Consequences of not being forthcoming with history

[awyatt]

Rollo,

You do understand that "intentionally downplayed or cleverly misled" are two entirely different things, don't you? I would agree that they have downplayed polygamy, but I wouldn't agree with your characterization that such consititutes being misleading.

-Allen

[Rollo Tomasi]

You do understand that "intentionally downplayed or cleverly misled" are two entirely different things, don't you? I would agree that they have downplayed polygamy, but I wouldn't agree with your characterization that such consititutes being misleading.

I think it could be characterized either way, depending on the individual, and perhaps even synonymous. I personally see a little of both.

[awyatt]

Rollo said: I simply want the facts to be treated in an honest way, and let members reach their own conclusions.

I have a hard time believing this, and I hope you can understand my reasoning. Earlier you implied that people who decide to "wait until later" for more information are exhibiting cognitive dissonance. You stated that doing such is tantamount to "burying reality."

Such implications and statements are contradictory with your statement, above. Those members in your scenario have reached their own conclusions, yet because they don't agree with what you would do, you say they are "burying reality." This at least indicates an unwillingness to "let members reach their own conclusions."

(By the way, lest you should think otherwise, this is not a personal attack. It is just pointing out dissonance within your own cognitions. )

-Allen

[charity]

Rollo: A personal attack is "Rollo, you are an idiot." Saying, "Rollo, you are not using psychological terms correctly" is not a personal attack. It is simply pointing out an error. If you insist that pointing out an error is an attack, then when you "point out errors" in the Church, that means you attacking the Church, which you have repeatedly said you are not doing. And, no. That is not cognitive dissonance. That is hypocrisy.

The use of words is important. The verb "downplay" in all the dictionary definitions I came across, indicate actions. A lack of action, such as NOT teaching a lesson in Sunday School, NOT publishing an article in the Ensign, NOT including a unit on polygamy in the seminary curriculum fails to meet the definition.

[Abulafia]

Okay, I am trying to get a handle on all of this.

Fact is that presently there is a plethora of books and information about Early LDS Church history with more coming out all the time. Some of the particularly significant books are those written by active and sometimes inactive or ex-LDS.

Whereas 30 years ago,when I was a fully active member, there was little. That has now changed.

So, in effect Rollo the information is now out there. I think I do agree with you however if I interpret you as saying that it would be far better to hear some of this information discussed formally within LDS meetings than without. Though perhaps that is now happening. I don't know since I havn't actively attended the LDS church for more than 10 years now!!!

When I read Van Wagoner's polygamy book I was a little disturbed because it was all so new to me. These were significant historical events that I knew nothing about. I went straight to the Stake President to ask him about it. He didn't know anything about it himself, and so spoke to an area authority, who then wrote me a letter saying it was the wild west!!! I didn't go inactive at that time, and I am not sure that that book directly led to my inactivity,(though I do believe that it played a part) I don't have a problem with polygamy per say but I did long for someone to discuss the issues with, without damaging their testimony. In a way I think this particular forum is good for that very reason. I just wish it had been here 15 years ago.

[Zakuska]

Dang, Rollo, we need to rename you 'TIMEX' 'cause you take a lickin' and still keep tickin'. Guess that quote dates me, eh?

All right... That was an Image that I did not need. Did your monitor taste like windex?

[Rollo Tomasi]

I have a hard time believing this, and I hope you can understand my reasoning. Earlier you implied that people who decide to "wait until later" for more information are exhibiting cognitive dissonance. You stated that doing such is tantamount to "burying reality."

You have misunderstood me (if this is my fault, I apologize).

I just want the facts surrounding early polygamy to be neither hidden, nor put out of sequence, nor modified by clever wordplay, etc. What conclusions a person reaches with those facts are up to the individual, but at least those conclusions can be reached in a more informed way. Now, if a person stops short of any conclusion, or reaches a conclusion only after "burying" the facts that may have caused the person an unbearable form of cognitive dissonance, then I'm ok with it (even if I don't agree with the person's methodology). But at least the Church is being more honest and upfront about issues previously whitewashed away, and I think this would be a very positive development.

