Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

New Gospel Topic Essays - Polygamy


Recommended Posts

Posted

Exactly.  And retracted.

 

And I think that the church has performed similar studies but hasn't released the results.

CFR.

 

Or is this just an "I wouldn't put it past 'em" comment?

Posted

CFR.

 

Or is this just an "I wouldn't put it past 'em" comment?

 

It wasn't an "I wouldn't put it past 'em" comment.  There is nothing wrong with the church surveying it's members -- it wasn't an insult.  And I suspect that the church has statisticians either on staff or volunteering (as well as a budget) to make such surveys statistically sound.

 

My reference for thinking such would be those recent screenshots of a survey that hit the internet a couple months back.

Posted (edited)

Exactly.  And retracted.

 

And I think that the church has performed similar studies but hasn't released the results.

Ooooooooh!  They're hiding more stuff! :blink:

 

And the sincerity of your apology is overwhelming.  I should've just told you to save your breath (er, bandwidth). :huh:

 

Since I'm Eeeeeevuhl, I'll throw one of these in for good measure: Bwah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by Kenngo1969
Posted

evil-doctor.jpg?w=450&h=328

 

P.S.:  I don't know who that guy in my avatar is; this is my most recent picture.

Posted

Ooooooooh!  They're hiding more stuff! :blink:

 

I didn't say that they were hiding it.  I don't think the church needs to release the results of every study they ever perform.

Posted

I didn't say that they were hiding it.  I don't think the church needs to release the results of every study they ever perform.

Let's face it: if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were to do a study regarding disaffection, many people (whether you fall into this camp or not, I'll leave that to you) would dismiss it precisely because the Church did it, no matter what its conclusions are. There are enough people out there studying the sociology of religion that, frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing a methodological, empirically-rigorous academic study regarding disaffection from the Church of Jesus Christ, reasons for it, and what the disaffected see as potential solutions.  I simply don't think Dehlin's study meets those criteria.

Posted

Actually the title of the yahoo news article that we were discussing is what used the term "teen bride". To clarify. See Video Game Junkie's post back on page 10(?).

Joseph Smith did, in fact, live in the same world as us. But he lived in a different time and culture. If it is that time and culture that made it morally acceptable for a 37 year old man to marry a 14 year old girl, than that is moral relativism.

My question was: “Did Joseph Smith ever use the term "teen girls" and did it carry/convey the same meaning to him as it does today?” That is not a question of morality.

 

You had already emphasized “false claims” and “the way they presented the truth” which are moral issues. Defending the article’s treatment of the subject on this basis sounds like “normative” moral relativism as to the portrayal of facts.

 

And now you shift to the morality of Joseph Smith instead?

Posted

Let's face it: if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were to do a study regarding disaffection, many people (whether you fall into this camp or not, I'll leave that to you) would dismiss it precisely because the Church did it, no matter what its conclusions are.

If the Church did such a study (and it would almost be negligent for them not to), the findings would be for the Church's use, not for public broadcast.  What "many people" would think about the study and the results would be totally irrelevant.

Posted

If the Church did such a study (and it would almost be negligent for them not to), the findings would be for the Church's use, not for public broadcast.  What "many people" would think about the study and the results would be totally irrelevant.

I'm not persuaded that such a study would be useful anyway. To the question "Why did you become disaffected from the Church?" or "What effect, if any, did arguments in defense of the Church have on your decision?" it would be human nature to respond in a self-serving, self-justifying and perhaps less-than-candid manner.

Posted

LOL :)

Since canard78 presumably has me "on ignore," he may have missed my rejoinder to rockpond's post:

 

And as such, they were quite predictable.

 

You were proclaiming how insightful Dehlin's study was. I saw nothing there that I had not seen repeated over and over again, ad infinitum, on Internet message boards, blogs, etc.

 

Posted

I'm not persuaded that such a study would be useful anyway. To the question "Why did you become disaffected from the Church?" or "What effect, if any, did arguments in defense of the Church have on your decision?" it would be human nature to respond in a self-serving, self-justifying and perhaps less-than-candid manner.

 

How would you distinguish between a "self-serving, self-justifying and less-than-candid" response and one that was entirely honest and clear?   Can you give an example of both?

Posted

My question was: “Did Joseph Smith ever use the term "teen girls" and did it carry/convey the same meaning to him as it does today?” That is not a question of morality.

