NY Times Article on Dissaffected Swedish Area Authority

[jay santos]

What about racist teachings including in the Book of Mormon and cluelessness re our country's unique and special role re social progress and the immorality of opposing and having opposed such social progress? To me those are the issues that ought to matter most, particularly to those progmos who are comfortable being part of the LDS Church in their unbelieving skin.

Nobody is giving a shit (at least right now in this thread) about your judgment of LDS morality from a secular perspective. The discussion is about belief.

[SeattleUte]

Nobody is giving a shit (at least right now in this thread) about your judgment of LDS morality from a secular perspective. The discussion is about belief.

I may not be as eloquent or profound as South Park, but I'm just trying to help.

[SeattleUte]

Interesting that you think those are, or should be our national priorities, SU: it's a fairly comfortable bourgeois position to take that is unlikely to ruffle many feathers among the educated class. While I think that racism and issues of "social progress" (under some definition) are indeed issues that merit our attention, I'm much more interested in economic stratification, which, perhaps not coincidentally, is one of the primary concerns of the BoM and certainly more important a theme in the text than race.

"under some definition"?! Wow. I'm speechless.

[wuapinmon]

Is this not a gate that swings both ways?

Yes, absolutely. I don't think you can find a post wherein I mock anyone for their religious beliefs or lack thereof. I might mock my own, but never anyone else's. If I have done so, please show me where so I can apologize.

[Harry Tic]

"under some definition"?! Wow. I'm speechless.

I'll believe it when I see it.

It was actually a polite way of saying, "I don't know what the hell you're talking about but I'll give you the benefit of a doubt." If you're talking about gay rights, just say it. But "social progress" is such a wishy-washy phrase I don't know what to make of it.

[Paperback Writer]

I think you're wrong. What you say could just as easily be said about the wives of Warren Jeffs. Consider that for a moment.

Religious manipulation by a prophet practically equals force. You're disregarding the facts.

Having sex with a minor is rape by the modern legal definition, and I think there is good reason for this. Things are too unequal for it to be truly consensual even if you think the girl supposedly consented.

Parents were giving these young girls to Joseph. Think of the pressure they felt.

Read about their lives: http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

May I suggest starting with Helen Mar Kimball: http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/26...MarKimball.htm

My post was dealing with polygamy in general and in Utah Territory. I'm not defending JS's polygamy/polyandry. And I'm not denying that religous manipulation occurred. What I fear is being done is extrapolating and painting with too broad a brush. You also apply "modern legal definitions" to the Utah frontier that were not in place at the time. While I agree with modern legal standards, there was not the same stigma attached to woman marrying young today as there was 150 years ago. Just as there is now a stigma and laws to bar first cousins from marrying, such was not the case 150 years ago. Back then, many condsidered it OK, even "normal".

With that in mind, I think the facts are on my side, as stated in my earlier post, with regard to polygamy in Utah Territory. Women entered polygamy for a variety of reasons. Some were widows and it was common for surviving brothers and nephews to marry the wives of the deceased. Others were older woman who entered polygamy because it was their only chance to marry. Young woman entered polygamy because it alleviated risks of not being provided for, being married to someone who would remain active in the church, or gave them greater standing in the community. And yes, other young women were compelled to marry young but did so to please their parents because it was a marriage into a prominent Mormon family or because the husband had a good reputation even though he was 20 years older than the YW and had other wives. All appear to have accepted polygamy as a commandment.

I appreciate the cited references but have already read them and am very well read on this subject. I also have a number of references from my own ancestors who most likely joined the church about the time yours did or perhpas earlier. Again, I think the misunderstaning was taking my comments about polygamy in Utah Territory and the reasons why woman may have entered into polygamy then and applying them to Joseph Smith's polygamy. Perhaps this wasn't the best thread to make my points. Nevertheless, I think part of the problem with this discussion is that some take polygamy in Utah and apply it to Joseph Smith (he married widows, etc) and others take Joseph Smith's polygamy (secret marriages to compelled teens) and apply it to Utah polygamy.

[Northwestcoug]

MG asks a very interesting question. Why should some uncomfortable historical detail about JS trump one's testimony of the BoM? If the BoM is what it claims to be, any biographical details about JS would appear to be irrelevant. While I think the reasoning is sound, I don't think it captures how testimonies actually work as an empirical matter. Testimonies generally involve buying into a narrative of some sort, a cluster of claims about JS, the First Vision, the BoM, and so on, that coalesce into a story which we tell ourselves and tell others. The story as a whole is edifying and faith-promoting. A robust faith narrative can accommodate a few anomalies here and there--they can be explained away as long as the big picture is left intact. To borrow an analogy popular in sports, we tend to evaluate JS's "body of work" and either find it inspired or not. A strong body of work does not imply perfection.

