

All of that and more are things that do not sit well with me. But I am living in another day and age. God is their judge, He knows all of the facts. None of those perceived problem areas change the fact that they were prophets.

Glenn

[california boy]

11 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Jeanne, I have to voice a bit of disagreement with you on this. Let me explain. I received a spiritual confirmation that Jesus is the Christ and that He atoned for our sins. I received a spiritual confirmation of the restoration of the Gospel, of Joseph Smith as a prophet called of God, and the Book of Mormon. That all came before I learned some details of the plural wives of Joseph Smith. However learning those details did not change the fact that the Holy Ghost had confirmed the aforementioned truth to me.

My testimony of Jesus Christ and His Atonement came before I learned that He is the God of the Old Testament. He is the person that sent a flood to wipe out humanity and start all over again. He is the person that burned Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground because they had a "fulness of bread," whatever that is, and turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt just because she turned to look back at the scene of destruction. (Genesis, chapter 19) He is the person that killed 250 plus people because they openly declared their desire for the priesthood. (Numbers Chapter 16). He is the person that smote Miriam with leprosy (and note, only the woman was punished) when she and Aaron criticized Moses because he had married an Ethiopian woman (a plural wife). (Numbers, Chapter 12) He is the person that denied Moses the privilege of entering the promised land because he (Moses) had struck a rock with his rod to get water to come out rather than just commanding the rock in the name of the Lord. (Now how would that sound if talking about regular people?) (Numbers, Chapter 20)  He is the person that killed a man just for touching the ark to steady it. (1 Chronicles, Chapter 13) He is the person that allowed Elijah to have 450 priests of BAAL killed. (1 Kings Chapter 18). This was the person that ordered Saul to kill all of the Amalekites, man, woman, chlld, even the suckling infant. (1 Samuel, Chapter 15) This was the person that took Saul's wives and gave them to David after Saul's death.  He is the person that allowed a king (David) to remain on his throne after committing adultery and murder, but killed the child that was the result of the adultery. (2 Samuel chapters 11 and 12).

But, yet. I had received a testimony from the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ. There is nothing in the tales of the Old testament, no matter how horrific, that negates that testimony. But there are some things that have bothered me and still do. But they are things I have put on my "shelf" to hopefully understand later. I do not have all of the facts, but Jehovah/Christ does. (Now I was half afraid to actually write all of that stuff, afaid that I might be struck with something like fire and brimstone for putting that stuff on paper.

The Old Testament itself is a study in acts that I am uncomfortable with. I have a lot of stuff from it that I have put on that shelf. I actually hate to read it because it is so filled with violence and evil deeds. There are some inspiring parts also. But reading the Old Testament has been an educational experience for me. It has taught me not to expect perfection from human beings, even though they were called of God. Look at the story of Jacob/Israel and the way he favored one wife over all others and one son over all others, causing not a little jealousy. Then there is Jonah, who tried to run away from the task he had been given, that of saving from destruction a city deep in sin. There was Moses who neglected to have his son circumcised and was about to be put to death (by an angel, no less) but was saved by his wife's actions in doing the circumcision herself. There was Daniel, a prophet called of God who cut off the head of a captive king. There was King David again (before he became king), killing a man who claimed to have killed King Saul and Jonathan (even though he actually had not done so but was hoping to gain favor with David) for killing "the Lord's anointed." There was the prophet Noah who drank wine to excess after the flood and was lying sprawled out naked. Abraham allowed Sarah to get rid of Hagar, the wife she had given to Abraham. There was Abraham, deceiving Abimelech, King of Gerar about his relationship to Sarah. Isaac was a prophet, but was deceived by Jacob and Rebekah into giving Jacob the blessing that was Esau's birthright as the elder son.

The same is true of the New Testament prophets and apostles. Peter, James, and John had some strife about who was to become the chief apostle. Peter was cowed by some of the Jewish converts and was upbraided by Paul. Paul himself was given to boasting and was intolerant of those who were not as zealous in the mission field as he felt they should be. He also did not care to listen to women speak in church.

All of that and more are things that do not sit well with me. But I am living in another day and age. God is their judge, He knows all of the facts. None of those perceived problem areas change the fact that they were prophets.

Glenn

I think you have listed a lot of the reasons why more and more people feel the Bible may not be the book it has claimed to be.  It is a big part of why so many people are walking away from organized religion.  They have come to the conclusion that just because something is written in the Bible does not make it true.  I think it is becoming increasingly more difficult even for religion to make that claim.

