People leave the church because of a "trust gap"

[Johnnie Cake]

12 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Yeah, that's why I don't want to analyze it. I hate listening to podcasts. 😉 Hopefully it's as shallow as the Stevenson criticism.

I am generous...and give Elder Stevenson the benefit of doubt.  I believe he had good intentions...but his talk does not sync with the actual events...I don't believe this was an intentional act...I believe he just unfortunately overstated the actual events to make a point.  Its unfortunate that the events didn't stack up when reviewed.

[bsjkki]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I am generous...and give Elder Stevenson the benefit of doubt.  I believe he had good intentions...but his talk does not sync with the actual events...I don't believe this was an intentional act...I believe he just unfortunately overstated the actual events to make a point.  Its unfortunate that the events didn't stack up when reviewed.

Did you read what Samlan and Calm had to say about this on this thread? Where is the error in their analysis?

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

How does acknowledging the dynastic element turn them into second class. I'm not quite following you here. There are very strong historical reasons to think not all the marriages were normal conjugal marriages including many in Utah.

Because it downplays the significance of their position.
As LDS members we believe in eternal marriage.  Regardless of what their life on earth and living situation entails it behooves us when speaking of a family long since passed into eternity to recognize all the wives in that family as wives.  They are every bit as much Joseph's wife today as Emma is, regardless of who he lived with during his 39 years on earth.

And don't get me started on the "oh, poor Emma" group.  At least she got to live with her eternal companion and raise a family.  All his other wives were denied that most basic privilege of marriage.  So who made the greater sacrifice here?

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because it downplays the significance of their position.
As LDS members we believe in eternal marriage.  Regardless of what their life on earth and living situation entails it behooves us when speaking of a family long since passed into eternity to recognize all the wives in that family as wives.  They are every bit as much Joseph's wife today as Emma is, regardless of who he lived with during his 39 years on earth.

And don't get me started on the "oh, poor Emma" group.  At least she got to live with her eternal companion and raise a family.  All his other wives were denied that most basic privilege of marriage.  So who made the greater sacrifice here?

Well I think that's the question though. If they were dynastic were they real marriages? Who will Zina be married to? I don't think we necessarily know the answer to those questions. I think Brigham thought as you do which was what led to the turmoil with Zina Huntington heartbreakingly. Brigham didn't like any semblance of polandry. But there's a case to be made on the vision of Joseph to Brigham in 1847 that some of the sealing doctrines were confused and needed to be sorted out. Certainly afterwards adoption rather than marriage was seen as the way to bind the generations together. Some of the discussions of those papers on adoption and sealing raise the question of why this now standard LDS practice wasn't conceived of by Joseph.

[Johnnie Cake]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

As to implying all missionaries from coastal areas were safe, it was specified by Elder Stevenson the meeting involved one zone and that it had an impact on missionaries assigned to several costal cities, not all:

"all missionaries of that zone"

"he invited all missionaries serving in several coastal cities"

"Tragically, many coastal cities—including those from which the missionaries had been gathered—were devastated and suffered great loss of life"

There is nothing in the talk that implies all missionaries from all costal cities or dangerous areas in the mission were called to the meeting.

for the sake of argument...lets assume that God did issue this inspiration to the MP to protect the missionaries of the southern zone living in coastal areas Elder Stevenson speaks of.  Why would God issue this inspiration and not issue similar inspiration to protect "ALL" missionaries living in other coastal areas?  Why leave some exposed while protecting others?  But Elder Stevenson dose imply that missionaries near the nuclear plant were also protected by this inspiration...however there were never any missionaries at risk from the nuclear meltdown.  My take is that he took some liberties to make the story more faith promoting that the facts on the ground support.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well I think that's the question though. If they were dynastic were they real marriages? Who will Zina be married to? I don't think we necessarily know the answer to those questions. I think Brigham thought as you do which was what led to the turmoil with Zina Huntington heartbreakingly. Brigham didn't like any semblance of polandry. 

If true, why do you think he still entered into so many polyandrous marriages (at least 8 iirc)?

