The September 6

[Nevo]

It was bad scholarship and presenting the data in the worst possible light.

 

Quinn's article on post-Manifesto polygamy, "LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904," can be downloaded here. Please point out where you think Quinn misinterprets the evidence. I'd like to see the basis for your criticism.

 

Regarding your contention that official Church sanction of post-Manifesto polygamy was a "well known" fact in 1985, what do you make of the following statements (from page 14 of the article)?

 

• The Deseret Evening News editorialized in 1911, "There is absolutely no truth in the allegation that plural marriages have been entered into with [the] sanction of the Church since the manifesto."

   

• Apostle John A. Widtsoe wrote in 1936, "Since that day [6 October 1890] no plural marriage has been performed with the sanction or authority of the Church."

   

• BYU historian Gustive O. Larson wrote in 1958 that "While Presidents Woodruff, Snow, and Smith maintained monogamous integrity of the Church, plural marriages were being performed secretly by two members of the Apostles' Quorum."

   

• Counselor Stephen L Richards wrote in 1961, "Since that time [1890], entering into plural marriage has been construed to be an offense against the laws of the Church."

   

• Apostle Gordon B. Hinckley wrote in 1969, "Since that time [september 1890] the Church has neither practiced nor sanctioned such marriage."

   

• Apostle Mark E. Petersen wrote in 1974 that "the Manifesto put an end to all legal plural marriages."

   

• Historians Allen and Leonard wrote in 1976 that the performance of new plural marriages outside of Utah from 1890 to 1904 "was without official sanction from the First Presidency."

   

• Historians Arrington and Bitton reaffirmed in 1979 that these plural marriages were "without the sanction of church authority."

[JLHPROF]

 

Quinn's article on post-Manifesto polygamy, "LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904," can be downloaded here. Please point out where you think Quinn misinterprets the evidence. I'd like to see the basis for your criticism.

 

Regarding your contention that official Church sanction of post-Manifesto polygamy was a "well known" fact in 1985, what do you make of the following statements (from page 14 of the article)?

 

• The Deseret Evening News editorialized in 1911, "There is absolutely no truth in the allegation that plural marriages have been entered into with [the] sanction of the Church since the manifesto."

   

• Apostle John A. Widtsoe wrote in 1936, "Since that day [6 October 1890] no plural marriage has been performed with the sanction or authority of the Church."

   

• BYU historian Gustive O. Larson wrote in 1958 that "While Presidents Woodruff, Snow, and Smith maintained monogamous integrity of the Church, plural marriages were being performed secretly by two members of the Apostles' Quorum."

   

• Counselor Stephen L Richards wrote in 1961, "Since that time [1890], entering into plural marriage has been construed to be an offense against the laws of the Church."

   

• Apostle Gordon B. Hinckley wrote in 1969, "Since that time [september 1890] the Church has neither practiced nor sanctioned such marriage."

   

• Apostle Mark E. Petersen wrote in 1974 that "the Manifesto put an end to all legal plural marriages."

   

• Historians Allen and Leonard wrote in 1976 that the performance of new plural marriages outside of Utah from 1890 to 1904 "was without official sanction from the First Presidency."

   

• Historians Arrington and Bitton reaffirmed in 1979 that these plural marriages were "without the sanction of church authority."

 

Wow, that's a lot of untrue statements...but did they know they were untrue when they made them?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Wow, that's a lot of untrue statements...but did they know they were untrue when they made them?

In the words of Freedom they were either lying or "willfully ignorant"

[Damien the Leper]

CFR that officially sanctioned post manifesto plural marriage was well known prior to Quinn's article (one or two well circulated published references would suffice).  Also you really think that those in the church who don't know that the manifesto is not a divine commandment to end polygamy are "willfully ignorant?" Really? And from the way you worded this, you were talking about people in the church pre-1985? From OD 1 heading: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

 

 

Note it says revelation and binding.

