Taylor Christensen "This is not an anti-mormon video"

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The root of the "historical obsession" is the emphasis the Church places on historical events. 

Imagine if someone shared some shocking information with you about George Albert Smith.  You might be shocked, but it probably wouldn't affect your faith very much because we never talk about George Albert Smith.  He's just not a part of the narrative for modern LDS.

But Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are much more prominently placed in the "story" of Mormonism.  For better or worse, the Church has gone all-in on Joseph Smith being a "prophet", so that makes them vulnerable to evidence that would show him acting in ways that go against what we might expect of a "prophet."  Sure, you can blame the expectations, but most LDS probably formed their expectations based on what the Church itself told them, so pointing fingers might not work in this case.

Going "all in" on Joseph being a prophet who fulfilled a divine calling is essential to the theological structure of the Church. Without it, it tumbles like a house of cards.

 

[Calm]

Thanks for the info, churchistrue

Edited February 5, 2018 by Calm

[Glenn101]

   If history were to be the basis for a belief in a particular religious denomination we would all rationally be forced to be at the very best, agnostic, but more logically atheist. The history of the formation of the Catholic and Christian reformed churches have there own historical blemishes.

   It was not an anti-Mormon video.

Glenn

Edited February 5, 2018 by Glenn101
Another thought.

[cinepro]

On 2/5/2018 at 11:10 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

In a similar way, though he wants us to develop faith or trust in him, he doesn’t seek a compelled belief. He doesn’t desire an assent that has been forced upon us because we had no rational alternative or escape.

 

I don't think the idea that people would be "compelled" to believe in God, or Mormon claims, or any religious belief if there were too much evidence actually holds up with human experience.  It assumes a level of rationality that just doesn't exist in humanity, and it isn't supported by the many stories of people in the scriptures who had "evidence" of these things but still had plenty of freedom to choose a different path. 

And as has been pointed out endlessly elsewhere, this line of thinking is relatively innocuous when applied to ephemeral religious beliefs that encourage us to do good, but if it seeps into any other area of our lives, it can have disastrous results.  The lack of evidence is only a good thing until it turns out there was a reason for the lack of evidence that doesn't involve an omniscient deity that wants us to believe in Him "just because."

Edited February 6, 2018 by cinepro

[Jeanne]

To those of you who have said their kids knew and have seen this before..what was their take on it.  Perhaps this might keep younger people in the church.???  I am just glad that people are more aware of many things than my generation was.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Jeanne

[churchistrue]

18 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

To those of you who have said their kids knew and have seen this before..what was their take on it.  Perhaps this might keep younger people in the church.???  I am just glad that people are more aware of many things than my generation was.

Based on my children's reaction, I think this is a great thing for retaining millennials. 

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

Based on my children's reaction, I think this is a great thing for retaining millennials. 

Thank you for your response...I was really curious. 

[Nevo]

2 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

Based on my children's reaction, I think this is a great thing for retaining millennials. 

At least until someone writes a CES Letter highlighting problems with the Bible. Personally, I think historical-critical biblical scholarship is a bigger threat than messy church history, as it undermines pretty much all LDS scripture. Science isn't super compatible either with a lot of church teachings.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Nevo said:

At least until someone writes a CES Letter highlighting problems with the Bible. Personally, I think historical-critical biblical scholarship is a bigger threat than messy church history, as it undermines pretty much all LDS scripture. Science isn't super compatible either with a lot of church teachings.

I agree with both of your listed threats here.  But I wanted to point out these have been threats for a long time and somehow have been relegated as non threats, in some ways hardly posing much of a threat.