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well I think that's the question though. If they were dynastic were they real marriages? Who will Zina be married to? I don't think we necessarily know the answer to those questions. I think Brigham thought as you do which was what led to the turmoil with Zina Huntington heartbreakingly. Brigham didn't like any semblance of polandry. But there's a case to be made on the vision of Joseph to Brigham in 1847 that some of the sealing doctrines were confused and needed to be sorted out. Certainly afterwards adoption rather than marriage was seen as the way to bind the generations together. Some of the discussions of those papers on adoption and sealing raise the question of why this now standard LDS practice wasn't conceived of by Joseph.

Phrases like " Brigham didn't like any semblance of polyandry" imply that the practices were based on his preferences.
It is important (and often is overlooked in the study of polygamy in Nauvoo and Utah) to recognize the doctrinal beliefs that led to the practices.

There are doctrinal reasons why the Saints of that time denied the possibility of eternal polyandry.
There are doctrinal reasons why the Saints of that time participated in dynastic sealings and marriage sealings.
There are doctrinal reasons why the Saints didn't put civil marriage on the same level as sealings.
We may not agree with their doctrines, but we have to understand them to correctly attribute ANY motivation to their actions.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

If true, why do you think he still entered into so many polyandrous marriages (at least 8 iirc)?

Because ETERNAL marriage was the only one that counted in their minds.  (Pretty sure we've been over this.)
Any polyandry was always a civil marriage and an eternal marriage.
There was no allowance for eternal polyandrous sealings in their teachings (although I think one did occur in Joseph's life, not sure about in Brigham's administration).
Now we hear from Juliann and Calm and others that the Church despite holding to that teaching officially has allowed some to occur.

Maybe the next earth will feature one Eve and several Adams and she'll be the one "losing a rib"...

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

If true, why do you think he still entered into so many polyandrous marriages (at least 8 iirc)?

Good question!  Interesting

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because ETERNAL marriage was the only one that counted in their minds.  (Pretty sure we've been over this.)

Oh, I know what you believe

I was asking Clark why he believed BY "didn't like any semblance of polyandry" when at least 8 of his marriages were polyandrous.  I hadn't ever heard that about BY.

Edited April 21, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Oh, I know what you believe

I was asking Clark why he believed BY "didn't like any semblance of polyandry" when at least 8 of his marriages were polyandrous.  I hadn't ever heard that about BY.

Sorry, didn't mean to but in. 

 

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sorry, didn't mean to but in. 

 

Hey, your posts are always welcome (I was just clarifying!)

[cinepro]

7 hours ago, why me said:

It mentions that emma gave serveral women to be married to her husband. Who were these several women? Should we give them names? Does it matter?

 

Again, the manual appears to be teaching part of the story, and it's the part of the story that is least likely to bother people. 

For example, yes, Emma did "give" several women to be married to Joseph, but in the case of the Partridge sisters, Joseph was already married to them!  So did he come clean to his wife and tell her about what he had already done?  No, he arranged a sham marriage ceremony to pretend that he was only marrying them after getting Emma's permission.

Some people might find this to be normal, moral behavior for a husband, but it's hardly forthcoming of the manual to omit it.

[Tsuzuki]

8 hours ago, why me said:

Can someone believe in Lutheranism and not believe in Martin Luther? Can one be a presbytarian and not believe in Knox? Or a methodist and not believe in Wesley? Maybe not.

Can one be a chritian and not believe in the new testament? Or in the old teatament? Or a protestant and believe in catholicism? Or a muslim and not believe in the quran? Nor believe in the Mohammed story?

All religious faiths are tied to history. Can one be a protestant and believe that the protestant reformation did not happen? However it is only the mormons that must look to their history and believe in it or not. Right?

Be careful when you say things like "all religious faiths". The only religions that are actually tied to their histories are the ones that try to use them to justify their authority claims.

