Original Book Of Mormon

[Midwest LDS]

No problem @MormonGatorI needed to clarify what I meant☺

[Jane_Doe]

5 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Thank you for saying so, I appreciate it.

I think church history is important, my current faith has a very questionable at times history, (and it is encouraged strongly to study it), but that doesn't mean the people belonging to it now are responsible for that history, or have to be ok with that history, its just fact, and I don't think ignoring facts is ever a good idea.  And how can church history cause someones faith to crumble into dust?

I've studied many faiths (Christian and non) and a trend I find is that all faiths are about the supernatural.  However, all faith groups are ran by humans who error, and hence their history is messy (history being messy by definition).  When a person roots their faith in the mortal person/s, finding out this messy history can be major blow to their faith.  However, when a person roots their faith in supernatural (such as building faith on Christ), this whirlwind of messy history has no power.

I'm sure you can think of Catholic examples that fit this trend even better than I.

From the LDS camp, we constantly urge people to put their faith in Christ, the sure foundation.  Still, some people do errantly root some of their faith in mortal leaders, hence when the messy history whirlwind their faith does take a blow.   I don't think this means we should be afraid of history or deny it, but it is also a fact that it's hard for some people to hear messy history stuff.  Hence we once again tie back to building a foundation on Christ and asking God yourself if these things are True.  

5 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

I do find it very disturbing that the average active member is unlikely to know of these types of things, this is why I intent to study for 18 months, I don't want to get baptised, give 10% of my income and a lot of my time to a faith only to find out something in a few years time that can threaten my relationship with God and Jesus.

I would not say anything we're talking here is uncommon knowledge at all.  You'd be hard pressed to find an active LDS person who didn't know about Joseph Smith polygamy, for example.

Still, full disclosure: the natural man is lazy.  And your average LDS person is a human with this lazy tendency and can be quite lazy about their studies.  And if all you do about your faith is sit half-asleep on a bench every Sunday, you're not going to learn a lot or grow a lot, and some LDS folks fall into that boat.   Hence the constant preaching/striving to be a more active in their faith (like they just redid the Relief Society formatting to better convey that).  It's something we're working on (as I think all faiths are).

5 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Speaking of history one thing I am having a very hard time getting my head around is the way Joseph Smith is portrayed in LDS movies like 'The Restoration' - Great movie and I really liked it a lot but Joseph only had one wife in that movie and we all know that's not true.  How can the church say its not hiding anything and not show the truth in that movie and others like it, it is portraying to anyone watching that movie that polygamy didn't exist in LDS history, and we all know it did.  Its deceptive and raises concerns (what else is being hidden by deception?) 

In regards to "The Restoration" video specifically, if I recall correctly it focuses on the events in New York, when Emma was Joseph's only wife (polygamy didn't come into the picture until much later). 

(Zooming out now to in general), There are some church materials which do not portray history the most accurately, certainly.  I am not a mind reader and cannot tell you why that artist/whatever did what they did.  But I am encouraged in the steps taken in the last two decades to be more historically accurate in materials and release more resources--  such as the recent completion of the "Joseph Smith Papers", and the soon to be digitalization of the printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon (in addition to the public in-person viewings).  

Edited December 6, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Jane_Doe]

4 hours ago, Grunt said:

I like you.  

Still, they are legitimate questions.  I had them myself, yet moved past them.  

I think this problem is made worse through advanced studying without the benefit of the Holy Spirit.  

VERY true, both for the LDS faith and others.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[estradling75]

11 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Again I have not looked at any anti mormon stuff.

 

You do not need to have..  You are discussing things with your husband which is good.  Your husband is against the church which is typical.

If I were your husband (which I am not) and I was trying to show you that your interest was wrong/bad... I would be on the internet reading all the Anti Mormon stuff I could find... and then I would be spoon feeding it to you.

It means that your setup is unfortunate.

So just remember even if you are not willingly looking into any anti-mormon stuff does not mean that your Husband is not.  And if you regurgitate such here it, is a legitimate question for you, but founded in anti-materials that many of us very familiar with.

