Distinct polygamy concerns

[juliann]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I am not disputing her statement, or Rongo's.  It appears there are circumstances where exceptions to the Church's published policy are made.

I doubt the Brethren will want to do what Juliann is proposing, though ("making it public that they do seal women to two living husbands by special permission").  Publicly advertising what is likely a very limited set of circumstances for exceptions to the policy would be like decorating the exception with a giant, blinking, neon sign.

Contrary to Juliann's characterization, I don't think the Brethren are being "secretive" about this.  I think they are being wise and compassionate in A) clearly stating the policy (I am very glad that the Handbook is now open to the general public), and B) not publicly "advertising" the possibility of exceptions to it (as doing so would likely set up a lot of women for disappointment, anger, etc. if and when their request for an exception were not granted).

In a sense, this is a good problem to have, as it shows that the Latter-day Saints are taking the Restored Gospel, and their covenants, seriously enough to proceed on the assumption that sealing power is real and efficacious, such that we should be attuned to how it applies in our lives.

By that same reasoning, though, we should also be very circumspect in how we approach questions/concerns about this issue.  Kate Kelly was a pretty good example of how not to behave when asking the Brethren to consider issues that may be "policy" as much as, or more than, "doctrine."  Same goes for Sam Young.

 

You really think that telling me not to disclose what they gave me special permission for is not "secrecy?" Really? Do you also think that men being able to do this as a matter of fact is a giant, blinking, neon sign? Has that neon sign damaged anything, or is just when it is lit up for women?  I'm a little put off by your characterizing women as children needing protection from being disappointed or anger. 

I agree with you about the Kelly approach, however, as we can see here, this is a poorly kept secret. Social media will become the blinking neon sign. 

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, california boy said:

Here  is some information on Joseph Smiths relationships with teenager Fanny Alger.

...

Sounds like lying to me.

Again, I can both defend polygamy as a divinely-mandated principle (based on the Bible, D&C 132, Jacob 2, etc.) and also not "defend" falsehoods or equivocations told about it.  

Again, I think that critics have made some fair points regarding honesty, equivocations, etc. and 19th-century statements about polygamy.

I can affirm polygamy as a point of doctrine (albeit very difficult for me to understand).  I can also affirm that Joseph Smith and others, if not strictly speaking "lie" about it, nevertheless were clearly evasive, equivocative, and so on.  

I leave to the Lord the adjudication of the honesty of people long dead.  Living as a Latter-day Saint in 19th-century Illinois was a pretty tough slog.  Polygamy made things all the more difficult.  When I consider how repellant the notion of polygamy is to me, living in a drenched-in-sexualization time of 2022, how much more challenging must it have been to the genuinely devout men and women living on the American frontier in the 19th century, replete with strident sexual mores and such.  In such circumstances, complete honesty and candor may have been given short shrift.  Fortunately, the Restored Gospel allows for this sort of thing.  If some of the early Saints were in some ways not fully honest about polygamy, then repentance and the Atonement kick in.  And if they were honest, they will have "boldness in the day of judgment" (1 John 4:17).

Either way, figuring out the particulars is not really within my job description.  My assessment concludes with Mormon 9:31 - "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

There are more possibilities. I think it is clear from the reactions of the women to the government threatening their religion is key. They immediately sprang into action and defended a practice many were miserable with. It was about a belief in their religion in an era where women were subjegated and expected to sacrifice. I have to remind myself that the Curse of Eve was still very much alive and they rationalized polygamy as a way to get out from under "your desire shall always be to your husband." It was all tied up in a belief in sealings and exaltation and no revelation is pure. Now that I think about it, I'm wondering how many of the visions were in Nauvoo vs in later decades because JS's polygamy was not BY's polygamy.

That's an interesting perspective to consider. 

It sounds like you are saying that these testimonies, which came from multiple women (and men) were possibly made up for the purpose of defending their religion and practice of polygamy from a scrutinizing government.   If I were to critically consider that idea, then I would want to understand more about the following points, 1) how such a story would protect their religion and practice from the government.  For an outside perspective, it would just make us sound that much more crazy.  If anything, it makes Joseph look like a liar from an outside perspective, who used compulsory means to sleep around with young girls.  I think most would understand that story would be viewed with great suspicion from an outsiders perspective.   To me, it seems to be more directed at believers to protect the integrity and image of Joseph Smith - causing us to sympathize with him in his polygamy practice.  2) If that was indeed the purpose of the stories, than I would want to see that these stories were directed at the government and not simply documented in personal journals or autobiographies (which several are), and 3) I would want to look at time-lines.  The earliest account is from the mid to late 1840's but no later than 1851.  Polygamy was not even openly practiced in Utah as a tenet of the church until 1852 when Orson Pratt made his speech.  So there are some timeline issues with creating this story in defense from the government. 

