Changing ordinances

[LA Ute]

I think that makes you pretty typical.

Hear! Hear!

[pellegrino]

I get that, and I would say I'm mostly over it. This is an example of why the mission thing can be difficult:

A buddy of mine sent me this IM this morning (this friend, we grew up together and about a year ago he and his wife left the church, triggered by their learning about JS's polyandry):

I guess I'm lucky I don't have that issue. The two people that joined the church as a result of my proselytizing efforts have since gone inactive and have no interest in the church. I'm still really good friends with one of them. She fell away before I had any faith crisis and given her situation it made the most sense that she stop going to church, even for me as a TBM.

[Pheidippides]

I think that makes you pretty typical.

I sure hope so. But if that's the case I'm the only guy I know who's honest about it.

[ERCougar]

Wow. That is pretty late.

I didn't find out until well after my mission either. I know plenty of adults who still don't know.

[pellegrino]

I didn't find out until well after my mission either. I know plenty of adults who still don't know.

My parents didn't know until they were both in their 60s.

[LA Ute]

I didn't find out until well after my mission either. I know plenty of adults who still don't know.

I think I first learned about it when one of my uncles, who was a Mason and very anti-LDS, was going on and on about how Brigham Young instituted polygamy. My dad whipped out a book by someone (Joseph Fielding Smith, I think) that was a response to the Reorganized Church's claim that Joseph never practiced polygamy. J.F.S. included numerous affadavits from women who said they were married to Joseph. I must have been around 12. Anyway, we have polygamous ancestors and the practice was part of family lore, so I didn't see it as a big deal at the time. The details about JS's polygamy in Rough Stone Rolling were news to me when I read that about 5 years ago, however. I was pretty surprised (borderline astonished) but still came away from reading that book a stronger believer than ever.

[pellegrino]

I think I first learned about it when one of my uncles, who was a Mason and very anti-LDS, was going on and on about how Brigham Young instituted polygamy. My dad whipped out a book by someone (Joseph Fielding Smith, I think) that was a response to the Reorganized Church's claim that Joseph never practiced polygamy. J.F.S. included numerous affadavits from women who said they were married to Joseph. I must have been around 12. Anyway, we have polygamous ancestors and the practice was part of family lore, so I didn't see it as a big deal at the time. The details about JS's polygamy in Rough Stone Rolling were news to me when I read that about 5 years ago, however. I was pretty surprised (borderline astonished) but still came away from reading that book a stronger believer than ever.

That was when my parents found out about it, in a conversation with me about Rough Stone Rolling.

[CardiacCoug]

Honest question here, at what age do you think church members should be taught this history versus the "whitewashed" or "bunk" version of church history you refer to?

Or, should there not be an age limit at all, should it be woven into the fabric of what is taught/discussed on Sunday at all levels?

Should the Church be honest about its history? Of course it should.

The way the Church officially obfuscates its true history in its publications is shameful.

I remember an investigator on the mission (who eventually became baptized and a Branch President) who told some missionaries that he had heard before that Mormons were racist. This was when the D&C was not available in Russian. The Elders looked at each other and said something like "No, the Church has never been racist. We have no idea where that comes from or why you heard that." Then I opened up the D&C and showed him OD 2 and explained the the Church was in fact officially racist before 1978.

Of course, it's natural for true believer Mormons to follow the example of their Church leaders and lie and obfuscate regarding Church history whenever they feel like it. As our next Prophet BKP says, "Some things that are true are not very useful."

[Jarid in Cedar]

I may be wrong, but this sounds more like the Mormonism that Joseph Smith tried to set up. At some point we got off of the "search for truth" wagon and got onto the "we have all the answers" wagon (speaking generally of course).

The cynic in me says that this is a hammer for use in proselytizing

[UtahDan]

Of course, it's natural for true believer Mormons to follow the example of their Church leaders and lie and obfuscate regarding Church history whenever they feel like it. As our next Prophet BKP says, "Some things that are true are not very useful."

I think we do have an "ends justifies the means" approach to the truth that grows out of underground polygamy. We want our history to be uplifting but a lot of it is shocking. I think that the idea that "it is okay to lie or shade the truth" for the greater good pervades our thinking (when I say our I mean those of us raised in the church) and there is ample support for that idea both in the BOM, the D&C and from modern prophets as you say (BKP or GBH apparently distancing the church from the King Follet sermon on Larry King).

I have come to believe that truth for its own sake is more virtuous than a lie for a purportedly good purpose in most contexts unless we are talking about something not terribly consequential like "do I look fat in these pants." I agree with how J. Ruben Clark summed it up: "If we have the truth, [it] cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed."

[Moliere]

I think we do have an "ends justifies the means" approach to the truth that grows out of underground polygamy. We want our history to be uplifting but a lot of it is shocking. I think that the idea that "it is okay to lie or shade the truth" for the greater good pervades our thinking (when I say our I mean those of us raised in the church) and there is ample support for that idea both in the BOM, the D&C and from modern prophets as you say (BKP or GBH apparently distancing the church from the King Follet sermon on Larry King).

I have come to believe that truth for its own sake is more virtuous than a lie for a purportedly good purpose in most contexts unless we are talking about something not terribly consequential like "do I look fat in these pants." I agree with how J. Ruben Clark summed it up: "If we have the truth, [it] cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed."

Good thoughts. We shouldn't put into our missionary lessons that we were racist and are overcoming that after OD2, but we shouldn't be afraid to discuss the PH ban with the thought that it might have just been a terrible misinterpretation that was finally corrected. This would go a long way in helping people be more comfortable when we do change ordinances or other doctrine. We will then be a church that is still seeking the truth while at the same time having the authority to administer the ordinances of the Gospel.

Our history has many, many warts, but it is a rich history that is should be known and discussed. In many ways coming to know our history has helped my testimony and it has certainly helped my understanding of many of the doctrines.

[Sullyute]

Good thoughts. We shouldn't put into our missionary lessons that we were racist and are overcoming that after OD2, but we shouldn't be afraid to discuss the PH ban with the thought that it might have just been a terrible misinterpretation that was finally corrected. This would go a long way in helping people be more comfortable when we do change ordinances or other doctrine. We will then be a church that is still seeking the truth while at the same time having the authority to administer the ordinances of the Gospel.

Our history has many, many warts, but it is a rich history that is should be known and discussed. In many ways coming to know our history has helped my testimony and it has certainly helped my understanding of many of the doctrines.

I know that this dead horse has been beat to a pulp , but it really would be a benefit if there was a church sanctioned sunday school class that those who wanted to learn and discuss more history and doctrine could. Even if it was just once a month or something. I don't know how long the church can continue to put their head in the sand and let members and investigators fall to the wayside as they learn about this information from non-church sources.

As Eddie states above, learning about the history can strengthen testimonies in many ways. Yes it does lead to more questions and opens the doors to criticizing some prior church leaders decisions and motivations, but I think this is a small price to pay to help the increasing number of members learning and facing these issues in the information age.

[LA Ute]

I know that this dead horse has been beat to a pulp , but it really would be a benefit if there was a church sanctioned sunday school class that those who wanted to learn and discuss more history and doctrine could. Even if it was just once a month or something. I don't know how long the church can continue to put their head in the sand and let members and investigators fall to the wayside as they learn about this information from non-church sources.

As Eddie states above, learning about the history can strengthen testimonies in many ways. Yes it does lead to more questions and opens the doors to criticizing some prior church leaders decisions and motivations, but I think this is a small price to pay to help the increasing number of members learning and facing these issues in the information age.

This worries me.

[CardiacCoug]

I don't know how long the church can continue to put their head in the sand and let members and investigators fall to the wayside as they learn about this information from non-church sources.

As Eddie states above, learning about the history can strengthen testimonies in many ways. Yes it does lead to more questions and opens the doors to criticizing some prior church leaders decisions and motivations, but I think this is a small price to pay to help the increasing number of members learning and facing these issues in the information age.

Good post. I agree.

[Pheidippides]

I wonder how much of the polygamy issue has to do with the fact that we are, as a whole, one of the most prude sexless bunch of Pharisees to ever walk the earth. We have sexual purity drilled into our heads until we're blue in the face - giving rise to absolutely asinine myths/statements like it's better to die than give up your virtue (when speaking of rape - I have many, many problems with this line of thinking, which I have seen a lot), you can't remove garments to have sex, oral sex is absolutely a no-no, contraception is inappropriate, sexual sin is next to murder, how dare you do anything but double date, etc. And that polygamy is an automatic excommunication, just like...well, what else is automatic excommunication these days. And then you find out that, wait a second, Joseph Smith was sexually involved with multiple women. Some of whom may have . (Save me the "but we don't know if he had sex" line; Fanny Alger was kicked out of the Smith home after Emma found them in flagrante delicto in the hay loft). There's a lot of baggage to deal with, right there.

Notwithstanding the fact that I think Mormon attitudes towards sex are changing for the better (sorry PAC and LAUte - your generation sucked in a major way at this, whatever greatness you individually may have), I think this is a huge thing to deal with.