Tribune Op Ed: Section 132 In Seminary This Week

[rockpond]

If the approach includes taking a prophet's words out of context and conveying an understanding that is utterly contradictory to what he meant, I'd call that despicable.

 

She did not suggest doing that.

Edited March 30, 2015 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

She did not suggest doing that.

You tell me: What's her point in demanding that the seminaries show that clip in their classes? You've not yet responded to that question.

[JLHPROF]

She does not ask for a disavowal of Joseph's actions.

 

Have you read the article?

 

Joseph was just righteously doing what he was told, and he and those who practiced it with him were blessed for their obedience even though members first recoiled at idea. Look, parents and teachers, sexual predators have been using these rationalizations to seduce girls long before the church recently published them.

 

Given that the current curriculum justifies the secrecy Joseph demanded of early followers of the practice, it's not hard to convince such victims that God is commanding them to keep their sexual behavior a secret until "the right time." This is Grooming 101.

 

When seminary instructors teach polygamy as God-commanded, justify Joseph's actions, read scripture verses as a class that treat women as property and bear testimony (as instructed) of these to Mormon youth worldwide, I cannot understate the psychological problems.

 

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.

 

 

Her implications and request to disavow Joseph's motives in living polygamy couldn't be clearer.  She all but identifies him as a predator.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, Tacenda, I am unaware of anything that suggests Helen was still considered a single woman prior to Joseph's death.

I never said they would not be considered as married, only that it was understood that she would continue to live with her parents without the marriage being consummated until she was older. That's not what critics have in mind when the accuse Joseph implicitly or overtly of pedophilia.

[Calm]

What, did Joseph get jealous if Helen attended a party?

Do you not read the information that is posted on the board?  I have lost count of the number of times in these discussions I have pointed out that Joseph warned Heber about the parties because of the "blacklegs" (and that word does not mean "handsome young men" but "scoundrels") attending and that Helen's brother was originally banned from attending it as well.  So was Joseph jealous of her brother William attending?

[bluebell]

Correct... And I don't think she claims any authority.  It's just an op-ed written to parents and seminary teachers.

 

If she's doing it, that implies that she believes she has the right to do it.  

 

No one tell some one else to do something because God wants them to do it that way, and believes at the same time that they don't have the authority to tell that person what God wants them to do.  Not if they are rational, anyway.

 

When you publicly declare that something needs to be changed because the other way isn't condoned of God, then you can't then claim 'i didn't say i was authorized to declare anything!'  

[JLHPROF]

We know almost nothing of Jesus' birth except that He was born. There would have been nothing noteworthy or special about Mary's family. So while Mary may have been quite young (which was common), there is really no way to know what age she was. We simply have no historical data about her age at time of marriage. 

 

No, we know plenty.  The mere fact that Mary's geneaology was included to show her royal bloodline shows that she was of Royal Jewish descent, else it wouldn't have been included.  Tradition and historical records have her being raised in the temple, meaning she was a follower of Jewish laws.  Jewish law has the age at 12 1/2.

You say there is no historical data.  I say the tradition is the data.  There is no reason to suspect she followed any other pattern.

[rockpond]

You tell me: What's her point in demanding that the seminaries show that clip in their classes? You've not yet responded to that question.

 

First, she did not demand that it be shown.

 

Second, I would assume that the context would be shown with it... otherwise it's an awfully short clip.

 

Finally, I imagine she's suggesting it because it's the most recent statement that we have from the Prophet on the issue of polygamy.  Is there something more recent?

[JLHPROF]

I have lost count of the number of times in these discussions I have pointed out

 

These discussions just go round in circles.  Despite all the historical, scriptural, and even sociological evidences to the contrary people are just determined that polygamy is evil, Joseph was a predator or at the very least mistaken, and that God didn't approve.

And they are 100% wrong on all three counts.

 

But you can't convince away people's prejudices.

Edited March 30, 2015 by JLHPROF

[rockpond]

If she's doing it, that implies that she believes she has the right to do it.  

 

No one tell some one else to do something because God wants them to do it that way, and believes at the same time that they don't have the authority to tell that person what God wants them to do.  Not if they are rational, anyway.

