Consequences of not being forthcoming with history

[Observer]

I stand corrected. The Clinton legal team would be proud.

[Rollo Tomasi]

But, the misleading part is the way that Rollo uses the quote, for he doesn't provide the whole quote, in context.

1. My quote from BY was simply to illustrate the eternal importance of the doctrine of plural marriage (the whole "damnation" part) -- I don't see how anything you added changes this basic premise. The doctrine of plural marriage is relevant to the membership today because (1) it has eternal consequences (as the BY quote demonstrates), (2) remains in current LDS canon, and (3) is still practiced to a limited degree in the Church today.

2. What, no comments on the quote from Joseph F. Smith?

3. Hear, indeed -- your smokescreen will not work.

[Rollo Tomasi]

You beat me to it. But I will add to your post with quotes from Joseph F Smith that come from the same talk Rollo quoted, which he conveniently left out:

....

How do your quotes change my basic premise that the doctrine of plural marriage was and still is an important eternal doctrine in LDS theology? It doesn't. I repeat: so long as the doctrine remains in current canon and practice and has eternal application, it is relevant to today's membership and can't be glossed over as an unimportant oddity from years past.

[Stormin' Mormon]

I agree in principle ... unless, of course, we are talking about a class with the purpose of studying church history (like this year's Gospel Doctrine class)

Uhhm, I'm a primary teacher and thus have not attended a single Gospel Doctrine class this year, but even I know that this statement is a bald-faced lie. The purpose of this year's Gospel Doctrine class is not to study Church History. Heck, the course is not even presented in chronological order. Maybe you would have had a point four years ago in 2001's Gospel Doctrine manual, but somehow I doubt it.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Uhhm, I'm a primary teacher and thus have not attended a single Gospel Doctrine class this year, but even I know that this statement is a bald-faced lie.  The purpose of this year's Gospel Doctrine class is not to study Church History.  Heck, the course is not even presented in chronological order.  Maybe you would have had a point four years ago in 2001's Gospel Doctrine manual, but somehow I doubt it.

I disagree; the class is chock full of history in order to give context to the various D&C revelations studied. This year they even handed out to each class member a booklet intended as a companion study resource called Our Heritage: A Brief HISTORY of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (caps mine for emphasis). My GD teacher refers to it often.

[Stormin' Mormon]

Uhhm, I'm a primary teacher and thus have not attended a single Gospel Doctrine class this year, but even I know that this statement is a bald-faced lie.

[charity]

I believe the dust-up over the importance of the doctrine of eternal marriage, which includes but is not limited to plural marriage, started because Rollo objected to my phrase "every little, bitty, gritty fact about polygamy." I do not see, how with any stretch of the imagination, he can think that anyone who doesn't want to know every little thing is rejecting the doctrine.

I am biting my tongue, in order not to make a personal attack, but obtuseness, especially deliberate obtuseness, is very irritating.

[charity]

Stormin', Of course, you have the truth on your side. The purpose of any class taught in any Church setting is not to teach 'facts,' but to teach saving principles. I wish any of my grandkids could have you as their teacher. I have grandkids in Maryland, Minnesota, Colorado, and Oregon. Any chance they lucked out?

[Calm]

Stormin, as a teacher of GD, I checked my manual. The second purpose listed is to teach the "ongoing history" of the Church.

You can check this at www.lds.org under the "Helps for the Teacher" chapter, second section.

That being said, the purposes of the individual lessons that are listed are about applying the knowledge learned to our own lives, not about the knowledge in and of itself so I'd say the teaching of Church History is considered of secondary importance.

[Stormin' Mormon]

Like I said, I've been in Primary all year. And since my wife is in the Primary Presidency, I don't even think we have this year's Gospel Doctrine manual in our home. My apologies to Rollo for calling him a liar (although, I still think he is misrepresenting the truth)

Charity: I currently live in Tucson, but I taught primary briefly in Colorado (Piney Creek Ward, Denver Stake)

[rongo]

At the same time, you can "mislead" by providing "facts".

Example: During WWI, Great Britain became alarmed at the number of deaths from head wounds. They developed the forerunner to our modern combat helmet to address this problem. Amazingly, the number of head injuries with the new helmets nearly quadrupled.

See how misleading "facts" can be? All of the above is very true, but there's more than meets the eye.

Deaths from head injuries fell dramatically. The rise in head injuries was because people who would have been killed now suffered from head wounds, due to the helmets' effectiveness.

A critic's "facts" concerning Joseph's polygamy work the same way. There's no good-faith effort to give a truthful picture of what happened (inasmuch as it's possible), because of the agenda to ultimately discredit Joseph as a prophet.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I didn't say the class did not contain historical context and anecdotes.  I'm just contending against your assertion that the "purpose" of the class is to teach history.  It seems to me, that if that was the purpose, then the manual would have been organized in a chronological manenr, rather than topical.  Whatever else may be cotained in the class, the organization of the manual should be a huge clue as to what the "purpose" of the class is.

Church history may not be THE sole purpose for the class this year, but it certainly is A big purpose. And it can still involve a great deal of history if the lessons are not chronological -- not even some of the D&C sections appear chronologically. Nevertheless, because the D&C came in the early days of the Church, historical context is important, especially when studying D&C 132, the catalyst for which were Joseph's and Oliver's questions about polygamy. But polygamy even in this lesson is minimized by being relegated to the last "additional help" and then to be used IF a member raises a question.

You place great importance on the manual, so let's look at it for a moment. The teacher's manual itself is entitled Doctrine and Covenants and Church HISTORY. And this is the "purpose" stated in Lesson #1: "To introduce class members to this year

[charity]

Stormin' Too far south for my bunch. Lucky Tucson.

[Rollo Tomasi]

My apologies to Rollo for calling him a liar (although, I still think he is misrepresenting the truth).

Apology accepted, but I have not misrepresented anything.

[awyatt]

Rollo Tomasi said: How do your quotes change my basic premise that the doctrine of plural marriage was and still is an important eternal doctrine in LDS theology? It doesn't. I repeat: so long as the doctrine remains in current canon and practice and has eternal application, it is relevant to today's membership and can't be glossed over as an unimportant oddity from years past.

But, Rollo, this is NOT what you said. Charity said this:

Charity said: Rollo may not believe it, but knowing every little, bitty, gritty fact about polygamy is not going to get anyone to the Celestial Kingdom.

You then disputed Charity's statement by providing quotes from BY and JFS. But, as I (and T-Shirt) showed, you misused the quotes because they DO NOT refute Charity's statement.

In fact, your statement above (about plural marriage being "an important eternal doctrine") is not contradictory to Charity's statement. Had you provided your BY and JFS quotes to support your statement above, that would have been fine; that would have been a proper use of the quotes. But to use them to refute Charity's statement is an improper use because the quotes--while demonstrating importance--do not demonstrate that anyone needs to know "every little, bitty, gritty fact about polygamy" in order to make it to the Celestial Kingdom.

-Allen

[Rollo Tomasi]

You then disputed Charity's statement by providing quotes from BY and JFS. But, as I (and T-Shirt) showed, you misused the quotes because they DO NOT refute Charity's statement.

...

But to use them to refute Charity's statement is an improper use because the quotes--while demonstrating importance--do not demonstrate that anyone needs to know "every little, bitty, gritty fact about polygamy" in order to make it to the Celestial Kingdom.

I understood Charity's comment to mean that the subject of polygamy (which is made up of the "little, bitty, gritty facts") is not relevant to the salvation of mankind today. Whether it is or isn't, my point was to show that the doctrine of plural marriage has eternal application, and therefore, is very relevant to us today and deserving of study (particulary since it remains in the canon and is still practiced to a limited degree).

If you and I had different interpretations of Charity's statement, then fine. But I have to agree with Observer -- your literalness (as now applied to Charity's choice of words) is bordering on Clintonesque absurdity.

[charity]

This is from "Teaching No Greater Call." (It is not formatted as it appears in the manual, but is word for word.)

"Some Teaching Does Not Nourish the Soul. Many topics are interesting, important, and even relevant to life and yet not nourishing to the soul. It is not our commission to teach such topics. Instead, we are to edify others and teach them principles that pertain to the kingdom of God and the salvation of mankind.

Teaching that stimulates the intellect without speaking to the spirit cannot nourish. Nor can anything that raises doubts about the truth of the restored gospel or the need to commit ourselves to it with all our heart, might, mind, and strength."

[Kenngo1969]

Problem #1 Listed by Rollo:

Rollo Tomasi, August 25, 2005, 7:51 AM

This year's Gospel Doctrine class (the subject of which is the D&C and Church history), specifically the manual's lesson about D&C 132, which relegates the very catalyst for this revelation (plural marriage) outside the main lesson and only as an "additional help" if a class member should raise the issue.

Rollo, I have the following two questions for you:

1. Do you believe the term the new and everlasting covenant of marriage as used in Doctrine and Covenants 132 to be synonymous with the earthly practice of polygamy?

2. If you do believe that

[Rollo Tomasi]

This is from "Teaching No Greater Call." (It is not formatted as it appears in the manual, but is word for word.)

"Some Teaching Does Not Nourish the Soul. Many topics are interesting, important, and even relevant to life and yet not nourishing to the soul. It is not our commission to teach such topics. Instead, we are to edify others and teach them principles that pertain to the kingdom of God and the salvation of mankind.

Teaching that stimulates the intellect without speaking to the spirit cannot nourish. Nor can anything that raises doubts about the truth of the restored gospel or the need to commit ourselves to it with all our heart, might, mind, and strength."

Do you now contend that the doctrine of plural marriage:

1. Does not "nourish the soul"?

2. Does not "edify"?

3. Does not "pertain to the salvation of mankind"?

4. Does not "speak to the spirit"?

5. Raises "doubts about the truth of the restored gospel"? or

6. Discourages members' "commitment"?

This reminds me of what J. Reuben Clark once said: "If we have truth, [it] cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed."

Putting aside "investigating" the truth of polygamy, now we aren't supposed to even teach it? Wouldn't it be easier just to remove D&C 132 from the canon and wash our hands of this whole mess?

[USU78]

Problem #1 Listed by Rollo:

Rollo Tomasi, August 25, 2005, 7:51 AM

This year's Gospel Doctrine class (the subject of which is the D&C and Church history), specifically the manual's lesson about D&C 132, which relegates the very catalyst for this revelation (plural marriage) outside the main lesson and only as an "additional help" if a class member should raise the issue.

Rollo, I have the following two questions for you:

1. Do you believe the term the new and everlasting covenant of marriage as used in Doctrine and Covenants 132 to be synonymous with the earthly practice of polygamy?

2. If you do believe that

[Rollo Tomasi]

1. Do you believe the term the new and everlasting covenant of marriage as used in Doctrine and Covenants 132 to be synonymous with the earthly practice of polygamy?

2. If you do believe that

[Rollo Tomasi]

If a member of the 70, Nauvoo cop, JSJr. bodyguard (Danite (?) ), and opener of the Hawai'i and Tahiti missions was never even asked to be a polygynist . . . what does that tell you about your serial misquotes already noted and your ill-considered conclusions thereon?

I don't know the circumstances of your great-grandfather, or I'd look into it. How do you know he was never asked to enter polygamy?

And, btw, I have misquoted no one and my conclusions are very well considered.

[USU78]

If a member of the 70, Nauvoo cop, JSJr. bodyguard (Danite (?)  ), and opener of the Hawai'i and Tahiti missions was never even asked to be a polygynist . . . what does that tell you about your serial misquotes already noted and your ill-considered conclusions thereon?

1. I don't know the circumstances of your great-grandfather, or I'd look into it. How do you know he was never asked to enter polygamy?

2. And, btw, I have misquoted no one and my conclusions are very well considered.

1. We have excellent records of his life, including his letters. Moreover, he was kept in as a 70 until his death. Had he been defiant of directives from BY to practice polygyny, would he have been retained as a 70? Think, mon!

2. If you leave out pertinent portions of quotes which give context, you misquote. If you base your conclusions upon those pared-down, out of context quotes, your conclusions are ill-considered. Why is this difficult?

[Rollo Tomasi]

1. We have excellent records of his life, including his letters. Moreover, he was kept in as a 70 until his death. Had he been defiant of directives from BY to practice polygyny, would he have been retained as a 70? Think, mon!

2. If you leave out pertinent portions of quotes which give context, you misquote. If you base your conclusions upon those pared-down, out of context quotes, your conclusions are ill-considered. Why is this difficult?

1. I guess your relative was one of the few who remained monogamous. Good for you!

2. The missing parts of the quotes to which you attach your undying reliance were neither pertinent nor relevant to my premise, which I explain in detail above. Since you know this from reading my posts above, why is it so difficult for you to figure out? Could it be your conclusion in this regard is "ill considered"?

[USU78]

Good for you!

You'll excuse me if I am unable to muster a lather over such faint praise.

The missing parts of the quotes to which you attach your undying reliance were neither pertinent nor relevant to my premise[.]

Which is precisely the point. If context is "neither pertinent nor relevant to [your] premise," then your premise is flawed, n'est-ce pas? Many an elegant syllogism is destroyed by an inconvenient fact. Context is a mighty important fact.