Trying to control information sharing

[probablyHagoth7]

17 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Has FM tried something like that?

Is anyone aware of *any* online initiative that has done something like that?

Edited May 30, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I agree (and feel the same way).  I think it stems from how most people don't enjoy conflict, and these types of discussions practically guarantee conflict in Sunday school. 

In addition you typically have a few people, often rather uninformed, with strong opinions. While I recognize why people want this at Church, honestly if you take the typical Sunday School teacher teaching the nuances of polandry you'll have a mess with a lot of hurt feelings. 

[probablyHagoth7]

59 minutes ago, juliann said:

The modern church is an institution organized and controlled by men. I don't think it is helpful to put a woman in that situation, even as a metaphor.  All humans need to be loved, served and understood. 

Hmm. It was a hope that NT imagery might be helpful.

Shows you how ignorant I am about such things.  Got a lot to learn/become...

 

Edited May 30, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[clarkgoble]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

FairMormon has donation options in a variety of locations throughout the site.  It is essentially the model you are describing.

As far as donating time, we get volunteers quite a bit.  Organizing them effectively is sometimes not easy.

Oh, I know it's there. While I've not been associated with FAIR pretty much since I had kids (due to not being able to guarantee time) I think from the outside it looks like more money would be useful. Just thinking to comparisons with other websites. I guess more or less my wish is just that you had a multimillionaire benefactor the way say Signature Books had.

Edited May 30, 2017 by clarkgoble

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

In addition you typically have a few people, often rather uninformed, with strong opinions. While I recognize why people want this at Church, honestly if you take the typical Sunday School teacher teaching the nuances of polandry you'll have a mess with a lot of hurt feelings. 

Exactly!  There are two, very old school, men in my Sunday school right now who usually dominate the conversation.  I'm not saying that they are always wrong, but sometimes they state their opinions as facts.  Plus, they are previous bishops which makes it harder for people to disagree with them.

 

Edited May 30, 2017 by bluebell

[sheilauk]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I think no matter what happens, it will be hard to overcome Mormon culture - meaning we as Mormons tend to avoid difficult, uncomfortable, and controversial topics (IMO). Even I feel uncomfortable in the rare occasion when topics like that are brought up in church. It's very hard to change culture. 

 

What's particularly Mormon about that?   most people want to avoid uncomfortable topics (like in politics) in any setting where they otherwise have to get along, eg at work.  church is for worship and fellowship not controversy.

Edited May 30, 2017 by sheilauk

[juliann]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Exactly!  There are two, very old school, men in my Sunday school right now who usually dominate the conversation.  I'm not saying that they are always wrong, but sometimes they state their opinions as facts.  Plus, they are previous bishops which makes it harder for people to disagree with them.

 

We have three former bishops, all of whom are still called "bishop." There is only one of them that I consider to be reliable on theology (mostly because the others rely on too much Mormonlore.) So often, in class, "bishop" will asked to be the final word on some piece of history. Drives me crazy. It shuts down discussion and I feel for the bishop who gets put on the spot like that. But it is a good way for a teacher to keep control if it is getting out of hand. 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Hmm. It was a hope that NT imagery might be helpful.

Shows you how ignorant I am about such things.  Got a lot to learn/become...

 

Aren't we all. I do think it is effective in an ancient setting, given the culture,  but there are other counterpoints in those metaphors. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Oh, I know it's there. While I've not been associated with FAIR pretty much since I had kids (due to not being able to guarantee time) I think from the outside it looks like more money would be useful. Just thinking to comparisons with other websites. I guess more or less my wish is just that you had a multimillionaire benefactor the way say Signature Books had.

I was responding to Hagoth...forgot to quote again.   Got to make that a habit.

Yeah, it would be great fun coming up,with ways to spend a pile of cash.  

Edited May 30, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Is anyone aware of *any* online initiative that has done something like that?

Could you be more specific on what you are imagining?  

