JamesKnightwell Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 I've come across many sites run by so called members of is one of them. Blogs are quite popular They considered Joseph smith a prophet, but think the church has er since than. They dig up a lot of old history to try to show things like Brigham Young invented polygamy and Joseph never practiced it. They make some compelling arguments actually, but as a student of history I will say this. It all comes down to faith. That testimony of the holy ghost. Because as a historian I can say you can prove anything with facts and spin history almost anyway way you want. Just beware of any site that professes to be made by members, but that they know better than the church. Just be warned its not only the anti sites you have to worry about now, its some of the members too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrazyKay Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 On your internet, people can be anyone they want to be. These sound like they were made by anti's who are claiming to be members to try to pull more people away from the church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 The RLDS Church did a lot of anti-polygamy history revisionism. I wonder if they are related to that group, or other "Prairie Saints" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshac Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 I've come across many sites run by so called members of is one of them. Blogs are quite popular They considered Joseph smith a prophet, but think the church has er since than. They dig up a lot of old history to try to show things like Brigham Young invented polygamy and Joseph never practiced it. They make some compelling arguments actually, but as a student of history I will say this. It all comes down to faith. That testimony of the holy ghost. Because as a historian I can say you can prove anything with facts and spin history almost anyway way you want. Just beware of any site that professes to be made by members, but that they know better than the church. Just be warned its not only the anti sites you have to worry about now, its some of the members too.Although saying that Joseph didn't practice wouldn't be factual- not only are there many written accounts, but even the good 'ol family search has multiple wives listed... so i'm not sure why you say that you can prove anything with facts when the fact is that to say he didn't practice polygamy is nonfactual. The bottom line is that facts are facts, although one can have a different opinion on what those facts actually mean, and simply because you may hold a view that conflicts with a public statement by a GA doesn't somehow turn you into a "so called" member.... remember- many statements made by GAs are their own and don't necessarily represent the views or positions of the church (unless they're quoting actual positions of course)- I actually take comfort in the fact that the church infrequently interjects its own opinion on factual/scientific matters and instead sticks to more spiritual matters.I understand your warning, but your description of those 'so called' members who may be attempting to have a legitimate discussion kinda rubbed me the wrong way..... after all, LDS.net is not an official church site, Doctrine/History/Chargers comes up frequently, and is also run by 'so called' members... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesKnightwell Posted September 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 well i just mean seems like these people were just trying to lead people astray. THey claimed these wives were wives in name only, as we know of no children besides from Emma. I don't buy into it really,this guy didn't put much stock into tommy monson as he called him so i didn't put much stock in him. The warning of wolves in sheep's clothing and danger from within the church did come to mind. All I mean by the history was for every account that says this you can find at least one that says that, it comes down to the spirit and faith which one you want to follow. As for me I side with the church of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 I've come across many sites run by so called members of is one of them. Blogs are quite popular They considered Joseph smith a prophet, but think the church has er since than. They dig up a lot of old history to try to show things like Brigham Young invented polygamy and Joseph never practiced it. They make some compelling arguments actually, but as a student of history I will say this. It all comes down to faith. That testimony of the holy ghost. Because as a historian I can say you can prove anything with facts and spin history almost anyway way you want. Just beware of any site that professes to be made by members, but that they know better than the church. Just be warned its not only the anti sites you have to worry about now, its some of the members too.Really? There are compelling arguments that BY, not JS, invented polygamy?For example?Are you sure they claim to be members of OUR Church? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackmarch Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Really? There are compelling arguments that BY, not JS, invented polygamy?For example?Are you sure they claim to be members of OUR Church?considering how many people over time have injected misinformed "facts" into the masses regarding LDS culture and theology.... and what is factual to one person is not to another as for being compelling i suppose that depends on the individual as well. THis sort of thing happens a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Just beware of any site that professes to be made by members, but that they know better than the church. Just be warned its not only the anti sites you have to worry about now, its some of the members too.From where I'm standing, "beware of what you read on the internet" isn't really an LDS-only bit of good advice. There is no such thing as unbiased. Everyone has an agenda - even the people who don't think they have one. You simply cannot take what you read at face value, ever, anywhere - without gaining a lot of knowledge and experience with a particular source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 From where I'm standing, "beware of what you read on the internet" isn't really an LDS-only bit of good advice. There is no such thing as unbiased. Everyone has an agenda - even the people who don't think they have one. You simply cannot take what you read at face value, ever, anywhere - without gaining a lot of knowledge and experience with a particular source.Nonsense. I've sat in three years of PEC meetings where no one ever had an agenda! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.