Todd Christofferson addressed crisis of faith issues

[Anonymous]

Reflexzero wrote:

Quote:

In the long run, I think those who are able to Stay LDS are going to have to learn to be “glass half-full” people when it comes to these things (recognizing the good developments, and forgiving the flaws seventy-times seven). I am trying. It might take a while, though.

The glass is always full. Half full of water, half full of air.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

And sometimes the glass is full of …hot air! 😆

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

But why doesn’t the church give a wide berth to its membership on this subject in particular? It feels like they are preparing to dig and go the distance (Jeffrey Holland’s PBS interview: We will never disavow it) in justifying Joseph and polygamy.

I agree with other posts; this is a very good question. I would imagine church leaders have a good understanding of the pervasiveness and importance of the doctrine and practice of polygamy in the nauvoo and early slc days, and the church’s position seems to reflect an understanding of both historical polygamy and the fact that the church has been backed into a corner on this issue. To disavow the practice would deal a huge blow to the character of JS, BY, and other key figures. That would create too many problems. The other problem the church faces is defending polygamy too much. I think you can spin the doctrine of polygamy into something that sounds in-line with the gospel but I personally think it would be a very difficult task for anyone to spin the practice of polygamy (as practiced in nauvoo and slc) into a faith-promoting principle that fits into the framework of the Gospel.I think the church is using the best short-run strategy: stay loyal to JS and don’t talk about things too much.

[Anonymous]

wl44 wrote:

Ann wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

But why doesn’t the church give a wide berth to its membership on this subject in particular? It feels like they are preparing to dig and go the distance (Jeffrey Holland’s PBS interview: We will never disavow it) in justifying Joseph and polygamy.

I agree with other posts; this is a very good question. I would imagine church leaders have a good understanding of the pervasiveness and importance of the doctrine and practice of polygamy in the nauvoo and early slc days, and the church’s position seems to reflect an understanding of both historical polygamy and the fact that the church has been backed into a corner on this issue. To disavow the practice would deal a huge blow to the character of JS, BY, and other key figures. That would create too many problems. The other problem the church faces is defending polygamy too much. I think you can spin the doctrine of polygamy into something that sounds in-line with the gospel but I personally think it would be a very difficult task for anyone to spin the practice of polygamy (as practiced in nauvoo and slc) into a faith-promoting principle that fits into the framework of the Gospel.I think the church is using the best short-run strategy: stay loyal to JS and don’t talk about things too much.

Too, it’s a well known historical fact that polygamy did happen and was sanctioned. It’s really hard for most to admit they are/were wrong, and I have always thought it’s even harder for church leaders – including, maybe even especially, local leaders. If they admit they’re wrong about one thing then it opens the door to the possibility they may be wrong about other things – a Pandora’s Box. Doubters and questioners can admit the church may have been wrong and may be fine with it, but it comes back to the shaking trees idea. For the church leadership to admit they, or the church, were wrong, the trees of many members are shaken and the possibility of a mass crisis of faith exists – something the church may have difficulty overcoming. To go even further and even imply that a section (or more) of the Doctrine and Covenants is not really a revelation would cause irreversible damage to the credibility of the church itself, not to mention many, if not all, modern prophets and apostles.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

If they admit they’re wrong about one thing then it opens the door to the possibility they may be wrong about other things – a Pandora’s Box. Doubters and questioners can admit the church may have been wrong and may be fine with it, but it comes back to the shaking trees idea. For the church leadership to admit they, or the church, were wrong, the trees of many members are shaken and the possibility of a mass crisis of faith exists – something the church may have difficulty overcoming. To go even further and even imply that a section (or more) of the Doctrine and Covenants is not really a revelation would cause irreversible damage to the credibility of the church itself, not to mention many, if not all, modern prophets and apostles.

So don’t create wind, lest certain trees not survive. But let damaging concepts of women water all the trees?

I hope there is a middle way, and that it is found before too much longer.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

If they admit they’re wrong about one thing then it opens the door to the possibility they may be wrong about other things – a Pandora’s Box. Doubters and questioners can admit the church may have been wrong and may be fine with it, but it comes back to the shaking trees idea. For the church leadership to admit they, or the church, were wrong, the trees of many members are shaken and the possibility of a mass crisis of faith exists – something the church may have difficulty overcoming. To go even further and even imply that a section (or more) of the Doctrine and Covenants is not really a revelation would cause irreversible damage to the credibility of the church itself, not to mention many, if not all, modern prophets and apostles.

So don’t create wind, lest certain trees not survive. But let damaging concepts of women water all the trees?

I hope there is a middle way, and that it is found before too much longer.

