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

[_antishock8]

Well, when it comes to Mormonism the Mormon church and its members accustomed to deception. It started with Joseph Smith, and continues through this day. Whether Mormons truly understand that they're liars is another thing. I think their capacity to call something black "white" is truly astounding.

Book of Abraham: Lie

Joseph Smith, polyandry: Lie

Joseph Translation: Lie

Polygamy: Lie

Temple rites: Lie

Lie lie lie lie. It's just their way.

[_bcspace]

Well, when it comes to Mormonism the Mormon church and its members accustomed to deception. It started with Joseph Smith, and continues through this day. Whether Mormons truly understand that they're liars is another thing. I think their capacity to call something black "white" is truly astounding.

Book of Abraham: Lie

Joseph Smith, polyandry: Lie

Joseph Translation: Lie

Polygamy: Lie

Temple rites: Lie

Lie lie lie lie. It's just their way.

CFR on the Church lying. Thank you.

[_mms]

Are you serious, BC? Here is the response to your CFR:

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

May 10, 2006 Press Release attempting to get the media to be more accurate re polygamy and the church.

See the original post for more examples.

[_moksha]

One lesson the Church, apologists and all other secular institutions could profit from, is that when you sugar coat information it can come back and bite you in the butt.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

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.

Actually, this is probably how it went down. The 1890 thing was just something to get the government off their back for a while, to buy the church some time. I don't doubt that BC's explanation for how it went down is relatively accurate, but it simply makes the OP's main point that all the recent statements about polygamy ending in 1890 were misleading. What I find interesting is that JFS actually allowed the membership to vote on ending polygamy in 1904. What if the members said no? It is becoming much more clear to me how the polygamy manifesto actually occurred between 1890 and 1904, with the church sending out statements, buying time, putting out feelers, putting the issue to a vote of the membership. It's funny that for years I was taught that the decision to end polygamy came from a revelation.

[_Chap]

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.

Actually, this is probably how it went down. The 1890 thing was just something to get the government off their back for a while, to buy the church some time. I don't doubt that BC's explanation for how it went down is relatively accurate, but it simply makes the OP's main point that all the recent statements about polygamy ending in 1890 were misleading. What I find interesting is that JFS actually allowed the membership to vote on ending polygamy in 1904. What if the members said no? It is becoming much more clear to me how the polygamy manifesto actually occurred between 1890 and 1904, with the church sending out statements, buying time, putting out feelers, putting the issue to a vote of the membership. It's funny that for years I was taught that the decision to end polygamy came from a revelation.

Well yes, given that polygamy was clearly instituted by a revelation (anyone dispute that?), it could surely only have been ended by a revelation - unless the original revelation had in it some kind of termination clause that said, in effect

"Of course guys, you can give it up whenever it suits you to do so. For I the Lord thy God am a really rather flexible God, and I do not want to cause you any inconvenience should the practice of polygamy prove politically embarrassing at some future time, saith the Lord."

But I don't think that is in D&C. So surely the practice must have been ended by a counter-revelation? But where is that counter-revelation?

Maybe I am just misunderstanding again.

[_mms]

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.

Actually, this is probably how it went down. The 1890 thing was just something to get the government off their back for a while, to buy the church some time. I don't doubt that BC's explanation for how it went down is relatively accurate, but it simply makes the OP's main point that all the recent statements about polygamy ending in 1890 were misleading. What I find interesting is that JFS actually allowed the membership to vote on ending polygamy in 1904. What if the members said no? It is becoming much more clear to me how the polygamy manifesto actually occurred between 1890 and 1904, with the church sending out statements, buying time, putting out feelers, putting the issue to a vote of the membership. It's funny that for years I was taught that the decision to end polygamy came from a revelation.

BC seems to admit my point, indeed. However, in doing so, he inaccurately states that the "whole thing was put on hold in 1890" because from what I have read the "whole thing" was not put on hold (if "put on hold" was intended to mean "discontinued", as the church has stated), but much continued. The weakness of BC's response, though, is that it does not refute the main point, but claims that there is no "problem" as if to suggest that the OP is not on point because if it was, there would certainly be a problem--the problem of misleading over and over again.

I am really surprised that no toher "defenders" have chimed in.

[_sunstoned]

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.

What does "put on hold" mean? Is that like saying the Congress of the United States kicked the churches' ass and made them recant on the everlasting covenant, The same one that BY said you had to live to reach the CK?

Or does "put on hold" mean that the church lied to the US and public about its intentions and continued the practice underground until they were caught again and confessed in the Smoot-Reid hearings?

Or is "put on hold" just another apologist disingenuous attempt at making deceit palatable?

I vote all of the above.

[_Inconceivable]

"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."

The Mormon church has it's own definitions of:

True
Know
Beyond a shadow of a doubt
Officially
Unanimous
Special
Chosen
Faithful
Moral
Ethical
Anti
Gospel
Translation
Force
Persecuted
Martyred
History

..most of which have been turned into platitudical fables because of the dilision that must exist in order for the words to take on such broad and conditional meanings.

BC, get back to basics and preach of Christ.

5 And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them—therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 31:5)

Oh yeah,

The word (maybe it's not all about Jesus)

[_mms]

No "officially" in this one:

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

May 10, 2006 press release admonishing media to be more accurate.