Trib article about the church's recent changes of it's polygamy cartoons for Primary children.

[Tacenda]

I guess this has happened, stated in this article from the Trib: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2025/02/21/lds-church-changes-polygamy/

I'm all for it being taken out because some of it was terrible because there are things that might spawn new groups, and therefore hurting women or even very young women if it gets out there that this was okay and part of the restoration. And after reading/seeing the pictures and stories, some of that is terrible for children. And I would hate for anyone to believe it was right. I'd love this part of church history not to repeat itself and be repealed as to what is right and wrong. I think if the church is able to say that the blacks not receiving the PH isn't sanctioned any longer that the polygamy isn't either. I've read about polygamy for many years and have read the apologist's bend on it but have seen how it can/did go terribly wrong too. With many men in the church back then and now the rotten fruit of it done by other groups.

Also, I searched for the thread about this with no luck. Sorry for opening a new topic if it's there in front of me and I didn't see it! 

Edited February 22, 2025 by Tacenda

[ZealouslyStriving]

Monogamy goes terribly wrong on the regular also.

The are many wonderful plural marriages among the "other groups". The Warren Jeff's era FLDS and the Kingstons just get all the attention.

Edited February 23, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Dario_M]

I can't even read the article because i need to pay for it or so. 

For the rest i find that there isn't anything wrong with polygamy. So i don't really see how this can damage other (young) woman. Acceptance for one another is really really difficult these days. 

Edited February 23, 2025 by Dario_M

[sunstoned]

Polygamy is a PR millstone around the church's neck.  There is no good way to spin it, and it can no longer be hidden.  I agree with Dr. Richard Bushman when he said, 

Quote

I think for the church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true, it can't be sustained, so the church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds, and that’s what its trying to do, and it’ll be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially, but I think it has to change…

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/03/yet-again-has-richard-bushman-declared-the-dominant-narrative-of-church-history-false.html

The best thing to do is acknowledge that it was a mistake and move on.  The more distance the better.

[Dario_M]

9 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Polygamy is a PR millstone around the church's neck.  There is no good way to spin it, and it can no longer be hidden.  I agree with Dr. Richard Bushman when he said, 

The best thing to do is acknowledge that it was a mistake and move on.  The more distance the better.

That's more your opinion. For other people polygamy can work out great. Polygamy is also not my thing. But i don't think people who are practise it are doing something wrong perse. Allthough i know that the church is against it and people will get excommunicated for it. If someone from my ward would tell me that he/she practise pologamy i wouldn't distance myself from that person. Who am i to judge? 

Edited February 23, 2025 by Dario_M

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Polygamy is a PR millstone around the church's neck.  There is no good way to spin it, and it can no longer be hidden.  I agree with Dr. Richard Bushman when he said, 

The best thing to do is acknowledge that it was a mistake and move on.  The more distance the better.

I agree with Dan’s quote from the article you posted “I have, moreover, long maintained that telling our full story, warts and all, is the best defense against such disillusionment and anguish.  I absolutely believe in honest and accurate historiography, and I absolutely believe that the claims of the Restoration can and will withstand the most serious scrutiny.  Indeed, Professor Bushman and I have had conversations on precisely that subject.”

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Polygamy is a PR millstone around the church's neck.  There is no good way to spin it, and it can no longer be hidden.  I agree with Dr. Richard Bushman when he said, 

The best thing to do is acknowledge that it was a mistake and move on.  The more distance the better.

Except that it wasn't a mistake, it accomplished the exact purpose for which the key was turned opening the practice to the Church. The fruit of plural marriage was a generation of righteous men and women who conquered the mountains and built, on the foundation, the structure that has grown to spread throughout the world, that is now building Houses of the Lord at an unprecedented rate for the redemption of our dead- the greatest work of this dispensation.

How have our plural marriage denying cousins done? What is their fruit? They reject Temple work and they are continually mired in division and contention (RLDS) or they have the utter inability to grow beyond 10,000-15,000 people. (Hedrickites and Bickertonites).

It was never hidden- did Doctrine and Covenants 132 disappear from our scriptures? How about OD1? Did fundamentalist groups randomly pop up 20 years ago? Was "Mormon Doctrine" never written? 

Members disinterest in studying previous to stumbling on to anti-Mormon literature can not be placed at the feet of the Church.

Edited February 23, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Polygamy is a PR millstone around the church's neck.  There is no good way to spin it, and it can no longer be hidden.  I agree with Dr. Richard Bushman when he said, 

The best thing to do is acknowledge that it was a mistake and move on.  The more distance the better.

So the faithful progeny who resulted from the practice of plural marriage in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were "mistakes."    Hmm.  Okay.  Got it.  Well, I'm sure that they understand that certain sacrifices must be made to assuage the squeamishness regarding plural marriage of some 21st-century enlightened moderns in the Church.  Thanks for clearing that up for us!

