"Infected With Doubt" - Jana Reiss Poll (part 2)

[smac97]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

There are certainly enough details known about Joseph's polygamy to cause many members to be shocked and upset when they learn about them for the first time.  We can argue over what has actually been proven beyond a doubt, but let's be honest here regarding what we do know and how if affects many members when they are first exposed to it.  I have found very few who at least didn't stumble a bit when they learned about the details or at the very least did an "is that really true?" moment.  

Some may be able to accept that it happened and move on.  I'm in that camp and believe I will hopefully understand more after this life.  But for now, I believe polygamy came from man and not from God.  I believe Joseph was wrong to live it as he did and it's a sad, huge mistake he made that the church is still suffering from today.  Sins were committed, IMO, and many members were hurt and betrayed (starting with Emma).  I'm not sure how one can believe that came from God, but I continue to have faith that it'll all be made right.

I appreciate your remarks here.  I believe polygamy came from God and not from man.  The contrary proposition assumes too much about the character and motivations and circumstances of Joseph Smith.  As a man of considerable prominence and authority and influence, he would have had all sorts of opportunities to quietly engage in sexual misconduct.  Contriving a revival of the ancient biblical practice of polygamy as a pretext for sexual indiscretion just seems like overkill, like using a sledgehammer to squash a spider. 

It also doesn't account for the spectrum of women Joseph Smith purportedly married.  Nobody affects a leering tone when discussing Elizabeth Davis  (50), Sarah Kingsley (53), Fanny Young (56),  and Rhoda Richards (58).  Strangely enough, these ladies seem to escape the attention of the critics altogether.  They don't fit the oh-my-stars-and-garters!-Joseph-Smith-was-lecherous-because-he-married-teenagers! narrative, I guess. 

It also doesn't account for God's supervision of Joseph Smith.  Joseph was repeatedly rebuked by God for, it seems, errors and transgressions far less serious than what you propose: that Joseph fabricated a revelation authorizing/mandating polygamy, presented it as a revelation from God, began to act in accordance with it, and did all these things with the wicked and depraved motive of rationalizing adultery/fornication.  So it seems odd that God would rebuke Joseph Smith for losing 116 pages, but then overlook/ignore Joseph Smith doing what is being suggested here.

It also doesn't account for what we know of the character of Joseph Smith.  It requires us to assume/presume the worst about Joseph Smith.  

It also relies altogether too heavily on historical lacunae, gaps in the historical record.  There are tremendous amounts of data that we simply do not have.  There are probably many things that we don't even know that we don't know.

All that said, I concede that the practice of polygamy in some particular instances may have been poorly, perhaps even improperly, implemented in some respects.  I am not sure it's within our province to pass judgment on such things, or to have speculative, gossipy, public discussions about them.

So we disagree on some important things.  But at the end of the day, you and I seem to end up at the same place: We both "have faith that it'll all be made right."

I'm glad of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 12, 2017 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Our stake is highly diverse and represents many different cultures.

I have never even heard of anyone teaching these principles in our stake. Because we are in LA many people have passes to Disneyland, Universal Studios etc. And I see Facebook posts on a regular basis from even stake auxiliary leaders showing that they attend such facilities on Sundays without even thinking about it.

I hear regularly things like" I can't go to the Fireside because we're going out for dinner with the family" all the time even from people who are in stake leadership positions, who are obviously full tithe payers and attend the temple regularly. 

If the principles are not taught no one knows them and then the leaders don't know them and then the leaders cannot teach what they do not know or practice.

I keep harping on how the church is different in the "mission field" that it is in Utah but it seems no one ever quite gets that. How do you teach a Relief Society president that it is not cool to go out to eat on Sunday when she and the ward Mission leader, for example have never heard that principal in their lives?

And yet now we here that we are not to have lists of do's and don'ts. How are we supposed to teach those principles if they are not on a list of do's and don'ts?

If we are doing something with a family and dedicating it to the Lord should it not be okay according to recent talks? People who work 5 days a week or longer do not have family time to spend except on Sundays. Saturday's they are preparing talks and attending meetings and doing church activities.

Are they there for not supposed to do anything like this in their entire lives?

Just as a disclaimer my wife was raised in the church and we totally follow all the usual rules, which I learned from her and no one else.

