Tribune Op Ed: Section 132 In Seminary This Week

[JLHPROF]

That is certainly your prerogative.   She makes some good points though. If you want your kids to learn about plural marriage this way and have all the baggage that can come from it have at it.

 

Or you could actually teach your children about the gospel principle of Celestial plural marriage.  No bias, no politics, just what God said to his prophet.

[Teancum]

One more point.  The phrase "As you read, ask yourselves: Would a loving God do that to his children?" seems to be an attempt to say that anything that doesn't fit my image of who God should be is not part of the gospel.  But God is not created in man's image, we are created in his.

 

 

Not to me. It seems to me to say "If I think about this rationally and realize I would not give anyone else a pass why should I give JS a pass on what is cleary total nonsense."

 

The answer for many here is if I don't give him a pass "my testimony of him may be weakened."

Edited March 30, 2015 by Teancum

[Calm]

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).    

 

Yes, why would he be jealous?  And yet Joseph treated William the same as Helen, he warned their father (not Helen…he didn't talk to Helen at all that she said) they should not go to the dances where the blacklegs were going to attend…not because it was going to be a too fun party, but because there would most likley be gambling and other stuff going on that was inappropriate for a young man or young woman to get involved in.  How else do you explain that William was not going to be allowed to go originally?

 

In the only instance we have of Joseph telling her father that it would be better for Helen not to go to a party, he was essentially telling her father that it wouldn't be a good idea for her brother to go either…not because he didn't want Helen to go to parties in general, but because Helen shouldn't go to that type of party in particular…and neither should have William.  

 

That is what is missing in the quote you quoted from the Hales.  Helen is stating her brother William was grounded as well on Joseph's advice, but he wheedled his way out of the grounding and that was one of the reasons she was so ticked off…that her brother who had been forbidden at first got to go, but she didn't.  Later when she found out what type of party it was, she was very grateful for the protection of her father.  There is nothing in it that suggests she was blaming Joseph or her relationship with him for having to stay home.  It was all about her relationship with her father and his protecting her reputation from being tarnished by association with less than reputable men.

 

The full section of the quote without the essential part removed:

 

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/HWhitney.html

Edited March 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[Teancum]

Did Emma not know Joseph was practicing plural marriage?

 

 

You really need to ask this?  Yes, for a large part of it she did not know.  Later she knew... when it was well along the way.   The historical records are fairly clear on this.

[Teancum]

If it's in fulfillment of a commandment from God, why not?

 

 

That is a BIG IF.....

[Teancum]

Or you could actually teach your children about the gospel principle of Celestial plural marriage.  No bias, no politics, just what God said to his prophet.

 

 

I wouldn't teach this since is very clear to me God had nothing to do with it.  The gyrations believing Mormons need to go through to defend something they would never ever defend in any other case seems to speak even louder to me at least that JS's plural marriage was not from God.

[cinepro]

One more point.  The phrase "As you read, ask yourselves: Would a loving God do that to his children?" seems to be an attempt to say that anything that doesn't fit my image of who God should be is not part of the gospel.  But God is not created in man's image, we are created in his.

 

Instead of asking us to make assumptions about what God or wouldn't do, she should have suggested that we put D&C 132 (and Nauvoo-era polygamy in general) to the test set forth in D&C 9:

 

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

 9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.

 

As Elder Scott explained:

 

[God] will reply in one of three ways. First, you can feel the peace, comfort, and assurance that confirm that your decision is right. Or second, you can sense that unsettled feeling, the stupor of thought, indicating that your choice is wrong. Or third—and this is the difficult one—you can feel no response.

 

Why not encourage each youth to study section 132 (all of it), and read the polygamy essays, and then pray about it?  If they get a good, warm feeling, then good.  If they get an "unsettled" feeling, then as Elder Scott explained, that would be God telling them it is wrong.

