The Stumbling Blocks Of The Church

[Tacenda]

Ewww..you take your disgust to a level beyond that which I do.  Interesting take.  Thanks.

Well, it's why I am here, and why I've lost my testimony, why wouldn't I be disgusted, it's changed my life.  I'd be a totally different human being if it weren't practiced the way it is and was in certain circumstances.  Emma would have stayed a member, JS might have lived a longer life and he even seems to have disavowed it in his last moments.  My research into polygamy has opened my eyes, no one seems to care or see the underbelly of it.... in our current leadership nothing is said or done about it, only that we don't practice it, we aren't one of them, ewww.  They just want to sweep it under the carpet.     

Edited December 10, 2013 by Tacenda

[teddyaware]

If the LDS Church offers something more, as in truth, then it cannot be said "the RLDS Church was, in reality, the LDS Church".

Genuine truth seekers will never accept the LDS Church as ordained by God. That's my opinion. And God will bless them still the same. I can't wait to see it all unfold in the way I anticipate. many a minds will be blown.

Without going farther than you're comfortable, please elaborate on what you mean by your

anticiptions of how things will unfoldand how minds will be blown. And did actually you mean to

say "some genuine truth seakers?"

[stemelbow]

Well, it's why I am here, and why I've lost my testimony, why wouldn't I be disgusted, it's changed my life.  I'd be a totally different human being if it weren't practiced the way it is and was in certain circumstances.  Emma would have stayed a member, JS might have lived a longer life and he even seems to have disavowed it at his last moments.  My research into polygamy has opened my eyes, no one seems to care or see the underbelly of it.... in our current leadership nothing is said or done about it, only that we don't practice it, we aren't one of them, ewww.  They just want to sweep it under the carpet.

When I said, interesting take, I meant it. Thanks for the input. I can agree that polygamy had a lasting negative effect that no one in the Church seems to acknowledge or care about. But, I also acknowledge many a polygamist situations were/are mutually acceptable to those who are participating. Some actually seem to feel it is beneficial. Some actually feel they lived productive lives while tied down with polygamy. So I in a way, have to accept a "to each their own" attitude balanced against my negative reactions to it.

[stemelbow]

Without going farther than you're comfortable, please elaborate on what you mean by your

anticiptions of how things will unfoldand how minds will be blown. And did actually you mean to

say "some genuine truth seakers?"

Yes. To be clear, I did mean some genuine truth seekers...

I just think God has plans for people who never join the Church, never knew about it, and even for those who leave it. That is to say, God's plans may be full exaltation into eternity. Years and years ago I had an institute instructor who told me this and it sunk in well. many a Church member will probably end up with a "depart from me, I never knew you" which will blow their ever expanding heads. Many a person who did not accept the Church or did not hear it, will be given the type of salvation that most of us won't even get a sniff at, I'm thinking. I don't know if that's what you were looking for or not, but there's a bit of an expansion of my comments.

[Maestrophil]

Kind of related to Kenngo's point - I often wonder if all of the difficulty and adversity that the early saints faced because of their "peculiar" practices made them a more resolute people - that without these "all or nothing" kind of doctrines, the membership and leadership would have been more complacent, missionaries less enthusiastic and effective and growth not any better as a result.  Or even possibly the church fading into obscurity or being morphed into something generic and unidentifiable from other mainstream Christian denominations. 

 

Fun to kind of imagine the "what ifs".  Personally for me, part of what appeals to me in Mormonism is the dedication and covenants is requires.  I don't desire to be part of a soft-sell spirituality that tells me I get a free pass to feel and do what I want - I don't think I would be a better person for it.  I'm too lazy!  :-)

Edited December 10, 2013 by Maestrophil

[bluebell]

I take such issue with both polygamy and the Priesthood ban.  Both wounded and continue to wound people.  The FLDS religion is a faith built on the philosophies of our early prophets.  You go in their homes and pictures of JS or BY are on the wall, besides the one with their current prophet Warren Jeffs.   

 

It's not easy to swallow, but it's a fact, without JS implementing this type of marriage, not only the church but the world would be different, atleast in several parts of the USA and Canada.  Thousands of women, children, and even men, are in bondage because of it. 

