That doesn't sound right

Post by **_dartagnan** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:55 am

Was he the guy who was sent off on a mission and then his wife gave birth to a kid 10 months after he left, suggesting she had consumated another marriage with Joseph?

Post by **_Runtu** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:56 am

dartagnan wrote:Was he the guy who was sent off on a mission and then his wife gave birth to a kid 10 months after he left, suggesting she had consumated another marriage with Joseph?

I haven't heard about a child from Marinda Hyde.

Post by **_Inconceivable** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:56 am

Runtu,

I don't quite understand you. You told him the truth, right?

I would have been eternally greatful if my great great grandfathers new what we both know. Why? Well, for starters, we would not be having this conversation right now.

Is it right to destroy or shake the faith of a true believer? I would suggest you define, "destroy", "shake", "faith" and even "true" believer.

First of all:

21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 32:21)

Because of you, this TBM's faith will now be subject to the refining process. After all of these years he will finally begin discover the efficacy of what he has placed his faith in.

What were you going to do, lie to him? You are not a liar, Runtu.

Post by **_Runtu** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:00 am

Inconceivable wrote:Runtu,

I don't quite understand you. You told him the truth, right?

I would have been eternally greatful if my great great grandfathers new what we both know. Why? Well, for starters, we would not be having this conversation right now.

Is it right to destroy or shake the faith of a true believer? I would suggest you define, "destroy", "shake", "faith" and even "true" believer.

First of all:

21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 32:21)

Because of you, this TBM's faith will now be subject to the refining process. After all of these years he will finally begin discover the efficacy of what he has placed his faith in.

What were you going to do, lie to him? You are not a liar, Runtu.

No, I'm not sorry I told the truth. I guess I'm saying I wish it had been in a different setting. Had I known the guy was there, I would have approached it differently. I wouldn't have shied from the truth, but I certainly wouldn't have been as blunt and matter of fact as I was.

Post by **_BishopRic** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:02 am

Runtu wrote:
Gazelam wrote:From the quotes it sounds liek this is a rescue type of deal. In the first case its a higher priesthood taking the woman from an unfaithful man, and in the second its a woman leaving an unfaithful husband.

Know I know that in one case it was a man who was sering a mission or was sent on one. whatever the case, I don't know al the details involved.

Interesting stuff though.

Yep. That would be Orson Hyde, who was sent on a mission to Jerusalem. His wife was then given to Willard Richards and then to Joseph Smith. There is no indication that Hyde was unfaithful or that his wife needed rescuing.

Marinda must have been quite the hottie! If I recall correctly, Joseph had a "crush" on her when they were younger, right?

Post by **_Runtu** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:04 am

BishopRic wrote:Marinda must have been quite the hottie! If I recall correctly, Joseph had a "crush" on her when they were younger, right?

Yep. He didn't take no for an answer with Marinda.

Post by **_BishopRic** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:07 am

Runtu wrote:No, I'm not sorry I told the truth. I guess I'm saying I wish it had been in a different setting. Had I known the guy was there, I would have approached it differently. I wouldn't have shied from the truth, but I certainly wouldn't have been as blunt and matter of fact as I was.

I'm around these situations all the time, as most of the people around me know my story. My approach is always to say "what I've learned is quite disturbing, and I will only tell you what I've learned if you are ready for it."

Many decline at that point. Those that want to know I tell in private.

Post by **_Dr. Shades** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:19 am

BishopRic wrote:Marinda must have been quite the hottie!

If you could see a picture of her, you wouldn't think so. She had one of those Heber J. Grant noses.

Post by **_karl61** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:13 am

Dr. Shades wrote:
BishopRic wrote:Marinda must have been quite the hottie!

If you could see a picture of her, you wouldn't think so. She had one of those Heber J. Grant noses.

They had so much victorian body armour on those days. I guess you had to be there in person to see if they had a hot body behind those corsettes etc.

Post by **_ludwigm** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:39 am

Runtu wrote:
Inconceivable wrote:Runtu,
...
First of all:
21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.
(Book of Mormon | Alma 32:21)
...
No, I'm not sorry I told the truth ...

Telling the truth is sometimes painful. What is the case when one can not tell the truth?
One glaring personal example:
My wife is a TBM. Her father was a minister of Reformed Church. You know, the hired man of Lucifer.
When I said something about this, her answer was "is this from your full-of-lie-internet-made-by-devil?" Then she didn't believe it, even she didn't listen it. She doesn't want to listen it.
Here, in Hungary, there are a very few who have experienced it before 1990, and they don't answer due to that secretsacred thing.
This "we don't talk about it" is worse than the "we don't teach it".

Can this ever change?
JAK could define the meaning of the word "truth". Can somebody define what is the meaning of "voluntarily suppressing the truth"?