Gospel topics essays

[rockpond]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn't label him an anti-Mormon. I expressed disappointment that he would jump on an old anti-Mormon bandwagon.

As petty as harping on an error in judgement made in a lesson manual a couple of decades ago, one that was not repeated in any of the subsequent manuals in the series?

How many of the presidents of the Church who were polygamists have been covered in subsequent manuals? Let's see: There were Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith. That makes five. How long are we to continue to endure bashing of the Church for a decision made years ago and never repeated? And as you have conceded, those to whom the Brigham Young manual was directed are those who could be expected to be more than aware that President Young practiced and taught plurality of wives. This really is a silly complaint. I was making that point two decades ago when this thing first emerged; I find it incredible I'm having to repeat the same arguments now.

So as pertaining to pettiness, isn't there a proverb about people who live in glass houses?

First, it was my observation as an active church member, not some anti-Mormon thing I found and regurgitated.

Second, it wasn't brought up to bash the church.  It was brought up to show that these things weren't taught as part of the curriculum.  If it is a silly complaint than just admit to us that you agree the church chose not to teach these controversial issues.  I'm tired of being blamed for not knowing.

Third, kindly point me to where in the Joseph Smith, John Taylor, or Wilford Wood manuals cover their teachings on or practice of plural marriage.  I don't recall them being in those manuals either.

Fourth, you likely wouldn't have to keep repeating your same arguments if you and others would admit that the Church chose not to share these matters rather than blaming members for not knowing.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, JulieM said:

Where in the manual studying Joseph Smith's life and teachings did it discuss his plural wives and the information on how he lived polygamy? (I only remember polygamy being mentioned in the introduction instructing not to teach about or discuss polygamy that year.)

Was there a second manual that included details about Joseph's polygamy?

 

The "Teachings of Presidents of the Church" books were never intended as biographies or history books. They are compendiums of doctrinal teachings of these men as can be applied to Church members of today. Therefore, "details about Joseph's polygamy" would have been quite beyond the intended scope of the book.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What I see here is counsel given to teachers of youth in the Church. I don't see a "well-publicized campaign" or a "big campaign" to get youth to go to the websites.

The statements you refer to are addressed specifically to adults, not youth. Couldn't that be considered as much of a "campaign" for adults as it is for youth?

The campaign isn't to get the youth to go to the website and read the gospel topics essays, it is to include them in the curriculum.

The statements are to small, specific groups of adults.  They are not to the general membership.  

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

First, it was my observation as an active church member, not some anti-Mormon thing I found and regurgitated.

Second, it wasn't brought up to bash the church.  It was brought up to show that these things weren't taught as part of the curriculum.  If it is a silly complaint than just admit to us that you agree the church chose not to teach these controversial issues.  I'm tired of being blamed for not knowing.

Third, kindly point me to where in the Joseph Smith, John Taylor, or Wilford Wood manuals cover their teachings on or practice of plural marriage.  I don't recall them being in those manuals either.

Fourth, you likely wouldn't have to keep repeating your same arguments if you and others would admit that the Church chose not to share these matters rather than blaming members for not knowing.

As I have just said to JulieM:

Quote

The "Teaching of Presidents of the Church" books were never intended as biographies or history books. They are compendiums of doctrinal teachings of these men as can be applied to Church members of today. Therefore, "details about Joseph's polygamy" would have been quite beyond the intended scope of the book.

Since the practice of plural marriage is not authorized to day, and no current member of the Church ought to be practicing it, a Sabbath Day lesson manual about 19th century teachings on plural marriage would be quite anachronistic.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Did you miss the statements in my posts where I said I thought it was an error in judgment to remove references to plural marriage from that first manual in the series? Why are you coming after me about it now?

You said it was a mistake to remove references to HIS plural marriages.  Do you also agree that it was a mistake to change his teachings to singular rather than plural marriage?  To omit what he repeatedly taught about plural marriage?

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I never said I agreed with the gist of your arguments. I regarded them then and do now regard them as hostile and mean-spirited. I believe it was a mistake to leave out the references because having done so left the Church open to attacks from the likes of you.

It was a mistake because it left the Church "open to attacks" or because the Church shouldn't have presented inaccurate narratives and doctrine that has now led them to a place of needing to "inoculate" their youth?

