Addressing an unaswered false accusation

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I opened a thread to address an accusation that I didn't get the chance to answer in the other thread because it was closed before I could click on the "submit" button. I didn't invite the additional piling on.

Quote

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.

I didn't say they "covered" it, I said they mentioned it. This has already been addressed.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Happy -- 

Scott's response to the accusation is that the manual's disclosure that the prophet taught polygamy and that there were plural marriages performed at the time is equivalent to mentioning that the prophet entered into plural marriages himself.

If we fail to understand that, we probably need more training in journalism (like Scott) or a better education (like Robert F Smith).

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Of course the revelation Joseph received on eternal marriage and was commanded to teach very definitely applies to Church members living today.  Many members have questions about how it does apply to them and their future (especially women who have questions wondering if they will be required to live polygamy).  I'm not sure how you can continue to claim it doesn't apply to current members just because we are not asked to live it right now.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

After the Brigham Young book, the manuals did mention plural marriage where applicable.

And here is what's in the John Taylor book:

Quote

Amid the growing strife over the issue of polygamy, President Taylor was informed that government officials planned to arrest him soon. Having exhausted all legal appeals, he had to decide whether to obey God or man. In his last public discourse, he told the Saints, “I cannot as an honorable man disobey my God … and trample these holy and eternal obligations under foot, that God has given me to keep, and which reach into the eternities that are to come.”³⁰ From the day he delivered this sermon until the day of his death almost two and a half years later, he hid in various locations throughout Utah. Rather than turn away from the Lord’s instructions regarding plural marriage, President Taylor chose to go into hiding as a way to obey the Lord and hopefully decrease the persecution against the Church. Elder B. H. Roberts recorded, “When President Taylor retired from public view on the evening of the 1st of February, 1885, it was not out of any consideration for his personal safety, or ease or comfort, but for the public good and in the interests of peace.”³¹

 

Why was he being hunted by federal officials, why was he hiding out, and why does it say he did not "turn away from the Lord's instructions regarding plural marriage" if he was not practicing it?

By the way, here is what it says at the head of the timeline:

Quote

This book is not a history, but rather a compilation of gospel principles as taught by President John Taylor. However, in order to put his teachings in a historical framework, the following chronology is provided. This summary omits many important events of his life, including his marriages and the births and deaths of his children, to whom he was devoted.

Note that it clearly says the book is not a history, but rather a compilation of gospel principles. The chronology is given only as a "framework."

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I opened a thread to address an accusation that I didn't get the chance to answer in the other thread because it was closed before I could click on the "submit" button. I didn't invite the additional piling on.

Yes, I get that. You wanted to make your argument without anyone arguing back. It doesn't work that way. I thought you knew that.

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I opened a thread to address an accusation that I didn't get the chance to answer in the other thread because it was closed before I could click on the "submit" button. I didn't invite the additional piling on.

I didn't say they "covered" it, I said they mentioned it. This has already been addressed.

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?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Of course the revelation Joseph received on eternal marriage and was commanded to teach very definitely applies to Church members living today.  Many members have questions about how it does apply to them and their future (especially women who have questions wondering if they will be required to live polygamy).  I'm not sure how you can continue to claim it doesn't apply to current members just because we are not asked to live it right now.

We are definitely not commanded to teach that members should be living it today. That's grounds for excommunication.

And it does not apply to us today because we are forbidden to engage in it.

Those who are curious about it in a historical context have sources aplenty they can consult. Discussion of it does not have to consume lesson time in priesthood or Relief Society meetings.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

After the Brigham Young book, the manuals did mention plural marriage where applicable.

And here is what's in the John Taylor book:

Why was he being hunted by federal officials, why was he hiding out, and why does it say he did not "turn away from the Lord's instructions regarding plural marriage" if he was not practicing it?

By the way, here is what it says at the head of the timeline:

Note that it clearly says the book is not a history, but rather a compilation of gospel principles. The chronology is given only as a "framework."

As you so helpfully note, the reader is left to conclude all these things because President Taylor's practice of plural marriage is never stated directly. Again, I find that very odd. 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Of course the revelation Joseph received on eternal marriage and was commanded to teach very definitely applies to Church members living today.  Many members have questions about how it does apply to them and their future (especially women who have questions wondering if they will be required to live polygamy).  I'm not sure how you can continue to claim it doesn't apply to current members just because we are not asked to live it right now.

Good point.  We still practice eternal polygamy.  So it is still a doctrine we need to understand.

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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...

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.

I didn't know consig could not open a thread. I've never been on "limited" status, so I don't know what that entails.

But if I understand correctly, being on that status does not confer upon someone the right to hijack a thread. Pointing that out is not being "nasty."

Edited July 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

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. 

I would start a thread about it, but seem to find myself coming up somewhat short in that capability . . .

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As you so helpfully note, the reader is left to conclude all these things because President Taylor's practice of plural marriage is never stated directly. Again, I find that very odd. 