[Rollo Tomasi]

The verb "downplay" in all the dictionary definitions I came across, indicate actions. A lack of action, such as NOT teaching a lesson in Sunday School, NOT publishing an article in the Ensign, NOT including a unit on polygamy in the seminary curriculum fails to meet the definition.

Well, how about these actions:

1. Inserting the first mention of polygamy 50 years out of sequence in the Our Heritage booklet?

2. Using clever wordplay in the Our Heritage booklet so as not to expressly admit that Joseph personally practiced polygamy?

3. Instructing in the Gospel Doctrine teacher's manual that the "additional help" paragraph on polygamy be read if a member raises the issue?

4. Including only BY's two legal marriages in the historical summary for the priesthood/RS manual of his teachings?

5. Mentioning the wives and children in the bios for monogamous presidents in the Church Almanac, but not in the bios for polygamous presidents EXCEPT for Joseph Smith (mentioning only his legal marriage to Emma), making him out to be a monogamist?

Seem like an awful lot of actions to me .....

[will2believe]

I think Rollo has a valid point, but I can also understand the church's position. There are a hundred cans of worms that can derail a lesson if they're opened, and avoiding them requires some maneuvering. If we had multiple levels of Sunday School then maybe we could discuss the controversial aspects of polygamy in an advanced class. We don't have such classes, but there are plenty of advanced books available for those who want to fill in the holes.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think Rollo has a valid point, but I can also understand the church's position. There are a hundred cans of worms that can derail a lesson if they're opened, and avoiding them requires some maneuvering. If we had multiple levels of Sunday School then maybe we could discuss the controversial aspects of polygamy in an advanced class. We don't have such classes, but there are plenty of advanced books available for those who want to fill in the holes.

This past Sunday, I taught the gospel doctrine lesson "Sealed ... for Time and for All Eternity."

This is the one that includes the material on plural marriage under the "Additional Teaching Ideas" section. I had fully intended to touch on the topic of plural marriage to allow those in the class who might have questions or comments to voice them.

But alas, the clock is always my enemy in that 40-minute class period, and we ran out of time before I got around to it. We were too busy discussing "things that married couples can do to strengthen their love for each other and the Lord" and other assorted trivialities.

I suppose, in the eyes of some, I have sinned by not being forthcoming about our history. Forgive me.

[charity]

Will, you got it right. Those of us who have taught classes, in Church, or college, or wherever, know how hard it is to effectively instruct any group of people who have different levels of knowledge. You have more material than you can possibly cover, plus you need time to answer honest questions. Rollo may not believe it, but knowing every little, bitty, gritty fact about polygamy is not going to get anyone to the Celestial Kingdom.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rollo writes:

I realize we are talking in circles, but let me just restate my position: it is cognitive dissonance in some form that causes faithful member to "bury" troubling and embarrassing questions about LDS history.

And I am saying that this isn't cognitive dissonance. Those who leave the church because of something like this have experienced it. Those who investigate and strengthen their faith under these circumstances experience it. Those who simply ignore it or "bury" it, don't experience cognitive dissonance.

The "devil is in the details," of course, which is why it is not as simple as just accepting Joseph as a polygamist -- but also that he married a 14-year old girl, married 11 women already married to other men, married several young women who lived in his home, had sexual relations with some of his plural wives, etc. These are the issues many members find troubling, because they are indeed inconsistent with the saintly manner in which Joseph is portrayed in the Church today (especially during this bicentennial year of his birth). So I agree with you that a big part of the problem is how people think a prophet should live and act, the whole "by their fruits ye shall know them" sorta thinking.