While this perspective is probably the least offensive of the options, it does still leave the inevitable truth that many women and leaders were lying - albeit for altruistic purposes and under great pressure - and making up stories to defend their faith.  I find that troubling and uncomfortable too.  Even with this new possibility, I still feel uncomfortable about the whole thing.  

There is some evidence that the story of the angel was circulating even earlier and Don Bradley suggests that Hyrum Smith may have been responding to such rumors (that he clearly didn't believe) when he said in 1843:

Quote

Hyrum Smith addressed thepeople . . . . He said there were many that had a great deal to say about the ancient
order of things as Solomon and David having many wives and concubines, but it is
an abomination in the sight of God. If an angel from heaven should come and preach
such doctrine, some would be sure to see his cloven foot and cloud of darkness over
head, though his garments might shine as white as snow. A man might have one wife
but concubines he should have none.23

I don't know how this story would protect us from the government any more than section 132 would. 

Edited July 8, 2022 by pogi

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Again, I can both defend polygamy as a divinely-mandated principle (based on the Bible, D&C 132, Jacob 2, etc.) and also not "defend" falsehoods or equivocations told about it.  

Again, I think that critics have made some fair points regarding honesty, equivocations, etc. and 19th-century statements about polygamy.

I can affirm polygamy as a point of doctrine (albeit very difficult for me to understand).  I can also affirm that Joseph Smith and others, if not strictly speaking "lie" about it, nevertheless were clearly evasive, equivocative, and so on. 

I am with you.  I can defend polygamy like i can defend monogamy as conceptual relationships.  However that does not mean I have to defend the actions of all people who practice polygamy or monogamy.  Anytime fallible, weak, error prone people engage in something, mistakes and bone head decisions will be made.  It is a given.  I would even expect Joseph Smith to make some mistakes and unwise decisions.   After all, who did Joseph Smith have to mentor in with polygamy.  Sure the scriptures speak of people having more than one wife but they don't have an instruction manual on how to do it and what not to do.  I don't think any of the critics would have done a better and they been in his position.  It no different than Monday morning quarterbacking.  Tom Brady should have done this or that.  Those some critics if they were on the field being chased by 300 pound linemen would not be following their advice.  They would be running for their lives. 

I am even ok with some lying.  Lying is not always wrong.  Depends on the situation.  If I had a daughter and her abusive boyfriend came to my house angry asking if she was in the house, I would lie to him without hesitation.  I am not telling him where she is.   I will lie to him to protect her.   It all depends on context of what the lying is about. 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

In the case a giant blinking neon sign is just what we need to help many women stop feeling they are second class citizens in the Church and the Kingdom of God.

There are definitely substantial measures of humility, patience, and deference that are called for in the lives of some Latter-day Saints.  Part of that, I think, is giving due consideration to the entirety of the Gospel message, rather than focusing on an individual's finite and blinkered perspective on it.

Assuaging subjective notions and feelings runs the risk of allowing the exception to swallow the rule.  What you are calling for here has no discernible limiting principle.  If a member dislikes a particular point of doctrine (or policy), then that is an understandable part of the disciple's journey.  But if and when the member dislikes a point of doctrine or policy, and proceeds to mete out demands and ultimatums to the Brethren to change things based on the individual's subjective feelings, well, that's not a workable solution.

I can certainly appreciate an unmarried member of the Church "feeling" he is a "second class citizen" because he is not married, and because the Church places such heavy emphasis and import on marriage.  And though we certainly should do all we can to help this fellow, I think it would not be appropriate for him to say, in essence, "Brethren, the doctrines/policies of the Church make me feel like a second class citizen, therefore thange those doctrines/policies so that I feel better."  That's not a workable approach.  That's not the way of things.  

I understood and respected Kate Kelly's questions and concerns about women and the priesthood, but she went way off the grid in how she went about expressing those questions and concerns.

I had less patience and respect for Sam Young, as I viewed him as a self-aggrandizing usurper and nascent apostate (the latter of which turned out to be an accurate assessment).

