- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This was a pretty good article with quotes by Emily & Kristine, two of my favorites: http://ldsmag.com/avoiding-testimony-casualties-over-plural-marriage/ I really like the quote in the article:
Quote:Remember this quote from B.H. Roberts, one of the Church’s foremost faithful defenders and historians:
“Suppose your youth receive their impressions of church history from ‘pictures and stories’ and build their faith upon these alleged miracles [and] shall someday come face to face with the fact that their belief rests on falsehoods, what then will be the result? Will they not say that since these things are myth and our Church has permitted them to be perpetuated …might not the other fundamentals to the actual story of the Church, the things in which it had its origin, might they not all be lies and nothing but lies? … [Some say that] because one repudiates the false he stands in danger of weakening, perhaps losing the truth. I have no fear of such results. I find my own heart strengthened in the truth by getting rid of the untruth, the spectacular, the bizarre, as soon as I learn that it is based upon worthless testimony.”
Folklore, meaning explanations that don’t match up with history or the Church’s position, are “worthless testimony.” They will ultimately harm those you are trying to help.
B.H. Roberts lived from 1857-1933, and he speaks as if he lives today with his views on seeking truth amid real information and facts and history.
That is really, really important to me.
Heber13 wrote:I really like the quote in the article:
Quote:Remember this quote from B.H. Roberts, one of the Church’s foremost faithful defenders and historians:
“Suppose your youth receive their impressions of church history from ‘pictures and stories’ and build their faith upon these alleged miracles [and] shall someday come face to face with the fact that their belief rests on falsehoods, what then will be the result? Will they not say that since these things are myth and our Church has permitted them to be perpetuated …might not the other fundamentals to the actual story of the Church, the things in which it had its origin, might they not all be lies and nothing but lies? … [Some say that] because one repudiates the false he stands in danger of weakening, perhaps losing the truth. I have no fear of such results. I find my own heart strengthened in the truth by getting rid of the untruth, the spectacular, the bizarre, as soon as I learn that it is based upon worthless testimony.”
Folklore, meaning explanations that don’t match up with history or the Church’s position, are “worthless testimony.” They will ultimately harm those you are trying to help.
B.H. Roberts lived from 1857-1933, and he speaks as if he lives today with his views on seeking truth amid real information and facts and history.
That is really, really important to me.
That is spectacular!
From the article: Quote:So how can we actually help someone who is asking questions encountering issues that they haven’t heard before? Or perhaps, more simply, how do those who knew before the essays were published help those who have not heard the information in a safe place.
I like that Meridian is talking about how to help us all get along. But….the problem isn’t that I hadn’t heard the information in a safe place, it’s the information itself. I’m dealing with this, boots on the ground, in my house with a daughter in seminary. I help moderate her reaction, I can add a few facets to the discussion, but she is not buying the angel and flaming sword, etc., and it’s calling
everythinginto question for her. People can’t be coached, and the subject can’t be couched in a way that is always going to produce the opinion of polygamy that Meridian writers have. That’s why I wish the church would just lay out the facts, period. The heavy-handed insistence that the rest of their view is “THE” truth is not working for me and many others. (And how did the church get to such a dogmatic spot just now? President Hinckley was saying on national television not that long ago that he didn’t even think it was doctrinal. Kind of scratching my head about it all, and not meaning to open a can of worms in this thread.) The angel with the drawn sword is definitely something I don’t believe (nor that polygamy is divine), and since the church insists that it is, there you have it. I don’t see how we truly deal with that. It was comforting that the article pointed out something I’ve observed, that nearly everyone finds polygamy objectionable. The few nut jobs (my opinion) who talk about it as such a beautiful thing that they will accept in the eternities, blah blah blah, well, they are a tiny vocal minority of members (vocal because the party line allows their nutty perspective). Ann, people like you, me, your daughter, we can find a way to deal with this or not, but it should throw everything into question. It doesn’t mean we end up on the outside, but it definitely changes how I deal with the party line. It makes me much more skeptical and less likely to say “when the brethren speak, the thinking is done.” No, the thinking is not done. I’m not just going to accept everything I’m spoon fed. Well said, Ann and HG. I think it is difficult for youth to process this, unfortunately.
