On Despising Apostate Sanctimony

[JLHPROF]

My viewpoint is this: Either you'll accept it, and therefore go to the Celestial Kingdom, or you won't accept it, in which case you won't have to worry about it anyway because you won't be there anyway.

 

 

Pretty much my sentiments.  If you're wanting to associate with all the eternally married polygamous prophets you'd better get used to seeing a man with a woman on each arm...

[mormonnewb]

I'm one of those women that polygamy doesn't really bother. If there is to be polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom, that's fine with me.

My viewpoint is this: Either you'll accept it, and therefore go to the Celestial Kingdom, or you won't accept it, in which case you won't have to worry about it anyway because you won't be there anyway.

If it were reinstated before the millennium, I think the Church would be majorly persecuted again, but I'd do all I could to obey the commandment. That is assuming it WAS a commandment given in a revelation. I do not believe it would come just from the mind of a man, because The Lord has promised us that He will never allow the leaders of his Church to lead it's members astray.

 

The Lord didn't promise us that He would never allow the leaders of the Church to lead us astray.  President Woodruff made that promise to us and he did so at the very same time that He was telling us to stop polygamy (or at least, don't let the feds see you doing it).  Am I the only one who sees the irony here?

 

In the manifesto to REVERSE course, he promises that the prophet will never lead us astray ... well, not anymore.  20 years earlier, Woodruff himself had boldly proclaimed:

 

"If we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom. Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether and turn sectarians and do as the world does, then all would be right. We just can't do that, for God has commanded us to build up His kingdom and to bear our testimony to the nations of the earth, and we are going to do it, come life or come death. He has told us to do thus, and we shall obey Him in days to come as we have in days past" (JOD 13:165 - p.166).

[ELF1024]

The Lord didn't promise us that He would never allow the leaders of the Church to lead us astray.  President Woodruff made that promise to us and he did so at the very same time that He was telling us to stop polygamy (or at least, don't let the feds see you doing it).  Am I the only one who sees the irony here?

 

In the manifesto to REVERSE course, he promises that the prophet will never lead us astray ... well, not anymore.  20 years earlier, Woodruff himself had boldly proclaimed:

 

"If we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom. Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether and turn sectarians and do as the world does, then all would be right. We just can't do that, for God has commanded us to build up His kingdom and to bear our testimony to the nations of the earth, and we are going to do it, come life or come death. He has told us to do thus, and we shall obey Him in days to come as we have in days past" (JOD 13:165 - p.166).

 

I personally think the Revelation on the Priesthood is a better example, but that's me.

 

(to be clear, that is because we ever blocked all worthy males from having the Priesthood to being with)

Edited November 6, 2014 by ELF1024

[Scott Lloyd]

Gina Colvin, also known (for reasons that are entirely unclear) as "Kiwimormon," is at it again. See here.

I particularly like this ringing declaration:

 

Now I don't expect Ms Colvin to know this, because she's a journalist, not a historian. Deep thinking and careful analysis of past events is not what she does; glib quips and flippant headlines are her oeuvre. But the fact remains that Plural marriage, throughout Mormon history, was at all times a deeply religious principle, and no less for Joseph than anyone else. The fact that he worried about it constantly, it gave him no end of trouble, and still he persisted with it, really ought to tell her something.

At least, it might, if only she had the intellectual horsepower to manage it.

But instead, she goes with the utterly discredited "Old Joe's libido" explanation. Which actually explains very little, and leaves far too many unanswered questions.

But what else should we expect of someone who's not only a journalist, but a toxic feminist?

Note that remark about "spiritual abuse." It's a regular theme of hers. Read it again. Is she saying that Joseph was guilty of "spiritual abuse?" Actually no although if you asked her, she'd probably say that he was. No, the "spiritual abuse" to which she objects consists in "maintain[ing] a discourse of high transcendent religious motivation around the character of Joseph Smith" instead of surrendering to her preferred "Lothario" narrative of Mormon polygamy. Did you get that? It's "spiritual abuse" to disagree with her, so shut up.

Read her description of her discussion with her Priests/Laurels Sunday School class. Hands up who really believes that a class of teenagers came up with those expressions of cynicism and disgust without any prompting from their teacher?

I don't.

The comments are also instructive. She smiles benignly upon the most outrageous anti-Mormon propaganda. "Cult mind control?" Really? But a number of other comments have been deleted; clearly there was a commenter who disagreed with Ms Colvin's position, so she silenced him, as she habitually does. But the most damning comment comes, not from anyone who disagrees with her, but from "Rev_Lowery," someone who supports her wholeheartedly:

 

You sure got that right, Rev.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

My question is why is somebody like that being trusted with a youth Sunday School class. As a father of teenagers, if I lived in that ward, I wouldn't abide it.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

From the link in the OP:

 

This is my response to the Plural Marriage in Kirkland and Nauvoo essay posted last week to LDS.org.

 

 

I would expect a PhD and a journalist to pay better attention to spelling accuracy than this, feminist bent or no.

 

Kirtland is the city in Ohio that was prominent in early Church history. Kirkland, among other things, is the in-store brand  name for many of the products at Costco.

[Silhouette]

My question is why is somebody like that being trusted with a youth Sunday School class. As a father of teenagers, if I lived in that ward, I wouldn't abide it.

A very good point.

[Scott Lloyd]

A very good point.

The incident described reportedly happened a couple of years ago. One can only hope she isn't teaching Sunday School any longer.

[omni]

My question is why is somebody like that being trusted with a youth Sunday School class. As a father of teenagers, if I lived in that ward, I wouldn't abide it.

Are you questioning her bishop's inspiration in not only extending the calling, but in allowing her keep the calling?

[Hamba Tuhan]

The bishop with whom I served the longest repeatedly told me his greatest fear was that members would assume he knew of problems by inspiration instead of just telling him. Revelation, he used to say, rarely occurs in a vacuum.

[cdowis]

The Lord didn't promise us that He would never allow the leaders of the Church to lead us astray.  President Woodruff made that promise to us and he did so at the very same time that He was telling us to stop polygamy (or at least, don't let the feds see you doing it).  Am I the only one who sees the irony here?

 

In the manifesto to REVERSE course, he promises that the prophet will never lead us astray ... well, not anymore.  20 years earlier, Woodruff himself had boldly proclaimed:

 

"If we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom. Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether and turn sectarians and do as the world does, then all would be right. We just can't do that, for God has commanded us to build up His kingdom and to bear our testimony to the nations of the earth, and we are going to do it, come life or come death. He has told us to do thus, and we shall obey Him in days to come as we have in days past" (JOD 13:165 - p.166).

 

I see someone who is not familiar with the scriptures, especially the Bible.  It  is very sad to see someone ignorant of how things work with the prophets and the Lord.

 

May I suggest that you begin by reading the book of Jonah.  Also read what Nathan told David, when he asked whether the Lord wanted him (David) to build a temple.  Read where........ just read the Old Testament, my friend.  Read the scriptures and get educated and informed.

Edited November 8, 2014 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

Oh come on, Tacenda. Are we really pulling out the gender card here? There are multiple examples on this very board of female posters who believe that polygyny was divine command, with some go further to include polyandry within that command. Within the Church a famous example of women defending polygyny was the fact that Utah was the second territory/state in the Union to extend the vote to women, famously due to the fact that women within Utah generally wanted to vote down anti polygamist legislation. It was the federal government of the US that stripped women in Utah of the right to vote because these same women generally supported the practice.

 

A more recent example, albeit outside the Church but within the parameters of Mormon movements, are some recent articles and blogs published by women and girls from my home town in Creston, British Columbia. There's a sizable polygamous community about 10-15 minutes out of town and many of the girls and boys from that community attended high school with me. A friend of mine, a young, modern looking, wonderful girl of about 23, just published an article defending the polygamy of her father. She contextualized her article within the marriage-rights movement, saying that her father had the right to love and marry as many women as would have him. 

 

On the flip side, the Republican party (created in an era where only men could really participate in party politics via voting and representation in congress) was created on a platform of stomping out both slavery and polygamy.

 

Am I irritated? Yes. The argument that men must obviously believe in polygamy while women must obviously be opposed smacks of fitting men to the same gender roles which assert that they are the lecherous, outwardly sexual sex while women are the weaker, lesser sex incapable of believing in such a practice. There have been thousands of women who have valiantly supported polygamy as a divine command, and an equal if not greater number of men who have voraciously opposed the practice.

Bold Mine

 

When did I say that men must obviously believe in polygamy?  Did not say that.  I believe the men struggled very much with living polygamy.  Imagine having to go out and find more wives in order to live up to the teachings of the leaders of the church.  I believe both women and men sacrificed so much for the principle of plural marriage, which I don't believe a just God would ask of them.  Joseph went to God first, God didn't go to Him first.  Maybe Joseph should have kept well enough alone.  Why would Joseph think that polygamy needed to be lived?  Where is it in the bible that it was commanded, other than the Levirate marriage, which btw doesn't mention if the brother is married at the time he marries the widow.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Are you questioning her bishop's inspiration in not only extending the calling, but in allowing her keep the calling?

