A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

[HeirofNumenorthe Heir Of Numenor]

Sorry for derailing this thread.

I was simply looking for possible examples in scripture and Church history where God may have taken out a prophet for disobedience/leading His people astray, even if there is not scriptural utterance that this will happen, prior to Wilford Woodruff's statements (or Brigham Young's either).

[awakecaptain of 100]

Not dismissing the implication of did Brigham alter the account, but do you think it is POSSIBLE, that Willard Richards failed to record accurately EVERY WORD of Joseph's statement? Do you know of any OTHER journal entries that would corroborate Bro. Richard's version?

I myself believe the original version, just because it is completely in harmony with everything else Joseph Smith publicly said and published about polygamy his whole life. When you read all of his testimony against polygamy, it seems highly unlikely that he would have supported polygamy in some other moment, for that would have meant that he lied to the Church his entire life, and led them astray to 'not' believe in polygamy if it was really a true principle.

For after Joseph died, many of the Saints would not believe in or follow Brigham Young and his preaching and practicing of polygamy, because of all the warnings Joseph constantly gave about not falling for polygamy and how evil it was.

Joseph had many people take turns following and documenting his every move, especially the last few years, just because he was being accused of polygamy so much and he wanted to be able to prove his whereabouts and actions in court if needed.

“Many scribes and clerks were employed in keeping Smith’s diaries, letters, books and accounts... This accounts well with what Joseph Smith said in the above account, that he had kept many men busy for the last 3 years, recording what he had been saying and doing, so no court could hang him. He had many witnesses, hence the false affidavits were shown to be such.” Words of Joseph Smith, by Cook & Ehat, p. 406. (under date: May 26, 1844)

"In the last three years of his life Joseph took the precaution of having scribes and male companions with him at all times recording his actions and whereabouts in order to make it impossible for his enemies to continue to contrive illicit affairs where none existed. There are absolutely no contemporary records of any woman being married to Joseph Smith except one: Emma Hale Smith. Virtually no one came forward during Joseph Smith’s lifetime claiming to be married to him. As Joseph said in mocking reference to these phantom wives, “I wish the grand jury would tell me who they are.”
Rock Waterman, puremormonism.blogspot.com, "Why I'm Abandoning Polygamy."

[ithinkcaptain of 1,000]

Considering your ongoing diatribes and innuendo's aimed at the latter day church and its Prophets I would be considering the parallels of verse 26 long and hard if I were you ithink. You seek to destroy faith in this latter day work of the Lord because of your disgruntlement for whatever reason. Anyone who doesn't see your intent clearly is walking in darkness at noonday.

Innuendo? I thought it was clearer than that. I quoted Jeremiah and likened it to ourselves, as we should. And you have a problem with that? Yes you do, because Mark, like Ancient Israel, "loves to have it so". I, like William Marks, do not agree with everything that the prophets say or do, especially when it contradicts the truth.

The lesson to be learned that you love not to, is that nobody is infallible except Jesus Christ. NOBODY. You once again fail to address anything I have said, and you take direct aim at me, the messenger, which btw, is exactly the pattern followed by the wicked when confronted by the bearer of the truth. And anyone who can't see that, is walking in darkness at noon day.

You are always so anxious to agree with anything or anyone that puts the latter day church and its leaders in a compromised apostate leaning state ithink.

If William Marks puts Josephs integrity on trial in some journal entry you are more than happy to believe Marks words and not put into question his own integrity or honesty. That is your pattern here. Has been for years.

Anything that degrades or calls into question the church's stance with the Lord or its leadership is taken as legitimate. I don't remember the last time you ever said anything positive or complimentary about the church in its state today. Or the current Prophets for that matter.

You love to just sit up in your ivory tower and throw stones at the work. Always critical of what the current body of Saints or the leadership are doing. That just seems to be your nature.

It is obviously that you have some kind of axe to grind with the church today but that doesn't mean people like me have no right to call you on it. I am sorry you seem to feel that the church has gone astray and is in an apostate state currently but I don't happen to agree with you on that so I will continue to tell you up front that I think you are misleading people in a very negative and faith destroying way by continuing the path you have chosen to take. I hope you will repent and turn back in faith to this latter day work.