 

Apparently "revelation and binding" isn't official enough for the apostates in high leadership positions to quit practicing.

[Damien the Leper]

Very close to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Six

 

Wrong. Avraham Gileadi is most likely misplaced in this group. From what I understand, his excommunication may have been due to his work on Isaiah.

[Damien the Leper]

Lynne Kanavel Whitesides is a feminist noted for speaking on the Mother in Heaven. While we acknowledge we have a mother in heaven, we know very little to nothing about her. Ms. Whitesides advocated that the Church pray to her.

 

Correct. It is heretical to pray to God's wife who is equally God herself.

 

Avraham Gileadi's "books interpreting Mormon scripture challenged the exclusive right of leaders to define doctrine."

 

Gileadi's work on Isaiah maintained an orthodox (right/correct) and traditional perspective. If the LDS church doesn't like it then oh well.

 

All doctrine comes from the leadership, sustained by the membership.

 

If this is true then what place does Canonical and Authoritative Scripture have in LDS religion? If it is easy to sidestep scripture in such a way then there are much bigger issues that must be dealt with.

 

In 2007, Toscano wrote that he lost his faith "like losing your eyesight after an accident" and that he regrets that LDS Church leaders have disregarded his criticisms of what he considers the Church's growing anti-intellectualism, homophobia, misogyny, and elitism. That by definition is apostacy, and as I see it poor scholarship into what the LDS really believe.

 

CFR. Please provide the full context of Toscano's comments.

 

Maxine Hanks is a feminist theologian who compiled and edited the book Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism. The role of women in the Church is essential but not authoritative.

 

Joseph Smith would whole-heartedly disagree with "essential but not authoritative" considering the 1843 Nauvoo era.

 

Anderson pushed the mother-in-heaven theme beyond which Church leadership was willing to go.

 

Wrong. Lavina Fielding Anderson openly criticised and published work on the the sanitising and white-washing of history which she has documented in great excess. The evidence can be found in the comparison of the early editions of History of the Church and the disaster that is now sold on bookshelves.

 

Quinn aslo authored the 1987 book Early Mormonism and Magic world View, which argues that early Mormon leaders were greatly influenced by folk magic, and superstitious beliefs including stone looking, charms, and devining rods. I believe a fair reading of early Church history doesn't support a "greatly influenced" reading. Indeed my position is/has always been that those early leader Saints were very pragmatic, and far more concerned with survival and fleeing murderous mobs.

 

"Kinda influenced" and "greatly influenced" are in the eye of the beholder. The fact that folk magic was practiced and is part of the sacred story is important to be learned and understood.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

Maxine Hanks:

 

 

Michael Quinn:

 

[Damien the Leper]

Lynne Kanavel Whitesides:

 

 

Paul Toscano:

 

[Damien the Leper]

Lavina Fielding Anderson:

 

[Damien the Leper]

From Avraham Gileadi:

 

 