I don't know if she still has the calling or, if she does, if her bishop is aware of her online activities.

But assuming she does and he is, that's precisely what I'm doing. It seems to border on ecclesiastical malpractice.

Furthermore, if I lived in that ward and had one or more children in that class, my first act would be to remove them from it and make certain the bishop, stake president and anyone else further up the line who I thought should know about it knew what I was doing and why.

[Pahoran]

I don't know if she still has the calling or, if she does, if her bishop is aware of her online activities.

But assuming she does and he is, that's precisely what I'm doing. It seems to border on ecclesiastical malpractice.

Furthermore, if I lived in that ward and had one or more children in that class, my first act would be to remove them from it and make certain the bishop, stake president and anyone else further up the line who I thought should know about it knew what I was doing and why.

One of her sycophants asked her that question in the comments. She replied that she's no longer teaching the youth, but is now teaching adult Gospel Doctrine.

The Gospel according to St. Gina.

Oh dear.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mormonnewb]

One of her sycophants asked her that question in the comments. She replied that she's no longer teaching the youth, but is now teaching adult Gospel Doctrine.

The Gospel according to St. Gina.

Oh dear.

Regards,

Pahoran

.

One of her "sycophants"? Do you even see the irony?

[sheilauk]

One of her sycophants asked her that question in the comments. She replied that she's no longer teaching the youth, but is now teaching adult Gospel Doctrine.The Gospel according to St. Gina.Oh dear.Regards,Pahoran

  

.

One of her "sycophants"? Do you even see the irony?

it doesn't seem ironic to me, perhaps you can explain? I'm not sure that irony is the literal concept that's referenced.

[mormonnewb]

it doesn't seem ironic to me, perhaps you can explain? I'm not sure that irony is the literal concept that's referenced.

The irony (incongruence) is that a commenter on Sister Colvin's blog is called a sycophant for being a fan of her blog. Yet, a faithful member's "sycophancy" toward the Brethren is an order of magnitude greater. I doubt very seriously that this fan gathers with others each Sunday to sing about being thankful for a Colvin. Nor, to my knowledge, does Sister Colvin teach that it is a sin to speak against the blog's anointed. When it comes to sycophancy, as Mormons, we are both the pot and the kettle calling the silverware black.

Adding to the incongruence is the fact that this entire thread was started to criticize Sister Colvin for not being sycophantic ENOUGH for Pahoran's tastes. Because she dares to openly express her disagreement (at times) with "those who shall only be praised," she's a bad, bad member.

So is being a sycophant a bad thing or is it just wrong to be a sycophant to the wrong person?

[Bobbieaware]

The irony (incongruence) is that a commenter on Sister Colvin's blog is called a sycophant for being a fan of her blog. Yet, a faithful member's "sycophancy" toward the Brethren is an order of magnitude greater. I doubt very seriously that this fan gathers with others each Sunday to sing about being thankful for a Colvin. Nor, to my knowledge, does Sister Colvin teach that it is a sin to speak against the blog's anointed. When it comes to sycophancy, as Mormons, we are both the pot and the kettle calling the silverware black.

Adding to the incongruence is the fact that this entire thread was started to criticize Sister Colvin for not being sycophantic ENOUGH for Pahoran's tastes. Because she dares to openly express her disagreement (at times) with "those who shall only be praised," she's a bad, bad member.

So is being a sycophant a bad thing or is it just wrong to be a sycophant to the wrong person?

Ridiculous! Let's start calling "Jesus and the Twelve Disciples," "Jesus and the Twelve Sycophants,"

[Senator]

Toxic apostate.......meet....... toxic apologist

 

I at least appreciate the entertainment in it all.

[rodheadlee]

I doubt my wife would ever accept it... and I'm more than good with that. I have a difficult enough time with the one wife I (still) have, and my ex-wife,  I really don't need more.

 

I really don't think the Church would come under that much condemnation for polygamy if they announced again. With the homosexuals now being able to do whatever they want, and the Cody Brown case, I figure that legalized bigamy is going to come about in a decade or two at most. They actually legalized marriages between uncles and nieces in NY State recently.

 

Perversions abound, bring out your kink!

We are a religion of sacrifice. Polygamy is not about kinks, it's about sharing and sacrifice. Get your mind out of the gutter and look upon high. Joseph was given a view of the Celestial Kingdom, he tried to bring that life to Earth, a Telestial Kingdom. He went so far as to exclaim that if " I told you everything I saw in Heaven, you would kill me". Well there are many here today doing a fair job of character assassination.

