rockpond Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Actually, you are probably far more familiar with that phase of LDS history than I am, which is why I would like to pin down the actual facts, rather than speculation. I'm not interested in the blatherings of some nitwit, but I do have respect for real historians and would be interested in their substantive conclusions based on actual documents -- not speculation. I'm not terribly concerned that any GAs might have contracted illegal polygynous marriages, given that the Feds were engaged in blatantly illicit behavior throughout this period, but I would like to know the facts. I think it silly to imagine that someone might lose his testimony over this matter. Blatherings of some nitwit? Who are you referring to? This isn't something that has made me lose my testimony but I can understand how it can be faith-crushing. We teach that the 1890 manifesto was a revelation from God that ended the practice of polygamy. To later find out that the church leaders at the time may not have viewed it that way and continued entering into polygamous marriages is tough to reconcile.
rockpond Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 It isn't the facts of history that cause people to leave. It is the spin put on one that does. Remember it was Christ whom asked "Will ye also go away?". I agree. The spin put on church history is critical. Maybe we should work to put a correct spin on it. My experience has also been that when a member discovers facts that have seemingly been hidden from them, it's tough to spin those facts in favor of the church.
thesometimesaint Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 I agree. The spin put on church history is critical. Maybe we should work to put a correct spin on it. My experience has also been that when a member discovers facts that have seemingly been hidden from them, it's tough to spin those facts in favor of the church. Maybe it has just been my experience but I've never found anything that has been hidden away that was necessary for me to know. IE; If we look at the ancient Church. We do know that Peter was married, but beyond that what do we really know about her relationship with Peter? Like every couple there are challenges to be met, and disagreements to be overcome. Would having that information make any difference in our membership in the Church?
rockpond Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Maybe it has just been my experience but I've never found anything that has been hidden away that was necessary for me to know. IE; If we look at the ancient Church. We do know that Peter was married, but beyond that what do we really know about her relationship with Peter? Like every couple there are challenges to be met, and disagreements to be overcome. Would having that information make any difference in our membership in the Church? I'd postulate that a relatively small percentage of what we study in church is actually necessary for us to know. Regardless, we're raised in a church that defines much of its authority through its historical narrative. So you can continue stating that none of this should matter but members who come across information that creates dissonance with their faithful understanding of that narrative will continue to view it as something that does matter to them.
jkwilliams Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 I'd postulate that a relatively small percentage of what we study in church is actually necessary for us to know. Regardless, we're raised in a church that defines much of its authority through its historical narrative. So you can continue stating that none of this should matter but members who come across information that creates dissonance with their faithful understanding of that narrative will continue to view it as something that does matter to them. Yep. It seems to me that there are two kinds of religious claims: 1. Purely spiritual claims, such as that God is the creator of the universe or that Jesus died for our sins. These are claims that cannot be verified or disproven and are matters of faith alone. 2. Falsifiable claims, such as that the first man walked the earth some 6,000 years ago or that two large proto-Christian civilizations lived in the Americas for thousands of years. These are claims that reside in the real world and are thus subject to evaluation based on tangible evidence. Too often I see people trying to take the falsifiable and put it in the same category as the purely spiritual. When I object, they generally label me a fundamentalist, black-and-white thinker. As I said in another post, in the falsifiable world, we deal in probabilities, not proof. But it is not fundamentalist to recognize that some things are unlikely to be true.
JLHPROF Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 The dissembling around post-Manifesto polygamy is also a bit hard to swallow. President Joseph F. Smith's testimony at the Smoot hearings is a notable example: Not really - for some reason it doesn't bother me at all that Joseph Smith, Joseph F. Smith and other prophets lied to "the world" to keep sacred things private. I mean, one of the requirements of the second anointing is that you keep it to yourself (tell noone). So if directly asked you either refuse to answer or lie. Not a big deal. The fact is, they knew they were lying, but considered it a lesser sin than betraying a higher principle. It's the same principle as reading about Nephi murdering Laban at God's command to save a record. Lower law/Higher law.
jkwilliams Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Not really - for some reason it doesn't bother me at all that Joseph Smith, Joseph F. Smith and other prophets lied to "the world" to keep sacred things private. I mean, one of the requirements of the second anointing is that you keep it to yourself (tell noone). So if directly asked you either refuse to answer or lie. Not a big deal. The fact is, they knew they were lying, but considered it a lesser sin than betraying a higher principle. It's the same principle as reading about Nephi murdering Laban at God's command to save a record. Lower law/Higher law. I have to admit I have a very hard time with this kind of situational ethics.
rockpond Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Not really - for some reason it doesn't bother me at all that Joseph Smith, Joseph F. Smith and other prophets lied to "the world" to keep sacred things private. I mean, one of the requirements of the second anointing is that you keep it to yourself (tell noone). So if directly asked you either refuse to answer or lie. Not a big deal. The fact is, they knew they were lying, but considered it a lesser sin than betraying a higher principle. It's the same principle as reading about Nephi murdering Laban at God's command to save a record. Lower law/Higher law. I get why they lied. What I don't get is they didn't view the 1890 manifesto as a revelation commanding the end of plural marriages. Or, conversely, why we view it as such when they didn't.