We seem to have a pretty good crop of leaders these days.  Far from perfect, to be sure, but I believe them to be genuinely decent and moral and sincere.  They have recently radically revised and revamped the Church Handbook, and have since modified it in increments even further.  It is, I suppose, possible that they are oblivious to the practical and real-world challenges that can arise relative to doctrines and policies pertaining to sealings.  It is further possible that they are aware of these challenges, but that institutional inertia is impairing their response to them.  It is still further possible that they are aware of these challenges, but nevertheless have come to the conclusion that the doctrines and policies are presently appropriate, and that members who struggle with these things need compassion and understanding and fellowship (not unlike the followers of Jesus in John 6, who struggled with his "Bread of Life" sermon).

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

All they have to do is state “an individual may be able to be sealed to a living spouse with the permission of the First Presidency only as long as any other spouses they are sealed to are dead.  Sealings in the cases of divorce need to be cancelled for a living sealing if a civilly divorced spouse is still living.  The cancellation does not affect the sealing between parents and children.  Applications for second sealings are made through the current bishop of the individual.  See him for further information on process.”

"All they have to do" is . . . make an announcement that exception swallows the rule?  

The current policy is that "[a] living woman may be sealed to only one husband at a time."  How do you reconcile that policy with your proposed statement above?

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Simply make the policy consistent for the living as well as the dead, the same for women as men, same for men as women…

Hold up.  So we're not talking about just making an announcement ("All they have to do is state...").  You are actually advocating for a change in policy, right?

Sealing policies seem to be pretty important.  I'm not sure they can (or ought) to be altered to cater to the personal preferences of some of the members sof the Church.

What if the change in policy, so as to effectuate the abstract symmetry you propose, is not compatible with what the Brethren believe and understand to be the Lord's will?  

I am open to changes in policy, new doctrines, etc.  "Continuing light and knowledge" and all that.  I am certainly open to a policy change that creates the symmetry you propose.  But I think there will be a fairly substantial doctrinal/revelatory component to that.  I think this is about more than institutional inertia or the preferences of the Brethren.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

sounds like you are saying that these testimonies, which came from multiple women (and men) were possibly made up for the purpose of defending their religion and practice of polygamy from a scrutinizing government.

I would say not made up, but the way our brains work we think of something as more positive if we are defending. 
 

It is like if someone badmouths our family, we close ranks and defend and paint a glorious picture and mean every word, but we siblings when sitting around just gabbing might vent a lot and mean every word then too.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hold up.  So we're not talking about just making an announcement ("All they have to do is state...").  You are actually advocating for a change in policy, right?

It would be easier to adjust the policy than not, but I am fine if they want to simply announce the current exception process. 
 

My point was it really isn’t a big deal policy or doctrine wise  given they are doing it for the dead and have for over a decade (two? three?). Given the sealing is for eternity, there is no difference between the living and dead in this case.

Edited July 8, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would say not made up, but the way our brains work we think of something as more positive if we are defending. 
 

It is like if someone badmouths our family, we close ranks and defend and paint a glorious picture and mean every word, but we siblings when sitting around just gabbing might vent a lot and mean every word then too.

I get the idea of defending what we hold dear even to the point of being tempted in exaggerating truths, but if there really was no angel with a sword, but only the revelation outlined in section 132, then this goes beyond exaggerating truths in my estimation.  There is no factual substance to exaggerate from.  
 

We are also still left with the dilemma of the time-line and audience.   To me it doesn’t sound like a defensive position against government threats (government doesn’t seem to be the intended audience) , it seems more directed at believers to preserve the integrity and image of Joseph (and potentially those who practiced polygamy with him) causing us to sympathize with him/them in his polygamy practices.  If the story was contrived, that seems to be the most likely reason.  

Edited July 8, 2022 by pogi

[smac97]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree that there are some fairly credible testimonies.  

So, we are left with the predicament of having to consider several possibilities, including 1) that multiple credible people were confused with the same delusion or nearly identical false memory, or were straight up liars - including several of Joseph's wives.   We have been advised to study polygamy from the perspective of the women and listen to their stories - well, for several of them, this is their story. 

Yes.  But Juliann doesn't like that part of their stories, hence her appeal to authority about "modern scholarship" "discarding" it (which I'm fine with, I just don't feel obligated to do so).

