discussing polyandry with the missionaries

[Indy Coug]

How would you propose? I am sincerely interested in your input on this one, Indy. You are clearly a bright dude and when you engage, you put a lot of good info on the table. Play along for a second. IF the Church decided to implement this as official curriculum, how would you see it beign implemented?

I'm not sure I'm bright enough to give a good answer on this yet.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Sorry if you are turning red and getting a little hot about a non issue, I said thanks for clearing up the misconception I had earlier, or did you miss me saying thanks for clearing it up???

Carry on........

Fair enough.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

To the extend that you teach the primary kids about the U&T, then I would agree. I don't see much need to teach 4 year olds about the U&T, though.

I definitely think that this should be taught in seminary, though. The kids should know. What is the big deal about discussing it?

I'm quite positive that discussing the face in the hat thing couldn't be more destructive than the time one of my cemetary teachers talked about dinosaur bones and fossils coming from the remnants of another planet; or the time another teacher started talking about whether Adam had a belly button or not. I also remember how the MP prior to the one I served under would teach the missionaries about how Jesus Christ was really conceived.

Amazingly enough, no one bats an eye when outlandish ideas are taught and some are even presented as doctrine as long as it doesn't impugn on something that the church has previously presented as the truth. Dinosaur bones from another planet? Yes, go right ahead! Joseph Smith put his face in a hat containing seer stones? Apostate!

[TripletDaddy]

Man, if I were four I bet the U&T would sound rad! I loved to imagine owning my own Liahona, and when other kids were playing 'pirates' with sticks in hand, I was secretly wielding the Sword of Laban, with a +2 attack rating against drunk bums passed out in the street.

My kids are going through this right now in Primary. They don't even quite grasp the concept of "translation" of languages right now, let alone methods of translation. Maybe at 6 or 7? I don't know.

I may overthink Church doctrine when it comes to my kids. I want them to understand from the get go that while we blow smoke to them about the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Santa, etc......what we tell them at Church is real. We really believe in the Savior, it isn't make believe. As such, I would rather they know nothing about magic rocks and hats, biblical submarines, people being swallowed by whales, rivers running with pure blood, etc right now.....because in a few years I will just have to de-program them with a less Disney-fied version of these events. They are in the milk stage right now. I am happy with a slow, steady pace for my kids.

Besides, I would rather my kids come home from Primary with the importance of being kind to each other, rather than coming home and telling me that they learned about reformed Egyptian.

[UtahDan]

The trick about teaching about the more "problematic" aspects of church history is what exactly do and don't you include in that curriculum? What is reliable information and what isn't? How do you adequately caveat areas with such considerable gray area?

How do we balance that with an overarching goal of building testimonies?

Does discussing various aspects of LDS history at a high level suffice? If not, how granular does the level of detail need to be?

It's much easier said than done.

This is really and truly not a flip answer, but I would imagine that if the Prophet were to petition the Lord in this regard that an answer might come. Perhaps he has, I just don't know.

[TripletDaddy]

I'm not sure I'm bright enough to give a good answer on this yet.

No worries. If it is any consolation, I am positive I'm not bright enough.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Man, if I were four I bet the U&T would sound rad! I loved to imagine owning my own Liahona, and when other kids were playing 'pirates' with sticks in hand, I was secretly wielding the Sword of Laban, with a +2 attack rating against drunk bums passed out in the street.

It wouldn't sound rad to my 4-5 year olds. I think the only thing they can comprehend is Sponge Bob and for one kid, karate chops. These kids all turned into Rainman when I asked them about ways to communicate with a parent if they were on the other side of the mountain (I was trying to demonstrate the concept of prayer). They thought of incredible ways to get OVER the mountain, but they couldn't get their heads around how to speak or otherwise communciate to someone that wasn't immediately right there. After that, the metaphor was totally useless.

[LA Ute]

Here's an idea, why don't we just change sunday school curriculum a bit so that the idea of a complex (and I would add rich) history is pushed and that church history isn't as black and white as the watered down "Our Heritage" makes it to be. I think it could be very beneficial to have a more open curriculum that openly acknowledged the fallibility of divine messengers vis a vis the importance of the message they bear.

The only reason this is even an issue is because the body of the church is by and large completely ignorant of the historical record. If the church were more forthright in its curriculum then we wouldn't have to worry about young missionaries (or other devout, orthodox members) getting blindsided by these issues.

