Status of MormonThink events

[_Philidel]

Except that's not what happened, and you know it. Does anyone else find it ironic that why me is resorting to a lie to condemn someone whose crime was to share truth?

That is how I read the blog. Here is an important point for you: No one knows their church's history completely. However the institute manual has much history in it. More than the average church members of other denominations study if they study anything at all.

Why me, this is the kind of groundless assertion that makes me wonder what tiny, protected bubble you occupy.

[_Philidel]

Do you know the truth about your country's history. Should you know? Do you care? Probably not. Do most catholics want to know the truth about their history? Probably not. Who is teaching them the truth about their history? No one. Give it a rest.

You are wrong. The uncomfortable truths about the Catholic Church have become a major issue among Catholics recently. Especially in Europe. How many Bishops and Priests have been brought to justice in the last few years? Many more to come here and in Europe.

Membership in the Catholic Church has dropped dramatically in recent years and continues at a rapid pace. Every story about Catholic indiscretions is front page news all over the world. No doubt that it has always been that way, but now a strong light is being shown upon it and people are pissed.

I've observed this too, particularly in Europe.

[_Mary]

Why me said:

This is not very faith promoting and it ignores the fact that the women who were sealed to Joseph had very powerful spiritual experiences that cofirmed the truthfulness of the principle before they accepted. Also, the Kimball quotation can be challenged but they on MormonThink did not do so. Here is FAIR:

Why me, polygamy and polyandry were then and are now controversial issues which bring out strong feelings on all sides. That Joseph Smith failed to tell William Law, Hyrum Smith and arguably his own wife till relatively late indicates that 'he' knew it was a controversial issue also.

I was one of those persons who grew up believing that Joseph had but one wife, Emma. Brigham was the polygamist.

Polygamy for many women, even those who felt they had spiritual experiences (and who am I to argue with that) were troubled by the doctrine and practice. Mormon Think could have quoted Mary Ettie Smith or Fanny Stenhouse which support a more negative view. Have you read Fanny's account of her husbands own journey into plural marriage. It is utterly heartbreaking. Even Eliza Snow (I think it was her - correct me if I am wrong) argued that within polygamy it was better if 'love' were NOT included.

Except in agricultural societies and societies where there is little social security for widows and orphans then polygamy makes no sense. It's not just polygamy that is an issue Why me it's that the church did and still does teach it as a law of heaven as far as I understand and it is the 'way' it was practiced which was fraught with problems and issues. It's very messy.

It will always be a controversial area of the church's past. What are the Mormon Think editors to do. Ignore it? They linked to the Farms review of Todd Compton's book, which is good and quite comprehensive and makes a fairly decent argument against the sexual nature of Joseph's polyandry whilst recognising the troubling evidence and thoughts of Sylvia Sessions. That in itself is not particularly faith promoting. Should someone at FARMS be reprimanded for even recognising the complexity of the early evidence?

[_Mary]

Where are Mormon Think being dishonest over the issues or evidence?

Here's an article from the church's own website LDS.org

http://www.LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?h ... 82620aRCRD

You tell me where they are being dishonest. There is one section there (maybe you can point it out), that I know to be untrue, yet they continue to promote it. That's dishonesty.

Here's another one from the LDS newsroom.

People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

A little misleading do you think? A little dishonest?

[_Elphaba]

Here's an article from the church's own website LDS.org

http://www.LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?h ... 82620aRCRD

Interesting. This article, which is actually "Lesson 7: "Honesty," The Latter-day Saint Woman: Basic Manual for Women, Part B, 51" includes a chapter titled Dishonesty Is One of Satan’s Tools, which lists, among other examples of dishonesty, the following:

Some succeed in business by sharp practices and close dealing.

As best as I can tell, this is the 2012 manual. I guess it was already too late for Ann to caution her husband about his particular form of dishonesty.

[_why me]

The point is that many many LDS do not have spiritual experiences that confirm the truthfulness of polygamy, in this case the women who were sealed to Joseph Smith are irrelevant.
And of course it isn't misleading it simply does not promote the LDS faith, why must everyone always promote the LDS faith or be excommunicated?

Since the LDS do not practice polygamy they would not get any confirmation that it is a true principle. Right? However, at the time when it was practiced many did receive a spiritual experience that it was a true principle. However MormonThink ignored such experiences. And that is my point. We are talking about a warm feeling but a spiritual experience that convinced them that it was true.

[_why me]

Why me, polygamy and polyandry were then and are now controversial issues which bring out strong feelings on all sides. That Joseph Smith failed to tell William Law, Hyrum Smith and arguably his own wife till relatively late indicates that 'he' knew it was a controversial issue also.

Actually, Joseph told the 12 about the practice of polygamy. Brigham was not too enthusiastic about it because he threw up. He also taught the principle on a need to know. And when can read about his polygamy in the LDS institute manual complete with louisa beaman being his first nauvoo wife.

