SeekingUnderstanding

I haven’t read the WSJ article since it’s pay walled. I have seen the temple clothing picture however, so will limit my remarks to that. First, I think any former Latter-day Saint needs to (and almost certainly does) understand that Temple related content will be extremely offensive to current members. That said, I have a hard time understanding why you don’t think that people like Grenfall have just as much right to those clothes and rites as you do. Grenfall was forced to change out of her wedding dress and into a temple dress because it was a shade too creamy. She (and many other that have left your faith) have felt trauma from the temple rites (my niece was bawling and never went back to church if I understand correctly). Grenfell feels regret for excluding her elderly grandma from her wedding. And she posed for the WSJ in the actual clothing she was married in. Why doesn’t she have the right to take ownership of her pain by showing *her temple clothes. Why do you have more ownership of those clothes than her? Cunningham’s analogies fall laughable short: ”There is a long, public record of how mainstream outlets (including the Journal) handle other traditions’ restricted rites: with restraint. When Catholics choose a pope, reporters don’t slip cameras past the Swiss Guard; they acknowledge the sealed conclave and cover the smoke and statements, not the oaths inside the Sistine Chapel (see the Journal’s own recent explainer and history features on conclaves and their secrecy: here and here). When monks on Mount Athos bar women from entering their all‑male peninsula, the Journal writes about the place and its rules—but does not break them (book‑review coverage). When Muslims perform the hajj, the paper uses official vantage points, not undercover intrusions; its recent reporting on the devastating 2024 heat deaths shows exactly that kind of distance and care (news report and video). In other words: consent is the difference between a tour and a trespass—and the Wall Street Journal knows it” Grenfell didn’t sneak a camera in and film the wedding ceremony or endowment rites. The WSJ didn’t publish that. They did publish a picture of Grenfell in *her* wedding clothes that she owns. Is it offensive and considered sacrilegious by those who believe? Sure, by many of them. But that doesn’t mean that offense and sacrilege are the motive for printing it.

I don’t mean to doubt (haha) what you are saying, but how does this work in reality? The world is filled to the brim with competing and mutually exclusive ideas and truth claims. It may be true, but I have a hard time understanding how you don’t treat Islam’s truth claims with skepticism. Or a naturalistic world view. Or one that embraces Ancient Greek gods. That’s not bad or wrong. And for me all I’m saying is that doubting your doubts is not a virtue. Belief in a particular world view is not a virtue. Doubts are opportunities to grow, self examine, and perhaps change should change be warranted.

Put scientifically, data that doesn’t align with the current best theory / model might be user error vs a need to throw out the entire model! And everyone should be biased to be skeptical of new data (or doubt) that upsets a longstanding model or theory that has a long history of working well.

Everyone has bias. The question is what is our goal? Is the goal to maintain our current beliefs? Or to find deeper truths? If we view doubt as a fault and belief as a virtue, then change is impossible. If we view doubt as an indication that something in our current network of beliefs is inconsistent and wrong, AND we view changes in belief towards greater truth a virtue, then we can move closer to truth. I guess I would view or phrase this differently. Let’s say I was raised an evangelical biblical literalist and young earth creationist. I want to understand what the academic understanding of ancient near eastern history is. I don’t have to have trust that the university professors will teach me what I need to know to get a degree. That’s true by definition. I don’t have to accept what they teach is actually true either (as compared to the history I’ve accepted from my theoretical upbringing). I can learn their viewpoint and get a degree all while thinking their view of history is false. What I do have is an opportunity to choose which set of beliefs best matches with reality. I will be presented with archeological artifacts and data that challenge my world view. I don’t seek truth without bias because no one can. The best we can do is to be aware as we can of our bias and lean away from them. The more we want something to be true the more skeptical we should be. How do I determine truth? The question is impossible, but here are some random thoughts this morning. Maintain the idea that I am certainly wrong about many things I currently believe. Embrace doubt as an opportunity to expand knowledge and to change and grow. It’s ok to approach new information skeptically, to poke prod and question. And it’s ok to reexamine long held cherished beliefs, to poke prod question. It’s ok not to know.

I think “belief” and “doubt” are bad ways to frame the issue. What if we aren’t seeking reasons to believe or reasons to doubt. What if we just want to know what’s true. Seeking truth? If that leads to doubt in an old paradigm why is that bad? Why is belief in falsehood deemed good?

😳I’d say it’s as factually true as any statement can be about the deep past. Especially the way it was stated. I was just being conversational about it. But if we are being pedantic grammar Nazi level weirdos about it, then according to the best philosophers there are no facts without shared assumptions. Everyone is boot strapping it at some level. BTW you must be fun at parties!

lol. Sorry you aren’t getting 20 wives in heaven. I stand by the following statement ad factually true: Rough estimate: 45% to 60% of all humans in history likely died before the age of 8.

I don’t think you are reading what I’m writing. I responded to Calms post. I referred to the fact she shared. If you have something substantive to contribute let me know.

This fact that I quoted? Rough estimate: 45% to 60% of all humans in history likely died before the age of 8. I wasn’t aware it was in dispute. Especially with the broad range and “likely” to boot thrown in there. But if you have data to bring to bear here be my guest.

I find satire to be the best response to many poorly formed ideas. And the idea that there are more righteous women in heaven than men is so pervasive that it hardly needs calling out.

I’d say it’s a response to the absurd assumptions that members propagate as to why polygamy is necessary in the first place, namely that there are going to be way more righteous women than men in heaven. Which is ridiculous horse poop right?

