A little help--Why am I so bothered by the misleading

[_mms]

I am setting myself up a little, here, possibly, for some shots, but I can take them.

As some of you will remember, I am a Church-going high priest who has had a hell of a year and a half or so learning all that I never knew (although I should have learned it in seminary or at the MTC according to some) about Church history, including all of the controvesial issues, etc. etc.

I really think, at this point, I have a pretty broad knowledge of all of the "issues" and, if I wanted to, I could bring a whole lot more people in the state of utter confusion that I have been in. However, such is not my interest. I am still contemplating the what it all means to me, my testimony, my life, etc.

But, on to the issue for this thread, I get so irritated when I see any attempt by the church to mislead. Seriously, like with this polygamy thing, the fact that the Church states over and over again that it stopped the practice in 1890 when it knows full well that this is completely false. Somebody please tell me how the church justifies making such a blatantly false statement --and not only that, but making such a blatantly false statement while at the same time admonishing the press arrogantly that it must report what the church wants it to report.

When I settle down a bit, and reflect, I wonder why it angers me the way it does. I think it should be a much bigger deal to others than it is. Why is it such a big deal to me? Of course, I should know that better than you, but maybe some of you have had this response to similar things in the past???

[_Yong Xi]

I have periods like you are going through right now. I keep reminding myself that the church is first and foremost a business. Like all businesses, it will do what it needs to survive. Fortunately for the church, it has some very loyal customers.

Try laughing about it, because it really is quite funny.

[_truth dancer]

Hi mmn,

I'm right with you.

The dishonesty and deceptiveness of the church was a MUCH bigger problem than the rest of the issues, for me.

Why does it bother you?

I think many of us feel anger toward organizations we trusted after we discover we have been deceived, even duped.

And, of course we are not talking about buying a piece of furniture or getting a bad meal at a restaurant. Many of us have given large sums of money, enormous amounts of time and energy, extraordinary devotion to an organization that harmed us and our families.

It is quite normal in my opinion, to feel some serious anger.

While I am pretty much over the anger (although it does come up now and then), I am completely amazed at the dishonesty and deception regarding the polygamy lie. I really don't get it.

~dancer~

[_John Larsen]

The Church has long since abandoned any sort of doctrine or personal spiritual experience. It is all about the organization--which brokers salvation. So since salvation comes through the Church, honest people can do dishonest things to bring people to the Church. To them it is like stealing bread from the wealthy to feed the poor.

Once all standards are dropped in favor of the organization, nothing matters except the health of the organization. If you want to understand the LDS church, study Microsoft, Toyota or Phillip Morris.

[_rcrocket]

Seriously, like with this polygamy thing, the fact that the Church states over and over again that it stopped the practice in 1890 when it knows full well that this is completely false.

You're just reading and hearing what you want to hear that's negative.

What is the "Church?" If it is the President of the Church, he told the members to stop practicing plural marriage in 1890 and he stopped the practice himself. He stopped cohabiting with his plural wives. He also tore down the endowment house which was the only lawful place in the Salt Lake Valley to perform plural marriages.

If the "Church" is just the aggregate of the members themselves, some stopped cohabiting with their existing wives and some did not. Some couldn't believe what they were hearing and chose to parse Pres. Woodruff's words to achieve a meaning other than what he intended. At least two apostles and many stake presidents were guilty of that.

There is certainly evidence of some post 1890 plural marriages. But, they were not sanctioned by the President of the Church, and before that time they had to be so sanctioned. My own great grandfather was married three times by either an apostle or a stake president after 1890, but eventually the Church caught up to him and he was excommunicated along with his wives. Did the "Church" marry him? I suppose, if you count apostles and stake presidents who disagreed with Pres. Woodruff. But it was also the "Church" who disciplined. According to family tradition (my grandfather was about ten years old when these marriages occurred), my great-grandfather knew he was getting married in opposition to the general directives of the Church. I'm sure that many other marriages after 1890 were in the same vein.

[_mcjathan]

Seriously, like with this polygamy thing, the fact that the Church states over and over again that it stopped the practice in 1890 when it knows full well that this is completely false.

You're just reading and hearing what you want to hear that's negative.

What is the "Church?" If it is the President of the Church, he told the members to stop practicing plural marriage in 1890 and he stopped the practice himself. He stopped cohabiting with his plural wives. He also tore down the endowment house which was the only lawful place in the Salt Lake Valley to perform plural marriages.

