Hiding Church History in Plain Sight Faith - Ash

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Hiding Church History in Plain Sight Faith - Ash

Post by _I have a question »

I have a question wrote:So you're now saying...that the Church essays are, essentially, anti-Mormon.....


ldsfaqs wrote:No, just that they aren't as clear as I would like in this issue, but it's understandable why they aren't clear because the information is entirely unclear.


But you said:
ldsfaqs wrote:I also don't like how LDS scholarship has dropped the ball on the Blacks and the Priesthood issue, essentially accepting the anti-mormon narrative.


So, what is written in the essay "Race and the Priesthood" that you consider to be lds scholarship accepting the anti-mormon narrative?
(Please be specific)
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Hiding Church History in Plain Sight Faith - Ash

Post by _I have a question »

ldsfaqs wrote:
I have a question wrote:So you're now saying...that the Church essays are, essentially, anti-Mormon.....


No, just that they aren't as clear as I would like in this issue, but it's understandable why they aren't clear because the information is entirely unclear.

malkie wrote:How sad it is that the church doesn't meet ldsfaqs' standard of accuracy and truth.

If the church leaders and the apologists just understood the unclear information as well as ldsfaqs does, they would be clearer on this issue, and then ldsfaqs would like what they said.


ldsfaqs is the pre-eminent authority on the subject of the Priesthood Ban.
It is astounding that the Church would flagrantly ignore such a valuable resource when addressing questions about it.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_ldsfaqs
_Emeritus
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: Hiding Church History in Plain Sight Faith - Ash

Post by _ldsfaqs »

Jesse Pinkman wrote:Uh, no, he only had one LEGAL wife because any other marriages would not be considered LEGAL in any sense of the word.

As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I'll let others here tear into it. :rolleyes:


Nope, he had only one "temporal" wife, the others were also Marriage Sealings, thus they also were wives, spiritual ones, not Polygamous ones.
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
_ldsfaqs
_Emeritus
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: Hiding Church History in Plain Sight Faith - Ash

Post by _ldsfaqs »

huckelberry wrote:I am puzzled.
Ldsfaqs,
How is Joseph being sealed to women not marriage.? Why did Josephs followers practice polygamy if he did not? Why does dc132 clearly instruct polygamy? Why didn't Joseph practice polygamy when he states that God instructed him to do just that?

Polygamy means marriage to more than one person at a time. (according to English dictionaries) Are you engaged in speaking a special newspeak?

Why was I taught in Lds seminary that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy leading the way for many Mormon leaders to do the same until the manifesto stopped new polygamous marriages?


1. It was marriage, just not temporal marriages. They were spiritual sealings, not polygamous ones.
I don't know of any followers that practices "Polygamy" until Brigham Young.
Though, I've said there may have been the "start" of it prior to his death. We all knew it was coming.

2. Well, first the principle had to be understood before the practice, and second it seems because Emma forbid him from doing so, and so he honored his wife's wishes.

3. No, actually the full definition of Polygamy is actually having "wives".
If you're not living with, having sex with, doing other things with that imply's a relationship, can one actually be said to be practicing Polygamy?
Nope.
Thus, this is not some "newspeak", it's simply the facts. There are Marriage Sealings in the Church, and there are Polygamous Marriage Sealings in the Church. That's simply fact of church practices.

4. I thought all you anti-mormons weren't taught all these "hidden" things by the Church, and that you became disenfranchized when learning all the dirty secrets the church hid from you???? LOL, can't have it both ways.

But as to your question, not being as "clear" in defining things as can be or should be is exactly my point here.
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
_Doctor Steuss
_Emeritus
Posts: 4597
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:57 pm

Re: Hiding Church History in Plain Sight Faith - Ash

Post by _Doctor Steuss »

Joseph should have just sealed himself to Heber instead of going after Heber's 14 year old daughter. Would have saved a lot of trouble, and misunderstanding.
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: Hiding Church History in Plain Sight Faith - Ash

Post by _SteelHead »

Image
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Hiding Church History in Plain Sight Faith - Ash

Post by _sock puppet »

Doctor Steuss wrote:Joseph should have just sealed himself to Heber instead of going after Heber's 14 year old daughter. Would have saved a lot of trouble, and misunderstanding.

But not served his obvious purposes.
_malkie
_Emeritus
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:03 pm

Re: Hiding Church History in Plain Sight Faith - Ash

Post by _malkie »

I have a question wrote:So you're now saying...that the Church essays are, essentially, anti-Mormon.....

I have a question wrote:
ldsfaqs wrote:
No, just that they aren't as clear as I would like in this issue, but it's understandable why they aren't clear because the information is entirely unclear.

malkie wrote:How sad it is that the church doesn't meet ldsfaqs' standard of accuracy and truth.

If the church leaders and the apologists just understood the unclear information as well as ldsfaqs does, they would be clearer on this issue, and then ldsfaqs would like what they said.


ldsfaqs is the pre-eminent authority on the subject of the Priesthood Ban.
It is astounding that the Church would flagrantly ignore such a valuable resource when addressing questions about it.

Just goes to show that the GAs are not only not led by the spirit, but are also not very smart.
NOMinal member

Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Hiding Church History in Plain Sight Faith - Ash

Post by _huckelberry »

ldsfaqs wrote:


4. I thought all you anti-mormons weren't taught all these "hidden" things by the Church, and that you became disenfranchized when learning all the dirty secrets the church hid from you???? LOL, can't have it both ways.



I do not recall ever thinking polygamy was hidden. Everybody knows Joseph Smith married multiple women.I certainly do not think polygamy is a dirty secret. I grew up proud of our polygamous heritage. I remember learning some women were married for eternity only while some were wives for both time and eternity. I didn't sleep through seminary even if it was early morning.
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Hiding Church History in Plain Sight Faith - Ash

Post by _I have a question »

huckelberry wrote:
ldsfaqs wrote:


4. I thought all you anti-mormons weren't taught all these "hidden" things by the Church, and that you became disenfranchized when learning all the dirty secrets the church hid from you???? LOL, can't have it both ways.



I do not recall ever thinking polygamy was hidden. Everybody knows Joseph Smith married multiple women.I certainly do not think polygamy is a dirty secret. I grew up proud of our polygamous heritage. I remember learning some women were married for eternity only while some were wives for both time and eternity. I didn't sleep through seminary even if it was early morning.


Huckleberry,

Throughout my upbringing in the Church I was taught that polygamy was instituted during the pioneer treks to simply facilitate the subsistence support for those women and children who had lost the male breadwinner. My significant other has been a member of the Church their whole life. Has gone through all the teaching programmes of the Church as both student and teacher, at both ward and stake level. It was a complete and unpleasant surprise for her to find out, two years ago, that Joseph was a polygamist.

Joseph Smith's polygamy has been systematically hidden for generations.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
Post Reply