Hamba Tuhan Posted September 3, 2021 Posted September 3, 2021 3 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said: It was discussed with your teacher cuz it was their hobby or was this stuff in the manual? Stuff like marrying two sisters behind Emma’s back for example. I honestly don't remember any manuals. If we had manuals, I never read them. For me, trying to stay on top of my academic studies was something that took nearly every waking hour, six days per week. My instructor was Kenneth Godfrey. Nothing we discussed in class surprised or shocked me. I don't remember any of it surprising or shocking anyone else, either.
Calm Posted September 3, 2021 Posted September 3, 2021 (edited) 21 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said: Cfr. Show me one manual that has all of the issues I mentioned. For your reference I have re posted them below: ***looks like the current manual mentions much of this. So young adults right now are hearing it. What about in the 1980s since you say this has been taught since the 70s? “Most Mormons don’t know Joseph smith married up to forty women, other men’s wives, a 14 year old girl, a mom and daughter combo and a pair of sisters and women who were currently married to other living men. Also most dont know Emma was sealed to Joseph after he married about a dozen or more of them. Most Mormons also don’t know Joseph made a deal for Emma to pick a couple wives for him and she picked the sisters. Oddly enough he was already married to them because he was running this whole mess on the down low.” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/saints-v1/36-incline-them-to-gather?lang=eng I was referring to your first comment about knowledge of parents, I never claimed that the Institute manuals had detailed info about all the issues. The Fullness of Times did not have great coverage…never claimed it did, but it did mention Joseph practicing plural marriage briefly. Quote interesting part would be to see how many parents whisk their kids away from them while telling them Joseph smith didn’t have a bunch of wives. I’m betting most would do that. From the Church History in the Fullness of Times Quote Around the fall of 1840, Joseph had begun speaking with twenty-five-year-old Louisa Beaman about the practice. Louisa’s family had been among the first to believe in the Book of Mormon and embrace the restored gospel. After her parents died, she had moved in with her older sister Mary and her sister’s husband, Bates Noble, a veteran of the Camp of Israel.22 Bates was present during Joseph’s discussions with Louisa about plural marriage.23 “In revealing this to you, I have placed my life in your hands,” Joseph told him. “Do not in an evil hour betray me to my enemies.”24 Sometime later, Joseph proposed marriage to Louisa. She left no record of how she reacted to the offer, or when or why she accepted it. But on the evening of April 5, 1841, the day before general conference, Joseph met Louisa and Bates for the ceremony. Authorized by Joseph, Bates sealed the two together, repeating back the words of the ordinance as Joseph spoke them to him.25 I have the prior manuals on my shelf as my husband took the class in mid 70s and I have posted multiple times here the details. I will get around to posting them later, not in the mood to go dig them out right now. Iirc 6 of his wives were mentioned in it and it included Emma having problems with Joseph over it. But it probably doesn’t cover all the issues you mentioned. Edited September 3, 2021 by Calm 1
secondclasscitizen Posted September 3, 2021 Posted September 3, 2021 (edited) 8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I honestly don't remember any manuals. If we had manuals, I never read them. For me, trying to stay on top of my academic studies was something that took nearly every waking hour, six days per week. My instructor was Kenneth Godfrey. Nothing we discussed in class surprised or shocked me. I don't remember any of it surprising or shocking anyone else, either. The church lesson manuals are how the church gets out the message it wants every member to know. Correlation. If someone had a hobby with church history then yes they will learn this stuff and spread it around to like their seminary class for example. kinda like the tanners badgering the church about the hidden 1832 first vision account. Church finally gave it to some guy in the 60s I think and he wrote a paper on it. Wasn’t till the essays came out that pretty much any Mormon ever learned about it. Even FAiR acknowledged that was hidden from the membership for a long time. Why hide it? Doesn’t support the narrative is why. Telling members the nauvoo expositor was telling the truth and not “ viscous lies” is also taboo to talk about. There are only like two members who have ever even read it like you and calm probably. Everyone else believes it was chock full of lies just like the church told them. Problem is that assertion is a lie yet it is probably in many lesson manuals still. on edit.. it is still there https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/primary-5-doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history/lesson-37?lang=eng Edited September 3, 2021 by secondclasscitizen
Bernard Gui Posted September 3, 2021 Posted September 3, 2021 15 hours ago, Chum said: It's a metaphor. Right.
