Sunday, May 5, 2013

Danger Is My Middle Name

A Very Dangerous Man
I got a bit of a chuckle out of an email I received the other day. It was from a woman named Carol from a ward I used to live in, and she gave me quite a dressing-down. (How come it's always people who know me personally who don't like me?) Carol's letter is quite lengthy, so I am quoting here only a small part of it (among other things, she called me the founder and leader of a dangerous movement). Here is the pertinent part of her letter:
"Bro. Waterman,
You are playing a dangerous game. You are teaching people that obeying the prophet is a false doctrine when it is the most important doctrine in the church. You are driving people out of the church with the things you write on your blog. Even if that is true about Wilford Woodruff not having that vision of the founding fathers, what right do you have to damage other people's testimonies? You are not only a danger to yourself, you are a danger to other people and you are a danger to the church."
I have been accused before of driving people out of the church, but I have yet to be given any of these people's names. And my idea of a testimony is that it should confirm a truth, not bolster a falsehood; so that rebuke leaves me shaking my head. But the reason Carol's letter gave me a chuckle was because that very morning I had received a message from someone else who considered me a danger, but for very different reasons: 
"I just wanted to tell you how much your blog has helped me and my husband return to church even though we were getting ready to request our names be removed because we had become fed up with how much the church seems to have changed.  It did not take long for us to convince ourselves that the entire history of the church was a history of deception. After several months of study, I had completely rejected everything about it. I was done with Joseph Smith. I was done with the Book of Mormon. I was done with the whole church. I wanted to be done with it and start my life free from the chains of false authority that the Mormon church had come to represent.

"The only thing was, we could not help believing there was a lot of good in the Mormon religion. We could not completely separate ourselves from those beliefs that we identify with. Then my husband and I started reading your blog and that's when we realized it was not anything about the religion that had been suffocating us. In fact, as you have shown time and again, the doctrines we got through Joseph Smith are liberating. You helped us to realize there is nothing offensive about the basic beliefs of Mormonism when you take it in its pure form. What was keeping us, as you put it "stuck in our Mormonism" was the constant hammering we are always getting that we are supposed to be obedient to the church leaders. This teaching has permeated the church so that even our children are indoctrinated with it. And as you taught us, it is something that would have been rejected by Joseph Smith. We realized we could still be Mormons. We just did not have to accept the parts of it that do not come from God. So much of what we thought was doctrinal was just cultural baggage. We just had to learn to ignore those cultural things and only examine those that are true doctrines.

"What you did for us is help us realize we are not the only ones who have questions, and that it is okay to question and that doesn't make us less faithful than anyone else. We still have some things to sort out, such as how do we raise our children in the church when they teach the children that awful primary song to follow the prophet.  We have decided we just have to offset that by teaching them at home to only follow Christ.

We have decided we believe in the basic teachings and so this church is where we belong. And what we mean by that is that we belong to the church the way the Lord defined it in D&C 10: 67.  Anything else is a counterfeit church and we just ignore those who demand we meet their expectations that differ from what the Lord himself has spoken.

We are ashamed to admit the only scripture study we ever did was in Sunday School, and we noticed the lesson skips around and leaves out entire sections. We wonder if there is anything important in those left out parts so we have decided to spend more time reading the Book of Mormon at home and learning more about the things Joseph Smith felt were important like the Lectures on Faith which they don't even talk about anymore in church. We want to stay in the church but we just don't care to give our loyalty to men who have not earned it by demonstrating gifts but only because they have titles in front of their names. And that is okay, because we don't feel God expects us to put any man above us. We don't need leaders. We follow only Christ. And I think we can still be good Mormons by doing that. 


"We believe like Ezra Taft Benson said that the whole church is under condemnation, but we will stay in it because we believe one day that condemnation will be lifted and God will again speak his will and we don't want to be on the outside and miss out when that happens.

"We pray for you and for your wife, because we think there are those in the church who would want to silence your voice if they could. Your blog has changed the way we think about being Mormons and how lots of others think it means to be Mormons and that makes you a danger to the status quo in the church because so many LDS are convinced if you do not absolutely obey the leaders you cannot be a real Mormon, so I hope you are being careful. I think if you lived in Utah someone would be throwing rocks through your window and hoping you will go away. Anyway, we pray for you and thank you for your part in keeping us in the church because now we know this is where we belong."

Your Sister in the gospel,
Brynn

Now you will notice that the only real assistance I gave to Brynn and her husband was that I helped them to realize they were not alone. I did not convert them to Christ; they were already there. But receiving these two emails on the same day got me to thinking. What in heaven's name would make anyone think I had the power to influence anyone to either quit the church or convert back to Christ? 

If you'll look to the right of this page near the bottom, you will see on my blogroll the names of several blogs that often take positions similar to mine,which is to say their authors believe in the the gospel of the Restoration, but recognize there is something off-kilter about the modern LDS Church.  That recognition does not affect nor diminish their testimonies of what is true and valuable about our religion.

Most of these bloggers have arrived at their conclusions entirely independent of me -in fact many of them existed before I ever realized myself that something was askew, so I'm the one who's late to the party.  I am not, as Carol suggested, the founder of any movement.

And as much as I would like to take credit for the turnaround in the lives of Brynn and her husband, you will note that they came to the realization on their own that the core teachings of the religion they grew up in were true and valid. That was not their issue. Their issue was how to resolve the dichotomy between the organic teachings of the religion versus the current mantra of obedience to leaders that seemed to them so antithetical to scripture.  Their letter is similar to the many others I receive, in that most of them tell me they are grateful to learn they are not alone. My only contribution to their awakenings is to assure them there are many others asking questions, and that God approves.

There is a spiritual awakening occurring on an individual level within the church today, and I think it is a healthy one.  Although many are unable to resolve the problems they perceive and wind up leaving, many more are able to accept what is right and true and pure about Mormonism, and ignore what is not. The Lord promises that one day he will "set his house in order." Like Brynn, I want to be in the house when he does that.

This is not to say that I've never fallen into anything dangerous. I have. I'll give you an illustration of how that happened recently.

Is Following The Prophet A Commandment?
That was the questioning title of a thread on the LDS Freedom Forum. It stirred a vigorous discussion that has so far extended to 20 pages. Now, those who have followed my opinions expressed on this blog already know what I consider to be the obvious answer to that question: only when he is speaking the words God has put into his mouth.

Many others who responded on that thread expressed sentiments similar to mine, but there was a vocal -and, dare I say, adamant- contingent that held the president of the Church is a prophet purely by dint of his calling and ordination, and therefore we should follow him at all times.  He does not have to issue prophecies, he does not have to provide revelations. His word alone, goes the implication, should be considered equal to the word of God, and just as valid.

Now, I'm generalizing, because not everyone on that side of the question had such a precise way of looking at it, but there were some who were very intent on convincing the others that those who did not see things as black and white as they did were bordering on apostasy. My position, and the position of several others, was consistent with what Joseph Smith taught:

This morning I visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that "a prophet is always a prophet;" but I told them that a prophet was only a prophet when he was acting as such. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg 278)
Well then, how do we tell when a prophet is acting as a prophet? Very early on, at a time when Moses was the first and only prophet the Israelites had ever known, the Lord revealed how He would operate after Moses had departed:
 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee [Moses], and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
Our Doctrine and Covenants contain several chapters where it is clear Joseph Smith is speaking his own words. But many other chapters are clearly instances where Joseph Smith is speaking the words God has put in his mouth. Those are the times when Joseph Smith was acting as a prophet. Do I discount everything else Joseph Smith taught? Of course not. He is, of course, the founder of our faith, so the policies he put in place should carry ample weight. But I am careful not to give his words vatical authority. Only when he is speaking the words God has put in his mouth is he speaking as a prophet.

I Am The Danger 

So here is where I began to run off the rails. After I expressed myself on that thread in so many words, someone took issue with my position and began to pick it apart, citing mostly past presidents of the Church, along with scriptures that I felt were off point. So I replied back. My opponent rose to the challenge and picked me apart again. I responded a third time, providing arguments that I felt sure would be the final word on the subject.

No such luck. This guy was persistent. Boy, did he like to nitpick! He went after me again and again with arguments I felt were not only weak, but irrelevant. In addition to attacking me, he seemed to feel some moral obligation to hammer to death every other person who expressed a view contrary to what he believed to be the orthodox one. And so we went, this guy and me; back and forth, swinging our verbal swords like a couple of gladiators in a fight to the death.

Before long I was no longer attempting to lovingly share the discoveries I had made on my personal quest for truth. No, I wanted to stop this guy, to clean his clock, to put him in his place once and for all. I wanted him to shut the hell up. I was no longer involved in a discussion with a fellow disciple of Christ. I had myself an honest-to-goodness nemesis, by golly. And I didn't like him.

That's when I knew I lost the argument.

Oh, I'm pretty sure I didn't lose the intellectual argument; I still believe a prophet is only a prophet when he speaks as a prophet. But winning the intellectual argument doesn't really matter. By allowing myself to grow contentious, I lost the light of Christ, and that made me ineffective. Somewhere along the way I found myself motivated not by an interest in teaching or sharing, or of even learning something the other guy had to offer. I just wanted to win. And that is where the danger crept in and took me over.

There are few things I find more stimulating than a vigorous theological discussion; it is one of the best ways I know of to gain a depth of understanding of gospel principles. But such a discussion is only effective if the participants engage in it in a spirit of mutual respect, and with the desire to learn from one another concepts they might not have previously entertained. When we start wielding swords, we become dangerous, not so much to the other person, but to ourselves. Once I realized I was arguing without the aid of the spirit, there was nothing for me to do but walk off the field and let the other guy own it.

When Mosiah taught us to yield to the enticings of the spirit and "put off the natural man," what he was telling us to do is let go of our egos. That is what is meant by the natural man: our ego self. We all need a certain amount of ego to survive, but we need a lot less of it than we think. If we aren't continually on our guard, our egos can completely take us over.

My wife and I used to fight a lot, and it was almost always about some stupid thing that didn't really matter. After the dust settled, we would both realize we weren't fighting each other, we were in a clash of egos. Once we learned to put aside that "natural man" we found there wasn't really much that could divide us.

What finally placated me when I was in the middle of my epic online battle with my obstreperous nemesis was reading the comments offered by my allies on that thread, who somehow managed to keep their heads while I was losing mine to frustration. I was particularly impressed by a woman with the username "Jo1952," who couched all of her comments in a spirit of love, even when she was put down and attacked for some previous comment she made. If an opponent was insulting, she shrugged it off and simply continued to offer her view of things. I'd like to present here an example of one of her calmly delivered arguments. She is responding to someone who claimed that those who question the authority of the modern leaders must therefore believe the leaders to be false prophets, and such unbelievers don't belong in this church. So first, here are the words of her challenger, who calls himself "Seek The Truth":
"If Joseph Smith's successors are not prophets as they claim then they are false prophets. They stand and accept the calling and sustaining vote of prophet seer, revelator. They refer to each other as prophets, seers, and revelators. If they are not these things then they are lying false prophets, which leads to 2 questions;
Why belong to a church led by lying false prophets? Why would Jesus allow his church to be led by false prophets? How could it be the true church of Christ if it is led by lying false prophets?
 And here is the calm reply from Jo1952. I have abridged it somewhat; it was actually much longer:
Hello Seek the Truth,

I think they are trying to do the best they can. They believe that Joseph was a True Prophet (which I also believe). They believe the Book of Mormon is a true second witness of Jesus Christ (which I also believe). They believe that the D&C is the word of God (and, for the most part, I also believe this). They believe that the Pearl of Great of Price is the word of God (which I also believe). They are trying to carry on God's work for the purpose He Restored the Gospel (which I believe they are doing). However, I do not believe that they have been anointed by God as His True Prophets. I think at best that they are minor prophets; but are still greatly inspired men who try to follow where they believe the Holy Spirit is leading them.