Responses to Wikipedia Article Dated 12^th June 2012

Having attempted over the years to correct erroneous statements about me that others have made under my name on Wikipedia—only to have them intentionally or non-intentionally replaced by the same ones as before—I feel constrained to clarify several things in regard to myself for the benefit of those who might otherwise be prejudiced toward my life’s work on the Book of Isaiah. First, although I am a Hebrew scholar and literary analyst, I was never a “Mormon historian” or “researcher of Mormonism,” considering the literary analysis of the writings of Isaiah and their scriptural connections of themselves worthy of a life’s commitment. Second, as I taught college at Brigham Young University by way of supporting my family only during my academic years (1973–1981), I was never “terminated” as either a teacher or professor. I thus can’t be considered to have a “post-termination career.” Third, although I was excommunicated in 1993 from the LDS church in a disciplinary council that began a wave of several thousand excommunications on the Wasatch Front in the 1990s, in my case—as not a single charge was true or supported by evidence—all record of it was expunged from the church’s records nearly a decade ago in a tacit admission that the church had made a mistake. In other words, as my excommunication from the church was a non-event so far as the church is concerned, it doesn’t define me as a person. Yet there are those who take it on themselves to define me as such throughout the current Wikipedia article, attaching it even to my listed name. Fourth, while several prominent writers who were excommunicated in 1993 pleaded their cause in the media at that time and thus embarrassed the church, I never did so, even though my family, reputation, work, etc. were adversely affected by the church’s action. Yet those same prominent writers were evidently glad to see me among their number and to ascribe to me the very same questioning of the church’s authority and “speaking against church doctrine or leadership” in which they engaged, as the current Wikipedia write-up asserts. As I have never been asked to change my conclusions that derive from applying several methodologies of literary analysis to researching scriptural texts, my supposedly “challenging the exclusive right of leaders to define doctrine” is a non sequitur. In short, the above writers have no evidence of any such spurious claims and I ask them to desist from their calumnies. As in this instance, the abject practice of citing anti-Mormon sources to supply the “truth” or of defaming the messenger whose findings happen not to coincide with your opinion is further unbecoming of Wikipedia, whose goal is to convey information to the world, not misinformation. Fifth, I appeal to anyone who studies the contributions I have made over many years of researching the Book of Isaiah to check out for himself the scriptural evidence I present instead of depending on hearsay, preconceived ideas, or popular opinion. A major part of the opposition I have received (though I confess I have caused some by my own follies) has been the nature of Isaiah’s message itself. Because to certain defenders of religious orthodoxy Isaiah’s message has seemed controversial, therefore by them I have been deemed controversial. Admittedly, Isaiah’s paradigm of end-time realities, while terribly indicting of those who profess to be God’s covenant people in that day, also holds out hope for those who dare to search their souls and let go of all things materialistic and ungodly. And as a new paradigm that is grounded in the truth of God inevitably wins out in the end, so the prospect exists that Isaiah’s message to the world will ultimately bear good fruit.

[Freedom]

CFR that officially sanctioned post manifesto plural marriage was well known prior to Quinn's article (one or two well circulated published references would suffice).  Also you really think that those in the church who don't know that the manifesto is not a divine commandment to end polygamy are "willfully ignorant?" Really? And from the way you worded this, you were talking about people in the church pre-1985? From OD 1 heading: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

 

 

Note it says revelation and binding.

I am a source. I knew about it well before Quinn started publishing his pseudo scholarship, and anybody who did not know about is was willfully ignorant, just as people today are willfully ignorant of polyandry, blacks not having the priesthood, and BY's temper.

[rockpond]

I am a source. I knew about it well before Quinn started publishing his pseudo scholarship, and anybody who did not know about is was willfully ignorant, just as people today are willfully ignorant of polyandry, blacks not having the priesthood, and BY's temper.

That's not an acceptable answer to the CFR. That is anecdotal evidence (and it is of the weaker variety of anecdote since its just your twenty year old recollection used to support your opinion).

It's also easily countered. To wit...

I grew up in an active LDS home, rarely missing church. I am a descendant of a well known polygamist. I graduated from four years of seminary. Served a mission. Graduated from BYU having taken all the required religion courses and then some. I married and spent another 15 years serving in the church including teaching and leadership positions. Just a couple years ago I learned for the first time of post-manifesto polygamy.

Edited October 2, 2013 by rockpond

[thesometimesaint]

While I tend to agree that those are likely reasons for their excommunications, your (or my, or church leadership) disagreement with them does not make their work "bad scholarship".

 

I don't believe that simple disagreement requires Church discipline. However continued teaching that disagreement after counsel may well result in it. The bad scholarship angle comes in when disregarding that. IE; As Saints there are any number of things we can believe and teach as our personal opinions that have nothing to do with established doctrine(how tall was Jesus, where is Zarahemla, is it ok if I eat chocolate, etc., etc., etc..).