But what does one do now with someone who has been in the church say 10 years and has no clue about these principles?

Such standards obviously have nothing to do with faithfulness at least where I live.

Apparently the new, third-hour curriculum for next year is not coming any too soon for our L.A. brothers and sisters. The fourth-Sunday discussion topic over the next few months will be Sabbath observance.
 

Quote

 

And yet now we here that we are not to have lists of do's and don'ts. How are we supposed to teach those principles if they are not on a list of do's and don'ts?

If we are doing something with a family and dedicating it to the Lord should it not be okay according to recent talks? People who work 5 days a week or longer do not have family time to spend except on Sundays. Saturday's they are preparing talks and attending meetings and doing church activities.

Are they there for not supposed to do anything like this in their entire lives?

 

Sounds like the problem may be deeper than just not understanding or embracing the principles. If Saturdays are occupied with preparing talks, attending meetings and doing Church activities to the exclusion of family time, It sounds like the faithful members in your area may be over-programmed and that some reducing and simplifying are in order.

 

Edited December 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apparently the new, third-hour curriculum for next year is not coming any too soon for our L.A. brothers and sisters. The fourth-Sunday discussion topic over the next few months will be Sabbath observance.
 

Sounds like the problem may be deeper than just not understanding or embracing the principles. If Saturdays are occupied with preparing talks, attending meetings and doing Church activities to the exclusion of family time, It sounds like the faithful members in your area may be over-programmed and that some reducing and simplifying are in order.

 

Unless there is a specific Saturday activity I try and take Saturday off from all things having to do with my ward.  I just need the time to either take care of things around the house or just have me or me and my wife or family time.

[TOmNossor]

53 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I believe it was a randomized poll where they just kept calling people until they found someone who was a Mormon or former Mormon. They then weighted the results by region to make up for oversampling in places like Utah and make it geographically representative. While there are reasons to be skeptical of some things, it does appear that Jana was very focused on making this statistically relevant. As I said she used to have up a discussion of methodology but I can't find it online now. Does anyone with the Dialogue article know if they went through such issues there?

THANK YOU for the response!

Calling ALL people and reporting results for those who report they are LDS or former LDS sounds like one of the better methods available.  In my 5 minutes of contemplation, I neglected to consider such a brute force method of trying to get a statistically reliable sample; good for them!

There are inevitable "willingness to reply to survey folks" biases, but if the interviews present themselves neutrally those can be minimized and I am confident they thought of this.

Anyway, I withdraw my concern and repeat my suggestion that the data be taken seriously.

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I appreciate your remarks here.  I believe polygamy came from God and not from man.  The contrary proposition assumes too much about the character and motivations and circumstances of Joseph Smith.  As a man of considerable prominence and authority and influence, he would have had all sorts of opportunities to quietly engage in sexual misconduct.  Contriving a revival of the ancient biblical practice of polygamy as a pretext for sexual indiscretion just seems like overkill, like using a sledgehammer to squash a spider. 

It also doesn't account for the spectrum of women Joseph Smith purportedly married.  Nobody affects a leering tone when discussing Elizabeth Davis  (50), Sarah Kingsley (53), Fanny Young (56),  and Rhoda Richards (58).  Strangely enough, these ladies seem to escape the attention of the critics altogether.  They don't fit the oh-my-stars-and-garters!-Joseph-Smith-was-lecherous-because-he-married-teenagers! narrative, I guess. 

It also doesn't account for God's supervision of Joseph Smith.  Joseph was repeatedly rebuked by God for, it seems, errors and transgressions far less serious than what you propose: that Joseph fabricated a revelation authorizing/mandating polygamy, presented it as a revelation from God, began to act in accordance with it, and did all these things with the wicked and depraved motive of rationalizing adultery/fornication.  So it seems odd that God would rebuke Joseph Smith for losing 116 pages, but then overlook/ignore Joseph Smith doing what is being suggested here.

It also doesn't account for what we know of the character of Joseph Smith.  It requires us to assume/presume the worst about Joseph Smith.  

It also relies altogether too heavily on historical lacunae, gaps in the historical record.  There are tremendous amounts of data that we simply do not have.  There are probably many things that we don't even know that we don't know.

All that said, I concede that the practice of polygamy in some particular instances may have been poorly, perhaps even improperly, implemented in some respects.  I am not sure it's within our province to pass judgment on such things, or to have discussions about 

So we disagree on some important things.  But at the end of the day, you and I seem to end up at the same place: We both "have faith that it'll all be made right."

I'm glad of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

First, you said things like this, but I want to say it again.  If Joseph Smith invented polygamy to satisfy his sexual urges, what a stupid abysmal failure it was.  If polygamy was not from God, Joseph Smith may have had unrighteous (sinful) sex, but not much and not often.  Surely he could have and would have done a lot better with or without the sanction of purported polygamy revelations if sex was his goal.

While I think the historical record leans towards some amount of sex within some of Joseph's polygamous sealings, I think zero sex is more likely than remotely frequent sex.

So, if the polygamy revelation was not from God and the purpose was not sex, what was Joseph's purpose?  I think this is a good way of framing this discussion.  I think those who deny the polygamy revelations need to explain WHY it was produced if LDS can argue convincingly that the historical record removes sex from the possible reasons it was produced.  I have yet to see something I think is compelling to explain this why from critics.

 

I like you think there is some actions taken associated with polygamy through the history of the church (and not just those condemned in the historical record) that were not in alignment with God's will.

 

I also find it hard to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet and polygamy didn't source in some way from God.  If God revealed to me that there were serious issues with plural marriage and Joseph Smith, I would still believe that SOMETHING associated with the practice came from God.  To those who have had this revelation, I offer the idea that the linking of the entire human race in fellowship was clearly part of Joseph's sealing revelations.  I am not a LDS because of polygamy and it is not a big part of my experience in church.  So, while I think the view that polygamy was not sourced from God is not the best read of the history; I am not certain that it is a view that must be expunged from the church.

 

As I look at this, I think I just mostly agreed with your post.  Thanks!

Charity, TOm 

 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Unless there is a specific Saturday activity I try and take Saturday off from all things having to do with my ward.  I just need the time to either take care of things around the house or just have me or me and my wife or family time.

It occurs to me that if Saturday time is being spent preparing talks or lessons and Sunday time is being spent going out to dinner or to theme parks, something is askew. Maybe transposing some of the respective days' activities might help resolve things.

 

[ttribe]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes they even watched this one and actually TAUGHT this principle.

And this

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/01/turning-sunday-into-a-sabbath-one-familys-experience?lang=eng

And of course there are other opinions others have stated.

WHAT???   General Authorities disagree or give ambiguous answers on things like this?

 

UN HEARD OF!!

Nothing I can find even says we should HAVE a firm and inflexible list of do's and don'ts-  all says that we should remain flexible.  Except I guess in..... some places.

I actually enjoy riding my bike in nature on a Sunday!!  I guess I am an apostate since some say "riding a bike outside" is unacceptable.   Napping is ok but exercise is not.

Go figure.  Only a certain number of steps are permitted I guess.

Sometimes I think you are a member of a different church than the one I'm talking about, Mark.

[ksfisher]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes they even watched this one and actually TAUGHT this principle.

And this

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/01/turning-sunday-into-a-sabbath-one-familys-experience?lang=eng

And of course there are other opinions others have stated.

WHAT???   General Authorities disagree or give ambiguous answers on things like this?

 

UN HEARD OF!!

Nothing I can find even says we should HAVE a firm and inflexible list of do's and don'ts-  all says that we should remain flexible.  Except I guess in..... some places.

I actually enjoy riding my bike in nature on a Sunday!!  I guess I am an apostate since some say "riding a bike outside" is unacceptable.   Napping is ok but exercise is not.

Go figure.  Only a certain number of steps are permitted I guess.

Perhaps you could explain a little of what you're thinking here.  I'm not sure if I can tell if you're being serious or sarcastic or what exactly you're intending to say.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

There are certainly enough details known about Joseph's polygamy to cause many members to be shocked and upset when they learn about them for the first time.  We can argue over what has actually been proven beyond a doubt, but let's be honest here regarding what we do know and how if affects many members when they are first exposed to it.  I have found very few who at least didn't stumble a bit when they learned about the details or at the very least did an "is that really true?" moment.  