Sad but true, Ann. Please understand I am not advocating this position, I’m just pointing out that the church leadership has no way to “save face” on the issue. They cannot admit the wrong because of the damage it would probably do to the faith and testimony of many (but certainly not all). Revelation, especially as related to Joseph Smith, is a key tenet of church teachings and doctrine. In the status quo, a relative very small minority has issues and many of them can be dismissed as irrelevant. Again, I’m not advocating the point of view, I’m just pointing it out.

[Anonymous]

wl44 wrote:

…To disavow the practice would deal a huge blow to the character of JS, BY, and other key figures. That would create too many problems. The other problem the church faces is defending polygamy too much. I think you can spin the doctrine of polygamy into something that sounds in-line with the gospel but I personally think it would be a very difficult task for anyone to spin the practice of polygamy (as practiced in nauvoo and slc) into a faith-promoting principle that fits into the framework of the Gospel.

I agree with the difficulty in discussing the topic to any depth. I do think the current position of the church (plural marriage was practiced but the default doctrine is monogamy) does not require much “defense” of the old practice. It is thrown into the “deep doctrine” pool as was the Adam-God doctrine of generations ago, the pool to which doctrines go to die. I think the same questions can be asked of both, yet Adam-God has not become a huge stumbling block for members and it HAS been officially disavowed by Spencer W. Kimball. True, polygamy has an added dimension of being practiced, it wasn’t just an idea that was taught, but I still feel in time there will be greater distance achieved and eventually we will get something like “the way it was promoted/mandated in the 19th century does not appear to be in perfect harmony with the eternal significance and divine bond of love between husband and wife.”

…My $.02

[Anonymous]

Literally none of the top leadership have said or implied that they are “proponents” of polygamy, and not one of them has said anything to indicate they have any desire whatsoever to see it reinstated. They won’t disavow its practice in the past, for the reasons mentioned already but also because they would be dismissing, in a real way, the faithfulness of their own grandparents, in some cases. That’s HUGE, imo – that they are dealing with people they knew and loved personally, not distant names in history books.

Polygamy is a classic example of the tendency to see things in black-and-white terms – and, honestly, I think the top leadership is ahead of the general membership in this regard. I think nearly all of the Q12 and FP see it as more complicated than the average, orthodox member does – and I think they aren’t willing to throw past leaders and members under the bus, so to speak, even though they are glad they live now and not then and don’t have to deal with it in the fullest sense. Honestly, I don’t think one of them would like to have multiple wives, and I don’t think one of them would rejoice if President Monson told them he had received a revelation telling him it needed to be reinstated. I also am positive it’s not the subject of any prayer any of them is saying.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

That’s HUGE, imo – that they are dealing with people they knew and loved personally, not distant names in history books. . . . . .

I don’t think one of them would rejoice if President Monson told them he had received a revelation telling him it needed to be reinstated. I also am positive it’s not the subject of any prayer any of them is saying.

First off, I don’t mean to imply that ANYONE here is “defending” polygamy. Sorry if I did.

I get not throwing our ancestors under the bus. My husband’s family are the best people I know. But aren’t WE, the living, breathing people of the church, deserving of the same respect being accorded our ancestors? It’ll take the wisdom of Solomon to figure out the way, but I can promise that, for me, the way is NOT found in the lengthy, intricate writings of someone like Valerie Hudson at SquareTwo whose bottom line is that true faithfulness, true understanding just accepts the fact that God can command polygamy whenever he chooses. She’s just one person, but I think her analysis of the doctrine is going to gain traction at high levels and trickle down to the masses. (Polygamy was an “Abrahamic sacrifice” and we would do well to consider our willingness to make it.)

I wish it were the subject of their prayers. I wish they knew that people like MayB’s father-in-law are out there in the church, taking her aside and saying that she shouldn’t be so possessive of her husband because, well, that old girlfriend will probably be his plural wife someday. I wish they had statistics on how many young girls go to their leaders and hear that, Yeah, it’s a hard pill to swallow, but it’s doctrine and you’ll be righteous enough by “whenever” to accept it. I wish they knew how it feels to be a woman reading Section 132 threatening one of the most long-suffering, forbearing women in history with destruction if she doesn’t allow her husband to have dozens of wives.

Slavery wasn’t all bad. It saved a lot of people from starvation, it built great civilizations, and many slave-holders were God-fearing, industrious, principled people.

Polygamy perhaps shouldn’t be seen as all black, but the church insists on all white in terms of doctrine. Of course, they say that individuals who abused spouses or offspring were erring, but the doctrine itself stays white in these conversations.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Polygamy is a classic example of the tendency to see things in black-and-white terms

Sometimes I feel like you throw-out the “black and white thinking” idea as a way to discredit someone’s view without discussing their view. I’d appreciate an explanation of how people are “thinking in black and white” instead of a sweeping dismissal. It also seems that heavy aversion to “black and white thinking” is just simply a refusal to call it like it is.