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I am a source. I knew about it well before Quinn started publishing his pseudo scholarship, and anybody who did not know about is was willfully ignorant, just as people today are willfully ignorant of polyandry, blacks not having the priesthood, and BY's temper.

Freedom, you said that pre-1985 to not know that Wilford Woodruff and top apostles "did not consider [the 1890 manifesto] a divine commandment to end polygamy" would have required willful ignorance.  This is a very strong claim.  To back this up you cite yourself as a source.  I am confused.  Are you saying that people who didn't know you pre 1985 are willfully ignorant? You must think an awful lot of yourself to make a statement like this. You can't cite a single source but won't back down? Did you read Nevo's post quoting numerous general authorities who said officially sanctioned polygamy ended in 1890? Are they willfully ignorant or lying?  

 

I do not consider my CFR fulfilled and restate it.  To be willfully ignorant requires something to be broadly disseminated. I request that you retract your statement or provide a widely read source that discusses officially sanctioned polygamy post manifesto published pre 1985.

Edited October 2, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[rockpond]

I don't believe that simple disagreement requires Church discipline. However continued teaching that disagreement after counsel may well result in it. The bad scholarship angle comes in when disregarding that. IE; As Saints there are any number of things we can believe and teach as our personal opinions that have nothing to do with established doctrine(how tall was Jesus, where is Zarahemla, is it ok if I eat chocolate, etc., etc., etc..).

So it was bad scholarship because they disregarded counsel from church leadership?

[Duncan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Manifesto

 

there was this as well

[SeekingUnderstanding]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Manifesto

 

there was this as well

Which has a prophet of the Lord saying "I, Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent, or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  (i.e. No post manifesto officially sanctioned plural wives). 

[ERayR]

I am a source. I knew about it well before Quinn started publishing his pseudo scholarship, and anybody who did not know about is was willfully ignorant, just as people today are willfully ignorant of polyandry, blacks not having the priesthood, and BY's temper.

 

I am another source.  I heard about it from my Grandpa who was inactive.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I am another source.  I heard about it from my Grandpa who was inactive.

ERayR, the specific claim was you would be willfully ignorant if you didn't know that church sanctioned plural marriage occured post manifesto. Not that their were plural marriages after the first manifesto, which I think was widely understood (see second manifesto linked above).  Are you saying that you were specifically aware of Church sanctioned marriages post manifesto? Do you support Freedom's assertion that you'd have to be willfully ignorant not to know?

[JLHPROF]

Which has a prophet of the Lord saying "I, Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent, or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  (i.e. No post manifesto officially sanctioned plural wives). 

 

Just another misleading statement, considering some sources have Joseph F. Smith performing post-manifesto plural marriages himself.

[Damien the Leper]

I am curious as to whether or not the church today can step up and declare post-manifesto GA practitioners, those who continued to take more wives, as apostates. Which they clearly should be labeled as since they disregarded revelatory counsel. There probably should have been much more excommunications than there actually were.

[ERayR]

ERayR, the specific claim was you would be willfully ignorant if you didn't know that church sanctioned plural marriage occured post manifesto. Not that their were plural marriages after the first manifesto, which I think was widely understood (see second manifesto linked above).  Are you saying that you were specifically aware of Church sanctioned marriages post manifesto? Do you support Freedom's assertion that you'd have to be willfully ignorant not to know?

 

I misunderstood the claim.  I thought it referred only to having a knowledge of post manifesto plural marriages.  I do not know of any Church sanctioned post manifesto plural marriages.

[thesometimesaint]

 

Lynne Kanavel Whitesides is a feminist noted for speaking on the Mother in Heaven. While we acknowledge we have a mother in heaven, we know very little to nothing about her. Ms. Whitesides advocated that the Church pray to her.

 

Correct. It is heretical to pray to God's wife who is equally God herself.