Some may be able to accept that it happened and move on.  I'm in that camp and believe I will hopefully understand more after this life.  But for now, I believe polygamy came from man and not from God.  I believe Joseph was wrong to live it as he did and it's a sad, huge mistake he made that the church is still suffering from today.  Sins were committed, IMO, and many members were hurt and betrayed (starting with Emma).  I'm not sure how one can believe that came from God, but I continue to have faith that it'll all be made right.

You are quite entitled to your beliefs on the matter, but I just want to air mine so that "my silence" is not mistaken for agreement. Brian Hales wrote two volumes on the details of Joseph's polygamy, so I don't believe he ignored the details or is trying to paint over them. He just provides a lot of alternate details from those normally aired in the books of critics. If there is an area of Joseph's life most subject to scandalization and rumor mongering this is it. So it helps to have access to the journals of the women involved, and how they felt about it all rather than just the usual stereotypical print-every-rumor-style of critics.

I have not denied that I feel it probable that JS sinned on the matter, and even quoted D&C 132:56, which seems to imply that he did, and that he needed to seek the forgiveness of his wife, Emma. However, to conclude from that, that polygamy is entirely wrong is not correct either nor that it all was a "sad, huge mistake." Prophets are men - men sin. It doesn't make their revelations wrong. D&C 132 makes it clear that if men want an additional wife, the permission of the first is needed to not sin against her. JS probably messed up in communicating his intent  or the extent of his intent, or the like. However, I am not his judge - nor are you. That is why we have a Savior who God has given to be our Judge. For us to second guess the nature of this sin or to pass judgment on it is wrong. I do not believe D&C 132 is a "sad, huge mistake." I think Joseph and BY's interpretation of it was probably mistaken. And yes, I believe that interpretation was a sad, huge mistake. The idea that men and women have to engage in temporal polygamy in order to be exalted I think is still embedded in Church psyche, and I disagree with it. I believe it has resulted in much pain and sin mostly in the offshoots of the Church such as the FLDS. If it weren't for this teaching, we may not be having this discussion now. Further, the continual charge that Joseph "married" the wives of other men with all their alleged sordid details needs to be addressed with the fact that they don't smell quite right, because JS didn't produce any progeny from these alleged earthly unions, and that at the time the Church did recognize sealings for eternity only. While these women did have babies, it has been shown with genetic testing that they weren't Joseph's - it doesn't get much more real than that, so while you are being "honest" with what we do know, be sure to air those scientific facts. I believe they serve to quell the hysteria of the critics that JS was promoting polygamy for his own prurient desires.  

My personal belief is that Joseph was commanded to teach polygamy, and he took that to heart and tried to live an example and promote it as permissible or even desirable with God, but that brings up the point that if it was necessary for exaltation, JS did a poor job of it, because he didn't even publish D&C 132. He didn't air polygamy to the Church for the better part of a decade - that doesn't sound like he was actually told that people had to live polygamous relationships in order to be exalted does it? If so, I would say he was an utter failure.

Unfortunately, in my view BY took this issue by the horns and made it a calling card for exaltation. I know some may disagree with that, but that is MHO. But to make all polygamy a horrible mistake is to declare most of God's ancient prophets horribly mistaken and in direct, constant conflict with God - and the BoM shows they could be in the way they lived polygamy. It was not and never has been necessary for exaltation, and that is the message the Church needs to stick with. To the extent that some early teachings disagree, they were mistaken.

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  What instances do you have in mind of LDS leaders "being too fallible?"  Same goes for "questionable . . . revelations."

And by what metric are such things measured?

Thanks,

-Smac

It's more a collection of instances.

Let's suppose I want to learn how to shoot an arrow and I find an archer who has video of many of his bullseyes. Impressed, I sign up and he begins to show me how to shoot. I notice that while he occasionally makes a bullseye, he also misses the bullseye and even completely misses the target on some shots. After too many misses I decide to find another archer to teach me how to shoot.

What level of fallibility is acceptable for a prophet?

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

You are quite entitled to your beliefs on the matter, but I just want to air mine so that "my silence" is not mistaken for agreement. Brian Hales wrote two volumes on the details of Joseph's polygamy, so I don't believe he ignored the details or is trying to paint over them. He just provides a lot of alternate details from those normally aired in the books of critics. If there is an area of Joseph's life most subject to scandalization and rumor mongering this is it. So it helps to have access to the journals of the women involved, and how they felt about it all rather than just the usual stereotypical print-every-rumor-style of critics.

I have not denied that I feel it probable that JS sinned on the matter, and even quoted D&C 132:56, which seems to imply that he did, and that he needed to seek the forgiveness of his wife, Emma. However, to conclude from that, that polygamy is entirely wrong is not correct either nor that it all was a "sad, huge mistake." Prophets are men - men sin. It doesn't make their revelations wrong. D&C 132 makes it clear that if men want an additional wife, the permission of the first is needed to not sin against her. JS probably messed up in communicating his intent  or the extent of his intent, or the like. However, I am not his judge - nor are you. That is why we have a Savior who God has given to be our Judge. For us to second guess the nature of this sin or to pass judgment on it is wrong. I do not believe D&C 132 is a "sad, huge mistake." I think Joseph and BY's interpretation of it was probably mistaken. And yes, I believe that interpretation was a sad, huge mistake. The idea that men and women have to engage in temporal polygamy in order to be exalted I think is still embedded in Church psyche, and I disagree with it. I believe it has resulted in much pain and sin mostly in the offshoots of the Church such as the FLDS. If it weren't for this teaching, we may not be having this discussion now. Further, the continual charge that Joseph "married" the wives of other men with all their alleged sordid details needs to be addressed with the fact that they don't smell quite right, because JS didn't produce any progeny from these alleged earthly unions, and that at the time the Church did recognize sealings for eternity only. While these women did have babies, it has been shown with genetic testing that they weren't Joseph's - it doesn't get much more real than that, so while you are being "honest" with what we do know, be sure to air those scientific facts. I believe they serve to quell the hysteria of the critics that JS was promoting polygamy for his own prurient desires.  

My personal belief is that Joseph was commanded to teach polygamy, and he took that to heart and tried to live an example and promote it as permissible or even desirable with God, but that brings up the point that if it was necessary for exaltation, JS did a poor job of it, because he didn't even publish D&C 132. He didn't air polygamy to the Church for the better part of a decade - that doesn't sound like he was actually told that people had to live polygamous relationships in order to be exalted does it? If so, I would say he was an utter failure.

Unfortunately, in my view BY took this issue by the horns and made it a calling card for exaltation. I know some may disagree with that, but that is MHO. But to make all polygamy a horrible mistake is to declare most of God's ancient prophets horribly mistaken and in direct, constant conflict with God - and the BoM shows they could be in the way they lived polygamy. It was not and never has been necessary for exaltation, and that is the message the Church needs to stick with. To the extent that some early teachings disagree, they were mistaken.

Thanks for explaining your thoughts and beliefs, RevTestament.  I actually agree with some of what you write above.  I'm not a big fan of Hales and his apologetics and writings regarding this topic.  I think he ignores a lot and makes too many assumptions which he then states as facts.  I think he's a good man and means well, but I really don't care much for how he's handled the topic of polygamy.  Just my opinion, of course and each of us has to do our own reading and research.  My conclusion is that polygamy was never commanded by God and was something some men (and women?) wanted to live or that it was cultural for some.  I don't believe it was all lived in an unrighteous manner and have read many accounts that are really faith promoting (especially written by the women involved.)

 

Edited December 12, 2017 by ALarson

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Quote

Hmm.  What instances do you have in mind of LDS leaders "being too fallible?"  Same goes for "questionable . . . revelations."

And by what metric are such things measured?

Thanks,

-Smac

It's more a collection of instances.

Okay.  Let's hear 'em.

6 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Let's suppose I want to learn how to shoot an arrow and I find an archer who has video of many of his bullseyes. Impressed, I sign up and he begins to show me how to shoot. I notice that while he occasionally makes a bullseye, he also misses the bullseye and even completely misses the target on some shots. After too many misses I decide to find another archer to teach me how to shoot.

Okay.  Let's get down to brass tacks.  What "instances" of prophetic fallibility and "questionable ... revelations" do you have in mind?

6 minutes ago, Thinking said:

What level of fallibility is acceptable for a prophet?

Acceptable to whom?  To us as individuals?  Or to God?

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, Thinking said:

What level of fallibility is acceptable for a prophet?

The acceptable level of fallibility of a prophet of God will be known only when he is removed as a prophet.  That is entirely up to God, isn't it?  

