The September 6

[rockpond]

I'm all for nuance. But lets not get so bogged down in the details(nuance) that we forget to see the overall picture.

 

I agree with this (although I don't think that nuance is the same as details).  But I agree we need to stay focused on the bigger picture.  And throughout each week and on Sunday as I focus on my calling and the members of our ward, that's what I strive to do.

 

And among the issues in that overall picture are the members going through faith crises... I can only do my best to address it in my ward.  Sometimes the conversations here help with that.

[rockpond]

From my perspective President Woodruff didn't lead the Church astray. He simply didn't know how to impliment the elimination of its practice while taking care of his responsibilities. Something very common inside and outside the Church.

 

I get not knowing how to eliminate the practice of polygamy for those who were already in plural marriages (obviously nobody would want to break up families).  But if he had felt that he received a revelation to stop practicing plural marriage, why would he add another wife?

 

All I can come up with is that he thought anyone already involved in plural marriages might as well continue adding wives.  But that kinda still put the church at risk since it meant that the temples were still performing polygamous marriages.

Edited October 4, 2013 by rockpond

[thesometimesaint]

I am an ignoramous but who exactly were the Sept 6? This is a really interesting thread, but I feel I barely know the story. However, from an outsiders POV, it would appear that while the LDS church does not practice polygamy, it seems from these posts it still does in the form of sprirtual wifery as a Temple ritual. If women are being sealed then surely polygamy is still practiced. Another point that occurred to me is that if SSM becomes legal and polygamy might be legalised on the back of that via a challenge to the law by fundamentalist Mormons, wouldn't it be ironic if such an important  LDS principle is re-established by fundamentalists and not the mainstream church. Would they not feel justified in thinking that they were right all along and the LDS church has been mistaken by moving away from the doctrine. If polygamy becomes legalised is it possible that some members might feel that now that the way had been cleared, that they were duty bound to practice this principle?.And what might be the implications for 20th century women who are a far cry from the women of the 19th century ?

 

We do not practice polygamy. You can be married and Sealed to only one living spouse, without having a Temple divorce.  We haven't moved away from the doctrine only its earthly practice. the law can and doesn't have any hold on what happens after death.

 

In LDS theology monogamy is default position with polygamy at Gods' discretion.

[rockpond]

Why God chose to institute polygamy in the early Church is given in Scripture. To raise up seed to him. I think that while important for those that were commanded to practice it. To us today it isn't important. See the example of King David. It wasn't the fact that David practiced polygamy, God would have given him more wives, but how he treated Uriah that was important.

 

Raising up seed does not appear to be the reason that Joseph practiced plural marriage.

 

And I remember once reading the stats that showed in Utah, monogamous women produced (on average) more children than polygamous women.  So, in terms of raising up seed -- that might not have worked.  Maybe that's the reason that God pulled the plug on it.

[thesometimesaint]

Regarding those who practiced post-manifesto polygamy, you stated:

 

 

So it's okay to say that they were prone to error and sin here on this public message board behind a pseudonym.  But with respect to Brother Toscano, it's not okay to say what you believe those errors actually might be?  Is that the line between faithful membership and apostasy?

 

I'm just trying to understand your view on this since you've kinda vaguely accused the "6" (or some/one of them?) of stating that BY was a fallen prophet as a result of his practice of polygamy.

 

Stating what Mr.Tascano says about himself isn't idle speculation about any shortcomings of someone else. BY probably was the most authoritarian President we've ever had. But even that doesn't rise to the level of what Mr. Tascano is claiming.

[rockpond]

I am an ignoramous but who exactly were the Sept 6? This is a really interesting thread, but I feel I barely know the story. However, from an outsiders POV, it would appear that while the LDS church does not practice polygamy, it seems from these posts it still does in the form of sprirtual wifery as a Temple ritual. If women are being sealed then surely polygamy is still practiced. Another point that occurred to me is that if SSM becomes legal and polygamy might be legalised on the back of that via a challenge to the law by fundamentalist Mormons, wouldn't it be ironic if such an important  LDS principle is re-established by fundamentalists and not the mainstream church. Would they not feel justified in thinking that they were right all along and the LDS church has been mistaken by moving away from the doctrine. If polygamy becomes legalised is it possible that some members might feel that now that the way had been cleared, that they were duty bound to practice this principle?.And what might be the implications for 20th century women who are a far cry from the women of the 19th century ?

 

Polygamous marriages in mortal life were mostly stopped around 1904 when excommunications began for those who still entered into new polygamous marriages.

 

Now, we seal people to more than one spouse for the eternities but only one living spouse at a time.  The implicit doctrine is that polygamy will be practiced in the next life through these sealings.

[rockpond]

Stating what Mr.Tascano says about himself isn't idle speculation about any shortcomings of someone else. BY probably was the most authoritarian President we've ever had. But even that doesn't rise to the level of what Mr. Tascano is claiming.

 

Who said anything was idle speculation?

 

What did Brother Toscano say about BY?  You haven't actually identified anything yet.

[thesometimesaint]

Raising up seed does not appear to be the reason that Joseph practiced plural marriage.

 

And I remember once reading the stats that showed in Utah, monogamous women produced (on average) more children than polygamous women.  So, in terms of raising up seed -- that might not have worked.  Maybe that's the reason that God pulled the plug on it.

 

Coulds be. But I'm hesitant to ascribe any one reason for its non practice. For me the mostly likeliest of reasons is that God showed the results of continuing polygamy in the face of serious federal persecution.

[thesometimesaint]

Who said anything was idle speculation?

 

What did Brother Toscano say about BY?  You haven't actually identified anything yet.

Mr. Tascano claimed that the leaders of the Church had fallen into legalism, ecclesiastical tyranny, white-washed Mormon history, and hierarchical authoritarianism that privilege the image of the corporate LDS Church above its commitment to its members, to the teachings and revelations of Joseph Smith its founding Prophet, and to the gospel of Jesus Christ. And 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.

 

I don't know how to put it any plainer He drew false conclusions from his research, and then publically challenged the Church.

Edited October 4, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[rockpond]

 Mr. Tascano claimed that the leaders of the Church had fallen into legalism, ecclesiastical tyranny, white-washed Mormon history, and hierarchical authoritarianism that privilege the image of the corporate LDS Church above its commitment to its members, to the teachings and revelations of Joseph Smith its founding Prophet, and to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

You inserted the word "fallen" into his statements.  And my understanding from listening to him is that he was speaking of the current leadership.  Do you have any evidence that he claimed BY was a fallen prophet?

[thesometimesaint]

It matters little which leader of the Church you are publically attacking. We've had critics and individual apostacy in every generation of the Church. Some have even said that JS was a fallen prophet because of polygamy.

Edited October 4, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[jkwilliams]

It matters little which leader of the Church you are publically attacking. We had critics and individual apostacy in every generation of the Church.

Given what Elder Oaks has said about criticism, it seems clear that any criticism of the brethren from a member or group of members, however well-intentioned, is likely to be considered an attack. I was at the All-Church Coordinating Council meeting in 1993 when Elder Packer gave his talk about "facing the right way." According to him, authority flows in one direction, so there's no room for feedback, let alone criticism.

I'm not saying that to be critical, as I think that's just the way it is. People who think they can change the church from within are on a fool's errand. The church simply does not work that way, whether or not you believe the brethren are inspired.

[rockpond]

It matters little which leader of the Church you are publically attacking. We've had critics and individual apostacy in every generation of the Church. Some have even said that JS was a fallen prophet because of polygamy.

 

So as long as you keep your criticisms unspecified and generically directed (as you did), it's okay?  Again, just trying to understand your POV here but you don't seem to really want to answer my questions.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not overly fond of many of things Brother Packer has said over the years. But I still support him in his calling. That being said he is right in that we are a top down organization. But I don't believe that that is a cut and dried as some like to pretend. They do listen to the members and do appeal to the Lord for inspiration.

[rockpond]

People who think they can change the church from within are on a fool's errand. The church simply does not work that way, whether or not you believe the brethren are inspired.

 

Well, there are some accounts of changing the church from within...

 

If you've ever read or listened to Greg Prince he talks about how the YSA program was really initiated at a grassroots level in Southern California before being looked at closely by the Brethren and adopted globally.

 

We also saw a petition for women to pray in conference that just happened to immediately precede the decision to finally fully implement President Kimball's 1978 counsel that women be permitted to pray in every meeting that they attend.

 

Just about a week ago we saw the possible impact of the Ordain Women movement as it was coincidentally announced that the priesthood session would be broadcast live for the first time.

 

I believe that the good Brethren who lead this church listen to the righteous input from its members.

 

As a final note, President Uchtdorf said the following in a worldwide leadership training meeting last year:

"Brothers and sisters, as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit. Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?"

Edited October 4, 2013 by rockpond

[thesometimesaint]

So as long as you keep your criticisms unspecified and generically directed (as you did), it's okay?  Again, just trying to understand your POV here but you don't seem to really want to answer my questions.

 

I'm only taking what Mr. Tascano has said about himself. Why should I not believe what he himself say about himself?

 

My POV is that I'll leave whatever shortcoming(s) someone has up to them and God. Unless they make it my business or by asking for my help in resolving the conflict.

[rockpond]

I'm only taking what Mr. Tascano has said about himself. Why should I not believe what he himself say about himself?

 

My POV is that I'll leave whatever shortcoming(s) someone has up to them and God. Unless they make it my business or by asking for my help in resolving the conflict.

 

What did Brother Toscano say about Brigham Young?  You keep generically leveling that accusation without backing it up.

 

You also have vaguely indicated that he accused the prophet(s) of being fallen.  Maybe that isn't what you were trying to say.

 

I think that you should believe what Toscano says about himself and I think that you shouldn't put words in his mouth.

 

And if your POV is that you leave a person's shortcomings between them and God, then maybe you should stop accusing these individuals of saying & doing things without actual knowledge.

[Calm]

 

We also saw a petition for women to pray in conference that just happened to immediately precede the decision to finally fully implement President Kimball's 1978 counsel that women be permitted to pray in every meeting that they attend.

 "

The scheduling of the prayers was already in place before the petition was organised according to Mark Tuttle and a couple of other reports, though I wouldn't be surprised if the idea came about because of the general discussion going on about increasing women's visible presence. For example, iirc Neylan McBaine made that suggestion in an earlier Fair presentation and elsewhere and she has worked closely with the leadership on various projects so she could have easily shared such info.

[Tacenda]

Raising up seed does not appear to be the reason that Joseph practiced plural marriage.

And I remember once reading the stats that showed in Utah, monogamous women produced (on average) more children than polygamous women. So, in terms of raising up seed -- that might not have worked. Maybe that's the reason that God pulled the plug on it.

I don't think the plug was ever in, just need to get a witness that it was needed before moving on.

[cdowis]

 

 

Just about a week ago we saw the possible impact of the Ordain Women movement as it was coincidentally announced that the priesthood session would be broadcast live for the first time.

 

 

And how much preparation and time does it take to add an additional broadcast.  A couple of weeks?

 

Or was this already planned months in advance, and only recently announced after the details were finalized.

[cdowis]

Why God chose to institute polygamy in the early Church is given in Scripture. To raise up seed to him. 

 

 

Perhaps, but it was for the same reason that the United Order was instituted -- the restoration of all things.  In both cases, the practice was taken as long as possible, but will be restored permanently when the earth's inhabitants are ready and the Lord reigns on the earth.

[volgadon]

Then I suppose the "same yesterday, today and forever" rhetoric is null. Either things stay the same or they don't. There is no gray area on this. The phrase cannot merely be a self-serving sentiment and theological or moral qualifier.

 

 

There is definitely a grey area when we consider what Paul said about seeing through a glass, darkly.

[rockpond]

And how much preparation and time does it take to add an additional broadcast.  A couple of weeks?

 

Or was this already planned months in advance, and only recently announced after the details were finalized.

 

And the Ordain Women movement started a long time ago.  The petition for the priesthood session was not a secret as they were gathering signatures.

 

One can certainly choose to see the priesthood session announcement and women praying in conference as mere coincidences.  Or we can choose to look at a positive spin that members of the church raised an issue, the Brethren listened, and changes were made for the betterment of the church.

[savedbygrace]

Polygamous marriages in mortal life were mostly stopped around 1904 when excommunications began for those who still entered into new polygamous marriages.

Now, we seal people to more than one spouse for the eternities but only one living spouse at a time. The implicit doctrine is that polygamy will be practiced in the next life through these sealings.

[savedbygrace]

Sorry messed that up, using my phone. Can you tell me what happens to those women who were sealed to more than one man?