DanGB Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 I think that is an assumption that may or may not be true.One I can think of is to avoid unintentional encouragement of any inclination to the practice or even just an unhealthy fascination about it at this time (we have plenty of other things we HAVE to deal with that lead to church hobbies such as Word of Wisdom....)What could possibly be "unhealthy" about giving recognition to women who practiced, what we otherwise describe as, a special and sacred revelation from our Heavenly Father. On a different thread I had started about "What polygamy provided the Church that would not have been achieved with mongamy only", those supporting this past practice had accolades galore. But when we point out this website and the total lack of it's practice and recognition of the women who did, we come up with conflicting thought!!!As members we simply must accept the Church wants little to do with this revelation and practice today!! Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 DanGB:The Revelation is still there. While we do not practice it today. There is nothing in the Scriptures to prevent its return upon God's command. Link to comment
Calm Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 What could possibly be "unhealthy" about giving recognition to women who practiced, what we otherwise describe as, a special and sacred revelation from our Heavenly Father. I did not say that giving recognition was unhealthy. I said it could play into unhealthy fascinations (much like posting pictures of children while in and of itself there is nothing wrong with and much, much good in still might be used inappropriately by someone with an unhealthy fascination about children).I am also saying this may just be a possibility. It is one I think likely because of certain comments that have been made over the years in conversations about plural marriage. Whether or not the hopefully few occurrences of this happening should outweigh the benefit public recognition might accomplish is not something that can be quantified by me or anyone else as far as I can see though the leaders might get hints from stories of apostates or those troubled by this issue just as I have, only with access to greater numbers of such stories through excommunication proceedings among other things.They may also have chosen to rely on the Spirit in making the decision and may not have any other definite reason besides a belief they are obeying the Lord's Will in how they are dealing with the issue at this time.I am not saying the belief they are following the Spirit in their decisions on this particular issue has to be the default position, but it should at least be included imo as an option and unless there is some hefty evidence otherwise probably near the top of the list for reasons.I guess it comes down to an issue of trust and how one sees the process of decision making in our leaders. I have personally seen both positive and negative come from giving attention to our plural marriage history and have heard quite a few reports of others' anecdotes in this area. I have no reason to believe that the leadership's experience is significantly different than mine except of course for having greater access to details so if I am uncertain about what is appropriate if I look just at the reports of people's reactions, then I would think that they would be too. If so, there are a variety of avenues they could follow including not thinking it was very important and just choosing to ignore it as much as possible. However, given that the people we are discussing are often the ancestors of the very leadership that is currently making these decision, I have significant doubt that they would casually dismiss the whole thing and instead I beleive they are much more likely to have approached the issue with much study and prayer. Link to comment
Calm Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 As members we simply must accept the Church wants little to do with this revelation and practice today!!Can we also be allowed to accept that the leadership has good spiritual and practical reasons for their approach? Or do you find that belief unreasonable? Link to comment
DanGB Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 DanGB:The Revelation is still there. While we do not practice it today. There is nothing in the Scriptures to prevent its return upon God's command.I completely agree. Do you think President Momson would be comfotable ever saying the exact same sentence in a public interview today??No! Every statement from the Church today will only state that the Church does not allow the practice. Which is also true. My point remains the Church can only benefit by distancing itself from this practice and does so openly. We just need to be honesty ,objective and candid about this attitude amongst ourselves. Link to comment
Jeff K. Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 My point is that the information for names and dates of marriages for the polygamist wives is just as easy to provide in this website as it is for monogamous marriages. The information exists and is just as easy to source. The fact that only monagamous marriages are mentioed is more telling to the Church's attitude towards, and desire to distance itself from, it's polygamous past. At least from official sources provided to the public. What other reasonable explanation is there in not giving the least bit of recgnition to these wives who served their Prophet, husband, and Church faithfully?You missed this part:I don't see the issue as being that large, a website alone doesn't create doctrine, honor or a number of other things one might deem more important. Again, we know of polygamy, nothing stops many and I mean MANY from having that information on the website and available, the church certainly stops no one from doing so. Its resources are not unlimited and there is much to be done. What is stopping you from honoring them? No, it sounds like a very very shallow complaint. Thank of all the distinct groups that could demand "honor" on the church websites or whatnot. Link to comment
DanGB Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Can we also be allowed to accept that the leadership has good spiritual and practical reasons for their approach? Or do you find that belief unreasonable?The practical reasons are more than obvious: It does not sell and hurts its image and missionary efforts. I agree and have no problem with that reason. I think it makes a lot of sense. I would have no idea to what "spiritual reasons" you allude to. Care to elaborate? Link to comment
Calm Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 The practical reasons are more than obvious: It does not sell and hurts its image and missionary efforts. I agree and have no problem with that reason. I think it makes a lot of sense. I would have no idea to what "spiritual reasons" you allude to. Care to elaborate?I mean they prayed about it and their response is based on what they believe the Spirit confirmed or inspired them to do.And that they may be right in this, that this is how God wants it handled.PS: there are many things that 'does not sell' and some see as hurting the image of the church and missionary work and yet the Church continues to do these things such as baptism for the dead, political and religious statements against homosexuality for the most obvious ones. I therefore do not believe that if an issue is important, that this would be the primary reason the Church chose its approach. Link to comment
DanGB Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 No, it sounds like a very very shallow complaint. Thank of all the distinct groups that could demand "honor" on the church websites or whatnot.While I don't lose sleep over it, I would ne er call it "shallow" to think the Church could give the same respect and recognition to faithful polygamist wives of our Preaidents on the same site they do for monagamous wives. Really there is just no reason for not doing it other than an outward and obvious motive to avoid polygamy today by the Church. Link to comment
Maya Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Have you ever thought WHY the canges happen? COULD some of the reason be in it that the LDS as Gods people are or are not ready for something. As poeple we are NOT on same level, some have higher understanding and others not that high, some have closed their ears.... so there will always be people who think they know better than God! Just think of the changes made in past.. I am not so sure all of them were done because we have advanced as people, maybe some have been done because we as people do not do our duties and study so we could understand. I also will suggest that from now on it will be added in the lisit of merits of the Church leaders of today, if they were pluraly married so eveyone can see it. So we slip these stupid accusations.Sometimes it sounds like there is not many who are willing to understand pluralmarriage and the women anyway SHOULD NOT understand it! The ones against, use words that would make any even a slighest bit understanding person blush of shame... and especially women who think it could be ok, when a command by God, wish the earth would swollow them... I think the problem is NOT hiding the facts it is derfending women so they would be able to make their own opinion about it and NOT follow the mainstream negativity.The knowledge is on internett for ANYONE to read, anyone who is interested enough. I dont know about you guys but even I from a tiny country in Europe the size of Ohio .. about... the FIRST thing we learn about LDS is the plural marriage! I dont know about your schools but that is the way it has been around here anyway! It is true that the missionaries/members may say ... it was a long time a go and we dont practice it now and dont talk more about it, maybe give you a reason or two what might have been the reason for such a command.... but they cant teach you about something they dont have an opinion about themselves and this is a question that really do NOT interest so very many in the Church. IF it was a command they will handle it when it comes and IF it was not... so... it is over and wont return. And IF it was a command ... not everyone can understand it, not even members unlesss they are spiritually on the right level to understand it.The knowledge IS there... up to everyone to find it if they are interested. FAIR has a couple of things that are pretty well written about it. If you have a problem pray about it, empty your mind of your prejudic toughts and try to think Joseph Smiths time and how plural marriage would fit there. Be thou humble.... Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 DanGB:I think he'd do what the Lord asks him to do. As the earthly practice of polygamy has been discontinued by the Church over 100 years now. I see it as largely a historical artifact. I guess if people still really want to get upset it. They'll do that no matter what we say. If some people are looking for an excuse to hate us, ANY will do. Link to comment
Jeff K. Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 While I don't lose sleep over it, I would ne er call it "shallow" to think the Church could give the same respect and recognition to faithful polygamist wives of our Preaidents on the same site they do for monagamous wives. Really there is just no reason for not doing it other than an outward and obvious motive to avoid polygamy today by the Church.Apparently you do seem fixated on it. It is not that important to our salvation. Very few seem to be obsessing over it, except of course those who want us to obsess over it for their own reasons.I am sure you already have a website that honors these people who are very important to you. Care to show us the link? Link to comment
Calm Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 My point remains the Church can only benefit by distancing itself from this practice and does so openly. We just need to be honesty ,objective and candid about this attitude amongst ourselves.I have no problem with using the term "downplay" in general and "distancing itself" when it comes to specific instances such as the current practice of polygyny. When the almost identical situation occurs for polygynous as monogamous marriages and the first are not mentioned while the second are, I would say that would be "downplaying" plural marriage in that particular instance.I have a problem with using the phrase "sweeping under the rug" because that implies the Church is attempting to completely hide the existence of plural marriage in our past and that is demonstrably not so (references to plural marriage occur in a variety of manuals and on the Church's main website to begin with.) Also it implies that the Church looks on that past as 'dirty' and I have seen no evidence that it does so, in fact when discussed it is discussed with respect and honour in my experiences over the years. Link to comment
DanGB Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 I have no problem with using the term "downplay" in general and "distancing itself" when it comes to specific instances such as the current practice of polygyny. When the almost identical situation occurs for polygynous as monogamous marriages and the first are not mentioned while the second are, I would say that would be "downplaying" plural marriage in that particular instance.I have a problem with using the phrase "sweeping under the rug" because that implies the Church is attempting to completely hide the existence of plural marriage in our past and that is demonstrably not so (references to plural marriage occur in a variety of manuals and on the Church's main website to begin with.) Also it implies that the Church looks on that past as 'dirty' and I have seen no evidence that it does so, in fact when discussed it is discussed with respect and honour in my experiences over the years.Cal,No disrespect intended, but there is ample evidence of it. I have in front of me at this minute the Church's "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church" manuals for BY (1997) and for JS (2007). As you know, these are both several hundred pages in content. Both attempt to provide historic accounts and teachings of the two Prophets with timelines to their lives and key events. The JS manual gives a grand allotment of one sentence, a novel of 11 words to the subject of plural marriage!And in the BY manual we find out that BY had one wife and 5 children!I don't have as muchof a problem as our Church obviously does . I just don't think we should be afraid to acknowledge and accept the obvious attitude of the Church towards this history. If there was a rug big enough I do believe the Church today would prefer a "sweep under". I say this in honesty to myself first and foremost. Link to comment
thews Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 In decrying the fact that plural marriage does not get more attention in official Church fora (Sunday lessons, pulpit sermons, etc.) I think Senator may be misreading the matter. I think he believes that the Brethren are ashamed of it. On the contrary, I think it more likely that they are protective of a very sacred principle and commandment that was given to the covenant people of God for a temporary period and for his own purposes, as it had been in times past, and that the Church leaders are loath to see it misunderstood and defiled, as it surely would be and has been by the adversaries of the restored gospel and by certain schismatic groups who have acted in defiance of the revealed directive from God that the practice be ended, and have adulterated it by the manner in which they have continued to practice it. You use the words "sacred" to imply the arranged marriages of young girls aged 14 and 15 to old men was "sacred"...? You also state it was "temporary" and a commandment. If this was true, they why is it not practiced today? The logic behind this is, is that it was God's will to introduce polygamy. Since God is perfect, what God wanted then as "sacred" and good then should be "sacred" and good now. The points you fail to see IMO are from the wifes of the Mormons who came home on day with the word that Joseph Smith had a vision of a flaming sword, and they we "commanded" to take on more than one wife. As a man, i can see how you feel this is "sacred," but from a woman's perspective, it's quite different. It was the reason many people left the church. I, for one, have expressed gratitude and honor for our Latter-day Saint forebears for their faithfulness and courage in obeying this very difficult commandment. Would you use "honor" and "gratitude" and "faithfulness" and "courage" to describe how Joseph Smith deceived his wife as described in the letter to Sarah Ann Whitney? Are these the words you'd pick to describe a man (Joseph Smith) marrying a 17 year old girl (she had just turned 17) behind his wife's back? And, on more than one occasion on this board, including very recently, I have expressed the conviction that the command to practice it was necessary for the Church to reach critical mass in numbers whereby it could survive oppression and be poised to fulfill the mission to carry the gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. So, in using your logic, polygamy was "required" to reach the numbers required to sustain it. I supposed this is then God's will that love has nothing to do with marriage?Finally, Senator is by no means unique in having ancestors who practiced plural marriage. I dare say that nearly everyone these days who has Mormon pioneer ancestry has at least one genealogical line stemming from a polygamous marriage. That demonstrates the scriptural verity that the Lord instituted it to raise up seed unto Him -- by relatively quickly establishing numerous such lines into which spirits could be born into mortality and reared in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. [/quot]I come from this "seed" too, but I don't believe it was God's will that love had nothing to do with marriage.If we are not calling for an exhaustive discussion of it as an integral part of Church curricula, that does not necessarily mean we are ashamed of its place in our history and heritage.Really... is that why threads are closed in here when ploygamy is brought up? Are you really "proud" of this? Link to comment
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Since God is perfect, what God wanted then as "sacred" and good then should be "sacred" and good now.Now you're trying to kill both God and His Church. I'll attemp to illustrate with something I posted elsewhere about a week ago:God, as any good parent and wise teacher, wishes to adjust continually His interactions with his people to meet their immediate circumstances. This continual fine tuning is a large part of what keeps the Church 'alive' because the Church is like a complex organism which, when healthy, perpetually adapts to meet its environment. Regardless of the actual temperature of the air around it, to craft an analogy, it is able to speed up or slow down metabolism, rate of perspiration, rate of breathing, heartrate, digestion, etc., in order to maintain a perfect 37C temperature. Stability in an organism is produced not by stasis of process but specifically by the ability of thousands of functions to be in a continual state of flux. So it is in the Church.Ironically, it is precisely this life-giving flux and growth which drives so many apostates and other critics of the Church right up the wall. Link to comment
Calm Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 We just need to be honesty ,objective and candid about this attitude amongst ourselves.Since you apparently have defined honesty here as accepting the claim that the leadership is "sweeping polygamy under the rug" with all that implies, I find it troubling that those of us who don't accept the extreme nature of this claim, seeing it as more downplaying in that some information is given out in most often a general sense but also specifics in the Church History Institute manual for example, are apparently being dishonest in some fashion in your opinion. Link to comment
Calm Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 from a woman's perspective, it's quite different Are you a woman, thews? Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted November 2, 2009 Author Share Posted November 2, 2009 You use the words "sacred" to imply the arranged marriages of young girls aged 14 and 15 to old men was "sacred"...?I apply the word "sacred" to anything commanded and sanctioned by God. You also state it was "temporary" and a commandment. If this was true, they why is it not practiced today?You might profit from checking a dictionary definition of temporary. And God does give commandments that can be characterized as temporary. Think animal sacrifice. Think circumcision. The logic behind this is, is that it was God's will to introduce polygamy. Since God is perfect, what God wanted then as "sacred" and good then should be "sacred" and good now.We've been over this. The passage in Jacob indicates that God will at times institute plural marriage to "raise up seed." Otherwise, the default is monogamy. The points you fail to see IMO are from the wifes of the Mormons who came home on day with the word that Joseph Smith had a vision of a flaming sword, and they we "commanded" to take on more than one wife.Some of whom left journal entries indicating they themselves came to terms with it and gained a testimony it was from God. I think it presumptuous of you to try to speak in their behalf and contradict their testimonies. As a man, i can see how you feel this is "sacred," but from a woman's perspective, it's quite different.I reject the implied insult that my belief in this sacred principle is because of my gender. I have no desire to practice plural marriage myself or to see it reintroduced. I accept the commandments of God. That's the long and short of it. Furthermore, there are are a number of women on this very board who understand that the commandment came from God, though they, like I, have no desire to see it re-introduced in the Church. Are you saying they are incapable of a "woman's perspective"? It was the reason many people left the church. People give a lot of different reasons for leaving the Church. It doesn't make the Church false or their excuses valid.Would you use "honor" and "gratitude" and "faithfulness" and "courage" to describe how Joseph Smith deceived his wife as described in the letter to Sarah Ann Whitney? Are these the words you'd pick to describe a man (Joseph Smith) marrying a 17 year old girl (she had just turned 17) behind his wife's back? I use those words to describe any circumstance where all the pertinent facts can be ascertained and where men and women have exerted their best efforts to obey the commandments of God.So, in using your logic, polygamy was "required" to reach the numbers required to sustain it. I supposed this is then God's will that love has nothing to do with marriage?That is not a valid application of my reasoning. I have no idea how you came up with it.My understanding was that love was very much a part of plural marriages. A real tragedy was how often an oppressive federal government endeavored to disrupt and dissolve loving domestic relationships in territorial Utah.Really... is that why threads are closed in here when ploygamy is brought up? Are you really "proud" of this?I don't formulate or enforce board policy. But from my observation, threads are closed when uncomprehending people begin to apply vile and abusive terms to the Lord's servants and to his commandments.I would also point out that this very thread, which I started three days ago and which has plural marriage as the direct topic, is still going strong. Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted November 3, 2009 Author Share Posted November 3, 2009 Quote from JaybearGBH condemns it, and said its not doctrinal.CFR that President Hinckley said such a thing regarding those within the LDS Church who practiced plural marriage prior to the issuance of the Manifesto.You have egregiously distorted President Hinckley's words. And we have been thus been jaybeared yet again.Just noting here that Jaybear never returned to this thread to respond to this CFR. From Jaybear's silence, I conclude that he does not deny that he distorted President Hinckley's meaning and mischaracterized his words. Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted November 4, 2009 Author Share Posted November 4, 2009 Just noting here that Jaybear never returned to this thread to respond to this CFR. From Jaybear's silence, I conclude that he does not deny that he distorted President Hinckley's meaning and mischaracterized his words.I just noticed that Jaybear is posting on the thread about the gay marriage vote in Maine. I thought I would top this to see how he is coming on that CFR. Of course if he wants to sweep under the rug the matter of his out-of-context citation of Gordon B. Hinckley, that would be understandable. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.