 

Thousands of men, women, and children would never have been born without polygamy.

 

And the FLDS may have been founded on the philosophies of our early prophets, but they left those philosophies long ago.  The FLDS church does not have the market on polygamy, and you need to make sure that you don't equate the two as if one equals the other.  That doesn't do anyone any good.

 

Just look at the other off-shoot polygamy churches which also come from the teachings of early LDS prophets and see how incredibly different they are from the FLDS (and each other sometimes) to see how simply having polygamy in common does not mean that polygamy is at fault for every evil that exists in the FLDS church.  

[BlueDreams]

Oops. I meant to hit the quote button and hit the reputation button instead.

 

I'm not necessarily embarrassed by either one per se. I have more to say, but I have a number of deadlines to hit before I can do that. I like the topic though. 

 

with luv,

BD

[Tacenda]

When I said, interesting take, I meant it. Thanks for the input. I can agree that polygamy had a lasting negative effect that no one in the Church seems to acknowledge or care about. But, I also acknowledge many a polygamist situations were/are mutually acceptable to those who are participating. Some actually seem to feel it is beneficial. Some actually feel they lived productive lives while tied down with polygamy. So I in a way, have to accept a "to each their own" attitude balanced against my negative reactions to it.

Same here, I'll have to admit, ever since viewing shows like "Sister Wives".  I'll leave it at that and just say, who knows if the church would be different or better today without it and the Priesthood Ban.   

[AndyDnom]

If the Church did not incorporate Polygamy nor the priesthood ban it would be 16 times the Church it is today. 

 

True or false?

 

When I think of the Church and it's history and practices these two issues embarrass me.  I have no particular argument that makes them seem justifiable.  But they were, they are.  They are our reality. 

 

I question whether the Church is really making better people, but if that is the purpose of the Church its a shame there these two things happened.  I think without them, the Church would be far more squeaky clean, presentable and acceptable.

 

Thoughts? condemnations?

I love this question Stemelbow, and thank you for posting it.

 

Most the folks I talk to at church have sort of an attitude that everything that is, must have been. That everythign that happened to the church is an inevitable reality. When in fact, you could argue they have been either profoundly inept or unlucky with their history. The church did not HAVE to have racism, polygamy, Mark Hoffman, and the book of abrahm in their history, for example. Those things happened to happen, but I do not believe they were god's will, just choices that people made, and unlucky happenstance. If things had gone differently you might have a mormon church with no polygamy, or a world in which mark hoffman blows himself up before doing forgeries, or decides not to do them. As it as has gone, there are just soo very many negative occurences in the history of the LDS church. It's hard to argue it has not been detrimental to its growth.

 

Or another way to put it, what game changing event, besides jesus christ returning to earth and endorsing mormonism, is left to promote growth? Its clear from the leaked Europe membership report that membership has gone DOWN during the last two years. If a mormon running for president and running the US senate, and DOUBLING your missionary force (temporarily i might add) isn't enough to create growth, then what is? Another steve young sports hero? another great PR event like Prop 8? A series of 12 essays that chip away at previous leaders credibility?

[bluebell]

RLDS is not LDS.  Thus, your argument is flawed.  I'm not saying any old group could be the best thing out there if they simply did not practice any racism or polygamy.  That's not my point. 

 

Isn't the RLDS, especially when it first started, just the LDS church without polygamy and with different men as prophets?

 

Alan makes a good point.  Obviously there is no way to prove your argument since it's just a giant 'what if', but if you are serious in wondering, then looking at the RLDS-a church with the same basic teachings and organizational structure as the LDS in the 1800s-and seeing how they developed without polygamy or the ban would be incredibly important.

[thesometimesaint]

I just don't see where polygamy is a big issue. Sure in our modern Western eyes it is a little strange. But Christians throughout the ages have practiced and recommended it. If JS would have proposed having a dozen, or so, mistresses the world would be beating a path to the Church doors. Marring them costs lots of money, time, and effort. Please don't misunderstand I have no desire for more wives than I already have(1), and sociologically polygamy on a mass scale is a dead end street. But if some small group really wants to I can find no theologically sound arguments against it.

 

The WoW is much more than not drinking coffee. The whole with prayerful skill and wisdom part gets overlooked. I doubt many inside let alone those outside the Church give much thought to that part of the WoW. IE; While tobacco isn't good for us. Few today know that it is a good dewormer for animals.

 

I try not to judge my friends by the religion they have. A good person is good person regardless of their personal beliefs. A good friend is someone whom knows all about you and still likes you anyway. The Church took me in, dusted me off; poured the Balm of Gilead into my many wounds of outrageous fortune, clothed me in robes of righteousness, and Priesthood power; and called me Brother; It gave me a seat at the table for the Feast of the Bridegroom. I see that as nothing less than the greatest thing that has ever happened to me.

[juliann]

I suspect your estimation might be a little ambitious, but the church would no doubt be larger without the ban. The church exempted an entire continent (minus the white population in S. Africa) from missionaries until 1978. Africans are especially receptive to religion and Christianity has found it to be fertile grounds. IMO, Africa is where much of the future growth of the church will occur as it continues to slow in developed countries. Imagine how many millions of members the church would have in Africa if we had devoted more resources to it's growth after the initial burst of growth in Europe subsided.

The original question relies on the assumption that growth is dependent on the white western world that abhors such things as polygamy.   I have to acknowledge I am who I am because of polygamy but I'd really wonder why the church hasn't removed its shadow from women.   But I wonder if polygamy might be a help in male dominated societies by appealing to male superiority.  If the males join because of patriarchy they can then be taught how to elevate their women that do not have cultural or political support.   As much as I think the church needs to up their inclusion of women, the current teachings about women and the honorable place they hold in the family and society would be a huge step up for many. 

 

In other words, some of this may actually be helpful in the big picture that we never look at. (And when racism is admitted to people are willing to set it aside...they have to, everything was once racist.)  How would/should our thinking change if we could ever acknowledge that our western culture will become inconsequential in a truly global church that is dominated by Africans and Hispanics?   And given the softening of China,  I don't think adding them in the future is a stretch. 

Edited December 10, 2013 by juliann

[AndyDnom]

I just don't see where polygamy is a big issue.

Polygamy is a big issue because everyone who starts a religion pretty soon starts deciding that god wants them to take in extra money and extra sexual partners. For mormonism to hold a unique truth claim it sure would strengthen the position if they didnt have to explain away their leader taking in extra money and women as a result of his receiving instruction from god. I mean what are the odds that god talks to humans for the first time in 1800 years and one of the first things he makes sure is that his chosen leader and prophet takes extra women as his wives? that seems so incredibly unlikely to me, that I just can't believe it. Plus, it put the founding prophet in a position of lying to his wife and lying in public statements. Not a strong way to build a religion.

[CA Steve]

Thousands of men, women, and children would never have been born without polygamy.

 

And the FLDS may have been founded on the philosophies of our early prophets, but they left those philosophies long ago.  The FLDS church does not have the market on polygamy, and you need to make sure that you don't equate the two as if one equals the other.  That doesn't do anyone any good.

 

Just look at the other off-shoot polygamy churches which also come from the teachings of early LDS prophets and see how incredibly different they are from the FLDS (and each other sometimes) to see how simply having polygamy in common does not mean that polygamy is at fault for every evil that exists in the FLDS church.  

Can you clarify please? Are you saying that thousands of additional people were born because of polygamy or that thousands of different people were born because of polygamy?

 

I am not sure if you are asserting that polygamy increased the birth rate or that it just brought different people into the world as a result.

[cinepro]

If the Church did not incorporate Polygamy nor the priesthood ban it would be 16 times the Church it is today. 

 

True or false?

 

When I think of the Church and it's history and practices these two issues embarrass me.  I have no particular argument that makes them seem justifiable.  But they were, they are.  They are our reality. 

 

I question whether the Church is really making better people, but if that is the purpose of the Church its a shame there these two things happened.  I think without them, the Church would be far more squeaky clean, presentable and acceptable.

