New Gospel Topic Essays - Polygamy

[Calm]

This might be off-topic, but I've been Ward Librarian before too. We had the same issues with people not returning things. We were told that for "small items" we were expected to replace them ourselves without turning in any receipts. I ended up asking for a release because it got so ridiculous.

That was wrong. That was what the ward budget was for and we just rotated it through the three wards there.

It was a great job for me and I had fun with the database making which was going to include everything ever issued by the Church (I got a big head start using someone's thesis work) and there are sites now where people have put up lists and such for the current stuff if and basic lists. I was just dividing them up by year and topic...obsessive compulsive stuff, lol.

[Tacenda]

I paid out of pocket at a copy center, when our Stake Copier was moved to the Stake President's office, where before it had it's own spot in a small closet for people to use on Saturday's to copy for various things, mostly the auxiliaries. This when I served as RS Secretary. And sorry for not upper casing "Ward Librarian", just noticed that.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Tacenda

[theplains]

What if the wife isn't given the opportunity to accept the Law of Sarah as was initially the case with Emma? Does the condemnation fall on Joseph?

 

As far as I know, Emma was given the opportunity to accept this.  But according to v.54, she would

be destroyed if she did not accept it.  A little condemnation would fall on Joseph in that he would

lose his wife if she was destroyed.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Scott Lloyd]

I paid out of my own pocket at a copy center, when our Stake Copier was moved to the Stake President's office, where before it had it's own spot in a small closet for people to use on Saturday's to copy for various things, mostly the auxiliaries. This when I served as RS Secretary. And sorry for not upper casing "Ward Librarian", just noticed that.

Actually, there is no need to upper-case it. Nor stake copier, stake president or secretary.

But I commend your conscientiousness.

[Tacenda]

Actually, there is no need to upper-case it. Nor stake copier, stake president or secretary.

But I commend your conscientiousness.

Thanks editor in chief!    I'm constantly editing....but apparently it wasn't needed.  Oh, well...

 

BTW Scott, did the newest essay make it into the "Church News" today?  I was about to get in my car and drive to the store and buy it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks editor in chief!    I'm constantly editing....but apparently it wasn't needed.  Oh, well...

 

BTW Scott, did the newest essay make it into the "Church News" today?  I was about to get in my car and drive to the store and buy it.

I haven't seen today's print edition. But I know I personally processed it for inclusion. So unless things changed without my knowing it, it's in there.

[Tacenda]

I haven't seen today's print edition. But I know I personally processed it for inclusion. So unless things changed without my knowing it, it's in there.

Oh it's there, second page! 

[DBMormon]

The response never claimed they were in official sources.  Just that they were readily available for anyone who cared enough to pick up a book.

 

The response never claimed they were in official sources.  Just that they were readily available for anyone who cared enough to pick up a book.

readily available?  where would the average mormon know where to look?  what books would he/she have easily come across?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

JLHPROF, on 24 Oct 2014 - 5:18 PM, said:

The response never claimed they were in official sources.  Just that they were readily available for anyone who cared enough to pick up a book.

This is such an irritating attitude and is shared by many within the church. It's classic "blame the victim" mentality. Pretending like this information was readily accessible is dishonest. Yes, information was out there if one chose to read antiMormon material against the counsel of church leaders but interestingly the information that was once antiMormon is now on LDS.org where people feel they can trust the sources without being deceived.

 

"Pick up a book" is an arrogant attempt to prove to others that you were much smarter than they were and that their late reception of the information is entirely their fault. Weak, weak, weak.

 

You are getting perilously close to going over the cliff.  Everybody chill.

[KevinG]

If so many critics weren't very busy trying to claim the church victimized them, perhaps the apologists would spend less time blaming them for their own victim-hood?

 

As a convert, with no relatives in the Church, who had to learn of the history and doctrines as an adult, from scratch...  I still managed to find out many of these things on my own.  And when presented with a troublesome fact, I looked into it deeper, asking questions, finding resources and working it out for myself.  But my testimony of the Gospel and my understanding of the history of the mortal and flawed people who try to live it are two different things.

 

There are two kinds of people I find most easily bumped out of activity when they find out new information.

 

1) The fundamentalist zealot who believes nothing wrong ever happened in the history of the restoration, and prophets are inerrant.

2) The perpetual victim, who always places the responsibility for their happiness and success on their situation or others.

