The final concern I'll go over here concerns Turley's discussion on the Ebook of Mormon and The dearth of evidence for its historicity. Turley focused on the DNA evidence and what this means to the E-book of Mormon.
If Elder Jensen understood in the ambush which was to come back at the end of the meeting, then these statements were lies, pure and straightforward. Thanks to my good regard for Elder Jensen, I hope he did not know of Pres. Kopischke's program, but my gut tells me he in all probability did.
He said that Many of these conditions of Lying to the Lord revolve close to polygamy. He then claimed very little else over it. He didn't say if it had been right or wrong.
Many of us explain to me They simply ought to “observe their thoughts.” I remind them that there's a group of people who do this… young children — around three yrs previous!
And It can be designed to have already been coined, this phrase, by I believe John Taylor, and I wonder do you think that there are conditions where by it's Alright to withhold or manipulate truths in order to protect or uphold the track record with the Church? Is lying for your Lord even now alive? That's my question.
Turley must are actually sweating bullets after that Trade. But it would not get any a lot easier. A different member then brought up Joseph's polyandry in scathing phrases (the problem may be very prolonged, so I attempted to condense it):
The discovery was really unpleasant to me and my spouse who kept it — we failed to notify the children or grandchildren. Do the leaders of the church truly believe that they're actually motivated by God to act in this kind of way? Just to inform a specific, pleasant Variation in the church—the history in the church—as a way to get far more converts? Do they consider They are really encouraged To do that?
Turley said he believed Packer's worry was that telling folks about some aspects of Church heritage carries a duty with it. Jensen chimed in and mentioned that the Church has been persecuted and introduced by itself in an apologetic i thought about this vogue as to help make the Church seem in the most effective mild.
To ensure that suggests that it absolutely was unquestionably not a spiritual marriage, it absolutely was all of the way marriage. So, I have an my website issue, what do you are feeling about that?
To ensure we do not start as massive as the universe, I might like to just develop a little framework for our discussion tonight and then when I'm finished with that, We'll invite you to share with us your most urgent issues.
This statement broke my coronary heart. Below was a member who couldn't reconcile his spirit with Church background. He required aid. He wished responses, some thing to comfort his soul. Turley offered almost nothing; in its place, Pres. Kopischke jumped in to bear his testimony that There are tons of matters in the scriptures that he would not fully grasp (working with as illustrations the stringent Regulation of Moses and Jesus breaking the Word of Wisdom by drinking wine), but that he thought that Moses was a prophet and that Joseph was a prophet.
We suggest you read the complete transcript, and also listen to the audio recording for 100% precision, having said that on the list of editors of MT took the following a knockout post notes from listening to the hearth:
This questioner nevertheless would not let Turley off the hook. Despite the “deficiency of your time,” the member asked: “Can it be genuine in general? Or is it not genuine whatsoever?” (Id.). Turley was cornered, so he eventually admitted the obvious:
Q: You are convinced's The most crucial query. Does the church understand this follow as currently being OK? Does the church formally endorse this? Polyandry. Or do they acknowledge that it might even have been an mistake? Do you may have an impression on that through the Church?