Consequences of not being forthcoming with history

[Rollo Tomasi]

Man:

[USU78]

Man:

[Rollo Tomasi]

I guess we're irony impared today.

Oh, I got the irony ... I was just trying to be positive.

[Scott Lloyd]

Much of what Rollo and others criticize is not intended to be an exhaustive or even a thorough treatment of Church history. There are easily accessible sources, if that is what you want.

That was the point of my Sunday School lesson example. Is it fair to criticize a Sunday School lesson for not going into great detail about polygamy if the intended purpose of the lesson is something different altogether?

Could you explain your first sentence? Maybe it's cause I'm averaging about three hours of sleep a night lately, but I don't quite think I understand your meaning.

And I don't understand your expressed confusion. Especially when you go on to post the following, which seems to indicate you do get my point.

I have already stated that I don't think church services are really the place for in depth doctrinal instruction, let alone historical instruction. It's more about the communal application of our religious beliefs

.

I'm simply saying that one shouldn't look for in-depth history in materials that do not have that as their purpose. And criticism of them for lacking such in-depth history is unjustified.

Do you get it now?

[helix]

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

Your perception is that it's fishy. That's just your perception. As I explained before, I don't see anything fishy with lesson 31. It fits with the rest of the lesson manual.

(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).

No, it's an Additional Teaching Idea that should not be the main focus of the lesson. If you have ever tried to work with the lesson manual, you'll know that often, it does not give you enough material to teach from, and so you hope they gave you additional ideas. So it can get taught if the teacher feels it is necessary for that lesson. Or they may not feel it needs to be taught (since it doesn't relate to the theme of lesson 31). Or it may pop up as a question from the class, which frequently happens on doctrines of this kind.

  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.

I'd agree, I have often thought that the class should teach more history. But it's not lesson 31 that keeps it simple with the history. The entire lesson manual does this. On historical sections, it does not go deep into history. It skims the basics and only covers enough so that it can ask questions to apply gospel principles to our lives. For example, look at lesson 22, covering the Word of Wisdom. Here is all the historical background that is used throughout that entire lesson, "During the winter of 1833 the School of the Prophets met frequently, and Joseph and Emma Smith both became concerned about the brethren

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I would dispute your assertion that it is indeed being swept aside in Church lessons and publications as a "historical oddity." Furthermore I am confident you would be unable to substantiate that with any documentation.

The principle of plurality of wives is not emphasized today because we are not under commandment to live it. The lesson from the scriptures and history is that the Lord directs the default condition to be one wife at a time in mortality unless He Himself, for His own purposes, commands otherwise. That is the eternal doctrine that I and other faithful members of the Church accept.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I'm simply saying that one shouldn't look for in-depth history in materials that do not have that as their purpose. And criticism of them for lacking such in-depth history is unjustified.

I don't think anyone's complaining about a lack of "in-depth history" concerning polygamy in Church classes and publications; rather, the primary complaint seems to be the very nearly NO history (nor discussion) on the topic in said classes and publications, although the topic remains current doctrine and canon of the Church, or clever wordplay employed to water down the topic and then place such wordplay 50 years out of sequence, not to mention those publications that have portrayed polygamist LDS presidents as monogamists.

[charity]

"Primary complaint" sounds like a hue and cry. I don't hear anyone except Rollo making a complaint who aren't members of the Church. If you aren't a member you have no right to complain about anything Church things.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Your perception is that it's fishy. That's just your perception. As I explained before, I don't see anything fishy with lesson 31. It fits with the rest of the lesson manual.

(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).

No, it's an Additional Teaching Idea that should not be the main focus of the lesson. If you have ever tried to work with the lesson manual, you'll know that often, it does not give you enough material to teach from, and so you hope they gave you additional ideas. So it can get taught if the teacher feels it is necessary for that lesson. Or they may not feel it needs to be taught (since it doesn't relate to the theme of lesson 31). Or it may pop up as a question from the class, which frequently happens on doctrines of this kind.