Quote

In 1908, Chamberlin was hired to lead the Biology Department at Brigham Young University (BYU), a university owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), during a period which BYU president George H. Brimhall sought to increase its academic standing. LDS College professor J. H. Paul, in a letter to Brimhall, had written Chamberlin was "one of the world's foremost naturalists, though, I think, he is only about 28 years of age. I have not met his equal ... We must not let him drift away".^[26] Chamberlin oversaw expanded biology course offerings and led insect-collecting trips with students.^[26] Chamberlin joined a pair of newly hired brothers on the faculty, Joseph and Henry Peterson, who taught psychology and education. Chamberlin and the two Petersons worked to increase the intellectual standing of the University. In 1909 Chamberlin's own brother William H. Chamberlin was hired to teach philosophy. The four academics, all active members of the Church,^[27] were known for teaching modern scientific and philosophic ideas and encouraging lively debate and discussion. The Chamberlins and Petersons held the belief that the theory of evolution was compatible with religious views, and promoted historical criticism of the Bible, the view that the writings contained should be viewed from the context of the time: Ralph Chamberlin published essays in the White and Blue, BYU's student newspaper, arguing that Hebrew legends and historical writings were not to be taken literally. In an essay titled "Some Early Hebrew Legends" Chamberlin concluded: "Only the childish and immature mind can lose by learning that much in the Old Testament is poetical and that some of the stories are not true historically."^[28][29] Chamberlin believed that evolution explained not only the origin of organisms but of human theological beliefs as well.^[29]

In late 1910, complaints from stake presidents inspired an investigation into the teachings of the professors. Chamberlin's 1911 essay "Evolution and Theological Belief" was considered particularly objectionable by school officials.^[30] In early 1911 Ralph Chamberlin and the Peterson brothers were offered a choice to either stop teaching evolution or lose their jobs. The three professors were popular among students and faculty, who denied that the teaching of evolution was destroying their faith. A student petition in support of the professors signed by over 80% of the student body was sent to the administration, and then to local newspapers. Rather than change their teachings, the three accused professors resigned in 1911, while William Chamberlin remained for another five years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Vary_Chamberlin

I was reminded of the Chamberlin brothers and Peterson brothers having their stories outline the threat you mention over 100 years ago.

Are we getting to a point wherein these particular disciplines as risks start to take effect upon the Church?  It seems to me science and biblical criticism have had some effect, the latter less so than the former at this point.

 

 

[3DOP]

I hadn't heard some of that. Is it mostly true? Seeing the way my own church has been so falsely accused historically, I was very open to the idea that yours had been defamed as well. I decided very early on that I would not inquire in to LDS history. This is why none of you has ever seen me arguing against LDS claims on the basis of disturbing historical claims. I have proceeded through the years as though the anti-Mormon histories were all bogus. I thought for your sakes, they needed to be bogus. But now, anti-Mormon history might be true, and so is the CoJCoLDS! I don't think so.

If the claims in that video are acceptable for Mormons in the pew to believe, what about your missionaries? It seems to me that if these disturbing claims are true, your missionaries need to know, and so do potential converts. I have a hard time seeing that anyone would accept these facts, and then join anyway. If I were a missionary I would want to steer clear of Joseph Smith. But how could I? I would eventually have to explain to people why God used the Joseph Smith described in this video, to restore the apostate churches.

What is described in the video is more than mere fallibility. It is habitual and preconceived unholiness. St. Peter denied our Lord three times and went out and wept bitterly when our Lord glanced at him. It was part of the growth in sanctity that made him love God and His Church even unto blood. In all of God's claimed doings with Joseph Smith while he was behaving in this sordid fashion, did God never utter an admonition, or glance at Joseph with a look of reproach. Fallibility, fine, of course. Unrepented habits of unholiness, not okay. Jesus said what to do when faced with claims like those of Joseph Smith. "By their fruits you shall know them," meaning the false from the true Shepherd. The prophet described in that video is a true wolf, not sparing the flock.

Having said all that, I am still willing to suspend judgment on LDS history. I am willing to accept that the video was fueled by anti-Mormon propaganda. But if Mormons are willing to accept anti-Mormon propaganda as true, I guess it is high time I did too.

3DOP

 

Edited February 5, 2018 by 3DOP

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is a very short video, and I should have thought that you would apprehend them immediately.

1.  Anti-Mormon videos are mostly correct.

2.  J. Smith could have had easy access to 1800s literary features found in Book of Mormon.

3.  J. Smith made false claims about some of his translations.

4.  Many doctrines, policies, and scriptures have been changed or removed from the church over time.

5.  Truth about polygamy?  Whose version of it?

6.  Church continues practice of polygamy even after claim they had stopped.  Yet some general authorities were exed for that.

7.  Call to perfection fallacy (re Joseph and Book of Mormon)

8.  So much evidence against the Church, but very little for it.

9.  false faith-evidence dichotomy.

I hear that notion all the time.  In fact, that is the normal way in which believers comport themselves in many religious traditions.

I don't know that any of those listed are simply not true.  They are, probably each one, debatable, at the very least.  The big problem with is little write up and reading as it pertains to these is they are just bald assertions, which only turns those who disagree with them off on the whole of the thing.  

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

I hadn't heard some of that. Is it mostly true? Seeing the way my own church has been so falsely accused historically, I was very open to the idea that yours had been defamed as well. I decided very early on that I would not inquire in to LDS history. This is why none of you has ever seen me arguing against LDS claims on the basis of disturbing historical claims. I have proceeded through the years as though the anti-Mormon histories were all bogus. I thought for your sakes, they needed to be bogus. But now, anti-Mormon history might be true, and so is the CoJCoLDS! I don't think so.

If the claims in that video are acceptable for Mormons in the pew to believe, what about your missionaries? It seems to me that if these disturbing claims are true, your missionaries need to know, and so do potential converts. I have a hard time seeing that anyone would accept these facts, and then join anyway. If I were a missionary I would want to steer clear of Joseph Smith. But how could I? I would eventually have to explain to people why God used the Joseph Smith described in this video, to restore the apostate churches.

What is described in the video is more than mere fallibility. It is habitual and preconceived unholiness. St. Peter denied our Lord three times and went out and wept bitterly when our Lord glanced at him. It was part of the growth in sanctity that made him love God and His Church even unto blood. In all of God's claimed doings with Joseph Smith while he was behaving in this sordid fashion, did God never utter an admonition, or glance at Joseph with a look of reproach. Fallibility, fine, of course. Unrepented habits of unholiness, not okay. Jesus said what to do when faced with claims like those of Joseph Smith. "By their fruits you shall know" the false from the true Shepherd. The prophet described in that video is a true wolf, not sparing the flock. That video describes a false shepherd.

Having said all that, I am still willing to suspend judgment on LDS history. I am willing to accept that the video was fueled by anti-Mormon propaganda. But if Mormons are willing to accept anti-Mormon propaganda as true, I guess it is high time I did too.

3DOP

 

The things stated in the video are factually true. Sorry if that is a shock to you but it is an even bigger, disheartening shock for many faithful members when they first come across it.

That said, the Catholic church has plenty of unholiness in its history as well. Is it unthinkable that anyone would become Catholic? Is every potential convert instructed about the most sordid details of the church and its past leadership. I kind of doubt it. But I agree that anyone preparing to associate with a church should take it upon themselves to study out the good, the bad, and the ugly.

I did go back and watch the entire 7 minute video. It felt like it took an hour. I stand by my prior criticisms of the video quality. I also find his argument for faith to be extremely weak. Essentially, if there's not absolute, undeniable proof against it being the one and only true church then there is still room for faith. While technically true, I find it to be a very naïve an uninspiring plea for people to stay. No church can be absolutely proven false, hence the Flying Spaghetti Monster dilemma. Like you say, by their fruits. Everyone must judge those fruits for themselves.

[SteveO]

44 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

I hadn't heard some of that. Is it mostly true? Seeing the way my own church has been so falsely accused historically, I was very open to the idea that yours had been defamed as well. I decided very early on that I would not inquire in to LDS history. This is why none of you has ever seen me arguing against LDS claims on the basis of disturbing historical claims. I have proceeded through the years as though the anti-Mormon histories were all bogus. I thought for your sakes, they needed to be bogus. But now, anti-Mormon history might be true, and so is the CoJCoLDS! I don't think so.

If the claims in that video are acceptable for Mormons in the pew to believe, what about your missionaries? It seems to me that if these disturbing claims are true, your missionaries need to know, and so do potential converts. I have a hard time seeing that anyone would accept these facts, and then join anyway. If I were a missionary I would want to steer clear of Joseph Smith. But how could I? I would eventually have to explain to people why God used the Joseph Smith described in this video, to restore the apostate churches.

What is described in the video is more than mere fallibility. It is habitual and preconceived unholiness. St. Peter denied our Lord three times and went out and wept bitterly when our Lord glanced at him. It was part of the growth in sanctity that made him love God and His Church even unto blood. In all of God's claimed doings with Joseph Smith while he was behaving in this sordid fashion, did God never utter an admonition, or glance at Joseph with a look of reproach. Fallibility, fine, of course. Unrepented habits of unholiness, not okay. Jesus said what to do when faced with claims like those of Joseph Smith. "By their fruits you shall know them," meaning the false from the true Shepherd. The prophet described in that video is a true wolf, not sparing the flock.