 

Thoughts? condemnations?

 

 

From what I can tell from the Church curriculum and other official publications, the Church agrees with you.

[thesometimesaint]

Polygamy is a big issue because everyone who starts a religion pretty soon starts deciding that god wants them to take in extra money and extra sexual partners. For mormonism to hold a unique truth claim it sure would strengthen the position if they didnt have to explain away their leader taking in extra money and women as a result of his receiving instruction from god. I mean what are the odds that god talks to humans for the first time in 1800 years and one of the first things he makes sure is that his chosen leader and prophet takes extra women as his wives? that seems so incredibly unlikely to me, that I just can't believe it. Plus, it put the founding prophet in a position of lying to his wife and lying in public statements. Not a strong way to build a religion.

Wives cost money. I probably had one of the cheapest weddings in recent LDS history(Less than $20). Whatever we both make goes to maintain both of us, and when the kids were still at home maintaining them as well.

 

Why? It doesn't seemed to have been that big an issue with the polygamous sects of Christianity that have existed throughout history. Martin Luther certainly did not have an issue with it, other than keeping it out of the public eye.

[Danzo]

I love this question Stemelbow, and thank you for posting it.

 

Most the folks I talk to at church have sort of an attitude that everything that is, must have been. That everythign that happened to the church is an inevitable reality. When in fact, you could argue they have been either profoundly inept or unlucky with their history. The church did not HAVE to have racism, polygamy, Mark Hoffman, and the book of abrahm in their history, for example. Those things happened to happen, but I do not believe they were god's will, just choices that people made, and unlucky happenstance. If things had gone differently you might have a mormon church with no polygamy, or a world in which mark hoffman blows himself up before doing forgeries, or decides not to do them. As it as has gone, there are just soo very many negative occurences in the history of the LDS church. It's hard to argue it has not been detrimental to its growth.

 

Or another way to put it, what game changing event, besides jesus christ returning to earth and endorsing mormonism, is left to promote growth? Its clear from the leaked Europe membership report that membership has gone DOWN during the last two years. If a mormon running for president and running the US senate, and DOUBLING your missionary force (temporarily i might add) isn't enough to create growth, then what is? Another steve young sports hero? another great PR event like Prop 8? A series of 12 essays that chip away at previous leaders credibility?

 

do share with us the leaked Europe Membership report

[Danzo]

I would speculate (since we are all speculating here anyway) that D&C 132 (the section that discusses polygamy) is responsible for the bulk of the growth of the church.  With out the doctrines found in that revelation, our church would be a shadow of what it is now.

[Robert F. Smith]

I do not understand why polygamy would be a stumbling block. As for the Priesthood, it was a Doctrine and we do not know why God had it that way. Just as we do not know why only males are given the Priesthood. We could make up excuses for it but we are not in a position to speak for God. Both polygamy and the Priesthood ban are only a stumbling block when we try to intellectually justify them. If we accept it was Gods will, we need to either accept we do not know why or ask God why.

The ban on Negro priesthood, which came into vogue only after the death of Joseph (who ordained them and boldly declared that they should not be slaves), has nothing in common with polygyny -- which is doctrine, even when in abeyance.

 

That ban on Negro priesthood was never doctrine, and we should not blame God for our own shortcomings.  The Mountain Meadows massacre was also not God's fault.  We need to own up to our poor discipleship in some cases, and in other cases our direct opposition to God's plans.

 

We are supposed to be the Saints of God -- His Holy Ones, who do His will.  A tall order, and making excuses and coming up with absurd folklore will not substitute for righteousness.  We need to repent.

[pogi]

Polygamy and the priesthood ban are definitely some of our critics favorite points today.  

 

In the beginning, however, the priesthood ban was not the problem, it was Joseph Smith's abolitionist stance and political involvement.  I think that this is by far the biggest reason for our small numbers.  Had we been political allies with our neighbors, I have no doubt that the church would have flourished back East.  In fact, it is sad to say that had the ban been implemented earlier (and disbanded earlier), it probably would have won us some serious friends and converts.  