Not to mention what this fact says about the sex ratio celestial demographics. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/in-the-heavens-are-parents-single-report-no-1/

I think the evidence that Joseph often participated in treasure hunts as the seer is pretty strong. See here: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/the-locations-of-joseph-smiths-early-treasure-quests/ But perhaps the best evidence is the Book of Mormon itself which appeared with a guardian spirit (and many other hallmarks), and contains stories of slippery treasure sinking into the earth.

I’m not sure there are many more respected Latter-day Saint historians than Don Bradley

They will always be called tweets 😜

I think that’s pretty horrible, but not unusual. Much like baptizing people for the dead that were adamant in life about their choices. I guess I don’t see Nathan and Eliza in this light however. Their relationship as recorded by their children was very good and it seems only church doctrine prevented the sealing. With sealings now allowed between one living woman and multiple men these days I’m in the “why not” camp. At least before I left the church.

Ultimately in this case it wasn’t his call to make as Eliza was adamant, but I agree that the idea that you are just borrowing a woman as your wife, and that your own biological children will belong to another for eternity is not an ideal situation and shows one of the many downsides to the doctrine of eternal families in the church.

Good question. I believe Nathan was quoted as saying “he would not rob the dead” or some such. Interestingly the temple work for him and Eliza was completely in the last couple of decades iirc (which actually upset my rather conservative brother for some reason). By all reports he treated all the mingled children equally and was a very kind guy.

I’ve got a ton and it’s all fascinating. The closer you get to original sources the more raw and real it is. In a rare reversal of roles on polygamy, another gg grandmother was Eliza Cusworth Burton Staker. Here I’m speaking more from memory so hopefully I won’t mess up too much. Eliza and her first husband Joseph converted in England with two young children, but Joseph died shortly thereafter. Eliza walked across the plains with the Martin Handcart company with her two young children (age 7 and 4). Met a widower (Nathan)in Salt Lake, they married and had an additional 5 children but they were all sealed to the first husband and as they believed she and they would be his (the first husbands) in the eternities. Real life makes a mess of “simple gospel truths” at times. Nathan stood proxy actually for the sealing.

If you all will indulge me one more family history story, Lorena's mother Flora was picked up as a third wife in Nauvoo in 1846. Had a baby shortly thereafter and started to cross the plains. A couple things left Flora dissatisfied with her situation. One, the husband was very harsh with her child and two, he pretty much left her to get across the plains on her own as he was off pursing wife number four. Flora was fed up, and decided to divorce and marry a different individual as a second wife. According to Flora's first husband: "Among other things to annoy me, my wife, [Flora], rebelled at my government of her child and left us upon the road, and associated with a family named Washburn, into which she afterwards married." According to Flora's daughter Lorena: "Mother had become alienated from her husband on account of his conduct. She laid her case before President Brigham Young. Johnson at first refused to sign the divorce and sent it back to Salt Lake unsigned, but President Young said, ‘I will see that he does sign it,’ and he did.”

I don’t know how it worked elsewhere, but in the late seventies near Monroe, first presidency approval must have been an after thought or perhaps a rubber stamp? Lorena, went to the next town over to house sit and help with kids at her fathers first wives home while the wife was away. Within a week she reports three plural marriage proposals. There is no way they had time to run that up the flagpole.

Correct. And anything that attempts to downplay the pressure felt by these young women (and the inherent inequity that came after) to enter these relationships is inherently dishonest IMNSHO of course.

I appreciate this. I personally doubt the original allegations. I guess I just fundamentally disagree with the idea that there wasn't a significant amount of coerersion involved. Different people see that differently. It's hard to reconstruct the past, but Lorena wrote a ton. She was taught by her church leaders and family that the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom was only available to those who practiced plural marriage. She (and her son - who has a wing named after him at BYU) is adamant that this was the position of the church at the time. Additionally, her Patriarchal blessing (which church members view as guidance from God) told her that she was heir to all the blessings of Sarah and "if I would obtain them, I must yield obedience to the law of Sarah." When Lorena was 14 (just a couple months shy of her 15th birthday 😉 ), she turned down her first marriage proposal. The man and his wife approached Lorena's parents for permission which was granted. Her father pressured her saying "I am afraid you will some day be sorry for turning down such a fine man." He was 50 years old. Became Lorena's bishop two years later and continued to pursue Lorena. Once the guy's first wife died he even took her to a dance. While Lorena turned him down (good for her), that's a ton of pressure on her. Asymmetric pressure that is just glossed over in the video. There is no healthy society in which adults are trying to marry off their young teenagers to 50 year old men. The dude was Martin Harris's Nephi btw Bishop Dennison Lott Harris. And he was far from the only old man to court Lorena in her teenage years. I went back to check and at least 6 others proposed marriage to her before she choose her husband at the age of 20 (he was 35).

Yes. Aunt Julia as the first wife was called got to live with the husband while Lorena went into hiding, adopted false names and had to teach her toddler to lie about who her dad was. I pretty much don’t see any redeeming qualities to polygamy, but the state persecution of what consenting adults do makes me really mad. The woman in question is Lorena Washburn Larsen. I don’t recall ever seeing anything but low and behold a quick google search shows her quoted in one of the polygamy essays: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng Every story is so complex. I see the despair and desperation in her story but also acknowledge the light she felt from her faith which was the defining characteristic of her life.

Polygamy was such a sacrifice for the women that lived it. It’s one of the one issues I had with the video in the OP which just came across as a dude explaining it away. In addition to the above, I have a gg grandma on my mother’s side that lived through the manifesto era. From her: She went on to live as a single mother, providing all the support for her eight children (four born post manifesto). She describes her growing resentment for her husband who lived with his first wife and only came for conjugal visits, but also continued spiritual affirmations that it was what God wanted of her. The sacrifice and hardship that she went through (and she is far from alone I know) is indescribable in a way that the video just fails to capture.