And I notice that all the examples you gave are Abrahamic. That's basically just one religion in different forms. There are a lot more religions in the world. You can be a Buddhist and not believe that Siddhartha existed. You can be a Thelemite and not care about Crowley. When Christianity evolves to the point of not caring about Jesus, I will gladly call myself a Christian.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree. There's a new article by Wheats and Tares in which they discuss the continued whitewashing of church history or faith promoting stories. They specifically talk about two recent conference talks about the Tsunami and the Stake Center Fire to illustrate how faith promoting stories are still being told even if they are not exactly accurate. Interesting stuff. https://wheatandtares.org/2017/04/19/is-whitewashing-continuing-today/

I think they're stretching a bit to criticize Elder Bragg's story.  While these stories get fact-checked to some degree, ultimately this is being told second-hand (this didn't happen in Elder Bragg's stake, so he must have heard it from other people). 

Disclaimer and name drop: I'm a friend of Elder Bragg's.  I haven't talked about this with him specifically, but having known him for 18 + years, I can more easily understand the dangers of criticizing and imputing the motives of someone you don't know.

[Johnnie Cake]

19 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Again, the manual appears to be teaching part of the story, and it's the part of the story that is least likely to bother people. 

For example, yes, Emma did "give" several women to be married to Joseph, but in the case of the Partridge sisters, Joseph was already married to them!  So did he come clean to his wife and tell her about what he had already done?  No, he arranged a sham marriage ceremony to pretend that he was only marrying them after getting Emma's permission.

Some people might find this to be normal, moral behavior for a husband, but it's hardly forthcoming of the manual to omit it.

I'm coming late to this particular subject in this thread.  If an LDS lesson manual is claiming that JS was open and honest with Emma regarding his polygamist marriages...nothing could be further from the truth.  I haven't read the entire thread, particularly posts in this thread regarding this subject so if I am missing something please forgive me. I'm pretty sure that the historical record will support the notion that Joseph pretty did everything to keep Emma from learning of his polygamist marriages starting with Fanny all the way through to his last wife Fanny.  Emma was not asked nor did she give her consent on the vast majority of Joseph's marriages in violation with D&C 132 mandate that the first wife she must do so

Edited April 21, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[why me]

17 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Again, the manual appears to be teaching part of the story, and it's the part of the story that is least likely to bother people. 

For example, yes, Emma did "give" several women to be married to Joseph, but in the case of the Partridge sisters, Joseph was already married to them!  So did he come clean to his wife and tell her about what he had already done?  No, he arranged a sham marriage ceremony to pretend that he was only marrying them after getting Emma's permission.

Some people might find this to be normal, moral behavior for a husband, but it's hardly forthcoming of the manual to omit it.

I don't think that the lesson is about the circumstances of the women. But rather to explain the meaning of the verses. And it does do this. If this part of the lesson is taught, no one can claim that they did not know Joseph was a polygamist. Or that emma was not in favor. Or the context of plural marriage. If one wishes to know more, one can read a book such as bushman's.

[why me]

On 21.4.2017 at 3:26 PM, JulieM said:

Yes.

How can you have an honest discussion about Joseph's polygamy without mentioning and discussing who his plural wives were?

The lesson is about plural marriage and what the verses say. Nothing more. Thus, the context about emma is in the manual. But why should a biography of the women be included in the manual and taught to the members? It mentions that he was married to several women and that he became aware of plural marriage in 1831. And emma was not a happy camper.

Edited April 23, 2017 by why me

[JLHPROF]

31 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Again, the manual appears to be teaching part of the story, and it's the part of the story that is least likely to bother people.

For example, yes, Emma did "give" several women to be married to Joseph, but in the case of the Partridge sisters, Joseph was already married to them!  So did he come clean to his wife and tell her about what he had already done?  No, he arranged a sham marriage ceremony to pretend that he was only marrying them after getting Emma's permission.

Some people might find this to be normal, moral behavior for a husband, but it's hardly forthcoming of the manual to omit it.

Yes, I agree that the second marriage was performed for Emma's benefit.
But it also gave her a chance to fulfill the law of Sarah and receive the blessings.  And she did receive blessings as a result.
But then by kicking the Partridge sisters out after willingly giving them to Joseph she broke a covenant she had made before God.
 