I used to believe that they were True Prophets. As my journey progresses and the Holy Spirit reveals more and more Truth to me, I cannot ignore that what is being revealed to me is not always in accordance with what our leaders are teaching. Even their own teachings contradict each other; they can't have things both ways. Now, even though I do not believe they are True Prophets, that does not mean that they are false teachers....though I believe that from time to time they do teach falsely. Yet, I believe Father is still guiding and directing the Church; just not in the way it could have been.

The Holy Spirit is increasing an out-pouring of Truth all over the earth...not just to members of the Church; but everywhere. As more and more members begin walking in the Spirit, they all face the same dilemma of what to do. As their eyes and ears open to the meat of the teachings in scripture, as their spirits awaken from sleep, they cannot help but desire to feast on more and more Truth. However, the Church is not providing the higher teachings. So what are we to do? I study from the Standard Works on a daily basis. Things which used to be hidden from my understanding are opening up to me. 
While I rejoice in having more Truth revealed, I also mourn for the Church. I converted to the Church at the age of 22 and have been a member for 38 years. It is only in the past two years that I really started to experience a great awakening of my spirit. Now, I cannot un-know what has been revealed to me. It wasn't until this past year when things really started to speed up. Very specific revelations I have personally received are in conflict with what the Church teaches. It has become a dilemma; but I must follow where the Holy Spirit is leading me.
Now, in accordance with the 14 Fundamental steps given by Ezra Taft Benson, a True Prophet cannot teach falsely. Yet, the Church has renounced a great deal of what Brigham taught. Isn't the Church in conflict here? Either a True Prophet cannot teach falsely; or a True Prophet can teach falsely. The Church can't have it both ways.
Inasmuch as the Church has renounced several teachings of Brigham, then by Church standards, Brigham was not a True Prophet (even one false teaching would have disqualified him). Now, if they insist that he was a True Prophet, then the Church should never have renounced any of Brigham's teachings. The Church has some explaining to do; and these conflicts were not of my making or figments of my imagination.
I do believe that Brigham was a great leader; and his leadership skills were absolutely necessary in order to save the already splintered Church from complete destruction. He was definitely inspired; but he was never annointed by God. Joseph could not have appointed him due to the fact that he was no longer the Prophet when he was martyred as he had already appointed Hyrum as Prophet. The Church doesn't even recognize Hyrum as ever being a Prophet of the Church; which is another issue.

Even with all of this information, I still desire to support the Church. The Holy Spirit is directing me to stay with the Church; and I am not the only one caught in this dilemma. As the D&C teaches, anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as our Savior IS a member of His Church. As such, if the Church decides to excommunicate members like me who are exposing her problems, she really doesn't have the authority to excommunicate us from Christ's Church; and Christ will still recognize us as being a part of the body of Christ.

Blessings,
Jo
Now that's what I should have written. And maybe I might have had I put off the natural man and yielded to the enticings of the Holy Spirit. When we quarrel in anger, and endeavor to gratify our pride by trying to make others see things our way, the spirit is grieved, and ceases to take our side, even when we are in the right. This is why we are warned so much to avoid pride. Pride is dangerous. It's dangerous because it is often the one sin we never recognize in ourselves.

I got in touch with Jo privately, and it turns out she had never heard of me or my blog, so I can't take even a little credit for her personal awakening or any part of her astute observations. My ego is really bent about this. But I don't care. I think I'll just let my ego sit in the corner awhile and sulk. 

A Not So Dangerous Man

[About Comments: Please, people, try to stop commenting as "Anonymous." So many people use that option that it's become impossible to know one commenter from another. The simplest option is to put a username in the dropdown box that says "Username/URL." You can usually leave the URL box blank, but if the system insists, just type in a random name, such as Amazon.com or LDS.org. I am informed that some browsers don't allow the use of any option other than "Anonymous." If that is the problem in your case, and you MUST use the anonymous option, please put a username of your choice at the end of your comment so that others can be clear about who they are responding to. -Rock]














103 comments:

the_mormonion said...

"Even if that is true about Wilford Woodruff not having that vision of the founding fathers, what right do you have to damage other people's testimonies?"

If that doesn't sum up the Lake Wobegon Mormon perfectly, I don't think anything could. Sounds like Sister Carol needs to brush up on some of the sermons by these prophets whose words she holds so dear. I recommend Joseph Smith's discourse on how Mormonism is truth.

And amen, my dangerous friend, on the pride issue. It's tough to quell sometimes, especially when you believe you have the truth. It's easy to fall into the trap of contention--it masks itself as a righteous crusade of spreading that truth, but it can quickly lead to the same rigid attitudes prevalent in the orthodox church to which we are opposed. I appreciate your candor on how you've dealt with and seen others deal with this.

Again, excellent post. God bless you and your family!

Mike

Anonymous said...

Nice hawaiian shirt! I also like the beard and long hair.
Sort of Porter Rockwellish.
Great post and pretty well encapsulates what the Spirit has also shown me...that there is still good in the church but I am to leave offf criticizing the church and the brethren because there is no point in it. God will deal with the errors in His due time, in His own way.
As Moroni put it so well (he very clearly DID see our day): lay hold upon every good thing and condemn it not (Mor. 7:19).
Thank you again for all the GOOD you are doing.
Your brother in Christ,
JR

Anthony E. Larson said...

I know you personally, Rock, and I like you. (grin)

Anonymous said...

But "Follow The Prophet" is so damn catchy.

Anonymous said...

Never been more jealous in my life. LOVE the hair.

Anonymous said...

Nice post here Rockman. I hear you on losing the spirit through argument, however I do think your posts on the LDSFF thread offer great value to those who are sincerely considering these things for the first time with an open heart.
I have been there before, where something was missing and seemed stale and I was unable to pinpoint what it was and I was searching and reading and praying and purusing blogs. It was that "good argument"(for lack of a better term)or maybe I should say bringing to light again hidden things, scattered here and there that helped me reconsider my paradigm prayfully with the Lord.

Godspeed,
Ajax from LDSFF

LDSDPer said...

I should have said this on the Wilford Woodruff's pants essay/blog entry--
but when I was a girl (about 50 years ago, LOL!) or even in some institute class (about 50 years ago! *even more laughter*)--
I heard a quote many times from Woodruff about each person having his own light (testimony of Jesus Christ) and not to be foolish enough to lean on anyone else, anyone--
That always resonated with me, and so the business about "the prophet won't lead you astray", as Wilford Woodruff put it, conflicts with his message about having your own light--

I like what Jo said about how truth is 'exploding' (she didn't use that word, but that is how it feels to my husband and me right now and one of our children who is on this journey with us)--

throughout the world; I believe that. I also believe that verse about things being shouted from the rooftops.

I have been hard on Brigham here lately. Poor old Brigham. And I know I need to stop. He doesn't need to be my new 'bad guy' or the black fish who takes the evil out of the household--

But sometimes when you begin waking up about particular things it's hard not to grind axes.

The only thing that matters, I am beginning to believe, is that we treat everyone with Christlike compassion. It's very hard to do. I don't know what to say about Carol. It's harsh to say that Carol is like a lot of LDS who, like the old Jews,
7 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

or:
14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ.

I've noticed lately that a lot of my fellow LDS are the way I used to be (*blush*); they get caught up in callings and works and fulfilling obligations of all kinds, and they forget that it is all naught without Jesus Christ. He's not just a figurehead. He's not just a nice thought. He's the whole thing. Without Him there is no point in any work or in any mission/calling of any kind.
Once a person awakens to Jesus Christ it changes. And that person can see things they could not previously see and can hear things they could not previously heard. But to be proud about it nullifies the entire process, because it comes from Jesus Christ, not from our own mortal selves.

to be continued

LDSDPer said...

I think the 'brethren' are doing their best, but I think they are in captivity of a kind so foul that many of them cannot even perceive it, a captivity that began long, long ago--

like the righteous captive kings in Ether. I think Wilford Woodruff knew something about that and could explain it to *us* better than anyone, but I don't know why I know that. I just suspect it.

But I've just said things everyone else has said. Rock, you do provide a place where people can feel less alone. And that is important. It's not a 'ward'. It's just a blog site, but it's like a really good book. A person reads a really good book and feels gratitude to the author and goes away better, and that person shares that appreciation with everyone who read that book. The author doesn't claim to be a Savior, but who knows how much good (or bad for a corrupted writer) a good writer/author can do. How many of *us* who are book lovers have felt restored and renewed by reading good books.
C.S. Lewis gave credit to George MacDonald for bringing him back to belief/God. George MacDonald had long been dead. He wasn't 'called' to be a prophet (though at times I think he was a minor one; that's just my bias)--
And think of all the lives C.S. Lewis has influenced. C.S. has said some controversial things himself that not all LDS would agree with (though Maxwell quoted both Lewis and MacDonald, after I had already become acquainted with MacDonald, so I caught it in a conference talk and thought, "aha, we have that in common")--

I suppose there are people who don't like C.S. Lewis. I know at least one devout Mormon who thinks his Narnia books are wicked. LOL!

So, Rock, you are in good company. You are a writer and an author, and you influence people. Some people like you and are helped by what you write; others don't.
It's not easy being an author/writer. And sometimes there is no remuneration.

I've said enough for one long post. Now, let me try not to say anything else on here. :)

Oh, and there are LDS who think Ron Paul is a bad man, too. I've heard/seen/read people who have said "he's dangerous"! Even Noam Chomsky, whom, otherwise, I have respected, said he thought Ron Paul was dangerous. I've never been able to figure that one out. But people who try to do good will always come under fire.

Cornhusker said...

Rock, you're a dangerous man. I suggest a new tagline for those that are familiar with Breaking Bad...

Rock is the one who knocks.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Thanks, Ajax. High praise coming from you as I count you among the intelligent level-headed ones on the LDS Freedom forum thread I referred to in my piece above.

I highly recommend everyone who is able take the time to examine the arguments pro and con put forth on that forum. I can't think of a place where the topic is completely hashed out (and I mean that in a good way) so that inquiring minds can read and weigh every possible point of view in order to come to their own conclusions.

If all you have time to do is skim the thread, below is a list of contributors whose arguments I found most impressive, so if you only have time to skim, you might want to keep an eye out for these contributors. I realize the thread is massive, but those who are able to take the time to read through the entire thing will be edified, I'm certain.

This list is not complete, but just off the top of my head:

Ajax
Ossieoi
Daryl
Jo1952
FrankTalk (who happens to be the husband of Jo1952)
AgStacker
Ashley B
Firend

And of course, I'm in there too somewhere. That link again:

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=28392&hilit=is+following+the+prophet+a+commandment

Happy reading!

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Oh, stop it!