But when the number of anomalies grows and reaches critical mass (this is apparently what precipitated the crisis among Swedish members), we come to realize that there are other possible narratives in which the uncomfortable historical details are not a bug, but a feature. In these narratives, JS becomes a charlatan, or a dirty old man (well, young), or a delusional type, or whatever. Once the narrative is flipped, even details that once appeared innocuous or immaterial (JS's money-digging past) come to appear sinister and foreboding.

I tend to think that it's possible to reclaim a more robust and inspiring version of Joseph Smith and, oddly enough, I have tended to find non-Mormon authors writing about JS more interesting than Mormon ones (Harold Bloom, Simon Critchley).

I think this is important. I had a testimony of the truthfulness of the BOM, and of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. But this did not occur in a vacuum. It was built up with years of supportive teachings and constant reinforcement in church and in home. A little doubt here and there was tolerated (i.e. polygamy, racist teachings, etc.), so long as it didn't damage any of the 'scaffolding' that was holding up the testimony. So when I found out (for me) that the constant reinforcement wasn't enough to maintain my testimony, I realized how weak it was. I was really shocked that all my life's work was built on something that was so feeble (again, just talking about me).

re: why JS polygamy sketchiness could cause loss of testimony

I agree with MG's point here with a caveat. I think if the only difficult historical issue for Mormonism was polygamy, it would be a lot lot easier. It's really messed up. But if everything else was rock solid, I don't think it would cause too much of a problem. But when Elders Jensen and Turley show up in Sweden they're facing a lot of questions not just polygamy.

The toughest issues for Mormonism are: Book of Abraham, BOM translations/peepstone/treasure seeking, lack of BOM historical evidence, and the changing nature and conflicting accounts of the First Vision and other angelic visitations. Polygamy's the most well known of any of these issues, and if someone gets tripped up on polygamy, it might open the door to look at non-approved sources to evaluate these other issues.

Re: the Book of Abraham. I might add the ridiculousness of keeping the fascimiles in the official canon, as if they were divinely inspired. It's as if the church doesn't want to admit a clear error in Joseph Smith. It's insulting, really.

[SoCalCoug]

Re: the Book of Abraham. I might add the ridiculousness of keeping the fascimiles in the official canon, as if they were divinely inspired. It's as if the church doesn't want to admit a clear error in Joseph Smith. It's insulting, really.

The one that gets me is that the figure JS identifies as God is actually identified by modern Egyptologists to be the Egyptian god of fertility, sitting with an erection.

[Harry Tic]

Re: the Book of Abraham. I might add the ridiculousness of keeping the fascimiles in the official canon, as if they were divinely inspired. It's as if the church doesn't want to admit a clear error in Joseph Smith. It's insulting, really.

I hope they never get rid of the facsimiles. As a kid, they got me through many a long sacrament meeting.

The one that gets me is that the figure JS identifies as God is actually identified by modern Egyptologists to be the Egyptian god of fertility, sitting with an erection.

You see? The scriptures are cool and there's always something to be learned from them.

[Uncle Ted]

The one that gets me is that the figure JS identifies as God is actually identified by modern Egyptologists to be the Egyptian god of fertility, sitting with an erection.

Sounds about right... God did have a lot of children.

[Jeff Lebowski]

What's shocking is how yall're are shocked by why people leave the Church. Come off it already about judging their reasons. Each convert comes to the Church with their own reasons for believing; some part of the narrative attracts them to the ideas and they register with them. When they encounter something that subverts the wholesomeness or the logic of the history or some unknown aspect of a person's behavior that they would find deplorable in anyone else, it can cause a rift.

All this self-righteous bullshit I'm reading in this thread is a bunch of fucking poppycock. You find out shit that you thought wasn't so about something and it makes you lose faith in it. My wife walks on water, but if I find out she's going down on the neighbor kid, I'm not going to just say, "well, I made a commitment to her years ago, might as well keep giving her my best years."

Listen, if you are going to drop f-bombs and call people out like this, please be a little more specific and quote a few examples of what you referencing. Otherwise it is passive aggressive bullshit and you know how much I hate passive aggression.

[Northwestcoug]

I hope they never get rid of the facsimiles. As a kid, they got me through many a long sacrament meeting.

Maybe they can publish them as a fun Friend article and have kids point out all the errors in them...

I know that was TIC, but at what point will the church stop publishing them? Or at least have a disclaimer on them? If there wasn't an impetus for them to do it with the most recent edition, will they ever do it?
It's insulting to my intelligence and previous faith in them that they are still in the scriptures. In effect, the church is telling members, 'who are you going to believe? Us or your lying eyes?'

[Indy Coug]

Listen, if you are going to drop f-bombs and call people out like this, please be a little more specific and quote a few examples of what you referencing. Otherwise it is passive aggressive bullshit and you know how much I hate passive aggression.

He was talking about me. Let's move on.

[Joe Public]

Maybe they can publish them as a fun Friend article and have kids point out all the errors in them...

I know that was TIC, but at what point will the church stop publishing them? Or at least have a disclaimer on them? If there wasn't an impetus for them to do it with the most recent edition, will they ever do it?
It's insulting to my intelligence and previous faith in them that they are still in the scriptures. In effect, the church is telling members, 'who are you going to believe? Us or your lying eyes?'

My speculation:

There is a history of BKP and others pointing to the LDS canon as the sole credible source of LDS theology. This allows a response to the priesthood ban, Adam/God doctrine, Quakers on the moon, blood atonement, etc. that incorporates both fallibility of leaders and correctness of canonical revelations/doctrines. I know this doesn't square with the "keep your conference issue of the Ensign with your scriptures" line of thinking, but that's a different discussion.

Because of that, I can see current top leadership being hesitant to start changing the canon as well in a substantive way. This is much different than claiming to correct some typographical/printing errors. If the current canon is also shown to be incorrect/erroneous, then the canon-as-doctrinal-standard response is significantly weakened.

That being said, there is obviously a history of removing parts of the LDS canon (e.g. Lectures on Faith). If it were removed, I think a lot of church members would be fine with a vote to remove it from official canon due to the precedent and the willingness to accept whatever explanation is given at face value.

[wuapinmon]

Listen, if you are going to drop f-bombs and call people out like this, please be a little more specific and quote a few examples of what you referencing. Otherwise it is passive aggressive bullshit and you know how much I hate passive aggression.

So if I understand everyone correctly JS poligamy not being taught in Primary is the reason why the Church is a fraud?

But we're talking 2013 (or somewhere thereabouts), not 1998.

Personally I don't remember the exact moment when I found out -- not sure why I would, as I don't know why it would be so alarming on its face. I do know that it was prior to my mission and I heard it in church. Also heard about shit like Adam-God, blood atonement, etc., but it could just be that the EQ in my ward was kind of bonkers.

Err...I just separated this out in the last post. But to reiterate, there is a difference between simply finding out Joseph practiced polygamy and then finding out all the sordid little details. I'm talking about the former, not the latter. At whatever moment I found out Joseph had also engaged in polygamy, it just wouldn't have been that alarming. Brigham had, other early church leaders had, it just kind of made sense that Joseph would have as well.

Late to the party and kind of skimmed some of the posts, so excuse me if this has been answered.

I have never understood why it was OK for BY to have practiced polygamy, but not JS. Why on earth is it so shocking to discover that JS introduced the practice?

(FTR, I can't recall ever not knowing that JS was involved in polygamy)

I share your puzzlement. I don't know when I learned about JS's polygamy (Fanny Alger is a relative so perhaps I learned sooner than many, but who knows?), but I'm quite sure it was a "so what?" moment when I did for the reason you cite. I've disliked the concept of polygamy from the start; who commenced the practice never mattered to me.

I can certainly understand (and relate to) being disturbed by encountering the unsavory details associated with the origins of polygamy. But that's a different issue than BY vs JS originating the practice. Both are prophets, right? I hear stories all the time of people being shocked to discover that polygamy originated with JS, independent of these other factors. I still don't get that.

It's shocking to me people leave the LDS church for such reasons. It's like, "Well if he had not molested 14 year old girls I could have believed he translated the Book of Mormon from a gold book shown him by an angel."

You know, I had this same thought as I mulled over this thread while running home from work tonight. I was kind of wondering why certain facts make people lose/question their testimony/belief/faith. If facts made you crumble, what made you believe in the first place? There is no factual reason to believe in the church -- most of its seems preposterous if that's the only way you're going to look at it. And I basically had the exact some thought you just outlined here -- people would have believed a guy who said he translated scriptures from golden plates that he couldn't produce and claimed visitations from God and angels, but now because of marriage to teenagers he's no longer what he claimed? I'm interested in this.

Especially the last two. There were so many that I figured quoting them all would be unnecessary.