[california boy]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I didn't expect them to not control their narrative. How it was practiced isn't answered by google. How people interpret how it was practiced is. Including the Hales'. The discussion was following a point from their interview that JS as a polygamist wasn't known based on the curriculum but from culture. I assumed your post was tied to that theme. I don't expect them to be my history teachers or for them to not give a message that still focuses on a faith-oriented interpretation of history. That said, for the sunday school lesson mentioned, I wouldn't expect much because it was a short blurb in a larger lesson. It gave resources to explore the general history of this more. I can't say much though, because polygamy just isn't an area of great interest for me. The history one I cared about was race, not polygamy. What I've seen with changes in the lesson manuals (that also references the gospel topics) and scripture blurbs I'm good with and find appropriate. It's not a detailed analysis of all the ins and outs that happened over time. It doesn't give crazy details of all the racist things ever said or done. But it's pretty accurate, shows some nuance, and gives what's needed IMO. I don't have a lot of reason to believe they'd treat one controversial topic that people struggle with at times different from another. So I assume that in polygamy, though it's not all encompassing or super deep, it's enough for now and gives space for more to be done and integrated in how we teach over time. As I mentioned the lesson manual references other sources that had more of the "How's" per se. It references the Joseph Smith Papers.     

 

I'm not getting that message from leaders. It was probably more common a few years back, but that's simply not what I'm seeing now. I'm getting more and more leaders trying to show nuance and to meet some of these concerns. 

 

With luv,

BD

If one digs through all of the church reference material, most of which mentions as little as possible, they may be able to piece together some kind of picture of what Joseph Smith was doing and who he was marrying.  But it is not apparent, nor is it easy to find the answers to these questions by using all the church background material.  Most people get frustrated in going through a process like that when they know that just a click away Google will give all the names and dates of his wives.  Or any other of these issues the church seems so unwilling to be candid about.  You are right   It may not be presented with all the nuances that the church would wish it contained, but that is exactly what to expect when the church makes finding out these questions by sorting through a bunch of reference material.

I think the church leaders will avoid mentioning any of these controversial issues as long and as much as they think they can get away with.  Whether they mention them or not is almost irrelevant.  People are hearing about all this stuff from somewhere and if they don't get answers from the church, what do you think the first thing to do to find out the truth about the rumors?  We all know what is happening when they do find out the truth through outside sources.  In general, it doesn't seem to be going great.

[bluebell]

I was impressed a couple of weeks ago at our Stake Conference when the visiting 70 (and sadly i don't remember his name) mentioned in his general session talk about how JS didn't actually translate the plates by just sitting and reading them.

Information is being shared more, which is a good thing.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

It is generally scholars and historians that are getting the information out, not "the church." They are, however, making information available at a remarkable rate and there is simply too much of it to have any reasonable expectation that the average person will read it. But that doesn't mean it's not there. Are you up to date with the JS Papers? Do you even know all what is on LDS.org? I sure don't. I'm interested to see the changes in the narrative that the church hides information (and I'm not saying it didn't) as the digitization continues at an unabated pace. 

But as to what was going on with polygamy and how it was practiced, there is little information to be had. Until recently, it was all about telling the men's stories and they were a minor part of how polygamy was practiced. So it isn't the church is hiding it as much as it just wasn't there. Again, it is the scholars and historians, mostly women now, who are trying to put it together but it is still in bits and pieces with no overarching narrative.

One of the most valuable bits of information that came out over the Dehlin fracas was listening to the women who were tired of the critics that dug into pedantic lectures on tapirs and such. Women are going to be more interested in social issues and that is played out in feminist circles. So to expect everyone to have the multi volume set of JS Papers on their desks is unrealistic. To expect "the church" to have hundreds of scholars poring over it and piecing together pedantic lectures for members who do not respond to academics is also unrealistic. But most unrealistic is to expect those academics to be able to bring down the needed scholarship to a pedestrian level. It is next to impossible. You get things like the Essays.

How many women Joseph Smith married and how many of them already had husbands has been known for a very long time.  If the church is waiting for scholars to tell them who Joseph Smith married, I would suggest those scholars be introduced to Google.

