Consequences of not being forthcoming with history

[Rollo Tomasi]

Despite considerable bluffing on your part, you have not shown this to be definitive doctrine -- now or in the past.

I am not bluffing; I just haven't had the time to put something together. But, I will do so and get back to you will some past teachings (and current practices) ... and you can then tell me why the prophets, seers and revelators were wrong on this doctrine as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting that Rollo makes this statement after having downplayed the inclusion in the gospel doctrine teacher's manual of a summary of the place of polygamy in Church history and the position of the Church on the subject today.

...

Also interesting is that Rollo's discontent seems to be driven, in part, at least, by his own quirky notions about Church doctrine regarding plurality of wives in the hereafter and the fanciful supposition that it is a prerequisite for exaltation.

You still don't get it -- part of the "downplaying" I've been talking about includes sticking the only mention of polygamy in the manual's "additional help" section (rather than the main text), and then, instructing it be read IF class members have questions.

Why did you put quotes around additional help? Whom or what are you quoting?

The material on plural marriage is in a section of the lesson called "Additional Teaching Ideas" and, as I have mentioned, depending on the circumstances, is just as apt to be used by a gospel doctrine teacher as anything else in the lesson. (These are, well, additional teaching ideas.) And it is part of the main text. You misleadingly make it sound like a footnote.

But I am glad to see you did not misquote the manual again by saying the material is to be used if members raise questions. Dare I conclude that you have taken my chastening to heart?

Add to this that the booklet given to all class members only mentions polygamy 50 years out of sequence, and only then using clever wordplay.

Did I mention I find this underwhelming?

"Quirky notion"?

[Scott Lloyd]

Despite considerable bluffing on your part, you have not shown this to be definitive doctrine -- now or in the past.

I am not bluffing; I just haven't had the time to put something together. But, I will do so and get back to you will some past teachings (and current practices) ... and you can then tell me why the prophets, seers and revelators were wrong on this doctrine as well.

No thanks. I've seen you take things out of context before. And the consequence is, -- what shall we say? -- a loss of trust.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Why did you put quotes around additional help? Whom or what are you quoting?

The material on plural marriage is in a section of the lesson called "Additional Teaching Ideas" and, as I have mentioned, depending on the circumstances, is just as apt to be used by a gospel doctrine teacher as anything else in the lesson. (These are, well, additional teaching ideas.) And it is part of the main text. You misleadingly make it sound like a footnote.

But I am glad to see you did not misquote the manual again by saying the material is to be used if members raise questions. Dare I conclude that you have taken my chastening to heart?

...

To adapt the phrasing of Dan Quayle's debate adversary: I know Brother Brigham's teachings. I have studied them. You are no Brother Brigham.

(Interesting, after all these years, I can remember Quayle, but I can't remember who he ran against.)

1. I recollected that that section of Lesson #31 was entitled "Additional Helps." As you point out, it's actually entitled "Additional Teaching Ideas." Is there any real difference between the two? But obviously the polygamy statement is not part of the main lesson; ergo, the use of the word "additional." And the first sentence in the "Additional Teaching Ideas" section states that the following (including the sixth and last subsection involving polygamy) are provided to "supplement the lesson outline." "Additional," "supplement" ... hmm, those sure don't sound like the "main" lesson to me.

2. I used the word "raise," you used the word "have" -- again, you're hair-splitting. If a member "raises" a question, doesn't that presuppose he/she "has" questions? And a teacher generally becomes aware a member "has" a question when that member "raises" the question, whether by raising the hand, making a comment during class, or approaching the teacher after class -- all involve "raising" a question. Now, can a teacher become aware a member "has" a question without the member first "raising" it? Certainly, whether by inspiration or some other class member, but, by and large, a teacher becomes aware of a question by the member first "raising" it. Again, your Clintonesque hair-splitting is bordering on the absurd.

