Polyandry Questions And Comments

[Calm]

What is it that allows some of you to simply lay these things aside without them bothering you in the least? I get the testimony answer but there has to be other factors too in how you see things and in how you handle difficult issues.

I've never idealized church leaders perhaps....

And if I feel negative about something, I go looking for answers before I draw conclusions.

Edited July 6, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Another reasonable explanation:

God authorized polygamy for reasons we don't really understand. It was a failed experiment because the people didn't have enough faith.

Or it accomplished what God wanted it to accomplish so it didn't need to continue (ie. a successful "experiment"). Edited July 6, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Here is the testimony of Prescendia Buell:

On June 27, 1859, Presendia and several friends climbed Ensign Peak to commemorate the death of her second husband, Joseph Smith. “We offered up our prayers to God and thanks that He had raised up a prophet in these last days and the Gospel had been restored to the earth, and that we had been of the few that had received the truth”

http://www.wivesofjo...ingtonBuell.htm

How can I find fault here? Her testimony was strong that it was a correct principle and enjoyed her life knowing that. And obviously it was known that Joseph had multiple wives and some were married.

why me, I know that is an easy one stop website, but it would be better to use it to search for the full quotes elsewhere and link to the originals if possible as they've done some down and dirty editing in some of their pages.

[Calm]

When determining how to represent the truth, the Church should probably take its marching orders from its own Church approved and correlated Gospel Essentials lessons

From Gospel Essentials manual lesson 31 (selectively cut, pasted, and bolded by me but it doesn’t change the message being conveyed by the lesson) - We can intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest. Complete honesty is necessary for our salvation. The devil is the father of lies. Those who choose to cheat and lie and deceive and misrepresent become his slaves. The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty and we will have to account for our lies. People use many excuses for being dishonest. People lie to protect themselves and to have others think well of them. These excuses and many more are given as reasons for dishonesty. To the Lord, there are no acceptable reasons. To become completely honest, we must look carefully at our lives. If there are ways in which we are being even the least bit dishonest, we should repent of them immediately.

I would love for someone to ask the author of that section about whether or not he would have told the truth when asked the location of an abused wife that was hiding by the abusing husband, especially if it was clear that if he just refused to answer the husband would be able to figure out where she was---or was threatening the life of his own wife if he didn't tell---and it was only by convincing the husband through lying that he had no knowledge of her whereabouts that the location would not be given away.

However, it is hard to teach honesty in simple terms while getting into hypothetically complex situations so it is understandable why he did it even though it doesn't even match the scriptures.

Edited July 6, 2012 by calmoriah

[cinepro]

And yet, these women received powerful witnesses that it was a true principle, which is why they eventually said yes. How to explain those powerful spiritual experiences when these women prayed about the principle?

Except for the ones who didn't.

[Closet Doubter]

I would love for someone to ask the author of that section about whether or not he would have told the truth when asked the location of an abused wife that was hiding by the abusing husband, especially if it was clear that if he just refused to answer the husband would be able to figure out where she was---or was threatening the life of his own wife if he didn't tell---and it was only by convincing the husband through lying that he had no knowledge of her whereabouts that the location would not be given away.

However, it is hard to teach honesty in simple terms while getting into hypothetically complex situations so it is understandable why he did it even though it doesn't even match the scriptures.

I'm trying to understand what you are saying. Are you saying that we shouldn't beleive the correlated lessons we get in Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society because they were written by a person? If so, what does correlation do for us? I thought the purpose was to make sure the information presented in the lessons was true.

[why me]

why me, I know that is an easy one stop website, but it would be better to use it to search for the full quotes elsewhere and link to the originals if possible as they've done some down and dirty editing in some of their pages.

I know. I am doing some editing of their pages myself when I link from there. But I am hoping that those who read the excerpts will do their own searching too by using the excerpts when searching for more information from the quotations.

[why me]

I thought the purpose was to make sure the information presented in the lessons was true.

I think that the problem is simple: not much time in meetings to discuss and learn much at all. How many pages should a manual be when it will be used for a year or two? And how much information should be in there? You do understand that critics will never be satisfied with the manual and with what is taught. There will always be something missing from history or doctrine that the critics wish to be in the manuals. And they will still claim a coverup. It will be a never ending process.

The manuals are written by people and these people are not perfect. And we should understand that when we criticize the manuals etc for leaving this or that out, the people behind the manuals are just doing their jobs.

Edited July 6, 2012 by why me

[KevinG]

Except for the ones who didn't.

...and yet their agency was respected. Despite the woman who jumped in the Great Salt Lake from the window of the Mormon Temple when Brigham tried to seal her against her will.

[Calm]

I'm trying to understand what you are saying. Are you saying that we shouldn't beleive the correlated lessons we get in Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society because they were written by a person? If so, what does correlation do for us? I thought the purpose was to make sure the information presented in the lessons was true.

No, I am saying quite simply that in this case I disagree with the writer. (Of course it is written by a person, who else could have written it?)

Correlation helps encourage accuracy, but I don't believe in inerrancy, even for correlated manuals. If I was the one who wrote the manual, I am certain I would make an error somewhere as well and am certain there would still be others who disagreed with what I wrote even in cases where I was right.

Tell me CD, if your family were subjected to a home invasion and your children and wife were hiding in the house, would you tell the person threatening you with a gun when he asked you where they were that they were in the basement behind the shelves or would you tell them they had gone to the grandparents for the weekend? Or some variation? Understanding that if you didn't answer they would likely search the house while there was a chance they might not if you could convince them otherwise.

Would you lie to save your family's life?

Edited July 6, 2012 by calmoriah

[Thinking]

Question 1. How long were you in the church when you encountered this historical issue?

Question 2. What age were you when you encountered it?

I was raised LDS. I leaned about polyandry in my 30’s.

Question 3. Did this challenge your testimony? Is it still a challenge?

My testimony was already challenged.

Question 4. What ways would have been better in your mind for you to have encountered this?

I don’t think there is a good way to learn about polyandry.

Question 5. Would it have been more beneficial for you if this issue and others were more readily available within church resources to encounter and wrap your head around prior to your discovery in some other place?

The first challenges to my testimony were from church sources, so one more challenging topic could have hastened the loss of my testimony.

Question 6. Would you find value in training local lay leaders in handling this issue or others that members find as a testimony struggle so that leaders would more readily be able to handle faith crisis issues and better be able to understand the struggle some members have?

This question is irrelevant since I don’t believe the LDS Church’s truth claims.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Thinking

[rpn]

I was in my adult years. And everyone should have encountered it when we learned about Wilford Woodruff's revelation of the 1890's in RS/Priesthood several years ago --- the one in which the church was told that they were doing sealings wrong and that families were supposed to be sealed together, not to people outside our families http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/36315_eng.pdf?lang=eng p. xxxiii and xxxiv