[Senator]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

So the faithful progeny who resulted from the practice of plural marriage in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were "mistakes."    Hmm.  Okay.  Got it.  Well, I'm sure that they understand that certain sacrifices must be made to assuage the squeamishness regarding plural marriage of some 21st-century enlightened moderns in the Church.  Thanks for clearing that up for us!

The act of rape can produce progeny. Does that mean we should de-catagorise rape as a wrong?

 I think you made a logical error.

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 minutes ago, Senator said:

The act of rape can produce progeny. Does that mean we should de-catagorise rape as a wrong?

 I think you made a logical error.

I think you are making an equivalency error.

[Buckeye]

20 minutes ago, Senator said:

The act of rape can produce progeny. Does that mean we should de-catagorise rape as a wrong?

 I think you made a logical error.

Exactly. I personally have instances of rape in my family tree. I don’t need to defend rape on the rational that I wouldn’t have been born without it. Our doctrine is that all spirit children receive a mortal experience. If the rapes or polygamy hadn’t happened, all of us would still be born. 

[CV75]

20 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I guess this has happened, stated in this article from the Trib: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2025/02/21/lds-church-changes-polygamy/

I'm all for it being taken out because some of it was terrible because there are things that might spawn new groups, and therefore hurting women or even very young women if it gets out there that this was okay and part of the restoration. And after reading/seeing the pictures and stories, some of that is terrible for children. And I would hate for anyone to believe it was right. I'd love this part of church history not to repeat itself and be repealed as to what is right and wrong. I think if the church is able to say that the blacks not receiving the PH isn't sanctioned any longer that the polygamy isn't either. I've read about polygamy for many years and have read the apologist's bend on it but have seen how it can/did go terribly wrong too. With many men in the church back then and now the rotten fruit of it done by other groups.

Also, I searched for the thread about this with no luck. Sorry for opening a new topic if it's there in front of me and I didn't see it! 

That the article would refer to the illustrations as "polygamy cartoons" betrays the usual neurotic bias.

[Senator]

25 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I think you are making an equivalency error.

Please explain 

[CV75]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Polygamy is a PR millstone around the church's neck.  There is no good way to spin it, and it can no longer be hidden.  I agree with Dr. Richard Bushman when he said, 

The best thing to do is acknowledge that it was a mistake and move on.  The more distance the better.

I would say remaining strong requires a focus on the Savior https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1993/10/strength-in-the-savior?lang=eng, not PR work (which is only a very incidental component of sharing the gospel).

 

[Injeun]

All the criticisms against the Church come from a corrupt and hell bound world. First off, polygamy came from God. Second, there is nothing intrinsically evil about it. The evil of polygamy resides in the heart of the accuser. American society condones, endorses, and promotes same sex marriage, deviancy, promiscuity, rampant immorality and astronomical numbers of out of wedlock births. So on what righteousness does it stand to condemn polygamy? The evil that society sees in polygamy which is endorsed by God is in the heart of society. God isn't our accuser. He is our advocate. We needn't be ashamed or wear the guilt of a dirty minded world. Let the world wear its own shame and guilt. In the end, God will marry every man, woman, and child in the Church to himself. What has the world to say of that? If God knows us like a husband his wife, and we him by his knowledge of us, then let the world rage against the rock. The world has absolutely nothing to offer us in the way of righteousness but that which it owes to God, which is a broken heart and contrite spirit. Even the bible based religion which parades as Christianity as if it were united in Christ when it is divided among tens of thousands of different disciplines, has no foundation in God. It is broken up and empty.

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That the article would refer to the illustrations as "polygamy cartoons" betrays the usual neurotic bias.

I thought the same, but then thought maybe it's like the "funnies" cartoons we, or me, use to read every Sunday. It's portrayed similarly. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

11 minutes ago, Senator said:

Please explain 

Someone being forced into a s-x act and conceiving is far different than someone choosing to enter into a marriage covenant- no matter how much you or society frown upon the arrangement.

A generation that sees the stalwart sacrifices of their parents is a far different  than those who don't. That is why we we enabled to prosper.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Injeun said:

All the criticisms against the Church come from a corrupt and hell bound world. First off, polygamy came from God. Second, there is nothing intrinsically evil about it. The evil of polygamy resides in the heart of the accuser. American society condones, endorses, and promotes same sex marriage, deviancy, promiscuity, rampant immorality and astronomical numbers of out of wedlock births. So on what righteousness does it stand to condemn polygamy? The evil that society sees in polygamy which is endorsed by God is in the heart of society. God isn't our accuser. He is our advocate. We needn't be ashamed or wear the guilt of a dirty minded world. Let the world wear its own shame and guilt. In the end, God will marry every man, woman, and child in the Church to himself. What has the world to say of that? If God knows us like a husband his wife, and we him by his knowledge of us, then let the world rage against the rock. The world has absolutely nothing to offer us in the way of righteousness but that which it owes to God, which is a broken heart and contrite spirit. Even the bible based religion which parades as Christianity as if it were united in Christ when it is divided among tens of thousands of different disciplines, has no foundation in God. It is broken up and empty.