 

Avraham Gileadi's "books interpreting Mormon scripture challenged the exclusive right of leaders to define doctrine."

 

Gileadi's work on Isaiah maintained an orthodox (right/correct) and traditional perspective. If the LDS church doesn't like it then oh well.

 

All doctrine comes from the leadership, sustained by the membership.

 

If this is true then what place does Canonical and Authoritative Scripture have in LDS religion? If it is easy to sidestep scripture in such a way then there are much bigger issues that must be dealt with.

 

In 2007, Toscano wrote that he lost his faith "like losing your eyesight after an accident" and that he regrets that LDS Church leaders have disregarded his criticisms of what he considers the Church's growing anti-intellectualism, homophobia, misogyny, and elitism. That by definition is apostacy, and as I see it poor scholarship into what the LDS really believe.

 

CFR. Please provide the full context of Toscano's comments.

 

Maxine Hanks is a feminist theologian who compiled and edited the book Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism. The role of women in the Church is essential but not authoritative.

 

Joseph Smith would whole-heartedly disagree with "essential but not authoritative" considering the 1843 Nauvoo era.

 

Anderson pushed the mother-in-heaven theme beyond which Church leadership was willing to go.

 

Wrong. Lavina Fielding Anderson openly criticised and published work on the the sanitising and white-washing of history which she has documented in great excess. The evidence can be found in the comparison of the early editions of History of the Church and the disaster that is now sold on bookshelves.

 

Quinn aslo authored the 1987 book Early Mormonism and Magic world View, which argues that early Mormon leaders were greatly influenced by folk magic, and superstitious beliefs including stone looking, charms, and devining rods. I believe a fair reading of early Church history doesn't support a "greatly influenced" reading. Indeed my position is/has always been that those early leader Saints were very pragmatic, and far more concerned with survival and fleeing murderous mobs.

 

"Kinda influenced" and "greatly influenced" are in the eye of the beholder. The fact that folk magic was practiced and is part of the sacred story is important to be learned and understood.

 

 

No one has to like or dislike his ideas on Isaiah. It is the promotion of those ideas as binding on the Saints that is the problem.

 

The Scriptures have already been determined as doctrine of the Church. Further we have an open canon that allows us to add to Scripture as God so desires.

 

See The September 6; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Six

 

JS what ever his other qualities as Prophet isn't the final say in LDS belief.

 

Such is an admission of apostacy.

 

Never said it wasn't. However it is catagorically wrong to say it greatly influenced the early Church members.

See Jupiter Talisman;  http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Occultism_and_magic/Jupiter_talisman

[JLHPROF]

I misunderstood the claim.  I thought it referred only to having a knowledge of post manifesto plural marriages.  I do not know of any Church sanctioned post manifesto plural marriages.

 

Well, thanks to Quinn now we do.  There were over two hundred and fifty.  And since one of them was Pres. Woodruff himself and others of the 12 apostles I would call that church sanctioned.

 

JS what ever his other qualities as Prophet isn't the final say in LDS belief.

 

I can't disagree with this more.  As head of the dispensation and the prophet of the restoration of the gospel, he SHOULD be the final say in LDS doctrine.  Unless the Lord issued specific revelation contradicting him (which JS taught would make the revealtion false) his legitimate teachings are scripture.

[thesometimesaint]

Well, thanks to Quinn now we do.  There were over two hundred and fifty.  And since one of them was Pres. Woodruff himself and others of the 12 apostles I would call that church sanctioned.

 

 

I can't disagree with this more.  As head of the dispensation and the prophet of the restoration of the gospel, he SHOULD be the final say in LDS doctrine.  Unless the Lord issued specific revelation contradicting him (which JS taught would make the revealtion false) his legitimate teachings are scripture.

 

 At what point do we say this is enough and there is to be no more? Sounds like to me where in the Book of Mormon 2 Nephi 29 it is claimed by some gentiles that: "A Bible a Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible".