Skip to content

166: Handshakes and Drawn Swords II


Today we revisit our episode from a short time ago, “Handshakes and Drawn Swords”.  We talk about the discussion that has ensued and rebuttals apologists have made that has come about because of it.  While apologists argue this perspective is absurd, I argue that it still has a seat at the table.


3 thoughts on “166: Handshakes and Drawn Swords II”

  1. Dear Bill…I am finding it hard to put my feelings into words but I will give it my best try. I have been having a crisis of faith for quite awhile and only lately has it become apparent to me exactly why and how I reached this point. Years ago I read a quote by someone whose name evades me at this moment which read “the greatest hindrance to a close relationship with our Creator is religion” and I remember thinking at the time that that seemed like a strange comment, but over the intervening years I can say now that I totally understand what that person was trying to say because religion has become that many layered, heavy burden for me. I joined the LDS church back in 1981, coming from a Catholic upbringing in a very Catholic area (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) and at the time it seemed like a good choice for me. I was a faithful member for 15 years and then was inactive for 15 and just returned in the last few years but with questions and reservations. I felt like this was not the original church I had joined and was a little lost or maybe it was just that I only saw what I wanted to see back in 1981. For me right now all I know is that I want to be closer to Heavenly Father and my Lord Jesus Christ, period, and do what will put a smile on their faces. Over analyzing each word and event, dogmatically following every word issued from another mortal’s mouth has taken me away from that quiet still voice I used to love to hear in my heart. I no longer believe any one church has exclusive rights to God or special access to Christ, but all are welcome equally by Him into His kingdom. I will continue to visit my LDS branch some Sundays and I will follow Heavenly Father’s direction to fill my cup wherever He leads me on other Sundays from now on, without guilt or fear of admission from any human leaders. I revere and stand in awe of only One, Jesus my Lord and Savior. Thank you for your Podcasts they are very informative and heartfelt and I do enjoy them and when I can afford to I will be happy to support your endeavor. With kind thoughts I remain…
    Marguerite Hart

  2. Pingback: 8 September 2015 | Mormonverse

  3. I enjoyed your two episodes regarding JS and his mishandling of Section 132.
    Here are a few points to consider:
    1) D&C 132 was written in July 1843
    2) D&C 129 that talks about how to discern an angel of darkness was written in February 1843.
    3) JS asked Helen Mar Kimball’s parents and her to marry him in July 1843 after saying an angel with a sword threatened him.

    Basically JS should have known if that angel was a good or bad angel by the time the angel appeared to him regarding Helen right?

    Here is my take. God is not the author of confusion and polygamy from it’s inception with JS is nothing but confusion. If something so important and potentially damaging to marriage relationships as polygamy is/was…wouldn’t the Lord speak to Emma regarding this? If there are specifics regarding the WofW about what to eat and when…why was polygamy so broad and non-specific?

    WE have to accept D&C 132 AS DOCTRINE. We still seal multiple living women to living men and seal multiple dead women to dead/living men. It is absolutely doctrinal.

    God is not the author of confusion. If God says He is speaking..he is speaking…not an angel and we have to guess if it’s a good or bad angel. That’s silly. Something as explosive as polygamy should not be so shrouded in confusion.

    You CANNOT compare Adam-God to polygamy or blacks and the priesthood. If BY was mistaken on Adam-God, that is not a saving principle. It doesn’t have an affect on any ones salvation. Polygamy affects the sancticty of marriage and if not from God renders the practitioner an adulteror. If Blacks/priesthood isn’t of God, it renders over 100 years of black families damaged and led astray from the blessings of the temple and SAVING ordinances.

    Your last point in episode 159 at the 22:30 mark you mentioned that you don’t like the idea that you have to eat the whole elephant or leave. President Hinckley recently stated “it is all true, or it’s a fraud.” Was Hinckley mistaken? I agree there needs to be room for those who think polygamy is not of God and still remain. I recently spoke with my general authority regarding my struggle with polygamy and he reiterated that a prophet CANNOT make a doctrinal mistake.

    You have members of the Q12 in recent General conferences doubling down that they can’t lead us astray. Tell that to over 100 years of black folks who were kept from the blessings of the temple. If that isn’t being led astray spiritually, what is?

    I guess my point is….While I agree with you there has to be room for prophets to make doctrinal mistakes….everything teh Brethren and the Prophet are saying now contradict that notion and leave no room for people like me to live in a gray area. It’s black and white to the Brethren. “It’s all true, or its a fraud.” If polygamy was not of God, and blacks not receiving the priesthood was not of God…how to I say a prophet said incorrect doctrine and square that with Hinckley?

    Confusion = Not of God in my humble opinion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *