Consequences of not being forthcoming with history

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Call it an undocumented characterization, and you would be more accurate.

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

Come now. Such feigned ignorance is unbecoming. "The new and everlasting covenant of marriage" goes far beyond the occasional and provisional practice of plurality of wives.

Or were you just trying to be cute?

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? 

If you are you asking if I agree that it is essential for anyone who achieves the highest degree, my answer would be no.

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"?

I believe that Book of Mormon passage refers to the raising up of seed in mortality. Finite, mortal limitations do not apply in the hereafter. Nor will presentist fallacies come to bear.

[thesometimesaint]

RT:

Just quit with the obfuscation. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saint in 2005 does NOT practice polygamy as it was practiced in 1885. This is a NON-ISSUE.

Whether polygamy is practiced in the Celestial Kingdom or not is of little to NO import to us living on this planet here and now. NO LDS that I am aware is concerned about it. We are try desparately hard just to be good honorable people here and now. This is a NO-ISSUE.

Whether a particular book even mentions a particular event is on NO import to the LDS. The LDS do not hide, destroy, or ignore the issue polygamy as practiced by JS or BY, or any of the other past leaders in the Church. The information has long been available to ANYONE ANYWHERE that is in the slightestest bit interested. This is a NON-ISSUE.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I believe that Book of Mormon passage refers to the raising up of seed in mortality. Finite, mortal limitations do not apply in the hereafter. Nor will presentist fallacies come to bear.

Ah, finally, I think you're starting to understand my point -- I have been speaking all along of plural marriage in the hereafter, and you finally seem to make that connection. Hence, my comparison to resurrection and other matters in the hereafter. If plural marriage exists in the next life (as we know it does, even under current Church practice and policy), then it is incorrect to say it "has served its purpose," past tense, because there remains a future purpose and application. Ergo, the doctrine of plural marriage, besides being current doctrine and canon of the Church, is relevant (and I'd say important, due to its "everlasting" nature) to members today. Consequently, there is no need for the Church to downplay or avoid its polygamy doctrine, as it's been doing. If it's going to apply in the next life, let the members learn about it.

[Scott Lloyd]

I believe that Book of Mormon passage refers to the raising up of seed in mortality. Finite, mortal limitations do not apply in the hereafter. Nor will presentist fallacies come to bear.

Ah, finally, I think you're starting to understand my point -- I have been speaking all along of plural marriage in the hereafter, and you finally seem to make that connection. Hence, my comparison to resurrection and other matters in the hereafter. If plural marriage exists in the next life (as we know it does, even under current Church practice and policy), then it is incorrect to say it "has served its purpose," past tense, because there remains a future purpose and application. Ergo, the doctrine of plural marriage, besides being current doctrine and canon of the Church, is relevant (and I'd say important, due to its "everlasting" nature) to members today. Consequently, there is no need for the Church to downplay or avoid its polygamy doctrine, as it's been doing. If it's going to apply in the next life, let the members learn about it.

Those who are interested can and do learn about it. Whatever application it has in the hereafter will not be universal. Thus, I cannot see the need to make it an integral part of institutional Church teaching, as you seem to demand. Thus, in my relatively brief, 40-minute gospel doctrine class, I chose to focus on topics of more immediate import.

[Rollo Tomasi]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saint in 2005 does NOT practice polygamy as it was practiced in 1885. This is a NON-ISSUE.

...

Whether polygamy is practiced in the Celestial Kingdom or not is of little to NO import to us living on this planet here and now. NO LDS that I am aware is concerned about it. We are try desparately hard just to be good honorable people here and now. This is a NO-ISSUE.

...

The LDS do not hide, destroy, or ignore the issue polygamy as practiced by JS or BY, or any of the other past leaders in the Church. The information has long been available to ANYONE ANYWHERE that is in the slightestest bit interested. This is a NON-ISSUE.

1. Really? A non-issue? If polygamy is no longer practiced, then why was Dallin Oaks sealed to his 2nd eternal wife, Kristin McMain, in 2000? I agree that the Church today does not practice polygamy as it did in 1885, but it remains current (and "everlasting") doctrine and is published in the current canon.

2. So the next life is of "NO import to us living on this planet here and now"? Pray tell, why do we teach and learn about the Plan of Happiness? Shouldn't we cut off off any discussion of the plan beyond this sphere? Why discuss resurrection or the final judgment. If we only care about the "here and now," then why do we bother with the "there and later"?

3. The Church's own actions, as they relate to recent classes and publications, make it clear the Church indeed downplays polygamy, both history and doctrine. Sure, you can find the info (as we've all done here), but you're not going to learn it during classes on Sunday.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Whatever application it has in the hereafter will not be universal. Thus, I cannot see the need to make it an integral part of institutional Church teaching, as you seem to demand.

I know of no Church teaching that says polygamy in the hereafter is "not universal." If you do, please share. But there is an awful lot of teachings of early Church leaders that polygamy will be the standard form of marriage for those who receive exaltation in the highest degree of the CK and have increase in siring spirit children.

[Scott Lloyd]

Whatever application it has in the hereafter will not be universal. Thus, I cannot see the need to make it an integral part of institutional Church teaching, as you seem to demand.

I know of no Church teaching that says polygamy in the hereafter is "not universal." If you do, please share. But there is an awful lot of teachings of early Church leaders that polygamy will be the standard form of marriage for those who receive exaltation in the highest degree of the CK and have increase in siring spirit children.

You are shifting the burden of proof here. You are the one making the assertion that the application is universal. Any assertion that one does not support collapses on its own; refutation is unnecessary.

Others have already called you on your out-of-context quotations from past Church leaders. From what I've seen, those statements indicate only that the principle itself will continue in the eternities, not that it is universally binding on every person who ever lived or ever will live.

[Rollo Tomasi]

You are shifting the burden of proof here. You are the one making the assertion that the application is universal. Any assertion that one does not support collapses on its own; refutation is unnecessary.

...

From what I've seen, those statements indicate only that the principle itself will continue in the eternities, not that it is universally binding on every person who ever lived or ever will live.

1. Nice dodge on the burden of proof. You learned that trick from Elder Oaks, didn't you?

2. You appear to at least concede that the doctrine of plural marriage has application for some in the hereafter, correct? In light of this, would you also concede that because polygamy has eternal application, its practice has not "served its purpose"?

[thesometimesaint]

RT:

Glad you FINALLY put in the part about as practiced in 1885. Makes a whole world of difference doesn't it?

As marriage to another AFTER the death of a spouse has ALWAYS been acceptable, and has ALWAYS been a teaching of the Church I fail to see your point.

Quit obfuscating, this is discussion of polygamy. Not the Plan of Salvation.

And WHO on this planet DOESN'T know that the LDS practiced polygamy, let alone ANY even semi-knowledgable member of the Church?

[Scott Lloyd]

You are shifting the burden of proof here. You are the one making the assertion that the application is universal. Any assertion that one does not support collapses on its own; refutation is unnecessary.

...

From what I've seen, those statements indicate only that the principle itself will continue in the eternities, not that it is universally binding on every person who ever lived or ever will live.

1. Nice dodge on the burden of proof. You learned that trick from Elder Oaks, didn't you?

Actually, no.

But Dallin H. Oaks is a respected jurist: a former state supreme court justice, professor of law, university president and clerk to a U.S. Supreme Court justice, not to mention being an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If being compared to him is supposed to make me recoil in shame, it won't work.

2.  You appear to at least concede that the doctrine of plural marriage has application for some in the hereafter, correct?

It is unnecessary to concede what has not been disputed.

In light of this, would you also concede that because polygamy has eternal application, its practice has not "served its purpose"?

My point was that the command to practice it in the 19th Century had served its purpose. And no, I am not conceding error on that point.

[helix]

3. The lesson manual contains a lot of history, which I pointed out somewhere above. The very title of the manual indicates it's about church history. And a teacher doesn't have to "go deep in history" to mention or discuss the most unique of LDS doctrines and practices for the first 70 years of the Church's 175 years of its existence.

Judging a book by it's cover?

As I've pointed out multiple times already, the focus of the class is far more on applying principles than history.