Oh I am not so anxious as you like to believe. I am interested only in what really happened, not what anybody says happened. In this way, I have pieced and am still piecing together what happened. As I do this, I am able to help not just myself, but those around me that are floundering also. As I said before on a different thread, I was met after HP meeting Sunday by a good brother from another province. This young but former bishop and husband, father of four, cannot correlate so far what the church teaches today, with what "really happened". This is the problem Mark, and you still fail to address it because you make yourself incapable of helping good men like yourself who need help that the church seems incapable of providing, and this is what I have against them: just tell it like it is. Otherwise, when it is found out otherwise, it destroys faith.

You claim that a "journal entry" is no good, but in fact a journal entry counts as a witness in a court of law. And of what does it speak? It speaks of great trouble for the church if the practise was not ceased. And was it? No! And did it nearly destroy the church? Yes! And were the saints moved out of their place? Yes!

As for today, when we permit no such behaviour, I am in favor of that. It was not always perfectly so (just read my older posts). But that is because I am flexible enough to bend when new knowledge comes along. Now I understand better Hinckleys statement on Larry King live on polygamy "I don't think there is any doctrinal basis for it". I now don't think there is either. It now believe it is just as permissible to practice polygamy as it was for Nephi to kill Laban, and I don't believe the angel who appeared to Joseph with a drawn sword was of God. It violates section 121: that prohibits coercion in the operations of the priesthood. Therein lies the deception!

Now last Sunday I spend nearly an hour helping a former bishop keep his train on the rails. Is this what you call an axe to grind? You claim I am throw stones, whereas in reality I am clearing stones off the rails. You claim I have an ivory tower, but in reality the ivory tower is currently possessed by other men than I. The very fact that I had to stand there in the chapel and explain how I stay in the church is an indictment of the way the church teaches it's own "history". I admire your zeal Mark, you have enough, but your resistance to the truth puts you in the same boat as the men who stayed behind after Joseph was taken, who refused to listen to reason in William Marks testimony. And they were sorely afflicted for it. And the destruction of faith! Tell me about the destruction of faith when the "official history" fails miserably to match up to what really happened!

William Marks did not put Joseph on trial: Joseph put himself on trial. Joseph messed up, admitted it, repented, and his "offering" was himself, for failing to finish the temple, for polygamy, and for the fact that the saints were not going to be willing to give it up. So their Moses was taken, and they were left with a type of Aaron, for 40 years.

And finally, will you ever be able to take your eyes off me and address the subject material? You behave as if you are a paid astroturfer from church headquarters.

[ithinkcaptain of 1,000]

Also from William Mark's statement, it seems that Joseph Smith did not believe in or live polygamy, or else Joseph would have had to excommunicate himself.

But that he was polygamous is without a doubt. That was his error. And I believe he stood ready to backtrack, but he was murdered as Marks said.

[ithinkcaptain of 1,000]

Thank you for your quotes Awake.

IF they are accurate, than that presents another quagmire that will need to be sorted out by the Lord...

“Gave instruction to try those who were preaching, teaching or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives or this law – Joseph forbids it, and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife.” Joseph Smith’s diary, Oct. 5, 1843. Church Historical Dept.(But after Joseph's death this entry was altered to seem to favor polygamy)

What/where is the evidence of the underlined statement?

Altered? Do you have more information?

[ithinkcaptain of 1,000]

I will guaranty you that if ithink were to go to his Bishop or Stake President or Regional Rep and make the same charges he has made here multiple times on this forum concerning the church and the Brethren as being in a state of Apostasy just trying to please the world by dumbing down the doctrine that he would be up for disciplinary action and would be in the need of repentance for doing so. If you don't believe me just go ask your Stake President if that is acceptable public behavior for members of the church to display publicly.

Now you go too far. I have never stated anyone is in a "state of apostasy", not even you. Have I had conversations with my Bishop and Stake President together? Yes. Have I expressed my position? YES! You see Mark, when I give them the information I have, they can do nothing, because it is just that: it is information, facts, what have you. That cannot be denied, though they frequently ask: "Where do you get all this?" But we have a mutual understanding. They do not do what I would do locally, but that is their bowl of cherries, not mine. But when former bishops stop me and ask for help, and when the branch to the south which was at 120 member is down to 40, and the one to the east which was at 100 is down to 25, and the one to the north which was at 125 is down to 40 attending members as well, I feel great sadness, because I don't think it needs to be so. But it is your way of thinking Mark that creates this situation, and which is the real destroyer of faith. No pursuit of truth has ever destroyed faith Mark. The truth will cut it's way, and no amount of pretentious zealous concern from the corporate church and it's zombiefied followers can stop it.

