The Folk Prophet

The trial was never about the "Rocky Mountain saints" keeping anything. They LDS church had no skin in the game, per se, and they did not lose anything. The only interest the church had in the trial at all was in discrediting the lies of the reorganized church -- lies they were telling to try and legally steal the temple lot (specifically that Joseph Smith never practiced or taught polygamy). The suit was by the reorganized church against the group that owned the temple lot, and the reorganized church lost and the same group that owned the temple lot prior to the suit still owns the lot today.

My point is that it is a lie to blame leaving the church on conference talks and/or what someone said. That is not why someone leaves the church.

You realize, of course, that this ^ is a manipulative lie.

This isn't entirely true... I don't begrudge anyone the right to oppose. Let them worship who, where, what they may, etc. But to say I have no problem with it? Not really accurate. I would hope that all who have a testimony of right and truth have a problem with those who are vehemently (or even softly and civilly) kicking against the proverbial pricks.

This. There is a time and a place, of course, to defend the gospel, even on Facebook. But for the most part, it strikes me that arguing with anyone on Facebook about anything is, pretty much a non-starter, even for those lurkers. What it comes across as is a bunch of people being nasty to each other. Post truths there. Speak your beliefs in your own shares, etc., and then let the comments be. That's my thinking.

Depends on what you call evidence. If you count his wives testifying that they lived with him as man and wife, then yes, there is evidence -- testified to in a court of law, sworn in, during the temple lot case. Because, if you watch back again, he was not talking about the history of the church, but the standard held by the great majority in society today. It was very clear.

Just out of curiosity (and please keep in mind that I don't consider it an adulterous affair (obviously, if one knows me)), what evidence is that?

The Fanny Alger "marriage"/"affair" is all rumor and speculation and the fact is that we don't know much about it. We can only presume, if we believe that Joseph was a righteous man and a prophet of God, that whatever did go down did so under the direction and authority of God. However, the command and authorization to take a plural wife need not be directly tied into the Elijah's keys. The keys were needed to seal said marriage, but if the keys were needed to authorize all marriages, then even Joseph (and other's) first marriage was invalid without said keys. We know this is not the case. Sealing keys seal the marriage for the eternities - but the right and authorization to marry monogamously stands despite the existence of sealing keys. So why, theoretically, could it not be the same with plural marriages. Could not God authorize plural marriage prior to the actualy sealing keys being returned? Finally, it might be interesting to note that prior to the angel with sword incident that Joseph had taken upon himself several other plural sealings already, all to women who were married to other men. The reasonable explanation behind this (I get this thinking from Brian Hales, btw) is that Joseph had taken these eternity only polyandrous marriages upon himself for the express purpose of not needing to therefore consumate them, and to avoid trauma with Emma. The angel's appearance with sword post these sealings implies that this was insufficient at some level. So, therefore, might the Fanny Alger marriage, even if legitimate at the time, be invalid having not actually stuck. The clear mandate seems to be that Joseph needed to be in multiple marriages, legitimately sealed and living as man and wife for time and eternity. It's all very interesting as an academic study, but I don't see any particular argument that's beneficial to disqualifying general authorities in any regard. As pointed out by you, testimony is independent of these things.

Are you sure? Omega said "during the sacrament", which is clearly meant as during the sacrament portion only. But then Neuro specifies "the presentation of".... Awaiting Neuro's clarification... :)

I'm not following. Are you differentiating "the presentation of" from "during" somehow?

Cannot the exact same thing be said (and even more so) of most parents or home and visiting teachers, etc.? Most parents are pretty bad (imo) at guiding their children through these issues. Some are excellent. Most home and visiting teachers are even worse -- some are great. So I'm not really getting the whole "missionaries aren't good at it" argument. That being said, I looked back at the original question and realize I did misread. I missed the "members" part of it. In the case of young members who do not have LDS parents, the mantle does, indeed, fall to others beyond the missionaries.

-I agree too...sort of (I think, perhaps, the missionaries may be much more capable than we're giving them credit for). I just wonder if there really is that much value in "navigating" these issues. As far as I can tell, the church's essays and other navigation methods are just as likely to drive people away from the church as to bring them closer. As you pointed out, the core foundational issues matter much more.

I disagree, because the honest answer to these sorts of concerns is just, exactly, the message the missionaries carry. The means to gaining a testimony and maintaining it is the same, regardless of the struggle, be it developing a testimony, overcoming sin, struggling with complex issues, etc. Turning to the scriptures, the Spirit in prayer, and exercising humility, faith, and repentance are the answers. And these are the answers that missionaries bring to those who are not LDS. And the value of such is a million fold greater than any of the essays on lds.org.

Don't forget the obvious... missionaries.