Edited December 10, 2013 by pogi

[Robert F. Smith]

I take such issue with both polygamy and the Priesthood ban.  Both wounded and continue to wound people.  The FLDS religion is a faith built on the philosophies of our early prophets.  You go in their homes and pictures of JS or BY are on the wall, besides the one with their current prophet Warren Jeffs.   

 

It's not easy to swallow, but it's a fact, without JS implementing this type of marriage, not only the church but the world would be different, atleast in several parts of the USA and Canada.  Thousands of women, children, and even men, are in bondage because of it. 

Not only is that pedophile Warren Jeffs not representative of polygyny in the intermountain West (most polygynists are not associated with the FLDS Church), but he and his flock can in no way be compared with polygyny under Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.  It would be like comparing the leadership of Adolf Hitler to that of George Washington.

[AndyDnom]

do share with us the leaked Europe Membership report

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rkrzewzliwbsrvl/2014%20Europe%20Area%20Plan%20Executive%20Version%20-%20English.pdf

[AndyDnom]

Wives cost money. I probably had one of the cheapest weddings in recent LDS history(Less than $20). Whatever we both make goes to maintain both of us, and when the kids were still at home maintaining them as well.

 

Why? It doesn't seemed to have been that big an issue with the polygamous sects of Christianity that have existed throughout history. Martin Luther certainly did not have an issue with it, other than keeping it out of the public eye.

You have to know that the extra cost of a polygamous wife isn't equal to the piece of mind a religious leader gets from knowing he's not a cheater, just a secretive polygamist authorized by god in the tradition of solomon!

 

And please tell me you are smart enough to know the difference between how it will affect 2013 membership if your leaders were polygamists or adulterers in 200 AD , 1400 AD, or 1840 AD. And when did the last LDS general authority give up polygamy / die, 1956? Many of the posters on this board were alive when the LDS prophet was a polygamist, and certainly when the LDS prophet grew up in a polygamist household. much different than early christian sects.

[Robert F. Smith]

You have to know that the extra cost of a polygamous wife isn't equal to the piece of mind a religious leader gets from knowing he's not a cheater, just a secretive polygamist authorized by god in the tradition of solomon!

 

And please tell me you are smart enough to know the difference between how it will affect 2013 membership if your leaders were polygamists or adulterers in 200 AD , 1400 AD, or 1840 AD. And when did the last LDS general authority give up polygamy / die, 1956? Many of the posters on this board were alive when the LDS prophet was a polygamist, and certainly when the LDS prophet grew up in a polygamist household. much different than early christian sects.

So Father Abraham and his descendants were basically adulterers and cheaters?  And when the State of Israel was founded and outlawed polygyny, it was wrong to allow already polygamous Jews to continue to live in Israel with their multiple wives -- just not marry any more wives?  Is that what you are suggesting?  Because it isn't clear to me where you are getting your folklore.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[thesometimesaint]

You have to know that the extra cost of a polygamous wife isn't equal to the piece of mind a religious leader gets from knowing he's not a cheater, just a secretive polygamist authorized by god in the tradition of solomon!

 

And please tell me you are smart enough to know the difference between how it will affect 2013 membership if your leaders were polygamists or adulterers in 200 AD , 1400 AD, or 1840 AD. And when did the last LDS general authority give up polygamy / die, 1956? Many of the posters on this board were alive when the LDS prophet was a polygamist, and certainly when the LDS prophet grew up in a polygamist household. much different than early christian sects.

 

I think you peace of mind. By definition if you are married to someone you aren't cheating with them. All the available evidence is that the wives of various religious leaders, and members throughout history knew about polygamy. Whether those individual husbands/wives personally didn't like it is beside the point. Various Christian religions have practiced it at one time and/or continue to practice it today.

 

I was born in 1951, but didn't join the Church until 1971. I've known about polygamy since I was old enough to understand the word. As I said I have no personal desire to practice polygamy in mortality, and sociologically it is a dead-end. But aside from those there really is no theological consistent basis to oppose it. The BoM itself condemns it when not commanded by God. That preceeds JS polygamy by years. JS married Emma in 1827, the BoM was published in 1830 and his first polygamous marriage was in 1833.