[Helaman2000captain of 100]

Now last Sunday I spend nearly an hour helping a former bishop keep his train on the rails. Is this what you call an axe to grind? You claim I am throw stones, whereas in reality I am clearing stones off the rails. You claim I have an ivory tower, but in reality the ivory tower is currently possessed by other men than I. The very fact that I had to stand there in the chapel and explain how I stay in the church is an indictment of the way the church teaches it's own "history".

iThink, the Church's official history has lots of problems, that much is true. I am not here to defend it by any means. There is something to be said for the John-Dehlin-esque philosophy of inoculation against bad information to help people. That much is true. But I personally take issue with your interpretation of "advanced history" based on only one side of the evidence, and I think that most historians would not and have not sided with the type of interpretation that you put forth. But I admit that we all have to pick and choose among the conflicting reports to construct our own view of what happened. It is clear that you have done this, and that your opinion reconstructs history in a way that is colored by your personal beliefs. You are welcome to your opinion. But I think that there is a better explanation than what you put forth. It is convenient for people to find various ways to explain away polygamy to try to say that it was a mistake, and not an eternal principle in any way. And I think that, like Awake, your interpretation of history is colored by an extreme allegance to that idea, just as an apologetic explanation is colored by an extreme allegance to trying to cast the lives of the brethren in the best possible light. I believe that there is a way to deal with historical mistakes and at the same time, be respectful to the brethren without finding fault. That is a tightrope, that much is sure.

[awakecaptain of 100]

What/where is the evidence of the underlined statement?

Altered? Do you have more information?

Look on page 4 of this thread. I gave additional information on that statement.

[awakecaptain of 100]

Also from William Mark's statement, it seems that Joseph Smith did not believe in or live polygamy, or else Joseph would have had to excommunicate himself.

But that he was polygamous is without a doubt. That was his error. And I believe he stood ready to backtrack, but he was murdered as Marks said.

I do not believe it is without a doubt, for there is no proof that Joseph lived polygamy, only alot of hearsay. But we do have alot of published proof that he testified over and over of his innocence in it. In a court of law it was not proven that he lived polygamy (Temple Lot Case).

If you believe he lived polygamy, than you have to believe he lied to the Church his whole life. I believe Joseph was a true Prophet and told the truth his whole life about polygamy. I believe his constant testimony and scriptures over hearsay, no matter how many people say otherwise.

I do not believe Heavenly Father would have us base our testimony on hearsay, he would expect us to believe Joseph's own proven and published teachings and scriptures on the subject, despite what anyone else says.

The story that an angel came and forced him to live polygamy is only hearsay, Joseph wouldn't have fallen for such an angel, IF it even happened, because he knew way too much to fall for such a thing as polygamy, and he even said, that if an angel came preaching something 'contrary' to the scriptures or former revelation, then he would know it's a 'bad' angel.

" How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel?... By his contradicting a former revelation."
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 215-216.

[Helaman2000captain of 100]

Awake, this admission just shows how you will discount whatever information does not fit your point of view and you aren't interested in any other conclusion than your pre-determined one, and for you, anything that contradicts is automatically "hearsay".

[awakecaptain of 100]

Awake, this admission just shows how you will discount whatever information does not fit your point of view and you aren't interested in any other conclusion than your pre-determined one, and for you, anything that contradicts is automatically "hearsay".

I believe in what Christ, Joseph Smith and ancient Prophets of the Book of Mormon taught about polygamy. I believe their testimonies trump all others.

[Helaman2000captain of 100]

Awake, this admission just shows how you will discount whatever information does not fit your point of view and you aren't interested in any other conclusion than your pre-determined one, and for you, anything that contradicts is automatically "hearsay".

I believe in what Christ, Joseph Smith and ancient Prophets of the Book of Mormon taught about polygamy. I believe their testimonies trump all others.

Of course you do. That is your choice. And that is your belief, that you think you know what their teachings were.
It doesn't matter to you that the people that gave testimony were first-hand eyewitnesses who recorded first hand that Joseph did practice polygamy and what his teachings were on the subject. That is not the definition of hearsay. That is the definition of eyewitness testimony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

"Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience."

