ludwigm wrote: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"?
Everyone has eyelids which can be used to close your eyes to things that we don't want to see.
But I swear TBMs also have earlids to use when they don't want to hear.
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably. bcspace
Runtu wrote:Well, I can't say I share your glee, Port. I think I just shook this guy up pretty badly. Now he's probably going to be afraid of me.
I don't take any pleasure in it either. It is a long painful path to discover the truth and not everyone has the disposition for it.
Yep. It's not something I would wish on anyone, really. Interesting that on the other board I'm being labeled disingenuous and dishonest for calling Joseph's wives "wives." I'm told there is no evidence whatsoever that Joseph had sex with his wives.
Damn, I am out of posts over there, or I'd reply. Very frustrating.
I don't know... I mean, I wouldn't go out of my way to try to disabuse someone's faith, but if this sort of thing happened to me, there's no way I'd feel bad about it. There are a lot worse things in the world than someone finding out the truth.
You have no idea how much good you may have inadvertently done, in the long run. Sure, finding out the truth is very painful for some, but nothing worthwhile comes cheap. No point beating yourself up over it, anyway.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Some Schmo wrote:I don't know... I mean, I wouldn't go out of my way to try to disabuse someone's faith, but if this sort of thing happened to me, there's no way I'd feel bad about it. There are a lot worse things in the world than someone finding out the truth.
You have no idea how much good you may have inadvertently done, in the long run. Sure, finding out the truth is very painful for some, but nothing worthwhile comes cheap. No point beating yourself up over it, anyway.
I guess I have mixed feelings. I wish I'd had the opportunity to share what I know with a little more tact. Instead, I just trotted it out to my atheist friend. Honestly, the TBM guy's face was something I won't soon forget.
Runtu, do you ever worry that telling Mormons about certain things will cause them to have difficulties at home too? I'm not saying that should blame yourself for that because I doubt you'd ever intend that (unlike what some may think of your motivations). I'm just wondering if that sort of concern plays into this.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
asbestosman wrote:Runtu, do you ever worry that telling Mormons about certain things will cause them to have difficulties at home too? I'm not saying that should blame yourself for that because I doubt you'd ever intend that (unlike what some may think of your motivations). I'm just wondering if that sort of concern plays into this.
That's exactly what I mean. I would not have said what I said had I known he was eavesdropping. I don't have this overwhelming urge to convince people that the church is not true.
I do think it's important to answer truthfully when asked (which I did), but as I said, my answer to a militant atheist would be couched differently than it would have been to a believing church member.
I still see that horrified look on his face, and I feel bad about it.
asbestosman wrote:Runtu, do you ever worry that telling Mormons about certain things will cause them to have difficulties at home too? I'm not saying that should blame yourself for that because I doubt you'd ever intend that (unlike what some may think of your motivations). I'm just wondering if that sort of concern plays into this.
That's exactly what I mean. I would not have said what I said had I known he was eavesdropping. I don't have this overwhelming urge to convince people that the church is not true.
I do think it's important to answer truthfully when asked (which I did), but as I said, my answer to a militant atheist would be couched differently than it would have been to a believing church member.
I still see that horrified look on his face, and I feel bad about it.
Think about it this way, it is probably better that he heard it from you, who can give him some further support and help as he processes it, then from someone else.
I've been following this thread's counterpart, and have found the following sentiments:
- Compton's count includes those sealed to Joseph Smith after his death
- It was all platonic, since Joseph Smith also sealed himself to men
- EVERYBODY knows about Joseph Smith's polygamy/polyandry (and you're disingenuous if you claim otherwise)
- There was no sex in any of the polygamous marriages or at least not in the polyandrous ones
Hmm. I think the above is all categorically BS.
My random thoughts:
I learned in seminary and even my church history courses at BYU that polygamy was introduced to provide for the women that outnumbered the men in the church (you know - the men all died on the trek across the plains or women were just more righteous). The only references I heard to Joseph Smith and polygamy were that righteous women who otherwise did not find a husband were sealed to him posthumously to his death, so that they'd have the benefits of marriage on the other side. I considered myself to be a very diligent member, and had no idea that Joseph Smith was polygamous, let alone polyandrous.
And you just know he was hitting that.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
cinepro made an EXCELLENT point on the mirror MAD thread:
I have read many stalwart defenses of Joseph Smith's polygamy, and find many of them convincing. Arguments that they were for "eternity only" with no temporal component sound especially good.
But for me, the critical flaw in the argument is Emma. We might not know what Joseph was doing with these wives, but Emma did.
Joseph knew perfectly well the difference between a "sealing" and a "plural marriage", but he chose to try and (unsuccessfully) hide his unions from Emma instead of telling her about his platonic spiritual ceremonies. I wonder why that was?
If these "marriages" were only "sealings", they would have been no more scandalous than baptisms for the dead (which Emma didn't seem to mind at all). Also, the "wives" could have been sealed to Joseph and Emma as daughters, or as sisters. No one seems to have a problem with multiple-sister families. And that would avoid any unusual two-husband situations.
Todd Compton's book has been mentioned, but I'll also bring up his website:
Todd Compton
His response to the FARMS review of his book is especially enlightening. (As is the review itself.)
I gotta say, cinepro nailed it.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.