Are you a NOW mormon?

[Silver]

Here are the questions I really want to ask:
What's your purpose here? Are you trying to entice people into leaving the Church? Where would you have them go if they did?

Silver, it would be the 'snarky' comments and personal challenges like yours that would have driven me to leave the Church.

Who wants to be around people who profess their dogma to be greater than Christ's Love?

I'll need a reference from you showing me where I professed such a thing before I can respond.

[shadow]

Let me help you understand as follows:
My niece grew up in a family with her father, mother, and two brothers.
After 17 years of living as a family, laughing together, crying together, leaning on each other, she was told that her father was not her birth father.
The person she relied on most had every chance to tell her, but did not.

How would this feel? Hurt, deceived, betrayed, lost trust.....
The way I am feeling.

Are you feeling hurt, deceived, betrayed and have lost trust because Joseph practiced polygamy or are you upset that you somehow weren't made aware of it?
Were you aware of the church's history with polygamy? I assume yes but maybe you weren't, that's why I'm asking. Is it fair to say you were aware of the history of polygamy (it's blatantly in the D&C), but you glossed over researching it any further?

If the church no longer teaches or accepts polygamy, why would they teach it when there's so much more to teach? Why would you feel victimized by this? Christianity as a whole has some strange history too, it's in the Bible, does that freak you out too or maybe you're just not aware of these things?? Polygamy, for example, is in the Bible. Do you feel betrayed by that? Or is it OK for God to allow polygamy in one era, but not another? I'm simply trying to get to the root of your issue. In the history of Prophets, some taught polygamy and some didn't, some even taught against it, like today's Prophets. Why would God do that? Why would He tell Joseph Smith, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, Moses to live it, but others not to live it? Which Prophets throughout history do you feel betray you? Or are you feeling betrayed simply because nobody is teaching you?

[NOWmormon]

.

[Silver]

If the OP is sincere he can visit with his dad, bishop, sunday school president. hometeacher, close friend, old seminary teacher, stake president, EQP, sister missionaries at the visitors center.....

Not true. Apparently I would be judged before I even got my first thought out.

Look at some of the comments I received just from my one post:

These kinds of newbies should be thankful that the Lord loves them more than they love Him.

I see you selected my comment to lead off your list. Do I win a prize?

Here are the questions I really want to ask:
What's your purpose here? Are you trying to entice people into leaving the Church? Where would you have them go if they did?

I have explained this in my posts

Not to everyone's satisfaction, obviously.

[NOWmormon]

.

[h_p]

I have explained this in my posts

Not to everyone's satisfaction, obviously.

That's not his problem.

[TrueIntent]

Let me help you understand as follows:
My niece grew up in a family with her father, mother, and two brothers.
After 17 years of living as a family, laughing together, crying together, leaning on each other, she was told that her father was not her birth father.
The person she relied on most had every chance to tell her, but did not.

How would this feel? Hurt, deceived, betrayed, lost trust.....
The way I am feeling.

Are you feeling hurt, deceived, betrayed and have lost trust because Joseph practiced polygamy or are you upset that you somehow weren't made aware of it?
Were you aware of the church's history with polygamy? I assume yes but maybe you weren't, that's why I'm asking. Is it fair to say you were aware of the history of polygamy (it's blatantly in the D&C), but you glossed over researching it any further?

If the church no longer teaches or accepts polygamy, why would they teach it when there's so much more to teach? Why would you feel victimized by this? Christianity as a whole has some strange history too, it's in the Bible, does that freak you out too or maybe you're just not aware of these things?? Polygamy, for example, is in the Bible. Do you feel betrayed by that? Or is it OK for God to allow polygamy in one era, but not another? I'm simply trying to get to the root of your issue. In the history of Prophets, some taught polygamy and some didn't, some even taught against it, like today's Prophets. Why would God do that? Why would He tell Joseph Smith, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, Moses to live it, but others not to live it? Which Prophets throughout history do you feel betray you? Or are you feeling betrayed simply because nobody is teaching you?

Why would he feel victimized??? Really? Its because of the hypocrisy. Its what the Pharisees were...."whited sepulchers" Mathew 23:27. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean." Maybe the issue wouldn't be as big of a deal if we actually taught this stuff all along. Refer to "The Teachings of Joseph Smith" Relief Society Manual that has been in use for about 10 years. There is one sentence in the entire manual about polygamy.....it merely states Joseph received a revelation.

I would also agree that you don't understand the Bible, i.e. old testament (I'm not saying Im perfect either, but there its a huge element you're missing that will be useful to your understanding). If you will recall, Lot's daughters got their father drunk and slept with him, and got pregnant by his own daughters...is that okay too? Should we justify things because it's written in the Bible somewhere. I think people justify what they are okay with themselves. I also believe that Christs words, supersede all other teachings of Prophets and Men (Christ became The Word in the flesh)---there is no other teaching we need to defer to except His, because men are imperfect (besides, joseph smith was trying to establish a covenant, which is a subject for another day...mormonism is not required in this life, it merely teaches one to be exalted in this life....all will be taught this in the millennium, and all will have an opportunity...we should not be Butt-hurt if people aren't fond of the teachings). If there is any question, we should defer to the recorded words of Christ in the New Testament and Book of Mormon...all other interpretations are men's....even those pertaining to Mosaic Law. SO many things are symbolic. Take for example the Many wives and concubines of Solomon. There were 700 wives, and 300 concubines....which adds up to a perfect 1000. 7 and 3 are also highly symbolic....we will find that we practiced religion literally and ignorant--to our own detriment, when these things were symbolic.

Who said these men (LDS apostles and prophets) weren't deceived in some of their teachings? They were men, Correct???? They weren't perfect, correct? Did you read, 5stve3 post. Its an excellent post. Christ did it without sin....no one else did. We spend so much time worshiping the teachings of our leaders and prophets, that we forget that there will be things intermingled that are not "correct"...or even considered a lesser law. Remember the teachings of Jesus Christ...the Jews taught, thou shalt not commit adultery...He taught, thou shalt not even lust. There is a difference. We wouldn't need the essays if Joseph Smiths Polygamy were public knowledge. For your information, I had heard the rumors of polygamy as practiced by Joseph about 15 years ago, I attempted to research the topic on all Church approved sites...the information did not exist...in fact, the conclusion I came to at that time, was that it was anti-mormon false literature. Boy was I wrong. Just because you can't relate to the feelings of this post, doesn't mean that others can't. Im not sure what your age is shadow, but the younger age, teens to early 40's are shocked by this information. We are a different generation...and so many of these teachings, surrounding blacks, women, polygamy, finances....are a complete shock. Especially to those of us who so diligently have lived lives taught by the modern church of acceptance and love....So our issue is not with the current teachings....its with former teachings that completely contradict current teachings, and that we had no prior knowledge of it--and that we are supposed to just roll with the restoration....in fact, I believe what I have had to do, is not gain a testimony of the teachings of the latter-day church....I had to gain a testimony of the restored Church in Josephs Day....they are two completely different churches....completely...So, I was left to ask myself...just as Joseph did, Which church is true? ....or Which parts of that church then, and this church today are true? Or is it all true, and we are just progressing in levels? .

For the record...a couple months ago I was in Relief Society, and someone said, "we need to remember that they (prophets and apostles) are just men and they make mistakes".....immediately several hands flew up, and said that a prophet will never lead us astray. If we are personally ignoring the spirits directions to us, in order to follow a prophet....then yes, we will be lead astray or misguided. The church teaches many wonderfully things as a whole...like, "not going into debt" However, there are occasions where the spirit may direct you to take out a loan or make a financial risk or investment....if you are not accustomed to following the spirit...you may not follow it, or you may be following your own lusts. The same goes for situations of divorce, or parenting, etc. We should always follow what the spirit directs us as individuals. Spiritual Direction for the body of the church is appropriate, but it does not apply to every individual in every situation--in fact, if you have never done something contrary to what is taught over the pulpit...I would argue you are not following the spirit. You at some point will be directed to do something different. Individuals should make their own connection with God, as Joseph Smith taught. Prophets and apostles are there for the body of the church, and as the spirit indicates to the individual....but when the spirit directs otherwise...the individual should follow the spirit--not the Leadership of the Church. Ultimately, they are Men, and We should defer to Christ as our head and leader.

[TrueIntent]

I see you selected my comment to lead off your list. Do I win a prize?

Here are the questions I really want to ask:
What's your purpose here? Are you trying to entice people into leaving the Church? Where would you have them go if they did?

I have explained this in my posts

Not to everyone's satisfaction, obviously.

I am here to reach out to other past/present church members; I am looking for a safe support system.
maybe this isn't the place.
Why do others visit this site---what is their purpose?

This is a safe place....youll figure out who is judgement, self-righteous, and ignorant over time. I would encourage you to defer to the teachings of Jesus Christ when you have a questions. I will also let you know, being a member of this forum has allowed me to remain an active member of the church, while also not following every whim of doctrine so that I am tossed to and froe. Its a great place to vent, and express concerns. There are people here who are well versed in scripture....but remember, some of them interpret it like the pharisees in Christ's day. Its a good way to learn to use discernment. Really, everyone on this forum is a good person, some are just ignorant, (we all are in some way)....this forum allowed me to toss out doctrines that conflict with the teachings of Christ, and reestablish ones that support the teachings of Christ. It taught me to use my agency, just like Joseph Smith did, when he chose not to believe what he was taught, and went to God directly. Dont fall into the trap that Joseph smith was "all good"....or "all Bad"....As Christ said, "no one is Good but God".

[kittycat51]

NowMormon,

I'm just curious; did you grow up inside or outside of Utah? You mentioned you have been a member for at least a "half a century". Does this mean you are in your higher 50's?

I myself will be turning 50 this year. (ick) I am born and raised in the Church in Salt Lake City. My ancestor's ooze of Pioneer heritage from ALL LINES. Because of this I grew up knowing "which wife" I came from. (Many but not all of my pioneer ancestors were in some sort of plural marriage.) Along these lines, I just always knew a little bit about polygamy, learning bit by bit throughout the years. Nothing ever shocking or scarring me.

To be honest, although I don't personally agree with some aspects, and hope I don't ever have to participate, I do have faith though that ALL THINGS will be brought into our FULL understanding of it in the end...and we will be enlightened to the point of having a AH HA moment.

I found it interesting that just last week my son's seminary teacher emailed the parents his outline from what they discussed that day in class concerning polygamy and encouraged us as parents to talk to our kids about it. My son had a few questions and we had a good discussion. He was not shocked by anything I shared.

Pray for guidance, answers to your questions/concerns, and may you find above all peace. Don't give up on this forum, you learn to roll with who is sincere members here, others who are past members and like to come occasionally to stir the pot, and many in-between. I quit Facebook a year ago and this has been my new social media site :ymblushing: :ymblushing:

(Here is a copy of the outline taught in my son's seminary class)

PLURAL MARRIAGE
WHAT?
What is the Lord’s standard when it comes to marriage? Jacob 2:27; D&C 49:15-16
Definitions to keep in mind
• Monogamy= Marriage with one spouse.
• Polygamy= Marriage with more than one spouse.
o Polygyny= Marriage with one man and more than one wife.
o Polyandry= Marriage with one woman and more than one husband.
• Sealings for time and eternity= Commitments and relationships during this life, generally including the possibility of intimate relations.
• Sealings for eternity only= Indicates relationship in the next life alone.
• Concubines= Legal wives with a lesser social status than a wife.

WHO?
Plural Marriage: Ancient and Modern Prophets
While the Prophet Joseph Smith was working on the inspired revisions of the Bible in 1831, he asked the Lord for understanding about the ancient patriarchs having more than one wife. At that time the Prophet began to receive revelation in answer to his inquiries. In subsequent years, the Lord commanded the Prophet and other Latter-day Saints to live the principle of plural marriage. In July 1843, while the Church was headquartered in Nauvoo, Illinois, the Prophet recorded the revelation he had received. Doctrine and Covenants 132 addresses the Lord’s teachings regarding plural marriage, including counsel to Joseph and Emma Smith.
Who practiced plural marriage anciently? D&C 132:1

Were these prophets under condemnation because they practiced plural marriage, why or why not? D&C 132:35-37

Which modern prophets practiced plural marriage? Joseph Smith through Heber J. Grant
(Historical research points to the probability that the great majority of Joseph Smith’s plural wives were “sealing’s for eternity only.”)

WHY?
Why would the Lord command this to ancient and modern prophets?

