Church begins inoculation efforts on historical issues

[Donuthole]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpete...his-stuff.html

DP and JL seeing eye to eye, for once.

[Moliere]

As always, MWS is there to help those with these 5 common concerns about JS polygamy (it's interesting that none of the concerns addressed are around 14 year old wives and polyandry and I also got a kick out of concern #5 ):

http://www.mormonwomenstand.com/comm...-smith-church/

I thought this was some good logic:

Criticizing the Church for not publishing every detail of its history is like criticizing the federal government for not publishing more American History text books. It is just not its job. Other people and organizations fulfill that role. And that’s OK.

Here's some more great lessons....this one could even be adapted for use in a YW class lesson on Sunday:

Imagine that my daughter walks into the kitchen and sees me drinking orange juice. She is visibly shocked and disgusted and says, “Mom, I’m so disappointed in you. I can’t believe you would drink orange juice. I thought you were better than that.” Should my proper response be, “Sweetie, I’m not a perfect person, and I make mistakes, so you can’t expect your mother to be flawless”? Of course not! The problem is not that my daughter thinks I’m perfect; the problem is that my daughter thinks that drinking orange juice is a moral weakness. So my response should be to help her understand that it’s OK to drink orange juice, not to convince her to be OK with my “imperfection.”

Likewise, if a person is bothered that a prophet could make such a big mistake like practicing polygamy, the remedy is not teaching that prophets can make mistakes (although it’s fine to acknowledge that); it’s to show that polygamy itself is not a mistake. We believe the Lord commanded it, and Joseph followed the Lord’s command. So how Joseph Smith has been presented to someone will not help their concerns. But how polygamy is presented—as a commandment Joseph was following—can resolve their concerns.

[TripletDaddy]

Interesting blog entry. They seem really on top of the issues

we don’t need to know all the details of our latter-day history to know that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s restored church on the earth that has consistently been led by prophets of God, beginning with Joseph Smith and continuing to the present day with President Gordon B. Hinckley.

[fusnik]

My wife said the RS lesson today was on prayer (I didn't go to church today FTR) and a sister said she's been praying non stop to help her overcome her doubts in light of the recent polygamy stuff.

Wife said another sister asked what she was talking about, discussion devolved, apparently it was brought up in SS as well, teacher reigned in the discussion.

Live in an upper middle class ward.

[Moliere]

Interesting blog entry. They seem really on top of the issues

I really love reading MWS. Not only is it amateurish, but it's crazy orthodox as well. The FB responses are even better than the articles.

[Uncle Ted]

I thought this was some good logic:

Criticizing the Church for not publishing every detail of its history is like criticizing the federal government for not publishing more American History text books. It is just not its job. Other people and organizations fulfill that role. And that’s OK.

I don't follow the logic and think is a poor comparison. For example, if I wanted to write an American History book I could walk into the Library of Congress to get access to most of its volumes and make requests under the Freedom of Information Act for additional information. If I wanted to write a Church History book can I walk into the Church's archives and how do I get access to the 1987 financial records of the church, for example? It is hard to write an history book when the source information is not public.

[Moliere]

I don't follow the logic and think is a poor comparison. For example, if I wanted to write an American History book I could walk into the Library of Congress to get access to most of its volumes and make requests under the Freedom of Information Act for additional information. If I wanted to write a Church History book can I walk into the Church's archives and how do I get access to the 1987 financial records of the church, for example? It is hard to write an history book when the source information is not public.

You clearly don't sustain the prophet 100%!!

[ewth8tr]

I don't follow the logic and think is a poor comparison. For example, if I wanted to write an American History book I could walk into the Library of Congress to get access to most of its volumes and make requests under the Freedom of Information Act for additional information. If I wanted to write a Church History book can I walk into the Church's archives and how do I get access to the 1987 financial records of the church, for example? It is hard to write an history book when the source information is not public.

It would be a much better comparison if the government took away the citizenship and deported people who wrote history books that exposed facts they didn't want out.

[Jeff Lebowski]

DP and JL seeing eye to eye, for once.

Oh man. That is cold.

[cowboy]

Hmm... I am not sure how that is a disagreement with my post. Either way, I agree.

Yes, the church has not been forthcoming about the seedy underbelly of polygamy. And I agree with her that the bigger issue is that we need to get to the point where we are willing to say "we were wrong" rather than trying to come up with these crazy apologetic explanations for this stuff. Baby steps, I guess.

Even though it's been a while, I can't seem to stop thinking about this. What do you want us to say we were wrong about? I agree that apologetic explanations are a bad idea, btw.

[TripletDaddy]

Even though it's been a while, I can't seem to stop thinking about this. What do you want us to say we were wrong about? I agree that apologetic explanations are a bad idea, btw.

I think you correctly identify the final entrenchment on this issue. It is shrewdly being framed as such across most apologetic or supportive blogs and articles. The last stance before acknowledging that polygamy itself was basically a mistake and not of God is to hope that, while loathsome, it really was a commandment. I suppose some people have a testimony that polygamy was a commandment and therefore not a mistake, but if so I've never heard anyone share such. The best I've heard is "I wasn't there, I don't know."

