divinenature Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 Why would we teach about a principle we no longer follow? Our mission in Church lessons is to Perfect the Saints, where would a history lesson about a no longer used practice fit that mission?Why do we continue to use the Old Testament when we are under the New? It's still in our scriptures so why wouldn't we benefit from talking about it?
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2009 Author Posted October 30, 2009 Why do we continue to use the Old Testament when we are under the New? It's still in our scriptures so why wouldn't we benefit from talking about it?When was the last time you had a Church lesson on the intricacies of the Mosaic law: the precise requirements for animal sacrifices, burnt offerings, heave offerings, dietary requirements, circumcision, the Levitical order, cleansing rituals, etc.I think you have unwittingly demonstrated mnn's point rather well. I'm sure he appreciates it.
Deborah Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 Why do we continue to use the Old Testament when we are under the New? It's still in our scriptures so why wouldn't we benefit from talking about it?Because of doctrine and principles relevant to our lives today.
divinenature Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 When was the last time you had a Church lesson on the intricacies of the Mosaic law: the precise requirements for animal sacrifices, burnt offerings, heave offerings, dietary requirements, circumcision, the Levitical order, cleansing rituals, etc.I think you have unwittingly demonstrated mnn's point rather well. I'm sure he appreciates it.Actually I am taking the OT Institute class at church. We have been through the patriarchs and Moses leaving Egypt. We just learned the intricacies of the Passover and I'm pretty sure the Mosaic Law is next.Thanks for asking!
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2009 Author Posted October 30, 2009 Actually I am taking the OT Institute class at church. We have been through the patriarchs and Moses leaving Egypt. We just learned the intricacies of the Passover and I'm pretty sure the Mosaic Law is next.Thanks for asking! And an institute class on Church history is likely to go into plural marriage in greater depth than, say, a class in Sunday School or Young Women or Relief Society or priesthood meeting. Your point being what?
Redefined Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 It's not that polygamy was a part of church history. Missionary work abroad would be discussed, respected, revered. . . if it were to ever not be practised anymore. It wouldn't be said that Missionary work just is insignificant and doesn't need to be discussed. Church leaders that participated in Missionary Work would be recognized for that as part of their legacy. EVERYBODY would know about the missionary work of these past leaders. How do church members do the same for Joseph Smith's legacy with polygamy?
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2009 Author Posted October 30, 2009 It's not that polygamy was a part of church history. Missionary work abroad would be discussed, respected, revered. . . if it were to ever not be practised anymore. It wouldn't be said that Missionary work just is insignificant and doesn't need to be discussed. Church leaders that participated in Missionary Work would be recognized for that as part of their legacy. EVERYBODY would know about the missionary work of these past leaders. How do church members do the same for Joseph Smith's legacy with polygamy?Missionary work would not be as apt to be distorted, reviled, defamed, uglified, misunderstood, defiled, to the extent that the Lord's command to practice plural marriage would.
divinenature Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 And an institute class on Church history is likely to go into plural marriage in greater depth than, say, a class in Sunday School or Young Women or Relief Society or priesthood meeting. Your point being what?I made my point in my pp that you seemed to think was also pointless. My point is that it does BENEFIT the saints to discuss these things. mnm seemed to be saying that there is no point teaching or talking about our polygamist history because we do not currently practice it. I disagree. If that was true there would be no point to reading the Old Testament and some of the D&C.
Redefined Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 Missionary work would not be as apt to be distorted, reviled, defamed, uglified, misunderstood, defiled, to the extent that the Lord's command to practice plural marriage would.Let me just say, Polygamy in its nature riles people up. . . the past church leaders decided to take something "distorted, reviled, defamed, uglified, misunderstood and defiled", and make it into something holy and beautiful.(it reminds me of make-up and pigs.)The church need not be ashamed of a righteous past. . . correct? The truth should stand for itself. The church shouldn't be worried about what everyone else thinks. . . because since God is on its side, he can just come and abolish the wicked nation that stands against the church.
Jason Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 Plural marriage as practiced by the LDS Church was as holy and beautiful as any monogamous marriage. That is to say, some made it work and some didn't.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2009 Author Posted October 30, 2009 I made my point in my pp that you seemed to think was also pointless. My point is that it does BENEFIT the saints to discuss these things. mnm seemed to be saying that there is no point teaching or talking about our polygamist history because we do not currently practice it. I disagree. If that was true there would be no point to reading the Old Testament and some of the D&C.And you seem to have not comprehended my point, which is that, while we study the high points of the Old Testament today on matters that have relevance to us, we don't get into the very intricate requirements of the law of Moses. If you think we do, spend some time reading Leviticus or Deuteronomy and imagine, if you will, having your Institute teacher lecture you on all of that minutia, and then imagine being tested on it.Similarly, today we learn the fact of polygamy being commanded by God early in this dispensation, and that Joseph Smith and some of the early Church members obeyed that commandment. We just don't get into it in the depth that some people seem to think we should. Not unless you have a particular bent to study that topic. If you do, you are free to do so. The material is there for those who want to study it.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2009 Author Posted October 30, 2009 Let me just say, Polygamy in its nature riles people up. . . the past church leaders decided to take something "distorted, reviled, defamed, uglified, misunderstood and defiled", and make it into something holy and beautiful.(it reminds me of make-up and pigs.)The church need not be ashamed of a righteous past. . . correct? The truth should stand for itself. The church shouldn't be worried about what everyone else thinks. . . because since God is on its side, he can just come and abolish the wicked nation that stands against the church.The Church, in fact, is not afraid of its righteous past. But we are also under obligation not to cast our pearls before swine.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2009 Author Posted October 30, 2009 never mind, already addressed...I liked your response in any case, calmoriah.
cinepro Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 None of the biographical sketches on this page mentions any of the marriages of the presidents of the Church, plural or otherwise. The information on President Wilford Woodruff, however, does include the fact that after much pondering and prayer he received the revelation discontinuing the practice of plural marriage.Here's what you need to do:Go to this page: Presidents of the ChurchClick on each President, then click on "Significant Events" on the left side of the screen.Compare the list of "Significant Events" for the polygamous prophets with the list for the monogamous prophets, (or prophets that had multiple wives but not living at the same time).Do you notice any differences? Why do you think these differences are there?- Bonus Question: Two prophets married an additional wife only after their first wives passed away. Are these bios presented differently than prophets who married more than one living woman at a time? If so, why might that be?-- Bonus Bonus Question: Does Joseph Smith's profile resemble the profiles of other polygamous prophets, or other monogamous prophets? Which would you expect, and why?
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2009 Author Posted October 30, 2009 Here's what you need to do:Go to this page: Presidents of the ChurchClick on each President, then click on "Significant Events" on the left side of the screen.Compare the list of "Significant Events" for the polygamous prophets with the list for the monogamous prophets, (or prophets that had multiple wives but not living at the same time).Do you notice any differences? Why do you think these differences are there?- Bonus Question: Two prophets married an additional wife only after their first wives passed away. Are these bios presented differently than prophets who married more than one living woman at a time? If so, why might that be?-- Bonus Bonus Question: Does Joseph Smith's profile resemble the profiles of other polygamous prophets, or other monogamous prophets? Which would you expect, and why?Is it the intent of this exercise to prove that the Church hides the fact of plural marriage in its history? If so, how do you account for the following items under "Significant Events" when you click on John Taylor's profile?1882 Age 74 United States Congress passed the Edmunds bill, making plural marriage a felony and prohibiting polygamists from voting, holding public office, or performing jury duty.1885 January 27 Age 76 After receiving word during a visit to California that federal officials had ordered his arrest for practicing polygamy, returned to Salt Lake City.1885 February 1 Age 76 Preached his last public sermon and went into hiding.1885
Redefined Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 The Church, in fact, is not afraid of its righteous past. But we are also under obligation not to cast our pearls before swine.So who is the "swine" in this sentence? Are they the critical of polygamy. . . .does a person become a swine when they are openly critical of the practise? The faithful are willing to defend other positions that may meet with opposition. . . such as God, the first vision, word of wisdom, etc. . . are these not pearls?
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2009 Author Posted October 30, 2009 So who is the "swine" in this sentence? Are they the critical of polygamy. . . .does a person become a swine when they are openly critical of the practise? The faithful are willing to defend other positions that may meet with opposition. . . such as God, the first vision, word of wisdom, etc. . . are these not pearls?In the imagery used by the Savior, I take the swine to be any who, through lack of understanding, malicious intent, etc., would revile and distort any aspect of the pure gospel of Christ.Some things need to be taught because they are essential to obeying the commandments, receiving and honoring ordinances and covenants, etc. Others, not so much. Plural marriage, because it is so ripe for misunderstanding and distortion by those of ill will, and because it is not essential today for the Lord's covenant people, I would place in a protected class, not requiring as much exposure as the other things you mentioned.
Redefined Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 In the imagery used by the Savior, I take the swine to be any who, through lack of understanding, malicious intent, etc., would revile and distort any aspect of the pure gospel of Christ.Some things need to be taught because they are essential to obeying the commandments, receiving and honoring ordinances and covenants, etc. Others, not so much. Plural marriage, because it is so ripe for misunderstanding and distortion by those of ill will, and because it is not essential today for the Lord's covenant people, I would place in a protected class, not requiring as much exposure as the other things you mentioned.Understood. Are fellow LDS swine. . . because by all means, the history of Joseph Smith and Polygamy isn't a pearl that need be worried about if the people aren't swine.
cinepro Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 Is it the intent of this exercise to prove that the Church hides the fact of plural marriage in its history? If so, how do you account for the following items under "Significant Events" when you click on John Taylor's profile?The intent of the exercise can be ably demonstrated as you try to answer the questions. Honestly, it seems to be an inept handling of the situation to have included marriage info for the monogamous prophets.It is interesting that they noted those events in John Taylor's historical summary. Heck, Wilford Woodruff never gets polygamy mentioned in his bio. It just says "while in hiding" and "Issued the manifesto" for certain events, but it never says what the hiding and manifesto were about.Polygamy or plural marriage are never mentioned in Brigham Young's bio either, so I almost have to guess that the mentions in John Taylor's bio slipped through the editing process.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2009 Author Posted October 30, 2009 Redefined, Cinepro, and divnenature, I see you are all in the act of composing responses to me. Be advised I am finished for today and will not be getting back to you any time this weekend, if ever. So go get some fresh air, enjoy some hot cocoa and a pumpkin cookie, play with the kids, go on a date, anything to get away from the computer. It might do you some good.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2009 Author Posted October 30, 2009 Understood. Are fellow LDS swine. . . because by all means, the history of Joseph Smith and Polygamy isn't a pearl that need be worried about if the people aren't swine.Sorry, but I need some clarification here: Are fellow LDS forbidden from learning about plural marriage?
Redefined Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 Redefined, Cinepro, and divnenature, I see you are all in the act of composing responses to me. Be advised I am finished for today and will not be getting back to you any time this weekend, if ever. So go get some fresh air, enjoy some hot cocoa and a pumpkin cookie, play with the kids, go on a date, anything to get away from the computer. It might do you some good.As it so happens, I just got finished carving pumpkins with my kids. . . thus why I wasn't on earlier.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2009 Author Posted October 30, 2009 The intent of the exercise can be ably demonstrated as you try to answer the questions. Honestly, it seems to be an inept handling of the situation to have included marriage info for the monogamous prophets.It is interesting that they noted those events in John Taylor's historical summary. Heck, Wilford Woodruff never gets polygamy mentioned in his bio. It just says "while in hiding" and "Issued the manifesto" for certain events, but it never says what the hiding and manifesto were about.Polygamy or plural marriage are never mentioned in Brigham Young's bio either, so I almost have to guess that the mentions in John Taylor's bio slipped through the editing process.Maybe the editors need to put cinepro on the payroll as consultant so they can better measure up to his expectations and would be less apt to be subject to his second-guessing.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2009 Author Posted October 30, 2009 As it so happens, I just got finished carving pumpkins with my kids. . . thus why I wasn't on earlier.A worthy pursuit. Why don't you go read a Halloween story with them?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.