Consequences of not being forthcoming with history

[sibling]

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.

On one hand, we have the prophets of the Lord, called by his power, ordained under his priesthood authority to be apostles, and inspired by him to lead his Church. They agree that certain principles ought to be highlighted when teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Saints, and they agree that one of these highlighted principles is not polygamy.

On the other hand, we have Rollo Tomasi, who insists that the Church teach polygamy to his satisfaction, and in fact accuses the Church of "covering up" its history or "downplaying" its doctrine because it doesn't provide what he believes to be adequate covering of his pet doctrine.

Whom ought we to believe?

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

You did indeed misquote, indirect or not. "Raising" questions is not the same thing as "having" questions. And the misquote was crucial to your misinterpretation of the wording in the manual.

But, ok, the manual still instructs the teacher to use the "additional help" statement on polygamy IF members have questions about polygamy.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Early Church leaders might not, and probably did not, understand that the commandment to practice plural marriage would one day be rescinded.

Are you saying we should bind ourselves to the limited light and knowledge that existed in an earlier period of Church history?

[Rollo Tomasi]

You did indeed misquote, indirect or not. "Raising" questions is not the same thing as "having" questions. And the misquote was crucial to your misinterpreation of the wording in the manual.

...

Well so what? If the members of a typical adult Sunday School class already are aware of plural marriage in the Church's past (as I suspect they are) and have no questions about it, why occupy scarce Sunday School class time discussing it?

1. Hmm ... "raise" vs. "have." This thread is getting far too Clintonesque, imo.

2. Since so many manuals are recycled every 4 years, what's the point of our studying and discussing anything we've learned before? The LDS Church is nothing if not repetitive. Like other doctrines in Mormon theology, polygamy remains doctrine and in the canon -- that's why it should still be discussed and understood.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Early Church leaders might not, and probably did not, understand that the commandment to practice plural marriage would one day be rescinded.

Are you saying we should bind ourselves to the limited light and knowledge that existed in an earlier period of Church history?

You may be right as it relates to the "practice" itself, but I think they all understood a doctrine described as "everlasting" to mean forever. Dallin Oaks has referred to his second wife as his "eternal companion" -- has he misunderstood the application of plural marriage in the hereafter as well?

[cinepro]

Are you saying we should bind ourselves to the limited light and knowledge that existed in an earlier period of Church history?

Is it really that much better to bind ourselves to the limited light and knowledge that exists in this period of Church history?

For example, I expect that within 100 years, we will have OD 3 which grants Church sanction to monogomous homosexual marriages. They won't be married in the Temple, but the men can hold the priesthood and participate in full fellowship (including Temple worship) as long as they remain faithful to their spouse.

The reason we are not currently doing this is because our current leaders are a "product of their culture", and the current Church members aren't ready for the idea, so it will take a new batch of more "enlightened" leadership and members to accept the new revelation.

We just have limited light and knowledge on the subject, and I chose to look forward to the increased light and knowledge of the future.

[Scott Lloyd]

You did indeed misquote, indirect or not. "Raising" questions is not the same thing as "having" questions. And the misquote was crucial to your misinterpreation of the wording in the manual.

...

Well so what? If the members of a typical adult Sunday School class already are aware of plural marriage in the Church's past (as I suspect they are) and have no questions about it, why occupy scarce Sunday School class time discussing it?

1. Hmm ... "raise" vs. "have." This thread is getting far too Clintonesque, imo.

Tell me you are not so obtuse as to fail to comprehend the distinction between having a question and raising it.

Never mind. I think I already know the answer.

2.  Since so many manuals are recycled every 4 years, what's the point of our studying and discussing anything we've learned before?  The LDS Church is nothing if not repetitive.  Like other doctrines in Mormon theology, polygamy remains doctrine and in the canon -- that's why it should still be discussed and understood.