You should admit that you are discounting people that are giving first hand eyewitness testimony. You are calling THEM liars, that they did not see and hear what they said they did see and hear. Discounting first-hand eyewitness testimony is one thing, and you should say that that is what you are doing. You have a right to do that. You just are not correct to call it "hearsay." Because that is not what it is that you are discounting. I am fine with you having the opinion you do. I just ask that you make sure that you get your definitions straight and admit what you are doing.

[awakecaptain of 100]

It doesn't matter to you that the people that gave testimony were first-hand eyewitnesses who recorded first hand that Joseph did practice polygamy and what his teachings were on the subject.

People can claim whatever 1st hand knowledge they want and we can even say it isn't hearsay, but if they say things that are 'contrary' to what Joseph or Christ or ancient Prophets themselves taught, then I have to go with their own words. Why would I ever believe anyone over Joseph himself?

[Helaman2000captain of 100]

It doesn't matter to you that the people that gave testimony were first-hand eyewitnesses who recorded first hand that Joseph did practice polygamy and what his teachings were on the subject.

People can claim whatever 1st hand knowledge they want and we can even say it isn't hearsay, but if they say things that are 'contrary' to what Joseph or Christ or ancient Prophets themselves taught, then I have to go with their own words. Why would I ever believe anyone over Joseph himself?

Just so we got it straight that you are making those people out to be liars for the sake of your belief. A simple yes would do.

[awakecaptain of 100]

Just so we got it straight that you are making those people out to be liars for the sake of your belief. A simple yes would do.

Someone's lying, either Joseph or the others, and yes, I believe Joseph was the one telling the truth.

Are you saying you believe the Prophet Joseph Smith lied to the Church all those years?

[Helaman2000captain of 100]

Just so we got it straight that you are making those people out to be liars for the sake of your belief. A simple yes would do.

Someone's lying, either Joseph or the others, and yes, I believe Joseph was the one telling the truth.

Are you saying you believe the Prophet Joseph Smith lied to the Church all those years?

I'm saying yes, that the evidence is absolutely clear that he was forced to lie to cover up the practice, and that your point of view is naive to think that in a conflict of values, that truth-telling has always been the preferred value. In a conflict of values, the law of God was the preferred value over keeping the law of the land. The Manifesto switched it, where we were directed to keep the law of man, and suspend the law of God to do it. So I say that your point of view is not only naive, but extreme.

That's one thing that makes adult decisions complex, because of value conflicts, catch 22's, between rock and a hard place, where something has to give. Hopefully people's idealism will not continue to cloud their pragmatic common sense about that, and they can see things more clearly than idealism will allow, that what is right in one situation because of the context of the problem isn't the same as what would be preferred idealistically.

[awakecaptain of 100]

I'm saying yes, that the evidence is absolutely clear that he was forced to lie to cover up the practice, and that your point of view is naive to think that in a conflict of values, that truth-telling has always been the preferred value. In a conflict of values, the law of God was the preferred value over keeping the law of the land. The Manifesto switched it, where we were directed to keep the law of man, and suspend the law of God to do it. So I say that your point of view is not only naive, but extreme.

I believe the evidence is absolutely clear that Joseph was telling the truth.

Why would Joseph Smith have to lie but after Joseph's death Brigham Young could just preach and practice polygamy rather openly?

I don't believe a true prophet would lie and lead the members astray his whole life (to not believe in polygamy, for many wouldn't after all of Joseph's strong teachings against it.)

I believe we are expected by God to believe Joseph's proven and published teachings, testimony and scriptures and judge all other voices by those words, and not believe what other's said he said, if it went against everything Joseph ever said publicly.

I believe we are going to held accountable for not believing the Prophet Joseph Smith's testimony that he left for the whole world and if we accuse him of the very things that he repeatedly called 'vile whoredoms' and that he gave his life to fight and teach so strongly against.

We can just agree to disagree, but I stand with Christ, Joseph and the ancient prophets, no matter how few there may be that do.

[ithinkcaptain of 1,000]

for there is no proof that Joseph lived polygamy, only alot of hearsay. But we do have alot of published proof that he testified over and over of his innocence in it. In a court of law it was not proven that he lived polygamy (Temple Lot Case).