[Mystery Meat]

Instead of asking us to make assumptions about what God or wouldn't do, she should have suggested that we put D&C 132 (and Nauvoo-era polygamy in general) to the test set forth in D&C 9:

 

 

 

As Elder Scott explained:

 

 

 

 

Why not encourage each youth to study section 132 (all of it), and read the polygamy essays, and then pray about it?  If they get a good, warm feeling, then good.  If they get an "unsettled" feeling, then as Elder Scott explained, that would be God telling them it is wrong.

 

Agreed. But with the caveat that they must be open to all answers and prejudices must be removed to receive divine communication.

[Teancum]

Agreed. But with the caveat that they must be open to all answers and prejudices must be removed to receive divine communication.

 

 

Indeed.  How about the prejudice that maybe JS was not acting as a prophet in this aspect as well?   It seems to me most don't want to be open to that option.

[Tacenda]

Yes, why would he be jealous? And yet Joseph treated William the same as Helen, he warned their father (not Helen…he didn't talk to Helen at all that she said) they should not go to the dances where the blacklegs were going to attend…not because it was going to be a too fun party, but because there would most likley be gambling and other stuff going on that was inappropriate for a young man or young woman to get involved in. How else do you explain that William was not going to be allowed to go originally?

In the only instance we have of Joseph telling her father that it would be better for Helen not to go to a party, he was essentially telling her father that it wouldn't be a good idea for her brother to go either…not because he didn't want Helen to go to parties in general, but because Helen shouldn't go to that type of party in particular…and neither should have William.

That is what is missing in the quote you quoted from the Hales. Helen is stating her brother William was grounded as well on Joseph's advice, but he wheedled his way out of the grounding and that was one of the reasons she was so ticked off…that her brother who had been forbidden at first got to go, but she didn't. Later when she found out what type of party it was, she was very grateful for the protection of her father. There is nothing in it that suggests she was blaming Joseph or her relationship with him for having to stay home. It was all about her relationship with her father and his protecting her reputation from being tarnished by association with less than reputable men.

The full section of the quote without the essential part removed:

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/HWhitney.html

In the link I provided, Helen recalls several parties/dances. Not just the one you mention Joseph didn't want her and William going to. Or maybe the gambling, etc. happened at each party? Not too good that the prophet allowed that to happen at the mansion. What about the other women attendees? No one worried about them? Edited March 31, 2015 by Tacenda

[SmileyMcGee]

One more point. The phrase "As you read, ask yourselves: Would a loving God do that to his children?" seems to be an attempt to say that anything that doesn't fit my image of who God should be is not part of the gospel. But God is not created in man's image, we are created in his.

If you know of an objective way for knowing what God is like then your criticism might be justified. But the only way you "know" God is by interpreting your feelings and believing in others' interpretations of their feelings regarding God, which is how everyone else claims to "know" God. So, would a loving God condone polygamy as practiced by JS? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps a better question would be, "do I care to worship a God that condones polygamy as practiced by JS?" That is a question that I believe can be answered with greater confidence.

(I'm expecting a reply from Mr. Bukowski anytime now )

[JLHPROF]

 The gyrations believing Mormons need to go through to defend something they would never ever defend in any other case seems to speak even louder to me at least that JS's plural marriage was not from God.

 

I think a better way of phrasing this might be "the gyrations believing Mormons who are uncomfortable with polygamy need to go through".

 

If you accept the entire practice as from God and that Joseph did as he was told there are absolutely ZERO gyrations necessary.

I have no need to manipulate, explain or adjust any facts on Joseph and polygamy, because I have no problem with anything that happened.

Gyrations are the province of the doubting looking for excuses.  As a literalist with a testimony of their callings  I accept Joseph and Brigham at their word.

Edited March 31, 2015 by JLHPROF

[cinepro]

I think a better way of phrasing this might be "the gyrations believing Mormons who are uncomfortable with polygamy need to go through".

 

If you accept the entire practice as from God and that Joseph did as he was told there are absolutely ZERO gyrations necessary.

I have no need to manipulate, explain or adjust any facts on Joseph and polygamy, because I have no problem with anything that happened.

Gyrations are the province of the doubting looking for excuses.  As a literalist with a testimony of their callings  I accept Joseph and Brigham at their word.