I am attracted to your logic and your goal, but I the approach you suggest in general would be very difficult to implement. Also, there is room for reasonable disagreement as to how big a problem this really is.

One school of thought is that a relatively very small group of people have serious problems with this, and those cases should be addressed individually. (I tend to favor that approach myself.)

The other school is that everyone in the Church should be taught about these matters in considerable detail so that no one is shocked, rocked, or surprised when they come up. In other words, let this stuff become "old news" to everyone. I must admit, that makes a lot of sense too.

I hate to sound wishy-washy, but maybe the answer lies in the middle. It does appear (see the Joseph Smith papers) that the Church is officially willing to be much more open about these things -- and by "much more open" I mean no longer treating them as taboo subjects. That's progress.

[wuapinmon]

I think he's referring to the part of the country that didn't want to give it up.

Easy falawful. They invaded us.

The church is no more coercive than virtually any significant aspect of our lives is. In fact, in most instances, it's less coercive.

Obey commandments or risk losing the celestial kingdom sounds a lot like guilting someone into doing something which is a gnat's wing away from coercion.

Timing is everything, isn't it.

Aye. T'is indeed.

He did however marry women who had lost their husbands or divorced with dozens of kids who are mostly older than him.But my understanding says it doesnot fall into polyandry category.

So, was David polyandrous because he had Uriah killed? I mean, she was a widow after all. Timing is everything.

Actually, I've decided to adopt a black-and-white thought process. As in, if it's not in black-and-white print in a current official publication, I don't feel obligated to believe it.

A!

I never got any remotely interesting questions like that in Japan. Maybe things would be different, what with Google and all.

In deference to Indy's assertion that he only encountered such questions from people with agendas, I would counter that the internet and google now make these questions very common, and as such, there should be a response that doesn't rely on 19-year-old's supposition.

No, better would be dealing with this issue in Sunday School, seminary and even in The New Era and Ensign magazines. You shouldn't be thrown this curveball in the MTC when you have already committed 2 years of your life to a mission.

This is true. Even the temple ceremony gives you an out.

It seems like a complicated and nuanced issue.

It is. The thought of failing life's test is too much for some people to take, free will not withstanding. Conditioning can limit free will.

I'm a citizen of the US.

I voluntarily associated myself with all of these items.

No, jus soli associated you with this item.

As a Church, we should not hide from our history. We should learn from it.

Excellent post.

I think I agree with your implicit agreement with my agreement. I also agree with DDD. In short, I am in an agreeable mood.

Now you're just trying to piss off Lingo.

The only reason this is even an issue is because the body of the church is by and large completely ignorant of the historical record. If the church were more forthright in its curriculum then we wouldn't have to worry about young missionaries (or other devout, orthodox members) getting blindsided by these issues.

I think the ignorance of the body of the Church makes this not seem like an issue to the Brethren because it doesn't come up in meetings. Nothing like what we're discussing here filters up. I doubt that these things even trouble the Q12 or FP because they're insulated from them.

Man, if I were four I bet the U&T would sound rad! I loved to imagine owning my own Liahona, and when other kids were playing 'pirates' with sticks in hand, I was secretly wielding the Sword of Laban, with a +2 attack rating against drunk bums passed out in the street.

I've got a Dungeon Master's Guide. I've got a 12-sided die. I've got, Kitty Pryde, and Nightcrawler too. Waiting there for me, yes I do. I ♥ Finderson.

It wouldn't sound rad to my 4-5 year olds. I think the only thing they can comprehend is Sponge Bob and for one kid, karate chops. These kids all turned into Rainman when I asked them about ways to communicate with a parent if they were on the other side of the mountain (I was trying to demonstrate the concept of prayer). They thought of incredible ways to get OVER the mountain, but they couldn't get their heads around how to speak or otherwise communciate to someone that wasn't immediately right there. After that, the metaphor was totally useless.

Do you let your derision for the kids show when you're teaching them?

[pellegrino]

I think the ignorance of the body of the Church makes this not seem like an issue to the Brethren because it doesn't come up in meetings. Nothing like what we're discussing here filters up. I doubt that these things even trouble the Q12 or FP because they're insulated from them.