For me, the "sword and angel" story is, at best, supplemental and ancillary evidence as to the provenance and doctrinal/revelatory pedigree of polygamy.  The "primary" authorities on which I rely are the Bible, D&C 132, Jacob 2, past prophetic pronouncements, the Church's current acknowledgment (effectively, "Yes, it's in our doctrines, but no, we don't practice it"), and so on.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

That is why I find the story so troubling.  If the story is false, then that leads me to question the integrity and credibility of several church leaders and historical women in the church.  If the story is true, on the other hand, then I have to decide if Joseph made it up and used the story to compel others to marry him, and to hide the shame and accountability of it all behind an angel with a sword - or decide if the account is true, which may be even more unsettling to me and would cause me to rethink the attributes and nature of God in ways that are uncomfortable to me. 

Very concise.  You posit three options:

Option 1: "False Story" - The story is, altogether and in every sense, false --> "question the integrity and credibility of several church leaders and historical women in the church."

Option 2: "Yes, Joseph said it, but he made it up" - "The story is "true" (as in the story really originated with Joseph) --> "Joseph made it up and used the story to compel others to marry him, and to hide the shame and accountability of it all behind an angel with a sword," or

Option 3: "Yes, Joseph said it, and yes, it happened" - The story is "true" (as in the story really originated with Joseph and that what Joseph said is factually accurate) --> "cause me to rethink the attributes and nature of God in ways that are uncomfortable to me."

There may also be a fourth option:

Option 4: "Ambivalence - The story is muddled + not authenticated in records of the Church" - The story is both muddled (its "chain of custody" is very poor due to the prevalence of hearsay, hearsay-within-hearsay, long passages of time between when Joseph would have said it and when recollections were recorded, etc.) and unnecessary (the Church has not authenticated or ratified it, and the verity and origins of the doctrines pertaining to polygamy are not based on it), so members are free to set it aside and give it no substantial weight or consideration.  

I think Option 1 is unworkable, both from a basic historical perspective, and from a perspective of faith.  It does beyond the evidence.

Option 2 is, for me, unworkable because it assumes way too much about the character of Joseph Smith.  In my view, the great weight of the evidence is that he was a sincerely devout man.  Daniel Peterson has argued, in my view quite persuasively, that the private writings of Joseph Smith are strong evidence of his sincerity relative to the Gold Plates, and that this really throws a monkey wrench into the "Pious Fraud" theories bandied about.  In a similar sense, I think his sincerity and overall decency make it way too big a stretch to buy into the "Joseph was a depraved lech who fabricated a revelation about polygamy as a pretext to justify his slaking his carnal lusts"-style characterizations.  Moreover, if Joseph really was a prophet, I can't really conceptualized the Lord allowing him to commit such serious sins without correction or "removal."  Joseph was reprimanded by the Lord for transgressions far less serious than serialized lechery/adultery.  So the "Joseph made it up" explanation for the angel-and-sword story does not work for me.

Option 3 is, for me, workable (though I do not choose it).  I think there are times when a servant of God "sacrifices" his agency.  Consecrates it.  Gives it back to God.  If and when that happens, then the individual has committed to a particular course and may well be obligated to pursue it because he has voluntarily given up his agency.  

Paul repeatedly declared himself to be "a prisoner of Jesus Christ."  See Philemon 1:1, 9, Ephesians 3:1, Ephesians 4:1 ("prisoner of the Lord"), 2 Timothy 1:8 ("Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner...").  Here is Elder Condie's exegesis of this concept:

Quote

As Saul of Tarsus began his mission, he changed his name to Paul and turned his life to Christ. On several different occasions the apostle Paul referred to himself as a “prisoner” of Christ (see Ephesians 3:1, 4:1; 2 Timothy 1:8; Philemon 1, 9, 23). Once he had made the decision to serve the Lord, that decision was irrevocable.

Paul’s frequent use of the term prisoner of Christ is very significant, for he was very familiar with prisons and prisoners. Before his conversion he had personally sent numerous Saints to prison (see Acts 26:10), and after his conversion he himself had been forcibly committed to prison (see Acts 23:10–11, 28:17–18). He had observed firsthand the restricted latitude of free will in the lives of other prisoners and had experienced this confinement in his own life when imprisoned.

