Trib article about the church's recent changes of it's polygamy cartoons for Primary children.

[Teancum]

On 2/24/2025 at 5:11 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Personal observation in the Peterson Group.

I'm positive the AUB is filled with good families.

I am not sure that suffices my request,

On 2/24/2025 at 5:11 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Are you implying the no plural marriage arrangement can be successful and happy?

No I did not imply that at all.  I could not care less if people want to practice plural marriage, non monogamy open marriages and so on. None of that is to my taste.  But if consenting adults agree then great. All relationships are hard and I personally think given the nature of humans that plural marriage or open marriages etc make it much harder to have a successful relationships.  Monogamy, as you noted, is difficult as well and in our society seems to often end in divorce.  I have a problem with plural marriage when it is under a God told me to do it approach and it is used by religious leaders in power to coerce and persuade women to enter into a relationship they otherwise would not, or to promise those of some special reward etc. Also when the top dogs take the most eligible females in the group and leave other men to hang out to dry as is the case with the Warren Jeff's cult and the lost boys. And that is exactly what early plural marriage was in Mormonism.

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

As much and the apologists attempt to defend and explain away the abominable way in which Joseph rolled out plural marriage it will continue to be a albatross around the neck of the church and will be one of the main reasons active members end up rejecting Smith as a prophet. It is so plain to see but a believer must defend it or risk rejecting Joseph's prophetic claims.  I am not sure how the church resolves it. 

Not exactly....

* They could accept the RLDS view that Brigham originated it and foisted it upon Joseph's name after his death, as the Stoneites have done, and try to steady the ark- or caste their lot in with the Restoration Branches people or the Bickertonites.

*They could accept that Joseph taught it which caused him to fall, but doesn't negate his earlier work, and caste their lot in with the Temple Lot people or one of their Elijah Messenger offshoots.

There are options.

Edited February 25, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Teancum]

On 2/23/2025 at 6:53 PM, CV75 said:

Sure, not everyone in the Church believes that plural marriage was restored by God through Joseph Smith.

Better put hardly anyone believes that.

On 2/23/2025 at 6:53 PM, CV75 said:

 

What do you think is the difference between a Church member who expresses this belief in disparaging ways and represents the Church’s simplified representation of the practice in “D&C Stories” as a cartoon about polygamy, and one who shares compelling reasons for not believing in it, in good-faith and promoting unity in the Church?

How about you enlighten us. 

[MustardSeed]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Better put hardly anyone believes that.

Soft CFR 

[Teancum]

On 2/23/2025 at 7:16 PM, CV75 said:

This is a good way to shift focus and ignore the issue: you want to talk about the Church remaining strong vis-a-vis polygamy, and I am addressing it in ways you sidestep and ignore. The strength of the Church is in Christ, and PR on a dozen or more topics you might try to make hay of is hardly relevant -- it doesn't determine how many join or leave. For example, what is the relationship between your faith in Christ, your participation in the Church, and your focus on polygamy?

When you insist on focusing on Church PR as the means for her to "remain strong," at least provide the actual PR material.

I do think the Church responsibly incorporates quality historical scholarship in her teachings while relying on Christ for remaining strong. Others may think differently about timing and strategy, but that is a function of their bias, and they use rationale to make it seem reasonable to others they are trying to sway.

 

If you want to deny that fact that Joseph's plural marriage is not a stumbling block for many active members who have left and investigators who may join oh well. @sunstonednot I can help you.  Many people who find Jesus a compelling religious figure find Jesus and Mormonism's historical plural marriage incompatible. 

[Injeun]

3 hours ago, Senator said:

Care to take a stab at the meaning of the quote I gave in relat n to the your condescension towards MustardSeed?

It's N/A. MS said, more or less, he/she didn't believe it was the true Church. And that the doctrine of polygamy did not come from God. But he/she fancies other parts of the Church, which is faint praise. At any rate, if he/she doesn't believe to begin with, then what is there to which to add. So when you said, I believe, but help my unbelief, you were being disingenuous, bestowing belief where it wasn't, constructing God by doctrine as if he were yet to be. But if he is yet to be, then in what does one believe if not ones own self, displacing God like the man of sin of the apostasy. I wasn't being condescending by reflecting back to MS his/her words to me.