3. Lloyd Benson was Quayle's debate partner; you clearly have little idea what Brother Brigham preached, other than your sense of embarassement about some of his sermons.

[Rollo Tomasi]

No thanks. I've seen you take things out of context before. And the consequence is, -- what shall we say? -- a loss of trust.

First, you claim I'm "bluffing" by not offering evidence of the doctrine; then, I offer to put something together; and now you respond with "no thanks"? Aw, shucks, I'll do it anyway, for the benefit of others even if you don't want to read it. Stay tuned ....

[awyatt]

Despite considerable bluffing on your part, you have not shown this to be definitive doctrine -- now or in the past.

I am not bluffing; I just haven't had the time to put something together. But, I will do so and get back to you will some past teachings (and current practices) ... and you can then tell me why the prophets, seers and revelators were wrong on this doctrine as well.

You seem to fixate on the term "everlasting covenant" in the phrase "new and everlasting covenant of marriage." So, in your research (and subsequent explanations) you might want to explain how God can do away with "everlasting covenants" if they are, indeed, everlasting. For instance, God dictates that a part of the "everlasting covenant" between His chosen people and Himself is circumcision, as recorded in Genesis 17. Yet, that requirement is done away with in Acts 11, through a vision from God. Similarly, God explicitly does away with old covenants in D&C 22, and establishes a "new and an everlasting covenant" related to baptism. Or, you might consider how in D&C 66:2 (and D&C 133:57) the "everlasting covenant" is declared synonymous with the "fulness of my gospel," yet in D&C 76:101 it is clearly not synonymous.

Once you figure out the different ways in which God can use "everlasting covenant," then you might try to explain why God can change its usage and define it in different ways to different audiences, or completely do away with something that is "everlasting." Once you get this figured out, then you might try to explain why God's prophets cannot do the same thing--why they cannot define the "everlasting covenant" differently, under God's direction, at different times.

-Allen

[Scott Lloyd]

Why did you put quotes around additional help? Whom or what are you quoting?

The material on plural marriage is in a section of the lesson called "Additional Teaching Ideas" and, as I have mentioned, depending on the circumstances, is just as apt to be used by a gospel doctrine teacher as anything else in the lesson. (These are, well, additional teaching ideas.) And it is part of the main text. You misleadingly make it sound like a footnote.

But I am glad to see you did not misquote the manual again by saying the material is to be used if members raise questions. Dare I conclude that you have taken my chastening to heart?

...

To adapt the phrasing of Dan Quayle's debate adversary: I know Brother Brigham's teachings. I have studied them. You are no Brother Brigham.

(Interesting, after all these years, I can remember Quayle, but I can't remember who he ran against.)

1. I recollected that that section of Lesson #31 was entitled "Additional Helps." As you point out, it's actually entitled "Additional Teaching Ideas." Is there any real difference between the two?

Not a lot -- except that calling it "additional helps" seems to reinforce your intent to minimize it as being something similar to an incidental footnote, when it is in actuality more than that. You do seem to have a problem with accurate quoting; what's up with that?

But obviously the polygamy statement is not part of the main lesson; ergo, the use of the word "additional."

[Scott Lloyd]

No thanks. I've seen you take things out of context before. And the consequence is, -- what shall we say? -- a loss of trust.

First, you claim I'm "bluffing" by not offering evidence of the doctrine; then, I offer to put something together; and now you respond with "no thanks"?

I have learned from past experience that you are prone to the presentist fallacy and out-of-context quotation. I don't look forward to endless wrangling over that. And if you were to engage in that again, it would not be sufficient to establish you are not bluffing.

Aw, shucks, I'll do it anyway, for the benefit of others even if you don't want to read it.  Stay tuned ....

Suit yourself. Don't hold your breath waiting for me to play along.

[awyatt]

3. Lloyd Benson was Quayle's debate partner;

Thanks. But now that you mention it, I'm quite certain he spelled his name B-e-n-t-s-o-n, with a t between the n and the s.

