Glenn Beck's Shockingly Absurd Retelling Of Polygamy History...

[T-Shirt]

NOT BS. I also heard this explanation, both in Church meetings and from my own mother. Common, common, common. This was in Arizona.

A common belief does not equal, "routinely taught in the Church".  You might want to review the definition of, "routinely".  His statement is BS.

Edited April 21, 2014 by T-Shirt

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm surprised by your prodding Scott.  What is it saying about the rest of us that aren't exposing our true identity including yourself in a way, no pic!  I think it's a rare thing to do, just Ahab, Kenngo, and one or two more have done so.  So Nehor isn't alone, there might be repercussions for exposing oneself, enough so that one shouldn't kowtow to this prodding.  What if there is a crazy out there that wants to track down someone, all it takes is a name to get an address usually.  So one might be putting their family in jeopardy too.  I've thought it would be fun for all of us to put our pics up for a day, haha.  But not our real names.  And in your situation you're already out in the public, as is Glenn Beck, it's your job.       

You're missing the point.

 

A statement is no less hurtful, malicious or irresponsible and no more excusable just because a person hides behind a screen name or a pseudonym while making it.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

NOT BS. I also heard this explanation, both in Church meetings and from my own mother. Common, common, common. This was in Arizona.

I doubt any of it came from an authoritative source.

 

Pahoran made a good point a while ago: The people who complain about Mormon folklore such as this are apt to be the same people who complain about Church Correlation, whose role is to keep official Church sources free of such folklore.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I doubt any of it came from an authoritative source.

 

Pahoran made a good point a while ago: The people who complain about Mormon folklore such as this are apt to be the same people who complain about Church Correlation, whose role it is to keep official Church sources free of such folklore.

 

A larger problem in this case is that Church correlation until very recently was silent on the issue of polygamy. Members filled in the gap with folklore. 

[Scott Lloyd]

A larger problem in this case is that Church correlation until very recently was silent on the issue of polygamy. Members filled in the gap with folklore. 

If by "Church correlation" you mean Church curriculum or Church sources, that's not true. Plural marriage has been a subject taught in Church Institute manuals for many years.

 

And some of what is openly discussed today about the subject has only come to light through relatively recent research.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

A common belief does not equal "routinely taught in the Church".  You might want to review the definition of, "routinely".  His statement is BS.

 

You may be getting exercised over the difference of something being taught by the church as opposed to something being taught in the church.  Yes, one would be hard pressed to show the church (meaning in its curriculums) to have routinely taught this.

 

However, it has been commonly taught in church by individuals as evidenced here by the many who witnessed it. I included

Edited April 21, 2014 by Senator

[Scott Lloyd]

You may be getting exercised over the difference of something being taught by the church as opposed to something being taught in the church.  Yes, one would be hard pressed to show the church (meaning in its curriculums) to have routinely taught this.

 

However, it has been commonly taught in church by individuals as evidenced here by the many who witnessed it. I includedI

I suppose that raises the question of to what extent is the Church to be held accountable for idle chatter.

 

Again, Church Correlation exists to keep the doctrine pure and information accurate as it is promulgated in official lesson manuals, periodicals and other communications. I daresay it is rather more difficult to control individuals who cannot or will not exercise good judgment in what they say.

 

If you have a solution that is more effective than what has been tried up to now, I would be very interested to hear it.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[T-Shirt]

You may be getting exercised over the difference of something being taught by the church as opposed to something being taught in the church.  Yes, one would be hard pressed to show the church (meaning in its curriculums) to have routinely taught this.

 

However, it has been commonly taught in church by individuals as evidenced here by the many who witnessed it. I included

No, I disagree with his statement and believe it to be patently false.  Such a reason for polygamy has never been "routinely taught" anywhere in the Church.  Has it been brought up in classes? Yes.  Is it, possibly, a common belief?  Yes.  Is it routinely taught?  Absolutely not.  Never.  In my 56 years, I have been in well over 100,00 meetings associated with the Church where some kind of instruction has taken place.  In all honesty, being very generous, I have heard this explanation in these meetings less than a dozen times, and I sincerely doubt it has been much different for anyone else.  I have heard it  more often in non-classroom settings, particularly as a missionary.  I think these are the instances that people tend to remember most.

[thesometimesaint]

Hello TSS...

All the more reason it would be a charitable thing to contact Beck's website pointing out his misconception and providing factual LDS resources for legitimate information... I think the message would get to him, particularly if done in a reasonable tone as fellow members...

