- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Just when I think I could see something and not be triggered to the point of taking the click-bait, I see this in my inbox http://ldsmag.com/the-ghost-of-eternal-polygamy-haunting-the-hearts-and-heaven-of-women-and-men/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://ldsmag.com/the-ghost-of-eternal-polygamy-haunting-the-hearts-and-heaven-of-women-and-men/ I just HAD to respond. Or I FELT I had to and succumbed to the temptation.
Quote:“Polygamy is required in the celestial kingdom”? Maybe not, but it is for the part that I have been encouraged to seek. I have been encouraged to go to the temple and seek more than just the celestial kingdom.
“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269).
So if someone desires the “highest” form of being like God – where there is “eternal increase”, then a prophet HAS said it is required. If you are OK to shoot for way below that then you can ignore polygamy. Why don’t we just take it easy and make sure we make it into the Terrestrial kingdom.
The wording in so much of this seems to be picking words very carefully so that they make sense if you read them. But when I dig deeper it isn’t so “tame”. I makes me cry for the fruits of this “doctrine”.
I will state my stance on this again. I am not in a place to tell God that he can’t command polygamy, but every time I pray about it I feel it was a mistake made by man.
For me I have to use occam’s razor on this topic, especially after reading the book that is negatively critiqued here. Rather than go through these mental contortions to make it “of God”, I mark this up as “not from God” and focus my time on loving others (and just my ONE wife).
I have also been noticing a common path for faith crisis. TBM, shelf strained, shelf breaks, pain and disorientation, sometimes trying to put the shelf back up and others decide they need no shelf and are “out”, digging a bit deeper for those that didn’t just “jump out” and for those that dig deeper they either reach a place of contentment or leave. Even on this site in looking over the people that come and go I see something close to this. I do feel I am close to deciding I have “dug” enough and I can back off. I still want to learn more, but I have reached a point where there is too much to absorb (even with setting my podcast to 2.4x speed
I found out who one of the authors of one of the very professional/logical sites critical of the church over the weekend. I had an exchange with him where he agreed that even though he occasionally adds stuff, but most days he does not even pay attention to “Mormon church” stuff”. I must admit that I am actually glad to feel I am about to turn a page, but reminded not quite yet this AM, and certainly hope it brings more peace.
Trigger moments – I hate when they creep up on us. I think your response was wonderful. I haven’t read the entire link but I am disappointed LDS Living appeared to have been softening. I was appreciating the room it appeared to be making. I don’t expect full blown disconnect but a moderate, thoughtful tone was helpful.
Ray often uses a line that I love, “May There Be a Road”. It sounds like you found one. As the MAS (More Attached Spouse) it did help both of us when the dedication to the blogs and podcasts dropped back. In one sense you actually need or crave all of it. It is such a sucker punch and you feel a hunger to get hold or understand. But when you can let go, it does make room for healing. Like an unexpected day off.
Best of luck with your marriage. Keep saying Hi. Most of all breathe.
I look at the work of Bryan and Laura Hales as being classically apologist or defensive. I imagine them working as defense attorneys. It is not their job to get to the truth. It is their job to defend their client. If they know of evidence that would implicate their client in wrongdoing, they have no obligation to share (and in most cases have an obligation against sharing confidential information). Specifically about polygamy, it is their job to take the present church doctrine and understanding of polygamy as the way things should be and then work backwards from their proving their case.
Carol Lynn Pearson’s book seems to largely describe the pain people feel from church teachings on this subject. Many things have been taught over the years by church authorities and virtually nothing has been taught lately so people in their ideas about how polygamy might work in the CK refer to what was said before and may not be the current consensus.
I very much dislike that the apologists seem to take the position that people that are pained either misunderstand the doctrine or are speculating into territory where no information is available. They essentially say that they should not worry about their eternal families – just live the best that you can and trust in God for the rest. If this were true then one of two scenarios follow in my mind: 1) Teach sealings as optional and just know that God will sort it out … or 2) Seal all spouses to all other spouses and more explicitly teach that we do not know for sure what that means but have faith that God will sort it out.
However, it is not the job of apologists to suggest even small changes that the church could do to help. The apologists defend the status quo and just say that the people who are pained are worrying too much and should just stop worrying about it.
Quote:Two ideas soon popped up that cannot be traced to Joseph Smith. A few early Saints assumed that the more wives or offspring they had, either biologically or through adoption ordinances, the greater would be their eternal glory. Another problem involved thinking that being sealed to Joseph Smith or another leader would give them an eternal advantage over being sealed to their biological parents.
This paragraph in particular is interesting (read galling) to me. Both of these ideas can be “traced” to JS. This was a common church teaching in the early Utah period. It was taught explicitly in church publications and from BY, John Taylor, Benjamin Johnson, and Jedediah Grant who claimed that they got it from JS. (These ideas can also be seen in the documented words of JS but much less explicitly.) To describe these as “ideas” that “popped up” because “a few early Saints assumed” is not presenting the full truth in my opinion.