[Jeanne]

15 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Jeanne, I have to voice a bit of disagreement with you on this. Let me explain. I received a spiritual confirmation that Jesus is the Christ and that He atoned for our sins. I received a spiritual confirmation of the restoration of the Gospel, of Joseph Smith as a prophet called of God, and the Book of Mormon. That all came before I learned some details of the plural wives of Joseph Smith. However learning those details did not change the fact that the Holy Ghost had confirmed the aforementioned truth to me.

My testimony of Jesus Christ and His Atonement came before I learned that He is the God of the Old Testament. He is the person that sent a flood to wipe out humanity and start all over again. He is the person that burned Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground because they had a "fulness of bread," whatever that is, and turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt just because she turned to look back at the scene of destruction. (Genesis, chapter 19) He is the person that killed 250 plus people because they openly declared their desire for the priesthood. (Numbers Chapter 16). He is the person that smote Miriam with leprosy (and note, only the woman was punished) when she and Aaron criticized Moses because he had married an Ethiopian woman (a plural wife). (Numbers, Chapter 12) He is the person that denied Moses the privilege of entering the promised land because he (Moses) had struck a rock with his rod to get water to come out rather than just commanding the rock in the name of the Lord. (Now how would that sound if talking about regular people?) (Numbers, Chapter 20)  He is the person that killed a man just for touching the ark to steady it. (1 Chronicles, Chapter 13) He is the person that allowed Elijah to have 450 priests of BAAL killed. (1 Kings Chapter 18). This was the person that ordered Saul to kill all of the Amalekites, man, woman, chlld, even the suckling infant. (1 Samuel, Chapter 15) This was the person that took Saul's wives and gave them to David after Saul's death.  He is the person that allowed a king (David) to remain on his throne after committing adultery and murder, but killed the child that was the result of the adultery. (2 Samuel chapters 11 and 12).

But, yet. I had received a testimony from the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ. There is nothing in the tales of the Old testament, no matter how horrific, that negates that testimony. But there are some things that have bothered me and still do. But they are things I have put on my "shelf" to hopefully understand later. I do not have all of the facts, but Jehovah/Christ does. (Now I was half afraid to actually write all of that stuff, afaid that I might be struck with something like fire and brimstone for putting that stuff on paper.

The Old Testament itself is a study in acts that I am uncomfortable with. I have a lot of stuff from it that I have put on that shelf. I actually hate to read it because it is so filled with violence and evil deeds. There are some inspiring parts also. But reading the Old Testament has been an educational experience for me. It has taught me not to expect perfection from human beings, even though they were called of God. Look at the story of Jacob/Israel and the way he favored one wife over all others and one son over all others, causing not a little jealousy. Then there is Jonah, who tried to run away from the task he had been given, that of saving from destruction a city deep in sin. There was Moses who neglected to have his son circumcised and was about to be put to death (by an angel, no less) but was saved by his wife's actions in doing the circumcision herself. There was Daniel, a prophet called of God who cut off the head of a captive king. There was King David again (before he became king), killing a man who claimed to have killed King Saul and Jonathan (even though he actually had not done so but was hoping to gain favor with David) for killing "the Lord's anointed." There was the prophet Noah who drank wine to excess after the flood and was lying sprawled out naked. Abraham allowed Sarah to get rid of Hagar, the wife she had given to Abraham. There was Abraham, deceiving Abimelech, King of Gerar about his relationship to Sarah. Isaac was a prophet, but was deceived by Jacob and Rebekah into giving Jacob the blessing that was Esau's birthright as the elder son.

The same is true of the New Testament prophets and apostles. Peter, James, and John had some strife about who was to become the chief apostle. Peter was cowed by some of the Jewish converts and was upbraided by Paul. Paul himself was given to boasting and was intolerant of those who were not as zealous in the mission field as he felt they should be. He also did not care to listen to women speak in church.

All of that and more are things that do not sit well with me. But I am living in another day and age. God is their judge, He knows all of the facts. None of those perceived problem areas change the fact that they were prophets.

Glenn

I appreciate and understand your sincere testimony.  I do not disregard you belief and/or feelings here.  I am very happy that you are happy and was able to sustain said testimony even before finding out many problems or misunderstandings in the history of the church.  I know (or feel) that many people may not understand that I, too had this wonderful testimony..I believed..and hoped..and relished the truths that I thought was revealed to me.  I know that God still loves me and that is all I have left.  I don' think he lies to me or would create intentionally such difficult trials to return to him.  But I could not believe anymore when I felt betrayed..and please know that I tried..I really did.  Perhaps the biggest difference between you and I is our circumstances in life.  My family fell a part unnecessarily because of what was deemed truth when I was a young girl.  To find out that prophets could speak as just men..and that even now they don't always agree on things..to me speaks a different language than the God I seek to know.  But I so appreciate you and God bless you in your life.