This really is getting comical. How many times have gospel doctrine teachers come on here and attested that there is insufficient time to cover even most of the material in a typical lesson, let alone all of it? And, as I have stated before, the lessons are designed to be flexible so that a teacher can adapt them to the needs and circustances of the class members, selecting those portions that are judged to be the most immediate and urgent at the moment. Polygamy, by the way, does not usually measure up to the immediate-and-urgent criterion.

[Scott Lloyd]

Early Church leaders might not, and probably did not, understand that the commandment to practice plural marriage would one day be rescinded.

Are you saying we should bind ourselves to the limited light and knowledge that existed in an earlier period of Church history?

You may be right as it relates to the "practice" itself, but I think they all understood a doctrine described as "everlasting" to mean forever.

They probably understood it to mean "everlasting" for those to whom it applied. And in that, they would have been right. But even during the 19th Century, plural marriage was far from universally practiced, even among faithful members.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Tell me you are not so obtuse as to fail to comprehend the distinction between having a question and raising it.

...

This really is getting comical. How many times have gospel doctrine teachers come on here and attested that there is insufficient time to cover even most of the material in a typical lesson, let alone all of it?

...

Polygamy, by the way, does not usually measure up to the immediate-and-urgent criterion.

1. I was not being obtuse -- to me, the distinction between the two words was hair-splitting, given the point I was trying to get across, which was the reason for the "IF" clause -- that is, the written instruction does not rely on whether a member "raises" a question or "has" a question, but the member's questions (not the teacher's) in the first place.

2. I agree that some of the posts on this thread are becoming very comical; nevertheless, the other poster did seem to argue there's no reason to even discuss polygamy in a church class because the members know all about it and have no questions at all -- that never seemed to be the prerequisite for a topic to make it into a manual.

3. A lot of topics aren't "immediate" or "urgent," like the resurrection or even the Second Coming; that doesn't mean they aren't taught.

[Rollo Tomasi]

They probably understood it to mean "everlasting" for those to whom it applied.

That's right, it "applied" to those who received exaltation; that's what they taught in the 19th Century, and it would seem to apply even today to gents like Dallin Oaks.

[Scott Lloyd]

Tell me you are not so obtuse as to fail to comprehend the distinction between having a question and raising it.

...

This really is getting comical. How many times have gospel doctrine teachers come on here and attested that there is insufficient time to cover even most of the material in a typical lesson, let alone all of it?

...

Polygamy, by the way, does not usually measure up to the immediate-and-urgent criterion.

1. I was not being obtuse -- to me, the distinction between the two words was hair-splitting, given the point I was trying to get across, which was the reason for the "IF" clause -- that is, the written instruction does not rely on whether a member "raises" a question or "has" a question, but the member's questions (not the teacher's) in the first place.

So we get back to my prior question: If the class members are not concerned or troubled about the topic, and if it has no direct bearing on their salvation, why occupy precious Sunday School class time in discussing it?

2.  I agree that some of the posts on this thread are becoming very comical; nevertheless, the other poster did seem to argue there's no reason to even discuss polygamy in a church class because the members know all about it and have no questions at all -- that never seemed to be the prerequisite for a topic to make it into a manual.

If by "the other poster," you mean me, you are off base. I hold open the possibility that in some classes, members may have questions, in which case it would be appropriate to spend some time in discussion. I strongly disagree however, with your tendency to place plural marriage in a category with core doctrines of salvation such as the resurrection and the Atonement.

3.  A lot of topics aren't "immediate" or "urgent," like the resurrection or even the Second Coming; that doesn't mean they aren't taught.

You have selected some bad examples for the point you are trying to make. The resurrection and the Second Coming are, each of them, both immediate and urgent. The former deals with the very nature of our existence in the hereafter and is both a comfort and a motivation to righteousness. As for the Second Coming, well, that is the very event for which we in latter days are commanded to prepare the world. It also is a motivation to righteousness.

[Scott Lloyd]

They probably understood it to mean "everlasting" for those to whom it applied.

That's right, it "applied" to those who received exaltation; that's what they taught in the 19th Century, and it would seem to apply even today to gents like Dallin Oaks.

