SeekingUnderstanding

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.

I’ve tried to find more of her story, but the only descendant I was able to track down (who is very active on ancestry) was very cagey over email but was willing to meet in person. Never was able to make it work out.

Just really sad all around 😢

From my Grandpa’s Family history: I don’t know just when this happened, but a man by the name of Elvy came to Bloomington. He took a liking to Anna. One day he took Anna and the children and left Bloomington by team and wagon. Grandfather Krogh didn’t find out about them leaving until the next morning when he went to check on Anna. Grandfather was very angry and hurt. He got his team of oxen and started after them. He went all the way to Evanston, Wyoming but never caught up to them. Elvy had a team of horses and grandfather only had oxen. Grandfather never saw them after that. They went to California. Franklin[one of the children], after he was grown, he came to Bloomington to look up the family. I have a picture taken at this time with him and all of grandmother Krogh’s children. The only one in the family that I became aquatinted with was Aunt Sarah Page [another of the four children]. She worked in the mining area of northern Idaho. She married Alfred Page. They owned the Page mine in Idaho. She told us that Elvy was mean to the children and she asked him once why he took the children with Anna. He said the reason was her mother wouldn’t have gone without her children.