Tribune Op Ed: Section 132 In Seminary This Week

[JLHPROF]

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.

 

Definitely a difficult balancing act when God and his wife are in conflict, and he loves his wife as much as Joseph loved Emma.

We may not believe the Brigham Young statement that Joseph would have to go to hell to get Emma back, but there is no doubt in my mind that he would if necessary, that if he had to he'd be successful, and that Emma is with Joseph (and his other wives) now.

[rockpond]

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.

 

I don't see anything in OD2 that disavows earlier theories supporting the ban.  But there were statements, like that of Elder McConkie, that they were speaking with limited light and knowledge.  Those statements could definitely be viewed as the beginning of the disavowal of earlier doctrines.  Changes take time in the Church... the gospel topics essay marks an important milestone but not the beginning or end of the disavowal of past erroneous understandings.

[bluebell]

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".

 

I was never taught any of these growing up in the church, and never heard them taught by anyone in leadership.  (I was born in 1976).  It's hard for me to agree that something was church doctrine when I was never taught it or came in contact with it.  I grew up knowing about them, but was always taught they were just people's opinions and were never the doctrine of the church.

 

I agree that this is one of those areas where there is much confusion.  

[Scott Lloyd]

I was never taught any of these growing up in the church, and never heard them taught by anyone in leadership.  (I was born in 1976).  It's hard for me to agree that something was church doctrine when I was never taught it or came in contact with it.  I grew up knowing about them, but was always taught they were just people's opinions and were never the doctrine of the church.

 

 

My experience parallels yours, and I was born approximately 22 years before you.

[rockpond]

I was never taught any of these growing up in the church, and never heard them taught by anyone in leadership.  (I was born in 1976).  It's hard for me to agree that something was church doctrine when I was never taught it or came in contact with it.  I grew up knowing about them, but was always taught they were just people's opinions and were never the doctrine of the church.

 

I agree that this is one of those areas where there is much confusion.  

 

My experience parallels yours, and I was born approximately 22 years before you.

 

Well, everyone has different experiences.  As I mentioned, I was taught those ideas by a priesthood leader just two years ago, not that he was right but he testified quite emphatically that he was.

 

As Scott mentioned, those teachings have been working their way out of our doctrine since 1978.  But there is prior ample evidence that they were taught...

 

Cain first to be cursed Black

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., p. 109

As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed and told that "the earth" would not thereafter yield him its abundance as previously. In addition he became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition. As a result of his mortal birth he is assured of a tangible body of flesh and bones in eternity, a fact which will enable him to rule over Satan. The Lord placed on Cain a mark of a dark skin, and he became the ancestor of the black race. (Moses 5; Gen. 4; Teachings, p. 169.)

 

Inferior race

President Joseph Fielding Smith The Way to Perfection, p. 101

"[because of Cain's] wickedness he became the father of an in­ferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood... they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning."

 

The curse of Cain

John Lund The Church and the Negro p. 109

"The curse of no priesthood for Cain was totally different from the curse of no Priesthood for the Negroes, who are descendants of Cain. Negroes are kept from holding the Priesthood because of something they did before they came to earth; Cain was damned because of something he did while on earth.

 

Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, Pg.272

Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to. The volition of the creature is free; this is a law of their existence, and the Lord cannot violate his own law; were he to do that, he would cease to be God. He has placed life and death before his children, and it is for them to choose. If they choose life, they receive the blessings of life; if they chose death, they must abide the penalty. This is a law which has always existed from all eternity, and will continue to exist throughout all the eternities to come.

 

Cursed as to the Priesthood

Apostle Mark Petersen "Race Problems - As They Affect The Church," address by Mark Peter­sen at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, BYU, August 27, 1954

"Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood.... who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin....

 

The mark of Cain

Brigham Young Journal of Discourses 2:142 - 143

We have this illustrated in the account of Cain and Abel. Cain conversed with his God every day, and knew all about the plan of creating this earth, for his father told him. But, for the want of humility, and through jealousy, and an anxiety to possess the kingdom, and to have the whole of it under his own control, and not allow any body else the right to say one word, what did he do? He killed his brother. The Lord put a mark on him; and there are some of his children in this room. When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity. He deprived his brother of the privilege of pursuing his journey through life, and of extending his kingdom by multiplying upon the earth; and because he did this, he is the last to share the joys of the kingdom of God.

