Is The Church Being Completely Honest?

[Tacenda]

I don't consider the practice of polyandry by a prophet, in his capacity as the prophet, to be a strictly historical question.

 

I am not asking for whitewashing unless you are saying that we cannot receive an explanation of polyandry without whitewashing it.

 

If you have a better solution, I'm open to hearing it.  Because, honestly, figuring out how to teach some of these tough issues in a way that will prevent faith crises in my kids and the youth in my ward is a serious concern of mine.  I can teach how I got through it but I'm imagining that if I did that with the combined YM/YW in my ward -- without an official church source -- my Bishop would be displeased.

There is hope!  My sister's ward had a YW/YM fireside or meeting where someone came and taught them about the seer stones and the head in the hat even!!  This was last year I believe.  Didn't phase my sister a bit.  Just me, I guess I'm not near as faithful, she's been my rock.     

[Calm]

I asked about teaching a lesson on polyandry, not polygamy. But, FAIRMormon does have a page on polyandry.

More importantly, FAIRMormon is not a church source and before my faith crisis I didn't even know that FAIRMormon existed.

So I still put forward the exercise: Where are the church sources that would help me teach a 5th Sunday or FHE lesson on polyandry?

It might be the "most clear way" to present it, unfortunately, according to the historical record, it isn't the way most of the book was "translated".

And again, the church can present it that way. And we can ignore the faith crises happening as a result. We can also ignore the data that shows our declining growth rate. We can keep showing that picture to generations of youth because it is the "most clear way in picture form to tell the story" but I'm not sure we are doing ourselves any favors.

You are to be ignoring the current publication in the Gospel Topic on the topic.

Surely any topic on what the Church should do should start from what they are doing as opposed to just what has been done in the past.

Edited March 21, 2014 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

Can it come from a source a church source points you to or will only a source published by the Church itself do?

 

I think it would be best to have it come from a church source... i.e. something on LDS.org.  In my opinion.  But something is better than nothing.

 

And again, I want to be clear, that I think with the Gospel Topics pages the church is definitely moving in the right direction.  My "exercise" was to point out that the work isn't done yet.

[JLHPROF]

Well, horse before the cart and all.   First we have to be open about polygamy and that needs to be done by speaking and honoring the names of the women who engaged in it.  I believe it to be a historical not eternal practice and it can be dealt with in a manner that is respectful to the girls.

 

I know what you are getting at here, but since LDS doctrine teaches eternal marriage I don't think we can view polygamy as merely a historical anomaly.  At this point in our mortal probations it may be a historical practice.  Once this earth life is over and we are on the other side of the veil it will become very present again.

 

I mean, would you like to have a fireside with the resurrected Joseph Smith in his heavenly home when you get there.  Will it still be history when his numerous wives are gathered there in the home with him.  It will be very immediate.  When you see Brigham Young walking down the streets of gold with a wife on each arm, old Father Abraham with Sarah, Hagar and Keturah sitting at his side?  How about President Harold B. Lee or President Harold W. Hunter attending meetings each with their two eternal companions?

Polygamy is temporarily historical.  It will be very eternal once we are eternal.

[rockpond]

Well, horse before the cart and all.   First we have to be open about polygamy and that needs to be done by speaking and honoring the names of the women who engaged in it.  I believe it to be a historical not eternal practice and it can be dealt with in a manner that is respectful to the girls. The problems arise with those who insist they are in line for their share of eternal honeys. I'm not the one to ask about polyandry because I believe the aversion to it is merely a manifestation of the age old practice of propping up women as the standard for virtue. As long as they aren't engaging, everyone who is can still consider himself virtuous. So I think it is an age old problem of sexism and that is what needs to be addressed until polyandry is no more shocking than the polygyny.

 

Agreed... we need to be open about polygamy.  And I absolutely, 110% agree that we need to honor the names of the women who engaged in it.

[Hestia]

Truth101 is out of the thread for disrespectful references.

[CV75]

When it comes to truth and honesty, why does gods one and only true church on earth need to "proceed cautiously?" If truth and honesty come from god, and deception or deceit from satan, then I would think that truth and honesty should be shouted from the rooftops, not rolled out some tightly controlled, PR-savvy manner.

Because truth and honesty have nothing to do with the resources and expertise at hand. It is truthful and honest to be cautious in making a good-faith assessment of where the Church stands in relation to its capacity to readily respond to the questions being asked from perspectives that either suffer from the same apparent lack of resources and expertise (as in those who feel betrayed) or that have put in more resources and expertise than the Church has to date (as in those who mine faults). "...be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

[XXMikey007]

Come now.. we all know that a critic of the Church will go to GREAT lengths to find words and phrases that are demeaning.  There is no reason to use the word "peep-stone" to disparage and mock the "Urim and Thummim".  There's also no reason to portray his use of a hat when he probably also used curtains, or other means to shade the room when the light is to bright.

