Hans H. Mattsson, Area 70 On Mormon Stories

[Rivers]

I can understand why so many people don't realize that JS practiced polygamy. I don't think a lot of members read the D&C all the way through. It is kind of a boring book. Section 132 is quoted often but only to teach eternal marriage in general.

What I find interesting is that so many members don't realize that the Book of Mormon contains historical anomalies. I learned in elementary school that there were no horses in America before Columbus.

[canard78]

I guess I expected more out of my Church.

As strange as it may sound, your best option for getting through this is: "lower your expectations."

I have simply let go of what I thought the model for the "only true and living" church is. I have much lower expectations on the church and give myself much higher expectations. I am my own moral benchmark and try to take my cue from my understanding of my interactions with God. Stop making the church/prophet the middle man. Instead, selectively make them your 'wing man.'

Edited July 24, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

I can understand why so many people don't realize that JS practiced polygamy. I don't think a lot of members read the D&C all the way through. It is kind of a boring book. Section 132 is quoted often but only to teach eternal marriage in general.

What I find interesting is that so many members don't realize that the Book of Mormon contains historical anomalies. I learned in elementary school that there were no horses in America before Columbus.

The prophets repeatedly tell us to read the Book of Mormon - even cover to cover. They've never said as much of the D&C which is mostly seen as a 'dip in' reference book. I've never read it cover to cover.

[canard78]

We don't move up or down in callings, we move around, I doubt Mattsson was one step away from being a GA, it doesn't work like that. There are GAs now who weren't AA70's, even after the calling was created

That's a very fair point. I don't like the 'promotion' aspiration sometimes seen in member attitudes.

I just meant that if someone who is an Area Authority can be unaware of the full extent of Joseph's polygamy then it's not a stretch to think a GA in the second quorum of the 70 would also be unaware of the details of Joseph Smith's polygamy.

[Calm]

You are fond of CFR others so I will CFR you that these materials "have been in circulation for decades."

While the materials he linked to have edition dates of 2002 or so, these are only the latest editions; the texts have been available since at least the early 80s when I bought them at the BYU bookstore, I have all but that edition's BoM text as that was a much thicker book and I was suckered into giving it away to an earnest student who wanted a bit more to help him in his study. Some I believe were around earlier as I am certain they were what I used in the late seventies. Plus I have the previous church history manual that was in use and that has information in all areas of controversy that I am aware of save perhaps polyandry, so that would take it back to early 60's I believe. They don't go into most things in great detail, but it is a good start to a research program, proving a timeline to explore with names and events to dig into. Edited July 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Amazingly uncharitable. My brother's faith crisis is due to a "lack of effort."

I don't read Scott's comment that way. He is speaking generally about only those whose faith crisis is due to a lack of effort, not all who have faith crisis. And it may be due only in a limited way...not making enough of an effort to find enough information out about a troubling problem prior to making a decision about it.

And if they were not committed to research and study enough to find out the level of details that they now want to know, then I would agree it does them no favours to help them think that such level of learning needs to be self directed if it is ever to be accomplished in a well done and informed manner rather than just relying on what others have predigested for you, both in and out of the faith community.

We all have our strengths and scholarship and reading is definitely not one of him.

Then how is it helpful to pretend to him that he won't need to make any changes in his reading process if he truly wants to improve his knowledge?

I learn best by reading or seeing, not by hearing. My Spanish teachers still insisted I just do the same oral lessons that the rest of the students did, lessons that I did well on because by the time I was done with them I knew them by rote....but this was useless for me when presented with a new combination of words that would again sound more like someone was talking backwards than anything that made sense to me. I got an A in the course because I did so well on one thing, it balanced out the other....but I should have gotten a F on the verbal stuff if they had been intent on really teaching me because I wasn't committed enough to figure out a way to learn that worked for me. No favours done there.

Edited July 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[why me]

I can understand why so many people don't realize that JS practiced polygamy. I don't think a lot of members read the D&C all the way through. It is kind of a boring book. Section 132 is quoted often but only to teach eternal marriage in general.

