Is there a middle way?

[Scott Lloyd]

50 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.

Let’s go back to the printing press analogy. What if a Church member were printing anti-Mormon literature and distributing it internationally. Would you find it “creepy” if the person were to face Church discipline for his behavior? 

I don’t get that you seem somehow locked into the mindset that stuff posted on social media is private communication. It is anything but. 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Different time and different circumstances. You know this already. You shouldn’t have to be reminded.  

My response was to Bobbieaware giving the reason for why details regarding Joseph's polygamy had not been taught or published about until recently.  She used the reason of them being "too sacred" and that it would have been casting peals before swine. 

Do you agree with her?

If you do, what changed and why is it now ok to discuss and teach them?

 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do you believe people were trying to murder Joseph Smith because he was practicing polygamy?

They were doing it for a variety of reasons, and some apostates were  trying to gin up hostility against the Prophet by accusing him of it in a twisted way. I’m incredulous that you believe it would have been prudent for the Church to openly acknowledge plural marriage in the atmosphere of violent oppression that beset the Saints in 1840s Nauvoo. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

My response was to Bobbieaware giving the reason for why details regarding Joseph's polygamy had not been taught or published about until recently.  She used the reason of them being "too sacred" and that it would have been casting peals before swine. 

Do you agree with her?

If you do, what changed and why is it now ok to discuss and teach them?

 

 

 

I agree there were vile bigots back then such that the “pearls before swine” imagery is perfectly apt. 

There are vile bigots today, of course. The difference is that the Church and its members are not in imminent danger of violence and oppression over the matter, because plural marriage was discontinued well over a century ago. 

Furthermore, there are those of the rising generation who were not part of the past and who have honest questions and deserve responses. 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

They were doing it for a variety of reasons, and some apostates were  trying to gin up hostility against the Prophet by accusing him of it in a twisted way. I’m incredulous that you believe it would have been prudent for the Church to openly acknowledge plural marriage in the atmosphere of violent oppression that beset the Saints in 1840s Nauvoo. 

I didn't state that (although I don't believe he was killed because he was living polygamy...it was much more complicated than that).  

However,  I don't believe this was why Joseph was trying to hide things from Emma and others close to him, do you?  That's where many take issue with his lack of honestly.

 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

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) 

 

I'm saying you're trying to justify lying by one party on one side of your mouth, but condemning another party for doing the same thing on the other side of your mouth.

By the way, we're not talking about keeping polygamy secret. We're talking about engaging in deliberate deception.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree there were vile bigots back then such that the “pearls before swine” imagery is perfectly apt. 

There are vile bigots today, of course. The difference is that the Church and its members are not in imminent danger of violence and oppression over the matter, because plural marriage was discontinued well over a century ago. 

You're being very naive, IMO, if you believe this is why Joseph was not honest about how he was living polygamy and also why the details were not discussed or taught until just recently.  Even now, they are still not really openly discussed from what I can see from the leaders.  Changes are slowly happening and that is a good thing, of course.

The whole "pearls before swine" reason is ridiculous regarding Joseph keeping things from Emma and other active church members back then.  It's even more ridiculous to apply it to today.

If you feel it's a good reason, we will just have to disagree. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I didn't state that (although I don't believe he was killed because he was living polygamy...it was much more complicated than that).  

However,  I don't believe this was why Joseph was trying to hide things from Emma and others close to him, do you?  That's where many take issue with his lack of honestly.

 

I believe it amounts to unrighteousness judgment** to judge him without full knowledge of the circumstances and without being privy to the divine commandments he was obligated to obey. 

** Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

You're being very naive, IMO, if you believe this is why Joseph was not honest about how he was living polygamy and also why the details were not discussed or taught until just recently.  Even now, they are still not really openly discussed from what I can see from the leaders.  Changes are slowly happening and that is a good thing, of course.

