- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve been communicating with a gentleman who has written an article on LDS Polygamy … well, it’s more like a thesis 
I would like to give all the moderators a chance to review them before we publish/host them. I’m attaching them to this thread.
Here’s the one-sentence distillation of his thesis: The LDS Church (JS & BY, prophets, etc.) could have been mistaken about polygamy and still be in the process of restoring the true Gospel.
I made it half way through the 113 page main paper so far. I was honestly a little leery when I first received this. It looked like a Unibomber manifesto, and I was worried it was from a fundamentalist Mormon. What I found was actually some really excellent argument from a faithful and still-believing perspective showing how the Church can be wrong sometimes and still overall be on the right track. He takes LDS Scripture and masterfully uses our highest authority sources to undermine our own infallible authority in a very positive but humbling way.
The main point is to help those struggling with the history of LDS Polygamy and its current threads that remain in our theological and cultural consciousness today. It gives people a faithful escape. As I was reading his paper though, I realized this same argument can be used as a resolution for many other similar problems.
According to him, it was rejected by FAIR, even some shortened version. I can see why. It doesn’t jive completely with the Correlated framework they tend to promote. It explicitly shows how true prophets can and have made mistakes. Like I said though, he presents this as normal and the way it has always worked all throughout scriptural history.
Anyway, I’m going to tell him we will publish the papers in two weeks unless you all have objections. I think it’s cool people are seeking our site out as a place to publish these types of materials.
Honestly, I don’t have time to read it right now – and won’t for some time, I’m sure. I trust you on this – and anyone else who can read it and comment.
I just read the 19 page version–I don’t think I have time to read the 113 page version. I’m not sure what to think, and I’m not sure what Brian means when he says about “publish/host”ing them. Is this something that we would post as an “official” position at StayLDS (like the How To Stay doc)?
On the one hand, I’m totally on board with the idea that Joseph “could have been mistaken about polygamy” because that is what I personally believe. On the other hand, if gay marriage eventually becomes legal, and polygamy becomes legal as a result, how does the church handle that? I know that polygamists in Nigeria have to divorce all spouses except one in order to be baptized (even though it is legal in Nigeria), so would the church do an about-face in the U.S. if polygamy is made legal? And if that were to happen, would Joseph really be mistaken about polygamy, or rather would this be evidence of him being a true prophet, just 200 years too early on the topic of polygamy?
So once again, I’m not sure about how we would “publish/host” these documents? Is this just something for people to consider, and they can choose to accept/reject the author’s conclusion? (I have the feeling that we aren’t “forcing” people to accept or reject the author’s thesis, so is this just something for the Books/Media discussion to get reactions?)
Publish / Host = it would be listed in our “Additional Support Resources” section. I don’t really think of our site taking official singular positions on any topic. I suppose the “How to Stay…” document is as close as it comes; but I wouldn’t want to say even that document represents the personal opinion of all admins, moderators and community members.
I think our hosting documents more like this: We think this is interesting, and perhaps provides positive and uplifting ideas you might decide to use in resolving your personal faith transition in regards to Mormonism.
Does that make sense?
Brian, that sounds like the same flavor as the “What is Mormon Doctrine” document…not something we necessarily advocate, but a resource that may be helpful to some who struggle with the question. I’ve only been able to ready the first 3 pages of the 19 page doc (I’m lazy), but I will keep reading it. It is interesting to me. Not sure what I think of it all yet. So I guess, I don’t see anything I’m against not posting it…perhaps we just put the disclaimers on it so expectations are set for those who wish to check it out as a resource we offer…not something we advocate or peddle. Right?
I don’t have a strong opinion. We can post it, or not post it. I guess I would be more comfortable putting it in the Books/Media section where people can discuss the pros and cons to this approach than putting it on the home page. I can understand why FAIR didn’t like it, and I wonder if posting this on the front page might be an “Advocacy” position, and I’m not sure that’s where we want to go. I had similar thoughts while reading it. It does provide good food for thought, and I like it for that – but I would be cautious about any advocacy impressions. Do we have any statements as: “articles reflect the views of the authors alone …we promote exploring many perspectives on any subject…” ? I’ll add a disclaimer like that in the Additional Support Resources section. Serious question posted in MO2.0 Facebook group recently. It’s a perfect example of where I would post a reference to this article to help someone resolve serious personal faith issues.
Jefferson Fairbanks [posted this]
Is the doctrine of plural marriage in eternity even possible to dispute? I hear many opinions within the church that polygamy doesn’t exist in heaven. But looking at the sealing procedures, it’s very clear that not only does it exist but it’s promoted. Example: I am divorced, but still sealed to my ex-wife. If I want to marry my wife in the temple, I cannot get my sealing cancelled, which gives me two wives in the afterlife (which is one too many in my view).
I think most Mormons who understand the doctrine will agree that plural marriage is simply on-hold in this life, but that we will practice it in eternity.
Thoughts?