But you see, cognitive dissonance requires competing cognitions. So, the only way a TBM suffers cognitive dissonance over Joseph's polygamy is if he didn't believe that Joseph was a polygamist, and that this belief was valuable. Those who don't put much value by the belief that Joseph was a monogamist will not experience cognitive dissonance over this issue. As far as the rest goes, you should be willing at least to start by admitting that some of this stuff is speculative - buton the presumption that you don't, we move forward. You claim that the fact that he married a 14-year old might be significant. But then, I have a close relative who married a fourteen year old (he is a TBM) and I doubt that it would phase him much. So again, it is a matter of perception. There has to be dissonance. And the real dissonance that you are describing isn't about the details at all - it is about a notion of what a prophet is and how a prophet should behave - and it is about how valuable that belief - that cognition - is to a particular individual. These kinds of issues are much more significant to fundamentalist minded members. Mind you, most of us who are aware of Joseph's history don't find this approach to be problematic.

Don't presume I know nothing of spiritual witnesses.

Why not? (This is a serious question - particularly given the fact that you presume all sorts of things as well).

I agree that "burying" something because of one's "spiritual witness" or "belief" or whatever you want to call it, is a way to avoid changing one's actions and resolving the congnitive dissonance. We see it all the time, and it is probably the favorite method employed believing members.

YOU STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND. If nothing changes in one actions or beliefs there was NO cognitive dissonance. Not every instance of two competing cognitions causes cognitive dissonance.

It's one thing to "avoid," quite another to "mislead." That's my problem.

I am not sure you can tell the difference. And that may be another problem you might have.

At the same time, you can "mislead" by providing "facts". And despite your insistence that this is a problem, I really don't think it is half the issue you make it out to be - nor do I believe that it is necessary, or even desireable, to raise these topics in our worship services.

Ben

[koakaipo]

I get what Rollo's getting at, and I think it's about the notion that sometimes culturally(and really it's a human thing as well) we gloss over or sentimentalize or sanitize history. I just think it's just a tendency to sorta express one's history in terms of ideals as oppossed to realities alot of the time. You see people do that with American history for instance. I don't think I got a more complete historical take on America or Mormonism until I went to college for instance.

But I had one thing to say about dissonance. Is this maybe a cultural thing? Cause I think multi-cultural folks are much more comfortable with a higher level of dissonance in life, simply because multiple loyalities lay claim to you simultaneously and it's never an option to think that one should have one claim in the first place. Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly in terms of psychological terms either, but it's just something that struck me.

[Calm]

Like this site better:

http://www.nd.edu/~rwilliam/xsoc530/attitudes.html

unfortunately doesn't have the quote from Festinger himself. Am looking for a secondary source that doesn't add to confusion at this point.

A. Defn: Cognition = individuals perception of own attitudes, beliefs, behaviors. Cognitive dissonance  = feelings of tension that arise when one is simultaneously aware of two inconsistent cognitions. For example, when we act contrary to our attitudes; or, when we make a decision favoring one alternative despite reasons favoring another.

I think the confusion comes from the idea that once the dissonance has been resolved, in the future avoidance of opposing ideas may take place, but unless it has first been demonstrated that dissonance took place in the past on this issue, one can't assume that the current avoidance, ignoring, burying, whatever is caused by the resolution of the previous dissonance. And avoidance isn't evidence of any current cognitive dissonance.

The important thing to focus on is change. If there is no evidence of change in any form of behaviour and if there is no evidence of actual tension (one can't just assume that there should be tension), there is no evidence of cognitive dissonance having taken place.

Cognitive dissonance can be reduced or eliminated only by (a) adding new cognitions, or ( changing existing ones.

Ignoring does neither of these.

E. Not all inconsistencies result in cognitive dissonance. How is inconsistency possible?

1. Cognitions may not be important to the individual - hence inconsistency does not produce discomfort.

2. Cognitions may not come in contact with each other - contradictions can go unnoticed. Behavior may be mindless. EX: We might enjoy a national park - without realizing we are overtaxing it.