Chum Posted September 3, 2021 Posted September 3, 2021 6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Right. Hang on. Checking my own head... Yep. I was using soul as an endearing form of person.
bOObOO Posted September 3, 2021 Posted September 3, 2021 1 hour ago, Chum said: Hang on. Checking my own head... Yep. I was using soul as an endearing form of person. Members don't convert persons, either, regardless of what term for person you may want to use. God does the converting. Or he is who we credit for the conversion of our soul from that of a sinner to a saint, at least. At most we only make good points that lead someone to ponder and pray until God helps that other person to see that, Hey, that was a pretty good point and now I can see what the truth is on this issue! And then say something like: Thank you, God! Whereas before I was blind, now I can see! Thank you for helping me! as that person then takes another step in the process of conversion.
Chum Posted September 3, 2021 Posted September 3, 2021 46 minutes ago, bOObOO said: Members don't convert persons, either, regardless of what term for person you may want to use *sigh* I suppose you missed the memo where I said I didn't convert anyone.
Bernard Gui Posted September 4, 2021 Posted September 4, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Chum said: Hang on. Checking my own head... Yep. I was using soul as an endearing form of person. Right. ”I know when we members compare how many souls we've converted, my numbers are negative.” Please explain. Edited September 4, 2021 by Bernard Gui
Chum Posted September 4, 2021 Posted September 4, 2021 51 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: ”I know when we members compare how many souls we've converted, my numbers are negative.” Please explain. People left the Church, cited me as their reason.
Calm Posted September 4, 2021 Posted September 4, 2021 17 minutes ago, Chum said: People left the Church, cited me as their reason. Do you believe them?
Chum Posted September 4, 2021 Posted September 4, 2021 1 minute ago, Calm said: Do you believe them? I believe they believed it. Their life was profoundly difficult and in that place it was hard to see everything clearly. We were friends and I imagine some of the help I gave wasn't especially helpful - I'm not clear which was which tho. It's the nature of risk taking that I never get it all right. 1
Calm Posted September 4, 2021 Posted September 4, 2021 55 minutes ago, Chum said: It's the nature of risk taking that I never get it all right Who does? But better to try imo than do nothing out of fear of making mistakes.
Chum Posted September 4, 2021 Posted September 4, 2021 3 minutes ago, Calm said: Who does? But better to try imo than do nothing out of fear of making mistakes. Oh I agree. We can't learn from nothing and things blowing up in my face tend to be dedicated teachers. 1
Chum Posted September 4, 2021 Posted September 4, 2021 5 minutes ago, Calm said: Who does? That couple really did win the brutal life awards. She had genuine DID, which is fairly rare. That stemmed from a relative who had mistreated her as a child - and that relative was now (then) watching their kids. Her husband simply wasn't equipped for what he had in front of him. His poor judgment (in this) was mostly a testimony to how utterly freaking overwhelmed they were. Hopefully their anger at me also came with some strength to get a better foothold. 1
Mike Drop Posted September 4, 2021 Posted September 4, 2021 On 8/30/2021 at 2:31 PM, Christian Mormon said: I was wondering if I should expect critics to show up at the open house for the Casper Wyoming temple when ithen it gets completed in about 5 years You should be happy critics have the costitutional right to protest outside temple grounds. The freedom they have to protest is the same freedom Joseph Smith started a religion with. Besides, it could be worse. They could be sending their representatives onto private property to knock on millions of front doors to spread the one and only true gospel message. Just be glad the protesters haven’t figured that out yet.
