Some science behind D&C 121

[Gray]

I read an interesting article the other day that reminded me of the famous passage from D&C 121:

 

Quote

 

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

 

Examples of this kind of behavior are probably too numerous to count. It's easy to see the corrupting influence of power in human history.

Here's the article:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/power-causes-brain-damage/528711/?utm_source=atlfb

Quote

The historian Henry Adams was being metaphorical, not medical, when he described power as “a sort of tumor that ends by killing the victim’s sympathies.” But that’s not far from where Dacher Keltner, a psychology professor at UC Berkeley, ended up after years of lab and field experiments. Subjects under the influence of power, he found in studies spanning two decades, acted as if they had suffered a traumatic brain injury—becoming more impulsive, less risk-aware, and, crucially, less adept at seeing things from other people’s point of view.

 

 

 

 

[hope_for_things]

What I find interesting about the concepts in D&C 121, if you think of these as a kind of warning to Joseph Smith, specifically that God was warning him of his own personal tendencies towards unrighteous dominion, I think what we see over the Nauvoo years is that Joseph unfortunately violated many of the principles of D&C 121 that God was warning him about.  

Also, thanks for that article.  Interesting that modern science is confirming these observations about very human tendencies.  As a society we ought to take steps to reduce the negative implications of this.  I think term limits for all offices in public service would be one step, including congress and the supreme court.  I think the LDS church should have limits for the highest offices as well, and this would really help towards mitigating some of the negative effects of this human condition.  

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What I find interesting about the concepts in D&C 121, if you think of these as a kind of warning to Joseph Smith, specifically that God was warning him of his own personal tendencies towards unrighteous dominion, I think what we see over the Nauvoo years is that Joseph unfortunately violated many of the principles of D&C 121 that God was warning him about.  

Also, thanks for that article.  Interesting that modern science is confirming these observations about very human tendencies.  As a society we ought to take steps to reduce the negative implications of this.  I think term limits for all offices in public service would be one step, including congress and the supreme court.  I think the LDS church should have limits for the highest offices as well, and this would really help towards mitigating some of the negative effects of this human condition.  

I think there generally is in the Church, 3 years for a Mission President and Temple President, 7-9 years for a Stake President and 5 years for a Bishop, I don't think these are hard and fast rules so much. My last Bishop served for 3 years and then he quit the calling and the one previous to that was it for a year or so and then they moved away

[Calm]

And my last bishop was bishop for 7 years.

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What I find interesting about the concepts in D&C 121, if you think of these as a kind of warning to Joseph Smith, specifically that God was warning him of his own personal tendencies towards unrighteous dominion, I think what we see over the Nauvoo years is that Joseph unfortunately violated many of the principles of D&C 121 that God was warning him about.  

Also, thanks for that article.  Interesting that modern science is confirming these observations about very human tendencies.  As a society we ought to take steps to reduce the negative implications of this.  I think term limits for all offices in public service would be one step, including congress and the supreme court.  I think the LDS church should have limits for the highest offices as well, and this would really help towards mitigating some of the negative effects of this human condition.  

I think when we all meet past this veil that we will find that Joseph was a much better man than many are giving him credit for. Fortunately, God, and not any of us will be his judge. We will have our own hotseats tworry about.

 

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, Duncan said:

I think there generally is in the Church, 3 years for a Mission President and Temple President, 7-9 years for a Stake President and 5 years for a Bishop, I don't think these are hard and fast rules so much. My last Bishop served for 3 years and then he quit the calling and the one previous to that was it for a year or so and then they moved away

Those are good rules, I agree with those and it would benefit us to have similar rules for the highest leaders in the church.  

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I think when we all meet past this veil that we will find that Joseph was a much better man than many are giving him credit for. Fortunately, God, and not any of us will be his judge. We will have our own hotseats tworry about.

 

Perhaps you're correct.  I'm not so worried about judging the worthiness of Joseph as it pertains to his eternal standing.  I am more worried about the modern perpetuation and justification of unethical behavior using an earlier esteemed leader as an excuse for perpetuating something that is harmful.  

[Gray]

Some possible ways to counteract this effect:

 

Quote

I asked Owen, who admits to a healthy predisposition to hubris himself, whether anything helps keep him tethered to reality, something that other truly powerful figures might emulate. He shared a few strategies: thinking back on hubris-dispelling episodes from his past; watching documentaries about ordinary people; making a habit of reading constituents’ letters.

