Are Mormon historians rewriting history, what is the truth?

[Oliver_Cowdery]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

Sir, you are clearly accusing specific individuals, church leaders which you have named,  making a scurrilous accusation of "hurting children and teens."  

I let law enforcement deal with specific individuals where the law applies.  I endeavor where I can to oppose the theological propositions that such individuals might use to justify harming a child.  That is not a clear accusation of any specific individual.

So far I've named Jeffs as someone who used theology to justify actions against children. I also said that Joseph's marriages to young teens was immoral. I did not accuse any other individuals. 

 

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

This is a formal request for CFR on each individual that you have made that accusation. 

So I'll answer your CFR simply with this:

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/newspubs/releases/2012/121129signed_affidavit.pdf

 

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

 May I point out in advance that marriage per se is not harming nor hurting that individual unless it is don in opposition to the will of the child and the the custodians of that child.

How does a child consent to under-aged plural marriage?   I see that we at agree that consent is important.  We may just differ on if children can consent.

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

In terms of early marriage, may  I point out that the queen mother of Henry VII was 14 years old when he was born, the queen was 16 years old when Henry V was born (wiki).

So in 1457 a system of religion mixed with government claimed that their rulers had a divine right to rule and that their actions and marriages were the will of God.  And that Theocracy gave way to a queen giving birth at 14 years old.   That example supports my point.  

Do we need to debate that there is no such thing as divine right of kings? We probably both agree that God did not order that marriage or that pregnancy.  Why can't we criticize Henry's mother's arrangement too?  That king is long gone; I think it is now safe to criticize the religious ideas and justifications that led to that event. 

 

Edited December 22, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[CV75]

On 12/21/2016 at 11:06 AM, Tacenda said:

After listening to this radio show..http://www.ldsanswers.org/lds-scholars-new-history-new-policy-new-church-defending-utah-ktalk-630-interview/.  It appears that this website... http://www.ldsanswers.org/dominant-church-history-narrative-not-true-lds-scholars-encourage-new-history-new-policy-new-church/ ...is throwing some of you LDS scholars, or historians under the bus. This Hannah Stoddard, and her father James F. Stoddard the Third, from their website said that Richard Bushman isn't a believer and that he took things out of context in his book "Rough Stone Rolling". In fact the interviewer on the radio show called what Bushman says, propaganda! Why they almost put Richard Bushman with the ranks of Grant Palmer (I don't mind Grant, BTW). Really surprised me, in fact I think she would have something to say about several of you here. What do you all think of this? Are they right? Are some of you church historians trying to rewrite history? Or are the Stoddards up in the night, and are they heading for a faith crisis by not excepting the real truth?

If the "dominant narrative" is basically JS-H 1, I'd say the best enhancement to that would be additional samples of Joseph Smith's first-person account and testimony, which isn't in my opinion much of a "historical narrative," not that I think a religion actually requires one...

I don't think the Church's basic origin narrative needs to be complicated with others' discovered facts about Joseph Smith and his times, circumstances, character, etc. (as interesting as all these are), whether for better or worse as the case may be, and which is all part of the narrative, as in "Lo here... lo there..." and that he "should be both good and evil spoken of among all people..." I think history as art and science is a wonderful academic discipline, but doesn't work well in defining another person's witness in the form of an account of prophetic experiences.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

Clearly he was not speaking to a minor child leaving the parents who are responsible for them until they obtain the age of minority, as is reflected in the policy.

The church will not compete with the parents on what the MINOR child is taught about the morality and legitimacy of their parent's marriage.

 

Withholding ordinances does nothing to prevent a child from attending church and getting all the same messages.  If a child believes enough to desire baptism, simply withholding that ordinance doesn't do anything to keep the child from continuing to attend church learning about how the church's teachings apply to his or her parents.

The unstated assumption in the defense of the policy is that the teaching the child hears at church about his parents won't cause the kid to leave but somehow when the kid doesn't receive ordinances the kid will get the subtle passive aggressive message and figure out that he is expected to just stop attending church.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

There are dozens of children being baptised every day that their parents don't believe in the church but will allow their child to be baptised in the LDS church. 

This is not an issue of unbelieving parents.  This policy is the same, for example, for parents living in a polygamous relationship.  These are parents who are fundamentally living a lifestyle which is not only directly contrary to the doctrines of the church, but who are unable themselves to JOIN the church in their current condition.

 

What is ironic here is that the some of these gay couples believe in the church and their children have their blessing that they be baptised in the church. But I see the point where their lifestyle disagrees with church doctrine. 

These children will be placed in a position where church activity will force minor children them to decide between the church and literally renouncing their parents.  For the parents to give permission is not sufficient except for special conditions, such as they are living with believing grandparents, etc.

 

[Gray]

8 hours ago, ERayR said:

It certainly is.

What does "it" refer to here? I couldn't quite follow.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Withholding ordinances does nothing to prevent a child from attending church and getting all the same messages.  If a child believes enough to desire baptism, simply withholding that ordinance doesn't do anything to keep the child from continuing to attend church learning about how the church's teachings apply to his or her parents.

The unstated assumption in the defense of the policy is that the teaching the child hears at church about his parents won't cause the kid to leave but somehow when the kid doesn't receive ordinances the kid will get the subtle passive aggressive message and figure out that he is expected to just stop attending church.

I’ve never heard this defense used. In deference to the divine order of family relationships, the Church’s role is to supplement, assist and support parents in the sacred stewardship of teaching their children the Gospel in the home. Because that is impossible when the parents are apostate, the best the Church can do is welcome and friendship all comers. The parents are responsible for the maintenance of the children until they are of age, including the children’s expectations for religious participation and management of their social situations.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/21/2016 at 9:06 AM, Tacenda said:

After listening to this radio show..http://www.ldsanswers.org/lds-scholars-new-history-new-policy-new-church-defending-utah-ktalk-630-interview/.  It appears that this website... http://www.ldsanswers.org/dominant-church-history-narrative-not-true-lds-scholars-encourage-new-history-new-policy-new-church/ ...is throwing some of you LDS scholars, or historians under the bus. This Hannah Stoddard, and her father James F. Stoddard the Third, from their website said that Richard Bushman isn't a believer and that he took things out of context in his book "Rough Stone Rolling". In fact the interviewer on the radio show called what Bushman says, propaganda! Why they almost put Richard Bushman with the ranks of Grant Palmer (I don't mind Grant, BTW). Really surprised me, in fact I think she would have something to say about several of you here. What do you all think of this? Are they right? Are some of you church historians trying to rewrite history? Or are the Stoddards up in the night, and are they heading for a faith crisis by not excepting the real truth?

Someone is always trying to throw someone else under the bus (as you say), but that is normal for the haters.  That's what they do.  I know Richard Bushman, and he is now and always has been a believer.  So is his wife, Claudia (whose father gave me my patriarchal blessing).  This is the graceless age of false news and fake claims.  In fact, the bigger the lie, the more likely people are to believe it.  Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin exploited that fact to the fullest.

[rodheadlee]

On 12/21/2016 at 9:20 AM, ERayR said:

To paraphrase the immortal Obi Wan Kenobe, All history is true, from a certain point of view.

To quote an old Chinese proverb: History is a handmaiden, you can dress her up anyway you like.

[HappyJackWagon]

Quote

19 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Withholding ordinances does nothing to prevent a child from attending church and getting all the same messages.  If a child believes enough to desire baptism, simply withholding that ordinance doesn't do anything to keep the child from continuing to attend church learning about how the church's teachings apply to his or her parents.

The unstated assumption in the defense of the policy is that the teaching the child hears at church about his parents won't cause the kid to leave but somehow when the kid doesn't receive ordinances the kid will get the subtle passive aggressive message and figure out that he is expected to just stop attending church.

Quote

CV75- I’ve never heard this defense used. In deference to the divine order of family relationships, the Church’s role is to supplement, assist and support parents in the sacred stewardship of teaching their children the Gospel in the home. Because that is impossible when the parents are apostate, the best the Church can do is welcome and friendship all comers. The parents are responsible for the maintenance of the children until they are of age, including the children’s expectations for religious participation and management of their social situations.

Oliver Cowdery is exactly right. The argument that this is for the benefit of the child doesn't hold up to even basic scrutiny. The policy is inconsistent and harmful to children (insofar as one believes the church is a net positive).

CDOWIS said-

Quote

This is not an issue of unbelieving parents.  This policy is the same, for example, for parents living in a polygamous relationship.  These are parents who are fundamentally living a lifestyle which is not only directly contrary to the doctrines of the church, but who are unable themselves to JOIN the church in their current condition.

Consider the man and woman who are living together outside of marriage. Maybe one is a member, maybe not, it doesn't really matter. While they are living together "in sin" they do not qualify for baptism. They are "fundamentally living a lifestyle" which is contrary to doctrines of the church. Yet their child can be blessed, baptized, receive the priesthood etc. Their lifestyle does not prevent the child from receiving the saving ordinances.

This question has been asked so many times I hesitate to ask it again but I've still never heard a reasonable answer. Why is the child living with unmarried parents able to receive saving ordinance while the child of a SS couple cannot?

If your only answer is the arbitrary and recent label of apostasy, then you don't really have an answer.

[Tacenda]

51 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Oliver Cowdery is exactly right. The argument that this is for the benefit of the child doesn't hold up to even basic scrutiny. The policy is inconsistent and harmful to children (insofar as one believes the church is a net positive).

CDOWIS said-

Consider the man and woman who are living together outside of marriage. Maybe one is a member, maybe not, it doesn't really matter. While they are living together "in sin" they do not qualify for baptism. They are "fundamentally living a lifestyle" which is contrary to doctrines of the church. Yet their child can be blessed, baptized, receive the priesthood etc. Their lifestyle does not prevent the child from receiving the saving ordinances.

This question has been asked so many times I hesitate to ask it again but I've still never heard a reasonable answer. Why is the child living with unmarried parents able to receive saving ordinance while the child of a SS couple cannot?

If your only answer is the arbitrary and recent label of apostasy, then you don't really have an answer.

Maybe because they can still procreate.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Oliver Cowdery is exactly right. The argument that this is for the benefit of the child doesn't hold up to even basic scrutiny. The policy is inconsistent and harmful to children (insofar as one believes the church is a net positive).

CDOWIS said-

Consider the man and woman who are living together outside of marriage. Maybe one is a member, maybe not, it doesn't really matter. While they are living together "in sin" they do not qualify for baptism. They are "fundamentally living a lifestyle" which is contrary to doctrines of the church. Yet their child can be blessed, baptized, receive the priesthood etc. Their lifestyle does not prevent the child from receiving the saving ordinances.

This question has been asked so many times I hesitate to ask it again but I've still never heard a reasonable answer. Why is the child living with unmarried parents able to receive saving ordinance while the child of a SS couple cannot?

If your only answer is the arbitrary and recent label of apostasy, then you don't really have an answer.

But apostasy is the key to the answer.

In deference to the divine order of marriage and family relationships, the Church’s role is to supplement, assist and support parents in the sacred stewardship, which is in this specific instance, teaching their children the Gospel in the home. Because that is impossible to do when the parents are apostate, the best the Church can do to help the parents protect their children is to welcome and friendship all comers. The parents are responsible for the maintenance of their children until they are of age, including the children’s expectations for religious participation and management of their social situations.

Ssm is one form of apostasy that directly undermines the divine order of marriage and family relationships and how the Church helps parents. For that reason the children of a ssm family are treated differently than those whose lives are imposed upon by other forms of apostasy.

Why did complaining about the policy get crow-barred into a thread critiquing historical narratives in the first place?

Edited December 23, 2016 by CV75

[HappyJackWagon]

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But apostasy is the key to the answer.