Partly, we need to be careful what we're calling "truth" The truth is that there are not, really, that many quotes stating the means that Joseph may have used to translate. A few quotes does not equate to a truth about how he actually translated. It is entirely possible that Joseph, for example, tried it out the hat method once or twice, and that got mentioned, and now that has been latched onto as "the way" by the anti crowd. There are, of course, differing reports of how he translated. All we know is that these various methods were reported by someone. But that does not define "truth". It's also just as possible that Joseph did not translate this way (with the hat), but that he merely experimented to see how and if it affected things. We really don't know. We also don't really know how reliable such witnesses as Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery were. For all we know she was a nutter and/or made stuff up for the pleasure of sounding like she knew stuff. Who knows. All we really have is reports, and those reports were interpreted by those reporting, and then are interpreted by us, and bias and misunderstanding is potentially introduced every step of the way. It makes sense to me to teach children the truth, for the most part, but we need to teach the "truth", and not interpretations that may or may not be truth. The truth is that we don't really know how the translation process occurred, for the most part, except that it was by the power of God. Mentioning the reports of different potential methods isn't harmful, imo. But to teach children that historical reports define absolute truth is harmful.

I was going to address the original idea based on what the prophets and apostles have taught (i.e. Jesus had the Holy Ghost from his birth (as already pointed out) and that at His baptism he received a fullness of knowledge), but this thread has taken such a weird turn that I think I'll just stay out altogether.

Interestingly enough, I think I agree with you. Though what that "authority" authorizes them to do should not be misunderstood or misused. It does not, for example, give the authority to baptize.

What the WHAT?!?

Why "before" you download it. Just download it. If you don't like it, uninstall.

http://askgramps.org/29922/many-priesthoods

There's a problem with this thinking though (as much as, overall, I appreciate it). By taking it to an extreme we can easily see the flaw. The most extreme form of contention, that is - battle to kill or be killed (or kill to save/protect others). The implication that anytime a situation leads to a battle and killing means it's our fault is strictly contrary to what is plainly taught in the Book of Mormon. There are times and situations when you defend your homes, families, and lives even unto bloodshed. And this is commanded by the Lord. So how, exactly, would you reconcile the command to have no contention with the command to defend your families and homes even unto bloodshed. Surely the taking up the sword and killing another as he tries to kill you is contention. Like I said, I appreciate your ideas, and I think they're most correct. But there must be a time and a place where (backing off of the extreme example) we stand our ground despite it becoming a "battle" of words. Just thinking through things.

Stick around a while.

Magus, I can appreciate your desire to be a peacemaker. But you are essentially coming into something and judging a situation without context. I have tried to provide a bit of context, but without having seen the, literally, hundreds of encounters we've had, your judgment doesn't hold a lot of oomph. I'm not going to go into a series of accusations that are, really, quite complex. Omega is a skilled wordsmith and quite talented at contorting ideas to suit his arguments. But the reality is, I've never really gone after him. Those who may know me from years back on the forum might attest to this. There was a time when I would really go after people, and I'm quite good at it if I do say so myself. Of course doing so is never truly useful. My interactions with omega, for the most part, have been quite mild...though I do get out of sorts at times. Like I said, I can appreciate the sentiment you're expressing, and I certainly have need of improving in these regards. I believe, in many ways, I have over time, and I hope to continue to do so. But as I have explained, if someone criticizes the church or gospel I will defend it, and I accept that sometimes this will cause some alienation. It is my strong opinion, as I have said, that this needs to be done, and too few people are courageous enough, or otherwise willing to stand up and take the hit of such accusations in response to that defense. At least I hope it's merely a lack of courage. I dread the alternative, which is, perhaps, that the poisons being spread have taken effect, and we've become nothing but a faithless people who follow the traditions of our fathers but don't really feel any true sense of honor, loyalty, fidelity, and commitment to what we profess to believe. I will take your admonition as a reminder to temper my language and recommit to charitable feelings and thoughts as I continue to do as I feel is necessary. But I will not back down from defending against what I consider venomous wolf-in-sheeps-clothing attacks to the kingdom of God. If this alienates one or two, I can only hope that the bulwark I mean to raise in doing so shields many others against the otherwise injurious onslaught. Or would you that I cast aside my concern for those I mean to protect in favor of the feelings of one who has shown himself to be repeatedly accusatory to things I (and hopefully others) hold quite sacred?

If you think it isn't harmful to openly declare ideas such as missions not being necessary, following the prophet is optional, Joseph Smith was some kind of a lecherous womanizer, the church is messing things up in a myriad of different ways, local priesthood are a bunch of buffoons that aren't qualified for their callings, pierce anything you feel like, the prophets and apostles declarations (particularly official ones) don't count as doctrine unless canonized, Brigham was nothing but a bigot and didn't listen to the Spirit to guide the church, etc., etc., then I'm afraid I simply cannot agree. Such declarations are potentially extremely harmful, and if no one ever stands up against toxic ideas then the toxin will continue to seep into the blood veins of the membership, poisoning us all. These aren't "did Adam have a belly button" type issues. They matter, and they matter a great deal.

And if you state those critical things and I'm around you'll be hearing my defense. I will defend the church, the gospel, its leaders, it policies and practices, its history, etc.. If that makes an enemy of someone, so be it. It's not my intent. I don't hate anyone (though some rub me wrong sometimes). But I will speak against criticism of the church or any advocacy against it's leaders teachings, advice, counsel, or direction. Any bad blood between us stems from him though. I stand for the church, its ideas, principles, leaders, teachings, etc. I hold no specific animosity towards him or others. He has openly stated that I am intolerable to him however, and I can only assume that was meant personally.