As for deception... that is a common theme but just remember that all these "hidden secrets" are by an large have been preserved and made available by the efforts of the LDS church.  Thus if the LDS church is indeed trying to "hide" things it is staggeringly incompetent about it

Edited December 6, 2017 by estradling75

[lostinwater]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Actually, it was @lostinwater (someone who, as near as I can tell, no longer believes what the Church teaches) who made that statement first, and I assume @Blossom76 accepted this as being accurate.  I think it might be more accurate to say that the average member knows the BofM has multiple editions with changes which Mormons consider minor, but does not know the details of all those changes.  But they do know that if they really wanted to, they could go find them.

Fair criticism. i should have been clearer.  i actually believe most of what the church teaches.  But i don't automatically accept what it says now as being equivalent to the Voice of God.  

And when i say the average member doesn't know these things - i can only say that i spent the first 27 years of my life immersed in it and never once heard anything about multiple versions of the book of mormon.  But, that could have been just me.  Regardless, it's a pretty small thing.  i've never even compared the various versions, but they seem like mostly cosmetic changes.

What i mean when i say average members don't know a lot of early church history - are things about Joseph's personal life - not just polygamy - but like some of the things written to the girls who initially didn't want to marry him - or involvement in some things i identify as occult.  i know i am on a fine line here, and want to respect forum rules - so won't say any more.  But there are some things that i am convinced are accurate that i find deeply disturbing.  That wasn't really why i left though - because every religion has those things, whether they acknowledge them or not.  And i'm not sure i've completely left anyways.  i still attend some meetings/classes - but my whole view of them is so different than it was before.

Honestly though, i wonder how my life's history would read if it was scrutinized like Joseph's and the early leaders of the church are.  It certainly wouldn't be all roses.  What i wish the church didn't do is sacrifice all emotional and spiritual balance on the altar of their perfection and eternal importance.  They make themselves so important and intertwine themselves with someone's self worth and relationship to God so deep that when a person begins to read some disturbing things - they often feel totally betrayed and lied to and either turn in total hatred against the church, or just throw their relationship to God and Jesus away with it - which is so tragic.  

However, i can hardly expect the church to denigrate itself merely to satisfy me.  i know the same culture that has hurt so many people i care about helps a lot of other people, and i just hope that God and Jesus will sort out everything in the end.

[zil]

7 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

What i wish the church didn't do is sacrifice all emotional and spiritual balance on the altar of their perfection and eternal importance.  They make themselves so important and intertwine themselves with someone's self worth and relationship to God so deep ...  

IMO, this is your perception and is not necessarily supported by any next person (some people may share this perception, many do not).

[Bad Karma]

4 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Yes, then declare your judgement.

Really...
Sorry, I know I said I would bow out, but really?
Right off the Church's website: Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo

Yep, super deceptive.

Hey, I know I am hijacking the thread, but I've said it before, man, aren't you glad plural marriage is not the way of things now? Man, I get myself in trouble with ONE wife for saying dumb things, can you imagine having a squad, or even just a fire-team size! Oh, talk about a cooked goose, you're one done Tom Turkey just waking up in the morning! 

[Bad Karma]

14 minutes ago, zil said:

IMO, this is your perception and is not necessarily supported by any next person (some people may share this perception, many do not).

It *can* be, the difference in "feel" is pretty much ward to ward. BUt that is like ANY church, the closer you get to the inner workings, the more involved those members as well as the church is involved in your own life. Many do not realize you CAN just say "Yeah, I'll see you on Sunday, buh bye".  Then again, being a Sunday Mormon is BORING! 

[JohnsonJones]

7 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Thank you for saying so, I appreciate it.

I think church history is important, my current faith has a very questionable at times history, (and it is encouraged strongly to study it), but that doesn't mean the people belonging to it now are responsible for that history, or have to be ok with that history, its just fact, and I don't think ignoring facts is ever a good idea.  And how can church history cause someones faith to crumble into dust?

I do find it very disturbing that the average active member is unlikely to know of these types of things, this is why I intent to study for 18 months, I don't want to get baptised, give 10% of my income and a lot of my time to a faith only to find out something in a few years time that can threaten my relationship with God and Jesus.

Speaking of history one thing I am having a very hard time getting my head around is the way Joseph Smith is portrayed in LDS movies like 'The Restoration' - Great movie and I really liked it a lot but Joseph only had one wife in that movie and we all know that's not true.  How can the church say its not hiding anything and not show the truth in that movie and others like it, it is portraying to anyone watching that movie that polygamy didn't exist in LDS history, and we all know it did.  Its deceptive and raises concerns (what else is being hidden by deception?) 

 

It depends on what you refer to.  This can be a difficult thing for people to address.  Anti-Mormons (and to be clear, I'm not saying you are anti-Mormon or saying this is where you got your information, however THIS particular idea of Joseph Smith being a polygamist in this manner actually originated with anti-Mormons and is most often mostly promulgated by anti-Mormons.  Hence, why I am addressing it as so because it is actually THEIR issue, and not one that most of the world, or even secular historians normally even care about in regards to the larger history we study) want people to believe that Joseph Smith was married to a bunch of woman and did certain acts people do in marriage.

Now, Joseph Smith had several children, thus we KNOW he was not impotent.  Some lived, some died. These were from his wife, Emma or legally obtained rather than fathered by Joseph Smith with other women.

If he did, as the Anti-Mormons claim, the biggest question then is...where is the evidence.  If what they claim is true, as there were no birth control pills back then, where are the children.  If there are children, where is the DNA evidence?  Using their own logic in regards to DNA proving or disproving things which many anti-Mormons regularly love to do, they tend to toss it out the window when faced with this idea.

This does not mean that Joseph Smith was not acting in certain ways towards these women, but thus far, no true evidence has come about to actually prove this.

However, what we do think is that Joseph Smith was sealed to these women, or married for eternity...This means that they were married not for this life, but for the next.  (LDS doctrine has it that this is something that can occur, in that one can be married either for time [this life] or the eternity [the next life] or for both [time and eternity] when they are married together.

In fact, most Anti-Mormon accounts grossly underestimate HOW MANY women were actually sealed to Joseph Smith.  Originally, when temple sealings were done, many sealings were done via marriage to Joseph Smith.  My thoughts are the ones that are still accounted by the Anti-Mormons are those that he was personally present for and are seen as personally being approved in his regard.  However, the number of woman he was sealed to via proxy or other methods number in the hundreds to the thousands.

This was seen as a mistake in how the ordinance was to be performed, and later on they tried to correct many of theses sealings.  The woman that had been previously sealed to Joseph Smith, it was approved that they instead also be sealed to their husbands that they had in this life.  This changed much of what we see in our records, and these woman are officially considered that they are sealed to their Husbands rather than Joseph Smith.  I believe that was the original intent when it was first occurring, but things had not completely been "ironed" out at that point.

Of course, most historians will say, it may not be one extreme or the other (the LDS take that I exhibited where these were only marriages for eternity, and the opposite slant that these were all marriages for this life), that instead, it is normally some middle ground.

What that middle ground is though, I don't know.  The problem is, there is almost no evidence for the opposing side in regards to real, true, and hard evidence to support what they say as of yet, but on the otherhand, when looking at the information we have regarding the marriages that Joseph Smith may have had, one must question when some accounts seem to indicate that the marriage may have been for time as well as eternity.

In that, as it's a hotspot of unknowns, and where people's feelings get highly contested at times, I'd say the best course of action typically if making media on it is to stay FAR FAR FAR away from the subject and focus on what the point or focus of the media actually is.

If we were to discuss something in our own world that isn't Mormon of a similar nature, I would say it would probably be in another topic that many try to shy away from, that where we can discuss many of our Founding Fathers as slave holders (George Washington amongst others).  It's a highly contested subject among people where many times a lot is said with very little evidence to support one opinion or the other.  Because it can be such a hotbed of contention, normally when talking about such individuals (like George Washington) the idea is to stay FAR FAR FAR away from it unless it is directly pertinent to the topic of the film/book/media.  It's not an attempt to hide it, but to avoid the contention that it can bring, many time because that contention can cause the actual message or topic trying to be conveyed to be lost and forgotten due to how involved they get with that one portion of that individuals life.

Edited December 6, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[mordorbund]

14 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

I think it makes a very big difference, to call Jesus God and then to call him The Son of God is different, it is not the same, and it does not mean the same thing.

Are we using The Book of Mormon to reopen the Theotokos vs Christotokos debate?  

[mordorbund]

6 hours ago, Bad Karma said:

I really am one of those maniacs that have read my scriptures cover to cover a few times, each time, I find myself about to scream senseless utterings. Fortunately, along comes the spirit to help me out. 

Are you Pentecostal?

[Bad Karma]

Just now, mordorbund said:

Are you Pentecostal?

Nope, nor have I played one on TV.

