Can we now admit that the church still misleads . . .

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_mms
_Emeritus
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:10 pm

Can we now admit that the church still misleads . . .

Post by _mms »

...and that it needs to stop?

As some may have noticed, my biggest problem with my church is that it has not been forthcoming in certain areas and this has led me and others to very difficult times upon learning various facts. Of course, I have been blamed for not doing my research and not knowing what I was supposed to know when I was 12, etc. blah blah blah. Indeed, upon being blamed (mostly by those at MAD before I was banned), I would give examples of the church's misleading statements and then watch as these were explained away in an often strikingly transparent way by the "defenders" of the faith.

So, "defenders", explain this away:

The church states this on its website as pointed out in another thread:

"Just as the practice of plural marriage among the Latter-day Saints began gradually, the ending of the practice after the Manifesto was also gradual. Some plural marriages were performed after the Manifesto, particularly in Mexico and Canada. In 1904, President Joseph F. Smith called for a vote from the Church membership that all post-Manifesto plural marriages be prohibited worldwide."


If this is the case then why the following statements?

On April 24, 2008, the church newsroom stated this:

"The Church discontinued polygamy officially in 1890, but more than a century later some news and Internet reports fail to draw clear distinctions between the Church and practicing polygamous sects."


In its "Background Information" section, the Newsroom at LDS.org states this:

"Subsequently, in 1890, President Wilford Woodruff, fourth president of the Church, received what Latter-day Saints believe to be a revelation in which God withdrew the command to practice plural marriage. He issued what has come to be known as the "Manifesto," a written declaration to Church members and the public at large that stopped the practice of plural marriage."


In a May 10, 2006 press release that was, ironically, intended to get the news media to be more ACCURATE re the church and polygamy, the church stated:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discontinued the practice of polygamy in 1890."


Again, in a September 7, 2007 press release intended to keep the news media accurate, the church stated:

"For the record, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discontinued its practice of polygamy in 1890, and for 117 years Mormons have followed a monogamous lifestyle."


(They wanted it to be "for the record.")

So, when attempting to get positive media attention, the message has been clear and consistent--polygamy stopped in 1890 (going so far as to even state that "for 117 years Mormons have followed a monogomous lifestyle")! However, the web content team assigned to the subject of polygamy for the website in general, was honest and stated, for the most part, the actual facts. It is amazing that in admonishing the media to be more accurate, the church, in a PR effort, was blatantly inaccurate. This is what boggles my mind as a member of the church--it is so obvious and right in front of our faces and even two weeks ago, the church could not get itself to be accurate with the media about when polygamy stopped.

Okay "defenders", spin away.

mms

(P.S. Sorry for not providing the links, but just go to the "Newsroom" at LDS.org and read the polygamy press releases, background information and commentary and you will see all of the quotes.)
Last edited by Guest on Thu May 08, 2008 9:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Post by _bcspace »

I don't see a problem. The whole thing was put on hold in 1890 while feelers were put out to see (in the US) if the Supreme Court would rule for us and (in Mexico and Canada) the practice could be continued there. When all avenues were exhausted, the 1890 stance was adopted. As long as they saw legal avenues, no one should be uncomfortable that the Church sought all means to continue to freely practice it's religion. The same kind of thing is done today among all groups of people for many different reasons.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_mms
_Emeritus
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:10 pm

Post by _mms »

bcspace wrote:I don't see a problem. The whole thing was put on hold in 1890 while feelers were put out to see (in the US) if the Supreme Court would rule for us and (in Mexico and Canada) the practice could be continued there. When all avenues were exhausted, the 1890 stance was adopted. As long as they saw legal avenues, no one should be uncomfortable that the Church sought all means to continue to freely practice it's religion. The same kind of thing is done today among all groups of people for many different reasons.


Oh, really, the whole thing was put on hold? Now I get it. lol.
_Boaz & Lidia
_Emeritus
Posts: 1416
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:31 am

Post by _Boaz & Lidia »

bcspace wrote:I don't see a problem. The whole thing was put on hold in 1890 while feelers were put out to see (in the US) if the Supreme Court would rule for us and (in Mexico and Canada) the practice could be continued there. When all avenues were exhausted, the 1890 stance was adopted. As long as they saw legal avenues, no one should be uncomfortable that the Church sought all means to continue to freely practice it's religion. The same kind of thing is done today among all groups of people for many different reasons.
Is that all you got?