I don't condone a young woman being coerced into polygamy though. Either by being told it's from God and they must for their ability to live with God again, and that is what it means to take the name of God in vain. Or being told they must do it for their family to be able to live with God again or live in the Celestial Kingdom.

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 minutes ago, Injeun said:

All the criticisms against the Church come from a corrupt and hell bound world. First off, polygamy came from God. Second, there is nothing intrinsically evil about it. The evil of polygamy resides in the heart of the accuser. American society condones, endorses, and promotes same sex marriage, deviancy, promiscuity, rampant immorality and astronomical numbers of out of wedlock births. So on what righteousness does it stand to condemn polygamy? The evil that society sees in polygamy which is endorsed by God is in the heart of society. God isn't our accuser. He is our advocate. We needn't be ashamed or wear the guilt of a dirty minded world. Let the world wear its own shame and guilt. In the end, God will marry every man, woman, and child in the Church to himself. What has the world to say of that? If God knows us like a husband his wife, and we him by his knowledge of us, then let the world rage against the rock. The world has absolutely nothing to offer us in the way of righteousness but that which it owes to God, which is a broken heart and contrite spirit. Even the bible based religion which parades as Christianity as if it were united in Christ when it is divided among tens of thousands of different disciplines, has no foundation in God. It is broken up and empty.

👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

[Senator]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Someone being forced into a s-x act and conceiving is far different than someone choosing to enter into a marriage covenant- no matter how much you or society frown upon the arrangement.

I agree. But that was not my point. I was not creating a legitimacy equivalence between rape and plural marriage. 
I was illustrating that the existence of progeny is not evidence of the “rightness” of the act that produced it.

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

A generation that sees the stalwart sacrifices of their parents is a far different  than those who don't. That is why we we enabled to prosper.

Again, the strength and resilience exhibited by people is not necessarily testament to the legitimacy of the cause of the hardship.  Thus a woman can give birth to a child of rape and raise it up. Undoubtedly a source of hardship that would change her whole life and give life to the child. We would rightly give her praise for such love, selflessness and resilience, but be justified in still condemning the rape.

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 minutes ago, Senator said:

I agree. But that was not my point. I was not creating a legitimacy equivalence between rape and plural marriage. 
I was illustrating that the existence of progeny is not evidence of the “rightness” of the act that produced it.

Again, the strength and resilience exhibited by people is not necessarily testament to the legitimacy of the cause of the hardship.  Thus a woman can give birth to a child of rape and raise it up. Undoubtedly a source of hardship that would change her whole life and give life to the child. We would rightly give her praise for such love, selflessness and resilience, but be justified in still condemning the rape.

Except you are ignoring the Lord who said through Jacob the following:

"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

** Most certainly the Lord through the righteous act of plural marriage raised up a seed unlike any other that accomplished an unprecedented work that's lasting effect continues to our day.

Please, don't disparage our righteous pioneer ancestors.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Injeun said:

All the criticisms against the Church come from a corrupt and hell bound world.

Well you lost me at hello.  My mind does not operate in such black and white terms, and there are plenty of missteps along the way that would not be as controversial as polygamy.  

[Senator]

39 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Except you are ignoring the Lord who said through Jacob the following:

"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

** Most certainly the Lord through the righteous act of plural marriage raised up a seed unlike any other that accomplished an unprecedented work that's lasting effect continues to our day.

Please, don't disparage our righteous pioneer ancestors.

Given your responses I sense that you are living up to your avatar.  So further discussion is pointless.

 

BTW you are chastising someone who is the progeny of a man who spent six months, in the summer, in the Yuma territorial prison for the charge of polygamy. I have his journals. You have no clue as to the depths of my admiration of him and his wives. Have you ever been to Yuma Arizona in the summer, even with air conditioning?

Edited February 23, 2025 by Senator

[Ragerunner]

Focusing on the original post.

It appears the cartoon originally provided more detailed info on polygamy. Then it was changed to be more generic in its statement.

So, some feel that the original was too much info for a children’s cartoon, while others feel the updated, less detailed changes are hiding too much?

Sounds like dang if you do and dang if you don’t?

Am I miss understanding?

Polygamy is a significant part of Church history. I would prefer the Church be as open as possible with Church history.

Edited February 23, 2025 by Ragerunner

[ZealouslyStriving]

42 minutes ago, Senator said:

Given your responses I sense that you are living up to your avatar.  So further discussion is pointless.

 

BTW you are chastising someone who is the progeny of a man who spent six months, in the summer, in the Yuma territorial prison for the charge of polygamy. I have his journals. You have no clue as to the depths of my admiration of him and his wives. Have you ever been to Yuma Arizona in the summer, even with air conditioning?

I worked all this last summer cleaning up homeless encampments in the Vegas valley, so I have an idea- but it's still nothing comparable.

You have an admirable ancestry.