[primarycolor]

Ray & Mormonheretic,

It’s ironic that you both seem to make the “point” of this subject for me.

The use of Perry Mason was to help suspend what you already “know” by getting you to consider another point of view. I’m not warranting that the scenario is correct. I’m trying to get you to think- and more importantly talk, or discuss a topic without reverting so quickly to dogmatism: to what you already “know.”

Instead I get Ray telling me that use of a third voice doesn’t fit the tenor of this forum (while he goes back and forth with his Administrator hat, and personal hat all the time). What’s wrong with me wearing a Perry Mason suit in a post?

I get Heretic thinking that I’m trying to “expose” a cover-up, and perhaps accusing me of some creative writing vanity.

If you would go back to the origin of this post, I stated that the information that I was bringing up wasn’t as important to me as how I hadn’t considered the information in any other light than what I’d been told- or provided by the Church. Then I said:

Quote:

I think that the Church discourages “forensic” thinking, much to it’s benefit, but sadly to the individuals’ detriment.

I think that this is what drives many members to a site like this. Individuals thinking for themselves, hoping for forensic fellowship.

I am sorry if you don’t want to field questions, observations and arguments that don’t quickly adhere to what you already “know.” But, that is the exercise that I had hoped to pursue.

(By the way, Ray. You make me picture the Pharisees following Jesus around saying “the use of metaphors doesn’t really fit the tone of what we like to hear in Jerusalem, please cut that out.”)

Heretic, please don’t be offended if I try my hand at a bit of humor. I have a Jewish friend who has all kinds of self-deprecating Jewish jokes, so I came up with this Mormon joke:

You’ve got two tables. You’ve got a religious riddle written down and placed on those tables and the challenge is to see who can solve the puzzle the quickest. At one table you invite two Rabbis at the other you have a Mormon Bishopric.

Right off the bat the Mormons are at a two to one disadvantage.

My question to you, why do you so quickly want to think together and oppose forensic, critical thinking. Why the quick paddling to a safe harbor?

I’m afraid you discourage some of us from steering our boats to close to you. It might appear that we’re becoming ships passing in the night. And that’s Okay.

[primarycolor]

REPORT TO THE GRAND JURY OF STAYLDS.COM

Hope you don’t mind the vehicle I’m using to provide information (that, upon study, became news to me). I’m putting on a Perry Mason suit, so please humor me.

I, Perry Mason, am setting out to provide information that will disclose enough evidence to re-open the case that prejudiced that Joseph Smith fired indiscriminately into a crowd of assailants. I will provide an opinion, based on facts, that it was more likely that there was another shooter, and that Joseph Smith was in fact murdered, unarmed- assassinated, and the gun was planted (so to speak).

I will present that:

1. The real shooter had motive to cover-up the fact.

2. Chain of custody of the weapon points to this other shooter

3. Description of the quick turn of events suggests the shooter could be the only one aware of physical detailed information.

Let me recount that it was John Taylor and Dr. Bernhisel that were sent to Carthage, Illinois, three days before the assassination, to plead with Governor Ford, to let JS and the City Council appear before a Nauvoo magistrate, instead of the anti-Mormon haven of “Justice” in Carthage.

To-whit, the Governor refused. John Taylor relates how on the night he spent in Carthage he was put on the defensive, asked to leave his room several times and separate from his companion, and feared murder, sleeping with his pistols under his pillow.

Next day, he traveled the 18 miles back to Nauvoo to apprise the brethren of his failure to change venue, and that the Governor insisted that they appear- and unarmed. JS and Hyrum decided that they had no choice but to concede and go to Carthage.

After hearing this, John Taylor retired to his home exhausted and slept:

Quote:

“Being very much fatigued, I slept soundly, and was somewhat surprised in the morning by Mrs. Thompson entering my room about 7 o’clock, and exclaiming in surprise, “What, you here! the brethren have crossed the river some time since.” pg 78 H of the Ch

Plans changed! Suddenly John Taylor realizes that the Brethren are on the run.