 

Joseph Smith TRANSLATED the Book of Mormon, these were his own words and the opinions of others on how he translated it in all their conspiracies don't need to be known.  They are merely opinions, get your information from the source, Joseph Smith.  What did he say, and only use that, anything else is simply conjecture and superstition.

 

If you love conspiracy theories then I guess nothing I have to say will appease you.

[JLHPROF]

 There is no reason to use the word "peep-stone" to disparage and mock the "Urim and Thummim".

 

 

Nobody called the Urim & Thummin a peep stone.  The term peep stone was generally applied to another stone Joseph used (a seer stone). 

 

It was less applied to the Urim & Thummim (although it still consisted of two smaller seerstones set in silver bows).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seer_stone_(Latter_Day_Saints)

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones

Edited March 21, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Sanpitch]

Was not the peep or seer stone the same stone Joseph used in his hunt for buried treasure?  I remember reading that, but don't remember the source.  Haven't got the time right now to look that up.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Sanpitch

[Coreyb]

Come now.. we all know that a critic of the Church will go to GREAT lengths to find words and phrases that are demeaning. There is no reason to use the word "peep-stone" to disparage and mock the "Urim and Thummim". There's also no reason to portray his use of a hat when he probably also used curtains, or other means to shade the room when the light is to bright.

Joseph Smith TRANSLATED the Book of Mormon, these were his own words and the opinions of others on how he translated it in all their conspiracies don't need to be known. They are merely opinions, get your information from the source, Joseph Smith. What did he say, and only use that, anything else is simply conjecture and superstition.

If you love conspiracy theories then I guess nothing I have to say will appease you.

Dude you should read the church's new article on the translation.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Coreyb

[Coreyb]

Was not the peep stone the same stone Joseph used in his hunt for buried treasure?  I remember reading that, but don't remember the source.  Haven't got the time right now to look that up.

Yes, the egg shaped brown stone he found while digging a well

[Kevin Christensen]

I asked about teaching a lesson on polyandry, not polygamy.  But, FAIRMormon does have a page on polyandry.

 

More importantly, FAIRMormon is not a church source and before my faith crisis I didn't even know that FAIRMormon existed.

 

So I still put forward the exercise:  Where are the church sources that would help me teach a 5th Sunday or FHE lesson on polyandry?

My first post (#26) on this thread was to call for a definition of "church" and a definition of "complete honesty." So far, no takers, and this kind of response demonstrates exactly why I think that such definitions are important up front.

To me the church is the assembly, the gathering, the people, all of them. To me, membership in the church is not a matter of who on which committee controls a rubber stamp.

One of the things that the church has (and NOT is) is a large institutional organization. And the characteristics of large organizations have notable characteristics. John Boyd's theories are apt:

 

Boyd hypothesized that all intelligent organisms and organizations undergo a continuous cycle of interaction with their environment. Boyd breaks this cycle down to four interrelated and overlapping processes through which one cycles continuously:

Observation: the collection of data by means of the senses

Orientation: the analysis and synthesis of data to form one's current mental perspective

Decision: the determination of a course of action based on one's current mental perspective

Action: the physical playing-out of decisions

Of course, while this is taking place, the situation may be changing. It is sometimes necessary to cancel a planned action in order to meet the changes. This decision cycle is thus known as the OODA loop. Boyd emphasized that this decision cycle is the central mechanism enabling adaptation (apart from natural selection) and is therefore critical to survival.

Boyd theorized that large organizations such as corporations, governments, or militaries possessed a hierarchy of OODA loops at tactical, grand-tactical (operational art), and strategic levels. In addition, he stated that most effective organizations have a highly decentralized chain of command that utilizes objective-driven orders, or directive control, rather than method-driven orders in order to harness the mental capacity and creative abilities of individual commanders at each level. In 2003, this power to the edge concept took the form of a DOD publication "Power to the Edge: Command ... Control ... in the Information Age" by Dr. David S. Alberts and Richard E. Hayes. Boyd argued that such a structure creates a flexible "organic whole" that is quicker to adapt to rapidly changing situations. He noted, however, that any such highly decentralized organization would necessitate a high degree of mutual trust and a common outlook that came from prior shared experiences. Headquarters needs to know that the troops are perfectly capable of forming a good plan for taking a specific objective, and the troops need to know that Headquarters does not direct them to achieve certain objectives without good reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_(military_strategist)

If I chose to handicap myself, I could decide that only the institutional church is "the Church" and the rest of us are just hangers on waiting to fed and having nothing to contribute. But why should I or anyone do so?

