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

[3DOP]

4 minutes ago, SteveO said:

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.  

Steve O.

No pretense. I think you misunderstand me.

If you will review my previous comments, I think you will discover that I am only stunned that some Mormons accept the Joseph Smith, "as described in the video", while retaining the belief that he was a true prophet. I have never read anything for or against LDS practices of polygamy. I have interacted here for many years and have never railed against Joseph Smith as a wife stealer when Mormons were denying it.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I got the impression that this young man thinks the worst of Joseph Smith's polygamy. And if Mormons are going to concede the worst accusations made against their Founder and chief Revelator, I am not going to be the one who insists that he was innocent. I'll take what Mormons believe and deal with it. If Mormons in good faith and in offices of authority are permitted to believe that Joseph Smith was a wife stealer, it seems like I should be allowed to at least entertain the idea and offer reasons why I think it is problematic.   

Regards,

Rory 

[Metis_LDS]

7 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

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?).

This is turning into a real emotional topic.  So here is some emotion for you all.  I was not there when Joseph Smith was alive but I know that he was under incredible pressure.  God commands him to have more than one wife and his one wife is very very upset about it.  I would stake any day that Joseph Smith was not a bad man why because I have read almost everything he wrote not just the scriptures but everything else he wrote I know him by his writing he was not a evil man.

[Tacenda]

24 minutes ago, SteveO said:

 

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.  

If Joseph wasn't wrong about his choices, then I have to believe God is wrong. I'll choose Joseph.

[Storm Rider]

4 hours 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. 

I am a student of history, but a master of no specific history.  I turned a jaundiced eye on almost all history since I read Herodotus - my intent is to say that I am careful about what I think are facts and what is a historian's opinion.  

How I enjoy reading the lives the saints and the early church fathers - not because I think what I read is completely factual, but because they inspire me, teach me, and humble me. 

Do I believe that Joseph was a true prophet?  Yes, I do.  Do I believe that Joseph was sealed to several/many women? Yes, I do.  Do I think that he had more than one wife in the traditional sense?  Yes, I think he did and I would put it somewhere between 1 and 5 wives with whom he had sexual relations.  I also think that these relationships were for extremely limited time frames for various reasons.  Do I think that he liked being married to several women?  No, I don't think he did, but I believe that he felt he needed to enter into these relationships.

We should follow the counsel of the Bible in regards to false prophets.  However, if you think that a prophet needs to be perfect before he can retain the calling of a prophet then there were never any prophets.  For me it boils down to do I think that prophets are righteous men?  Yes, I believe that they may sit and eat with sinners and publicans, but their lives reflect the Light of Christ and His righteousness.  Though I have never had a particularly close feeling toward Joseph Smith as the prophet of the restoration, he is a man that I would unequivocally identify as righteous.  

No, I did not watch the film/video and don't plan on doing so.  There is nothing I would learn from it and it does not appear to follow the 13th Article of Faith, "... we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."  

Edited February 6, 2018 by Storm Rider

[juliann]

51 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

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

Ha, for sure.  It is why we are all complaining we can't hear the dialogue on TV anymore. 

 

42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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)

But why, why, why clacking, clinking piano???

And you can run but you can't hide.  

[SteveO]

Just now, Tacenda said:

If Joseph wasn't wrong about his choices, then I have to believe God is wrong. I'll choose Joseph.

Speak of the devil, here’s one of the very posters I had in mind when I said that there are posters who pretend the answers have not been provided...

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

There is no new information; there are no new problems. 

I don't think I agree with that. It seems to me we find lots of new information each year. Sure some problems are intractable. If one thinks a prophet should never be a racist there's not much to say. However there are new ways to engage with such expectations and whether we should hold them. Likewise to some problems new evidence comes out making things more believable. Look at say Don Bradly coming back to the Church due to his investigation of the 116 pages. A lot of that is new stuff.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 hours ago, cinepro said:

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. 

 

Oh, there would always be those who utterly refused to be reasonable, I suppose. But if the evidence were so compelling as to be invincible, such individuals would be looked upon as odd anomalies -- like the London Flat Earth Society, the live-Elvis watchers, the Holocaust deniers and those who insist the lunar landings were faked on a sound stage in a television studio.

