Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

[JLHPROF]

I'm lucky to work 15 mins outside of Salt Lake and I had some time to kill today so I decided to spend a couple of hours around Temple Square.

I never thought I'd see the day.  I popped into Deseret Book there and the first endcap I saw featured the new book on Joseph Smith and Seer Stones.
Second endcap - the scholarly collection of documents concerning the Relief Society.
Decided to take the 15 minute tour of the Beehive House.  Guess who openly mentioned Brigham's polygamy and plural wives without prompting?  That's right, the missionaries.


And then...the missionaries claimed polygamy was only due to a shortage of men and only those specifically called by leaders lived it and they didn't know why.
- since they are so well trained and scripted all I could think is why are we still promoting these false/semi-false ideas in an age of openness and historical accuracy.

But I was good and kept my mouth shut.
Eventually perhaps we will stop our PR efforts - I also went round the new Church History Museum exhibit again.  The tiny little exhibit on polygamy likewise downplayed the significance of the practice, and other exhibits were very judicious in identifying the husbands of the women whose lives were highlighted.

On my way back through Temple Square the side doors of the Tabernacle opened and out filed what appeared to be every temple president and matron from all over the world (judging by their name tags), and Elder Renlund and several large security guards.
Must have been a special training session/meeting for Temple Presidencies.  Really cool to see.

[Tacenda]

Did the missionaries at the Beehive bring it up on their own, or did someone ask. Glad you did that today, I did the same thing not too long ago.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Did the missionaries at the Beehive bring it up on their own, or did someone ask. Glad you did that today, I did the same thing not too long ago.

They brought it up on their own without any questions being asked.
But then they downplayed the practice.  Even said Brigham only had 2 wives in the Beehive House - basically true, but the Lion House is right next door.
 

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

They brought it up on their own without any questions being asked.
But then they downplayed the practice.  Even said Brigham only had 2 wives in the Beehive House - basically true, but the Lion House is right next door.

I think it'd be nice if they put back the family portrait of all the wives. They shouldn't be hidden like anyone should be ashamed of them. It's time church, it's time. They are up there in heaven feeling pretty sad I'm sure.

Also, interesting that they talk about it in the Church History Library, but not go into much detail at the Lion or Beehive house. 

ETA: They need to update the script. http://www.sltrib.com/home/2362949-155/visitor-gets-strange-lesson-on-brigham

Edited October 12, 2016 by Tacenda

[Bernard Gui]

Since multi-partner relationships are next on the marriage rights agenda, I think the time has passed for us to be embarrassed about polygamy. It is an important part of our history and heritage. Giving the correct religious reason for the practice would be best.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Guest]

JLHPROP, 

Polygamy is an odd and embarrassing topic, and is so strange to the Western Christian Worldview, it must be hard to address. But it a topic that we cannot ignore when asked. However it is too large a topic to be addressed n a 15 min tour, and a topic that must be near impossible to be explained by Sister Missionaries who probably abhor the practice in any age. We know in the Book of Mormon that Jacob pulled no punches in telling the Nephites how God feels about the practice. In that sermon we can note that God the Father also abhors the practice when unnecessary...as the Scripture point out, "I The Lord do rejoice at the Cahsity of women". 

Sometimes I wonder if it would be more productive to just throw up our hands as say; Who knows what those people must have been thinking". Myself, I would have had the "Angel with a flaming sword" run me through. I am a one woman man, and would have been so in any age, 

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

JLHPROP, 

Polygamy is an odd and embarrassing topic, and is so strange to the Western Christian Worldview, it must be hard to address. But it a topic that we cannot ignore when asked. However it is too large a topic to be addressed n a 15 min tour, and a topic that must be near impossible to be explained by Sister Missionaries who probably abhor the practice in any age. We know in the Book of Mormon that Jacob pulled no punches in telling the Nephites how God feels about the practice. In that sermon we can note that God the Father also abhors the practice when unnecessary...as the Scripture point out, "I The Lord do rejoice at the Cahsity of women". 

Sometimes I wonder if it would be more productive to just throw up our hands as say; Who knows what those people must have been thinking". Myself, I would have had the "Angel with a flaming sword" run me through. I am a one woman man, and would have been so in any age, 

The angel with a flaming sword makes me cringe. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm lucky to work 15 mins outside of Salt Lake and I had some time to kill today so I decided to spend a couple of hours around Temple Square.

I never thought I'd see the day.  I popped into Deseret Book there and the first endcap I saw featured the new book on Joseph Smith and Seer Stones.
Second endcap - the scholarly collection of documents concerning the Relief Society.
Decided to take the 15 minute tour of the Beehive House.  Guess who openly mentioned Brigham's polygamy and plural wives without prompting?  That's right, the missionaries.


And then...the missionaries claimed polygamy was only due to a shortage of men and only those specifically called by leaders lived it and they didn't know why.
- since they are so well trained and scripted all I could think is why are we still promoting these false/semi-false ideas in an age of openness and historical accuracy.

If you ever get a chance, it would be great to ask them if that piece of 'info' is part of the presentation or their own contribution.  

And I think this is a great opportunity for you to write to the feedback for .Temple Square Tour they need to congratulate them on all the good stuff, but they need to take the next step and lose the myths and you can provide Widtsoe's and others' accounts or even just the church essay iirc.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think it'd be nice if they put back the family portrait of all the wives. They shouldn't be hidden like anyone should be ashamed of them. It's time church, it's time. They are up there in heaven feeling pretty sad I'm sure.

Also, interesting that they talk about it in the Church History Library, but not go into much detail at the Lion or Beehive house. 

ETA: They need to update the script. http://www.sltrib.com/home/2362949-155/visitor-gets-strange-lesson-on-brigham

Sensationally written article.  At worst the commemorative gun was the same model or a variation of the model used in the mass shooting.  The way it is written, the author makes it sound like the Utah gun was modeled after the exact gun used in the killings because it was used in the killings, not because it is probably just a popular model that thousands (tens of thousands probably) own.  If all gun models used in murder were taken off the market, there would be very few, if any guns being made.

I am not surprised that the missionaries did not know genealogical details.  It is likely that she misunderstood though the two wives thing and they were just talking about the two who lived in that house, I find it highly improbable they claimed he had only two wives and didn't practice polygamy.  What missionaries, even if somehow they missed the most wellknown fact in LDS history, would be able to last more than a day conducting tours through Beehive House without being confronted by the polygamy of BY.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Calm

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The angel with a flaming sword makes me cringe. 

There is biblical precedence for "Angels with flaming swords". My point is that I would probably opt for the running through rather than live as a polygamist. Everywhere, and every example we have in Scripture and Church History...every polygamist society was a train-wreck in slow motion. And I do mean "every" polygamist family, in every age. It is unbelievable that we can't see the forest for the trees? 

[Rain]

 

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you ever get a chance, it would be great to ask them if that piece of 'info' is part of the presentation.or their own contribution.  

And I think this is a great opportunity for you to write to the feedback for .Temple Square Tour they need to congratulate them on all the good stuff, but they need to take the next step and lose the myths and you can provide Widtsoe's and others' accounts or even just the church essay iirc.

My thoughts as well.  I agree.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm lucky to work 15 mins outside of Salt Lake and I had some time to kill today so I decided to spend a couple of hours around Temple Square.

I never thought I'd see the day.  I popped into Deseret Book there and the first endcap I saw featured the new book on Joseph Smith and Seer Stones.
Second endcap - the scholarly collection of documents concerning the Relief Society.
Decided to take the 15 minute tour of the Beehive House.  Guess who openly mentioned Brigham's polygamy and plural wives without prompting?  That's right, the missionaries.


And then...the missionaries claimed polygamy was only due to a shortage of men and only those specifically called by leaders lived it and they didn't know why.
- since they are so well trained and scripted all I could think is why are we still promoting these false/semi-false ideas in an age of openness and historical accuracy.

But I was good and kept my mouth shut.
Eventually perhaps we will stop our PR efforts - I also went round the new Church History Museum exhibit again.  The tiny little exhibit on polygamy likewise downplayed the significance of the practice, and other exhibits were very judicious in identifying the husbands of the women whose lives were highlighted.

