Answers To Common Questions - New Era, March '15

[cinepro]

We all would answer this issue differently and each views marriage differently  How I would answer it is for me marriage is mainly a religious matter.  For the Church, marriage is defined not by the government but by God.  Jesus defined marriage as what God has joined together, not what the government has joined together.  So yes, the government may recognize gay marriage but that does not mean the Church needs to recognize it.  The government legalizes a lot of things that is against the standards of God.  The government can legalize marriage between humans and animals and they would be legal marriages but that does not mean the marriages are right.

I'm sorry, but what the heck are you talking about? If an atheist man and woman go and get married at the courthouse by a judge, then the Church considers them married and not breaking the law of chastity when they consummate the marriage. They were married in a 100% secular, non-religious ceremony, and that's fine with the Church. If they want to join the Church, their original ceremony is accepted and nothing else needs to be done.

 

Yes, the Church can say that a legal same-sex marriage isn't acceptable to the Church (or God), but they need to say that.  If you just say that two people need to be married in order to "know" each other and not be breaking the Law of Chastity, then that will include legal same-sex marriages.

 

The Church also needs to stop making an analogy between single members needing to remain celibate and homosexual members needing to remain celibate.  Because now that same-sex marriage is legal in many places, the analogy falls apart really quickly.

 

Edited February 27, 2015 by cinepro

[tonie]

My 12 year old daughter who is in 6th grade is a New Era reader. The kinds of questions listed in the OP are above the level of those she is asking at the moment. She's really not looking for any kind of information that requires an essay to answer.

As for misleading information being presented, I would hope that the OP would back up this claim.

 

From the essays, which easily could have been incorporated into the New Era "a small number of plural marriages were performed within the United States" between 1890 and 1904. 

 

Part of the "problem" people encounter is not having a complete response, half-hearted response will only set these teenagers up for "What the flip" moments when they encounter antis on their mission or out an about in life. A teenager or 11year old is not too young to be told that some plural marriages occurred inthe United States between 1890 and 1904.

[canard78]

Not institutionally, and that seems to be specifically what they are talking about.

Also, when someone asks whether or not mormons practice polygamy or have more than one wife, they are asking about the typical definition of polygamy, which is a man living with two or more living wives as a married couple. So I don't think it's misleading to answer the question as it was meant.

So all plural marriages were annulled in 1890? They were not. The majority of plural marriages that existed in 1890, continued after that date. That's not me making a suggestion the women should have been thrown out to fend for themselves. There were also new ones created.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm sorry, but what the heck are you talking about? If an atheist man and woman go and get married at the courthouse by a judge, then the Church considers them married and not breaking the law of chastity when they consummate the marriage. They were married in a 100% secular, non-religious ceremony, and that's fine with the Church. If they want to join the Church, their original ceremony is accepted and nothing else needs to be done.

 

Yes, the Church can say that a legal same-sex marriage isn't acceptable to the Church, or God, but they need to say that.  If you just say that two people need to be married in order to "know" each other and not be breaking the Law of Chastity, then that will include legal same-sex marriages.

 

The Church also needs to stop making an analogy between single members needing to remain celibate and homosexual members needing to remain celibate.  Because now that same-sex marriage is legal in many places, the analogy falls apart really quickly.

 

It doesn't fall apart if you've established the undergirding principle that marriage can only be recognized as valid by God -- and hence, by the Church-- if it's between a man and a woman.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, i know.  But institutionally the practiced stopped in 1890.  

 

It's kind of like saying that women aren't allowed to be sealed to more than one man unless the woman is dead.  That's technically true (as far as the institution of the church is concerned that is the doctrine) but there have been exceptions that have been approved by leadership where a living woman is sealed to more than one man.

Or to draw another example, one that has very recently been discussed on another thread, it is the institutional policy of the Church that photos are not to be shot in our chapels. Yet, there have been a number of occasions when I personally have shot photos in chapels as part of news coverage of events for a Church-correlated publication with the full knowledge and approval of Church leaders. These exceptions do not render the policy invalid. They are just that -- exceptions -- and the policy is still in force.

The magazine editors were right, within this concise format, to refer to the general institutional change without getting bogged down with the vageries of the second manifesto. That would have been too confusing for the intended readership.

[tonie]

But institutionally the practiced stopped in 1890.  

 

 

Are you sure about that?

 

The Plural Marriage and Early Families in Utah essay informs that institutionally it did not stop until 1904. "In 1904, the Church strictly prohibited new plural marriages."