 

When you publicly declare that something needs to be changed because the other way isn't condoned of God, then you can't then claim 'i didn't say i was authorized to declare anything!'  

 

She wrote an op ed piece that she herself framed as an "ask".  She didn't invoke "God wanting it that way", nor did she claim authority, or use the word declare.  You are reading things into the letter that simply aren't there.

[rockpond]

These discussions just go round in circles.  Despite all the historical, scriptural, and even sociological evidences to the contrary people are just determined that polygamy is evil, Joseph was a predator or at the very least mistaken, and that God didn't approve.

And they are 100% wrong on all three counts.

 

But you can't convince away people's prejudices.

 

Does misrepresenting positions help?  I'm not aware of anyone here who has said that the prophet Joseph is a predator or that polygamy is evil.

[bluebell]

She does not ask for a disavowal of Joseph's actions.

 

When seminary instructors teach polygamy as God-commanded, justify Joseph's actions,... I cannot understate the psychological problems.

 

Instead of teaching "God commanded Joseph to institute polygamy," simply teach that Joseph Smith began practicing polygamy in the early 1830s.

 

Why would someone specifically not teach that God commanded JS to institute polygamy unless they want the teachers to disavow that JS instituted polygamy?  

 

It's clear that she does not believe that God commanded polygamy, and it's equally clear that she does not want the teachers to teach that God commanded polygamy.

[bluebell]

First, she did not demand that it be shown.

 

Second, I would assume that the context would be shown with it... otherwise it's an awfully short clip.

 

Finally, I imagine she's suggesting it because it's the most recent statement that we have from the Prophet on the issue of polygamy.  Is there something more recent?

 

It's not on JS polygamy though.  It's on the practice of polygamy after the ban.  Given that, what relevance does it have with the topic of how JS practiced plural marriage?

[bluebell]

She wrote an op ed piece that she herself framed as an "ask".  She didn't invoke "God wanting it that way", nor did she claim authority, or use the word declare.  You are reading things into the letter that simply aren't there.

 

Why would she ask if she doesn't sincerely believe that God wants it that way?

[rockpond]

Have you read the article?

 

 

Her implications and request to disavow Joseph's motives in living polygamy couldn't be clearer.  She all but identifies him as a predator.

 

That's your interpretation of her implications.  She does not actually ask for a disavowal in the letter.

[JLHPROF]

Does misrepresenting positions help?  I'm not aware of anyone here who has said that the prophet Joseph is a predator or that polygamy is evil.

 

The Op-Ed did.  Many posters (incl. members) say it on a daily basis.  Bluebell has pointed it out.  I have pointed it out.

Nobody is misrepresenting anything except these people who are misrepresenting Joseph's motives as lustful or evil.

[Scott Lloyd]

First, she did not demand that it be shown.

 

Second, I would assume that the context would be shown with it... otherwise it's an awfully short clip.

 

Finally, I imagine she's suggesting it because it's the most recent statement that we have from the Prophet on the issue of polygamy.  Is there something more recent?

Why do they need to show a clip about the practices of modern-day offshoot apostate groups if they are teaching about the doctrine of plurality of wives in the early history of the Church? There are abundant sources -- including the recent essay on lds.org -- that make it clear plural marriage is no longer allowed in the Church and that it was discontinued after the Manifesto of 1896. Why do seminary teachers have to show a potentially confusing clip of a Larry King interview from years ago with a now-deceased president of the Church to convey that?

 

I think you are being naive or purposely coy and obtuse. Or any combination thereof.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Why would she ask if she doesn't sincerely believe that God wants it that way?

 

I imagine you are correct but we can't really speak to her personal beliefs because she does not bring them up in the letter.  She makes no claim as to what God wants.

[Tacenda]

Do you not read the information that is posted on the board?  I have lost count of the number of times in these discussions I have pointed out that Joseph warned Heber about the parties because of the "blacklegs" (and that word does not mean "handsome young men" but "scoundrels") attending and that Helen's brother was originally banned from attending it as well.  So was Joseph jealous of her brother William attending?

