- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Just like differing approaches to lots of issues, FAIR works for some people; it doesn’t work for others. I’m glad we have a place like that for classic apologetics, since lots of people need that sort of answer. I’m glad we aren’t limited to places like that, since lots of people need something different than that sort of answer. I’m a big believer in finding whatever sort of answer works for each individual.
Hi Hippo. Welcome. I have told no one I. Complete but my therapist, who we go through what I believe inside myself vrs, what I believe because others think it’s true both in and out of religion or LDS. Even culturally.
Discovering ones self and ones emotions and acknowledging them and expressing them in a positive matter.
It’s hard, most people don’t understand or are trained to feel things but suppress them because of fear if what a person might do.
Anyways I communicate Witt my wife as much as I am able, I look for signed of stress and fatigue and back way off when I see signs of it. Even though see ask for them.
Outside if that, no one.
I get by, by expressing why I do things. Vastly different then the context at church teaches.
At church we focus on doctrine and the reason to do things is because of what ever doctrine and understanding of that doctrine.
You could use the word “laws” and am expression to day that we do things because of laws or understanding of laws.
In truth that’s how they relate themselves to god or the world around them.
I relate to the works around me and to god very differently because I ask myself very different questions about them.
Testing for good positive fruit, when something test bad or good I just drop or follow it. No explanation needed.
Charity and love for others and the luau it if such and knowledge and truth.
Some may feel that I am answerable to certain people for that. People are not answerable based on theology.
People can’t hold each other responsible based on theology or theological arguments or ideas.
It’s all based on testable ideas and truth and good fruit.
People must demonstrate through repeatable test that what you are doing is right or wrong.
The burden is on them , not you. Innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond a shadow if a doubt.
All will have a hard time trying to show being objective. They can have their own beliefs.
But the burden goes both ways, they must prove what you are doing us wrong beyond books and belief.
Nehpi gets it right on proving what is good for us, using a test and results over time.
No one can get around that. No matter their belief they can’t get around your results or the results at large.
Do what bears good fruit to both you and those around you. But remember it is impossible to please everyone at once, nor should you sacrifice yourself in doing so.
Take care.
Hi Hippo! Welcome to the ward as they say. I’m pretty new around here too, but I’ve really learned a lot and am grateful for those who have shared their experiences on this forum. Keep searching and opening your mind to new ideas and ways of looking at the church, yourself, and the Lord.
I was thinking about it the other day. I know at first they can be depressing, scary, and stressful, but are faith crisis a bad thing? I came to the realization the other day that a FC is a huge blessing. It’s an opportunity to get off the mental/spiritual hamster wheel and really analyze what you believe and why you believe things. If you go into the process with an open heart, I believe what you can find on the other side of a FC is a beautiful, deepening understanding of yourself and God.
I hope you find joy in your journey and look at this as a wonderful opportunity to expand your spiritual horizons.
sanders31105 wrote:Hi Hippo!
It’s an opportunity to get off the mental/spiritual hamster wheel and really analyze what you believe and why you believe things. If you go into the process with an open heart, I believe what you can find on the other side of a FC is a beautiful, deepening understanding of yourself and God.
I hope you find joy in your journey and look at this as a wonderful opportunity to expand your spiritual horizons.
So very much this. There is a flip side where if you are honest with yourself and what you really believe and how you understand or relate to others and god in your prayers can be so very helpful, knowledgeable and freeing. It opens understanding about the nature if yourself and how you individually relate to god and your fellow man/women/child.
Such an understanding can only come from being result open and honest with yourself/something people usually fear and fight as a natural process. Instead learn to embrace it and learn a lot about yourself and your relationship with your bribery and god few take the time to know/learn.
Welcome to the site! Hi Scthomas. I have a different viewpoint. I will only mention a few things because I don’t want to argue – only demonstrate some differences of opinion.
There is evidence that there were sexual relations between JS and some of his plural wives. Since JS was married – this would be adultery under many definitions. We claim that JS was following the higher law by complying with God’s command. I don’t know that it necessarily matters if JS consummated marriages in polyandrous marriages – he could have and it would still have been at God’s command so it’s all good (or at least no more adulterous than the rest of the polygamous relationships). I don’t much see the point in the distinction.
I don’t know what to do with the lack of any offspring from anyone but Emma – nevertheless it has been reasonably established that he had relations with at least some of his plural wives (and very probable that he didn’t have relations with at least some others).
scthomas34 wrote:The best explanation is that JS wanted to connect his family to others in the gospel. This makes no sense to me, and just sounds weird.
I believe that Joseph’s mental picture of the afterlife was very different than our current theological understanding. That (I believe) is why it doesn’t make any sense. We are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. The differences between modern Mormonism and the theology of some of the early periods of the church are so vast that I understand them better by keeping them separate – they might as well be separate religions. I imagine that JS and/or BY would have some strong objections to some of our doctrinal positions.
Hippo,
There are various possible explanations for many issues (each with advantages and drawbacks). Part of walking the middle road is the willingness to consider other perspectives.
Amen, Roy – to everything you said. Hi Roy I agree that our differing view of the afterlife as supposed to the early church members has a lot to do with the differing points of view between now and then. I just want to clarify, and I am not here to argue either, but I mentioned that there was much not evidence or weak evidence towards him having sexual relations with his polyandrous wives. This was not a blanket statement for all of his polygamous wives. Considering JS close relationship with God as evidenced by his personal writings through the years and the spiritual witnesses of the women he was married or sealed to of polygamy, that although what I said might be considered a bit of a stretch, I feel that JS manwhore is also a stretch. I just feel like an explanation on the side that JS might be have been trying to do his best at the time was needed to round out the conversation because anti sites are good at taking things out of context and lining up the evidence in way that makes it look like something it is not. I realize that sources for those who defend difficult LDS doctrine does not work for everyone, but in my experience many who deal with a lot of anti do no really consider these points of view and if these issues can be resolved with evidence or the apologetics points of view than this is a lot quicker resolution. If not and these points of view do not work than no one is worse off. I realize many members of this ward website also considered all of the viewpoints as well and really done thorough research.
scthomas34 wrote:… I mentioned that there was much not evidence or weak evidence towards him having sexual relations with his polyandrous wives.
I may be wrong but I think Brian Hales theory is when Joseph married a polyandrous wife they were effectively divorced from their first husband. I have read enough personal accounts from the day to understand there was an idea that the law of the land did not qualify as “legally and lawfully wedded” …unless they were joined by the authority of the priesthood they were not “legal.” There is a letter from a church leader in early Utah (my recollection here) explaining that an endowed woman married to a non-member is not able to hold a recommend because she is effectively committing adultery as her “marriage” is not legal in the eyes of the Lord. I have seen many sources point to this same idea, they honored the law and authority of God and the law of the land held no authority.
Even when the women were married to faithful church members I think they were only civil marriages that Joseph assumed to be without merit when he took the polyandrous wife, thus the wife was not polyandrous at all, but simply appeared to be by people that assumed the civil union was legit. (This is not my personal view but I believe it was the justification at the time.)
There is evidence of sex with a few of the wives and evidence of no sex with most of them. I see a very clear evolution of the concept of sealing over his lifetime, and I see a clear movement away from sexual unions as he got older and the concept evolved. Also, just to repeat what I have said in other threads, Joseph wasn’t a classic, traditional polygamist. He didn’t live with his multiple wives or (it appears) have sex on a continued basis with any of them (with the possible exception of Fanny Alger) – even those for whom the marriages appear to have been consummated sexually. “Polygamy” was codified under Brigham Young.
I’m not making any other statement, especially of support, in saying that than the actual words I used, so don’t read anything into the paragraph above that isn’t in the words themselves.
scthomas34 wrote:Although what I said might be considered a bit of a stretch, I feel that JS manwhore is also a stretch.
I think that we agree more than we disagree scthomas. Elder Holland recently said “Imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we.”
I believe that JS did some amazing things in his relatively short life. I believe that JS channeled divinity in some new and unique ways. I also believe that JS made mistakes along the way. I believe some of these mistakes split families apart and ruined people’s lives. If God can work with and even love his servant Joseph (and I believe that He did and does) – would He not show the same copious extension of charity in his dealings with me?
Perhaps we should move this discussion to another thread if we wish to get further into the details.
[ Admin Note]: We have lots of threads dealing with every aspect of that possible topic. Let’s either find an older one and bump it up for further comment or start a new thread. Let’s let it drop in this one.
Roy, I concur with your thoughts. I said what I wanted to on this subject so I don’t have anything else to say to carry on the conversation.
I really don’t mind that this tread has rambled off of an intro. I have learned a lot about JS and the biggest thorn in my testimonies side. I’m just so scared of researching this topic first because it makes me so mad and second because i don’t know really where i’ll find truth and where i’ll find venom or apologetics. I just want the facts. I guess i had come to the conclusion that JS was some sort of manwhore, and that was so terribly disturbing. I had never thought about how sealings were so different back then, and so was so much church doctrine. you all have given me some food for thought. thanks! it’s so refreshing to have a dialogue about this instead of having to shut up and just get more and more frustrated b/c i don’t want to voice my concerns and end up a project or end up ruining someone else’s beliefs. on another note, i did talk to my bishop, and he was so nice that i fell for it and told him too much i think. he told me i’m on his top 10 list now. (he said it like a good thing, but it made me cringe. i’m officially a project.) oh well, at least he cares. i really appreciate him for that. in some ways it’s nice. i can relax a little about being exposed and work on just being me, whatever that is now. i have to agree with one of the previous posts. i need to stop worrying about what everyone else thinks and just be comfortable with who i am and what i believe.
I really think i’m going to like “attending” this “ward.”
🙂 hippo wrote:I really don’t mind that this tread has rambled off of an intro. I have learned a lot about JS and the biggest thorn in my testimonies side. I’m just so scared of researching this topic first because it makes me so mad and second because i don’t know really where i’ll find truth and where i’ll find venom or apologetics. I just want the facts. I guess i had come to the conclusion that JS was some sort of manwhore, and that was so terribly disturbing. I had never thought about how sealings were so different back then, and so was so much church doctrine. you all have given me some food for thought. thanks! it’s so refreshing to have a dialogue about this instead of having to shut up and just get more and more frustrated b/c i don’t want to voice my concerns and end up a project or end up ruining someone else’s beliefs.
I think every source you ever see about Joseph Smith will be colored in some way or another. Have you read Rough Stone Rolling? I think that’s one of the better sources. The author leans towards apologetics, but he’s also a real, trained historian who has a professional reputation to maintain, and from statements I’ve heard online he falls close to our camp here at StayLDS.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.