Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: It's terrible that family is put into that circumstance. I'm sure they envisioned being there to witness their child's wedding and to have the church interfere especially when Joseph Smith himself said a wedding should be totally public. Even if I were put in that circumstance, I wouldn’t lie or rationalize lying my way into someplace where I wasn’t permitted.
jkwilliams Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Even if I were put in that circumstance, I wouldn’t lie or rationalize lying my way into someplace where I wasn’t permitted. I couldn't do it, but I can't condemn people who do.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 40 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I couldn't do it, but I can't condemn people who do. An illustration of situational ethics, I suppose.
Button Gwinnett Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 2 hours ago, CV75 said: It seems to me that online activity is as valid as any other form of written communication that is shared with the public or in public, even when anonymous. Can you share some examples of the content of the online communication?Were they confessions of serous moral transgressions, abusive to spouse or children, or qualifying as apostate in any sense? The one(s) I am personally familiar with involve members who expressed doubts publicly and listed some of the items causing these doubts
Button Gwinnett Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I could agree about the Orwellianism if it were a matter of tapping telephone conversations or planting listening devices in homes or using undercover operatives to lure people into making statements. But posting something on the Internet is in effect publishing it to the world as surely as if you used a printing press to run off several hundred thousand copies of a thing and handed it out on the street or sold it in bookstores. The hazard that someone might see the thing you posted whom you would prefer didn’t see it is in effect the price you pay for this privilege. I recognize that the church is in a difficult position and it certainly is within its right to maintain borders and standards, but at the same time it seems like an overreach of privacy, freedom of speech and yes at least to me Orwellian in nature.
jkwilliams Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: An illustration of situational ethics, I suppose. No, just an extension of compassion and understanding.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: No, just an extension of compassion and understanding. How about fairness? Laws prohibiting trespass and safeguarding private property are based on fairness. Which is where situational ethics breaks down. Edited October 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 32 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said: I recognize that the church is in a difficult position and it certainly is within its right to maintain borders and standards, but at the same time it seems like an overreach of privacy, freedom of speech and yes at least to me Orwellian in nature. We’ve heard it so many times before: Free speech is not without consequences and does not equate to license. Furthermore, a posting on the Internet is hardly a private communication. 1
Gray Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: What you describe is similar to how I've heard sociopaths coach themselves to beat polygraph tests and get away with crimes they've committed . They do some sort of mental exercise wherein they perform some kind of repetitious mind manipulation until they have thoroughly convinced themselves that the pertinent lies are true and the true facts are a pack of lies (I guess you have to be a sociopath or psychopath understand how this works) and then you pass the lie detector test with flying colors. And if what you say about Dehlin's despicable coaching is true, he is a diabolical manipulator. Is that any different from the "carefully worded" denials about polygamy in the early days of the LDS church? Not saying that one justifies the other, but it's probably telling that most people who care will condemn one side or the other, but not both.
Popular Post Hamba Tuhan Posted October 7, 2017 Popular Post Posted October 7, 2017 18 hours ago, Tacenda said: I am definitely on the opposite of the spectrum. Understood. And social pressure is definitely real. But in either circumstance, I suspect we need to rise above social pressure and seek that which is most valuable. For me, that has been in casting my lot, regardless of the cost, with what has been for me the fount of revelation, miracles, visions, healings (of all kinds!), exultant joy and lasting peace. I'm a very simple man in that regard: I'm drawn to things that genuinely make me happy ... and help me help others be happy too. 6
Bobbieaware Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 7 hours ago, Gray said: Is that any different from the "carefully worded" denials about polygamy in the early days of the LDS church? Not saying that one justifies the other, but it's probably telling that most people who care will condemn one side or the other, but not both. There is a difference. In one instance, lapsed faith Members are trying to deceive the Church priesthood leaders, and in the other the Church leaders are applying the Lord's counsel to protect sacred things by not casting pearls of holiness before dogs and swine. 6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. (Matthew 7 2
Gray Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: There is a difference. In one instance, lapsed faith Members are trying to deceive the Church priesthood leaders, and in the other the Church leaders are applying the Lord's counsel to protect sacred things by not casting pearls of holiness before dogs and swine. 6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. (Matthew 7 Nephi had something to say about your justifications: 2 Nephi 28:8 8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.
