consiglieri Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 1 hour ago, Calm said: I find the lds.org essay the best approach since I don't see it as appropriate for the Church to put out an indepth history book...the Joseph Smith Papers which has the documents is one thing, as soon as they start putting in commentary about implications and other analysis, you have the problem of some readers assuming because it is put out by the Church, it is the absolute truth and then if documents come to light that we didn't have that puts a different slant on things...problems. I prefer the way they have done it with an essay that introduces most aspects of the topic and then has extensive footnotes for those who want to do more study, including a footnote for what I believe is the best current text out there, the Hales 3 volume work (not because I agree with all of his conculsions, I actually have strong disagreements in some of his reasoning such as his justification iirc, but because it is the best for documents on the subject so if people actually read and study them for themselves they can come to their own conclusions without worrying too much about the bias of the author colouring intepretation in ways they wouldn't normally have interpreted things). I like you, Calm, and I am not trying to make fun, here. I think what you have written is rational and balanced. But every now and then I am struck by how, on the one hand, we proclaim 15 prophets, seers and revelators who receive ongoing revelation for the Church, but on the other hand, we worry that people might assume something is the "absolute truth" just "because it is put out by the Church." I mean, really, what are all these prophets good for? What do they do that pretty much anybody else could not? It just seems like they are place-holders with no special gifts or revelation. 1
Calm Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 Historical information and conclusions (which was the specific context I was referring to in regards to my use of "absolute truth") are in a significantly different category than learning what we need to know to be better people and connect with God, imo. Confusing the work of the Lord with the first instead of the second will only detract from our actual purpose. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted December 19, 2015 Posted December 19, 2015 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: "If class members have questions" means you aren't supposed to bring it up yourself. Looks like avoidance to me. Not to me. The teacher, if the Spirit directed, could be well within the parameters of the lesson in saying something like, "Part of the section on eternal marriage which is no longer applicable to us today is the commandment to Joseph Smith to practice plural marriage and eventually to institute it temporarily among the Latter-day Saints. I don't intend to make plural marriage the focus of this lesson, but before we move on, does anyone have any specific questions about this?" From what I can tell, the lesson does not forbid the teacher from doing something like this. 1
consiglieri Posted December 19, 2015 Posted December 19, 2015 1 hour ago, Calm said: Historical information and conclusions (which was the specific context I was referring to in regards to my use of "absolute truth") are in a significantly different category than learning what we need to know to be better people and connect with God, imo. Confusing the work of the Lord with the first instead of the second will only detract from our actual purpose. The only quibble I would have with what you say is that the historical information was the work of the Lord in previous times. As such, I think it important to learn as much as possible about it. But in every other respect, I agree with you heartily.
consiglieri Posted December 19, 2015 Posted December 19, 2015 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Not to me. The teacher, if the Spirit directed, could be well within the parameters of the lesson in saying something like, "Part of the section on eternal marriage which is no longer applicable to us today is the commandment to Joseph Smith to practice plural marriage and eventually to institute it temporarily among the Latter-day Saints. I don't intend to make plural marriage the focus of this lesson, but before we move on, does anyone have any specific questions about this?" From what I can tell, the lesson does not forbid the teacher from doing something like this. I never said "forbid." I said "avoid." Do you always have to change words in order to win an argument? 1
consiglieri Posted December 19, 2015 Posted December 19, 2015 7 hours ago, Danzo said: Oh good, I think this thread has moved on from the myth that Joseph Smith's Polygamy has been hidden from the church. Now we are getting to what emphasis the church should place on Joseph's Polygamy, a much better topic for discussion. How much emphasis should the church place on Joseph's polygamy? Should they incorporate it into a 14th article of faith and have the children recite it every week in primary? Does it need to appear in the temple recommend interview? Do you have the same feelings about Joseph Smith's First Vision?
VideoGameJunkie Posted December 19, 2015 Author Posted December 19, 2015 4 hours ago, consiglieri said: Do you have the same feelings about Joseph Smith's First Vision? Which account of his first vision are you talking about?
Danzo Posted December 19, 2015 Posted December 19, 2015 4 hours ago, consiglieri said: Do you have the same feelings about Joseph Smith's First Vision? I don't quite follow you. What feelings?
consiglieri Posted December 19, 2015 Posted December 19, 2015 10 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Which account of his first vision are you talking about? Boom, baby!
consiglieri Posted December 19, 2015 Posted December 19, 2015 9 hours ago, Danzo said: I don't quite follow you. What feelings? These feelings of yours to which I was responding: Quote 22 hours ago, Danzo said: How much emphasis should the church place on Joseph's polygamy? Should they incorporate it into a 14th article of faith and have the children recite it every week in primary? Does it need to appear in the temple recommend interview?
VideoGameJunkie Posted December 19, 2015 Author Posted December 19, 2015 (edited) I have a question since I've heard conflicting claims on the timeline of sealings. When Joseph Smith received the sealing keys, was Emma Smith the first woman sealed to Joseph or did that sealing not happen until 1843 after other women had been sealed to Joseph? Because the source I read said Emma was sealed to Joseph on May 28, 1843 making her wife 25 to 27 to sealed to Joseph. Don't know if that's true, but why would they wait so long if true, to be sealed together if Emma was the love of Joseph's life? Edited December 19, 2015 by VideoGameJunkie
JLHPROF Posted December 19, 2015 Posted December 19, 2015 12 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I have a question since I've heard conflicting claims on the timeline of sealings. When Joseph Smith received the sealing keys, was Emma Smith the first woman sealed to Joseph or did that sealing not happen until 1843 after other women had been sealed to Joseph? Because the source I read said Emma was sealed to Joseph on May 28, 1843 making her wife 25 to 27 to sealed to Joseph. Don't know if that's true, but why would they wait so long if true, to be sealed together if Emma was the love of Joseph's life? To my understanding Emma was the first to be sealed to Joseph in a temple setting (connected with the endowment), and she was not permitted to receive that some of her ordinances until she accepted the revelation on plural marriage. (The same standard was applied to several people). But no, she was not Joseph's first wife according to the laws of God, only according to the laws of man.
VideoGameJunkie Posted December 19, 2015 Author Posted December 19, 2015 52 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: To my understanding Emma was the first to be sealed to Joseph in a temple setting (connected with the endowment), and she was not permitted to receive that some of her ordinances until she accepted the revelation on plural marriage. (The same standard was applied to several people). But no, she was not Joseph's first wife according to the laws of God, only according to the laws of man. So is the new and ever lasting covenant in D&C 132 plural marriage? And I wish Joseph and Emma were sealed sooner.
JLHPROF Posted December 19, 2015 Posted December 19, 2015 47 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: So is the new and ever lasting covenant in D&C 132 plural marriage? And I wish Joseph and Emma were sealed sooner. According to current Church teachings, no, it isn't. Current teachings are that the N&EC of marriage refers to "Eternal Marriage" or "Temple Marriage". That was not always the teaching, but it is today.
VideoGameJunkie Posted December 20, 2015 Author Posted December 20, 2015 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: According to current Church teachings, no, it isn't. Current teachings are that the N&EC of marriage refers to "Eternal Marriage" or "Temple Marriage". That was not always the teaching, but it is today. Right but Emma couldn't get sealed though the new and ever lasting covenant until she accepted plural marriage so that makes me think D&C 132 was written for plural marriage. If I was Emma I'd be a little envious being like number 25 or 27 woman sealed to Joseph.
Russell C McGregor Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 On 18/12/2015 at 4:33 AM, stemelbow said: It's naïve to think apostles and prophets haven't strictly avoided this issue on several occasions. Since it is a tough topic and certainly to many people one without a clear answer, it's no wonder apostles and prophets, who too see through a glass darkly, can't adequately answer the issues raised concerning polygamy. I don't blame them, but as I said, it's naïve to think they don't avoid it purposefully. They certainly don't want to have to address it these days. So it's "naïve" to accept the plain facts of the matter when they fail to support indirect accusations. Got it. Apostles and Prophets may see through a glass darkly; but no more so than those who obsess about historical minutiae. They don't "avoid it purposefully." Avoiding it serves no purpose. They teach the principles of the Gospel which we are supposed to be living in our generation. And I've observed -- rather more often than is likely to be a coincidence -- that those who find fault with the Lord's servants for not sharing their trivial historical obsessions are rarely in the forefront when it comes to living those principles. Funny, that. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 On December 19, 2015 at 5:45 PM, consiglieri said: I never said "forbid." I said "avoid." Do you always have to change words in order to win an argument? Your claim was this: "'If class members have questions' means you aren't supposed to bring it up yourself." As much as to say the lesson forbids the teacher from bringing up the subject. I say that's an erroneous interpretation. The lesson places no such restriction on the teacher, who, if she felt so guided by the Spirit, could broach the subject using wording such as I suggested and would be within the parameters of the lesson to do so. Do you always have to resort to semantic quibbling to confuse the matter in order to avoid losing an argument? 1
Stargazer Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 On 12/17/2015 at 6:59 AM, VideoGameJunkie said: Are you judging my worthiness? No, I am not. Your worthiness is between you, the Lord and His representative. I am suggesting that accusing the Lord's chosen prophet of illicit sexual activities is something one would not want to be confronted with when standing before the Lord. 2
VideoGameJunkie Posted December 21, 2015 Author Posted December 21, 2015 11 minutes ago, Stargazer said: No, I am not. Your worthiness is between you, the Lord and His representative. I am suggesting that accusing the Lord's chosen prophet of illicit sexual activities is something one would not want to be confronted with when standing before the Lord. Fair point and that's only if the activities are actually false.
