Consequences of not being forthcoming with history

[awyatt]

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.

I find it interesting that you misinterpret Charity's actual words, respond to what you perceive as her meaning independent of those words, and then accuse me of being too literal (to the point of absurdity) when I act on the assumption that words do have meaning.

I seem to recall discussions about Zelph and Zina in which you were very precise in your parsing of words. Perhaps the words only have meaning when you determine they have meaning and when such determination is beneficial to you or supportive of your assertions.

-Allen

[HiJolly]

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

I think you missed the point of USU's post.

BTW, my GG-Uncle was a member of the 1st Presidency of the Church and even though he lived in the Mormon Colonies (Colonia Juarez) before that calling, he was also not a polygamist. So, the Church must not have required that EVERYONE live the Principle, BY THE EVIDENCE.

HiJolly

[charity]

To clarify my intent: Most people here seem to have recognized that understanding principles is well above acquiring "little, bitty, gritty facts." So, yes, Allan and T-Shirt got it right.

Now, about the reference to "Teaching No Greater Call." I believe that people with a mature understanding would also know that that reference was posted to try to help those with less mature understanding see that the courses of the Sunday School curriculum (and other church courses) are meant for a higher purpose than merely imparting information, which some on this board have advocated.

I apologize for not stating why I posted the reference from "Teaching No Greater Call." Of course, as I am sure most of your understood, I was not saying we should not teach the doctrine of eternal marriage. I was referring to all the extraneous stuff that some are posting should clutter up our precious Sunday School minutes. I believe even Rollo understands what I meant, so I won't respond back to him on that post.

[will2believe]

USU78 and HiJolly, we should keep in mind that the monogamy of some general authorities doesn't necessarily imply that they weren't supposed to be polygamous. During this same period, the church and scriptures taught that saints were supposed to keep the Word of Wisdom, but general authorities who failed to do so were not released.

[charity]

Will, I would not like to suggest to anyone that someone was not keeping the commandments.

[will2believe]

Will, I would not like to suggest to anyone that someone was not keeping the commandments.

Me neither. Nor would I like to suggest that someone was keeping the commandments if I simply don't know.

[Rollo Tomasi]

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.

Gimme a break. So now the entire sermon needs to be pasted for it to be "in context"? The parts you added (or others added and you now rely on) did nothing to change my premise.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I seem to recall discussions about Zelph and Zina in which you were very precise in your parsing of words.

I explained my premise and the purpose for which I included those quotes in my post. And now you bring up Zelph and Zina? You're grabbing at straws, my friend.

[Rollo Tomasi]

BTW, my GG-Uncle was a member of the 1st Presidency of the Church and even though he lived in the Mormon Colonies (Colonia Juarez) before that calling, he was also not a polygamist.  So, the Church must not have required that EVERYONE live the Principle, BY THE EVIDENCE.

Are you speaking of President Ivins? Even as a monogamist, however, I seem to recall his performing post-Manifesto marriages if so instructed by the Brethren.

And I don't recall ever saying that the Church required that everyone live the Principle.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I believe that people with a mature understanding would also know that that reference was posted to try to help those with less mature understanding see that the courses of the Sunday School curriculum (and other church courses) are meant for a higher purpose than merely imparting information, which some on this board have advocated.

Thanks for the clarification. Did you not see what I posted from the relevant GD class manual about church history? Do you deny that the polygamy doctrine was a major part of early LDS history (and remains so even to this day)? And we are not talking about "merely imparting information" -- we are talking about the Church's intentional and concerted efforts to downplay a major part of its history in the very class that involves the study of its history.

[awyatt]

Rollo Tomasi said: I explained my premise and the purpose for which I included those quotes in my post. And now you bring up Zelph and Zina? You're grabbing at straws, my friend.

And your explanation doesn't hold water. When someone tries to hold you to your words, you get defensive and dismissive. You try to sweep past it without even taking responsibility for your words and how those words are perceived by others. This behavior, which is very evident in this thread, is what leads others to say that you tend to be condescending to those who don't see things your way--you may claim that you aren't trying to be, but your tone over time says otherwise.

(This is not an attack, Rollo--it is an assessment of how you come across to others. If you don't care, fine. If you want to write it off as the ravings of an absurd man, fine. But it is true nonetheless.)

I'm not grabbing at anything, let alone straws. I've merely pointed out that you feel free to parse words when it suits your purposes. I only bring up Zelph and Zina as reference for other conversations with you where you have done so. No grasping; just stating fact.

Dismiss away, my friend.

-Allen

[Observer]

One minute, Brigham Young is a straight-forward, simple spoken imperfect human prophet and man of the people...the next minute his plainly-worded sermons require letter-by-letter decryption by the "experts" to decipher what he really meant...it's unbelievable. I suppose we could get a few chapters or maybe even a full book explaining how when Brigham says "I promise, you will be damned", he isn't simply promising the listener that he/she will be damned unless they comply/agree/believe/etc... No way. It couldn't be that simple.

Many here have claimed that Rollo has used the quotes regarding the eternal consequences of accepting/denying the doctrine of plural marriage out of context.