This was my original faith crisis issue when I was 17, and I did leave the church for a few years over it. I told my seminary teacher I didn’t accept polygamy, and she said I couldn’t be a Mormon unless I did, so that was that. This article at least points out that it’s unhealthy to lose people over this issue. The recent polygamy essay would have been better had it not been a retrenchment of this reprehensible practice, but I do understand (as an adult) the difficulty people have with basically calling their beloved grandparents disgusting horndogs who oppressed women. From the Meridian article:
Quote:This theological explanation, of course, has largely disappeared from LDS discourse. Mormons, as much as non-Mormons, equate polygamy with sexuality. Of course, Joseph Smith may have had sexual relations with many of the women sealed to him before his death. The Book of Mormon, after all, states that polygamy could be instituted by God to “raise up seed.” But sexual relationships were not the impetus for polygamy. Salvation and kinship were at the core of the sealing ordinance during Smith’s lifetime. The practice and logic of plural marriage changed over time, as do many things in the history of Mormonism. The principles behind the sealing ordinance (salvation, eternal families, etc.) have remained the same—but the ways we understand how the ordinance work has changed. The same could be said of how we understand the nature of family organization in the eternities.[vii]
I’m sorry but JS did have sex with some of the women and sexual relationships were the impetus for polygamy. The doctrine of salvation and kinship, I believe, was developed as an excuse for the practice. The reason I believe this is his lying to his wife, the declaration to the public including those in the church that weren’t part of his inner circle and the angel with the flaming sword story. Sorry to be cynical about it but there it is. People have made the LDS church the influence for good that it is because of core Christian beliefs and actions and that is as good a reason as any to stay but the ideas of exclusivity, priesthood, and eternal families will always be suspect to me because of JS’s actions.
GBSmith wrote:sexual relationships were the impetus for polygamy
I am open to that being the reason. From a certain angle, it does seem to explain things in a real world view.
But it is curious to me why he would do it the way he did, with asking permission of fathers or husbands or the woman to consent (even if with manipulative tactics). And that adoption was being also brought into it.
Polygamy is up there for me as just one of the trickiest things to make any sense of. I don’t like it. At all. But I can see both sides of the argument.
hawkgrrrl wrote:The angel with the drawn sword is definitely something I don’t believe (nor that polygamy is divine), and since the church insists that it is, there you have it. I don’t see how we truly deal with that. It was comforting that the article pointed out something I’ve observed, that nearly everyone finds polygamy objectionable. The few nut jobs (my opinion) who talk about it as such a beautiful thing that they will accept in the eternities, blah blah blah, well, they are a tiny vocal minority of members (vocal because the party line allows their nutty perspective). Ann, people like you, me, your daughter, we can find a way to deal with this or not, but it should throw everything into question. It doesn’t mean we end up on the outside, but it definitely changes how I deal with the party line. It makes me much more skeptical and less likely to say “when the brethren speak, the thinking is done.” No, the thinking is not done. I’m not just going to accept everything I’m spoon fed.
Did you mean to say it throws everything else into question, Hawk? From one point of view it can, just like any other major cognitive dissonance (BoM, BoA, Blacks and the Priesthood, etc.). I definitely went through a stage where I was in the “If the BoM isn’t true, then JS wasn’t a prophet so TSM isn’t a prophet so….” But I came to the point where I realized the dominoes don’t necessarily fall. Polygamy can be false and I can not believe in it and I can still hold a TR and be active in the church. Blacks could have been banned from the priesthood because BY was racist and I don’t buy we needed a revelation to end the ban (and I don’t believe we actually got one) and I can still be active and believe in the good the church does and the goodness of the people who are trying to do their best. I do believe in “question everything” and I practice it. If that’s what you meant, I’m cool with that point of view as long as it means just because one thing isn’t so doesn’t mean everything isn’t so.
