DiscussMormonism.com

why me wrote:
The catholics make the claim about being the one true church. How many catholics know their church's history. Not many. The whole idea about the church teaching its controveries is an old one but a strawman. First, the first vision have been discussed in the ensign. Second, the polygamy of Joseph Smith is taught in seminary, at least according to my children.

Actually Joseph smiths polygamy is so glossed over that many will miss it, and certainly not know the details of what really bothers members. An ensign article will be missed or forgotten by most, and it does not give a very accurate view, so don't be surprised that members will feel the church has not been honest in giving them a more complete picture. Most religions do not claims to be the one true church, and I am sure many Catholics have felt the same about their church as many lds members feel about theirs.

My point: the bishop was wrong in his blog post. And that is my only point.

A point you are wrong about. Like I said obscure references can be viewed as hiding since most will not get this information. Most even today do not know about the various first vision accounts, and they will miss vital information about it as well. Most members do not know hardly anything about Joseph wives and how he went about practicing polygamy. Hell even many missed that he was practicing it.

Also, it seems that John Dehlin wanted to make the blog post public. Thus, the problem. Antimormons from all over gave the bishop the high five. The apologists had to respond about his blog post's contents.

I was not aware that Steve was John dehlin. He has stated that it was not meant for everyone. He has also been extremely nice to everyone, but has made the post private now to hopefully eliminate all the attention he never intended. by the way Apologists did not have to respond. Some did and were very nice while others did and were assholes about it. Critics can and do the same. I didn't really see any antis there.

why me wrote:
My gosh, it is taught in seminary and in religion 341-343 classes. It is not hidden. My daughters learnt Joseph Smith had many wives in seminary.

What do you not get that becuase they do not talk about it hardly at all that many will miss it. I knew about it but that does not mean everyone should. He didn't, but some like you have to blame them as though it was all there fault. If the church wants to make sure it's members know he had multiple wives they should do a better job of bringing it up more often and in more detail.

why me wrote:
Maybe so, but here is the point: he was wrong about the lds church hiding the accounts of the first vision. The accounts have been dissected in the Ensign:

Maybe he defines hiding differently then you. Have you tried to understand this. Apparently not.

Themis wrote:

why me wrote:
The catholics make the claim about being the one true church. How many catholics know their church's history. Not many. The whole idea about the church teaching its controveries is an old one but a strawman. First, the first vision have been discussed in the ensign. Second, the polygamy of Joseph Smith is taught in seminary, at least according to my children.

Actually Joseph smiths polygamy is so glossed over that many will miss it, and certainly not know the details of what really bothers members. An ensign article will be missed or forgotten by most, and it does not give a very accurate view, so don't be surprised that members will feel the church has not been honest in giving them a more complete picture. Most religions do not claims to be the one true church, and I am sure many Catholics have felt the same about their church as many lds members feel about theirs.

My point: the bishop was wrong in his blog post. And that is my only point.

A point you are wrong about. Like I said obscure references can be viewed as hiding since most will not get this information. Most even today do not know about the various first vision accounts, and they will miss vital information about it as well. Most members do not know hardly anything about Joseph wives and how he went about practicing polygamy. Hell even many missed that he was practicing it.

Also, it seems that John Dehlin wanted to make the blog post public. Thus, the problem. Antimormons from all over gave the bishop the high five. The apologists had to respond about his blog post's contents.

I was not aware that Steve was John dehlin. He has stated that it was not meant for everyone. He has also been extremely nice to everyone, but has made the post private now to hopefully eliminate all the attention he never intended. by the way Apologists did not have to respond. Some did and were very nice while others did and were assholes about it. Critics can and do the same. I didn't really see any antis there.

Okay, the seminary book is an obscure reference. And the ensign too. You win. I do believe that steve gave John permission to use his blog post. Thus, the problem. John has quite a following and his following headed over to the blog, giving kudos to steve. Now the apologists could not understand the bishop's reasoning since it was false reasoning. Thus, the problem.

Here is the point: in all church's there are people who know their church's history and those that don't. The lds church is no exception. But the differing accounts of the first vision are not hidden neither is polygamy. Also, the bishop states that he did not know that federal law prohibited polygamy and thus, his problem because of the article of faith. But what he did not see was that it was one of the reasons behind keeping polygamy secret. Also, america has been a country of religious freedom and so, the Mormons practiced their religious freedom when the practice of plural marriage began. Were they actually breaking the law?

Themis wrote:
Maybe he defines hiding differently then you. Have you tried to understand this. Apparently not.

He bought into the anti claim from the exmormon site. He fell for it hook line and sinker. Not knowing something doesn't mean that the lds church hides it. It just means that one doesn't know for various of reasons. He should have attended seminary.