And, to offer a further correction, Bentson was not Quayle's debate partner--he was his debate opponent. In the debating world, "partners" are the opposite of "opponents."

-Allen

[Rollo Tomasi]

Meaning that it is put there to be incorporated within the framework of the lesson outline -- at the teacher's discretion, of course.

...

You had concluded falsely that the gospel doctrine teacher was forbidden from mentioning plural marriage in the lesson unless a class member "raised" a question about it. Again, your false conclusion hinged on your inaccurate paraphrase of what was stated in the manual.

The above statements are false, and you know it. First, the mention of polygamy (the very catalyst for LDS doctrine regarding celestial marriage) is not in the main text at all, but only included in the manual as the last "additional teaching aid." Second, here is the first sentence that prefaces this brief statement on polygamy: "The following information is provided to help you if class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage." (emphasis mine). Thus, the express instruction that this info is to be used IF a member has a question on polygamy. Based on the express language in the manual, the teacher's discretion in this regard is triggered IF a member has a question about the topic. You can read into it more than it states, but that's what it says.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Don't hold your breath waiting for me to play along.

No need for you "to play along." It's obvious your mind is made up before you even have the information. Why does that not surprise me ....

[Scott Lloyd]

Meaning that it is put there to be incorporated within the framework of the lesson outline -- at the teacher's discretion, of course.

...

You had concluded falsely that the gospel doctrine teacher was forbidden from mentioning plural marriage in the lesson unless a class member "raised" a question about it. Again, your false conclusion hinged on your inaccurate paraphrase of what was stated in the manual.

The above statements are false, and you know it. First, the mention of polygamy (the very catalyst for LDS doctrine regarding celestial marriage) is not in the main text at all, but only included in the manual as the last "additional teaching aid."

Once more, quotation marks being placed around an innacurate paraphrase. Do you not understand that such marks are to be used only with language quoted verbatim from a speaker or a written work? How can you be relied upon to quote Church leaders accurately when you are so careless with a simple thing like proper use of quotation marks?

Second, here is the first sentence that prefaces this brief statement on polygamy: "The following information is provided to help you if class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage." (emphasis mine).  Thus, the express instruction that this info is to be used IF a member has a question on polygamy.  Based on the express language in the manual, the teacher's discretion in this regard is triggered IF a member has a question about the topic.  You can read into it more than it states, but that's what it says.

But there is nothing to forbid a teacher from broaching the subject, if for no other reason than to ascertain whether any of the class members have questions on it. And again I ask: If no one in the class has questions, why occupy part of those precious 40 minutes discussing it?

[Dill Pickles]

You seem to fixate on the term "everlasting covenant" in the phrase "new and everlasting covenant of marriage." So, in your research (and subsequent explanations) you might want to explain how God can do away with "everlasting covenants" if they are, indeed, everlasting. For instance, God dictates that a part of the "everlasting covenant" between His chosen people and Himself is circumcision, as recorded in Genesis 17. Yet, that requirement is done away with in Acts 11, through a vision from God. Similarly, God explicitly does away with old covenants in D&C 22, and establishes a "new and an everlasting covenant" related to baptism. Or, you might consider how in D&C 66:2 (and D&C 133:57) the "everlasting covenant" is declared synonymous with the "fulness of my gospel," yet in D&C 76:101 it is clearly not synonymous.

Once you figure out the different ways in which God can use "everlasting covenant," then you might try to explain why God can change its usage and define it in different ways to different audiences, or completely do away with something that is "everlasting." Once you get this figured out, then you might try to explain why God's prophets cannot do the same thing--why they cannot define the "everlasting covenant" differently, under God's direction, at different times.

-Allen

from the Pickle jar: maybe it has something to do with the people accepting the covenant and not accepting the revision? The Jews still view circumcision as they have since Genesis. They do not acknowledge the changes mentioned in Acts.

There are those who do not accept changes made by men as being from God. To them, God mean for everlasting to mean lasting forever. The Jews are like that, with circumcision. Kind of hard to understand how LDS could be that way, based on the many changes throughout the duration of the church, but some people just don't do change well.

[Nighthawke]

I disagree, polygamy was NOT absolutely essential to exaltation at one time.

Even Brigham Young's statements are less than absolute.

In the same talk from your "polygamists in your heart" speech, BY said:

"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessing offered unto them, and they refused to accept them."

Listen we could play lookee here what Brigham et al said back and forth ad infinitum I've got a stack of such quotations good to go. (If there's one thing that one notices from the Journal of Discourses it's how Brigham Young contradicts Brigham Young.) However I'm not interested in long discussions, so let's make it short and sweet shall we?

In that same talk did Brigham Young refer to any scriptures to support his teachings? Book, chapter and verse that "only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy."

Thanks,

NH.

[will2believe]

In that same talk did Brigham Young refer to any scriptures to support his teachings? Book, chapter and verse that "only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy."

And they better not be Bible verses, because those might not be translated correctly. And I want to see the signatures of those on the Correlation Committee that approved BY's talk.

[Rollo Tomasi]

In that same talk did Brigham Young refer to any scriptures to support his teachings? Book, chapter and verse that "only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy."

I don't recall any mention of a particular scripture in his seromn, but I'm sure BY was relying on D&C 131 and 132 -- "the new and everlasting covenant of marriage" was understood by early Church leaders to mean plural marriage. D&C 131:2 states that a man must enter the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" in order to enter the highest degree of the CK (the only place where Mormons believe one is truly "exalted," with his family and ability to "increase"). In addition, D&C 132:63, discussing plural marriage, quotes the Lord as saying, "for they [plural wives] are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth according to my commandment, and to fufil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified." I think the canon makes it very easy to conclude, as Brigham did, that plural marriage is the form of marriage in the highest degree of the CK.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Once more, quotation marks being placed around an innacurate paraphrase.

...

But there is nothing to forbid a teacher from broaching the subject, if for no other reason than to ascertain whether any of the class members have questions on it. And again I ask: If no one in the class has questions, why occupy part of those precious 40 minutes discussing it?

1. You made a big deal about the manual using the word "have" and my using the word "raise." How did I misuse quotation marks?

2. Yes, nothing expressly "forbids" (using quote marks since it's your word) a teacher from raising the subject of polygamy -- but the discussion here all along is what the Church wants (not the teacher), and it's clear from the express instruction in the manual that the Church wishes the polygamy subject raised only IF a member has questions (meaning, of course, if there are no questions, polygamy should not be part of the lesson). And why should polygamy be part of the lesson? Because it's a major part of LDS history and served as the catalyst for the doctrine today about eternal marriage, the very subject of Lesson #31. In addition, because polygamy is the future marriage system for those who are exalted, it relates to all members (presuming all members are seeking after exaltation) and is a very relevant topic. The fact that the Church (and you) apparently fears the doctrine so much (if the downplaying of the topic in current Church publications is any indication) does not bode well for our living it in the hereafter.

[Scott Lloyd]

Once more, quotation marks being placed around an innacurate paraphrase.

...

But there is nothing to forbid a teacher from broaching the subject, if for no other reason than to ascertain whether any of the class members have questions on it. And again I ask: If no one in the class has questions, why occupy part of those precious 40 minutes discussing it?

1. You made a big deal about the manual using the word "have" and my using the word "raise." How did I misuse quotation marks?

You put the words "additional teaching aids" in quotation marks when the title, as used in the manual is "Additional Teaching Ideas." I'm only pointing out that even after I have twitted you for it, you are still being casual and careless in your use of quotation marks.

2.  Yes, nothing expressly "forbids" (using quote marks since it's your word) a teacher from raising the subject of polygamy

Nothing implicitly forbids it either.