It is Ironic that in the very next paragraph BY is quoted as an authority on the what human relationships will look like after the resurrection. It seems that BY is authoritative and even prophetic when he teaches something that is fairly consistent with what the modern church teaches. His ideas are just speculative assumptions when they do not sufficiently align with what the modern church teaches.
Quote:“To describe these as “ideas” that “popped up” because “a few early Saints assumed” is not presenting the full truth in my opinion. “
This is a great point. When someone wants to minimize an idea, they attribute it vaguely to individuals, implying they are outliers, and not giving them any rank or authority. When someone wants to bolster an idea, they immediately attach it to a name and position of someone who supports it. We are such an authority fallacy church!
Also, Brian and Laura Hales can kiss my ass. I could care less about the book. To imply that church leaders didn’t say you had to enter polygamy to achieve highest exaltation is disingenuous, and they know it. Brian Hales was behind the pro-polygamy church essay that defended the reprehensible Law of Sarah. I wouldn’t trust one thing he or his willing-to-go-along wife have to say on this topic. Polygamy is a garbage fire that should have been dumped long ago. They can dislike her book without sweeping what the church has actually said about polygamy under the revisionist rug.
BY even took it a step further and taught that a woman could leave her husband in favor of marrying a man of “more power in the priesthood and higher keys” Quote:“The second way in which a wife can be separated from her husband while he continues to be faithful to his God and his priesthood I have not revealed except to a few persons in this church,
and a few have received it from Joseph the Prophet as well as myself. If a woman can find a man holding the keys of the priesthood with higher power and authority than her husband, and he is disposed to take her, he can do so, otherwise she has got to remain where she is. In either of these ways of separation you can discover there is no need for a bill of divorcement. To recapitulate: First, a man forfeits his covenant with a wife or wives, becoming unfaithful to his God and his priesthood—that wife or wives are free from him without a bill of divorcement. Second, if a woman claims protection at the hands of a man possessing more power in the priesthood and higher keys, if he is disposed to rescue her and has obtained the consent of her husband to make her his wife, he can do so without a bill of divorcement. If after she has left her husband and is sealed to another she shall again cohabit with him, it is illicit intercourse and extremely sinful….” Thanks for the kind words Mom. I misread your statement of “Keep saying Hi. Most of all breathe” as “most of all http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3806564/Having-sex-makes-men-likely-believe-God-miracle-them.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3806564/Having-sex-makes-men-likely-believe-God-miracle-them.html That is the time I many people most passionately scream “Oh God”. Just saying. Roy wrote:I look at the work of Bryan and Laura Hales as being classically apologist or defensive. I imagine them working as defense attorneys. It is not their job to get to the truth. It is their job to defend their client.
I like that explanation / framing. Biting my tongue not to make a lawyer joke, but I have too many good friends that are lawyers and they are some of the people I respect the most.Roy wrote:Specifically about polygamy, it is their job to take the present church doctrine and understanding of polygamy as the way things should be and then work backwards from their proving their case.
I want to push back just a bit on this. Brian is an anesthesiologist (no problem with that occupation
So to combine your analogies (almost always a way to get in trouble) then my “job” is to then be a prosecuting attorney to get a jury to agree to my point of view.
I very much dislike that the apologists seem to take the position that people that are pained either misunderstand the doctrine or are speculating into territory where no information is available. They essentially say that they should not worry about their eternal families – just live the best that you can and trust in God for the rest. If this were true then one of two scenarios follow in my mind: 1) Teach sealings as optional and just know that God will sort it out … or 2) Seal all spouses to all other spouses and more explicitly teach that we do not know for sure what that means but have faith that God will sort it out.
I am there with you on this. So often when that, “it will all work out” sounds to much like “the actual sealings are not THAT important so don’t fuss about it”. Not important?????? “It will all work out” also sounds a bit too close to that saying of “Shoot them all and let God sort them out.” Sounds like something Brigham Young would have taken a liking to.hawkgrrrl wrote:Also, Brian and Laura Hales can kiss my ass. I could care less about the book.
To imply that church leaders didn’t say you had to enter polygamy to achieve highest exaltation is disingenuous, and they know it.Brian Hales was behind the pro-polygamy church essay that defended the reprehensible Law of Sarah. I wouldn’t trust one thing he or his willing-to-go-along wife have to say on this topic. Polygamy is a garbage fire that should have been dumped long ago. They can dislike her book without sweeping what the church has actually said about polygamy under the revisionist rug. That’s the one that jumped out at me. I don’t have a bunch of time to research it at the moment, but I am 99% sure some of the older leaders have said just that.
I can be triggered, too. I probably just wouldn’t have read this blog in the first place just because I know I can be triggered. I should have avoided Sr. Nelson’s talk last week. The worst ones are where they sneak up on me.
DarkJedi wrote:I can be triggered, too. I probably just wouldn’t have read this blog in the first place just because I know I can be triggered. I should have avoided Sr. Nelson’s talk last week. The worst ones are where they sneak up on me.