Quote

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 our 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."

It's not self-evident to me that any part of Mormonism that lacks conclusive evidence, reasonably viewed, has "disastrous results."

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Speak of the devil, here’s one of the very posters I had in mind when I said that there are posters who pretend the answers have not been provided...

That's not fair.  Just because the issues have had responses given from the leaders, that does not mean they have been resolved for each individual member (or that the answers have been good answers....some are not, IMO).  Many (such as Tacenda and also many members of my own ward) are struggling and trying to continue believing.  They don't need your judgement here.

I think that 3DOP is giving us a good perspective from someone who has not been taught all their life to revere Joseph Smith.  If anyone came in cold and read how Joseph lived polygamy, they'd most likely come to some of the same conclusions or speculations  They are the same issues that many members have who learn about the details regarding polygamy for the first time (and other things from church history).   Their former image of Joseph Smith is shattered at that point and they have to rebuild it.  Many members are in different stages of this rebuilding.    I also know that some members can learn the details and be just fine with them.  Each member has to figure things out for themselves and be true to their own feelings and beliefs from there.

Edited February 5, 2018 by ALarson

[SteveO]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think I agree with that. It seems to me we find lots of new information each year. Sure some problems are intractable. If one thinks a prophet should never be a racist there's not much to say. However there are new ways to engage with such expectations and whether we should hold them. Likewise to some problems new evidence comes out making things more believable. Look at say Don Bradly coming back to the Church due to his investigation of the 116 pages. A lot of that is new stuff.

I think that’s the whole  point...we have members who are leaving the church over the history, as if it’s “settled”.  It isn’t settled, there’s always new discoveries being made, as you’ve said.  And that’s what I don’t understand why testimonies are being destroyed from a source that is constantly changing and being reassessed.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I said Joseph Smith was perfect. Or that personal perfection is required for a prophet to fulfill a divine calling.

I believe certain godly attributes are necessary -- faith, virtue, humility, diligence, knowledge, temperence, patience, in short, all the qualities enumerated in D&C 4 -- but that doesn't equate to perfection.

Edited to add:

It is not necessary to regard a man as perfect to regard him as great. So, in case anyone wonders, I am fully on board with the words to the hymn "Praise to the Man."

And I fully accept the verity of the prophecy expressed in the last line of my signature below.

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[SteveO]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's not fair.  Just because the issues have had responses given from the leaders, that does not mean they have been resolved for each individual member (or that the answers have been good answers....some are not, IMO).  Many (such as Tacenda and also many members of my own ward) are struggling and trying to continue believing.  They don't need your judgement here.

I think that DCOP is giving us a good perspective of someone who has not been taught all their life to revere Joseph Smith.  That's an issue many have that learn about the details regarding polygamy, and other things from church history that are something new to them when they discover it.   Their image of Joseph Smith is shattered at that point and they have to rebuild it.  Many members are in different stages of this rebuilding.    I also know that some members can learn the details and be just fine about them.  Each member has to figure things out for themselves and be true to their own feelings and beliefs from there.

I said each person can come to different conclusions of the answers provided...I get irritated when people keep pretending the apologetics are silent with no answers to the accusations.  I have seen Tacenda involved in numerous threads regarding polygamy, and each time she acts as if nobody has been able, or willing to provide her with answers.  

She has been given the answers many times.  She may not like them, fine, but she has reached the conclusion she currently holds a while back.  She doesn’t want the answers anymore, she just wants to continue to believe there aren’t any.

[3DOP]

17 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I am a student of history, but a master of no specific history.  I turn a jaundiced eye on almost all history since I read Herodotus - my intent is to say that I am careful about what I think is facts and what is opinion.  

How I enjoy reading the lives the saints and the early church fathers - not because I think what I read is factual, but that they inspire me, teach me, and humble me.  Do I believe that Joseph was a true prophet?  Yes, I do.  Do I believe that Joseph was sealed to several/many women? Yes, I do.  Do I think that he had more than one wife in the traditional sense?  Yes, I think he did and I would put it somewhere between 1 and 5 wives with whom he had sexual relations.  I also think that these relationships were for extremely limited time frames for various reasons.  Do I think that he liked being married to several women?  No, I don't think he did, but I believe that he felt he needed to enter into these relationships.

We should follow the counsel of the Bible in regards to false prophets.  However, if you think that a prophet needs to be perfect before he can retain the calling of a prophet then there were never any prophets.  For me it boils down to do I think that prophets are righteous men?  Yes, I believe that they may sit and eat with sinners and publicans, but their lives reflect the Light of Christ and His righteousness.  Though I have never had a particularly close feeling toward Joseph Smith as the prophet of the restoration, he is a man that I would unequivocally identify as righteous.  

No, I did not watch the film/video and don't plan on doing so.  There is nothing I would learn from it and it does not appear to follow the 13th Article of Faith, "... we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."  

Thanks Storm Rider. I respect your position.

My problem is with those Mormons who believe Joseph Smith was a wife-stealer, and they also believe God told him truly that my church is apostate. Any Mormon who says that Joseph was a righteous man is immune to every criticism I have offered. I can not know what happened and don't take a position. But now that Mormons are apparently divided, I am taking the side to task that seems to me to be vulnerable.

Edited February 5, 2018 by 3DOP

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's not fair.  Just because the issues have had responses given from the leaders, that does not mean they have been resolved for each individual member (or that the answers have been good answers....some are not, IMO). 

 

Something that a sympathizer might say in behalf of a flat-earther.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I said each person can come to different conclusions of the answers provided...I get irritated when people keep pretending the apologetics are silent with no answers to the accusations.  I have seen Tacenda involved in numerous threads regarding polygamy, and each time she acts as if nobody has been able, or willing to provide her with answers.  

She has been given the answers many times.  She may not like them, fine, but she has reached the conclusion she currently holds a while back.  She doesn’t want the answers anymore, she just wants to continue to believe there aren’t any.

SteveO makes a very good point here. Those who think a provided answer is not a good one are themselves obliged to deal with the answer and say why it is not good. It is disingenuous to say the least to act as though no answer at all had been given.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, SteveO said:

I said each person can come to different conclusions of the answers provided...I get irritated when people keep pretending the apologetics are silent with no answers to the accusations.

Has Tacenda made that claim (apologetics are silent")?

 

2 minutes ago, SteveO said:

She has been given the answers many times.  She may not like them, fine, but she has reached the conclusion she currently holds a while back.  She doesn’t want the answers anymore, she just wants to continue to believe there aren’t any.

IMO, I''m with her on many of the polygamy answers given.  They absolutely have not convinced me that polygamy was commanded by God (especially in the manner that Joseph lived it).  There's a difference between claiming that the church has been "silent" and stating that there have been no good answers or no answers that convince many members that polygamy was necessary or righteous.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

I listened carefully to his video twice, and made notes.  I noticed that he uses words like "most" when "many" would be more accurate from a third-party scholarly point of view.  Naturally a lot of people would share strong agreement with many of his assertions, and we can see that regularly on this board.  Trafficking in bad logic (fallacies) is a common mistake for young whippersnappers, as is the tendency to draw conclusions based on reading a couple of non-professional internet sources.  Hopefully he will learn better as he studies more.  At present he is simply parroting what he has read and been told, without critical reflection.  Seems like a very nice guy.  The civilized sort who might make a good husband for your daughter.  However, he has not yet been through the crucible of real life.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Thanks Storm Rider. I respect your position.

My problem is with those Mormons who believe Joseph Smith was a wife-stealer, and they also believe God told him truly that my church is apostate. Any Mormon who says that Joseph was a righteous man is immune to every criticism I have offered. I can not know what happened and don't take a position. But now that Mormons are apparently divided, I am taking the side to task that seems to me to be vulnerable.

And they should be taken to task. I would join you in doing so.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I listened carefully to his video twice, and made notes.  I noticed that he uses words like "most" when "many" would be more accurate from a third-party scholarly point of view.  Naturally a lot of people would share strong agreement with many of his assertions, and we can see that regularly on this board.  Trafficking in bad logic (fallacies) is a common mistake for young whippersnappers, as is the tendency to draw conclusions based on reading a couple of non-professional internet sources.  Hopefully he will learn better as he studies more.  At present he is simply parroting what he has read and been told, without critical reflection.  Seems like a very nice guy.  The civilized sort who might make a good husband for your daughter.  However, he has not yet been through the crucible of real life.