Thus, when Paul confessed that he had become a willing prisoner of Christ, he disclosed that he had willingly chosen to use his moral agency to do only the will of the Lord. In doing so, he unraveled the mystery of the Savior’s paradoxical promise that “he that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it” (Matthew 10:39). Those who willingly become prisoners of Christ “shall know the truth, and the truth shall make [them] free” (John 8:32). ...

As Paul became Christ’s prisoner, his life began to more closely approximate the Savior’s life. His relationship with Christ became more like the Savior’s relationship with his Father. 

So maybe a person "acting as a prophet" is constrained in terms of his individual agency.  The angel-and-sword story is not unique in this regard.  Alma the Younger (who was not, at the time, a "prophet" was told "If thou wilt of thyself be destroyed, seek no more to destroy the church of God" (Alma 36:9), followed by three days of being "wracked with eternal torment" (v. 12).  That sort of ultimatum doesn't really jibe with our normal expectations about how we are "free to choose."  I think this is because there are times when the Lord constrains our choices insofar as we are affecting other persons.  

Moreover, there are a number of scriptures that warn us against presuming to judge how God operates.  "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."  (Isa 55:8-9.)  "Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand."  (Jacob 4:10.)  "Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen."  (D&C 22:4.)

I think Option 4 is perhaps the safest and most logical approach.  We don't need to reach a conclusion about the story.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

No matter how I assess the story, I am left feeling uncomfortable. 

Well, Option 4 can provide a respite.  

As an attorney, there are times when I have a number of disputed issues that I want the judge to make a ruling on.  The judge will sometimes make a decision about items A, B and C, and then say "Having adjudicated A, B and C, the Court need not reach or address items D, E and F."  There are times when the judge doesn't need to resolve every dispute or question presented by the parties.

Perhaps there is something similar going on with the Lord.  "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," and all that.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I can't find a way to interpret it in a positive light. 

Option 3 and Option 4 allow for a "positive light" for me.  YMMV.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

It unfortunately casts a dark shadow over an already uncomfortable and troubling part of our history.  

I respect that you have a concern about this.  It's quite a legitimate one.  But I also think it is a resolvable, reconcilable one.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 8, 2022 by smac97

[MustardSeed]

Well I don't know if this will assist you with your class Rongo but here is my position: Im deeply grateful that my faithful husband is disgusted by past and possible future polygamy, IF ONLY because he cares to demonstrate understanding and compassion for my view on it. I trust it goes deeper than that for him but if not, at least I feel heard and defended by the man I love.  And if he changes his mind, I trust I'll have the freedom to change my mind about him.

That's all I "need" for now.  What I "want" is for someone high up to demonstrate the same.  Hasn't happened yet, but I understand defend to the death all things doctrinal or accepted as such.

[strappinglad]

I just reviewed 2 Sam 12 : 5-11 to see what the Lord thought about multiple wives. These verses were a rebuke of David taking Uriah's wife, however, He seems to have had no problem with " giving " Saul's wives( plural) to David and , had David desired more , would have " given " more. The sin was in going outside of God's will and order. Apparently polygamy ,at least for the King, was expected/normal. Scholars here may tell us if polygamy outside of the royal court was common at that time. Solomon, of course, took polygamy to another level. For all their suffering and abuse, the wives of kings were probably much more comfortable in life that the ordinary citizen wife. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I get the idea of defending what we hold dear even to the point of being tempted in exaggerating truths, but if there really was no angel with a sword, but only the revelation outlined in section 132, then this goes beyond exaggerating truths in my estimation.  There is no factual substance to exaggerate from.  

What the angel actually said and what Joseph later remembered or what the person (people?) Joseph told remembered are not necessarily the same thing.  I can see the angel saying Joseph must get a move on establishing celestial marriage because of the massive importance of the sealing and Joseph ( or the person he told) being confused because he assumed that celestial meant plural because what triggered the conversation about celestial marriage was his asking the question about polygamy in the Old Testament.  Or perhaps the angel talked about plural marriage and meant it was for both men and women to be sealed to all they were married to as happens today with sealings for the dead, but because of Joseph’s culture, his thought goes to the way it was done in the OT especially since it gets tied to Sarah giving Abraham a wife so as to have children, men having multiple wives only.  Or perhaps the focus was meant to be on the sealing of both parents to children, creating the web, but it got distorted into glory is in how many children one man has himself rather than glory being all of God’s extended family being tied together.

Edited July 9, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

1 minute ago, strappinglad said:

I just reviewed 2 Sam 12 : 5-11 to see what the Lord thought about multiple wives. These verses were a rebuke of David taking Uriah's wife, however, He seems to have had no problem with " giving " Saul's wives( plural) to David and , had David desired more , would have " given " more. The sin was in going outside of God's will and order. Apparently polygamy ,at least for the King, was expected/normal. Scholars here may tell us if polygamy outside of the royal court was common at that time. Solomon, of course, took polygamy to another level. For all their suffering and abuse, the wives of kings were probably much more comfortable in life that the ordinary citizen wife. 

Samuel’s dad had two wives.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

By that same reasoning, though, we should also be very circumspect in how we approach questions/concerns about this issue.  Kate Kelly was a pretty good example of how not to behave when asking the Brethren to consider issues that may be "policy" as much as, or more than, "doctrine."  Same goes for Sam Young.

Thanks,

-Smac

Can you clarify this paragraph?  It sounds like you are saying that women have to be very careful and not ask for an exception to be made for them because then they'll end up like KK and SY.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That's an interesting perspective to consider. 

It sounds like you are saying that these testimonies, which came from multiple women (and men) were possibly made up for the purpose of defending their religion and practice of polygamy from a scrutinizing government.   If I were to critically consider that idea, then I would want to understand more about the following points, 1) how such a story would protect their religion and practice from the government.  For an outside perspective, it would just make us sound that much more crazy.  If anything, it makes Joseph look like a liar from an outside perspective, who used compulsory means to sleep around with young girls.  I think most would understand that story would be viewed with great suspicion from an outsiders perspective.   To me, it seems to be more directed at believers to protect the integrity and image of Joseph Smith - causing us to sympathize with him in his polygamy practice.  2) If that was indeed the purpose of the stories, than I would want to see that these stories were directed at the government and not simply documented in personal journals or autobiographies (which several are), and 3) I would want to look at time-lines.  The earliest account is from the mid to late 1840's but no later than 1851.  Polygamy was not even openly practiced in Utah as a tenet of the church until 1852 when Orson Pratt made his speech.  So there are some timeline issues with creating this story in defense from the government. 

While this perspective is probably the least offensive of the options, it does still leave the inevitable truth that many women and leaders were lying - albeit for altruistic purposes and under great pressure - and making up stories to defend their faith.  I find that troubling and uncomfortable too.  Even with this new possibility, I still feel uncomfortable about the whole thing.  

There is some evidence that the story of the angel was circulating even earlier and Don Bradley suggests that Hyrum Smith may have been responding to such rumors (that he clearly didn't believe) when he said in 1843:

I don't know how this story would protect us from the government any more than section 132 would. 

Why do you keep going back to binary lie/didn’t lie? I said there were other options and discussed some possibilities. 

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Juliann doesn't like that part of their stories

Smac, this kind of stuff really turns me off your posts…

And yes, there is stuff Julie does that is annoying to me too, but I have other ways of talking to her and only this one for you.

Edited July 9, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

You really think that telling me not to disclose what they gave me special permission for is not "secrecy?" Really?

As Joseph Smith put it:

Quote

“The reason,” he once said, “we do not have the secrets of the Lord revealed unto us is because we do not keep them but reveal them . . . even to our enemies.” Then he added, “I can keep a secret till Doomsday.”

When I was in the military, I received a "Top Secret" security clearance, and I had access to highly sensitive (though overwhelmingly dull and uninteresting) information.  

As an attorney, I have access to all sorts of very sensitive and private information belonging to my clients.

When I served on my stake's High Council and later as a bishopric counselor, I was privy to a number of disciplinary proceedings in which the transgressions of individuals were discussed.

As a bishop, I was regularly given all sorts of private and very sensitive information from members of my ward.

In all such circumstances, I recognized that the information to which I had access was not mine to give away.  

I'm not fully sure what you are referencing with this "secrecy" stuff.  I had understood it to be a reference to women being sealed to more than one man at the same time.  Is that right?

And I don't think I was really contesting your comment about "secrecy," either.

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Do you also think that men being able to do this as a matter of fact is a giant, blinking, neon sign?

Yes, but in a very different way.  Men are authorized by policy to be sealed to more than one woman at the same time.  The rule itself has a "giant, blinking, neon sign" pointing to it because it's right there in the published-to-the-world handbook.