[Injeun]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

If it's true to you and the members of the church, of course.

God is God, regardless what anyone thinks. We find our realization or true life in him, not he in us, or we in our own lives and selves.

[Senator]

12 minutes ago, Injeun said:

It's N/A. MS said, more or less, he/she didn't believe it was the true Church. And that the doctrine of polygamy did not come from God. But he/she fancies other parts of the Church, which is faint praise. At any rate, if he/she doesn't believe to begin with, then what is there to which to add. So when you said, I believe, but help my unbelief, you were being disingenuous, bestowing belief where it wasn't, constructing God by doctrine as if he were yet to be. But if he is yet to be, then in what does one believe if not ones own self, displacing God like the man of sin of the apostasy. I wasn't being condescending by reflecting back to MS his/her words to me.

You have me at a loss for words 

[MustardSeed]

27 minutes ago, Injeun said:

he/she didn't believe it was the true Church.

CFR.  Please provide quote. 

[Injeun]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

If you want to deny that fact that Joseph's plural marriage is not a stumbling block for many active members who have left and investigators who may join oh well. @sunstonednot I can help you.  Many people who find Jesus a compelling religious figure find Jesus and Mormonism's historical plural marriage incompatible. 

Which Jesus is that. There are tens of thousands of different denominations in bible based religion. They each have their own private interpretation of scripture. Which means each with their own gospel, Christ and God. On top of that , they all spring from the testimony of others from thousands of years ago. They have no relationship of their own with God to have words of their own. It's image worship. So what do they know from God to speak to polygamy.

[Rain]

10 hours ago, Injeun said:

So you have no testimony that the Church is Gods true and restored Church.

I suggest you go back and read her posts because nowhere did she say that, nor give that impression. 

10 hours ago, Injeun said:

May I ask if you were born into the Church. I ask because no one converts to a Church with which they disagree unless it is a partial conversion.

 

 

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, Injeun said:

It's N/A. MS said, more or less, he/she didn't believe it was the true Church. And that the doctrine of polygamy did not come from God. But he/she fancies other parts of the Church, which is faint praise. At any rate, if he/she doesn't believe to begin with, then what is there to which to add. So when you said, I believe, but help my unbelief, you were being disingenuous, bestowing belief where it wasn't, constructing God by doctrine as if he were yet to be. But if he is yet to be, then in what does one believe if not ones own self, displacing God like the man of sin of the apostasy. I wasn't being condescending by reflecting back to MS his/her words to me.

Did you not hear the church during the years say we are to work on our testimonies? It isn't a given, it's a continuing process. Give MusterdSeed a break. 

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Teancum said:

If you want to deny that fact that Joseph's plural marriage is not a stumbling block for many active members who have left and investigators who may join oh well. @sunstonednot I can help you.  Many people who find Jesus a compelling religious figure find Jesus and Mormonism's historical plural marriage incompatible. 

I don't see how this relates to my post at all, but glad you got that out of your system  .

[ZealouslyStriving]

14 hours ago, Teancum said:

If you want to deny that fact that Joseph's plural marriage is not a stumbling block for many active members who have left and investigators who may join oh well. @sunstonednot I can help you.  Many people who find Jesus a compelling religious figure find Jesus and Mormonism's historical plural marriage incompatible. 

I appreciate your concern over the Church not being able to reach all it could because of the albatross of polygamy. You clearly have the Church's best interest in mind and want to see it grow and retain it's members.

[Injeun]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Did you not hear the church during the years say we are to work on our testimonies? It isn't a given, it's a continuing process. Give MusterdSeed a break. 

Where is MY break? I didn't challenge anyone. I merely made a post justifying the doctrine of polygamy, directed at no one And my assertion has been challenged by the unbelief of MS, you, and others. What these challenges exhibit is a potpourri of unbelief in the Church, in Joseph Smith, in the general authorities, in doctrine, and in the first vision, as if the divinity of God is that which we bequeath to him, rather than an observation of his rightful place as the most high God. I'm nobody to be saying these things. But if all things work to the good of those who believe, then belief must be the start.