“Latter-day Saints do not understand all of God’s purposes in instituting, through His prophets; the practice of plural marriage.” (Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”—article lds.org/study/topic/plural-marriage)

Scriptural reasons: D&C 132:35; D&C 132:40; D&C 132:51; D&C 132:63 & Jacob 2:27, 30

Other Reasons
“It also shaped 19th-century Mormon society in many ways: marriage became available to virtually all who desired it; per-capita inequality of wealth was diminished as economically disadvantaged women married into more financially stable households; and ethnic intermarriages were increased, which helped to unite a diverse immigrant population. Plural marriage also helped create and strengthen a sense of cohesion and group identification among Latter-day Saints. Church members came to see themselves as a “peculiar people,” covenant-bound to carry out the commands of God despite outside opposition.” (Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”—article lds.org/study/topic/plural-marriage)

WHERE & WHEN?
• Joseph Smith began to question and ask for revelation about the practice of plural marriage as early as 1831 (see DC 132)
• “Fragmentary evidence suggests that Joseph Smith acted on the … command by marrying a plural wife, Fanny Alger, in Kirkland, Ohio, in the mid-1830s.”
• The first known plural marriage in Nauvoo was Joseph Smith’s sealing to Louisa Beaman in April 1841 (see “Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo”).
• By November 2, 1843, Joseph had entered into more than 30 plural marriages. It appears that many of these plural unions, perhaps as many as half, were eternity-only sealings that did not involve conjugal relations. He did not enter into any more plural marriages between this date and the date of his death, presumably due to issues involving his first wife, Emma.
• By the time of the Prophet’s death on June 27, 1844, an additional twenty-nine other Nauvoo men had married a total of fifty-one plural wives.
• In the beginning of the practice, participants vowed to keep their involvement confidential. Latter-day Saints began to openly practice plural marriage in 1852 in Utah.
• The practice was discontinued through a revelation given to President Wilford Woodruff in 1890, now known as The Manifesto and Official Declaration One.
• “Like the beginning of plural marriage in the Church, the end of the practice was gradual and incremental, a process filled with difficulties and uncertainties” (Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”—article lds.org/study/topic/plural-marriage).
Why did Heavenly Father stop the practice of plural marriage?
• Official Declaration One
• Read introductory paragraph (it is like the chapter heading) to understand the context behind OD 1.
• Official Declaration One: Excerpts… paragraph 5 & 6

HOW
How did the early members of the church feel when they were asked to practice plural marriage?

Joseph Smith
Eliza R. Snow, who was sealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith, recorded the details of the Prophet Joseph teaching the principle of plural marriage to her brother Lorenzo Snow…
“The Prophet Joseph unbosomed his heart [to Lorenzo Snow], and described the trying mental ordeal he experienced in overcoming the repugnance of his feelings, the natural result of the force of education and social custom, relative to the introduction of plural marriage. He knew the voice of God—he knew the commandment of the Almighty to him was to go forward—to set the example, and establish Celestial plural marriage…Yet the Prophet hesitated and deferred from time to time, until an angel of God stood by him with a drawn sword, and told him that, unless he moved forward and established plural marriage, his Priesthood would be taken from him and he should be destroyed! This testimony he not only bore to my brother, but also to others—a testimony that cannot be gainsayed [contradicted]” (Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow [1884], 69–70).

Brigham Young
“If any man had asked me what was my choice when Joseph revealed that doctrine, provided that it would not diminish my glory, I would have said, ‘let me have but one wife.… I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. And when I saw a funeral I felt to envy the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin. …But the saints who live their religion will be exalted, for they never will deny any revelation which the Lord has given or may give, though, when there is a doctrine coming to them which they cannot comprehend fully, they may be found saying, ‘the Lord sendeth this unto me, and I pray that he will save and preserve me from denying anything which proceedeth from him, and give me patience to wait until I can understand it for myself’” (in “Provo Conference,” Deseret News, Nov. 14, 1855, 282).

John Taylor
“I had always entertained strict ideas of virtue, and I felt as a married man that this was to me, outside of this principle, an appalling thing to do. … It was a thing calculated to stir up feelings from the innermost depths of the human soul. I had always entertained the strictest regard of chastity. … Hence, with the feelings I had entertained, nothing but a knowledge of God, and the revelations of God, and the truth of them, could have induced me to embrace such a principle as this” (in B. H. Roberts, The Life of John Taylor, Third President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [1963], 100).

Vilate Kimball, wife of Apostle Heber C. Kimball, as recounted by her daughter Helen
“‘My mother often told me that she could not doubt the plural order of marriage was of God, for the Lord had revealed it to her in answer to prayer.
“‘In Nauvoo, shortly after his return from England, my father, among others of his brethren, was taught the plural wife doctrine. …
“‘My father realized the situation fully, and the love and reverence he bore for the Prophet were so great that he would sooner have laid down his life than have betrayed him. This was one of the greatest tests of his faith he had ever experienced. …
“‘My mother [Vilate Kimball] had noticed a change in his manner and appearance, and when she inquired the cause, he tried to evade her questions. At last he promised he would tell her after a while, if she would only wait. This trouble so worked upon his mind that his anxious and haggard looks betrayed him daily and hourly, and finally his misery became so unbearable that it was impossible to control his feelings. He became sick in body, but his mental wretchedness was too great to allow of his retiring, and he would walk the floor till nearly morning, and sometimes the agony of his mind was so terrible that he would wring his hands and weep like a child, and beseech the Lord to be merciful and reveal to her this principle. …
“‘The anguish of their hearts was indescribable, and when she found it was useless to beseech him longer, she retired to her room and bowed before the Lord and poured out her soul in prayer to Him who hath said: “If any lack wisdom let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not.” …
“‘Before her was illustrated the order of celestial marriage, in all its beauty and glory, together with the great exaltation and honor it would confer upon her in that immortal and celestial sphere, if she would accept it and stand in her place by her husband’s side. She also saw the woman he had taken to wife, and contemplated with joy the vast and boundless love and union which this order would bring about, as well as the increase of her husband’s kingdoms, and the power and glory extending throughout the eternities, worlds without end.
“‘With a countenance beaming with joy, for she was filled with the Spirit of God, she returned to my father, saying: “Heber, what you kept from me the Lord has shown me.” She told me she never saw so happy a man as father was when she described the vision and told him she was satisfied and knew it was from God.“ ‘She covenanted to stand by him and honor the principle, which covenant she faithfully kept, and though her trials were often heavy and grievous to bear, she knew that father was also being tried, and her integrity was unflinching to the end. She gave my father many wives, and they always found in my mother a faithful friend’” (in Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball [1967], 325–28).