Ignoring something can be indicative of something not being important to someone, therefore the perceived inconsistency will not produce discomfort.

It seems to me that the foundational claim of critics that use Cognitive Dissonance semi-correctly on those who ignore or "bury" is that the critics think the information should be causing tension and therefore if there is now no evidence of tension, it must be because the cognitive dissonance has been resolved (those that describe the ignoring as evidence of current cognitive dissonance are blowing it). Whole lot of assumptions there without much evidence beyond opinion and personal experience where their behaviour did in fact change, which makes their personal experience inappropriate to be used in comparison to those whose behaviour did not.

add-on: I cannot find a better one that has the quote so I'll use this site for the quote only--http://www.colorado.edu/communication/meta-discourses/Papers/App_Papers/Jean.htm

In [Festinger's] own words, he quickly sums up this quite complex theory: "If you change a person

[koakaipo]

thank you.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo may not believe it, but knowing every little, bitty, gritty fact about polygamy is not going to get anyone to the Celestial Kingdom.

Really? Hmmmm .....

Brigham Young:

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

Joseph F. Smith:

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part -- and is good so far as it goes -- and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p. 28)

Seems like the doctrine of plural marriage should still be taught to and well understood by members, given its importance in the eternities. And, besides, plural marriage remains part of Church doctrine and canon (D&C 132) even if the practice today has been limited (i.e., I say "limited" because a form of polygamy exists in the Church today within the context of a widowed spouse marrying another for time and eternity -- a widower can if the 2nd wife is not already sealed to someone else, and a widow cannot if she's been sealed to her first deceased husband). This issue is not irrelevant to today's members, at least so long as it remains a current doctrine in the canon and is still practiced to a limited degree, let alone its application to our lives in the hereafter.

[Scott Lloyd]

I get what Rollo's getting at, and I think it's about the notion that sometimes culturally(and really it's a human thing as well) we gloss over or sentimentalize or sanitize history. I just think it's just a tendency to sorta express one's history in terms of ideals as oppossed to realities alot of the time. You see people do that with American history for instance. I don't think I got a more complete historical take on America or Mormonism until I went to college for instance.

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?

[koakaipo]

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.

As for easily accessible sources, sure, I found them early actually on a couple subjects that did make me question. But my parents reaction to my questioning and actually trying to help me find different sources to my questions made realize that the world doesn't have to collapse when I don't see everything fitting like a pretty puzzle.

What worries me a bit and why I understand Rollo in some respects is this. Not all the kids I was around in church college had this fortifying upbringing. There was just a basic LDS Studies course on campus that was the most popular course around. And I knew several folks who's world felt like it WAS collapsing because it didn't align completely with what they were taught growing up.

This reaction by some kids also happened in an organizational development class that used Mormonism as a model. And it did made me wonder how we can fortify the youth an d members in a way where it doesn't have to be so either-or. I guess that's my concern regarding history and membership and a general folklore take as oppossed to a more objective take. It goes back to the idea of building a foundation, and if the foundation is shaky it may not hold once the storm comes in.

As for Sunday school lessons-I've taught various classes and I'm a bit of stickler on keeping on topic actually. And yet, I never get a 1/3 of my quotes that I hand out before class even covered, not to mention the actual lesson plan.

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. Christianity is communal by nature. It's about learning how to "do" our religion practically and dealing with people and learning from eachother, even lessons we don't really want(like how to patiently and lovingly deal with the obligatory member who mistakes gospel doctrine discussions for group therapy---yes, I haven't learned that lesson very well yet....)

[Rollo Tomasi]

Those who simply ignore it or "bury" it, don't experience cognitive dissonance.

...

But you see, cognitive dissonance requires competing cognitions. So, the only way a TBM suffers cognitive dissonance over Joseph's polygamy is if he didn't believe that Joseph was a polygamist, and that this belief was valuable. Those who don't put much value by the belief that Joseph was a monogamist will not experience cognitive dissonance over this issue.

...

At the same time, you can "mislead" by providing "facts".

1. But it is my position that those who suffer from cognitive dissonance with issues like this, may resolve the problem by "burying" it.

2. I could easily see a member have cognitive dissonance even if he/she knew Joseph was a polygamist, but still believed he so practiced it in a way that did not offend the member's sense of what is virtuous, etc., only to subsequently be floored when he/she finds out Joseph married a 14-year old girl and nearly a dozen women already married to other men, among many others, which the member finds repugnant and indecent. These divergent cognitions crash into one another.

3. I certainly don't try to mislead with the facts I discuss.

[Calm]

But my parents reaction to my questioning and actually trying to help me find different sources to my questions made realize that the world doesn't have to collapse when I don't see everything fitting like a pretty puzzle.

Rather than teaching facts and figures, we should be teaching the attitude that "the world doesn't have to collapse when I don't see everything fitting like a pretty puzzle." This is equivalent, imo, to the concept that teaching a person how to fish is better than just giving them a fish. One can teach this attitude of 'fishing for oneself' and not letting your world crumble to the ground when things don't fit without the specific facts that Rollo and others demand be presented. There are plenty of ideas and doctrine that are more relevant to today's world that work just as well if not better for this (the problem of pain, for example).

[Rollo Tomasi]

One can teach this attitude of 'fishing for oneself' and not letting your world crumble to the ground when things don't fit without the specific facts that Rollo and others demand be presented.

I agree in principle ... unless, of course, we are talking about a class with the purpose of studying church history (like this year's Gospel Doctrine class) and the most unique doctrine in early Church history (i.e., polygamy) is avoided, and in some instances, intentionally downplayed to make it even easier to avoid; add to this the fact that the topic at issue remains doctrine in today's canon (rather than historical canon) and in Church practice (albeit in a limited form), and we have a problem, imo.

[awyatt]

Rollo Tomasi said: 3. I certainly don't try to mislead with the facts I discuss.

Rollo's statement was made in the wake of providing a "fact," quoted from Brigham Young:

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

This "fact" is one of Rollo's answers to the assertion that "knowing every little, bitty, gritty fact about polygamy is not going to get anyone to the Celestial Kingdom." In other words, Rollo is appealing to Brigham's authority to say that "yes, it is important to know every little, bitty, gritty fact about polygamy to get to the Celestial Kingdom."

But, the misleading part is the way that Rollo uses the quote, for he doesn't provide the whole quote, in context. (Therefore, it would appear that Rollo does try to mislead with the "facts" he discusses.) Here is the full quote, with the part that Rollo left out highlighted:

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

It appears that Brigham's words, except when taken out of context, do not support the use to which Rollo has put them--Rollo has attempted to mislead others with his use of facts. Brigham is clearly talking about the general principle of obedience to God. Plural marriage is nothing but the example; obedience is the principle. What Christian, of any sect, would venture to say that we don't need to be obedient to God? Some Christians may be uncomfortable with Brigham's choice of example (polygamy), but not with the thrust of the message--that obedience to God is mandatory.

Even more interesting (and more contradictory to Rollo's misleading use of this "fact") are the three paragraphs that follow his incomplete quote:

But the Saints who live their religion will be exalted, for they never will deny any revelation which the Lord has given or may give, though, when there is a doctrine coming to them which they cannot comprehend fully, they may be found saying, "The Lord sendeth this unto me, and I pray that He will save and preserve me from denying anything which proceedeth from Him, and give me patience to wait until I can understand it for myself."

Such persons will never deny, but will allow those subjects which they do not understand, to remain until the visions of their minds become open. This is the course which I have invariably pursued, and, if anything came that I could not understand, I would pray until I could comprehend it.

Do not reject anything because it is new or strange, and do not sneer nor jeer at what comes from the Lord, for if we do, we endanger our salvation. It is give to us, as agents, to choose or refuse, as brother S.W. Richards has set before you, but we are agents within limits, if it were not so there would be no law. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266-267)

Those who have ears to hear...

