The Stumbling Blocks Of The Church

[stemelbow]

Could be true.  However, size of a church is no indication of it's truthfulness.  Indeed we are described as 'leaven', a very small ingredient destined to do big things.  In addition, as per the scripture, 'narrow is the way and few there be who find it'.  Consider also part of the reason for the mission of Christ in Matthew 10:34-38.

 

Do we really want out Church to become a large a spacious building?

 

 

I agree those are stumbling blocks for some people, but the Church continues to 'justify' them even if some private explanations are not considered valid.  I consider those justifications to be reasonable, scriptural, doctrinal and not racist or sexist in any way.

 

You are correct, size is not indication of truthfulness.  Neither is rate of growth.  the only indication of truthfulness is true teaching.  And since the Church is clear it is not true teachings that blacks were inferior in some way, less faithful before this world, we'd have more substance to our claim of holding the truth.  But since we were mistaken for so long, even calling that which is untrue revelation, I'm not sure we can be as confident or arrogant in claiming truth generally.  That hurts.  And it is but one of two teachings in the Church that has hurt us significantly from the beginning, I argue. 

[thesometimesaint]

Early Christians allowed polygamy, Various non LDS Christian leaders, including Martin Luther, have allowed/recommended polygamy. We have Christians today that practice polygamy. Various religions either have allowed or currently allow for polygamy. There are over a Billion Muslims, and they allow polygamy. The US allows a form of serial monogamy. I won't get into that having multiple mistresses is common.

 

So why is it that the LDS get "special" recognition for a no longer practiced form of polygamy?

[thesometimesaint]

I disagree.  If the LDS of those days broke every racial barrier, flooded the Church with any African American who would listen, it probably would have caused some of the locals to be more upset.  But in the end, it would have reached out to millions of people that it essentially ignored from the beginning.  We could have started work in Africa as early as we did in the British Isles. 

 

Coulda, woulda, shoulda, didn't.

[stemelbow]

Coulda, woulda, shoulda, didn't.

 

Indeed.  I realize this thread is making large assumptions.  We have a reality to deal with now.  it all happened.  And we have to deal with it.  But the dealing with it, in my mind, makes it harder than it could have been.  I regret things in my past that I wish I could go back and change.  I know I can't, but I still think about them from time to time.  Nothing I can do about it, I realize, but I do sometimes speculate what it would be like to have not made my big ol' mistakes in life. 

[thesometimesaint]

Indeed.  I realize this thread is making large assumptions.  We have a reality to deal with now.  it all happened.  And we have to deal with it.  But the dealing with it, in my mind, makes it harder than it could have been.  I regret things in my past that I wish I could go back and change.  I know I can't, but I still think about them from time to time.  Nothing I can do about it, I realize, but I do sometimes speculate what it would be like to have not made my big ol' mistakes in life. 

 

It was a close shave for those early Saints, and the Church almost didn't survive. By the time of Nauvoo(Polygamy) the Church already had been driven out of three states. So I don't see Polygamy as that big of a challenge as say JS abolitionist stances.

[stemelbow]

It was a close shave for those early Saints, and the Church almost didn't survive. By the time of Nauvoo(Polygamy) the Church already had been driven out of three states. So I don't see Polygamy as that big of a challenge as say JS abolitionist stances.

 

it seems to me Joseph Smith was killed for his polygamy far more than for his abolitionist stances.  That's largely what the Expositor was about.  That's largely what drove people to want to kill him, I'd say.  The weirdo polygamy stuff is easy to fear and easy to be up in arms about. 

[DBMormon]

Maybe so, but realistically I think even without those two issues, changing religions is usually not a hugely attractive prospect for most human beings. First of all people would have to be looking to change religions, or at least willing to consider it; in my experience, there aren't a lot of people at a given time who are considering it. Second, the religious beliefs and lifestyle would need to be attractive to such a large number of people; given society today, it's difficult for me to see how a conservative social and sexual code of behavior would be attractive to such a large number of people.

The JWs, for example, don't have either of these issues, and they are just as aggressively evangelizing as any other group, LDS included. Yet they have an active membership of 19 million, which isn't that much greater than LDS membership.

Active membership of 19 million versus 15 million with a 50% inactivity rate..... big difference

[Buzzard]

it seems to me Joseph Smith was killed for his polygamy far more than for his abolitionist stances.  That's largely what the Expositor was about.  That's largely what drove people to want to kill him, I'd say.  The weirdo polygamy stuff is easy to fear and easy to be up in arms about. 

Polygamy was an internal issue and an excuse to a certain extent, what had Thomas Sharp and his ilk all up in arms (literally) was political power pure and simple. Surrounding communities were intimidated by the population and clout of Nauvoo. Long before plural marriage became semi-public knowledge, Sharp was calling for the extermination of the saints. And this was post-Missouri, post-Kirtland. If the adversary didn't have polygamy to use, he had other ways to rile up opposition. 

[stemelbow]

Active membership of 19 million versus 15 million with a 50% inactivity rate..... big difference

 

As I understand 50% is overly generous.  But your point is well-taken. 

