Juliann Makes a Confession

[_Mister Scratch]

That was a fascinating thread.
Did you note Juliann's comments towards the end. I kind of chuckled because I do get where she is coming from.
Something along the lines of

'yeah Joseph Smith is a bad man, and the LDS church is a bad church...next point....'

Made me think actually. Because I don't know that Joseph Smith is a bad man, and I don't know that the LDS Church is a bad church.
But I couldn't cope with the discrepancy between Joseph Smith the man, and Joseph Smith as he is portrayed.

I think the churches teachings are partly to blame. We were taught that Joseph Smith acted morally and righteously and was guilty of no great sin (as per the 1st vision account)we were taught, 'by their fruits shall ye know them', we were also taught the importance of a solid foundation, we were also taught that Joseph is either a fraud or a prophet with no inbetween.

The church has taught a very black and white viewpoint, one cannot therefore blame members for only seeing two options. This is how I felt upon leaving.
It was either true or false.

Now I appreciate, despite the words of the president of the church and others, that that is too simple a choice.

Joseph was not neccessarily a bad man, he certainly wasn't a bad man all the time and in all areas. The church may have useful aspects to it and not so useful aspects to it.

It's so much more grey than the true/false....good/bad.... that Juliann seems to project on to critics of the church.

Just my opinion

Mary

Yes, the conclusion of the thread was very funny indeed. Essentially, juliann resorted to flailing about, with nothing useful to contribute to the discussion (which was very quickly shut down by Orpheus/Dan_G). I agree with you, MT, that one of the key reasons these kinds of accusations arise lies in the fact that Joseph Smith really is lionized, and portrayed to be more or less a saint. One seldom hears *anything* about the more negative or embarrassing aspects of his character in Sunday school. Or, the positive aspects of his character are used in deceptive ways, such as the story about how he turned down a drink of brandy before his leg operation, which is used to support the WoW.

[_skippy the dead]

That was a fascinating thread.
Did you note Juliann's comments towards the end. I kind of chuckled because I do get where she is coming from.
Something along the lines of

'yeah Joseph Smith is a bad man, and the LDS church is a bad church...next point....'

Made me think actually. Because I don't know that Joseph Smith is a bad man, and I don't know that the LDS Church is a bad church.
But I couldn't cope with the discrepancy between Joseph Smith the man, and Joseph Smith as he is portrayed.

I think the churches teachings are partly to blame. We were taught that Joseph Smith acted morally and righteously and was guilty of no great sin (as per the 1st vision account)we were taught, 'by their fruits shall ye know them', we were also taught the importance of a solid foundation, we were also taught that Joseph is either a fraud or a prophet with no inbetween.

The church has taught a very black and white viewpoint, one cannot therefore blame members for only seeing two options. This is how I felt upon leaving.
It was either true or false.

Now I appreciate, despite the words of the president of the church and others, that that is too simple a choice.

Joseph was not neccessarily a bad man, he certainly wasn't a bad man all the time and in all areas. The church may have useful aspects to it and not so useful aspects to it.

It's so much more grey than the true/false....good/bad.... that Juliann seems to project on to critics of the church.

Just my opinion

Mary

Yes, the conclusion of the thread was very funny indeed. Essentially, juliann resorted to flailing about, with nothing useful to contribute to the discussion (which was very quickly shut down by Orpheus/Dan_G). I agree with you, MT, that one of the key reasons these kinds of accusations arise lies in the fact that Joseph Smith really is lionized, and portrayed to be more or less a saint. One seldom hears *anything* about the more negative or embarrassing aspects of his character in Sunday school. Or, the positive aspects of his character are used in deceptive ways, such as the story about how he turned down a drink of brandy before his leg operation, which is used to support the WoW.

If anyone that had even a whiff of critic about them had posted something similar to what juliann did at the end of that thread (i.e., "yeah, the spirit told me so, all will be revealed. . . what next"), they would have been banned without warning (some of us have been banned for far less). I, for one, found her behavior to be appalling. I can see why it was shut down - to save juliann from herself. It wasn't going to get any better.

[_Runtu]

If anyone that had even a whiff of critic about them had posted something similar to what juliann did at the end of that thread (i.e., "yeah, the spirit told me so, all will be revealed. . . what next"), they would have been banned without warning (some of us have been banned for far less). I, for one, found her behavior to be appalling. I can see why it was shut down - to save juliann from herself. It wasn't going to get any better.

It certainly does illustrate that we weren't banned for being "rude," doesn't it? But then we're supposedly showing our true colors now.

[_Bond...James Bond]

If anyone that had even a whiff of critic about them had posted something similar to what juliann did at the end of that thread (i.e., "yeah, the spirit told me so, all will be revealed. . . what next"), they would have been banned without warning (some of us have been banned for far less). I, for one, found her behavior to be appalling. I can see why it was shut down - to save juliann from herself. It wasn't going to get any better.

It certainly does illustrate that we weren't banned for being "rude," doesn't it? But then we're supposedly showing our true colors now.

The Mods need to realize that people talk differently in different situations. When someone is on MAD, they clean up their language and stuff because those are the rules. On MD, the rules are relaxed and people can be more colourful in expressing their opinions. It's about context, something the Mods don't understand.

[_cksalmon]

My only claim in this area has been that all antiMormons are guilty of lazy research (as that is what all antiMormon claims are based on).

I also would have accepted idiotic, self-serving, and/or presentist.

CKS

[_moksha]

I'm a little confused. Your original example was that when you were growing up, conversations involving Joseph Smith's polygamy were common place. You also mentioned that it is discussed in the current "Gospel Essentials" class.

It wasn't mentioned when I took this class a few years ago. Somehow, the only folks I imagine who would have missed this, are those from BIC sheltered Mormon environments. They wouldn't be in the Gospels Essentials class anyway.

Have you ever wondered how severe the cognitive dissonance must be for those members from extreme faith-promoting backgrounds must be when exposed to unfiltered materials, if the Apologetic response is to deny that cognitive dissonance happens?

[_Runtu]

My only claim in this area has been that all antiMormons are guilty of lazy research (as that is what all antiMormon claims are based on).

I also would have accepted idiotic, self-serving, and/or presentist.

CKS

Yeah, that works, too. Why is it so hard for people to accept that we can do the same research and come to different conclusions?

[_why me]

You know what's funny is that I and my young friends around me were aware that Joseph Smith engaged in plural marriages as early as late Primary or early Aaronic Priesthood age (D&C 132 being one of my favorite sections). I continue to hear it mentioned in Church occaisionly as a class topic of discussion, including the basic Gospel Principles class intended for investigators and newbie members. And yet we regularly hear the complaint "I was never informed of this!" (which of course puts the lie in the claim that one was previously an active member of the Church). A prime example of antiMormonism.

What? Will the real BC please stand up?

So let me get this straight. D&C 132 says nothing about Joseph Smith marrying teenagers, marrying other mens wives, or lying to Emma about it.

Gosh, Who Knows, I hate to say this to you but have you realized that emma got over it? You know the lying. You see, Who Knows, we can't pick and choose our battles. Emma never denied her husband was a prophet. Now that says a lot doesn't it. If Emma can get over it, why can't you? Do you get my point?

[_Sethbag]

Emma also believed Joseph when he told her he hadn't taken any new wives for a while before his death. After his death, when she found out from a friend that he had in fact taken some more wives, she is supposed to have said something like "then he deserved the death he died!" Not sure these are the words of a woman who "got over it".

[_Yoda]

You know what's funny is that I and my young friends around me were aware that Joseph Smith engaged in plural marriages as early as late Primary or early Aaronic Priesthood age (D&C 132 being one of my favorite sections). I continue to hear it mentioned in Church occaisionly as a class topic of discussion, including the basic Gospel Principles class intended for investigators and newbie members. And yet we regularly hear the complaint "I was never informed of this!" (which of course puts the lie in the claim that one was previously an active member of the Church). A prime example of antiMormonism.

What? Will the real BC please stand up?

So let me get this straight. D&C 132 says nothing about Joseph Smith marrying teenagers, marrying other mens wives, or lying to Emma about it.

Gosh, Who Knows, I hate to say this to you but have you realized that emma got over it? You know the lying. You see, Who Knows, we can't pick and choose our battles. Emma never denied her husband was a prophet. Now that says a lot doesn't it. If Emma can get over it, why can't you? Do you get my point?

Did she "get over it"? Or did she simply love him in spite of it? Based on her actions in helping organize the RLDS Church, I tend to think the latter.

In any case, I understand your point about us obviously not being in a position to judge. Only One has the authority to do that.

But I'm hoping that you are human enough to understand why the discovery of this action can cause concern to a faithful Latter-Day Saint who had never been exposed to this. There are so many unanswered questions.

As I stated on an earlier thread....Let's suppose that Joseph did sin in this instance. Or maybe it was a gross misunderstanding of the Plural Marriage law. If that were the case, would that negate all of the good that he did? No, it would not.

However, for us soulful sinners, it would have been nice to have some documentation of the repentance process as a learning tool for the rest of us. ;)