In contrast, I had understood you to be referencing a (rare) exception to the policy pertaining to women, which is what elicited by "giant, blinking, neon sign" comment.

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Has that neon sign damaged anything, or is just when it is lit up for women?  

Any rulemaking body or institution that crafts a rule and then makes a public and specific and emphatic invitation for people to seek exemptions from that rule is . . . essentially gutting the rule.  

In the main, I'm not interested in your non-stop Gender Wars stuff. 

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I'm a little put off by your characterizing women as children needing protection from being disappointed or anger. 

Funny, I was thinking the same about you and your endless grievance-mongering on behalf of "women."

Not everything is about gender, Juliann.  I would say the same think about publicizing a rule directed at men and then making a public and emphatic point to invite them to seek exemptions from it.  That guts the rule.  The exception swallows the rule, becomes the rule.  

And I'm not characterizing women in this way.  I am not infantilizing them by regularly painting them as victims.  

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I agree with you about the Kelly approach, however, as we can see here, this is a poorly kept secret. Social media will become the blinking neon sign. 

Only because there are members of the Church who, unlike Joseph Smith, cannot keep confidences.  A secret given to me in confidence should remain that way.

The Church has enough challenges to deal with in keeping itself in decent running order, in fulfilling its mandates, in uplifting and edifying the Saints and the world.  I would hope that the Latter-day Saints would not betray confidences that do not belong to them about sensitive and difficult matters, particularly when such betrayals are intended as leverage against the Church, as pressure to push the Brethren in a particular direction.  I just don't think the same Lord who said to us "be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine" (D&C 38:27) wants us to behave in that way.

I dunno.  Maybe I'm reading you wrong.

Thanks,

-Smac

[carbon dioxide]

Rongo, how much of what has been posted on this tread been helpful to you?  It has answered one question I asked myself.  That being why don't we speak more about polygamy in Church in terms of the scriptures and history.   I think my question has been more than answered.   The Church is wise not to discuss it or reference it more than it does.  If its an issue that causes people to leave the church or not come to the church it is their choice.   They can discuss the matter with the Lord when their time comes. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

In this case a giant blinking neon sign is just what we need to help many women stop feeling they are second class citizens in the Church and the Kingdom of God.

With respect, I disagree.  Advertising an exception to a policy necessarily invites requests for such exceptions, and hence undermines and vitiates the policy.

I also think that advertising an exception would set up a lot of these women for disappointment, as they would be expecting the exception, not the rule.

There are ways to help our sisters feel better, but the Church undermining its own policies about very sacred matters is not the way to do it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The exception swallows the rule, becomes the rule.  

This isn't true of our exceptions for abortion though.  Why would it automatically be the case for this kind of exception?

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are ways to help our sisters feel better, but the Church undermining its own policies about very sacred matters is not the way to do it.

It is hardly undermining policy when it is already the policy for every dead woman who as ever lived now and has been for quite sometime.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I disagree.  Advertising an exception to a policy necessarily invites requests for such exceptions, and hence undermines and vitiates the policy.

I also think that advertising an exception would set up a lot of these women for disappointment, as they would be expecting the exception, not the rule.

There are ways to help our sisters feel better, but the Church undermining its own policies about very sacred matters is not the way to do it.

Thanks,

-Smac

How is the way to do it?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Quote

Personally, I'm sort of surprised that the Lord has let us flounder about on these sorts of things.  If there is a material doctrinal/revelatory distinction to be maintained (wherein a man can be sealed to more than one woman at a time, but woman cannot be sealed to more than one man at a time), I would like to see that clarified.

Oh for heaven's sakes. You cannot be unaware what special permission is. Are you denying exemptions don't exist? 

Yes, I am denying exemptions don't exist.

Put another way: I am admitting that exemptions do exist.

2 hours ago, juliann said:

It means it deviates from the CHI and you have to ask the First Presidency for permission.

I'm aware of the concept.

2 hours ago, juliann said:

I received permission for something that the CHI didn't allow, which I won't go into. 

A bit "cat out of the bag," that.

You were asked to keep this exception in confidence?  And you are now publishing that exception to the world on this thread?

Good to know, I guess.

2 hours ago, juliann said:

I am sure you consider me a liar, but good luck throwing Rongo into that category.

I don't consider you a liar.  Just a bullly.

I don't think Rongo is a liar, either.  I said nothing to disparage your honest, or his.