I chose to recognize and employ the power at at the edges.

Good answers and excellent resources are at hand. The FAIR page I referenced includes a link to a page on polyandry. Seek, and ye shall find. When I teach my children, I don't want to just give them a fish for that meal but I want to teach them how to fish so they'll be ready for life. I want to convey the notion that when they have questions, there are excellent LDS resources that respond much more quickly than the small, specialized segment of the whole church that we can aptly call "the bureaucracy" rather than "The Church, the whole Church, and nothing but The Church." There are some very smart, very talented members out there who are just as much part of the church as those who happen to have a job in an office in Salt Lake City. If something realy good comes out of Salt Lake City, I'll enjoy and employ it. But I will not teach my children to handcap themselves by telling them that they should, or must only wait on bureaucractic process and rubber stamp approval before availing themselves of what is readily available.

Other people's mileage may vary, and obviously does, for reasons that become equally obvious.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited March 21, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[mfbukowski]

The answers are:

 

1) JS translated with both the Urim and Thummim and the seer stone.

2) Both methods are by the gift and power of God.

3) Pictures of JS translating with the U&T are just as peculiar as pictures of JS translating with the seer stone to someone seeing them for the first time.  However, we've gotten used to the one so that only the second looks peculiar, Enemies of the Church like to capitalize on and emphasize this.

 

Said 45 year old person is too far gone by the time he or she gets to the point of heeding anti Mormon material because by then one has stopped being rational and reasonable.

 

I'm surprised that Givens would have such difficulty understanding this.

Oh yeah.

A picture of man with his face in a hat is not at all peculiar.

When you make statements like this you lose credibility, not gain it.

[mfbukowski]

Whenever I run across anything I didn't expect, I give things time, keep my eyes open, and re-examine my assumptions.

As in, "Oh that is interesting. I didn't know that. I wonder where I can go to find more?" I've found that when I look, I can always for more and better information from interested and informed scholars within the church. Such sources are, to me, as much the church as a few people on limited budget, and predictable personality traits, assigned to produce manuals that get past a committee of people that I doubt have degrees in history. It is, in my view, the church, the eklesia, the assembly, the people that provides for me when I seek and knock. I've found that it helps to have realistic expectations of the kinds of things that have to pass through institutional committees, how long it takes to change anything in that environment, due largely to the kind of conservative people who aspire to work for the church. Such sources are not my only resource when I have questions, and are certainly, far from the best available.

I've even realized that Bishops don't go to The Bishop School of Sources and Secrets to Keep from the Unwashed Masses, any more than Sunday school teachers go to Graduate School of Mormon Mysteries and Oddities. I don't remember ever asking a bishop about scholarly questions. After all, the D&C directs me to "the best books." Not "approved books" or "nearest authority figure."

I've learned from recovery literature that expectations are "premeditated resentments." Novelist Tony Hillerman titled his autobiography, "Seldom Disappointed." The basis of that title was his being taught at his mother's knee that if you don't expect much, you won't be disappointed. So what naturally happens if "I expect to be treated as though I were the most important and deserving person in the entire universe, entitled to everything from anyone, and unburdened of any reciprocal obligations in return. It is all about me and what I want, nay, what I deserve, and not later, but now." Babies can get away with that for a while, but part of growing up is getting over it. It is part of what Enos calls the enlargement of his soul, a simple matter of thinking about and empathizing with other people and their differing situations.

Given a set of realistic expectations of what is likely to come from the kinds of conservative people that aspire to work for church curriculum, I'm position to not be disappointed by the manuals, and pleased when my expectations are exceeded by things like the Joseph Smith Papers Project. By far the biggest disappointment I have felt from anything institutional was the firing of Daniel Peterson from FARMS. But I notice that even that did not cut off my resources for getting questions answered.

Back in the 80s I heard Sam Taylor criticizing the institutional church for not producing better history, or addressing various criticisms. He was all about presenting the unvarnished truth, the real thing. So I thought it interesting to see that in Nightfall at Nauvoo, he presented as plain historical fact, that Joseph Smith had sent for the Nauvoo Legion from Carthage. Later, Mark Hofmann provided the note that Joseph had sent. Later it was debunked, and still later, Mike Quinn forgot, and then had to justify himself by relying on other historical documents, one a diary entry by a person who was not at the scene, but who reported an "it is said" rumor, and then a late account from a man who had been in England at the time. And still later Richard L. Anderson wrote a lovely and eye-opening essay on what happens to all of this "honest facing difficult issues" when you rely more on first hand, eye-witness accounts, and then read them in historical context.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1127&index=17

There was some unattributed gossip in Nauvoo and rumors in Carthage, but the contemporary first-hand eye-witness accounts (John Taylor) observe that Joseph refused to send for the legion. And Anderson also examines the way that Dunham was treated by the church leadership in ways that demonstrate that he obviously had not received and then refused a request for aid, and then carelessly dropped a note to be found in the streets and gossiped about until forged by Mark Hofmann. I've learned that sometimes, even the people who make it a point of pride and honor to give me the unvarnished truth (Taylor and Quinn in this case) manage to stumble quite badly on this point. In this case, I think they stumble because they think that public proclamation of unsavory tidbits becomes a badge of integrity, evidence they are are completely honest. More so than just offering apologetic, faith promoting stories would be. So at times the critics stop being critical enough because of a need to be seen as critical enough to bring the bad news. Most of the time, they are sincere, but that doesn't make them all that different in such cases, that those who produce the lesson manuals they judge so harshly. It's just people doing the best they can according to their lights and less than infinite resources.

The trend, I think, is that things are getting better as far as institutional materials. My responsibility, I think, is removing beams from my own eyes.

Jesus seemed to think that the word being sowed is not the only thing that matters. Soil, and nurture counts for a lot, and can make a hundred fold difference in the yield. "Know ye not this parable? How then shall ye know all parables?"

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Incredible post!

[krampus]

the church just provided an essay stating the litteralness of the worldwide flood of noah. do you think the leaders of the church actually believe in a world wide flood?

https://www.lds.org/topics/noah?lang=eng

[canard78]

I'm afraid Bro. Givens is a bit ignorant or naïve.  

 

He needs to read this board.  He will learn that everything has been taught and the church has presented its history in a full, forthright manner  to the members, and at the same time come to understand that it's either not possible for the church to teach it's history in a full, forthright manner, or that it's simply not even its responsibility to do so.

 

Nothing needs to change as far as the church is concerned. It's the false expectations, and lack of responsibility of its members that need correcting.

 

Sorry Senator. Apparently no-one else gets sarcasm in written form. I get you buddy, I get you.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[canard78]

the church just provided an essay stating the litteralness of the worldwide flood of noah. do you think the leaders of the church actually believe in a world wide flood?

https://www.lds.org/topics/noah?lang=eng

 

cinepro will be delighted

[Darren10]

I agree with the topic poster. I didn't know the BOM was translated with a hat until I saw the south park episode "all about mormons" and asked my mom if it was true and she confirmed it. Up until then I just always remember seeing the pictures of a tired yet determined and benevolent Joseph Smith translating gold plates next to a candlelight. The church leaders lie by omission to their members. One question I have yet to ask on these forums is this: If the Nephites and Lamanites existed in the Americas, where is all the archaeological evidence? There should be evidence of some sort that they existed, as the BOM tells it the Nephites were quite advanced for their time, so where is the proof? They had access to and knowledge of metallurgy, surely there should be a sword, a shield, a utensil for HECK'S (don't wanna make the mods angry by using the H word) sakes or something to prove they existed. Yet there is none. Also the Book of Abraham, all the papyrus was was run of the mill death scrolls depicting the Egyptian god Osiris. Not only that but the church also makes old Joey Smith look like the most righteous dude on earth since Jesus Christ (note to mods, I'm not taking his name in vain, I mean the actual Jesus Christ), when in fact he was a polygamist and did things like send his best friends on missions and marry their wives while they were gone.

 

Think of it this way, nowadays, if some guy said he had magic stones and some plates that he couldn't really let you get a good look at, threw them all in a hat and said it's the word of god, would you believe him?

You accusation of Joseph Smith sending men on missions and marrying their wives is incorrect. You'll also find great knowledge about the Pearl of Great Price from the Book of Abraham Project as that's the aspect which seems to trouble you. Also, much of what the Book of Mormon says archeologically fits to much of Meso-american history. Finally, but not least, open yourself up to the Holy Spirit.

Polygamy: http://bmaf.org; http://bmaf.org/about/why_mesoamerica; http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-cultural-context-of-nephite-apostasy/

Follow the Holy Spirit: no internet link in the world can help you here. Though, even better than digital information, you were born with the best, most direct link here and is embedded in your very soul. Use it to communicate it with the Most High Father who created it.

[Sanpitch]

You accusation of Joseph Smith sending men on missions and marrying their wives is incorrect. You'll also find great knowledge about the Pearl of Great Price from the Book of Abraham Project as that's the aspect which seems to trouble you. Also, much of what the Book of Mormon says archeologically fits to much of Meso-american history. Finally, but not least, open yourself up to the Holy Spirit.