However, I think you are probably hinting at a more personal question, one that only you can answer: "what level of fallibility will I personally accept in a prophet'?  Isn't that what you are really asking?

For me, I don't believe in blind faith, so their level of fallibility is less important to me than my personal level and ability to "hear" the word when it is spoken.

 

 

 

[ALarson]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I appreciate your remarks here.  I believe polygamy came from God and not from man.  The contrary proposition assumes too much about the character and motivations and circumstances of Joseph Smith.  As a man of considerable prominence and authority and influence, he would have had all sorts of opportunities to quietly engage in sexual misconduct.  Contriving a revival of the ancient biblical practice of polygamy as a pretext for sexual indiscretion just seems like overkill, like using a sledgehammer to squash a spider. 

I don't believe it's an either/or (either Joseph contrived with evil motivations and has a bad character or it was commanded by God).   He was a very spiritual and religious man and he most likely did believe it was of God.  I just believe this is where fallibility comes in when it comes to humans with good intentions and that he was mistaken.  I certainly do not believe he was evil or a pedophile (I'm very strongly opposed to those types of attacks) as many accuse him of being.  I just believe polygamy is man's idea and not God's.  I don't believe God would command or attempt to force anyone to live it especially as if their salvation relied on it.   

I appreciate your opinion and beliefs here, smac97 and your thoughtful reply.   

Edited December 12, 2017 by ALarson

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't believe it's an either/or (either Joseph contrived with evil motivations and has a bad character or it was commanded by God).   He was a very spiritual and religious man and he most likely did believe it was of God.  I just believe this is where fallibility comes in when it comes to humans with good intentions and that he was mistaken. 

Okay.  I respect that opinion.

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I certainly do not believe he was evil or a pedophile (I'm very strongly opposed to those types of attacks) as many accuse him of being.  I just believe polygamy is man's idea and not God's.  I don't believe God would command or attempt to force anyone to live it especially as if their salvation relied on it.

I appreciate your opinion and beliefs here, smac97 and your thoughtful reply.   

Same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

"It also doesn't account for the spectrum of women Joseph Smith purportedly married.  Nobody affects a leering tone when discussing Elizabeth Davis  (50), Sarah Kingsley (53), Fanny Young (56),  and Rhoda Richards (58).  Strangely enough, these ladies seem to escape the attention of the critics altogether.  They don't fit the oh-my-stars-and-garters!-Joseph-Smith-was-lecherous-because-he-married-teenagers! narrative, I guess."

I suspect if there weren't the younger wives, the fact he had older and same age wives wouldn't make anyone more comfortable with his polygyny.  It would still be shocking to many.  It may be higher in shock for younger than 10 years difference wives because we as a culture don't see that as romantic generally, but as power or sexual relationships (trophy wives).  I don't think just because they were in their 50s means they should be considered as definitely nonsexually attractive.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Thinking said:

There is a huge difference between not being infallible and being too fallible. I believe that faithful LDS too often use the nobody's perfect excuse to justify questionable behavior or revelations.

And of course you the only one who knows where the line is right?

There are no facts, only interpretations.  There's nothing like a liberal progressive who knows what is right for everybody else. Give everyone freedom to do what he thinks is correct, no more, no less.

Edited December 12, 2017 by mfbukowski

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Sounds like the problem may be deeper than just not understanding or embracing the principles. If Saturdays are occupied with preparing talks, attending meetings and doing Church activities to the exclusion of family time, It sounds like the faithful members in your area may be over-programmed and that some reducing and simplifying are in order.

 

I don't know about you, but I believe the doctrine on this is that Saturday is a special day, because it's the day we get ready for Sunday.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

"It also doesn't account for the spectrum of women Joseph Smith purportedly married.  Nobody affects a leering tone when discussing Elizabeth Davis  (50), Sarah Kingsley (53), Fanny Young (56),  and Rhoda Richards (58).  Strangely enough, these ladies seem to escape the attention of the critics altogether.  They don't fit the oh-my-stars-and-garters!-Joseph-Smith-was-lecherous-because-he-married-teenagers! narrative, I guess."

I suspect if there weren't the younger wives, the fact he had older and same age wives wouldn't make anyone more comfortable with his polygyny.  It would still be shocking to many.  It may be higher in shock for younger than 10 years difference wives because we as a culture don't see that as romantic generally, but as power or sexual relationships (trophy wives).  I don't think just because they were in their 50s means they should be considered as definitely nonsexually attractive.