Now there is some wisdom I need to take. I am probably going to really back off on my time with blogs/podcasts – even this site a bit.When you said Brian Hales is an anesthesiologist it reminded me of an article showing which medical professions skew republican vs. democrat. I’m not even a little surprised to find both surgery (Nelson, Renlund) and anesthesiology in the furthest to the right. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/upshot/your-surgeon-is-probably-a-republican-your-psychiatrist-probably-a-democrat.html Republicans have less issue with polygamy because they have less issue with the interests of patriarchy at the expense of everyone else.
Quote:BY even took it a step further and taught that a woman could leave her husband in favor of marrying a man of “more power in the priesthood and higher keys”
The only polygamist ancestor I had was an aunt who did just that.
Quote:I haven’t read the entire link but I am disappointed LDS Living appeared to have been softening
I breathe a little easier – this was Meridian Magazine it’s more of a zeitgeist.
Quote:Brian and Laura Hales
In the words of Gilda Radner “Never Mind”
It’s already been said, but I simply ignore everything written by that Hales partnership. I prefer Scott Hales – not just because I know him well, but also because his writing is exceptional and his sense of humor rocks. The fact that he works for the Church History Department is a a delicious topping on the ice cream.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:“To describe these as “ideas” that “popped up” because “a few early Saints assumed” is not presenting the full truth in my opinion. “
This is a great point. When someone wants to minimize an idea, they attribute it vaguely to individuals, implying they are outliers, and not giving them any rank or authority. When someone wants to bolster an idea, they immediately attach it to a name and position of someone who supports it. We are such an authority fallacy church!
Also, Brian and Laura Hales can kiss my ass.
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 Okay,
:silent: Quote:I could care less about the book. To imply that church leaders didn’t say you had to enter polygamy to achieve highest exaltation is disingenuous, and they know it. Brian Hales was behind the pro-polygamy church essay that defended the reprehensible Law of Sarah. I wouldn’t trust one thing he or his willing-to-go-along wife have to say on this topic. Polygamy is a garbage fire that should have been dumped long ago. They can dislike her book without sweeping what the church has actually said about polygamy under the revisionist rug.
So true in my mind. I’m wondering how long it will take for the church to pay attention to how this whole endeavor is going and change its approach. Do they realize we read? The polygamy essays are still the straw” for me.
Quote:So true in my mind. I’m wondering how long it will take for the church to pay attention to how this whole endeavor is going and change its approach. Do they realize we read? The polygamy essays are still the straw” for me.
Ages.
I really do believe that, we don’t confront our shadow very often. We confront things outside of us, but not internal.
I believe the essays and the reason for them is going to be added to pile under the rug. Yes, there will be obscure references to them. And only those who know where to look will find them. And the why they were ever created will be void of answer. I believe it is the continued hope that we just won’t look, don’t ask, don’t tell, or any other reference like that.
I am not sure I blame them. I just wish they felt differently about things.
mom3 wrote:I believe the essays and the reason for them is going to be added to pile under the rug. Yes, there will be obscure references to them. And only those who know where to look will find them. And the why they were ever created will be void of answer. I believe it is the continued hope that we just won’t look, don’t ask, don’t tell, or any other reference like that.
Last Sunday the essays were brought up during both SM and SS. Unfortunately in my ward the essays are being used to attack people outside of the church or people that have left. It looks like the essays have become the new apologetic, another tool used to highlight the line that divides us from them.
You know how the phrase “so-called” sometimes gets tossed around in a condescending manner? Well in my ward both the SM speaker and SS instructor used the word “critics” spoken in that same tone that conveys disgust. Without getting into too much detail they both implied that there were perfectly valid answers to issues people were having, the criticisms were invalid, and people that let that stuff get to them are in error. Meanwhile I’m thinking, “You really don’t want them back, do you?”
I didn’t find the experience that out of place for an orthodox group. What other conclusions are there to arrive at? I was more disappointed than anything. Here was something new to discuss for the first time in the 20 years and there’s no discussion, it’s all lecture, and it’s presented as “
criticswill say there are issues, but the differences are all very minor, like you’d expect if you told your story to different people over many years, the multiple accounts can only increase your testimony in the FV.” So there it was, sandwiched between two other topics that also had no questions or discussion. Shotgunned across the congregation and gone in the blink of an eye. If you feel there’s an issue you’re wrong to feel that way. Next. I have to remind myself that the purpose of SS isn’t to have a discussion, it’s to indoctrinate.
I’m off topic aren’t I? I will say that I didn’t get angry. I was more disappointed than anything. The new SS material won’t be used to have discussions, it will be used to separate the wheat from the tares. At least in my ward.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with occasionally being triggered. No one taught that polygamy was essential to be in the CK? Laughable. And to state it so definitively? If I didn’t know any better I’d say they were trying to get a rise out of some people and give a move along, nothing to see here to others. The rest of the article boils down to “your speculations are wrong, my speculations are right, so stop feeling bad.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.