Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 It reminds of the forward to the word of wisdom, being given for the weakest of saints...Slight derail, I have to say that that part of the WoW is what makes it so powerful.
ttribe Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 For the record, ttribe, I noticed and greatly respect that you said as much.Thank you...I appreciate it.
Tarski Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 I absolutely agree. If there's a Church manual out there claiming that Brigham Young was a monogamist, I think that's an outrage. Please let me know where I can find it, and I'll write a letter of protest to Salt Lake City.A bit disingenuous.One could also write the life story of Orville Wright and the birth of aviation without mentioning his brother Wilbur. No lies told there either. But one has to purposely try to avoid such "details".Well, that is unless wives are just wives even in a church where it's all about family and celestial marriage.
Jeff K. Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 QUOTE(Jeff K. @ Mar 20 2009, 05:50 PM) If you leave because of the people then you don't deserve the doctrine. I am sure Judas Iscariot left because of the people and Peter remained because of the doctrine.C'mon Jeff...this aggressiveness is over the top.Lets look at it a moment.WE know the doctrines speak of Eternal Life, something greater than we can imagine. We know the doctrine speaks of the Atonement, something beyond our ken to understand, bur reflecting an infinite love. This we know. And we throw it all away because our selfish pride reduces us to thinking about ourselves in the temporal sense rather than the reward that awaits us in the Eternal sense.At that point we reject God for a false sense of temporal justification.Now consider that there is no way we can ever "deserve" the Atonement and the corresponding doctrine. No, one doesn't deserve it if one is so selfish and short sighted as to throw away the greatest gift ever given us.Judas Iscariot gave it up for self pride and some few pieces of silver.It is not aggressive to state the obvious.
Daniel Peterson Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 This may be a good case in point. Both in Dr. Peterson's response (not to suggest he should know which manual was being described, but if such as I could figure it out...)Teachings of Brigham YoungOh, I know which manual he was referring to. It's not a Sunday School manual, but, instead, the priesthood and Relief Society manual. And, had I been in charge of it, it would at least have mentioned, in the chronology where his two monogamous marriages were listed, the first of his plural marriages, indicating that he entered into polygamy.But that manual emphatically doesn't claim that Brigham Young was a monogamist, and presumably every sentient Church member is aware that he wasn't. (Other Church history manuals, for both Sunday School and Institute or college classes, have been entirely forthright about the fact that he was a polygamist.) It's absolutely absurd to suspect that the Church was trying to pretend to its members that Brigham Young was a monogamist. Most people, in or out of the Church, if the name of Brigham Young means anything to them, associate him with the settlement of Utah and with polygamy.Moreover, the Brigham Young manual is absolutely not a history text. It's a collection of relevant teachings from Brigham Young that are to be applied in our day. Period.
Ray Agostini Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 A bit disingenuous.One could also write the life story of Orville Wright and the birth of aviation without mentioning his brother Wilbur. No lies told there either. But one has to purposely try to avoid such "details".The omissions aren't hard to find in this book: BRIGHAM YOUNG Modern Moses/Prophet of God Francis M. Gibbons.
Jeff K. Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Is your name Jeff K?Why yes, my name is Jeff K, why do you ask?
Ray Agostini Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Why yes, my name is Jeff K, why do you ask?I take that as avoiding the question of whether you've read Mormon Polygamy: A History, Mormon Enigma, or In Sacred Loneliness. But I could be wrong, you may yet answer it.
ttribe Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 It is not aggressive to state the obvious.All I am suggesting is that it needn't be so heavy-handed.
Daniel Peterson Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 A bit disingenuous.Not even slightly.One could also write the life story of Orville Wright and the birth of aviation without mentioning his brother Wilbur. No lies told there either. But one has to purposely try to avoid such "details".Well, that is unless wives are just wives even in a church where it's all about family and celestial marriage.But the Brigham Young manual wasn't a biography or a history book.Keep the genre in mind. A total lack of equations in an algebra book would be a lethal omission. But not in a book on German lyric poetry. A biography of Einstein that omitted his wife would be rather odd. But a book on General Relativity that discussed Einstein's wife would be a bit strange, too.
Daniel Peterson Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 The omissions aren't hard to find in this book: BRIGHAM YOUNG Modern Moses/Prophet of God Francis M. Gibbons.I don't have that book and have never read it, so I can't comment on it.I do own Leonard Arrington's biography of Brigham Young, though, published by Alfred A. Knopf. It discusses polygamy extensively. It was written while he was Lemuel H. Redd Professor of Western History at BYU.
Jeff K. Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 None of those anti-Mormon writers had access to the Church Archives, as writers like Compton did. So I repeat, while it may have been generally known that "Mormons practiced polygamy", and speculations, for example, of Brigham Young's wives ranged from 20 to 50, none were specifically studied with primary sources. Virtually nothing was known about Joseph Smith's plural wives, because he practiced it in secrecy, and this only came to light through the study of the Church Archives. So how would a convert in the 1970s know anything about this? Once again:And I ask again, have you read any of the books I listed?The amount of access to church documentation is irrelevant since the issues aren't evidenciary verification now are they? Rather they are hard questions that one is bound to hear and ask the missionaries as I have. The fact that Joseph had plural wives was known and while I cannot roll through a lexus nexus and review articles and books written 30 years ago to remember them, I did indeed read much, and asked a great deal.You parse your words when you say "virtually".All I am suggesting is that it needn't be so heavy-handed.I appreciate the guidance, I will give it some thought.I take that as avoiding the question of whether you've read Mormon Polygamy: A History, Mormon Enigma, or In Sacred Loneliness. But I could be wrong, you may yet answer it.No seriously that is my name, why do you ask?
Honorentheos Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Oh, I know which manual he was referring to. It's not a Sunday School manual, but, instead, the priesthood and Relief Society manual.I figured that you knew. Just making a point about the differnce in knowing history and playing coy to avoid the facts. But that manual emphatically doesn't claim that Brigham Young was a monogamist, and presumablyLet's stop right here. The word "presumably" is the entire problem. I take you at your word that if you had control over the writing of the document it would have included logical items such as his first plural marriage or a sealing to the wives of JS after his lynching. This is probably because you see, as I think we would agree, that there is really no reason to NOT do so since it is part of what we "presumably" know about BY.And yet it doesn't. Because it relys on this little word "presumably". Maybe this is to play it safe by letting those who know to continue go forward with the lesson. Maybe it is to avoid unnecessary diversion from the gospel-theme of that particular message. Maybe...whatever we want to add.But the lay memebr of the church was given this for official consumption. Is the information missing available elsewhere? Sure. But the word "whitewash" isn't implying there is an Orwellian deletion of all information on the subject.It's just whitewashing.And this manual is an example of it.
Daniel Peterson Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 I don't really think so. Other Church manuals, before and since, if they dealt with history, have addressed polygamy.This one wasn't focused on history at all.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 I don't have that book and have never read it, so I can't comment on it.I do own Leonard Arrington's biography of Brigham Young, though, published by Alfred A. Knopf. It discusses polygamy extensively. It was written while he was Lemuel H. Redd Professor of Western History at BYU.Notice that it says that this is a rare book. I thought this book was produced by the church and put out by the church. If that is the case why is it so rare?
Ray Agostini Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 The amount of access to church documentation is irrelevant since the issues aren't evidenciary verification now are they? Rather they are hard questions that one is bound to hear and ask the missionaries as I have. The fact that Joseph had plural wives was known and while I cannot roll through a lexus nexus and review articles and books written 30 years ago to remember them, I did indeed read much, and asked a great deal.I'll take that as a "no" to reading the most updated literature on Mormon polygamy. Therefore, you can't understand how these facts might affect a convert who did not have access to them. Did you read what beastie said? It was her reading of the 1984 book Mormon Enigma which shook her faith to the core. She joined the Church in the 1970s. She did not have access to this information when she joined in the 1970s. No one did! Because it had not been published in the public arena. And you, apparently, still haven't read it.
Tarski Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Not even slightly.But the Brigham Young manual wasn't a biography or a history book.Keep the genre in mind. A total lack of equations in an algebra book would be a lethal omission. But not in a book on German lyric poetry. A biography of Einstein that omitted his wife would be rather odd. But a book on General Relativity that discussed Einstein's wife would be a bit strange, too.Got it. Why would there be anything about the lives of prophets in there? OK. Members need not be taught about the life of the prophet--BY or JS even if it has to do with great principles restored to the earth like polygamy. It's not relevant to salvation and there are no spiritual lessons to be learned from what kind of lives they led. (um, wait a minute....I'm not quite convinced).Of course, people still seem to think it something worth mentioning to investigators and new members. I wonder why? Silly people.
Ray Agostini Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 I don't have that book and have never read it, so I can't comment on it.It's a shocker. I do own Leonard Arrington's biography of Brigham Young, though, published by Alfred A. Knopf. It discusses polygamy extensively. It was written while he was Lemuel H. Redd Professor of Western History at BYU.I read that too. But Arrington was not as specific as Van Wagoner, Compton, Newell or Tippets Avery.
Jeff K. Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Our stake president purchased "Rough Stone Rolling" and then purchased it for every bishopric in the stake. Thought it helped us understand Joseph Smith better and the context of the times.I don't exactly see people running away from history.
Honorentheos Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 I don't really think so. Other Church manuals, before and since, if they dealt with history, have addressed polygamy.This one wasn't focused on history at all.There is a timeline of sorts that's only purpose is to give a sort of "history".But either way, it is kind of like knowing the manual being discussed was a priesthood/RS one and using the Sunday School mistake to one's own advantage.It's not history. But it uses it throughout.And as you said, the omission of his polygamy was unnecessary. Some could see it as deliberate. Others will see it as unimportant and it would have been a distraction.But either way, it's whitewashed.
Daniel Peterson Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Notice that it says that this is a rare book. I thought this book was produced by the church and put out by the church. If that is the case why is it so rare?If you're talking about the Arrington book, it was published by the very reputable New York firm of Alfred A. Knopf. If it's rare, you'll need to ask them why.Got it. Why would there be anything about the lives of prophets in there? OK. Members need not be taught about the life of the prophet--BY or JS even if it has to do with great principles restored to the earth like polygamy. It's not relevant to salvation and there are no spiritual lessons to be learned from what kind of lives they led. (um, wait a minute....I'm not quite convinced).Of course, people still seem to think it something worth mentioning to investigators and new members. I wonder why? Silly people.Maybe you need to go to bed, Tarski, because you're babbling.The Church curriculum includes courses on Church history, not only in Sunday School but in seminaries and Institutes and college classes. In those Church history classes, Church history is taught. This Church history includes treatment of the lives of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith and the "kind of lives they led."But the Brigham Young manual wasn't designed for a course on Church history.Come on. This isn't tensor analysis. If you really want to grasp it, you can. I have confidence in you.
Daniel Peterson Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 There is a timeline of sorts that's only purpose is to give a sort of "history".Two pages, as I recall. Never taught as a lesson.But either way, it is kind of like knowing the manual being discussed was a priesthood/RS one and using the Sunday School mistake to one's own advantage.Good grief. You really seem to enjoy ascribing sneaky motivations to others, don't you?I was having a bit of fun with him, but there was a serious point. Actually, two: There are Sunday School manuals that treat the life of Brigham Young. And guess what? They mention that he was a polygamist. And there is no manual that claims that Brigham Young was a monogamist. That's simply false.It's not history. But it uses it throughout.That's not true at all.And as you said, the omission of his polygamy was unnecessary. Some could see it as deliberate. Others will see it as unimportant and it would have been a distraction.I see it as relatively unimportant.But either way, it's whitewashed.The failure to mention something that's almost universally known in a brief timeline to which most paid little attention is a pretty weak example of historical whitewashing.
Tarski Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 If you're talking about the Arrington book, it was published by the very reputable New York firm of Alfred A. Knopf. If it's rare, you'll need to ask them why.Maybe you need to go to bed, Tarski, because you're babbling.The Church curriculum includes courses on Church historywhich, of course, must mention those sacred/secret plural marriages and the role they played in restoring all things. I'm like a crystal clear refreshing brook (babbling). LOLHave a nice evening Dan.
Daniel Peterson Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 As I've said several times, Church history textbooks do, yes, discuss plural marriage.Some secret.
Tarski Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 As I've said several times, Church history textbooks do, yes, discuss plural marriage.Some secret.That's good news (I'll assume it's true since you said it). Now if only investigators could be trusted with this and other similar information. But that would be like trusting a car buyer with knowledge of the crash and body work suffered by the nice car being sold.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.