Changing ordinances

[LA Ute]

It is my opinion (personal assumption) that David O. McKay should have done the same thing with the "priesthood issue" in the 1950s rather than wait for a consensus in the Q12.

Further flight of fancy/assumption: Maybe the Q12 was so ticked off after the Manifesto that a more consultative approach was developed. Or maybe the Lord said to the prophet, "Don't do it that way again." Or ... well, I'll stop there.

[TripletDaddy]

When I said, "My inner apologist tells me that those were such desperate times that truly extraordinary measures were necessary," wasn't it pretty clear that I was offering whimsical, off-the-cuff musings, and was making no effort to "jump in and explain things?

Coming from you, no it was not clear. I have no clue where your inner apologist ends and the outer one begins. Sorry, just being honest.

[LA Ute]

Coming from you, no it was not clear. I have no clue where your inner apologist ends and the outer one begins. Sorry, just being honest.

This would not be a problem for you if you were a better student of my posts. You're obviously still trying to come back from your long absence. Give it time.

[Green Monstah]

In trying your best, you are actually being counterproductive. If you don't know and have no idea, why make anything up?

My personal opinion is that the Church never intended to follow the manifesto at the time it was made, but instead hoped to go completely underground (there's too much evidence that suggests that plural marriages were performed and condoned by top church officials). But once Reed Smoot couldn't take his seat in the Senate, things changed rapidly. We went from being overtly polygamist, to covertly polygamist to overty anti-polygamy is half a generation. It's actually pretty miraculous.

[Moliere]

I was too. I wonder what kind of, um, frank discussions went on among the FP and the Q12 at their next joint meeting?

Seeing as how they were still using wine for the sacrament it was probably more cordial and laidback than we might think.

[Sullyute]

[/URL]

I am happy that WW ended polygamy. I was just shocked to see how it went down. I suppose that goes a long way to explain why there was so much post-manifesto polygamy, especially among the apostles.

Solemn Covenant is a great read on this issue (the manifesto and post-manifesto polygamy). This is the first book I read in my "mormon awakening" journey.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Solemn-Covenant-MORMON-POLYGAMOUS-PASSAGE/dp/0252018338#reader_0252018338"]Amazon.com: Solemn Covenant: THE MORMON POLYGAMOUS PASSAGE (9780252018336): B. Carmon Hardy: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51R2HEJEHAL.@@AMEPARAM@@51R2HEJEHAL[/ame]

[Moliere]

Meanie.

At least I'm not big and fat though.

Hey, I do it too as evidenced by this thread

[Green Monstah]

[/URL]

Solemn Covenant is a great read on this issue (the manifesto and post-manifesto polygamy). This is the first book I read in my "mormon awakening" journey.

Amazon.com: Solemn Covenant: THE MORMON POLYGAMOUS PASSAGE (9780252018336): B. Carmon Hardy: Books

I'll have to read it. I wonder how come I've never even heard of this book (did a bunch of polygamy research in law school).

[Jeff Lebowski]

My personal opinion is that the Church never intended to follow the manifesto at the time it was made, but instead hoped to go completely underground (there's too much evidence that suggests that plural marriages were performed and condoned by top church officials). But once Reed Smoot couldn't take his seat in the Senate, things changed rapidly. We went from being overtly polygamist, to covertly polygamist to overty anti-polygamy is half a generation. It's actually pretty miraculous.

There were actually three or four manifestos.

"Stop practicing polygamy.."
"We are not kidding, stop practicing polygamy.."
"Seriously, stop practicing polgamy..."
"Stop practicing polygamy or else..."

Part of the problem is that prior to the first manifesto, the church had an official position that everyone should lie about polygamy. There was a secret language or code that people used to try to avoid discovery by federal agents. Furthermore, up until 1852 when BY first admitted publicly that the church was practicing polygamy, there was a section in the D&C explicitly denouncing polygamy (it was quickly removed). So when the manifesto came out, it was natural for everyone to assume that it was some kind of stunt and not official.