ALarson Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: There is a difference. In one instance, lapsed faith Members are trying to deceive the Church priesthood leaders, and in the other the Church leaders are applying the Lord's counsel to protect sacred things by not casting pearls of holiness before dogs and swine. So now the leaders feel fine "casting pearls of holiness before dogs and swine" since they are more open about the details regarding Joseph's polygamy (such as in the essays)? Do you really believe that was why more details weren't included in lesson manuals, etc., before now? Edited October 7, 2017 by ALarson
Bobbieaware Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Gray said: Nephi had something to say about your justifications: 2 Nephi 28:8 8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God. So do we now have you on record declaring, by inference, you believe the prophet Joseph Smith thought there was no harm in sinning a little, lying a little. taking advantage of his neighbors a little, and digging pits for his neighbors once in a while? But I'm wondering why you would appeal to Nephi as if he were a real person and not a figment of someone's imagination? Shouldn't you have said, "the fictional prophet Nephi is depicted as saying" Or have you had a change of heart and no longer believe the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction filled with a multitude of lies? But in direct answer to your comment, there is a difference between protecting sacred things by withholding them from the knowledge uninspired malicious men who have murder in their hearts (the dogs and swine mentioned in Christ's simile) and lying in furtherance of the cause of the devil. 9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. (Alma 12) Edited October 7, 2017 by Bobbieaware
Bobbieaware Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 47 minutes ago, ALarson said: So now the leaders feel fine "casting pearls of holiness before dogs and swine" since they are more open about the details regarding Joseph's polygamy (such as in the essays)? Do you really believe that was why more details weren't included in lesson manuals, etc., before now? There were ongoing plots to murder the prophet Joseph Smith almost from the beginning (he is on record as having said even the Church members would take his life if he openly revealed all he knew. But now that he is no longer living on earth in mortality, and now that the cutthroats who wanted to murder him are dead, we are living under a different set of circumstances. It's equally important to note that after the exodus to remote and isolated Utah the Church ceased disavowing the practice of plural marriage and began to practice it openly. So under these changed circumstances a more open discussion of the sacred practice of plural marriage is appropriate. Edited October 7, 2017 by Bobbieaware 1
ALarson Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 Just now, Bobbieaware said: There were ongoing plots to murder the prophet Joseph Smith (he is even on record as having said even the Church members would take his life if he openly revealed all he knew) almost from the beginning. But now that he is no longer living on earth in mortality, and now that the cutthroats who wanted to murder him are dead, we are living under a different set of circumstances appropriate. Do you believe people were trying to murder Joseph Smith because he was practicing polygamy? Even if you believe that, why not be more open about the details until recently (ie. the church essays, etc.)? The reasons you're giving make no sense at all, IMO. Joseph has been dead for over a hundred and fifty years. 1
Button Gwinnett Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: We’ve heard it so many times before: Free speech is not without consequences and does not equate to license. Furthermore, a posting on the Internet is hardly a private communication. To face church discipline for online social media activity, from a church no less, just feels rather creepy and over authoritarian. I respect that the church has every right to do what ever it chooses to police its boundaries and that we are responsible for our actions, this however feels more like something a paranoid police state would do rather than the Church of Jesus Christ.
Tacenda Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said: To face church discipline for online social media activity, from a church no less, just feels rather creepy and over authoritarian. I respect that the church has every right to do what ever it chooses to police its boundaries and that we are responsible for our actions, this however feels more like something a paranoid police state would do rather than the Church of Jesus Christ. So much for the oft taught lesson about free agency. But I guess there are consequences too. Just seems like we're treated like children sometimes. The church looks worse though when they just don't ignore some people, IMO. Edited October 7, 2017 by Tacenda
Bernard Gui Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 22 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Here's something I wrote about this subject a few years ago. tl;dr: Don't make the mistakes I did. https://runtu.wordpress.com/2015/02/20/repost-expert-ex-mormon/ Interesting article. Having been on the receiving end of "apostate" abuse, I could easily rewrite it by just reversing the roles.
Bernard Gui Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, Tacenda said: So much for the oft taught lesson about free agency. But I guess there are consequences too. Just seems like we're treated like children sometimes. The church looks worse though when they just don't ignore some people, IMO. What is your understanding of free agency?
Bobbieaware Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) Deleted Edited October 7, 2017 by Bobbieaware
Bobbieaware Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, ALarson said: Do you believe people were trying to murder Joseph Smith because he was practicing polygamy? Even if you believe that, why not be more open about the details until recently (ie. the church essays, etc.)? The reasons you're giving make no sense at all, IMO. Joseph has been dead for over a hundred and fifty years. How much more obvious and open could the Church have been than having openly practiced polygamy for decades and even having a revelation from God to JOSEPH SMITH in the Doctrine and Covenants wherein the Lord specifically says that under certain circumstances he, God, justifies and even commands the practice of plural marriage. Have you been living under a rock? Edited October 7, 2017 by Bobbieaware
ALarson Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: How much more obvious and open could the Church have been than having openly practicing polygamy for decades and even having a revelation to JOSEPH SMITH from God in the Doctrine and Covenants wherein the Lord specifically says that under certain circumstances he, God, justifies and even commands the practice of plural marriage. Have you been living under a rock? This topic has been discussed numerous times. (Do a search and read some of the threads here if you're not familiar with this topic.) Most members know that Joseph at least had some plural wives. It's the details that have not been well known by many (most?). That's what the church leaders are slowly trying to change with the essays and also with updating some of the lesson manuals (mainly the institute and seminary ones so far, I believe). But don't pretend that these details have always been taught. Edited October 7, 2017 by ALarson
JLHPROF Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, ALarson said: Most members know that Joseph at least had some plural wives. It's the details that have not been well known by many (most?). That's what the church leaders are slowly trying to change with the essays and also with updating some of the lesson manuals (mainly the institute and seminary ones so far, I believe). But don't pretend that these details have always been taught. It's still not very well known and there are still many incorrect ideas amongst members (6 or 7 wives, sealing only, only to care for widows etc.) Most members have no idea of any details.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 1 hour ago, ALarson said: So now the leaders feel fine "casting pearls of holiness before dogs and swine" since they are more open about the details regarding Joseph's polygamy (such as in the essays)? Do you really believe that was why more details weren't included in lesson manuals, etc., before now? Different time and different circumstances. You know this already. You shouldn’t have to be reminded.
Recommended Posts