Having said all that, I am still willing to suspend judgment on LDS history. I am willing to accept that the video was fueled by anti-Mormon propaganda. But if Mormons are willing to accept anti-Mormon propaganda as true, I guess it is high time I did too.

3DOP

 

What do you think of his teachings?  The Book of Mormon?  Those are the fruits.

[Glenn101]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The things stated in the video are factually true.

Some of the things may be factually true, or maybe partially factually true. Robert F. Smith has listed a few of them. Some of the things are debatable, as they are still being debated.

However, the bottom line point that Taylor was making is correct. Secular history is irrelevant to the matter of whether or not the restoration of the Gospel actually happened.

Glenn

[stemelbow]

Just now, Glenn101 said:

 

However, the bottom line point that Taylor was making is correct. Secular history is irrelevant to the matter of whether or not the restoration of the Gospel actually happened.

Glenn

So the historical claim of the restoration of the gospel is irrelevant to whether the restoration of the gospel happened?  You would think, that the elements and events that make up the restoration of the gospel are historical events.  I can't see how the history is irrelevant as you suggest.  

Now if you were to say it is irrelevant to me whether the restoration actually happened, as one studies history, because for me the religion works.  I'd hear ya, and get ya.  But, what you say here is just oddly irrational.  

 

[3DOP]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The things stated in the video are factually true. Sorry if that is a shock to you but it is an even bigger, disheartening shock for many faithful members when they first come across it.

That said, the Catholic church has plenty of unholiness in its history as well. Is it unthinkable that anyone would become Catholic? Is every potential convert instructed about the most sordid details of the church and its past leadership. I kind of doubt it. But I agree that anyone preparing to associate with a church should take it upon themselves to study out the good, the bad, and the ugly.

I did go back and watch the entire 7 minute video. It felt like it took an hour. I stand by my prior criticisms of the video quality. I also find his argument for faith to be extremely weak. Essentially, if there's not absolute, undeniable proof against it being the one and only true church then there is still room for faith. While technically true, I find it to be a very naïve an uninspiring plea for people to stay. No church can be absolutely proven false, hence the Flying Spaghetti Monster dilemma. Like you say, by their fruits. Everyone must judge those fruits for themselves.

Hi Happy Jack.

I appreciate the reply and agree with most of your analysis. It wasn't a shock. As an unbeliever, I had in fact suspected polygamy to have been less about revelation and more about extra-marital activity. There is always suspicion when God is supposedly telling some man to sleep with lots of women. And yes, the argument for faith was weak. That was what prompted me to make my comments about the missions.

As for my church, I believe it to have been subject to historical calumnies that are widely taken for granted by Catholics and non-Catholics alike who have at best, a superficial grasp of the 2,000 year history of the church. There is a lot of scope. I have studied the Inquisitions and Crusades although I am far from an expert. But I am satisfied that in both of those classic cases, there are popular histories where for religious or political reasons, evils are grossly exaggerated, while good motives and honorable deeds are often unmentioned. Jesus said to his disciples that if the world hated Him, the world would hate them too. The Body of Christ, His Church, experiences similar false criticisms, as Jesus our Head experienced them.   

But even the worst calumnies against Catholicism fall far short of accusing our founder and chief revelator of actively conniving to sleep with the wives of his disciples while they were away on missions. I think there are good reasons to doubt that God would use such an unholy instrument for such an holy enterprise. 

[juliann]

I have no particular objection to the content of the video, it is an opinion that many share. But the music, oh my gosh. By the end it is in the foreground not background. The excellent KnowWhy videos drive me crazy for the same reason. Rule one in video making should be never ever use high pitched clinking piano music that competes with the   the speaker. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Going "all in" on Joseph being a prophet who fulfilled a divine calling is essential to the theological structure of the Church. Without it, it tumbles like a house of cards.

 

Well then there it goes if THAT means perfection and infallibility. 

Who's side are you on ?

