NOM

Geez, people, consider the context. If you read that Joseph Smith was getting it on with the housemaid, try and imagine a context where that would be OK. When you read that he sent faithful members on missions and married their wives while they were away, think about how the context may have made that totally acceptable. When you read troublesome internet pages about Joseph marrying 14 year old girls, consider the context and remember that in olden days already married men in their 30s married 14 year old girls pretty much every day. No biggie. It's like the person running for the school board who said they were going to burn the school down when they were in the second grade 40 years ago - exact same thing.

http://www.ldsliving.com/2-Important-Le ... ow/s/84196

Context, people, it's all about the context. Oh, yeah, and just keep having faith no matter what you read.

I agree with point 1, context is important. However, as you say, context isn't a guarantee that the thing in question will become palatable.

Point 2 is pure trash. I don't even know what operating with faith means anymore. It bugs me as I often see it invoked when one feels uncomfortable with something that the powers that be insist is true or good. Follow your emotions until they tell you you're uncomfortable with a church leader or doctrine and then make sure you ignore them...cuz faith!!

Some eternal truths take time to understand, huh? Which types of truth are useful, the ones we can grasp and apply with consistency in the real world, or the ones that are a bit slippery and contradict all we know about honesty and righteousness?

Sheesh, it seems that the church is in full blown back pedal and justify mode. Every talk, publication, blog, tweet, etc... are about having faith, understanding context, inoculation, we never hid this stuff, your fault not ours topics of conversation.

Add to that the many apologetic blogs, FB posts, and websites by unofficial sources and it is a full court press.

You would think someone is running scared.

I just keep hoping that the Mark Twain quote about the folly of another religion rings true to DW as she laughs at scientology while watching Leahy Remini and going clear. So obvious in that glass house, maybe a bit too much confirmation bias in ours.

I like point # 3 - Disregard the man behind the curtain.

Or point # 4 - You will listen only to the sound of our voice. You are now growing sleepy....

Or Point # 5 - It ain't over till Sister Belcher sings.

While these points have nothing to do with determining the truth, who cares?

Also remember that tone is important. If something is said or written in an angry tone, it's perfectly acceptable to address the lack of the spirit instead. And if you don't like the question, feel free to change it to one you do want to answer.

One more thing: Since Google wasn't around when the Bible was written, you cannot use it as a source of information.

Well, they're still trying. I remember when I made my initial discoveries about church history, etc, and did go to sources looking for "context." Two things happened: (1) lots of times the context supported exactly what the "out of context" quote was saying, and (2) there really was no context that would justify what was going on. Some things just can't be contextualized into being OK (e.g., Brigham Young's comment about mixing races requiring "death on the spot.")

fh451

Same with scripture. Like DC 132. Its all about context. When Emma is threatened with destruction.. its a spiritual destruction not physical destruction. See how it works.

All this focus on "context" and trying to justify a 14-year-old "wife" as not ususual back in the day is kind of hypocritical. All during my time as a TBM, all I heard was that the church had eternal truths, and that some things were always wrong. It was only the liberals, i.e. "satan's spawn," who were accepting of "moral relativism."

ETA: Typos

20/20hind wrote:Same with scripture. Like DC 132. Its all about context. When Emma is threatened with destruction.. its a spiritual destruction not physical destruction. See how it works.

Yeah, that's a great point. D&C 132 is often quoted in correlated lessons but only the verses that can be used out of context to make you think it's talking about monogamous temple marriage. I am amazed how few people ever read the rest of the section.

John G. wrote:All this focus on "context" and trying to justify a 14-year-old "wife" as not usual back in the day is kind of hypocritical.

Aw, come on, didn't you notice how the polygamy essay stressed that marrying a 14-year old was perfectly legal? Legal is all that mattered, legal is good, so it was a perfectly respectable and noble thing to do. Of course it did kinda fail to mention the fact that marrying more than one woman was entirely illegal. Context.

I consider this kind of article to be apologetics for average saint. It's easy to read and has very few, if any, scholarly sources. It concentrates on the basic ideas of the gospel and believers can easily share it with apostate friends and family. The critical flaw with "apologetics for your Mom and Dad" is that you could change just a couple of proper nouns and it would just as easily keep Catholics in the faith. Or it could keep Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Evangelicals, or Seventh Day Adventists in their faith. Muslims and Zoroastrians could use this article. So could Scientologists. The Westboro Baptists would appreciate it as well as Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Communists.

This article has some very reasonable generic information but contains absolutely nothing that shows a critical truth claim of the LDS church. The most astonishing evidences of the Book of Mormon historicity and Joseph Smith as prophet are usually told in hushed tones among the most valiant believers. Poor evidence crumbles when faced with real scrutiny and critical thinking. In contrast, this article can be published widely because is entirely generic and does not rise to a level where it should be examined with more precise logic.