There's a lawyer living in southern Alberta who was excommunicated for discussing these kinds of issues with other members in informal study groups. He published (on the internet) his correspondence with Elder Holland, that is he published his side of the correspondence because Elder Holland requested that his letters be kept private as they were intended as such, not a public letter that could be interpreted by all. There were two or three letters, both of them pretty long (50 plus pages) and they touched on many topics. All of them were written in 2005 or so. I'm sure somebody here besides me has come across them before.

Now the obvious question is did the guy make it up and say that Holland responded? After all, there is no direct evidence that Holland did respond, just an ex-mormon's word (adjust those sarcasm sensors) I tend to believe him, as the tone of the letters was very respectful. Imagine LA Ute's personality disagreeing with Holland and you have the author's tone.

I guess my point is that I think the bretheren are aware of these issues and I'm sure they have received many letters about them. The question is how do we interpret their silence about them? Are they silently taking Indy's position or are they sincerely working to change things but can't because it takes time to convince others? It's difficult to change the course of a stone rolling down hill.

[Rosebud]

You are pissing off Helen Reddy with your constant helpless women schtick.

I suggest you go invest in a Joan Baez CD. Maybe even some Spice Girls, as well. Rent Annie Hall, start dressing like Diane Keaton, and go out and take whatever it is that seems to be eluding you in life.

Return and report.

Why is it that you always make me smile DDD? You're turning out to be one of my favorite posters.

Since you made the mistake of bringing up Helen Reddy, I can't help but take this opportunity to quote some of the lyrics to "I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar." To me, her song is about escaping coercion and therefore finding personal control, power and hopefully (added just for Indy) personal accountability.

I am woman, hear me roar
In numbers too big to ignore
And I know too much to go back an' pretend
'Cause I've heard it all before
And I've been down there on the floor
No one's ever gonna keep me down again

Oh yes, I am wise
But it's wisdom born of pain
Yes, I've paid the price
But look how much I gained
If I have to
I can do anything
I am strong (strong)
I am invincible (invincible)
I am woman

You can bend but never break me
'Cause it only serves to make me
More determined to achieve my final goal
And I come back even stronger
Not a novice any longer
'Cause you've deepened the conviction in my soul

Why is it that white men have such a hard time comprehending coercion? My answer: many of you don't have the "wisdom born of pain," or enough experience with time "down there on the floor." Correct me if I'm wrong. I can tell that my feeble attempt to increase your awareness of another perspective only resulted in a tad bit of defensiveness... any confessions forthcoming?

And do I really strike you as a whiny, weak woman or was it just more fun to twist my words than to try to understand them?

Return and Report. Feel free to be as mean as you'd like.

Wow. Women, children, minorites, and poor people are all more susceptible to being coerced into things. I might be missing what you are saying but it sounds like you are saying these groups all are being "coerced" by the group that is notably absent from your list. Your racist and sexist assumptions are unbecoming. I'm surprised you actually believe that women and minorities are mentally weaker then white men.

ROTFL... when I turned the tables in the Release Time Seminary thread and talked about how teenage boys were hurt, you white men took it upon yourselves to accuse me of being one of you. Give it up... I'm a woman who loves men -- shoot me. If I didn't like you I wouldn't be posting here. Nice try though...

[marsupial]

This is really and truly not a flip answer, but I would imagine that if the Prophet were to petition the Lord in this regard that an answer might come. Perhaps he has, I just don't know.

I have been thinking this thought as well.

[Indy Coug]

I guess my point is that I think the bretheren are aware of these issues and I'm sure they have received many letters about them. The question is how do we interpret their silence about them? Are they silently taking Indy's position or are they sincerely working to change things but can't because it takes time to convince others? It's difficult to change the course of a stone rolling down hill.

I'm sorry, but could you state what my position is?

[Indy Coug]

No, jus soli associated you with this item.

That could be remedied.

[pellegrino]

I'm sorry, but could you state what my position is?

Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

The trick about teaching about the more "problematic" aspects of church history is what exactly do and don't you include in that curriculum? What is reliable information and what isn't? How do you adequately caveat areas with such considerable gray area?

How do we balance that with an overarching goal of building testimonies?

Does discussing various aspects of LDS history at a high level suffice? If not, how granular does the level of detail need to be?

It's much easier said than done.