 

The essays also inform that plural marriages were performed in the United State between 1890 and 1904; "a small number of plural marriages were performed within the United States" between 1890 and 1904.

Edited February 27, 2015 by tonie

[bluebell]

So all plural marriages were annulled in 1890? They were not. The majority of plural marriages that existed in 1890, continued after that date. That's not me making a suggestion the women should have been thrown out to fend for themselves. There were also new ones created.

My 12 year old had no problem understanding that the article was saying that the church stopped performing plural marriages, not that plural marriage ceased to exist in the church.

I think you are giving way to little credit to teenagers and their reading comprehension if you think any would assume the answer is teaching that all previous polygamous marriages were broken up on that date.

And yes, as I have already said, I know that some plural marriages happened after1890. However as an institution the church stopped doing them then. Exceptions were made and I agree that should have been stated for clarity even though I don't believe what was stated was misleading.

They question was do LDS men have more than one wife and because of the revelation in 1890 the answer is no.

[Duncan]

I feel bad now, my 12 yr old is concerned that his belt fits around his new Church pants and whether or not his stop motion lego video loaded correctly on youtube

[rockpond]

From the essays, which easily could have been incorporated into the New Era "a small number of plural marriages were performed within the United States" between 1890 and 1904. 

 

Part of the "problem" people encounter is not having a complete response, half-hearted response will only set these teenagers up for "What the flip" moments when they encounter antis on their mission or out an about in life. A teenager or 11year old is not too young to be told that some plural marriages occurred inthe United States between 1890 and 1904.

 

I agree... If we want to "inoculate" the next generation against faith crises coming from this issue, we need to stop giving the impression that the 1890 manifesto was understood to be a revelation requiring an end to the practice of polygamy by the church.

 

It obviously was not interpreted that way by the leaders of the church.

[tonie]

Again there are those who post here who claim their faith crisis were precipitated because this information wasn't provided to them as they grew up.

 

 

And it is available now. That excuse will make little sense in another decade. I expect the excuse will live on anyways.

 

Not really, the time frame will now be shorter.

 

Presently, dutiful readers of the New Era will believe that polygamy ceased in 1890. In the not too distant future, these dutiful readers will encounter the essays, or an anti-mormon, or an innocent discussion between TBMs about polygamy.  In those discussion someone will say "Polygamy continued until 1904", and then our dutiful young reader will recall that an Official publication of the Church, just a few years prior, claimed that polygamy ended in 1890. And the cycle begins anew.

 

The inclusion of the 1890 date,  was completely unnecessary. The definative statement that polygamy ended in 1890, was completely unnecessary and misleading.

 

The topic could have easily been addressed by simply informing that polygamy was once a lived by members of the Church and that polygamy is no longer an acceptable practice for Church members.

[bluebell]

I agree... If we want to "inoculate" the next generation against faith crises coming from this issue, we need to stop giving the impression that the 1890 manifesto was understood to be a revelation requiring an end to the practice of polygamy by the church.

 

It obviously was not interpreted that way by the leaders of the church.

 

I completely agree with you.

 

The problem from my perspective is that this article was not written to inoculate the youth.  It was meant to provide teenagers with answers to give to non-member friends (also typically teenagers) when they ask simple questions.

 

The article begins by telling the reader exactly what it's attempting to provide  It says-

 

"Do you ever feel unprepared when people ask you questions about the Church? Here are some suggestions for how you might answer a few frequently asked questions"

 

Providing a history of polygamy would not help a 13 year old when their 13 year old friend asks in passing how many wives mormon men have.  

 

There are other venues where teaching that stuff would very much be appropriate and is needed though, i don't deny that.

[rockpond]

 

I completely agree with you.

 

The problem from my perspective is that this article was not written to inoculate the youth.  It was meant to provide teenagers with answers to give to non-member friends (also typically teenagers) when they ask simple questions.

 

The article begins by telling the reader exactly what it's attempting to provide  It says-

 

"Do you ever feel unprepared when people ask you questions about the Church? Here are some suggestions for how you might answer a few frequently asked questions"

 

Providing a history of polygamy would not help a 13 year old when their 13 year old friend asks in passing how many wives mormon men have.  

 

There are other venues where teaching that stuff would very much be appropriate and is needed though, i don't deny that.

 

I agree.  I just think that they should have left out the "1890".  If they felt like a timeframe needed to be in there, they could have said "at the beginning of the 20th century" or "in the early 1900's".

 

I realize that the date isn't all that relevant to a 13 year old.  But the New Era also targets 17 year old kids preparing to leave on missions.

 

I'm not trying to be overly critical though.  It's a good article.  I haven't really commented here much on it but I do wish they had left out that date.

