- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
Rob and Shawn, my question was specific, since the wording was
“speak with God”. Seriously, that is a HUGE unrealistic expectation, imo, since
“the most literal sense”of speaking with God is not supported at all by our scriptures or in the words of our leaders. We have a few examples there, but they are few and far between. Nearly everything is framed in terms of visions or hearing voices – not literal visitations and conversations. We even have apostles talking about receiving revelation in the same way we are asked to seek it. Joseph Smith is one thing – like Moses and Jesus and the Brother of Jared. (Interestingly, they all are people who started a new religion or lead a people in its original separation from the rest of the world.) People who came after them are another thing altogether.
My point is simple: If they aren’t making the claim, we shouldn’t be holding them to it – no matter how much we might want to do so.
It has to do with degree perse, not necessarily if they get answers, but the mode of communication.
Ray, I think I understand what you are saying.
OK,…let me shift a little in my perspective. What bothers me is if no new revelation is coming, or “prophecy”, or it isn’t happening regularly, then we are left with these leaders primarily responsible for “interpretation” of existing revelation. From what I read here, many might agree with this, and there is even conflict at high levels over policy in some cases. This “interpretation” wouldn’t happen if there wasn’t wiggle room or different perspectives, and again I am left to wonder why I should follow these leaders when they themselves don’t agree. They are the “oracles of God”…kindof? It seems they are more the “clerics of God”, responsible to interpret, but nothing else.
In the context of this thread and with what I struggle with, it comes down to what marriage will be like in the next life. We do know very little about that,..and the idea of “it will all be worth it” is not enough. The idea that the female gender being considered an object reward to the male gender, and destroyed if they don’t comply, is offensive. If there is no sex in the next life, and/or if relationships are so different we have very little understanding of them here DOES affect interpretation (IMHO) of this policy. Perhaps polyandry, polygamy, or a number of other arrangements are fine over there. I don’t know. What is angering to me is that these GAs, who are sustained as prophets, seers and revealators, have almost nothing to say about this topic.
I would be happy to hear them clearly say: “I don’t know”. If you have heard them say this about marriage in the next life Ray, I would be interested. What I hear them say is ………
silence.Holy Cow wrote:Roy, that IS frustrating to have that big question mark. In some ways, my faith crisis has helped me deal with questions like this that the church doesn’t have an answer for. So much of our focus in church is about what we believe. My perspective has shifted away from what we believe, to a more personal relationship with God and I now focus on what I believe. I don’t have to rely on the church to answer my questions. I can have my own beliefs, seek my own answers, and receive my own personal revelation; and none of it has to take a backseat to what we believe. If you find your own answers to your questions and frustrations, I think you have every right to those personal beliefs. As that applies to this topic of polygamy, it’s been freeing for me to say that I don’t believe that it ever came from God, and I personally believe that it came from Joseph Smith’s imagination (with the help of the OT), and used as an excuse to exercise his own vices. I recognize and respect that this isn’t what we believe, but it is what I believe.
I agree HC. A major benefit of my faith transition is that I now better own my belief and spirituality (sometimes to the dismay of those that think that I risk hellfire by not clutching so tightly to the iron rod as they do.)
Rob4Hope wrote:I would be happy to hear them clearly say: “I don’t know”. If you have heard them say this about marriage in the next life Ray, I would be interested. What I hear them say is ……… silence.
Suffice it to say that the simplistic idea of heavenly messengers delivering directives to the CHI does not seem to pan out. Beyond that there are different perspectives as to how much and how often the church leadership receive revelation quality communication from God (as opposed to the more run of the mill inspiration). That is a different conversation that we have had and can continue to have – just not in this thread.
Ann wrote:I was wondering whether “bringing in” terms like racism and sexism, is part of the process, or not. I honestly don’t know. Right now, it’s detractors who will call the church sexist, but the term is sort of out-of-bounds for stayers because it feels too harsh. And it
istoo harsh when you know and love the men who would be painted with that broad brush.
It’s a tough call. For me, I don’t like to bring pejorative terms to a conversation where I’m trying to soften hearts. I’ve had successful conversations about same-sex marriage and gender roles by drawing on shared beliefs that the other party and I can both accept and then using those shared beliefs to describe why I feel the way I do. I may not convince, but at least I can increase understanding. In other words, I think of “the process” as bringing people to see things a different way, not arguing a position and expecting them to give in.This post has nothing to do with polygamy, so please don’t read that into my response. 
Rob4Hope wrote:In the context of this thread and with what I struggle with, it comes down to what marriage will be like in the next life. We do know very little about that,..and the idea of “it will all be worth it” is not enough. The idea that the female gender being considered an object reward to the male gender, and destroyed if they don’t comply, is offensive. If there is no sex in the next life, and/or if relationships are so different we have very little understanding of them here DOES affect interpretation (IMHO) of this policy. Perhaps polyandry, polygamy, or a number of other arrangements are fine over there. I don’t know. What is angering to me is that these GAs, who are sustained as prophets, seers and revealators, have almost nothing to say about this topic.