Chum Posted September 4, 2021 Posted September 4, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Mike Drop said: You should be happy critics have the costitutional right to protest outside temple grounds. The freedom they have to protest is the same freedom Joseph Smith started a religion with. Besides, it could be worse. They could be sending their representatives onto private property to knock on millions of front doors to spread the one and only true gospel message. Just be glad the protesters haven’t figured that out yet. There are about zero Latter Day Saints that aren't happy with the rights of temple protesters to protest. Now if that ever changes, you'll know it. Temple protests would be rebranded as riots. What saints are concerned with is the animosity and disdaint that drove protesters to our houses of worship. Edited September 4, 2021 by Chum
secondclasscitizen Posted September 4, 2021 Posted September 4, 2021 1 hour ago, Mike Drop said: You should be happy critics have the costitutional right to protest outside temple grounds. The freedom they have to protest is the same freedom Joseph Smith started a religion with. Besides, it could be worse. They could be sending their representatives onto private property to knock on millions of front doors to spread the one and only true gospel message. Just be glad the protesters haven’t figured that out yet. This right here^^^^ my neighborhood which is about 30-40% Mormon has a Facebook page. Any time we have door to door sales in the area posts start popping up warning everyone. They also warn of our missionaries as well. No one is amused they keep stopping by. The commentary is telling. Also those are the posts none of the Mormons even respond to so the back and forth chatter is pretty interesting. We are not as respected by non members as many of us tell ourselves we are. They are doing this openly so they know the Mormons see it all.
Bernard Gui Posted September 4, 2021 Posted September 4, 2021 13 hours ago, Chum said: People left the Church, cited me as their reason. Thanks. I wonder how many of us rack up the number of souls we’ve “converted.”
Bernard Gui Posted September 4, 2021 Posted September 4, 2021 (edited) 6 hours ago, Mike Drop said: You should be happy critics have the costitutional right to protest outside temple grounds. The freedom they have to protest is the same freedom Joseph Smith started a religion with. Besides, it could be worse. They could be sending their representatives onto private property to knock on millions of front doors to spread the one and only true gospel message. Just be glad the protesters haven’t figured that out yet. Well, it was worse for those Saints in Cane Creek, Tennessee. They could be riding onto private property in order to shoot up the place. Of course, unlike those rowdy 19th-century yahoos, 2021 protests never get out of control. https://amateurmormonhistorian.blogspot.com/2008/07/cane-creek-massacre.html Edited September 4, 2021 by Bernard Gui 1
Chum Posted September 4, 2021 Posted September 4, 2021 24 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Thanks. I wonder how many of us rack up the number of souls we’ve “converted.” How come? You want to have a word with them? I might be able to set something up.
Popular Post Amulek Posted September 4, 2021 Popular Post Posted September 4, 2021 3 hours ago, Mike Drop said: You should be happy critics have the costitutional right to protest outside temple grounds. I haven't seen anyone say differently. There's a difference between being grateful for the protections offered by First Amendment and being happy about some particular speech. I can be happy someone has the right to say whatever they please while simultaneously thinking they are an obnoxious jerk for actually saying it. 5
Chum Posted September 4, 2021 Posted September 4, 2021 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Amulek said: I haven't seen anyone say differently. There's a difference between being grateful for the protections offered by First Amendment and being happy about some particular speech. I can be happy someone has the right to say whatever they please while simultaneously thinking they are an obnoxious jerk for actually saying it. I'm not clear why @Mike Drop introduced that notion into the conversation - falsely inferring that saints aren't happy with protestors 1A protections. Edited September 4, 2021 by Chum
Bernard Gui Posted September 4, 2021 Posted September 4, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Chum said: How come? You want to have a word with them? I might be able to set something up. No thanks. I tend to wanna avoid such folks. Edited September 4, 2021 by Bernard Gui
Chum Posted September 4, 2021 Posted September 4, 2021 24 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: No thanks. I tend to wanna avoid such folks. Understood.
JLHPROF Posted September 4, 2021 Posted September 4, 2021 2 hours ago, Chum said: I'm not clear why @Mike Drop introduced that notion into the conversation - falsely inferring that saints aren't happy with protestors 1A protections. Because he's new at this. Amateur critic. Most saints I know think the protesters are amusing. It's not the best attitude but there's a feeling of superiority when dealing with them..."aww poor deluded souls fighting God's work". We tend to pity protesters, and that greatly reduces their impact. 3
Recommended Posts