This is true. And of course the lesson manuals do not exactly fill in the gaps. It is mainly used to see what the church was experiencing and what the people were experiencing along with it. And of course early revelations are important. But for example, Marsh is there but not the details about what happened later. It would be great if it were taught that Marsh returned to the church and along with that info read his testimony that he gave to the saints in 1857 when he returned. But that is not done either, I believe. I believe that next week is the liberty jail episode. Wonderful for members to bring in info to make the class interesting. The manual may just be a sleeper.

And section 132 is up to the members. There is nothing wrong if some member would raise their hand and mention polygamy and the emma problem which is in that section. So, the class is just not up to the teacher but also up to the class to make it interesting.

Edited July 24, 2013 by why me

[Tacenda]

This is true. And of course the lesson manuals do not exactly fill in the gaps. It is mainly used to see what the church was experiencing and what the people were experiencing along with it. And of course early revelations are important. But for example, Marsh is there but not the details about what happened later. It would be great if it were taught that Marsh returned to the church and along with that info read his testimony that he gave to the saints in 1857 when he returned. But that is not done either, I believe. I believe that next week is the liberty jail episode. Wonderful for members to bring in info to make the class interesting. The manual may just be a sleeper.

And section 132 is up to the members. There is nothing wrong if some member would raise their hand and mention polygamy and the emma problem which is in that section. So, the class is just not up to the teacher but also up to the class to make it interesting.

How about you test it out first, go into detail too, and let me know how it went. Walk the talk, Why Me.

[Duncan]

That's a very fair point. I don't like the 'promotion' aspiration sometimes seen in member attitudes.

I just meant that if someone who is an Area Authority can be unaware of the full extent of Joseph's polygamy then it's not a stretch to think a GA in the second quorum of the 70 would also be unaware of the details of Joseph Smith's polygamy.

What you are saying reminds me of what Pres. Packer said 29 years ago

"Some time ago I interviewed a young bishop in Brazil. He was twenty-seven years old. I was impressed that he possessed every attribute of a successful Church leader—humility, testimony, appearance, intelligence, spirituality. Here, I thought, is a young man with a great future in the Church.

I asked myself, as I looked at him, “What will his future be? What will we do for him? What will we do to him?” In my mind I outlined the years ahead.

He will be a bishop for perhaps six years, then he will be thirty-three years old. He will then serve eight years on a stake high council and five years as a counselor in the stake presidency. At forty-six he will be called as a stake president. We will release him after six years to become a regional representative, and he will serve for five years. That means he will have spent thirty years as an ideal, the example to follow, the image, the leader.

However, in all that time, he will not have attended three Gospel Doctrine classes in a row, nor will he have attended three priesthood quorum lessons in a row.

Brethren, do you see yourselves in this illustration?

Unless he knew the fundamental principles of the gospel before his call, he will scarcely have time to learn them along the way. Agendas, meetings, and budgets and buildings will take up his time. These things are not usually overlooked.But the principles are overlooked—the gospel is overlooked, the doctrine is overlooked. When that happens, we are in great danger! We see the evidence of it in the Church today."

"Principles" March, 1985 Ensign

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/03/principles?lang=eng

[Krutt]

If by this you mean there was no official divorce, there were practical reasons for that (no officials around to grant it, iirc) and such was no uncommon among frontier communities where often people married and divorced without government involvement due to the lack of government officials to do the honours.