Of course there is more to learn about this and other issues.  There always will be more to learn on any historical subject.  But that doesn't mean that what we do know can not be discussed openly in church lessons just like all the other history and stories of past church presidents.  The only reason to not talk about the part that we do know about is if the church is as bothered by the actions of early church leaders as those that are finding out this stuff through the internet.

[juliann]

36 minutes ago, california boy said:

How many women Joseph Smith married and how many of them already had husbands has been known for a very long time.  If the church is waiting for scholars to tell them who Joseph Smith married, I would suggest those scholars be introduced to Google.

Of course there is more to learn about this and other issues.  There always will be more to learn on any historical subject.  But that doesn't mean that what we do know can not be discussed openly in church lessons just like all the other history and stories of past church presidents.  The only reason to not talk about the part that we do know about is if the church is as bothered by the actions of early church leaders as those that are finding out this stuff through the internet.

But your objection was the lack of information about "exactly what was going on and how it was practiced." I think it is a little disingenuous to now turn to the topic to number of spouses as if that hasn't been disclosed. And about that exactness, the exact number of JS wives isn't known anyway.  You said earlier:

Quote

I can never see the day when Emma stands with all the other wives of Joseph Smith.  Do you see the day when the sculpture in Temple Square adds all the additional wives to the statue of Joseph and Emma? 

The other wives didn't stand with Emma. Polygamy hadn't been institutionalized yet, none of the women were publicly known, had children, or had any privileges or benefits or duties...other than to be temporarily removed from the marriage market (no small thing.) I do see a day when these women will be part of our history, though. Many of them already are because they are founding mothers but they do deserve the recognition of having all their marriages acknowledged. Beside that, it is question begging. Women have been overlooked in history in general regardless of who or how they married. 

I think you are creating an argument where there isn't one. Few are going to argue that the church shouldn't have been more forthcoming and that they aren't now paying a price for that as they scramble to get the data up.  

Again, my question is, what will be the new narrative once the church sponsored data is overwhelming? (And we are probably already there.) Will it then have to turn to anger against there not being enough trained academics to put it together in neat bundles at a low high school reading level? We are trying to move to the next level of information gathering, will the critics be following suit and be responsive to that or are they always going to be locked in the years of information being withheld in a malfunctioning time capsule? 

At some point this is going to become like a online debate over the flaws in dial up phones, all typed out on our iPhones. 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2017 by juliann

[probablyHagoth7]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

..but there are other counterpoints in those metaphors. 

Please share.

[JLHPROF]

On 5/29/2017 at 6:23 AM, california boy said:

I personally can never see the day when the golden plates are minimized and the peep stone becomes the central way the Book of Mormon came about.  Do you?  I can never see the day when Emma stands with all the other wives of Joseph Smith.  Do you see the day when the sculpture in Temple Square adds all the additional wives to the statue of Joseph and Emma?

Personally I would love to see those things.  I hate that critics have made us afraid to own our history.
I would LOVE to see a giant portrait hanging in the Conference center of Joseph surrounded by all his wives.
Maybe something along this other polygamy picture I have already seen hanging in chapels:

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I do see a day when these women will be part of our history, though. Many of them already are because they are founding mothers but they do deserve the recognition of having all their marriages acknowledged.

I hope so.  But to do that we have to make a decision.  In order to recognize those marriages we have to stand up and say clearly once and for all that those marriages ARE legitimate in the eyes of the Church.  And tell all the "polygamy wasn't from God" people that it absolutely was.

Edited May 31, 2017 by JLHPROF

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

How many women Joseph Smith married and how many of them already had husbands has been known for a very long time.

I think the exact number is still somewhat controversial, although I'll confess I've not followed the latest articles on the subject. (I have the Hales books but haven't had time to read them yet) At the time of Van Wagoner and Compton I think it was still up in the air. I think it's also unclear which ones were dynastic and not "real" marriages.

