Why shouldn't they receive confirmation that polygamy is a "true principle"? It is either true or it's false, then and now whether it's currently practiced or not, and the spirit should testify to the truth of it as it was practiced. And if their is no spiritual confirmation to the "true principle" then people can discuss it in any manner they see fit.
I believe that it was a true principle. And I know many others who do too. I think that mormonthink generalized it too much. In other words, they did not tell the truth. Most people never prayed about it at all. That is my take on it.
We are all still waiting for whyme to explain how women get a spiritual confirmation to marry people like Warren Jeffs, Tom Green, etc.
Mary wrote: I read the fair Mormon links you provided, I also send people to fair Mormon (as well as Mormon Think). On the Spalding link, they don't detail the controversies and only dismiss the theory based on 'one' of Spaldings writings, not necessarily the book that Joseph 'may have borrowed from, still unfound but attested to by contemporaries at the time ie Spalding as 'it came to pass' man. Mormon Think on the other hand details the Spalding link without dismissing it yet not necessarily agreeing to it. They deal with the issue in a fairer way in my opinion, based on the complexity of the evidence.
Here is what the Institute manual says about it:
Some critics have suggested that Sidney Rigdon was a principal author of the Book of Mormon. They say that he used a romance by Solomon Spaulding called either Manuscript Found or Manuscript Story as a guide for the historical portions of this work. There is no evidence, however, that Sidney Rigdon knew Joseph Smith before the Book of Mormon was published. Elder Rigdon’s own testimony is that the first time he heard of the book was in October 1830 when a copy was handed to him by Parley P. Pratt (see pages 80–81 of this text). Solomon Spaulding’s manuscript was discovered in the 1880s, and it bears no resemblance to the Book of Mormon. This obviously fabricated yet widely-propounded Spaulding-Rigdon theory is an attempt by Satan to discredit the word of God.
Not bad at all. Of course it would be up to the teacher to fill in the details and answer questions from the young adults.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Themis wrote: We are all still waiting for whyme to explain how women get a spiritual confirmation to marry people like Warren Jeffs, Tom Green, etc.
Did they? However what we know of the women that joseph was sealed to is the following: no one gave a bad accounting of joseph smith. And in the end, that is what is important.
Here is agnes coolbrith:
Agnes wrote to her nephew, Joseph F. Smith: [b]“I acknowledge none greater...than those that belong to the household of Joseph our Dear Dear Dear departed one Joseph...I could say many things to you...that I know and that has been told me by those that are dead and gone but perhaps you would not believe me no I know that you would not so it is best for me to keep silent”. [/b]
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Why shouldn't they receive confirmation that polygamy is a "true principle"? It is either true or it's false, then and now whether it's currently practiced or not, and the spirit should testify to the truth of it as it was practiced. And if their is no spiritual confirmation to the "true principle" then people can discuss it in any manner they see fit.
I believe that it was a true principle. And I know many others who do too. I think that mormonthink generalized it too much. In other words, they did not tell the truth. Most people never prayed about it at all. That is my take on it.
café crema wrote: You still haven't shown what is false at MT.
Well, café, it is rather difficult to prove a woulda, coulda and a shoulda false since they never happened. And like I said, it is all in the interpretation and in the tone. In mormonthink's case, the site is designed to lead members to doubt or leave the church.
Also, as we can see the institute manual is full of details. And it is the same for the translation process. The manual claims that there are contradictory accounts of the translation. It doesn't go into detail but the institute teacher can always ask the class: what are those contradictory accounts....does anyone know? Hands are raised, discussion follows...maybe head in the hat comes to life...the curtain too. No hiding there. Amazing café, isn't it? We can only hope that young people in the catholic church can study their history too.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Themis wrote: We are all still waiting for whyme to explain how women get a spiritual confirmation to marry people like Warren Jeffs, Tom Green, etc.
Did they? However what we know of the women that joseph was sealed to is the following: no one gave a bad accounting of joseph smith. And in the end, that is what is important.
Here is agnes coolbrith:
Agnes wrote to her nephew, Joseph F. Smith: [b]“I acknowledge none greater...than those that belong to the household of Joseph our Dear Dear Dear departed one Joseph...I could say many things to you...that I know and that has been told me by those that are dead and gone but perhaps you would not believe me no I know that you would not so it is best for me to keep silent”. [/b]
Yet another post ignoring why women get spiritual confirmations to marry others like WJ, TG, etc.
café crema wrote: You still haven't shown what is false at MT.
Well, café, it is rather difficult to prove a woulda, coulda and a shoulda false since they never happened. And like I said, it is all in the interpretation and in the tone. In mormonthink's case, the site is designed to lead members to doubt or leave the church.
Also, as we can see the institute manual is full of details. And it is the same for the translation process. The manual claims that there are contradictory accounts of the translation. It doesn't go into detail but the institute teacher can always ask the class: what are those contradictory accounts....does anyone know? Hands are raised, discussion follows...maybe head in the hat comes to life...the curtain too. No hiding there. Amazing café, isn't it? We can only hope that young people in the catholic church can study their history too.
From your repetition of "a woulda, coulda and a shoulda" we can see your claim is groundless. I never said anything about hiding anything, just about your avoiding answering questions asked of you.
Why Me, just because a source is antagonistic toward the church does not mean what they say is false.
However, regarding the FAIR article on the Heber C. Kimball quote, I do think they bring up some valid points that should at least be considered. I have emailed Mormonthink to suggest they add a link to that article on their page.
Cylon wrote:Why Me, just because a source is antagonistic toward the church does not mean what they say is false.
However, regarding the FAIR article on the Heber C. Kimball quote, I do think they bring up some valid points that should at least be considered. I have emailed Mormonthink to suggest they add a link to that article on their page.
Okay, let me try to explain it this way. The site is bias. It is meant to lead people out of the church. There is no balance at all in that site. So, if one is a member and is contributing to that site, one can face disciplinary action. It is really that simple. Now Dave was over zealous when he was hanging out at church and telling people some 'secrets' about church history. Then, when the site is read and his blog, one can get the feeling that the member is not exactly church friendly.
Thus, the problem.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
café crema wrote: From your repetition of "a woulda, coulda and a shoulda" we can see your claim is groundless. I never said anything about hiding anything, just about your avoiding answering questions asked of you.
Actually no. When one reads that site about who could have written the Book of Mormon we get: Joseph, sidney, oliver and parley. All coulda wrote the Book of Mormon. No proof is needed because it is a coulda. Then the site attempts to show plausible reasons why they coulda wrote it. And makes a conclusion that Joseph did nothing special.
Well, if one is a member of the LDS church and one is attempting to sow doubt in members' minds, well...
By the way café, please tell your friends a CAF that the LDS young adult institute manual has much information about LDS history that the young people are learning: polygamy, King Follet, MMM, Book of Mormon authorship theories etc. Okay?
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith