- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This from the “Temple Prep for Daughters” thread. I think it makes sense to have a separate thread. LookingHard wrote:Anybody else following what is going on with Kirk van Allen – the guy that posted a very detailed blog post how he feels D&C 132 is not of God?He was told he is going to have a church court called if he does not take it down. I had to laugh when the SP came to visit him, the SP didn’t know about the essays on Polygamy. Here is the link
http://mormonverse.com/2015/02/http://mormonverse.com/2015/02/” class=”bbcode_url”> Brian and Laura Hales (Brian of course has written volumes on JS polygamy and says there is room that he never did anything wrong – as in keeping “after this life” marriages celibate and distinct from “mortal marriages.”) give a rebuttal at
http://blog.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lending-Clarity-to-Confusion.pdf ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://blog.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lending-Clarity-to-Confusion.pdf Brian’s wife Lindsay gives a reply to the Hales
http://mormonverse.com/2015/03/http://mormonverse.com/2015/03/” class=”bbcode_url”> It will be interesting to see if the SP backs off a bit. Apparently the blog is getting tens of thousands of hits.
And of course I would be remiss if I didn’t mention hawkgrrrl’s post at W&T
http://www.wheatandtares.org/16791/one-more-reason-i-dont-want-to-gather-in-missouri/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.wheatandtares.org/16791/one-more-reason-i-dont-want-to-gather-in-missouri/ Absolutely I am following this. I sense Brian Hales’ dismay at the van Allens’ unscholarly-by-comparison approach, but
heis the outlier here. Most people, once they have a better picture of what was going on under the sanitized story, reach the same conclusion the van Allens did, even if they express it differently. He’s upset with what he sees as a flippant approach to such a “sacred topic.” What about the living, breathing women and girls of this church as a sacred topic?
The essays could have started the transition away from a polygamy doctrine, and instead they set us back. They could have respected and humanized our ancestors while lifting the burden of polygamy off of the modern church.
Sometimes I wish President Hinckley was here. I don’t think he wanted this for us.
Ann wrote:Sometimes I wish President Hinckley was here. I don’t think he wanted this for us.
I agree with this…the way things are now make me wonder who is really running the church.
I’m almost finished reading the van Allen’s rebuttal to the Hales. I can see how even just a year ago, reading these three articles would probably have made me very uncomfortable, distressed and confused. Now I kind of find it just another interesting and enlightening read. If anything, I’m kind of frustrated with how it’s almost necessary for some people in the Church to take the Hales’ side, because they can’t accept the thought that parts of the Church reaching back to its inception might just be 100% the product of man and not God. And I’m kind of sad with the thought that there are likely lots of people out there who might start their FC because of this, not because that’s bad, but because we all here know how much an FC can hurt. I wish the Church hadn’t built itself up to be so perfect that backtracking and just removing this section from canon wouldn’t seem so end-of-the-world unthinkable (unless the Church wants to throw its whole weight behind supporting polygamy as the end-all doctrine in heaven, and maybe…maaaaaybe…this might be one step towards one way or another).
I have listened many of the “year of polygamy” series at http://feministmormonhousewivespodcast.org/http://feministmormonhousewivespodcast.org/” class=”bbcode_url”> I think it is one thing for some free-love hippies that want to have multiple partners and everyone is OK with this (or too stoned to care), but it is entirely different when the pressure is you entire salvation is put on how you must do this.
And the one point that the van Allen’s are making is that IT IS STILL OUR DOCTRINE THAT IF WE WANT TO GET INTO THE UPPER PART OF THE CELESTIAL KINGDOM WE ALL MUST AT SOME POINT BECOME POLYGAMIST!