In deference to the divine order of marriage and family relationships, the Church’s role is to supplement, assist and support parents in the sacred stewardship, which is in this specific instance, teaching their children the Gospel in the home. Because that is impossible to do when the parents are apostate, the best the Church can do to help the parents protect their children is to welcome and friendship all comers. The parents are responsible for the maintenance of their children until they are of age, including the children’s expectations for religious participation and management of their social situations.

Ssm is one form of apostasy that directly undermines the divine order of marriage and family relationships and how the Church helps parents. For that reason the children of a ssm family are treated differently than those whose lives are imposed upon by other forms of apostasy.

*Why did complaining about the policy get crow-barred into a thread critiquing historical narratives in the first place?

We've been down this road of circular logic before.

A gay couple can believe in the church and teach their children gospel just like a hetero non-married couple can. Both are "sinning". Both are openly living a lifestyle against the teachings of the church. If the church declared unmarried couples to be apostate, then I assume it would be just as logical to forbid their children from receiving ordinances.

*Good question. 

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We've been down this road of circular logic before.

A gay couple can believe in the church and teach their children gospel just like a hetero non-married couple can. Both are "sinning". Both are openly living a lifestyle against the teachings of the church. If the church declared unmarried couples to be apostate, then I assume it would be just as logical to forbid their children from receiving ordinances.

*Good question. 

 

"We?" The circular logic is all yours, your issue really being over what the Church declares as apostate, not that she defines the relationship with apostates and their dependents differently than that with the rest of us sinners.

But do you understand why the Church defines a different relationship with apostates than with run-of-the mill sinners, and why among apostates there is additional differentiation when it comes to independent involvement with their dependents? Please explain how you see it.

With which do you take issue, and why: a) the policies on apostasy that includes Mormons in a same-gender marriage (or polygamy for that matter) or b) the policy on ordinances for children of people living in same-gender (or polygamous) relationships?

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

"We?" The circular logic is all yours, your issue really being over what the Church declares as apostate, not that she defines the relationship with apostates and their dependents differently than that with the rest of us sinners.

 

But do you understand why the Church defines a different relationship with apostates than with run-of-the mill sinners, and why among apostates there is additional differentiation when it comes to independent involvement with their dependents? Please explain how you see it.

 

With which do you take issue, and why: a) the policies on apostasy that includes Mormons in a same-gender marriage (or polygamy for that matter) or b) the policy on ordinances for children of people living in same-gender (or polygamous) relationships?

 

I object to both A and B. If there was any kind of consistency, anyone who openly lived a lifestyle contrary to church teachings, and in that way rejecting the church teachings, would be an apostate. So either the church needs to remove the apostate label for those in SSM or it needs to broaden apostasy so that it really represents a logical definition of apostasy instead of defining apostasy as "anything we decide is apostasy".

Quote

Apostasy-the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.

With a definition like this, there would be MANY more apostates whose children would also be forbidden from receiving ordinances.

ETA- My original question still hasn't been answered. Why isn't a hetero, non-married couple also apostate and why are their kids able to receive ordinances? All I'm hearing from you is that it's simply the act of placing the "apostate" label on certain people. Again, that is very circular and capricious.

Edited December 23, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[CV75]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I object to both A and B. If there was any kind of consistency, anyone who openly lived a lifestyle contrary to church teachings, and in that way rejecting the church teachings, would be an apostate. So either the church needs to remove the apostate label for those in SSM or it needs to broaden apostasy so that it really represents a logical definition of apostasy instead of defining apostasy as "anything we decide is apostasy".

With a definition like this, there would be MANY more apostates whose children would also be forbidden from receiving ordinances.

ETA- My original question still hasn't been answered. Why isn't a hetero, non-married couple also apostate and why are their kids able to receive ordinances? All I'm hearing from you is that it's simply the act of placing the "apostate" label on certain people. Again, that is very circular and capricious.

The Church uses this definition of apostasy for her own doctrinal purposes: “When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy.” https://www.lds.org/topics/apostasy?lang=eng

It isn’t logical that a Church adopt a secular definition to teach gospel principles.