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

I think you have listed a lot of the reasons why more and more people feel the Bible may not be the book it has claimed to be.  It is a big part of why so many people are walking away from organized religion.  They have come to the conclusion that just because something is written in the Bible does not make it true.  I think it is becoming increasingly more difficult even for religion to make that claim.

If I had not experienced the things I have spiritually, I would have walked away from religion myself. Thanks for your insights.

 

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

If I had not experienced the things I have spiritually, I would have walked away from religion myself. Thanks for your insights.

 

I totally understand.  But I think for me, my spiritual experiences had more to do with Christ and His teachings and less to do with the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith or the scriptures.  A lot of the scriptures do nothing for me spiritually.  

The Spirit testifies of truth wherever it is found.  It is irrelevant where that truth is written or said or who said it.  

Of course there is truth found in scripture.  But not all of what is contained in scripture is a truth.  Cannonizing something does not make it more true.  And I find the closer something is to the principles that Christ taught the more the Spirit touches me.  Perhaps that is why I get so emotional when I see kindness shown to someone in need when I am watching a movie or read a book or a newspaper article when that happens.

[california boy]

17 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I appreciate and understand your sincere testimony.  I do not disregard you belief and/or feelings here.  I am very happy that you are happy and was able to sustain said testimony even before finding out many problems or misunderstandings in the history of the church.  I know (or feel) that many people may not understand that I, too had this wonderful testimony..I believed..and hoped..and relished the truths that I thought was revealed to me.  I know that God still loves me and that is all I have left.  I don' think he lies to me or would create intentionally such difficult trials to return to him.  But I could not believe anymore when I felt betrayed..and please know that I tried..I really did.  Perhaps the biggest difference between you and I is our circumstances in life.  My family fell a part unnecessarily because of what was deemed truth when I was a young girl.  To find out that prophets could speak as just men..and that even now they don't always agree on things..to me speaks a different language than the God I seek to know.  But I so appreciate you and God bless you in your life.

For me, much of this has to do with the post above to Glenn.  There is much about Mormonism that speaks to me as being true.  But the problem with this if you accept some of it, you have to accept all of it approach means that you have to accept even those things that the Spirit just doesn't confirm.  For example, I get the feeling of dishonesty and immorality from  a guy sneaking around the back of his own wife marrying young girls and other men's wives is speaking for God when he does it.  I get a feeling of deception from someone claiming that something is written by the hand of Abraham himself when it is not.  I get the feeling something is wrong about some of the policies the church had decided should be implemented.  I get the feeling about some of the doctrine that is taught. I get the feeling that there are some great truths found in the Book of Mormon, but I don't get the feeling that it is divine scripture or how it came about as being true. 

Is there much truth in Mormonism?  YES.  I would even say more than most religions.  But there is also much that is not true.  There is also much truth found in other religions.  There is much truth found in great literature.  There is much truth found in great art.  There is truth found in science.  There is truth found in philosophy.  Truth is all around us.  And so is untruth.  Not everything in religion is true, or literature or science or philosophy.  Some people choose a religion to tell them what is true and what is not. You have to admit, it seems easier.  But I don't think it is reliable.

Edited June 3, 2017 by california boy

[Jeanne]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

For me, much of this has to do with the post above to Glenn.  There is much about Mormonism that speaks to me as being true.  But the problem with this if you accept some of it, you have to accept all of it approach means that you have to accept even those things that the Spirit just doesn't confirm.  For example, I get the feeling of dishonesty and immorality from  a guy sneaking around the back of his own wife marrying young girls and other men's wives is speaking for God when he does it.  I get a feeling of deception from someone claiming that something is written by the hand of Abraham himself when it is not.  I get the feeling something is wrong about some of the policies the church had decided should be implemented.  I get the feeling about some of the doctrine that is taught. I get the feeling that there are some great truths found in the Book of Mormon, but I don't get the feeling that it is divine scripture or how it came about as being true. 