I would be happy to hear them clearly say: “I don’t know”. If you have heard them say this about marriage in the next life Ray, I would be interested. What I hear them say is ………
silence.I prefer that they say nothing. We have created a culture where the expectation is such that everyone should believe as the prophet believes. If a prophet makes a definitive statement it can have the effect of painting me into a corner. Now friends and family might expect me to believe the new definitive statement where I believe something totally different. I feel like definitive statements only narrow the spectrum of what is safe to discuss in church.
In the lack of definitive statements we’re free to have speculative conversations and thought. I find the real growth occurs in the struggle to answer a question for ourselves. I could answer my kid’s questions all day but I’d like for them to eventually learn how to seek answers for themselves. Saying “I don’t know” often enough can have that very effect.
I wonder if the prophet, seer, or revelator is worried that they will lose their followers if they answer “I don’t know” often enough? Does the prophet, seer, or revelator want their children to leave the nest? If they did would any adults be left to guide the children?
There is a great quote in the Book of Mormon that says, essentially: Quote:I know of no new revelation since what Nephi wrote, so I’m just passing these plates along to the next person who will keep them.
The next “strong” revelatory experience in the record was hundreds of years after Nephi – when Alma had a vision.
Alma then says, more than once, to paraphrase:
Quote:This is my opinion.
We want certainty, so we see certainty in many things that simply aren’t certain. Leaders do it with things about which they are certain, and followers do it with things about which they are certain. At some point, nobody wants to create or shatter expectations, so things stop getting said.
On Own Now wrote:I’ve had successful conversations about same-sex marriage and gender roles by drawing on shared beliefs that the other party and I can both accept and then using those shared beliefs to describe why I feel the way I do. I may not convince, but at least I can increase understanding. In other words, I think of “the process” as bringing people to see things a different way, not arguing a position and expecting them to give in.
If anyone has these types of conversations, I would love to hear about them.. nibbler wrote:I prefer that they say nothing. We have created a culture where the expectation is such that everyone should believe as the prophet believes.
This really is a strong cultural norm isn’t it.
nibbler wrote:
In the lack of definitive statements we’re free to have speculative conversations and thought. I find the real growth occurs in the struggle to answer a question for ourselves.
Problem is, when someone goes out on their own and makes up their own mind, unless the culture supports that decision, such initiative can be killed in its infancy. I’m not sure freedom of thought is something the church supports.nibbler wrote:
I wonder if the prophet, seer, or revelator is worried that they will lose their followers if they answer “I don’t know” often enough? Does the prophet, seer, or revelator want their children to leave the nest? If they did would any adults be left to guide the children?I think this is right.
Now, tying this back to polygamy…there is a double standard. The church doesn’t comments on polygamy much because either they don’t know more about it (which is probably the case with many GAs), or they don’t want to share because they don’t want to stir the pot (which is what I believe the case is with some of the GAs). Either way, not much is said.
Now, JS engaged in polygamy as well as polyandry BEFORE he introduced it to the church. From what he introduced to the church, I don’t think he followed his own rules. So, he himself lived a double standard.
If we condemn or judge JS because of this double standard, we are branded heretics and potentially tried for apostasy. When we try to press the GAs for more information, we are met with silence or with “Oh,..you don’t need to know the answer to that”…or, my favorite,..”Are you reading your scriptures and saying your prayers?”
When I hear people stand up and say: “I have a testimony of the scriptures”…I cringe inside. Perhaps they do, and part of that is 132. So, they have a testimony of polygamy? I don’t think they do frankly, or perhaps more accurately, they haven’t really read and studied the scriptures closely.
When they say they know JS was a prophet of God, then they know that his practice of polyandry was from God…of how can he be a prophet? Do prophets get to live double standards? Is God a respecter of persons?
It bothers me when significant numbers of people have testimonies founded on half truths or misinformation. Several on this board–adults mind you, not little children, but intelligent adults–come here BECAUSE they “just found out” something they didn’t know their whole life. And, all of the sudden, statements like “I have a testimony of the scriptures” is no longer something they can say. Or, “JS is a prophet of God” is not as easy to articulate.
If there was no need, why did the church publish the essays in the first place? Was their pressure? (this is rhetorical). It seems like double standards seem to exist in many ways.
I think the idea of polygamy is threatening to the church, especially the polyandry problem and JS testimony. I think that the GAs involve themselves in damage control as much as they do any type of “prophet, seer and revelator” activity they may or may not engage in.
A big reason for the essays is damage control. Polygamy was and is part of that damage control. And that is my opinion….
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
Anyway,..i’ve bailed enough hay on this topic. You all can understand what my gripe is.
I’ve enjoyed reading the different perspectives on this thread particularly.
