129 replies to this topic

[Cobalt-70]

Pahoran, on 03 April 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

Thank you for your expression of ideological loyalty.  The reality is that, in its proper context, the truth about the Church of Jesus Christ is always "faith promoting."

I would say something a little bit different: historical or other information about the LDS Church is neither inherently faith promoting or faith destroying. Someone might read about Joseph Smith's mistakes and bad decisions, and feel greater empathy for him, and a greater appreciation for when he did get it right, and thus an increase in faith. Likewise, someone's faith might be turned off because a rosy-colored depiction of Smith just doesn't ring true.

[cinepro]

David T, on 04 April 2012 - 06:14 AM, said:

Actually, when it was first initiated, it had everything to do with Plural Marriage. That's a key reason Official Declaration 1 was such a world-shaker for the 19th century Mormons - a key part of the theological background and reasoning for Plural Marriage was just taken out of the equation. The way we teach and understand Eternal Marriage today is very and significantly different than it was taught when it was first introduced. It was very dynastic - you were literally building your Kingdom's Dynasty.

Keeping in mind that if Fanny Alger was really Joseph Smith's first plural wife, that polygamous marriage took place in 1833, three years before the restoration of the sealing keys, so "time only" polygamy would actually be how it all started.

[BCSpace]

Quote

Somehow I always knew about the doctrines surrounding plural marriage and the ban from an early age. I knew that JS was plurally married.

Quote

These changes could be a little difficult for me because, unlike nearly every member of the church I know, I do not believe Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.

What one can truthfully say is that he was multiply sealed. I like the dynastic hypothesis but I don't think it could apply to all his sealings.

[BCSpace]

Quote

Ostensibly, boards like this should fill that need but as you can see, they don't because conversations can be externally controlled even to the point of steering people away from what the Church actually teaches so you never can tell if you're getting the full and complete truth.

Quote

Like someone claiming all Church publications are doctrine when they are not.

The Church itself says they are so no problem there.  The 2007 statement has official publication as the only way to know what is doctrine.  The training for teachers has them all listed for teaching the doctrine and keeping it pure.  DHO is on record saying they are the "voice of the Church".  Christofferson is now on record as not only giving publication as the method the doctrine was taught and disseminated to the Church in one of his examples, but he is also on record saying the establishment of doctrine is not limited to the scriptures.  etc. etc.  It has been shown that one cannot describe the Church's doctrine using the scripture alone without referring to a publication or denying doctrines that most take for granted (marriage opportunity in the next life for example).

When BKP says some wacky things during conference, it's not doctrine because it get's corrected in a publication.  Such published corrections are doctrine though by virtue of publication. Note that I had no problem with what BKP said originally in that example. but one must modify one's view of how the Church thinks about them because of the corrections. Hence, the doctrine of the Church is revealed by publication.

There are even examples of many of you tacitly accepting what the Church has stated about it's own doctrine such as acceptance of the Newsroom statements as doctrine (the recent hullabaloo over the ban for example). And I daresay none of you is willing to stand up in a Church class on Sunday and declare that what's just been taught out of the officially published manual is not doctrine because deep down inside you accept the logic of simply taking the Church at it's word.  One personally might not accept the doctrine, but it remains official LDS doctrine by virtue of publication alone.

[Duncan]

bridget_night, on 04 April 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

I have a Danish friend who lives in Denmark who I helped bring to the church online.  He is extremely intelligent and was in the 98 percentile in getting into Medical school in Denmark. He wanted to know everything about the church before he joined and did alot of reading on the internet (not anti-Mormon stuff), but the churches own history. He knew all about the temple ceremonies even. When I met him in Salt Lake some years ago, he was looking at the statues of JS and Emma facing each other on temple square. He suddenly says to me: "Where are all the statues of JS's other wives? Are they not important? http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/
If the church cannot acknowledge the contributions of these women or even mention them in manuals, what message does that give to the worth of women in the church.

Not too long ago this same friend had some sister missionaries come by. One of them knew nothing about JS having other wives and was shocked aoout pologymany in the church. She was just a young convert. So, the church has to pretty much come out about things now with the use of the internet. Honesty, is generally the best policy.