If you believe he lived polygamy, than you have to believe he lied to the Church his whole life. I believe Joseph was a true Prophet and told the truth his whole life about polygamy. I believe his constant testimony and scriptures over hearsay, no matter how many people say otherwise.

I can see your position, and I used to share it. There isn't a serious historian alive who has researched JS who does not admit he had many polygamous wives. A conservative count puts him at 33, some as high as 45. And journal entries, sorry to say, are not admitted as hearsay but as actualy testimony in any court of law if it is written with "first hand knowledge". So if we're going to use legal terms, let's stick to the weight that they carry.

If there was any possibility that the array of historians could be wrong about 33, 20, 10, or even 1 polygamous wife, I would return to my former position and your current position, but alas, the evidence is too great.

But Joseph recognized his error, and repented before he died, and that is enough for me.

[ithinkcaptain of 1,000]

iThink, the Church's official history has lots of problems, that much is true. I am not here to defend it by any means. There is something to be said for the John-Dehlin-esque philosophy of inoculation against bad information to help people. That much is true. But I personally take issue with your interpretation of "advanced history" based on only one side of the evidence, and I think that most historians would not and have not sided with the type of interpretation that you put forth. But I admit that we all have to pick and choose among the conflicting reports to construct our own view of what happened. It is clear that you have done this, and that your opinion reconstructs history in a way that is colored by your personal beliefs. You are welcome to your opinion. But I think that there is a better explanation than what you put forth. It is convenient for people to find various ways to explain away polygamy to try to say that it was a mistake, and not an eternal principle in any way. And I think that, like Awake, your interpretation of history is colored by an extreme allegance to that idea, just as an apologetic explanation is colored by an extreme allegance to trying to cast the lives of the brethren in the best possible light. I believe that there is a way to deal with historical mistakes and at the same time, be respectful to the brethren without finding fault. That is a tightrope, that much is sure.

Take issue with my interpretation? I have no interpretation! There is evidence, some new some old to me, that pieces things together for me. I'm not in the business of having my perceptions colored by my "beliefs". I've been through all the iterations of belief regarding the origins of this church, and the only ones that I retain are the ones that fit with all the others that fit as new information becomes available.

Your apparent "view" gives place for "color", "interpretation", "philosophy", "inoculation", "one side", "most historians", "pick and choose", "conflicting", "opinion", "better explanation", "convenient", "explain away", "extreme allegiance", "apologetic", "tightrope". Holy smokes, I had no idead anyone could pack so much apologetics into such a short paragraph. For the apologists I have this: "I the Lord have spoken what I have spoken and I excuse not myself".

Brother: I am an engineer and a programmer. I don't give a rats rear end for any of the words you just used because there is no place for grey in my grey matter because there is no place for grey in engineering or programming. It is 0 or it is 1. It is on, or it is off. There is no middle ground. I want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I don't want your interpretation, the church's, or even Williams. But I will accept the best of the ORIGINAL material so far as I have been exposed to it, ie. where it has not been obfuscated by an author, historian, publishing company, corporation, church, general authority, or member of LDS Freedom Forum.

And without finding fault? Well if you pursue history hoping to not find fault, you will never get past the outer packaging.

[ithinkcaptain of 1,000]

I believe the evidence is absolutely clear that Joseph was telling the truth.

"My soul is lost" (William Marks, quoting Joseph Smith) Why would Marks write this in his private journal if nobody would ever read it at the time? To deceive future generations?

[awakecaptain of 100]

I believe the evidence is absolutely clear that Joseph was telling the truth.

"My soul is lost" (William Marks, quoting Joseph Smith) Why would Marks write this in his private journal if nobody would ever read it at the time? To deceive future generations?

Do you have the reference for that journal entry? Thanks.

William Marks may have come to think that Joseph Smith's guilty feelings were because he had lived polygamy himself and thus he wrote that in his journal.

But from the other quotes above by William Marks, about when he spoke to Joseph that day, it does not appear that Joseph was admitting to living polygamy himself, only that he was wrong to not do more to put it down and discipline those who were living it.

Joseph may have blamed himself for letting polygamy become so rampant in the Church, for Joseph said at other times that church leaders will be held accountable for allowing men to abandon their wives. He may have felt guilty for not doing more to stop polygamy.

With all the vile accusations against Joseph, which are contrary to Joseph's own pure published testimony and scriptures (Joseph and prophets say, in order to determine truth - the 'scriptures' trump all other voices), thus, only the Holy Spirit can tell us whether Joseph really lived polygamy or not.

