DiscussMormonism.com

Over on the aptly named MADboard, the very likable poster called Consiglieri has posted this fascinating tidbit:

consiglieri wrote:In another thread, kamenraider was good enough to post two quotes from Joseph Fielding Smith which tend to indicate a basis for those who think Mormons are not up front and honest about what they really believe when talking with non-members.

After looking at these quotes from a recognized church leader, I am having a hard time disagreeing.

It's interesting that Joseph Fielding Smith, when asked if Jesus was married, gave two different answers to two different letters.

This one was to a critic:

There is NO reference whatever to Jesus being married, in the New Testament.--Joseph Fielding Smith, May 9, 1966 letter to Morris L. Reynolds.


This one was to an active member:


Yes! But do not preach it! The Lord advised us not to cast pearls before swine!--Joseph Fielding Smith, March 17, 1963 letter to J. Ricks Smith.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Fascinating.

Yet not surprising. We see that today ("I don't know that we teach that"). As a member, I would have loved to have seen the church embrace its peculiarities, and emphasize its unique doctrine.

His first answer reads like something you'd say during a hostile deposition. Note he doesn't say whether Jesus was married or not, only that the New Testament doesn't say anything about it.

Had Mr Reynolds followed with a direct, simple question, something like "Was Jesus married, yes or no?" and JFS responded with a simple "No", then I'd say he was lying.

In this case he's only guilty of using weasel words.

Oh yeah - and it's kinda like the Q&A the PR department did with FoxNews (I think) during Mitt's candidacy. Each answer was parsed so incredibly finely, so as to say nothing at all. If I weren't so lazy, I'd find the link to it.

skippy the dead wrote:Yet not surprising. We see that today ("I don't know that we teach that"). As a member, I would have loved to have seen the church embrace its peculiarities, and emphasize its unique doctrine.

I think there was a time the Church did so. Even as recent as 28 years ago when I was a missionary we were really more Mormon in nature. We happily declared all other religions false on the LDS Church true based on Joseph Smith's FV. We talked about what made us unique. With many an investigator we discussed the idea of becoming gods and that God was once a man as we are now, the nature and eternality of intelligences. We seemed maybe to have more success because we did distinguish ourselves and for those interested that was a great thing. I am not sure this is why we baptized so many more then per missionary. Even where i served we say 700-800 baptisms per year where now they are happy to get 150-200.

I see two items going on:

1. Not willing for outsiders to know embarrassing doctrines

2. Not wanting doctrines to be talked about openly with members due to that same embarrassment factor.

Jason Bourne wrote:I think there was a time the Church did so. Even as recent as 28 years ago when I was a missionary we were really more Mormon in nature. We happily declared all other religions false on the LDS Church true based on Joseph Smith's FV. We talked about what made us unique. With many an investigator we discussed the idea of becoming gods and that God was once a man as we are now, the nature and eternality of intelligences. We seemed maybe to have more success because we did distinguish ourselves and for those interested that was a great thing. I am not sure this is why we baptized so many more then per missionary. Even where I served we say 700-800 baptisms per year where now they are happy to get 150-200.

I really do love the idea of becoming a god (okay, it's more conceptual for me now since I don't really think there is a God). Some of the more unique tenants were the ones that I thought were most appealing, even during my periods of doubt.

I wonder if that is GBH's legacy - watering down doctrine publicly. I don't think Romney's presidential run helped the church maintain its uniqueness, either - there was a very public effort to show that Romney's religion was just like everybody else's. I'm nostalgic enough about my religion of origin to think that's a damn shame.

moksha wrote:I see two items going on:

1. Not willing for outsiders to know embarrassing doctrines

2. Not wanting doctrines to be talked about openly with members due to that same embarrassment factor.

But why would God's only true church on the earth be embarrassed of its doctrine? Wouldn't that insult God and the founding prophets?

skippy the dead wrote:

moksha wrote:I see two items going on:

1. Not willing for outsiders to know embarrassing doctrines

2. Not wanting doctrines to be talked about openly with members due to that same embarrassment factor.

But why would God's only true church on the earth be embarrassed of its doctrine? Wouldn't that insult God and the founding prophets?

Probably because they know it's not God's only true church. Self-protection, pride, power, and money guide our leaders, not the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I think the secret and/or embarrassing nature of certain aspects of Mormonism foster deceptive behavior.

Mormons, to my thinking, are not at all generally deceptive people, but I know from experience that it's disconcerting to be asked to keep things secret from investigators and even other members. I justified it with the old "pearls before swine" argument, but even with that excuse, I was often uncomfortable with not telling the complete truth at times. I never felt telling people certain things were "sacred" and that I couldn't talk about them was a good answer, but it was the only answer I could give.

Looking back, I resent being asked to keep religious ordinances secret from others--even my own family at times.

KA