After getting supplied to travel JT contacted a Mr. Wheelock, who had a boat to help ferry him across the river:

Quote:

“As Cyrus Wheelock was an active, enterprising man, and in the event of not finding Brother Joseph I calculated to go to Upper Canada for the time being, and should need a companion. I said to Brother Cyrus H. Wheelock, “Can you go with me ten or fifteen hundred miles?” He answered, “Yes”. “Can you start in half an hour?” “Yes.”

pg 80

A short time later, as JT and Wheelock were making their escape, they ran into JS, Hyrum and the brethren, who had decided to reverse course: they decided to go to Carthage after all. The die was cast. John Taylor went with them.

I won’t set the stage prior to the events that happened two nights later in the upper room of the Carthage jail, but will quickly go point (2) “chain of custody.” Primarycolor had always assumed that out of the many visitors that the brethren happened to have, a visitor of relative anonymity happened to have smuggled a pistol and offered it to the group. But Perry Mason sees a linkage between John Taylor and the weapon.

Quote:

“Elder Cyrus H. Wheelock came in to see us, and when he was about leaving drew a small pistol, a six shooter, from his pocket, remarking at the same time, “Would any of you like to have this?” Brother Joseph immediately replied, “Yes, give it to me,” whereupon he took the pistol, and put it in his pantaloons pocket. The pistol was a six-shooting revolver, of Allen’s patent; it belonged to me, and was one that I furnished to Brother Wheelock when he talked of going with me to the east, previous to our coming to Carthage. I have it now in my possession.”

pg 100 H of the CH

Perry Mason submits to the Grand Jury that your credulity has to be suspended to believe that Mr. Wheelock brought Mr. Taylor’s gun into a room and offered it to “any of you.” Wouldn’t it make more sense for him to have said, “John, here’s your gun that I’ve been holding for you, do you want it?”

Now, as to point (1), motive. It isn’t a nefarious motive for John Taylor to have put the blame on JS for firing a gun. After all, JS was dead, and the living still had to face potential trials in this God forsaken, evil excuse for justice, in Carthage. In fact, JT had to survive several days alone and at the mercy of what he saw as a murderous group. Even though he was given some medical care, he refused to leave the jail until some fellow Mormons convinced him to let Carthinians help carry him to the outskirts of town. I’m sure it was in his interest of self preservation to “place the gun” in JS’s hands.

Point (3): Perry Mason finds it interesting that JT observed that the gun misfired three times; not only that it misfired, but three times. No one but the real shooter would conceivably even be aware of that fact. In other recollections JT said that the entire event happened in just two minutes. In that time you have Hyrum killed by bullets coming through the door and lock, you’ve got recollection of bullets flying into the room from the ceiling (which I assume meant floor- as to the shooter’s ceiling) and through the windows. And in all this cacophony you have JT stating that a gun, not in his own hand, was misfiring. I would ask, did he notice any of the assailants guns misfiring as well?

Also, JT relates that he was against the door with Willard Richards, but that JS changed positions with him to open the door and fire through the opening, then JS reversed and exchanged positions again, so that John Taylor went back to holding the door after the firing.Thus John Taylor tried exiting the window closer to the door, while Joseph Smith went out the furthest window from the door. Wouldn’t logic dictate that the shooter was at the door, shot through the door, and tried exiting the window closest to the door?

Okay. Done. Thanks for reading this. Primarycolor is back. If you’re mad at Perry Mason don’t take it out on Primary. He was just using some forensic logic, to point out that he never knew that the weapon actually belonged to John Taylor. Did you?

[primarycolor]

Ray,

I don’t think that we are disagreeing: perhaps misunderstanding each other. I would like to see us work toward what we mean by “truth,”and give each other room. Some areas are open to opinion. The risk that we in-turn would concede to each other, is that this might eventually effect our perception of what is true.

To help, I’m suggesting that we refine our discussion by referring to opinions. (I think you justifiably chastised me earlier for jumping rashly to the conclusion that Joseph Smith killed two people.) I represented it at the time as truth. Whereas I think that if I had said, “I think that JS may have killed two people,” you would have found that more acceptable to engage in conversation. Am I right?