[Helaman2000captain of 100]

Take issue with my interpretation? I have no interpretation! There is evidence, some new some old to me, that pieces things together for me. I'm not in the business of having my perceptions colored by my "beliefs". I've been through all the iterations of belief regarding the origins of this church, and the only ones that I retain are the ones that fit with all the others that fit as new information becomes available.

Your apparent "view" gives place for "color", "interpretation", "philosophy", "inoculation", "one side", "most historians", "pick and choose", "conflicting", "opinion", "better explanation", "convenient", "explain away", "extreme allegiance", "apologetic", "tightrope". Holy smokes, I had no idead anyone could pack so much apologetics into such a short paragraph. For the apologists I have this: "I the Lord have spoken what I have spoken and I excuse not myself".

Brother: I am an engineer and a programmer. I don't give a rats rear end for any of the words you just used because there is no place for grey in my grey matter because there is no place for grey in engineering or programming. It is 0 or it is 1. It is on, or it is off. There is no middle ground. I want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I don't want your interpretation, the church's, or even Williams. But I will accept the best of the ORIGINAL material so far as I have been exposed to it, ie. where it has not been obfuscated by an author, historian, publishing company, corporation, church, general authority, or member of LDS Freedom Forum.

And without finding fault? Well if you pursue history hoping to not find fault, you will never get past the outer packaging.

I'm a professional Software Engineer too, so I'm happy for you that you have a good profession that I share, so sir, I promise you have nothing on me. I don't see why your resume makes you able to flex your rhetorical muscles bigger to win some contest. But apparently you haven't heard of the qbit in quantum computing, definitely not just a one and a zero, captitalizing on quantum states. I'm happy for you that you are so confident in yourself that your binary view of reality is all there is, kind of like how Einstien could never bring himself to give consideration to the weird and contradictory world of quantum physics. And actually, no I am no apologist. It would do you well to focus on my message and not focus on my words. Since you disagree with my words, that is fine. It's fallacious to make your focus be on my choice of words. Actually, if you never take thought for nuance and contradiction, that is how you will never get past the surface of anything.

[MelissaMcaptain of 100]

I believe the evidence is absolutely clear that Joseph was telling the truth.

"My soul is lost" (William Marks, quoting Joseph Smith) Why would Marks write this in his private journal if nobody would ever read it at the time? To deceive future generations?

Do you have the reference for that journal entry? Thanks.

William Marks may have come to think that Joseph Smith's guilty feelings were because he had lived polygamy himself and thus he wrote that in his journal.

But from the other quotes above by William Marks, about when he spoke to Joseph that day, it does not appear that Joseph was admitting to living polygamy himself, only that he was wrong to not do more to put it down and discipline those who were living it.

Joseph may have blamed himself for letting polygamy become so rampant in the Church, for Joseph said at other times that church leaders will be held accountable for allowing men to abandon their wives. He may have felt guilty for not doing more to stop polygamy.

With all the vile accusations against Joseph, which are contrary to Joseph's own pure published testimony and scriptures (Joseph and prophets say, in order to determine truth - the 'scriptures' trump all other voices), thus, only the Holy Spirit can tell us whether Joseph really lived polygamy or not.

Awake,

I agree with everything you have said.

MelissaM

[Robthe Sunbeam]

Take issue with my interpretation? I have no interpretation! There is evidence, some new some old to me, that pieces things together for me. I'm not in the business of having my perceptions colored by my "beliefs". I've been through all the iterations of belief regarding the origins of this church, and the only ones that I retain are the ones that fit with all the others that fit as new information becomes available.

Your apparent "view" gives place for "color", "interpretation", "philosophy", "inoculation", "one side", "most historians", "pick and choose", "conflicting", "opinion", "better explanation", "convenient", "explain away", "extreme allegiance", "apologetic", "tightrope". Holy smokes, I had no idead anyone could pack so much apologetics into such a short paragraph. For the apologists I have this: "I the Lord have spoken what I have spoken and I excuse not myself".

