The September 6

[thesometimesaint]

Things the Church doesn't like to talk about?

Well, we just recently read postings of all the Church public denials of the  post-manifesto polygamy.  That, in fact, polygamy in general is usually ignored both for historical and doctrinal impact.  Knowledge should be in context, but we get such watered down items in the Church that all context is really lost.  How about the Kirtland Saftey society or the School of the Prophets?  Do members know that both Heavenly Father and the Saviour appeared to the men at the School of the Prophets.  Or when we discuss the necessity of Temples, do we ever mention how the ordinances were restored in Nauvoo.

Adam-God (even as a heresy) has been so downplayed the majority of non-studious Church members have never even heard of it or its impact.

How about teaching that the Law of Adoption used to exist and WHY Pres. Woodruff felt to end it?  The list is almost endless at this point.

 

The Church scholars often acknowledge, and even discuss these things, but the Church itself refuses to tolerate discussion and like to downplay important historical and doctrinal items.  There are SO many things the Church won't talk about.

 

When was the last time you had a lesson on some of Joseph Smith's deeper teachings?  Instead we get the first vision and the appearance of Moroni ten times a year.  We do ourselves a disservice by refusing to acknowledge, in context, some of the deeper truths restored.

 

I've never believed that  OD1 was instanteously implimented Church wide upon release. However the long and the short of it is that few living LDS have practiced it, and those few that do are excommunicated rather quickly. Nor have we officially practiced it for over a hundred years.

 

Historically it happened. If I really want a history lesson I can think of plenty of places that are more comfortable to sit in than some old folding chair in a Sunday School, or Priesthood/RS classroom. Doctrinally we still have BoM Jacob 2:30, D&C 132, and OD1 as Scripture. What I am doubt of is that I can learn much of how I today am  to treat my wife. Or that any current member would.

 

What about the Kirtland Safety Society? It was never part of our doctrine. So what if a baniking experiment in the town of Kirtland; Ohio failed during the greater financial Panic of 1837?

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2009-fair-conference/2009-the-kirtland-safety-society

 

Here is about the School of the Prophets. Doesn't sound sinister to me.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Schools_of_the_Prophets

 

The basic ideas behind the Temple are ancient. However they were lost for nearly 2 millennia. In the modern era Kirtland rather than Nauvoo seems to be the genesis for them, but JS probably had rudimentary ideas about them from while translating the BoM. Nauvoo was the fulfillment of those ideas. We of course today have slightly modified the ceremonies to our own needs. Doctrinally they are the same.

 

The Adam-God theory of BY was never accepted as doctrine. BY even contradicts BY sometimes when he talks about it. I don't know as it had much impact as it was never accepted by other leaders of the Church at the time. Now-a-Days it isn't anything more than just one of several quaint personal beliefs of BY. I certainly don't hold it against him, and hope and pray that God doesn't hold mine against me.

 

I in my 42 years of experience in the Chuch haven't encountered much, if any, hesitancy to discuss anything. Even things we know very little about. I've long called Gospel Doctrine class the Gospel Rumor class.  Correlation has diminished it somewhat, but hasn't eliminated it entirely.

 

Maybe we could establish a Gospel of deeper Doctrine class. I don't know how really useful it would be to the general adult membership. In the mean time there is nothing stopping any member of the Church from studying it out in their own minds and then asking God.

[JLHPROF]

I've never believed that  OD1 was instanteously implimented Church wide upon release. However the long and the short of it is that few living LDS have practiced it, and those few that do are excommunicated rather quickly. Nor have we officially practiced it for over a hundred years.

 

Historically it happened. If I really want a history lesson I can think of plenty of places that are more comfortable to sit in than some old folding chair in a Sunday School, or Priesthood/RS classroom. Doctrinally we still have BoM Jacob 2:30, D&C 132, and OD1 as Scripture. What I am doubt of is that I can learn much of how I today am  to treat my wife. Or that any current member would.

 

What about the Kirtland Safety Society? It was never part of our doctrine. So what if a baniking experiment in the town of Kirtland; Ohio failed during the greater financial Panic of 1837?

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2009-fair-conference/2009-the-kirtland-safety-society

 

Here is about the School of the Prophets. Doesn't sound sinister to me.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Schools_of_the_Prophets

 

The basic ideas behind the Temple are ancient. However they were lost for nearly 2 millennia. In the modern era Kirtland rather than Nauvoo seems to be the genesis for them, but JS probably had rudimentary ideas about them from while translating the BoM. Nauvoo was the fulfillment of those ideas. We of course today have slightly modified the ceremonies to our own needs. Doctrinally they are the same.