 

[Gray]

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What I find interesting about the concepts in D&C 121, if you think of these as a kind of warning to Joseph Smith, specifically that God was warning him of his own personal tendencies towards unrighteous dominion, I think what we see over the Nauvoo years is that Joseph unfortunately violated many of the principles of D&C 121 that God was warning him about.  

Also, thanks for that article.  Interesting that modern science is confirming these observations about very human tendencies.  As a society we ought to take steps to reduce the negative implications of this.  I think term limits for all offices in public service would be one step, including congress and the supreme court.  I think the LDS church should have limits for the highest offices as well, and this would really help towards mitigating some of the negative effects of this human condition.  

I think the more we understand about how human brains work, the less inclined we might be to harsh judgment (even while disapproving of the behavior itself).

Honestly, if thrust into a position of immense power, how many of us wouldn't find ourselves changed for the worse by the experience?

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Those are good rules, I agree with those and it would benefit us to have similar rules for the highest leaders in the church.  

We do according to circumstances- that is why we have General Authorities Emeritus.

And the guidelines are 5 years for a bishop and 10 years for an SP- the others were correct, 3 for an Mission President and 3 for a Temple President.

These are heavy callings, full time or nearly full time,  and can be quite a trial to hold and magnify so limits are necessary.

So GA's can "retire" or BE "retired" if necessary.

It would not make sense to have rules for others since prophets are chosen essentially by seniority among the apostles.  The whole theology of succession would have to be changed. and it takes decades to train an apostle spiritually.  That is why it takes multiple decades to train a prophet in spiritual matters.  

These are spiritual callings, not secular jobs.  You continually leave spiritual elements out of everything.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Perhaps you're correct.  I'm not so worried about judging the worthiness of Joseph as it pertains to his eternal standing.  I am more worried about the modern perpetuation and justification of unethical behavior using an earlier esteemed leader as an excuse for perpetuating something that is harmful.  

And where is this happening?

Polygamy CAN be a righteous practice, but is an excellent example of what this thread is about- unrighteous dominion.  But obviously we are not ready for it.

So where is this "modern perpetuation" happening?  It's obvious where you are going with this, but there ARE practices that are sinful regardless of the political correctness of our times.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We do according to circumstances- that is why we have General Authorities Emeritus.

And the guidelines are 5 years for a bishop and 10 years for an SP- the others were correct, 3 for an Mission President and 3 for a Temple President.

These are heavy callings, full time or nearly full time,  and can be quite a trial to hold and magnify so limits are necessary.

So GA's can "retire" or BE "retired" if necessary.

It would not make sense to have rules for others since prophets are chosen essentially by seniority among the apostles.  The whole theology of succession would have to be changed. and it takes decades to train an apostle spiritually.  That is why it takes multiple decades to train a prophet in spiritual matters.  

These are spiritual callings, not secular jobs.  You continually leave spiritual elements out of everything.

Changing how seniority works in the quorum and getting rid of the life time calling tradition make a whole lot of sense.  This article is one reason why, but there are many others compelling reasons to get younger people into the upper leadership of the church, and to spread the leadership opportunities around and get more diversity in the leadership.  

These types of changes can be spiritual just like every other decision made, they are a mixture of spiritual and material.  Why are you assuming that I'm leaving out spiritual elements?  How do you define spiritual in this context?  

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And where is this happening?

Polygamy CAN be a righteous practice, but is an excellent example of what this thread is about- unrighteous dominion.  But obviously we are not ready for it.

So where is this "modern perpetuation" happening?  It's obvious where you are going with this, but there ARE practices that are sinful regardless of the political correctness of our times.

I personally don't think that polygamy can be a righteous practice in any normal circumstances, and I would challenge that premise.  Even Brian Hales who's views on the history are fairly apologetic most of the time, he clearly states that the earthly practice of polygamy is unfair to women.  

What's obvious to me, is not that "we are not ready for it", its that polygamy is an immoral and unfair practice and it was a mistake in our Mormon past that we still need to properly repent of as a people. I have ancestors on both sides who practiced it, who I don't personally condemn, but I do condemn the practice of polygamy.  

I agree with just about everything that Kristy Money brings up in this really well written OpEd a couple years back.  

