Tribune Op Ed: Section 132 In Seminary This Week

[rockpond]

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.

 

A disavowal is a very different thing than simply not teaching something.  It's a technique that church curriculum has used.

[Kenngo1969]

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

Particularly not when they continually reinforce them by consulting information that is heavily, precariously slanted in the other direction from other sources.

[rockpond]

I'm not even certain how solidly she believes in God. The new mindset, exemplified by the likes of John Dehlin, seems to be that membership in the Church of Jesus Christ is appropriate whether or not one actually believes in Jesus Christ.

 

If God and Jesus do exist "they've got a lot of 'splainin' to do" is his now oft-quoted remark.

 

Ad hominem.

[JLHPROF]

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?

 

You do realize that it is Mary's genealogy that gave Christ the ancestral right to be Messiah in fulfillment of prophecy (aside from his obvious Godly right from his father)?

You might also want to study the marriage at Cana, Christ's teaching in the temple, his being called Rabbi,  a bit more if you think they had no social standing.

 

 

“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23—says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].

 

No, where Mary is concerned we have a completely weird image in our heads.  She was of a respected Jewish lineage and family, presented raised in the temple, prepared to become the mother of the Messiah, and raised with knowledge of Jewish law.  All of this points to the high probability that she followed Jewish law in her betrothal and married Joseph about age 13 and had Christ about age 14.  Which returns me to my point - God has no issue with 14 year olds being married/having children.

Anything else is the actual speculation.

When you hear hoofbeats, don't think zebras.

Edited March 30, 2015 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

Particularly not when they continually reinforce them by consulting information that is heavily, precariously slanted in the other direction from other sources.

 

Are you referring to me or the OP-Ed? 

[Scott Lloyd]

Ad hominem.

You're right. I'll withdraw and delete the comment.

[Tacenda]

 

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.

 

I'm not avoiding your question Cal, I don't understand it.  Is there a deeper meaning that I'm not following?  Why would Joseph be jealous of her brother William attending the parties.  William wasn't sealed/married to Joseph (I'm not trying to be glib).    

 

And my first post about this doesn't have a statement of fact.   My quote:  "Well then why not let them have a normal teenage life? What, did Joseph get jealous if Helen attended a party? Sounds like more than a sealing to me."  It's my opinion that she wasn't allowed a normal teenage life.  And it was a question to if Joseph was jealous.  And if so, to me, it wasn't a sealing of a sister or daughter, but rather a wife.             

[JLHPROF]

 It's my opinion that she wasn't allowed a normal teenage life.  And it was a question to if Joseph was jealous.  And if so, to me, it wasn't a sealing of a sister or daughter, but rather a wife.             

 

I think you might have a false concept of what a "normal teenage life" in 1840s America was.  Maybe I'm wrong though.

[Scott Lloyd]

You do realize that it is Mary's genealogy that gave Christ the ancestral right to be Messiah in fulfillment of prophecy (aside from his obvious Godly right from his father)?

You might also want to study the marriage at Cana, Christ's teaching in the temple, his being called Rabbi,  a bit more if you think they had no social standing.

 

 

No, where Mary is concerned we have a completely weird image in our heads.  She was of a respected Jewish lineage and family, presented raised in the temple, prepared to become the mother of the Messiah, and raised with knowledge of Jewish law.  All of this points to the high probability that she followed Jewish law in her betrothal and married Joseph about age 13 and had Christ about age 14.  Which returns me to my point - God has no issue with 14 year olds being married/having children.

Anything else is the actual speculation.

When you hear hoofbeats, don't think zebras.

In fact, some apocryphal traditions hold that there was a wide disparity in the ages of Joseph and Mary, as this folksong reflects.

[JLHPROF]

In fact, some apocryphal traditions hold that there was a wide disparity in the ages of Joseph and Mary, as this folksong reflects.

 

Yes, I pointed that out, only to get the "we don't know so we will assume our modern standards are more likely" argument.

 

And I love the folksong (trinitarian notions and incorrect birthdate aside )

[Scott Lloyd]

I think you might have a false concept of what a "normal teenage life" in 1840s America was.  Maybe I'm wrong though.

Heh. In fact the very concept of adolescence -- or teenagerhood, if you will -- is a 20th century construct, as this website conveys.

 

To wit:

 

The idea that young people take a decade to grow up, in the meantime inhabiting a space called “young adulthood,” is rather new in American culture.  A bit older is the idea of “adolescence,” the idea that there is a stage between childhood and (young) adulthood that is characterized by immaturity and capriciousness: the teenage years.  Before these ideas were invented, children were expected to take on adult roles as soon as they were able, apprenticing their parents and transitioning to adulthood with puberty.  Shifts in ideas about life stages is a wonderful example of the social constructedness of age.

 

Edited March 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

A disavowal is a very different thing than simply not teaching something.  It's a technique that church curriculum has used.

 

It can be a different thing, but it is not always a different thing.

 

Has the church ever told it's teachers not to teach something that was part of the doctrines of the church because the church leadership did not believe it was actually of God?