Joseph F. Smith quoting Elder Orson Pratt
“Elder Pratt bore his testimony…. [He] Referred to his own trial in regard to this matter in Nauvoo, and said it was because he got his information from a wicked source, from those disaffected, but as soon as he learned the truth, he was satisfied.” (Doctrine and Covenants Compenium, Sidney Sperry, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1960): 714-15.

Elder Neil L. Andersen of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: Finding the correct sources
“There have always been a few who want to discredit the Church and to destroy faith. Today they use the Internet. Some of the information about the Church, no matter how convincing, is just not true” (“Trial of Your Faith,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2012, 41).

STUDY RESOURCES ON PLURAL MARRIAGE:
INTERNET
• LDS Church. “Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marri ... s?lang=eng
• Brian C. Hales. Joseph Smith’s Polygamy (website). http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/about
-2/why-this-site/. He discusses why he set about to collect the documents and what he learned from it.
• Tad R. Callister. “What is the Blueprint for Christ’s Church,” CES Devotional, January 12, 2014. A broader look at what really matters in the gospel and the Church, with some keen insights on dealing with questions and doubts.
• LDS Church http://josephsmithpapers.org/doc/introd ... s-volume-2 content found about half way through the article.
BOOKS
• Brian C. Hales. Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: Vol. 1: History; Vol 2: History ; Vol. 3: Theology. (Draper, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2013).

[NOWmormon]

.

[shadow]

Why would he feel victimized??? Really? Its because of the hypocrisy (Where's the hypocrisy?? You're just making it up). Its what the Pharisees were...."whited sepulchers" Mathew 23:27. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean." Maybe the issue wouldn't be as big of a deal if we actually taught this stuff all along. Refer to "The Teachings of Joseph Smith" Relief Society Manual that has been in use for about 10 years. There is one sentence in the entire manual about polygamy.....it merely states Joseph received a revelation.

I would also agree that you don't understand the Bible, i.e. old testament (I'm not saying Im perfect either, but there its a huge element you're missing that will be useful to your understanding). If you will recall, Lot's daughters got their father drunk and slept with him, and got pregnant by his own daughters...is that okay too? Should we justify things because it's written in the Bible somewhere.

A lot of your post was off topic but I'll reply to the pertinent stuff-

Why would we actively teach this stuff? We don't practice it. Why would we teach that Lot's daughters got him drunk and slept with him? Is anyone feeling betrayed because it isn't something the church actively teaches? It's there plain as day in the scriptures if someone wants to read it, but we don't teach it. Same with polygamy- we don't practice it so we don't teach it. I can't fathom why anyone would feel victimized, offended, deceived, or hurt over it. And if they are then they have the problem.

[buffalo_girl]

I can't fathom why anyone would feel victimized, offended, deceived, or hurt over it. And if they are then they have the problem.

Now, there's a Bishop or Stake President with whom I would choose to discuss my most excruciating doubt and pain!

[Silver]

I have explained this in my posts

Not to everyone's satisfaction, obviously.

That's not his problem.

It's certainly not, but then he shouldn't feel further victimized if some of don't trust his motives.

[TrueIntent]

Why would he feel victimized??? Really? Its because of the hypocrisy (Where's the hypocrisy?? You're just making it up). Its what the Pharisees were...."whited sepulchers" Mathew 23:27. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean." Maybe the issue wouldn't be as big of a deal if we actually taught this stuff all along. Refer to "The Teachings of Joseph Smith" Relief Society Manual that has been in use for about 10 years. There is one sentence in the entire manual about polygamy.....it merely states Joseph received a revelation.

I would also agree that you don't understand the Bible, i.e. old testament (I'm not saying Im perfect either, but there its a huge element you're missing that will be useful to your understanding). If you will recall, Lot's daughters got their father drunk and slept with him, and got pregnant by his own daughters...is that okay too? Should we justify things because it's written in the Bible somewhere.

A lot of your post was off topic but I'll reply to the pertinent stuff-

Why would we actively teach this stuff? We don't practice it. Why would we teach that Lot's daughters got him drunk and slept with him? Is anyone feeling betrayed because it isn't something the church actively teaches? It's there plain as day in the scriptures if someone wants to read it, but we don't teach it. Same with polygamy- we don't practice it so we don't teach it. I can't fathom why anyone would feel victimized, offended, deceived, or hurt over it. And if they are then they have the problem.

Devils Advocate: Why wouldn't we actively teach something that all early church leaders for nearly 100 years taught was required for exaltation. Why do we currently allow man to be sealed to many women while living, and allow ordinances to be performed currently allowing men to be sealed to many women? Its because we still espouse the doctrine....However we have completely denounced adam-God, and racist comments by BY...why do we still allow for some controversial doctrines in teachings, but openly disavow and condemn others? Its because some of the leadership are still fond of polygamy...we may not talk about it, but there are a handful of quotes, including one by Elder Oaks, that he believes he will have both his wives in the next life. We don't let go or disavow it because some of us "like it".

Also, its not plain as day in the scriptures... Section 132 is highly controversial with its timing and placement...and all garbage with the marrying virgins, and condemning Emma if she said no sounds like we are a bunch of muslims, and that God doesn't value agency (we as a church, have never followed its instruction anyway with the virgin stuff)-which is what leaders were teaching at that time...that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were modern versions of the Prophet Mohammad. Search Journal of Discourses (also note that in your search mohommad is spelled in various different ways.)

Also, if you will study how this information has been dispersed over the last few years by the church, you will realize the reason we haven't taught it, is not because we don't practice it...its because we didn't want people to know about it. Refer to the "september six", and the historians that were excommunicated in the 1990's for publishing this information, including, quotes from Elder Packer, which indicate that "unfavorable" information is better not to be published.

We were deliberately portraying ourselves as whited sephlechures, while being full of dead bones. When I discovered this, I realized I had to build my own relationship with God so that I could confirm truths outside of teachings we receive from lesson manuals. It was a deception no matter which way you paint it. Remember, Satan is the father of all lies--the scriptures teach this, as do we....there are records of apostles and prophets "lying" in various instances throughout our history. It doesnt matter what their reasoning for it was, or whether or not they were justified ....it is still a lie (it also shows a lack of faith on their part in God and his ability to bail them out, or for them to die as martyrs...instead they went into hiding, and lied publicly about their actions (doesnt give me a whole lot of faith in God commanding polygamy...they must not have believed he did, because wouldn't God have lead them to safety like Moses and the Children of Israel). I can understand why they would like (as the church likes to give explanations), however what I can not do is rationalize why we would call them men of God, and why those actions are becoming of prophets---I would argue that they were not under the direction of the spirit during those times. And I also call "bull" or at least raise a red flag on section 132.

