Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 but that it's a moot point anyway, because God will not allow His prophet to mislead them.

Do you believe that God will step in and remote-control a prophet if that ever happens? That is, does God mind-and-body snatch people and override their agency and thoughts if circumstances demand?

I believe that the second part of those "can't lead astray" statements are important: if, God will remove them. I also believe that much of the "not able to lead astray" and "removal" stems from the reaction of the Church members. In other words, it isn't that prophets can't lead astray, but that they won't be able to. And the reason for that "is because the Church 'is a living entity . . . composed of living entities,' all with freedom and independence of thought, ability to discern, and a mandate from God to know things for themselves." This was one of the specific topics I looked at in my FAIR paper years ago:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/well-nigh-as-dangerous#head06

[VideoGameJunkie]

I question polygamy being right because I had 7 ancestors who were polygamous and I read their journals and all had the same thing to say on the subject. Polygamy was not love, it just felt like a church duty and not love. It didn't seem like Joseph Smith or Brigham Young loved their plural wives. It seemed like Joseph only loved Emma. Abraham didn't seem to love Hagar, and Solomon probably didn't even know all his 700 wives and 300 concubines. David lusted after a woman after watching her bathe to take on as a plural wife.

Edited October 13, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie

[rongo]

52 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I question polygamy being right because I had 7 ancestors who were polygamous and I read their journals and all had the same thing to say on the subject. Polygamy was not love, it just felt like a church duty and not love. It didn't seem like Joseph Smith or Brigham Young loved their plural wives. It seemed like Joseph only loved Emma. Abraham didn't seem to love Hagar, and Solomon probably didn't even know all his 700 wives and 300 concubines. David lusted after a woman after watching her bathe to take on as a plural wife.

I have some ancestors for whom polygamy worked out really well (also from the wives' perspective, based on their journals). So, there were some "success stories," too. And yes --- I also have ancestors for whom it wasn't a good thing. 

What's interesting is the lasting effect of polygamy to this day, like ripples spreading outward from a dropped stone in a pool. BYU and FamilySearch have a joint web site where you can form/join groups and see how you are related. Along with famous people and celebrities, our stake has a group showing how stake members who register are related. It's amazing how inter-related people are through their polygamous ancestors, and it's a topic of conversation among stake members. 

www.relativefinder.org

 

[Glenn101]

42 minutes ago, rongo said:

Do you believe that God will step in and remote-control a prophet if that ever happens? That is, does God mind-and-body snatch people and override their agency and thoughts if circumstances demand?

I believe that the second part of those "can't lead astray" statements are important: if, God will remove them. I also believe that much of the "not able to lead astray" and "removal" stems from the reaction of the Church members. In other words, it isn't that prophets can't lead astray, but that they won't be able to. And the reason for that "is because the Church 'is a living entity . . . composed of living entities,' all with freedom and independence of thought, ability to discern, and a mandate from God to know things for themselves." This was one of the specific topics I looked at in my FAIR paper years ago:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/well-nigh-as-dangerous#head06

I had to actually read your article before I knew exactly approximately where you were coming from, but I agree with those sentiments. I do believe that God would move strongly to put a really errant prophet out of the way, but I doubt that it would be the way he did it in some celebrated Biblical cases. If a prophet were to be struck dead by God in today's religious or maybe irreligious climate, there would probably be a criminal investigation and arrests of suspects in high places in the church. 

 Section 107 of the Doctrine and Covenants lays out the checks and balances that have been instituted to provide for different problems that may occur. It should be noted that it is incumbent on all of us to be living the gospel to the point that we are in tune enough with the Holy Ghost to detect errors. I fear that all too often that our error detection mechanism is in reality more of a paradigm challenge detection and reaction rather than a Holy Ghost inspired understanding. I do believe that if the LDS membership in general put as much time and effort into reading, meditating, prating, and temple attendance as do the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve there would not be nearly the level of dissonance that is found today. Instead of losing faith and walking away, so many good people could help so much by using those methods to increase their faith and to help detect and remove errors by faith. Of course there is also the possibility, however faint, that the offending thing that was thought to be an error was in actuality an emotional reaction rather than a spiritual manifestation.

That brings me to another point. I really feel that we should give a bit of deference and respect to those who were called upon to practice polygamy. I do not recall reading of any who eagerly jumped onto that bandwagon. The response from both male and female was pretty much universal, total shock and recoil. Those that did accept it, including Joseph Smith, did so only after bruising spiritual and emotional wrestlings, the like of which very few of us in this day and time have been asked to endure.

Glenn

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I had to actually read your article before I knew exactly approximately where you were coming from, but I agree with those sentiments. I do believe that God would move strongly to put a really errant prophet out of the way, but I doubt that it would be the way he did it in some celebrated Biblical cases. If a prophet were to be struck dead by God in today's religious or maybe irreligious climate, there would probably be a criminal investigation and arrests of suspects in high places in the church. 

 Section 107 of the Doctrine and Covenants lays out the checks and balances that have been instituted to provide for different problems that may occur. It should be noted that it is incumbent on all of us to be living the gospel to the point that we are in tune enough with the Holy Ghost to detect errors. I fear that all too often that our error detection mechanism is in reality more of a paradigm challenge detection and reaction rather than a Holy Ghost inspired understanding. I do believe that if the LDS membership in general put as much time and effort into reading, meditating, prating, and temple attendance as do the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve there would not be nearly the level of dissonance that is found today. Instead of losing faith and walking away, so many good people could help so much by using those methods to increase their faith and to help detect and remove errors by faith. Of course there is also the possibility, however faint, that the offending thing that was thought to be an error was in actuality an emotional reaction rather than a spiritual manifestation.

That brings me to another point. I really feel that we should give a bit of deference and respect to those who were called upon to practice polygamy. I do not recall reading of any who eagerly jumped onto that bandwagon. The response from both male and female was pretty much universal, total shock and recoil. Those that did accept it, including Joseph Smith, did so only after bruising spiritual and emotional wrestlings, the like of which very few of us in this day and time have been asked to endure.

Glenn

I want to agree with you, but have reservations about Joseph Smith's polygamy in particular. Why is it that his wife Emma and his plural wives husbands were in the dark most of the time? It doesn't seem above board, or something God would condone.

[VideoGameJunkie]

46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I want to agree with you, but have reservations about Joseph Smith's polygamy in particular. Why is it that his wife Emma and his plural wives husbands were in the dark most of the time? It doesn't seem above board, or something God would condone.

I believe it wasn't love with those other wives, especially after reading about Joseph's polygamy in the book Rough Stone Rolling. What's your definition of love and then compare it to polygamy.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I believe it wasn't love with those other wives, especially after reading about Joseph's polygamy in the book Rough Stone Rolling. What's your definition of love and then compare it to polygamy.

You aren't talking about love.  You are talking about romance.

 

[Rain]

2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I question polygamy being right because I had 7 ancestors who were polygamous and I read their journals and all had the same thing to say on the subject. Polygamy was not love, it just felt like a church duty and not love. It didn't seem like Joseph Smith or Brigham Young loved their plural wives. It seemed like Joseph only loved Emma. Abraham didn't seem to love Hagar, and Solomon probably didn't even know all his 700 wives and 300 concubines. David lusted after a woman after watching her bathe to take on as a plural wife.

So do you question marriage if you have 7 ancestors in a regular marriage who were divorced?  Do you question budgets if you have 7 ancestors that didn't like living on a budget? 

 

[Glenn101]

48 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I want to agree with you, but have reservations about Joseph Smith's polygamy in particular. Why is it that his wife Emma and his plural wives husbands were in the dark most of the time? It doesn't seem above board, or something God would condone.

We do not really know just how in the dark any of the husbands were. And we probably are not going to get any more information than we currently have.

Now, I have never prayed for nor received a testimony on polygamy. If it were to be restored and I were asked/commanded to the practice, I would have to obtain such a revelation before I could do it. But I learned about polygamy early in my church life. However, it did not offend my sensibilities because I had read the Old Testament (mostly although I was prone to skip over the more mundane parts) and knew that many of the prophets and Kings had several wives. What I had obtained by that time was a pretty firm testimony of the restoration of the gospel, of Joseph Smith as a prophet called of God, and of the Book of Mormon.

If Joseph Smith made any mistakes, they are on his head. I cannot make those judgments from this distance and with the amount of knowledge that I do have. But, whatever mistakes that he may have made does not change the fact of the revelations I have received concerning the restoration, or the Book of Mormon, or that he was called of God to as a prophet and to be an instrument in the restoration of the Gospel. That is something that I cannot walk away from. I was in a position some years ago where I had to make that choice. But I could not deny what I had experienced.

Glenn

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Could this have been a case of the Lord removing a Church leader from his place before he could inflict some lasting damage?

Why didn't the same thing happen with the Logan Temple then?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I have some ancestors for whom polygamy worked out really well (also from the wives' perspective, based on their journals). So, there were some "success stories," too. And yes --- I also have ancestors for whom it wasn't a good thing.

 

I had one who said it was the closest men and women could get to celestial love.  This was the same woman told her husband who to marry and then who cared for her sister wife for long years after she was made an invalid through the stillbirth of her only child, apparently without a word of complaint. (Her children may have been idealizing her some)

Edited October 13, 2016 by Calm

[VideoGameJunkie]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I had one who said it was the closest men and women could get to celestial love.  This was the same woman told her husband who to marry and then who cared for her sister wife for long years after she was made an invalid through the stillbirth of her only child, apparently without a word of complaint. (Her children may have been idealizing her some)

Did Abraham love Hagar by kicking her and Ishmael out to go die alone because Sarah demanded it? 

