New Gospel Topic Essays - Polygamy

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The essay states this:

 

The phrase "most voted in favor" is as much as to say that there were indeed negative votes.

 

So your only real beef is that the Deseret News report was mentioned at all. In effect you're complaining that the essay, in your view, provides too much information. That's a curious argument, indeed, in a thread where some are assuming that the Church in the past has not been open enough with its history.

"Most voted in favor" does not imply negative votes when it is followed by "though some abstained from voting." The most straight forward reading of this is that over 50% supported the motion, and the rest abstained. This point of view is heightened since the Deseret news reported unanimous support. 

 

Per http://www.parlipro.org/faqanswers.htm#abstentions

 

 

How do you count abstentions? As ayes? As no's?

In the usual case, abstentions are not counted. They are not "votes" technically. In a room of 100 people, a vote of 1-0 [one affirmative and zero negative] is legitimate, and renders a binding decision. Also, A vote of 1-0 in room of 100 people is technically a "unanimous vote" because there was no vote in opposition.  However, if the bylaws specify "a majority of those PRESENT" or "two-thirds of those PRESENT", instead of "PRESENT AND VOTING", then an abstention has the same effect as a negative vote. (This language is generally undesirable, as it denies a member the right maintain a neutral position by abstaining.) For more information, refer to RONR 10th ed.  p. 394 and p. 390.

Edited October 27, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[KevinG]

I think you left one out, based on Dehlin's research, one of the biggest issues is the feeling of betrayal that comes when a lifelong member who attended primary, sunday school, seminary, institute, general conference, etc comes across information that contradicts their understanding of the Church.

 

From my own experience and the experiences of others that I've heard/read, it seems that "troublesome fact" can often be dealt with easier than the feeling of betrayal.

 

I think you left one out, based on Dehlin's research, one of the biggest issues is the feeling of betrayal that comes when a lifelong member who attended primary, sunday school, seminary, institute, general conference, etc comes across information that contradicts their understanding of the Church.

 

From my own experience and the experiences of others that I've heard/read, it seems that "troublesome fact" can often be dealt with easier than the feeling of betrayal.

 

Of course.  I noted the "most easily" bumped out...  my observations are not research like Dehlin's, and my two variables are not the entire sample set.  That does not make my observations wrong.

 

Some can be shocked, or feel betrayed.  But again my observations  are that people with a supportive family/friends, whose influences are open an honest and do not treat them as children, and no other reason to doubt the claims of their religion, do not typically up and leave because of one or two sudden shocks about the history of the Mormons.

 

There is a weakness in fundamentalist thinking (pro or anti) where someone is not secure enough to handle exceptions, failures and error, when considering a belief system.  Those Molly Mormons and Peter Priesthoods who cannot bear hear tales of mortal weakness in their leaders are more at risk for shaken testimony syndrome, than members who can reconcile the truth of the Gospel, and perfection of God, with the weakness and mortality of His servants.  

 

Did Dehlin's research account for maturity levels (Kohlberg) or socialization (Erikson), or any number of psychological states to see if the feeling of betrayal was caused by the new information alone, or was correlated with the subjects background?  If not his research is hardly more valid than any other theory of "why" and no more or less authoritative and objective than any other theory on the matter.

 

If I weren't an amateur apologist, and had all the time in the world to study this.  I'd think it would be valuable to look at family dynamics, emotional maturity (like the ability to handle paradox), and socialization within a religious group - and how all that impacts adherence or separation from ones identity group.  But alas I have a life that cannot accommodate that study.

 

What I can tell you is there are some published studies that show the largest single predictor of a child adopting their parents values is the amount of affection they receive from their father's at a young age.  (OSU extension fact sheet, Ann K. Smith PhD. 1996;, “How Fathers Fit In” Civitas.org 2004; “The importance of Father Love; History and Contemporary Evidence”, Ronald P Rohner and Robert A. Veneziano, April 2001)

Edited October 27, 2014 by KevinG

[Scott Lloyd]

Ok, fair enough. I will give you that the essay at least implied there were negative votes before quoting a report to the contrary.

I will cede the accuracy card on this one, but I still think a little more clarity would have been nice, especially considering how completely open and honest most of the essays are.

 

Probably shouldn't quibble over the tiny things, but as I said before, I was just applauding the removal of the incorrect phrase from OD1.  This vague reference just rubbed me the wrong way.

I'll acknowledge the clarity could be improved.

 

As a writer, I understand the challenge of getting everything absolutely perfect the first time. You think you have all the bases covered, and then you see it in cold type and think, "Wow, I should have worded that better."

 

Fortunately, with online content, it is easier to go back and fix something than if it appears in print.

 

Perhaps you should contact lds.org and make some suggestions.

[rockpond]

Of course.  I noted the "most easily" bumped out...  my observations are not research like Dehlin's, and my two variables are not the entire sample set.  That does not make my observations wrong.

 

Some can be shocked, or feel betrayed.  But again my observations  are that people with a supportive family/friends, whose influences are open an honest and do not treat them as children, and no other reason to doubt the claims of their religion, do not typically up and leave because of one or two sudden shocks about the history of the Mormons.

 

I also shared my observations and did not suggest that yours were wrong.  I think yours were correct -- I just felt one more could be added... which is why I said as much.

[Scott Lloyd]

"Most voted in favor" does not imply negative votes when it is followed by "though some abstained from voting." The most straight forward reading of this is that over 50% supported the motion, and the rest abstained. This point of view is heightened since the Deseret news reported unanimous support. 

 

Per http://www.parlipro.org/faqanswers.htm#abstentions

I've acknowledged that the clarity could be improved.

 

That doesn't mean that the fact that the newspaper reported what it did should be left out.

[KevinG]

I also shared my observations and did not suggest that yours were wrong.  I think yours were correct -- I just felt one more could be added... which is why I said as much.

 

Ah... a violent agreement on our part then.  Those happen to me often online.  I understand better now.  

 

I had not intended to make those two variables the only reasons, only emphasize that they were two I observe frequently as being high risk.

[Calm]

Ok, fair enough. I will give you that the essay at least implied there were negative votes before quoting a report to the contrary.

I will cede the accuracy card on this one, but I still think a little more clarity would have been nice, especially considering how completely open and honest most of the essays are.

 

Probably shouldn't quibble over the tiny things, but as I said before, I was just applauding the removal of the incorrect phrase from OD1.  This vague reference just rubbed me the wrong way.

Give them feedback, if enough are confused they likely will clarify it.

[Calm]

Of course, it is more data than Kevin presented in his post, which nobody seemed to call out or question.  Which, for me, shows the bias here... one can theorize as long as you are criticizing those who are having faith crises.  But, if you theorize in a way that supports those having faith crises and is the least bit critical of the church, then you get called out on it and mocked.  It's sad that this board keeps becoming more hostile for those who struggle, I had hoped it would be something different.

One can see exactly what Kevin claimed for his own position without any additional information and decide whether or not to agree with him.

Not so the reference to Dehlin. So I issued a caution so people would be less likely to make assumptions about something they couldn't see for themselves.

I don't like categorising people given that to be accurate too many variables need to be identified (and people can judge for themselves whether Kevin did so sufficiently or not) so generally just avoid posting in these knds of conversation now as far as discussion itself.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Yahoo News posted an article and titled it "Mormon founder had teen bride". The media is trying to bash the church at any chance they can get. The comments section on the article is insane.

[KevinG]

Yahoo News posted an article and titled it "Mormon founder had teen bride". The media is trying to bash the church at any chance they can get. The comments section on the article is insane.

 

Don't let the comments section bother you.  There are a few dedicated and bitter individuals who spend an inordinate amount of time publishing all sorts of nasty things any time an article even remotely related to the Mormons comes up.  I've even read insults about Joseph and Brigham on articles about BYU football on ESPN.

 

The same applies to critics of other religious groups like the Catholics.

 

For the most part I find people in the real world have respect, or if they have questions, are at least willing to see both sides of an issue.  

[cinepro]

Yahoo News posted an article and titled it "Mormon founder had teen bride". The media is trying to bash the church at any chance they can get. The comments section on the article is insane.

 

Sorry if this doesn't jive with your persecution complex, but the "media" isn't trying to "bash" the church.  The "media" (i.e. Yahoo News) is trying to get people to click on a link.  That's it.  Whoever wrote the headline probably doesn't care about Mormonism any more than they care about the chess club at my local community college. 

 

Yes, it's a tacky and inconsiderate headline (especially considering the Warren Jeffs situation), but they're not trying to hurt Mormons.  They trying to get people to read (and comment!)

 

Besides, I've recently come to understand that having a fourteen year old "bride" in the 1840's was perfectly acceptable, and the headline writer may also have known that and assumed the readers would too, so it's possible that you're just being presentist in your interpretation of the headline.

Edited October 27, 2014 by cinepro

[JLHPROF]

Yahoo News posted an article and titled it "Mormon founder had teen bride". The media is trying to bash the church at any chance they can get. The comments section on the article is insane.

 

The comments always are.  The internet is a strange place, and many who choose items to comment  on usually select things they have already made their minds up to hate.  Between false information and peoples right to free speech you get a lot of crazy opinions.

 

As for the article, it appears to just be a link to a Associated Press /Huffington Post article - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/27/mormon-joseph-smith-teen-bride_n_6054272.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

 

And yet they still manage to get a few facts incorrect, despite the accuracy of the essays.

[KevinG]

Sorry if this doesn't jive with your persecution complex, but the "media" isn't trying to "bash" the church.  The "media" (i.e. Yahoo News) is trying to get people to click on a link.  That's it.  Whoever wrote the headline probably doesn't care about Mormonism any more than they care about the chess club at my local community college. 

 

Yes, it's a tacky and inconsiderate headline (especially considering the Warren Jeffs situation), but they're not trying to hurt Mormons.  They trying to get people to read (and comment!)

 

Besides, I've recently come to understand that having a fourteen year old "bride" in the 1840's was perfectly acceptable, and the headline writer may also have known that and assumed the readers would too, so it's possible that you're just being presentist in your interpretation of the headline.

 

"Review of 19th Century Census Finds Rampant Epidemic of Teen Brides"  

[canard78]

I think you left one out, based on Dehlin's research, one of the biggest issues is the feeling of betrayal that comes when a lifelong member who attended primary, sunday school, seminary, institute, general conference, etc comes across information that contradicts their understanding of the Church.

 

From my own experience and the experiences of others that I've heard/read, it seems that "troublesome fact" can often be dealt with easier than the feeling of betrayal.

 

 

Dehlin's research is self selected and after the fact if it is the survey I am thinking of. One needs to be very cautious applying it outside the group that participated.

 

I can confidently support Cal on this one. Dehlin's research told us very, very little. I'm surprised that it appears to have got such a lot of traction with some relatively senior people in the church/Utah education groups. My full-time job is market research. I'm also spending a lot of time with neuro-technology measuring motives and responses.

 

The sampling was flawed and the survey structure was too. At very, very best we can probably call it:

 

"A summary of the rationalised and articulated reasons for leaving or losing belief in the church among people who currently follow John Dehlin's podcast or are actively involved in the LDS bloggernacle.'

 

That's:

 

a) a very specific group that is not representative of less-active/non-believing/doubting Mormons and 

b) a very unscientific method for understanding people's motives for making a life-changing decision

 

To quote a certain favourite German speaker of mine: "Actually, it is not that simple."

[rockpond]

I can confidently support Cal on this one. Dehlin's research told us very, very little. I'm surprised that it appears to have got such a lot of traction with some relatively senior people in the church/Utah education groups. My full-time job is market research. I'm also spending a lot of time with neuro-technology measuring motives and responses.

 

The sampling was flawed and the survey structure was too. At very, very best we can probably call it:

 

"A summary of the rationalised and articulated reasons for leaving or losing belief in the church among people who currently follow John Dehlin's podcast or are actively involved in the LDS bloggernacle.'

 

That's:

 

a) a very specific group that is not representative of less-active/non-believing/doubting Mormons and 

b) a very unscientific method for understanding people's motives for making a life-changing decision

 

To quote a certain favourite German speaker of mine: "Actually, it is not that simple."

 

Alright, so I regret having mentioned Dehlin's research as it wasn't even necessary to my point.  Would anyone disagree if I had worded my response as follows:  "I think you left one out, the feeling of betrayal that comes when a lifelong member who attended primary, sunday school, seminary, institute, general conference, etc comes across information that contradicts their understanding of the Church."

 

p.s.  Since I completed a BS in Statistics I am well aware of the limitations of Dehlin's research.  But it does provide interesting information from the self-selected group.  And given all that is happening in the church, I think it is short-sighted to ignore the feedback from that population.

[rockpond]

Yahoo News posted an article and titled it "Mormon founder had teen bride". The media is trying to bash the church at any chance they can get. The comments section on the article is insane.

 

Did they make any false claims?  Or just upset at the way they presented the truth?  I've been told on these boards that it was totally common for men to marry teen girls back then.

[CV75]

Did they make any false claims?  Or just upset at the way they presented the truth?  I've been told on these boards that it was totally common for men to marry teen girls back then.

"We might remind the inquirer that some information about Joseph, while true, may be presented completely out of context to his own day and situation." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/joseph-smith?lang=eng

 

Did Joseph Smith ever use the term "teen girls" and did it carry/convey the same meaning to him as it does today?

[rockpond]

"We might remind the inquirer that some information about Joseph, while true, may be presented completely out of context to his own day and situation." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/joseph-smith?lang=eng

 

Did Joseph Smith ever use the term "teen girls" and did it carry/convey the same meaning to him as it does today?

 

I have no idea if he used the term "teen bride" (as used in the article).

 

"Out of context to his own day" sounds a lot like moral relativism.

[cinepro]

"We might remind the inquirer that some information about Joseph, while true, may be presented completely out of context to his own day and situation." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/joseph-smith?lang=eng

 

 

I think they just described the last 90 years of LDS-published history on polygamy.

Edited October 27, 2014 by cinepro

[cinepro]

 

Did Joseph Smith ever use the term "teen girls" and did it carry/convey the same meaning to him as it does today?

 

And I don't know about "teen girls", but I was able to confirm that "fourteen" was just as many back then as it is today.

[rockpond]

And I don't know about "teen girls", but I was able to confirm that "fourteen" was just as many back then as it is today.

 

Actually, "fourteen" has now been replaced with "several months before fifteen".  

Edited October 27, 2014 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

And I don't know about "teen girls", but I was able to confirm that "fourteen" was just as many back then as it is today.

CV75 raises a valid point. The concept of adolescence is a 20th century social construct, though with the arrogance of presentism, one may be loathe to accept that fact.

 

See here for more on this subject.

 

The idea that young people take a decade to grow up, in the meantime inhabiting a space called “young adulthood,” is rather new in American culture.  A bit older is the idea of “adolescence,” the idea that there is a stage between childhood and (young) adulthood that is characterized by immaturity and capriciousness: the teenage years.  Before these ideas were invented, children were expected to take on adult roles as soon as they were able, apprenticing their parents and transitioning to adulthood with puberty.  Shifts in ideas about life stages is a wonderful example of the social constructedness of age.

 

Edited October 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[sheilauk]

"We might remind the inquirer that some information about Joseph, while true, may be presented completely out of context to his own day and situation." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/joseph-smith?lang=eng

Did Joseph Smith ever use the term "teen girls" and did it carry/convey the same meaning to him as it does today?

i doubt it. I have always understood that teenagers weren't invented til the nineteen fifties/sixties. Even in 1945, 14 year olds in the UK could be working full time. Getting wed at 14 is far from uncommon up to the mid 20th century. In south east asia, they still marry 14 yr olds and younger, though its illegal, its morally OK. I don't believe it had anything like the connotations placed on it today. But polygamy and Joseph Smith's and others marriages don't offend or bother me in the least and never have. Edited October 27, 2014 by sheilauk

[Calm]

I don't have an issue with the title " ...had a teen bride" or even it it was "brides" though I would hope in the article it also included the older ages, percentage that were in their teens, etc.

While unusual, it wasnt unheard of. Where he differed is plural marriage whatever the age of the wives. I think the age of his wives is a rabbit trail when it comes to controversy. Plural marriage and what impact that had, etc. is what is truly controversial.

Edited October 27, 2014 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

CV75 raises a valid point. The concept of adolescence is a 20th century social construct, though with the arrogance of presentism, one may be loathe to accept that fact.

 

See here for more on this subject.

 

Another vote in favor of moral relativity.

Edited October 27, 2014 by rockpond