I remember as a missionary tracting into this guy who claimed to be a descendant of Joseph Smith through one of his plural wives and back then my BS (beyond speculation) metre was ringing! if he did or didn't it doesn't bother me one iota. I agree that honesty is the best policy. With history though you are limited to what is written and still around a 150 years later in Joseph Smith's case

[David T]

cinepro, on 04 April 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

Keeping in mind that if Fanny Alger was really Joseph Smith's first plural wife, that polygamous marriage took place in 1833, three years before the restoration of the sealing keys, so "time only" polygamy would actually be how it all started.

Hence why I said, 3 posts below that, "It could even be validly argued that Joseph participated in Plural Marriage before he participated in Eternal Marriage."

[BCSpace]

Quote

I don't find it odd, at all. It's not really discussed in Gospel Doctrine that often.

IIRC, there is actually an injunction to avoid the topic in the manual.

[cinepro]

BCSpace, on 04 April 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

IIRC, there is actually an injunction to avoid the topic in the manual.

Here's what the Sunday School teachers are told:

Quote

6. Plural marriage

The following information is provided to help you if class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage. It should not be the focus of the lesson.

The Lord’s purpose for commanding His people to practice plural marriage

In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Jacob taught: “For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife. … [But] if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things” (Jacob 2:27, 30). At various times throughout biblical history, the Lord commanded people to practice plural marriage. For example, He gave this command to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon (D&C 132:1).

The revelation to practice plural marriage in this dispensation

In this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to practice plural marriage. The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him, including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by this command, but they obeyed it. Church leaders regulated the practice. Those entering into it had to be authorized to do so, and the marriages had to be performed through the sealing power of the priesthood.

The Church’s position on plural marriage today

In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff received a revelation that the leaders of the Church should cease teaching the practice of plural marriage (Official Declaration 1, pages 291–92 in the Doctrine and Covenants; see also the excerpts from addresses by President Woodruff that immediately follow Official Declaration 1).
In 1998, President Gordon B. Hinckley made the following statement about the Church’s position on plural marriage: “This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. … If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1998, 92; or Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

Edited by cinepro, 04 April 2012 - 12:47 PM.

[BCSpace]

Quote

Here's what the Sunday School teachers are told:

Quote

It should not be the focus of the lesson.

Very good.  All doctrine being officially published.

[calmoriah]

bridget_night, on 04 April 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

Honesty, is generally the best policy.

If so, I would not recommend the website you linked to as a resource.  It takes quotes and leaves out parts of them, alters the order and other things in order to make them say something the individual did not mean.

[Cobalt-70]

cinepro, on 04 April 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

Keeping in mind that if Fanny Alger was really Joseph Smith's first plural wife, that polygamous marriage took place in 1833, three years before the restoration of the sealing keys, so "time only" polygamy would actually be how it all started.

Circa 1831-36, the "sealing power" was understood as the "power from on high" or "endowment" given to all who were ordained high (Melchizedek) priests, by which they could seal the inhabitants of the earth to eternal life. (See D&C 68:12; 76:53; 77:11; 1:8; 109:35).

I haven't thoroughly researched it, but I don't believe there is any evidence that Joseph Smith referred to "sealing" as a ceremony, or in the context of marriages, prior to 1843. As far as I know, his early plural marriages were just normal marriages, the equivalent of a modern LDS chapel wedding. I believe Emma was the first to be "sealed" to Joseph Smith in the sense of having a formal ceremony that extended their marriage into the eternities. That's not to say that there was not an expectation that even normal marriages would be eternal. That is what W.W. Phelps believed as early as 1835 (http://www.saintswit...ly_350526.phtml), even though he only had a normal civil marriage to his wife Sally long before joining the church.

[cinepro]

calmoriah, on 04 April 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

If so, I would not recommend the website you linked to as a resource.  It takes quotes and leaves out parts of them, alters the order and other things in order to make them say something the individual did not mean.

For a second there I thought you were referring to Church's "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young" manual.

Edited by cinepro, 05 April 2012 - 12:03 AM.

[Libs]

BCSpace, on 04 April 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

IIRC, there is actually an injunction to avoid the topic in the manual.

I guess that explains why it doesn't get discussed.  I almost said, "it never gets discussed", but I couldn't honestly remember if that was true.  But, likely, it was the case.  

Why doesn't the Church want to discuss those issues in a class where most active LDS attend?  Not everyone goes to Seminary or Institute.

Edited by Libs, 05 April 2012 - 01:16 AM.

[Alan]

There is no proof Joseph was a polygamist. Evidence can be taken both ways and there was certainly an incentive for history revision in Utah. In fact, it is well understood that church history was back-written to accomodate certain things.
However, I come back to the fundamental issue here. Joseph said he saw a vision in the grove, he said he translated the plates, he said he received the priesthood keys from heavenly messengers, and he said he was not a polygamist. It really is that simple to me.

Like many here, I used to believe Joseph was a polygamist but it is only when I really looked at the evidence that I changed my mind.

[Senator]

wenglund, on 04 April 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

The "information that is coming out" isn't really relevant to the intent and purpose of the gospel, and thus ought not factor into one's progression in faith.

Who are you to say what ought/ought not factor into one's progression of faith?

Quote

Sadly, though, certain member don't get this, and consequently have lost faith or may potentially loose faith, when faced with the irrelevant "information."

What may be irrelevant to you may not be irrelevant to others.

Quote

Because of this, and because of the love of the church for those members, the church is now obliged to take time away from presenting relevant and faith promoting matters and mention these irrelevancy in hopes of preventing or minimizing the illegitimate loss of faith.

A love you obvioulsy don't share for "those certain members".

Quote

However, since this doesn't seem likely, then projects like "the Rescue" come into play.

And I take comfort in the fact that the church doesn't share your resentment in having to do it.

[calmoriah]

BCSpace, on 04 April 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

IIRC, there is actually an injunction to avoid the topic in the manual.

Not really:

Quote

6. Plural marriage

The following information is provided to help you if class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage. It should not be the focus of the lesson.

The Lord’s purpose for commanding His people to practice plural marriage

In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Jacob taught: “For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife. … [But] if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things” (Jacob 2:27, 30). At various times throughout biblical history, the Lord commanded people to practice plural marriage. For example, He gave this command to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon (D&C 132:1).

The revelation to practice plural marriage in this dispensation

In this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to practice plural marriage. The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him, including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by this command, but they obeyed it. Church leaders regulated the practice. Those entering into it had to be authorized to do so, and the marriages had to be performed through the sealing power of the priesthood.

    The Church’s position on plural marriage today


In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff received a revelation that the leaders of the Church should cease teaching the practice of plural marriage (Official Declaration 1, pages 291–92 in the Doctrine and Covenants; see also the excerpts from addresses by President Woodruff that immediately follow Official Declaration 1).

In 1998, President Gordon B. Hinckley made the following statement about the Church’s position on plural marriage: “This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. … If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1998, 92; or Ensign,Nov. 1998, 71).

http://www.lds.org/m...ernity?lang=eng

Edited by calmoriah, 05 April 2012 - 12:02 PM.

[Bikeemikey]

Pahoran, on 03 April 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

Thank you for your expression of ideological loyalty.  The reality is that, in its proper context, the truth about the Church of Jesus Christ is always "faith promoting."

Regards,
Pahoran

Rubbish. The truth of the Gospel is faith promoting. The truth of the Church is mixed.

The church and the gospel are different.

[wenglund]

Senator, on 05 April 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

Who are you to say what ought/ought not factor into one's progression of faith?

It isn't me who is saying. I am simply and logically acknowledging what has been revealed.

Quote

What may be irrelevant to you may not be irrelevant to others.

What may be correctly understood by me, may not be correctly understood by others.

Quote

A love you obviously don't share for "those certain members".

How do you figure? (I am just trying to learn how you jumped to this false judgment of me)

Quote

And I take comfort in the fact that the church doesn't share your resentment in having to do it.

CFR in regards to my alleged "resentment."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 06 April 2012 - 02:05 PM.

[DBMormon]

Glad to see this happening long overdue.  Correlation ran it's course long ago and has been destructive for the last 10 years.  In my mind, the closer we can get to the openess before correlation, the better.  Should have happened long before it became nessacary due to the internet and access to information.

[DBMormon]

Bikeemikey, on 05 April 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

Rubbish. The truth of the Gospel is faith promoting. The truth of the Church is mixed.

The church and the gospel are different.

oooohhh can you say that here or will you have to re-write that later with coughs in the backgound?

There is no point to this other than to mock.   Any more of it will get you thread banned.