I feel the same way about the bwj thread about the missionary fireside where the story was told about the young missionary amputating his leg vs leaving his mission.... isn't this more absurd than the "not enough men" story?  And I think bwj should contact the fireside organizers and tell them that story should be stopped because of its implausibility based on common sense.

 

GG

 

I am charitable. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt in that he actually believes what he is saying. He may for all I know. We've spent the last hundred years of so teaching the world what we do actually believe, and I am still amused and bemused at what passes as doctrine in our "Gospel Rumor" classes. I'm just too tired of fighting that fight in Sunday School anymore. It isn't a good way to win friends and influence people. If non LDS ask me what I believe I'm more than willing to tell them, But I more often than not let them ask me before I spout off.

[Scott Lloyd]

If non LDS ask me what I believe I'm more than willing to tell them, But I more often than not let them ask me before I spout off.

That's commendable. Even after that, I'd say one ought to be sure his information and sources are solid before spouting off. That's not always as easy as some finger waggers might think. Anyone who has been professionally involved in writing and publication knows that getting things right is a challenge that requires constant attention.

[Scott Lloyd]

No, I disagree with his statement and believe it to be patently false.  Such a reason for polygamy has never been "routinely taught" anywhere in the Church.  Has it been brought up in classes? Yes.  Is it, possibly, a common belief?  Yes.  Is it routinely taught?  Absolutely not.  Never.  In my 56 years, I have been in well over 100,00 meetings associated with the Church where some kind of instruction has taken place.  In all honesty, being very generous, I have heard this explanation in these meetings less than a dozen times, and I sincerely doubt it has been much different for anyone else.  I have heard it  more often in non-classroom settings, particularly as a missionary.  I think these are the instances that people tend to remember most.

As I said before, I feel very fortunate, perhaps sheltered, because none of these outrages that I read about on this board as "routinely" happening in the Church ever crop up in the ward and stake to which I belong and in the meetings I attend.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

That's commendable. Even after that, I'd say one ought to be sure his information and sources are solid before spouting off. That's not always as easy as some finger waggers might think. Anyone who has been professionally involved in writing and publication knows that getting things right is a challenge that requires constant attention.

 

Even here I seldom claim what is LDS doctrine. But am reasonably sure about my own opinions about it.

There are only two things I'm professional qualified to write about.Social Work and what I personally believe.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

If by "Church correlation" you mean Church curriculum or Church sources, that's not true. Plural marriage has been a subject taught in Church Institute manuals for many years.

 

And some of what is openly discussed today about the subject has only come to light through relatively recent research.

That's possible.  I am talking about church manuals and routine Sunday lessons. Note, I am not blaming the church for not having polygamy in these manuals or saying they should have included it. I'm saying that by not addressing it and the reasons behind it, folklore like this can flourish. 

 

As a couple points of evidence:

T-Shirt in the very thread said 

 I taught seminary for several years and there was never anything in the curriculum that prompted a discussion of polygamy 

 

I'll note the Brigham Young manual methodically scrubbed all reference to plural marriage. The current Church History Gospel doctrine manual contains this advice: "The following information is provided to help you if class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage."

 

That is plural marriage is only to be discussed if questions come up.  Again, I understand the reasons for this, but as an unintended side effect, it allows members like Beck to incorrectly hold on to folklore.

[thesometimesaint]

That's possible.  I am talking about church manuals and routine Sunday lessons. Note, I am not blaming the church for not having polygamy in these manuals or saying they should have included it. I'm saying that by not addressing it and the reasons behind it, folklore like this can flourish. 

 

As a couple points of evidence:

T-Shirt in the very thread said 

 

 

I'll note the Brigham Young manual methodically scrubbed all reference to plural marriage. The current Church History Gospel doctrine manual contains this advice: "The following information is provided to help you if class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage."

 

That is plural marriage is only to be discussed if questions come up.  Again, I understand the reasons for this, but as an unintended side effect, it allows members like Beck to incorrectly hold on to folklore.

 

I've been a member for a few years now(43). I don't recall a time when polygamy hasn't come up.

[CA Steve]

 

'Polygamy is a perversion of everything we believe in"

 

Isn't this statement very misleading if not outright wrong? Don't we still seal widowers to a second wife here on earth and create a a polygamous relationship? Do we LDS consider polygamy a perversion? Notice he did not qualify the statement by limiting it to how it is practiced by the FLDS or others.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's possible.  I am talking about church manuals and routine Sunday lessons. Note, I am not blaming the church for not having polygamy in these manuals or saying they should have included it. I'm saying that by not addressing it and the reasons behind it, folklore like this can flourish. 

 

Then I would reply caveat emptor.

 

If one has made a habit over time of putting stock in the idle chatterings of people who are "filling in the blanks" with nothing more reliable than their own suppositions, one ought not be surprised or overly perturbed to find that, along the way, he has been misled.

[The Nehor]

Most people here who use screen names have secret IRL identities -- and I daresay most of them would prefer to keep it that way.

Not me. I am Iron Man.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Isn't this statement very misleading if not outright wrong? Don't we still seal widowers to a second wife here on earth and create a a polygamous relationship? Do we LDS consider polygamy a perversion? Notice he did not qualify the statement by limiting it to how it is practiced by the FLDS or others.

Context dictates that the Warren Jeff's type of polygamy is what is a perversion of everything we believe.

[Senator]

No, I disagree with his statement and believe it to be patently false.  Such a reason for polygamy has never been "routinely taught" anywhere in the Church.  Has it been brought up in classes? Yes.  Is it, possibly, a common belief?  Yes.  Is it routinely taught?  Absolutely not.  Never.  In my 56 years, I have been in well over 100,00 meetings associated with the Church where some kind of instruction has taken place.  In all honesty, being very generous, I have heard this explanation in these meetings less than a dozen times, and I sincerely doubt it has been much different for anyone else.  I have heard it  more often in non-classroom settings, particularly as a missionary.  I think these are the instances that people tend to remember most.

 

I guess we're all deluded then.  Hmm

[The Nehor]

Context dictates that the Warren Jeff's type of polygamy is what is a perversion of everything we believe.

The whole living like an obscene parody of the Amish is equally a perversion.

[CA Steve]

Context dictates that the Warren Jeff's type of polygamy is what is a perversion of everything we believe.

Maybe that's what you and I might have inferred but I do not believe a non-member would have concluded that.

[wenglund]

Let's look at the most recent hits from google news on Warren Jeffs and see how many articles from the "media" paint mormons as the same as Jeffs:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/17/us/texas-yfz-ranch-seizure/

-Nope.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/polygamist-warren-jeffs-secluded-ranch-seized-by-texas-officials-1.1782002

-Nope.

http://fox13now.com/2014/03/27/warren-jeffs-testifies-sort-of-in-flds-custody-battle/

-Nope

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2590852/Polygamist-sect-leader-Jeffs-hospital.html

-Nope.

I haven't found a single article in the 20 or so I clicked on that portrays mormons as the equivalent of Jeffs. It's pretty hard to prove a negative.

Perhaps you could provide just one mainstream media article that does this? Pretty please?

 

Just a couple of points. First, claiming that something is "absurd," let alone "shockingly absurd" is an affirmative assertion, and not a negative.

 

Second, your small sample size of articles is woefully inefficient to substantiate the affirmative claim of absurdity, let alone "shockingly absurd."

 

Third, you gave absolutely no indication of the criteria you used to measure whether the overly small sampling of articles "paint [M]ormons as the same as Jeffs" or not, let alone did or didn't do so in such a way as to render as absurd, or "shockingly absurd" the though of such a comparison. Did any of the article's use general descriptors, such as "Mormon," that might suggest that what is said about Jeff's beliefs may also apply to other Mormons, like LDS?

 

Fourth, ask yourself whether people today still consider LDS to be polygamous, and who do confuse Jeffs with the LDS faith, and if so, then it may be reasonable to investigate where and how they got that impression and whether the "media" played a part in the conflation?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

And rehash what has already occupied 7 pages?

I will have to rewatch it, with stops, if you want a blow-by-blow. Unfortunately, that won't be soon as I have to take my wife someplace and I have errands to run. So you patience would be appreciated?

I am sure others will "help a brother out" and fill in the blanks for you- although it is rather strange that Wade Englund would not know of the inaccuracies in Glenn's report.

 

 

I am happy to wait rather than sift from among the many sweeping dismissals in hopes of finding specific assertions that allegedly confirm your claim of "shockingly absurd."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Maybe that's what you and I might have inferred but I do not believe a non-member would have concluded that.

You might be right. Like I said this program is not one of the better things I have seen Glenn do.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[mormonnewb]

As I said before, I feel very fortunate, perhaps sheltered, because none of these outrages that I read about on this board as "routinely" happening in the Church ever crop up in the ward and stake to which I belong and in the meetings I attend.

And to think that I've been accused of going to extreme lengths to get a laugh ... Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that no one in your ward EVER spouts off Mormon folklore. If so, where is this ward -- Adam-ondi-Ahman?