Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks everyone for your responses! I’m trying to understand/frame things for myself and I appreciate the explanations. Thanks again! It makes me very happy to read that your family has stayed supportive, especially your post mission son. He sounds very tolerant and enlightened. You deserve credit! Best of luck to you and your family. Orson wrote:AngryMormon wrote:
I am not exactly sure if I understand what you mean by the “mindset” being different back then. Sorry in advance if I am totally off or if I misunderstand you.No, not at all. Thanks for asking for clarification. What I was referring to was more along the lines of the way people framed religious ideas and beliefs into their everyday life. How many people of today can you imagine uprooting their family to go gather with a religious group? The religious fervor of that place and time was
intense, and I think we need to take that into account. What would be an absurd request today was in the realm of plausibility at that time, due to their level of belief and eagerness. There are also other small cultural variations that we don’t automatically relate to on our first reading. I agree 14 has always been young to marry. I would say that it’s not just polygamy etc. that we need to frame in the environment where it existed, we need to frame ALL things in proper context. Some things we do fairly well (explaining in church Emma asked for some change before the WoW was received) other things we obviously can improve on (the actual method of BoM translation).
Thanks Orson for the clarification! I can understand your point of view.
Orson wrote:Old-Timer wrote:When you read the first-person statements, none of the members (of whom I am aware) whose wives were sealed to Jospeh thought they were giving up their wives in doing so. They viewed “sealing” very differently than “marriage” – and it was a vital distinction to them.
I’ll just say the impression I get from the same sources is somewhat different. Of course there are differences – namely “sealing” is not limited to this life, but many of those early members didn’t hold a legal marriage to have as much binding power (now or in the next life) as a priesthood sealing. I think Heber C Kimball’s “test” demonstrates that at least some did understand their giving of their wife to the prophet as passing a test of faith. The mindset was much different back then and it makes our comprehension difficult, but I think the fact that Joseph was rejected multiple times shows it was a difficult situation even back then.
I am not exactly sure if I understand what you mean by the “mindset” being different back then. Sorry in advance if I am totally off or if I misunderstand you.
If you are referring to individuals mindsets in regards to polygamy and polyandry, I have to strongly disagree with you.
Never in American history has polygamy, polyandry or marrying multiple 14 year old girls been part of the mainstream mindset. Not now or in the 1830’s or 1840’s. Many of Joseph Smith’s own followers and his first wife were also against it.
It bugs me when people at church say you need to judge Smith’s polygamy, polyandry etc.. by the times he lived in. Personally, I think it’s a ridiculous notion because polygamy, polyandry and marrying multiple 14 year old girls was unacceptable in his time too. You never heard of George Washington, John Q. Adams or James Buchannon participating in this type of behavior.
Am I totally off here?
I think it is obvious that Joseph Smith had sex with them. After all, a human being can take care of another human being without marrying them. It’s called Christian charity! Joseph Smith and his sexual behavior is not a deal breaker with me. Jacob and Lamech had multiple wives, why not Joseph? I also think that Joseph Smith could of made mistakes and given into temptation, but still be a Prophet. I really don’t know.
Old-Timer wrote:Yeah, I was in a bad mood. There is no problem talking about the concept of stepping down due to health reasons (especially something like dementia), but it was calling Pres. Monson a “vegetable” that caused my reaction. Take out that wording, and I wouldn’t have said a thing.
It’s that type hyperbole that bothers me most about lots of other sites, and I over-reacted. Sorry, everyone.
Old=Timer, I was quoting the term “vegetable” that someone else used in reference to the Catholic Pope. Just seems like a double standard to me.
Thanks everyone for your responses! I find it interesting that certain topics are just not discussed at church. IMHO, it just seems to fuel the problem. Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Don’t we already have a President who is almost a “vegetable”? When you Google Monson and alzheimers/dementia etc.. quite a bit of stuff pops up.