Stargazer Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 On 12/18/2015 at 4:32 AM, sunstoned said: It has been discussed numerous times. But the fact that this topic keeps coming up tells me that many explanations have not been that convincing. The fact that the topic keeps coming up tells me that despite all the explanations, some people just can't be convinced. And so they keep bringing it up. Explanations be hanged -- who cares about explanations? If there is no acceptable explanation (or one which will be accepted), then we have something we can complain about indignantly for decades to come! The well will never run dry on this one. VideoGameJunkie is very exercised about Lorenzo Snow having Laurels for wives in his older years. You see, the main problem with any kind of an explanation is simple supply and demand (sorry sisters for treating this as an economic matter). When Lorenzo Snow needed a new wife all the ones over 20 years old were already flipping married! In order to find a new wife he had to go for younger ones. It isn't that he went after younger ones preferentially. As far as I know, anyway. And yes, VGJ, if you're 57 and still unmarried (or 57 and a divorcee or widower), there is nothing immoral for you to find a wife from the Laurel's class, as long as she is at least at the age of consent (including parental consent if needed). I have to warn you, however, besides having the problem keeping up with a vigorous young woman (will you be able to dance the then-modern dances they will enjoy in those days?), and having wearing your old bones out helping to care for the children she will undoubtedly want (when as an old guy you would rather sit in your easy chair at the end of the day), you will also have to put up with all the clucking nannies who will be indignant of your supposed cradle-robbing. 1
Stargazer Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) On 12/18/2015 at 7:27 AM, stemelbow said: No offense, Calm, but it's kinda a tragedy that some would argue for openness and forthrightness about polygamy when very little is said about it at all, and most of the marriages aren't mentioned. That is mentioning 6", or maybe 7" of Joseph's wives and "some on Emma's unhappiness" doesn't really speak to openness and forthrightness. And to think other manuals, courses and such were even far less open about it all. 7 pages out of hundreds to address such a widely debated, concerning, misunderstood and to most troubling topic isn't really doing it justice, I'd say. But how much of a froth still needs to be raised about this, actually? And additionally, we're talking about something in the past that cannot be corrected because H.G. Wells' time machine hasn't been invented yet. Walden and others are all righteously indignant that the Church didn't carve "Joseph Smith was a polygamist" on Ensign Peak in hundred foot letters a hundred years ago, and accuse the Church and a million Sunday School teachers of soft-pedaling it. OK, then, what if we admit that the Church didn't particularly want to make a big deal out of it, but they should have, or at least as big a deal as BY's polygamy was? And apologize profusely in the bargain? Will Walden then say "Oh, that's all right then?" or is this still going to be brought up as a casus belli concerning the Church over and over until the end of time? I know the answer. And the answer is it will never be allowed to be a thing of the past. So why the hell bother even addressing these bottomless pits of discussion? Edited December 21, 2015 by Stargazer 2
Stargazer Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) On 12/19/2015 at 9:36 PM, VideoGameJunkie said: Which account of his first vision are you talking about? I wrote something else at first, apologies if anyone was replying to the old text and I pulled the rug out from under them. I decided that *I* was getting too snarky, so I changed it to: Are you trying to jack your own thread into "multiple accounts of the First Vision"? If so, then if you tell what you had for breakfast two different ways, does this mean you didn't have breakfast? Edited December 21, 2015 by Stargazer 2
Stargazer Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 56 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Fair point and that's only if the activities are actually false. Or only if the activities are actually in violation of God's command? 1
HappyJackWagon Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 On 12/19/2015 at 2:04 PM, JLHPROF said: According to current Church teachings, no, it isn't. Current teachings are that the N&EC of marriage refers to "Eternal Marriage" or "Temple Marriage". That was not always the teaching, but it is today. I'd like to see a reference on that because I don't think it's accurate. My understanding is that Emma was about the 15th wife sealed to Joseph in the temple.
consiglieri Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 On 12/19/2015 at 0:04 PM, JLHPROF said: According to current Church teachings, no, it isn't. Current teachings are that the N&EC of marriage refers to "Eternal Marriage" or "Temple Marriage". That was not always the teaching, but it is today. So which teaching is correct? And on what basis?
Recommended Posts