This is not a question if polyandry existed or not. Polyandry did indeed exist in the church. On Nov. 28th 2010, in Stockholm at the fireside for disaffected LDS, Assistant Church Historian Richard E. Turley Jr. said the following: "

Let me just answer some basic questions. Did Joseph Smith practice plural marriage? Yes. Many church members don’t know it but the answer is yes. Did Joseph Smith practice polyandry? The answer is yes. Joseph Smith did practice polyandry. How many wives did Joseph Smith have? We’re in the process, as you know, of preparing the papers of Joseph Smith for publication. We hope to include in the papers of Joseph Smith a list of Joseph Smith’s wives based on the best available evidence. So we’ll answer that question in the future. Why did Joseph Smith marry specific people? Which gets to your question about why did he marry the wives of people were already married? That actually boils down to a marriage by marriage statement. And it’s fairly complex but it’s an excellent question. We just don’t have time tonight to answer it, but there are answers." Church authorities says there are answers, and many members are now waiting for the church to go public with them...

[Ahab]

http://mormonstories.../hans-mattsson/

Intro:

Episode 4 was particularly moving. Mattsson is sincere and heartfelt. His interview is a great way to bring greater understanding to those who sometimes misunderstand members who experience a faith crisis.

He does not rail or snipe. He expressed the hurt and sadness. He has studied this for 8 years, initially motivated out of a desire to help and has discussed it with GAs and church historians without finding a satisfactory answer. He still sees Mormonism as 'a' good way. But not the only 'true and living.'

I highly recommend this to you. Especially episodes 4 and 5.

The reason what we refer to as "Mormonism" is the only true and living way to eternal life is because it is the only true and living body of teachings that make that possible. There are other paths that can get some people part of the way, but when that path comes to a dead end they will need to get on the true path that will take them all of the way. All of the ordinances, for example, which are essential, don't cha know. And those ordinances are available and valid only through what we call "Mormonism" today. It's just that some people don't fully realize or appreciate all that the word "Mormonism" really is and stands for today. It's not just a word, but what it stands for.

[Calm]

Lets just say for the sake of argument that Marsh was mistreated. What would this have to do with the foundation of the church? It may have something to do with human experiences of imperfections. We are all allowed to be human at times. What I find amazing are the criticisms themselves. I can only imagine just what critics of catholicism could do with the treatment by the popes, cardinals, etc. on other people. But what would that have to do with the foundational claims of the catholic church? Not much.

However Marsh came back to the church in 1857 and this is what he said about his falling away:

After Marsh’s arrival in Salt Lake City in September 1857, Brigham Young allowed him to address the Saints. In a weakened voice, Marsh explained his apostasy and asked for forgiveness:

I have frequently wanted to know how my apostacy began, and I have come to the conclusion that I must have lost the Spirit of the Lord out of my heart.

The next question is, ‘How and when did you lose the Spirit?’ I became jealous of the Prophet, and then I saw double, and overlooked everything that was right, and spent all my time in looking for the evil; and then, when the Devil began to lead me, it was easy for the carnal mind to rise up, which is anger, jealousy, and wrath. I could feel it within me; I felt angry and wrathful; and the Spirit of the Lord being gone, as the Scriptures say, I was blinded, ... I got mad, and I wanted everybody else to be mad.23

http://history.lds.o...-marsh?lang=eng

He returned. He repented. Lets move on.

His own words should be the centrepiece of his story. His and Symonds Ryder's should be removed as the example because there is much more to the story than those and those offensives as far as I can tell did not begin their path down the road, but other things...they may have contributed, as often little things do once we are upset about something, but they were not what began their issues. If so, we need to be more careful how we use their stories...Marsh's could be a good one to teach repentance as any others' that show an apostate returning in humility to the faith.

But it seems to me the curriculum department wants a historical story that demonstrates that the path to apostasy can begin with the littlest of things so that we develop a habit of being on guard against negative thoughts and distractions and to focus on the positive, especially in our interactions with each other...not a bad thing in itself psychologically speaking, but they need to find one where this actually occurred. Probably a difficult task because people don't usually make the petty issue that began it all (if that is what happened to them) the centre of their discussion of 'why I left'.

Perhaps the historians can come up with a better alternative to teach this principle now more stories are known and we can dispense with this time honored but inaccurate portrayal.

[Questing Beast]

What do you do when you reach a gate where you need certain ordinances to pass by?