Why not just admit they have been forced into a corner?

I wonder how long it took them to use the idea of a new vote to ban it worldwide. That makes it easier to swallow I guess.

Bottom line is the Internet and screaming a**holes like me are forcing them to brutal honest disclosure.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Post by _bcspace »

Oh, really, the whole thing was put on hold? Now I get it. lol.


I doubt it.

I don't see a problem. The whole thing was put on hold in 1890 while feelers were put out to see (in the US) if the Supreme Court would rule for us and (in Mexico and Canada) the practice could be continued there. When all avenues were exhausted, the 1890 stance was adopted. As long as they saw legal avenues, no one should be uncomfortable that the Church sought all means to continue to freely practice it's religion. The same kind of thing is done today among all groups of people for many different reasons.

Is that all you got?


Seems to be a pretty accurate summary.

Why not just admit they have been forced into a corner?


Why? How have I been forced into a corner?

I wonder how long it took them to use the idea of a new vote to ban it worldwide. That makes it easier to swallow I guess.


Seems more like a last warning to the Smoots of the world.

Bottom line is the Internet and screaming a**holes like me are forcing them to brutal honest disclosure.


I think you're screaming because you just got corked.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_mms
_Emeritus
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:10 pm

Post by _mms »

People are often accused of pulling statements from the church from decades ago in order to demonstrate that the church is seeking to mislead re certain aspects of tis history. These statements are from two weeks ago, a year ago, etc. I simply cannot believe it continues. Truly just baffles me.

But looking forward to more explanations from those who think I have not demonstrated an attempt to mislead, above.

(by the way, BC, come on, you gotta admit your response is so weak that it almost seems a parody. It is truly like you were trying to be funny and mock "defenders.")
_Boaz & Lidia
_Emeritus
Posts: 1416
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:31 am

Post by _Boaz & Lidia »

Why not just admit they have been forced into a corner?


Why? How have I been forced into a corner?

This is not about you the member. Its about LDS Inc

They do not care about you or your defending posts. The best thing you can do is pay tithes and ensure your children follow the path into marriage, babies, and of course tithe paying.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Post by _bcspace »

Why? How have I been forced into a corner?

This is not about you. Its about LDS Inc

They do not care about you or your defending posts.


I certainly don't agree with all that the Church says to defend itself. But it's not any disagreement with the facts presented but more with the force of the argument. I think they are too careful. So how does my summary conflict with "LDS Inc."?

People are often accused of pulling statements from the church from decades ago in order to demonstrate that the church is seeking to mislead re certain aspects of tis history. These statements are from two weeks ago, a year ago, etc. I simply cannot believe it continues. Truly just baffles me.

But looking forward to more explanations from those who think I have not demonstrated an attempt to mislead, above.

(by the way, BC, come on, you gotta admit your response is so weak that it almost seems a parody. It is truly like you were trying to be funny and mock "defenders.")


I once had a long conversation about this waaaay back on AOL's LDD using the same summary as a basis. I thought I did rather well. I see a similar presentation on fairwiki which you guys are quick to malign but slow to gainsay.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_Doctor Steuss
_Emeritus
Posts: 4597
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:57 pm

Re: Can we now admit that the church still misleads . . .

Post by _Doctor Steuss »

mms wrote:[...]
Okay "defenders", spin away.

You are/were a crappy member and are/were lazy and have a penchant for sinning. You also smell funny... like apostasy (a.k.a. bologna and wet dog).

Regards,
The Defender
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
_Boaz & Lidia
_Emeritus
Posts: 1416
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:31 am

Re: Can we now admit that the church still misleads . . .

Post by _Boaz & Lidia »

Doctor Steuss wrote:
mms wrote:[...]
Okay "defenders", spin away.

You are/were a crappy member and are/were lazy and have a penchant for sinning. You also smell funny... like apostasy (a.k.a. bologna and wet dog).

Regards,
The Defender
I'd guess you are not a tithe payer.
Post Reply