Edited May 31, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I was impressed a couple of weeks ago at our Stake Conference when the visiting 70 (and sadly i don't remember his name) mentioned in his general session talk about how JS didn't actually translate the plates by just sitting and reading them.

Information is being shared more, which is a good thing.

Depending upon where you lived that was always discussed. It's just that many places where people weren't as well read it didn't really seep in. But I've heard GAs discuss such matters before. As I've mentioned before stories in the Ensign reasonably regularly discussed such matters. I don't deny lots of people don't recall hearing it. And frankly lots of people (most people?) don't really read the Ensign. But the information has long been out there. Some topics like polyandry I'll fully admit don't make it into the Ensign let alone Conference. But it's actually surprising when you go to lds.org how many articles you actually do find on all these topics.

Edited May 31, 2017 by clarkgoble

[california boy]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

But your objection was the lack of information about "exactly what was going on and how it was practiced." I think it is a little disingenuous to now turn to the topic to number of spouses as if that hasn't been disclosed. And about that exactness, the exact number of JS wives isn't known anyway.  You said earlier:

The other wives didn't stand with Emma. Polygamy hadn't been institutionalized yet, none of the women were publicly known, had children, or had any privileges or benefits or duties...other than to be temporarily removed from the marriage market (no small thing.) I do see a day when these women will be part of our history, though. Many of them already are because they are founding mothers but they do deserve the recognition of having all their marriages acknowledged. Beside that, it is question begging. Women have been overlooked in history in general regardless of who or how they married. 

I think you are creating an argument where there isn't one. Few are going to argue that the church shouldn't have been more forthcoming and that they aren't now paying a price for that as they scramble to get the data up.  

Again, my question is, what will be the new narrative once the church sponsored data is overwhelming? (And we are probably already there.) Will it then have to turn to anger against there not being enough trained academics to put it together in neat bundles at a low high school reading level? We are trying to move to the next level of information gathering, will the critics be following suit and be responsive to that or are they always going to be locked in the years of information being withheld in a malfunctioning time capsule? 

At some point this is going to become like a online debate over the flaws in dial up phones, all typed out on our iPhones. 

 

 

Juliann, my point was that the church is never going to be so honest about the wives of Joseph Smith that they would publicly show him with all of his wives together with Emma on temple square.  It is like the other wives are some dirty family secret that is only talked about when the children are not present.  To hide behind the fact that not everything is known so we won't make his polygamist practices a part of every day discussion amongst members is what I find to be a disengenuous telling of church history.  The topic of how many wives and how the church handles that fact is exactly the point of my post and not a change of topic at all.  

Why don't the other wives stand with Emma?  They were his wives.  What do you mean polygamy wasn't institutionalized yet?  Just because Joseph was marrying these wives behind everyone's back doesn't mean he wasn't married to them.  If someone elopes and doesn't tell anyone, are they not still married?  Are couples not really married until they have children?  If you don't tell your own wife that you have married to other women, isn't that a big part of why the other wives didn't have any privileges or benefits or duties.  And what difference does any of that make in not discussing what the church does know about how Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.  Why is it so hard for the church to tell the members in Sunday school class that Joseph Smith was marrying other men's wives?  Why is it so hard for the church to tell the members that some of those wives were as young as 14 years old?  Why is it so hard for the church to not tell the members in Sunday school class that Joseph cohearst her into marrying him by promising her eternal salvation along with her parents.  Why is it so hard to not do the sculptures of all the wives that we know Joseph Smith had on temple square along with Emma?  When you can answer those questions honestly, then I think you will get the point of my post.  And until then, the church is indeed hiding a part of it's history from the members of the church.  They just hide it less than they used to.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Personally I would love to see those things.  I hate that critics have made us afraid to own our history.
I would LOVE to see a giant portrait hanging in the Conference center of Joseph surrounded by all his wives.
Maybe something along this other polygamy picture I have already seen hanging in chapels:

I hope so.  But to do that we have to make a decision.  In order to recognize those marriages we have to stand up and say clearly once and for all that those marriages ARE legitimate in the eyes of the Church.  And tell all the "polygamy wasn't from God" people that it absolutely was.