At that point, precisely, I will admit that I have been mistaken, and corrections will be made as needed.

The entire notion of ordinances required is just another manifestation of Judeo-Christianity's fetish with physical, outward signs of compliance. Ironically, "God looks on the inner vessel" is also taught alongside the "necessity" of "saving ordinances". But the outward vessel is more important to a mortal organization than the inner vessel which only "God" can see....

[oremites]

... the emma problem which is in that section. ...

What Emma problem?

[Teancum]

I have a friend who is a blue-collar worker and failed small business owner who admitted to me that he doesn't read books or newspapers, that he dislikes it, and had to drop out of college because he didn't like to read. He has two siblings who are college professors, one of whom is extremely knowledgeable about the Church. All three are active church members. Some people read; some don't.

Even a very modest amount of reading about the Church would reveal controversies about Joseph Smith's polygamy, the blacks and the priesthood and many issues. During the Mark Hoffman affair, I learned of some new controversies merely by reading the Los Angeles Times.

Until I started buying books from Amazon, almost all of what I learned about controversies in the church came from books I bought at church bookstores, or BYU. I bought Metcalf's "New Approaches" from the BYU Bookstore. I learned that a church temple site pre-dated Kirtland from a book I bought at the BYU bookstore. (Wood, Joseph Smith Begins His Work, etc.)

I say this to tell you that even a very modest amount of reading would have inoculuated your shocked friends and family members from basic controversies.

A close reading of the New Testament also reveals a lot of disaffection in the early church. I imagine people left after witnessing the miracles because they were shocked by the church's controversial doctrines and history; the Lord's institution of the eucharist is an example.

Further, the Doctrine & Covenants reveals that the Church has a mandate to maintain a faithful history for the world to read, but there is no obligation to intepret it through the re-telling of it. Arrington talks in his biography about the massive controversial library the Church maintains for researchers, but he seemed to have been criticized for using church resources to publish histories rather than doing the job for what he was called. I say this to indicate that the Church's preaching of the gospel does not require that it preach about teachings which are no longer relevant to know. Yet, viritually everything controversialyou want to read about may be found by visiting the Church's archives; it hides almost nothing (disciplinary, personnel and temple matters are usually withheld).

Your posts are not unusual, but I fault your friends for not being a little better read. It isn't that I lack compassion; it is that I wonder if there is a reason for books in the first place if people don't want to read them.

That is all fine and fair and yes people should read. And it seems when they do and are shocked they are criticized for not reading on their own. That does not make sense. When should they have started an extensive study of ancillary sources? Before baptism? Before ordination as a deacon for boys? Before a mission?

I have read on these topics extensively since my mission days. Not so much before. Even then I did not run into some of the contreversial issues such as polyandry until later down the road.

So should I be faulted for not reading more in depth as a teen or pre mission days? Perhaps. I guess the Church takes a buyer beware attitude. If I sell you a life insurance policy or an annuity or some other financial product the burden is on me as the seller and advisor to make sure I disclose all the information you need to know to make an informed purchase. Plus I have to give your literature that further discloses information about the product. If I am a good advisor I want to be sure you understand what you are buying and if I sense you do not I may advise you not to buy it.

But not so with the Church. Rather all the defenders think it is quite fine for the church to simply portray a faith promoting story. And it further in the past at least has discouraged its investigators or members from pursuing information that is critical of the Church.

So know Bob I don't buy that it is simply the all the fault of the disaffected member. The Church does not and never had volunteered or disclosed information that might cause members to question whether they really buy into the truth claims it has made. Sure members can find it on their own but often don't until they have made major commitments and those at a young age for members born into an LDS family.

[Questing Beast]

...Just saying each of us should take some measure of personal responsibility, and if we find our knowledge deficient in some respect or another, not to cast around for others to blame.

"The most important thing to learn in this life is, who to blame." (direct quote, bro-in-law)

Humor aside, there is truth to that little maxim. "God" Is the One to blame. If religion is as hard as it is turning out to be, then somebody definitely dropped the ball as I was growing up Mormon. "Search the scriptures daily, ponder them always, pray continually". It will all turn out right. Nothing was said about history. Nothing was ever said about needing to be a scholar. Or good at reading even. All you had to do was ask God and he would answer. Sincere heart is all that is required.

And now you discover that your whole life has been in a paradigm where none of that is adequate. And somebody still believing has the lack of sensitivity to assert boldly that "not enough effort" has been expended, and that the fault is the person's who has discovered great difficulties with his religious world view, upon which his "testimony" was founded. Take away the religious world view, replace it with a different (jarring) one, and the fault is not the person's who was a believer and is now a great doubter. If "God" set it up this way, then the blame goes straight to "God".

If men set it up this way, then we can blame the men. I blame the men for misguiding the other men, who learned to misguide from the men preceding them, and inculcated religion of the dogmatic variety from generations that went before. "God" works with all that we make of the world. But that does not mean that "God" insists on a singular "way" and defines all others as "abominable creeds" or not part of "the only true and living church on the earth in which I am well pleased"....

[Calm]

And section 132 is up to the members. There is nothing wrong if some member would raise their hand and mention polygamy and the emma problem which is in that section. So, the class is just not up to the teacher but also up to the class to make it interesting.

Here is the section on the Manifesto, that mentions that it continued to be practiced. I think it should mention that leadership first expected to be able to practiced in outside of the US and even later some of those members were high ranking church officials including two apostles, IIRC, that got excommunicated, but that could easily be added to the info already there without going off topic.

http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-student-study-guide/the-church-moves-west/official-declaration-1-and-excerpts-from-three-addresses---the-lord-ends-the-practice-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng

The seminary teacher's manual can provide the information for the D&C SS lesson to a great extent:

http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-resource-manual/nauvoo-period/doctrine-and-covenants-132?lang=eng

President Joseph F. Smith, who was then a counselor in the First Presidency, wrote that the “principle of plural marriage was first revealed to Joseph Smith in 1831, but being forbidden to make it public, or to teach it as a doctrine of the Gospel, at that time, he confided the facts to only a very few of his intimate associates” (in “Plural Marriage,” in Andrew Jenson, comp., Historical Record, 9 vols. [1882–90], 6:219). The Prophet taught the principle privately, and by 1841–42 he and several trusted Church members were living it (seeChurch History in the Fulness of Times, p. 256). Section 132 was recorded in 1843, but the Church did not announce the doctrine of plural marriage publically until 1852.

Note: Avoid sensationalism and speculation when talking about plural marriage. Sometimes teachers speculate that plural marriage will be a requirement for all who enter the celestial kingdom [one could easily add here the quote from BY that an individual was required to live the principle in his heart, but not necessarily in reality if not commanded to do so]. We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation.

Write on the board Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joseph Smith, andBrigham Young. Tell students that they can ask 10 yes-or-no questions to determine what these prophets had in common that relates to Doctrine and Covenants 132. (They all practiced plural marriage.)

Through the observations of Senator Smoot and other prominent Latter-day Saints in the East, the First Presidency learned that the general populace of the United States perceived Church leaders as trying to circumvent the law. They were accused of not being serious in their efforts to end plural marriage. On 6 April 1904, after deliberation and prayer and in response to these allegations, President Joseph F. Smith issued a statement that has become known as the “second manifesto.” In the pronouncement, President Smith declared that any officer of the Church who solemnized a plural marriage, as well as the participating couple, would be excommunicated. He stated clearly that this pronouncement applied everywhere in the world.

Unfortunately, two members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley, were not in harmony with their fellow leaders regarding the scope and meaning of the original Manifesto, nor were they able to agree with the second pronouncement issued by President Smith. At the commencement of the Smoot hearings, Taylor and Cowley went into seclusion to avoid testifying in Washington, D.C.

