The Church Is Not True Podcasts/Beehive House Tour

[_JohnStuartMill]

The Church doesn't "hide" it. It just fails to address it. That still falls short of the standard of care it has to educate its missionaries about the things that make the Church look bad.

[_why me]

They should buy it. Just order it from deseret books. It comes in 26 volumes. Of course it contains more than just what BY said.

I had all 26 volumes in hardcopy but dispensed with them after moving house seven times. They are now online anyway, so no real need to buy them.

The Church only selectively quotes from them and much of their content is controversial. In one instance Brigham Young teaches that men live in the sun. Edited versions have been more popular with Church members.

I saw that sight but forgot to post the link. Thanks for doing it.

[_Ray A]

I saw that sight but forgot to post the link. Thanks for doing it.

That's not the only one, nor by any means the best one. It's also available on Wiki and is easier to read there. But I'm too tired to go searching for that link now.

[_Mercury]

Ha!!!!!!!! that's a good one.

Ha....but true. I remember seeing it in many people's libraries.

Yep, and on my fathers shelf it was too. And I read it. Carried it with me all throughout my mission too, reading it once by my 6 month mark and once more a month before I went home.

I was the exception to the rule. I read quite a bit. Now its more Neal Stephenson and books related to my field.

I unfortunately have a great deal of books that I have only read parts of. You are confusing having a book on the shelf and reading what is in it.

[_Sethbag]

I think that for him polygamy was a difficult concept to get his own head around. And I do not see him as a happy participant in the practice. And as I have pointed out repeatedly, most of the sealings ocurred during a two year period, from 1841 to 1843. He was a man in a hurry. Did he suddenly get an sexual itch? I doubt it. There was another reason for it.

Look at Joseph's circumstances from 1841 to 1843. That was precisely the period of greatest prosperity, and the largest number of members, and Joseph Smith was at the pinnacle of his position as leader. If I recall he was mayor, magistrate, general of his own militia, Prophet of a large number of people who accepted his religion and lived in Nauvoo and the surrounding areas, etc. He had by the far the most power, and the most followers, and the most opportunity to score more tail amongst his followers, than at any time previous.

Joseph Smith wasn't a "man in a hurry" from 1841 to 1843. He was a "kid locked in a candy shop".

The men on the tape made a terrible blunder when they went through with the podcast. They misrepresented themselves.

They represented themselves as not members, which is accurate, but it is true they implied a much lower level of familiarity and experience with the church than they actually have. I'm not sure whether this deception is justified or not. If it can be justified, it would be as what they needed to do in order to get the Sisters to act like they would act with non-members, in order to see what a non-member (potential investigator) would experience on the tour. One might expect the Sisters to give a different level of information to someone not familiar with the church, than to someone familiar with it. And one might expect them to react differently still toward an apostate.

I think Mike and Hyrum represented themselves as they did because they wanted to hear the Sisters' sales pitch, the same as they'd use on any potential investigator.

And they prepared for the attack to stump the sisters. And in the end, they failed miserably. It came across as unethical and deceitful and the sisters held their own.

I'm not sure they "prepared" for it, so much as they were able to just repeat things that they had learned that lead them to leave the church. And they only stumped the sisters because the sisters were so ignorant of the facts.

I listened to this podcast a long time ago, and I'm listening to it again. I just past the point where Mike, for the first time, pointed out an inaccuracy in what the sisters said. One of the sisters really almost snapped at Mike, telling him that if they really wanted the truth, just listen to what the sisters had to say during the tour, and if they wanted to discuss anything (beyond just asking questions), they had to save it for the end. Well, the sisters were not able to deliver on this promise, ie: they promised the truth, and they couldn't deliver.

[_Danna]

And so does three of her Apostles, including one who lost a very expensive Rolex during a robbery recently.

I am confused, are you saying there are three LDS apostles practicing polygamy today?

Oh hang on, are you talking about the widowers who remarried in the temple?

[_Sethbag]

This is where terms conflict. The civil law would not consider the remarried widower apostles as practicing polygamy. Mormons, however, do believe that these men are practicing plural marriage.

[_why me]

Yep, and on my fathers shelf it was too. And I read it. Carried it with me all throughout my mission too, reading it once by my 6 month mark and once more a month before I went home.

I was the exception to the rule. I read quite a bit. Now its more Neal Stephenson and books related to my field.

I unfortunately have a great deal of books that I have only read parts of. You are confusing having a book on the shelf and reading what is in it.

So, we can safely say that the LDS church does hide what BY said. Also, since Joseph Smith's plural marriages are on a church sponsored family centered website. it does not hide that Joseph Smith was a polygamist and was sealed to other men's wives.

And so, what they are guilty of is not having it broadcast during church meetings by mentioning certain things said in teaching and study manuals.

Also, we have a problem with Brigham's sermons as we do with Joseph Smith. They were recorded by other people as he spoke. And who knows what was correct or not.

President Young had two prerequisites for calling a sermon scripture. First, he needed to review the sermon and make any necessary corrections. Second, it had to be identified as scripture.

It should be noted that very few of the recorded sermons of Brigham Young were reviewed for correctness by the him. Even fewer sermons were announced as scripture. For the most part, President Young's sermons were given on an impromptu basis and hand recorded by third parties when he spoke. Since only Jesus Christ was perfect and infallible, it is not surprising that some of his sermons are erroneously transcribed. The fact that President Young required a statement to be reviewed and corrected before it is called scripture presupposes errors in some of the impromtu remarks that were recorded by third parties.

http://www.lightplanet.com/Mormons/resp ... ipture.htm

[_Pokatator]

Any member can purchase the dJournal of Discourses from the LDS bookshop, Deseret books:

http://deseretbook.com/store/search?que ... s&x=35&y=9

What is the church trying to hide?

And I will bet a dollar that many Utah young missionaries have the BY discourses in their parent's home library. They can just pick up the book and read.

Big spender....a dollar?

Sure muddy up the waters with interpretations of "Doctrine and not Doctrine" and "Official Doctrine and not Official Doctrine" to the point that everyone needs to have a bcspaceTM ready reference in their hip pocket just to be able to know doctrine and even function as a member or a missionary.

Isn't this part of the reason the church "hides", "fails to mention", "avoids some subjects" because this is all so convoluted and so much is embarrassing? Heck, I'll bet your dollar back that most of the FP can't define doctrine.

But it's the member's and the missionary's fault for not having all this sorted out.

[_LDSDoubter]

I think there is a big difference in simply witholding information that is controversial but can be found out by simply buying a book at any LDS bookstore, and blatantly telling lies with the intention to mislead someone. Unfortunately, much of what the sisters were saying in the tour were lies, some of which were the age of the wives, number of wives, Deseret Alphabet, Blood Atonement, BY cheating the church out of $1 million, etc.

There is a big difference in telling someone "oh, I've never heard that before" and telling them "that is not true."

While I do feel sorry for the sisters, I think everyone should be told the whole truth about the LDS church before making a commitment to it, that way they can make an informed decision based on facts. Remember, these two girls are giving up two whole years of their life to this organization based on what they have been told about Joseph Smith. I think the church is doing them a big disservice, and this will ultimately cost the church more members in the long run because they have not told the truth about their history. If they put all the cards on the table up front a few people may quit but in the long term more people will stick around and appreciate the honesty.

I've been in the church for five years, and looking back I feel like I was sold something. They told me all nice things to get me to join and were very deceptive. If they will lie to me about polygamy, blood atonement, the temple, the early church leaders, Joseph Smith, etc. then how do I know they are not lying about more important things like the Book of Mormon, D&C, PoGP, the current church leaders, etc? If someone will lie about a few things without hesitation then they will lie about other things no problem, so you never know when you can trust them.