Bingo.  That is EXACTLY my point.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the exact number is still somewhat controversial, although I'll confess I've not followed the latest articles on the subject. (I have the Hales books but haven't had time to read them yet) At the time of Van Wagoner and Compton I think it was still up in the air. I think it's also unclear which ones were dynastic and not "real" marriages.

If more wives are discovered, then simply add them to the list.  It is no reason not to talk about how Joseph Smith practiced polygamy and what we do know.  What do you mean a "real" marriage?  Either he married them or he didn't.  To claim that there is more than one definition of marriage kinda goes against the church's entire stance that they have a problem with how others define marriage doesn't it.  It makes the church's stance on marriage even more of a hypocrisy.

[juliann]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

   When you can answer those questions honestly, 

Just. Wow. 

[probablyHagoth7]

18 hours ago, california boy said:

...It is no reason not to talk about how Joseph Smith practiced polygamy...

Actually, it may be.

As a default, being that it's a private matter why not simply leave them their privacy? A modicum of space / respect.

We don't have to, but wouldn't it be the decent thing to at least *consider* doing? 

I don't inquire here about the private happenings in other people's lives. Why can't we allow the same respect for Joseph an Emma?

Psalms doesn't get much controversy. People tend to simply benefit from the message, and few get distracted by David's family structure, or the drama between him and his sons. Ditto with Abraham, and others.

Is there some reason we can't do the same with latter-day scripture and the Restoration? If not, what's the reason?

Others of us might (or might not) choose to be transparent about *our own* realities...but do we really have to take a crowbar to other people's private matters, long after they, like David and others, should have been respectfully laid to rest? 

Edited June 1, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[california boy]

48 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Actually, it may be.

As a default, being that it's a private matter why not simply leave them their privacy? A modicum of space / respect.

We don't have to, but wouldn't it be the decent thing to at least *consider* doing? 

I don't inquire here about the private happenings in other people's lives. Why can't we allow the same respect for Joseph an Emma?

Psalms doesn't get much controversy. People tend to simply benefit from the message, and few tend to get distracted from the message by David's family structure, or the drama between him and his sons. Ditto with Abraham, and others.

Is there some reason we can't do the same with latter-day scripture and the Restoration? If not, what's the reason?

Others of us might (or might not) choose to be transparent about *our own* realities...but do we really have to take a crowbar to other people's private matters, long after they, like David and others, should have been respectfully laid to rest? 

Ah, because he is the prophet that introduced polygamy.  How he lived it is important to understanding how he viewed it.  

I would agree with you if polygamy had never been a part of Mormon doctrine.  But it is or was doctrine depending on how polygamy is currently discussed.  Who someone is married to is rarely thought of as being an invasion of their privacy.  Have you ever in your life answered someone "that is none of your business" when someone asks if you are or who you are married to?  The church has no problem talking about Joseph Smiths marriage to Emma.  Heck, they even erected a statue of the two of them on temple square. Do you consider that an invasion of his privacy as well?

I don't know what world you are living in, but most people are in fact quite aware of David's marriages.  Even in our day people are writing popular songs about his little viewing of Bathseba on the garden roof.  I taught this lesson many times in seminary.    The manual includes the sending her husband, Uriah, off to the front lines which ended in his death and Davids subsequent marriage to her.   The manuals also include the condemnation from God when the prophet Nathan rebukes David in front of the entire royal court.  The church had no problem including all the information in the lesson manual.  Do church manuals talk about Joseph Smith sending men off on missions and then marrying their wives?

The fact that the church does not freely talk about any of this stuff tells volumes about what they think of the way Joseph Smith went around behind his wife's back marrying 14 year old girls and other men's wives.  But it happened.  Not talking about it does not make it go away.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Just. Wow. 

Yeah tough questions that no one wants to answer.