Ones testimony isn't built by unbelief or challenging the testimony of others, but by prayer and spirit, believing. It is personal, not a math equation. You can't form God from doctrine, like Adam from the dirt, and worship the work of your hands or of your own construct.

Paul said that studying scriptures is good for the man of God. He didn't say that studying scriptures will make you a man of God. One must first be a man of God for scriptures to be of proper effect. For instance, if it is said that raw meat is good for a lion. It doesn't mean that eating raw meat will make you a lion. One must first be a man of God or a lion for scripture or raw meat to be of proper effect. So to attempt to approximate one or the other by roaring and pontificating is nothing more than an act. It is fake, and gives rise to Matthews counsel not to be tricked into following false Christs or falsehoods from any angle in the latter days. People of the world say this and that. But who cares what they say. Who are they. What is their righteousness. Where is their proof.

When they say Joseph Smith was a conman, they betray their own deceitfulness. When they say he was a gold digger, they betray their own greed. When they say Polygamy is lustful, they betray their own lust. They are projectionists, laying their sins on the behavior of the upright as if they could divine the intentions of the heart. But it's the sins within their own hearts which they betray. The Church's accusers are themselves guilty of their every fault levied against the Church. Is the Church and its members perfect? No. But it is on the covenant path. It is Gods true Church. And like Jesus himself, it is whipped and flogged unto the overcoming of all things. So we are to bear it. I laugh at and mock the mockers, not by my own strength, but because God has already borne it. He is with us. It is his work in which we are allowed the luxury of participation in whatever our circumstance and capacity. 

I gleefully align myself with Joseph Smith, because without him I wouldn't know that God lives and that my true life is in him or in his spirit rather than in myself and my life alone. So as God is our God, then Joseph Smith is his instrument to bring about his purposes. Among men, all the good the Church does is because of Joseph Smith.

[MrShorty]

On 2/23/2025 at 12:27 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

So what else from Doctrine and Covenants 132 should we toss out?

No, there really is no alternative. Either the Church is true with it's stalwart pioneer "polygamists" doing what the Lord instructed or it's not. If this isn't the true Church, there is nothing else out there and I should just join some of the participants here in their rejection of God and any real significant purpose to life.

With a lull in the conversation, I will pick up this tangent. I know we are generally uncomfortable with "cafeteria Mormonism" and we generally dislike the idea of navigating the slippery slope between "it's all true" and "it's all false." IMO, though, if we are to help ourselves develop a resilient faith, we need to figure out how to help people navigate these waters.

The problem I see when we insist that it must all be true is that our testimony effectively becomes a house of cards. It only takes one thing that we cannot reconcile with our sense of right and wrong to completely destabilize destroy our testimony. I think we get a sturdier testimony when we figure out how to interrogate scripture in a way that allows us to reject the parts that we cannot reconcile with the nature of God while accepting the parts that we can and retaining a sense that scripture is still true even if imperfect. The same applies to prophets and apostles and God's people in general. In the spirit of "doing hard things," I think it is valuable for us to do the hard work of navigating scriptural errancy and prophetic fallibility, figuring out how to find handholds and footholds on the slippery slope between "it's all true" and "it's all false."

[MustardSeed]

22 minutes ago, Injeun said:

Where is MY break?

we have rules here. Rather than playing the victim it’s important that you respond to my CFR immediately.

[ZealouslyStriving]

16 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

With a lull in the conversation, I will pick up this tangent. I know we are generally uncomfortable with "cafeteria Mormonism" and we generally dislike the idea of navigating the slippery slope between "it's all true" and "it's all false." IMO, though, if we are to help ourselves develop a resilient faith, we need to figure out how to help people navigate these waters.