Good thoughts Rob. I just don’t see everything as double standards because I don’t expect there to just be “one way” things must be. I see things more situationally. So what applied before in scriptures does not HAVE to apply to me today, other than what I can symbolically apply to my life. There is lots in the bible I ignore because it applied to their day and culture, not to mine today. Then there is stuff (some Songs of Solomons stuff) that I just ignore and don’t know how it got in the scriptures. It seems the church allows us to do that as needed. We are all cafeteria mormons and christians.
nibbler wrote:In the lack of definitive statements we’re free to have speculative conversations and thought. I find the real growth occurs in the struggle to answer a question for ourselves.
Rob4Hope wrote:The church doesn’t comments on polygamy much because either they don’t know more about it (which is probably the case with many GAs), or they don’t want to share because they don’t want to stir the pot (which is what I believe the case is with some of the GAs). Either way, not much is said.
I think mostly, it is because they are looking forward. Looking for what needs to be taught to bring people to Christ, to live good lives, to overcome trials and tribulation.
It is less about being correct, more about lifting people…so…it just doesn’t come up. Like MMM.
The good thing now is that the stuff is becoming known, and lesson manuals and essays are there about MMM and polygamy so people can know about it. But it won’t be uplifting.
I think mortal life works and fulfills God’s design precisely because it gives us all these situations that are difficult and confusing. Hard experience is the most effective teacher. If we were all given an outline with perfect answers that always worked then life would be a much less effective classroom.
Good point, Orson. I think we have to manage our desire to want life to be predictable, and accept reality. Orson wrote:I think mortal life works and fulfills God’s design precisely because it gives us all these situations that are difficult and confusing.
Yes,..but is doctrine suppose to be difficult and confusing? God is not a God of confusion…or so we have been told.
“By my own voice or by the voice of my servants, its is the same”……hunh?
I don’t believe in a God of confusion – but I believe in a God who allows confusion as part of what makes them God. On Own Now wrote:DA, I agree with your analysis. But, I do want to clarify a couple of historical points:…On not including D&C 132 until the 1876 edition of the D&C – Early polygamy was officially a secret, but it was a poorly kept one. In the Nauvoo era, everyone in the country, in and out of the Church, seemed to know that JS was many wives. The Warsaw Signal and the Nauvoo Expositor were pretty clear about it. Even during the last few weeks of JS’s life, the minutes of the Nauvoo City Council were published in the Church-owned Nauvoo Neighbor, including these words hinting at it from the Mayor (JS): “They make it a criminality for a man to have a wife on the earth while he has one in heaven, according to the keys of the Holy Priesthood.” Soon after establishing the settlements of Utah, the Church announced the revelation on polygamy by reading it from the pulpit in conference in August of 1852 and it was published in the Deseret News a couple weeks later. It’s true that it wasn’t included in the D&C for almost 25 more years, but the 1876 edition was the first printing of the D&C in Utah, and the first new edition of the work since JS’s death, so it’s not like the Church sprang it on the people at that point. It’s an oft-cited fact to say that D&C 132 wasn’t included until the 1876 edition, but
honestly, I don’t know what the point of that factoid is as it pertains to polygamy…The original section 101 that stated that monogamy was the law of the Church had a dubious beginning. It was inserted in the 1835 edition of the D&C by vote of the committee in charge of the publication, run by Oliver Cowdery and Sydney Rigdon, two staunch anti-polygamists. And the vote to include the statement was taken while JS was in the East. Furthermore, it’s not a revelation at all, but a statement of policy. That’s the history… The point is that it’s not like D&C 132 was published as soon as this “revelation” was supposedly received in 1843 the way many chapel Mormons would understandably assume simply based on reading the text by itself. Instead we have a case here of Church leaders basically saying one thing and doing another year after year in Nauvoo and sneaking around practicing plural marriages in secret while publicly denying it and then later adding this scripture only after they were in Utah and already openly practicing polygamy anyway. If this was important enough to send an angel with a sword to threaten JS and for God to deliver a very specific revelation about then why not publish it right away and why did Joseph Smith break the rules specifically outlined in D&C 132 in many of his plural marriages? If outside opposition was too much of a problem then why didn’t God just tell them to move to Utah 3-4 years earlier?
If it was important for JS to become a “martyr” before the saints moved to Utah then it seems like being open and honest about this controversial practice would have only helped facilitate this same result eventually; in fact it would have actually made for a more compelling story in that case because then he would have really been standing up for what he supposedly believed in rather than apparently mostly trying to protect his own reputation by ordering the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor in in what looks like an all-too-human and self-serving way. So even if you want to play along with the idea that God could have theoretically commanded this simply for the sake of being open to the possibility it just doesn’t add up very well or sound like a very credible story in the least given the actual history surrounding it that we see and it seems kind of silly for Church leaders and members to act like D&C 132 is supposedly this rock-solid untouchable God-given scripture as if it has been this way from the dawn of time when upon closer inspection it looks more like a convenient justification for polygamy added to the official LDS canon after the fact that they were already practicing polygamy anyway.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