On my way back through Temple Square the side doors of the Tabernacle opened and out filed what appeared to be every temple president and matron from all over the world (judging by their name tags), and Elder Renlund and several large security guards.
Must have been a special training session/meeting for Temple Presidencies.  Really cool to see.

Yes, this week is training for the new temple presidencies/matrons who will begin their service in November.

Edited October 12, 2016 by rockpond

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

There is biblical precedence for "Angels with flaming swords". My point is that I would probably opt for the running through rather than live as a polygamist. 

Even if you were having thousands of people rely on you as prophet?  It is one thing to make that choice if it is just you or even just you and your wife (Emma was from upper class and while struggling, likely would not end up destitute if she just had herself to worry about, she could always go home to her parents), but your young children and the children of your many friends and extended family who had already suffered so much?  I don't think Joseph was just concerned for himself when he accepted, but fully aware of what would happen to the Church if he, who knew better than anyone else that God wanted the Restoration to happen, died before being able to reveal the temple rites and other doctrines that fundamentally altered the POV of the Saints from a primarily Protestant view to a more unique doctrinal system based of continuing revelation.  The character of the Church would have been very different without the beloved Joseph in charge, someone others were not only willing to die for, but change their lives for because he was willing to do the same.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

There is biblical precedence for "Angels with flaming swords". My point is that I would probably opt for the running through rather than live as a polygamist. Everywhere, and every example we have in Scripture and Church History...every polygamist society was a train-wreck in slow motion. And I do mean "every" polygamist family, in every age. It is unbelievable that we can't see the forest for the trees? 

Are you saying that Joseph gave out a false revelation?

While difficult, I would like to see comparisons for "train wrecks" between monogamous and polygamous families.  If they were such train wrecks, then why did the family members, including wives, fight so hard to have what many saw as a privilege to live?  I find it very insulting and arrogant to label all polygamist families of every age a train wreck.  I have the writings of my gggrandmother and she thought it was wonderful to be part of a plural family and pitied the women who had no sister wives.  I just don't think it is right to make judgments of other people's families that way, polygamous or monogamous; all families have their ups and downs.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

However it is too large a topic to be addressed n a 15 min tour, and a topic that must be near impossible to be explained by Sister Missionaries who probably abhor the practice in any age.

Absolutely agree.
I certainly don't want a sermon on polygamy as part of a tour of the Beehive House surrounded by tourists

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think the time has passed for us to be embarrassed about polygamy. It is an important part of our history and heritage. Giving the correct religious reason for the practice would be best.

This is all I would expect.
The tour focuses on Brigham's family life.  The missionaries chose to bring up polygamy.  How hard is it to own the historical practice and state it was both instituted and retracted by revelations and in accordance with this Brigham had many wives he lived with in many homes.
Nothing more, no big fancy explanations, and NO PR spin.

Same at the Church History museum.  Just end the perception of embarrassment.  We've owned up to the practice.  Time to stop making excuses for something that wasn't wrong.

[JLHPROF]

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, this week is training for the new temple presidencies/matrons who will begin their service in November.

It was quite the impressive parade with an Apostle incognito among them.

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you saying that Joseph gave out a false revelation?

While difficult, I would like to see comparisons for "train wrecks" between monogamous and polygamous families.  If they were such train wrecks, then why did the family members, including wives, fight so hard to have what many saw as a privilege to live?  I find it very insulting and arrogant to label all polygamist families of every age a train wreck.  I have the writings of my gggrandmother and she thought it was wonderful to be part of a plural family and pitied the women who had no sister wives.  I just don't think it is right to make judgments of other people's families that way, polygamous or monogamous; all families have their ups and downs.

No, I believe that it was an is a revelation from God. I believe the story about the flaming sword...I am just saying I would not do it. Also, I am about one of the most expendable person I know, God onld raise of another Prophet, and I onld just watch on the other side of the veil. 