The whole "pearls before swine" reason is ridiculous regarding Joseph keeping things from Emma and other active church members back then.  It's even more ridiculous to apply it to today.

If you feel it's a good reason, we will just have to disagree. 

You think I’m being naive; I think you’re judging unrighteously, not being in possession of pertinent information. Maybe the difference is in the regard each of us holds the Prophet. 

Yes, I think it best we drop the matter. 

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe it amounts to unrighteousness judgment** to judge him without full knowledge of the circumstances and without being privy to the divine commandments he was obligated to obey. 

** Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement. 

It doesn't change the fact that Joseph was not honest and that he deceived Emma and others.

We do have enough knowledge of the circumstances to know that this took place.  If you're fine with that and can justify it in your mind, ok.  You may believe he was right to continue marrying over 30 women knowing how Emma felt and hiding much of it from her and deceiving many.  

As you stated earlier on this thread:

It's the difference between being truthful and untruthful, simply stated.

If you believe that was ok for Joseph to do, once again we will just have to disagree.

Edited October 7, 2017 by ALarson

[CV75]

On 10/6/2017 at 10:34 AM, hope_for_things said:

I'm saying there are a lot of pseudopigraphical works in the NT, which is one example of scriptures purporting to be something that they aren't, which is what you referred to, but I don't know which scriptural reference Bluebell was referring to exactly.  I could guess, but she never linked to any specific passages.  Also, the first person voice was a literary device frequently used during that time period.  

With General Conference being so fresh in everyone’s minds, I think we can compare the New Testament to General Conference in a couple of ways. Materially, the NT is like someone taking bits and pieces of General Conference over the last 187 years and cobbling together a sampling of teachings, some from those who had the vision of God (Joseph Smith) and for us, mostly those who didn’t. Such a volume would certainly not comprehensive, but enough for those who receive the messages to develop faith on Christ (the particulars in this comparison don’t matter). The writers of the NT are like the GC speakers throughout the years, sharing the Gospel as they understand it by the Gift of the Holy Ghost, the volume of incomplete information still demonstrating a pattern of development over the years, line upon line, precept upon precept, suited to the needs and circumstances of their respective times.

A textual understanding it great, but context such as found in the simple comparison above is also illuminating.

[CV75]

On 10/6/2017 at 10:50 AM, bluebell said:

Is it weird though that the least common denominator for using the label of Mormon is membership in the church, knowing that if the person was trying to get baptized with such beliefs, they would never actually be allowed to be a member?

What I mean is, membership in the LDS church is completely based on acceptance of the doctrine, right?  No accepting the doctrine = not allowed to join.  So from your perspective, if acceptance of church doctrine is mandatory to join, at what point does acceptance of doctrine not become mandatory?  

I was just reading Elder Oaks' talk and I remembered this question. He makes an interesting comment:

"Those who do not believe in or aspire to exaltation and are most persuaded by the ways of the world consider this family proclamation as just a statement of policy that should be changed. In contrast, Latter-day Saints affirm that the family proclamation defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/10/the-plan-and-the-proclamation?lang=eng Here he seems to say that "Latter-day Saints" uphold the family proclamation, and that those who do not are not considered actual saints, or saints on word but not spirit. Now they can still be considered members, of course, since he says in a subsequent paragraph:

"Converted Latter-day Saints believe that the family proclamation, issued nearly a quarter century ago and now translated into scores of languages, is the Lord’s reemphasis of the gospel truths we need to sustain us through current challenges to the family."

And later he describes the proclamation as "the will of the Lord for His children who seek eternal life... Consider it as such, teach it, live by it, and you will be blessed as you press forward toward eternal life." And then he expresses his feelings for all Latter-day Saints, those who uphold it and those who do not: "I believe our attitude toward and use of the family proclamation is one of those tests for this generation. I pray for all Latter-day Saints to stand firm in that test."