 

The Adam-God theory of BY was never accepted as doctrine. BY even contradicts BY sometimes when he talks about it. I don't know as it had much impact as it was never accepted by other leaders of the Church at the time. Now-a-Days it isn't anything more than just one of several quaint personal beliefs of BY. I certainly don't hold it against him, and hope and pray that God doesn't hold mine against me.

 

I in my 42 years of experience in the Chuch haven't encountered much, if any, hesitancy to discuss anything. Even things we know very little about. I've long called Gospel Doctrine class the Gospel Rumor class.  Correlation has diminished it somewhat, but hasn't eliminated it entirely.

 

Maybe we could establish a Gospel of deeper Doctrine class. I don't know how really useful it would be to the general adult membership. In the mean time there is nothing stopping any member of the Church from studying it out in their own minds and then asking God.

 

You're missing my point - it is obvious you know about many of these listed items.  I know there are many in the Church that do.  My issue is that I believe these things have benefit to study, both doctrinally and historically.  And the Church doesn't like to even acknowledge among the general membership that they existed and impact the saints.

The cry "how does this affect my salvation" as an excuse not to study has always bothered me.

 

Your reference on the School of the Prophets is particularly interesting as a case in point - it is accessible information but most members know nothing about it.  The reference also provides no mention of the spiritual manifestations beyond a vague hint at the beginning, nor explanation of the ordinances performed.

Edited October 3, 2013 by JLHPROF

[thesometimesaint]

Doctrinal teachings of the presidents of the Church on polygamy would absolutely be truly important and teach us principles we need to learn.  But unfortunately they have all been redacted and labeled as speculation.

 

I've already given the doctrinal basis for polygamy, and its current lack of practice. Fortunately or unfortunately it is just speculative. Some members had little to no trouble adapting to the demands of polygamy. Must however experienced great inner turmoil. With divorce, separation, and even leaving the Church over it more common than even today. Sociologically it is impossible to maintain for more than a few generations. Further its widespread practice presents serious doctrinal questions concerning the next life. But I leave all such concerns to God. He knows better than I do what he is doing.

[thesometimesaint]

You're missing my point - it is obvious you know about many of these listed items.  I know there are many in the Church that do.  My issue is that I believe these things have benefit to study, both doctrinally and historically.  And the Church doesn't like to even acknowledge among the general membership that they existed and impact the saints.

The cry "how does this affect my salvation" as an excuse not to study has always bothered me.

Your reference on the School of the Prophets is particularly interesting as a case in point - it is accessible information but most members know nothing about it.  The reference also provides no mention of the spiritual manifestations that occurred, nor explanation of the ordinances performed.

 

I've never claimed to know everything about the Church and its history. Believe me there is still more than enough that I don't know that I could spend the rest of my life studying it. I've long been an advocte for us taking personal responsibility for our own learning once we've learned the basics. Sunday School, Priesthood/RS meetings can help somewhat, but the main responsibility resides within ourselves.

[rockpond]

D&C 132, and and OD1 are still in our Scrptures. I can't tell you how many times I've been asked about my polygamy.

The reality is that modern day LDS don't practice polygamy in this life. We don't spend much, if any time, discussing if and when we will in the eternities.

Whether or not one of my ancestors practiced polygamy while of interest to me. I don't know as there is anything truly important to learn about its practice. That isn't/can't be learned in how I treat my only wife in this life, and in the life to come.

I wish Quinn all the best in his endevour to become a better person. If acknowledging that he still believes helps in that process more power to him. Howver Church membership is a two way street. The Church expects and demands that its members act in certain ways, or the only other option is Church Discipline.

Yes, 132 is still in our scripture but we rarely talk about it in reference to Polygamy, just monogamous sealings.

OD1 is also in our scripture but we speak of it as if it was a revelation that ended polygamy in 1890 while even the prophet who received it didn't treat it that way.

We had a polygamist as president of the church all the way until 1945. That's into my parents' generation. Not that long ago. And we believe it will be practiced in the next life.

Surely there could be things we learn from this important and eternal doctrine? I would think these are reason enough to not erase polygamy from our priesthood and relief society manuals.

This little sub-thread began because the questions was asked if there are topics that church leadership don't want to discuss. Although you've identified reasons why they might not want to spend time on it, the fact remains that it is one of the subjects they seem to want to avoid.

[rockpond]

I've long been an advocte for us taking personal responsibility for our own learning once we've learned the basics. Sunday School, Priesthood/RS meetings can help somewhat, but the main responsibility resides within ourselves.

That's an interesting statement for you to make on this thread. The September 6 took that responsibility seriously and were ex'd/ disfellowshipped for it.

It seems a tenuous position to say that we should take on the personal responsibility to learn of something like post-manifesto polygamy but then also say that it was appropriate for someone to be excommunicated for publishing a scholarly work on the subject. If nobody publishes anything, it gets though to study it.

[JLHPROF]

I've already given the doctrinal basis for polygamy, and its current lack of practice. Fortunately or unfortunately it is just speculative. Some members had little to no trouble adapting to the demands of polygamy. Must however experienced great inner turmoil. With divorce, separation, and even leaving the Church over it more common than even today. Sociologically it is impossible to maintain for more than a few generations. Further its widespread practice presents serious doctrinal questions concerning the next life. But I leave all such concerns to God. He knows better than I do what he is doing.

 

So you are saying that God made a mistake when he commanded the restoration of the practice?  Surely God wouldn't command an unlivable practice of the saints (1 Nephi 3:7).  To say that it is impossible to maintain is simply not true.

 

And the most important doctrine that isn't discussed concerning polygamy (and that I DON'T consider to be speculative) is that Heavenly Father lives and the way all the Gods live is polygamy.  Can't be unlivable in that case and is certainly a doctrine I want to understand if it is the way my Heavenly Father who I want to become like is living it.

 

This was taught as church doctrine by the prophets and apostles the entire time that polygamy was practiced in the Church and was never formally revoked as truth.

[Tacenda]

Yes, 132 is still in our scripture but we rarely talk about it in reference to Polygamy, just monogamous sealings. OD1 is also in our scripture but we speak of it as if it was a revelation that ended polygamy in 1890 while even the prophet who received it didn't treat it that way. We had a polygamist as president of the church all the way until 1945. That's into my parents' generation. Not that long ago. And we believe it will be practiced in the next life. Surely there could be things we learn from this important and eternal doctrine? I would think these are reason enough to not erase polygamy from our priesthood and relief society manuals.This little sub-thread began because the questions was asked if there are topics that church leadership don't want to discuss. Although you've identified reasons why they might not want to spend time on it, the fact remains that it is one of the subjects they seem to want to avoid.

And that would feel like a slap in the face if I were one of the many polygamists that sacrificed so much to live it. We hear plenty about the leaders that lived it, just not anything about their wives. It's a shame! Edited October 4, 2013 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

We had a polygamist as president of the church all the way until 1945. That's into my parents' generation. Not that long ago. And we believe it will be practiced in the next life.

 

It's true that polygamy is more significant of a doctrine than we care to discuss.  A polygamist was president of the Church until 1945, just 68 years ago.  And since then 3 more prophets (possibly a rumoured 4th) also practiced "next life" polygamy.  It is still very relevant in the Church.

Edited October 4, 2013 by JLHPROF

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Are you saying that polygynous marriages being performed by errant Apostles means that the "Church" was giving official sanction?  Is your facile statement that there were "a lot of untrue statements" actually true?

[Robert F. Smith]

............................................  And the Church doesn't like to even acknowledge among the general membership that they existed and impact the saints.

The cry "how does this affect my salvation" as an excuse not to study has always bothered me.

What I find disturbing is the tendency to personify the "Church" as a thinking entity, which it is not.  Throughout the 20th century there were vast differences of opinion among the Brethren, and they did not hesitate to make their views known.  Some are insular, narrow, and ultra-conservative, while others are cosmopolitan and unafraid of engaging with the broader world.  Perhaps there must needs be opposition.  We need to refer to specific policies of specific General Authorities.  We need to cite their individual published remarks, rather than claiming every single policy is fully supported by all of the Brethren without variance.  That simply is not true.  And thankfully so.

 

Your reference on the School of the Prophets is particularly interesting as a case in point - it is accessible information but most members know nothing about it.  The reference also provides no mention of the spiritual manifestations beyond a vague hint at the beginning, nor explanation of the ordinances performed.

Specialists and busybodies may have time to find out those things.  My question would be, Is it essential to your salvation?

 

[JLHPROF]

Are you saying that polygynous marriages being performed by errant Apostles means that the "Church" was giving official sanction?  Is your facile statement that there were "a lot of untrue statements" actually true?

 

There were no "polygynous marriages being performed by errant Apostles".  9 Apostles, 2 Presidents of Seventy, plus President Woodruff himself married additional wives after the manifesto, and many others continued to perform.  Post manifesto marriages were not errant actions unauthorised.

How can they be unauthorized when virtually every member of the Church leadership were involved?  So yes, my statement calling those Church statements untrue was true.

[Robert F. Smith]

It's true that polygamy is more significant of a doctrine than we care to discuss.  A polygamist was president of the Church until 1945, just 68 years ago.  And since then 3 more prophets (possibly a rumoured 4th) also practiced "next life" polygamy.  It is still very relevant in the Church.

A good many Jews from Islamic countries immigrated to Israel with multiple wives.  The State of Israel rightly raised no objection, but outlawed any future multiple marriages.  Getting excited about that is just plain silly.

 

Moreover, it appears that the Supreme Court decision in Reynolds vs the United States was a poor decision because based on false social data and extreme prejudice -- and there is every reason to believe that the decision upholding the ban on polygyny was unconstitutional and will be overturned soon.

[JLHPROF]

Your reference on the School of the Prophets is particularly interesting as a case in point - it is accessible information but most members know nothing about it.  The reference also provides no mention of the spiritual manifestations beyond a vague hint at the beginning, nor explanation of the ordinances performed.

Specialists and busybodies may have time to find out those things.  My question would be, Is it essential to your salvation?

 

 

My answer would be, yes, anything that provides additional knowledge of the character, person of God and how he lives is essential to my salvation.  Joseph Smith taught us that using John 17:3 as a text.

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

about which Joseph Smith taught:

"It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."

So when the accounts of the School of the Prophets record the physical manifestion of both God and Jesus Christ I consider that any learning I can receive from these accounts essential to my salvation.

Because after all:

"A man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge." AND "Man cannot be saved in ignorance."  - Joseph Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

There were no "polygynous marriages being performed by errant Apostles".  9 Apostles, 2 Presidents of Seventy, plus President Woodruff himself married additional wives after the manifesto, and many others continued to perform.  Post manifesto marriages were not errant actions unauthorised.

How can they be unauthorized when virtually every member of the Church leadership were involved?  So yes, my statement calling those Church statements untrue was true.

Excuse my ignorance, for which I am grateful to become better informed, but are you saying that your statements here have been proven to the satisfaction of every real historian (based on actual documentation about which there is no dispute)?  I realize that Mike Quinn read everyone's diary while working at the Church archives, but was this the proven and documented result of his research?

[Robert F. Smith]

My answer would be, yes, anything that provides additional knowledge of the character, person of God and how he lives is essential to my salvation.  Joseph Smith taught us that using John 17:3 as a text.

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

about which Joseph Smith taught:

"It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."

So when the accounts of the School of the Prophets record the physical manifestion of both God and Jesus Christ I consider that any learning I can receive from these accounts essential to my salvation.

Because after all:

"A man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge." AND "Man cannot be saved in ignorance."  - Joseph Smith

So, you reject my notion that "Specialists and busybodies may have time to find out those things," and insist that everyone has to know everything that Mike Quinn thinks he knows just to be saved?  Or are there nuances to take account of differing circumstances and abilities?

 

I too think that it would be nice if everyone were so broadly and deeply informed, but I just don't expect that as a practical matter.  Who has the time?

[Robert F. Smith]

And that would feel like a slap in the face if I were one of the many polygamists that sacrificed so much to live it. We hear plenty about the leaders that lived it, just not anything about their wives. It's a shame!

Actually, Tacenda, we know a great deal about the lives of those wives.  And a great deal has been written on that.  Those women were very capable, and were the first in the United States to get the vote.

[Tacenda]

Actually, Tacenda, we know a great deal about the lives of those wives. And a great deal has been written on that. Those women were very capable, and were the first in the United States to get the vote.

Names would be nice, church publications of any of BY and JS' s wives would be too. Current or in the last 20 years even better. ETA: CFR Edited October 4, 2013 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

Excuse my ignorance, for which I am grateful to become better informed, but are you saying that your statements here have been proven to the satisfaction of every real historian (based on actual documentation about which there is no dispute)?  I realize that Mike Quinn read everyone's diary while working at the Church archives, but was this the proven and documented result of his research?

 

So, you reject my notion that "Specialists and busybodies may have time to find out those things," and insist that everyone has to know everything that Mike Quinn thinks he knows just to be saved?  Or are there nuances to take account of differing circumstances and abilities?

 

I too think that it would be nice if everyone were so broadly and deeply informed, but I just don't expect that as a practical matter.  Who has the time?

 

1. I don't think only specialists and busybodies should be taught or discuss doctrines of the gospel and the knowledge we can gain from historians.  I think the membership at large deserves to be taught more than they receive from the current curriculum.  For example, the founding restoration doctrines taught by Joseph Smith in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith provide more instruction for our benefit and salvation than anything we receive in Gospel Doctrine class, and that's just one readily available source that should be studied.  I think that the church curriculum should teach more, and I think that we as members should study more.