Is there much truth in Mormonism?  YES.  I would even say more than most religions.  But there is also much that is not true.  There is also much truth found in other religions.  There is much truth found in great literature.  There is much truth found in great art.  There is truth found in science.  There is truth found in philosophy.  Truth is all around us.  And so is untruth.  Not everything in religion is true, or literature or science or philosophy.  Some people choose a religion to tell them what is true and what is not. You have to admit, it seems easier.  But I don't think it is reliable.

This.  You speak my feelings very well.  I could not accept all of it..and yet I keep what is desired and sensible in my hope for life..and life after death.I just can't find God in partial truths.

Edited June 3, 2017 by Jeanne

[Glenn101]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

For me, much of this has to do with the post above to Glenn.  There is much about Mormonism that speaks to me as being true.  But the problem with this if you accept some of it, you have to accept all of it approach means that you have to accept even those things that the Spirit just doesn't confirm.  For example, I get the feeling of dishonesty and immorality from  a guy sneaking around the back of his own wife marrying young girls and other men's wives is speaking for God when he does it.  I get a feeling of deception from someone claiming that something is written by the hand of Abraham himself when it is not.  I get the feeling something is wrong about some of the policies the church had decided should be implemented.  I get the feeling about some of the doctrine that is taught. I get the feeling that there are some great truths found in the Book of Mormon, but I don't get the feeling that it is divine scripture or how it came about as being true. 

Is there much truth in Mormonism?  YES.  I would even say more than most religions.  But there is also much that is not true.  There is also much truth found in other religions.  There is much truth found in great literature.  There is much truth found in great art.  There is truth found in science.  There is truth found in philosophy.  Truth is all around us.  And so is untruth.  Not everything in religion is true, or literature or science or philosophy.  Some people choose a religion to tell them what is true and what is not. You have to admit, it seems easier.  But I don't think it is reliable.

One of the points I tried to make, if a person's actions do not fit one's ideal of how he should act, does not negate any truth that he may have revealed. Does your feelings about Joseph negate the truth about the sealing power, i.e that families can be sealed together forever, or vicarious work for the dead where people that never had the chance to accept the gospel are given that opportunity? If you had received an undeniable testimony of the First Vision via the Holy Ghost, would knowledge of about Joseph Smith being sealed to women that were currently civilly married to other men negate that communication from the Holy Ghost? In other words, if it were true before you heard the "bad things" how did knowledge of the "bad things"  change that truth?

Glenn

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

One of the points I tried to make, if a person's actions do not fit one's ideal of how he should act, does not negate any truth that he may have revealed. Does your feelings about Joseph negate the truth about the sealing power, i.e that families can be sealed together forever, or vicarious work for the dead where people that never had the chance to accept the gospel are given that opportunity? If you had received an undeniable testimony of the First Vision via the Holy Ghost, would knowledge of about Joseph Smith being sealed to women that were currently civilly married to other men negate that communication from the Holy Ghost? In other words, if it were true before you heard the "bad things" how did knowledge of the "bad things"  change that truth?

Glenn

I think I l already answered your question.  You assume that if part of what Joseph Smith was true then all of it must be true.  While I do believe that families can be together after eternity, I don't necessarily think an ordinance is necessary for that to happen any more than an ordinance is necessary here on earth.  After all, what would prevent a family from being together any more than what would prevent friends from being together.  Do I think God would purposefully rip families apart in the next life?  No.  So what difference does ordinance work make?  The Holy Ghost testifies to me that families can be together.  It doesn't testify that we should be marrying other men's wives, young girls and lying about it.  It is as simple as that.

Tell me, do you really get a strong feeling that Joseph Smith should have been going behind the back of his wife marrying other men's wives and other single women?  Even young girls?  Or do you get a strong feeling on just some of what Joseph Smith taught is true?  My experience is that the Holy Ghost testifies of truth no matter where it is found.  

Edited June 4, 2017 by california boy

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I think I l already answered your question.  You assume that if part of what Joseph Smith was true then all of it must be true.

Not really. But I do not assume something is untrue because I do not like how the facts have come out or how they have been portrayed.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Do I think God would purposefully rip families apart in the next life?  No.

God will not do it. It will be man's actions or inactions that keep families together or rip them apart.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

So what difference does ordinance work make?  The Holy Ghost testifies to me that families can be together.