Edited February 27, 2015 by rockpond

[carbon dioxide]

 

The Church also needs to stop making an analogy between single members needing to remain celibate and homosexual members needing to remain celibate.  Because now that same-sex marriage is legal in many places, the analogy falls apart really quickly.

 

The government can not make something not a sin.  The analogy still applies as there is only one circumstance where people are allowed to have sex and not be a sin.   That is marriage between a husband and wife.  Whether gays can get married or not is not important to God.  Gay sex is always a sin whether they are married by the state or not.  Gay who are married are no less different than if a man was to marry his horse and have relations with his horse.  Even if the man is legally married to the horse, he is still in trouble with God.

[JLHPROF]

The government can not make something not a sin. 

 

Neither can the Church.

Heck, I'm not even sure God can.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree.  I just think that they should have left out the "1890".  If they felt like a timeframe needed to be in there, they could have said "at the beginning of the 20th century" or "in the early 1900's".

 

I realize that the date isn't all that relevant to a 13 year old.  But the New Era also targets 17 year old kids preparing to leave on missions.

 

I'm not trying to be overly critical though.  It's a good article.  I haven't really commented here much on it but I do wish they had left out that date.

But the Manifesto, part of canonized scripture, does have the 1890 date. And OD1 does not say anything about the "eary 1900s" or "the beginning of the 20th Century." To leave out the 1890 date might also have been confusing, for that reason.

 

Whatever might have happened later, the issuance of the Manifesto did mark the beginning of the official discontinuance of the practice of plural marriage in the Church. It should not be swept under the rug just because implementing it was complicated for a while.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

I find this statement from the article odd:

 

 

 

 

Any teenager with half a brain is going to see the problem with that.  Even though the Church believes that "God has ordained marriage to be only between a man and a woman", marriage is a civil matter.  If two men are married together and it's legally binding, then they're married, regardless of what Mormons think God does or doesn't want.

 

The answer needs to say this:

Is god a civil law god? Does civil and god's law conflict at times? Should the church support civil law if that law goes against god's law? The role of the church is to see that humanity attempts to follow god's law. If not, what would the church be for? Also, civil law seems to be going further away from god's law. What should members do when this is the case?

[why me]

Not really, the time frame will now be shorter.

 

Presently, dutiful readers of the New Era will believe that polygamy ceased in 1890. In the not too distant future, these dutiful readers will encounter the essays, or an anti-mormon, or an innocent discussion between TBMs about polygamy.  In those discussion someone will say "Polygamy continued until 1904", and then our dutiful young reader will recall that an Official publication of the Church, just a few years prior, claimed that polygamy ended in 1890. And the cycle begins anew.

 

The inclusion of the 1890 date,  was completely unnecessary. The definative statement that polygamy ended in 1890, was completely unnecessary and misleading.

 

 

Officially it stopped in 1890. However, this did not mean that those polygamous marriages needed to cease. And yes, on rare occasions it continued. But officially polygamy stopped in 1890. At times even teenagers need to put her their critical thinking caps and figure it out for themselves with the help of the teacher.  The seminary manual does state that polygamy was still practiced after the declaration. You can have your daughter check the manual:

 

Invite students to share their testimonies concerning the truths you have written on the board. You may also want to share your testimony.

Explain that a small number of Latter-day Saints continued to enter into new plural marriages after the Manifesto was given. In 1904, President Joseph F. Smith announced “that all [plural] marriages are prohibited, and if any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any such marriage he will be … excommunicated” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1904, 75). This policy continues today.

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014/section-7/lesson-153-official-declaration-1-and-the-continued-development-of-temple-work?lang=eng

 

I find it all amazing just what one finds when one searches church sources. To hear the critics repeat the mantra over and over again that the church hides such stuff is unbelieveable. I suppose that the new era could have included it, but then again, who is perfect. It is people who write these articles and answer the questions. But I see no hiding if one attends seminary which is where they should be anyway.

 

Being on this board can cause one to drink a beer or two.

Edited February 27, 2015 by why me

[rockpond]

But the Manifesto, part of canonized scripture, does have the 1890 date. And OD1 does not say anything about the "eary 1900s" or "the beginning of the 20th Century." To leave out might also have been confusing, for that reason.

 

Whatever might have happened later, the issuance of the Manifesto did mark the beginning of the official discontinuance of the practice of plural marriage in the Church. It should not be swept under the rug just because implementing it was complicated for a while.