[VideoGameJunkie]

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You aren't talking about love.  You are talking about romance.

 

As a single person I'll ask, what's the difference between love and romance?

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Did Abraham love Hagar by kicking her and Ishmael out to go die alone because Sarah demanded it? 

Ask him.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Calm

[VideoGameJunkie]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ask him.

Well he's exalted so if I get a chance too and get a chance to meet him I'll ask how he felt about letting Hagar and Ishmael go off to die on their own because of his jealous first wife.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

So was instituting polygamy the Prophet leading the church in the wrong since a future prophet Wilford Woodruff ended polygamy. 

Joseph Smith and Wilford Woodruff were both obedient to the Lord and right for the time and circumstances under which they were functioning respectively. 

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, rongo said:

Do you believe that God will step in and remote-control a prophet if that ever happens? That is, does God mind-and-body snatch people and override their agency and thoughts if circumstances demand?

I believe that the second part of those "can't lead astray" statements are important: if, God will remove them. I also believe that much of the "not able to lead astray" and "removal" stems from the reaction of the Church members. In other words, it isn't that prophets can't lead astray, but that they won't be able to. And the reason for that "is because the Church 'is a living entity . . . composed of living entities,' all with freedom and independence of thought, ability to discern, and a mandate from God to know things for themselves." This was one of the specific topics I looked at in my FAIR paper years ago:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/well-nigh-as-dangerous#head06

Setting aside for the moment the irreverent way in which your question is framed, I believe it is unnecessary to try to second-guess God. He has the power and omniscience to order things according to His wisdom. 

Nor is it prudent to rationalize refusal to heed the servants of God on the theory that in doing so, one is helping God prevent the prophets from leading the people astray. One of the axioms of our faith is that individuals don't have the right on their own initiative to receive or proclaim that they have received revelation on behalf of the Church. 

Edited October 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Well he's exalted so if I get a chance too and get a chance to meet him I'll ask how he felt about letting Hagar and Ishmael go off to die on their own because of his jealous first wife.

Seems like Hagar was just as jealous since she was lording it over Sarah and in some interpretations, Ishmael was abusing Isaac.  

It is a very confusing story. No one comes off looking anything, but very human.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Setting aside for the moment the irreverent way in which your question is framed

Set it aside, then.

Rephrased: 

Do you believe that God steps in and controls prophets' thoughts and agency, such that they are incapable of "leading astray?"

You didn't read my article, did you? There is a lot of quotes dealing with the whole matter of "prophets can't lead astray," and they tend towards a view of why they won't, not that they can't. When understood in context. 

I don't think it's irreverent to point out the absurdity of the assumption that prophets are automatons; will-less fax machines through whom God sends messages. 

[rongo]

I firmly believe that the divine mandate and the ability for all of us to receive confirming or clarifying revelation for ourselves is the single biggest check on being led astray. That is the key to the whole thing, not a belief that the possibility of it ever happening is unthinkable.

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

As a single person I'll ask, what's the difference between love and romance?

 

“Love is the foundation of marriage, but love itself is a product of law and lives by law. True love is law-abiding, for the highest satisfactions come to a law-abiding life."
"True love of man for woman always includes love of God from whom all good things issue."
- John A. Widtsoe

"Physical attraction is only one of the many elements, but there must be faith and confidence and understanding and partnership. There must be common ideals and standards. There must be a great devotion and companionship. Love is cleanliness and progress and sacrifice and selflessness. This kind of love never tires nor wanes, but lives through sickness and sorrow, poverty and privation, accomplishment and disappointment, time and eternity" - Spencer W. Kimball

"“Love, as defined by the Lord, elevates, protects, respects, and enriches another. It motivates one to make sacrifices for another”" - Richard G. Scott

“It was Joseph Smith who taught me how to prize the endearing relationships of father and mother, husband and wife; of brother and sister, son and daughter.
It was from him that I learned that the wife of my bosom might be secured to me for time and all eternity; and that the refined sympathies and affections which endeared us to each other emanated from the fountain of divine eternal love.
It was from him that I learned that we might cultivate these affections, and grow and increase in the same to all eternity; while the result of our endless union would be an offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven, or the sands of the sea shore. …
I had loved before, but I knew not why. But now I loved—with a pureness—an intensity of elevated, exalted feeling, which would lift my soul from the transitory things of this grovelling sphere and expand it as the ocean. I felt that God was my heavenly Father indeed; that Jesus was my brother, and that the wife of my bosom was an immortal, eternal companion; a kind ministering angel, given to me as a comfort, and a crown of glory for ever and ever. In short, I could now love with the spirit and with the understanding also” - Parley P. Pratt

If you can understand how these principles can be applied to the plural marriages that you mistakenly think were devoid of love because they weren't all roses and poetry you might understand the difference between love and romance.
 