 

That and JWs have their own unappealing things to work through.  Darn polygamy and black priesthood ban has stifled us. 

[stemelbow]

Polygamy was an internal issue and an excuse to a certain extent, what had Thomas Sharp and his ilk all up in arms (literally) was political power pure and simple. Surrounding communities were intimidated by the population and clout of Nauvoo. Long before plural marriage became semi-public knowledge, Sharp was calling for the extermination of the saints. And this was post-Missouri, post-Kirtland. If the adversary didn't have polygamy to use, he had other ways to rile up opposition. 

 

I'm not saying political fears were not part of the general opposition.  I'm just saying that what seemed to put it over the top was polygamy. 

[thesometimesaint]

it seems to me Joseph Smith was killed for his polygamy far more than for his abolitionist stances.  That's largely what the Expositor was about.  That's largely what drove people to want to kill him, I'd say.  The weirdo polygamy stuff is easy to fear and easy to be up in arms about. 

 

Actually he was murdered because of allegation of Treason.

[stemelbow]

Actually he was murdered because of allegation of Treason.

 

I'm not sure we know that.  Right?  CFR?

[Alan]

There seems to be an assumption that the priesthood ban was not of God. I personally do not feel safe making that assumption.

Perhaps we should also assume the ban on non-Levites holding priesthood was also man-made. Perhaps we should also assume that Christ instructing the Twelve to only preach among the Hebrews and not to preach to Gentiles or Samaritans was not of God either.

 

I don't understand why there was a priesthood ban on the Negro, but there was.

I don't understand why plural marriage was practiced, but it was (although, as is documented elsewhere, I believe Joseph never practiced it).

And I don't understand why people get so upset about it now. Would they rather these things were still in place?

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not sure we know that.  Right?  CFR?

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

[stemelbow]

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

I dont' see in this link anything that says his murder came because of treason.  It doesn't seem that anyone who participated expressed their motivation at all. 

 

But it does seem clear to me that without polygamy the unfortunate circumstances wouldn't have been brought about.

[stemelbow]

There seems to be an assumption that the priesthood ban was not of God. I personally do not feel safe making that assumption.

Perhaps we should also assume the ban on non-Levites holding priesthood was also man-made. Perhaps we should also assume that Christ instructing the Twelve to only preach among the Hebrews and not to preach to Gentiles or Samaritans was not of God either.

 

I don't understand why there was a priesthood ban on the Negro, but there was.

I don't understand why plural marriage was practiced, but it was (although, as is documented elsewhere, I believe Joseph never practiced it).

And I don't understand why people get so upset about it now. Would they rather these things were still in place?

 

You make some good points here.  I obviously would rather polygamy and the priesthood ban not have been at all.  But it is not so.  So we must deal with it. 

[Maestrophil]

I agree about what ifs.  you simply can't know.  But I do question your first paragraph.  What are we, chop liver?  I mean if it was so important for the early saints to face such hardships and tests of faith why are we left with such an easier path?  I mean unless of course our teachings on homosexuality is much like the teachings of the past on blacks and their unworthy status for priesthood.  hmm...something to think about I guess.

 

 

Stemelbow - I do think that we (at least speaking for myself) have very great and similar tests to the early saints.  I have personally had great opposition, judgement, pain, internal struggles and difficulty in my life from my choice to remain faithful in all of the following:

 

Word of Wisdom - absolute abstinence

Sexual relations - absolute abstinence

Moral opposition to homosexuality

Historical and doctrinal difficulties like polygamy, priesthood ban, historicity issues, etc.

Paying full tithes and offerings

Serving a full-time mission

Marrying in the temple at the exclusion of family

Following and sustaining church leaders even when what they say does not sit well with either my or popular views

The adamant ever present and growing, almost militant new atheist movement

 

All these things have tried me in big ways at one point or another.  Just like the early saints, I feel my character and soul stretching and growing (sometimes with lots of growing pains) as I adhere to these things.

 

So I don't feel 'neglected' in the 'peculiar people' camp.  :-)

[thesometimesaint]

I dont' see in this link anything that says his murder came because of treason.  It doesn't seem that anyone who participated expressed their motivation at all. 

 

But it does seem clear to me that without polygamy the unfortunate circumstances wouldn't have been brought about.

 

It was the destruction of a rival press office that lead to the charge of Treason, Of note when a Mormon owned press was destroyed no one was arrested let alone put in jail to await a no bail trial.  

[sunstoned]

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. 

I agree totally.  Another fall out of polygamy is in the way it was  introduced and practiced. It is not a history that promotes faith  and I believe this has cause many to question and leave the church.

[stemelbow]

It was the destruction of a rival press office that lead to the charge of Treason, Of note when a Mormon owned press was destroyed no one was arrested let alone put in jail to await a no bail trial.  

 

Yep.  I realize that.  Still not sure Treason is the sole or main cause of him being murdered--just jailed. 

[BlueDreams]

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 said I wasn't embarrassed by it and then never mentioned anything, so I thought I'd put in my 2 cents.