-- but the discussion here all along is what the Church wants (not the teacher), and it's clear from the express instruction in the manual that the Church wishes the polygamy subject raised only IF a member has questions (meaning, of course, if there are no questions, polygamy should not be part of the lesson).  And why should polygamy be part of the lesson?  Because it's a major part of LDS history and served as the catalyst for the doctrine today about eternal marriage, the very subject of Lesson #31.  In addition, because polygamy is the future marriage system for those who are exalted, it relates to all members (presuming all members are seeking after exaltation) and is a very relevant topic.  The fact that the Church (and you) apparently fears the doctrine so much (if the downplaying of the topic in current Church publications is any indication) does not bode well for our living it in the hereafter.

A few posts ago, you protested that you were not calling for discussion of polygamy to be an integral part of Sunday curriculum. Yet you are complaining that the material on plural marriage is not part of what you call the main text of this Sunday School lesson. This, because you have taken it into your head that Church doctrine holds that no one can be exalted without being in a plural marriage. That is, quite simply, false doctrine. Nobody in the Church teaches it today, and your isolated quotes to that effect from Church leaders of a century-and-a-half ago are dubious. So the topic is not nearly as relevant as you claim.

[Rollo Tomasi]

You put the words "additional teaching aids" in quotation marks when the title, as used in the manual is "Additional Teaching Ideas."

...

Nothing implicitly forbids it either.

...

This, because you have taken it into your head that Church doctrine holds that no one can be exalted without being in a plural marriage. That is, quite simply, false doctrine.

...

Nobody in the Church teaches it today, and your isolated quotes to that effect from Church leaders of a century-and-a-half ago are dubious. So the topic is not nearly as relevant as you claim.

1. So your real beef is with my lack of capitalization? OoooooKkkkkk ....

2. The fact that the statement about polygamy in the teacher's manual contains the instruction that it be used "if" a member has a question, is indeed an implicit instruction that it should not be used otherwise.

3. Was it "false doctrine" when BY and Joseph F. Smith preached that polygamy was essential for salvation? Or how about D&C 132:63 -- that "false doctrine," too?

4. Of course, polygamy is not taught today -- that's been my very point all along --that, in fact, the Church is downplaying polygamy in an effort to avoid this embarassing doctrine. My "isolated quotes" from early Church leaders are "dubious"? Do you know nothing of LDS history? Do you know nothing of the efforts and sacrifices early Church members put into living the Principle? It appears that the Church's intentional downplaying of polygamy has at least worked on you. You have completely forgotten your history, if you think sermons surrounding polygamy are now "dubious." You also seem to conveniently forget that even today polygamy is practiced in a limited form in the Church; it is not something of the past -- it is here today and will be for the eternities -- hence, the Lord's reference to the doctrine as "everlasting."

[awyatt]

Rollo Tomasi said: 3. Was it "false doctrine" when BY and Joseph F. Smith preached that polygamy was essential for salvation? Or how about D&C 132:63 -- that "false doctrine," too?

1. BY and JFS did not preach that polygamy was essential for salvation. They preached that obedience to God's revelations was essential for salvation. (This was pointed out to you earlier, Rollo, but you continue to mischaracterize the point of their statements.)

2. Even if you continue to insist that it is specific obedience to polygamy that is important to salvation, and even if you choose to read their statements (and the statements of others in that manner), that is fine because it was not false doctrine when they taught it--but it would be now. (Don't try to pit older prophets against newer ones under some guise of what you believe "everlasting" means--you still haven't come to terms with that.)

3. Even if you continue to insist that it is specific obedience to polygamy that is important to salvation, and even if you choose to read their statements (and the statements of others in that manner), you haven't reconciled statements from others (including BY) that indicate polygamy is not essential to salvation.

-Allen

[Calm]

1. So your real beef is with my lack of capitalization? OoooooKkkkkk ....

???

