A little help--Why am I so bothered by the misleading

[_solomarineris]

I am setting myself up a little, here, possibly, for some shots, but I can take them.

As some of you will remember, I am a Church-going high priest who has had a hell of a year and a half or so learning all that I never knew (although I should have learned it in seminary or at the MTC according to some) about Church history, including all of the controvesial issues, etc. etc.

I really think, at this point, I have a pretty broad knowledge of all of the "issues" and, if I wanted to, I could bring a whole lot more people in the state of utter confusion that I have been in. However, such is not my interest. I am still contemplating the what it all means to me, my testimony, my life, etc.

But, on to the issue for this thread, I get so irritated when I see any attempt by the church to mislead. Seriously, like with this polygamy thing, the fact that the Church states over and over again that it stopped the practice in 1890 when it knows full well that this is completely false. Somebody please tell me how the church justifies making such a blatantly false statement --and not only that, but making such a blatantly false statement while at the same time admonishing the press arrogantly that it must report what the church wants it to report.

When I settle down a bit, and reflect, I wonder why it angers me the way it does. I think it should be a much bigger deal to others than it is. Why is it such a big deal to me? Of course, I should know that better than you, but maybe some of you have had this response to similar things in the past???

I have a good friend in town, he is almost sixty, 5th generation Mormon, went on a mission, later found out bits by bits the BS of the scam through self reasoning (not by investigation).
He asked me how did I find out the "Untruth?". I gave him a puzzled look; "comeon now haven't you ever heard of Sandra Tanner, that famous woman in 13S W Temple?". My jaw dropped as he said "No". This guy, reasonably well educated fellow did not know Apostate Tanner's?

How Mormon's fail to investigate what Church claims to be? More than half of them regularly do and still swallow that garbage. Some investigate.
I suggest stop banging your head up the wall and do the best with rest of your life.
Another words, don't take it too personal.
You were not the only one.

[_rcrocket]

What is the "Church?" If it is the President of the Church, he told the members to stop practicing plural marriage in 1890 and he stopped the practice himself. He stopped cohabiting with his plural wives.

You are wrong on both counts. He himself took at least one more plural wife after the Manifesto.

We've been through this before. There were posthumous sealings, at least one I know of.

[_rcrocket]

Bob, if only the church's dishonesty could be isolated to a few rogue apostles and stake presidents. But alas, the dishonesty in the church regarding its history is ubiquitous:

http://www.mormonthink.com/lying.htm

For me, like mms and truth dancer, the widespread dishonesty and deceptiveness of the church was a MUCH bigger problem than the rest of the issues.

I looked at your link and saw nothing pertaining to post-manifesto marriages. I can really only deal with one subject at a time. I have limited time. My original post goes unchallenged by anybody on this board, except Shades. Shades is wrong. He can not cite to proof for his point.

[_rcrocket]

Seriously, like with this polygamy thing, the fact that the Church states over and over again that it stopped the practice in 1890 when it knows full well that this is completely false.

You're just reading and hearing what you want to hear that's negative.

What is the "Church?" If it is the President of the Church, he told the members to stop practicing plural marriage in 1890 and he stopped the practice himself. He stopped cohabiting with his plural wives. He also tore down the endowment house which was the only lawful place in the Salt Lake Valley to perform plural marriages.

If the "Church" is just the aggregate of the members themselves, some stopped cohabiting with their existing wives and some did not. Some couldn't believe what they were hearing and chose to parse Pres. Woodruff's words to achieve a meaning other than what he intended. At least two apostles and many stake presidents were guilty of that.

There is certainly evidence of some post 1890 plural marriages. But, they were not sanctioned by the President of the Church, and before that time they had to be so sanctioned. My own great grandfather was married three times by either an apostle or a stake president after 1890, but eventually the Church caught up to him and he was excommunicated along with his wives. Did the "Church" marry him? I suppose, if you count apostles and stake presidents who disagreed with Pres. Woodruff. But it was also the "Church" who disciplined. According to family tradition (my grandfather was about ten years old when these marriages occurred), my great-grandfather knew he was getting married in opposition to the general directives of the Church. I'm sure that many other marriages after 1890 were in the same vein.

Are you a lawyer? Because this sounds like Pres. Clinton talking about it all depending on what the word "is" is. Seriously let's say it is a company and the CEO says "we are now stopping that practice (whatever it might be)" and then, for fifteen years, the CFO, COO, various VP's etc. continue the practice on behalf of the company. Can the CEO of the company really claim later that the company stopped the practice when he said it would stop?

The"Church" is not Pres Woodruff alone. So claiming that the Church stopped the practice is to any informed person a complete, blatant and utter falsehood. Period. It is entirely beyond dispute and to dispute it makes little sense considering the vast evidence that came out (which the Church tried to stop from coming out). Yet, the Church continues to make the false claim and does so while telling others to be "more accurate." Uggghhhhhhhhhh. The arrogance is mind-boggling.

The fact that people who require nothing but total honesty from their members before such members will be permitted, for example, to attend the wedding of their child, would be so willing to over and over again make such an obvious and calculated false statement really gets to me.

