The September 6

[Blah]

I know people on discussion boards, NOM & Staylds, that have said that after reading RSR it started them out the door.

 

Funny, reading RSR led to experiences that greatly strengthened my testimony. 

[Damien the Leper]

Just depends on what stays the same. I can stay the same in my love for my children, and still expect them to learn, to grow, to do different things.

That has nothing to do with the subject.

I've grown tired of the monotonous and mundane regurgitated nonsense. There is absolutely nothing new, revelatory or revolutionary anymore concerning the Christian religion. A broad brush...yes I know. It's the same crud every time. The same arguments on both sides...whatever the sides may be. Orthodox and Mormonism used to be exciting. Faith used to be exciting. All I see anymore is archaic tradition that is outdated, progressivism that is stagnant, far reaching speculation, inconsistent theology, and bad neo-liberal and neo-conservative politics. It's all become a boring chore to discuss. Christianity has become a burden and scanned wound to defend. Its become a waste of my time to worry about theology and salvation. I've tried so damn hard to figure out and do what is right. I'm tired of it and I'm tired of stressing about what God or whoever the hell he is this week thinks about. I'm emotionally and spiritually exhausted. I'm not trying to be rude or blasphemous or get on some narcissistic soapbox. I'm just venting. I apologise if what I've said now and previously has offended anyone.

[Tacenda]

I think we've got plenty of time within the three hour block to include more teachings that would help inoculate against the collapsing shelf of cognitive dissonance. There is a lot of repetition in lesson material that could be reduced.

It would be nice if they threw in a church history class once a year like they do with family history and marriage classes. Can't remember how long these go. I attended the marriage class but dropped out of the family history one. Edited October 6, 2013 by Tacenda

[Robert F. Smith]

Is there anything that has been proven to the satisfaction of "every real historian"?

 

But, I think the really important question that JLHPROF raised is why didn't President Woodruff consider the first manifesto as a strong enough reason to stop polygamous sealings?  Why did he marry again after OD1?  I know that you've studied church history much more than I and so I am interested in your thoughts on that point.

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.

[why me]

It would be nice if they threw in a church history class once a year like they do with family history and marriage classes. Can't remember how long these go. I attended the marriage class but dropped out of the family history one.

And what should they discuss once a year? And what interpretation should they give? The class would need to be much more in depth. Even if the church was to publish a thousand page book, translated into several languages and force the members to read it, the critics will still give their own interpretations with their twisting of the facts to influence the members. The point that needs to be made is that no one should have a testimony of church history but rather of their own spiritual experiences when they prayed about the book fo mormon.

[Tacenda]

And what should they discuss once a year? And what interpretation should they give? The class would need to be much more in depth. Even if the church was to publish a thousand page book, translated into several languages and force the members to read it, the critics will still give their own interpretations with their twisting of the facts to influence the members. The point that needs to be made is that no one should have a testimony of church history but rather of their own spiritual experiences when they prayed about the book fo mormon.

What happened Why Me? You use to be a big advocate of being open and honest about things like JS's polygamy and such, in SS or elsewhere.

I think it would be very plausible. They could call it, The REST of the hiSTORY in Church History", just kidding, I'm sure they would come out with a better title for a class. Maybe even call historians for input in the class instruction book. I'm thinking people like Richard Bushman, Todd Compton, Brian Hales, and D. Michael Quinn for starters. But wait, where are the women historians I could have used here? Help?

The lesson guide could be sections of history and be a yearly thing. As some have mentioned (RSR by Bushman) it could very well be faith promoting with an emphasis that our church is definitely an evolving church, not stagnant but Jesus Christ's teachings the core, that should never change. I would think this would cover it completely, I know we have people like Richard Bushman and the couple that wrote "The God Who Weeps" (brain cramp, forgot their names) and Michael Ash giving firesides about things in history that cause doubt, but I just don't think it's enough.

What say ye?

[Calm]

IF the Church was going to do this...

 

Rather than having church time taken away, why not simply have leaders make videos dealing with each issue along with text with references for those who wanted to get more indepth?  And then put this all online at lds.org or make a cd collection for purchase for home study.  That way not as much risk getting a teacher who speculated or lacked knowledge and ended up making things worse rather than better.

[Nofear]

I've grown tired of the monotonous and mundane regurgitated nonsense. There is absolutely nothing new, revelatory or revolutionary anymore concerning the Christian religion...

 

The following suggests a reason:

 

Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. (D&C 93:31)

 

But, just because the Church as a whole is still working on issues, doesn't mean that the individual can't or shouldn't receive and partake of additional light. Though, of such one should not claim any priviledged revelation (see Alma 12:9 and verse 10 is also relevant to the first point).

Edited October 6, 2013 by Nofear

[Calm]

Left out an important word, apparently the cut and paste drops it out somehow because it just did it to me too:  "here is the agency of man"

[why me]

What happened Why Me? You use to be a big advocate of being open and honest about things like JS's polygamy and such, in SS or elsewhere.

I think it would be very plausible. They could call it, The REST of the hiSTORY in Church History", just kidding, I'm sure they would come out with a better title for a class. Maybe even call historians for input in the class instruction book. I'm thinking people like Richard Bushman, Todd Compton, Brian Hales, and D. Michael Quinn for starters. But wait, where are the women historians I could have used here? Help?

The lesson guide could be sections of history and be a yearly thing. As some have mentioned (RSR by Bushman) it could very well be faith promoting with an emphasis that our church is definitely an evolving church, not stagnant but Jesus Christ's teachings the core, that should never change. I would think this would cover it completely, I know we have people like Richard Bushman and the couple that wrote "The God Who Weeps" (brain cramp, forgot their names) and Michael Ash giving firesides about things in history that cause doubt, but I just don't think it's enough.

What say ye?

I would encourage more books published by lds historians and advertise them on lds.org. They should deal with the ins and outs of lds history without the sugar coating. Dessert has carried books that showed lds history in a different light. They are not hiding church history. The problem comes with people spending time during sunday meetings studying history. If I were to take christian history in general and take it to heart, I would become an atheist. Terrible things were committed by christians throughout christian history.

 

What happened yesterday was interesting. The GA said that leaders made mistakes. This is the first part in getting people to realize that history is never perfect because history is made by human beings. What catholic leaves their faith over their history and how many catholics know their history? Not many. But not many catholics believe that their leaders are very near to perfection. Most believe them to be very human. For many lds, their leaders are near to perfection and this is the mistake.

[Nofear]

Left out an important word, apparently the cut and paste drops it out somehow because it just did it to me too:  "here is the agency of man"

 

It was my bad. I was sloppy when I edited out the footnote links. Thanks for the catch.

[Calm]

It was my bad. I was sloppy when I edited out the footnote links. Thanks for the catch.

For me, it was that way with the paste...it didn't get erased by accident so you may not have been as sloppy as you think....but I can't seem to duplicate my google search even with the identical phrase so that particular link that I resorted to using isn't obviously coming up so we won't be able to compare if we both got it from the same place.

 

Sheesh...I am in an obsessive mode, what a thing to waste a post on, lol.

Edited October 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

Ageed.

[JLHPROF]

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.

 

Ageed.

 

It may be the reason the United Order and Plural Marriage were revoked was that earth's inhabitants aren't ready for their restoration.

But we know when a law is revoked we lose a blessing.  That makes me sad to think that God thinks we are unworthy of certain blessings.

But as long as there will be another restoration of all things then at least others will receive them...

Edited October 6, 2013 by JLHPROF

[thesometimesaint]

I know people on discussion boards, NOM & Staylds, that have said that after reading RSR it started them out the door.

 

Heck I know of people that left the Church when The Improvement Era was changed to the Ensign.

[thesometimesaint]

Some are interested in history.  Some aren't.  Unfortunately, we're losing members who (interested or not) are discovering things about church history that are unsettling... sometimes to the point of feeling betrayed.

 

I know that our salvation does not depend on history.  And I know that SS/PH/RS classes are not history classes.  But I believe that we need to try to do something to prevent people from leaving when discovering some of these historical details.

 

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?".

[thesometimesaint]

That has nothing to do with the subject.

I've grown tired of the monotonous and mundane regurgitated nonsense. There is absolutely nothing new, revelatory or revolutionary anymore concerning the Christian religion. A broad brush...yes I know. It's the same crud every time. The same arguments on both sides...whatever the sides may be. Orthodox and Mormonism used to be exciting. Faith used to be exciting. All I see anymore is archaic tradition that is outdated, progressivism that is stagnant, far reaching speculation, inconsistent theology, and bad neo-liberal and neo-conservative politics. It's all become a boring chore to discuss. Christianity has become a burden and scanned wound to defend. Its become a waste of my time to worry about theology and salvation. I've tried so damn hard to figure out and do what is right. I'm tired of it and I'm tired of stressing about what God or whoever the hell he is this week thinks about. I'm emotionally and spiritually exhausted. I'm not trying to be rude or blasphemous or get on some narcissistic soapbox. I'm just venting. I apologise if what I've said now and previously has offended anyone.

 

I am sorry you feel that way. But such hasn't been my experience. I still find it exciting and challenging after all these years. Kinda like what Gandalf said to Frodo about Hobbits. Gandalf: "My dear Frodo. Hobbits really are amazing creatures! You can learn all that there is to know about their ways in a month, and yet after a hundred years, they can still surprise you.".  I believe God really like his job, even after an eternity of doing it. No problem. I don't offend easily.