 

Yes, it would probably be more "squeaky clean," presentable, and acceptable without polygamy or the ban. No, I'm not embarassed by it and I don't think it would drastically increase membership ratings (though as thoroughly mentioned in this thread that's hard to prove). There are plenty of other trends that retard growth that have little to do with either of these.

 

Furthermore, this idea of "squeaky clean" sounds more like a reach for mainstream acceptance which just ain't gonna happen. Nor should it. There's no way it will. The church started in opposition to every other religious organization on the planet. It questions basic ideologies un-apologetically. And furthermore it grew, as a unified block, that became a political and cultural threat to the surrounding populations. With or without polygamy/the ban, there's no way to pretty it up to a point that it becomes overwhelmingly acceptable, in the past or present. 

 

Our history is no more messy than the next. In many ways it's a whole lot cleaner. I personally feel that we could have come off as squeaky clean as possible and there would have still been heavy opposition and we'd still have small (but influential) numbers. It's what is foretold about our times. 

 

As for embarassment. Maybe I should, but I just don't. I find both fascinating. With polygamy I don't have as much issue with it. It's far removed and an exception sort of doctrine to marriage. In the time that it was practiced, I find it interesting how a number of the women who were polygamists were also far more prominent and influential than most women in the surrounding u.s. populace. It's weird, yes, but I don't find it personally shaming.

 

As for the ban....there is more mess involved with it. I have seen it be a stumbling block, of sorts, to at least 1 new member. But I do find it pertinent to clarify, for myself, what is and isn't the model of the Church nor what I expect from the spiritual history....particularly the scriptures. God's chosen people were not chosen because of the their overall exceptional character....in all testaments. So I have no expectation that this trend will suddenly change.

 

Rather I figure it'll follow the the means that the people of the BoM found their way to a zion society: painfully, with multiple faults/falls, and with no party coming off squeaky clean to say the least. One can read Nephi now as coming off a little self-righteous, Moroni probably suffering from depression, Lehi as not always right even though he was the prophet, the Bro of Jared's people as getting comfortable in their ways and hindering progress, etc. The lamanites/Nephites and all other -ites are the excess amount of ways we divide ourselves. And the anti-nephi-lehites are my personal heroes...they became the prototype of a zion people. They left their traditions to join a group of people that traditionally have hated and derided them throughout their history, considering them uncouth, ugly, and savage... because of a conversion to God. And then they become the haven for all unwanted people to find peace....and generations later some of their youth still fell away despite a spectacular spiritual heritage. Even the best can falter in their ways at time.

 

We move slowly forward to Zion. We are not zion yet. That's what I get from the history of the priesthood ban. I am not embarrassed by it. It is just a piece of a long humanized, messy puzzle leading toward God.

 

 

With luv,

BD    

Edited December 13, 2013 by BlueDreams

[thesometimesaint]

Yep.  I realize that.  Still not sure Treason is the sole or main cause of him being murdered--just jailed. 

 

The charge put him in jail so the Carthage Grays could do their thing.

 

http://illinois.outfitters.com/illinois/hancock/history_carthage.html

 

1844 Joseph Smith, founder of Mormon Church, and his brother Hyrum Smith were shot today in the old Carthage jail.

The Mormon Church was headquartered in Nauvoo in 1839. When Mormon leaders destroyed an anti-Mormon newspaper in Nauvoo, the Smiths were jailed at Carthage to await trial. Illinois Governor Thomas Ford ordered the Carthage Grays militia unit to guard the jail from an anti-Mormon mob. The mob overpowered the guard (some believe the guard joined the mob), entered the jail, shot the Smiths, and wounded another Mormon, John Taylor.

Edited December 13, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[stemelbow]

The charge put him in jail so the Carthage Grays could do their thing.

 

K.  SO fi there was no polygamy there would be no destruction of the press, nor perhaps no press to begin with and no treason. 

[thesometimesaint]

K.  SO fi there was no polygamy there would be no destruction of the press, nor perhaps no press to begin with and no treason. 

 

Correlation is not causation. The Saints were driven out of three states before Nauvoo. It is not related to polygamy.

[BlueDreams]

K.  SO fi there was no polygamy there would be no destruction of the press, nor perhaps no press to begin with and no treason. 

 

Stemelbow. The church's marital practices were not enough, IMO, to warrant the vitriol and constant movement that the saints faced long before polygamy. Ironically, a christian movement called the Oneida society started in NY only a few years after the commencement of Mormonism that was far more extreme in their sexual practices and relational beliefs. They broke apart over time....but did so from external harassment and internal conflict over practices rather than the overt force and skirmishes faced by the LDS members of that time. Again they practiced free love (that their leader helped orchestrate) and a commune society starting in the late 1840's not too far from where the LDS faith started up and then died because of generational conflict and a comparative slap on the wrist from the mayor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Society). The LDS faith practiced polygamy and had their leader assassinated and another forced move across the wilderness (following three others, one including an extermination order by a state...before polygamy was an open topic/problem). I'm going to wager that these actions stemmed from far more problems than just polygamy.  

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited December 13, 2013 by BlueDreams