Tribune Op Ed: Section 132 In Seminary This Week

[rockpond]

I think so as well.

 

But she doesn't mention any of that.  It doesn't even seem to be on her radar as far as what she wants us to do about the seminary lessons.  

 

Oh... see that's how I understood what she was saying... to consider all of those types of questions in how we teach polygamy.

[bluebell]

She doesn't say that she opposes polygamy/polygyny.  She's talking about how it is taught, the reasons for it, God's role, etc.

"You can teach the facts in the lesson without the spin. Instead of teaching "God commanded Joseph to institute polygamy," simply teach that Joseph Smith began practicing polygamy in the early 1830s. Play the clip of President Gordon B. Hinckley saying that he condemns polygamy because it's not doctrinal."

 

It seems obvious that she is anti-polygamy.  I can't think of any other way to interpret her words.

 

I also think she is either delusional or playing fast and loose with the truth if she thinks that Pres. Hinckley believed that JS was not following God when he instituted the practice.

[bluebell]

Oh... see that's how I understood what she was saying... to consider all of those types of questions in how we teach polygamy.

 

Hmmm, i'm not getting that.  Can you quote what she says that makes you believe this is what she means?

[Calm]

I hate that phrase.  God's ways are not our ways.  What we see as loving and what God sees as loving are two entirely different things.

I think it is more we don't have the same information that God does so that he understands that hardships and other things he requires of us will lead ultimately to happiness and joy just as a parent may be unloving to a very young child to require him to go to the dentist or get a shot in order to be healthy or even worse allow multiple painful surgeries on a child who can't understand why in order that the child will live a normal life later.

 

The way you phrase it (I don't know if you mean it that way or not) makes it sound like God's definition of love is completely different than the human definition and I don't see how that accords with the scriptures in that when he commands us to love, it is understandable when instructions on how to love in God's way are given.

[Scott Lloyd]

"You can teach the facts in the lesson without the spin. Instead of teaching "God commanded Joseph to institute polygamy," simply teach that Joseph Smith began practicing polygamy in the early 1830s. Play the clip of President Gordon B. Hinckley saying that he condemns polygamy because it's not doctrinal."

 

It seems obvious that she is anti-polygamy.  I can't think of any other way to interpret her words.

 

I also think she is either delusional or playing fast and loose with the truth if she thinks that Pres. Hinckley believed that JS was not following God when he instituted the practice.

I'll go further than that. I'll say it's a blatantly dishonest attempt to spin President Hinckley's words. I've examined the context of President Hinckley's comment, and it's obvious that he was referring to offshoot groups that have apostatized from the Church of Jesus Christ, not to Joseph Smith.

 

I am disgusted.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

"You can teach the facts in the lesson without the spin. Instead of teaching "God commanded Joseph to institute polygamy," simply teach that Joseph Smith began practicing polygamy in the early 1830s.

 

So, basically, ignore the very scripture you are teaching?

Yeah, that makes sense.

 

It seems obvious that she is anti-polygamy.  I can't think of any other way to interpret her words.

 

I also think she is either delusional or playing fast and loose with the truth if she thinks that Pres. Hinckley believed that JS was not following God when he instituted the practice.

 

Very much so.  In fact, she is basically lying.

[Gray]

Do we all agree that "modern notions" about age of consent are wise and preferable to earlier systems where marriage between young girls and adult men were considered normal? Have we advanced in wisdom on this issue? I think we have. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Do we all agree that "modern notions" about age of consent are wise and preferable to earlier systems where marriage between young girls and adult men were considered normal? Have we advanced in wisdom on this issue? I think we have. 

The questions, general in nature as they are, bear limited relevance to the subject at hand in that they ignore some complicating factors, including the fact that Joseph's sealings to young women likely were not marriage in the conventional sense that 21st century minds might understand it.

 

See here.  And here.

[rockpond]

"You can teach the facts in the lesson without the spin. Instead of teaching "God commanded Joseph to institute polygamy," simply teach that Joseph Smith began practicing polygamy in the early 1830s. Play the clip of President Gordon B. Hinckley saying that he condemns polygamy because it's not doctrinal."

 

It seems obvious that she is anti-polygamy.  I can't think of any other way to interpret her words.

 

I think that's an understandable conclusion to reach but she could feel similar to me... I don't have a problem with polygamy.  I think it should be legal here in the U.S.   I have nothing against polygamy as a general practice.  But I don't believe it is of God.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think that's an understandable conclusion to reach but she could feel similar to me... I don't have a problem with polygamy.  I think it should be legal here in the U.S.   I have nothing against polygamy as a general practice.  But I don't believe it is of God.

Given the context, I don't see a great deal of qualitative difference between being against polygamy and being against the teaching of it done by early Church leaders.

[rockpond]

Hmmm, i'm not getting that.  Can you quote what she says that makes you believe this is what she means?

 

The general theme of the letter itself... possibly best encapsulated in this quote:

 

"Here's my revised ask. I'm asking for every parent and seminary teacher who reads this op-ed to carefully read through the seminary lesson and decide if they want youth to learn that God commanded Joseph to institute polygamy and marry teenagers and married women without Emma's knowledge."

[rockpond]

Given the context, I don't see a great deal of qualitative difference between being against polygamy and being against the teaching of it done by early Church leaders.

 

You can't see the difference between not opposing polygamy and not believing that it is of God?

[rockpond]

I'll go further than that. I'll say it's a blatantly dishonest attempt to spin President Hinckley's words. I've examined the context of President Hinckley's comment, and it's obvious that he was referring to offshoot groups that have apostatized from the Church of Jesus Christ, not to Joseph Smith.

 

I am disgusted.

 

She just suggested to play the clip.  She didn't offer an interpretation.

[Gray]

The questions, general in nature as they are, bear limited relevance to the subject at hand in that they ignore some complicating factors, including the fact that Joseph's sealings to young women likely were not marriage in the conventional sense that 21st century minds might understand it.

 

See here.  And here.

 

He wasn't sealed to them as their father or brother. But in any case, whether or not those arguments hold any merit, they're not really responsive to my question. 

[stemelbow]

The general theme of the letter itself... possibly best encapsulated in this quote:

"Here's my revised ask. I'm asking for every parent and seminary teacher who reads this op-ed to carefully read through the seminary lesson and decide if they want youth to learn that God commanded Joseph to institute polygamy and marry teenagers and married women without Emma's knowledge."

It is a huge mistake to mislead on past events. I think it much wiser to lay out the matter as well as we can to the youth, even seminary-aged kids. I don't agree with her desire to change the history. If polygamy is commanded in our scriptures we really need to be forthright about it, let the chips fall where they may. If there is good, hopefully it can be found.

[JLHPROF]

You can't see the difference between not opposing polygamy and not believing that it is of God?

 

Well, since the Church official position is that it was given by revelation from God, her ask is still inappropriate.

[JLHPROF]

 

The way you phrase it (I don't know if you mean it that way or not) makes it sound like God's definition of love is completely different than the human definition and I don't see how that accords with the scriptures in that when he commands us to love, it is understandable when instructions on how to love in God's way are given.

 

You are correct, perhaps I phrased it poorly.  I think love is love.  But many things we hear repeatedly that "a loving God wouldn't do" are completely false.  Therefore we clearly don't understand the love of God like we could.

[JLHPROF]

The general theme of the letter itself... possibly best encapsulated in this quote:

 

"Here's my revised ask. I'm asking for every parent and seminary teacher who reads this op-ed to carefully read through the seminary lesson and decide if they want youth to learn that God commanded Joseph to institute polygamy and marry teenagers and married women without Emma's knowledge."

 

And if they decide that God did command these things and choose to teach them?

[JLHPROF]

Do we all agree that "modern notions" about age of consent are wise and preferable to earlier systems where marriage between young girls and adult men were considered normal? Have we advanced in wisdom on this issue? I think we have. 

 

I agree that "modern notions" about age of consent are wise and preferable in our current society.

I do not agree that they are wise and preferable in all societies and at all times.

[Gray]

I agree that "modern notions" about age of consent are wise and preferable in our current society.

I do not agree that they are wise and preferable in all societies and at all times.

 

Could you expand on that? 

[Scott Lloyd]

You can't see the difference between not opposing polygamy and not believing that it is of God?

What is under discussion is Church teachings about polygamy. She obviously believes Church leaders lied when they said God commanded it.

 

And no, that's not OK with me.

[rockpond]

It is a huge mistake to mislead on past events. I think it much wiser to lay out the matter as well as we can to the youth, even seminary-aged kids. I don't agree with her desire to change the history. If polygamy is commanded in our scriptures we really need to be forthright about it, let the chips fall where they may. If there is good, hopefully it can be found.

 

There's nothing in there about changing history.

[rockpond]

What is under discussion is Church teachings about polygamy. She obviously believes Church leaders lied when they said God commanded it.

 

And no, that's not OK with me.

 

So it's disgusting to you for someone to put words in President Hinckley's mouth but it is okay for you to put words in her mouth?

[rockpond]

And if they decide that God did command these things and choose to teach them?

 

Then I'm sure they will.

[rockpond]

Well, since the Church official position is that it was given by revelation from God, her ask is still inappropriate.

 

And the official church position has changed on other things that were taught to be revealed of God.