Answers To Common Questions - New Era, March '15

[JLHPROF]

There was some confusion and rebellion, as their often is with changes.

The confusion was clarified in future revelations

 

Here is where your reasoning keeps breaking down.  We are NOT talking about a couple of rebels.  We are talking about all the apostles (or very nearly all).  You know, the same ones that received the revelation and voted to issue the manifesto.

 

We are not talking about a few members who wanted to keep going against the instructions of the prophet.  Your reasoning does not address this historical fact.

[Danzo]

create whatever loopholes you need to but I stand by my comments.   People will continue to not take us seriously if we can not even acknowledge when a fact is false.  Yes polygamy to dead folks continues, yes a man divorced but still sealed can be sealed to another.,... but that is not the polygamy The public is asking about and we both should know that.

 

You must live an a very black and white world, either something is 100% accurate and precise, or it is false and misleading. 

 

There is nothing wrong with saying polygamy ended in 1890, or in 1904. Both are true from different points of view. Both are false from different points of view.

 

Are you upset that they told you the United States was born on July 4th?

Are you upset that they taught you in primary school that 6/0=0?

Are you upset that they taught you in school that Germany was the instigator of WW2?

WW2 started in 1939?

The Civil War was about Slavery?

 

All of the statements above are both true and false, depending on the point of view. 

[JLHPROF]

You must live an a very black and white world, either something is 100% accurate and precise, or it is false and misleading. 

 

There is nothing wrong with saying polygamy ended in 1890, or in 1904. Both are true from different points of view. Both are false from different points of view.

 

Are you upset that they told you the United States was born on July 4th?

Are you upset that they taught you in primary school that 6/0=0?

Are you upset that they taught you in school that Germany was the instigator of WW2?

WW2 started in 1939?

The Civil War was about Slavery?

 

All of the statements above are both true and false, depending on the point of view. 

 

Finally, a statement I can agree with.

Are you upset that we are saying polygamy didn't end in 1890 despite what the Church published?

 

Because it's true depending on your point of view too...

[DBMormon]

Here is where your reasoning keeps breaking down.  We are NOT talking about a couple of rebels.  We are talking about all the apostles (or very nearly all).  You know, the same ones that received the revelation and voted to issue the manifesto.

 

We are not talking about a few members who wanted to keep going against the instructions of the prophet.  Your reasoning does not address this historical fact.

 

You must live an a very black and white world, either something is 100% accurate and precise, or it is false and misleading. 

 

There is nothing wrong with saying polygamy ended in 1890, or in 1904. Both are true from different points of view. Both are false from different points of view.

 

 

your funny.  false = not true.  The statement is false.  I do not live in a black and white world - check out my podcast.  I will happily acknowledge that did not do it intentionally, or that most members including who likely wrote this didn't know better but the statement is false! 

Edited March 5, 2015 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

 

Are you upset that they told you the United States was born on July 4th?

Are you upset that they taught you in primary school that 6/0=0?

Are you upset that they taught you in school that Germany was the instigator of WW2?

WW2 started in 1939?

The Civil War was about Slavery?

 

All of the statements above are both true and false, depending on the point of view. 

not upset, though I am happy to admit when something that is said is wrong regardless of how many hold it to be true..  

Edited March 5, 2015 by DBMormon

[Danzo]

Here is where your reasoning keeps breaking down.  We are NOT talking about a couple of rebels.  We are talking about all the apostles (or very nearly all).  You know, the same ones that received the revelation and voted to issue the manifesto.

 

We are not talking about a few members who wanted to keep going against the instructions of the prophet.  Your reasoning does not address this historical fact.

Yet the Apostles and Prophets (mostly the same ones) greatly reduced (and eventually stopped performing plural marriages)

The Apostles and Prophets(as a group) excommunicated two of their own for doing it.

 

You seem to be afflicted with the myth that apostles and prophets are always obedient to and follow everything the lord has revealed (something a casual reading of the D&C should clarify, start with D&C 3)

You also seem to be afflicted with the myth that exceptions to rules don't exist and that the lord can issue personal commandments that conflict with the general commandments (see Nephi, Abraham, etc)

 

I don't think that there was nothing to the manifesto but PR, like you claim.