Following the Smoot hearings, these two Apostles submitted their resignations from the Quorum of the Twelve. It was widely known that they had performed more than a few plural marriages after the Manifesto was issued. Their resignations from the Twelve did much to symbolize that plural marriage had indeed ended. Six years later John W. Taylor was excommunicated from the Church because he had married another plural wife after his resignation. Elder Cowley, although never reinstated as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, remained faithful to the Church. In the 1930s he served a mission to England. One of his sons, Matthew Cowley, who had served as mission president in New Zealand, was later called as an Apostle.

http://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-thirty-six-the-church-in-the-early-twentieth-century?lang=eng

There is likely more that could be gathered to be used and hopefully has some dealing in more detail with JS's practice, but I have run out of time.

As a side note that may have been mentioned in this thread but might be in another, in the Church History Institute manual, the teacher is given a list of suggested readings outside the Church Distribution circle, see the end of each lesson for "Theme Sources" and "Additional Sources", for example:

http://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-teacher-manual/joseph-smiths-new-england-heritage?lang=eng

Edited July 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

This is not a question if polyandry existed or not. Polyandry did indeed exist in the church......

I am not questioning the occurrence of polyandry, simply using that one example of it in the way you did:

Brigham married Zina Huntington Jacobs and had children with her, while she was married to Henry Bailey Jacobs.

Zina did not cohabit with more than one man at a time. She did not have BY's children while she was living with Henry Jacobs, she had left him, moved out of his home and did not go back to him. In essence, it is likely she got a frontier divorce from Jacobs before moving in with Young, though she was sealed to Young in a likely levirate style marriage after JS's death in the presence of Young, Jacobs and Zina was pregnant at the time with her and Jacobs' second child. She did have Henry Jacobs' children after being sealed to both JS and BY (being pregnant at the time). The situation was complicated, but most likely not as complicated as you portrayed it.

There is no doubt that the marriage of Henry and Zina dissolved at Mt. Pisgah; it was here for a very short time–just a matter of days–that they last lived together. Some authors and most critics see the dissolution of Henry and Zina’s marriage as a matter of imposing priesthood authority in the marital relationship, basing their conclusion–incorrectly, I believe–on a singular report that Brigham Young either commanded Henry to leave or made the leaving easier by calling him on a mission....

That Henry suffered from poor health while on his way to his mission is not in question; what is pure fabrication is the folklore latched onto by some critics that a seriously ill Henry, incapable of standing up to Brigham Young, was hurried out of camp so that Brigham could take Zina to wife. Instead, Henry accepted his mission call and left under his own power....

Once Henry left for his mission, Zina and her children moved into the home of her father, William Huntington. It was at this time that Zina later recounted she “had parted with [my] husband [and] was then alone with my father to look after me until I should get to Winter Quarters.”

The record is also clear that Brigham Young wanted William Huntington to bring his family to Council Bluffs. That such a family would now include Zina, who lived with William, is implicit. William records the letter and request from Brigham in his diary on July 2, 1846, but he decided to stay at Mt. Pisgah based on subsequent counsel by “Bro. Pratt.”

A short time later many in the camp succumbed to illness, with estimates of approximately 150 people dying during the first six months of the settlement. Leadership was not immune to disease and death, with William Huntington falling ill on August 9, 1846, and dying only ten days later, on August 19.

Zina was left alone, a single mother of two children under five years old, without aid or assistance. All her family was gone–Henry was on a mission with Oliver, her father was dead, Dimick and his family were en route to Mexico with the Mormon Battalion, and her siblings Prescindia, William, and John were in Winter Quarters.

Alone, Zina took up residence with others in the community. Her stepsister, Emily Dow Partridge Young (also a plural wife to both Joseph and Brigham) wrote to Brigham that “Zina is well and is living with Sister Boss.” In the same letter she adds “Zina sends her love to you.” It is curious that Zina would express her love to Brigham, through her stepsister, if she considered the concept of a spousal relationship with him to be foreign or entirely new to her thought....

Fulfilling Zina’s expectations, in late September Brigham sent his son-in-law, Charlie Decker, to bring Zina to Winter Quarters. Sometime between the death of her father in mid August and her first weeks in Winter Quarters, it appears that Zina considered herself fully divorced from Henry and married to Brigham. This is evidenced by well-known facts, such as Zina moving into the tent row that Brigham provided for his wives at Winter Quarters. Sometime after arriving in Winter Quarters Zina wrote a letter to her step-sister, Emily Dow Partridge, and step-mother, Lydia Partridge Huntington, who were still in Mt. Pisgah. In the normal course of the letter Zina expressed Brigham’s love for Emily and signed the letter as “your affectionate sister Zina D. Huntington” instead of as Zina Jacobs.

Joseph was sealed to her while she was living with Jacobs and pregnant with her and Jacobs' first child, but there is no evidence that they engaged in sexual intimacies.

There was no divorce from Henry; Zina was still married to him prior to the sealing, was pregnant with Henry’s first child at the time of the sealing, and continued to live as Henry’s wife after the sealing. Joseph obviously felt that it was permissible to marry an already married woman, else he would not have been sealed to Zina. Some may claim that such polyandrous sealings were eternal in nature only, meaning that Joseph never intended them to be recognized as an earthly marriage. There is strong historical evidence to refute such a position, however. Perhaps the best contraindication in Zina’s case is that the sealing was repeated after the completion of the Nauvoo temple, Brigham was married to Zina in what appears to be a levirate marriage on behalf of Joseph, and Zina declared herself a wife of the martyred Prophet after polygamy was made public in the 1850s.

http://www.fairlds.o...obs-smith-young

Edited July 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

"The most important thing to learn in this life is, who to blame." (direct quote, bro-in-law)

Humor aside, there is truth to that little maxim. "God" Is the One to blame. If religion is as hard as it is turning out to be, then somebody definitely dropped the ball as I was growing up Mormon. "Search the scriptures daily, ponder them always, pray continually". It will all turn out right. Nothing was said about history. Nothing was ever said about needing to be a scholar. Or good at reading even. All you had to do was ask God and he would answer. Sincere heart is all that is required.

I can only speak to my own experience growing up in the Church, but I was always given to understand that one must not be content to remain static in his knowledge and understanding. To contradict that notion, I can without much effort summon to mind an abundance of scriptural passages and snippets that have been ingrained in my memory through constant hearing and repetition:

"The glory of God is intelligence."

"Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection."

"And as all have not faith seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom, yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith."

"And set in order the churches, and study and learn, and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people."

"And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom.

"Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle,in doctrine,in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God that are expedient for you to understand

"Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly comet to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms —

"That ye may be prepared in all things when I shall send you again to magnify the calling whereunto I have called you, and the mission with which I have commissioned you."

It is regrettable indeed if anyone is getting the idea in the Church that learning, study, education, scholarship are unnecessary, when the scriptures clearly say otherwise.

But then, that might be one more hazard of relying on spoon feeding for one's knowledge.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

At that point, precisely, I will admit that I have been mistaken, and corrections will be made as needed.

The entire notion of ordinances required is just another manifestation of Judeo-Christianity's fetish with physical, outward signs of compliance. Ironically, "God looks on the inner vessel" is also taught alongside the "necessity" of "saving ordinances". But the outward vessel is more important to a mortal organization than the inner vessel which only "God" can see....

Good idea and I am sure you will be ushered in at precisely the right gate.

[ERayR]

That is all fine and fair and yes people should read. And it seems when they do and are shocked they are criticized for not reading on their own. That does not make sense. When should they have started an extensive study of ancillary sources? Before baptism? Before ordination as a deacon for boys? Before a mission?

I have read on these topics extensively since my mission days. Not so much before. Even then I did not run into some of the contreversial issues such as polyandry until later down the road.

So should I be faulted for not reading more in depth as a teen or pre mission days? Perhaps. I guess the Church takes a buyer beware attitude. If I sell you a life insurance policy or an annuity or some other financial product the burden is on me as the seller and advisor to make sure I disclose all the information you need to know to make an informed purchase. Plus I have to give your literature that further discloses information about the product. If I am a good advisor I want to be sure you understand what you are buying and if I sense you do not I may advise you not to buy it.

But not so with the Church. Rather all the defenders think it is quite fine for the church to simply portray a faith promoting story. And it further in the past at least has discouraged its investigators or members from pursuing information that is critical of the Church.

So know Bob I don't buy that it is simply the all the fault of the disaffected member. The Church does not and never had volunteered or disclosed information that might cause members to question whether they really buy into the truth claims it has made. Sure members can find it on their own but often don't until they have made major commitments and those at a young age for members born into an LDS family.

You seem to continually ignore that it does not matter what you read but rather what you choose to do with it. Do you choose to measure your previous a witness of the Book of Mormon and the restoration by the new information or do you choose to measure the new information by your previous testimony?

[ERayR]

"The most important thing to learn in this life is, who to blame." (direct quote, bro-in-law)

All you had to do was ask God and he would answer. Sincere heart is all that is required.

It works. It is just that sometimes one does not like the answer.

[canard78]

It is regrettable indeed if anyone is getting the idea in the Church that learning, study, education, scholarship are unnecessary, when the scriptures clearly say otherwise.

But then, that might be one more hazard of relying on spoon feeding for one's knowledge.

We all have finite time and resources. We all prioritise accordingly. However faithful a Mormon we might be, we are all "buffet Mormons" inasmuch as we have to be selective. We can't do everything. The member who is outstanding at being a member missionary might not have even started on their 4 generations. The person who lives tithing with exactness might be a sporadic home teacher. Commandments are resources for "becoming" - not a list for "doing."

I've made a similar point on the other thread (the doubt on the Internet one), for every quote above on 'learning' I could find another on 'serving.' I'm not suggesting that you don't also serve. I'm making the point that for every hour you or I spend doing "Good work A," (church history perhaps), you could also be doing "Good works B-Z." We are usually only able to properly do one "Good work" at a time (especially us men!). As such we have to create a personal hierarchy of "Good works." Sometimes there is "Good, Better, Best." But sometimes there is also "Good, Good, Good."

[Ahab]

At that point, precisely, I will admit that I have been mistaken, and corrections will be made as needed.

The entire notion of ordinances required is just another manifestation of Judeo-Christianity's fetish with physical, outward signs of compliance. Ironically, "God looks on the inner vessel" is also taught alongside the "necessity" of "saving ordinances". But the outward vessel is more important to a mortal organization than the inner vessel which only "God" can see....

The whole point is that you should do what God (our Father) tells you to do, and believe what he tells you is true. If he says jump, then you should be jumping, and if he tell you that you should be dunk under some water to fulfill his command to be baptized then you should look for someone who is authorized to do the dunking. It may not look like much or make much sense to you, but it is a work of obedience and we should show that we are willing to do what he says, and without murmuring or complaining about what he tells you to do.

And don't go blaming our Father for your ignorance when you don't know who to believe. You can always talk with him and get an answer from him to assure you if someone is speaking for him or for someone else. Knowing who to blame is a matter of knowing who is responsible for what they are doing and not everybody is acting in behalf of our Father.

[Teancum]

You seem to continually ignore that it does not matter what you read but rather what you choose to do with it. Do you choose to measure your previous a witness of the Book of Mormon and the restoration by the new information or do you choose to measure the new information by your previous testimony?

I choose to follow the evidence, pray and seek guidance. And yes this has resulted in a modification of what your refer to as my previous testimony. Do you ingore evidence over dogma when you read, pray and ponder?

A testimony based on information that was not accurate or fully disclosed or discovered can be misleading.