I completely agree with your comments, Calm.

But, there's are reasons that the teenage wives are more upsetting or shocking to learn about for members.  Many do believe that Joseph only married older widows who needed taking care of for starters.  Then there is the age difference of an older man approaching a teenager to marry.  Added to these is also the fact that several of these girls were Emma's housemaids or helpers who she loved as daughters.  That brings the ick factor up, IMO for many who learn this.  Much was done behind Emma's back involving lies and deceit under her own roof.  Of course that wasn't just with the teens, but those are the marriages that do get attention and I think it's understandable that they do cause members the most discomfort and issues.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Yes, I understood that.  My experience is that the number should be closer to 1/3 to 1/2 of endowed members not having a current recommend. 

Wow. Where do you live that the figures are that high?

[Thinking]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What "instances" of prophetic fallibility and "questionable ... revelations" do you have in mind?

Years ago when I was reading the Old Testament I was bothered by the fact that Abraham was less than completely honest about Sarai being his wife. According to Genesis 12:11-13, Abraham asked Sarai to say that she was his sister.

Quote

And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon: Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive. Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.

I decided to read what was in the Book of Abraham.

Quote

And it came to pass when I was come near to enter into Egypt, the Lord said unto me: Behold, Sarai, thy wife, is a very fair woman to look upon; Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see her, they will say—She is his wife; and they will kill you, but they will save her alive; therefore see that ye do on this wise: Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live. Abraham 2:22-24

According to this passage it was God's idea to be less than completely honest about Abraham's relationship to Sarai.

Joseph's translation changes the story from a fallible man who might need to repent to a God who commands that man to lie to avoid potential danger.

Red Flag

Here's another one.

The LDS Church interprets Isaiah 29:4 as a prophecy about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. "And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust."

LeGrand Richards said, "Then he goes on in this same chapter, after saying that the vision of all—that is the vision of all that he saw about this people and its destruction and the coming forth of their record, speaking out of the dust—would have a familiar spirit. I gave a copy of the Book of Mormon to the treasurer in the Presbyterian Church back in New Bedford, Massachusetts, when I was doing missionary work there. When he had about finished reading it, I said, ‘As you read that book, did it occur to you that anyone could have written the contents of that book to deceive people?’
‘Oh,’ he said, ‘Mr. Richards, when I read that book, I get the same spiritual uplift that I get when I read the New Testament.’
Isn’t that what Isaiah meant when he said that it should have a familiar spirit?" (LeGrand Richards, Value of the Holy Scriptures, Ensign May 1976)

The idea that Isaiah was talking about something "recognizable" when he uses the term "familiar spirit" is very common in the LDS community. I remember learning about this "recognizable" spirit in early morning seminary and Sunday School classes. However, prior to Isaiah using "familiar spirit" in that verse, it is used twelve times in the Old Testament. In every case, the term is associated with magic. A familiar spirit is a ghost which is summoned by wizards and witches.

Leviticus 19:31 Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 20:6 And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.

Leviticus 20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

Deuteronomy 18:10-12 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

1 Samuel 28:3 Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him, and buried him in Ramah, even in his own city. And Saul had put away those that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land.

1 Samuel 28:7-9 Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Enñdor. And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee. And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die?

2 Kings. 21:6 And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.

2 Kings. 23:24 Moreover the workers with familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the LORD.

1 Chronicles 10:13 So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it;

2 Chronicles 33:6 And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.

Isaiah 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?

Isaiah 19:3 And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards.

Actually, in the 4th verse of chapter 29, Isaiah was prophesying about the destruction of Jerusalem. His comparison to a familiar spirit was not meant to be positive, nor was it meant to be a prophecy about a future book of scripture.

I could go on, but you get the picture.

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Acceptable to whom?  To us as individuals?  Or to God?

Each of us has to judge whether those who claim to be prophets actually are prophets.

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Note this isn't number of people without a recommend but number of people who had a recommend and no longer have it. That seems to high for that figure. Especially given the push to have recommends even if you're not regularly attending the temple. Although perhaps it's high simply because people farther away from temples don't feel the need.