 

Wilford Woodruff Collected Discourses (CD), Vol.1,

What was that mark? It was a mark of blackness. That mark rested upon Cain and descended upon his posterity from that time until the present. Today there are millions of the descendants of Cain, through the linage of Ham, in the world, and that mark of darkness still rests upon them. Though nearly six thousand years have passed and gone, this mark is visible to the whole human family. Yet the fool and the infidel say there is no God, and they ridicule the Bible.

 

Milton R. Hunter, Conference Report, April 1952

Yet Cain continued to love Satan more than God. He entered into a secret covenant with Satan to murder his brother Abel for gain. "And he gloried, [so the scripture says], in his wickedness." (Ibid., 5:31.) And after this terrible crime had been committed, Cain received his "wages from him whom he listeth to obey." He was cursed by the Lord with a dark skin. He lost the Holy Priesthood. He lost his eternal soul, becoming a son of perdition. Thus, he was turned over to Satan-his master. God, our Eternal Father, is very much concerned about you and me and every one of his children here upon this earth regarding their keeping his commandments.

 

Negroes Descendants of Cain

Milton R. Hunter, Pearl of Great Price Commentary, p. 141

Joseph Smith identified the negroes as the descendants of Cain. In Nauvoo in 1842 a group of the brethren were discussing the question as to whether the negroes or the Indians had received the greater ill-treatment from the whites. The Prophet said: "The Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes, or sons of Cain."12 Therefore it is due to the teachings of the Pearl of Great Price and the Prophet Joseph Smith and the other early leaders of the Church that the negro today is barred from the Priesthood. Negroes may be baptized into the Church but they have not the right of the Priesthood. President Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, George A. Smith, and others of the early church leaders held out the hope that eventually the descendants of Cain who had lived righteous lives in mortality would receive the blessings of the Priesthood.

 

B. H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vol. 2, p. 128

Of the latter the fact of the large influence (if not identity) of Egyptian religious ideas in Chaldea in the days of Abraham is established; the descent of the black race (Negro) from Cain, the first murderer; the preservation of that race through the flood by the wife of Ham-"Egyptus," which in the Chaldean signifies "Egypt," which signifies that which is forbidden"-the descendants of "Egyptus" were cursed as pertaining to the priesthood-that is, they were barred from holding that divine power;

 

Dark Skinned People are Descendents of Cain

God, Pearl of Great Price, Moses 7:22

And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

 

Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 2, p. 175

The next question: "Was Cain cursed with a black skin?" Technically the black skin was not the curse, but the mark of the curse. The scriptures do not say that Cain was made black, but we read that his descendants were. (Moses 7:22.)

We may well suppose that Cain was also black and that this was the mark the Lord placed upon him. (Genesis 4:15.)

 

Intermarraige condemns postarity

Harold B. Lee, Decisions for Successful Living, p. 168

To impress the grave consequences and the seriousness of intermarriage as between those of different races and particularly with reference to intermarriage with the seed of Cain, President Brigham Young made this remark in an address before the legislature: ". . . that mark shall remain upon the seed of Cain until the seed of Abel shall be redeemed, and Cain shall not receive the priesthood until the time of that redemption. Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot receive the priesthood. . . ." (Wilford Woodruff, page 351.) Surely no one of you who is an heir to a body of more favored lineage would knowingly intermarry with a race that would condemn your posterity to penalties that have been placed upon the seed of Cain by the judgments of God.

 

Cain was cursed 6000 years ago

Wilford Woodruff, General Conference, April 1889

What was that mark? It was a mark of blackness. That mark rested upon Cain and descended upon his posterity from that time until the present. Today there are millions of the descendants of Cain, through the lineage of Ham, in the world, and that mark of darkness still rests upon them. Though nearly six thousand years have passed and gone, this mark is visible to the whole human family. Yet the fool and the infidel say there is no God, and they ridicule the Bible.

 

Inferior/less valiant

 

Less valiant

Apostle Bruce McConkie Mormon Doctrine (1958), p. 476

"...those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who there­by had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the Negroes."

 

George F. Richards, Conference Report, April 1939

The negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin. But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fulness of glory in the celestial kingdom. What is the reason for this condition, we ask, and I find it to my satisfaction to think that as spirit children of our Eternal Father they were not valiant in the fight. We are told that Michael and his angels fought, and we understand that we stood with Christ our Lord, on the platform, "Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever." I cannot conceive our Father consigning his children to a condition such as that of the negro race, if they had been valiant in the spirit world in that war in heaven.

 

Unworthy

The Contributor, Vol. 6, p. 297, as quoted in Youth and the Church, p. 167

"In the pre-existence the Negroes `through their indifference or lack of integrity to righteousness, rendered themselves unworthy of the Priesthood and its powers, and hence it is withheld from them to this day.' "

 

One drop of blood

Apostle Mark Petersen Race Problems - As They Affect the Church

We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not be led astray by the philosophies of men.... It ap­pears that the negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it.... Who placed the Negroes orig­inally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God?.... The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of resi­dence.... He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of ex­tension of the curse (2 Nephi 5:21).... If there is one drop of negro blood in my children... they receive the curse. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every negro drive a cadillac if they could afford it.... But let them enjoy these things among themselves.... what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.

 

Inferior race

Joseph Fielding Smith The Way to Perfection, p.101

" Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover, they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning.

 

Bruce R. McConkie Mormon Doctrine, p.527, 1966 ed

"The negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom..."

 

Servant of servants in heaven

JD, Vol.2, Pg.184, Brigham Young, February 18, 1855

The seed of Ham, which is the seed of Cain descending through Ham, will, according to the curse put upon him, serve his brethren, and be a "servant of servants" to his fellow-creatures, until God removes the curse; and no power can hinder it. These are my views upon slavery. I will here say a little more upon this point. The conduct of the whites towards the slaves will, in many cases, send both slave and master to hell. This statement comprises much in a few words. The blacks should be used like servants, and not like brutes, but they must serve. It is their privilege to live so as to enjoy many of the blessings which attend obedience to the first principles of the Gospel, though they are not entitled to the Priesthood.

 

The Negro Baboon

Amasa M. Lyman Journal of Discourses  Vol.3, Pg.173

At the end of that time he would be wishing for the society of the negro baboon, or anything at all like the human form. He would hunger and thirst for an association with his fellow being; he would find himself wretched without it, and he would exclaim like Nebuchadnezzar in the bitterness of his soul, "God is great and good."

 

Cursed with flat nose and black skin

Brigham Young  JD, Vol.7, Pg.290 - Pg.291

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.

 

Black skin, black heart

Times and Seasons, Vol.6, Pg.857

History and common observation show that these predictions have been fulfilled to the letter. The descendants of Ham, besides a black skin which has ever been a curse that has followed an apostate of the holy priesthood, as well as a black heart, have been servants to both Shem and Japheth, and the abolitionists are trying to make void the curse of God, but it will require more power than man possesses to counteract the decrees of eternal wisdom.

 

Satan’s representatives

John Taylor Journal of Discourses, Vol.22, Pg.304

And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God; and that man should be a free agent to act for himself, and that all men might have the opportunity of receiving or rejecting the truth, and be governed by it or not according to their wishes and abide the result; and that those who would be able to maintain correct principles under all circumstances, might be able to associate with the Gods in the eternal worlds. It is the same eternal programme. God knew it and Adam knew it.

 

John Taylor Journal of Discourses Vol.23, Pg.336

He needed the devil and a great many of those who do his bidding just to keep men straight, that we may learn to place our dependence upon God, and trust in Him, and to observe his laws and keep his commandments. When he destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian world, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he might be properly represented upon the earth.

 

Negroes are Communists

Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, October 1967

Such timely counsel could help save our country from Communism, as the same masters of deceit are showing the same false solicitude for the unfortunate in the name of civil rights. Now there is nothing wrong with civil rights; it is what's being done in the name of civil rights that is alarming. There is no doubt that the so-called civil rights movement as it exists today is used as a Communist program for revolution in America just as agrarian reform was used by the Communists to take over China and Cuba. This shocking statement can be confirmed by an objective study of Communist literature and activities and by knowledgeable Negroes and others who have worked within the Communist movement.

 

No evidence that negroes were neutral

 John A. Widtsoe, Improvement Era 1944

The opinion is held by many members of the church that because the negro was a neutral in the great council, held in the heavens before the foundations of the earth were laid, he has been punished with a black skin. There is no evidence, as far as found, to justify this belief. On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the church doctrine that all who have been permitted to come upon this earth and take upon themselves bodies, accepted the plan of salvation. Those who did not accept it were cast out and became the angels of the evil one. The cause of the black skin of the negro is not known. A mark was placed upon Cain because of his sin. The negroes are supposed to be his descendants. Since these people, themselves, did not commit Cain's sin, it is very probable that in some way, unknown to us, the distinction harks back to the pre-existent state.

 

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 65

There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits.

 

Black covering emblematical of eternal darkness

Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 102

Then we will say: Blessed be the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who has blessed us with the blessings of his glorious kingdom, where through our faithfulness we may dwell in eternal truth and light. In the spirit of sympathy, mercy and faith, we will also hope that blessings may eventually be given to our negro brethren, for they are our brethren-children of God-notwithstanding their black covering emblematical of eternal darkness.

 

Best people born white

Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 63

I have already told you that the spirits of men and women, all had a previous existence, thousands of years ago, in the heavens, in the presence of God; and I have already told you that among them are many spirits that are more noble, more intelligent than others, that were called the great and mighty ones, reserved until the dispensation of the fulness of times, to come forth upon the face of the earth, through a noble parentage that shall train their young and tender minds in the truths of eternity, that they may grow up in the Lord, and be strong in the power of His might, be clothed upon with His glory, be filled with exceeding great faith; that the visions of eternity may be opened to their minds; that they may be Prophets, Priests, and Kings to the Most High God. Do you believe, says one, that they are reserved until the last dispensation, for such a noble purpose? Yes; and among the Saints is the most likely place for these spirits to take their tabernacles, through a just and righteous parentage. They are to be sent to that people that are the most righteous of any other people upon the earth; there to be trained up properly, according to their nobility and intelligence, and according to the laws which the Lord ordained before they were born. This is the reason why the Lord is sending them here, brethren and sisters; they are appointed to come and take their bodies here, that in their generations they may be raised up among the righteous. The Lord has not kept them in store for five or six thousand years past, and kept them waiting for their bodies all this time to send them among the Hottentots, the African negroes, the idolatrous Hindoos, or any other of the fallen nations that dwell upon the face of this earth. They are not kept in reserve in order to come forth to receive such a degraded parentage upon the earth; no, the Lord is not such a being; His justice, goodness, and mercy will be magnified towards those who were chosen before they were born; and they long to come, and they will come among the Saints of the living God; this would be their highest pleasure and joy, to know that they could have the privilege of being born of such noble parentage.

 

Blacks Born Disadvantaged

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 61

There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.

 

Negroes restricted because of premortal attitude

Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 43

That the negro race, for instance, have been placed under restrictions because of their attitude in the world of spirits, few will doubt. It cannot be looked upon as just that they should be deprived of the power of the Priesthood without it being a punishment for some act, or acts, performed before they were born.

 

There is nothing Godlike in them

John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 6

Some of us are learning to swear almost as good as some of the Gentiles. Some of us are learning to get drunk almost as good as they can. I do not think that will benefit us very much. Some of us are learning to cheat and defraud our neighbors, and some are learning to steal. There is nothing smart about all this. A negro, a Hottentot, or an Indian can do that. There is nothing in these practices that bespeaks an intelligent mind, or that would recommend a person the estimation of a good man, angels, or God. There is nothing Godlike in them.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Well, everyone has different experiences.  As I mentioned, I was taught those ideas by a priesthood leader just two years ago, not that he was right but he testified quite emphatically that he was.

 

As Scott mentioned, those teachings have been working their way out of our doctrine since 1978.  But there is prior ample evidence that they were taught...

 

With the exception of the 1967 quote from Ezra Taft Benson (which is about communism and politics, not about the priesthood restriction), I daresay nothing here was uttered within the lifetime of anyone now reading or contributing to this board.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

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.

I wish you were right about this but I personally know many members, including my parents, who are adamant those original "theories" are the real doctrine as taught by prophets and found in the scriptures. They are utterly bent on believing that the recent disavowal is wrong because that would mean that only one prophet is incorrect, instead of generations of prophets and scriptures all being wrong about race.

[Scott Lloyd]

I wish you were right about this but I personally know many members, including my parents, who are adamant those original "theories" are the real doctrine as taught by prophets and found in the scriptures. They are utterly bent on believing that the recent disavowal is wrong because that would mean that only one prophet is incorrect, instead of generations of prophets and scriptures all being wrong about race.

Obviously your parents' opinions are wrong -- and I venture to say quite uncommon in this day and age.

 

In any event, I was talking about the authoritative teachings of the Church, not residual ill-informed impressions that might linger here and there.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, and those ideas were a big stumbling block to members and non-member alike. I joined in 1971, seven years before the Ban was lifted. Didn't agree with the reasons claimed for the Ban then, and don't agree with them now. But I am glad the Church and I finally agree.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, and those ideas were a big stumbling block to members and non-member alike. I joined in 1971, seven years before the Ban was lifted. Didn't agree with the reasons claimed for the Ban then, and don't agree with them now. But I am glad the Church and I finally agree.

In truth, I don't think the subject came up all that often in Church circles at the time those theories were stated. It was more a matter of academic discussion than passionate argument.

 

That changed, of course, as time went by, but as we've indicated, in later years, they had gradually fallen out of general acceptance anyway. For the vast majority of believing Church members, it was not difficult at all to jettison them altogether after the 1978 revelation.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

In truth, I don't think the subject came up all that often in Church circles at the time those theories were stated. It was more a matter of academic discussion than passionate argument.

 

That changed, of course, as time went by, but as we've indicated, in later years, they had gradually fallen out of general acceptance anyway. For the vast majority of believing Church members, it was not difficult at all to jettison them altogether after the 1978 revelation.

 

That's the problem with academic discussion. I was introduced to the Church when I attended our local Institute of Religion while at college.

Edited March 31, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[cinepro]

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.

 

That's why I said "pretty sure".  Obviously there are some women who "have no problem with anything that happened."  I know a few myself.  For some, it is because they have faith and a strong testimony.  For others, I suspect it is because they don't know much about what "happened" (and don't care to know). 

 

I was just pointing out my observation that when it comes to online forums and blogs where people do tend to know what happened, it is typically the men who adopt a more traditional view of everything being kosher when it comes to polygamy; it is rare that I see women categorically stating how great they think everything was. 

 

On the flip side, it is also my observation that men seem to have a harder time with the issues surrounding The Book of Abraham.

Edited March 31, 2015 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

That's the problem with academic discussion. I was introduced to the Church when I attended our local Institute of Religion while at college.

Perhaps it came up in that sort of setting, but I don't remember any classroom discussions or pulpit sermons at all on the subject as I was growing up in the Church.

[rockpond]

With the exception of the 1967 quote from Ezra Taft Benson (which is about communism and politics, not about the priesthood restriction), I daresay nothing here was uttered within the lifetime of anyone now reading or contributing to this board.

 

Yes.  But Bluebell asked me to identify an official doctrine that we've now been told to no longer teach.  I was simply providing that example.

[cinepro]

Definitely a difficult balancing act when God and his wife are in conflict, and he loves his wife as much as Joseph loved Emma.

We may not believe the Brigham Young statement that Joseph would have to go to hell to get Emma back, but there is no doubt in my mind that he would if necessary, that if he had to he'd be successful, and that Emma is with Joseph (and his other wives) now.

 

It was only a "balancing act" for Joseph Smith.  According to D&C 132, everyone else had to have the permission of the first wife before they could take additional wives.  Only Joseph had the special exemption to do it without his first wife's knowledge.  What are the odds of that? 

 

 

 

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

 

 64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

 

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132

 

(emphasis added)

 

It would be interesting to know how Joseph first presented the idea to Emma before the Fanny Alger incident.  That must have been an interesting conversation.

Edited March 31, 2015 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes.  But Bluebell asked me to identify an official doctrine that we've now been told to no longer teach.  I was simply providing that example.

In view of the fact that those are not official doctrines, from where I sit, you've yet to provide an example.

[rockpond]

In view of the fact that those are not official doctrines, from where I sit, you've yet to provide an example.

 

Doctrine:  a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church

 

I have provided the example given that many of those were officially published by the Church.  They were official doctrines.

[Scott Lloyd]

It would be interesting to know how Joseph first presented the idea to Emma before the Fanny Alger incident.  That must have been an interesting conversation.

So you disagree with Teancum, then, that Joseph kept it all a secret from Emma until later on?

 

Would you please enlighten him? He seems to be misinformed on that.

[Calm]

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.

Divorce was a horrible condition for most women at that time. Given all that Emma had sacrificed for Joseph himself as well as God's work and still continued to do even though she struggled tremendously with this aspect, it would have been an extremely selfish action if Joseph had divorced her.

[bluebell]

Yes. But Bluebell asked me to identify an official doctrine that we've now been told to no longer teach. I was simply providing that example.

I must be doing a horrible job of explaining myself because that's not actually the kind of example I was looking for. I'm sorry to be so confusing.

At this point I don't think it even matters anymore as the point that it all started with was minor. Let's just move on.

[HappyJackWagon]

Obviously your parents' opinions are wrong -- and I venture to say quite uncommon in this day and age.

 

In any event, I was talking about the authoritative teachings of the Church, not residual ill-informed impressions that might linger here and there.

I agree my parents are wrong, though of course they "know" that I'm wrong. I'd like to believe that those beliefs are uncommon in this day and age but I see evidence to the contrary. My parents are only in their mid-sixties. They've served in multitudes of leadership callings (my father was bishop 3 times and worked for the church) so calling his beliefs ill-informed is a stretch. The truth is, they have a mountain of evidence to prove their point. Scriptures in the Old Testament, Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price etc. Many modern prophets and apostles who have taught this. The problem is these quotes and scriptures still exist which could lead people to believe the same racist teachings and when it is only a choice between choosing which prophet is wrong, then multiple views will reasonably be held.

[Calm]

There is nothing Godlike in them

John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 6

Some of us are learning to swear almost as good as some of the Gentiles. Some of us are learning to get drunk almost as good as they can. I do not think that will benefit us very much. Some of us are learning to cheat and defraud our neighbors, and some are learning to steal. There is nothing smart about all this. A negro, a Hottentot, or an Indian can do that. There is nothing in these practices that bespeaks an intelligent mind, or that would recommend a person the estimation of a good man, angels, or God. There is nothing Godlike in them.

While certainly a racist comment suggesting these men were inferior to whites in general capability, it is the practices that have nothing Godlike in them.

Don't see a link, did you collect these quotes yourself or copy and paste them?

Edited March 31, 2015 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

Only Joseph had the special exemption to do it without his first wife's knowledge. 

 

CFR - I believe this exemption policy from the law of Sarah was taught all throughout the polygamous years.

If the first wife refused to accept plural marriage the man was encouraged to go ahead anyway and fulfill the law of God.  There are several sermons and historical records that mention this.

[cinepro]

CFR - I believe this exemption policy from the law of Sarah was taught all throughout the polygamous years.

If the first wife refused to accept plural marriage the man was encouraged to go ahead anyway and fulfill the law of God.  There are several sermons and historical records that mention this.

 

I hope not, since that would be totally contradictory to scripture...

[HappyJackWagon]

CFR - I believe this exemption policy from the law of Sarah was taught all throughout the polygamous years.

If the first wife refused to accept plural marriage the man was encouraged to go ahead anyway and fulfill the law of God.  There are several sermons and historical records that mention this.

The Law of Sarah- Also known as the Law that Sarah's opinion doesn't matter.

 

Why have a law that is so easily discarded if it is not accepted. Defeats the purpose of the law.

 

Also, the Law of Sarah would have required JS to tell Emma about his marriages prior to them occuring and being consumated.