[halconero]

Bold Mine

 

When did I say that men must obviously believe in polygamy? 

 

It is implied in this quote:

 

 

If both you and Tom were women, I'll bet you'd know it wasn't a divine commandment, at least not divine to you.

 

 

This very overt implication is that polygamy is something more defensible as a man, rather than a woman.

 

Did not say that.  I believe the men struggled very much with living polygamy.  Imagine having to go out and find more wives in order to live up to the teachings of the leaders of the church.  I believe both women and men sacrificed so much for the principle of plural marriage, which I don't believe a just God would ask of them. 

 

It's not the first instance where God as has for incredibly sacrifice and suffering from his followers.

 

Joseph went to God first, God didn't go to Him first.  Maybe Joseph should have kept well enough alone.  Why would Joseph think that polygamy needed to be lived?

 

The answer from Joseph himself as to why he would "think that polygamy needed to be lived" is that God told him so. It really comes down to whether or not we believe him on that.

 

  Where is it in the bible that it was commanded, other than the Levirate marriage, which btw doesn't mention if the brother is married at the time he marries the widow.  

 

If we want to go into this again, I'm more than willing. It doesn't matter whether or not the brother was married, either way it had to be followed. I can share some historical, and rabbinic commentary on this if you wish.

Edited November 10, 2014 by halconero

[Bobbieaware]

Toxic apostate.......meet....... toxic apologist

 

I at least appreciate the entertainment in it all.

Toxic apostate and toxic apologist, meet corrupt politician.

[Teancum]

One of her sycophants asked her that question in the comments. She replied that she's no longer teaching the youth, but is now teaching adult Gospel Doctrine.The Gospel according to St. Gina.Oh dear.Regards,Pahoran

While I personnally enjoy Covin's blogs and personally find much I agree with her on I think it is wrong for her to teach at all in the church. I think a teacher in church ought to be reasonably orthodox in their views. This is the main reason I asked my bishop not to extend any teaching positions to me. Later she one was extended to my wife and me to teach the 11 year olds I declined telling the counselor who extended the call that I had explained to the bishop why I felt I could not teach. I did say if my wife wanted to teach the class I wpuls sit in for support, to help manage the kids and to get to know them but my wife declined as well for different reasons than me.

[Tacenda]

 

Bold Mine

 

When did I say that men must obviously believe in polygamy? 

 

It is implied in this quote:

Tacenda:  Ha, ha...I don't see that at all. 

 

If both you and Tom were women, I'll bet you'd know it wasn't a divine commandment, at least not divine to you.

 

 

This very overt implication is that polygamy is something more defensible as a man, rather than a woman.

 

Did not say that.  I believe the men struggled very much with living polygamy.  Imagine having to go out and find more wives in order to live up to the teachings of the leaders of the church.  I believe both women and men sacrificed so much for the principle of plural marriage, which I don't believe a just God would ask of them. 

 

It's not the first instance where God as has for incredibly sacrifice and suffering from his followers.

 

Joseph went to God first, God didn't go to Him first.  Maybe Joseph should have kept well enough alone.  Why would Joseph think that polygamy needed to be lived?

 

The answer from Joseph himself as to why he would "think that polygamy needed to be lived" is that God told him so. It really comes down to whether or not we believe him on that.

 

  Where is it in the bible that it was commanded, other than the Levirate marriage, which btw doesn't mention if the brother is married at the time he marries the widow.  

 

If we want to go into this again, I'm more than willing. It doesn't matter whether or not the brother is willing, either way it had to be followed. I can share some historical, and rabbinic commentary on this if you wish

 

Tacenda:  There a lot of rep points given you for non answers to my points.  Especially when you have blinders on.  Did I say anything about the brother being willing, I said no where does it say that the brother was married who took on the widowed wife.     

Edited November 9, 2014 by Tacenda

[wenglund]

If both you and Tom were women, I'll bet you'd know it wasn't a divine commandment, at least not divine to you.

 

This wins the prize for the most sexist post on the thread. What makes it quite interesting is that it comes from an alleged advocate for gender equality.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I see it as little other than a form of spiritual abuse to maintain a discourse of high transcendent religious motivation around the character of Joseph Smith when he was, at least in this respect, a womanizing, seducing, Lothario who coopted God in order validate his particular feminine tastes.

 

Apart from mormonnwbe' projecting his 21st century, democrat licentious tendencies onto Joseph Smith, is there any empirical evidence to support the claim above?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-