 

You had already emphasized “false claims” and “the way they presented the truth” which are moral issues. Defending the article’s treatment of the subject on this basis sounds like “normative” moral relativism as to the portrayal of facts.

 

And now you shift to the morality of Joseph Smith instead?

 

Well I agree with you there... Whether Joseph ever used the term "teen girls" has no relevance to the morality of his marriage to a 14 year old who was 22 years his junior.

 

I haven't defended the article's treatment of anything as no article has yet been linked (I mentioned earlier that I searched for it and couldn't find it... VGJ did not provide a link or source).

 

As for discussing the morality of Joseph Smith... isn't that a part of this thread in which we are discussing the Church's essay in which they defend his practice of polygamy?

Posted (edited)

How would you distinguish between a "self-serving, self-justifying and less-than-candid" response and one that was entirely honest and clear?   Can you give an example of both?

Well, therein lies the problem. It would be nigh on impossible to detect in a good many instances, perhaps most all. Hence such a study would strike me as less than reliable.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Posted

Well I agree with you there... Whether Joseph ever used the term "teen girls" has no relevance to the morality of his marriage to a 14 year old who was 22 years his junior.

 

I haven't defended the article's treatment of anything as no article has yet been linked (I mentioned earlier that I searched for it and couldn't find it... VGJ did not provide a link or source).

 

As for discussing the morality of Joseph Smith... isn't that a part of this thread in which we are discussing the Church's essay in which they defend his practice of polygamy?

Who is "we"? The subject of morality didn't come up until page 11 (#201), and that was in relation to the treatment of facts, not people. You brought up "moral relativism" out of nowhere on page 13 (#243), apparently to change the focus to the morality of Joseph Smith on page 14 (#269).

Posted

Who is "we"? The subject of morality didn't come up until page 11 (#201), and that was in relation to the treatment of facts, not people. You brought up "moral relativism" out of nowhere on page 13 (#243), apparently to change the focus to the morality of Joseph Smith on page 14 (#269).

 

The OP setup a discussion about Joseph (at 37 years old) marrying Helen Mar Kimball (who was 14 at the time).  So I was not changing the focus of the thread in discussing the morality of such a marriage.

 

My bringing up moral relativism also refers to what the OP quoted (from topics.lds.org) about such a marriage while being "inappropriate by today's standards" was "legal in that era".

Posted

Good dodge, Scott

As the author of morality, I don't think God can be a moral relativist.

Also, I'm not aware of any evidence of God commanding Joseph to marry Helen Mar.

Iirc, it was her father's idea.
Posted (edited)

. Maybe every now and then we could acknowledge the good intentions he had behind that research. .

I would have to make assumptions I don't have sufficient evidence for to draw any conclusion about his intentions. And I have read enough of his stuff that he has then deleted not to give him the benefit of the doubt like I might someone else.

All I know is that I am shocked that someone with his training at that time created that survey and then promoted it as something important to say way beyond its limited parameters. I don't feel the need to speculate why.

Edited: I keep leaving out those crucial nots, I might blame it on Freud but I prefer to blame it on missing out on Boy Scouts (if auto spell is going to make me work by having to manually change a word I spelled correctly, I should be able to get a joke out of it).

Edited by calmoriah
Posted

Very good podcast with some heavy hitters!  http://mormonmatters.org/2014/10/27/256-the-churchs-new-articles-on-plural-marriage/

 

 

The panelists in this episode, Barbara Jones Brown, Todd M. Compton, and Brian C. Hales, join with Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon in celebrating these new releases, noting always their strengths and the ways they will undoubtedly assist the church and its many members for whom its polygamist past (and present) is so painful, but also sharing their thoughts on how they might have been improved. Perhaps sometime soon they will!

Posted

Very good podcast with some heavy hitters! http://mormonmatters.org/2014/10/27/256-the-churchs-new-articles-on-plural-marriage/

The panelists in this episode, Barbara Jones Brown, Todd M. Compton, and Brian C. Hales, join with Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon in celebrating these new releases, noting always their strengths and the ways they will undoubtedly assist the church and its many members for whom its polygamist past (and present) is so painful, but also sharing their thoughts on how they might have been improved. Perhaps sometime soon they will!

I listened to this episode and enjoyed it a lot. Much better than the Mormon Stories discussion on the same topic. It was neat to hear two of the foremost experts on the subject(Brian Hales and Todd Compton) converse with each other.