[Danzo]

Finally, a statement I can agree with.

Are you upset that we are saying polygamy didn't end in 1890 despite what the Church published?

 

Because it's true depending on your point of view too...

 

Its quite true (And I mentioned it earlier in the thread) that the statement in the New Era is not precise could be clarified some. 

 

I don't think it is false and misleading.

[JLHPROF]

Yet the Apostles and Prophets (mostly the same ones) greatly reduced (and eventually stopped performing plural marriages)

The Apostles and Prophets(as a group) excommunicated two of their own for doing it.

 

AFTER the 1904 2nd Manifesto which actually did end authorized plural marriages.  The second manifesto is what did what you are claiming the 1890 manifesto did - it was the one that allowed no more authorized plural marriages.  The 1890 one just said it did but it didn't.

 

You seem to be afflicted with the myth that apostles and prophets are always obedient to and follow everything the lord has revealed (something a casual reading of the D&C should clarify, start with D&C 3)

 

Believe me, I am under NO such delusion.  The prophets and apostles frequently have made mistakes.

 

You also seem to be afflicted with the myth that exceptions to rules don't exist and that the lord can issue personal commandments that conflict with the general commandments (see Nephi, Abraham, etc)

 

Exceptions exist when God authorizes them (see Nephi and Abraham etc).  Only 3/15 apostles didn't  encourage, promote, seal or enter into post manifesto plural marriage.  I guess the other 12 are all apostates or "rebels" to use your terms.

 

I don't think that there was nothing to the manifesto but PR, like you claim.  You might want to research that a bit more.

[DBMormon]

Its quite true (And I mentioned it earlier in the thread) that the statement in the New Era is not precise could be clarified some. 

 

I don't think it is false and misleading.

Did the Church stop polygamy in 1890 when the Church continued it till 1904.  Is saying the Church ended it in 1890 misleading?  Does it mislead people into thinking polygamy ended in 1890? yes

Edited March 5, 2015 by DBMormon

[Danzo]

not upset, though I am happy to admit when something that is said is wrong regardless of how many hold it to be true..  

 

Glad to hear it.

 

I just don't think it is beneficial to discount other points of view that can be valid, or others that aren't as precise as you would like it as "False and Misleading"

 

Most short statements are not entirely accurate.  Accuracy usually needs paragraphs or pages.  That doesn't mean the short answers are "false and Misleading"

 

Someone asks "Do you Mormon's have more than one wife?"

 

Short answer

 

"No" (not 100% accurate, but probably good enough for most people asking the question)

 

"We stopped in 1890"  Still not accurate, but provides the fact that we used to practice it,  Getting Closer

 

"We stopped in 1890 because of the Manifesto" A little better

 

"There was a manifesto issued in 1890, but a few people still practiced it (including leaders) until another manifesto was issued in 1904 threatening excommunication if practiced"  Better, but still not completely accurate (polygamous families were still allowed to cohabitate )

 

I could add a few other possible answers, but they get longer as I try to be more accurate.

 

Still I would not accuse anyone of being "false and Misleading" for any of the answers.

[DBMormon]

Glad to hear it.

 

I just don't think it is beneficial to discount other points of view that can be valid, or others that aren't as precise as you would like it as "False and Misleading"

 

Most short statements are not entirely accurate.  Accuracy usually needs paragraphs or pages.  That doesn't mean the short answers are "false and Misleading"

 

Someone asks "Do you Mormon's have more than one wife?"

 

Short answer

 

"No" (not 100% accurate, but probably good enough for most people asking the question)

 

"We stopped in 1890"  Still not accurate, but provides the fact that we used to practice it,  Getting Closer

 

"We stopped in 1890 because of the Manifesto" A little better

 

"There was a manifesto issued in 1890, but a few people still practiced it (including leaders) until another manifesto was issued in 1904 threatening excommunication if practiced"  Better, but still not completely accurate (polygamous families were still allowed to cohabitate )

 

I could add a few other possible answers, but they get longer as I try to be more accurate.

 

Still I would not accuse anyone of being "false and Misleading" for any of the answers.