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

As I mentioned, I took several years  compiling 28 Biblical tests for both true and false prophets (something, I notice with amazement that I still retain decades later, that no one else had ever done), so that I could be confident that I would recognize a prophet if I saw one.  I also studied what mistakes to avoid (70 Biblical examples of arguments against true prophets, such as "How can a sinner do such miracles?"), and ways to remove beams from my own eye.   It seems clear to me that hypothetical space must be defined by a hypothesis.  And each hypothesis must be tested not only as a distinct hypothesis, but against competing offerings.

Everyone has to select where they want to focus their time and attention.  The trick is how we go about deciding what is important, and what is not.

The church is not what you thought it was.  Paul says, when he was a child, he thought as a child...  The issue for me is not whether the Church or Joseph Smith are what I thought they were when I was young and naive, given that I began, like everyone else, as a child.  Nor is the issue whether the Church or Joseph Smith are what I want them to be, whether I am frustrated in any way.  It is whether the founding and defining inspirations are Real.  That, I think, is a rather different thing.   Rather then disillusion, or shattering, my experience has been an ongoing enlightment, unfolding, an expansion of my mind, and enlargement of my soul.  For instance, no one taught me that Alma's conversion was comparable to a Near Death Experience, including all of the after effects.  I cannot be bitter and cynical about that change in my understanding.  Sorenson and Gardner and Larrry Poulson, among others have radically changed my view of the New World setting of the Book of Mormon, so that I see something very different than what I got from looking at Friberg paintings.  Again, rather than shattering, I feel expansion in discovering that some things were not what I thought.  When I read Margaret Barker's The Great Angel, I had my thinking completely changed with respect to the Book of Mormon, again, enlightenment rather than disappointment. Watching, and experience such change and transformation of my thinking is like watching a seed grow and change.  Rather than complain,
"Why is it doing that?  It no longer looks like it once did... it's not the way I thought it would always be!", I'm rather excited by what I see and curious to find what else may happen.  These things, I notice, have to do with the foundational clams of the Book of Mormon, its authenticity.  Not with later social issues that, no matter how colorful or controversial (including the sorts of things I read in Compton on the plural wives of Joseph Smith), don't account for the foundation.

While Othello is strangling the life out of Desdemona, he is absolutely certain that she is not what he thought she was, and as he walks away, the last thing he wants to discover is that he could have possibly made a mistake.  I am one of those who understands his bitterness and disillusion and pain, but I don't think that what he needs most from his community is sympathy and understanding.  It's not all about Othello's pain and disillusion.  There is the question of why certain other people disagree with Othello regarding Desdemona, and what they might know or have seen that he has not considered, and the question of what certain things he has seen might mean when considered within other frameworks, within a rather different hypothetical space.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I have experienced expansions as I have seen how such and such can work in my life. Some involved the institutional church. Some involved principles taught by Church, some by the Biblical Jesus, some stand on their own.

I'm not sure one can construct a legitimate prophet-test applicable to Joseph Smith from existing sources. We do not have access to comparable sources for all candidates, ancient and modern.

I understand you want me to be Othello. Go ahead. I am Othello to you, killing Desdemona. But, for me, I have watched the shadows on the cave wall for a very long time. Then I left the cave. I don't want to live in the cave anymore.

FWIW, one of the most interesting insights I have gleaned from life and study about human institutions is this: any group of humans can behave similar to a living organism, in that different systems function in ways to keep the group alive. Except, there isn't necessarily a voluntary neural network conscious of the whole group organism, there are only individuals and systems within the larger whole that function symbiotically without perceiving the whole organism. From time to time, we might observe signs of trouble or disease or disfunction. 

I agree with the part you seem to imply: the more we learn, the better.

Let the light so shine.

Warm Regards,

MC

[HappyJackWagon]

54 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I think they're stretching a bit to criticize Elder Bragg's story.  While these stories get fact-checked to some degree, ultimately this is being told second-hand (this didn't happen in Elder Bragg's stake, so he must have heard it from other people). 