[cinepro]

If you aren't a member you have no right to complain about anything Church things.

Do you feel that members of the Church have a right to complain about Church things?

[helix]

not to mention those publications that have portrayed polygamist LDS presidents as monogamists.

Huh? Once again, you are stretching things Rollo.

I believe you are discussing the book Our Heritage, which can accompany some gosple doctrine lessons. Edit: Rollo mentioned "publications" not, just publication. I believe he is referring to both Our Heritage and other ones, such as the book about teachings of the presidents of the church for Brigham Young.

I'd like to quote from pages 97 and 98

Persecution Continues

While working on the translation of the Bible in the early 1830s, the Prophet Joseph Smith became troubled by the fact that Abraham, Jacob, David, and other Old Testament leaders had more than one wife. The Prophet prayed for understanding and learned that at certain times, for specific purposes, following divinely given laws, plural marriage was approved and directed by God. Joseph Smith also learned that with divine approval, some Latter-day Saints would soon be chosen by priesthood authority to marry more than one wife. A number of Latter-day Saints practiced plural marriage in Nauvoo, but a public announcement of this doctrine and practice was not made until the August 1852 general conference in Salt Lake City. At that conference, Elder Orson Pratt, as directed by President Brigham Young, announced that the practice of a man having more than one wife was part of the Lord

[Scott Lloyd]

not to mention those publications that have portrayed polygamist LDS presidents as monogamists.

Huh? Once again, you are stretching things Rollo.

I believe you are discussing the book Our Heritage, which can accompany some gosple doctrine lessons.

I'd like to quote from pages 97 and 98

Persecution Continues

While working on the translation of the Bible in the early 1830s, the Prophet Joseph Smith became troubled by the fact that Abraham, Jacob, David, and other Old Testament leaders had more than one wife. The Prophet prayed for understanding and learned that at certain times, for specific purposes, following divinely given laws, plural marriage was approved and directed by God. Joseph Smith also learned that with divine approval, some Latter-day Saints would soon be chosen by priesthood authority to marry more than one wife. A number of Latter-day Saints practiced plural marriage in Nauvoo, but a public announcement of this doctrine and practice was not made until the August 1852 general conference in Salt Lake City. At that conference, Elder Orson Pratt, as directed by President Brigham Young, announced that the practice of a man having more than one wife was part of the Lord’s restitution of all things (see Acts 3:19–21).

Many of America’s religious and political leaders became very angry when they learned that Latter-day Saints living in Utah were encouraging a marriage system that they considered immoral and unchristian. A great political crusade was launched against the Church and its members. The United States Congress passed legislation that curbed the freedom of the Latter-day Saints and hurt the Church economically. This legislation ultimately caused officers to arrest and imprison men who had more than one wife and to deny them the right to vote, the right to privacy in their homes, and the enjoyment of other civil liberties. Hundreds of faithful Latter-day Saint men and a few women served time in prisons located in Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Nebraska, Michigan, and South Dakota.

...

Many Church leaders went into hiding to avoid arrest by federal officers searching for men with more than one wife. Families feared late-night intrusions by these officers. President George Q. Cannon, Lorenzo Snow, Rudger Clawson, Brigham Henry Roberts, George Reynolds, and many others were sent to prison, where they passed the time by writing books, teaching school, and composing letters to their families. President John Taylor was forced to live in exile in Kaysville, Utah, about 20 miles north of Salt Lake City, where he died on 25 July 1887. He was a man of faith and courage who devoted his life to his testimony of Jesus Christ and to the establishment of God’s kingdom on the earth.

How is this portraying LDS polygamist presidents as monogamists?

Rollo, like other incessant critics, is stuck on the fact that the lesson manual on the teachings of Brigham Young, used several years ago in priesthood and Relief Society classes, contained a very brief historical-highlights chronology that did not mention any of President Young's plural marriages.

