New Gospel Topic Essays - Polygamy

[JLHPROF]

As chaste and pure as Jesus?!

He would probably disagree:

“Many think a prophet must be a great deal better than any body else... I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, yet deals justice to his neighbors and mercifully deals his substance to the poor, than the smooth-faced hypocrite. I do not want you to think that I’m very righteous, for I am not. There was one good man, and his name was Jesus”

Joseph Smith

(Documentary History of the Church, 5:401).

Sermon Delivered on 21 May 1843

http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1123

Partial quote:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=aba167700817b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1#footnote11

Your eulogising and near-deification of Joseph makes it difficult to give your broader arguments any credibility.

 

Yeah, I'm prone to hyperbole.  Joseph wasn't perfect.  He never said he was, and truthfully if you check I never said he was.

 

What I said was I'd no more believe that Joseph would commit adultery with some teenage girl than I would believe Christ would.

But I did NOT say Joseph was as sinless as Christ.  Just that he was chaste.

 

(As for the near-deification thing - well, that's a whole other story).

[KevinG]

(As for the near-deification thing - well, that's a whole other story).

 

<sings> ...Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren;

Death cannot conquer the hero again.

[CV75]

“In cultures where dating is acceptable, it can help you learn and practice social skills, develop friendships, have wholesome fun, and eventually find an eternal companion.

 

“You should not date until you are at least 16 years old.”

 

So it would seem that in cultures where dating is not acceptable, other courtship and marriage practices are acceptable as long as high moral standards are observed.

 

This seems to distinguish between culture, dating instruction, and morality. Sometimes these practices overlap, sometimes they don't, but the high road is to stay moral.

 

“The standards in this booklet will help you with the important choices you are making now and will yet make in the future. We promise that as you keep the covenants you have made and these standards, you will be blessed with the companionship of the Holy Ghost, your faith and testimony will grow stronger, and you will enjoy increasing happiness.”

 

This also seems to distinguish between covenants and standards, and the standards allow for culture and alternative routes to the same definition of covenant-keeping.

[carbon dioxide]

Interesting essay. I had to chuckle a little bit when they described Helen Mar Kimball being sealed to Joseph Smith several months before her 15th birthday. They couldn't bring themselves to say she was 14. They also didn't mention the other 14 year old.

 

Still, a step in the right direction and its nice to have acknowledgement that JS practiced polygamy and likely consumated at least some of the sealings because so many refuse to accept it. It will be interesting how this will be spun by some members to deny what the church just admitted

Admitting that the possibility that some of these marriages could have been consumated does not prove it did happen.  It does not bother me if he did since that would be expected normally in polygamy but assuming X happened does not prove X did happen

[Tacenda]

A co worker of my husband's started talking out of the blue about the essays and how he wasn't able to find them in LDS.org. He was in defence mode and didn't understand what the big deal was, he needed ammo I guess. What is the easiest way for my husband to tell him? Because the search button apparently isn't cutting it. Why does the church bury, and work awfully hard at it?

[KevinG]

A co worker of my husband's started talking out of the blue about the essays and how he wasn't able to find them in LDS.org. He was in defence mode and didn't understand what the big deal was, he needed ammo I guess. What is the easiest way for my husband to tell him? Because the search button apparently isn't cutting it. Why does the church bury, and work awfully hard at it?

Put Polygamy in the search box on the LDS.org title page. There will be a few articles on the top, then click on the polygamy article. The articles second paragraph has links to all of the essays In question.

The other option is to click the "more articles" link under the search results and all of the essays will be listed there.

Most web designers would be pretty satisfied with getting people to their search result with two clicks.

I'm getting suspicious of those who are clinging to the frail thread of "the church hides things" argument.

Edited November 2, 2014 by KevinG

[Calm]

Because the search button apparently isn't cutting it. Why does the church bury, and work awfully hard at it?