Posted

Wow! Nothing gets by you, HappyJackWagon.

:rofl:

Posted

In the essays it mentions the "Law of Sarah".  I did a little research on it and came up with the below quote...I c/p from a post I made on another forum.  Just wondered if my summation is correct or not.  Anything I got wrong on?  I'm not a good student of the Old Testament.   

 

"The Law of Sarah is not what the church purports. In the bible does it state that she would be destroyed if she didn't live polygamy? No, it was actually her idea because she wanted to continue Abraham's lineage. That was how it was back then, polygamy was for continuing that lineage if the first wife was barren. Emma Smith wasn't barren.

God condemned having many wives and concubines. Especially the Kings that did that. Not too many prophets did in the bible, and if they did some converted and discontinued the practice, and those that did were often condemned for it.

Why is it that Emma's free choice is destroyed? Why is the wife in polygamist marriages in a catch 22? There is no way she has a choice in Section 132, she couldn't say no, she is condemned no matter what, but Jesus said he didn't come to condemn but to redeem.

I found this too..

"When thou art come unto the land which the Eternal thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me. . . . Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away" (Deut. 17:14, 17). It is spoken of as "THIS LAW" in verses 18 and 19."

Posted

In the essays it mentions the "Law of Sarah".  I did a little research on it and came up with the below quote...I c/p from a post I made on another forum.  Just wondered if my summation is correct or not.  Anything I got wrong on?  I'm not a good student of the Old Testament.   

 

"The Law of Sarah is not what the church purports. In the bible does it state that she would be destroyed if she didn't live polygamy? No, it was actually her idea because she wanted to continue Abraham's lineage. That was how it was back then, polygamy was for continuing that lineage if the first wife was barren. Emma Smith wasn't barren.

God condemned having many wives and concubines. Especially the Kings that did that. Not too many prophets did in the bible, and if they did some converted and discontinued the practice, and those that did were often condemned for it.

Why is it that Emma's free choice is destroyed? Why is the wife in polygamist marriages in a catch 22? There is no way she has a choice in Section 132, she couldn't say no, she is condemned no matter what, but Jesus said he didn't come to condemn but to redeem.

I found this too..

"When thou art come unto the land which the Eternal thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me. . . . Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away" (Deut. 17:14, 17). It is spoken of as "THIS LAW" in verses 18 and 19."

 

This topic is always overcomplicated.

 

The Law of Sarah is one thing and one thing only.  It is the act of a woman giving her husband another wife and as a result his increasing in posterity.  That's it.  That's all.  As Joseph F. Smith said, it amounts to her consent, nothing more.  As Orson Pratt recorded it is when the wife places the hand of the bride in the husbands hand over the altar.

 

This is exactly what Sarah did with Hagar, what Leah and Rachel did with Zilpha and Bilpah (sorry, it's early if I spelt the names wrong).  It's exactly what Emma did with the Partridge sisters and the Lawrence sisters.

 

Anything else does NOT fall under the Law of Sarah.  The threat of destruction on Emma was NOT part of the Law of Sarah.  It was a punishment for rejecting the law of plural marriage.  It had nothing to do with a penalty contained in the law of Sarah.

 

On a side note (and I have no idea where to find the CFR on this right now) there was an old folklore back in the 1800's that said if a barren woman like Sarah fulfilled the law of Sarah with her husband that God might bless her with a child of her own.  Probably just folklore, but I thought I should include the connection.

Posted (edited)

Anything I got wrong on?  I'm not a good student of the Old Testament.   

 

"The Law of Sarah is not what the church purports. In the bible does it state that she would be destroyed if she didn't live polygamy? No, it was actually her idea because she wanted to continue Abraham's lineage. That was how it was back then, polygamy was for continuing that lineage if the first wife was barren. Emma Smith wasn't barren."

 

Abraham didn't need to marry Keturah to continue his lineage: he already had sons through Sarah and Hagar at that point. Jacob's first wife wasn't barren and yet he still had children by her maidservant. So the explanation you cited doesn't really work.

 

That said, I can't think of anywhere in the Bible where God commands polygamy (though he apparently tolerates it in the patriarchs and some of the kings of Israel).

Edited by Nevo
Posted

How common was a 14 - 15yr old girl marrying a 35+ yr old man?

I am guessing no matter how we try to soften this, the fact was it was not a prevalent occurrence and it made people even then uncomfortable.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...