4. Interesting how quite a bit more historical context is given for the WofW revelation than the eternal marriage revelation. Hmm, wonder why .... And at least the Our Heritage booklet gives that information in sequence -- you have to jump to page 97 and 50 years ahead to get the first whiff of polygamy in the booklet.

Stop with the smugness. "Hmm...wonder why" is annoying. Knock it off. Others have mentioned that your debating style often leaves you coming across as more condescending than you really are. This is a great example.

I pointed out that the lesson manual gave the WoW *very* limited historical background, a reference to another book that contains just two or three sentences on it. You catch this and say "Ha! Three sentences for WoW in the main section, none for polygamy. This is a double standard!" That is abusrd. I could say "Three sentences for the WoW in the main section if the teacher chooses to use the Our Heritage book, but compare that to three paragraphs given for polygamy in the additional teaching ideas section, if the teacher wishes to use that. So, polygamy got far more text!" But that is also stretching.

In the end, you're stretching lesson 31 and the purposes of gospel doctrine class to hold onto your initial argument that lesson 31 is purposely reducing and burying polygamy's role in the church.

Given the other responses I've seen so far, I believe the entire discussion has come full circle more than once, and so I'm done with this argument. Some arguments seem to have found a good level of understanding and reasonable agreement, but other points seem to be unncessarily and stubbornly held onto. I see no need to go around this circle of arguments a few more times.

[Rollo Tomasi]

If being compared to him is supposed to make me recoil in shame, it won't work.

...

My point was that the command to practice it in the 19th Century had served its purpose. And no, I am not conceding error on that point.

1. I didn't make the comparison to cause you "recoil in shame." Your dodge simply reminded me of Elder Oaks's famous talk to FARMS on BofM historicity in 1993, when he claimed the burden of proof was on the critics to disprove the BofM (as opposed to believers proving the BofM is historical).

2. I'm glad you clarified that your "served its purpose" statement related only to past polygamy, and not future polygamy, which was my only point. Accordingly, you should have no problem recognizing the relevance of future polygamy to today's membership and the teaching and discussion of that topic.

[helix]

To be fair, I want to finish the other points Rollo has made.

1.  I agree that my perception is my own.  If you have a different perception, that's fine.

I think in the end, the discussion comes down to perception. We cannot know the full purpose of the person who wrote the lesson manual. We can only make educated guesses. We're just arguing whether we think it's purposely downplaying polygamy.

I didn't say it should be a "main focus of the lesson" -- but it shouldn't be buried, hidden, or whitewashed, either, and I think that is what's happening.  I have taught many a Gospel Doctrine class lessons, and I think polygamy is relevant to the context and any discussion of the principle of eternal marriage.  And you seem to forget that Lesson 31 instructs that the "additional help" statement about polygamy be used IF a member (says nothing about the teacher) raises a question.

Yes you are right. However, teachers have flexibility with the manual. As we both know, the manual is more of a encouraged suggestion and not a set in stone list of what must be taught and how. I don't think I've met a teacher yet that doesn't strictly follow the lesson manual.

5.  I agree with the instruction regarding single members -- but this is not the reason polygamy has been whitewashed away, and you know it.

Argh. No. You are not definitely not psychic. I take it as an insult that you think and suggest I'm also being deceptive, that I know one thing, but hide it, and instead argue another. And the instruction wasn't to simply single mothers, but also to those who are "not in traditional family situations". It then also explains about "divorce or other sensitive issues...".

6.  Hmm, I wonder if Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith would agree with your assessment that polygamy is a mere "tangent." 

Tangent in the sense that on some issues, comments in the class often don't stick with one main theme or topic, but tend to go all over the place. Much like threads on FAIR boards do. . I would hope that our early church presidents do not want off topic tangents preventing them from learning anything about the main point.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Stop with the smugness. "Hmm...wonder why" is annoying. Knock it off. Others have mentioned that your debating style often leaves you coming across as more condescending than you really are. This is a great example.

...

I pointed out that the lesson manual gave the WoW *very* limited historical background, a reference to another book that contains just two or three sentences on it. You catch this and say "Ha! Three sentences for WoW in the main section, none for polygamy. This is a double standard!" That is abusrd.

...

... but compare that to three paragraphs given for polygamy in the additional teaching ideas section, if the teacher wishes to use that.

...

Given the other responses I've seen so far, I believe the entire discussion has come full circle more than once, and so I'm done with this argument.

1. Sorry, no attempt to offend or be smug. I just wanted to point out that the brief historical context for the WofW still dwarfs that of polgamy in the Church publications.

2. The way the manual instructs the "additional help" paragraph on polygamy be used is not solely up to the teacher's discretion, but IF a member raises a question.

3. Sorry you're getting off the ride -- my best wishes to you.

[Magyar]

Stop with the smugness.  "Hmm...wonder why" is annoying.  Knock it off.  Others have mentioned that your debating style often leaves you coming across as more condescending than you really are.  This is a great example. 

...

I pointed out that the lesson manual gave the WoW *very* limited historical background, a reference to another book that contains just two or three sentences on it.  You catch this and say "Ha!  Three sentences for WoW in the main section, none for polygamy.  This is a double standard!"  That is abusrd. 

...

... but compare that to three paragraphs given for polygamy in the additional teaching ideas section, if the teacher wishes to use that.

...

Given the other responses I've seen so far, I believe the entire discussion has come full circle more than once, and so I'm done with this argument.

1. Sorry, no attempt to offend or be smug. I just wanted to point out that the brief historical context for the WofW still dwarfs that of polgamy in the Church publications.

2. The way the manual instructs the "additional help" paragraph on polygamy be used is not solely up to the teacher's discretion, but IF a member raises a question.

3. Sorry you're getting off the ride -- my best wishes to you.

Seems to me that if our Church services are about learning that which is important for our spiritual growth, more time should be devoted to a principle that is currently expected of us as opposed to one which is merely of historical interest.

Do you think we should spend more time on the details of the Law of Moses or upon the Resurrection of Christ?

[Scott Lloyd]

If being compared to him is supposed to make me recoil in shame, it won't work.

...

My point was that the command to practice it in the 19th Century had served its purpose. And no, I am not conceding error on that point.

1. I didn't make the comparison to cause you "recoil in shame." Your dodge simply reminded me of Elder Oaks's famous talk to FARMS on BofM historicity in 1993, when he claimed the burden of proof was on the critics to disprove the BofM (as opposed to believers proving the BofM is historical).

I remember reading that address, or at least portions of it. I don't know that burden of proof, per se, entered into it. As I recall, Elder Oaks was making the point that the critics have a far more immense task before them than do the believers, since the critics must definitively prove the Book of Mormon to be false (so far, they have failed). Believers, on the other hand, need only preserve the feasibility of the book's authenticity to hold the way open for a sincere seeker to pray and ask God for a spiritual manifestation of its truthfulness.

Burden of proof is not a dodge. It is a widely held and respected concept in law, logic and formal argumentation. And it makes sense. Why is it necessary to refute something that has not been substantiated in the first place?

2. I'm glad you clarified that your "served its purpose" statement related only to past polygamy, and not future polygamy, which was my only point.

[rameumptom]

I agree with Scott. Do the Protestants spend time in their Sunday School classes discussing Calvin's burning people at the stake? How about Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart's fall from grace?

Do Catholics spend time ensuring everyone knows that excommunicating Martin Luther was a mistake? How about letting everyone know that at one time there were three popes who excommunicated each other?

I don't care that these churches choose not to air out their dirty laundry every Sunday, or even every year. That is up to them to decide what they will do with the information. It isn't "hidden" information, if they choose not to discuss it. It is available in history books, religious volumes, etc.

And so I also don't think the Church needs to feel obliged to discuss its difficult history moments, either. Especially when those things have little or nothing to do with its current goals. MMM or Joseph Smith's polygamy are out there for people to read. Some will be offended, many won't be. Those who would be offended because of those things would probably find other things to leave over anyway.

[Scott Lloyd]

2. The way the manual instructs the "additional help" paragraph on polygamy be used is not solely up to the teacher's discretion, but IF a member raises a question.

False. Nothing in the wording forbids a teacher from raising the topic on his/her own initiative if he/she feels inspired or motivated to do so. It does say, with good reason, that the topic should not become the main focus of the lesson.

Hence, last Sunday I felt free to touch on it. The reason I did not, as I have said, is that all our class time was occupied discussing what I deemed to be more urgent topics.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Do you think we should spend more time on the details of the Law of Moses or upon the Resurrection of Christ?

As far as I know, the Law of Moses truly is a thing of the past, while polygamy, like resurrection, may well be in our future.

[Rollo Tomasi]

False. Nothing in the wording forbids a teacher from raising the topic on his/her own initiative if he/she feels inspired or motivated to do so. It does say, with good reason, that the topic should not become the main focus of the lesson.

No, it's true. The written instruction in the manual is to read the statement IF a class member raises a question about polygamy. Will this prevent a teacher from going into it on his own? Of course not. But the manual doesn't say that, but it does expressly state the "additional help" statement on polygamy be used IF a member raises a question.

[Scott Lloyd]

False. Nothing in the wording forbids a teacher from raising the topic on his/her own initiative if he/she feels inspired or motivated to do so. It does say, with good reason, that the topic should not become the main focus of the lesson.

No, it's true. The written instruction in the manual is to read the statement IF a class member raises a question about polygamy. Will this prevent a teacher from going into it on his own? Of course not. But the manual doesn't say that, but it does expressly state the "additional help" statement on polygamy be used IF a member raises a question.

I have a copy of the teacher's manual before me (I keep it in my Palm PDA so I can study the lessons at odd moments). This is the wording, verbatim:

The following information is provided to help you if class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage. It should not be the focus of the lesson [emphasis mine].

Notice it does not say "raise" questions, as you have misquoted it. It says "have" questions.

Accordingly, a teacher could sense through inspiration that class members have questions and could provide an opportunity in class for the members to raise them. Or the teacher might appropriately (as I intended to do, but never got around to it) mention the topic briefly and ask if there were any questions on it.

The wording is not as prohibitive as you make it out to be.

[Rollo Tomasi]

And so I also don't think the Church needs to feel obliged to discuss its difficult history moments, either. Especially when those things have little or nothing to do with its current goals.

I see your point, but perhaps polygamy would not be "dirty laundry" or a "difficult history moment" if the Church were more open about it, instead of appearing to avoid it. Would this hurt its "current goals"? Perhaps, if the goal is to mainstream and be accepted by other Christian organizations, or to appear more palatable to its investigators. But the problem is that the doctrine and history are still there, and as the original poster of this thread noted, there is a price to pay when the buried past rears its head, as it must with polygamy since it weaves such a common thread throughout Church history and doctrine.

[Scott Lloyd]

Do you think we should spend more time on the details of the Law of Moses or upon the Resurrection of Christ?

As far as I know, the Law of Moses truly is a thing of the past, while polygamy, like resurrection, may well be in our future.

And the resurrection is a doctrine with universal application; plurality of wives is not. Ergo, your comparison is no better than Maygar's.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Notice it does not say "raise" questions, as you have misquoted it. It says "have" questions.

Accordingly, a teacher could sense through inspiration that class members have questions and could provide an opportunity in class for the members to raise them.

I didn't misquote anything; I was paraphrasing. But, ok, the manual still instructs the teacher to use the "additional help" statement on polygamy IF members have questions about polygamy. You seem to be saying the teacher can know members "have" questions via inspiration as well as the member verbally "raising" it -- I'm fine with that. However the teacher becomes aware of members' questions on the topic, the written instruction still includes the threshold "IF," which has been my point all along.

[Rollo Tomasi]

And the resurrection is a doctrine with universal application; plurality of wives is not. Ergo, your comparison is no better than Maygar's.

My comparison dealt with "future" application, and both the resurrection and plurality of wives have that, especially since the polygamy doctrine is referred to as "everlasting." And early Church leaders who practiced polygamy taught it has universal application for those who are exalted. Perhaps this is the reason they were willing to give up everything in order to the live the Principle, until the Lord suspended its practice.