[JLHPROF]

Heh. In fact the very concept of adolescence -- or teenagerhood, if you will -- is a 20th century construct, as this website conveys.

 

 

 

Exactly.  Helen's "teenage parties" were little more than giant group courtships.  Something a married girl, even a 14 year old married girl, had no need to attend.

 

I am sure she felt left out, and many young marrieds do when their single friends continue to party/date.

But she was already married and it would have served no purpose having eligible young men think she was still courtable (I think I made that word up).

Edited March 30, 2015 by JLHPROF

[bluebell]

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.

 

It's completely reasonable to suggest that she would ask people not to do something because she believes that God agrees with her.  

 

If she is publicly asking seminary teachers to go against the doctrine of the church but she does not know if that's o.k. with God or not then she is in worse mental shape than if my interpretation is correct.  

[rockpond]

It can be a different thing, but it is not always a different thing.

 

Has the church ever told it's teachers not to teach something that was part of the doctrines of the church because the church leadership did not believe it was actually of God?

 

Yes, Randy Bott of BYU.

[rockpond]

It's completely reasonable to suggest that she would ask people not to do something because she believes that God agrees with her.  

 

If she is publicly asking seminary teachers to go against the doctrine of the church but she does not know if that's o.k. with God or not then she is in worse mental shape than if my interpretation is correct.  

 

I don't think she's asking them to go against the doctrine of the church.  And regardless of her beliefs about God, she seems very open about her motivations.

[Sleeper Cell]

I think you might have a false concept of what a "normal teenage life" in 1840s America was.  Maybe I'm wrong though.

 

I have the impression that even the concept of “teenager” did not even exist until after WW II.  At any rate, one of my Civil War ancestors  fought at Shiloh at age 15.  So much for his “normal teenage life.”  

[stemelbow]

There's nothing in there about changing history.

It seems like that is what she said, as you quoted. It seems she's asking every parent and teacher if its a good idea to tell the kids what Joseph did, suggesting it seems that it best not to tell them that stuff.

[mtomm]

My own personal experience gives me a very different take away from this op-ed piece and I think maybe more in the spirit in which it is given. I'm not sure the author comes across this way but to me it screams loud and clear why we need to be very careful how we teach this topic.

 

I know that using Joseph Smith as his example was how Chris Nemelka was finding young women to follow him.  How do I know? I heard directly from his lips to my ears when I briefly dated him around 1986ish...   I can see how he would have chosen me because from outward appearances I should have been an easy target but he soon learned that this girl was not one to follow just anyone who claimed revelation, thank goodness I'm a skeptic first.  Maybe it was a good thing that I didn't really know anything about Joseph's polygamy at that time and so what he was implying didn't make a lot of sense. 

[Gray]

You do realize that it is Mary's genealogy that gave Christ the ancestral right to be Messiah in fulfillment of prophecy (aside from his obvious Godly right from his father)?

You might also want to study the marriage at Cana, Christ's teaching in the temple, his being called Rabbi,  a bit more if you think they had no social standing.

 

 

No, where Mary is concerned we have a completely weird image in our heads.  She was of a respected Jewish lineage and family, presented raised in the temple, prepared to become the mother of the Messiah, and raised with knowledge of Jewish law.  All of this points to the high probability that she followed Jewish law in her betrothal and married Joseph about age 13 and had Christ about age 14.  Which returns me to my point - God has no issue with 14 year olds being married/having children.

Anything else is the actual speculation.

When you hear hoofbeats, don't think zebras.

 

The problem with all of this is, and I hate to repeat myself, there is not historical information behind any of it in regards to Mary specifically. And even assuming King David was a historical figure and assuming Mary was a decedent, there must have been thousands of living descendants  by that time. 

 

Regarding marriage laws, it seems to have been not as simple as "get married at 14". Also, I think the assumption that if it happened in the Bible then God must have been okay with it is unfounded.

 

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10435-marriage-laws

[rockpond]

It seems like that is what she said, as you quoted. It seems she's asking every parent and teacher if its a good idea to tell the kids what Joseph did, suggesting it seems that it best not to tell them that stuff.

 

Right... to edit out some of the things... just like the Priesthood/Relief Society manuals have done.  And this church produced website as well:  http://josephsmith.net/?lang=eng

Edited March 30, 2015 by rockpond

[ksfisher]

 

I have the impression that even the concept of “teenager” did not even exist until after WW II.  At any rate, one of my Civil War ancestors  fought at Shiloh at age 15.  So much for his “normal teenage life.”  

 

 

One of my great-grandmothers was married, in Indiana in 1910, at age 15.  Neither spouse was Mormon and no shotguns seem to have been involved.

[bluebell]

Yes, Randy Bott of BYU.

 

Which doctrine was it?

[Kenngo1969]

Are you referring to me or the OP-Ed? 

Neither!

[rockpond]

Which doctrine was it?

 

That which had been taught to support the race-based priesthood/temple ban.