Then, by courageous and resign. I would if I believed what you believed.

The fact that I am a lawyer should have no impact upon what I have said. You claim it a falsehood but I see no facts to refute my statement.

[_bcspace]

I find the explaination here (short version) to be perfectly reasonable...

http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_after_the_Manifesto

I really don't think it unreasonable to mark 1890 as the end of plural marriage even though there was a limited practice of it for a time afterwards. They were still trying to test constitutionality of it and did not feel the need to officialize it lest it turn out to be something they could disregard. The analagous WoW example is a good one.

[_Jason Bourne]

Then, by courageous and resign. I would if I believed what you believed.

I politely submit that you really have no idea what you would do if your faith and testimony started to unravel. I used to be just like you Bob. Hard nose, toe the line, kick the damn apostates out, if you had a spine you would resign. Such attitudes have come back to haunt me now that perhaps I do not see things as cut and dry as I once did. Maybe you would reign, maybe you would not.

I still find it odd though that a bishop so strongly encourages people to resign. Do you do this with members of your ward that may come to you with real and honest questions?

[_Jason Bourne]

The fact that I am a lawyer should have no impact upon what I have said. You claim it a falsehood but I see no facts to refute my statemt

From Van Wagoner's Mormon Polygamy:

Page 155-156:

Eleven general authorities, including Heber J. Grant, fathered 76 children by 27 plural wives during the years 1890-1905. Though Grant had children by only one wife after 1890, he pled guilty to a charge of unlawful cohabitation in 18999 and was fined $100 (SLC Tribune, 9 Sept. 1899). in adddition he leate reportedly sought permission from Joseph F. Smith to marry Fanny Woolley as a post-Manifesto wife. Smith refused Grant's request. Thus the future church president was one of the few members of the heirarchy who neither took a post-Manifesto plural wife nor sealed others in plural marriage-see footnote 6.

Footnote 6 states:

President Wilford Woodruff, John W. Taylor, Brigham Young Jr., Mattthias Cowley, George Teasdale, Marriner W. Merrill, Abraham H. Cannon and Abraham O. Woodruff were post-Manifesto polygamists. In addition, George Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith, John Henry Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Heber J Grant either approved of or performed plural marriages after 1890. For details of these marriage ceremonies, see Quinn 1985, Cannon 1983; 27-41; and Jorganson and Hardy 1980, 10-19. The Joseph Eckersley Journal , 2-6 Sept. 1903 implies that Apostle F.M. Lyman was the lone apostle who interpreted the Manifesto as banning new polygamy, and "he was not in harmony with the rest of the apostles on the subject.

For more detail you can read the entire chapter in this book on post Manifesto Polygamy. Pages153-163

[_mcjathan]

Bob, if only the church's dishonesty could be isolated to a few rogue apostles and stake presidents. But alas, the dishonesty in the church regarding its history is ubiquitous:

http://www.mormonthink.com/lying.htm

For me, like mms and truth dancer, the widespread dishonesty and deceptiveness of the church was a MUCH bigger problem than the rest of the issues.

I looked at your link and saw nothing pertaining to post-manifesto marriages. I can really only deal with one subject at a time. I have limited time. My original post goes unchallenged by anybody on this board, except Shades. Shades is wrong. He can not cite to proof for his point.

If you saw nothing pertaining to post-manifesto marriages, then you didn't put much effort into reading the link, Bob. Look at items 55-62.

by the way, dismissing everything else in that link with a wave of your hand simply illustrates why so many of us have left the church. Back when I was still a believer struggling to maintain my testimony in the face of such damning facts, nobody in the church, and nobody in my 5th generation Mormon family was willing to get their hands dirty and help me address these facts head-on. Instead, I was essentially told not to worry my pretty little head over those disturbing anti-mormon lies. God help any of your own children or grandchildren, Bob, if they ever have any sincere questions. Will you be so dismissive of them? Will you simply dismiss their sincere concerns and declare victory and tell them to stop being cowards and resign?

[_antishock8]

Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls an "iron curtain" between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals. -Aldous Huxley

[_mms]

Then, b[e] courageous and resign. I would if I believed what you believed.

To be clear, then, if you believed the church was making false statements about polygamy, you would resign your membership?

How, then, do you reconcile all of the false statements made from 1835 to the early 1840's re polygamy to both the membership, the public and government officials? should this information not be enough for you to resign your membership? is there a different standard of honesty today than there was then?

I will cosnider your encouragement to resign and really think about whether my views re the chruch's statements result in the logical conclusion that if I had "courage" I would resign. Indeed, I think that you are actually the first active member (and certainly the first Bishop) I have seen to equate "courage" with "resign[ation]". If you think people should resign over a belief that the church makes false statements re polygamy, you think a whole lot of people should resign (e.g., many view the church's distancing itself from polygamy as deceitful in that several of its apostles are currently married to more than one wife for all eternity and men are married to more than one wife regularly in temples --marriage is not for time only, is it?)