So we have converted and not-converted saints mingling together, but the aim of the Lord is to convert us that we may be healed (Matthew 3:15, 3 Nephi 9:13) and even be made perfect (whole, complete, etc.). I think espousing a middle way is an indicator that more work needs to be done.

[Tacenda]

Bobbieaware: "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." 

Me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauvoo_Legion I think this article states why he was killed. Most likely polygamy was low on the list of reasons for his death, IMO. And what I was taught growing up was nothing like what I'm finding out in my old age. Persecution for him starting the church, is not how it was. Joseph Smith brought a lot of it on himself.

All my life thinking he was arrested for innocent things, were what seems to be lies of omission by the church's department of curriculum, IMO. Imagine if a group of thousands dressed in uniform came into your town and marched down your street and their leader declared he was king, how long would he be around. He'd be put into jail/prison. 

More is spelled out in the Council of the Fifty minutes released on the JSP's project. I've just heard the Reader's Digest version and I'm just a little surprised I had not really learned the extent that Joseph wanted to create a kingdom on the earth, it takes on a new meaning for me. 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Tacenda

[jkwilliams]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting article. Having been on the receiving end of "apostate" abuse, I could easily rewrite it by just reversing the roles.

No doubt. I would probably give the same advice to someone dealing with people leaving the church. Bottom line: put your relationships first, and keep the religious stuff in perspective.

[jkwilliams]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How about fairness? Laws prohibiting trespass and safeguarding private property are based on fairness. Which is where situational ethics breaks down. 

I have a good friend whose close family member was one of Mark Hofmann's victims. Some members of his family were extremely upset to learn that some high-ranking church leaders lied to the police when asked about their dealings with Hofmann. This led some of these family members to doubt their faith, and a few even left the church. My friend said that, although he thought what they did was wrong, he was willing to extend compassion and forgiveness because he believed they were motivated by a desire to "protect the church they love" (his words). That's how I feel about people who lie and trespass, etc., in order to support their loved ones. Would I do it? Obviously not, but I don't condemn them for the same reason my friend (and I, for that matter) did not condemn church leaders who lied to the police. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe it amounts to unrighteousness judgment** to judge him without full knowledge of the circumstances....

** Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement. 

Couldn't this also be applied to those who feel they must not be open with their personal beliefs in recommend interviews?

[Johnnie Cake]

54 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I have a good friend whose close family member was one of Mark Hofmann's victims. Some members of his family were extremely upset to learn that some high-ranking church leaders lied to the police when asked about their dealings with Hofmann. This led some of these family members to doubt their faith, and a few even left the church. My friend said that, although he thought what they did was wrong, he was willing to extend compassion and forgiveness because he believed they were motivated by a desire to "protect the church they love" (his words). That's how I feel about people who lie and trespass, etc., in order to support their loved ones. Would I do it? Obviously not, but I don't condemn them for the same reason my friend (and I, for that matter) did not condemn church leaders who lied to the police. 

Interesting. Steve was in my mission. Good man

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Couldn't this also be applied to those who feel they must not be open with their personal beliefs in recommend interviews?

I’m not sure I grasp what point you’re trying to make here. But it seems to me that one who feels he cannot be open in his responses for fear that might jeopardize his chance to receive the recommend ought not be seeking the recommend in the first place. 

I’m reminded that the priesthood leader stands in the place of the Lord in conducting such interviews and it is grave thing not to be open and honest with the Lord, regardless of the circumstance. 

If it’s a matter of the person disbelieving in the theology but feigning belief in it just to gain admission to the temple for some other purpose, well, again I say that strikes me as dishonesty and trespassing. Not good things either. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m not sure I grasp what point you’re trying to make here. But it seems to me that one who feels he cannot be open in his responses for fear that might jeopardize his chance to receive the recommend ought not be seeking the recommend in the first place. 

I’m reminded that the priesthood leader stands in the place of the Lord in conducting such interviews and it is grave thing not to be open and honest with the Lord, regardless of the circumstance. 