This, of course, ignores the reality that the book was intended as a compilation of quotations on doctrines with contemporary application, not a history book.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Your perception is that it's fishy. That's just your perception.

...

No, it's an Additional Teaching Idea that should not be the main focus of the lesson. If you have ever tried to work with the lesson manual, you'll know that often, it does not give you enough material to teach from, and so you hope they gave you additional ideas.

...

I'd agree, I have often thought that the class should teach more history. But it's not lesson 31 that keeps it simple with the history. The entire lesson manual does this. On historical sections, it does not go deep into history.

...

For example, look at lesson 22, covering the Word of Wisdom. Here is all the historical background that is used throughout that entire lesson, "During the winter of 1833 the School of the Prophets met frequently, and Joseph and Emma Smith both became concerned about the brethren

[Rollo Tomasi]

I would dispute your assertion that it is indeed being swept aside in Church lessons and publications as a "historical oddity." Furthermore I am confident you would be unable to substantiate that with any documentation.

...

The principle of plurality of wives is not emphasized today because we are not under commandment to live it.

I have substantiated it (you can read the details in prior posts, but here is a summary):

1. GD manual -- Lesson 31 (no mention of polygamy in main text or historical context for doctrine of eternal marriage; only mention of polygamy is in "Additional Help" section with instruction to be read IF a member raises a question);

2. Our Heritage booklet -- first mention of polygamy revelation is placed 50 years out of sequence; clever wordplay used so as not to admit JS personally practiced polygamy:

3. Brigham Young priesthood/RS manual -- portrays him as monogamist by only mentioning his two legal marriages in historical summary section;

4. Church Almanac -- church president bios -- makes JS out to be monogamist by only mentioning his legal marriage to Emma (the same method used in bios of monogamist church presidents, but bios for other polygamist presidents are silent on any marriage).

So what if the saints don't practice polygamy today (although they still do to a limited degree)? It remains doctrine and in the canon, and has eternal applications; so why shouldn't it be discussed and taught? We're not resurrected beings yet, either, but we talk and teach about that all the time.

[KevinG]

Delving down into substantive disagreement again, the only issue I have is that I don't think there is an intentional effort to downplay anything for embarassment or other reasons. When discussing the prophecies of Zenos we don't get into a detailed lesson on how to propegate olive trees (unless of course someone who does it for a hobby decides to take up 20 minutes of class time talking about it.)

I think there is an effort to keep the lessons focused on what is more salient to us today, seeing as we don't have to live the Principle in practice at the present time (barring the death of a spouse, etc.)

I'm not embarassed and when someone wants to discuss it I am more than open too it, as long as they are well versed in the basics of the Gospel and can understand it in context of the whole.

The leadership of the Church as a whole are quite aware of the history of polygamy (and probably have private family documents with more information than most of us will ever get - I know of friends who have ancestral journals that remain unpublished becuase of their sacredness to them) and are quite aware that it is discussed, published and debated. They porbably don't feel that it is neccessary to take up more curricula and misionary teaching time to cover it. You feel differently and when the Brethren feel they need a detailed class on the history of Polygamy, let's hope you and anyone else who publishes their theories here, have published your book by then, so they have good resources.

[USU78]

I have substantiated it (you can read the details in prior posts, but here is a summary):

1. GD manual -- Lesson 31 (no mention of polygamy in main text or historical context for doctrine of eternal marriage; only mention of polygamy is in "Additional Help" section with instruction to be read IF a member raises a question);

2. Our Heritage booklet -- first mention of polygamy revelation is placed 50 years out of sequence; clever wordplay used so as not to admit JS personally practiced polygamy:

3. Brigham Young priesthood/RS manual -- portrays him as monogamist by only mentioning his two legal marriages in historical summary section;

4. Church Almanac -- church president bios -- makes JS out to be monogamist by only mentioning his legal marriage to Emma (the same method used in bios of monogamist church presidents, but bios for other polygamist presidents are silent on any marriage).

So what if the saints don't practice polygamy today (although they still do to a limited degree)? It remains doctrine and in the canon, and has eternal applications; so why shouldn't it be discussed and taught? We're not resurrected beings yet, either, but we talk and teach about that all the time.

Waaaa

Waaaa

Waaaa

[charity]

Cinepro wrote: Do you feel that members of the Church have a right to complain about Church things?

Cinepro, you made me think about this. I think my answer is an unqualified no, but I have to explain how I feel about complaining.

Complain about God's laws? NO.

Speak ill of the Lord's annointed? NO. (And I think that includes anyone I have held up my hand to sustain. The Prophet, my bishop, Relief Society president, the gospel doctrine teacher, etc.)

Now we get down to the word complain. If I have something I am concerned about, I do something about it. If I felt as Rollo does about the way certain topics are presented, I would write a letter to the Correlation Committee or Manual Writing Committee, whoever, and express my concerns. They have the responsability, but they are not required to make changes based on what I think. But then do I have a right to go around complaining about it? NO.

It is my personal belief that you don't sit around and gripe. You do what you can. But I am also not so prideful to believe that everything is going to go my way. My favorite grocery store now insures that at non peak hours, there will always be a handicapped accessible lane open. I am in a wheelchair, and when that was not the store policy, I spoke to the manager and expressed my concerns. He made a change. My favorite discount store, while it has the legally required number of handicapped parking spaces, never has enough for their customers' needs, and you can never find a place. I mentioned it to the manager. They stuck by their position. I found another favorite discount store that has more friendly parking. What good would it do to grouse about it?

So, no, I don't complain.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I believe he is referring to both Our Heritage and other ones, such as the book about teachings of the presidents of the church for Brigham Young.

"[T]hose other publications" that portray polygamist presidents as monogamists are:

1. Brigham Young priesthood/RS manual, specifically the historical summary at the beginning; and

2. Church Almanac, specifically the church president bios section.

I was not including the Our Heritage booklet in "those other publications."

[Scott Lloyd]

I would dispute your assertion that it is indeed being swept aside in Church lessons and publications as a "historical oddity." Furthermore I am confident you would be unable to substantiate that with any documentation.

...

The principle of plurality of wives is not emphasized today because we are not under commandment to live it.

I have substantiated it (you can read the details in prior posts, but here is a summary):

I'm aware of your prior posts. Nothing in what you have listed suggests or implies that the Church views the now-rescinded command to practice plural marriage as just a "historical oddity," nor does it deny the divine verity of the command.

So what if the saints don't practice polygamy today (although they still do to a limited degree)?  It remains doctrine and in the canon, and has eternal applications; so why shouldn't it be discussed and taught?  We're not resurrected beings yet, either, but we talk and teach about that all the time.

The 19th Century commandment to practice it has been rescinded. It has served its purpose and has no application to Church members living today. By contrast, the resurrection is a doctrine with vital application to every person now living.

[Rollo Tomasi]

This, of course, ignores the reality that the book was intended as a compilation of quotations on doctrines with contemporary application, not a history book.

I was referring to the "historical summary" in the manual, which deals with NOTHING BUT Brigham's history. And the fact remains that the summary goes to the effort to list his first legal marriage, the death of his first wife, and then his second legal marriage. I guess the Church learned from this mistake, because in subsequent manuals for polygamist presidents, no mention in the historical summary of any of their marriages (even legal ones), but such marriages are included in manuals of monogamist presidents.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Nothing in what you have listed suggests or implies that the Church views the now-rescinded command to practice plural marriage as just a "historical oddity," nor does it deny the divine verity of the command.

...

The 19th Century commandment to practice it has been rescinded. It has served its purpose and has no application to Church members living today. By contrast, the resurrection is a doctrine with vital application to every person now living.

1. But the evidences I have cited confirm that the Church indeed is downplaying its history with polygamy.

2. The "practice" may have been suspended (actually, it hasn't been completely), but the "doctrine" remains in current theology and canon. And since this doctrine has an eternal "purpose" (i.e., how can it not if it is "everlasting"?), you are incorrect to use the past tense "it has served its purpose." So long as the doctrine remains "everlasting" and "eternal," I submit it has as much application to living members as does the resurrection.

[Scott Lloyd]

I believe he is referring to both Our Heritage and other ones, such as the book about teachings of the presidents of the church for Brigham Young.

"[T]hose other publications" that portray polygamist presidents as monogamists are:

1. Brigham Young priesthood/RS manual, specifically the historical summary at the beginning; and

2. Church Almanac, specifically the church president bios section.

Rollo is careful to specify the "church president bios" section of the Church Almanac, because it has been pointed out to him several times that the almanac does contain references to plural marriage and the practice thereof by Church leaders, specifically in the "Historical Chronology of the Church" section. He consistently neglects to mention that fact, even as he incessantly complains about the almanac's treatment of the historical fact of plural marriage.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo is careful to specify the "church president bios" section of the Church Almanac, because it has been pointed out to him several times that the almanac does contain references to plural marriage and the practice thereof by Church leaders, specifically in the "Historical Chronology of the Church" section. He consistently neglects to mention that fact, even as he incessantly complains about the almanac's treatment of the historical fact of plural marriage.

My argument is that the Church Almanac portrays Joseph as a monogamist; the other "references" you cite do not change this portrayal at all -- even though they acknowledge polygamy, they do NOT say anything that changes this misleading portrayal.

[Scott Lloyd]

Nothing in what you have listed suggests or implies that the Church views the now-rescinded command to practice plural marriage as just a "historical oddity," nor does it deny the divine verity of the command.

...

The 19th Century commandment to practice it has been rescinded. It has served its purpose and has no application to Church members living today. By contrast, the resurrection is a doctrine with vital application to every person now living.

1. But the evidences I have cited confirm that the Church indeed is downplaying its history with polygamy.

Your statement which I disputed is that the Church is "sweeping aside" plural marriage as a "historical oddity." Apparently, you are reluctant to stand by that particular assertion.

2.  The "practice" may have been suspended (actually, it hasn't been completely), but the "doctrine" remains in current theology and canon.  And since this doctrine has an eternal "purpose" (i.e., how can it not if it is "everlasting"?), you are incorrect to use the past tense "it has served its purpose."  So long as the doctrine remains "everlasting" and "eternal," I submit it has as much application to living members as does the resurrection.

What is everlasting about it is the fact that it is provisional. The Lord permits it when He Himself commands it; otherwise, monogamy is the default condition.

I am not incorrect to use the past tense. Obviously, the Lord would not have commanded it in the 19th Century without having a purpose for doing so. That he later rescinded the command is an indication that the purpose was served. (Jacob 2:30 quite clearly spells out the Lord's reason for instituting plural marriage in any gospel dispensation.)

[Rollo Tomasi]

Your statement which I disputed is that the Church is "sweeping aside" plural marriage as a "historical oddity." Apparently, you are reluctant to stand by that particular assertion.

...

What is everlasting about it is the fact that it is provisional.

...

(Jacob 2:30 quite clearly spells out the Lord's reason for instituting plural marriage in any gospel dispensation.)

1. The phrase "sweeping aside" referred to the many examples I've given of the Church's intentionally downplaying its polygamous history in recent classes and publications. "Historical oddity" is a reference to many of the posts here stating or implying that polygamy is all in the past and irrelevant to members today. If you disagree with my characterization, fine, but it is based on my own reading of the materials, and I stand by my characterization.

2. I had no idea that "the new and everlasting covenant of marriage" really meant "the new and provisional covenant of marriage."

3. Do you agree that the doctrine of plural marriage is an eternal principle to be practiced by those who acheive the highest degree in the CK? Using Jacob 2:30 as a guide, is there any place more appropriate (or even possible) than the highest degree of the CK "to raise up seed"?