For those of you who have experienced major doubts...

[Flystripper]

I don't think Joseph's polyandry will ever be "resolved" for me.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

I don't think Joseph's polyandry will ever be "resolved" for me.

Not even in the hereafter?

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Not even in the hereafter?

who knows? Maybe ever was a bit strong.

[All-American]

Nothing introduces doubt for me quite as much as seeing how so many members act. If you know them by their fruits . . .

But then I remember that the church is the definitive mingling of idealism with realism, perfection with imperfection; furthermore, I'm no more flawless than any of the rest-- far be it for me to gripe.

[splitbamboo]

Originally Posted by cougjunkie

Maybe these books will help those with doubts. Anyone ever read them?

http://deseretbook.com/store/search?...ecord+straight

My wife came home with the Emma book last week since she is doing a Mother's Day lesson in RS on Emma/Lucy. Anyway, I read it and found that one severely lacking. We are planning on getting the Polygamy one, however, to see where it goes...

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

Nothing introduces doubt for me quite as much as seeing how so many members act. If you know them by their fruits . . .

But then I remember that the church is the definitive mingling of idealism with realism, perfection with imperfection; furthermore, I'm no more flawless than any of the rest-- far be it for me to gripe.

Members lack of love, how leaders politic and bicker and the general disrespect in wards are the number one obstacles, with Joseph Smith's polyandry being the number one historical artifact which causes a challenge.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by scottie

which issue with Joseph Smith or Church history was/is the hardest for you to resolve?

The most difficult for me has been the differences between JS's 1832 and 1838 accounts of the First Vision. I first learned about this while reading Rough Stone Rolling. I think most of us here know the differences, but for those who don't -- after a very quick glance this Wikipedia piece seems to spell it out fairly well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_V...been_presented

NOTE: This thread isn't about defending or attacking the different versions of the FV, rather it's about the #1 issue (if any) that's caused you to doubt/question, so try not hijack.

My issues:

1.) Ronnie Jenkins being kicked out of BYU. I have never liked how the LDS Church is too concerned with others' perceptions. Besides that you ever imagined how good that '99 team would have been if it still had Ronnie Jenkins and John Tait (who I am convinced a big part of his decision to leave was a result of the Ronnie Jenkins fiasco)?

2.) Blacks and the priesthood. I just can't figure this one out and it will always be my principal question concerning LDS history. It doesn't seem to have benefitted anyone. It doesn't bother me as I don't get worked up about these issues and from my perspective as cumbersome and controlled by inertia as the Church is, eventually the Church came around.

3.) Polygamy/polyandry and all that crap. I can intellectually understand the good polygamy did as a form of accountability with respect to making sure a woman and her kids had some man responsible for their movement to wherever the early members of the Church were going. I can spiritually see the benefit that the challenges incident to polygamy provide in becoming more like God. So polygamy rates lower on my list of concerns than blacks and the priesthood because I can see the potential good that comes from it. I also believe the revelation was legitimate. However, celestial laws being lived by mortals often provide enormous opportunities for abuse. I don't know if the early LDS Church was no different than what I am told the modern FLDS Church is with respect to polygamy, but I am convinced that abuse occurred and I am also convinced that no man can meet the needs of 50something wives. It just boggles my mind. In the end I guess it wasn't so much polygamy as a concept bothers me as much as the concept seemed to expose the humanity of some of the early leaders that I would prefer to be oblivious to.

*Edited note: The author understands that some may interpret my accountability comment as sexist. I am putting that comment in the context of the times and the flat out physically exhausting tasks neccesary when one moved from location A to location B in the mid 1800's. Perhaps polygamy under this scenario was just a glorified home teacher/elders quorum with far better fringe benefits for both the lovely daughter of God, whose man was no more with her and lets face it even the ladies like to scrog now and again, and her man to whom she has given herself.


The amazing part to me is despite these enormous issues the Church continued to roll forth as that stone cut without hands.

All these things stand as a testament that boobs are in!

[Archaea]

the priesthood ban also bugs me.

The third thing is the exclusion of women from leadership. They can have my callings.

[splitbamboo]

Originally Posted by Archaea

the priesthood ban also bugs me.

The third thing is the exclusion of women from leadership. They can have my callings.

It's interesting that we take such a strong stand on excluding women. They DO act with authority in the temple. And as the husband of an RS president, I know for a fact that they take their callings in leadership much more serious than many (most?) males. Even when they hate the role.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

My issues:

1.) Ronnie Jenkins being kicked out of BYU. I have never liked how the LDS Church is too concerned with others' perceptions. Besides that you ever imagined how good that '99 team would have been if it still had Ronnie Jenkins and John Tait (who I am convinced a big part of his decision to leave was a result of the Ronnie Jenkins fiasco)?

2.) Blacks and the priesthood. I just can't figure this one out and it will always be my principal question concerning LDS history. It doesn't seem to have benefitted anyone. It doesn't bother me as I don't get worked up about these issues and from my perspective as cumbersome and controlled by inertia as the Church is, eventually the Church came around.

3.) Polygamy/polyandry and all that crap. I can intellectually understand the good polygamy did as a form of accountability with respect to making sure a woman and her kids had some man responsible for their movement to wherever the early members of the Church were going. I can spiritually see the benefit that the challenges incident to polygamy provide in becoming more like God. So polygamy rates lower on my list of concerns than blacks and the priesthood because I can see the potential good that comes from it. I also believe the revelation was legitimate. However, celestial laws being lived by mortals often provide enormous opportunities for abuse. I don't know if the early LDS Church was no different than what I am told the modern FLDS Church is with respect to polygamy, but I am convinced that abuse occurred and I am also convinced that no man can meet the needs of 50something wives. It just boggles my mind. In the end I guess it wasn't so much polygamy as a concept bothers me as much as the concept seemed to expose the humanity of some of the early leaders that I would prefer to be oblivious to.


The amazing part to me is despite these enormous issues the Church continued to roll forth as that stone cut without hands.

All these things stand as a testament that boobs are in!

If Tex will give me the OK, I will reiterate my feelings about the honor code. No, I will just paraphrase Bronco concerning Lavell. "Those were the days when the coach could go to the Stake President and say, can't we see if we can help this kid."

By the way, it was nice to hear Todd Shell was at the fireside and a caring SP has helped him back.

Speaking of boobs. Why advise against two earrings, but no statements about enhancing the boobs.