I think we would do better at helping save members if we acknowledge, over the pulpit, that lying comes from Satan (the father of ALL lies), and at times, these men were not acting under God's direction. Instead, we are afraid of losing complete control....and people find out themselves. Then people don't feel like they can stay at church because they don't trust the leaderships.....Instead, we should teach that you should confirm teachings of the church with the spirit....realize that they are men, and follow their counsel only as it pertains to scripture and confirmation of the spirit.

[inho]

I am here to reach out to other past/present church members; I am looking for a safe support system.
maybe this isn't the place.
Why do others visit this site---what is their purpose?

Not everybody here are as friendly as you wold hope, but just ignore them. I can tell you why I am here. I like to have my opinions challenged. I like to discuss things with people who think differently than I. If you came here to find people who think similarly with you, then this is not the right place for you. In a forum like this things are discussed and a real conversation means that several different opinions are expressed. The downside is that the freedom of thought also allows people to be somewhat unkind towards each other, but as I already said, just ignore those people.

[shadow]

I can't fathom why anyone would feel victimized, offended, deceived, or hurt over it. And if they are then they have the problem.

Now, there's a Bishop or Stake President with whom I would choose to discuss my most excruciating doubt and pain!

I'm neither so no worries.
So you have "excruciating" doubts because the church doesn't spend time teaching about Joseph's polygamy or because they don't teach Lot's daughters got him drunk and slept with him?

[ajax]

My name is Scott, a lifetime member of the Church.

In an effort towards more transparency regarding its history, the Church has added controversial content on the official church website lds.org.
Much of this information is new to me, let alone shocking.

Particularly, that the founder Joseph Smith:
-Married multiple women
-As young as 14 years old
-Had sexual relations with some of them
-While some were already married to other men
-And his wife, Emma, did not know about all of them.

After a half century as a member of the Church, I am finally being told what Church leadership had known for almost two centuries.
Because they hid so much from me, I feel betrayed, deceived and hurt.

Maybe the Brigham branch made it all up.

[shadow]

Why would he feel victimized??? Really? Its because of the hypocrisy (Where's the hypocrisy?? You're just making it up). Its what the Pharisees were...."whited sepulchers" Mathew 23:27. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean." Maybe the issue wouldn't be as big of a deal if we actually taught this stuff all along. Refer to "The Teachings of Joseph Smith" Relief Society Manual that has been in use for about 10 years. There is one sentence in the entire manual about polygamy.....it merely states Joseph received a revelation.

I would also agree that you don't understand the Bible, i.e. old testament (I'm not saying Im perfect either, but there its a huge element you're missing that will be useful to your understanding). If you will recall, Lot's daughters got their father drunk and slept with him, and got pregnant by his own daughters...is that okay too? Should we justify things because it's written in the Bible somewhere.

A lot of your post was off topic but I'll reply to the pertinent stuff-

Why would we actively teach this stuff? We don't practice it. Why would we teach that Lot's daughters got him drunk and slept with him? Is anyone feeling betrayed because it isn't something the church actively teaches? It's there plain as day in the scriptures if someone wants to read it, but we don't teach it. Same with polygamy- we don't practice it so we don't teach it. I can't fathom why anyone would feel victimized, offended, deceived, or hurt over it. And if they are then they have the problem.

Devils Advocate: Why wouldn't we actively teach something that all early church leaders for nearly 100 years taught was required for exaltation. Why do we currently allow man to be sealed to many women while living, and allow ordinances to be performed currently allowing men to be sealed to many women? Its because we still espouse the doctrine....However we have completely denounced adam-God, and racist comments by BY...why do we still allow for some controversial doctrines in teachings, but openly disavow and condemn others? Its because some of the leadership are still fond of polygamy...we may not talk about it, but there are a handful of quotes, including one by Elder Oaks, that he believes he will have both his wives in the next life. We don't let go or disavow it because some of us "like it".

Also, its not plain as day in the scriptures... Section 132 is highly controversial with its timing and placement...and all garbage with the marrying virgins, and condemning Emma if she said no sounds like we are a bunch of muslims, and that God doesn't value agency (we as a church, have never followed its instruction anyway with the virgin stuff)-which is what leaders were teaching at that time...that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were modern versions of the Prophet Mohammad. Search Journal of Discourses (also note that in your search mohommad is spelled in various different ways.)

Also, if you will study how this information has been dispersed over the last few years by the church, you will realize the reason we haven't taught it, is not because we don't practice it...its because we didn't want people to know about it. Refer to the "september six", and the historians that were excommunicated in the 1990's for publishing this information, including, quotes from Elder Packer, which indicate that "unfavorable" information is better not to be published.

We were deliberately portraying ourselves as whited sephlechures, while being full of dead bones. When I discovered this, I realized I had to build my own relationship with God so that I could confirm truths outside of teachings we receive from lesson manuals. It was a deception no matter which way you paint it. Remember, Satan is the father of all lies--the scriptures teach this, as do we....there are records of apostles and prophets "lying" in various instances throughout our history. It doesnt matter what their reasoning for it was, or whether or not they were justified ....it is still a lie (it also shows a lack of faith on their part in God and his ability to bail them out, or for them to die as martyrs...instead they went into hiding, and lied publicly about their actions (doesnt give me a whole lot of faith in God commanding polygamy...they must not have believed he did, because wouldn't God have lead them to safety like Moses and the Children of Israel). I can understand why they would like (as the church likes to give explanations), however what I can not do is rationalize why we would call them men of God, and why those actions are becoming of prophets---I would argue that they were not under the direction of the spirit during those times. And I also call "bull" or at least raise a red flag on section 132.

I think we would do better at helping save members if we acknowledge, over the pulpit, that lying comes from Satan (the father of ALL lies), and at times, these men were not acting under God's direction. Instead, we are afraid of losing complete control....and people find out themselves. Then people don't feel like they can stay at church because they don't trust the leaderships.....Instead, we should teach that you should confirm teachings of the church with the spirit....realize that they are men, and follow their counsel only as it pertains to scripture and confirmation of the spirit.

