Addressing an unaswered false accusation

[Scott Lloyd]

In a thread just now locked, I never got a chance to address an accusation from Julie M. Pardon me for opening a new thread to do so, but it is important to me that I get the chance to respond. It will be fine with me if this thread is now locked.

Quote

 

That doesn't answer all the questions you were asked, but of course you can continue to not answer them.  No one has to respond to questions or requests (unless a CFR is given, correct?)

It's just odd you say they were all answered when they weren't.

 

But I did answer the questions. I said that after the Brigham Young manual, the books covering presidents of the Church who practiced plural marriage did mention their practice of it. I never said it was covered in depth in any of the books. I said that such a thing would have been outside the intended scope of the books and of the course in Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society meetings.

I reject your accusation.

[consiglieri]

Okay, I am back in the office and this time I brought my copy of the Leonard Arrington biography by Greg Prince.

Here is the quote from page 358, and the citation is to Arrington's diary entry for July 6, 1981:

"What is most disturbing is the apparent feeling on the part of some that we are letting some historical cats out of the bag.  What they ought to realize is that the cats have been out of the bag long before we came in, in 1972, and that our efforts have been to try to minimize the historical impact of those unfavorable facts and to put the lid on other facts that can be found by intense study of Archival material that would damage the Church and all its officers."

[ALarson]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But I did answer the questions.

You didn't answer the question I asked you, Scott.  If you read over that thread again, you'll see that you make a statement that wasn't accurate and then you don't answer questions regarding that statement.

You posted:

Quote

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? 

I replied with these comments and questions for you:

Quote

 

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?

 

You also posted this:

Quote

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.

I responded with these comments and questions for you:

Quote

 

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.

 

You are not obligated to answer my questions (or those asked of you from others in that other thread), but don't state that you did answer them when you did not.

Also, you can't have it both ways regarding these manuals.  You state that polygamy was "covered" in the subsequent manuals (after the error of leaving this topic out in the Brigham Young manual and state that error was "never repeated"), but then you state that it didn't need to be included because it was "beyond the intended scope" of these books.  So which is it?   

.

Edited July 25, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You didn't answer the question I asked you, Scott.  If you read over that thread again, you'll see that you make a statement that wasn't accurate and then you don't answer questions regarding that statement.

You posted:

I replied with these comments and questions for you:

You also posted this:

I responded with these comments and questions for you:

You are not obligated to answer my questions (or those asked of you from others in that other thread), but don't state that you did answer them when you did not.

Also, you can't have it both ways regarding these manuals.  You state that polygamy was "covered" in the subsequent manuals (after the error of leaving this topic out in the Brigham Young manual and state that error was "never repeated"), but then you state that it didn't need to be included because it was "beyond the intended scope" of these books.  So which is it?   

.

Re-read my post, carefully this time. The one you quoted above.

I said that after the Brigham Young manual, other presidents of the Church who had practiced plural marriage had been covered in the Presidents of the Church series, meaning that there had been a manual published for each of them. What I did not say is that their teachings on plural marriage were covered in depth in those individual manuals. I said that, unlike the Brigham Young manual, it had been mentioned in those books that the president of the Church who was the subject of the respective book had practiced plural marriage. Contrary to your assertion, I said that their teachings on plural marriage had not been covered in depth. This is because such a thing would have been outside the intended scope of the book.

Clearly your problem with me stems from the fact that you misunderstood what I said. That is a pardonable thing; we all misunderstand one another from time to time. But please don't continue to accuse me of avoiding or dodging your questions when I have done no such thing.

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Okay, I am back in the office and this time I brought my copy of the Leonard Arrington biography by Greg Prince.

Here is the quote from page 358, and the citation is to Arrington's diary entry for July 6, 1981:

"What is most disturbing is the apparent feeling on the part of some that we are letting some historical cats out of the bag.  What they ought to realize is that the cats have been out of the bag long before we came in, in 1972, and that our efforts have been to try to minimize the historical impact of those unfavorable facts and to put the lid on other facts that can be found by intense study of Archival material that would damage the Church and all its officers."

Why are you posting this here? It has nothing to do with the thread topic.

If you can't post it elsewhere because the thread has been locked, then start your own thread.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Re-read my post, carefully this time. The one you quoted above.

I said that after the Brigham Young manual, other presidents of the Church who had practiced plural marriage had been covered in the Presidents of the Church series, meaning that there had been a manual published for each of them. What I did not say is that their teachings on plural marriage were covered in depth in those individual manuals. I said that, unlike the Brigham Young manual, it had been mentioned in those books that the president of the Church who was the subject of the respective book had practiced plural marriage. Contrary to your assertion, I said that their teachings on plural marriage had not been covered in depth. This is because such a thing would have been outside the intended scope of the book.

