Gospel topics essays

[Five Solas]

16 hours ago, rockpond said:

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?

Scott will speak for himself, of course.  And when he does, you can bet it will be the former.  The failure to disclose Brigham Young's polygamy & his various teachings on the subject of "plural marriage" was a tactical blunder *because* it opened the door for criticism (although Scott prefers the more evocative word, "attacks").  That's it.  Period.  Otherwise the omissions from the manual/summary of President Young's doctrines were totally appropriate, morally correct, further evidence the LDS Church is true, proof its narrative is powerful and sustainable, and now that Bushman has had a little time for reflection with Dr. Peterson--he too agrees most fully. 

Did I miss anything? 

;0)

--Erik

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Scott will speak for himself, of course.  And when he does, you can bet it will be the former.  The failure to disclose Brigham Young's polygamy & his various teachings on the subject of "plural marriage" was a tactical blunder *because* it opened the door for criticism (although Scott prefers the more evocative word, "attacks").  That's it.  Period.  Otherwise the omissions from the manual/summary of President Young's doctrines were totally appropriate, morally correct, further evidence the LDS Church is true, proof its narrative is powerful and sustainable, and now that Bushman has had a little time for reflection with Dr. Peterson--he too agrees most fully. 

Did I miss anything? 

;0)

--Erik

[sdc999]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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.

 

55 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.

 

27 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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.

 

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

I think you're missing the point.   It's not about the exacts.  It's about general knowledge.  When people who question are met with "ignorant" denials or misinformation, it gives the impression of a major whitewashing orchestrated by the church itself.  There are so many who don't have the basic general knowledge.  Someone mentioned about a 5th Sunday dedicated to the essays.   

I deal with the public daily and many come in and spew their 'knowledge' to show me they know more than me about my business.  Guess what... Some are knowledgeable and we can have a good conversation.  Some are not knowledgeable and I can educate them.  But my limits on educating them is limited to the accuracy of the knowledge I have gained in a lifetime.  Again, guess what...  I have been educated at times on things I thought I knew were true.  I then reflect on where I gained the inaccurate knowledge.  Was it intentional or just something that put them in a better position at the time?   I'm not so sure that the church hasn't tried to put themselves in a better position on a few occasions.  Publications by the church are vetted extremely well; representatives speaking off the cuff, not so much.

[Scott Lloyd]

To rockpond, ALarson, california boy and others beating the dead horse: Your questions to me have already been answered. As I said, the Teachings of Presidents of the Church manuals are compendiums of doctrinal writings of these men as they apply to Church members today. Since plural marriage is no longer authorized and ought not be practiced by anyone in the Church, teachings about this principle are beyond the scope of these books, which, I repeat, were never intended as history books or biographies. 

Edited July 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To rockpond, ALarson, california boy and others beating the dead horse: Your questions to me have already been answered. As I said, the Teachings of Presidents of the Church are compendiums of doctrinal writings of these men as they apply to Church members today. Since plural marriage is no longer authorized and ought not be practiced by anyone in the Church, teachings about this principle are beyond the scope of these books, which, I repeat, were never intended as history books or biigraphies. 

By that logic, the church should not teach about the Law of Moses or the United Order.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

By that logic, the church should not teach about the Law of Moses or the United Order.

By what logic? I didn't say the Church "should not teach about" it, only that it's beyond the scope of that particular course and those particular books. 

But even with those examples you bring up, Sunday School courses on Old Testament or Church history don't go into any great detail about them per se, not in my experience, anyway, unless the teacher happens to be some sort of hobbyist. 

Edited July 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To rockpond, ALarson, california boy and others beating the dead horse: Your questions to me have already been answered. As I said, the Teachings of Presidents of the Church manuals are compendiums of doctrinal writings of these men as they apply to Church members today. Since plural marriage is no longer authorized and ought not be practiced by anyone in the Church, teachings about this principle are beyond the scope of these books, which, I repeat, were never intended as history books or biigraphies. 

Since you didn't answer our questions, I'll take your statement here as an admission that you have realized that the Teachings of the Presidents manuals that you claimed covered polygamy, did NOT actually cover polygamy.  

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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 you subpar education at BYU doesn't excuse you.

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

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

All of the quotes I've referred to have been cited here already.  Since you seem to believe that your intellect, education, and experience are far superior to everyone else, I'm sure you can locate them on these threads.  

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Since you didn't answer our questions, I'll take your statement here as an admission that you have realized that the Teachings of the Presidents manuals that you claimed covered polygamy, did NOT actually cover polygamy.  

