Scott Lloyd Posted May 26, 2017 Posted May 26, 2017 (edited) On May 26, 2017 at 8:42 AM, stemelbow said: I'm certain God will recognize more civil type marriages will last through eternity then the ones that we do in our temples. I'm just saying, the sheer number imbalance has to mean something. God sanctions most marriages, I say. And all will receive their ordinance. That's the whole point of temple work. If we only do it partially we fail. No civil marriage will last through eternity unless the couple is eventually sealed in the temple either while living or vicariously. For those who are, it will be as though each and every one had been married in the temple. The civil ceremony will have ceased regarding its efficacy. Edited May 27, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted May 26, 2017 Posted May 26, 2017 16 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said: I've seen it done at almost every single wedding I've attended, over my life between my family, all those siblings, cousins, nieces & nephews and my husband's even bigger family, then add in our friends and co-workers I'm easily at 70 weddings and at everyone of them dad (or occasionally mom and dad) walked the bride down the isle. The only exception to the walking down the isle was one co-worker of DH at that one the bride and groom came from either side and met in the middle of the church. I don't deny that it happens and happens a lot. I just question that it's the heart's desire of most young girls to have their fathers walk them down the aisle. I've already mentioned this, but the rite has roots in medieval notions about the bride as property to be conveyed from the possession of one man (her father) to another (her husband-to-be). Certainly it should have no significance or importance to anyone within the LDS faith tradition. 1
Jeanne Posted May 26, 2017 Posted May 26, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I don't deny that it happens and happens a lot. I just question that it's the heart's desire of most young girls to have their fathers walk them down the aisle. I've already mentioned this, but the rite has roots in medieval notions about the bride as property to be conveyed from the possession of one man (her father) to another (her husband-to-be). Certainly it should have no significance or importance to anyone within the LDS faith tradition. Kind of like Brigham Young and his cows.. Just kiddin' Scott..couldn't resist. But I didn't even look at my own wedding that way.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 26, 2017 Posted May 26, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Kind of like Brigham Young and his cows.. Just kiddin' Scott..couldn't resist. But I didn't even look at my own wedding that way. I thought Brigham's wives were likened (by Heber C. Kimball) to sheep. But maybe there was other imagery used as well that I'm not acquainted with. Edited May 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Jeanne Posted May 26, 2017 Posted May 26, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I thought Brigham's wives were likened (by Heber C. Kimball) to sheep. But maybe there was other imagery used as well that I'm not acquainted with. Something about how Brigham said he thought no more to having another wife than he would buying a cow...MOOOOOO!
Bernard Gui Posted May 26, 2017 Posted May 26, 2017 18 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Something about how Brigham said he thought no more to having another wife than he would buying a cow...MOOOOOO! Sources, please.
Jeanne Posted May 26, 2017 Posted May 26, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Sources, please. Boy ..I don't have a source for that..I have just heard that most of my life. Sorry..I thought that quip was common knowledge. Somebody help me..surely I am not the only one who has read this or heard about it. Edited May 26, 2017 by Jeanne
HappyJackWagon Posted May 26, 2017 Posted May 26, 2017 4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Sources, please. I don't think it was Brigham. Here's a quote she's likely thinking of. Quote "'I think no more of taking a wife than I do of buying a cow,' was one of Heber Kimball's delicate remarks. made from the stand in the Tabernacle to a congregation of several thousand. Most of his hearers thought even less of it, for they would have had to pay money for the cow; and as for the other, he had only to throw his handkerchief to some girl, and she would pick it up and follow him. - Ann-Eliza Snow, Wife No. 19, Chapter 17, "Taking a Wife and Buying a Cow,"
Scott Lloyd Posted May 27, 2017 Posted May 27, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I don't think it was Brigham. Here's a quote she's likely thinking of. I was vaguely aware already of Ann-Eliza Snow, but I just read a Wikipedia entry on her. Rarely has the admonition "consider the source" applied better than in this instance. Edited May 27, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
Jeanne Posted May 27, 2017 Posted May 27, 2017 4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I don't think it was Brigham. Here's a quote she's likely thinking of. Thanks...I knew I had heard this..and thanks for clarifying. 1
Bernard Gui Posted May 27, 2017 Posted May 27, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I don't think it was Brigham. Here's a quote she's likely thinking of. Thanks. I know the book and the quote. Doesn't it also reappear in Irving Wallace's "The Twenty-Seventh Wife"? I would like to know the historical provenance of her infamous quote. I don't believe there is any evidence that it is anything more than something she made up for sensational effect. Are you aware of any primary source for this? Then there's this discussion... Does anyone else miss that rascal Pahoran? Edited May 27, 2017 by Bernard Gui 2
HappyJackWagon Posted May 27, 2017 Posted May 27, 2017 24 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Thanks. I've read the book. Doesn't it appear in Irving Wallace's "The Twenty-Seventh Wife"? I would like to know the historical provenance of her infamous quote. I don't believe there is any evidence that it is anything more than something she made up for sensational effect. Are you aware of any source other than this? Then there's this discussion... I also see the reference you asked about. Quote "I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow." - Apostle Heber C. Kimball, The Twenty Seventh Wife, Irving Wallace, p. 101. I don't find any quotes directly attributed to HCK in a talk or journal etc so I certainly can't vouch for it. It appears the quotes are primarily attributed via these 2 sources. 2
Bernard Gui Posted May 27, 2017 Posted May 27, 2017 13 hours ago, Jeanne said: Thanks...I knew I had heard this..and thanks for clarifying. You are aware the quote has no historical basis and was a fabrication?
Bernard Gui Posted May 27, 2017 Posted May 27, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I also see the reference you asked about. I don't find any quotes directly attributed to HCK in a talk or journal etc so I certainly can't vouch for it. It appears the quotes are primarily attributed via these 2 sources. I have read the Wallace book and I think I read the Young book, but it's been a while. Wallace gave no other source for it, because there are none. IIRC, Richard Abanes perpetuated the myth in the chapter "Unholy Matrimony" in "One Nation Under Gods" and unsuccessfully tried to defend it here. Edited May 27, 2017 by Bernard Gui
Scott Lloyd Posted May 27, 2017 Posted May 27, 2017 34 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Thanks. I know the book and the quote. Doesn't it also reappear in Irving Wallace's "The Twenty-Seventh Wife"? I would like to know the historical provenance of her infamous quote. I don't believe there is any evidence that it is anything more than something she made up for sensational effect. Are you aware of any primary source for this? Then there's this discussion... Does anyone else miss that rascal Pahoran? Every single time I come on this board. For me, the value of the board diminished greatly when he ceased posting here. FYI: He can still be found posting occasionally in the comments to Dan Peterson's blog posts. I think he goes by the handle Kiwi Mormon -- or maybe it's Gina Colvin who does that. I know he has the word "kiwi" in his handle. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 27, 2017 Posted May 27, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: You are aware the quote has no historical basis and was a fabrication? And its claimant has a checkered past. That's why I said, "Consider the source." Edited May 27, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
thesometimesaint Posted May 27, 2017 Posted May 27, 2017 20 hours ago, Jeanne said: Boy ..I don't have a source for that..I have just heard that most of my life. Sorry..I thought that quip was common knowledge. Somebody help me..surely I am not the only one who has read this or heard about it. I've heard it, but like you I don't recall the source. 1
Calm Posted May 27, 2017 Posted May 27, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I have read the Wallace book and I think I read the Young book, but it's been a while. Wallace gave no other source for it, because there are none. IIRC, Richard Abanes perpetuated the myth in the chapter "Unholy Matrimony" in "One Nation Under Gods" and unsuccessfully tried to defend it here. More likely on ZLMB. We had a number of extensive threads there. He appeared to be using the board to improve his book for the second edition. Asked me to help edit it even after I posted a detail analysis of the first chapter. I declined. Edited May 27, 2017 by Calm
Bernard Gui Posted May 27, 2017 Posted May 27, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: More likely on ZLMB. We has a number of extensive threads there. He appeared to be using the board to improve his book for the second edition. Asked me to help edit it even after I posted a detail analysis of the first chapter. I declined. Indeed ZLMB. I proved I could randomly open the book and find an error on the page. He did have the courage to come on ZLMB to defend his awful book and to attend the FAIR conference that year. He made some of the corrections we suggested. My hat is off to him for that. Edited May 27, 2017 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted May 27, 2017 Posted May 27, 2017 (edited) 45 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: I've heard it, but like you I don't recall the source. Common knowledge (occasionally) is wrong. See the link to Pahoran's thread I posted above. Edited May 27, 2017 by Bernard Gui
Calm Posted May 27, 2017 Posted May 27, 2017 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Indeed ZLMB. I proved I could randomly could open the book and find an error on the page. He did have the courage to come on ZLMB to defend his awful book and to attend the FAIR conference that year. He made some of the corrections we suggested. My hat is off to him for that. I got to know him as a friend over that time period. We talked privately about our families and he sent me a cd of his songs (nice voice) and signed copies of his Harry Potter book and One Nations (might have been Becoming Gods...been a few years since I pulled it off the shelf). He was certainly willing to brave the lions' den. Edited May 27, 2017 by Calm 1
ttribe Posted May 27, 2017 Posted May 27, 2017 30 minutes ago, Calm said: I got to know him as a friend over that time period. We talked privately about our families and he sent me a cd of his songs (nice voice) and signed copies of his Harry Potter book and One Nations (might have been Becoming Gods...been a few years since I pulled it off the shelf). He was certainly willing to brave the lions' den. My recollection is he was kind of jerk here...but it's been a while.
Calm Posted May 27, 2017 Posted May 27, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, ttribe said: My recollection is he was kind of jerk here...but it's been a while. He made a lot of excuses for not being accurate in his claims...the one that sticks out in my head is when it was pointed out to him a believing Mormon wouldn't use the term "celestial sex", he insisted it was appropriate because that was how his audience would see it, which was reasonable except he was claiming at times he was trying to write a book to explain how Mormons saw their own doctrine and beliefs, not writing a book about how evangelicals interpreted Mormon ideas. He refused to admit when he was perpetuating misunderstandings. There was some other stuff, misattributions and misinterpretations he would rationalize away. He did change some though and he did invite Dan Peterson to give an unedited testimony in his second book, in an appendix iirc. Edited May 27, 2017 by Calm 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 27, 2017 Posted May 27, 2017 2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Indeed ZLMB. I proved I could randomly open the book and find an error on the page. He did have the courage to come on ZLMB to defend his awful book and to attend the FAIR conference that year. He made some of the corrections we suggested. My hat is off to him for that. I was at that conference. I think it was the first one I attended. He made some kind of gotcha comment in the Q and A after one of the talks. Lou Midgley then got up and roundly rebutted him. It was the first time I had seen either of them in person. And come to think of it, it was the first time I had seen Dr. Peterson in person, though he and I had corresponded a bit. Dr. Shades was there and introduced himself to me. It was indeed a memorable conference for me. 2
Bernard Gui Posted May 28, 2017 Posted May 28, 2017 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I was at that conference. I think it was the first one I attended. He made some kind of gotcha comment in the Q and A after one of the talks. Lou Midgley then got up and roundly rebutted him. It was the first time I had seen either of them in person. And come to think of it, it was the first time I had seen Dr. Peterson in person, though he and I had corresponded a bit. Dr. Shades was there and introduced himself to me. It was indeed a memorable conference for me. I believe we may have met at that conference. It was a good one.
Recommended Posts