Addressing an unaswered false accusation

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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  

I agree.

(But Scott still didn't answer all your questions, which of course is his choice.)

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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:

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

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

 

I've already said that to me, the statement implies that Joseph practiced as well as taught plurality of wives. Especially in view of historical context.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

I agree.

(But Scott still didn't answer all your questions, which of course is his choice.)

Which questions have I not answered?

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I quite disagree.

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.

Consenting adults who believe God has told them to enter into a plural marriage should definitely enter into one.  That is my belief and, now, my public teaching.

And yet I still haven't entered into a plural marriage.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've already said that to me, the statement implies that Joseph practiced as well as taught plurality of wives. Especially in view of historical context.

You stated that the manual "makes note of the fact" (not just "implies") that Joseph practiced plural marriage. It does not.  

But let's move on....

(You don't need to address my other questions either.  I'll let you off the hook here since this is becoming a pretty ridiculous discussion!)

Edited July 25, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You stated that the manual "makes note of the fact" (not just "implies") that Joseph practiced plural marriage. It does not.  

But let's move on....

(You don't need to address my other questions either.  I'll let you off the hook here since this is becoming a pretty ridiculous discussion!)

I have answered your questions; you just don't like my answers.

And implying something is one way of making note of it.

Finally, I agree that the piling on here is pretty ridiculous.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

You stated that the manual "makes note of the fact" that Joseph practiced plural marriage. It does not.  

But let's move on....

(You don't need to address my other questions either.  I'll let you off the hook here since this is becoming a pretty ridiculous discussion!)

It's a fascinating assertion to see Scott make after all the complaining he does over the way that critics of the church supposedly don't give the complete picture or full context.

There in the quote we're discussing was a perfect opportunity for the Church to let members know about Joseph's practice of polygamy, and they chose to keep it hidden.

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's a fascinating assertion to see Scott make after all the complaining he does over the way that critics of the church supposedly don't give the complete picture or full context.

There in the quote we're discussing was a perfect opportunity for the Church to let members know about Joseph's practice of polygamy, and they chose to keep it hidden.

True.  Joseph's plural marriages were very definitely omitted from that manual just as Brigham Young's were in the previous manual.  There is absolutely no mention of the fact that Joseph took plural wives while he was still alive.

It was also the perfect opportunity to discuss Joseph's teachings regarding the revelation he received in 1841.

This was stated in the 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 this was followed up in the manual with no discussion regarding this revelation.

Why not discuss this doctrine that was so important that Joseph was "commanded by God" to teach it?  Why would this not be pertinent for members to discuss today?

Oh well....

.

Edited July 25, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

True.  Joseph's plural marriages were very definitely omitted from that manual just as Brigham Young's were in the previous manual.  There is absolutely no mention of the fact that Joseph took plural wives while he was still alive.

It was also the perfect opportunity to discuss Joseph's teachings regarding the revelation he received in 1841.

This was stated in the manual:

But this was followed up in the manual with no discussion regarding this revelation.

Why not discuss this doctrine that was so important that Joseph was "commanded by God" to teach it?  Why would this not be pertinent for members to discuss today?

Oh well....

.

Again, discussion of the principle of plural marriage was and is outside the intended and stated scope of the Teachings of Presidents of the Church manuals because Church members are not commanded or permitted to engage in plural marriage today. The manuals are not intended as history books or biographies.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Consenting adults who believe God has told them to enter into a plural marriage should definitely enter into one.  That is my belief and, now, my public teaching.

And yet I still haven't entered into a plural marriage.

Semantic game playing. Do you really have time for this? I don't.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, discussion of the principle of plural marriage was and is outside the intended and stated scope of the Teachings of Presidents of the Church manuals because Church members are not commanded or permitted to engage in plural marriage today. The manuals are not intended as history books or biographies.

Each manual contains a timeline and biographical introduction/overview. So, although biography and history are not the focus, they are part of each manual. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Each manual contains a timeline and biographical introduction/overview. So, although biography and history are not the focus, they are part of each manual. 

You're right in that they are not the focus. Far from it. Including a timeline and a brief historical summary does not make a book into a biography. There are a great many things that might have been included in each book had it been intended as a history book or a biography, which, of course, it was not.

 

Edited July 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, discussion of the principle of plural marriage was and is outside the intended and stated scope of the Teachings of Presidents of the Church manuals because Church members are not commanded or permitted to engage in plural marriage today. The manuals are not intended as history books or biographies.

Which brings us where we are today:  Needing to inoculate our youth and having adults leave the church after feeling shocked and betrayed when they find out the truth.

Well played, Church.

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, discussion of the principle of plural marriage was and is outside the intended and stated scope of the Teachings of Presidents of the Church manuals because Church members are not commanded or permitted to engage in plural marriage today. The manuals are not intended as history books or biographies.

Uh huh.  I know you keep repeating this same sound bite, but it falls flat, IMO.