 

"You accusation of Joseph Smith sending men on missions and marrying their wives is incorrect."

 

Are you denying that Joseph sent men on missions and then married their wives?  I think I'll have recheck my knowledge of the history if that is true, but I think he did.

[rockpond]

My first post (#26) on this thread was to call for a definition of "church" and a definition of "complete honesty." So far, no takers, and this kind of response demonstrates exactly why I think that such definitions are important up front.

To me the church is the assembly, the gathering, the people, all of them. To me, membership in the church is not a matter of who on which committee controls a rubber stamp.

One of the things that the church has (and NOT is) is a large institutional organization. And the characteristics of large organizations have notable characteristics. John Boyd's theories are apt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_(military_strategist)

If I chose to handicap myself, I could decide that only the institutional church is "the Church" and the rest of us are just hangers on waiting to fed and having nothing to contribute. But why should I or anyone do so?

I chose to recognize and employ the power at at the edges.

Good answers and excellent resources are at hand. The FAIR page I referenced includes a link to a page on polyandry. Seek, and ye shall find. When I teach my children, I don't want to just give them a fish for that meal but I want to teach them how to fish so they'll be ready for life. I want to convey the notion that when they have questions, there are excellent LDS resources that respond much more quickly than the small, specialized segment of the whole church that we can aptly call "the bureaucracy" rather than "The Church, the whole Church, and nothing but The Church." There are some very smart, very talented members out there who are just as much part of the church as those who happen to have a job in an office in Salt Lake City. If something realy good comes out of Salt Lake City, I'll enjoy and employ it. But I will not teach my children to handcap themselves by telling them that they should, or must only wait on bureaucractic process and rubber stamp approval before availing themselves of what is readily available.

Other people's mileage may vary, and obviously does, for reasons that become equally obvious.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

I responded to your post #26 but I'll take another stab at it...

First, I've tried to avoid this idea of "complete honesty" as it becomes a subjective battle of references. Pointless. The important question for me is are we adequately and lovingly addressing the issues causing faith crises, disaffection, and resignation from the "church".

Now... The definition of church. On one hand, it is an assembly and a faith community of 15 million individuals coming together to one degree or another in the hope of Christ.

But, there is most certainly an institutional church which exists in Mormonism. It is that institutional church which declares policy, determines expenditures, produces curriculum, and decides what can be taught and what will get you removed from the assembly church.

The institutional church and the assembly church need to effectively work together. I've tried to use "we" in my posts here to indicate such.

I agree that each of us need to go out and seek on our own. But that process, going out and digging deeper, when I was an early morning seminary teacher was part of what led to my faith crisis. Now you can say that it was a success because ultimately I stayed but many don't. So, telling people to go seek & find is not the complete solution.

[omni]

I think it should be noted that a major contributor to the problems we are seeing is a culture of fear or disdain for non-faith promoting material.  While this attitude certainly doesn't affect everyone, I have no doubt of its prevalent among much of the membership.  

 

I remember years ago when I would occasionally lurk on this board, my wife would become upset because she viewed the site as anti-Mormon.  At the time I was a believing member and I explained to her that this board consisted mostly of faithful members who were defending the church against critics.  To her it didn't matter, the fact that difficult issues (whether they were true or not) were even brought up was enough to warrant fear.  She's has been so ingrained to believe that anything critical is anti-Mormon that even today as a non-believer her first response when I told her about JS's polyandry was that I was reading anti-Mormon lies.  

 

For years I wouldn't tell anyone that I lurked on this board or that I was even interested in apologetics because I knew (through past experiences) what their reaction would be.  I knew I would be accused of "relying on the arm of flesh" or warned about getting into anti-Mormon material.  Just the other day my FIL referred to Dialogue and Sunstone as anti-Mormon trash and unfortunately I don't believe his views are uncommon.  I appreciate the church's recent moves towards greater openness, however I think it's unfair to place the responsibility squarely on the member's shoulders when a culture of fear and skepticism towards non-faith promoting material has been created.

[JLHPROF]

"You accusation of Joseph Smith sending men on missions and marrying their wives is incorrect."

 

Are you denying that Joseph sent men on missions and then married their wives?  I think I'll have recheck my knowledge of the history if that is true, but I think he did.

 

It's all about how you say it:

 

You either say "Joseph Smith sent men on missions so he could marry their wives" - this is historically incorrect.

OR

You could say "While a few brethren were on missions their wives agreed to be sealed to Joseph Smith" - this is historically correct.

 

It's a troublesome thing for many either way, but tone and phrasing do matter to the correctness of the claim.