Brother: I am an engineer and a programmer. I don't give a rats rear end for any of the words you just used because there is no place for grey in my grey matter because there is no place for grey in engineering or programming. It is 0 or it is 1. It is on, or it is off. There is no middle ground. I want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I don't want your interpretation, the church's, or even Williams. But I will accept the best of the ORIGINAL material so far as I have been exposed to it, ie. where it has not been obfuscated by an author, historian, publishing company, corporation, church, general authority, or member of LDS Freedom Forum.

And without finding fault? Well if you pursue history hoping to not find fault, you will never get past the outer packaging.

I'm a professional Software Engineer too, so I'm happy for you that you have a good profession that I share, so sir, I promise you have nothing on me. I don't see why your resume makes you able to flex your rhetorical muscles bigger to win some contest. But apparently you haven't heard of the qbit in quantum computing, definitely not just a one and a zero, captitalizing on quantum states. I'm happy for you that you are so confident in yourself that your binary view of reality is all there is, kind of like how Einstien could never bring himself to give consideration to the weird and contradictory world of quantum physics. And actually, no I am no apologist. It would do you well to focus on my message and not focus on my words. Since you disagree with my words, that is fine. It's fallacious to make your focus be on my choice of words. Actually, if you never take thought for nuance and contradiction, that is how you will never get past the surface of anything.

Careful, Ed. You'll blow another gasket and come back as, what, Helaman4000? I'm assuming that, given your SE profession, and your previous username, you're using an incremental algorithm with step value of 2000, perhaps something to the effect of...

Code: Select all

int i=0

do
{
   if (i==0)
      Ed.setUsername("Helaman");
   else
      Ed.setUsername("Helaman" + (string) i);

   i += 2000;
} until (Ed.isFedUp() == true)


It's sort of pseudocodey, and you could argue the explicit typecast of the loop counter variable is unnecessary, but you get the point... tap the brakes, sir.

[Robthe Sunbeam]

Arm of flesh, folks. They've said so themselves. Everything must be confirmed by the Spirit.

Well the Lord did say that only those who have taken the holy spirit as their guide, can be the ones who are not deceived.

And the scriptures tell us we "may know the truth of all things", not that we will. I seriously doubt President Faust meant to intentionally mislead us, but he was wrong, and that should make us all want to check ourselves before we blindly follow anyone. We are told to "watch always", not "stop watching when a PH holder is speaking."

[Helaman2000captain of 100]

Careful, Ed. You'll blow another gasket and come back as, what, Helaman4000? I'm assuming that, given your SE profession, and your previous username, you're using an incremental algorithm with step value of 2000, perhaps something to the effect of...

Code: Select all

int i=0

do
{
   if (i==0)
      Ed.setUsername("Helaman");
   else
      Ed.setUsername("Helaman" + (string) i);

   i += 2000;
} until (Ed.isFedUp() == true)


It's sort of pseudocodey, and you could argue the explicit typecast of the loop counter variable is unnecessary, but you get the point... tap the brakes, sir.

Hey Rob, that's pretty good! LOL

[ithinkcaptain of 1,000]

I'm a professional Software Engineer too, so I'm happy for you that you have a good profession that I share, so sir, I promise you have nothing on me. I don't see why your resume makes you able to flex your rhetorical muscles bigger to win some contest. But apparently you haven't heard of the qbit in quantum computing, definitely not just a one and a zero, captitalizing on quantum states. I'm happy for you that you are so confident in yourself that your binary view of reality is all there is, kind of like how Einstien could never bring himself to give consideration to the weird and contradictory world of quantum physics. And actually, no I am no apologist. It would do you well to focus on my message and not focus on my words. Since you disagree with my words, that is fine. It's fallacious to make your focus be on my choice of words. Actually, if you never take thought for nuance and contradiction, that is how you will never get past the surface of anything.

Funny, I don't have a resume, and never will, nor do I think I have anything on you personally regardless of your profession or what you ever say, here or anywhere. A rock could give up the truth, or you could, and it would mean the same to me. Ditto for lies, or for your quantum lies/truth hybrid (also known as the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture). What I mean is I don't disagree with your words, I disagree with the philosophy behind them. And though you deny yourself as an apologist, you sir, are among the best I have ever read, if being an apologist is a good thing. As for professions, my brother is in computing and has been for years, but the only time we see eye to eye is when mine are closed, and he is also a stake president, whatever that might mean to you.

But as for my message, you seem to have missed it entirely: I am for truth behind the words however poetic or pathetic the presentation, and that truth can either be represented, or it can be distorted (even by a quantum computer -- but only if it's running true). A montage of truth / lies can be purveyed as truth. This is the status quo and the modus operandi of virtually everything on this planet. It is the method of apologists, spin doctors, damage control, public relations, and it is also what you call "nuance and contradiction" and is even epitomized in the title of this site: "LDS Freedom Forum".

[ithinkcaptain of 1,000]

That's one thing that makes adult decisions complex, because of value conflicts, catch 22's, between rock and a hard place, where something has to give. Hopefully people's idealism will not continue to cloud their pragmatic common sense about that, and they can see things more clearly than idealism will allow, that what is right in one situation because of the context of the problem isn't the same as what would be preferred idealistically.

And this what I have against your ideas. The advice you give is quite opposite to this: "And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God." So ixsnay to the "adult decisions" brother. In reality, the types of adult decisions you are talking about are not inspired and correct and right and true, but just the inevitable "I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing." But once we have them, they must certainly be the sophisticated, complex, and inspired answers when in fact they are anything but that.

[Helaman2000captain of 100]

I'm a professional Software Engineer too, so I'm happy for you that you have a good profession that I share, so sir, I promise you have nothing on me. I don't see why your resume makes you able to flex your rhetorical muscles bigger to win some contest. But apparently you haven't heard of the qbit in quantum computing, definitely not just a one and a zero, captitalizing on quantum states. I'm happy for you that you are so confident in yourself that your binary view of reality is all there is, kind of like how Einstien could never bring himself to give consideration to the weird and contradictory world of quantum physics. And actually, no I am no apologist. It would do you well to focus on my message and not focus on my words. Since you disagree with my words, that is fine. It's fallacious to make your focus be on my choice of words. Actually, if you never take thought for nuance and contradiction, that is how you will never get past the surface of anything.

Funny, I don't have a resume, and never will, nor do I think I have anything on you personally regardless of your profession or what you ever say, here or anywhere. A rock could give up the truth, or you could, and it would mean the same to me. Ditto for lies, or for your quantum lies/truth hybrid (also known as the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture). What I mean is I don't disagree with your words, I disagree with the philosophy behind them. And though you deny yourself as an apologist, you sir, are among the best I have ever read, if being an apologist is a good thing. As for professions, my brother is in computing and has been for years, but the only time we see eye to eye is when mine are closed, and he is also a stake president, whatever that might mean to you.

But as for my message, you seem to have missed it entirely: I am for truth behind the words however poetic or pathetic the presentation, and that truth can either be represented, or it can be distorted (even by a quantum computer -- but only if it's running true). A montage of truth / lies can be purveyed as truth. This is the status quo and the modus operandi of virtually everything on this planet. It is the method of apologists, spin doctors, damage control, public relations, and it is also what you call "nuance and contradiction" and is even epitomized in the title of this site: "LDS Freedom Forum".

Actually, my dear sir, I happen to have a belief that is conveyed by my words. Apologists not only defend a point of view, but "spin" for the sake of spinning, in order to have a faith-promoting point of view at all costs. I only defend my point of view because I believe it, and think it is true. I don't have anything to spin for the sake of spinning, but because I really rationally think what I think, and have good reason to think as I do, a well thought out reason. This is why I quit FAIR, because I didn't want to "spin". So you could simply give me the courtesy of not applying a label to my thoughts that are well-thought out. Just because you have rationality and logic to your thought process doesn't mean you are the only rational person in the world, nor does it mean that the evidence must be interpreted the way you interpret it.

[Helaman2000captain of 100]

That's one thing that makes adult decisions complex, because of value conflicts, catch 22's, between rock and a hard place, where something has to give. Hopefully people's idealism will not continue to cloud their pragmatic common sense about that, and they can see things more clearly than idealism will allow, that what is right in one situation because of the context of the problem isn't the same as what would be preferred idealistically.

And this what I have against your ideas. The advice you give is quite opposite to this: "And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God." So ixsnay to the "adult decisions" brother. In reality, the types of adult decisions you are talking about are not inspired and correct and right and true, but just the inevitable "I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing." But once we have them, they must certainly be the sophisticated, complex, and inspired answers when in fact they are anything but that.

Well, glad you have expressed your opinion on that. I disagree. That is all there is to it really. I would ask you to stop labeling me an apologist, sir.