Clearly your problem with me stems from the fact that you misunderstood what I said. That is a pardonable thing; we all misunderstand one another from time to time. But please don't continue to accuse me of avoiding or dodging your questions when I have done no such thing.

Is it your claim that this statement:

"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."

is the place in the manual that mentions that the Prophet practiced plural marriage?  Is that it, or is there more?

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In a thread just now locked, I never got a chance to address an accusation from Julie M. Pardon me for opening a new thread to do so, but it is important to me that I get the chance to respond. It will be fine with me if this thread is now locked.

But I did answer the questions. I said that after the Brigham Young manual, the books covering presidents of the Church who practiced plural marriage did mention their practice of it. I never said it was covered in depth in any of the books. I said that such a thing would have been outside the intended scope of the books and of the course in Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society meetings.

I reject your accusation.

Here are my questions that you did not answer despite repeated claims that you did:

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?

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I said that after the Brigham Young manual, other presidents of the Church who had practiced plural marriage had been covered in the Presidents of the Church series, meaning that there had been a manual published for each of them. What I did not say is that their teachings on plural marriage were covered in depth in those individual manuals. I said that, unlike the Brigham Young manual, it had been mentioned in those books that the president of the Church who was the subject of the respective book had practiced plural marriage.

Oh brother. You stated that what took place with the Brigham Young manual was "never repeated" (the omission of his plural marriages and also his teachings regarding plural marriage) and then listed the manual on Joseph Smith for an example of one of those manuals.

CFR that in the manual "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith", it states that Joseph "had practiced plural marriage".

(Here's a pdf that you can search for the quote giving the information about Joseph practicing plural marriage:

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/36481_eng.pdf?lang=eng )

.

Edited July 25, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Is it your claim that this statement:

"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."

is the place in the manual that mentions that the Prophet practiced plural marriage?  Is that it, or is there more?

The following paragraph is what I remembered from the book and what I have in mind:

 

Quote

 

Teachings for Our Day

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.

 

 

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The following paragraph is what I remembered from the book and what I have in mind:

Teachings for Our Day

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.

Just as I thought.  No quote stating that Joseph had plural wives or practiced plural marriage.  Nothing about plural marriage was to be taught or was included in any of the lessons that for that year.  

Will you now withdraw your statement that this manual did not repeat the same errors of omission that were in the manual on Brigham Young?

Joseph had over 30 plural wives - no mention of them just as no mention of Brigham's plural wives in his manual.

Joseph taught the doctrine of plural marriage - no mention of these teachings just as no mention of Brigham's teachings on this topic in his manual.

This makes your claim false (that in the "subsequent manuals" the same errors of omission were "never repeated").

Edited July 25, 2016 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The following paragraph is what I remembered from the book and what I have in mind:

 

 

Well it looks like they do mention that marriages were performed during his lifetime, but if you didn't know JS lived polygamy you might assume it was others not him. But hey, I guess the church didn't feel like spelling it out for the teacher.

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Is it your claim that this statement:

"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."

is the place in the manual that mentions that the Prophet practiced plural marriage?  Is that it, or is there more?

That quote was not from the Joseph Smith manual but comes from the manual on John Taylor's life and teachings.  There is nothing in the Joseph Smith manual regarding his practice of plural marriage or that he even had plural wives during his lifetime.  Scott can continue to claim that this was covered, but it was not.

Now we'll see if he will withdraw that claim.

Edited July 25, 2016 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/historical-summary?lang=eng

I guess there was only room for Emma's name to be listed as his wife. 

 

[consiglieri]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why are you posting this here? It has nothing to do with the thread topic.

If you can't post it elsewhere because the thread has been locked, then start your own thread.

I was trying to help by posting something you could use as a diversion.

It looks like you could use one . . .  

 

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That quote was not from the Joseph Smith manual but comes from the manual on John Taylor's life and teachings.  There is nothing in the Joseph Smith manual regarding his practice of plural marriage or that he even had plural wives during his lifetime.  Scott can continue to claim that this was covered, but it was not.

Now we'll see if he will withdraw that claim.

Yeah..but..yeah..but..yeah..but...

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well it looks like they do mention that marriages were performed during his lifetime, but if you didn't know JS lived polygamy you might assume it was others not him. But hey, I guess the church didn't feel like spelling it out for the teacher.

That quote was not even from one of the lessons to be taught that year.  It was in the introduction and was instructing leaders and teachers to not  discuss plural marriage.  That is just the opposite of what Scott has stated about this manual and what he claims was covered in it.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Here are my questions that you did not answer despite repeated claims that you did:

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 repeatedly answered this by saying that after the Brigham Young book, the manuals mentioned that the Church president had practiced plural marriage (if he had done so). I repeatedly said that in-depth coverage of teachings on plural marriage would be outside the intended scope of the books, as the books deal with teachings "that have application to our day."