So, when you state:

Quote:

What “truth” MIGHT be construed from these facts?

1) Joseph was in jail; therefore, he was a criminal when he was killed.

2) Joseph was in jail without being convicted; therefore, he was innocent when he was killed.

3) Joseph fought back; therefore, he deserved to die.

4) Joseph fought back, since everyone has the right of self-defense; therefore, as an un-convicted prisoner, he did not deserve to die., etc.

I would say that these are opinions, that by better evidence, might lead to truth.

Now, I think that opinions and evidence can lead to truth. In court it is called testimony and evidence.

I know that you don’t like my use of the element of surprise. But, I’ve got another surprise that I stumbled on in History of the Church. It has to do with the weapon itself. Who owned the weapon, how it got into Carthage jail, and who had motive to use it, and why he had reason to “plant” the weapon (figuratively speaking), good reason, understandable reason, etc., And, it’s just a forensic opinion, not a suggestion that it’s true, just interesting.

Interested?

[primarycolor]

Ray,

You make me think that we have to add one more word to the equation: “opinion”

You have made the point that interpretation of the facts can lead to various opinions. As your moniker ” we see through a glass darkly ” suggests, many interpretations are be seen through the eye of the beholder. I agree.

So when you say:

Quote:

What “truth” MIGHT be construed from these facts?

I would change that to what “opinion” might be construed from the facts.

I will concede right now, that we really don’t know whether anyone died from JS’s gunshots. However, at this point I think that you might concede that there is a possibility.

Now here is an aside, that gets to the heart of an important issue that I’ve been driving at for years: LDS have great difficulty discussing opinions about Church history and doctrine.

Why?

The true believer (I’ve been an ardent one- not so much now) won’t cotton to opinions. In fact, they are seen as anathema to the cause. No personal “causes” are tolerated.

Yet, that is a “conversation stopper”- an alienating generalization. Just because I want to “test” facts, develop an opinion and discuss it, doesn’t mean I’m part of a “cause,” particularly anti-Mormon, or someone wishing to “attack” the Church.

I want to be a “truth” seeker- don’t we all?

Now, when John Taylor said that he understood that three men were wounded and that two died I would assume that he wouldn’t have stated that unless he thought it was reliable information.

I was relying on what someone who lived through the actual experience decided (for some reason) to share with us. I will no longer be so bold as to say that it really happened. Should I equate President Taylor’s words to an “opinion?”

Mormonheretic:

I’ll need to get this book. Is it just me, but doesn’t this read as hearsay?

Quote:

Wills, Voras, and Gallaher were probably named in the indictment because their wounds, which testimony showed were received at the jail, were irrefutable evidence that they had participated in the mob.

Whose testimony? Wills, Voras and Gallaher weren’t there to testify were they? Bullet wounds? Do you think they might have gotten wounds at other times and others places with all the killings going on, in that area at that time? And with their apparent reputations? I think a better case was made against OJ.

You asked:

Quote:

What do you make of the fact that nobody was convicted of the Smith brothers murders? Was justice served?

Of course justice wasn’t served. I think that the Mormons were overwhelmed with enemies, and amid the chaos, that this was the least of their problems. It’s a total disgrace to the government of Illinois, and the U.S. government.

By the way, JS had every right to shoot and kill his attackers, I’m sure you ‘d agree, right?

Now, I don’t know if I dare, but I could make a case that JS didn’t shoot anybody, with the evidence (that never went to trial). I’m afraid that you would see this as a waste of time. But there is information in B.H. Roberts Church History that could be used as defense for JS, and that I found very intriguing. I would have to find an LDS person who was willing to suspend judgment, for the sake of conversation. But it has to do with unknown “facts” that aren’t in the story that you’re used to. Interested?

[primarycolor]

Thank you Mormonheretic, I should get Elder Oak’s book.

I’ve been discussing this subject with a retired Institute Director in the ward. He said that he had a citation of one person dying from their wounds six months after the Martyrdom. But didn’t think that two people died. I’ll see if I can drop by his home in the next few days and get the book he’s referring to. It was interesting that this well respected historian in our Stake wanted me to know that he didn’t consider Joseph Smith as having killed him, since it took the man six months to die.