[Anonymous]

wl44 wrote:

… call a spade a spade.

Now where have I heard that before?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

wl44, I agree that citing black-and-white thinking can be dismissive and avoiding calling something what it really is – but, as I’ve said in other threads, although I don’t like polygamy and don’t believe it has to have been God’s will (and believe it has inherent problems that are difficult to reconcile), I can’t bring myself to condemn it, in its entirety, in all cases and situations, and label it as inherently evil. When I use “black-and-white” in this case, I simply mean an unwillingness to see it as anything but evil – period – and all the people who lived (and still live) in such relationships as deluded or blind. Polygamy can be a form of slavery, for example, but it isn’t in many cases – and I use “many” intentionally. I simply think it’s more complex than black-and-white thinking allows.

Again, I don’t like it, but I have read journals of people who lived it – and not all of them fit the “sacred loneliness” description that many others did. Some of them really were happy in those relationships. I know people who have loved and been married to more than one spouse in this life, monogamously, who couldn’t choose between those spouses if they were forced to do so – in this life or the next. That alone keeps me from the harshest judgments of the concept. I know, personally and directly, people who are polygamous who are more loving and well-adjusted than lots of other people I know who are monogamous – people who live outside the sects where the worst abuses and issues occur systematically. I know gay couples who are better spouses and parents than straight couples I know. I know people who married in their teens who are better spouses and parents than people who married in their 20’s and 30’s. I know celibate gay and straight people who are better people than many who are married. I know enough people who don’t live what many would call “the ideal” but who have wonderful, happy lives that I am wary of the broadest brush strokes in this sort of conversation.

I am not a fan of polygamy, at all, but I know enough situations where I can understand its appeal AND the comfort that it can provide to some people that I can’t condemn it carte blanche – especially if it’s not limited automatically to one man and multiple women. I favor whatever marriage arrangements truly consenting adults choose, even if that means polygamous ones.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

wl44 wrote:

… call a spade a spade.

Now where have I heard that before?

Your post got me worried so I googled the phrase. I wasn’t aware that the phrase had racist overtones. I apologize if it was offensive to anyone. I’ll edit it.

[Anonymous]

wl44 wrote:

cwald wrote:

wl44 wrote:

… call a spade a spade.

Now where have I heard that before?

Your post got me worried so I googled the phrase. I wasn’t aware that the phrase had racist overtones. I apologize if it was offensive to anyone. I’ll edit it.

What?

I was just agreeing with you. I ask people on this forum all the time to quit beating around the bush and just call it the way it is.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

I’m sorry but I agree with Ann. The excuse that the leaders of today don’t want polygamy does nothing to ease the very true and valid feelings it continues to cause in the women of the church TODAY! Being told by men that oh well it’s in the past is not consolation when DC 132 is still read and taught to the next generation of youth. Male and female students read such a passage and know regardless of “how it’s presented” that when it comes right down to it The church or God or a combo could at anytime force women to choose between practicing polygamy or their eternal salvation. Sorry but there is no other way to view such statements. Also the old “well God will remove the pain for you in the next life” is not comforting.

I didn’t even know about the belief that in the CK women will have to practice polygamy until my VT brought it up in tears asking to be humble enough to accept it. WTH! Or how about the day that I sat in nursery here a couple of months ago hearing 5 guys in their 30-40’s talking about how they hope they have “earned” hot enough wives in the next life!!! They said this out loud and not kidding. When I asked if they were serious I was told that of course I couldn’t understand now because I’m mortal and a “woman” but if I wanted to be in the CK I would have to accept the fact that that’s how it was going to be. They were all dead serious. Talk about making women nothing more than breeding cattle. Also saying that not “every women hated polygamy” is not a valid reason to not disavow it. Unless a WOMAN came up with the idea and it was/is not tied in anyway to her salvation religious polygamy is cohersion.

I’m sorry,I know that most guys do not want polygamy but I truly believe that men do not understand the message that it sends to the women of the church still to this day with passages such as DC 132…..that they are and always will be valued less than a man in the sight of God. Yes the church is in a hard place when it comes to this issue no question about it. It seems though that they are willing to continue to hurt women in order not to loose the masses. And why should the church shake the tree when the women of the church are so willing to blame themselves for not being humble enough or disobedient if they do not accept or question the idea of polygamy. We women have been trained well.

[Anonymous]

Maybe, sometimes, people don’t mean what we initially think they mean when we hear or read what they say.

Sometimes, real-life lessons come out of the blue at the most opportune times. :ugeek:

[Author]

Posts