Section 132 isn't controversial for most people. I think it's wonderful.

We don't practice polygamy. Elder Oaks doesn't have 2 living wives. In fact, President Hinckley said it's not doctrinal. At that time, there were at least 2 apostles, Oaks and Perry, who were married to their 2nd wives. I wouldn't be surprised if Hinckley performed the marriages. He certainly had the keys.

We don't teach polygamy because we don't practice it. If we were practicing it, we'd be taught it. There are plenty of other things to teach.

Yes, latter day prophets and apostles sometimes aren't completely truthful. In this era, it started with Joseph Smith. But prior to the Latter days, bible prophets also weren't completely truthful. You might not recall Abraham and Sarah's little scheme? Was Abraham a "whited sephlechure, while being full of dead bones"? There are others, too.

[captainfearnot]

'Hurt by the church'? Any 'hurt' he feels is perceived and misguided. The 'church' is not some big ponzi scheme set up by a scam artist to hurt people. In the last 200 years, those who have been members of the church and those who have run the church are actually sincere in their belief!!! They actually believe it is the Lord's one and only true church on the earth, they don't believe they are scamming people. So, how can he be upset, except to be upset by how some people fulfilled their callings. They are not perfect, they make mistakes. Maybe it was wrong to only present church history and leaders in a positive light, but it's obvious that they did it because they thought that was the right way to handle their responsibilities. I'm tired of the 'Scotts' out there who criticize and blame good, sincere, well meaning people for being human. I'd like to see what 'Scott' would have done had he lived 100 years ago and had a sincere testimony of the church. Would he have put out all the history, warts and all--if he thought it might damage the tender faith of some members? Would he have insisted on putting everything out there even though he knew it might cause some to lose their testimonies because they MUST have leaders who are perfect? If you consider this from the FACT that these people sincerely believed the Gospel is true and they have witnesses by the Holy Ghost of these things, don't you think they will do their utter best to try to help others to receive a testimony too? Just because 'Scott' no longer believes, doesn't mean that others also don't believe and they are just cravenly misleading people.

I guess that's one way to look at it.

What you're describing here is Plato's philosopher king model. Essentially, it assumes that the people are too stupid or weak or otherwise deficient to be trusted to act in their own best interests if given access to the truth about the world around them. So they need a philosopher king—a wise, benevolent, all powerful ruler—to feed them a version of reality (i.e. an illusion) that will motivate them to make the correct decisions.

In your synopsis, the church is led by men who know all about Joseph Smith's high crimes and misdemeanors, and yet sincerely believe him to be God's prophet, restorer of the One True Church. But although they managed to arrive at this correct conclusion, they somehow intuit that if other people knew what they knew, they would likely arrive at the wrong conclusion—that Smith was a charlatan and his church a fraud, perhaps. I guess they assume most members are not as smart, or spiritual, or faithful as the leaders (or else they would be the leaders themselves). So in order to save the weaker members from their own weakness, the leaders hide away the troubling information, taking away the difficult task of reconciling the troubling realities and making it easy to believe.

Whether this turns out to have been the best course remains to be seen, I suppose. I will say that for my part, in all my life as a believing member of the church I have never encountered anything from the past that shook my faith. Nothing BY said ever bothered me. Stuff about men living on the moon or the surface of the sun, blood atonement, all the polygamy and polyandry stuff, I always felt like I was able to put it in the proper context and perspective. In fact, the weirder it sounded, the more ready I was to believe it.

It wasn't until I discovered that the church changed things to make it more palatable to members' fragile testimonies that I felt my faith weaken. That's not something a true church led by prophets does. That's something an organization led by fearful men would do. In my case their efforts backfired. Had the opposite of the intended effect. They pulled a Streisand.

But I can only speak for myself. Maybe for every one of me—more troubled by the act of concealment than any of the information they tried to conceal—there are a hundred others who benefited from having their tender, fragile testimonies shielded from the uglier facts for a season. If so then I guess they picked the winning strategy.

[Col. Flagg]

Polygamy = Joseph Smith innocent of it, never taught or practiced it, was framed, slandered and fraudulently accused of it and fought it to root it out, Brigham Young embraced it, Jacob Cochran and his 'Cochranites' helped introduce it into the church, John C. Bennett and William Law falsely attached Joseph's name with it to try and justify their own sins, mobs attacked Joseph because they thought he was a sexual deviant and a threat to their women and girls and the list goes on and on.

[shadow]

Polygamy = Joseph Smith innocent of it, never taught or practiced it, was framed, slandered and fraudulently accused of it and fought it to root it out, Brigham Young embraced it, Jacob Cochran and his 'Cochranites' helped introduce it into the church, John C. Bennett and William Law falsely attached Joseph's name with it to try and justify their own sins, mobs attacked Joseph because they thought he was a sexual deviant and a threat to their women and girls and the list goes on and on.

download (2).jpg (11.7 KiB) Viewed 1351 times

[Sarah]

'Hurt by the church'? Any 'hurt' he feels is perceived and misguided. The 'church' is not some big ponzi scheme set up by a scam artist to hurt people. In the last 200 years, those who have been members of the church and those who have run the church are actually sincere in their belief!!! They actually believe it is the Lord's one and only true church on the earth, they don't believe they are scamming people. So, how can he be upset, except to be upset by how some people fulfilled their callings. They are not perfect, they make mistakes. Maybe it was wrong to only present church history and leaders in a positive light, but it's obvious that they did it because they thought that was the right way to handle their responsibilities. I'm tired of the 'Scotts' out there who criticize and blame good, sincere, well meaning people for being human. I'd like to see what 'Scott' would have done had he lived 100 years ago and had a sincere testimony of the church. Would he have put out all the history, warts and all--if he thought it might damage the tender faith of some members? Would he have insisted on putting everything out there even though he knew it might cause some to lose their testimonies because they MUST have leaders who are perfect? If you consider this from the FACT that these people sincerely believed the Gospel is true and they have witnesses by the Holy Ghost of these things, don't you think they will do their utter best to try to help others to receive a testimony too? Just because 'Scott' no longer believes, doesn't mean that others also don't believe and they are just cravenly misleading people.

I guess that's one way to look at it.