As a 2nd generation Mormon, it does feel to me that the only reason we are hanging on to this is that the Q12 and 1st Pres have polygamist ancestors and feel that distancing themselves from the doctrine is a disservice to their ancestors. I can kind of get that. Just like the pioneers, we look back at the sacrifice and want to worship that level of commitment. I have heard that some older women are rather upset that they didn’t use any birth control because the church leaders told them that was evil and there was huge pressures to have tons of kids. Then they see their granddaughters using it and they don’t have the pressures for such large families now and they are a bit resentful on “why did the rules change and I had to give up so much and now people don’t”.
I need to stop ranting and get to work.
BTW – the van Allen’s did a podcast on
http://athoughtfulfaith.org/088-troubling-the-church-by-repudiating-polygamy-kirk-and-lindsay-van-allen/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://athoughtfulfaith.org/088-troubling-the-church-by-repudiating-polygamy-kirk-and-lindsay-van-allen/ Paulista wrote:Ann wrote:Sometimes I wish President Hinckley was here. I don’t think he wanted this for us.
I agree with this…the way things are now make me wonder who is really running the church.
Not to derail, but I’m not understanding this. I really liked Pres. Hinckley and he was the face of the church to millions for many years, and I recognize that the church was different under his leadership (which actually spanned several presidencies). What is it you think he didn’t want for us and what’s the question about who is running the church?
On topic, I had read the original blog but didn’t realize there was this back and forth going on. The essays will keep FAIR busy for a while in IMO, not because of what they say but because of what they don’t say. Or perhaps more correctly, how they leave some things open to interpretation. Thus we have different points of view by these blogging brothers and sisters and others.
I’m not up on all the goings on and it’s too late for me. In glancing at the links this one is firmly in the tl;dr; category but that’s because I’ve already made up my mind that polygamy is not of god. I’ll pass on a 30 page treatise trying to work backwards from the conclusion that it was of god. DarkJedi wrote:Not to derail, but I’m not understanding this. I really liked Pres. Hinckley and he was the face of the church to millions for many years, and I recognize that the church was different under his leadership (which actually spanned several presidencies). What is it you think he didn’t want for us and what’s the question about who is running the church?
In Hinckley’s interview with Larry King it felt like Hinckley wanted to distance the church from the practice of polygamy. The polygamy essays and the race and the priesthood essay created a contrast. The race and the priesthood essay showed that we were willing to acknowledge that mistakes had been made. In contrast the polygamy essays essentially doubled down on the practice of polygamy being commanded by god. I guess we aren’t ready to admit mistakes on that front.
Of (modern day) polygamy Hinckley said ” I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.” I’m thinking that Ann’s comment might be getting at wondering whether those polygamy essays might have looked a little more like the race and the priesthood essay had they come out during Hinckley’s tenure.
We were a little spoiled by Hinckley. He faced media directly whereas now we moved back to the approach where there are a few intermediaries between the prophet and the people. People fondly remember seeing their prophet under the lights, by comparison a PR department doesn’t feel as special. Consciously or subconsciously people recognize that the PR department doesn’t speak as one with authority. Again, we were spoiled.
The official doctrine of the LDS Church currently is NOT that polygamy is required for exaltation. Sure, there are many members, including leaders at all levels, who believe that – but it is not the official doctrine currently. I have never heard it taught over any pulpit, in any manual or in any lesson in my lifetime – and neither have any of my children, and I was raised in central Utah. I’m sure someone, somewhere has done so (multiple people, in fact) – but it is an incredibly rare occurrence.
The Van Allens are wrong in that point, and it’s a critical point.
I think that is their point. Adjust d&c 132 or clarify. The essays didn’t make it clear – in fact they seem to mainly be supporting / defending the practice. I get that, Lookinghard – but nothing in the essay says polygamy is required for exaltation. There is a lot of stuff in the Bible and from statements of past leaders we don’t accept anymore – truly lots of stuff. We don’t go back and release statements denying them; we simply move on and stop teaching them. That isn’t unique to the LDS Church; it is true in almost all cases in all religions.
