[Rob4Hope]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Elective abortion is generally considered immoral because it’s using abortion as a means of birth control. The simple fact of the matter is that rape means it is not elective. The woman did not have a choice in deciding to have sex.

I understand. What i’m saying is if there is a big stigma about rape being the “fault” of the victim because of things like honor code, is there any chance that if the rape results in pregnancy the victim blaming will be carried to the pregnancy as well?

Don’t know the answer to this. But I will say that if it does in ANY WAY lean in that direction, I think it is like throwing the victim to the wolves. I think it is VERY wrong.

[Rob4Hope]

Old-Timer wrote:

[Admin Note]: For anyone who reads this site and doesn’t understand the LDS Church’s official stance on abortion:

Abortion is seen as murder by too many members, but it isn’t murder by actual LDS doctrine / policy. In fact, the Church’s official position on abortion leaves the final choice to the mother / parents and explicitly allows for it in the cases of rape, incest, and when the health (not just life, and not just physical health) of the mother is in jeopardy.

And I do understand that. But from my perspective, I am not sure many of the general members do…like you pointed out Ray.

However,…isn’t there something in the handbook about elective abortion being something that can be disciplined? With some of the discussions happening on this thread, if we are in “blame the victim” mode, its not a big stretch to take it further to the choice of dealing with potential consequences of rape.

For completeness, I’m bringing that up. And, all I am saying is what a horrible way to throw someone to the wolves…its is just wrong.

[Rob4Hope]

Roy wrote:

To me this goes to leadership roulette and the predicament that the church has of having a largely untrained lay clergy and leadership.

This untrained lay clergy has immense power in people’s lives when they can control whether someone can or can’t attend a given university, or when they control whether someone is scarred for life for something THEY DIDN”T DO NOR WANTED TO HAPPEN!

This whole thread makes me shudder.

I know someone close who was raped. I remember the treatment she received from those who should have loved her, and basically held her accountable for the act. I remember that of her own accord, and early on, aborting the result of that rape inside her. There was no support for her to have the baby, there was no sympathy, and she handled it in her own way as best she could. She was NOT LDS at the time, and there is no possibility in the world that she will ever return to her LDS roots.

Because now she is a murderer as well.

I can’t even imagine the horror a woman would experience if she were rapped, and then became pregnant from that.

Seems like in some situations we are in the business of destroying people.

I’ve read most of the posts on this thread….this thread more than any other makes me shudder because the fallout is immense. People’s lives are destroyed.

[Rob4Hope]

I’ve got and started the next book “Insiders View…” and it is about what I expected.

But, some of the questions are good ones….just saying.

I don’t know yet if I will start a new thread, or it this whole thread should be moved until the title: “Some books and what they do!”….

Anyway,…interesting posts coming.

[Rob4Hope]

LookingHard wrote:

One item I plan on doing before I “come out” is reading and studying the BOM and take Moroni’s promise to task.

I am going to do my very best to try to ask God.

I am quite sure if I don’t get a confirmation that there will be those that say, “well you just didn’t try enough / have enough faith.” I am worried that this may be something that pushes my button enough that I may not be 100% nice. I assume I would try to calmly say, “I have been trying for almost 40 years and I asked understanding that my savlation is on the line. What more do I have to do?”

Or I might ask them to give me direction for a scenario. A friend of mine has grown up as a Jehovah’s Witness all of his life. Now that he is in his late 40’s and has been a good Witness, but just can’t seem to feel that God is telling him that Jehovah’s Witness is where he wants him to be. He as been intensely asking God to tell him that his religon is true. But he has no answer and he is worried there may be somewhere else that God would want him to be. He is worried his time on earth is running out and he wants to do what God tells him. What should he do? I am sure many are going to see that I am trying to have them think from a different perspective what “I” should do.

LH…I’m not picking on you, so take this with “tongue and cheek”.

Ah…he just needs to have more faith!

[Rob4Hope]

And,…back as “Rob4Hope”….

[Rob4Hope]

Thanks Roy. The details were elusive.

One of the things I find interesting (and kindof disconcerting) is the nature of revelation. Specifically it is this:

[list]

[Rob4Hope]

Oh,…and after I finish this next one, I think I’m gunna try some of D. Michael Quinn. See where that leads….

[Rob4Hope]

FaithfulSkeptic wrote:

Welcome back, Rob! And thanks for posting that quote from William Marks, Roy. I hadn’t heard of that before.

Quote:

Smith said: “We are a ruined people…this doctrine of polygamy, or Spiritual-wife System, …taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow. I have been deceived…it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down, and its practice stopped in the Church.”

Whether JS ever said those words or not is up for debate, but polygamy has alway been one of the biggest issues for me to overcome in my faith crisis. But it is now one of many things that deeply trouble me about the church.

I’ve started reading Rough Stone Rolling a couple times, but got bogged down about 1/3 of the way through and never finished it. I’m just going to have to plow through and finish it some day.

RSR is a big book. Like I said above, I think Bushman downplayed the plural marriage stuff, but he didn’t ignore it. Another good contemporary book is Greg Princes biography of David O. Mckay. Both of those books are big,…the latter one is REALLY big (meaning you ain’t gunna finish it in an afternoon).

I’ve also found some writings by a guy named Ken Clark. What he has written (that which I’ve read) is not nasty and mean–but it follows and expounds some of the CES letter stuff. His discussion about “loyalty” trumping honesty makes sooooooo much sense to me. For example, I know that the GAs close ranks when one of their members is put in trouble. Paul Dunn seems to be an exception–he was thrown to the wolves. But, Bruce McConkie was someone who was protected when he published the Mormon Doctrine book against the wishes of McKay and others (See Princes book on that). Instead of yanking it from the shelves and telling Bruce NEVER again,..and actually perhaps making corrections then and there, they closed ranks.

