DiscussMormonism.com

Sanctorian wrote:Not at all. I just can't understand why God's true church is so complicated if it is supposed to be for ALL humanity. Or is it supposed to be for the elect few to figure out?

I can't understand why the Bears still play Jay Cutler, but that doesn't mean no reasons exist.

Jonah wrote:/snip

Back then we were even taught that *gulp* EVERYTHING spoken over the pulpit in General Conference should be considered as scripture. "Speaking as a man"??? What the hell was that??

The main source (perhaps the ONLY source) of gathering knowledge about the church came from what was being taught each Sunday. /snip

I recall my parents binding all the various magazines because they were "modern scripture". I wonder they got that retarded notion from?

V/R
Doc

maklelan wrote:

Sanctorian wrote:Not at all. I just can't understand why God's true church is so complicated if it is supposed to be for ALL humanity. Or is it supposed to be for the elect few to figure out?

I can't understand why the Bears still play Jay Cutler, but that doesn't mean no reasons exist.

I can answer that one for you. Jay Cutler is the best they have. Until they find better, Cutler is the man.

maklelan wrote:Do you mean "accurately" or do you mean "comprehensively"? There's a difference between emphasizing what you want to emphasize and being inaccurate.

You tell me. I was taught that Emma was Joseph's one and only in EVERY way. Accurate?? Comprehensive??

maklelan wrote:Do you really live in a world where right and wrong and the intentions of people you don't even know are so easily and clearly ascertained?

I used to live in a world where I was told to believe in the church and trust it's leaders. Then I grew up.

Gray Ghost wrote:

maklelan wrote:I don't see where that impression was created.

Almost every treatment of Joseph Smith's marriage relationships in the past few decades has focused on his marriage to Emma, and how much they cared for each other. In the timeline of events in his life on the LDS site, his marriage to Emma is listed but none of his other marriages.

I think the typical member can be forgiven for getting the impression that Joseph Smith was a monogamist, or at least had very limited participation in polygamy.

Mr. Mak has done his research, but somehow fails to see how the Church has re-made L. Ron Hubbard Joseph Smith into an innocent man who was remarkably virtuous.



You'll never see a statue of Joseph Smith looking deeply into the eyes of one of his mistresses other men's wives.

V/R
Doc

maklelan wrote:Do you mean "accurately" or do you mean "comprehensively"? There's a difference between emphasizing what you want to emphasize and being inaccurate.

Porque no los dos?

maklelan wrote:Do you really live in a world where right and wrong and the intentions of people you don't even know are so easily and clearly ascertained?

Intent is a side issue. The blind following the blind still end up in the ditch.

Jonah wrote:You tell me. I was taught that Emma was Joseph's one and only in EVERY way. Accurate?? Comprehensive??

Of course not, but I've never seen anyone ever teach that Joseph Smith was only ever married to Emma. If someone taught that, they were completely wrong. I don't recall that being in any manuals I've seen.

Jonah wrote:I used to live in a world where I was told to believe in the church and trust it's leaders. Then I grew up.

So where does this whole making assumptions about intentions and honesty come into play?

There's also this:

A Confession and an Apology

The weird thing about this is something I've thought about for years.

While we look at the Church as a global, unified whole, with a "gospel" and scriptures and history, each individual member experiences the Church differently. We all have different experiences based on our local wards, our families, our tenure, our teachers and fellow class members, the talks we hear in Sacrament meeting. There are commonalities that you'll find everywhere, but there are also differences.

And ultimately, some peoples' personal construction of "The Church" doesn't include a Joseph Smith that was sealed in plural marriage to "almost 15 year old" girls, or sealed to other men's wives, or claimed to "translate" Egyptian papyri when in fact the words he was dictating weren't a "translation" and so on...

So that raises a dilemma for the Church, in that there may be some members who do not want to be a member of a Church who was founded by a person who did such things, and the only reasons they are members is because they don't know about it. So, if there are such members, is it better to get the truth out there, or to keep it quiet?

Tim the Enchanter wrote:Porque no los dos?

Porque nadie tiene el tiempo. La historia completa de la Iglesia es un tema muy pero muy grande.

cinepro wrote:There's also this:

A Confession and an Apology

Yes, I linked to that here.

cinepro wrote:The weird thing about this is something I've thought about for years.

While we look at the Church as a global, unified whole, with a "gospel" and scriptures and history, each individual member experiences the Church differently. We all have different experiences based on our local wards, our families, our tenure, our teachers and fellow class members, the talks we hear in Sacrament meeting. There are commonalities that you'll find everywhere, but there are also differences.

And ultimately, some peoples' personal construction of "The Church" doesn't include a Joseph Smith that was sealed in plural marriage to "almost 15 year old" girls, or sealed to other men's wives, or claimed to "translate" Egyptian papyri when in fact the words he was dictating weren't a "translation" and so on...

So that raises a dilemma for the Church, in that there may be some members who do not want to be a member of a Church who was founded by a person who did such things, and the only reasons they are members is because they don't know about it. So, if there are such members, is it better to get the truth out there, or to keep it quiet?

Better to get the truth out.