2 hours ago, juliann said:

For what it is worth, I personally know a woman who is sealed to two live husbands. There has been at least one woman on this board who said she did the same, possibly two. If you spend any time in LDS women's sites, you will see others. It is usually accompanied by tales of it being freely granted to those with connections.

For everyone else, what happens when you are given exceptions, you are asked not to disclose the exception...which is next to impossible with sealings because others are involved. So there is a high degree of secrecy involved which is why most people don't know about it....and why more women aren't demanding it, as they did for cancellations....resulting in a change of that horrible policy of making women have a new husband to get one. 

Regardless of the numbers, what even one such sealing means is that there is no doctrine against, or consequence, in allowing women to be sealed twice. People need to repeat that until it sinks in. 

Ah.  The "Kate Kelly" mode of discipleship.  If you don't like the way the Church is doing something, then resort to pressure points and agitation until you get your way.

Sorry, but that does not jibe with my understanding of how the Lord wants us to operate.

And FWIW, I disagree with the bolded part above.  I find it utterly and substantively wrong, in fact.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

There are ways to help our sisters feel better, but the Church undermining its own policies about very sacred matters is not the way to do it.

How is the way to do it?

Study the scriptures, ponder and pray.

Clarify the nature of the questions and concerns.

Research the issues.  At length.  

Evaluate the policy in question, and the possible doctrinal/revelatory bases for it.

Confer with trusted and faithful Saints who may have information and insights that could illuminate these things.  

Talk with local leaders about this.  Seek further "review" at the stake and/or area level if appropriate.

Avoid adopting an adversarial posture relative to the leaders of the Church.

Avoid betraying confidences.

Really avoid "public protest"-style antics and strategies.

At some point, if you feel you really have a case to make for requesting a policy change, follow the generalized counsel provided by then-Elder Oaks in his 1987 article, Criticism.

Here's the governing principle he lays out:

Quote

The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. ... Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity.  That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love.

He then goes on to lay out "five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female":

Quote

The first—and most benign—of the procedures is to overlook the difference.
...
A second option is to reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference. 
...
The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. 
...
A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression.
...
There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem. We should pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction. At the same time, we should pray for ourselves, asking the Lord to correct us if we are in error.

I'm sort of confused about what exactly is being bandied about here.  Publicly disclosing matters of church govedrnance that were requested to be kept in confidence is, I think, reprehensible.  It is not only a betrayal of trust, but here it appears to be raised as a justification for taking on an adversarial, Kate Kelly-esque "my way or the highway" approach to affecting change in how the Church operates.  

As an attorney, I regularly use information and legal resources available to me to create "leverage," to force the other side to do, or not do, something.  Nothing wrong with this.  To the contrary, it's all party of how the adversarial system operates.  We have rules within which we as lawyers function, and those rules contemplate and allow . . . pressure.  Leverage.  Compulsion.  The system is by design adversarial.

I have an entirely different perspective as to how the Church should function.  And more to the point, how it should not function.  Kate Kelly.  Sam Young.  Bill Reel.  Denver Snuffer.  These guys all knew exactly what they were doing.  They wanted to bring the Church to heel.  They wanted to push it, to coerce it, to bend it to their will.  They adopted inherently adversarial postures and tactics.  Nothing they did bespoke matters of faith, of scripture, of counsel, of persuasion, of seeking the Lord's will.  It was their way, full stop.  Kate Kelly trespassed on sacred ground.  Sam Young put on his stupid starvation-and-empty-chair kabuki theatre.  Bill Reel continued with his vapid online rants.  Denver Snuffer presumed to judge the entirety of the Church.

I dunno.  Maybe I am totally misreading this, which to me is coming across as a sort of "The cat's out of the bag about exceptions to the sealing policy, so let's shout about it until the Brethren cave, and also insinuate that they are sexist, while we are at it" approach, straight out of Kate Kelly's playbook.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

The exception swallows the rule, becomes the rule.  

This isn't true of our exceptions for abortion though. 

Yes.  Perhaps because the Brethren aren't taking a wink-wink, nudge-nudge approach.  They aren't drawing specific and emphatic attention to the exceptions, which would pretty quickly come across as an invitation to use those exceptions.

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why would it automatically be the case for this kind of exception?

A rulemaking body that goes out of its way to publicly announce that exceptions to a rule are available for the asking is . . . gutting the rule.  Vitiating it.  Hollowing it out.

Thanks,

-Smac