thesometimesaint Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Palerider:But it IS the doctrine of the church. It has never been rescinded as doctrine or denounced. The class is called "Gospel Doctrine". So teach it.Yes it is. Moreover it also the doctrine of the Church that it is practiced ONLY by Gods' command. Monogamy is the default position.
Libs Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Why? Plural marriage is no longer a practice of the church.Because, this has been an issue and a stumbling block for many, many of the ex/inactive LDS that I have talked with, and even for some who are still in the church. Plural marriage was a BIG part of the history of this church and is still a part of the doctrine. It really needs to be talked about and understood.
KevinG Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Because, this has been an issue and a stumbling block for many, many of the ex/inactive LDS that I have talked with, and even for some who are still in the church. Plural marriage was a BIG part of the history of this church and is still a part of the doctrine. It really needs to be talked about and understood."talked about" and "understood" are two different things. I learned and studied as much as I could but didn't really understand it until I took my concerns and questions to God.Sometimes I think too many Saints are waiting for understanding to be spoon fed instead of being willing to work for the answers to their questions. 2
Palerider Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 You continue to unwittingly make my case. The gospel is about coming to Christ and becoming like him. "Truth" is but one of several means to achieving that end, though only in so far as those "truths" are relevant to that end. Not all "truths" will free us from chains of sin and spiritual death and free us to become like Christ. In fact, some "truths" may distract us from that end, and perhaps enslave us in counterproductive obsessions--as the case may be. This is a "truth" that you seem incapable of getting--which is, in part, why you and others like you haven't been called to the important task of constructing the curriculum for the Church. This is a position which needs to be filled by people who know what they are doing and know what the Church is all about.Thanks, -Wade Englund-Nice trip through the weeds there.....But you're right I must not have been home that night when they called...too bad eh?
KevinG Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Nice trip through the weeds there.....But you're right I must not have been home that night when they called...too bad eh?When God calls many are out to lunch. D&C121:34 Behold, there are many acalled, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? 35 Because their ahearts are set so much upon the things of thisbworld, and caspire to the dhonors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson— 3
Palerider Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 "talked about" and "understood" are two different things. I learned and studied as much as I could but didn't really understand it until I took my concerns and questions to God.Sometimes I think too many Saints are waiting for understanding to be spoon fed instead of being willing to work for the answers to their questions.Want a prophecy? Here, I'll give you one.As long as the LDS church refuses to openly discuss the doctrine and historical backdrop of plural marriage in their regularly appointed Sunday curriculum, they will continue to lose members over this issue.
Palerider Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 When God calls many are out to lunch. D&C121:34 Behold, there are many acalled, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? 35 Because their ahearts are set so much upon the things of thisbworld, and caspire to the dhonors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—Just be sure it's God who's doing the calling......"trust not in the arm of flesh"
KevinG Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Want a prophecy? Here, I'll give you one.As long as the LDS church refuses to openly discuss the doctrine and historical backdrop of plural marriage in their regularly appointed Sunday curriculum, they will continue to lose members over this issue.As long as members continue to depend on the Sunday School curricula and Sacrament meetings alone to spoon feed them every portion of church history, practice and even doctrine they will fall away at the first strong wind of opposition then blame the church for their own apostasy. 2
KevinG Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Just be sure it's God who's doing the calling......"trust not in the arm of flesh"You need not worry about me."I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inqure for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not." (Brigham Young, 9:150) Edited July 23, 2012 by KevinG 2
wenglund Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Nice trip through the weeds there.....But you're right I must not have been home that night when they called...too bad eh?I believe you do yourself a disservice by deluding yourself in this way.But, it is your choice.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Palerider Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Because, this has been an issue and a stumbling block for many, many of the ex/inactive LDS that I have talked with, and even for some who are still in the church. Plural marriage was a BIG part of the history of this church and is still a part of the doctrine. It really needs to be talked about and understood.Thumbs up on that one!
wenglund Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) As long as the LDS church refuses to openly discuss the doctrine and historical backdrop of plural marriage in their regularly appointed Sunday curriculum, they will continue to lose members over this issue.That is a pretty safe prophesy to make since people have been leaving the gospel/Church for the wrong reasons since the gospel/Church was first established on the earth. While their leaving is regrettable (especially for their own sake), it doesn't justify selectively catering to the wrong reasons, particularly at the expense of the right reasons.This is another "truth" that some people have yet to get and be made free thereby. Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited July 23, 2012 by wenglund
Tacenda Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Libs, on 23 July 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:Because, this has been an issue and a stumbling block for many, many of the ex/inactive LDS that I have talked with, and even for some who are still in the church. Plural marriage was a BIG part of the history of this church and is still a part of the doctrine. It really needs to be talked about and understood.Libs, that's it hands down! Anyone who feels so inclined, please check out New Order Mormon's website and check the Introduction segment and scan over all of them that say they had their faith crisis over JS's polygamy, and not being aware of it existing to the degree that it did. That is anybodies CFR, if they happen to disagree. Edited July 23, 2012 by Tacenda 1
KevinG Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 I don't argue against making more balanced and authoritative publications on church history available to members, but that Sacrament and Sunday School are probably not the best venues due to the precious little time we already have to devote to the basics of the Gospel.However, there have been multiple resources for "the rest of the story" available since before the dawn of the internet and people who do not avail themselves of available resources are no more likely to take advantage of newer resources. In fact critics already do their best to perpetuate calumny and define any attempt to defend as mean spirited.The BEST solution is for people to take responsibility for their own learning and take their questions to trusted family, clergy and especially GOD.
Tacenda Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 I don't argue against making more balanced and authoritative publications on church history available to members, but that Sacrament and Sunday School are probably not the best venues due to the precious little time we already have to devote to the basics of the Gospel.However, there have been multiple resources for "the rest of the story" available since before the dawn of the internet and people who do not avail themselves of available resources are no more likely to take advantage of newer resources. In fact critics already do their best to perpetuate calumny and define any attempt to defend as mean spirited.The BEST solution is for people to take responsibility for their own learning and take their questions to trusted family, clergy and especially GOD.I think most of the people will end up going to God, because their clergy and family don't know enough to help them. Sorry for the pessimism.
Calm Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) I think most of the people will end up going to God, because their clergy and family don't know enough to help them. Sorry for the pessimism.How is this a bad thing? Why is this pessimistic instead of optimistic? There are massive amounts of things in life that friends and family and clergy can't help individuals with so they must turn to God for the answers. I personally think God has set things up so that this happens because developing such a relationship with the Lord is of prime importance in our lives....even more important than actually getting answers. Edited July 23, 2012 by calmoriah 2
Libs Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) "talked about" and "understood" are two different things. I learned and studied as much as I could but didn't really understand it until I took my concerns and questions to God.Sometimes I think too many Saints are waiting for understanding to be spoon fed instead of being willing to work for the answers to their questions.That's not really the question, IMO. Of course, it is always good to take these things to God. But, it would also be beneficial to learn about these things from the church (learn, discuss, try to understand, in a prayerful and contemplative environment), instead of being shocked to the core, by learning about it on the internet, from people whose purpose, often, is to shock you...right out of the church. Edited July 23, 2012 by Libs
KevinG Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 That's not really the question, IMO. Of course, it is always good to take these things to God. But, it would also be beneficial to learn about these things from the church (learn, discuss, try to understand, in a prayerful and contemplative environment), instead of being shocked to the core, by learning about it on the internet, from people whose purpose, often, is to shock you...right out of the church.And I contend that the church will always have anti-Mormons who twist and wrest things out of their proper context in order to "shock" people out of the church no matter how well we teach, preach and publicize our history and doctrines. We've done a miserable job of "hiding" our story (books, articles, conferences, DVDs, museums, web sites) and yet there are members who still claim ignorance of basic things about the church. That will never change and while I am all for updating our materials to reflect the needs of the audience and recent scholarly discovery (Joseph Smith papers) the enemies of the church that will not change the basic issues.Ironically if we did use more Sunday School time to teach our history critics would continue to ask why our meetings aren't more centered on Christ.Look no further than this site to see that critics will tar and feather any defender of the faith as meanspirited and evil.I can't blame the church as an institution or our leadership for missing the mark on our curricula and history. Between Sunday meetings, weekday meetings, missionary work, firesides, books, websites, museums, scholarship (BYU and other), archives, member journals, histories, Institute, Seminary... we've covered the field well enough no grown Saint who has been a member very long should be shocked.
Garden Girl Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 I think most of the people will end up going to God, because their clergy and family don't know enough to help them. Sorry for the pessimism.I agree about going to God and laying our challenges at his feet and asking for help through the Spirit...But... I also am fortunate to have faithful home teachers, both of whom are more "intellectual" so to speak, and very well versed in the gospel, church history, etc.... our discussions are quite stimulating (one is also Gospel Doc teacher). They were here this morning, and I always thank them for being so faithful in visiting me... they are my connection with the priesthood. GG
selek1 Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 That's not really the question, IMO. Of course, it is always good to take these things to God. But, it would also be beneficial to learn about these things from the church (learn, discuss, try to understand, in a prayerful and contemplative environment), instead of being shocked to the core, by learning about it on the internet, from people whose purpose, often, is to shock you...right out of the church.You mean instead of from people like yourself, Palerider, and Tacenda?I agree.Palerider is an open and avowed apostate. His goal is to drive people from the Church and (hopefully) into his new Lutheran worldview.Tacenda is looking to justify her apostacy. Her questions have been answered- many times. But because she doesn't like the answer, she keeps returning to the same trough, rooting in the same wallow, looking for tidbits that will salve her itching ears.Your own worldview is informed more by your politics than by religious truths, and you filter what you will accept from God through the lens of what is politically correct.And that's the problem.All of you agree that "the Church needs to do more/better over polygamy"- but none of you has the Church's best interests (or even those of its members) at heart.You each have your own agenda- an agenda that has nothing to do with the Church's mission of promoting Gospel truths.None of you are disinterested or unbiased observers. All of your perceptions are colored by your individual agendas.Since your interests- and (in Palerider's case) methods and standards of honesty- are so wildly divergent from our own, we have no reason to trust your criticisms are valid or legitimate.You are pursuing your agenda, not ours- and seek to do us no good.Why then should we trust your claims or characterizations?You are out of the thread. 1
ERayR Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Want a prophecy? Here, I'll give you one.As long as the LDS church refuses to openly discuss the doctrine and historical backdrop of plural marriage in their regularly appointed Sunday curriculum, they will continue to lose members over this issue.Now I shall prophesy - Even if it is openly discusses they will continue to lose members over this issue. You can count on it.
why me Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Just teach it when the D&C is in rotation and section 132 is being discussed. If that's every 4 years then so be it. Just be thorough."I think that this may be a great idea. The critics will be happy and those who leave the church will have no excuses any more since all history would have been taught to them. No more hiding behind the church hides its history."Truly, I think you're on to something here.The thing is the idea of plurality of wives is in the heading for section 132. The teacher can certainly bring it up during the lesson and also give some background if they wish to. It is there for all the members to read. The teacher can read the summary in the beginning of the section and discuss plurality of wives. No problem.Here is the summary: Section 132Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded 12 July 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, and also the plurality of wives (see History of the Church, 5:501–7). Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.Start with the summary, ask questions, give background and away we go.
why me Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 As long as the LDS church refuses to openly discuss the doctrine and historical backdrop of plural marriage in their regularly appointed Sunday curriculum, they will continue to lose members over this issue.As I just pointed out, the doctrine is in the summary. Any teacher can give background to the summary if they so wish. it is up to the teacher. And since members can read the summary they obviously know that it all began in 1831 because it is in the summary. What is the problem?
selek1 Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Now I shall prophesy - Even if it is openly discusses they will continue to lose members over this issue. You can count on it.And verily I prophesy, that "Even were the Church to fulfill his petulant demands to every jot and tittle, yet shall Palerider sit upon his dark horse and hedge, nitpick, and browbeat the Saints for not being as enlightened as he is. Yeah, verily shall he needlessly trouble and worry the Saints as a dog over his bone until somebody gets fed up and bans his apostate rear-end". Edited July 23, 2012 by selek1
why me Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 As long as members continue to depend on the Sunday School curricula and Sacrament meetings alone to spoon feed them every portion of church history, practice and even doctrine they will fall away at the first strong wind of opposition then blame the church for their own apostasy.This is especially true since plurality of wives is in the D&C summary. Any teacher can teach from the summary in the beginning of the lesson and give all the background they wish. It is up to the teacher to make the lesson interesting. The summary also contains where it is mentioned in the history of the church. I have no idea just where palerider's problem is.
Recommended Posts