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

You do not need to have..  You are discussing things with your husband which is good.  Your husband is against the church which is typical.

If I were your husband (which I am not) and I was trying to show you that your interest was wrong/bad... I would be on the internet reading all the Anti Mormon stuff I could find... and then I would be spoon feeding it to you.

It means that your setup is unfortunate.

So just remember even if you are not willingly looking into any anti-mormon stuff does not mean that your Husband is not.  And if you regurgitate such here it, is a legitimate question for you, but founded in anti-materials that many of us very familiar with.

As for deception... that is a common theme but just remember that all these "hidden secrets" are by an large have been preserved and made available by the efforts of the LDS church.  Thus if the LDS church is indeed trying to "hide" things it is staggeringly incompetent about it

Guys, let's have a little faith in Blossom's husband rather than trying to character assassinate.  This post is downright uncharitable and can only serve to create animosity.

[estradling75]

19 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Guys, let's have a little faith in Blossom's husband rather than trying to character assassinate.  This post is downright uncharitable and can only serve to create animosity.

It is hardly assassinating the Husband's character to say that he will fight for his faith and his wife.

For example if my wife told me she was considering leaving the LDS faith for the Catholic faith I could easily see myself digging online for everything anti-Catholtic I could find so that I could pursude her otherwise.  And I would consider myself a True and Faithful husband and member of the LDS faith for doing so.  And If I would consider it a good thing to do for myself and my wife... then I would be hypocritical to think less of someone else doing the exact same thing only from a different Church.

Edited December 6, 2017 by estradling75

[Guest MormonGator]

It's tough on any spouse who marries someone when they are one faith then said person has a crisis/evolution of faith. You'll feel like the victim of a bait and switch. I think all of us could be more understanding of @Blossom76 and her husband and what they are going through, myself included. You want to defend your faith and that's understandable-but we also want to make sure that we provide a welcoming environment for those who are seeking. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, zil said:

Actually, it was @lostinwater (someone who, as near as I can tell, no longer believes what the Church teaches) who made that statement first

Of course.  That's why he's the head of LDS missionary work and the source of all right and true knowledge about Church history.

[anatess2]

15 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

I think it makes a very big difference, to call Jesus God and then to call him The Son of God is different, it is not the same, and it does not mean the same thing.

We just had an entire thread about this Blossom76.  I really believe that you are both going about this the backwards, difficult way.  It's like you go study just so you can pick at confusing stuff and go, See, see... it's wrong!

God, like we discussed in that other thread - may refer to the State of Being that is God for which there is ONLY ONE,  or the Person that is God for which there are 3.  As a Catholic, this is not a hard concept to understand.  Jesus is both God (State of Being) and God (the Person).  But, if you want to be more clear of WHICH PERSON we are referring to in that One God, then it is best to specify.  To avoid confusion, the Person that is God has been culturally established in modern LDS teaching that when not qualified would refer to God the Father.  We then refer to Jesus as the Son of God even as he is also God.  And that's why the text was changed - just to make sure everyone understands which person we are referencing IN THAT ONE GOD instead of the reader having to derive from context which Person is being referred to here.

The book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price gets very confusing for those who don't understand this basic concept.

 

Edited December 6, 2017 by anatess2

[Jane_Doe]

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

It is hardly assassinating the Husband's character to say that he will fight for his faith and his wife.

For example if my wife told me she was considering leaving the LDS faith for the Catholic faith I could easily see myself digging online for everything anti-Catholtic I could find so that I could pursude her otherwise.  And I would consider myself a True and Faithful husband and member of the LDS faith for doing so.  And If I would consider a good thing to do for myself and my wife... then I would be hypocritical to think less of someone else doing the exact same thing only from a different Church.

@estradling75, I'm trying to figure out how to best say this charitably... and I'm not really succeeding, so I apologize for that.  

What you are describing (secretly digging up anti stuff to under-cover spoon feed it to your spouse) is deceptive, manipulative, downright un-Christ-like, and sinful.  If you're willing to say that it's something you would do, that's you exercising your agency.  But it is wrong for you to project yourself onto another, accuse them of such actions because simply that's what you would do.  

[lostinwater]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Of course.  That's why he's the head of LDS missionary work and the source of all right and true knowledge about Church history.

Thanks.  There's usually at least some truth in most criticisms.  Is that really how my words struck you?  If yes, i apologize - please know that wasn't my intention.

[Bad Karma]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's tough on any spouse who marries someone when they are one faith then said person has a crisis/evolution of faith. You'll feel like the victim of a bait and switch. I think all of us could be more understanding of @Blossom76 and her husband and what they are going through, myself included. You want to defend your faith and that's understandable-but we also want to make sure that we provide a welcoming environment for those who are seeking. 

Oh, I absolutely "get it", it's a tough place to be in, I was married to a NON member for 19 years before my MEMBER WIFE now, it was 19 years of her smoking 3 packs a day, her drinking, her mocking my faith, my church, and those were the best parts. I am blessed to be married and sealed to a member of the church that is in harmony with an LDS life. 

I still wish Blossom the absolute BEST in her investigation of the faith. I'm not sure what 18 months of investigation is going to do for her, it's kind of a random number, IMHO. But hey, it's HER 18 months. 

Regardless of our callings, remember, We ARE Elders, of which a part of that definition is "Guardian of the faith".  I kind of suck at the  guardian part, but hey, I charge forward none the less. 

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

@estradling75, I'm trying to figure out how to best say this charitably... and I'm not really succeeding, so I apologize for that.  

What you are describing (secretly digging up anti stuff to under-cover spoon feed it to your spouse) is deceptive, manipulative, downright un-Christ-like, and sinful.  If you're willing to say that it's something you would do, that's you exercising your agency.  But it is wrong for you to project yourself onto another, accuse them of such actions because simply that's what you would do.  

It's understandable to me.

If you really want to understand something ... why would you pick an 1830 version of the Book of Mormon when you have the current version that every LDS person is using that the husband still haven't read and understood?  Do you see how this is just adding to the confusion instead of FIRST understanding the restored gospel, THEN resolving the ocnfusing parts?  The husband's sincerity in truly understanding the gospel instead of finding ways to torpedo his wife's understanding becomes suspect.  But, that's just me.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks.  There's usually at least some truth in most criticisms.  Is that really how my words struck you?  If yes, i apologize - please know that wasn't my intention.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this.  Since you're apologizing, I'll graciously accept.  But I'm not sure if you understood what I was saying.

You've only been involved with the Church for a few months from what I can tell.  Yet you chose to make such a broad-ranging judgment such as "Most of your average Mormons..."  Finish it how you like.  But do you really feel like you've met enough Mormons and given them a Church Knowledge quiz sufficiently to make such judgments and declarations?

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Bad Karma said:

 I am blessed to be married and sealed to a member of the church that is in harmony with an LDS life. 

Very happy for you my friend. God bless you and your wife. 

[NeedleinA]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

It is hardly assassinating the Husband's character to say that he will fight for his faith and his wife.

@estradling75 This is how I took your post as well. Possible observation.

@Blossom76 is vehemently adamant that she is not the direct source for some of her almost by the book anti-mormon talking points, yet some how she believes she has innocently stumbled upon them in her unbiased study of the Church. Repetitive bad luck, divine intervention or a planned course of action? @estradling75's point is well made and it should at least be considered by @Blossom76 as she tries to juggle and weigh out whether any of her sources (us included) are actually giving her biased or unbiased information, even if out of love.

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

@estradling75, I'm trying to figure out how to best say this charitably... and I'm not really succeeding, so I apologize for that.  

What you are describing (secretly digging up anti stuff to under-cover spoon feed it to your spouse) is deceptive, manipulative, downright un-Christ-like, and sinful.  If you're willing to say that it's something you would do, that's you exercising your agency.  But it is wrong for you to project yourself onto another, accuse them of such actions because simply that's what you would do.  

Except if my wife and I agreed to study both faiths together... I am not being deceitful. 

If because I know next to nothing of Catholic faith I start googling as part of my study... I am not being deceitful. 

If as part of my googling I find some questions that are really puzzling... I am not being deceitful... 

If as part of our mutually agreed study I bring these questions up... I am not being deceitful...

If my wife didn't know how to answer such question... I am not being deceitful...

If my wife then went to a Catholic forum with the questions I have asked her and the Catholic members of the forum pointed out that the Questions were from Anti Catholic questions easily found on google.  I have not been deceitful by having the questions, my wife is not being deceitful when she claims she did not look up anti stuff, the members of the Catholic forum aren't being deceitful when they call them anti questions.

No one has deceived anyone.. no one has lied about their intent and motivations.