I don't accept that plural marriage was regarded as essential for all candidates for exaltation -- even back then.

Certainly it is not regarded so now -- which, as I have said, is a good reason not to make it an integral part of formal Sunday Church curriculum.

[Rollo Tomasi]

So we get back to my prior question: If the class members are not concerned or troubled about the topic, and if it has no direct bearing on their salvation, why occupy precious Sunday School class time in discussing it?

If by "the other poster," you mean me, you are off base.

...

I strongly disagree however, with your tendency to place plural marriage in a category with core doctrines of salvation such as the resurrection and the Atonement.

...

The resurrection and the Second Coming are, each of them, both immediate and urgent. The former deals with the very nature of our existence in the hereafter and is both a comfort and a motivation to righteousness. As for the Second Coming, well, that is the very event for which we in latter days are commanded to prepare the world. It also is a motivation to righteousness.

1. Most topics taught in GD class are not "troubling" to members. You're using a false criterion.

2. Does the doctrine of plural marriage "bear on salvation"? Well, according to early Church leaders, yes. And since we still practice polygamy in a limited degree today, another yes. And since the doctrine remains in our canon, yes again. There certainly is no reason to hide from it, imo.

3. I was not referring to you as the "other poster."

4. Polygamy certainly was a "core doctrine" in the 19th Century church. Now, some would have it be merely a "tangent." An "everlasting" doctrine sounds pretty darn "core" to me, since it's gonna be around forever.

5. We've been in the "latter days" for 175 years, 4 months, and 20 days now -- I don't think the Second Coming is terribly "urgent," as least not from a mortal perspective. And the resurrection is probably a ways off, too. Since both relate to the "hereafter" and have an "everlasting" effect, they seem in the same company as polygamy.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I don't accept that plural marriage was regarded as essential for all candidates for exaltation -- even back then.

Certainly it is not regarded so now -- which, as I have said, is a good reason not to make it an integral part of formal Sunday Church curriculum.

Certainly not earthly polygamy, but it was taught that polygamy is the form of marriage for those who acheive exaltation. And if was so regarded then, but not now, what does this say about the supposed unchanging nature of the Gospel and truth?

[asbestosman]

Are you saying we should bind ourselves to the limited light and knowledge that existed in an earlier period of Church history?

Is it really that much better to bind ourselves to the limited light and knowledge that exists in this period of Church history?

Is it better to bind ourselves to the limited light and knowledge that exists in this period of scientific history?

I think it's logical to use the best we've got while looking forward to the future. If things change, they change. Hopefully it's because we're ready for more light and knowledge rather than so weak we start to lose what we once had.

We just have limited light and knowledge on the subject, and I chose to look forward to the increased light and knowledge of the future.

As do I. I just don't have many guesses on what that increased light will be. I do hope for a greater understanding of why some people struggle with something that is no struggle at all for others.

[Scott Lloyd]

So we get back to my prior question: If the class members are not concerned or troubled about the topic, and if it has no direct bearing on their salvation, why occupy precious Sunday School class time in discussing it?

If by "the other poster," you mean me, you are off base.

...

I strongly disagree however, with your tendency to place plural marriage in a category with core doctrines of salvation such as the resurrection and the Atonement.

...

The resurrection and the Second Coming are, each of them, both immediate and urgent. The former deals with the very nature of our existence in the hereafter and is both a comfort and a motivation to righteousness. As for the Second Coming, well, that is the very event for which we in latter days are commanded to prepare the world. It also is a motivation to righteousness.

1. Most topics taught in GD class are not "troubling" to members. You're using a false criterion.

But some are. I gave this as only one possibley criterion, not as the sole or even the most important one. This is the only one that might apply to a discussion of plural marriage. Others do not.

2.  Does the doctrine of plural marriage "bear on salvation"?  Well, according to early Church leaders, yes.

I read them as saying the acceptance, not necessarily the practice of it bears on salvation. It would have been more crucial in their day, when they were under command to live the principle.

And since we still practice polygamy in a limited degree today, another yes.  And since the doctrine remains in our canon, yes again. 

It remains in our canon as a provisional part of the doctrine of Celestial Marriage, which, taken as a whole, does bear on salvation. But you have yet to show that the practice of it is a universal requirement for exaltation.

There certainly is no reason to hide from it, imo.

I don't seen the Church as hiding from it. Not making it an integral part of Sunday curriculum does not equate to hiding from it.

3.  I was not referring to you as the "other poster."

OK.

4.  Polygamy certainly was a "core doctrine" in the 19th Century church

Only because the Saints were under command to live it. Conditions have changed.

5.  We've been in the "latter days" for 175 years, 4 months, and 20 days now -- I don't think the Second Coming is terribly "urgent," as least not from a mortal perspective. 

It should occupy our thoughts constantly, as we are under command to prepare for it -- by participating in the gathering of Israel, which has a bearing upon everything we do as Church members. I couldn't disagree more strongly with you on this point.

And the resurrection is probably a ways off, too.

But our knowledge of it guides, or should guide, our every thought and action.

Since both relate to the "hereafter" and have an "everlasting" effect, they seem in the same company as polygamy.

No. The Second Coming and the resurrection have universal application; plurality of wives does not.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't accept that plural marriage was regarded as essential for all candidates for exaltation -- even back then.

Certainly it is not regarded so now -- which, as I have said, is a good reason not to make it an integral part of formal Sunday Church curriculum.

Certainly not earthly polygamy, but it was taught that polygamy is the form of marriage for those who acheive exaltation.

I don't think you have shown this to be the case, not for all candidates for exaltation.

[will2believe]

I don't accept that plural marriage was regarded as essential for all candidates for exaltation -- even back then.

Certainly it is not regarded so now -- which, as I have said, is a good reason not to make it an integral part of formal Sunday Church curriculum.

It doesn't seem like a good reason to me. I submit that most of what we learn in Sunday School isn't essential to our exaltation. Will I be turned away from the pearly gates it I don't know the story of Joseph's leg operation?

On the other hand, I think the controversial nature of polygamy is a good reason to avoid it in church meetings. It leaves questions in people's minds that can't be adequately addressed in basic Sunday School classes.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't accept that plural marriage was regarded as essential for all candidates for exaltation -- even back then.

Certainly it is not regarded so now -- which, as I have said, is a good reason not to make it an integral part of formal Sunday Church curriculum.

It doesn't seem like a good reason to me. I submit that most of what we learn in Sunday School isn't essential to our exaltation. Will I be turned away from the pearly gates it I don't know the story of Joseph's leg operation?

I don't think I spent any time at all on Joseph's leg operation when we had that lesson. We have spent some time, however, on discussing his prophetic role and calling in this dispensation. That does have a bearing on salvation. To the extent that historical anecdotes can promote a better understanding and appreciation of important doctrines, they can be of value, though probably not crucial. This is where the teacher must rely on inspiration. Again, we are talking about what should be an integral part of curriculum in Sunday meetings and classes.

On the other hand, I think the controversial nature of polygamy is a good reason to avoid it in church meetings.

[Rollo Tomasi]

It remains in our canon as a provisional part of the doctrine of Celestial Marriage, which, taken as a whole, does bear on salvation. But you have yet to show that the practice of it is a universal requirement for exaltation.

...

I don't seen the Church as hiding from it. Not making it an integral part of Sunday curriculum does not equate to hiding from it.

...

Only because the Saints were under command to live it. Conditions have changed.

...

No. The Second Coming and the resurrection have universal application; plurality of wives does not.

1. There's that "provisional" word again to describe an "everlasting" doctrine. You're being very original, because I have never heard that before. I thought I understood what "everlasting" meant, but I guess not....

2. I don't know that the pre-exalted practice of polygamy is "required" to obtain salvation, just that polygamy will be the form of marriage for those who obtain exaltation and beget their own spirit children.