 

The people I do feel sorry for are those struggling with family, or friends in dysfunctional relationships.  How can someone learn of a loving Father in Heaven, if they do not have an example of a loving father in earth?  Family dysfunctions create a lot of #1 and #2, and prevent the Gospel seed from falling on fertile ground.

[rockpond]

If so many critics weren't very busy trying to claim the church victimized them, perhaps the apologists would spend less time blaming them for their own victim-hood?

 

As a convert, with no relatives in the Church, who had to learn of the history and doctrines as an adult, from scratch...  I still managed to find out many of these things on my own.  And when presented with a troublesome fact, I looked into it deeper, asking questions, finding resources and working it out for myself.  But my testimony of the Gospel and my understanding of the history of the mortal and flawed people who try to live it are two different things.

 

There are two kinds of people I find most easily bumped out of activity when they find out new information.

 

1) The fundamentalist zealot who believes nothing wrong ever happened in the history of the restoration, and prophets are inerrant.

2) The perpetual victim, who always places the responsibility for their happiness and success on their situation or others.

 

The people I do feel sorry for are those struggling with family, or friends in dysfunctional relationships.  How can someone learn of a loving Father in Heaven, if they do not have an example of a loving father in earth?  Family dysfunctions create a lot of #1 and #2, and prevent the Gospel seed from falling on fertile ground.

 

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

That strikes me as a corollary to type #1.

[tonie]

A point I found interesting about the new essays is the inclusion that the Manifesto was "authoritative and binding" and recieved a "unanimous" sustaining vote.

 

"Whitney then read the Manifesto, and Lorenzo Snow, President of the Quorum of the Twelve, moved that the document be accepted as “authoritative and binding.” The assembly was then asked to vote on this motion. The Deseret News reported that the vote was “unanimous”;..."

 

Why this stands out, despite the inclusion of the "authoritative and binding" statement in the scriptures, is that at least one apologist has claimed that the Manfiesto was not binding because Woodruff did not follow some supposed protocol for issuing the Manifesto.

[rockpond]

That strikes me as a corollary to type #1.

 

In a way... but I wouldn't describe the people I've met as "fundamentalist zealots".  

[mormonnewb]

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.

Agreed. KevinG, as converts, we never had to experience a feeling of betrayal. For example, I never felt that I was "lied to" about the BOM translation process because I had never been taught anything about it. They simply told me that it was translated "by the power of God," so I wasn't dismayed by learning to JS used a seer stone. It could have been a Ouija board for all I knew.

The same is true about the BOA, polygamy or anything else that the Church "no longer emphasizes." As adult converts, we really only get cursory information about the Church, so there isn't much to feel "deceived" about.

Edited October 27, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Calm]

I think you left one out, based on Dehlin's research.

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.

[JLHPROF]

This is such an irritating attitude and is shared by many within the church. It's classic "blame the victim" mentality. Pretending like this information was readily accessible is dishonest. Yes, information was out there if one chose to read antiMormon material against the counsel of church leaders but interestingly the information that was once antiMormon is now on LDS.org where people feel they can trust the sources without being deceived.

 

"Pick up a book" is an arrogant attempt to prove to others that you were much smarter than they were and that their late reception of the information is entirely their fault. Weak, weak, weak.

 

No, pick up a book is exactly the same as telling voter to inform themselves before voting.

Members that refuse to pick up a book and study for themselves are the equivalent of the uninformed voter.  There's plenty of information out there, they just don't care enough to look.

And then there are complaints when they find something they don't like about their elected religion.

[rockpond]

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.

 

It was and I didn't suggest any statistical significance to it.  I was responding to Kevin's post in which he was theorizing "two types of people" to begin with.  Do you not agree that there are the type of disaffected saints that I described?

[mormonnewb]

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.

Good point. The people who responded to the survey are the Mormon Stories-type who had struggled with these issues as part of a faith crisis. Those who simply lost interest in the Church or found the Gospel unfulfilling or uninteresting would have never found their way to the Bloggernacle in the first place.

However, given that these are the members that the Church is most likely to re-activate, I wouldn't dismiss these findings either. I think they provide the best source of information to help the Church stem of the tide of future defections.

[rockpond]

No, pick up a book is exactly the same as telling voter to inform themselves before voting.

Members that refuse to pick up a book and study for themselves are the equivalent of the uninformed voter.  There's plenty of information out there, they just don't care enough to look.

And then there are complaints when they find something they don't like about their elected religion.

 

I don't entirely disagree with you, JLH, but I think it is important to realize that a church member who grew up attending 3 hours of church every Sunday, graduated with honors from a 4 year high school seminary program, served a mission, went to BYU and got straight A's in religion classes, watches general conference, became a teacher, served in leadership positions, and on and on might reasonably expect to know the information being put into these essays.

 

If you think that the church has been completely forthright about polygamy then I would ask you to use quotes from the Brigham Young - Teachings of the Prophets manual to show what BY taught about polygamy and how he lived the practice himself.  Hint:  They aren't there.

[JLHPROF]

A point I found interesting about the new essays is the inclusion that the Manifesto was "authoritative and binding" and recieved a "unanimous" sustaining vote.

 

"Whitney then read the Manifesto, and Lorenzo Snow, President of the Quorum of the Twelve, moved that the document be accepted as “authoritative and binding.” The assembly was then asked to vote on this motion. The Deseret News reported that the vote was “unanimous”;..."

 

Why this stands out, despite the inclusion of the "authoritative and binding" statement in the scriptures, is that at least one apologist has claimed that the Manfiesto was not binding because Woodruff did not follow some supposed protocol for issuing the Manifesto.

 

Did I miss that?  Because I was just praising the Church not to long ago for removing that from OD1 - the vote was historically NOT unanimous.   But now it's back and the full quote from the essay now reads:

 

"The assembly was then asked to vote on this motion. The Deseret News reported that the vote was “unanimous”; most voted in favor, though some abstained from voting."

 

 

There are numerous people who record that they voted against the manifesto.  Why does the Church keep pretending everyone voted yes or abstained?

 

 

Although official accounts of this meeting state that the congregation voted unanimously to sustain the Manifesto,¹⁶⁵ that was not the case. William Gibson, later a representative in the Utah legislature, voted against it: "I am not ashamed of my action on the manifesto. I voted 'no' in the conference. When George Q. Cannon announced a clear [unanimous] vote, I said, 'All but one, right here.' We must let Babylon have her way for awhile, I suppose."¹⁶⁶ The majority of the congregation refused to vote at all when the Manifesto was presented, with the result that Apostle Merrill observed "it was carried by a Weak Vote, but seemingly unanimous," Joseph H. Dean recorded "many of the saints refrained from voting either way," and Thomas Broadbent noted, "I thought it A very Slim vote Considering the multitude Assembled."¹⁶⁷

 

LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890—1904 - D. Michael Quinn

 

Maybe that explains why most people ignored it.

[Scott Lloyd]

In a way... but I wouldn't describe the people I've met as "fundamentalist zealots".  

That was KevinG's term.

 

But when one runs across information about Church history that he has not yet heard, he need not ascribe it to sinister intent or draw from it a sense of betrayal. I never have, and I daresay a host of people have not, under that circumstance. To put it another way, there may be much in the history of the Church to which I have not yet been exposed, but I don't believe it's because the Church is purposely hiding it from me.

[mormonnewb]

That was KevinG's term.

But when one runs across information about Church history that he has not yet heard, he need not ascribe it to sinister intent or draw from it a sense of betrayal. I never have, and I daresay a host of people have not, under that circumstance. To put it another way, there may be much in the history of the Church to which I have not yet been exposed, but I don't believe it's because the Church is purposely hiding it from me.

But can you see how others might REASONABLY come to a different conclusion?

[Scott Lloyd]

Did I miss that?  Because I was just praising the Church not to long ago for removing that from OD1 - the vote was historically NOT unanimous.   But now it's back and the full quote from the essay now reads:

 

 

There are numerous people who record that they voted against the manifesto.  Why does the Church keep pretending everyone voted yes or abstained?

 

 

Maybe that explains why most people ignored it.

I don't see anything factually incorrect in the essay. The Deseret News probably did report that the voting was unanimous.

[JLHPROF]

I don't see anything factually incorrect in the essay. The Deseret News probably did report that the voting was unanimous.

 

Oh, now come on.  I can't believe you just said that.  The essay intentionally restores the historically inaccurate claim that voting on the manifesto was unanimous.  If the Deseret News reported that false information then the essay shouldn't be repeating it.

That is a distinct bit of sneak and you know it.