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/1764577-155/essay-church-joseph-polygamy-women-consider

Also, I would recommend Carol Lynn Pearson's recent book The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy for how harm is still being done in 2017 around our current theological explanations and traditions around polygamy.  

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I personally don't think that polygamy can be a righteous practice in any normal circumstances, and I would challenge that premise.  Even Brian Hales who's views on the history are fairly apologetic most of the time, he clearly states that the earthly practice of polygamy is unfair to women.  

What's obvious to me, is not that "we are not ready for it", its that polygamy is an immoral and unfair practice and it was a mistake in our Mormon past that we still need to properly repent of as a people. I have ancestors on both sides who practiced it, who I don't personally condemn, but I do condemn the practice of polygamy.  

I agree with just about everything that Kristy Money brings up in this really well written OpEd a couple years back.  

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/1764577-155/essay-church-joseph-polygamy-women-consider

Also, I would recommend Carol Lynn Pearson's recent book The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy for how harm is still being done in 2017 around our current theological explanations and traditions around polygamy.  

The Bible having polygamy in it, no way means it's correct. Men got it wrong, you're right.

http://creation.com/does-the-bible-clearly-teach-monogamy

Polygamy’s origins and consequences

A very important point to remember is that not everything recorded in the Bible is approved in the Bible. Consider where polygamy originated—first in the line of the murderer Cain, not the line of Seth. The first recorded polygamist was the murderer Lamech (Gen. 4:23–24). Then Esau, who despised his birthright, also caused much grief to his parents by marrying two pagan wives (Gen. 26:34).

God also forbade the kings of Israel to be polygamous (Deut. 17:17). Look at the trouble when they disobeyed, including deadly sibling rivalry between David’s sons from his different wives (2 Samuel 13, 1 Kings 2); and Solomon’s hundreds of wives helped lead Solomon to idolatry (1 Kings 11:1–3). Also, Hannah, Samuel’s mother, was humiliated by her husband Elkanah’s other wife Peninnah (1 Sam. 1:1–7).

What about godly men who were polygamous?

Abraham and Sarah would have been monogamous apart from a low point in their faith when Hagar became a second wife—note how much strife this caused later. Jacob only wanted Rachel, but was tricked into marrying her older sister Leah, and later he took their slave girls at the sisters’ urging, due to the rivalry between the sisters. Jacob was hardly at a spiritual high point at those times, and neither was David when he added Abigail and Ahinoam (1 Sam. 25:42–43).

Why did God seem to allow it, then?

It is more like the case of divorce, which God tolerated for a while under certain conditions because of the hardness of their hearts, but was not the way it was intended from the beginning (Matt. 19:8). But whenever the Mosaic law had provisions for polygamy, it was always the conditional: ‘If he takes another wife to himself …’ (Ex.21:10), never an encouragement. God put a number of obligations of the husband towards the additional wives which would discourage polygamy. In view of the problems it causes, it is no wonder that polygamy was unknown among the Jews after the Babylonian exile, and monogamy was the rule even among the Greeks and Romans by New Testament times.

Sources

1. Geisler, Norman L., Christian Ethics: Options and Issues, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 280–281, 1989.
2. Archer, Gleason L., Jr., Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 121–124, 1982.

[Calm]

The site you reference also justifies believing the earth is only thousands of years old based on its biblical interpretation method, so I would be careful assuming its method isn't heavily biased and thus you should doublecheck their evidences for their claims.

http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth

Edited June 22, 2017 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

The Bible having polygamy in it, no way means it's correct. Men got it wrong, you're right.

Interesting, thanks for sharing.  

Personally, I think Men got it wrong, even if the Bible did teach it.  I don't think of the Bible as speaking an inerrant or cohesive message.  Its a compilation of the opinions, experiences, biases, justifications and epiphanies of hundreds of authors (including scribes and redactors) over hundreds of years.  We shouldn't use the bible to justify what is clearly an unfair relationship construct.  

[USU78]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I personally don't think that polygamy can be a righteous practice in any normal circumstances, and I would challenge that premise.  Even Brian Hales who's views on the history are fairly apologetic most of the time, he clearly states that the earthly practice of polygamy is unfair to women.  