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/helen-mar-kimball/

 

During the winter of 1843, there were plenty of parties and balls. . . . Some of the young gentlemen got up a series of dancing parties, to be held at the Mansion once a week. . . . I had to stay home, as my father had been warned by the Prophet to keep his daughter away from there, because of the blacklegs and certain ones of questionable character who attended there. . . . I felt quite sore over it, and thought it a very unkind act in father to allow [my brother] to go and enjoy the dance unrestrained with others of my companions, and fetter me down, for no girl loved dancing better than I did, and I really felt that it was too much to bear. It made the dull school still more dull, and like a wild bird I longer for the freedom that was denied me; and thought myself a much abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur.⁹

 

 

I deleted a portion of this post because one quote was from a dissenter and we all know that they aren't trustworthy!  

 

But need to add that in the quote she wasn't allowed to go to several parties.  And why didn't the prophet pick out the creeps and not let them attend.  They were held at the mansion house.  Wouldn't Joseph had been there, to protect her?  I think it may not be because of jealousy only, but because of Emma perhaps.  

Edited March 30, 2015 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

Deleted upon further reflection.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Avatar4321]

A loving God asked His servant Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. God asks us to do things that are difficult and sometimes horrifying to us. That doesn't mean we are right to ignore Him.

[rockpond]

Why do they need to show a clip about the practices of modern-day offshoot apostate groups if they are teaching about the doctrine of plurality of wives in the early history of the Church? There are abundant sources -- including the recent essay on lds.org -- that make it clear plural marriage is no longer allowed in the Church and that it was discontinued after the Manifesto of 1896. Why do seminary teachers have to show a potentially confusing clip of a Larry King interview from years ago with a now-deceased president of the Church to convey that?

 

I think you are being naive or purposely coy and obtuse. Or any combination thereof.

 

I don't see much of a point in showing that clip, it wouldn't be my first choice.  But I also don't feel a need to ascribe ulterior motives to her suggestion either.

 

The essays don't have an author so, as far as I am aware, President Hinckley's interview is the most recent statement we have from the Prophet.  And given the context of her letter, she clearly feels it is appropriate to have a current authoritative voice saying that it is not doctrinal.

[Calm]

 While sexuality is a possibility, a more likely interpretation is that the ceremony prevented her from associating with her friends as an unmarried teenager, causing her dramatic distress after the sealing.

 

And I think in this case the Hales err (as I have pointed out before iirc) by not including the fact that her brother was included in the warning.  While there may have been other cases that Helen does not refer to but remembered, the only example given is not one that has any evidence that Joseph was jealous of her attending parties which is what you claimed.  Helen attended parties until Christmas and it was only in the new year that the "blackleg" parties began and those are the only parties she states she was not allowed to attend.

 

Again, was Joseph jealous of her brother Wiliam attending parties?  Please answer my question rather than avoiding it.

Edited March 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

The Op-Ed did.  Many posters (incl. members) say it on a daily basis.  Bluebell has pointed it out.  I have pointed it out.

Nobody is misrepresenting anything except these people who are misrepresenting Joseph's motives as lustful or evil.

 

The op ed did not claim that the Prophet Joseph was a predator.  If there are posters here that say polygamy is evil or Joseph was a predator, take it up with them.  I haven't seen it in this thread.

[Gray]

No, we know plenty.  The mere fact that Mary's geneaology was included to show her royal bloodline shows that she was of Royal Jewish descent, else it wouldn't have been included.  Tradition and historical records have her being raised in the temple, meaning she was a follower of Jewish laws.  Jewish law has the age at 12 1/2.

You say there is no historical data.  I say the tradition is the data.  There is no reason to suspect she followed any other pattern.

 

All we have are traditional minimum ages for marriage. That isn't "plenty". We know almost nothing about Mary herself. We certainly don't have historical data about her genealogy. But it seems clear that Jesus didn't come from a family with any social standing. 

 

At best we can guess that she might have married young. But she also might not have.

 

In any case, are the social customs of first century near eastern people in some way meaningful to this issue? 

Edited March 30, 2015 by Gray