For the administration of and disciplinary action for individual apostasy, she has provided policy in Handbook 1. This does not define apostasy, but only lists the behaviors that manifest individual apostasy. Hence the introduction, “As used here [bold mine], apostasy refers to members who…” This list is consistent with her doctrinal definition of apostasy.

The Church has defined apostasy and has set administrative policy identifying specific behaviors that demonstrate it; there is nothing circular or capricious about that.

Serious sin and transgression do not necessarily constitute apostasy. What separates the Handbook 1 policies about serious transgression from those about apostasy is their respective disposition on covenants. The set covering sin and transgression deals with breaking Church covenants, which include the priesthood order. The set covering apostasy additionally deals with openly opposing covenants and priesthood order, or entering alternative covenants altogether.

Sex outside of a traditional marriage oath and covenant breaks Church covenants, and same-gender marriage is an oath and covenant condoning it (and publicly).

It is telling to me that you were unable/unwilling to address my first question, and hopefully my re-explanation can help with that. “…[Do] you understand why the Church defines a different relationship with apostates than with run-of-the mill sinners, and why among apostates there is additional differentiation when it comes to independent involvement with their dependents? Please explain how you see it.” Hopefully you can begin to hear what’s been said many, many times before, and that no one has been circular in their logic or capricious in saying it.

[carbon dioxide]

On 12/21/2016 at 10:40 AM, rockpond said:

Okay, well you'll probably like Stoddard's article.

Legal, however, is an odd position to argue since there wasn't a legal marriage between Joseph and Helen Mar.

Why is that?

[carbon dioxide]

On 12/21/2016 at 11:49 AM, Oliver_Cowdery said:

The secret polygamist marriage between Joseph and a 14 year old girl was not a legal marriage.

But as a thought experiment let's say that it was all legal. For the sake of argument,  let's assume that Brigham Young's and Warren Jeff's young teen wives were legal. What difference does that make?  It's still morally wrong.  Mormon's are supposed to respect the laws, but we don't derive our morals from the law, do we?

Plenty of marriages of those types were legal on those days.  Age was not a big deal as it is today.   As to following the law, LDS are expected to follow Constitutional, morally correct laws but if a law violates the Constitution, or violates our conscience, we do not need to obey.  Civil disobedience is not always wrong.  

[provoman]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

  As to following the law, LDS are expected to follow Constitutional, morally correct laws but if a law violates the Constitution, or violates our conscience, we do not need to obey.  Civil disobedience is not always wrong.  

CFR

Your claim is very appropriate for a discussion about rewriting the LDS history or teachings.

Edited December 24, 2016 by provoman

[california boy]

On 12/22/2016 at 0:42 PM, cdowis said:

These children will be placed in a position where church activity will force minor children them to decide between the church and literally renouncing their parents.  For the parents to give permission is not sufficient except for special conditions, such as they are living with believing grandparents, etc.

Nevermind. It is a useless subject.  We all know that the church has decided that gay couples are the only ones living in sin that need to be called apostates.  People just have to get used to the idea that the church treats anyone who is gay differently than straight couples.  If they are looking for justice they won't find it in the Mormon church.  Live with it.

Edited December 24, 2016 by california boy

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/21/2016 at 3:57 PM, smac97 said:

The 19th-century Saints, including Joseph Smith, apparently used "Urim and Thummim" interchangeably with "seer stone" to describe what we now think of as the "seer stone."

...............................................  The current scholarship indicates that both the seer stone and the U&T were used.

................................................................

While it is true, Spencer  that use of the term "Urim and Thummim" came into vogue as a substitute for the BofM "spectacles" and for any seer stone, this is an incorrect usage of the biblical term.  The biblical Urim & Thummim were never in the possession of the Nephites or Joseph Smith.  However, the term did come to have a kind of generic application, by analogy only.  That does lead to some confusion among both Mormons and anti-Mormons.

[carbon dioxide]

51 minutes ago, provoman said:

CFR

Your claim is very appropriate for a discussion about rewriting the LDS history or teachings.

No.  It has always been that way.  When a law was passed that men could not pray, Daniel disobeyed that law because that law was a violation of his conscience.  If the government was to pass a one child law like China, would LDS be obligated to have abortions after they have one kid?  I don't think so.  

Taking this nation as an example, all laws that are proper and correct, and all obligations entered into which are not violative of the Constitution should be kept inviolate. But if they are violative of the Constitution, then the compact between the rulers and the ruled is broken and the obligation ceases to be binding. Just as a person agreeing to purchase anything and to pay a certain amount for it, if he receives the article bargained for, and does not pay its price, he violates his contract; but if he does not receive the article he is not required to pay for it (Taylor, John. Journal of Discourse. Vol. 26. 1884: 350).

This is not to say that we should disobey every law that we disagree with.  We should follow the laws that we think are wrong and seek correction through the proper channels.  BUT there are situations that could happen when a law is so out of bounds that one would be justified in not following them even before they are changed by the courts or the legislature.  I think a good article that addresses this is at http://www.ldsliberty.org/the-twelfth-article-of-faith-and-obedience-to-the-law/

 

 

 

Edited December 24, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Nevermind. It is a useless subject.  We all know that the church has decided that gay couples are the only ones living in sin that need to be called apostates.  

Soo, polygamy is allowed in your  view of the universe.  Come on,  get yourself educated before making absurd comments.

People just have to get used to the idea that the church treats anyone who is gay differently than straight couples.  If they are looking for justice they won't find it in the Mormon church.  Live with it.

Look, I am sympathetic to your viewpoint.  I wish that there was some meeting ground with the church with SSM couples, but I also wish the same for polygamous families.  Yes, it is unfortunate.  The gap is too wide and I do not see common ground except between individuals on both sides.  There is no reason that we cannot associate with one another,  but a formal relationship with the church itself is not possible.

 

Edited December 24, 2016 by cdowis

[CV75]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

Nevermind. It is a useless subject.  We all know that the church has decided that gay couples are the only ones living in sin that need to be called apostates.  People just have to get used to the idea that the church treats anyone who is gay differently than straight couples.  If they are looking for justice they won't find it in the Mormon church.  Live with it.

But the Church treats everyone the same. The covenants are the same for everyone, and there is an important difference between sin and apostasy.

What separates the Handbook 1 policies about discipline for sin from those about apostasy is the respective disposition on covenants. The set of policies covering sin and transgression deals with breaking Church covenants. The set covering apostasy additionally deals with openly opposing the first set of covenants and entering alternative and in some cases opposing covenants altogether.

Sex outside of the traditional marriage oath and covenant breaks Church covenants, and same-gender marriage is an oath and covenant condoning it in opposition to the Church’s.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

But the Church treats everyone the same. The covenants are the same for everyone, and there is an important difference between sin and apostasy.

Sin is generally an individual thing, but apostasy is rightfully treated as an infectious disease.  It could eventually destroy the church if not contained.

This is just reality, and the church leaders have a responsibility to protect the church.

[provoman]

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

No.  It has always been that way.  When a law was passed that men could not pray, Daniel disobeyed that law because that law was a violation of his conscience.  If the government was to pass a one child law like China, would LDS be obligated to have abortions after they have one kid?  I don't think so.  

Taking this nation as an example, all laws that are proper and correct, and all obligations entered into which are not violative of the Constitution should be kept inviolate. But if they are violative of the Constitution, then the compact between the rulers and the ruled is broken and the obligation ceases to be binding. Just as a person agreeing to purchase anything and to pay a certain amount for it, if he receives the article bargained for, and does not pay its price, he violates his contract; but if he does not receive the article he is not required to pay for it (Taylor, John. Journal of Discourse. Vol. 26. 1884: 350).

This is not to say that we should disobey every law that we disagree with.  We should follow the laws that we think are wrong and seek correction through the proper channels.  BUT there are situations that could happen when a law is so out of bounds that one would be justified in not following them even before they are changed by the courts or the legislature.  I think a good article that addresses this is at http://www.ldsliberty.org/the-twelfth-article-of-faith-and-obedience-to-the-law/

 

 

 

So no direct quote or teaching from modern Prophets.