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Always delighted to find a fellow Breaking Bad fan, Cornhusker. You probably noticed I borrowed one of my subheadings from something Walter White confided to his wife: "I AM the danger."

Jamie said...

You really should be holding your pinky up to your lips in the first picture. ;)

Jamie said...

For you Rock!!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkrZXt6b_k4

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Dang! Where were you to advise me when that picture was taken?!

Bruce said...

Rock,

Excellent article as always. At your suggestion I used the link and read the back and forth comments with the guy who calls himself "Seek the Truth" I'm pretty sure he's the same guy (Ezra Taylor) who presented the article on "A Higher Law of Chasity in Marriage" on the Mormon Chronicle blog.

http://www.mormonchronicle.com/a-higher-law-of-chastity-within-marriage/#comments

He has the same annoying…I'm always right and whatever you have to say is wrong attitude as the guy you tangled with. So it might be the same guy. By the way…I've stopped reading Mormon Chronicle. There are so many voices asking for your time. You have to pick your teachers carefully. And I think this guy is not worth my time. And yes….that's me calling Orson Hyde a stupid ass.

Bruce

Anonymous said...

Hmmm. If it IS Ezra Taylor, I have to let you know that I like Ezra and agree with many of his doctrinal viewpoints. Of course, Rock is not here to disprove Ezra's or anyone else's doctrinal beliefs, but to present the law of charity as the higher alternative. We should all treat each other with kindness, because in the end, none of us has it ALL right. All of us have SOME of it right. And without charity, all of our arguing about religion will sound as tinkling brass compared to the truth as the Eloheim comprehend it. Our discovery of truth is very personal and our journeys are tailor-made to our understanding and life circumstances. I'm so grateful that the Lord is kind enough to remain lovingly silent while we rifle our way through all the information there is out there, while trying to make sense of it. Winnie.

Anon 23 said...

I agree that one must possess charity (and the Golden Rule) in order to understand the truth and to see clearly how evil and abusive polygamy always is.

For Christlike love and polygamy are polar opposites and until men are willing to have true exclusive unconditional love and respect for their wife they will continue to easily fall for polygamy and those who preach it.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Bruce, but you are wrong. It is not Ezra Taylor Rock is referring to. I just asked him. Winnie

Ezra Taylor said...

"Seek the Truth" is not me, as arrogant and pompous as I may be.

Sorry, you haven't been checking out our website any more Bruce, though thankfully it is growing in readers and listeners.

Though I think it is a bit short sited of anyone to stop reading a website because of one single person they disagree with. And on that point, I wasn't even the author of the talk you seem to have the biggest problem with. The Mormon Chronicle isn't some monolithic organization, it's founders disagree on several key points. The Mormon Chronicle has several regular authors of varying views, some of which I disagree with, and others that Brian disagrees with. It's a place where all things Mormon can be discussed.

I hope you'll continue to check us out and give the other great authors views a chance.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Rock,
Thanks for the great post and photos!
I have recently begun to wonder about our desire to read any modern prophet's name into the revelations given in the D&C to Joseph Smith.

I sincerely believe that Joseph was chosen by God. As a believer, I see the fruits and gifts of the spirit abundantly on display in his ministry -- he truly was a prophet, seer and revelator. However, I fail to see how we justify the administrative transfer of this power and authority to other men.

Especially in light of D&C 132:45-50 where Joseph is expressly told 'why' he has been given the authority, power and keys he has been given. This description cannot be generically applied to anyone else -- it is based on Joseph's obedience, faith and sacrifice. To say that Joseph's righteousness guaranteed the power, authority, and keys to Brigham does not make any sense? Does it?

God chose Joseph...but we are so eager to anoint those that come after with no special sanction whatsoever...does this not bother anyone else? Joseph chose his successor according to D&C 43 and his name was Hyrum. I am beginning to wonder if the Lord was trying to communicate something to the saints when he took both Joseph and Hyrum to Himself.

I am thankful for what we do have in the church today. But IMHO the gifts of the spirit are not manifest by the present day apostles in their ministry (see D&C 84:64-75). And if that is the case, it is a sign to us that they are not the Lord's anointed. I continue to trust, that if the Lord has a message that he specifically wants delivered 'to the church', President Monson will say so directly and without hesitation. This has not happened in my lifetime and I am now nearly 40.

If President Monson is not capable of delivering the message or chooses not to deliver it in God's name -- I would expect him to find himself in some pretty hot water with God. God would then send his message by another route. (This would be terribly disconcerting to most members of the church) His message will come accompanied by power and not just word -- not the power evidenced by the trappings of money, culture and worldy authortiy.

I couldn't help thinking this past conference about what would have happened if the entire world had discovered on Saturday night that there was a 'living prophet' on earth and had tuned in to the Sunday morning session of conference. Would they have been moved to believe? Would the spirit have told them with force that this man, relating a story about his childhood antics, was indeed God's spokesman on earth today? I am not sure I am convinced....

SeekingToBeAstonished

Unknown said...

You always have something interesting. I am digging that hippy hair and beard, make you look twenty years younger. Love to you and Connie.

Anonymous said...

I agree that the present day apostles are not the Lord's anointed, nor have any church leaders been so since Joseph Smith died. According to Joseph's and Christ's teachings they are all imposters and false prophets.

And I would suggest that before you go and believe that D&C 132 is a true revelation or scripture, I would suggest you 1st 'prove' that it really came from Joseph Smith and God, which no one seems to have been able to do yet, not to mention that it is completely contrary to what Christ and Joseph constantly taught.

When we study all the words of Joseph Smith, at least the ones we can 'prove' he said and published while he was alive, we can easily see that he nor God would have ever wrote D&C 132, but Brigham Young certainly would have.

Tim Malone said...

That's why I enjoying reading your blog. You obviously recognize and value growth - personal growth, spiritual growth - even when you take yourself down a peg for acting slightly below your values. Thanks for sharing Rock. Gives hope to others who argue for the sake of intellectual argument to remember there is a higher purpose in connecting through our blogs - shared growth. Your rock!

Polychick said...

How do YOU know that Christlike love and polygamy are polar opposites? Have YOU ever lived polygamy? If you truly know anything about love then you would know that it's NOT exclusive. Christ doesn't "exclude" anyone from his love and nor do parents exclude any child from their love because they "only have enough for one child". You are comparing apples to oranges. The amount of spouses a person has is completely irrelevant to their capacity to love unconditionally and inclusively or exclusively.

Jamie said...

And what does polygamy have to do with the price of tea in China?

Unknown said...

Great post and i love the picture. You have great hair!

Anonymous said...

Yes, I have lived polygamy, my husband is sealed to 2 living women and looking for a 3rd, all completely sanctioned and encourage by the LDS Church today.

Also, Christ 'said' that those with charity would not live polygamy (Matt 19:9) as did Joseph Smith and many Book of Mormon Prophets and I have learned the same myself through experience in it all.

And marital love 'is' exclusive, even though we generally love everyone, certain aspects of love are exclusive to a marriage partner.

We must have true exclusive unconditional love for our spouse, or at least trying to gain it, in order to understand these things.

In fact, I don't even know anyone who even believes in having such love or charity in marriage today, everyone seems to believe in 'conditional' love in marriage, as long as everything is going fine and the other spouse is keeping their end of the bargain, if not people believe in divorce and remarriage, which is also against Christ's laws.

And as I said above, polygamy doesn't even pass the Golden Rule test, for what man would 'want or allow' done to him what men do to women in polygamy, men would not put up with such abuse and neglect and disrespect and still sit home alone every night with all the kids and be faithful while never seeing their wife who is off with 20 other husbands.

Karl Waterman said...

Good post my brother. i was told by my sweety, when i must persist in a argument; "would you rather be right,or happy?" You are a delight to read, and i am glad you're my older brother. Showing me a possible way. Especially since I,at the current time, and past decades have chosen not to associate with mormons, even though i am still counted somewhere as one!

Anonymous said...

I am no fan of section 132 and have serious doubts about its authenticity. However, the verses I am referring to illustrate a principle that we clearly see illustrated in the life of Joseph. They remind me of the 'sealing' power received by Alma and later Nephi and even the Nephite Twelve in the Book of Mormon. They remind me of Melchizedek being chosen by the voice of God out of Heaven. They remind me of Isaiah and other prophets who shared their experience of standing in the presence of God. They illustrate what it means to be called, chosen and anointed. Brigham nor any of his predecessors have made claim to being chosen in this way as Joseph Smith plainly did. They simply claim to be 'chosen' because Joseph was chosen. We then do the same...WE also lay claim to being chosen because THEY were chosen.

This weekend my father reminded me of the account given by Brigham Young where he emphatically declared that he would trade all the written word of God for the words that come from a living prophet. "Well", I said, "If we had a Joseph Smith leading the church, who was standing in the presence of God and declaring his word in power (as Joseph did) then I might feel the same way." But again, see what we do? We take Brigham's reference to Joseph and we repeat it in reference to Thomas S. Monson. It isn't the same thing. I hope to see the day when the Lord sends servants clothed with power back into the vineyard.

All of that being said...I couldn't agree more with this post, and others, by Rock. The responsibility still lies with me to be guided by the Holy Spirit and not default to prophet-worship. Even when the Prophet is prophesying, seeing and 'revelating'! How else will I know he is a true prophet? (Oh wait, I forgot, he will be wearing a suit and tie, we will all call him President, and his words will be read by an employee of the church marketing department -- that's right, forgot, that part is already taken care of, lol)

SeekingToBeAstonished

LDSDPer said...

I'm sorry, 7:57. It's wrong. What you have endured is wrong.

I don't know how he got around it (your husband), but I know a woman who abandoned her husband (under very bizarre and difficult circumstances; I dare not say too much, because a person never knows when anyone might be looking at a blog, and it's not my story to tell)--

and got a divorce (he didn't want it); she then proceeded to marry another man who had been married before and had two children whom she is now raising along with the baby she had with this man (she didn't have children with her husband of nine years who was her first husband; that's a long story, too)--

and then asked for the sealing to be broken (which he agreed to, very sadly)--

and then she got sealed to husband #2 who was married before--

it is absolutely and completely and totally wrong-feeling in every way.

You don't think about it until it happens to someone close to you. It is as though people can just shut off those covenants and feelings, etc.--

Some animals are more faithful (swans, geese--Canada, I think, possibly wolves; I can't remember) than many humans.

The fact is that, in reality, they are in a group marriage, all of them. Our friend (very close) still loves his wife; he doesn't want another woman, but society wants him to 'move on' and start again--

why not just drop children when they misbehave and start over with a "maybe the next child will behave"--

Even the scriptures (except for 132, and I'm not sure about that; I've been mad a 132 for years) say that it's optional whether a spouse wants to be separated from an unfaithful companion--

I do know that there are times when people can't safely live with a companion, but starting over again and pretending that everything can be bettered the second or third or fourth time is complicating everything for everyone--

especially for the children, not to mention the companion who did not want the divorce, and I think it is very rare for both people in a divorce to want that divorce equally as much--

in another close situation one companion has fought the divorce but finally gave in, got tired of fighting--

I know a lot of people who have remarried, and I don't want to offend them; it's not my business, actually; I would never say to their faces, "you shouldn't have remarried", but most of them have, at one time or another, said, "I should have stayed with number 1"--

most of them--

Rock has said some really good things on this blog, but the one that made the most powerful impact on me was his . . .