Themis wrote:

blooruk wrote:
Wiki definition should suffice. I'm not implying extremism!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

Still not seeing it. In fact I would think the exact opposite would happen and you would see less literal views and adherence. Essentially what we see in NOMs. Those who get exposed to this kind of information tend to change their beliefs and views in less fundamental ways to not having any belief in core LDS claims.

Perhaps you are right.

why me wrote:His letter drew attention for a simple reason: his premise was faulty.

And yet, somehow, you and the other terribad apologists out there regularly manage to not descend like a pack of hyenas on the dozens of other exit letters posted on the Internet where people say they left the church for the exact reasons.

Gee, I wonder why.

why me wrote:
Okay, the seminary book is an obscure reference. And the ensign too. You win.

Yes they are. I am not saying the manual or Ensign are obscure, but the references are. It certainly is not enough to make sure the membership knows or understands the issue.

I do believe that steve gave John permission to use his blog post. Thus, the problem. John has quite a following and his following headed over to the blog, giving kudos to steve. Now the apologists could not understand the bishop's reasoning since it was false reasoning. Thus, the problem.

He has stated who his intended audience was. His reasoning was not faulty, but your willingness to understand others is. Fix that then we can have a discussion. As another hint, most discussion falter becuase people define words and terms differently. If you try to find out what they mean most of the disagreement will disappear.

Here is the point: in all church's there are people who know their church's history and those that don't. The lds church is no exception.

So. Many have complained about that as well I am sure.

But the differing accounts of the first vision are not hidden neither is polygamy.

See above. Hopefully you might learn something about fruitful discussions. I do believe he said he did not know about Joseph polygamy. Something many members do not know about as well. I would think he is complaining more about the details being hidden. Also since the church has hardly ever brought it up, many do define it as hiding or avoiding, but so far you seem unwilling to understand this.

Also, the bishop states that he did not know that federal law prohibited polygamy and thus, his problem because of the article of faith. But what he did not see was that it was one of the reasons behind keeping polygamy secret

The articles of Faith do not give any exceptions, so yes Joseph was lying, breaking the Law, and breaking his own rules or Gods rules as well.

Also, america has been a country of religious freedom and so, the Mormons practiced their religious freedom when the practice of plural marriage began. Were they actually breaking the law?

Joseph was breaking state law. He was lying about it and breaking his own rules in the article of faith. Religious freedom involves more about beliefs then practices. Not all practices are legal such as female circumcision.
.

why me wrote:Also, the bishop states that he did not know that federal law prohibited polygamy and thus, his problem because of the article of faith. But what he did not see was that it was one of the reasons behind keeping polygamy secret. Also, america has been a country of religious freedom and so, the Mormons practiced their religious freedom when the practice of plural marriage began. Were they actually breaking the law?

The state of Illinois, yes the one that Nauvoo is located, enacted an anti-bigamy law in the year 1833.

The 1835 edition of the D&C strictly forbade it.

On many occasions, Joseph publicly lied that he was practicing it.

Joseph lost his life due to hiding polygamy.

why me wrote:

blooruk wrote:Although many proponents of Mormonism will disregard my sincerity and that of my Brother Stephen - whom you wish to hang for desiring to feel understood without judgment. Its unfortunate that many feel qualified to mind-read a persons deepest emotions and intentions, jumping to conclusions without attempting to really understanding the trauma of existential crisis and subsequent emotional desires and actions of a man whom I know has attempted to control the rumors - by explaining truthfully with a motive to prevent people from jumping to conclusions, and also protecting the interests of those he loves from the judgmental uninformed.

Maybe so, but here is the point: he was wrong about the lds church hiding the accounts of the first vision. The accounts have been dissected in the Ensign:

Richard Lloyd Anderson, "Joseph Smith's Testimony of the First Vision," Ensign, April 1996, 10. The Prophet's accounts of his first vision offer us a picture that is rich in testimony and supported by history. Discusses the revivals in the Palmyra area in 1820.

Milton V. Backman Jr., "Confirming Witnesses of the First Vision," Ensign, January 1986, 32.

Milton V. Backman Jr., "Joseph Smith's Recitals of the First Vision," Ensign, January 1985, 8.


Encyclopedia of Mormonism

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/First_Vision

And he was wrong about the lds church hiding Joseph's polygamy as this thread as proven.

And I do believe that Gordon B. Hinckley aslo mentioned the differing versions of the first vision in a talk. And it is known, that the reason for the official version was to set the record straight because of all the confusion about the first vision at that time of the prophet.

Some things can be hidden so it will never be found. Other things can be hidden by purely discouraging people not to look, even when its right in front of them. To those who still look and find, the interpretation of the evidence will be determined by the minds mechanisms of intent.