JLHPROF Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 (edited) I get why they lied. What I don't get is they didn't view the 1890 manifesto as a revelation commanding the end of plural marriages. Or, conversely, why we view it as such when they didn't. Oh, that's an easy question - because it wasn't a revelation. A revelation by every definition we have available is "the Word of the Lord"in some way.If God doesn't speak, it's not a revelation. It can be an inspired writing, it can be an authorized change in policy, but unless God said it, it isn't actually revelation.Check the D&C for actual revelations -Of the 138 sections you can identify the Lord speaking in 114 of them. The others are blessings, letters, prayers, teachings, visions etc. What the actual teaching concerning the manifesto says is that it was written as a result of a revelation. But where is the revelation? Pres. Woodruff's 1889 revelation is the last recorded revelation prior to the manifesto and it doesn't support it. Actually it says to stop worrying about the government and let God fight the battle. Edited October 7, 2013 by JLHPROF
Tacenda Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Blatherings of some nitwit? Who are you referring to?This isn't something that has made me lose my testimony but I can understand how it can be faith-crushing. We teach that the 1890 manifesto was a revelation from God that ended the practice of polygamy. To later find out that the church leaders at the time may not have viewed it that way and continued entering into polygamous marriages is tough to reconcile.I think it was only a policy change, not doctrine, maybe that's why some didn't take it seriously. There is polygamy in heaven, therefore no doctrine change, I believe. During the interview with Mr. King, Pres. Hinckley might have been using words to shed a different light on it for PR reasons, IMO. 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 I'd postulate that a relatively small percentage of what we study in church is actually necessary for us to know. Regardless, we're raised in a church that defines much of its authority through its historical narrative. So you can continue stating that none of this should matter but members who come across information that creates dissonance with their faithful understanding of that narrative will continue to view it as something that does matter to them. Maybe. But I think we should study on our own. IE; The Journal of Discources is largely about BY. But I don't see us carrying them around in Sunday School. I think the tendency would be to get bogged down in the minutia. New members would get lost not knowing the faith well enough for serious discussion, and us old timers would either be bored(fall asleep more than we already do) or argue what the definition of the word "is" is. We don't get our authority from our history per say. Either JS saw God, and his son, or he didn't. He either translated the BoM by the power of God or he didn't. He either established the Church with Gods authority or he didn't.
JLHPROF Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 New members would get lost not knowing the faith well enough for serious discussion, and us old timers would either be bored(fall asleep more than we already do) or argue what the definition of the word "is" is. If I have to read the events of the first vision and discuss the burned over district one more time I might just lapse into a coma...ditto the testimony of the three witnesses.
thesometimesaint Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 (edited) I prefer just a good nap. Edited October 7, 2013 by thesometimesaint
why me Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Not really - for some reason it doesn't bother me at all that Joseph Smith, Joseph F. Smith and other prophets lied to "the world" to keep sacred things private. I mean, one of the requirements of the second anointing is that you keep it to yourself (tell noone). So if directly asked you either refuse to answer or lie. Not a big deal.I think that it was hard to go cold turkey with polygamy. I am sure that promises were made before the manifesto about marriages etc. Also, the polygamy issue was a major problem for statehood and keeping the feds out of mormon hairs was a prime mover for the manifesto. By admitting polygamy, the feds would be all over them like a fly on watermelon.
rockpond Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 I think that it was hard to go cold turkey with polygamy. I am sure that promises were made before the manifesto about marriages etc. Also, the polygamy issue was a major problem for statehood and keeping the feds out of mormon hairs was a prime mover for the manifesto. By admitting polygamy, the feds would be all over them like a fly on watermelon. We wouldn't want to ask anyone to do hard things, would we? If we were just talking about the first year after the 1890 manifesto, I could see needing to follow through with engagements/promises, etc. But we're looking at a period of almost a decade and a half! 1
rockpond Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Maybe. But I think we should study on our own. IE; The Journal of Discources is largely about BY. But I don't see us carrying them around in Sunday School. I think the tendency would be to get bogged down in the minutia. New members would get lost not knowing the faith well enough for serious discussion, and us old timers would either be bored(fall asleep more than we already do) or argue what the definition of the word "is" is. We don't get our authority from our history per say. Either JS saw God, and his son, or he didn't. He either translated the BoM by the power of God or he didn't. He either established the Church with Gods authority or he didn't. Alright. So you keep arguing against this idea of trying to figure out ways to discuss some of these controversial historical issues within the three hour block. Do you have a solution you'd like to propose or do you not see the number of people leaving because of these issues as a problem? You see, I had what I felt was an undeniable testimony of the First Vision and veracity of the Book of Mormon. But my "cog dis shelf" still came crashing down... while I was teaching early morning seminary. I chose to stay and rebuild. But many don't.
Recommended Posts