Why couldn't they have just said it ended in 1904?

because either they didn't want to raise questions or they are naive to the deeper history.... either way they are wrong

[Danzo]

Did the Church stop polygamy in 1890 when the Church continued it till 1904.  Is saying the Church ended it in 1890 misleading?  Does it mislead people into thinking polygamy ended in 1890? yes

 

The Wikipedia site (I know, but I don't have time to research further) says 250 marriages in 14 years.  That would be less than 18 per year after 1890, I would say that for practical purposes it had stopped. (Like I said earlier, I have no objection to someone clarifying the issue, in fact I prefer more detail to less). I don't think we have to call an 1890 date as "False and Misleading".

 

People continued to die from Union Soldiers (and Confederate) soldiers after 1865. Still it is not "false and Misleading" to say the Civil War ended in 1865.

[Danzo]

 

 

I don't think that there was nothing to the manifesto but PR, like you claim.  You might want to research that a bit more.

 

 

You have researched it more, I take it.  Please share.

[Danzo]

Why couldn't they have just said it ended in 1904?

because either they didn't want to raise questions or they are naive to the deeper history.... either way they are wrong

 

Saying it ended in 1904 would also not be accurate. The practice of polygamy (not punished by the church) continued much longer until all of the old polygamists died off.

 

Maybe they wanted to give a short, yet doctrinaly correct answer. 

 

The 1904 statement is not included in the standard works, the 1890 statement is.

 

Doctrinally, the cessation of plural marriage happened in 1890

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Saying it ended in 1904 would also not be accurate. The practice of polygamy (not punished by the church) continued much longer until all of the old polygamists died off.

Maybe they wanted to give a short, yet doctrinaly correct answer.

The 1904 statement is not included in the standard works, the 1890 statement is.

Doctrinally, the cessation of plural marriage happened in 1890

No. 1890 marked the public end to entering new plural marriages. 1904 marked the official / doctrinal end to new plural marriages.

[carbon dioxide]

You must live an a very black and white world, either something is 100% accurate and precise, or it is false and misleading. 

 

There is nothing wrong with saying polygamy ended in 1890, or in 1904. Both are true from different points of view. Both are false from different points of view.

 

Are you upset that they told you the United States was born on July 4th?

Are you upset that they taught you in primary school that 6/0=0?

Are you upset that they taught you in school that Germany was the instigator of WW2?

WW2 started in 1939?

The Civil War was about Slavery?

 

All of the statements above are both true and false, depending on the point of view. 

My point of view says that the US was not born on July 4th but July 2nd as that is the day that the vote was taken to declare independence from England.

[bcuzbcuz]

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

Step back from it a moment. Would this same reasoning apply to a question of immorality? Could the unfaithful partner in a marriage say, "OK, so I didn't tell you about my unfaithfulness at first. Get over it. I'll bet you keep harping on this question ten years from now."

[california boy]

What is apparent is that the church magazines are not a reliable place to receive complete information on church history.  Go to Wikipedia if you want the answers to when the church ended polygamy, not the New Era.  

 

That is the lesson the church is teaching it's youth.  It would be very naive of the church to think that the youth who want to know the facts of polygamy would not use the internet for their answers.  When they find those answers are much different, they learn that the church is willing to gloss over the facts and not a reliable place to find complete answers.  Youth start to doubt everything they are taught by the church as being the full story.  If that is the intent of the church in answering questions the way it does, then mission accomplished.

[KevinG]

I find it hilarious that a Church that is arguably better documented in terms of its history than most, is accused of "glossing over" anything.

 

The boo birds would rather have control over the spin and context so they can "shock" people about the "real" Mormons.  But that doesn't have the same wow factor now that lds.org is publishing more historical essays.

 

Spin it all you want, but a youth magazine is not, and never was intended to deeply delve into the particulars of church history.  

 

Try critiquing guideposts for kids for not publishing Martin Luthors antisemetism, or search Lifeteen.com for articles about priests abusing boys.

Edited March 5, 2015 by KevinG

[KevinG]

I don't want to derail this, so I started another question related to the topic here:  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65029-1600-words-to-preach-and-teach/

[california boy]

I find it hilarious that a Church that is arguably better documented in terms of its history than most, is accused of "glossing over" anything.