Callow is the time-honored adjective for such an individual.

[SteveO]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Has Tacenda made that claim (apologetics are silent")?

 

IMO, I''m with her on many of the polygamy answers given.  They absolutely have not convinced me that polygamy was commanded by God (especially in the manner that Joseph lived it).  There's a difference between claiming that the church has been "silent" and stating that there have been no good answers or no answers that convince many members that polygamy was necessary or righteous.

I wouldn’t know that, all she did was come in with a snide, Parthian shot, and then leave.  If she had articulated her position as you just did, I wouldn’t feel the need to be the jerk you’re making me out to be at the moment

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I wouldn’t know that, all she did was come in with a snide, Parthian shot, and then leave.  If she had articulated her position as you just did, I wouldn’t feel the need to be the jerk you’re making me out to be at the moment

Ok, I get that.  And, I would not ever think you're a "jerk", I just thought it an "unfair" response.  Not everyone can look at the answers given and think that they are the responses they need or that help where they're at regarding their search for good answers.  Everyone has to figure this out for themselves and I just think we shouldn't judge (from either side).

An example for me are the answers given as to why Joseph married other men's legal wives (especially the wives of men who were members of the church).  There has been nothing provided that convinces me this was necessary for him to do in order to restore the principle of plural marriage.  Nothing makes sense out of why he did that.  I know others can be convinced it was necessary, but I have seen nothing that does that for me.  

Edited February 6, 2018 by ALarson

[Nevo]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And they should be taken to task. I would join you in doing so.

Do you dispute that Joseph Smith married several women who were already married to other men? And that in one or two cases he proposed to women while their husbands were on missions?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

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. 

Well that is certainly a doctrine we could use as well then.

Consider it "done" for me since that is what the Holy Ghost as already confirmed for me.  Scoundrel prophets scoundrel popes- who cares?

I am glad it was an easy one for you.  Being "duped" by interpretations of alleged "history" is always also an easy way out.

So we are on the same strong ground I see.  

[SteveO]

46 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Steve O.

No pretense. I think you misunderstand me.

If you will review my previous comments, I think you will discover that I am only stunned that some Mormons accept the Joseph Smith, "as described in the video", while retaining the belief that he was a true prophet. I have never read anything for or against LDS practices of polygamy. I have interacted here for many years and have never railed against Joseph Smith as a wife stealer when Mormons were denying it.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I got the impression that this young man thinks the worst of Joseph Smith's polygamy. And if Mormons are going to concede the worst accusations made against their Founder and chief Revelator, I am not going to be the one who insists that he was innocent. I'll take what Mormons believe and deal with it. If Mormons in good faith and in offices of authority are permitted to believe that Joseph Smith was a wife stealer, it seems like I should be allowed to at least entertain the idea and offer reasons why I think it is problematic.   

Regards,

Rory 

Here’s the problem as I see l, with videos like this.  You can’t answer these questions in 7 minutes.

As an example, I listened to a talk just today by Tad Callister about the potential for God’s children to become like the Father.

That’s a very radical claim, as I’m sure you know.  But this guy used scripture, logic, and a very articulate talk that laid it all out in over 40 minutes.  Just one subject.

You can’t just say, “yeah Joseph Smith had a lot of wives, and a few were married to other men” and then just leave it at that.

You can’t just say, “yeah, Joseph stuck a rock in a hat and translated the Book of Mormon” and then just leave it at that.

These things have very complex backgrounds, and a lot of scholarship that goes into explaining all of it.  Posting a 7 minute video airing out the laundry, with 3 or 4 minutes telling the viewer to have faith despite it all...eh, just no good 

[mfbukowski]

48 minutes ago, juliann said:

Ha, for sure.  It is why we are all complaining we can't hear the dialogue on TV anymore. 

 

But why, why, why clacking, clinking piano???

And you can run but you can't hide.  

Because it's hard to make a violin clink?

On the other- I know.

I expect the Dannettes to be at my door momentarily.   I am ready.  

A little bruised but ready. 

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by mfbukowski