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The "Teaching of Presidents of the Church" books were never intended as biographies or history books. They are compendiums of doctrinal teachings of these men as can be applied to Church members of today. Therefore, "details about Joseph's polygamy" would have been quite beyond the intended scope of the book.

Yes, I understand that they are intended as doctrinal teachings of these men as can be applied to Church members today.  But they still effectively erased polygamy from the teachings of those prophets.

1.  Was that a correct thing to do?  Is it right to alter BY's teachings to make them about singular marriage rather than plural marriage?

2.  How has whitewashing our doctrinal past worked out for us?  Now we need to inoculate our youth (and probably our adults, soon) because they've realized that members are getting shocked when they find out the truth.

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The "Teaching of Presidents of the Church" books were never intended as biographies or history books. They are compendiums of doctrinal teachings of these men as can be applied to Church members of today. Therefore, "details about Joseph's polygamy" would have been quite beyond the intended scope of the book.

But you named the manual of Joseph Smith's teachings as one that "covered" him being a polygamist;

You posted this:

"How many of the presidents of the Church who were polygamists have been covered in subsequent manuals? Let's see: There were Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith. That makes five."

Edited July 24, 2016 by JulieM

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I have just said to JulieM:

Since the practice of plural marriage is not authorized to day, and no current member of the Church ought to be practicing it, a Sabbath Day lesson manual about 19th century teachings on plural marriage would be quite anachronistic.

It kinda seems to me Scott that you want it both ways.  There are 52 sundays, and not one of them can be about having an honest discussion of how Joseph Smith married other mens wives, under age girls and not telling Emma about what he was doing.   Yet you blame anti-mormon sites for filling in those historical facts for members.  When those anti-mormon sites are teaching things that are true, but not found in church lesson materials, doesn't that give them more credibility than they deserve?  Wouldn't some people wonder what other things on those sites are true that the church is not talking about?  Yet the church wonders why so many are leaving over such taffy-pulling reasons.  And you are defending it, which is fine and somewhat understandable.  Just don't get upset about the results of such policies.

[ALarson]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn't label him an anti-Mormon. I expressed disappointment that he would jump on an old anti-Mormon bandwagon.

As petty as harping on an error in judgement made in a lesson manual a couple of decades ago, one that was not repeated in any of the subsequent manuals in the series?

How many of the presidents of the Church who were polygamists have been covered in subsequent manuals? Let's see: There were Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith. That makes five. How long are we to continue to endure bashing of the Church for a decision made years ago and never repeated? And as you have conceded, those to whom the Brigham Young manual was directed are those who could be expected to be more than aware that President Young practiced and taught plurality of wives. This really is a silly complaint. I was making that point two decades ago when this thing first emerged; I find it incredible I'm having to repeat the same arguments now.

So as pertaining to pettiness, isn't there a proverb about people who live in glass houses?

I don't recall that these manuals included much regarding the teachings on plural marriage or how polygamy was lived (iirc, the word polygamy was only used in regard to the manifesto or the laws of the time, or having to go into hiding, etc.).  

Do you have any quotes from these manuals regarding what that specific Prophet taught about plural marriage?  I'd really like to see them (and I'll try to look them up too).

But, most especially the manuals for Brigham Young (already discussed) and Joseph Smith did not discuss their teachings on plural marriage or the fact that both of them lived polygamy. That's pretty ridiculous, IMO.  

This was stated in the Joseph Smith manual:

Quote

In 1841 the first sealings of couples were performed, and in
1843 the Prophet dictated the revelation that describes the eternal
nature of the marriage covenant (see D&C 132). The doctrines
in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since
1831.  As commanded by God, he also taught the doctrine of
plural marriage.

But then, no mention that Joseph Smith lived this doctrine (he had over 30 wives while still alive) or any discussion regarding Joseph's teachings on  "the doctrine of plural marriage"? Come on Scott, even you can see this glaring omission.

Why would you use this manual as an example of one that covered the topic of polygamy?

.
 

Edited July 24, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The "Teaching of Presidents of the Church" books were never intended as biographies or history books. They are compendiums of doctrinal teachings of these men as can be applied to Church members of today. Therefore, "details about Joseph's polygamy" would have been quite beyond the intended scope of the book.

As I already quoted, the Joseph Smith manual does state that Joseph "dictated the revelation that describes the eternal nature of the marriage covenant" in 1843 and then states: "As commanded by God, he also taught the doctrine of plural marriage".   Why then, wasn't this "doctrine" discussed?

Are you seriously claiming that this revelation and doctrine are not pertinent to members today?  This would have been a perfect opportunity to discuss these teachings and teach how Joseph applied them in his life.  But this topic was very obviously avoided.

And, here is what is stated in the John Taylor teachings manual:

Quote

Circumstances for the Saints in the United States proved to be a challenge to this love of freedom. Under the direction of the Lord, the Saints had practiced plural marriage in the Church since the days of Joseph Smith in Nauvoo.

How about stating that plural marriage was practiced during the days of Joseph Smith in Nauvoo?

I'm sure you can see that this misrepresents the truth, Scott.

So no, these are not "anti-Mormon" lies or slurs being discussed here, these are examples of what was actually printed and taught regarding polygamy (or what was not printed and taught).

.

Edited July 24, 2016 by ALarson

[James Tunney]

I think it is obvious that the church was uncomfortable with its past and actively hid it.  I can see why the church leaders would be uncomfortable with it because the history is highly questionable.  Missionary work would be a lot harder than it already is if the lede was JS used a rock or rocks to give us the BofM.  Polygamy is certainly another difficult topic for potential investigators.  From the words of my missionary prep instructor (and this man had been a mission president twice, in the stake presidency twice and was serving on the missionary committee for the entire church at the time) he said to not even discuss polygamy with potential investigators because there was no good way to portray it.  He basically said to change the subject as quickly as possible as this was the best way to overcome the problem of polygamy.  Frankly, being a missionary church probably was the reason and justification for the deception about the past for the church leaders.  If one wants to sell something like religion, one wants the sales pitch to be as smooth as possible while avoiding as many concerns as possible.  Hence, a whitewash happens in the name of sales techniques.  It then must continue because milk is always easier than meat to digest and its human nature to avoid those pesky questioning members as well with their demands for meat.

[ALarson]

On 7/21/2016 at 9:32 AM, Nevo said:

The essays take the wind out of the sails of critics that used to be able to exploit the Church's near-silence on certain aspects of its history. As late as 2014, typing "Fanny Alger" into the LDS.org search engine produced 0 hits. Now, the "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo" essay comes up. Here is what it says about Alger:

A young person that reads this will learn that:

• Joseph was commanded to practice polygamy 
• The relationship with Alger was understood as a marriage
• Fanny and her parents consented to the marriage
• We don't know anything about the conversations between Joseph and Emma regarding Alger

So when they later hear about Joseph being discovered in the barn with a servant girl, they'll have a context that allows them to process it. The story won't have the same shock value that it might otherwise have had. Hence, the inoculation metaphor.

All true, but how many members have even heard of Fanny Alger or would even know to type her name into the LDS.org search engine?  That's still an issue, IMO, and the fact that the majority of (or many) members don't even know about the essays.  Our ward did do a 5th Sunday discussion on this essay, but I haven't seen or heard of too many other wards or stakes doing this.

I agree that there has been progress, but the essays need to be taught to adults along with the youth.

.

Edited July 24, 2016 by ALarson

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/23/2016 at 0:50 PM, consiglieri said:

I should also add that access to the archives was restricted after the move to BYU. 

There is a story in the book about a Church History Division staff member scrambling to do research on a book he/she was writing before access was restricted, but the research could not be completed in time and the book was never finished.

For a brief time, yes, but the research and writing for many books and articles had already been completed, which you seem determined to ignore, Counselor.

Reminds me of Hugh Nibley's exploits at the Church Archives in the late 1960s.  He was doing heavy research up there in preparation for a book on Brigham Young, using original sources.  Every day, as he and his graduate assistant were leaving to return to Provo, Mr Lund would carefully inspect their notes -- which is why Nibley took all his notes in Gregg shorthand, and why his assistant took his notes in Spanish.  Lund was flummoxed and unable to ride herd on them.  Even years before, Hugh had deposited his greatgrandfather's diary in the Church Archives (Joseph's right hand man, Alexander Neibaur), only to be denied access to it later.  Such paranoia was certainly unjustified, and may have stemmed from the lack of training in historiography by those running the Archives.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/23/2016 at 0:54 PM, consiglieri said:

The book says Bushman did get paid per the contract because he was one of the handful that had completed the manuscript before Church leaders put the kibosh on the 16-volume Church history project.

All the rest of the historians who had not completed their manuscript got paid pro rata for work done up to that point.

What had Church leaders so upset was likely the stuff about Joseph Smith's treasure digging, folk magic involvement, and the actual method he used to translate the Book of Mormon.

But these are still not the "cats" Arrington referred to in his 1981 diary entry.

Those must be some cats . . .

Well, they are all out of the bag now, and have been for many years.

Those books you speak of were slated to be published by the LDS Church, and only a minority of the Brethren had second thoughts.  However, due to required unanimity, it was thought best to allow the scholars to publish their books elsewhere, which they did, and it worked out quite well.  In fact it had the advantage of allowing those authors to say whatever they wanted in whatever way they wished.

As to concerns about "Smith's treasure digging, folk magic involvement, and the actual method he used to translate the Book of Mormon," what's not to like?  All of that was well-known fact.  Why would it suddenly become an embarrassment?  Certainly there were one or two older members of the Twelve who might have objected, but they soon passed on and could no longer object on this side of the veil.  By 1984, a whole lot of things were publishable by Church organs, which had theretofore not been allowed.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/23/2016 at 1:14 PM, ALarson said:

You can't possibly know if "all that stuff" in the church archives (Arrington was referring to) has been made available.  

I don't work in the Archives, so I don't personally know that there are not some super secret documents hidden in the personal safe of Pres Monson.  What I do know is that there is a professional staff of historians at the Church History Library (they have been there for many years), and that anti-Mormons I know think that virtually everything is available.  Men like Richard Bushman have had carte blanche in the Archives for many years now, along with their assistants.  It would be a major source of embarrassment to the Church now to find that anything has been hidden.  A previous generation of general authorities included several old school thinkers, untrained in history, who ran the Archives.  That day is over, and has been for a long time.

[Jeanne]

15 hours ago, JulieM said:

But you named the manual of Joseph Smith's teachings as one that "covered" him being a polygamist;

You posted this:

"How many of the presidents of the Church who were polygamists have been covered in subsequent manuals? Let's see: There were Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith. That makes five."

My prior RS women friends ...(like me at the time)..thought we knew all there was to know about JS from the Work and the Glory Series...it was wonderful..we loved him..and that was all we thought we needed to know.  The thing is..reading all those books became my biggest heartbreak.  I wish that this had been discussed in RS..women together sharing thoughts from the perspective of truth.  We deserved the truth..and a voice.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/23/2016 at 2:07 PM, rockpond said:

..................................................................... But the fact is that Elder Ballard and Elder Snow are admitting that the church avoided teaching certain parts of our narrative. It's church leadership who is now out there saying that we need to provide information that we, as a church, didn't bother to share previously.

We've even got one of the preeminent LDS restoration scholars, Bushman, publicly stating that the current narrative taught by the church is not true.  

............................................................................

If they make the claims which you falsely attribute to them, it should be quite simple to prove your claim by specifically quoting them.  You carefully rephrase what they say to fit your apriori, negative views.  Hiding behind your subpar education at BYU doesn't excuse you.

As I pointed out to Teancum, Bushman "doesn't speak of the narrative,"

Quote

he speaks of the "dominant narrative," and that makes all the difference.  One hears a great deal of criticism of the mythical and legendary narrative that naive, well-meaning people might tell (often on this board), but which is not based on adequate historical data.  Fawn Brodie got a great deal of mileage out of historical nonsense, while refusing a formal offer of access to the Church History Archives.  She had already modeled or tailored her critique of Joseph on the dominant, but false narrative, thus ignoring good historiograpy.  Unlike Brodie, Bushman is a professional historian with a lifetime of experience, and his work stands on its own.

Try quoting your sources so as to reflect what they actually say, rather than making them say something that they did not.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[sdc999]

So the essays are out.   So what's a guy like me to do?  Should I run around to friends and relatives screaming, "neener neener"?   Should I correct them in the fact that I wasn't a "liar", I didn't "con my wife and children", I'm not "going to hell for spreading falsities about the church".  The list could go on.   I'm not that contentious anymore even though leaving for work Friday, my wife sent me out the door with, "be nice to people today".   She was joking ----  I think     I even had the missionaries stop by my business a few months ago.   The conversation led to me leaving the church.   "But why?"  I didn't seize upon the opportunity as I would have in the past.  I simply told them it was not to sin and I had valid reasons.  If they really wanted to know, and I told them I didn't believe they did, but they could return at a later date to discuss.   Never saw them again.  

I had one experience in the church where a member attacked me verbally (back when I was still very dedicated to the church).  After realizing he was wrong, he sought me out to apologize.  I respect him a great deal and we are friends to this day.  Haven't had one individual from the church that said many bad things about me during leaving come to apologize.  It doesn't cause me to lose sleep or blink. I don't expect them to think I'm right about leaving the church, and that is okay.  They can maintain that belief in the LDS church and I wish them well.  But, if they have read the essays, they do know that I'm not a liar. 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/23/2016 at 2:16 PM, Jeanne said:

This whole post is just so wrong.  I am biting my tongue here. 

Why, because you want to defend BYU?  I recall during the Great Debate between Hugh Nibley and Sterling McMurrin, Hugh was critical of BYU and McMurrin defended it.  How odd for a UofU professor to defend the Y.  Of course the issue goes much deeper than that, but it is a problem to find a loyal alumnus imagining that the vetting process for BYU professors was so great.  Really?!  Seriously? Yes, BYU has had some wonderful, great professors, who actually understood their subject-matter every bit as well as any Harvard professor, but they have also had some embarrassments who were unable to prepare their students for the real world.  We all pay a price for that, Jeanne

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

My prior RS women friends ...(like me at the time)..thought we knew all there was to know about JS from the Work and the Glory Series...it was wonderful..we loved him..and that was all we thought we needed to know.  The thing is..reading all those books became my biggest heartbreak.  I wish that this had been discussed in RS..women together sharing thoughts from the perspective of truth.  We deserved the truth..and a voice.

I get not registering the details of plural marriage over the last 35 or so years given the very limited exposure to it during church instruction and the general lack of interest in studying historical nonfiction (I am not fond myself of anything not pre 1500 AD  and even those I am not that into, limited to reading from the library, not buying them like science and math books or doctrinal explorations).

It is however somewhat beyond my comprehension why people would assume historical fiction should be treated as history.  Even in texts that strive for accuracy, they are making up most of their dialogue and much of the action and creating feelings and personalities that may never had existed.  Reading them for fun and maybe if the author is respected, for an overall general feel of the time...but I don't get when it is taken as more than that no matter how often I see it.  Just one of the mysteries of human behaviour I guess.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

 

How about stating that plural marriage was practiced during the days of Joseph Smith in Nauvoo?

I'm sure you can see that this misrepresents the truth, Scott.

 

Usage does not require "since" to exclude the Nauvoo period, but rather they are the beginning point of the practice.

For example, see the various translation choices for "since the days here:

http://biblehub.com/hosea/10-9.htm

"ever since" and "from the days" demonstrate they mean it started in the days of JS, not afterwards.

[JulieM]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Usage does not require "since" to exclude the Nauvoo period, but rather they are the beginning point of the practice.

For example, see the various translation choices for "since the days here:

http://biblehub.com/hosea/10-9.htm

"ever since" and "from the days" demonstrate they mean it started in the days of JS, not afterwards.

If your child was trying to repent from doing drugs or immorality, they'd be correct if saying they'd been involved with it "since last year" even though they'd been doing it for years.  I'd imagine you would feel they weren't being truthful though.  The same thing applies here.

What is stated in the manual isn't entirely truthful and gives the wrong impression.

Edited July 24, 2016 by JulieM

[Calm]

But the phrase used with "since" was " the days of JS in Nauvoo".  For your comparison to be accurate it cannot be "last year", but whatever year he became involved and then that usage could be understood as inclusive, not restricted to post those years.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

My prior RS women friends ...(like me at the time)..thought we knew all there was to know about JS from the Work and the Glory Series...it was wonderful..we loved him..and that was all we thought we needed to know.  The thing is..reading all those books became my biggest heartbreak.  I wish that this had been discussed in RS..women together sharing thoughts from the perspective of truth.  We deserved the truth..and a voice.

Just as the movie at the Joseph Smith Building that played, "Joseph Smith: the Prophet of the Restoration", left out plenty. But it was used as a missionary tool I guess.