[Jeff Lebowski]

[/URL]

Solemn Covenant is a great read on this issue (the manifesto and post-manifesto polygamy). This is the first book I read in my "mormon awakening" journey.

Amazon.com: Solemn Covenant: THE MORMON POLYGAMOUS PASSAGE (9780252018336): B. Carmon Hardy: Books

Is this one better than the Van Wagoner book?

[Pheidippides]

This is really fascinating stuff. My inner apologist tells me that those were such desperate times that truly extraordinary measures were necessary. That's the best I can do.

And my inner skeptic tells me that it's just another brick in the formidable wall showcasing that the entire mishmash is bunk from a cult that survived as a fluke of history. Perhaps that's the worst I can do.

Some days my inner skeptic is in charge of things. Sometimes it is my inner apathy. My inner zealot was strangled long ago, thankfully.

[Sullyute]

Is this one better than the Van Wagoner book?

I haven't read the Van Wagoner book yet so I couldn't tell you. The author is not LDS, but he is a professor at Cal State Fullerton that is interested in mormonism.

This book concentrates on post manifesto polygamy, so he spends time on the first and subsequent manifestos. He talks a lot about Taylor and Crowley doing their polygamous marriages in Canada and Mexico and how Smoot was pushing hard to get it all cleanned up so he (and the church) would be taken serious by the senate. He spends plenty of time on the Smoot hearings and talks about how Joseph F. Smith did not come off very well in his senate testimony (contradicted himself multiply times).

I liked it alot and it opened my eyes to lots of new stuff. For someone who has already read a bunch on post-manifesto polygamy I don't know if it would add much, but it is the only book I have read on it.

As a side note, I just got In Sacred Lonliness for Christmas so I am looking forward to diving into it.

Edit: After doing a quick google search here is a short biography on the author B. Carmon Hardy This says that he attended the BYU and even taught there later on. I specifically recall the foreward in the book saying that he was not LDS though.

[LA Ute]

And my inner skeptic tells me that it's just another brick in the formidable wall showcasing that the entire mishmash is bunk from a cult that survived as a fluke of history. Perhaps that's the worst I can do.

Some days my inner skeptic is in charge of things. Sometimes it is my inner apathy. My inner zealot was strangled long ago, thankfully.

I have pretty much exhausted my inner selves for today. But my inner Santa still has a lot of good Christmas season wishes left for you, which are hereby transmitted.

[Green Monstah]

Is this one better than the Van Wagoner book?

Van Wagoner's wasn't that bad...it just wasn't that good. I read a review and it said it focuses solely on post-manifesto polygamy.

[Moliere]

There were actually three or four manifestos.

"Stop practicing polygamy.."
"We are not kidding, stop practicing polygamy.."
"Seriously, stop practicing polgamy..."
"Stop practicing polygamy or else..."

Part of the problem is that prior to the first manifesto, the church had an official position that everyone should lie about polygamy. There was a secret language or code that people used to try to avoid discovery by federal agents. Furthermore, up until 1852 when BY first admitted publicly that the church was practicing polygamy, there was a section in the D&C explicitly denouncing polygamy (it was quickly removed). So when the manifesto came out, it was natural for everyone to assume that it was some kind of stunt and not official.

I view polygamy a bit different than other changes to ordinances. For one, polygamy was not abandonned as doctrine. It is still in our doctrine and is woven through our scriptures. We still perform polygamous sealings in the temple although they are not technically polygamous marriages since only two of the partcipants are living. Most members believe polygamy will be practiced in the hereafter. In a sense it is only a temporary ban. I don't personally believe this since I have my own thoughts on the matter.

Blacks adn the PH is also not the same given that blacks were ordained to the PH in the days of Joseph Smith (well we know of one at least). THen a ban was put in place and subsequently removed.