Your evidence from Carthage Conspiracy is compelling. It doesn’t read as direct testimony, but rather

Quote:

They undoubtedly recognized their vulnerability and fled the county. A contemporary witness reported these three as saying that

That’s not bad, but not conclusive either.

But here again, those are factual names, testimony, history, etc., that we can evaluate. Thank you.

Hawkgrrrl,

Quote:

Does the church white-wash? Yes. So does the company you work for, the country you live in, and the family you were raised in. If you keep a journal, so do you, to some extent.

A true generalization.

Ray,

I agree with this:

Quote:

I used that example to show that “facts” might or might not lead to truth – depending on if the information really is factual

but not this:

Quote:

AND how the information is processed and viewed by the person doing the determination of “truth”.

I think facts need to be treated as objectively and as sterile as long as possible. Clarity depends upon it. Discussion for sure depends upon it. Otherwise, you dissipate into “conversation stoppers,” by trying to spin or conform too quickly.

Does that make sense?

I know that it is difficult in Church discussions, and as Hawkgrrl would point out, at home, at school and at play- in life really.

[primarycolor]

So let me flip the question to make a point:

Does truth lead to facts?

I started this post by telling you that an idea came to me (no one prodded, prompted, or put the idea into my head). One evening, having been steeped in a very well written book, I acknowledged to myself that much of what I take from reading many great books, what I enjoy and hold tribute to great thinkers and writers is how they contribute to my “thinking”. I mean, don’t you pause, often, when reading a particularly intelligent writer and realize how a paragraph or sentence can quickly invigorate a memory, an issue that you are immediately dealing with, or inspire you?

One evening, after shutting the pages of such a book, I thought, I wished that I had a better mental talent to use logic in the way I’d just experienced, so I just started going over what I knew best: Church subjects. I went through stories and doctrines of the Church, and I thought, let me think of a rock that I haven’t turned over, and see where it leads me. It was really nothing more than an intellectual exercise. (Being a Mormoncentric person from birth, I tend to not go a day without thinking about my world navel- meaning where I came from, my Church). I haven’t given up on this exercise.

It had been just a week before this, that I had gone to a sporting goods store to try out a handgun. We have a business that handles a lot of cash, I’ve had neighboring businesses that had been robbed. Then a bank a block a away was robbed.I happen to be more experienced with rifles, tried a 357 magnum handgun, realized my wife and sons would have a difficult time learning to shoot it (it’s like a canon in your hands). Needless to say, I didn’t purchase.

(Sorry for the long story)

So, back to the mental exercise, it suddenly dawned on me. Joseph Smith fired a hand gun. At short range. Into a mob of people. I knew that it miss fired. But I wondered to myself, I wonder if he hit anyone? I never heard that he had. Never read that he had. So there you have it. My hand was still reverberating from the 20 rounds of a 357.

I don’t suspect a Church cover-up, but I do think that the Church wouldn’t want to expound on it, or dwell on it.

But it did surprise me to read John Taylor state that two men died. Now, you can quibble about “he understood” that two men died. What I find interesting is that he almost said it in passing. I bet that here in the 21’st century it wouldn’t have passed so lightly. Just think about the killings, murders, death and dying that the early Church were constantly in touch with. John Taylor was almost killed.

Mormonheretic said:

Quote:

I just finished the book Carthage Conspiracy by Dallin Oaks. He details the trial of the accused assassins of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and nobody died from Joseph’s shots.

Did Dallin Oaks just say this? As RayDegraw would say- would you please site how and where he came to this conclusion?

I have reservations like Mr. C

Quote:

Can “truth” be reached without facts? I am currently struggling with the differences between the church version of history and what appear to be the historical facts. Could they both be “true”? If facts are required to arrive at truth, does the church keep us from finding truth by not giving us the facts?

So, when I say, “Does truth lead to facts,” however you want to answer that: Is that how the Church goes about teaching us? How we learn from a young age”

Yet, when we decide to individually mature, and approach Church subjects in a questioning way, aren’t we just trying to reverse that mode, and hopefully come to the same conclusion?

I respectfully disagree with Ray:

Quote:

but I also believe that forensic thinking mis-applied can lead to a discovery of opinion and hearsay (which is a perfect word to describe the statement, “I am informed.”), which can lead to a lack of understanding of truth based on faulty assumption.

So, no, I don’t believe forensic thinking leads to truth, because I believe the buffering of individual filters and interpretations of what appear to be “facts” often results in conclusions that are not undeniably factual – and I think the assertion that you discovered that Joseph actually did kill two people as a result of his firing his gun is a perfect example of this tendency to latch onto hearsay evidence and turn it into fact.

All that I showed to you was a statement by John Taylor, who by chain of evidence was closer to this event than Dallin Oaks, or you or myself.

I’m not trying to create hearsay, miss apply anything. And if it seems wrong to say that “I am informed” for just having looked up in History of the Church, something that the third President said, and take what he said as true (after all, I usually accept what other things that he has said)— you see where I’m going?

Just because you believe something is true, does that mean you have all the facts?

[primarycolor]

Ray, in answer to your points:

Quote:

1) I repeat, provide a link. Every report I’ve read (and they are NUMEROUS) states that there were people in the mob injured (naturally, since shots were fired), but I’ve never read anything that states authoritatively that two men actually died…

This is from History of the Church, volume 7, pages 102-103:

(This is from a history made by John Taylor (in preface to this section B.H. Roberts stated “written by John Taylor, late President (the third)of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a close participant in these events; and second only in nearness to the Prophet Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum in them; and who also was nearly made a complete martyr to the cause in which they suffered, being savagely wounded in Carthage Prison, and only narrowly escaping the death visited upon them.”)

I’m picking up the story, right after Hyrum was shot. So here is John Taylor:

“I shall never forget the deep feeling of sympathy and regard manifested in the countenance of Brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and, leaning over him, exclaimed, “oh! my poor, dear brother Hyrum!” He, however, instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed, died.”

Quote:

2) I know the movie.

Quote:

3) We don’t try to sensationalize post titles here in order to get people to read them. We aren’t into shock value. Personally, I really don’t like this title for this post – as, again, it implies something sinister. Think about it: Crouching Mormons, Hidden Dragons.

I’m sorry this was offensive to you. I almost was going to call it Crouching Mormons hidden Dragoons thereby describing the brethren crouched against the door, with the Carthage Grays storming the door. Did you realize that both Hyrum and Willard Richards were hunched into the door. That Hyrum was shot in the face because his head was near the door knob and lock which the intruders were shooting at, in their attempt to break in. But, more to point, I in no way pictured this as a sneer toward the brethren, and moreover, I picture them as showing bravery in self defense!

I know it’s your concern, as an administrator:

Quote:

and that, ultimately, not knowing the unknowable (whether or not any in the mob died in the attack) is proof of a sinister motive on the part of “crouching Mormons, hidden Dragons”.

Believe me. I have no sinister motive. Maybe I’m more Mormon than you- and don’t take that the wrong way. I don’t suspect the Church as having a sinister motive.

I’m simply pointing toward what I’ve called forensic thinking. If I had said critical thinking- it sounds arrogant and condescending. And I think forensic thinking is more to what I’m explaining. Evidence, logic and authenticity is nothing to be afraid of, or to get riled about.

But, I know that you might tire of having to review all these posts. Hope these answers might move the subject along to how we think about what we know.

So the query is: Do facts lead to truth?

[primarycolor]

Ray, Bruce and M Wallace (is that short for Mike Wallace?)

Thank you.

I originally got my information from B H Roberts History of the Church. Sorry, I don’t have page number at this moment. I’m sorry if I presented this discovery in a detached or nonchalant way. I didn’t want to come off as knowing something you didn’t already know. However, it is surprising isn’t it? Because in all your years you never picked this up at Church.

Also, the purpose of the posting isn’t to dwell on what actually happened (that is something to absorb and sink in by itself). My point is to uncover what is worrisome about being a true believer. It can frustrate your own method of thinking about things- where you are only encouraged to go so far, and are discouraged from opening some doors.

I agree with Bruce. One could (and now perhaps should) think of Joseph Smith as going out fighting.

Weapons: Two pistols were smuggled into the jail, a single shot derringer and a six shooter. When (if forget the smuggler’s name) asked the prisoners who wanted the six shooter, Joseph said that he did. Hyrum had the derringer.

Ray: I got the title in my head from Crouching Tigers hidden Dragons- the movie. I merely thought of those men crouching against a door against their hidden assailants. Those assailants have been hidden by name until M Wallace just provided them. Good forensic work M Wallace! Anyway, it was meant to interest viewers, and perhaps have the element of surprise that I felt when I first thought about this.

But again, I ask:

Quote:

Isn’t forensic discovery how one ultimately finds truth?

I take Bruce’s point:

Quote:

Well, it certainly is how one ultimately finds facts.

And, don’t facts ultimately lead us to truth?

[primarycolor]

I’d like to react, particularly since you mentioned that you came out of the 70’s. I can identify with that.

First, it doesn’t hurt to have oil in your lamp because apocalyptic events have continually happened throughout history- short of “THE apocalypse.”

You know, I’m more concerned that the Church seems to have lost it’s way on this. Instead of being on the watchtowers warning us of certain events…

The Church seems long in the tooth, on the defense, and little different from any other Church. It still carries the narrative doctrine that it was restored in preparation for the Second Coming, but continually shies away from any pronouncements that might shine too much light on itself.

Perhaps our banishment to Utah gave us a complex. Many of us revere the audacity that Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo Legion had shown at one time, particularly in defense of the constitution, and God having inspired the creation of this Country so that he could restore his Church, etc.. But instead of standing up for our place in history, perhaps the Utah complex has only inspired our leaders to run away from it.

Instead, we’re a “worldwide” Church now. Apparently we’re not an “American” Church. I guess we’re supposed to simply believe in Jesus, and be righteous and wait.

So much for our being a force for invigorating and participating with the catalyst that made our Church possible: the inception of the United States of America.

I know this sounds political by now…

But, I’m just a one time true believer, probably like yourself.

[primarycolor]

(A Jewish friend, whom I commiserate with about religion, will sometimes (out of the blue) say “what have they done to you?”)

So let me ask, if everything that everyone has pointed out so far, is true, and I’m not saying that it’s not:

The obvious question is: did Joseph Smith even need the plates? Did he need to be within so many feet of them for the seer stone to work? Two feet, three? six feet?

If he just needed to be next to them, then conceivably he could have translated them while they were still in the ground. (That’s right, why not JS sitting on the hill Cumorrah?).

Out of the blue I hear my friend’s voice, “what have they done to you?”

[primarycolor]

Valoel

It’s been proven to me, time, time and again that the Church (it’s leaders) are more interested in you thinking well of the Church- than whether you think well.

It’s Okay. And I know where you’re coming from. Yes I know and appreciate the deep doctrine types. And I’m not saying that there aren’t brilliant Mormons. But when you get down to brass tacks, feelings over ride thinking- 100%.

If you have a concern, an idea, a suggestion that in any way may contradict the handbook, doctrines or practices, a leader will tug at that rug your standing on- your testimony, and call it into question. Pulling that rug out from under you, leaving you nothing to stand on. Any rationale or reasoning is of no consequence.

You said:

Quote:

Mormon religion in fact attempts to tackle the greatest conundrums of Christianity with confident and well-thought answers, unafraid of breaking with custom and creed to get there.

That was in a time, long, long ago and far, far away. I am frustrated that we don’t seem to have any brave leaders willing to go out on a limb and address changes that have been made, need to be made, or will be made. Who will address doctrines that have blurred and transformed (as if we didn’t notice?). I don’t mind the changes, I mind the non-acknowledgment of them, etc.

“Once the brethren have spoken, all THINKING has been done.”

But, in my opinion, they haven’t really been saying anything that we can really think about.

[primarycolor]

Ray

Quote:

Honestly, I think it’s just a bit . . . brash . . . to think I would know what I would do as the President of the LDS Church in regard to something that has so many implications

You’d do fine. You’d receive revelation. And your young.

(Here goes again): If I were President I would choose new Quorum members that were no older than Joseph Smith. i.e. 39 years old; at least for the next 6 choices.

[primarycolor]

I think there is a gender difference regarding the WOW.

I think men are wired to hunt, gather and explore. If you tell a man “you’re not supposed to do that,” he will likely resent it and plow ahead and see for himself. It’s an important part of the discovery process in men.

Rix started this thread by sharing the fact that he would refuse green tea in Japan while on his mission in the late 70’s, but now apparently missionaries can have the tea.

In the early 70’s, while on my mission in New England, we missed many opportunities to get to know people by simply refusing a cup of coffee. Think about this: A nice person invites you in from their doorstep, and immediately asks, “can I make you a cup of coffee?” You immediately say “no thank you.” Then sit down and look at one another.

If they had said, “would you like a glass of water” that’s quite a different signal. That’s stating “I’m gracious, but don’t intend to sit long.”

But a cup of coffee. That was a game changer. That was often the ballgame.

In New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, etc., the offer of a cup of coffee, just like tea in Japan, was an invitation to break bread. To sit down and really talk. This was actually a cultural cue. We were missing the chance to have many good conversations, authentic repartee, it was a conversation stopper to say “no thank you.” But if we had shared some coffee- and yes, pie, cookies, and other baked goods, if we hadn’t been so half-baked in our conceits, we would have made a lot of headway. We would have gotten to know an authentic person. Instead, we were inauthentic in our response.

(The issues that couples are having, is understandable, poignant and it looks like they are being handled well. I’d say, “ladies” you might appreciate that some of your men are more interested in being a “man” (more man), than Morman.)

[primarycolor]

Ray

I agree with you- but it is a fate accompli. And therefore it stands to reason (Mormon reasoning) that it’s God’s will. There is no other way leaders could view it today, otherwise God’s will has been thwarted by man, right?

However, the manifesto was really a humble declaration by Wilford Woodruff to “who it may concern” that he was “advising” members to desist from entering into polygamous marriages, that he had ordered the endowment house to be torn down, that he was unaware of recent marriages, etc., it reads like a beaten down leader asking the government to believe him- that he’s going along with their demands. And many of the quorum of the twelve were imprisoned or in hiding, property confiscated, and an army had been dispatched to threaten the Church. The Church was on the brink of disaster.

Objectively looking at the situation, it looked more like “man’s” will, at the time.

[primarycolor]

Swimordie said:

Quote:

Secondly, orthodox-style Christianity had deep roots in the doctrinal concept of racial differences. Democrats were leading the charge for racial equality.

Sorry- wrong. Just because you might be picturing John and Bobby Kennedy (Democrats) heading the charge. They really hadn’t lead, but rather caught the wave President Eisenhower (the General who knew how blacks performed in WWII, along with Republicans in Congress, they had already done most of the heavy lifting). By the way, it was the democrats of the south that had to be reigned-in. It’s not good to paint just one party as bringing about civil rights. Johnson did sign off on the legislation, but the Republicans were just as involved and supportive.

I noticed that all the comments so far are left of center. To me, that means that most of you are newbies to being inactive, less active, or “questioning” the Church. It’s as though the conservatism is tarred by the Church and visa-verse. And supposedly liberating oneself, is liberal.

I went down that road. My Mormon guilt had me in the Rainbow Coalition wearing buttons for Jesse Jackson for President.

I stood-up for Clinton in conversation with Mormon family (until Monica). I voted for Al Gore.

9-11

Made a big difference in my life.

There’s nothing wrong with re-visiting conservative values. It can be an experience for at least someone here- and realize that it may satisfy some of the values that you miss- or don’t appreciate, that do resonate in what is moral in Mormonism.

[Author]

Posts