[
Admin note:Knock it off, Angry Mormon – now. I mean it. Knock it off.That is SO far over the line for this forum there is no way I can pull it back – and it’s grossly inaccurate, as well.] As a personal, non-admin note, if you google anything, lots of stuff pops up – and no matter what it is, over half of it is crap – especially when googling things that are attacked by lots of not-quite-unbiased people, to put it charitably.
Wow! I’m sorry my question upset you or anyone. I have heard people talk about it before at church and I guess I didn’t see what the big deal was or is. My apologies. I do find it interesting that people on hear can post derogatory pictures of the Catholic Pope comparing him to a character from Star Wars, but I can’t ask an honest question. I think if we are going to scrutinize Catholicism, we should at least be willing to scrutinize are own religion. Seems like a double standard.
This thread is very degrading to Catholicism and I won’t attack someones else’s religion. However, I do think it is okay for me to ask honest questions about my own religion. I
Old-Timer wrote:I find it troubling because it was a heinous act that shouldn’t have occurred – even as I understand very well the fear and paranoia (the war mentality) of the time that was “legitimate” in many ways. It doesn’t concern me that people made a terrible mistake as much as what it says about how even very good people can do very bad things when they turn off their consciences and simply follow orders. I don’t attribute it to the Church in any unique way, since things like that have happened far too frequently in far too many places and situations throughout history – but I certainly don’t absolve the Church from blame. I am saddened deeply, however, that it happened within my own tribe – and that it was blamed falsely on local Indians for so long.
I haven’t seen any evidence that Brigham ordered it, and the overwhelming evidence indicates to me that he didn’t want it to occur, but there are lots of people who assume he did order it. I understand why that bothers those people terribly.
I’m very glad that the Church issued an official apology and recognition of the incorrect blame.
Finally, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if your Bishop was being completely honest in his response. Knowledge of things like this isn’t and has never been a condition of local leadership, especially when the official version was so wrong for so long.
Thanks for your insight! I never thought about it in this context.
SamBee wrote:Kumahito… I think the office of prophet and president are conflated. You can resign one but not the other. Could members get their heads around this?
One day we’ll end up with a president who is (sorry to use this language) a vegetable, wired up to life support for years on end, unable to speak, write or travel. Or he’ll end up like Brezhnev in his latter days… practically dribbling and sleeping all the time. How would he lead us?.
Don’t we already have a President who is almost a “vegetable”? When you Google Monson and alzheimers/dementia etc.. quite a bit of stuff pops up.
Regardless if Monson has dementia or not, it really does not matter to me. Monson is still capable of lowering missions ages and what not.
I think it is hard for us men to let go of power once we have it. As far as Thomas Monson being so old, it does not bother me. After all, it’s not like he is making life and death decisions like President Obama or the Joint Chiefs. What??? Emailing the Area President in regards to who didn’t attend a Saturday church meeting? What would the punishment be, losing your volunteer church position you probably don’t want in the first place? I can’t really answer your question Kumahito about church leadership because I view leadership differently than I think most in the church do. I don’t see what “leadership” volunteer church leaders have or exhibit. Almost every other guy is President of something at church including myself. IMHO, I think leaders are like the young men in Afganistan fighting, not some dude in the ward drunk on his volunteer position.
mackay11 wrote:AngryMormon wrote:How could it be bad? It’s not like you are going to know! You don’t remember anything before you were born.
I hate to say it, but I think sometimes that there is no life after death. An invisible God, virgin birth, seer stone and Nephi’s family discovering the New World instead of Colombus etc.. sounds like BS or fantasy to me!
At the risk of a thread derail, Colombus wasn’t the first to discover the New World any more than Nephi. He was just the one with a good marketing team.
It’s much more than a good marketing team! There is historical evidence that Colombus and Leif Erickson reached the New World. No evidence that a guy named Nephi and family beat them to it. FWIW, the LDS church seems like a serious marketing machine and even they don’t go around saying Nephi discovered the New World.
How could it be bad? It’s not like you are going to know! You don’t remember anything before you were born. I hate to say it, but I think sometimes that there is no life after death. An invisible God, virgin birth, seer stone and Nephi’s family discovering the New World instead of Colombus etc.. sounds like BS or fantasy to me!