This is a similar pattern that we saw with the race/priesthood issue until finally the Church just admitted that it was never really from God. I think we will eventually see that and this is the first step.

polygamy is a little more so messy given that we still practice it.

other things the church could possibly acknowledge would be lying about practicing it back in the nauvoo days and also that high ranking leaders kept practicing it long after the church told everyone to cut it out. I guess that could have also been under commandment from God, as well. I honestly don't know.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Even though it's been a while, I can't seem to stop thinking about this. What do you want us to say we were wrong about? I agree that apologetic explanations are a bad idea, btw.

I would be in favor of dumping the entire defense of polygamy as divinely guided. But if we can't go that far (yet), we should at least stop coming up with these tortured explanations for polyandry (non-sexual for the most part, time only, etc.) and "almost 15-yr-old" girls as plural wives. Or this silly "Law of Sarah" stuff to get around the fact that JS went completely against his wife's wishes. We can't seem to be able to say "Whoops, screwed up on that one" so we come up with crappy apologetics that probably do more damage than good in the long run. We seem to be increasingly willing to admit that mistakes were made when talking about our history in a general sense (see DFU talk in April 2014), but still quite reluctant to admit specifically where those mistakes were made.

(also, ditto to what DDD posted)

[fusnik]

Could you imagine if the church admitted that polygamy was a mistake?

How could anyone with a brain stay at that point? Church admitting the chosen anointed Man was a corrupt pedophile/philanderer.

NFW.

Our transition to a Protestant church would be complete!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Could you imagine if the church admitted that polygamy was a mistake?

How could anyone with a brain stay at that point? Church admitting the chosen anointed Man was a corrupt pedophile/philanderer.

NFW.

Our transition to a Protestant church would be complete!

Ha. Maybe. Sort of.

But once the cat is out of the bag, which is more distasteful? Admitting it was wrong, or coming up with tortured justifications? I would prefer the former. To put it another way, is the current approach sustainable in the long run?

Here is a nice essay by Gina Colvin on the matter:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimor...rmon-polygamy/

A couple of excerpts:

There hasn’t been once in my 39 years of being a Mormon that I have ever had the slightest modicum of spiritual feeling for the practice – other than abhorrence. So there is absolutely nothing the church can say, whether through essays, declarations or apologetics that will sway me on the matter. I see it as little other than a form of spiritual abuse to maintain a discourse of high transcendent religious motivation around the character of Joseph Smith when he was, at least in this respect, a womanizing, seducing, Lothario who coopted God in order validate his particular feminine tastes. So LDS.org doesn’t get a pass from me for their unpunctual candor. Good on them for finally broaching a tricky topic and publically admitting Joseph’s theological inventiveness that shaped several generations of Mormon discourse, but it doesn’t go far enough. Perhaps its time to drop the ‘righteous polygamy’ story entirely; along with everything else that has adhered to it over the years.

I don’t have a testimony of flaming swords; angels commanding the practice; novel revelations, (Section 132). Nor do I believe in the divinity of these strange dalliances and couplings. This is not to say that I have dismissed Joseph entirely. He was a cad, but he was a mad and bold visionary who was as audacious as he was quixotic. I would have loved Joseph the Prophet. I would have sat at his feet and soaked in his emergent and brilliant theology; I would have been loyal to him; I would have followed him and believed in his vision of the heavens and my eternal potential.
But if Joseph had come a sniffing around my daughter I would have kicked him in the nuts and sent him home to his wife.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I would be in favor of dumping the entire defense of polygamy as divinely guided. But if we can't go that far (yet), we should at least stop coming up with these tortured explanations for polyandry (non-sexual for the most part, time only, etc.) and "almost 15-yr-old" girls as plural wives. Or this silly "Law of Sarah" stuff to get around the fact that JS went completely against his wife's wishes. We can't seem to be able to say "Whoops, screwed up on that one" so we come up with crappy apologetics that probably do more damage than good in the long run. We seem to be increasingly willing to admit that mistakes were made when talking about our history in a general sense (see DFU talk in April 2014), but still quite reluctant to admit specifically where those mistakes were made.

(also, ditto to what DDD posted)

Another thought to follow this up:

Consider the priesthood ban as a similar conundrum. BY launched the ban. By 1950, we had a FP statement officially calling it doctrine and coming up with the "unfaithful in the pre-existence" line of apologetics to explain why an entire race was condemned based on the actions of an ancestor (Cain) when we believe that "all men will be punished for their own sins". All sorts of explanations and defenses were given over the next three decades. In 1978, the ban was reversed, but it was widely described as a revelation and explained as God changing his mind. Then we conveniently forgot about all of those prior explanations and said that "We don't know why God did this, but we are so happy for this revelation". This happened as recently as 2007 when Elder Holland was interviewed for the PBS series. Then in the next few years we started hearing more and more official directives from SLC to stop promoting "unfortunate folklore" such as the curse of Cain and unfaithful-in-the-preexistence concept. And finally in 2013 (2014?) we get the priesthood ban essay admitting it was all a sad mistake.

In other words, we came up with some crazy, tortured explanations for something that was wrong. We blamed God for our sins. Getting to the point where we address things more honestly is painful, but possible. We can do this with polygamy too.