-Allen

[Beowulf]

Rollo, the fact that Helen Mar Kimball was 14 years old did not "floor" me at all. It never did...

So I cannot have cognitive dissonance about it.

Marrying other men's wives took a little more investigation. But I learned some of the reasons for it, so I am still not "floored" by it.

Still no cognitive dissonance...

(Hmmm, is something wrong with me? I don't fit the psychological profile of a fanatic believer. Got to see a psychiatrist to find out why I am not psychologically impaired. )

In other words, sir, you may believe and follow the teachings or not, as you please, but don't ascribe mental incapacities to those of us who decide differently from you.

As regards your famous quotes from BY and JFS Sr., I simply do not ascribe myself to those statements. They have been refuted by 20th (and 21st) century prophets who have told us that monogamous eternal marriages ARE INDEED sufficient to enter the highest glory of the Celestial Kingdom.

Ever heard of the concept of "more light and knowledge"? We as Mormons are capable of receiving this you know.

Our religion is not a dead religion but a living one.

Beowulf

[Observer]

Rollo Tomasi said: 3. I certainly don't try to mislead with the facts I discuss.

Rollo's statement was made in the wake of providing a "fact," quoted from Brigham Young:

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

This "fact" is one of Rollo's answers to the assertion that "knowing every little, bitty, gritty fact about polygamy is not going to get anyone to the Celestial Kingdom." In other words, Rollo is appealing to Brigham's authority to say that "yes, it is important to know every little, bitty, gritty fact about polygamy to get to the Celestial Kingdom."

But, the misleading part is the way that Rollo uses the quote, for he doesn't provide the whole quote, in context. (Therefore, it would appear that Rollo does try to mislead with the "facts" he discusses.) Here is the full quote, with the part that Rollo left out highlighted:

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

It appears that Brigham's words, except when taken out of context, do not support the use to which Rollo has put them--Rollo has attempted to mislead others with his use of facts. Brigham is clearly talking about the general principle of obedience to God. Plural marriage is nothing but the example; obedience is the principle. What Christian, of any sect, would venture to say that we don't need to be obedient to God? Some Christians may be uncomfortable with Brigham's choice of example (polygamy), but not with the thrust of the message--that obedience to God is mandatory.

Even more interesting (and more contradictory to Rollo's misleading use of this "fact") are the three paragraphs that follow his incomplete quote:

But the Saints who live their religion will be exalted, for they never will deny any revelation which the Lord has given or may give, though, when there is a doctrine coming to them which they cannot comprehend fully, they may be found saying, "The Lord sendeth this unto me, and I pray that He will save and preserve me from denying anything which proceedeth from Him, and give me patience to wait until I can understand it for myself."

Such persons will never deny, but will allow those subjects which they do not understand, to remain until the visions of their minds become open. This is the course which I have invariably pursued, and, if anything came that I could not understand, I would pray until I could comprehend it.

Do not reject anything because it is new or strange, and do not sneer nor jeer at what comes from the Lord, for if we do, we endanger our salvation. It is give to us, as agents, to choose or refuse, as brother S.W. Richards has set before you, but we are agents within limits, if it were not so there would be no law. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266-267)

Those who have ears to hear...

-Allen

I have ears, Allen (and eyes). This thread has been very interesting to observe. I notice you made no reply to the quote of Joseph F. Smith. I read the quotes of both Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith above. I'm curious about your response to the Joseph F. Smith quote. It would seem there is far less room for a seemingly 'Clintonesque' explanation of the words of the prophet.

[T-Shirt]

Do not reject anything because it is new or strange, and do not sneer nor jeer at what comes from the Lord, for if we do, we endanger our salvation. It is give to us, as agents, to choose or refuse, as brother S.W. Richards has set before you, but we are agents within limits, if it were not so there would be no law. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266-267)

Those who have ears to hear...

-Allen