Seriously? Because it takes two extra clicks for an apparently non computer savvy person to find them, it is awfully hard work and intentionally buried?

Talk about insisting everything be given to you on a silver platter, already unwrapped since that would add effort and hide it as well. Perhaps you would like someone to play with your gift as well to save your having to make any effort whatsoever.

Grow up.

Type in "polygamy essay" into search function without quotes. It pulls the essays to the top.

Sheesh. So hard I am exhausted and must go to sleep for several hours to recover myself.

Another option is to choose the "topics" only on the menu on the left side, takes you to the main articles that have links to the others.

Edited November 2, 2014 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

Cal & KevinG, pretty embarrassed how easily it was when I went to it. 

 

My husband's co-worker wasn't trying very hard.  I know my remark seemed immature Cal, but I'd been hearing how the church buried the links without confirming it myself.  Too busy not doing my own homework I guess.  Just going by before the latest essay, when I'd put the info in I found it difficult to find but when I just barely did it, it was simple.  I typed in Polygamy in Nauvoo and it came up.  Have they made it simpler? Because before I thought you had to go by alphabetical order or something. 

Edited November 2, 2014 by Tacenda

[canard78]

Cal & KevinG, pretty embarrassed how easily it was when I went to it.

My husband's co-worker wasn't trying very hard. I know my remark seemed immature Cal, but I'd been hearing how the church buried the links without confirming it myself. Too busy not doing my own homework I guess. Just going by before the latest essay, when I'd put the info in I found it difficult to find but when I just barely did it, it was simple. I typed in Polygamy in Nauvoo and it came up. Have they made it simpler? Because before I thought you had to go by alphabetical order or something.

You can still view by A-Z in the topics section. The Nauvoo essay doesn't appear in that list but, as mentioned, is a sub-article of the main entry on polygamy. That seems reasonable to me. Polygamy is a really complex and sometimes disturbing part of church history. It seems fair that the church present it in as much detail and context as they want to.

As for search, they partner with Google to perform the actual searches on the site (at least they did in 2013, don't know if they still do). I know, from experience, that new content always takes some time to show up in search results and good software is "smart" so it will "learn" what people are looking for.

If people search for "polygamy" and click first on the Nauvoo result it will potentially increase in rank of the results. Depends on the software algorithm.

You may have been "spooked" by a thread on some other message boards claiming to be written by a former COB employee who said they created search algorithms that bury the essays. Utter nonsense. Search "priesthood" and the race essay shows up on the first page.

[Tacenda]

You can still view by A-Z in the topics section. The Nauvoo essay doesn't appear in that list but, as mentioned, is a sub-article of the main entry on polygamy. That seems reasonable to me. Polygamy is a really complex and sometimes disturbing part of church history. It seems fair that the church present it in as much detail and context as they want to.

As for search, they partner with Google to perform the actual searches on the site (at least they did in 2013, don't know if they still do). I know, from experience, that new content always takes some time to show up in search results and good software is "smart" so it will "learn" what people are looking for.

If people search for "polygamy" and click first on the Nauvoo result it will potentially increase in rank of the results. Depends on the software algorithm.

You may have been "spooked" by a thread on some other message boards claiming to be written by a former COB employee who said they created search algorithms that bury the essays. Utter nonsense. Search "priesthood" and the race essay shows up on the first page.

(bold mine)

 

That's the one!!  And to verify, the story with my husband and co-worker, is true.  This happened a few days ago, but my husband didn't know what to tell him, he himself didn't even look for it.  He asked me, and all I could think of was my experience with the Gospel Topics and alphabetical order.  Usually I thought we were to say the essays were in the Gospel Topics.  I didn't think it would pop up so easily with the search button, as I could have sworn it didn't before.  But my brain is getting fuzzier by the day. 

[KevinG]

The hard core anti-Mormons must be pretty desperate over losing the "church hid it's history" card from their deck of murmurs, to make up a story about a former church office building employee creating an algorithm to hide a story they just published.