[Scott Lloyd]

You put the words "additional teaching aids" in quotation marks when the title, as used in the manual is "Additional Teaching Ideas."

...

Nothing implicitly forbids it either.

...

This, because you have taken it into your head that Church doctrine holds that no one can be exalted without being in a plural marriage. That is, quite simply, false doctrine.

...

Nobody in the Church teaches it today, and your isolated quotes to that effect from Church leaders of a century-and-a-half ago are dubious. So the topic is not nearly as relevant as you claim.

1. So your real beef is with my lack of capitalization? OoooooKkkkkk ....

No, my "beef" is that you are putting a word in quotation marks that is not part of what you are quoting. Look at it closely. You said "aids." The word used in the manual was "ideas."

Not a big deal, except that it shows your continued carelessness with the use of quotation marks.

2.

[Rollo Tomasi]

1. BY and JFS did not preach that polygamy was essential for salvation. They preached that obedience to God's revelations was essential for salvation. (This was pointed out to you earlier, Rollo, but you continue to mischaracterize the point of their statements.)

...

2. Even if you continue to insist that it is specific obedience to polygamy that is important to salvation, and even if you choose to read their statements (and the statements of others in that manner), that is fine because it was not false doctrine when they taught it--but it would be now. (Don't try to pit older prophets against newer ones under some guise of what you believe "everlasting" means--you still haven't come to terms with that.)

...

3. Even if you continue to insist that it is specific obedience to polygamy that is important to salvation, and even if you choose to read their statements (and the statements of others in that manner), you haven't reconciled statements from others (including BY) that indicate polygamy is not essential to salvation.

1. I have mischaracterized nothing -- the words I have quoted could not be more clear. And D&C 132:63 says nothing of "obedience."

2. The were teaching an eternal and "everlasting" principle, not a temporary or "provisionsal" doctrine to last just 50 years.

3. What statements of BY and others that polygamy is not essential to salvation?

[Scott Lloyd]

2. The were teaching an eternal and "everlasting" principle, not a temporary or "provisionsal" doctrine to last just 50 years.

The everlasting principle is that plurality of wives is permissible under certain conditions, specifically that God Himself commands it, that monogamy is the rule otherwise. That is the message of Jacob 2:30; nothing in the D&C or any other volume of scripture nullifies it.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Don't confuse your own dubious inference for what is implied in the manual. But you have failed to justify calling for mandatory use of class time to discuss a now-discontinued practice about which no one in the class has a question.

...

I reject your interpretation of D&C 132:63. And your quotations of Church leaders have been called into question as well on the grounds of context.

...

So in effect, you are out of step with orthodox Church teaching on whether plurality of wives is required for exaltation. And you want the Church's curriculum practice to conform to your own (trying to be diplomatic here) non-standard beliefs regarding Church doctrine.

1. You still don't get it. I have not called for "mandatory use of class time" to discuss polygamy -- my problem has been the Church's intentional downplaying of polygamy in its current publications, including those used in this year's GD class. Would it really be so horrible to include the historical context for the Church's doctrine on eternal marriage? I don't think so. But when they relegate that mention to an "additional teaching idea" (did I get it right?) in the teacher's manual and 50 years out of sequence in the booklet handed out to class members, it seems deliberately sneaky.

2. I'm fine with your rejecting my interpretation of D&C 132:63, but can you at least say why? A bald statement does not sound terribly compelling. And none of my quotes have been out of context or misquoted.

3. Is there a current "orthodox Church teaching on whether plurality of wives is required for exaltation"? If so, I haven't heard it. Please share what you know. Bottom line, current Church leaders just don't talk about it. And my point has never been that we today have to practice polygamy in this mortal sphere to be saved; just that polygamy will be the marital system for those down the road who enter the hightest degree of the CK.

4. I don't want a curriculum overhaul -- I just want the Church to be less sneaky in its wordplay and efforts to downplay its polygamous history. Being up front and honest is much easier to accomplish, imo.