I did answer your questions, and it won't do to keep posing them over and over and pretend I didn't answer them. The books in question did mention plurality of wives but didn't go into it at length because it was beyond their scope. 

But through the miracle of computer technology, I can meet each of your already answered challenges with a copy-and-paste of the answer that has been given:

To rockpond, ALarson, california boy and others beating the dead horse: Your questions to me have already been answered. As I said, the Teachings of Presidents of the Church manuals are compendiums of doctrinal writings of these men as they apply to Church members today. Since plural marriage is no longer authorized and ought not be practiced by anyone in the Church, teachings about this principle are beyond the scope of these books, which, I repeat, were never intended as history books or biographies. 

Edited July 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I did answer your questions, and it won't do to keep posing them over and over and pretend I didn't answer them. The books in question did mention plurality of wives but didn't go into it at length because it was beyond their scope. 

But through the miracle of computer technology, I can meet each of your already answered challenges with a copy-and-paste of the answer that has been given:

To rockpond, ALarson, california boy and others beating the dead horse: Your questions to me have already been answered. As I said, the Teachings of Presidents of the Church manuals are compendiums of doctrinal writings of these men as they apply to Church members today. Since plural marriage is no longer authorized and ought not be practiced by anyone in the Church, teachings about this principle are beyond the scope of these books, which, I repeat, were never intended as history books or biigraphies. 

Okay, so you would agree that the Teachings of the Presidents manuals did not provide instruction regarding the doctrine of plural marriage (other than to say that it was revealed and practiced), did not mention the plural marriages of those first five prophets, and altered Brigham Young's teachings on plural marriage to make them singular?

 

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By what logic? I didn't say the Church "should not teach about" it, only that it's beyond the scope of that particular course and those particular books. 

But even with those examples you bring up, Sunday School courses on Old Testament or Church history don't go into any great detail about them per se, not in my experience, anyway, unless the teacher happens to be some sort of hobbyist. 

Beyond the scope.  Except now we are having to inoculate against the reality of our past teachings and practice of plural marriage. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Beyond the scope.  Except now we are having to inoculate against the reality of our past teachings and practice of plural marriage. 

Yes, clearly they are having to increase the scope. This is a good thing. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Okay, so you would agree that the Teachings of the Presidents manuals did not provide instruction regarding the doctrine of plural marriage (other than to say that it was revealed and practiced), did not mention the plural marriages of those first five prophets, and altered Brigham Young's teachings on plural marriage to make them singular?

 

I'm saying that after the uproar over the Brigham Young manual, the books did mention that plural marriage was practiced by those Church presidents who did practice it. And you are asking questions that have been answered. Did you know there is a board policy that prohibits this?

Here is another copy-and-paste of my answer:

To rockpond, ALarson, california boy and others beating the dead horse: Your questions to me have already been answered. As I said, the Teachings of Presidents of the Church manuals are compendiums of doctrinal writings of these men as they apply to Church members today. Since plural marriage is no longer authorized and ought not be practiced by anyone in the Church, teachings about this principle are beyond the scope of these books, which, I repeat, were never intended as history books or biographies. 

Edited July 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Looking back, of course, I agree with you.  In fact, I am quite embarrassed.  I think me and the other sisters just wanted so bad for these books to be true ...it was just so easy.

But shortly after, the RS/Priesthood had the manuals of the prophets..I beiieve a lot has been omitted in the past that would have been essential..in at least keeping ME hanging in there.

[Jeanne]

19 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.

Then let's get plural marriage out of the eternal spectrum.  If it isn't something one strives for..understands..or is essential to talking about now.. get it out

[Jeanne]

In my dreams...I see God talking to Brigham Young..saying "pick ONE!"

[JulieM]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

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 tinclusive, not restricted to post those years.

The word "since" gives the wrong impression.  I'm amazed that you can't see that, but if you can't, okay. "Since the days of  Nauvoo" means after the Nauvoo years.

Edited July 25, 2016 by JulieM

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

All of the quotes I've referred to have been cited here already.  Since you seem to believe that your intellect, education, and experience are far superior to everyone else, I'm sure you can locate them on these threads.  