Edited November 2, 2014 by KevinG

[rockpond]

Great perspective and thoughts on the polygamy essays in this op ed...

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/1764577-155/essay-church-joseph-polygamy-women-consider

[carbon dioxide]

Over the last few days since the essay I've been thinking about the same question. Why?

I don't see God in the black priesthood/temple ban and I'm glad that the church has almost entirely disavowed it.

I also don't see God in Polygamy. I'm glad the church essay has opened up to the reality of it. I hope that one day they will take the next step and disavow it too.

The more I study, ponder, pray and consider the question of polygamy the more it leads to a simple conclusion:

There was no commanding angel

There was no drawn or flaming sword

There was no revelation behind section 132

There was no divine mandate for polygamy

We don't have to wrestle with why God would command this. He didn't.

I guess over time one can dismiss all of God's commandments if the instructions are at odds with the standards of society today.  One can just take buy some liquid paper and delete everything in the scriptures one does not like.  It is an effective way to deal with difficult commandments.  Either ignore them or just declare the commandment did not exist in the first place.  I guess I can just say that God was not a part of the Word of Wisdom.  I don't have to wrestle with any claim that God would command us to not drink alcohol or use cocaine.  He didn't.  I am bring a keg of beer to the next church activiity.

Edited November 2, 2014 by carbon dioxide

[JLHPROF]

I guess over time one can dismiss all of God's commandments if the instructions are at odds with the standards of society today.  One can just take buy some liquid paper and delete everything in the scriptures one does not like.  It is an effective way to deal with difficult commandments.  Either ignore them or just declare the commandment did not exist in the first place.  I guess I can just say that God was not a part of the Word of Wisdom.  I don't have to wrestle with any claim that God would command us to not drink alcohol or use cocaine.  He didn't.  I am bring a keg of beer to the next church activiity.

 

Pretty much every change in the church has come either because of public or member pressure.  That's historical fact.  

At the same time I can still guarantee that the leadership each and every time approached every one of those changes with sincere and diligent prayer.

 

The question each member has to rely on faith for is whether the change was made in answer to prayer (revelation) or not, because there has rarely been a recorded revelation with any of them (OD1/OD2 being the closest in that they refer to revelations).

 

As time goes on other less popular beliefs or practices will certainly go the same way.

[Scott Lloyd]

Pretty much every change in the church has come either because of public or member pressure.  That's historical fact.  

JLHPROF, there you go again, making easily falsifiable, absolutist declarations.

 

I won't take another poll, I'll simply ask: What about the recent change in age eligibility for missionaries. Where's the evidence of "public or member pressure" for that?

[JLHPROF]

JLHPROF, there you go again, making easily falsifiable, absolutist declarations.

 

I won't take another poll, I'll simply ask: What about the recent change in age eligibility for missionaries. Where's the evidence of "public or member pressure" for that?

 

Ok, fair enough. I saw no agitation for such a thing (or revelation promoting it for that matter).  This was a plain old administrative decision, that was certainly prayed about.

 

Thank you for calling me on my absolutist (I don't agree with the easily falsifiable) declarations.   It is one of my weaknesses in communication.  Sometimes I catch myself, often I don't.  But where this statement was too absolutist, if you replace the absolutist "pretty much every" with the more reasonable "Very Often" the point still stands.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ok, fair enough. I saw no agitation for such a thing (or revelation promoting it for that matter).  This was a plain old administrative decision, that was certainly prayed about.

 

Thank you for calling me on my absolutist (I don't agree with the easily falsifiable) declarations.   It is one of my weaknesses in communication.  Sometimes I catch myself, often I don't.  But where this statement was too absolutist, if you replace the absolutist "pretty much every" with the more reasonable "Very Often" the point still stands.

Fair enough.

Incidentally, I wouldn't be so quick to say the change in age of eligibility did not come about by revelation -- when you consider revelation in the sense of being a broad field that takes in any communication from God, including inspiration received in answer to prayer. I doubt that there are very many -- if any -- substantive administrative decisions carried out by the Church that are not undertaken without prayer and resulting inspiration.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

I won't take another poll, I'll simply ask: What about the recent change in age eligibility for missionaries. Where's the evidence of "public or member pressure" for that?

 

I can't provide any evidence, but my parents were serving a mission in England at the time of the change.  They said that because of the way England's secondary education system works, there were many who had requested to be able to leave for their missions at a younger age.

[Scott Lloyd]

I can't provide any evidence, but my parents were serving a mission in England at the time of the change.  They said that because of the way England's secondary education system works, there were many who had requested to be able to leave for their missions at a younger age.

Be that as it may, it hardly strikes me as amounting to "public or member pressure." 

 

And I vaguely recall that in some areas outside the United States, such requests were already being accommodated on a case-by-case basis.

[rockpond]

Be that as it may, it hardly strikes me as amounting to "public or member pressure." 

 

And I vaguely recall that in some areas outside the United States, such requests were already being accommodated on a case-by-case basis.

 

It may have felt like "member pressure" within Great Britain (admittedly a fraction of general church membership), I don't know as I never spent enough time there to get a feel for it.

 

And yes, I can verify that such requests (at least in England) were being accommodated on a case-by-case basis.

[Scott Lloyd]

It may have felt like "member pressure" within Great Britain (admittedly a fraction of general church membership), I don't know as I never spent enough time there to get a feel for it.

 

And yes, I can verify that such requests (at least in England) were being accommodated on a case-by-case basis.

So this fairly obscure movement amounted to an orderly request for an exception to the rule here and there, which was accommodated on a case-by-case basis.

 

Hardly the stuff of "public or member pressure."

[rockpond]

So this fairly obscure movement amounted to an orderly request for an exception to the rule here and there, which was accommodated on a case-by-case basis.

 

Hardly the stuff of "public or member pressure."

 

It wasn't "obscure" in England.

 

Are you saying that it is only "member pressure" when it takes the form of Ordain Women or a petition delivered to 50 E North Temple?  Is it not member pressure if the requests continually flow up through normal leadership channels?

[JLHPROF]

So this fairly obscure movement amounted to an orderly request for an exception to the rule here and there, which was accommodated on a case-by-case basis.

 

Hardly the stuff of "public or member pressure."

 

True.

But them majority of the doctrinal changes WERE due to public pressure. Not all as you've shown, but many.  

 

And the fact remains that many were made without pronouncement of revelation on the subject - leading to members either accepting the change blindly and assuming revelation, or just having to live with it.

[Scott Lloyd]

It wasn't "obscure" in England.

 

 

How do you know that? You're scarcely aware of it yourself, and apparently only through rumor.

 

Are you saying that it is only "member pressure" when it takes the form of Ordain Women or a petition delivered to 50 E North Temple?

 

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying. It's clear you're quibbling over semantics here.

 

 Is it not member pressure if the requests continually flow up through normal leadership channels?

 

I think you're making assumptions here about extent and frequency of something you are scarcely even aware of.

[Scott Lloyd]

True.

But them majority of the doctrinal changes WERE due to public pressure. Not all as you've shown, but many.  

 

I'm not clear how you can even go as far as to declare it was a majority. And "public"? Most of the public is not even aware of what goes on in the Church of Jesus Christ much less care enough to exert any pressure over it.

 

And the fact remains that many were made without pronouncement of revelation on the subject - leading to members either accepting the change blindly and assuming revelation, or just having to live with it.

 

 

I've already addressed this. Knowing what I do about the leaders of the Church, I'm confident that they don't make substantive administrative decisions without praying for and receiving inspiration, whether or not such inspiration is published as a revelation.

 

I think it requires a greater stretch of imagination to assume that they don't than to assume that they do.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Scott Lloyd