We have stopped teaching polygamy as required for exaltation – and that happened a long time ago. Saying it still is our doctrine is like saying we still teach the race-based Priesthood ban and its justifications. We don’t – and in BOTH cases, we have canonized statements / revelations AND statements from more recent leaders saying explicitly that we no longer teach it.
I understand totally why people reject polygamy as not coming from God, ever. I agree with much of that stance. I understand why people want D&C 132 removed or edited. However, saying it is our current doctrine that it is required for exaltation simply is wrong. It isn’t – both by explicit statement and by absence from any and all official statements, General Conference talks, manuals and lessons.
Personally, I don’t want D&C 132 removed or edited – ironically, because
I would see that as white-washing. Seriously, think about that for a minute:
We decry the Church presenting only a sanitized version of our history . . . and yet we simultaneously ask that it clean up the D&C and present a history to future generations that doesn’t include polygamy?
If that is out stance, in essence, we are asking the Church to white-wash the way we want it to white-wash – but we are condemning it for white-washing the way it wants to white-wash. I won’t go there. I want the history presented as objectively and comprehensively as possible – and removing or editing D&C 132 would not do that, imo. The essay doesn’t do that completely, but it comes much closer than removing the section would do.
I don’t want to forget history, since that leads too often to repeating history. I want to wrestle with it, since that leads to NOT repeating it.
I feel like we’re in a pattern where we hope the culture eventually shapes into the best case outcome without taking steps to nudge the culture toward the preferred direction. Too hands off. The guy brings up several phrases that I hear all the time:
1) How else would Heavenly Mother be able to give birth to billions of spirit children, unless she did not have fellow women to help her?
2) When they bring back polygamy…..”
3) If the prophet asked you to practice polygamy, would you do it?”
To that I could also add…
4) In light of SSM, if polygamy is legalized again do you think the church will reintroduce the practice?
Section 132 drives much of that speculation. Implications from the essays even drives some of that speculation. Polygamy is still a part of our culture in that members continue to discuss and speculate. Sure the leaders might never talk about it but the general membership still whisper about it from time to time. It’s still the subject of many dinner table “what if”s among friends.
I guess the term whitewash can have a few interpretations. One interpretation: bury information in a place where no one will find it and pretend like it never happened. We can’t do that with polygamy. Using that definition of whitewash I don’t think removing section 132 from the canonized works would constitute a whitewash. The section would still be available, just not canonized… but here we go again, I can see how that becomes a form of whitewashing 150 years from now.
I think that solution has already been implemented, make portions of section 132 vestigial by introducing new canonized revelations that supersede prior revelations in section 132. Supposedly OD1.
That won’t stop the chatter and speculation, that’s probably here to stay.
Edit: we could always leave the section in but adapt as a culture to auto-snub it like the Song of Solomon.
Old-Timer wrote:The official doctrine of the LDS Church currently is NOT that polygamy is required for exaltation.
But while that statement is true, it is only true by careful parsing. Here is a similar statement that is NOT true:Quote:The official doctrine of the LDS Church currently is that polygamy is NOT required for exaltation. (not true)
The current Church position (I won’t call it doctrine) is that we don’t know whether it is or isn’t; and that is excruciatingly maddening.From the current Seminary Teachers Manual on D&C and Church History (page 478, sidebar) (
https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/10590_eng.pdf?lang=eng Quote:Do not speculate about whether plural marriage is a requirement for the celestial kingdom. We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation.
My point is this: as the Church continues to walk a tight-rope (or slackline, for you younger people) it is trying to defend polygamy first, and appease the people next. It is an impossible position to take. Section 132 is an affront to all that is good. The main reason for my faith crisis was polygamy, and a huge factor in it was that I could not reconcile the doctrine/practice with the goodness of God. Specifically, I could not justify how God would place one truth on the earth for us to find, and then attach something to it that was so awful that it would require me to suspend morality and decency toward women in order to follow it.Here’s what I said two years ago about that “don’t know” approach:
On Own Now wrote:I find it hard to be patient when the Church uses the “We don’t know” approach to difficult questions, when we supposedly have 15 men who are prophets, seers, and revelators. We couldn’t just doublecheck with God about such an inflammatory doctrine? I get that we can’t know about everything, in fact, I rely on that. But our Church and its people have suffered so much over this particular point that it seems prudent to get some clarification.