What's obvious to me, is not that "we are not ready for it", its that polygamy is an immoral and unfair practice and it was a mistake in our Mormon past that we still need to properly repent of as a people. I have ancestors on both sides who practiced it, who I don't personally condemn, but I do condemn the practice of polygamy.  

I agree with just about everything that Kristy Money brings up in this really well written OpEd a couple years back.  

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/1764577-155/essay-church-joseph-polygamy-women-consider

Also, I would recommend Carol Lynn Pearson's recent book The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy for how harm is still being done in 2017 around our current theological explanations and traditions around polygamy.  

By all means, let's blame old white guys in suits for [certain] women's feelings of [theoretical] damage at their hands in a[n imaginary] future constructed of air.

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, USU78 said:

By all means, let's blame old white guys in suits for [certain] women's feelings of [theoretical] damage at their hands in a[n imaginary] future constructed of air.

I swear you speak in code sometimes USU, because it takes me a long time to decipher what you're saying, thank goodness I've read the same sentence with "let's blame old white guys in suits" in it on another post reply to me!  But this one....[certain] women's feelings of [theoretical] damage at their hands in a[n imaginary] future constructed of air.....is going to take a minute! 

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I swear you speak in code sometimes USU, because it takes me a long time to decipher what you're saying, thank goodness I've read the same sentence with "let's blame old white guys in suits" in it on another post reply to me!  But this one....[certain] women's feelings of [theoretical] damage at their hands in a[n imaginary] future constructed of air.....is going to take a minute! 

Just know that not everyone would agree with you on this. 

I have no trouble understanding him

[USU78]

17 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I swear you speak in code sometimes USU, because it takes me a long time to decipher what you're saying, thank goodness I've read the same sentence with "let's blame old white guys in suits" in it on another post reply to me!  But this one....[certain] women's feelings of [theoretical] damage at their hands in a[n imaginary] future constructed of air.....is going to take a minute! 

Allow me to elucidate.  You had said [actually, it was not you ...  apologies for putting somebody else's words in your mouth]:

Quote

Also, I would recommend Carol Lynn Pearson's recent book The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy for how harm is still being done in 2017 around our current theological explanations and traditions around polygamy.

  What I said was a riff off CLP's miserable book in which:

a. A [certain] woman [CLP] spoke to [certain] women's [apparently including your] feelings;

b. [O]f [theoretical] damage [arising out of the possibility/not probability of polygyny in the Celestial Kingdom ... which damage is certainly illusory in this here world, which is the only one we really ought to be worrying about in the here and now ... and not inventing things to be p!$$ed off about];

c. [A]t their [the GAs'] hands [i.e., the Brethren could, I suppose, magically make the D&C go away so that no one ever had to think about the possibility of Celestial polygyny  ...  but seriously, how seriously does anybody take a call to do any such thing?];

d. [I  ]n an imaginary future [that one crafted by a loving Heavenly Father and Mother to ensure the greatest happiness for the greatest number of their children, but which is so crafted as to ensure eternal misery because  ...  polygyny] constructed of air [i.e., to even entertain the notion of unhappiness in the realm where happiness is certain by definition is so much hot air bloviated by those inventing things to be p!$$ed off about].

I hope that helps.

Sheesh.

Edited June 23, 2017 by USU78
Mistaken attribution

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Allow me to elucidate.  You had said:

  What I said was a riff off CLP's miserable book in which:

a. A [certain] woman [CLP] spoke to [certain] women's [apparently including your] feelings;

b. [O]f [theoretical] damage [arising out of the possibility/not probability of polygyny in the Celestial Kingdom ... which damage is certainly illusory in this here world, which is the only one we really ought to be worrying about in the here and now ... and not inventing things to be p!$$ed off about];

c. [A]t their [the GAs'] hands [i.e., the Brethren could, I suppose, magically make the D&C go away so that no one ever had to think about the possibility of Celestial polygyny  ...  but seriously, how seriously does anybody take a call to do any such thing?];

d. [I  ]n an imaginary future [that one crafted by a loving Heavenly Father and Mother to ensure the greatest happiness for the greatest number of their children, but which is so crafted as to ensure eternal misery because  ...  polygyny] constructed of air [i.e., to even entertain the notion of unhappiness in the realm where happiness is certain by definition is so much hot air bloviated by those inventing things to be p!$$ed off about].

I hope that's helps.

Sheesh.