[strappinglad]

God does seem to always have a Plan B and, if necessary , a Plan C. We know this even from the time of Adam. I believe that polygamy would have been phased out eventually anyway , or perhaps reserved of only a select few. Well, at least until there were more Muslim converts.

Did the advantages to the Kingdom at the time of BY and others outweigh the damages done to the Church reputation over the last 100 years or so? Hard to say. Hard to say. Of course , 100 years is but  2.4 hours to the Lord. Time will tell.

[Garden Girl]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

And then...the missionaries claimed polygamy was only due to a shortage of men and only those specifically called by leaders lived it and they didn't know why.
- since they are so well trained and scripted all I could think is why are we still promoting these false/semi-false ideas in an age of openness and historical accuracy.

But I was good and kept my mouth shut.
Eventually perhaps we will stop our PR efforts - I also went round the new Church History Museum exhibit again.  The tiny little exhibit on polygamy likewise downplayed the significance of the practice, and other exhibits were very judicious in identifying the husbands of the women whose lives were highlighted.

I wouldn't have kept my mouth shut, but would have waited until I could privately ask them why they as missionaries were still promoting these ideas as factual, and would be writing to express my disappointment to the PR/Missionary depts... There is no longer any reason for continuing these ideas...

GG

[Gray]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm lucky to work 15 mins outside of Salt Lake and I had some time to kill today so I decided to spend a couple of hours around Temple Square.

I never thought I'd see the day.  I popped into Deseret Book there and the first endcap I saw featured the new book on Joseph Smith and Seer Stones.
Second endcap - the scholarly collection of documents concerning the Relief Society.
Decided to take the 15 minute tour of the Beehive House.  Guess who openly mentioned Brigham's polygamy and plural wives without prompting?  That's right, the missionaries.


And then...the missionaries claimed polygamy was only due to a shortage of men and only those specifically called by leaders lived it and they didn't know why.
- since they are so well trained and scripted all I could think is why are we still promoting these false/semi-false ideas in an age of openness and historical accuracy.

But I was good and kept my mouth shut.
Eventually perhaps we will stop our PR efforts - I also went round the new Church History Museum exhibit again.  The tiny little exhibit on polygamy likewise downplayed the significance of the practice, and other exhibits were very judicious in identifying the husbands of the women whose lives were highlighted.

On my way back through Temple Square the side doors of the Tabernacle opened and out filed what appeared to be every temple president and matron from all over the world (judging by their name tags), and Elder Renlund and several large security guards.
Must have been a special training session/meeting for Temple Presidencies.  Really cool to see.

Where are all these men supposed to have died leaving so many widows? 

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm lucky to work 15 mins outside of Salt Lake and I had some time to kill today so I decided to spend a couple of hours around Temple Square.

I never thought I'd see the day.  I popped into Deseret Book there and the first endcap I saw featured the new book on Joseph Smith and Seer Stones.
Second endcap - the scholarly collection of documents concerning the Relief Society.
Decided to take the 15 minute tour of the Beehive House.  Guess who openly mentioned Brigham's polygamy and plural wives without prompting?  That's right, the missionaries.


And then...the missionaries claimed polygamy was only due to a shortage of men and only those specifically called by leaders lived it and they didn't know why.
- since they are so well trained and scripted all I could think is why are we still promoting these false/semi-false ideas in an age of openness and historical accuracy.

But I was good and kept my mouth shut.
Eventually perhaps we will stop our PR efforts - I also went round the new Church History Museum exhibit again.  The tiny little exhibit on polygamy likewise downplayed the significance of the practice, and other exhibits were very judicious in identifying the husbands of the women whose lives were highlighted.

On my way back through Temple Square the side doors of the Tabernacle opened and out filed what appeared to be every temple president and matron from all over the world (judging by their name tags), and Elder Renlund and several large security guards.
Must have been a special training session/meeting for Temple Presidencies.  Really cool to see.

This is a good illustration of the larger problem. Many people feel betrayed because they believe the church has deceived them or at least withheld information intentionally as a means of protecting the church institution. But like the church, we are left to wonder how much the missionaries really know. Were they intentionally deceptive in their comments about polygamy by withholding accurate information, or did they simply not know? Has the church intentionally withheld information or did leaders not know.

