Is this possible? How?

[_Ten Bear]

So, you misunderstood my point in two key ways.
...
So, again, you misunderstood my point in this key way.
...
so you got that wrong as well...you misundertood my point in a number of key ways
...

I'm curiuos. In your opinion, does anyone EVER understand you? It seems to me that the majority of your posts sound like the above. Perhaps it's time you look at how you say things, to make them more understandable to everyone here. (ie., if everyone is always misunderstanding you, does that say something about everyone else, or YOU?).

Oh, mercy. Help, I can't stop laughing! How true.

[_Dr. Shades]

I'm curiuos. In your opinion, does anyone EVER understand you? It seems to me that the majority of your posts sound like the above. Perhaps it's time you look at how you say things, to make them more understandable to everyone here. (ie., if everyone is always misunderstanding you, does that say something about everyone else, or YOU?).

It's not that at all. In Wade's mind, "disagree with" automatically equals "misunderstand."

[_wenglund]

But the point I bolded above I can't wrap my head around, and please correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you are saying. For Joseph to be caught in so many lies, inconsistencies, sexcapades, etc...all behaviors one would think are grossly against principles and morals of Christianity...how can anybody know these things about him and have their testimony strengthened?????? I would guess that most people today lead more honest and integrous lives than Joseph -- whether "religious" or not!"

It is not so much that you are misinterpreting things, it is just that the way you framed your question inadvertantly ignores your prior acknowledgement about members seeing things different. Your question presupposes things that are open to question and differences of opinion. For example, your question presuppose that Joseph was "caught in so many lies". Whereas, I see him on certain occasions being wisely and appropriately discrete. Your question presupposes Joseph as having been caught in "sexcapades", whereas I see the evidence pointing to mere "sealings". Your question presupposes that Joseph's behaviors were "grossly against the principles and morals of Christianity", and while I see some measure of humanity in the man, on balance, I consider him of to be of high and respedctable moral character, and an admirable example of Christianity. Your question presupposes that your personal perceptions of these things are facts (i.e. things than are "known"), whereas they are actually your opinion and belief (which you are entitled to).

Granted, were members to interpret the historical data the way you have, it would make sense were they to draw the same conclusions you have--though even your own interpretations of the data don't necessitate the conclusions you have come to. Others can interpret the evidence the way you do, and still consider Joseph to have been a prophet of God, and the restored gospel of Christ as true.

But, I think it helpful to understand that, particularly given the marked lack of diffinitive historical data, there will rightly be a broad range of ways to reasonably interpret the data, and thus a broad range of reasonable conclusions to come to. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_krose]

I don't know if it increases my faith in the Gospel but it increases faith in my ability to succeed in it. When in my late teens I stopped trying to divide the world into good and bad guys the scriptures started coming alive.

Nephi could be a bully, Captain Moroni had a temper, both Almas were naïve, Mormon was rash, Jacob favored one wife over the other, Moses could be impatient, Elijah liked to jeer, Jeremiah tried to quit, Hezekiah feared death too much, Joseph Smith was easily offended and overly confident in his plans, Brigham Young was overly authoritarian, and down the line till today.

Are you able to criticize current leaders in the same way, such as "Hinckley is overly concerned about PR in his media comments?" I'm not saying you must. It just appears to me that fallibility only seems to apply to previous prophets, not the current one.

[_Moniker]

Here is what rcrocket said in response to a few of my comments as it related to Church history:

I think it should be more proactive with teaching the history so no one is startled. And that's all.

On the issue of being startled about polygamy, and the obligation to teach the truth, I agree. For that reason, I was startled when I learned that Joseph Fielding Smith's Essentials in Church History taught that Joseph Smith had multiple wives.

I am also shocked that the Sesquicentennial Project's volume dedicated to the Nauvoo Era (Glenn Leonard, Nauvoo), although not exactly a Church publication started out as one and is published by BYU Press, goes into some detail about Joseph Smith's wives. I was really shocked and surprised that the Church of all folks, or at least BYU, would be so "proactive." Really, I was startled.

And then, there was the Church's 19th Century publication in the Deseret News of affidavits of former wives of Joseph Smith, offered to refute Emma's claim that Joseph didn't practice plural marriage. Come on -- the Deseret News? What was the Church thinking in making such disclosures?

And then there was the Church's historian, who in 1979 published a book used as a textbook at BYU and Institute classes. L. Arrington, The Mormon Experience. Talking all about Joseph Smith's polygamy. Dang it; how stupified I was by this disclosure too!!! Never mind the fact that the church authorized the publication of the Journal of Discourses where this is referenced repeatedly. What is the Church thinking? Damn it -- why all this need to astound and startle me?

Oh oh oh -- the Encylopedia of Mormonism, and its entry on Plural Marriage. Now, there is a publication with full Church sanction. How dumbfounded I was to be so startled about the teaching of Joseph Smith's wives. Gag; I'm going to vomit with all my startling revelations.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 884#109884

Wade, do you agree with crocket that it is up to the members to educate themselves when it comes to the Church? I would think that might not be too wise from just a cursory glance at the angst of some ex-LDS here that completely lost their faith when confronted with the history.

Should the Church be more proactive? What do you think might happen when an individual has been told that certain things are "anti-mormon lies" and then finds out that the "anti-mormon liars" were not the ones deceiving?