A lot of this “loyalty” stuff came up in Bushman’s book. The important thing to JS appears to have been loyalty to your brethren, even at the expense of lots of other things. The fact that Bushman points this out makes other things I’ve read more clear, such as the alleged slandering threats made by Hyrum and Joseph when some of the women that were propositioned intended to disclose the matter publicly. They were kept quiet by having their reputations thrown into dispute and being ostracized in a tight community like Nauvoo was.

One of the things I’m learning is that the more I learn, the more the pieces seem to fit together in a tight jig-saw puzzle. I read a while ago about the slander threats attributed to Joseph and Hyrum, and I thought,…no way. But, the closing ranks idea IS supported by Bushman, and it REALLY is supported by Prince.

You can’t just ignore this stuff. At least I can’t.

[Rob4Hope]

The modesty discussion dovetails into other areas and can make a mess: dating, relations with others of the opposite sex, relations with those of the same sex, self restraint to the point of virtual self hatred (in some cases–I’m thinking about the idea of modest thoughts and what is and is NOT considered normal or acceptable).

Scary stuff.

I like the story above about the exotic dancer and how loving and accepting her brought about the biggest change — without loosing her. Gosh there needs to be move or that.

[Rob4Hope]

Roy wrote:

rob4hope1 wrote:

Is there anything out there that maybe indicates JS ended up not thinking plural marriage was a good idea?

Quote:

Stake President William Marks: In July 1853, Stake President Marks wrote that he met with the prophet shortly before his martyrdom. Smith said: “We are a ruined people…this doctrine of polygamy, or Spiritual-wife System, …taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow. I have been deceived…it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down, and its practice stopped in the Church.” Marks said Smith ordered him to go to the high council: “I will have charges preferred against all who practice this doctrine; and I want you to try them by the laws of the Church, and cut them off, if they will not repent, and cease the practice of this doctrine … I will go into the stand and preach against it with all my might, and in this way, we may rid the Church of this damnable heresy.” But Smith was killed shortly after; When Marks related what Smith had said, his testimony “was pronounced false by the Twelve and disbelieved.”

(Quinn p. 147-8, http://signaturebooks.com/2010/10/excerpt-mormon-polygamy/)

This is FairMormons rebuttal:

Quote:

The evidence for this claim is scant. Marks’ report was late, and Joseph continued to propose plural sealings, and approve and teach plural marriage for others until at least May 1844. (He was killed June 1844.) Furthermore, the mechanism that Marks claimed Joseph wanted to use–a high council investigation of all those practicing plural marriage–would not have been wise or necessary. Publicity toward plural marriage could only bring more persecution, and Joseph had privately taught and approved all those engaged in plural marriage: he thus would have had no need for a public investigation to determine who Nauvoo’s practicing polygamists were. Joseph would also have been unlikely to instruct Marks to excommunicate practicing polygamists, since they had all entered into plural marriage solely because Joseph had instructed them to do so.

It is worth mentioning that William Marks was against polygamy and was involved in the RLDS movement. He had motive to claim that JS had a change of heart near the end.

For me reading RSR by Bro. Bushman was a big eye opener about the function of prophets. I was struck that JS did not know what the future would hold and did not know what to do. I had largely accepted that current LDS prophets do not sit down and talk face to face with Jesus – but this was JS, the prophet of the restoration. He had churned out reams of revelations in the first person voice of God, but then he also made critical miscalculations and then seemed left to himself on how to recover. I found myself wondering why JS couldn’t just ask God what had gone wrong or what the next step was supposed to be. Individuals in the early days of the church could ask for and receive a revelation addressed to them personally. Why could JS not receive good answers to the urgent issues that faced the church in that day.

Yeh Roy…you got it. That was the very quote.

I wonder about all of this stuff. And, this is a VERY interesting idea here.

I recall that when JS sent the copy-right to Canada (I think that was the story) and it all failed, didn’t he ask God about this–and wasn’t the answer: “Some revelations are from God, some from men, and some from the devil.” If that is the case, and clearly in this case THE PROPHET was led by a false revelation, then how can we be so sure that everything after this was exclusively from God?

In large measure, that is one the main discussion points of this site.

This whole idea about revelations coming from multiple sources opens up a whole interesting and possibly freeing discussion about what really comes from God and what doesn’t. I’ve heard so many stories about “I heard a voice”. And yet, how in the world do you know the source of that voice?–your mind, your television you didn’t know was on, your dead uncle who is a jokester and likes to mess with you, some devil from the 3rd hell of perditions frozen ice, or God?

Just food for thought here…

[Rob4Hope]

LOL….

Got me going Nibbler…

OK,…I’m gunna start “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins”…Grant Palmer now.

[Rob4Hope]

nibbler wrote:

What’s the end game? I’m just curious.

No real end game….just trying to gather as much information as I can. Basically I’m driven by curiosity actually…

[Rob4Hope]

I think I read something out there about JS actually turning against plural marriage later in his life and thinking it was a mistake?

It was in a post-mormon type site,…and I can’t find it. I’m sure it is probably just conjecture or false info,…but it was intriguing.

Is there anything out there that maybe indicates JS ended up not thinking plural marriage was a good idea?

[Rob4Hope]

Read your wheat&Tares article hawkgirl. Loved it.

You sure hit some points that got me thinking.

[Author]

Posts