If it’s a matter of the person disbelieving in the theology but feigning belief in it just to gain admission to the temple for some other purpose, well, again I say that strikes me as dishonesty and trespassing. Not good things either. 

I would imagine that's between the person and the Lord.

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m not sure I grasp what point you’re trying to make here. But it seems to me that one who feels he cannot be open in his responses for fear that might jeopardize his chance to receive the recommend ought not be seeking the recommend in the first place. 

I’m reminded that the priesthood leader stands in the place of the Lord in conducting such interviews and it is grave thing not to be open and honest with the Lord, regardless of the circumstance. 

If it’s a matter of the person disbelieving in the theology but feigning belief in it just to gain admission to the temple for some other purpose, well, again I say that strikes me as dishonesty and trespassing. Not good things either. 

I think it's their love of their family and their intense desire to be with them and not hurt them at a time that is of utmost importance to them in their lives.  I don't know if it's our place to judge.

You seem to justify Joseph's dishonesty and deceit for what you believe are good reasons.  Maybe you can try to understand other's reasons they feel are justification for doing what they do for their loved ones.  Or do you believe Joseph should be held to a lower standard because he was the Prophet?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I have a good friend whose close family member was one of Mark Hofmann's victims. Some members of his family were extremely upset to learn that some high-ranking church leaders lied to the police when asked about their dealings with Hofmann. This led some of these family members to doubt their faith, and a few even left the church. My friend said that, although he thought what they did was wrong, he was willing to extend compassion and forgiveness because he believed they were motivated by a desire to "protect the church they love" (his words). That's how I feel about people who lie and trespass, etc., in order to support their loved ones. Would I do it? Obviously not, but I don't condemn them for the same reason my friend (and I, for that matter) did not condemn church leaders who lied to the police. 

What high-ranking Church leaders lied to police? I have no memory of this. 

I do recollect there were a couple of scurrilous books written about the affair and that Rick Turley’s later book, “Victims,” was written in part to set the record straight on some of these inaccuracies. 

But to address your broader point, I would not have condoned anyone, Church leader or not, lying to investigating officers in the Hofmann matter for any reason. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I would imagine that's between the person and the Lord.

I don’t believe the Lord would condone lying to His anointed representative. 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I have a good friend whose close family member was one of Mark Hofmann's victims. Some members of his family were extremely upset to learn that some high-ranking church leaders lied to the police when asked about their dealings with Hofmann. This led some of these family members to doubt their faith, and a few even left the church. My friend said that, although he thought what they did was wrong, he was willing to extend compassion and forgiveness because he believed they were motivated by a desire to "protect the church they love" (his words). That's how I feel about people who lie and trespass, etc., in order to support their loved ones. Would I do it? Obviously not, but I don't condemn them for the same reason my friend (and I, for that matter) did not condemn church leaders who lied to the police. 

What were the ranks of these leaders, who were they, and what was the lie?

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What high-ranking Church leaders lied to police? I have no memory of this. 

I do recollect there were a couple of scurrilous books written about the affair and that Rick Turley’s later book, “Victims,” was written in part to set the record straight on some of these inaccuracies. 

But to address your broader point, I would not have condoned anyone, Church leader or not, lying to investigating officers in the Hofmann matter for any reason. 

I have no reason to disbelieve what my friend told me at the time, but that's neither here nor there. My point was that showing compassion and forgiveness is not the same as condoning. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think it's their love of their family and their intense desire to be with them and not hurt them at a time that is of utmost importance to them in their lives.  I don't know if it's our place to judge.

You seem to justify Joseph's dishonesty and deceit for what you believe are good reasons.  Maybe you can try to understand other's reasons they feel are justification for doing what they do for their loved ones.  Or do you believe Joseph should be held to a lower standard because he was the Prophet?

It’s not a matter of holding him to a lower standard. It’s a matter of not knowing whether you or I are in sufficient possession of the facts to render a proper judgment.