You would have to ask God. He says that baptism is essential for forgiveness of sins and to be able to enter the Kingdom of God. Just how that ordinance effects that we have not been told. It may just be an act of obedience, or there may be more that we are not aware of or even capable of comprehending right now. As for the sealings, God bestowed the sealing power on Peter according to the Biblical scriptures. That sealing power was lost with the death of the apostles (else wise we should all be Catholic, but they do not believe in that). That power was restored in 1836. Without that no families would be together, according to the scriptures.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

The Holy Ghost testifies to me that families can be together.

That is great. I agree. When a family has been sealed together by one holding the authority, as directed by one holding the keys.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

It doesn't testify that we should be marrying other men's wives, young girls and lying about it.  It is as simple as that.

But yet there is no scriptural condemnation for marrying young girls. That is presentism. There is scriptural evidence of prophets lying in the past to protect their own lives. (Abraham ans Isaac come to mind.) There is no scriptural evidence that God condemned them for it. And actually, Joseph Smith did not marry the wife of any other man. That is a disingenuous assertion.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Tell me, do you really get a strong feeling that Joseph Smith should have been going behind the back of his wife marrying other men's wives and other single women?  Even young girls?  Or do you get a strong feeling on just some of what Joseph Smith taught is true?

I get the feeling that I do not have all of the facts. Joseph Smith was put between a rock and a hard place. Joseph claimed that he procrastinated on following the commandment to take plural wives until he was threatened by and angel with a drawn sword. We do not know when Emma first learned of the commandment. We do know that several of the women who were married to Joseph said that she knew and consented, at least at one point. Whatever the case, the judgement is God's because He knows all of the facts and it is His right and duty to judge. Anyone who judges without all of the facts is in danger of coming to a wrong conclusion. We have a lot of people that have been found to be wrongly convicted from just such problems.

6 hours ago, california boy said:

My experience is that the Holy Ghost testifies of truth no matter where it is found.

That is something I agree with. That is why I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that he was the human instrument that God used in the restoration of the Gospel. If you feel you have received a revelation from the Holy Ghost denying this, I will not argue the point with you. I will only note that we have received contradictory revelations supposedly from the same source. God will be the judge of that also.

 

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

While I do believe that families can be together after eternity, I don't necessarily think an ordinance is necessary for that to happen any more than an ordinance is necessary here on earth.  After all, what would prevent a family from being together any more than what would prevent friends from being together.  Do I think God would purposefully rip families apart in the next life?  No.  So what difference does ordinance work make?

And what would lead you to that opinion?
I have little faith in the "loving God wouldn't do that" argument.
It is entirely possible that God will "rip" families apart in the next life if they don't meet the laws needed for that blessing.  What reason do we have for thinking otherwise?

Quote

Tell me, do you really get a strong feeling that Joseph Smith should have been going behind the back of his wife marrying other men's wives and other single women?  Even young girls?  Or do you get a strong feeling on just some of what Joseph Smith taught is true?  My experience is that the Holy Ghost testifies of truth no matter where it is found.  

I get a "strong feeling" that Joseph was approved of by the Lord and followed his directions in all things.
Therefore, if we see some of his actions as wrong, the flaw is in our understanding and perception of what happened.  Perspective matters, and ours is very, very limited and our biases are hard to bypass.

[ksfisher]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

I think I l already answered your question.  You assume that if part of what Joseph Smith was true then all of it must be true.  While I do believe that families can be together after eternity, I don't necessarily think an ordinance is necessary for that to happen any more than an ordinance is necessary here on earth.  After all, what would prevent a family from being together any more than what would prevent friends from being together.  Do I think God would purposefully rip families apart in the next life?  No.  So what difference does ordinance work make?  The Holy Ghost testifies to me that families can be together.  It doesn't testify that we should be marrying other men's wives, young girls and lying about it.  It is as simple as that.

 

In John 17 Christ prays to the Father that the apostles "may be one, as we are."  This teaches us that there exists a relationship between the Father and the Son that goes beyond just being in the same room together.  I believe, that in the eternities, that if two people want to stand next to each other and talk or whatever, that they can.  I don't think that God would do anything to stop this.  

However, the relationship that Christ desires us to have with each other goes beyond just being physically in the same proximate space.  He desires us to have, with each other, the same relationship that exists between He and His Father.

The means whereby we can attain the godly relationshio is through faith in Christ, repentance, partaking of the ordinaces and covenants of the gospel, and obedience to those laws, ordinances, commandments, and eternal covenants that are administered by the Lords servants.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only organization on earth that has the authority to administer the ordinances of the gospel.  The covenenats made in holy temples are the only means whereby we can make covenants with each otherthat will last into the eternities and put us on the pather to being "one, as we are."