It doesn't require intellect to quote someone accurately.  Just integrity and sincerity.  Since you attributed false claims to them and did not quote those claims, I take it that you reject that straightforward adherence to high ethical and moral practice.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Then let's get plural marriage out of the eternal spectrum.  If it isn't something one strives for..understands..or is essential to talking about now.. get it out

Animal sacrifice is not practiced anymore.  Getting rid of the concept from the scriptures would not be correct however.  It was a true principle when it was practiced and polygamy is a true principle when its practiced.  It does not apply really for us in 2016 but revising history or the scriptures to appease the conscience of some people is not the way to go. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

The word "since" gives the wrong impression.  I'm amazed that you can't see that, but if you can't, okay. "Since the days of  Nauvoo" means after the Nauvoo years.

Checking a couple of online dictionary sources, I'll have to go with Calm on this. Since means from a certain point in time onward. So, applying that meaning here, we get "from the days of Nauvoo onward."

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm saying that after the uproar over the Brigham Young manual, the books did mention that plural marriage was practiced by those Church presidents who did practice it. And you are asking questions that have been answered. Did you know there is a board policy that prohibits this?

Here is another copy-and-paste of my answer:

To rockpond, ALarson, california boy and others beating the dead horse: Your questions to me have already been answered. As I said, the Teachings of Presidents of the Church manuals are compendiums of doctrinal writings of these men as they apply to Church members today. Since plural marriage is no longer authorized and ought not be practiced by anyone in the Church, teachings about this principle are beyond the scope of these books, which, I repeat, were never intended as history books or biographies. 

But that is incorrect.  The Joseph Smith manual came after the BY manual and it did not cover Joseph's practice of polygamy.  I don't believe the other manuals cover those presidents' practice of polygamy either and since you are wrong about the JS manual, I'm not inclined to believe that you are correct on the others  

But that was only part of the question I asked:

So you would agree that the Teachings of the Presidents manuals did not provide instruction regarding the doctrine of plural marriage (other than to say that it was revealed and practiced), did not mention the plural marriages of those first five prophets, and altered Brigham Young's teachings on plural marriage to make them singular?

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It doesn't require intellect to quote someone accurately.  Just integrity and sincerity.  Since you attributed false claims to them and did not quote those claims, I take it that you reject that straightforward adherence to high ethical and moral practice.

I've cited the quote, the main one being the OP (which you ought to have listened to if participating in the thread).  If you disagree with my interpretation, you have the freedom here to express that disagreement  

Where I specifically erred, I admitted that mistake.  And I apologize for it. 

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, sdc999 said:

I think you're missing the point.   It's not about the exacts.  It's about general knowledge.  When people who question are met with "ignorant" denials or misinformation, it gives the impression of a major whitewashing orchestrated by the church itself.  There are so many who don't have the basic general knowledge.  Someone mentioned about a 5th Sunday dedicated to the essays.   

I deal with the public daily and many come in and spew their 'knowledge' to show me they know more than me about my business.  Guess what... Some are knowledgeable and we can have a good conversation.  Some are not knowledgeable and I can educate them.  But my limits on educating them is limited to the accuracy of the knowledge I have gained in a lifetime.  Again, guess what...  I have been educated at times on things I thought I knew were true.  I then reflect on where I gained the inaccurate knowledge.  Was it intentional or just something that put them in a better position at the time?   I'm not so sure that the church hasn't tried to put themselves in a better position on a few occasions.  Publications by the church are vetted extremely well; representatives speaking off the cuff, not so much.

Not sure what that has to do with any of my posts above.  I don't disagree with anything you say, but that still doesn't help me understand why anyone assumes historical fiction is accurate sufficiently enough to treat it like a history text nor does it demonstrate that the use of "since the days of Joseph Smith in Nauvoo" in anyway implies that JS was not involved in plural marriage.

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To rockpond, ALarson, california boy and others beating the dead horse: Your questions to me have already been answered. As I said, the Teachings of Presidents of the Church manuals are compendiums of doctrinal writings of these men as they apply to Church members today. Since plural marriage is no longer authorized and ought not be practiced by anyone in the Church, teachings about this principle are beyond the scope of these books, which, I repeat, were never intended as history books or biographies. 

Keep telling yourself this Scott and remember that its not a lie if you really believe it

Edited July 25, 2016 by sunstoned

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

But shortly after, the RS/Priesthood had the manuals of the prophets..I beiieve a lot has been omitted in the past that would have been essential..in at least keeping ME hanging in there.

I was rather disappointed in them myself. I believe the wives should definitely have been mentioned.  There were some other issues I had with them, though over all they weren't bad.  I really disliked how they have been generally taught in my wards, which has been essentially reading them without much personal commentary even though we were encouraged to read them on our own.  I am looking forward to lessons that allow the teacher to put more of themselves into it, that allows for more influence by the Spirit.