Disclaimer and name drop: I'm a friend of Elder Bragg's.  I haven't talked about this with him specifically, but having known him for 18 + years, I can more easily understand the dangers of criticizing and imputing the motives of someone you don't know.

That's very fair but also illustrates the need to be accurate. Did Elder Bragg mean harm by making the story sound better than it really was? Maybe, maybe not. We don't really know. What we know is that it wasn't accurate. 

It's easy to see how stories are stretched, not just over the course of a few years but over centuries and millennia of scriptural additions and revisions. 

[stemelbow]

56 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I think they're stretching a bit to criticize Elder Bragg's story.  While these stories get fact-checked to some degree, ultimately this is being told second-hand (this didn't happen in Elder Bragg's stake, so he must have heard it from other people). 

Disclaimer and name drop: I'm a friend of Elder Bragg's.  I haven't talked about this with him specifically, but having known him for 18 + years, I can more easily understand the dangers of criticizing and imputing the motives of someone you don't know.

Yeah right, Cinepro, define "friend"? 

Anywho, if he told an exaggerated story that was told to him second or third hand, then I wonder how wise it'd be to tell it in General Conference without fact checking?  I'm sure you're right about him just passing on a story he heard, but since you're his buddy you might want to let him know some people might be interested and look into the story.  It might be a tad bit more responsible of him to check the facts before he tells a world wide audience the story. 

Than again, he might have done that, and the story might have checked out for him and these fact checkers are wrong.  If so, you can give your buddy a big ol' hug for me.  Ah...do it anyway, I'm feeling loving today. 

[Kevin Christensen]

15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I have experienced expansions as I have seen how such and such can work in my life. Some involved the institutional church. Some involved principles taught by Church, some by the Biblical Jesus, some stand on their own.

I'm not sure one can construct a legitimate prophet-test applicable to Joseph Smith from existing sources. We do not have access to comparable sources for all candidates, ancient and modern.

I understand you want me to be Othello. Go ahead. I am Othello to you, killing Desdemona. But, for me, I have watched the shadows on the cave wall for a very long time. Then I left the cave. I don't want to live in the cave anymore.

FWIW, one of the most interesting insights I have gleaned from life and study about human institutions is this: any group of humans can behave similar to a living organism, in that different systems function in ways to keep the group alive. Except, there isn't necessarily a voluntary neural network conscious of the whole group organism, there are only individuals and systems within the larger whole that function symbiotically without perceiving the whole organism. From time to time, we might observe signs of trouble or disease or disfunction. 

I agree with the part you seem to imply: the more we learn, the better.

Let the light so shine.

Warm Regards,

MC

The existence of Joseph Smith a significant figure in history who made extraordinary claims guarantees that everyone who encounters those claims will apply what they consider a legitimate prophet test, whether that amounts to dismissing the notion of "Seeing angels in an age of railways," or the prop 8 home invasion add, or Meadow Mountains or the Priesthood policy, or the 1912 New York Times panel of experts demonstrating once again, "Have any of the rulers or of the scribes believed on him?" or "There is a prophet.. but I hate him, for he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil," or "Almost..." or "This is a hard saying... Who can hear it" or "Great is Diana of the Ephesians?" or "If we follow him, the Romans will take our place," or his disciples did something horrifying, or unpopular policies or positions on Liquor by the drink, or gay and lesbian issues, or heretical and unconventional teachings relative to larger Christian tradition or social inertia, or a handful of scandalous quotes, or the presence of unpleasant or even toxic individuals within community, or appeal more appealing voices outside, everyone applies some test, whether casually, rigorously, as an unconscious choice about which society they want to be accepted in, as part of a need to find a key that opens a door in a direction they favor, whether in, or out, everyone, with no exceptions, who hears the story tests it in some way.   When I set about seeing what I could find, I did not know what I would find nor whether it would be relevant or ambiguous or rigorous or clear and straight forward.   But one of the things that I saw very early on was that anyone could dismiss all I had found by saying something as simple as, "So what?"  All I can do is invite, to speak up, to offer my own perspective, for what that may be worth.   One of the things that most startled and unsettled me in putting my study together came in the realization that the 70 or so arguments against true prophets had not gone out of date.  I'd seen them all... and 2000 and 3000 years had not changed humanity all that much.  And then I finally saw that all of them boiled down to fear and desire, and how that fit with the Buddha and the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.  It is something that having seen, I cannot un-see, and it is so simple and fundamental cannot stop it from illuminating everything that I do see. 

And no, I do not want you to be Othello.  I do not like seeing anyone's faith die. I much prefer the comedies to the tragedies, with problems solved, conflicts put aside, pains healed, debts paid, lovers united, and a song and a dance with all hands joined, and even cynical Jacques finding a reason for hope.  Like any parable, metaphor, comparison, it is meant to draw attention to particular possibilities, to raise questions and encourage inquiries.  It's an invitation to look and consider that like any other invitation can be dismissed at will. 

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The existence of Joseph Smith a significant figure in history who made extraordinary claims guarantees that everyone who encounters those claims will apply what they consider a legitimate prophet test, whether that amounts to dismissing the notion of "Seeing angels in an age of railways," or the prop 8 home invasion add, or Meadow Mountains or the Priesthood policy, or the 1912 New York Times panel of experts demonstrating once again, "Have any of the rulers or of the scribes believed on him?" or "There is a prophet.. but I hate him, for he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil," or "Almost..." or "This is a hard saying... Who can hear it" or "Great is Diana of the Ephesians?" or "If we follow him, the Romans will take our place," or his disciples did something horrifying, or unpopular policies or positions on Liquor by the drink, or gay and lesbian issues, or heretical and unconventional teachings relative to larger Christian tradition or social inertia, or a handful of scandalous quotes, or the presence of unpleasant or even toxic individuals within community, or appeal more appealing voices outside, everyone applies some test, whether casually, rigorously, as an unconscious choice about which society they want to be accepted in, as part of a need to find a key that opens a door in a direction they favor, whether in, or out, everyone, with no exceptions, who hears the story tests it in some way.   When I set about seeing what I could find, I did not know what I would find nor whether it would be relevant or ambiguous or rigorous or clear and straight forward.   But one of the things that I saw very early on was that anyone could dismiss all I had found by saying something as simple as, "So what?"  All I can do is invite, to speak up, to offer my own perspective, for what that may be worth.   One of the things that most startled and unsettled me in putting my study together came in the realization that the 70 or so arguments against true prophets had not gone out of date.  I'd seen them all... and 2000 and 3000 years had not changed humanity all that much.  And then I finally saw that all of them boiled down to fear and desire, and how that fit with the Buddha and the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.  It is something that having seen, I cannot un-see, and it is so simple and fundamental cannot stop it from illuminating everything that I do see. 

And no, I do not want you to be Othello.  I do not like seeing anyone's faith die. I much prefer the comedies to the tragedies, with problems solved, conflicts put aside, pains healed, debts paid, lovers united, and a song and a dance with all hands joined, and even cynical Jacques finding a reason for hope.  Like any parable, metaphor, comparison, it is meant to draw attention to particular possibilities, to raise questions and encourage inquiries.  It's an invitation to look and consider that like any other invitation can be dismissed at will. 

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I did not mean that no legitimate prophet-test exists, I meant that you trying to construct a legitimate basepoint from ancient and modern prophets which can then be applied to Joseph does not seem possible to me.

Yes, you do want me to be Othello, you just want me to stop choking Desdemona. You don't want me to be the person leaving the shadows and the cave.

I have to do this. If not for me, atleast for my kids and their kids. I will do the painful work of building a worldview and values outside Mormonism so that truth and love will be more accessible in their world and in their childrens' world.

May God bless you and yours!

[Teancum]

On 4/19/2017 at 10:10 PM, SamIam said:

Got any substance for this discussion?

About as much substance as the post you shared that i responded to.