In contrast to the lesson in the manual, I think the Church not only should, but actually COULD remove sec 132, make a statement that
*we have no idea what was going on there, and we are from now on going to assume that God doesn’t sanction polygamy, and we aren’t going to teach it or defend it… That if for some reason we are wrong about that, well, God knows our address.*I’m just weary of the Church still teaching and defending something that most members of the Church don’t even believe in (IMO). Old-Timer wrote:
Personally, I don’t want D&C 132 removed or edited – ironically, becauseI would see that as white-washing.
Maybe add new footnotes to the section giving a proper modern interpretation?
I understand the white-washing concern of removing the section. At the same time, the Church seems to place so much emphasis on the BoM (and by direct relation the D&C and PoGP), as part of our core scriptures and the primary source to turn to when doubting. Leaving the section in as is leaves it for members who don’t know the polygamy isn’t the current “for sure” doctrine to find it and have a crisis over what the section says. I’ve had several friends, both Mormon and former Mormons, who firmly believe that the Church believes in polygamy being sanctioned and supported by God according to the Church because of that section. I don’t know if there’s a perfect solution short of the leadership taking it out with a public statement about why rather than just slipping it out one day and tucking it into a corner of the website a la the essays. Leaving it as is seems to cause a lot of hurt, though.
Old-Timer wrote:Personally, I don’t want D&C 132 removed or edited – ironically, because
I would see that as white-washing. Seriously, think about that for a minute:
We decry the Church presenting only a sanitized version of our history . . . and yet we simultaneously ask that it clean up the D&C and present a history to future generations that doesn’t include polygamy?
I don’t understand. I don’t think anyone is advocating sneaking it out quietly, with no explanation, and then presenting a history to future generations that doesn’t include polygamy. The history will always include polygamy, more now than ever, but the doctrine should be able to be re-examined. Surely, you aren’t saying that OD2 and the essay on Race and the Priesthood are trying to hide the fact of the ban. Yet, they specifically change what was once accepted as doctrine.I would like D&C 132 to be removed, or at least removed after verse 33, accompanied with an OD3 that states the reasons, and that the reasons should specify that we aren’t sure that Polygamy was from God and will henceforth assume it is not, unless directed otherwise by God. From that moment forth, polygamy would become a matter of history (that won’t be forgotten), but at least it will not be treated as being a commandment from God. I don’t think that is whitewashing at all, and would benefit future generations by unshackling them from this ‘doctrine’.
That would not be white-washing, IF the removed verses still were available, openly and readily, to be read by future generations. If not, it would be classic white-washing. I prefer the Song of Solomon approach: leave it alone and add a note that it is not considered inspired scripture – or even that there is disagreement about whether or not it is inspired scripture. That is similar to what you propose, but it avoids editing the section itself.
Frankly, I don’t see that happening, as much as I would like to see it happen – and I prefer to accept progress rather than get nothing by demanding an ideal. “Don’t teach it, since we don’t know and no longer preach it,” is a good compromise, in my opinion (and I think that could be said from the General Conference pulpit in the relatively near future) – especially since marriage itself, in ANY form in the hereafter, is “an affront to all that is good” in the minds of many millions of people – and preaching marriage in the next life but telling people who have loved more than one spouse (men and women) that they have to choose only one and “divorce” the other(s) also is “an affront to all that is good” to those people.
There is NO possible one true answer for everyone when it comes to this issue, so I am fine with, “Don’t teach it, since we don’t know and no longer preach it.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.