The problem I see when we insist that it must all be true is that our testimony effectively becomes a house of cards. It only takes one thing that we cannot reconcile with our sense of right and wrong to completely destabilize destroy our testimony. I think we get a sturdier testimony when we figure out how to interrogate scripture in a way that allows us to reject the parts that we cannot reconcile with the nature of God while accepting the parts that we can and retaining a sense that scripture is still true even if imperfect. The same applies to prophets and apostles and God's people in general. In the spirit of "doing hard things," I think it is valuable for us to do the hard work of navigating scriptural errancy and prophetic fallibility, figuring out how to find handholds and footholds on the slippery slope between "it's all true" and "it's all false."

I won't go into my background, but rest assured my testimony of the Restored Gospel is not a house of cards.

The "if it's not true" was purely hypothetical. But if such a thing were possible, other "Christianities" would not be viable alternatives.

[MrShorty]

34 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The "if it's not true" was purely hypothetical. But if such a thing were possible, other "Christianities" would not be viable alternatives.

I don't know how far to pursue the tangent, but I find this so very fascinating. At times (like when Elder Callister said something similar), it almost seems as if we wear this "Mormonism ruins people for other religions" as if it is a badge of honor.

At times, when I have been evangelized by anti-Mormon Christians, I have sometimes felt like they don't care what I believe, as long as I renounce Mormonism. (MRM has an article about this on their website, if one wanted to search it out).

I can't tell if this is something that is "right and good and true" or if it is more like a kind of schoolyard one-upmanship, but I find it so interesting that we sometimes give the impression that we don't care what people believe, as long as it's not the same as these other people we don't like.

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I don't know how far to pursue the tangent, but I find this so very fascinating. At times (like when Elder Callister said something similar), it almost seems as if we wear this "Mormonism ruins people for other religions" as if it is a badge of honor.

At times, when I have been evangelized by anti-Mormon Christians, I have sometimes felt like they don't care what I believe, as long as I renounce Mormonism. (MRM has an article about this on their website, if one wanted to search it out).

I can't tell if this is something that is "right and good and true" or if it is more like a kind of schoolyard one-upmanship, but I find it so interesting that we sometimes give the impression that we don't care what people believe, as long as it's not the same as these other people we don't like.

For me it's all about what they believe, not that I just want to neener-neener them and be oppositional.

The Creedist god absolutely terrifies me:

* He/It is either a god who couldn't plan far enough ahead that a majority of people who have ever lived are condemned to some torturous hell because they never had the slightest opportunity to "accept Christ into their hearts".

or...

He so capricious that he/it actually chose the winners and losers before he/it ever created anything and you are just stuck with that decision with no chance of changing it. If you are hell bound you are hell bound, nothing you can do about it buddy.

I could never worship either version of the Creedist "god".

[Senator]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The "if it's not true" was purely hypothetical. But if such a thing were possible, other "Christianities" would not be viable alternatives.

I don't know if that is entirely true. I think Jesus seems to grant some viability in them.

 

⁴⁹ And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

⁵⁰ And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Soft CFR 

I am not sure how I can give you a reference on this.  Do you think there are substantial non LDS persons  in the world who believe Mormon polygamy was really a revelation given to Joseph Smith?

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Injeun said:

Which Jesus is that. There are tens of thousands of different denominations in bible based religion. They each have their own private interpretation of scripture. Which means each with their own gospel, Christ and God. On top of that , they all spring from the testimony of others from thousands of years ago. They have no relationship of their own with God to have words of their own. It's image worship. So what do they know from God to speak to polygamy.

Well you take your pic. I think Jesus was likely a wonderful human if we can believe the non divine things the bible attributes to him.  I doubt he is the God Christianity made him into.  But how about we go with the guy that said Love God with all your heart and treat your neighbor like you want to be treated.  Mormon Polygamy does not seem to meet either of those unless you are really convinced some god commanded it, which some god did not. It all comes from the fertile mind and imagination of Joseph Smith.  

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don't see how this relates to my post at all, but glad you got that out of your system  .

To be honest I was having trouble understanding your comment.  🙃

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I appreciate your concern over the Church not being able to reach all it could because of the albatross of polygamy. You clearly have the Church's best interest in mind and want to see it grow and retain it's members.

I really don't care either way. I have no goal to bring people into Mormonism nor take then out.