Why I'm Abandoning Polygamy


I was made to feel guilty for years by one parent and leaders for not liking polygamy. Good LDS are still supposed to believe that polygamy is, somehow, a higher law-

piffle!

President Hinckley opened the door to serious doubt on that, bless him--

but then he didn't reverse the policy of sealings being dissolved--

what is the point of a sealing if it can be dissolved--

totally makes it meaningless--

LDSDPer said...

*chuckle*

Now THAT is humility!!! :)

I still check in on the Mormon Chronicle. There is some good stuff on there, and I always check it out for my husband--

as this blog--

I'm the 'reporter'--

he makes a decision whether or not to read something based upon my report.

Goodness, I am powerful. *wink*

Anonymous said...

Ah... The Ego. The Natural Man at it's best (or worst). I have found that through meditation we can begin to awaken to our Spiritual Self and put off the natural man. David O. McKay taught of this as well. This practice alone has brought me closer to God than any other ordinance performed, or book that i have read. I think that sometimes we confuse religion with spirituality, but imo they are often separate. The "danger" of awakening to our spiritual Self is that by doing so, we rely less on an institution and become spiritually independent. This is very liberating for us, but "dangerous" to the institution. They came up with a solution for this stuff: Obey!!! When they beat us over the head with an obey mantra, they can pass off opinions as doctrines, keep us spiritually stagnant by regurgitating Gospel basics, and maintain a level of control over the members by way of "authority".

Just look at President Monson's obedience talk in the last GC. He said, "There is no need for you or for me, in this enlightened age when the fulness of the gospel has been restored, to sail uncharted seas or to travel unmarked roads in search of truth." That is in complete contradiction to what Joseph taught. Joseph Smith said, "One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may." In my opionion the obey mantra makes the leaders of the church look extremely desparate, and really silly.

Mark

Ashley said...

LOL, I like your candor Rock. Oh good old STT on ldsff. I love that guy. No seriously, I do. :) When he first came on ldsff he drove me nuts. We often got into debates and I let myself go off the rails with him a few times too. He's a good guy though. Even if his lawyerly debate tactics drive me a little bonkers, I realized I probably drove him bonkers too. We've had some good honest discussions and as stubborn as I think he sometimes is and as stubborn as I sometimes am. I sure love him. I think finding common ground helps. He doesn't really get under my skin anymore. Debating gospel topics is one of those crazy things and as soon as I take my eyes off Christ and any of it becomes about winning a debate like you said it all goes down hill. I appreciated your candor and this article. It really made me chuckle. I am learning to love and embrace how wonderfully flawed and human we all are. If Christ can still love us and see our potential underneath it all then we all must be worth saving. :) So thankful for His mercy and love. He makes it all worth it. He makes our little world go round.

Anonymous said...

I agree Mark. False prophets and abusive men always think & say they are right and can't be wrong. They always expect and demand unquestioned obedience. Thus church leaders reveal who they really are by saying they can't lead us astray and that their revelation can't be wrong and if our revelation is different then their's, then our is from the devil.

They don't even realize how arrogant, prideful and ridiculous they look and sound by saying such things. But Satan gets most major religions to preach such blind, unquestioning obedience, and that they are infallible and can't lead them astray.

Unfortunately spiritually lazy people easily fall for such lies by false prophets, because they don't want to have to search, study, ponder and pray about everything and everyone as they are commanded to, so they easily buy into the idea that 'prophets can't lead us astray' for is so much easier, they can just kick back and play 'follow the leader' and turn off their brain.

It really is sad to see but what can you do if people don't want to take personal responsibility to discern truth from error and devils from saints and false prophet from true ones, or have to work out their own salvation?

Righteous people naturally question everything and want proof before they believe anyone, especially things that don't feel right to them and they know to distrust all leaders, especially those with power, until they prove they are righteous too.

jeff said...

We should always be open to the fact that Truth will typically offend us the first time we hear it. If we embrace that fact and allow ourselves to evolve because of it, that is when the Truth can and will become a beautifying element that will elevate us and change us into a new, better creature and follower of Christ.

-Jeff Stone

Anonymous said...

Actually, I have found the opposite to be true, truth is always like a fresh breeze, uplifting, refreshing, encouraging and sweet to the soul.

Truth may not always be easy to live, but I have never found a truth yet that didn't bring me joy, good feelings and make perfect sense and something I didn't want to work towards.

While on the other hand, things that seemed harsh, distasteful, offensive, depressing, etc., have always proven to be false. The things I have learned in the Church all these years that seem offensive and unattractive have all panned out to be completely false.

The truth brings us great hope, joy and rejoicing, and shall make us free from dark doctrines that drag us down.

But, I do agree that if we don't have the Spirit, we will not rejoice in the truth, but be very offended by it.

Unknown said...

Rock, I've been reading your blog posts and back catalogue for a month now and I can safely say, that its provided the catalyst that has kept my faith and kept me in the church. Thank you.

If the search for truth and a greater relationship with God has become dangerous then we are in deep trouble. The restoration was started by a young man on a search for truth.

Unknown said...

P.s As a member in my early 20's, I find your wild man crocodile hunter look to be particularly inspiring.

Anonymous said...

Dang Rock, you are looking Native American. I should have known it. Your writings reflect a tribal connection. I would guess Cherokee, although Muscogee (Creek) or Apache may also be apropos.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Nope, must be the lighting. I do have tribal DNA, though. I'm tribe of Judah on my mother's side and Ephraim on my dad's. No Manasseh that I know of.

But I am a fierce warrior. (or so I like to think.)

Anonymous said...

Rock,

Thank you for posting REAL faith promoting stories! I love to hear about real life journeys of finding the truth and people building their faith on pure Mormonism. I share the same experience as many who have posted on this and once again want to voice my gratitude for the words you have shared and the time you put in to this blog to help those that are searching for the truth.

I love the hair! I think it’s time to have a part two to the Word of Wisdom piece you did some time back, and focus it on the ‘holy herb’ this time. (not implying that the hair has any bearing on the subject) …. I did read that James E. Talmage (of Jesus the Christ) once took Cannibis Sativa over a several week period as a way to test its effects on the human system (for scientific purposes of course)

“And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man—Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.”
Doctrine & Covenants 89:10-11


Richard

Big Dave said...

I'm sure the leaders of the primitive church had good intentions too. However, somewhere along the way the church drifted into complete and utter apostasy. Who can say when this event actually took place? It was probably more of a process than a single event. It sort of started when the Jerusalem apostles became jealous of Paul and the success of his mission and progressed from there.

The main problem then, as now, is that there was no mechanism for replacing apostles that were killed or died. Paul was visited on the road to Damascus by the Lord himself and chosen as an apostle. This is the only way an apostle can be lawfully installed. For a man to claim the title of apostle without this holy calling is blasphemy.

The current apostles are claiming to be princes of the church when they are not. They are only administrators. The sitting "prophet" chooses a man to be a replacement "apostle". When the seat of president becomes vacant, these apostles that were chosen by a man turn around and choose a prophet. It is a ridiculous and blasphemous system.

These men are not inspired in any sense, and that is precisely why the church is loosing ground in the world. Along the way, some of these "prophets" have made horrible, uninspired decisions and statements of doctrine that the church has become wedded to. They are a major embarrassment.

All the books of prophecy about our day, especially Isaiah, indict these men as sleeping dogs, and lolling seers. A perfect example is the allegory of the Lord's vineyard, where the lord commands a vineyard to be planted, and a hedge built round bout, and a watchtower built. The Lord's servants talked among themselves and decided that that the tower was too expensive, and that the money could be better spent elsewhere. As a result, there was no means to see afar off into the distance(prophecy) and the enemy could not be spotted before he trampled down the hedge(gospel) and destroyed the vineyard. The scriptures are full of stories like this about our wicked, foolish, and uninspired leaders.

Another good example is in D+C 85 where the Lord tells us he will send one mighty and strong with the scepter of power that shall utter eternal words, while the man that was called of God, and appointed that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark( change the gospel, men were told to not touch the "ark") shall fall by the shaft of death.

Its all there in the scriptures. One who believe that all is OK in Zion is deluded. I would not, and will not follow these pretenders. The Lord is my shepherd and his sheep know the sound of his voice. I won't follow a ventriloquist that attempts to stand in for the Lord.

Anonymous said...

The Church Inc. of today, much like the US Govt of today, is a house of cards.
Yet, The Church Inc., just as the United States of America, is built on a solid, God given foundation.
The time is rapidly approaching when the house of cards that has been erected by The Church Inc. will be swept away, just as the current false US govt erected by evil men will fall.
The Church Inc. does still serve a useful purpose to the Lord. It brings men up to The Gate into the straight and narrow way and provides the function of baptism by water. From there the Lord takes over, and baptizes those whom HE knows with Fire and the Holy Ghost (2 Nephi 31). From then on, the individual finds himself less and less in need of The Church Inc., and largely continues within the restricting and confining bounds of The Church Inc. as a means of providing service and inspiration and encouragement to those who have not yet passed through The Gate of baptism by water and the baptism of Fire and the Holy Ghost.
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the entire Book of Mormon from beginning to the end, all testify that The Church Inc. in our day will (now has) gone into apostasy.
The Lord warned that this would occur and what would be the dire consequences in D&C 112:24-26: "vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth...and upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth...first among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord."
Remember the parable of the wheat and the tares. The Wheat was to ripen BEFORE they were to be gathered from among the tares. There is a fine article on LDS Anarchist regarding the importance of the Wheat remaining within the church UNTIL angels are sent to gather out the Wheat (JST Matthew).
That day is rapidly approaching.
Seek to be the Wheat among the tares. Follow the Savior, follow the Savior, follow the Savior, HE knows the way!
JR

Big Dave said...

In Joseph Smith's day, the apostles had a very minor role. Calling the twelve was almost an afterthought, and Joseph wasn't quite sure what to do with them, or how they fit into the program.

The twelve ended up be sent out as almost perpetual missionaries. They had no ecclesiastical power at all. The first presidency was the real power in the church.

After Joseph died there was, contrary to what the current apostles claim, a very rocky transition of power between Sidney Rigdon, Brigham Young, and William Marks. Brigham Young ascended to power by virtue of his seniority in the quorum of the twelve. Hyrum Smith was dead, and William Law had apostatized. Marks (as Stake President of Nauvoo) didn't press his claim for the presidency and the majority of the apostles were on missions. Sidney Rigdon was excommunicated.

So by default, Brigham Young was able to consolidate some power and after several years, convince the 12 to install him as president of the church. He was only able to do this with a promise to share power with the 12, which he quickly reneged on. So when it came time for Taylor to become president, the 12 were really gun-shy. This is how the 12 "apostles" were able to capture control of the church. They were never intended to be in power.

LDS Anarchist said...

Hah! My hair and beard are longer that yours!

Oh, sorry, that was my ego speaking... ;)

When I first started surfing the Internet, one of the first things I looked into was a Mormon discussion board. (This was before I had discovered blogging.) As I read over the religious discussions, I decided that I'd share my own two cents and so created an account and began participating. Now, this was a very TBM forum, so you can imagine the backlash I received. I had expected, perhaps, some disagreement, but what I got in return was vituperative ridicule from absolutely everyone. In shock, I continued posting, trying to remain cool, but as the days went on, the vituperation continued in earnest. Then one day I lost my cool and gave them a dose of their own medicine, but immediately became so ashamed for having done what they were doing, that I deleted my account and retreated from the Internet for quite some time. I had expected to engage in edifying religious discussions with people of my own faith but instead found myself in a forum of vipers and ended up becoming a viper myself. So, I am well aware how infectious a disease devilish contention is. It is better to humbly lose or retreat from an argument than to win in one's pride.

LDS Anarchist said...

I would change that last sentence to: "It is better to humbly lose or retreat from an argument than to try to win in one's pride."

Anonymous said...

LDSAnarchist --
I would love to read your article on the Wheat and Tares. Can you tell me how to find it on your blog. I tried, but you have a LOT there!
I have been reading your blog for over a year now, but have not been able to read all of it yet. I want to thank you for all that I have read. It stretches my mind, and I like that.

LDS Anarchist said...

Sure. That one was called, "Let them grow together".

http://ldsanarchy.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/let-them-grow-together/

Btw, I'm glad to hear that you've gotten benefit from the blog.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

That's my reading of history too, Big Dave. Except that the reason the members went with Brigham's plan was not, as widely believed today, he argued that HE was the rightful leader. The people never would have gone for that. He convinced the members that the authority resided in the Twelve Apostles AS A BODY. No single apostle had rank above another.

But as you said, over time Brigham, through sheer force of his personality, installed himself as President of the Church by virtue of his being the senior member of the twelve. He never claimed to be a prophet. We have been taught that he was Joseph Smith's successor, and equal in gifts and calling to the Prophet Joseph, but this is revisionist history. The Saints at the time never saw him "the next in line."

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Well, we are all much richer in knowledge because you abandoned that forum and started your own blog.

As for whose hair is longer: just give me time, my friend. If the heat doesn't discourage me this summer, I plan to keep going through winter.

After that, I'll come to my senses and get a haircut.

LDSDPer said...

@JR at 7:33; I agree with you.

Especially the last two lines--

I'll let the Lord decide who is false and who is true--

In the meantime, I have to have time to sort out the false doctrines and figure out what to do with them--

such as the 'p' word--

and it's not what the 'brethren' talk about in conference all the time--

LDSDPer said...

So, Rock and Dave, the only thing that could have worked would have been--


if the 'saints' had listened to the Lord, not gotten involved in adultery, learned to get along with their neighbors--

and built Zion--

It didn't happen. It doesn't seem that the Lord really left any happy alternatives, because the first disobedience was so blatant.

The disobedience with regards to polygamy and consecration.

And, yet, it seems that the Lord knew all along that our silly ancestors would go the wrong way--

and end up exiled in the desert--

with a man like Brigham Young 'over' them--

I just keep trying to figure out what went wrong--

murdering Joseph Smith was one wrong thing, and yet Joseph Smith didn't 'administer' well, and yet . . . a truly Zion people would not need to be 'managed'--

*our* ancestors were not ready for Zion. Are *we*?

I'm afraid not. So, *we* get what *we* deserve. Semi-annual conferences, modesty standards, highly stylized missionary work, public relations, a rigid corporation with Babylon's benefits as a goal--

and sadness.

I don't even have a Zion to remember


1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.

just to dream about--

and hope for . . .

and realize I can't attain by myself. Or can I?

In *my* situation (our, my marriage, my family)--

working to survive takes top priority, just because of the economy; the church takes what is left--

how to build Zion on five minutes/week?

I'm probably not helping anyone saying these things--


LDSDPer said...

LDS Anarchist, I'm not the only member of my family who looks at your blog; I appreciate the latest link--

LDSDPer said...

to be fair here, and I'm sorry to bring up the 'p' word again, Rock--

there are two 'camps'--

or maybe three . . .

or maybe just the fuzzy group in between.

There are those who believe that polygamy was never right, not lived 'in the flesh' at any rate--

sealings, whatever they were meant by the Lord to mean, might have embraced a spiritual sort of polygamy or polyandry; I don't know--

I'm trying to take Joseph Smith and his mission seriously, because I love the Book of Mormon. Really.

So--

1--polygamy was bad, and Brigham Young and others' introducing it into Nauvoo destroyed the chance for Zion--

and--

2--polygamy was good, and Wilford Woodruff stopping it stopped the blessings

or . . .

the fuzzy group in between; half of whom are glad for the Manifesto and don't think polygamy is required for eternal progression, and the other half (or fraction of) who believe that the Manifesto is temporary, and plural marriage will be lived again--

If #1 is true, the church is still under condemnation--

If #2 is true, the church is still under condemnation--

And those fuzzy people in between are saved, not by their efforts or choices, but by the 'bell'--

the bell ran just in time, and polygamy was no longer required.

What happens to the people who still live it (the FLDS in all their assortments)?

If polygamy was right, will they be rewarded for doing it NO MATTER WHAT?

If polygamy was not right, how will they, when will they be reclaimed?

It's a messy business, but I'm beginning to realize that a lot more hangs on polygamy than on almost anything else--

As an LDS I can't pretend it doesn't matter now or that it didn't ever matter.

As the descendant of both those who didn't live it and those who did--

I can't pretend that I haven't been touched by it--

Sorry I brought it up, but everywhere I go, the subject comes up. Probably half of all modern Mormons still believe it's an eternal (even 'sacred'--*choke*) doctrine--

the other half don't--

And then there are those of us who wish we just knew the truth, that no matter how much we've prayed about it, etc.--

there is always someone there, saying, "but you've been deceived"--

If *I* say that I found it repugnant (plural marriage) from my earliest childhood, there will be someone there, saying, either the FLDS position, "you've been deceived" or the standard FAIR Mormon position of, "Joseph Smith DID live polygamy, and you'll be sorry someday if you don't believe in it now"--

Either way I wan to run screaming; there has to be more to life than this obsession with various types of marriage, doesn't there?

Sorry; it's Mother's day--

do polygamists 'celebrate' Mother's Day--

I'm tired of having my head bent over this, not to mention my heart burdened with it; anyone else hear me?

LDSDPer said...

after my cathartic polygamy post, I have to be light--

it's the only way those of *us* who seek truth can survive, right?

Rock, your picture reminds me of Festus--

http://comp.uark.edu/~tsnyder/gunsmoke/gun-tvcast.html

on Gunsmoke. Ken Curtis is the actor's name.

Now, I said it. Festus. :)

I don't think his hair was long, though--

a TV show in the 60s wouldn't have allowed that--

LOL!

Big Dave said...

You are quite correct when you assume that the Lord knew the church would fail to a degree. The exile of the church to the desert was foretold by Hosea in chapter 2 and 3. Here the Lord likens the church to an adulteress woman and tells her to be faithful. The Lord also says that the church will be without an ephod or teraphim. The ephod was a parchment with the name of God written on it that was placed in the breastplate of the High priest which allowed him to receive revelation/ inspiration from God.

So when the church is exiled, she does not have the gift of prophecy and she must wait till the latter days for the Lord to return.

Hosea is really hard to understand, but if you can wade through the metaphors, that is the gist of it.

Anonymous said...

Awesome post Big Dave.

I also believe the Church and all it's leaders are in apostasy today. They have changed the Gospel of Jesus Christ and no longer follow him.

I believe we can even come under condemnation by even being members of the Church today and going along with or by any way supporting what they are doing.

The Lord is my shepherd too and I know his voice and it isn't coming from the Church.

Anon 23 said...

JR,

The greatest blasphemy it seems, would be 'to do evil in the name of the Lord' and call or think it righteousness, as I believe the Church leaders and members do today and have done since Brigham Young.

We often tend to think of the LDS Church as the Lord's church just because so many of the Saints of Nauvoo followed Brigham Young out west.

But the LDS Church has no more claim to be the Lord's church then the Church that any other Nauvoo member of leader may have gone off created after Joseph died. Numbers do not create authority. Unrighteous men cannot continue God's Church for 1 minute, no matter how many of the members in Nauvoo may follow them.

And the Book of Mormon teaches that we have a responsibility and commandment to be able to discern true prophets from false ones today and devils from Saints, and all truth from error 'as easy as telling the night from the day'. If we cannot do this we will for sure be deceived and led astray, and probably are now.

To be in and support the Church of Brigham Young or Thomas Monson, would be the same to God as being in and supporting the Church of Warren Jeffs or King Noah. We must repent like Alma and not support apostate churches.

I believe the righteous today are not only having to do things like 'home-school', but also 'home-church', to be able to teach their families and friends the true and pure Gospel of Jesus Christ and keep themselves unspotted from the apostate churches and people of the world, until Christ returns and establishes Zion.

Pinkrose said...

I have noticed that if "Follow The Prophet" is played at 40-60 bpm, instead of the suggested 112-126, that it sounds rather haunting; especially since it is in a minor key.

http://www.lds.org/music/library/childrens-songbook/follow-the-prophet?lang=eng

Zo-ma-rah said...

"And as I said above, polygamy doesn't even pass the Golden Rule test, for what man would 'want or allow' done to him what men do to women in polygamy, men would not put up with such abuse and neglect and disrespect and still sit home alone every night with all the kids and be faithful while never seeing their wife who is off with 20 other husbands."

You're making generalized attacks. Of course nobody wants to be abused and neglected. Why not ask the question, "What man would 'want or allow' done to him what men do to women in polygamy, men would not enjoy care and love and disrespect, etc.?"

You are generalizing that ALL polygamy is abusive. I'm not talking about condemnation here so don't tell me that since it is against scripture it is naturally abusive. I'm talking about actual abuse. This is blatantly false. There are many polygamous family in which there is no abuse.

The only reason why there are issues of jealousy over polygamy is because of western culture. In many cultures were polygamy is allowed jealousy doesn't even cross people's minds. It is a foreign concept.

this idea you have of the lone woman sitting at home pining for the caress of a loving husband who is off with another woman is a western concept. It is not a constant of polygamous marriages.

We can look at the construct of our physical bodies and see that we are naturally built to be polygamous(not only polygynous). God built humanity in this way. It is only the with the advent of agriculture and property rights that the concept of not sharing ones mate was invented. And still in many foraging societies polygamy is a non issue, it is just the natural way of life.

This is why I have such a disagreement with all of these anti-polygamy types. You views are firmly rooted in an ethnocentric western culture world view. Your interpretations of scripture thus suffer from the same error.

this is why I also disagree with Joseph Smith's statements on polygamy. Simply western cultural influence.

I wonder how this continual bashing of those who believe in polygamy meshes with this statement by Jospeh Smith:

"I do not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks to much like the Methodists. And not like the latter-day-saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled."

It would be nice not to be trammeled when the polygamy topic inevitably comes up.

Anonymous said...

Zomarah,

I believe differently. I believe that polygamy is always abusive to women, whether they agree with it & like it or not. Most women in monogamy don't even recognize or mind some forms of abuse either, but that doesn't mean they aren't being abused too.

I have never heard of one case of polygamy that wasn't abusive IMO. In most all cases I have known the wives are not happy and they do care that their husband is down the hall, or down the street, sleeping with another woman and not them. Even 'one' night of that is abusive in my book.

It's all in the defining of abuse. Emotional abuse can be just as bad as some physical abuse. I believe that adultery, being unfaithful to a wife by affairs, porn addiction or polygamy, etc., is abusive, yet there are some women who say they are ok with it, in monogamous marriages and in polygamous marriages. But just because the woman is ok with it, doesn't mean it's ok and not hurting her.

Not to mention that in many religions that preach polygamy they also teach that men are to 'rule or preside' over women or wives and that women should submit to their husbands but the husband isn't asked to do the same. LDS Church leaders teach this, especially the early ones. Which I believe is also abusive to women, by not treating them as complete equals in marriage and in church and teaching them to not expect total respect and equality.

And we won't get into the 'women can't hold the Priesthood' thing, which is just another abuse of women IMO.

Brigham Young stated that probably all women in the Church in his day would wish they didn't have to live polygamy and that they were the only wife. It is a woman's divine spirit that makes her feel jealous or upset if her husband is with another woman, it is right that she feels this way, for such feelings are the Spirit, letting her know that she isn't being treated right. I don't believe it is culture at all, for I believe women of all cultures desire true love and respect, though they may not ever get it.

Many cultures teach women to not expect respect and faithfulness from their husbands, that men have a right to multiple wives and thus women are conditioned to have low self worth and little self respect for themselves, not expecting to be treated right or as an equal with equal love and fidelity in return. Women with low self worth often don't feel jealous, since they have been taught to not expect higher for themselves.

I have never known a righteous women, one with high self respect, who would put up with or believe in polygamy.

Anonymous said...

Continued-

I believe that God expects everyone to be monogamous and completely faithful to one's spouse, for a lifetime, even after the other spouse dies or abandons them. For all marriages are eternal and their spouse will eventually reunite with them in the next life, where I do not believe there is any polygamy.

But such true Christlike love in marriage is so rare that many people never see an example of it, thus most people don't believe it's possible, let alone right.

I believe it is the natural carnal man, that causes people to want variety in marriage partners or want multiple spouses. And since righteous people and true love are so rare and the natural man desires is all we generally see or feel, it seems to us to be the right way.

And as for it being a 'western' thing, I know of many women's stories and feelings in the far eastern countries where polygamy is allowed, who also feel it is abusive and wrong, yet they have little to no power to change things.

And if Joseph really said that quote, he mentioned 'thinking and believing' are what is allowed, but 'actions' are quite another matter. I do not believe Joseph thought people should be allowed live polygamy, even though they may believe in it.

We will just have to agree to disagree, for I base my beliefs on Christ's laws and the scriptures that Joseph Smith gave us, for those 2 men have at least proven their 'righteousness' by having 'true exclusive love' for their wife and 'respect' for all women's total equality, which it seems is very rare among men to do.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

someone once pointed out that it sounds like one of those dismal Soviet anthems from the Stalinist era.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Festus?!

Well now my feelings are hurt.

When I was 12 others said I looked like Johnny Crawford. At 15 it was Peter Tork. Now I've grown to resemble Ken Curtis?

I'm feeling very old.

LDSDPer said...

Sorry, Rock; I didn't think Festus looked that old, but that says more about MY age than about his!!! LOL!

I'll have to look up Johnny Crawford and Peter Tork now; it's hard work participating in blog discussions--

:)

But then I think I have you beat on age; I like getting older, though; I'm in the minority, but I like being freed from the need to look young, etc. "It is what it is" sort of a thing--

You get to where you don't care about wrinkles and grey as long as you can get up in the morning--

*hee, hee*


Rob said...

You really should re-read the New Testament with the following question: What authority did the scribes and pharisees cite to reject Jesus' teachings and eventually kill him? If you are short on time, the answer is scripture. No scripture is of private interpretation, and until you get some revelation on the subject, you really should stop preaching your position, which is an emotional/intellectual one, not one founded in revelation.

Justin said...

I’ve become aware [over the last 3 or 4 years] that I am in a peculiar position with how I relate to the church. My opinion about the present order of things is considered too critical for my "mainstream" peers [in that I admit there's problems and suggest there are alternate ways of BEing an LDS] —

But I’m far too "generous” for any of the other astute-observing sisters and brothers I talk to online [meaning I still believe the LDS church to be *the* church of Christ and I don't support a "OH, all is lost", Corrupt-apostasy, JUMP ship" view of things].

Do I think the criticisms that people raise about things like leader-worship, relying on corrupt works of the flesh, lack of prophecy and revelation coming from men sustained as prophets and revelators, usage of tithing funds to have sufficient for our needs and investing the difference for usury, etc., etc. have merit? Do I think they’re valid? Absolutely. But it is my belief that it is *still* the church of God that is doing those things. We have not ceased to be the Lord’s people because of these condemnable works. The church of Christ can remain “true” while being “dead” and “damned”.

Justin said...

To me, there’s nothing wrong with or broken about the LDS Church corporation. It operates *exactly* how I’d expect a corporation to operate. Now, if the LDS church members [not the corporation] ever become utterly corrupt, then the LDS Church will function just as any other corporations does. Nevertheless, as far as corporations go, the LDS Church is currently a fairly decent example of a “good” corporation.

Yes, the LDS Church will be broken-up and dissolved. But who cares? So have and so will many other corporations. Corporations come and go. Such is the nature of the business cycle. Even the nations of the earth will be consumed and broken-up into their separate tribal affiliations.

So, of real concern to me, is not the break-up of the LDS Church — but the break-up of the LDS church of christ -- the members dividing into a plurality of separate, wicked churches.

That is where my focus is, on the LDS church — on the people. We cannot call the LDS church [people] *out of* the LDS Church, for they were never a part of her to begin with [Thomas is the *only* member]. If a call must [and will] be made, it will be for *the people* to repent.

Yes, there are corrupting influences in the church. Yes, there are false traditions and teachings, but there are also a set of nearly pristine scriptures with undiluted doctrines of God preserved for all to read and live in their fulness — if one feels so inclined. Yes, there is a priesthood with hard hearts and blind minds that have kept the powers of heaven from the people. But if those same priesthood should read that set of pristine scriptures and repent, then they would be endowed with power from heaven.

SO to me, disaffected people leaving the church is a *terrible* and unwise strategy. We *need* salt and leaven -- not retreat. Retreat just concentrates what’s wrong with the church.

If one is *kicked-out* of the church by conspiring men, then that’s a different situation. But generally, the principle is always having the few leavening the whole.

This, of course, will change as conditions among us change, and the general call to leave will go out, but currently, I do not hear the Spirit saying to the general populace of latter-day saints, “Leave the church!” Instead, I see the Spirit still working with the church, striving to get them to repent and come to Christ, and for all unbelievers to do the same.

We must assert our rights as confirmed members of “the church of jesus christ of latter day saints” and turn the tide so that wicked and corrupt influences are exposed and fought against *in the open* — right smack in the middle of church, where people can be influenced, so that they can make an informed decision as to who they will follow: the Lord or “the Brethren.”

The solidity of "the Priesthood" authority leadership structure is really just an illusion, a house of cards, smoke-and-mirrors — having the appearance of being built on rock, when it’s really just hard-packed sand — something that will quickly buckle if people just stayed put in the church and fully lived their religion [as diverse as that may be].

Anonymous said...

The scribes and pharisees may have cited the scriptures that they had, but they were wrong, for Christ is the author of all true scripture and they didn't realize that. They didn't realize that their scripture may have been wrong and whatever their scripture may say, Christ still trumps it.

Just like Joseph Smith trumps anything any of us may say or anything the Church leaders today may say. For Joseph, like Christ, already proved his righteousness and gave us scripture, no leader can claim as much today.

Everyone, even prophets, have to prove they are righteous before anyone should listen to them. God never asks us to just take their word for it, we have to study and pray and find the truth out on our own.

The test of this life is to see who can interpret the scriptures correctly, even privately. We aren't asked to follow or accept anyone blindly, who calls themselves a prophet. We have to be the one's to determine and discern if they are true prophets and righteous or not.

And it is not me who came up with the idea of judging all persons and precepts by what the scriptures say, Joseph Smith taught us that that is how we discern imposters, and more recent Presidents of the Church have echoed the same teaching.

We, and even prophets, can easily be deceived by personal revelation, for it can and probably does come from the Adversary far more than from God, or from our own mind, as Joseph Smith taught. For the Adversary's revelation is easier to hear and usually sounds better to us and easier. Even Joseph was deceived often by the Adversary's revelation and inspiration.

Thus why we need something more concrete to judge all things and persons by, the scriptures, that we know Christ or Joseph Smith taught.

I only believe and preach what Christ and Joseph Smith preached, so I believe it's a pretty safe position, even if it's considered to be an emotional/intellectual one, it is totally founded on true revelation.

I realize it's easier to just have blind obedience in church leaders who claim to be right and true, and not have to judge and discern true prophets from false prophets for ourselves, or true scripture from false scripture, or if our personal revelation is true or not, but such is the test of this life.

Anonymous said...

The same could be said of the Catholic Church or the RLDS Church, they have just as much claim to being God's true Church as the LDS Church does, probably even more for they don't preach as many whoredoms as the LDS Church does.

And the Catholics and RLDS and their leaders could repent too and become righteous again, just like the LDS, but that doesn't mean their church becomes 'the true church' only that they became righteous and will then join the true Church when it's re-restored when Christ comes.

I believe that Joseph's 'Church of Christ' has already been broken up into many different churches after his death, with some of the breakoffs being just 'false' though teaching close to Christ's gospel, while others like the LDS Church, are very wicked, teaching many vile things which destroy people and families, things completely contrary to the doctrines of Christ.

If there are false prophets leading the LDS Church today, then Joseph Smith said we will be damned if we follow or support such men. That's why I don't stay in the Church, for I am disgusted with what I see all church leaders doing and saying and I don't want to be held accountable for following or supporting or going along with such evil.

I believe in what Joseph Smith and Christ said, to beware of just such false prophets and false teachers, lest we be easily slowly deceived by them and not ever know it.

If people need a social church network to help them be strong and righteous, then there are probably 1000 other church's out there that teach and act far closer to Christ's true Gospel then the LDS Church does.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Nicely put, Justin.

Big Dave said...

Your post sounds alot like you hedging your bets. Remember what the Lord told Joseph: They draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me...There are only two churches: the church of god and the church of the devil. If god is no longer leading the Mormon church, then who is? Either you are right, and god is leading this corporate church and we need to repent, or god is not leading the church and the devil is. Which one do you believe?

LDSDPer said...

Justin, I agree with you. Big Dave, I do like a lot of what you say, but you remind me of the wonderful John Birch Society member who was LDS in a previous stake who told me that *I* was to blame for the condition of the American nation--

I looked over my life and over my deeds, and I decided that if everyone had been the kind of American *I* had been, America would not be in decay and bankruptcy, and I also had a different opinion about 'evil and conspiring men' than this person had--

In other words, I can't control evil and conspiring Americans OR Mormons, but I can continue to 'enjoy' (as long as is possible) the benefits from being an American, until the entire thing melts down AND a "Mormon"--

because I am not everyone else. I am responsible for me and, to some extent, for my loved ones, especially minors--but I can't make decisions for fellow ward members about how much they pray, how they treat others, how much they study the Book of Mormon, so I am NOT LDS, Inc. I am one individual member, and as I read this scripture:

Mormon 9:27
27 O then despise not, and wonder not, but hearken unto the words of the Lord, and ask the Father in the name of Jesus for what things soever ye shall stand in need. Doubt not, but be believing, and begin as in times of old, and come unto the Lord with all your heart, and work out your own salvation with fear and trembling before him.

Mormon doesn't advise us to work out the salvation of those we home teach or of our LDS ward members (or non-LDS neighbors or fellow Americans) with 'fear and trembling'--

He tells us to work out our OWN salvation--

so does Paul--

Yes, there are only two churches: the church of satan and the church of God--

but an individual can be a: Bhuddist, Catholic, Hindu, Jew, Mormon or Muslim--

and have a heart that belongs to Jesus Christ. Yes, even Bhuddists and Hindus; I've known some who were better saints than some of the best LDS I've ever known--

only Jesus knows His sheep, and He won't say, "you awful Bhuddist, why weren't you a . . . {whatever building you want people to attend}"--

there is something powerful in the concept of leaven--

or salt--



Anon 23 said...

I don't think anyone is saying we are responsible for what others do, unless we willingly support or vote for them.

If we vote for socialistic/communistic politicians, as all LDS seem to do except a few, then we will be held partly accountable for the wrongs they commit in government.

If we are deceived to support or vote for unrighteous leaders, in church or politics, then we could also lose our Celestial standing as Joseph and other prophets taught.

Joseph said we will be damned if we fall for false prophets in the Church, and he said there will always be false prophets and that most people do fall for them, thinking they are true prophets.

So I believe it's pretty serious to make sure Brigham Young and all his successors were true prophets or not, before we support them with our time, talents and money.

And if we use Christ's and Joseph's test for discerning true prophets, none since Joseph pass the test.

Robin Hood said...

Hey Rock,
Get a haircut mate!

LDSDPer said...

I'm not 'falling' for anyone.

I don't live in the "Mormon Corridor". My husband's extended family are: Catholic, Lutheran, evangelical, 7th Day Adventist and Jewish--

and us Mormons. Our get-togethers are really interesting. We love each other, seriously. We support each other, seriously. And we don't try to convert each other. We look for common ground. I can tell you that all of my in-laws struggle with corruption and evil inside their church organizations. Some of them drop one church and take up another to try to get away from it; others stay and 'fight'--
it's there everywhere; there are no 'innocent' little Christian churches that aren't infested with something--
One of our relatives was staunch Lutheran for many, many years and had a pastor who was much loved and then just left--found another church; it's working for them, for now. But I think it will be a matter of time before another congregation is found.
I like the hymns Emma Smith chose. I like the sacrament prayers found in the Book of Mormon and D&C. I know that the hymns are no longer just those Emma chose--
sermons from paid-for ministers are not always easy to take either--
sacrament talks by regular members are a mixed bag, but at least we don't have to pay them for talking--

LOL!

I think there is a 'pie-in-the-sky' idea that there is some innocent little Christian church out there that has no ulterior motives that is safe for LDS who have 'had it' with the corporation--
but it's just that, a dream.

Evangelicals are relentless about converting others, and they REALLY like it if they can get a LDS convert. And evangelicals can be really mean people; I've dealt with a lot of them--

Anon 23 said...

I agree, I don't think any church today is spiritually safe for our eternal salvation to attend or support.

LDSDPer said...

Rob and Zomarah,

Are you polygamists? Rhetorical question; you don't have to answer it. I've never met someone who practiced polygamy, but I have known people who defended it 'tooth and nail'--

If you are polygamists, then there really can't be a reasonable discussion on this.

I don't know why anyone would think that *I* am "trammeling" someone, because I question the practice of polygamy. I do know that there are many cultures (not just middle eastern or fundamentalists in Utah) who allow and accept polygamy--

and I think it's interesting that anyone feels they have to defend the concept or defend those who practice it.

Where were you when the Texas state government invaded that FLDS compound in Texas? I was one of the few LDS voices (profoundly non-polygamous) who stood up and said, "back off; these people have rights." I don't agree with how they live, but I felt that the government was way out of control--

Abraham and Jacob are all dead. There's no proof Isaac had more than one wife--

Brigham Young is dead, and much of what he said and did contradicted much of what Joseph Smith said or did. It is imperative to *me* (and especially those in my family who are young and lacking in wisdom) that I carefully decide (and prayerfully) what to think of these men and what they did and how they live.

I just wonder why so much investment in defending the old polygamists--

when there really are many women who are suffering. Jesus Christ was aware of the suffering of women. His brother James' injunction that pure religion was to take care of the widow and fatherless stands today, I believe. I haven't seen much written about taking care of the old men who lived polygamy.

If I question a practice, a cultural practice, then how am I wounding *you*?

Emotional? Where is the revelation that commanded plural marriage? Show it to me. If you come up with some 'hidden' revelation from John Taylor, then I will know you are a fundamentalist.

As for me, I agree with almost every word that anonymous said in the one post written at:

10:45--

And polygamy does, inevitably, come up, because most LDS still believe in it--

and there is a lot of controversy surrounding it, and some of *us*, even from generations away, are still dealing with the fallout from it.

But unlike the LDS church leaders who distanced themselves from the FLDS in April of (whatever year it was) when government agents entered the compound in Texas, I believe that there is some responsibility to be held for the people who are still entrenched in that culture; any of us who had ancestors who practiced polygamy could be them--

those of us who got out of it are the lucky ones--

I don't feel personally responsible to reclaim them, but I think that LDS church leaders are behaving in a cowardly fashion by distancing themselves from them.

The idea that something is wrong at one time and right at another is not sound. Ever. If it is wrong it is always wrong; if it is right, it is always right, as a practice.

There may be exceptions for things like Nephi killing Laban; I don't know.

But the making of polygamy a "sometimes you do; sometimes you don't" thing has destroyed a lot of lives and broken a lot of hearts--

LDSDPer said...

I need to amend something I said. There are men suffering, too--

the idea that sealings can be broken and done back up with another person has allowed a lot of more brutal women to reject the men to whom they are sealed and 'try again', too--

this isn't just a situation where women suffer; everyone suffers--

especially children.

But where polygamy exists, and where men think they can collect wives serially--

women are more likely to suffer.

I know women who have broken sealing after sealing trying to find the 'perfect' man; that sort of darwinism is ugly and not restricted to men.

LDSDPer said...

@Rob and Zomarah,

If I have offended you, personally, by discussing my serious questions about polygamy--

by expressing that I don't like the practice and don't think it was inspired--

I am sorry.

The point of Rock's blog was made. I'm not going to change anyone's mind, and I need to face the fact that others are not going to agree with me.

I do not now these people personally, but I am aware that there are quite a few Southeast Asians who practice polygamy--

and some Africans. I don't doubt that these are good people, though I know the cultures tend to be abusive of women or at least ignorant of the needs of women--

but I would say that I would defend the right of a person to do as he/she wishes with regards to polygamy, if there weren't the religion connection. The idea (that I was raised with, though my parents were strictly monogamous) that people who live plural marriage are on a higher level somehow and that it is an eternal principle--

I don't believe that. If my saying that offends others, I really am sorry.

I will defend your 'right' to live it, because I am very much a libertarian. I don't believe in telling other people how to live.

But the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is also my God, and I believe I have a right to discern for myself what He is telling me to do and--

so I stand on that.

But I think there is subtle manipulation in a person telling another person (posters all), "I feel badly treated when you express your opinion."

We all have them, opinions. And, though I dare not speak for Rock; he can speak for himself, I have come on here and commented, because I have gotten the idea that Rock wants everyone to feel safe commenting on here.

If I have been rude or vulgar, though, I apologize. As I said before, as much as I do not believe that plural marriage is, ever, God-ordained, I will defend the right of a person to live that way--

even if I believe it is a bad idea.

LDSDPer said...

and Zomarah, I would like not to be trammeled with regards to believing that polygamy is strictly a cultural thing, and not a spiritual thing.

I suppose (LOL!)--that Jacob, the prophet, Nephi's little brother, brought western thinking into his words on the subject--

he was born in the Americas and immediately began preaching against the taking of many wives--

that verse (in Jacob) is very vague about "if I will raise up seed unto myself I will command" (paraphrase, sorry)--

very vague--

I am not sure it has anything to do with plural marriage, since my ancestors who had more children were monogamous--

I think it may have more to do with what Jesus said to the Pharisses, "of these stones I could raise up seed to Abraham" (again, apologies for slaughtering it)--

God will bless people with fertility as He sees fit, not as they see fit, not by the adding of many wives (or many genealogies)--

That is what I think it means, and we could argue all day about it, but not everyone on here thinks in a strictly "western" perspective; eastern philosophies can be corrupt, too--

what you say about bodies being designed for polygamy doesn't sound very spiritual, come to think of it--

I thought we were here on earth to overcome the flesh, not to give in to all carnality--

but here I go again--

I don't want to trammel you--

:)

I have said my say about polygamy, and I will earnestly try to say nothing more about it. I think my position has been made clear. I don't want Rock to kick me off here--

*eyebrows up*

Anonymous said...

Well, Rock, I guess that your pics are proof of the old saying that you become what you hate; wasn't it you who said that as a youth you hated those bearded, long hair anti-war hippies who shut down your beloved Disneyland, and now you put up visual proof (to go along with your verbal proof from your anti-war blogs), that now you are one.

I'd join you, but I'm afraid I just don't find long hair appealing on a bald head, so I refrain (from the long hair part, that is).

Since another commenter has already apppropriated the LDSPDer tag (nice to find someone else my age who gets the real meaning of liberty and free agency), I am;

PNW_DPer (formerly MarkinPNW)

LDSDPer said...

I'm sorry, PNW_DPer, and I thought I was being so original!

LOL!

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Well, if I'm going to get teased about it, I guess one of these days I'm going to have to explain the reason for growing my hair out.

There's a bit of a tale to it, but the short answer is: Late Middle Age Crisis. I was virtually alone in my generation in never having the opportunity to "go gentile." From high school on, it seems most of the jobs I held required me to have a missionary haircut.

So now I'm finally getting my chance, and nothing can stop me. Except perhaps the summer heat.

Connie's embarrassed for me and hoping I will grow out of this phase very soon. Maybe once it's past my shoulders.

(Or when I just can't stand it anymore. It'll likely be the heat that does me in.)

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Alan Rock Waterman said...

Weston, I don't mind the personal insults, but I will continue to delete your comments when you fail to control your use of naughty language.

As you have declared yourself to be the internet's self-appointed Defender Of The Faith, you might wish to refer to "For The Strength of Youth" for guidelines in this area. If you don't have your own copy of this pamphlet, ask your bishop to give you one:

"Do not use profane, vulgar, or crude language or gestures, and do not tell jokes or stories about immoral actions. Remember that these standards for your use of language apply to all forms of communication, including texting on a cell phone or communicating on the Internet."

"If you have developed the habit of using language that is not in keeping with these standards—such as swearing, mocking, gossiping, or speaking in anger to others—you can change. Pray for help. Ask your family and friends to support you in your desire to use good language."

You may also benefit from a variety of statements by General Authorities who have addressed your malady on LDS.org under the heading, "What Do The Words I Use Say About Me?"

https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/language?lang=eng

Good luck, Weston! You can change. Pray for help. Ask your family and friends to support you.

Andrew C said...

Speaking of being a trouble maker:

Early on in my mission, there was a huge windstorm that blew through the area. The high winds actually ripped the roof off the house of one of the members. This member had two young toddlers and suffered from severe back spasms. A thunderstorm was supposed to roll through that night. There were no members of the branch that could/would help this man and his family (most of them were older women anyway).

So what did my companion and I do? We dropped everything and got to work puting the roof back on this family's house. We didn't stop until the job was done close to midnight.

After we returned to our apartment, we got a call from the ZLs (they had been calling periodically all evening) who then proceeded to berate us for 20 minutes about never breaking mission rules under any circumstances. We were both viewed as disobedient trouble makers by the mission leadership for a while after that.

Needless to say, sometimes the drive to be obedient and follow all the rules can turn into being downright Pharisaical.

me said...

No good deed ever goes unpunished!?

LDSDPer said...

wow--

just wow . . .

and what is said below, too--

LDSDPer said...

I recently had an 'epiphany' about people who consider themselves to be 'defenders of the faith'--

I don't expect anyone else to be either interested in this or new to this knowledge, but for me this is new, and like all babes I want to tell others what I have learned.

"Defender of the faith" is not found anywhere in the scriptures, but it is a term that was applied to European monarchs who intended to 'spread' the Christian faith. Since, by now, most of us realize that this wasn't always a benign thing, and sometimes even a violent thing, it loses some of its appeal, in my opinion, as a positive thing.

Fidei defensor is the Latin term.

As a modern-day LDS I have met a few LDS who, like some evangelical Christians, consider themselves to be 'defenders of the faith', and generally speaking most of these people are pro-war and anti-Muslim. Yes.

They may not go around saying, "I like war," but they support pre-emptive and never-ending wars. They feel a sincere need to 'educate' young people to believe the same way they do. They get teary-eyed about our 'armed forces', and they are often the ones who give prayers thanking God for the 'armed forces' and asking for 'their protection as they protect our freedoms'.

Last but not least, and the most amazing part of my epiphany is--

these people are the western Christian equivalent of the very extremists they talk about, who are so fearful to them--the extremists from other parts of the world who are not Christians and generally Muslim.

The same close-mindedness, the same 'the end justifies the means' (even with regards to language in some cases)--that most American media pundits ascribe to "Muslim radicals"--

It's really an interesting parallel.

I've found myself trying to talk to these extreme LDS--about love and acceptance and *gasp* tolerance, but to them tolerance is a danger to the 'faith'--

in their minds, we are forever in danger from these extremists 'overseas'--but not from ourselves and not from the attitudes of fellow LDS who don't mind dropping bombs or blaming people of other races and religions and 'classes' for the nation's problems.

You probably already knew this, but I've been bursting with this new knowledge and haven't had any place to share it.

Rock, you ought to rename this "Pure Mormonism" site as:

sharing time for awakening LDS adults--

all this because of the phrase I read "defender of the faith"--


ShawnC said...

If you will allow me to also vent a little. I got a forwarded email from my dear mother. One of those memorial day is for deifying the veterans type emails. I usually delete them and try to hold my peace. I chose to respond to this one...


With all due respect, I have grown weary, long ago, of military worship.

The Lord summarized it very nicely in the Doctrine and Covenants.

D&C 98:

8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.

So is it the veterans who "make us free"? I suppose I could give a sermon about ignoring the God given constitutional mandates of war and the righteous use thereof. But I will not.

9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.

So when do we decide to stop allowing the wicked to lead us into unjustifiable war? How have our freedoms been threatened by the series of modern day preemptive assaults on other countries in the name of American Imperialism? Perhaps the secret combination spoken of by prophets ancient and modern really is increasing it's influence and power over us.?

From the Book of Mormon...

Mormon 4:

5 But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the awicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are bpunished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed.

So are we going to listen to and follow the Lord on this?...

D&C 98:

15 For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me.

16 Therefore, arenounce war and proclaim peace, and seek diligently to bturn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children;

Is this where our focus should be? Or should we continue to delude ourselves of our own "righteous" superior cause, and continue to send our people to war. Destroying families and souls.

A little more...

D&C 98:

33 And again, this is the alaw that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.

34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of apeace unto that people, nation, or tongue;

I wonder where we would be if people actaully had the stones to follow the Lords direction on these things?

To continue to lavish praise and worship on the military is a mistake. Please reconsider your perspctive on this if it is where you stand.

-Shawn-

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
Galileo Galilei


I stand ready with a similar discourse should this topic arise in church. I simply cannot tolerate this assinine attitude from confessing Mormon Christians who should, for the love of God, know better.

Gary Hunt said...

Rock, LDSDPer and ShawnC,

The other day the United States Senate unanimously passed S. Res. 65 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113sres65rs/pdf/BILLS-113sres65rs.pdf) which calls for the full implementation of sanctions against Iran.

I guess the 500,000 children in Iraq who died because of US supported sanctions against Iraq, are not enough. Here's "Mad" Madeleine Albright's famous quote.

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq:

"We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

Senator Rand Paul (Kentucky), Senators Orrin Hatch (Mormon) and Mike Lee (Mormon) from Utah supported and voted for the resolution. Apparently they also agree with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright that using sanctions to kill off a lot of Iranian children is "with it."

So Rock, unless you've killed a whole lot of people, you aren't very dangerous at all. The real danger is somewhere else.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure.
Was it George W. Bush, or was it Bill Clinton, or perhaps it was George H.W.Bush?
Maybe it goes clear back to Franklin D. Roosevelt or even Abraham Lincoln. Well, no matter. Americans clearly have overwhelming evidence that they have been led to believe in what just is not true as far as the proclamations of politicians go...and no where has it been more evident than in Americans being led into wars which were none of our business...unless you are in the arms business, or in the business of international banking. Then war is very profitable indeed!
No, I am thinking of war a little closer to home. Try going to your local VA hospital or your local nursing home or cemetery on Memorial Day. Take a careful look at what war has done for the average American. The media will provide all their usual hoopla and jingoism on Memorial Day this year. After all, there are still dollars to be made and third world gold reserves to be stolen! There is still blood to be spilt in the quest for riches.
There are still energy reserves waiting for the rapacious hand of 3 piece suit "businessmen" to grasp. There are still peasants around the world to be hornswoggled out of their gold fillings!
Watched a Nat Geo special the other day about the gold stolen by the Nazis from the Jews and the countries they conquered...AS IF THE SAME THING IS NOT HAPPENING STILL TODAY!
My recommendation? NEVER VOTE FOR A POLITICIAN WHO VOTED FOR WAR, WHETHER IT WAS ECONOMIC OR FINANCIAL OR MILITARY IN NATURE. None of them have ever sacrificed a day in the "service" of their country. IN FACT, NEVER VOTE FOR AN INCUMBENT...KICK 'EM ALL OUT OF OFFICE!
BUT, DO THANK A VET. Not for their service to their country which was in all likelihood done in sheer naivete...but for their patriotic zeal and their sweat and their blood and their sacrifice of some of the best years of their lives in a cause they never understood...and then bow your head and ask GOD ALMIGHTY to repay the swindlers and the con men with blood on their hands who sent those young, idealistic men and women off to war.
From a Vet.
JR

LDSDPer said...

very disappointed in Rand. His father stated that sanctions are an act of war--

very disappointed.

LDSDPer said...

JR, I think you need to say this on Rock's new thread. I haven't read it all yet (or the comments), but I think it fits there, better.

I agree. My husband and I have a son who has 'struggled' with many things and out of desperation entered the military (army); he got injured in boot camp; it was due to an assault from a fellow recruit, and he decided he wanted 'out'. They wanted him 'in', and he ended up spending a lot of time alone--injured and in pain and told that he was 'in line' to be seen by a doctor.
Our son learned, almost too late, that being in the military is a brutal experience. The recruit who hurt him was praised for his aggression, while our son was told that he needed to be hardened. But, the point is that he was desperate (financially). He had a family to support and was struggling to get an education and find good employment. Our hearts yearned for him. We raised him to question war; he was read the Book of Mormon as a tiny infant, but desperation led him to this. As parents it was a very difficult thing to watch. We were glad that he finally got out, but he was badly enough injured that he found it even more difficult to get work after that; he didn't get the proper medical treatment while in boot camp, and he has paid for it since. Interestingly, the group he was with went to Afghanistan during one of its most bloody times, and I have wondered what happened to the recruit who hurt my son.
That is when our eyes opened to the way these young men and women are treated. And we know, now, that many of the homeless are our vets. We support a local non-profit organization that finds safe housing and employment for vets--our attitudes really changed when we saw what happened to our son, and, sadly, his story is not, yet, over--he's still dealing with the effects of six weeks at boot camp--

Alan Rock Waterman said...

I'm disappointed with Rand Paul as well. He knows better.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

JR, I agree with LDS Dper. You wrote the above comment before I posted my Memorial Day piece, but there's no rule that says you can't cut it and paste it under that post.

Sad news about your son, Dper. But that's the military. It uses our children then discards them.

Anon 23 said...

I am not surprised though, for I never trusted Rand or Orrin or Mike Lee, (or Romney either), and I don't believe any of them are true conservatives nor do I believe they believe in the Constitution or the Gospel, let alone live it.

But the worst thing is that almost everyone is easily deceived to vote for such men, and can't discern true patriots from false ones.

Andrew C said...

Yeah, it was a great personal experience that helped me realize that following someone just because they have the badge of authority is not particularly smart.

In all fairness, later on in my mission while with a different companion, I was put in the unfortunate position of defusing a dangerous domestic abuse situation (very long story) and, like before, dropped all our appointments for the evening and didn't get home until very late. This time, the (different) mission leadership gave us major kudos for doing what we did and said nothing about the "lesser laws" we broke doing so.

John said...

Hi Alan, I'm new to your blog. I've hated everything I've read until today, when I stumbled upon this post.

Thank you for giving me the reassurance that I can be in the church but not of the church™.

nancy said...

A couple of weeks ago I was in a dark period in my life, the man I love to bits had gone off with someone else, that was when I was told about this Esango Priest. Well he told me he could see that we would get back together that gave me hope, and he was right, because this week we have moved in with each other and we are so happy. A big thank you to Esango Priest. If you are in need of an angel please get in touch with my Esango Priest via email:esangopriest@gmail.com

Unknown said...

I am Anneken Bathild From United State of America. Am writing this article to thank Doctor Ebakor the powerful spell caster that just helped me recently to bring back my HUSBAND that left me for another woman for no reason for the past 4 years. After seeing a post on the internet by Angela Schmickl from Finland saying how she was helped by Doctor Ebakor, i also decided to contact him for help because i had to choice because all i wanted was for me to get my HUSBAND and happiness back. Am happy today that he helped me also and i can proudly say that my HUSBAND is now with me again and he is now in love with me like never before. Viewers reading this who wants help of different kinds what so ever and want to contact Doctor Ebakor should contact him via his email address: [Doctorebakorspelltemple@hotmail.com]or you call him: +2348135254384.. Website:{ http://doctorebakorspelltemple.webs.com}....

Name: Anneken Bathild
Country: USA
State: South Dakota

You can also call me with my number if you want to know more [912-387-2094].