[Derl Sanderson]

HappyJackWagon asks: "is it reasonable to think that an official representative of the church (in this case, a missionary) should have accurate information about the church being represented?"

I think that's fair, certainly within the limits of that which the missionary has been called to teach. But more importantly, I would also expand your concern and say that this is a systemic problem generally and not just confined to the cadre of missionaries. I get so sick and tired of comments in priesthood and Sunday School that begin with "we are told that" followed by some bizarre off-the-wall notion that is propounded as doctrine or genuine history but is nothing more than folklore. And given the typical responses (or lack thereof) I am left thinking that I'm the only guy in class that thinks the comment is bogus (bet that scenario never plays out for any other posters here, right? )

In the classes I attend, "outside sources" (whenever anyone is brave enough to use them) are still heavily weighted to the James Talmage/Joseph Fielding Smith/Bruce McConkie school, as though there has been no thinking or writing of any substance done by anyone since then. One teacher who is highly respected in my ward was once asked about Hugh Nibley. His response was "he's good, if you can understand anything he says." Not very encouraging. And even if the teacher had warmly recommended Nibley, the man has been gone for more than decade now and so very much more has been done in the realm of faithful scholarship. We simply gotta do better to stay current.

And I don't fault THE CHURCH in that failing as much as I do its members. The material is there. We just prefer to be spoon fed the spiritual gruel that is born of what Sister Fishbreath's brother-in-law heard at his stake conference in Ohio three years ago. I am encouraged by the essays while at the same time dismayed with those who reject them as not being "official enough" but will instead base their gospel understandings on things like the mean-spirited, satirical podcasts at Infants on Thrones, where making fun of Mormon culture passes for scholarship (is there anything easier than making fun of Mormon culture, especially if you've lived among us for any length of time???).

For old dogs like me, the defacto position seems in too many instances to be that of blissful ignorance of the issues. In a spiritual sense, my generation seems prone to Moroni's charge to Pahoran: "Can you think to sit upon your thrones in a state of thoughtless stupor, while your enemies are spreading the work of death around you?" But the rising generation (especially, it seems to me, the Millennials) can't be ignorant. They are assaulted by critics in social media and the internet and need answers (see Elder Ballard's famous "gone are the days" quote in his address to CES employees). I think the Church as an institution is moving toward helping its people in this regard, but the people themselves need to do more. When a 13-year-old asks "what's up with Joseph's seerstone?" her Sunday School teacher needs to have an answer or know where to go to find it. Our scholarship has never been better. The resources are amazing. Why we are so timid in using them or even becoming aware of their existence just baffles me. 

 

 

 

[cinepro]

On 10/12/2016 at 9:59 AM, JLHPROF said:

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.

Actually, a few years ago a girl from our ward served a mission that included time on Temple Square.  I asked her about being a tour Guide at the Beehive House and where they got their info from, and she said that it's simply done through training the sisters as they rotate (so a new sister will learn from the more experienced one, then she'll train the new one when the more experienced one leaves).  They probably have some sort of script or resource book available, but it didn't sound like it was a huge focus of their preparation.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, rongo said:

Set it aside, then.

Rephrased: 

Do you believe that God steps in and controls prophets' thoughts and agency, such that they are incapable of "leading astray?"

I posted several quotes from prophets, including one that's in the Doctrine and Covenants under Official Declaration 1. I believe and stand by what is in those quotes. And, as I've said, I leave it up to God to accomplish His purposes as He sees fit.

Quote

You didn't read my article, did you? There is a lot of quotes dealing with the whole matter of "prophets can't lead astray," and they tend towards a view of why they won't, not that they can't. When understood in context. 

I'll read it if and when I get time.

But if that's the thesis, I don't really have any quarrel with it. If it's a matter of their not doing it because who they are, the character traits they possess, etc., it strikes me as a being substantially the same thing. It's like saying someone is incapable of murder. He may not be physically incapable of it, but his character and moral makeup are such that they would prevent him from doing it.

Quote

I don't think it's irreverent to point out the absurdity of the assumption that prophets are automatons; will-less fax machines through whom God sends messages. 

This is a straw man. I never argued this.

All I've said is that God will accomplish His purposes when and how He sees fit, including seeing to it that a prophet does not lead the church astray.

 

Edited October 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

35 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Actually, a few years ago a girl from our ward served a mission that included time on Temple Square.  I asked her about being a tour Guide at the Beehive House and where they got their info from, and she said that it's simply done through training the sisters as they rotate (so a new sister will learn from the more experienced one, then she'll train the new one when the more experienced one leaves).  They probably have some sort of script or resource book available, but it didn't sound like it was a huge focus of their preparation.

 

That's good to know.
Since both companions stated the same incorrect information word for word I presumed a script was involved.