Edited October 6, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Robert F. Smith]

What happened Why Me? You use to be a big advocate of being open and honest about things like JS's polygamy and such, in SS or elsewhere.

I think it would be very plausible. They could call it, The REST of the hiSTORY in Church History", just kidding, I'm sure they would come out with a better title for a class. Maybe even call historians for input in the class instruction book. I'm thinking people like Richard Bushman, Todd Compton, Brian Hales, and D. Michael Quinn for starters. But wait, where are the women historians I could have used here? Help?

The lesson guide could be sections of history and be a yearly thing. As some have mentioned (RSR by Bushman) it could very well be faith promoting with an emphasis that our church is definitely an evolving church, not stagnant but Jesus Christ's teachings the core, that should never change. I would think this would cover it completely, I know we have people like Richard Bushman and the couple that wrote "The God Who Weeps" (brain cramp, forgot their names) and Michael Ash giving firesides about things in history that cause doubt, but I just don't think it's enough.

What say ye?

Jesse Embry is great on polygyny, and there are many other female historians of Mormonism.  Jan Shipps is probably among the very best.

Terryl and the lovely Fiona Givens wrote The God Who Weeps.

[Tacenda]

Jesse Embry is great on polygyny, and there are many other female historians of Mormonism. Jan Shipps is probably among the very best.

Terryl and the lovely Fiona Givens wrote The God Who Weeps.

Shortly after I wrote that post I remembered their names. I've definitely got "sometimers" not quite all timers (Alzheimer's). Thanks for the info, hard to believe we don't have more women historians on the matter.

[why me]

Jesse Embry is great on polygyny, and there are many other female historians of Mormonism.  Jan Shipps is probably among the very best.

Terryl and the lovely Fiona Givens wrote The God Who Weeps.

I think that people don't realize that no church writes their own history. Most books on the Papacy are written by historians who can be either catholic or non-catholic but not published by the vatican. Hopefully, lds history will be written by objective historians and not by exmember historians with an axe to grind. Perhaps more historians will be interested in lds history as time moves on.  The whole 'church hides its history' angle is bogus and meant to mislead the members.

[Damien the Leper]

I am sorry you feel that way. But such hasn't been my experience. I still find it exciting and challenging after all these years. Kinda like what Gandalf said to Frodo about Hobbits. Gandalf: "My dear Frodo. Hobbits really are amazing creatures! You can learn all that there is to know about their ways in a month, and yet after a hundred years, they can still surprise you.".  I believe God really like his job, even after an eternity of doing it. No problem. I don't offend easily.

Deleted.

 

Valentinus: Refrain from sacrilegious comments.

 

Apologies.

 

ETA: I'm not entirely sure that my comment was neccessarily sacrilegious. I simply shared my own perspective in such a way that it gave God the benefit of doubt. If it was the reference to "Old Man" and "Kid" then that is simply splitting hairs.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Valentinus

[cdowis]

Valentinus,

 

I wish you all the best.

 

Goodbye.

[Damien the Leper]

The following suggests a reason:

 

 

But, just because the Church as a whole is still working on issues, doesn't mean that the individual can't or shouldn't receive and partake of additional light. Though, of such one should not claim any privileged revelation (see Alma 12:9 and verse 10 is also relevant to the first point).

Meh...there is much more to learn from living life than vicarious experiences. That is where true light can come from.

[Jude2]

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.

 

I don’t see that Br. Smith’s question has been answered.  I’ve looked up a Quinn footnote or two and found them wanting, in other words he can’t be completely trusted. So are all these marriages after the manifesto fact or Quinn’s wishful thinking, has anyone followed through and doubled check his footnotes? 

[JLHPROF]

I don’t see that Br. Smith’s question has been answered.  I’ve looked up a Quinn footnote or two and found them wanting, in other words he can’t be completely trusted. So are all these marriages after the manifesto fact or Quinn’s wishful thinking, has anyone followed through and doubled check his footnotes? 

 

I believe (although I'm not positive) that B.Carmon Hardy who actually lists the 262 marriages in his book checked all his references.  He and Quinn both make the same claims from the same sources.

 

And as far as Br. Smith's request - "proven to the satisfaction of every real historian" is a ridiculous request. 

First, it claims that Quinn is not a real historian. 

Second, it implies that historians agree for the most part when they rarely agree on things. 

And finally, this is a message board, not a university or academic organization.  A reference (three in fact) for the existence of sanctioned post-manifesto marriages were provided to a CFR, using published scholarly works.  The scholarly level of those works or Quinns research methodology maybe something for debate, but for the purposes of this discussion, they are sufficient as providing one reference.

Edited October 7, 2013 by JLHPROF