Popular Post HappyJackWagon Posted July 25, 2016 Popular Post Posted July 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, 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. I think this is partially why many leaders would understandably be reticent to bring up the topic. Aside from sharing information there is no direction for them to go. They don't have authority to proclaim doctrine or policy, or really even explain it in an authoritative way. It opens a can of worms and they don't have the resources to minister after that. But at the same time its unfair and immoral not to share the truth. Local leaders are in a real catch 22 and I understand why they would be nervous to bring this topic up. More needs to come from the top or local leaders just need to get very comfortable expressing their personal opinions. 5
CV75 Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 2 hours ago, rockpond said: As a member of the church, I have taught the doctrine of plural marriage and plural marriages are still performed today. That would be teaching false doctrine. Plural marriage requires invoking the law of Sarah, which is not practiced today and which cannot be done when the woman is deceased or the sealing annulled. A man is sealed to one living woman at a time and any former wife cannot and does not administer to him under the law of Sarah. D&C 132 is about sealing to more than one living wife, and invokes the law of Sarah by the living wife only. Neither is practiced today.
Popular Post california boy Posted July 25, 2016 Popular Post Posted July 25, 2016 The biggest issue I have with every one of these manuals that take an entire year to study the lives of these prophets who proudly practiced plural marriage yet omit every reference from their teachings. And Scott defends this approach without any reservation. Yet it is this same Scott who when members find out that Joseph Smith had 30 wives claim it is common knowledge and anyone who didn't know that before were just lazy and not paying attention. And the church wonders why people feel deceived by the church. Perhaps not censoring polygamy is something that is still important to discuss with members of the church. Or would you prefer they Google their questions. When would be a better time and setting to bring this issue up????? 7
rockpond Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 10 minutes ago, CV75 said: That would be teaching false doctrine. Plural marriage requires invoking the law of Sarah, which is not practiced today and which cannot be done when the woman is deceased or the sealing annulled. A man is sealed to one living woman at a time and any former wife cannot and does not administer to him under the law of Sarah. D&C 132 is about sealing to more than one living wife, and invokes the law of Sarah by the living wife only. Neither is practiced today. Hmmm... if only I had been taught that in my priesthood lessons.
rockpond Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, california boy said: The biggest issue I have with every one of these manuals that take an entire year to study the lives of these prophets who proudly practiced plural marriage yet omit every reference from their teachings. And Scott defends this approach without any reservation. Yet it is this same Scott who when members find out that Joseph Smith had 30 wives claim it is common knowledge and anyone who didn't know that before were just lazy and not paying attention. And the church wonders why people feel deceived by the church. Perhaps not censoring polygamy is something that is still important to discuss with members of the church. Or would you prefer they Google their questions. When would be a better time and setting to bring this issue up????? Exactly. By omitting and censoring polygamy from our curriculum for so many decades, it is the Church itself that is at fault for people going to Google with their questions.
CV75 Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: Hmmm... if only I had been taught that in my priesthood lessons. I'm sure someone tried LOL
Tacenda Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 There was a link to all the presidents of the church from the beginning of the church to present, and a bio of each president. Emma is the only wife listed out of all the presidents' wives, if I'm remembering right, under life events. On the bios of the other presidents, it leaves out any mention of any wife, I believe. But now that I need to look at it, it's nowhere to be found on LDS.org. It was there at one time, and I did write in once, to see why there is such a discrepancy but don't recall getting any answers. I remember a reply but no answer for it. Now that I need it, I can't find it. I have mentioned it here a few times through the years, does anyone remember it? It was startling even to the TBM member on this board.
hope_for_things Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 52 minutes ago, 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 rather than omitted. I think it would help a lot of members who have questions. Makes sense. I think what your ward is doing is by openly discussing the essays and trying wrestle with the complicated history of the church, including the past omissions and avoidance of the history that has been the dominant narrative in my lifetime, is an admirable thing. Members going inactive or becoming uncomfortable with what they learn is a consequence of past decisions to not address the narrative in a transparent manner, and is unavoidable going into the future. I would like to see more local support for those experiencing these issues, and my hope is that members of your ward can lean on each other as they grapple with a faith crisis over these things. The end goal from my perspective would be to alleviate the loneliness of this experience, and to create a space for big tent Mormonism.
ttribe Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: 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. IIRC, he cannot create new threads and there is a limit on on the number of posts he can make anywhere on the board during a 24-hr period. He also can't receive any "Reputation" points for his posts. Edited July 25, 2016 by ttribe
jkwilliams Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 Just now, ttribe said: IIRC, he cannot create new threads and there is a limit on on the number of posts he can make anywhere on the board during a 24-hr period. That's a shame, particularly when you think that people like you and me can clutter up this place without restriction.
ttribe Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 30 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: That's a shame, particularly when you think that people like you and me can clutter up this place without restriction. Indeed.
Calm Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 4 hours ago, 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 Clarifying is not changing. He may not have expressed himself clearly or perhaps your assumptions of what he meant interfered with you correctly understanding what he was saying. 2
ALarson Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Calm said: Clarifying is not changing. He may not have expressed himself clearly or perhaps your assumptions of what he meant interfered with you correctly understanding what he was saying. No, I think Scott expressed himself clearly. I don't see that I misunderstood him at all and what he added at least qualifies his statement. I'll accept that. Thanks for the input! Edited July 25, 2016 by ALarson
Tacenda Posted July 26, 2016 Posted July 26, 2016 6 hours ago, california boy said: The biggest issue I have with every one of these manuals that take an entire year to study the lives of these prophets who proudly practiced plural marriage yet omit every reference from their teachings. And Scott defends this approach without any reservation. Yet it is this same Scott who when members find out that Joseph Smith had 30 wives claim it is common knowledge and anyone who didn't know that before were just lazy and not paying attention. And the church wonders why people feel deceived by the church. Perhaps not censoring polygamy is something that is still important to discuss with members of the church. Or would you prefer they Google their questions. When would be a better time and setting to bring this issue up????? And why is it I'm afraid to bring this information up with anyone I know that is LDS? I wonder what the psychology of it is, people on this board have told me to bring up the truth to people in my family, or in a class. For instance a few years ago, the Primary class I helped in, were talking about polygamy in the Bible. One young man was kind of shocked that men in the Bible had many wives. I kept my mouth shut when the teachers mention how our church had polygamy starting with Brigham Young. I was biting my tongue hard. But according to some on this board, I was suppose to tell this class the truth about Joseph Smith???
rockpond Posted July 26, 2016 Posted July 26, 2016 3 minutes ago, Tacenda said: And why is it I'm afraid to bring this information up with anyone I know that is LDS? I wonder what the psychology of it is, people on this board have told me to bring up the truth to people in my family, or in a class. For instance a few years ago, the Primary class I helped in, were talking about polygamy in the Bible. One young man was kind of shocked that men in the Bible had many wives. I kept my mouth shut when the teachers mention how our church had polygamy starting with Brigham Young. I was biting my tongue hard. But according to some on this board, I was suppose to tell this class the truth about Joseph Smith??? If you had, there would have been a good chance that you'd have angry parents calling you afterward. I've heard of that happening to others.
Recommended Posts