What you're describing here is Plato's philosopher king model. Essentially, it assumes that the people are too stupid or weak or otherwise deficient to be trusted to act in their own best interests if given access to the truth about the world around them. So they need a philosopher king—a wise, benevolent, all powerful ruler—to feed them a version of reality (i.e. an illusion) that will motivate them to make the correct decisions.

In your synopsis, the church is led by men who know all about Joseph Smith's high crimes and misdemeanors, and yet sincerely believe him to be God's prophet, restorer of the One True Church. But although they managed to arrive at this correct conclusion, they somehow intuit that if other people knew what they knew, they would likely arrive at the wrong conclusion—that Smith was a charlatan and his church a fraud, perhaps. I guess they assume most members are not as smart, or spiritual, or faithful as the leaders (or else they would be the leaders themselves). So in order to save the weaker members from their own weakness, the leaders hide away the troubling information, taking away the difficult task of reconciling the troubling realities and making it easy to believe.

Whether this turns out to have been the best course remains to be seen, I suppose. I will say that for my part, in all my life as a believing member of the church I have never encountered anything from the past that shook my faith. Nothing BY said ever bothered me. Stuff about men living on the moon or the surface of the sun, blood atonement, all the polygamy and polyandry stuff, I always felt like I was able to put it in the proper context and perspective. In fact, the weirder it sounded, the more ready I was to believe it.

It wasn't until I discovered that the church changed things to make it more palatable to members' fragile testimonies that I felt my faith weaken. That's not something a true church led by prophets does. That's something an organization led by fearful men would do. In my case their efforts backfired. Had the opposite of the intended effect. They pulled a Streisand.

But I can only speak for myself. Maybe for every one of me—more troubled by the act of concealment than any of the information they tried to conceal—there are a hundred others who benefited from having their tender, fragile testimonies shielded from the uglier facts for a season. If so then I guess they picked the winning strategy.

By the same reasoning we can conclude that the Lord really doesn't have our best interests in mind because he doesn't lay it all out for us to know. My guess is that the leaders understand through the scriptures, from experience, and through revelation, that where much is given much is required (accountability according to knowledge and experience) and that sometimes knowledge can be a curse (when you don't live according to that knowledge.) Perhaps they have come to understand as have I, that a price must be paid for a comprehension of God's ways. In order to receive, we must appreciate what we've already been given and be willing to give already, in order to receive more. Our Father in Heaven, His Son, and their servants the prophets are not going to GIVE to a people that feel entitled to REVEIVING. They must earn it by living the laws of love towards God and their fellow men.

[Finrock]

'Hurt by the church'? Any 'hurt' he feels is perceived and misguided. The 'church' is not some big ponzi scheme set up by a scam artist to hurt people. In the last 200 years, those who have been members of the church and those who have run the church are actually sincere in their belief!!! They actually believe it is the Lord's one and only true church on the earth, they don't believe they are scamming people. So, how can he be upset, except to be upset by how some people fulfilled their callings. They are not perfect, they make mistakes. Maybe it was wrong to only present church history and leaders in a positive light, but it's obvious that they did it because they thought that was the right way to handle their responsibilities. I'm tired of the 'Scotts' out there who criticize and blame good, sincere, well meaning people for being human. I'd like to see what 'Scott' would have done had he lived 100 years ago and had a sincere testimony of the church. Would he have put out all the history, warts and all--if he thought it might damage the tender faith of some members? Would he have insisted on putting everything out there even though he knew it might cause some to lose their testimonies because they MUST have leaders who are perfect? If you consider this from the FACT that these people sincerely believed the Gospel is true and they have witnesses by the Holy Ghost of these things, don't you think they will do their utter best to try to help others to receive a testimony too? Just because 'Scott' no longer believes, doesn't mean that others also don't believe and they are just cravenly misleading people.

I guess that's one way to look at it.

What you're describing here is Plato's philosopher king model. Essentially, it assumes that the people are too stupid or weak or otherwise deficient to be trusted to act in their own best interests if given access to the truth about the world around them. So they need a philosopher king—a wise, benevolent, all powerful ruler—to feed them a version of reality (i.e. an illusion) that will motivate them to make the correct decisions.

In your synopsis, the church is led by men who know all about Joseph Smith's high crimes and misdemeanors, and yet sincerely believe him to be God's prophet, restorer of the One True Church. But although they managed to arrive at this correct conclusion, they somehow intuit that if other people knew what they knew, they would likely arrive at the wrong conclusion—that Smith was a charlatan and his church a fraud, perhaps. I guess they assume most members are not as smart, or spiritual, or faithful as the leaders (or else they would be the leaders themselves). So in order to save the weaker members from their own weakness, the leaders hide away the troubling information, taking away the difficult task of reconciling the troubling realities and making it easy to believe.

Whether this turns out to have been the best course remains to be seen, I suppose. I will say that for my part, in all my life as a believing member of the church I have never encountered anything from the past that shook my faith. Nothing BY said ever bothered me. Stuff about men living on the moon or the surface of the sun, blood atonement, all the polygamy and polyandry stuff, I always felt like I was able to put it in the proper context and perspective. In fact, the weirder it sounded, the more ready I was to believe it.

It wasn't until I discovered that the church changed things to make it more palatable to members' fragile testimonies that I felt my faith weaken. That's not something a true church led by prophets does. That's something an organization led by fearful men would do. In my case their efforts backfired. Had the opposite of the intended effect. They pulled a Streisand.

But I can only speak for myself. Maybe for every one of me—more troubled by the act of concealment than any of the information they tried to conceal—there are a hundred others who benefited from having their tender, fragile testimonies shielded from the uglier facts for a season. If so then I guess they picked the winning strategy.

By the same reasoning we can conclude that the Lord really doesn't have our best interests in mind because he doesn't lay it all out for us to know. My guess is that the leaders understand through the scriptures, from experience, and through revelation, that where much is given much is required (accountability according to knowledge and experience) and that sometimes knowledge can be a curse (when you don't live according to that knowledge.) Perhaps they have come to understand as have I, that a price must be paid for a comprehension of God's ways. In order to receive, we must appreciate what we've already been given and be willing to give already, in order to receive more. Our Father in Heaven, His Son, and their servants the prophets are not going to GIVE to a people that feel entitled to REVEIVING. They must earn it by living the laws of love towards God and their fellow men.