Can you see that that is the problem?   We do not know much about the actual lives of other prophets but here we have a very human individual without the forgetfulness of legend that can happen over thousands of years, or the BOM prophets about whom in "real life" we know nothing.

The only comparison we have are the very human prophets of this dispensation, none of whom are perfect and infallible and who did not make mistakes in their lives.  It's all there for the finding should it make a difference to us

The Fall was "fortunate" because it all gives us agency and we are all sinners.  Every single one of us and that includes Joseph and every other prophet who ever lived.

If the "theological structure of the Church" makes it "essential" excludes sinful humans from "fulfilling a divine calling" then it is all over.

Of course he filled a divine calling as we all strive to do AS sinners.

The fortunate fall IS essential to the theological structure of the church.  If that is what you are saying- great.  If it is more than that, I think you are just plain wrong.

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Happy Jack.

I appreciate the reply and agree with most of your analysis. It wasn't a shock. As an unbeliever, I had in fact suspected polygamy to have been less about revelation and more about extra-marital activity. There is always suspicion when God is supposedly telling some man to sleep with lots of women. And yes, the argument for faith was weak. That was what prompted me to make my comments about the missions.

As for my church, I believe it to have been subject to historical calumnies that are widely taken for granted by Catholics and non-Catholics alike who have at best, a superficial grasp of the 2,000 year history of the church. There is a lot of scope. I have studied the Inquisitions and Crusades although I am far from an expert. But I am satisfied that in both of those classic cases, there are popular histories where for religious or political reasons, evils are grossly exaggerated, while good motives and honorable deeds are often unmentioned. Jesus said to his disciples that if the world hated Him, the world would hate them too. The Body of Christ, His Church, experiences similar false criticisms, as Jesus our Head experienced them.   

But even the worst calumnies against Catholicism fall far short of accusing our founder and chief revelator of actively conniving to sleep with the wives of his disciples while they were away on missions. I think there are good reasons to doubt that God would use such an unholy instrument for such an holy enterprise. 

I would not go off with half the knowledge you now appear to have on this subject.  Polygamy did not always include "sleeping with" anyone- it was based on building relationships and "kingdoms" which would survive death.   You should read more about it from sympathetic interpreters.

This argument is much like arguing that succession in the Catholic Priesthood was lost through corrupt popes.  I am sure you have many answers for that one. 

You are on touchy ground here but we love you anyway.   

 

[churchistrue]

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

I have no particular objection to the content of the video, it is an opinion that many share. But the music, oh my gosh. By the end it is in the foreground not background. The excellent KnowWhy videos drive me crazy for the same reason. Rule one in video making should be never ever use high pitched clinking piano music that competes with the   the speaker. 

Signed, the old people. jk, I'm with you. And I'm old, too. Go figure.

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

Signed, the old people. jk, I'm with you. And I'm old, too. Go figure.

The tinkling piano and simple chords seem to be in EVERY "inspirational" and faith-promoting Mormon video.  It has become a style unto itself.

I mean heck there are a lot of piano players in the church without much to do except on Sundays.  Besides everyone knows that the ideal wife MUST play piano. (ducking for cover)

[3DOP]

15 minutes ago, SteveO said:

What do you think of his teachings?  The Book of Mormon?  Those are the fruits.

I have no experience of them.

As I said, I have been satisfied to disbelieve these kinds of claims, even as I was aware that LDS apologists necessarily denounced them. Why did they do so? Because LDS understood how damaging such claims would be if true. Your own people will continue to leave over it, and it is a message doomed to failure on the mission field. Now that Mormons are apparently satisfied to accept these claims about Joseph Smith's sordid bedroom habits, it comes with a big apologetic shift where the character of a prophet becomes unimportant. 

But here is what the Gospel says:

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs from thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit."

How can we "beware of the false prophet" as our Lord commands, if we first have to try his teachings in our life? No. Jesus is offering us an easy short cut that doesn't put our souls and our families at risk. The fruit Jesus is talking about is found in character of "the prophet". Where you find a ravening wolf, it isn't a prophet sent from God. I can't imagine a story that more vividly describes a wolf in the clothing of sheep than this tale about Joseph sending his disciples away to preach his message, and then taking their wives in while they are away. Christ is promising that He will never send us a prophet like the one that is described in that video. We don't have to pray about the message. We don't have to test the message. We test the prophet, and if the prophet is a wolf, the Christian doesn't give a second thought to his teaching.

Mormons believed that at one time. But that was when they thought Joseph Smith fit the criteria for a true prophet. 

[SteveO]

9 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

I have no experience of them.

As I said, I have been satisfied to disbelieve these kinds of claims, even as I was aware that LDS apologists necessarily denounced them. Why did they do so? Because LDS understood how damaging such claims would be if true. Your own people will continue to leave over it, and it is a message doomed to failure on the mission field. Now that Mormons are apparently satisfied to accept these claims about Joseph Smith's sordid bedroom habits, it comes with a big apologetic shift where the character of a prophet becomes unimportant. 

But here is what the Gospel says:

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs from thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit."

How can we "beware of the false prophet" as our Lord commands, if we first have to try his teachings in our life? No. Jesus is offering us an easy short cut that doesn't put our souls and our families at risk. The fruit Jesus is talking about is found in character of "the prophet". Where you find a ravening wolf, it isn't a prophet sent from God. I can't imagine a story that more vividly describes a wolf in the clothing of sheep than this tale about Joseph sending his disciples away to preach his message, and then taking their wives in while they are away. Christ is promising that He will never send us a prophet like the one that is described in that video. We don't have to pray about the message. We don't have to test the message. We test the prophet, and if the prophet is a wolf, the Christian doesn't give a second thought to his teaching.

Mormons believed that at one time. But that was when they thought Joseph Smith fit the criteria for a true prophet. 

Please tell me about Joseph’s “sordid bedroom habits”.  Please show me the history on that.  There are tons of people here that will just love to know.  CFR please.

I get that people come to different conclusions on the answers provided.  

But I get irritated when people on this board keep pretending that those answers have never been provided in the first place.

Joseph was not a sexual pervert.  If he were, that would be an aspect of his character that would have been documented somewhere by someone.  

[3DOP]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I would not go off with half the knowledge you now appear to have on this subject.  Polygamy did not always include "sleeping with" anyone- it was based on building relationships and "kingdoms" which would survive death.   You should read more about it from sympathetic interpreters.

This argument is much like arguing that succession in the Catholic Priesthood was lost through corrupt popes.  I am sure you have many answers for that one. 

You are on touchy ground here but we love you anyway.   

 

I claim no knowledge. I haven't read anything. I have tried to carefully speak here "of the Joseph Smith as described in the video". It gives the impression that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with women whose husbands had been sent away. My issue is with those Mormons who don't seem like they would care if their founder behaved like a scoundrel.

I take issue with those Mormons, including the young man in the video, who seem inclined to concede to all of the accusations made, while retaining their belief that their church is true and mine isn't. Catholics are doing the same thing with regards to history. You describe a very important nuance about polygamy that hostile parties will not consider. Catholics and non-Catholics alike have been duped by histories that similarly fail to consider circumstances that exonerate the Catholic Church as a whole, and many churchmen who are vilified for actions that are not very well understood in their context. The result for Catholics who blithely accept these histories is to have a lukewarm relationship with Holy Mother Church. The same will happen with Mormons if they stop having pride in their heritage.

If plausible, I am completely satisfied with your brief explanation of polygamy as practiced by Joseph, and he would be exonerated of any wrongdoing.

By the way...how in the world could a corrupt pope interrupt priestly succession? We teach that priestly and episcopal succession survives in Orthodoxy which has rejected the pope for a thousand years! Sorry, I had to swing at such a soft pitch in my wheelhouse.

Thanks for the love. 

[strappinglad]

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I am currently rereading the Old Testament. I had forgotten just how rough many of the ' prophets ' were. Noah got drunk, Moses was a hot-blooded killer, Abraham treated his secondary wives and children appallingly by today's standards. And we won't speak about Elijah and Samuel. Funny how the story teller's didn't edit out the rough stuff and produce a sanitized version seeing that it is not historical and all fabricated.

I started reading a book about the life of Jesus during the lost years from age 12 to when He appeared on the Biblical scene. The anger and vindictiveness of Jesus as portrayed by those stories was so out of character with all other accounts , that I just closed the book. It may be cog dis but I carry a large block of salt when I read of Joseph's womanizing and adultery, and I have read many of the accounts even the more recent  ( Hales?).