The law of celestial marriage, as outlined in this revelation, also included the principle of the plurality of wives. In 1831 as Joseph Smith labored on the inspired translation of the holy scriptures, he asked the Lord how he justified the practice of plural marriage among the Old Testament patriarchs. This question resulted in the revelation on celestial marriage, which included an answer to his question about the plural marriages of the patriarchs.11

First the Lord explained that for any covenant, including marriage, to be valid in eternity it must meet three requirements (see D&C 132:7): (1) It must be “made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise.” (2) It must be performed by the proper priesthood authority. (3) It must be by “revelation and commandment” through the Lord’s anointed prophet (see also vv. 18–19). Using Abraham as an example, the Lord said he “received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word” (v. 29). Consequently, the Lord asked, “Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it” (v. 35).

Moreover, Joseph Smith and the Church were to accept the principle of plural marriage as part of the restoration of all things (see v. 45). Accustomed to conventional marriage patterns, the Prophet was at first understandably reluctant to engage in this new practice. Due to a lack of historical documentation, we do not know what his early attempts were to comply with the commandment in Ohio. His first recorded plural marriage in Nauvoo was to Louisa Beaman; it was performed by Bishop Joseph B. Noble on 5 April 1841.12During the next three years Joseph took additional plural wives in accordance with the Lord’s commands.

As members of the Council of the Twelve Apostles returned from their missions to the British Isles in 1841, Joseph Smith taught them one by one the doctrine of plurality of wives, and each experienced some difficulty in understanding and accepting this doctrine.13Brigham Young, for example, recounted his struggle: “I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin.”14

After their initial hesitancy and frustration, Brigham Young and others of the Twelve received individual confirmations from the Holy Spirit and accepted the new doctrine of plural marriage. They knew that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God in all things. At first the practice was kept secret and was very limited. Rumors began to circulate about authorities of the Church having additional wives, which greatly distorted the truth and contributed to increased persecution from apostates and outsiders. Part of the difficulty, of course, was the natural aversion Americans held against “polygamy.” This new system appeared to threaten the strongly entrenched tradition of monogamy and the solidarity of the family structure. Later, in Utah, the Saints openly practiced “the principle,” but never without persecution.

http://www.LDS.org/manual/church-histor ... o?lang=eng

I don't see MormonThink linking anything to the institute manual, do you?

[_why me]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

A little misleading do you think? A little dishonest?

What was misleading? Members of all races were welcomed to be baptized. What is the problem?

By the way, here is the account of the King Follet sermon, something that the critics claim that the church hides. Again it is in the institute manual:

The most renowned of all the Prophet’s sermons was given at general conference in April 1844 as a funeral address in honor of his friend King Follett who had died in a construction accident. Joseph Smith spoke for over two hours mentioning at least thirty-four doctrinal subjects, including the importance of knowing the true God, the way to become as God is, the plurality of gods, eternal progression, the importance of the Holy Ghost, the nature of intelligence, the unpardonable sin, and little children and the Resurrection.

One of his most profound messages concerned God and man’s destiny in relationship to him. He declared, “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! …

“… you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves … by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings.” Man, then, is to become like God now is. Joseph also explained the “first principles of consolation” for those mourning for the righteous dead: “although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ.”28

How did the Saints respond to this lengthy, yet eloquent and inspiring sermon? Most were profoundly moved by it. Joseph Fielding wrote in his journal, “I never felt more delighted with his Discourse than at this time, It put me in Mind of Herod when they said at his Oration It is the Voice of a God and not of a Man” (see Acts 12:20–23).29

http://www.LDS.org/manual/church-histor ... o?lang=eng

Amazing? Nothing hidden. Are you sure Mary that you know what is going on in the LDS church?

[_cafe crema]

The point is that many many LDS do not have spiritual experiences that confirm the truthfulness of polygamy, in this case the women who were sealed to Joseph Smith are irrelevant.
And of course it isn't misleading it simply does not promote the LDS faith, why must everyone always promote the LDS faith or be excommunicated?

Since the LDS do not practice polygamy they would not get any confirmation that it is a true principle. Right? However, at the time when it was practiced many did receive a spiritual experience that it was a true principle. However MormonThink ignored such experiences. And that is my point. We are talking about a warm feeling but a spiritual experience that convinced them that it was true.

Why shouldn't they receive confirmation that polygamy is a "true principle"? It is either true or it's false, then and now whether it's currently practiced or not, and the spirit should testify to the truth of it as it was practiced.
And if their is no spiritual confirmation to the "true principle" then people can discuss it in any manner they see fit.

[_why me]

Why shouldn't they receive confirmation that polygamy is a "true principle"? It is either true or it's false, then and now whether it's currently practiced or not, and the spirit should testify to the truth of it as it was practiced.
And if their is no spiritual confirmation to the "true principle" then people can discuss it in any manner they see fit.

I believe that it was a true principle. And I know many others who do too. I think that mormonthink generalized it too much. In other words, they did not tell the truth. Most people never prayed about it at all. That is my take on it.