3. It's not just the failure to make polygamy an "integral part" of the lesson, so much as the treatment of the topic, imo, in a misleading and whitewashed manner (i.e., clever wordplay, selective facts, and/or placement far out of sequence). This is probably what bothers me more than anything else. It just seems sneaky, and this is unbecoming the Church of Christ.

4. I think the revelation was "core" as soon as Joseph received it, even if he didn't start practicing it immediately. Regardless of whether the practice is active or dormant, a "new and everlasting covenant" seems like a "core" doctrine to me. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

5. I think the teachings of early Church leaders are clear: polygamy has universal application for those who are exalted in the hightest degree of the CK.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I don't think you have shown this to be the case, not for all candidates for exaltation.

I'm not talking about "candidates" for salvation (we all are), but just those who actually make it.

[sibling]

To reiterate:

On one hand, we have the prophets of the Lord, called by his power, ordained under his priesthood authority to be apostles, and inspired by him to lead his Church. They agree that certain principles ought to be highlighted when teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Saints, and they agree that one of these highlighted principles is not polygamy.

On the other hand, we have Rollo Tomasi, who insists that the Church teach polygamy to his satisfaction, and in fact accuses the Church of "covering up" its history or "downplaying" its doctrine because it doesn't provide what he believes to be adequate covering of his pet doctrine.

Whom ought we to believe?

[Enish-go-on-doshling]

To reiterate:

On one hand, we have the prophets of the Lord, called by his power, ordained under his priesthood authority to be apostles, and inspired by him to lead his Church. They agree that certain principles ought to be highlighted when teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Saints, and they agree that one of these highlighted principles is not polygamy.

On the other hand, we have Rollo Tomasi, who insists that the Church teach polygamy to his satisfaction, and in fact accuses the Church of "covering up" its history or "downplaying" its doctrine because it doesn't provide what he believes to be adequate covering of his pet doctrine.

Whom ought we to believe?

I think I will have to vote for Rollo. GBH doesn't seem very forthcoming about such issues, and it certainly affected my degree of trust in church leaders to hear them say that LDS has no connection to polygamy. Especially as Rollo points out 1) polygamy was absolutely essential to exaltation at one time, and 2) Is practiced on a limited scale today and could have a significant bearing on many members eternal lives.

Larry King interview

[On polygamy]

Gordon B. Hinckley: The figures I have are from -- between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That's 118 years ago. It's behind us.

Larry King: But when the word is mentioned, when you hear the word, you think Mormon, right?

Gordon B. Hinckley: You do it mistakenly. They have no connection with us whatever. They don't belong to the church. There are actually no Mormon fundamentalists.

Larry King: Are you surprised that there's, apparently, a lot of polygamy in Utah?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I have seen the thing grow somewhat. I don't know how much it is. I don't know how pervasive it is.

[charity]

Enish said: "I think I will have to vote for Rollo. GBH doesn't seem very forthcoming about such issues, and it certainly affected my degree of trust in church leaders to hear them say that LDS has no connection to polygamy."

Two things. First, I don't think you realize the position you put Rollo in when you say you "vote for Rollo." If he accepts your "vote," that puts him opposition to the Prophet. That means his soul is in peril. Myself, I wouldn't want to put anyone in such a situation.

Second, President Hinckley did not say that the LDS had never had a connection to polygamy. If you will read from your own post, it is clear that Larry King is referring to present day polygamists. That is an absolutely true statement. Any polygamy practiced today has no connection with the LDS Church. It is a flagrant sexual sin, because the Lord has not commanded it and does not sanction it.

[sibling]

To reiterate:

On one hand, we have the prophets of the Lord... On the other hand, we have Rollo Tomasi... Whom ought we to believe?

I think I will have to vote for Rollo.

Then we know that you disbelieve the prophets of the Lord. Which is your privilege, of course, but let's just be clear on the point.

[EDIT] Actually, I was more curious what Rollo Tomasi has to say about the doctrine he's preaching. Ought we to follow him and ignore or rail against what the prophets tell us? Is rebellion the correct order of things?