The same reasoning does not allow you to conclude that. Leaders of the Church are not the Lord. The Lord gives liberally to those who ask in faith and doesn't rebuke you for asking. God is open, honest, and always available. He is never aloof, never unwilling to give, and never does He lie. God is no respecter of persons. He doesn't honor one man above another. He is humble, meek, and contrite...always. He will reveal all things to those who seek after His ways.

-Finrock

[Sarah]

'Hurt by the church'? Any 'hurt' he feels is perceived and misguided. The 'church' is not some big ponzi scheme set up by a scam artist to hurt people. In the last 200 years, those who have been members of the church and those who have run the church are actually sincere in their belief!!! They actually believe it is the Lord's one and only true church on the earth, they don't believe they are scamming people. So, how can he be upset, except to be upset by how some people fulfilled their callings. They are not perfect, they make mistakes. Maybe it was wrong to only present church history and leaders in a positive light, but it's obvious that they did it because they thought that was the right way to handle their responsibilities. I'm tired of the 'Scotts' out there who criticize and blame good, sincere, well meaning people for being human. I'd like to see what 'Scott' would have done had he lived 100 years ago and had a sincere testimony of the church. Would he have put out all the history, warts and all--if he thought it might damage the tender faith of some members? Would he have insisted on putting everything out there even though he knew it might cause some to lose their testimonies because they MUST have leaders who are perfect? If you consider this from the FACT that these people sincerely believed the Gospel is true and they have witnesses by the Holy Ghost of these things, don't you think they will do their utter best to try to help others to receive a testimony too? Just because 'Scott' no longer believes, doesn't mean that others also don't believe and they are just cravenly misleading people.

I guess that's one way to look at it.

What you're describing here is Plato's philosopher king model. Essentially, it assumes that the people are too stupid or weak or otherwise deficient to be trusted to act in their own best interests if given access to the truth about the world around them. So they need a philosopher king—a wise, benevolent, all powerful ruler—to feed them a version of reality (i.e. an illusion) that will motivate them to make the correct decisions.

In your synopsis, the church is led by men who know all about Joseph Smith's high crimes and misdemeanors, and yet sincerely believe him to be God's prophet, restorer of the One True Church. But although they managed to arrive at this correct conclusion, they somehow intuit that if other people knew what they knew, they would likely arrive at the wrong conclusion—that Smith was a charlatan and his church a fraud, perhaps. I guess they assume most members are not as smart, or spiritual, or faithful as the leaders (or else they would be the leaders themselves). So in order to save the weaker members from their own weakness, the leaders hide away the troubling information, taking away the difficult task of reconciling the troubling realities and making it easy to believe.

Whether this turns out to have been the best course remains to be seen, I suppose. I will say that for my part, in all my life as a believing member of the church I have never encountered anything from the past that shook my faith. Nothing BY said ever bothered me. Stuff about men living on the moon or the surface of the sun, blood atonement, all the polygamy and polyandry stuff, I always felt like I was able to put it in the proper context and perspective. In fact, the weirder it sounded, the more ready I was to believe it.

It wasn't until I discovered that the church changed things to make it more palatable to members' fragile testimonies that I felt my faith weaken. That's not something a true church led by prophets does. That's something an organization led by fearful men would do. In my case their efforts backfired. Had the opposite of the intended effect. They pulled a Streisand.

But I can only speak for myself. Maybe for every one of me—more troubled by the act of concealment than any of the information they tried to conceal—there are a hundred others who benefited from having their tender, fragile testimonies shielded from the uglier facts for a season. If so then I guess they picked the winning strategy.

By the same reasoning we can conclude that the Lord really doesn't have our best interests in mind because he doesn't lay it all out for us to know. My guess is that the leaders understand through the scriptures, from experience, and through revelation, that where much is given much is required (accountability according to knowledge and experience) and that sometimes knowledge can be a curse (when you don't live according to that knowledge.) Perhaps they have come to understand as have I, that a price must be paid for a comprehension of God's ways. In order to receive, we must appreciate what we've already been given and be willing to give already, in order to receive more. Our Father in Heaven, His Son, and their servants the prophets are not going to GIVE to a people that feel entitled to REVEIVING. They must earn it by living the laws of love towards God and their fellow men.

The same reasoning does not allow you to conclude that. Leaders of the Church are not the Lord. The Lord gives liberally to those who ask in faith and doesn't rebuke you for asking. God is open, honest, and always available. He is never aloof, never unwilling to give, and never does He lie. God is no respecter of persons. He doesn't honor one man above another. He is humble, meek, and contrite...always. He will reveal all things to those who seek after His ways.

-Finrock

At least you admit that the Lord has conditions for answering requests. He requires one ASK in FAITH, and he answers according to that which is RIGHT for that individual to receive. Joseph Smith also had conditions that restricted revelation given to the saints, one condition being that the Holy Ghost had to confirm that it was right for the saints to have such knowledge. You are aware of him saying often that he could not reveal to the saints, only that which they could bear. Our leaders also have similar conditions that are not willy-nilly, whatever they think. If you believe that they preside as prophets and apostles, you also believe they have the right to receive such inspiration. Would you personally tell your young children exactly how much money you make and how much you have in the bank? If not, why? Perhaps because you correctly see that it is not wise to give information like that out to those who cannot be trusted, and your young children (like members) cannot be trusted to give that information out to others who cannot be trusted. Are you ashamed of the money amounts? Probably not, but others may make incorrect judgments about you based on this information. It is a way to protect something that is personal (sacred), and which others may not understand.

[buffalo_girl]

I am here to reach out to other past/present church members; I am looking for a safe support system.
maybe this isn't the place.
Why do others visit this site---what is their purpose?

Well...I think the Forum is 'safe' from government snooping. I'm not sure about institutional church snooping, though.

I haven't read anything from you that should give you any concern regarding either being id'd as a 'domestic terrorist' or an 'apostate'.

You will need a thick skin. Many here love their own particular spin on things and will not hesitate to treat you as a spiritual inferior. I've been on the Forum off and on for 10 years. I'll drop out for months at a time when I tire of seeing the same endless banter between the same individuals. I'll check in every so often. When I see something that strikes a chord from my own experience, I will 'jump in'. I make it a point to temper my observations with a little humor.

One of the reasons I visit this site is to get a feel for how intermountain west members are thinking about things spiritual as well as things going on in 'the world'. My lifetime experiences have been profoundly different - albeit pretty Mormon Standard - from most LDS people. It's good to discover others active in the Church whose lives have taught them lessons they didn't know existed.