If the "Church" is just the aggregate of the members themselves, some stopped cohabiting with their existing wives and some did not. Some couldn't believe what they were hearing and chose to parse Pres. Woodruff's words to achieve a meaning other than what he intended. At least two apostles and many stake presidents were guilty of that.

There is certainly evidence of some post 1890 plural marriages. But, they were not sanctioned by the President of the Church, and before that time they had to be so sanctioned. My own great grandfather was married three times by either an apostle or a stake president after 1890, but eventually the Church caught up to him and he was excommunicated along with his wives. Did the "Church" marry him? I suppose, if you count apostles and stake presidents who disagreed with Pres. Woodruff. But it was also the "Church" who disciplined. According to family tradition (my grandfather was about ten years old when these marriages occurred), my great-grandfather knew he was getting married in opposition to the general directives of the Church. I'm sure that many other marriages after 1890 were in the same vein.

Bob, if only the church's dishonesty could be isolated to a few rogue apostles and stake presidents. But alas, the dishonesty in the church regarding its history is ubiquitous:

http://www.mormonthink.com/lying.htm

For me, like mms and truth dancer, the widespread dishonesty and deceptiveness of the church was a MUCH bigger problem than the rest of the issues.

[_mms]

Seriously, like with this polygamy thing, the fact that the Church states over and over again that it stopped the practice in 1890 when it knows full well that this is completely false.

You're just reading and hearing what you want to hear that's negative.

What is the "Church?" If it is the President of the Church, he told the members to stop practicing plural marriage in 1890 and he stopped the practice himself. He stopped cohabiting with his plural wives. He also tore down the endowment house which was the only lawful place in the Salt Lake Valley to perform plural marriages.

If the "Church" is just the aggregate of the members themselves, some stopped cohabiting with their existing wives and some did not. Some couldn't believe what they were hearing and chose to parse Pres. Woodruff's words to achieve a meaning other than what he intended. At least two apostles and many stake presidents were guilty of that.

There is certainly evidence of some post 1890 plural marriages. But, they were not sanctioned by the President of the Church, and before that time they had to be so sanctioned. My own great grandfather was married three times by either an apostle or a stake president after 1890, but eventually the Church caught up to him and he was excommunicated along with his wives. Did the "Church" marry him? I suppose, if you count apostles and stake presidents who disagreed with Pres. Woodruff. But it was also the "Church" who disciplined. According to family tradition (my grandfather was about ten years old when these marriages occurred), my great-grandfather knew he was getting married in opposition to the general directives of the Church. I'm sure that many other marriages after 1890 were in the same vein.

Are you a lawyer? Because this sounds like Pres. Clinton talking about it all depending on what the word "is" is. Seriously let's say it is a company and the CEO says "we are now stopping that practice (whatever it might be)" and then, for fifteen years, the CFO, COO, various VP's etc. continue the practice on behalf of the company. Can the CEO of the company really claim later that the company stopped the practice when he said it would stop?

The"Church" is not Pres Woodruff alone. So claiming that the Church stopped the practice is to any informed person a complete, blatant and utter falsehood. Period. It is entirely beyond dispute and to dispute it makes little sense considering the vast evidence that came out (which the Church tried to stop from coming out). Yet, the Church continues to make the false claim and does so while telling others to be "more accurate." Uggghhhhhhhhhh. The arrogance is mind-boggling.

The fact that people who require nothing but total honesty from their members before such members will be permitted, for example, to attend the wedding of their child, would be so willing to over and over again make such an obvious and calculated false statement really gets to me.

[_Dr. Shades]

What is the "Church?" If it is the President of the Church, he told the members to stop practicing plural marriage in 1890 and he stopped the practice himself. He stopped cohabiting with his plural wives.

You are wrong on both counts. He himself took at least one more plural wife after the Manifesto.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

Are you a lawyer?

ROFL!

Spells like a liar, replies like a liar, talks like a liar, lies like a lawyer, yep he is a liar, err lawyer.. same thing.

Lawyers get paid to tell other people's lies. Is it any wonder Brother Crockett finds no fault with LDS Inc not telling the whole truth?

[_antishock8]

For your information mms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1890_Manif ... l_marriage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Manifesto

http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/postman.htm