I believe it was a randomized poll where they just kept calling people until they found someone who was a Mormon or former Mormon. They then weighted the results by region to make up for oversampling in places like Utah and make it geographically representative. While there are reasons to be skeptical of some things, it does appear that Jana was very focused on making this statistically relevant. As I said she used to have up a discussion of methodology but I can't find it online now. Does anyone with the Dialogue article know if they went through such issues there?

Making it statistically significant was why it cost so much money. Getting 1000 people take a lot of calling. It's expensive.

I think most people here recognize that. The only answer really is from God and the spirit. No amount of apologetic by FAIR or others can resolve those particular issues independent of God.

However those aren't the majority of charges that critics make. I'd be the first to admit they are the strongest but clearly people don't just stick to them.

That's kind of surprising. I grew up in the mission field - far more mission field than the typical California region where there really are a lot of Mormons. Everyone knew not going shopping, to movies or stores was the rule. Now not everyone followed it. But the bigger issue were disagreement on things like watching TV on Sunday. But I don't think this is a Utah thing. It's repeated rather regularly in Church magazines, conference talks, and lessons. I don't deny in the least this may be a cultural thing in California. But it seems odd that not even the leadership there teaches it.

I should note that I'm a little hypocritical here as I have run to Smiths to get something for Sunday dinner if we've forgotten an ingredient and have company. I'll also regularly take the kids for a drive so my wife can have some alone time to nap. That usually involves getting gas and I'll occasionally get a pop the same time. I've been trying to be better about not going into the gas station on Sundays and only getting gas though. Especially now that my kids are getting older. So it's definitely a principle I don't live as well as I could.

I have yet to see the evidence of specifics like an absolute prohibition on a family dinner in a restaurant on any of these specific items 

No statements like (going out to dinner on a Sunday as a family activity) is a sin and should never be even considered.

"Everyone knows it" is one of those blanket statements that simply prove that Rorty was right about everything. 

No, not everyone knows it, and many think otherwise.

My 6 generation Mormon finance with her convert boyfriend had no problem going out to dinner with him to discuss the gospel further on a Sunday afternoon after church when there was nowhere else to talk privately to move him forward, without interference from her conservative family who did not understand his weird views.

Honestly though I would personally NEVER eat out on a Sunday now (except when traveling- which GA's do all the time incidentally) without those discussions about my weird ideas on Sundays in restaurants, I might still not be a member.  I would not do it now because I accept it as a universal principle that the world would be a better place if the world shut down on Sundays.

But it does not.  And though a boycott might work in Utah it is not even going to be noticed in Vegas, LA or New York City.

And that is another one.

If it is an absolute prohibition, why do people work on Sundays   or eat out when travelling when necessary?

If it is not an absolute prohibition, then the choice is situational.  And for me, that would include family dinners out for people not acquainted with the rather odd custom until they can bear the discipline others were raised with and do not even understand to be a sacrifice.

Imagine becoming Amish.

Now you must wear odd clothing everywhere and use a horse and buggy- no more cars.

THAT is what it is like to become a Mormon for secular folks.  Sometimes you just want to hop in the car and grab something at the store and no one every told you you absolutely cannot because no one has said so.

As I have said even GA's travel on Sundays without carrying a portable kitchen with them or an ice chest.  And dang it, those pilots and airport people and TSA have to work too so that the GA's can get home.  That is situational ethics and situational praxis.

Oh well.

"Well that's different because......"

Is it ?   Who is the judge?

I'll leave it to the Lord thank you very much.  

 

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Each of us has to judge whether those who claim to be prophets actually are prophets.

Bingo! 

I would suggest that using an arbitrary measure of "what level of fallibility is acceptable?" is probably not helpful.  Christ was measured in the same way by the Sadducees and Pharisees, and was found wanting.  Again, instead of weighing the ability of others, it is probably more helpful to weigh your own ability to "let yourself hear".  Look inward rather than outward, in other words.  

[Thinking]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And of course you the only one who knows where the line is right?

I don't necessarily need to know exactly where the line is to know it's been crossed.

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There are no facts, only interpretations.  There's nothing like a liberal progressive who knows what is right for everybody else. Give everyone freedom to do what he thinks is correct, no more, no less.

That's the first time I've ever been called a liberal progressive.

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I don't necessarily need to know exactly where the line is to know it's been crossed.

That's what the Pharisees and Saducees said too...probably.