No. It isn’t so clear cut. And here is an article that uses many faithful LDS authority sources to help dispute what is causing you problems, and it adds complexity in a faith-preserving way. _______________
Serious question posted in MO2.0 Facebook group recently. It’s a perfect example of where I would post a reference to this article to help someone resolve serious personal faith issues.
Jefferson Fairbanks [posted this]
Is the doctrine of plural marriage in eternity even possible to dispute? I hear many opinions within the church that polygamy doesn’t exist in heaven. But looking at the sealing procedures, it’s very clear that not only does it exist but it’s promoted. Example: I am divorced, but still sealed to my ex-wife. If I want to marry my wife in the temple, I cannot get my sealing cancelled, which gives me two wives in the afterlife (which is one too many in my view).
I think most Mormons who understand the doctrine will agree that plural marriage is simply on-hold in this life, but that we will practice it in eternity.
Thoughts?
No. It isn’t so clear cut. And here is an article that uses many faithful LDS authority sources to help dispute what is causing you problems, and it adds complexity in a faith-preserving way. _______________
Yes, in my opinion if we could say Polygamy (as well as the priesthood ban, etc.) was a mistake to some degree I think it would free us up to more authentically cling to the praisworthy, of good report, etc. My major issue was trying to reconcile how Polygamy could have possibly been comanded of God. I couldn’t make it work, not to the full extent of the practice anyway. Had I been given this idea of not defending it from a faithful source my personal journey could possibly have been much different. Orson wrote:Yes, in my opinion if we could say Polygamy (as well as the priesthood ban, etc.) was a mistake to some degree
I agree this seems to be the right thing to do. It would open a new era for the church, I think. It would kind of open a can of worms as people will begin wondering what else may have been a mistake? WoW defined as coffee? Fight on Prop 8? Where does it end?
The risk could be things unraveling fast…which, right now is only seen by a group of individuals who take time to study it on their own and then their testimonies unravel fast (the groups that John’s surveys are noting are leaving the church), and of course, as Brian’s post stated, there is nothing from the church to provide a safety net. This article is pretty good at providing multiple sources to consider.
It will take a bold leader to navigate through that change, because the “right” thing to do, will not be an easy thing to do successfully. But if the people have a vision (Prov.29:18) then they can be ok with the change and still go on believing it all. Without vision, people perish.
The guy I referenced above is coping with huge emotional baggage about being sealed to his ex-wife, being unable to undo that, and now being married to another woman. He doesn’t want to be plurally married to both. The Church will not undo the former sealing even though all parties involved don’t want to be together. It causes stress and problems in his current marriage because they think about this all literally. He is going round and round and round in vicious circles. One obvious resolution: It’s symbolic dude … take a chill pill. And polygamy isn’t required: now or ever. I know the Church refuses to EVER freakin’ throw people a bone and say so explicitly, but that’s what the reality of it is if you read between the lines and look at history.
I’m surprised the church won’t grant a cancellation of the sealing if all parties involved are for it. I don’t know the details of how those things work. Heber13 wrote:Orson wrote:Yes, in my opinion if we could say Polygamy (as well as the priesthood ban, etc.) was a mistake to some degree
I agree this seems to be the right thing to do. It would open a new era for the church, I think. It would kind of open a can of worms as people will begin wondering what else may have been a mistake? WoW defined as coffee? Fight on Prop 8? Where does it end?
In my small mind it simply ends where members are comfortable, I think most will be comfortable with their current lifestyle/values, and even with the pitfalls of such an approach I can’t help but see a healthier and more loving church. I realize my personal perspective probably looks past all the potential disaffection because I am not locked into the exclusive literalistic mindset that some members may feel is the only reason to stay.
Even still I think the church could deal with changing the “follow the prophet” mantra to “follow the spirit – and listen to the prophet.”
The funny thing is that even if the church did cancel the sealing, somebody 100 years from now doing geneaology would have no idea about his and the ex-wife’s wishes and would probably re-seal them back together with the attitude that “seal em all together and let God sort it out.” Then in the next life, they would choose not to be sealed to each other, so it shouldn’t be that big of a deal (at least from the church’s perspective.) I do think that this sealing ordinance is a little bit overboard. There’s a story about a young teen boy and girl that were sealed to each other before they left Nauvoo because the saints knew they wouldn’t have a temple for quite some time. The thought was that they should be sealed together (as a pre-emptive measure), but the “kids” (around 10 years old I believe) weren’t supposed to live as husband and wife. Then when they got to Utah and married other people. So they never lived as husband and wife and this sealing was a bit of a waste of time. It seems to me the logic of this is similar to Catholics baptizing infants–kind of silly.
I know the church doesn’t want to break a sealing, until a woman finds a new husband to be sealed to. If the ex-wife hasn’t been sealed, the church would rather leave the original sealing in place to “protect” her in the next life. But if they really don’t want to be together, it seems rather silly not to break the ordinance, but the church always thinks there could be a change of heart some time later. All in all, it just seems silly. I think the reasoning to not break the sealing is a bit of a good intention carried WAYYYY to far.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.