On the other, if you meant it doesn’t call everything else into question, I’m cool with that, too. As I said, the dominoes don’t necessarily fall.
Quote:“Did you mean to say it throws everything else into question, Hawk?”
Not necessarily, but it did for me as a teen. There is much more of a need to be all or nothing the less mature you are. Life experience teaches us that there’s a mix of good and bad in everything, including truth and error in the church existing side by side. But that’s a tough pill for some. In my case, that’s what my seminary teacher told me, but in time I saw that as her opinion only, not that she was right necessarily that I had to accept it or get out. It only throws prophetic infallibility into question. But the fact that the church sides with a wrong-headed and questionably-motivated polygamous past over the present lives of every girl and woman in the church (how I honestly see it), that’s something I have to live with or decide that I won’t. To me, that’s the issue. As to prophetic infallibility, it’s utter bollocks of course, so that’s a non-starter anyway.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:“Did you mean to say it throws everything else into question, Hawk?”
Not necessarily, but it did for me as a teen. There is much more of a need to be all or nothing the less mature you are. Life experience teaches us that there’s a mix of good and bad in everything, including truth and error in the church existing side by side. But that’s a tough pill for some. In my case, that’s what my seminary teacher told me, but in time I saw that as her opinion only, not that she was right necessarily that I had to accept it or get out. It only throws prophetic infallibility into question. But the fact that the church sides with a wrong-headed and questionably-motivated polygamous past over the present lives of every girl and woman in the church (how I honestly see it), that’s something I have to live with or decide that I won’t. To me, that’s the issue. As to prophetic infallibility, it’s utter bollocks of course, so that’s a non-starter anyway.
This is what the Meridian article seems oblivious to. For some people, maybe more so for young people and women (and therefore young women are most vulnerable of all), this is a tailspinner. And it’s worse now because it isn’t just Brother or Sister So-and-so, it’s the church saying it.
Two days ago my daughter said that she wonders if the church she has devoted her life to might not be true. Yes, we had a conversation and I try to model a nuanced view. (I tried to cheer her up by talking about all the other things prophets have gotten wrong.
:silent: ) The Meridian advice is good insofar as conversations become more civil, but if ultimately only one opinion or conclusion is allowed… I think was utterly unncessary for the church to have painted her into a corner on this. She’s already working out how to cope as a member who doesn’t reject gay relationships/marriages. The church wants her to (from a teenager’s point of view) “go back” in time, be out of step with her peers and adopt a view she really in her heart of hearts doesn’t have. She’s humble, though, and I can tell she’s open to being wrong and is really taking her time and trying to trust her leaders. Then, pow, polygamy essay in seminary (we’re goin’way backin time now, girls, all the way back to Abraham, and this is just how it is) and I can see her mind in commotion. Sorry for the long post, but the issue has gotten personal this week. For a lot of people this isn’t just a controversial, hot side -topic, or some historical facts they didn’t get out in the hinterlands as children of converts. The essay’s stance goes to the core of what it means to be female in this church. I wish it hadn’t. I’m still hoping it gets changed. We live in a wonderful digital world. I’m editing my original post right now.