 

For future reference, you can be pretty sure that anyone who posts something like that is a man.

[JLHPROF]

For future reference, you can be pretty sure that anyone who posts something like that is a man.

 

Tell that to the tens of thousands of Mormon women (not to mention the fundamentalist women) who voluntarily chose/choose to enter into plural marriage.

The "men don't get it" card may have some truth, but it is not an argument against polygamy.

[carbon dioxide]

I was talking about Emma.

Was not Emma against the whole idea?  If that is the case and Joseph first obligation is to love God and keep his commandments, than what else is Joseph supposed to do?  I think I probably would have done the same thing though perhaps I would have got a divorce first.  I don't know if Joseph saw divorce as an option to remove Emma as a stumbling block for him.

[Mystery Meat]

Indeed.  How about the prejudice that maybe JS was not acting as a prophet in this aspect as well?   It seems to me most don't want to be open to that option.

 

This is going to shock you, but yes I agree. Believe it or not (I am sure you don't), but I have been there. I was caught off guard (howbeit briefly) by some of the details I learned. For a time (a few short weeks/months) I wondered about polygamy. I was convinced through study and moreso by strong revelation through prayer that Joseph Smith was commanded by God to practice polygamy. That is not to say everything was done perfectly, but I think the Lord could say at all times that he was well pleased with the Prophet regarding polygamy.

[Mystery Meat]

Perhaps a better question would be, "do I care to worship a God that condones polygamy as practiced by JS?" That is a question that I believe can be answered with greater confidence.

(I'm expecting a reply from Mr. Bukowski anytime now )

 

I agree with this.

 

I must admit my sensibilities have given me pause in the past, but I have accepted confirmation that such is ordained of God and I have experienced God's love for me, time and time again in my life. Basically, God has earned my trust.

[Teancum]

I think a better way of phrasing this might be "the gyrations believing Mormons who are uncomfortable with polygamy need to go through".

 

If you accept the entire practice as from God and that Joseph did as he was told there are absolutely ZERO gyrations necessary.

I have no need to manipulate, explain or adjust any facts on Joseph and polygamy, because I have no problem with anything that happened.

Gyrations are the province of the doubting looking for excuses.  As a literalist with a testimony of their callings  I accept Joseph and Brigham at their word.

Ypu would never accept it from anyone else and the only reason you do here is because you believe they were prophets. I undertand that. I used to until I realized I would not accept such a horrible thing from anyone else. It was a painful realization. I was looking for any reason to keep believing it was from God. No I was not looking for reasons to doubt. So your comment is pure horse poo at least for me.

[Coreyb]

This topic is so silly. Seminary teachers should just teach the history, making sure to reinforce the limitations of historical research. Teach the revelation carefully going through all the ideas presented. Have a discussion about how well/poorly Joseph carried out his practice of the instructions in the revelation, reinforcing again the limitations of history. Teach that prophets are capable of doing both good and bad, or being both wise and stupid if you prefer. High school kids can handle this stuff. They tackle tougher topics in their high school classes. If I can openly teach these things to my teenage brothers and sister (18,16, 14, 13) and even debate them with my 16 year old brother (and every one still retains a strong testimony) trained CES teachers aught to be able to do it as well. I think the problem is that CES teachers seem to think it is their job to answer all the students questions so that everyone leaves happy and comfortable, testimonies sparkling. That is not what good teaching does. Good teachers may answer some questions, but leave students with many more, inspired to keep thinking. In my experience, this type of teaching is pretty rare in the church.

[Tacenda]

This topic is so silly. Seminary teachers should just teach the history, making sure to reinforce the limitations of historical research. Teach the revelation carefully going through all the ideas presented. Have a discussion about how well/poorly Joseph carried out his practice of the instructions in the revelation, reinforcing again the limitations of history. Teach tohat prophets are capable of doing both good and bad, or being both wise and stupid if you prefer. High school kids can handle this stuff. They tackle tougher topics in their high school classes. If I can openly teach these things to my teenage brothers and sister (18,16, 14, 13) and even debate them with my 16 year old brother (and every one still retains a strong testimony) trained CES teachers aught to be able to do it as well. I think the problem is that CES teachers seem to think it is their job to answer all the students questions so that everyone leaves happy and comfortable, testimonies sparkling. That is not what good teaching does. Good teachers may answer some questions, but leave students with many more, inspired to keep thinking. In my experience, this type of teaching is pretty rare in the church.

Funny, they can start discussing this in seminary and I'm afraid to discuss it with my own in laws, or ward members, such as in RS. I feel like if I did, it would seem like I was apostate or trying to spread anti-mormon lies. But maybe times they are a changin'.

[readstoomuch]

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.

There are some follow up articles by her. She posted on MormonStories FB group and is in Ordain Women. I guess she skirts the issues, but it seems obvious how she feels given the overall tenor.

[Coreyb]

Funny, they can start discussing this in seminary and I'm afraid to discuss it with my own in laws, or ward members, such as in RS. I feel like if I did, it would seem like I was apostate or trying to spread anti-mormon lies. But maybe times they are a changin'.

It's the same for me with many people. The younger kids (teens, college aged folks) usually don't yet have the cultural pressures and taboos that make these conversations with older adults so hard. I believe that all intelligent adults are capable of understanding Joseph Smiths polygamy, many just won't. Just fear of the unknown I suspect.

[rockpond]

This doesn't actually answer the question that i asked then.  

 

When has the church ever told someone not to teach something that was actually doctrine because the church didn't believe it should be doctrine?

 

This is what the author of the letter is doing, and since you have claimed the church does the same thing i'm looking for support of that assertion.

 

 

This does not answer the CFR. What did he put forth as doctrinal that was in fact not doctrinal? Or what doctrine did he teach that he was told to stop teaching? Specific quotes and references are called for here.

 

 

In this Feb 2012 Washington Post interview, BYU religion professor Randy Bott advanced the seed of Cain and pre-mortal doctrines to explain the race-based priesthood and temple bans.  These were the explanations that I was raised on.  They are still believed by some members... just a couple of years ago my Bishop explained to me that even though the Church is backing away from these explanations for political reasons, he knew because of apostolic statements that they were the real reasons for the ban.  An example of where these were taught is here in this First Presidency letter.

 

The Church then denied those doctrines in response to the Randy Bott interview and later in one of the first gospel topics essays disavowing them as "theories".

[Scott Lloyd]

Was not Emma against the whole idea?  If that is the case and Joseph first obligation is to love God and keep his commandments, than what else is Joseph supposed to do?  I think I probably would have done the same thing though perhaps I would have got a divorce first.  I don't know if Joseph saw divorce as an option to remove Emma as a stumbling block for him.

The sense I get is that Joseph was deeply in love with Emma and was earnestly desirous to persist (as he ultimately did) in obeying God while retaining Emma as his marital partner.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

In this Feb 2012 Washington Post interview, BYU religion professor Randy Bott advanced the seed of Cain and pre-mortal doctrines to explain the race-based priesthood and temple bans.  These were the explanations that I was raised on.  They are still believed by some members... just a couple of years ago my Bishop explained to me that even though the Church is backing away from these explanations for political reasons, he knew because of apostolic statements that they were the real reasons for the ban.  An example of where these were taught is here in this First Presidency letter.

 

The Church then denied those doctrines in response to the Randy Bott interview and later in one of the first gospel topics essays disavowing them as "theories".

Bott is quoted only briefly in that interview, and I don't get the sense, either from the direct quotations or the paraphrases (which are always suspect when the writer has an outsider's perspective) that Bott was declaring doctrine as opposed to giving his own conjecture.

 

Furthermore, your notion that the Church had not disavowed the earlier theories until the appearance of the essay ignores the fact that the official position of the Church from the 1978 revelation onward, if not before, has been that God's reasons for denying the priesthood to men of African lineage are unknown. This, by implication, disavows the earlier theories.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd