Jump to content

rongo

Contributor
  • Posts

    6,978
  • Joined

Everything posted by rongo

  1. I definitely want to avoid "deer in the headlights." I've done many things like this before, and have a reasonably good read on what to expect and how it will go. Discussion in this thread is helping me be over-prepared, just in case.
  2. I've done many things like this before. They aren't anything like discussion board threads like here --- where the same 20 active posters "go at it" with their complex personality and board histories. For most people, presentation and discussion like this will be quite new. Priority one for me is for this to be a positive experience.
  3. That's what it still says, but I'm personally aware of three exceptions to this. It isn't advertised, bit there are at least a few exceptions granted by the FP.
  4. That's like the ward we moved from. We're out where the new growth is (San Tan Valley), and our ward is busting at the seams with youth and children. Vacations are winding down, because most schools start in late July (that's never made sense to me --- having school in late July and August, when it's hottest, but that's Arizona for you). I don't think the thing itself will take place until August at the earliest.
  5. Fascinating. Can you imagine eliminating it today? I think that would be more problematic for many than leaving it in. Everyone has some paper copies at home that could be compared. And, the Church doesn't explain changes, except to say that they "do not represent changes in doctrine." That would be really hard to say about decanonization, and the obvious next question would be "how can that be doctrine for so long,and then snap! suddenly no more?"
  6. This is the most powerful argument for the fruits of it. The positive effects (as measured by faithful progeny today) continue to reverberate through generations. Given the major handbook changes that have happened over the last few years, I'm surprised that this hasn't been mentioned in the handbook yet. It's rare, but it does happen (subject to FP approval).
  7. Brigham Young and John Taylor spoke of turning men's requests down. I have no doubt that there were some men who left the rails and acted on their own, but we're talking about authorized polygamy. In Journal of Discourses, Wilford Woodruff and John Taylor put the number of men and women who participated in it at 10% of the Church. I know that this figure is argued about today, and I'm not sure how much can definitively be said today from the sources, but I've always been fascinated that so many did not participate in it. Especially since it was definitely a "sign" of status and "upper crust of the Church."
  8. Absolutely! It's healthy for people to see that sometimes the answer is "I don't know," or that they will need to be gotten back to (and then the follow-up, of course). It's also fundamental what is doctrine (and what isn't), who determines doctrine, and who is authorized to speak for the Church. And, it's helpful to learn that speculation isn't something to be feared and isn't binding as long as people are clear on the ground rules of doctrine/not doctrine and who is authorized to speak for the Church. I already have thought that this would be the starting point. Not that speculation should be "peddled," but most reasons and explanations given are going to be at least partially speculative, and as long as people realize that, they can put together what works for them (if they want it to work for them).
  9. Would that be in Croydon? That's a really tiny place . . .
  10. Yes, from 2003 to 2011. Those were days never to be forgotten!, but it changed in scope, goals, and initiatives for my taste (things along the lines of the "The Show" debacle last year, with the full-throated doubling down in support of it, followed by a full reversal a few days later ("this type of stuff has no place at FAIR or in the Church"). There was some mission creep and ill-advised initiatives like that even back then. I thoroughly enjoyed my time there, and learned a lot, but felt it was time to move on.
  11. In the past, this sort of thing has led to a number of "ask anything" Q&A things. People are really energized being able to discuss and ask about things like this. We'll walk before we run, though. The RS president wanted it to be sometime in July ( 😮!), and she was **really excited** when she asked me. I'm going to make sure the bishop supports and endorses it, of course, but I think he's solidly on board.
  12. That would definitely be best in the "good, better, best" continuum. I'll see what possibilities there might be.
  13. I really appreciate everyone's input and participation in this thread! There are many more potential concerns than I had originally brainstormed. Thank you, @Calm and @YJacketfor bringing up the theories about Joseph Smith being fully absolved (it was all Brigham Young's fault!). I've added this to the OP. I know that these have some cachet among some today, and it's not only demonstrably incorrect, it could be a source of concern. I hadn't considered that.
  14. I'm certain that most men who were authorized to take other wives were wealthy enough to take care of multiple families (on paper --- there was some neglect as well). But, I know through my family history that some dirt poor men were authorized. My ancestors John W. Hess and Thomas Grover were wealthy, but the Frys, Joneses, Wildes, Toones, etc. were not. My Jones ancestor in particular had to eat the seed potatoes during a starving winter with his two wives and children. They were more than poor. My Jones ancestor was a peg leg who emigrated with a young son from England, and he lived in a tenement in Nauvoo with other poor people. There was also an element of worthiness and faithfulness as well (an ideal that wasn't always reached).
  15. I think this would more than just ruffle some members' feathers, and I think that the Church would never recover from it in the long run. It would call everything into question, and would be like pulling at a thread which, instead of coming out or breaking, keeps going and going until the whole fabric is unraveled. At a minimum, D&C 132 would have to be eliminated or heavily changed, and millions of people would have their "old" copies to compare with the edited versions. Those are just the practical reasons not to do this.
  16. Appreciate the input, but I strongly disagree. I know that there is a lot of upside in giving people an outlet to learn about troubling things and to ask questions in a faithful environment.
  17. This reminds me of some funeral talks in Journal of Discourses. Unlike today, when even the most worthless of wretches gets the best spin possible, there were several where the speaker said, essentially, "This man led a profligate life, and is not going to the celestial kingdom. No point sugar-coating it. Let it inspire us to get our acts together." While you're obviously right that obituaries don't tell the whole story, I'm kind of glad that people don't get thrown under the bus in them, or at their funerals.
  18. I guess you're not the target audience. I'm definitely not going to burn everything down and say it was all not of God, full stop. My mandate is for this to be an atmosphere of faith, and this isn't what the RS president wants or envisions. It's also not what I believe.
  19. Very good thoughts, juliann! I agree that a woman would be best, if available. It was really good having my primary president be the presenter and help with Q&A when our ward did our fireside series 10+ years ago (she had interest and was really sharp).
  20. I disagree about just taking a list of resources to hand out. That's the modern "podcast/wiki" approach, and it is sterile and impersonal --- and I've seen people struggle more after being given an omnibus list of resources as the sole approach. It is very effective to let people ask their "ask anything" questions in Q&A, for example, and for people without much exposure to the topic, it is helpful to have it presented. I also don't believe that one has to be a "polygamy scholar," as long as that person is competent. You go to war with the army that you have, not the army that you wish you had. It would be great to get Kathleen Flake or Kathryn Danes, instead. but that's very unlikely. I also believe that there is great power in using local resources, if there are local resources.
  21. I think a combination of firesides I've done in the past, coupled with our new bishop's recommendation after meeting with and talking with me and my wife. The RS president is excited, and thinks this is sorely needed.
  22. I've added the "lost boys" effect as #11 in the OP. Thanks for coming up with that one!
  23. Good thing it's me and not you, right?
  24. C'mon! You and @Bernard Gui can't leave all the mansplaining to me. I'm on an island, here.
×
×
  • Create New...