GBSmith wrote:From the Meridian article:
Quote:This theological explanation, of course, has largely disappeared from LDS discourse. Mormons, as much as non-Mormons, equate polygamy with sexuality. Of course, Joseph Smith may have had sexual relations with many of the women sealed to him before his death. The Book of Mormon, after all, states that polygamy could be instituted by God to “raise up seed.” But sexual relationships were not the impetus for polygamy. Salvation and kinship were at the core of the sealing ordinance during Smith’s lifetime. The practice and logic of plural marriage changed over time, as do many things in the history of Mormonism. The principles behind the sealing ordinance (salvation, eternal families, etc.) have remained the same—but the ways we understand how the ordinance work has changed. The same could be said of how we understand the nature of family organization in the eternities.[vii]
I’m sorry but JS did have sex with some of the women and sexual relationships were the impetus for polygamy. The doctrine of salvation and kinship, I believe, was developed as an excuse for the practice. The reason I believe this is his lying to his wife, the declaration to the public including those in the church that weren’t part of his inner circle and the angel with the flaming sword story. Sorry to be cynical about it but there it is. People have made the LDS church the influence for good that it is because of core Christian beliefs and actions and that is as good a reason as any to stay but the ideas of exclusivity, priesthood, and eternal families will always be suspect to me because of JS’s actions.
Read the link in the meridian article to footnote vii. It is 270 pages long and is blowing my mind.
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=mormonhistory The law of adoption covers everything. From becoming part of the family of God, to evangelism and conversion, to attaining greater glory based on the souls you bring with you, to the creation of the priesthood, to patriarchs and patriarchal blessings, to baptisms for the dead, to defining how one becomes saved/elect (personal worthiness vs. being sealed up in the community of the elect).
Polygamy seems to be an appendage to the law of adoption. However, as with many things in Joseph’s theological development it becomes hard to know what came first. Was he pondering on different applications of the law of adoption and came upon polygamy? Or was he pondering on how to morally frame polygamy and hit upon the law of adoption? Perhaps they where completely seperate concepts flouting around in Joseph’s mind and he wove them together into a more or less cohesive whole.
Regardless, what is clear to me is that the concept of adoption is independant of polygamy. The precepts of adoption are still very much in practice in our modern church even if without the same emphasis or understanding.
Polygamy, OTOH, does not seem to make any theological sense without the law of adoption.
Like other things, JS and the early Latter Day Saints had some great breakthroughs. They also took some of these ideas into interesting and ultimately failed directions. Polygamy seems to be one of these experaments that just didn’t pan out. I kinda look at it as akin to the Desseret Alphabet.
Because earthly polygamy seems so theologically uneccessary (one could be sealed to many individuals and adopt them into the family of God without marrying any of them or having sexual relations), I too am open to the idea that it was at least partly driven by desire. Then Joseph starts talking about celestial marriage as the only true way to become adopted into the family of God and the former methods (like conversion and baptism) no longer being sufficient. It makes it hard to understand why he felt that he had to go there. Perhaps the article would have been safer to say, “But sexual relationships were not the [ONLY] impetus for polygamy.”
It makes more scense to me when I look at it as interconnected concepts rather than a legalistic system. When I see ideas and concepts that have meaning to individuals and then spawn other ideas and concepts that expand upon and yet change the original ideas then it is so facsinating. The idea “tree” is growing and moving, shifting colors and transforming. When I try to pin down these ideas into hard and fast rules, I see contradictions and ambiguity lurking just below the surface. To this end I love that the article addresses this head on.
Quote:The practice and logic of plural marriage changed over time, as do many things in the history of Mormonism. The principles behind the sealing ordinance (salvation, eternal families, etc.) have remained the same—but the ways we understand how the ordinance work has changed. The same could be said of how we understand the nature of family organization in the eternities.
Roy: The only issue with this theory about the Law of Adoption is that it then postpones the problem until Brigham Young. His version of polygamy wasn’t in any way shape or form related to the law of adoption. Ann: Your post reminds me of an OP I did a few months ago about Manufactured Prejudice. It’s impossible to pretend to have a prejudice you simply don’t feel.
http://www.wheatandtares.org/14360/manufactured-prejudice/ hawkgrrrl wrote:This was a pretty good article with quotes by Emily & Kristine, two of my favorites:
http://ldsmag.com/avoiding-testimony-casualties-over-plural-marriage/ “Meridian Magazine” and “good article” in the same post?
That is a weird concept.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.