I'm confident it's a combination of the two. Some know and openly deceive or withhold while others are innocently naïve. But at this point there is little justification for missionaries to be teaching outdated theories and history. But do we blame the missionaries or the church that trains them and tells them what to say?

I've been to other church history sites/museums (thinking Nauvoo specifically) where the information LDS missionaries share is shamefully inaccurate. The church needs to be better. If they intentionally train or even allow misinformation to be shared by missionaries, then they are behaving unethically.

[Derl Sanderson]

I have always found it mildly amusing that those outside our faith (our critics in particular) cite our missionaries as though they are the ultimate repository of LDS doctrinal and historical knowledge, when in truth they are arguably among our least experienced and least knowledgeable members.

That other members (who should know better) would view them as said repository is even more amusing. And that members would expect missionary training (which by its very nature must be limited in scope) to include the complexities and nuances of plural marriage history and family life and place it on a learning par equal with that of understanding and teaching the fundamental doctrine of Christ seems to me an absurd expectation. 

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, Derl Sanderson said:

I have always found it mildly amusing that those outside our faith (our critics in particular) cite our missionaries as though they are the ultimate repository of LDS doctrinal and historical knowledge, when in truth they are arguably among our least experienced and least knowledgeable members.

That other members (who should know better) would view them as said repository is even more amusing. And that members would expect missionary training (which by its very nature must be limited in scope) to include the complexities and nuances of plural marriage history and family life and place it on a learning par equal with that of understanding and teaching the fundamental doctrine of Christ seems to me an absurd expectation. 

You're absolutely right, missionaries are novices. To be experts we'd have to send them out at age 40. But at least we should expect them to be able to avoid passing off urban legend as church history. 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, Derl Sanderson said:

I have always found it mildly amusing that those outside our faith (our critics in particular) cite our missionaries as though they are the ultimate repository of LDS doctrinal and historical knowledge, when in truth they are arguably among our least experienced and least knowledgeable members.

That other members (who should know better) would view them as said repository is even more amusing. And that members would expect missionary training (which by its very nature must be limited in scope) to include the complexities and nuances of plural marriage history and family life and place it on a learning par equal with that of understanding and teaching the fundamental doctrine of Christ seems to me an absurd expectation. 

The church sets them up as the authorities for speaking about the church. They have a mantle and spiritual gifts bestowed upon them. They are set apart as messengers for Jesus Christ.

Why is it too much to ask that they don't share incorrect information? Is it harder for them to memorize an accurate line about polygamy instead of the incorrect line about polygamy?

If you're arguing that they're not up to the task, you might have a point. It's not their fault but it is the church's who places so much responsibility on them. If they're not up to the task, perhaps they shouldn't be serving in certain roles.

FYI- I mentioned experiences with missionaries teaching incorrect information in Nauvoo. These were senior couples, not 18-20 year olds. The church has a responsibility to make sure their emissaries teach accurate information. That's really not too much to ask. Sure, there will be mistakes and missionaries will misspeak etc., but training them to regurgitate inaccurate scripts is indefensible when the church knows better.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Derl Sanderson said:

I have always found it mildly amusing that those outside our faith (our critics in particular) cite our missionaries as though they are the ultimate repository of LDS doctrinal and historical knowledge, when in truth they are arguably among our least experienced and least knowledgeable members.

That other members (who should know better) would view them as said repository is even more amusing. And that members would expect missionary training (which by its very nature must be limited in scope) to include the complexities and nuances of plural marriage history and family life and place it on a learning par equal with that of understanding and teaching the fundamental doctrine of Christ seems to me an absurd expectation.

You know as well as I do that the missionaries memorize scripts and talking points.
My concern isn't with their personal knowledge.  It is that the script these missionaries recited (and yes, it was a script because the first companion stated it and then a few minutes later the second companion repeated it word for word).

I don't think anyone expects the missionary training to include the "complexities and nuances" of plural.  We do expect the scripts they are given as training to be devoid of false information.