 

2. There are HUGE numbers of books documenting the post-manifesto plural marriages of the leaders of the church between 1890 & 1910.  Quinn was the best known, there is also Hardy, Embry, Alexander, and more.  Even the Salt Lake Tribune published a list of new polygamous marriages after the manifesto.  It would take more time and space than we have here to list all references.  As to the quaility of their scholarship (looks like you don't think Quinn was very good), I leave that to other academics.  As long as they can back up their claims through a reasonable reference or two I'm ok with that as evidence.  And do these particular marriages matter to average members?  No.  But should the doctrine of plural marriage that led to them matter?  Absolutely.

[webbles]

There were no "polygynous marriages being performed by errant Apostles".  9 Apostles, 2 Presidents of Seventy, plus President Woodruff himself married additional wives after the manifesto, and many others continued to perform.  Post manifesto marriages were not errant actions unauthorised.

How can they be unauthorized when virtually every member of the Church leadership were involved?  So yes, my statement calling those Church statements untrue was true.

And aren't all of these "unauthorized" marriages performed by "errant Apostles" considered valid?  All the marriages that I know of between 1890 and 1904 were considered true sealings.  They didn't need to be resealed after their death.  There was no punishment for what they did.  They continued to live as polygamous families well into the mid and later 1900s.

[JLHPROF]

And aren't all of these "unauthorized" marriages performed by "errant Apostles" considered valid?  All the marriages that I know of between 1890 and 1904 were considered true sealings.  They didn't need to be resealed after their death.  There was no punishment for what they did.  They continued to live as polygamous families well into the mid and later 1900s.

 

As I said, there were very few unauthorized marriages before 1904 - virtually every plural marriage performed between 1890 & 1904 was simply "under the table" based on both church reaction and the maintained position of the person sealing.

 

However, there were unauthorized marriages after 1904 which led to excommunications, such as John W. Taylor and Matthias Cowley who seemed to argue that the second manifesto was as invalid as the first one.  But then there were those who got away with it by keeping quiet, like Rudger Clawson.

And yes, the people who married between 1890 & 1904 continued to live together and even have children well into the twentieth century.

[Robert F. Smith]

1. I don't think only specialists and busybodies should be taught or discuss doctrines of the gospel and the knowledge we can gain from historians.  I think the membership at large deserves to be taught more than they receive from the current curriculum.  For example, the founding restoration doctrines taught by Joseph Smith in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith provide more instruction for our benefit and salvation than anything we receive in Gospel Doctrine class, and that's just one readily available source that should be studied.  I think that the church curriculum should teach more, and I think that we as members should study more.

I can't argue with that more reasonable statement.

 

2. There are HUGE numbers of books documenting the post-manifesto plural marriages of the leaders of the church between 1890 & 1910.  Quinn was the best known, there is also Hardy, Embry, Alexander, and more.  Even the Salt Lake Tribune published a list of new polygamous marriages after the manifesto.  It would take more time and space than we have here to list all references.  As to the quaility of their scholarship (looks like you don't think Quinn was very good), I leave that to other academics.  As long as they can back up their claims through a reasonable reference or two I'm ok with that as evidence.  And do these particular marriages matter to average members?  No.  But should the doctrine of plural marriage that led to them matter?  Absolutely.

Was that a "yes" to my question whether "you are saying that your statements here have been proven to the satisfaction of every real historian (based on actual documentation about which there is no dispute)?  I realize that Mike Quinn read everyone's diary while working at the Church archives, but was this the proven and documented result of his research?"

You seem to equivocate in your answer, and you also seem to misread what I write to suggest that I think that Quinn was not very good, which is completely false.  Quinn is very smart and I have tremendous respect for him.  That doesn't make his work free from error, but one must take a close look at the footnotes of selected works.

[volgadon]

It's not the Constitution where amendments can be made and doctrine can be reinterpreted in the name of modern revelation. It doesn't work that way.

 

Actually, they can. That is the nature of an authorised interpreter.

[volgadon]

The cry "how does this affect my salvation" as an excuse not to study has always bothered me.

 

 

That bothers me, too.

[rockpond]

Actually, Tacenda, we know a great deal about the lives of those wives.  And a great deal has been written on that.  Those women were very capable, and were the first in the United States to get the vote.

 

The polygamist wives have all been excluded from the biographical timeline of each president for which a RS/Priesthood manual has been published.  First marriages/wives are mentioned but then nothing after that.