Valerie Hudson'S Talk At Fair Conference

[Scott Lloyd]

On a just-closed thread, Pahoran asked if there is a transcript available of Valerie Hudson's address at the FAIR Conference.

I don't know if it's on the FAIR website yet (nearly all FAIR presentations are posted there verbatim eventually) but here is the Deseret News coverage of it by my friend and colleague Joe Walker.

[Calm]

On a just-closed thread, Pahoran asked if there is a transcript available of Valerie Hudson's address at the FAIR Conference.

I don't know if it's on the FAIR website yet (nearly all FAIR presentations are posted there verbatim eventually) but here is the Deseret News coverage of it by my friend and colleague Joe Walker.

There is not a transcript yet (they are working hard on multiple things at FAIR right now....well, most, some of us just talk and talk), but there is an article where she went into more detail, I believe. I posted it in the comments section of Pahoran's profile, give me a second to go get it.

Here it is: http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerPolygamy.html

Edited August 24, 2011 by calmoriah

[baddonkey]

Just wanted to say that I wasn't trying to stir up controversy with the other thread. I just wanted to support Valerie by pointing out how ridiculous the people are who try to discredit her. It really is tabloid trash. I completely agree.

[Scott Lloyd]

There is not a transcript yet (they are working hard on multiple things at FAIR right now....well, most, some of us just talk and talk), but there is an article where she went into more detail, I believe. I posted it in the comments section of Pahoran's profile, give me a second to go get it.

Here it is: http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerPolygamy.html

Thanks for this, Cal. It appears to be pretty much what she said in Sandy. It's nice to have it in written form.

[Calm]

Thanks for this, Cal. It appears to be pretty much what she said in Sandy. It's nice to have it in written form.

I will try and remember to keep an eye out for the transcript if someone else doesn't post it first.

[ERayR]

I too will be watching for the written transcript. I listened to her presentation on live streaming. My reaction at the time was that in places she was reaching and some of her conclusions were somewhat of a stretch. So am waiting for the printed version so that I can study it a bit.

[kolipoki09]

On a just-closed thread, Pahoran asked if there is a transcript available of Valerie Hudson's address at the FAIR Conference.

I don't know if it's on the FAIR website yet (nearly all FAIR presentations are posted there verbatim eventually) but here is the Deseret News coverage of it by my friend and colleague Joe Walker.

This is obviously a biased, ham-fisted article that deliberately overlooks Hudson's "hopeful apostasy" (whatever that means).

[BCSpace]

This is obviously a biased, ham-fisted article that deliberately overlooks Hudson's "hopeful apostasy" (whatever that means).

What it means, and you're welcome to clarify and correct me once you get the transcript, is an apparent lack of addressing the following points:

1) According to Jacob 2:30 plural marriage may be authorized again.

2) The fact that a man can still be sealed to multiple women in this life.

3) The fact that the Church recognizes and does not apologize for previously authorized plural marriages.

All of these point to the possibility of plural marriage being practiced in the afterlife now and in the future. Therefore it is impossible to close the door on such a possibility. The fact that I have pointed out such an apparent lack does NOT mean that I am hoping for the return of plural marriage.

[BCSpace]

I don't know if it's on the FAIR website yet (nearly all FAIR presentations are posted there verbatim eventually) but here is the Deseret News coverage of it by my friend and colleague Joe Walker.

Drawing from language found in the second chapter of Jacob in the Book of Mormon, Hudson said that "when God commands men to marry, usually he commands them to marry monogamously. Sometimes, as Jacob notes, he will command them otherwise. But eventually he always rescinds polygamy and returns his followers to the established pattern of marriage: monogamy."

Hudson also explored the language of the 132nd Section of the Doctrine and Covenants, another book of Mormon scripture. She pointed out that verse 34 is referring to polygamy and why it was introduced at the time of Abraham.

"Verse 36, however, is the great key to understanding what the Lord is trying to tell us about polygamy," she said. In verse 36, the Lord uses the example of Abraham being told to sacrifice his son, Isaac, even though it violated the law, "Thou shalt not kill." Because Abraham did not refuse to obey the Lord's instructions, "it was accounted unto him for righteousness."

"Because Abraham obeyed an exceptional commandment of God and departed from the law, it was 'accounted unto him for righteousness,'" Hudson said. "But that obedience did not turn the departure from the law into the law … The Lord relieves Abraham from the exceptional commandment. The joy that comes from being obedient is replaced by the overwhelming joy of returning to the original commandment — the rule, not the exception."

That's better. I do still have a minor disagreement but I do withdraw my hasty accusation of hopeful apostasy. Am used to combating third wave and higher feminism which is contrary to the Gospel and the initial reports of this talk sounded exactly like it; probably because it was reported by sympathizers of such. My apologies.

Edited August 25, 2011 by BCSpace

[kolipoki09]

That's better. I do still have a minor disagreement but I do withdraw my hasty accusation of hopeful apostasy.

[Deborah]

All of these point to the possibility of plural marriage being practiced in the afterlife now and in the future. Therefore it is impossible to close the door on such a possibility. The fact that I have pointed out such an apparent lack does NOT mean that I am hoping for the return of plural marriage.

And Valerie did not say otherwise. Her point was unless it is authorized monogamy is and always has been the standard. Those who advocate it where it is not authorized are in speaking contrary to the commandment.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's better. I do still have a minor disagreement but I do withdraw my hasty accusation of hopeful apostasy. Am used to combating third wave and higher feminism which is contrary to the Gospel and the initial reports of this talk sounded exactly like it; probably because it was reported by sympathizers of such. My apologies.

I invite you to take a look at the link calmoriah provided. I just glanced at it, but it appears to me to be pretty much identical to what Hudson presented at the FAIR Conference.

[BCSpace]

All of these point to the possibility of plural marriage being practiced in the afterlife now and in the future. Therefore it is impossible to close the door on such a possibility. The fact that I have pointed out such an apparent lack does NOT mean that I am hoping for the return of plural marriage.

And Valerie did not say otherwise. Her point was unless it is authorized monogamy is and always has been the standard. Those who advocate it where it is not authorized are in speaking contrary to the commandment.

This is where I differ with her, though she does make a good case (as good as my evolution hypothesis) that plural marriage is required only as a sacrifice for certain times and peoples, and though she does not say it (as far as I can tell) outright that plural marriage will not be practiced in the eternities, I think her hypothesis gives the impression that it will not, or at least not be required or authorized for us, when there is no evidence that it will not.

It was interesting at sacrament meeting last week during one of the talks in which the good sister mentioned her father being sealed to several women. What is to become of them in the afterlife? If plural marriage is a sacrifice only for certain times and peoples, then it is still applicable to us today. I know those who are opposed to or repulsed by plural marriage hope they are not together, but there is no evidence for them being split up. Like it or not, to be doctrinally consistent, plural marriage is currently a fact of life and the afterlife.

I am not hoping for plural marriage to return in full. I am merely trying to be doctrinally consistent.

[BCSpace]

I invite you to take a look at the link calmoriah provided. I just glanced at it, but it appears to me to be pretty much identical to what Hudson presented at the FAIR Conference.

I shall avail myself of it.

[Calm]

I think her hypothesis gives the impression that it will not, or at least not be required or authorized for us, when there is no evidence that it will not.

There is a huge difference between it being required and it being available to those love and righteously married more than one individual in their lifetime.

If it is heaven, how can it be required for those who do not desire it (and what loving husband or wife would choose an additional mate if their spouse did not desire them to do so?)

I know those who are opposed to or repulsed by plural marriage hope they are not together

I have never heard any LDS who was personally opposed to or even repulsed by plural marriage express any hope about anyone being "not together" except in their own personal cases. They've appeared perfectly happy, though bewildered, about someone else choosing it, just concerned about someone being forced to do so.

I have heard a very few exLDS state that they wouldn't want to associate with anyone in a plural marriage but since they no longer believed in the CK anyway.....

Edited August 25, 2011 by calmoriah

[BCSpace]

There is a huge difference between it being required and it being available to those love and righteously married more than one individual in their lifetime.

If it is heaven, how can it be required for those who do not desire it (and what loving husband or wife would choose an additional mate if their spouse did not desire them to do so?)

I've never seen it as any general requirement for salvation and that is not what I'm referring to. But certainly some have been required and it is required for their salvation purely as a matter of personal obedience.

I know those who are opposed to or repulsed by plural marriage hope they are not together

I have never heard any LDS who was personally opposed to or even repulsed by plural marriage express any hope about anyone being "not together" except in their own personal cases.

I am constantly seeing and hearing, mostly on message boards and blogs, the notion among some LDS that plural marriage and the ban were mistakes. That's not a doctrinally consistent or even believing position to take.

[ERayR]

There is a huge difference between it being required and it being available to those love and righteously married more than one individual in their lifetime.

If it is heaven, how can it be required for those who do not desire it (and what loving husband or wife would choose an additional mate if their spouse did not desire them to do so?)

I have never heard any LDS who was personally opposed to or even repulsed by plural marriage express any hope about anyone being "not together" except in their own personal cases. They've appeared perfectly happy, though bewildered, about someone else choosing it, just concerned about someone being forced to do so.

I have heard a very few exLDS state that they wouldn't want to associate with anyone in a plural marriage but since they no longer believed in the CK anyway.....

As I stated erlier I am waiting to avail my self of the printed copy of Valeri Hudson's presentation because listening to it I sensed a personal animus toward polygamy.

[Calm]

As I stated erlier I am waiting to avail my self of the printed copy of Valeri Hudson's presentation because listening to it I sensed a personal animus toward polygamy.

Do you think this is common among those who challenge the idea of plural marriage in the eternities?

If so, do you think it equally common that those who support the idea have a personal sympathy toward polygamy?

[ERayR]

Do you think this is common among those who challenge the idea of plural marriage in the eternities?

I really don't know. I would think that there are those who challenge the idea for reasons other than animus. However, I would suspect that to deny it as an eternal principle it must be at least a little disturbing to them.

If so, do you think it equally common that those who support the idea have a personal sympathy toward polygamy?

Some most certainly would have a personal sympathy towards polygamy but there would be others who would support it because they believe it is an eternal principle which doesn't preclude possibility of a mixture of both.

[Deborah]

I really don't know. I would think that there are those who challenge the idea for reasons other than animus. However, I would suspect that to deny it as an eternal principle it must be at least a little disturbing to them.

No one is denying it as an "eternal" principle. The argument is whether it will be a "requirement" which seems to be no.

[ERayR]

No one is denying it as an "eternal" principle. The argument is whether it will be a "requirement" which seems to be no.

I understand that the only requirements in that regard is marriage period. In the few serious discussions I have had on this topic I don't know of anyone who believes anything in the Celestial Kingdom is mandantory.

Edited August 26, 2011 by ERayR

[Calm]

I really don't know. I would think that there are those who challenge the idea for reasons other than animus. However, I would suspect that to deny it as an eternal principle it must be at least a little disturbing to them.

Do you think that people who deny that circumcision is an eternal principle in the same sense must be disturbed by the idea or do you think it's just possible they don't see the need.

[ERayR]

Do you think that people who deny that circumcision is an eternal principle in the same sense must be disturbed by the idea or do you think it's just possible they don't see the need.

I haven't given that any thought. I wasn't aware that circumcision was an eternal principle. It is not something most males have a choice in.

[Calm]

I haven't given that any thought. I wasn't aware that circumcision was an eternal principle. It is not something most males have a choice in.

It was taught as an eternal principle (we teach it as required when commanded by the Lord and thus it is an eternal principle, now no longer required by the Lord as its purpose was fulfilled) i n the Old Testament.

Men only don't have a choice if it was performed on them as children. If in the next life, men receive bodies that are perfect, this likely includes in my view no more circumcision...thus providing every man the chance to choose whether or not to obey that particular eternal principle or not in the next life.

I now anticipate a discussion on how men are so looking forward to this opportunity to obey the Lord's Will in all things, especially this.

Edited August 26, 2011 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

It was taught as an eternal principle (we teach it as required when commanded by the Lord and thus it is an eternal principle, now no longer required by the Lord as its purpose was fulfilled) i n the Old Testament.

Men only don't have a choice if it was performed on them as children. If in the next life, men receive bodies that are perfect, this likely includes in my view no more circumcision...thus providing every man the chance to choose whether or not to obey that particular eternal principle or not in the next life.

I now anticipate a discussion on how men are so looking forward to this opportunity to obey the Lord's Will in all things, especially this.

As I said I never gave circumcision much thought in relation to doctrine and I really don't dwell on polygamy either.

I don't expect to have to make any decisions in that regard so it is a moot point for me.

Edited August 26, 2011 by ERayR