 

Agreed.  If they cross reference OD1 there could be some confusion.  But when they read about post-manifesto polygamy (or are asked about it on their mission) that could also be confusing.

 

I'm not suggesting this article is the place to do it, but at some point we need to make sure our youth are aware of the facts of polygamy... including that it did continue beyond the manifesto, the implications of that, and that we were led by polygamist prophets until 1945.

[KevinG]

Family Home Evening was instituted 45 years ago.  But not all members observe it.  Therefore it wasn't really instituted and the LDS church is lying about its history.  

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree with you on point B, but disagree on point A.

 

Yes, it would have been good to link to or cite the Church's essays and to otherwise facilitate the option of further exploration or enrichment.

 

But I don't see anything here that could fairly be characterized as misleading (though I acknowledge that, according to your Post #2, you intend to come back later and substantiate that claim; as of this writing you have not yet done so).

 

And we have to remember that teenage Church members are the target audience here. For the most part they not apt to be engaging in extremely deep or academically rigorous discussions with friends or acquaintances on these things. What they need is a ready vocabulary for expressing what they already believe when confronted with challenges but may not yet feel very confident or competent in putting into words. This article help can them do that. Were I a teenager, I think I would find it very useful. Furthermore, I don't see the implied reader here as being one who is going through a faith crisis, if that's what you are thinking. Many active Church members -- including youth -- are fervent and assured believers; they just need the tools to help them express that belief in interactions with others.

 

As for the responses being shallow, that's a bad rap. Yes, the thoughts expressed here could be developed more thoroughly; that's the case with most discousrse. But the messages expressed here would be just as true in any case.

 

In short, you are misapprehending conciseness for shallowness.

 

 

Done... FWIW...

I recognize you have endeavored to do so. I stand by my disagreement that the article was either shallow or misleading.

[JLHPROF]

Agreed.  If they cross reference OD1 there could be some confusion.  But when they read about post-manifesto polygamy (or are asked about it on their mission) that could also be confusing.

 

I'm not suggesting this article is the place to do it, but at some point we need to make sure our youth are aware of the facts of polygamy... including that it did continue beyond the manifesto, the implications of that, and that we were led by polygamist prophets until 1945.

 

The last polygamists in good standing in the Church didn't pass away until the 1950's, when many current members of the Church were still alive.

Yep, there were polygamists as accepted members in the Church in your lifetime if you are over 65.  It's hardly long in the past.

[Scott Lloyd]

Family Home Evening was instituted 45 years ago.  But not all members observe it.  Therefore it wasn't really instituted and the LDS church is lying about its history.  

Correction: Family home evening was instituted 100 years ago. It was given renewed emphasis under President David O. McKay 50 years ago.

 

I wrote a Church News story about that a few weeks ago. In fact I'm working on one now for the Deseret News.

[Scott Lloyd]

The last polygamists in good standing in the Church didn't pass away until the 1950's, when many current members of the Church were still alive.

Yep, there were polygamists as accepted members in the Church in your lifetime if you are over 65.  It's hardly long in the past.

It's this sort of nitpickiness that argues against the notion that the New Era article was too shallow or misleading.

[rockpond]

Officially it stopped in 1890. However, this did not mean that those polygamous marriages needed to cease. And yes, on rare occasions it continued. But officially polygamy stopped in 1890. At times even teenagers need to put her their critical thinking caps and figure it out for themselves with the help of the teacher. 

 

According to the church's essay:  the Manifest was "the beginning of the end" of polygamy.

 

And from Oaks:

 

"It is also clear that polygamy did not end suddenly with the 1890 Manifesto. Polygamous relationships sealed before that revelation was announced continued for a generation. The performance of polygamous marriages also continued for a time outside the United States, where the application of the Manifesto was uncertain for a season. It appears that polygamous marriages also continued for about a decade in some other areas among leaders and members who took license for the ambiguities and pressures created by this high-level collision between resented laws and reverenced doctrines." Dallin H. Oaks, Gospel Teachings About Lying.

 

A lot of nuance to be considered.  Too much for a young teen reading the New Era but still important to teach at some point (preferably pre-mission).

[KevinG]

Correction: Family home evening was instituted 100 years ago. It was given renewed emphasis under President David O. McKay 50 years ago.

 

I wrote a Church News story about that a few weeks ago. In fact I'm working on one now for the Deseret News.

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705362191/Family-home-evening-turns-40.html?pg=all

 

Now the church is really lying to me.  Wah!  My faith is shattered.

 

(And yes I know the article is about designating Monday as FHE, not the establishment of FHE - I'm making a point).

Edited February 27, 2015 by KevinG