I never said the books listed in detail each of the individual plural marriages of those men.

Regarding the quotes in the Brigham Young manual, I have already acknowledged errors in judgment with that book.

I would use the term "edited" rather than "altered," as the changes were indicated in the quoted text with ellipses (...) and brackets ([ ]). "Altered" implies that they were changed without any indication of changes in the quoted text.

I can understand the thinking behind including the edited quotes: The statements taught principles pertaining to marital relations that have universal application to any marriage, whether or not the man has other wives at the time. But I agree it was poor judgment to remove a quote from the context of plural marriage, as it might seem to imply an intent to deceive, even where there was no such intent.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Just as I thought.  No quote stating that Joseph had plural wives or practiced plural marriage.  Nothing regarding this in any of the lessons that were to be taught that year.

To me, saying that "the doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831" and that "the Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime" is tantamount to saying that he himself practiced plural marriage. If you can't accept that, we'll just have to chalk it up to a disagreement.

Quote

Will you now withdraw your statement that this manual did not repeat the same errors of omission that were in the manual on Brigham Young?

 

No. I don't agree that errors I have acknowledged with the Brigham Young book were repeated.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I repeatedly answered this by saying that after the Brigham Young book, the manuals mentioned that the Church president had practiced plural marriage (if he had done so). I repeatedly said that in-depth coverage of teachings on plural marriage would be outside the intended scope of the books, as they deal with teachings "that have application to our day."

I never said the books listed in detail each of the individual plural marriages of those men.

Regarding the quotes in the Brigham Young manual, I have already acknowledged errors in judgment with that book.

I would use the term "edited" rather than "altered," as the changes were indicated in the quoted text with ellipses (...) and brackets ([ ]).

I can understand the thinking behind including the edited quotes: They statements taught principles pertaining to marital relations that have universal application to any marriage, whether or not the man has other wives at the time. But I agree it was poor judgment to remove a quote from the context of plural marriage, as it might seem to imply an intent to deceive, even where there was no such intent.

Thanks for answering!

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I repeatedly answered this by saying that after the Brigham Young book, the manuals mentioned that the Church president had practiced plural marriage (if he had done so).

But there is no mention that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage, is there?  You should at least quit using the manual on Joseph's life & teachings as an example of one that did not repeat the error of omitting the same information that was left out of the Brigham Young manual.

.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To me, saying that "the doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831" and that "the Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime" is tantamount to saying that he himself practiced plural marriage. If you can't accept that, we'll just have to chalk it up to a disagreement.

Sorry, Scott.  In no way does that imply that Joseph Smith entered into plural marriages. 

As a member of the church, I have taught the doctrine of plural marriage and plural marriages are still performed today.  Does that mean that I have entered into one?

[Jeanne]

19 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I was trying to help by posting something you could use as a diversion.

It looks like you could use one . . .  

I appreciate the actual quote that you mentioned on the now closed thread.  Thanks!  Now if we just knew what he was talking about there. 

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To me, saying that "the doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831" and that "the Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime" is tantamount to saying that he himself practiced plural marriage.

No, it is not.  There is absolutely no reference to who it was that entered into plural marriages.  You really can't admit that you are wrong here, can you? 

You also made this claim that is incorrect:

Quote

I agree it was a mistake to remove any reference to President Young's plural marriages, and the error was never repeated, as subsequent manuals in the series covering the teachings of other presidents of the Church who practiced plural marriage did make note of the fact.

But there is no "reference" to Joseph Smith's plural marriages in the manual covering his life and teachings, is there?  

And, where did that manual "make note of the fact" that Joseph practiced plural marriage as you state above?

 

Edited July 25, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Sorry, Scott.  In no way does that imply that Joseph Smith entered into plural marriages. 

As a member of the church, I have taught the doctrine of plural marriage and plural marriages are still performed today.  Does that mean that I have entered into one?

Exactly!

This is beyond ridiculous. Joseph's practice of plural marriage was omitted from his manual just as Brigham's was omitted from the manual on his life & teachings.  Scott is incorrect with his statements that it was included.

Let's just agree on that and move on  

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Sorry, Scott.  In no way does that imply that Joseph Smith entered into plural marriages. 

I quite disagree.

Quote

As a member of the church, I have taught the doctrine of plural marriage and plural marriages are still performed today.  Does that mean that I have entered into one?

 

The clear implication of the statement is that Joseph taught that people should enter into plural marriage. Have you been teaching that? Does the polygamy of today result from your teaching? Didn't think so.