 

The boo birds would rather have control over the spin and context so they can "shock" people about the "real" Mormons.  But that doesn't have the same wow factor now that lds.org is publishing more historical essays.

 

Spin it all you want, but a youth magazine is not, and never was intended to deeply delve into the particulars of church history.  

 

Try critiquing guideposts for kids for not publishing Martin Luthors antisemetism, or search Lifeteen.com for articles about priests abusing boys.

 

I don't think that anyone believes a youth magazine is intended to delve deeply into church history.  But one more sentence that says "some plural marriages continued to be performed until it was fully stopped in 1904.  Now that doesn't sound so damning does it?  It is still not an in depth answer, but it answers the question of when did polygamy stop in the church.

 

Going to Wilipedia and finding out that church leaders continued to practice polygamy until 1904 tells the youth an entirely different answer.  And tells them that if they want the truth, then turn to the internet, not the church.  How can you not see that?

 

If in a Catholic youth magazine, the question was asked "Have priests ever abused youth" the answer better be unfortunately it has happened, but is a grevious sin that should have always been reported and the priest should have been excommunicated for such an act.  That has not always happend in our past.

 

The church shouldn't publish the question if it doesn't want to answer it.

Edited March 5, 2015 by california boy

[JLHPROF]

I find it hilarious that a Church that is arguably better documented in terms of its history than most, is accused of "glossing over" anything.

 

The boo birds would rather have control over the spin and context so they can "shock" people about the "real" Mormons.  But that doesn't have the same wow factor now that lds.org is publishing more historical essays.

 

Spin it all you want, but a youth magazine is not, and never was intended to deeply delve into the particulars of church history.  

 

Try critiquing guideposts for kids for not publishing Martin Luthors antisemetism, or search Lifeteen.com for articles about priests abusing boys.

 

I usually agree with you on most things (I like your moderate viewpoint).

But we are not asking for an expose on Joseph's polyandry in a youth magazine.  We are not asking for anyone to delve into the "particulars" of Church history.

 

We are simply stating that 1890 was NOT the end of authorized polygamy in the Church, 1904 was.  And we don't do ourselves any favors by giving an incorrect date.  Now, how significant this actually is is debatable.  It really doesn't matter.  But can we please just take the time to give the actual facts.  It's better for us so the actual critics have nothing to jump on.

I don't think anything deceptive or sinister was intended.  But the date given for the end of church authorized polygamy was not right.  That's all.  Easy fix.  No deep delving required.

[thesometimesaint]

Polygamy is a complicated issue in the Church.

1. D&C 132 is still doctrine of the Church

2. We still practice a limited form of it

3. The state has no interest or ability to control what happens after we die.

 

Young teenager's and new members probably don't know those basics. So the New Era is fine for that more limited purpose. Of course much more can, should, and has been written about it.

Edited March 5, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Danzo]

When ever I have been asked the question "Mormon men have lots of wives, right" or something similar I usually answer "No".  This seems to satisfy most people.

Sometimes I I'll say we stopped practicing at the turn of the 20th century.  

The only people who have ever said these answers were deceptive are the Mormon Critics on boards like these.  No one else cares.

 

For the record, I understand the cessation of polygamy was a process, not an event, so any date attached to it would be inaccurate. 

I think the new era article could have been better worded.

But I understand why they used the date they did, there is a good reason for it and it does not involve a conspiracy by church leaders or a group of Idiots who write "false and misleading" articles. 

 

Finding inaccuracies and fault in other people make small minded people feel big and important and smart.  I think it is harder and much more worthwhile to look for the truth, and the good.

 

When we find faults, we should follow Moroni's advice and  "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

 

 

 

 

 

[KevinG]

 

Sometimes I I'll say we stopped practicing at the turn of the 20th century.  

 

For accuracy purposes, if I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion about the manifesto and its results, that is my answer too.  Its probably how the article should have handled it (agreeing with California Boy and JLHPROF in substance).  But like you I think the issue is relatively minor and the omission of continued practice despite the manifesto for a decade is not the stuff that shaken faith syndrome is made of.