Do you really believe it makes sense that lessons covering the teachings of Joseph Smith were not to include or discuss a doctrine he received that was so important that God commanded Joseph to teach it?  

It's really too bad this can't be openly discussed, because members today have many questions about those teachings and how they apply to them and their future.  

 

Edited July 25, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Semantic game playing. Do you really have time for this? I don't.

It's your game.  I was just playing along.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're right in that they are not the focus. Far from it. Including a timeline and a brief historical summary does not make a book into a biography. There are a great many things that might have been included in each book had it been intended as a history book or a biography, which, of course, it was not.

 

The Joseph Smith timeline includes his marriage to Emma but not any other marriage.  I guess his other eternal marriages were not important enough to take up space on the page.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Which brings us where we are today:  Needing to inoculate our youth and having adults leave the church after feeling shocked and betrayed when they find out the truth.

Well played, Church.

As Elder Snow said in the audio clip you have cited, 90 percent of the Church members don't care about the things that the few are fussing over.

For the remainder, I think the Gospel Topics essays are a good, surgical approach. We'll see how things play out with them.

 

[The Nehor]

Wait.....Joseph Smith was a polygamist?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's your game.  I was just playing along.

No. I didn't resort to absurd semantics. You did that.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Which brings us where we are today:  Needing to inoculate our youth and having adults leave the church after feeling shocked and betrayed when they find out the truth.

This is true.  

My Bishop has had many coming in with questions about the doctrine of plural marriage (especially questions from women asking if they will be required to live polygamy) since we had our 5th Sunday lesson on the essay.  A discussion on this topic including what was taught by past leaders along with what current leaders have stated is needed.  

But I doubt it will happen (one reason is there are no statements about this from our current Prophet).  So the questions will continue to be asked.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're right in that they are not the focus. Far from it. Including a timeline and a brief historical summary does not make a book into a biography. There are a great many things that might have been included in each book had it been intended as a history book or a biography, which, of course, it was not.

 

Sure, it just seems odd to omit that from even a brief historical summary of the lives of people for whom plural marriage had such a major impact. Heck, even the manual about John Taylor doesn't say directly that he practiced plural marriage, just that the church was under pressure for teaching and practicing plural marriage. Again, it is just a bit odd to me.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Uh huh.  I know you keep repeating this same sound bite, but it falls flat, IMO. 

 

I can't control how you receive it. You have your freedom of choice.

Quote

Do you really believe that it makes sense that lessons covering the teachings of Joseph Smith were not to discuss a doctrine he received that was so important that God commanded Joseph to teach it?

Yes, I do believe it makes sense if the commandment does not apply to Church members living today, and the stated intent of the books is to deal with teachings as they apply today.

Quote

 It's really too bad this can't be openly discussed, because members today have many questions about those teachings and how they apply to them and their future.

Who said it can't be openly discussed? Priesthood meeting and Relief Society are not the only fora for discussion.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

This is true.  

My Bishop has had many coming in with questions about the doctrine of plural marriage (especially questions from women asking if they will be required to live polygamy) since we had our 5th Sunday lesson on the essay.  A discussion on this topic including what was taught by past leaders along with what current leaders have stated is needed.  

But I doubt it will happen (one reason is there are no statements about this from our current Prophet).  So the questions will continue to be asked.

I so admire your ward for wanting to have discussions about the gospel topics essays, and I would love that in my ward.  What do you think the long term consequences will be from this effort?  Do you find the ward members to be more or less committed, devoted, unified now than before these 5th Sunday lessons?  Any thoughts on how things are going overall?  

[HappyJackWagon]

10 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.

Did you really need to start a new thread to reopen an argument?

I think what people wanted was some kind of citation or example instead of your repeated assertion. You can say the prophet manuals covered polygamy as often as you want, but until you provide a source, the question hasn't been answered.

And then...

Quote

      2 hours 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."

Scott Lloyd- 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 don't think Consiglieri can open a thread, but why are you being so nasty. Your main purpose lately seems to be picking fights. In case you haven't noticed, it's not helping your efforts.

Edited July 25, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As Elder Snow said in the audio clip you have cited, 90 percent of the Church members don't care about the things that the few are fussing over.

For the remainder, I think the Gospel Topics essays are a good, surgical approach. We'll see how things play out with them.

 

In the long run the "surgical approach" alone with "inoculating" the youth may work out.  Right now, I see it causing a good bit of discord in my family and circle of friends.

While I think that the 90% estimate is a reasonable number, the more important question is what percentage in the group "don't care" because they don't know but will care when they find out?  What percentage will feel so shocked and betrayed at that point that the Church will no longer have an opportunity to reach out to them?  What percentage will lose their faith entirely because the ecclesiastical leaders who they trusted most and believed were divinely directed, told them a false narrative?

Of course, there is some irony in saying we aren't going to work hard to publicize the information because 90% don't care... I thought we were instructed to go after the 1.