Hopefully the expert wordplay artists here can travel back in time, visit the tabernacle and decipher Brigham's secret code to all the poor, unlearned saints. How could they ever be expected to understand such "advanced" doctrine while Brigham is giving it to them in super-code?

Is the text we have a translation from Brigham speaking in "tongues"? Too bad somebody already wrote a book about the "meaning of is". I'm thinking maybe some of our more advanced members could write a few more books. Some suggested titles:

The Meaning of "I Promise" - Latter-day prophets don't always say what they really mean.

"You will be damned" - What Brigham wasn't talking about.

"Death on the spot...will always be so" - Word games at their absolute finest (Forward by William J. Clinton)

"Don't take what I say at face value!" (unless it doesn't offend your senses) - The plainly spoken sermons of Brigham Young - Y for Young Readers.

[KevinG]

"You are overcomplexifying the simplificatude of meaningfullness" - Don King

Brigham said they must accept the principle, not all practice it. Pretty straight forward.

Even though it's not cannonized doctrine (Brighams Comments) I still agree with him. If the Lord requires something of us in a given time and place and we reject it, we lose knowledge and testimony,which is damnation, and we aren't likely to get more from God if we've rejected what has been given.

Simple, straightforward and hard on the ears of those who don't want to hear it.

You can believe Brigham was wrong or fallen, but I happen to think he was spot on. I happen to be strongly opinionated that those who diddle around with telling the Lord (or anyone else who happens to listen) that they don't like their choice of Prophet because he said this or that, are in danger of ending up like the ungrateful chidlren of Israel: eating a golden calf sandwich.

All this mucking about in who said what and meant what is fun for a while, but in the end if we don't go find our own answer from the source, in prayer and faithful searching. It doesn't matter for beans. This whole exercise in apologitics and criticism is not the beginning, middle or end of our Salvation or obedience to God. It is in the end unimportant, and I am astonished at those who think they are (or should be) important enough to move the Prophets, Seers and Revelators on iota on how the Church should address it's history in missionary or curricula materials.

I prefer to revieve my "truth" from the only source who has posession of it all. Everything else is human perception.

[charity]

Amen.

[helix]

Thanks for the clarification.  Did you not see what I posted from the relevant GD class manual about church history?  Do you deny that the polygamy doctrine was a major part of early LDS history (and remains so even to this day)?  And we are not talking about "merely imparting information" -- we are talking about the Church's intentional and concerted efforts to downplay a major part of its history in the very class that involves the study of its history.

I am so tired of this criticism. Gospel doctrine class is not a scholarly history course. It seems to be a recent fad this board, that the church is trying to downplay polygamy so much that they buried it to the last additional ideas in the eternal marriage lesson.

I'd like to quote from this year's gospel doctrine manual on page v.

Purposes of This Course

Rather than taking a sequential or section-by-section approach, the lessons in this course focus on major themes taught in the Doctrine and Covenants and Church history. They are designed to help you:

1.  Teach the doctrines, ordinances, and covenants of the restored gospel, which are necessary for individuals and families to come unto Christ and inherit eternal life.

2.  Teach the ongoing history of the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

3.  Invite the Spirit into the class.

4.  Help class members understand and love the scriptures.

5.  Help class members apply gospel truths in their lives.

6.  Encourage class members to teach and edify one another.

7.  Help class members understand the importance of their day in the history of the Church

[charity]

Helix, If our friend Rollo posts back, it means he just isn't listening. Your post was extremely well said.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Brigham said they must accept the principle, not all practice it. Pretty straight forward.

I agree. And my point was since the Principle is everlasting and an important part of the hereafter, it has great relevance to the saints today, and should not be brushed aside as some wacky oddity of the early LDS Church, or cleverly downplayed as a mere historical footnote. The Principle is in the canon we study at church; the Principle is still practiced to a limited degree among the living today; the Principle, in many ways, determined much of early LDS history. Why shouldn't we be up-front about it, study it, discuss it, put it in the main text of our church lessons, etc.? This has been my point all along.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I am so tired of this criticism.  Gospel doctrine class is not a scholarly history course.  It seems to be a recent fad this board, that the church is trying to downplay polygamy so much that they buried it to the last additional ideas in the eternal marriage lesson.

You've illustrated my point perfectly. Lesson 31 discusses eternal marriage, but notably limits the readings in D&C 132 to only those verses that avoid explicit discussion of plural marriage, the very doctrine which sparked the revelation to Joseph now in D&C 132, from which we get the concepts of eternal marriage taught in Lesson 31. I never said that this year's GD class should be a high-level college course on historical scholarship -- my only point is that polygamy played such a major role in early LDS history, as well as forming the basis for today's teachings on eternal marriage, that to completely ignore it in the lesson smells fishy (and, sorry, but the "additional help" doesn't cut it -- only the teacher gets it and is to be used IF a member raises a questions about polygamy). Because this year's GD class includes "church history," I think the historical context for our teachings on eternal marriage is not only merited, but required. Otherwise, it appears the Church is trying to hide (or at least downplay) a major part of its history because today's leaders and members are embarassed by it.

Putting the embarassment factor aside, the doctrine remains in our canon, has eternal application to all, and practical application today to widowed members (or others similarly situated) who may want to remarry in the temple. I'm not saying this requires an in-depth analysis of polygamy, but this very-alive doctrine certainly merits mention in the main lesson and in the accompanying history booklet (or, at least, not placed 50 years out of sequence, where the language is carefully crafted not to admit that Joseph personally practiced polygamy).

[USU78]

USU78 and HiJolly, we should keep in mind that the monogamy of some general authorities doesn't necessarily imply that they weren't supposed to be polygamous. During this same period, the church and scriptures taught that saints were supposed to keep the Word of Wisdom, but general authorities who failed to do so were not released.

Q.E.D., my friend. If the assertion from BY misquotations by ueberediting is that all must practice the Principle regardless of personal circumstances, then the two notable exceptions are the white crow.

RT and others assert without resort to anything but a Zane Grey (Riders of the Purple Sage) Utah Territory where BY sends his Danites out by night to purge the faithful of the recalcitrant nonpolygs and other malfeasors that BY's statements, taken without reference to sentence before or sentence after, establish that a death penalty for noncompliance was de rigueur. Now you say the above, minimalizing RT's point, allowing him to weasle out of his commitment to his proposition. Don't you dare let him. He is committed to his Zane Grey worldview. Hold him to it, and by doing so, demonstrate the absurdity and indefensibility thereof.

[charity]

Helix, Didn't I tell you RT does not read for comprehension? Even though you so carefully and thoroughly laid out the purpose for the Gospel Doctrine course, and the organization of the material, he will not leave his agenda long enough to understand what is out there for all to see.

Rollo, I am not embarrassed about the Lord's commandments. Too bad you are.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Q.E.D., my friend. If the assertion from BY misquotations by ueberediting is that all must practice the Principle regardless of personal circumstances, then the two notable exceptions are the white crow.

My premise was never that BY preached that ALL had to practice polygamy -- rather, I quoted him and Joseph F. Smith to establish that the doctrine has ETERNAL application and importance. I did not misquote anything -- you simply are trying to use those quotes for a purpose other than what I was asserting. And I argued this eternal application and importance as support for my position that the doctrine of plural marriage is important to church history and relevant to members today (both eternally and practically), which is why it should not be swept aside in Church lessons and publications as an historical oddity that holds no relevance for members today.

Keep reading your Zane Gray novels, friend -- they're about as real as some of the sugarcoating we've been discussing here.

[USU78]

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.

Gimme a break. So now the entire sermon needs to be pasted for it to be "in context"? The parts you added (or others added and you now rely on) did nothing to change my premise.

We're not talking "entire sermons" here, RT. We're talking specific and necessary portions of the quote to give context, otherwise you are no better than a Tanner. Here is one quote you make, and which Allen pointed out for us (strangely enough, it leaves out exactly what the Tanners leave out):

Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned .... (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266)

This is RT asserting BY would damn every nonpractitioner of the Principle. Yet here is the same quote with the contextual information unexcised:

Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned; and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266)

Note that it tells us what BY is really talking about: the same thing the Master talked about when He mentioned "adultery in the heart." If a person acts the part of the righteous believer, yet doesn't really believe in his inmost heart, he will not be exalted. BY is teaching an eternal principle of general application, using the Principle as a springboard. If you leave that out, you miss the whole point. If you leave that out, you mangle BY's meaning. If you leave that out on purpose, you lie. The Tanners lie, since they know the whole context.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo, I am not embarrassed about the Lord's commandments. Too bad you are.

Well, somebody at Church HQ must be embarrassed, because they are doing everything they can to sweep polygamy history aside (which I have established over and over with references to the Church's own official publications). And how can it be that I am more embarrassed about a topic which I argue ought to be more openly disclosed and discussed?

[Rollo Tomasi]

This is RT asserting BY would damn every nonpractitioner of the Principle.

You are absolutely incorrect. I quoted that line to demonstrate the eternal importance of the doctrine of plural marriage, not the earthly practice of it. This is consistent with my repeated argument here that the doctrine and history of polygamy should not be downplayed in the Church, given its eternal importance and application. Your argument would only make sense if I were advocating that members today practice polygamy -- but I'm not; I simply want the doctrine to be openly and fairly discussed and taught in relevant Church classes and publications, since it does indeed have eternal application to members today. Why do you continue to claim to know my intention for a particular argument, when you in fact don't?

[USU78]

This is RT asserting BY would damn every nonpractitioner of the Principle.

You are absolutely incorrect. I quoted that line to demonstrate the eternal importance of the doctrine of plural marriage, not the earthly practice of it. This is consistent with my repeated argument here that the doctrine and history of polygamy should not be downplayed in the Church, given its eternal importance and application. Your argument would only make sense if I were advocating that members today practice polygamy -- but I'm not; I simply want the doctrine to be openly and fairly discussed and taught in relevant Church classes and publications, since it does indeed have eternal application to members today. Why do you continue to claim to know my intention for a particular argument, when you in fact don't?

Man:  Follow me. Follow me. That's good, that's good!  A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat!

Squire:  Are you, uh,... are you selling something?

Monty Python, And Now for Something Completely Different.