[_BishopRic]

But the point I bolded above I can't wrap my head around, and please correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you are saying. For Joseph to be caught in so many lies, inconsistencies, sexcapades, etc...all behaviors one would think are grossly against principles and morals of Christianity...how can anybody know these things about him and have their testimony strengthened?????? I would guess that most people today lead more honest and integrous lives than Joseph -- whether "religious" or not!"

It is not so much that you are misinterpreting things, it is just that the way you framed your question inadvertantly ignores your prior acknowledgement about members seeing things different. Your question presupposes things that are open to question and differences of opinion. For example, your question presuppose that Joseph was "caught in so many lies". Whereas, I see him on certain occasions being wisely and appropriately discrete. Your question presupposes Joseph as having been caught in "sexcapades", whereas I see the evidence pointing to mere "sealings". Your question presupposes that Joseph's behaviors were "grossly against the principles and morals of Christianity", and while I see some measure of humanity in the man, on balance, I consider him of to be of high and respedctable moral character, and an admirable example of Christianity. Your question presupposes that your personal perceptions of these things are facts (I.e. things than are "known"), whereas they are actually your opinion and belief (which you are entitled to).

Granted, were members to interpret the historical data the way you have, it would make sense were they to draw the same conclusions you have--though even your own interpretations of the data don't necessitate the conclusions you have come to.

Okay, so far I'm with you....and even though I strongly disagree that the evidence doesn't point to "my interpretations," I better understand your comments.

Others can interpret the evidence the way you do, and still consider Joseph to have been a prophet of God, and the restored gospel of Christ as true.

This is where I really get lost. I really don't see how a man that lies to his wife about his "other wives," sends men on missions and hooks up with their wives (and lies about it), claims to have abilities to translate things, then is caught in a trap of claims of antiquity (Kinderhook plates), etc., can be viewed by ANYBODY as a prophet of God. After all, these are the exact same behavioral traits and claims that the known false prophets like Koresh and Jones had, and not many still believe they are prophets after learning the truth about them.

I suppose I lean towards the concept of members and apologists "wanting it all to be true," and this desire clouds their otherwise good judgment. It's the only way I can figure this whole thing out

But I could be wrong.

[_Who Knows]

So, you misunderstood my point in two key ways.
...
So, again, you misunderstood my point in this key way.
...
so you got that wrong as well...you misundertood my point in a number of key ways
...

I'm curiuos. In your opinion, does anyone EVER understand you? It seems to me that the majority of your posts sound like the above. Perhaps it's time you look at how you say things, to make them more understandable to everyone here. (ie., if everyone is always misunderstanding you, does that say something about everyone else, or YOU?).

Oh, mercy. Help, I can't stop laughing! How true.

What's so ironic about it all is how, it seems to me that wade's constantly chastizing people here for pointing the finger of blame at others (the church), while instead they should be focusing inwardly on themselves. But then he turns around and blames everyone else for misunderstanding him. Perhaps he needs to look inwardly, and figure out why he thinks people are misunderstanding him so often. Perhaps people are understanding what he's writing, and the disconnect is how he translates his thoughts into writings.

[_wenglund]

So, you misunderstood my point in two key ways.
...
So, again, you misunderstood my point in this key way.
...
so you got that wrong as well...you misundertood my point in a number of key ways
...

I'm curiuos. In your opinion, does anyone EVER understand you?

Yes. Quite often.

It seems to me that the majority of your posts sound like the above. Perhaps it's time you look at how you say things, to make them more understandable to everyone here. (ie., if everyone is always misunderstanding you, does that say something about everyone else, or YOU?).

That is certainly a wise suggestion, and one that I have taken seriously, and made a concerted effort to implement.

However, what I have discovered in certain insances here, is that misunderstandings haven't been so much a problem with what I actually say, but rather with certain parties mistakenly reading things into what I say--things that I did not say, and intended not to say, and even made some effort to avoid it being heard those ways.

Understandably, I can't control for when the congnitive filters of certain parties load up my comments with things that were never intended to be conveyed. I can only correct (by off-loading the mistaken words being put into my mouth) things when that happens.

In other words, perhaps you may wish to look at how you are filtering what I have to say. Start, for example, by try to tempor some of the over-generalized ways you perceive at times--the kind that caused you this time to mistakenly think that "everyone is always misunderstanding" me. Perhaps take some courses in listening skills and reading comprehension. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I'm curiuos. In your opinion, does anyone EVER understand you? It seems to me that the majority of your posts sound like the above. Perhaps it's time you look at how you say things, to make them more understandable to everyone here. (ie., if everyone is always misunderstanding you, does that say something about everyone else, or YOU?).

It's not that at all. In Wade's mind, "disagree with" automatically equals "misunderstand."

Here is a perfect example of what I mentioned previously in terms of certain parties mistakenly putting words into my mouth. Nothing I have said could reasonably be interpreted to suggest that my mind equates the two--particularly when my mind does not equate the two. Shades is here errantly imposing that false perception onto what I say, and thus makes himself vulnerable to misunderstanding.

Again, I can't control for this (since I had nothing to do with its fabrication). I can only correct it when it happens.

I do, though, appreciate Shades providing this clear object lesson. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

More of the same finger pointing.

Perhaps, wade, when you start to practice what you preach (don't blame, but look inwardly at yourself), then people might take you more seriously.

But I'm sure I'm misunderstanding something...