I find it odd that you think one would conclude from all this that he was not engaged in plural marriage.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We are definitely not commanded to teach that members should be living it today. That's grounds for excommunication.

And it does not apply to us today because we are forbidden to engage in it.

Those who are curious about it in a historical context have sources aplenty they can consult. Discussion of it does not have to consume lesson time in priesthood or Relief Society meetings.

We don't practice it in mortality, obviously, but the doctrine is still in effect. When my uncle remarried in the temple, he agonized because he was worried that my aunt would be upset that he was in fact taking a plural wife, as if he were asking her to share him with his second wife. 

[ALarson]

After the Brigham Young book, the manuals did mention plural marriage where applicable.

Well Scott, now you're changing what you originally claimed regarding the subsequent manuals.

I'd imagine that's probably as close to a retraction as we're going to get from you 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You posted:

 

I've already answered this. By "covered," I meant that after the Brigham Young book, the presidents of the Church who practiced plural marriage each had a book published about him, not that his teachings about the subject were covered in depth.

Why do you keep bringing this up when I have already explained that you misunderstood me?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ALarson said:

Well Scott, now you're changing what you originally claimed regarding the subsequent manuals.

I'd imagine that's probably as close to a retraction as we're going to get from you 

Just seems to me that plural marriage is one of those topics current church leaders and manual writers would rather not talk about for whatever reason. If nothing else, this thread shows how much they tiptoed around the subject in the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church manuals.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Discussion of it does not have to consume lesson time in priesthood or Relief Society meetings.

Nor does it have to consume lesson time in Sunday school.  Nor institute/seminary.  Certainly not in general conference or any of the myriad broadcasts.  It doesn't need to consume pages in our Church published periodicals either.  It doesn't need to consume any time or space.

Until...

Until someone learns about it, and they go to one of the people they most trust in the world and are told that they are reading "anti" material.  And then years later the church publishes an essay that confirms it but they put the essay in a place where one has to be searching to find it.  And the cycle goes on.

What we purposefully omit from our teachings is as important as what we include.  In this case, the manuals were clearly written such that they didn't have to deny the practice of polygamy by our early prophets/presidents but they didn't confirm it either.  They are deceptive and ought to be revised to reflect what really happened.

Edited July 25, 2016 by rockpond

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Good point.  We still practice eternal polygamy.  So it is still a doctrine we need to understand.

Exactly.  Understand it and discuss it if we are to help members answer their questions regarding the revelation, what past Prophet's teachings are on plural marriage and what current leaders teach.  

To say that this doctrine does not apply to church members today is not true.  It does.

.

Edited July 25, 2016 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I find it odd that you think one would conclude from all this that he was not engaged in plural marriage.

I never said anything of the sort. I simply said his practice of plural marriage was never stated directly. You appear to agree with me on that point.

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I would start a thread about it, but seem to find myself coming up somewhat short in that capability . . .

??????  You can't start threads???  This is getting so redic!

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

??????  You can't start threads???  This is getting so redic!

If you notice, just below consiglieri's avatar, it says "limited,"

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If you notice, just below consiglieri's avatar, it says "limited,"

Yes...but I was hoping that it had to do with a number of posts..not the start of a thread that he could contribute each day.  I think it is a shame.  am so tired of having to quote conig in order to give him any reputation of sorts.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Jeanne

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Jeanne said:

Yes...but I was hoping that it had to do with a number of posts..not the start of a thread that he could contribute each day.  I think it is a shame.

Beats me, but apparently, he's pretty limited in what he can do around here. It's a shame indeed, as he's a valuable contributor, whether people appreciate that or not.

[ALarson]

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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?  

Well, it has been interesting.  We have actually had some great discussions (especially about the polygamy essay) and it has seemed to help make the topic less taboo during lesson time (members now feel more comfortable raising their hands and commenting or asking questions about plural marriage).

However, we have had some members who have stopped attending over what they learned regarding how Joseph lived polygamy and polyandry.  It's been difficult at times for my Bishop because so many came in with a lot of questions and he simply did not have answers for some of their questions (other than to have faith that it will be made right, etc.)

But, it is obvious that the past teachings of the Prophets very much apply to current members, to their beliefs and to their feelings about their future. They need to be discussed rather than omitted.  I think it would help a lot of members who have questions.

Edited July 25, 2016 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ALarson said:

Well, it has been interesting.  We have actually had some great discussions (especially about the polygamy essay) and it has seemed to help make the topic less taboo during lesson time (members now feel more comfortable raising their hands and commenting or asking questions about plural marriage).

However, we have had some members who have stopped attending over what they learned regarding how Joseph lived polygamy and polyandry.  It's been difficult at times for my Bishop because so many came in with a lot of questions and he simply did not have answers for some of their questions (other than to have faith that it will be made right, etc.)

But, it is obvious that the past teachings of the Prophets very much apply to current members, to their beliefs and to their feelings about their future. They need to be discussed.

As I said, my son stumbled across the church essays on his own. He apparently mentioned them in priesthood meeting once and was shot down, so he decided to ask me about them. You can imagine how that went.