Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Just remember that StayLDS.ORG is an anti-Mormon site by a cyber-squatter. Hopefully nobody gets .COM confused with .ORG, but I know that has happened, especially at first. Beefster, she will drink Coke for migraines. She just feels mildly guilty for it. I wanted to post a pic of the piercing to make sure you understand what it is. When I did a google search, Snopes came up and said it was “unproven.” See
http://www.snopes.com/daith-piercing-migraines/ 
[img]http://static.snopes.com/app/uploads/2015/11/daith-piercing-migraines.jpg [/img] Yes my wife still has never had her ears pierced. I told her this is medical, and if it were me I wouldn’t hesitate.
She did got to an AIRROSTI doctor in Texas this week. She said she felt a migraine coming, but it hasn’t come on (so far.) It’s tentative good news. The Texas guy said he trained a Utah guy, but for trademark reasons, the Utah guy can’t call it AIRROSTI, but supposedly this Utah guy knows how to do it. She can’t get in until next Thursday.
I just do other stuff when conference is on, like blog, check Facebook, write a post on something that the speaker said that bugs me….. Sometimes I do family history, but mostly try not to pay too much attention so I don’t get upset. Often I hear laughter and realize I missed the joke, but no matter. We had a regional conference and I brought a book to read, “A Reason for Faith” by Laura Hales, so it was kind of spiritual, but much better than listening to these guys drone on about the same stuff over, and over, and over….. (I enjoyed Richard Bushman’s essay on JS and magic, not so much with Brant Gardner on the BoM though.) Roy, I can’t speak to what happened at Winter Quarters, because I haven’t heard that specific situation, but certainly having babies was a big part of 19th century Mormonism. I heard of a story that may answer some of your questions. Several years back I blogged about a strange case of a couple who had two children, then joined the LDS Church, but the husband had some sort of accident so he could no longer father children. It’s a strange story because it indicates how disposable some Mormons thought marriage was. Many counseled the woman to divorce him and get another husband so she could have more children because this could affect her exaltation. (seriously?!?!?!) The couple decided to ask Brigham Young what he thought they should do.
Quote:Writing to Brigham Young for advice, she expressed her desire to remain with her husband if that course would not hinder her eternal reward. In a letter dated March 5, 1857, Young proposed a novel solution, one of the few possible in that age before the advent of modern reproductive medicine: “If I was imperfect and had a good wife I would call on some good bror. to help me that we might have increase, that a man [her husband] of this character will have a place in the Temple, receive his endowments and in eternity will be as tho nothing had happened to him in time.”76 According to Young, her husband’s sterility would not bar him from the most important temple ordinances, and his eternal reward would not be adversely affected. As for having additional children, Mary Ann could be married in a civil ceremony to another man who would father her children. By being sealed for eternity to Edmund, Mary Ann as well as all her children, would belong to him.
The couple eventually accepted the plan, but only reluctantly. Edmund and Mary Ann were sealed for eternity on April 20, 1857, but only after the “each had seen a vision” did they accept President Young’s unusual suggestion. After they accepted the plan, he gave them a paper listing three polygamous men he considered worthy to participate. They chose Frederick Cox. He, too, at first refused to participate in the plan but also became convinced that “the plan was divinely inspired.” One of the sons of this union later wrote of his birth: “It took three visions and a religion to reconcile others to my coming.”77 On January 9, 1858, Brigham Young celebrated the marriage of Mary Ann Darrow Richardson and Frederick Cox in a religious ceremony that did not seal the couple. From this union, two sons were born: Charles on October 13, 1858, and Sullivan on January 26, 1861.
Family legend indicates that Brigham Young granted the Richardsons a temporary separation or a civil divorce and that Edmund lived some distance from Manti during his wife’s second marriage. He may have spent some time away, but one year after the first son was born, he returned and took his wife to be sealed again for eternity in the Endowment House. Moreover, as indicated on the 1860 Manti census, he was again reunited with his wife about eight months before the second son was born.79
Not long thereafter the Richardsons moved to another town. For about twenty years Cox did not see his sons. When he did, he shook their hands heartily, looked at them and listened to them unceasingly during their visit, but never mentioned the relationship between them.80
So, it seems to me that Brigham Young would have been very liberal in modern reproductive techniques like artificial insemination, cloning, stem cell research, surrogate motherhood, and many of the current technologies we have available today. Even after I read this story of the Richardsons, I shake my head in amazement at some of the Saints early practices. If you want to read the whole post, see
https://mormonheretic.org/2009/11/08/surrogate-parenthoodtypes-of-polygamist-marriages-daynes-part-3/ I like options a, c, d. I’ve been known to sit on my tablet during PH meeting and pretty much ignore the lesson completely. I’m there in body, not in spirit. Instead I do genealogy. For some reason, a certain member of the stake presidency (and a distant relative), gets invited to speak to our quorum every few months. He drives me a little nuts, and so if I see him at church, I just sit in the hall on my tablet and do genealogy instead. Nobody ever wonders why I am in the hall.
I really like the idea of one on one training, and if that is your calling, you ought to consider doing it regardless of whether the lessons are boring.
I love your idea of feedback. Maybe I’ll suggest it to quorum leaders. I used to complain about boring church, but found I like it much better than the alternative:
https://mormonheretic.org/2017/05/04/being-grateful-for-boring-church/ I was a Webelos leader for about 3 years. We helped get lots of boys their Arrow of Light. But I got one especially rambunctious group of boys, and I was frankly tired of the calling. I went to my bishop and told him that I was tired of the calling, yelling at the boys to be quiet, and it wasn’t fun for them or for me. (To be honest, this group of boys went through several leaders before me too.) Bishop was very cool with me, released me fairly quickly, and put me in as a family history consultant. I’ve been in bliss ever since. I don’t have to sit through Sunday School lessons, and instead either help people with their family history or work on my own. Really, it is bliss. I don’t know if you enjoy family history, but we literally have no lesson every week. I bring my laptop, and either work on my own or help someone else do family history. I really believe it is an under-rated calling. Maybe you could just tell him you’re burned out of your current calling, need a break, and would like to help others do some genealogy. It’s really one of my favorite callings ever!
I’m generally not a fan of Bednar, but last year I was asked to give a talk on one of his talks. (This is the worst idea in the history of mankind, talks about talks!) I haven’t read the talk you asked about, but here’s how I approached my talk. I read the talk and looked for something I could agree with. In my case, Bednar talked about the vision of Elijah. I noted that “Bednar skips some very important events as he jumps from 1823 to 1836 and I thought it would be good to fill in some details.” So the rest of my talk, I talked about what I wanted to talk about. Then at the very end, I tried to tie it back to Bednar so I could legitimately say I started and ended with Bednar’s talk, but the middle was all mine! I posted my talk on my blog. See https://mormonheretic.org/2016/07/11/doctrinal-history-of-vicarious-work/ The bishop came up to me after the talk and said, “Wow, I really learned a lot from that talk!” (Which if I had regurgitated Bednar’s talk, I doubt he would have said that.) It worked out VERY well, proving that sometimes you can make lemonade out of lemons.
I attended a train wreck of a session. It’s the kind of session that gives Sunstone a bad name. Lindsay Hansen Park told how she met this stripper at a strip club in Arizona and had a spiritual experience. (Lindsay even cried at the microphone!) The stripper is a Gospel Principles teacher, and fully “out” in her ward. Her basic attitude was “Don’t judge me because I am a stripper, you hypo-christian.”
I mean yeah, she’s lived a tough life, former meth user, 2 miscarriages, been to jail, knows she makes bad decisions, started stripping to pay the rent, has been abused by boyfriends, broken noses and limbs, yada, yada. She obviously isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed. I loved it when people asked philosophical questions about body image, and she clearly didn’t understand the question. “Could you rephrase?”
She did quote AoF, D&C, is a descendant of Lyman Wight. Yes we are judging her, but I think Jesus would say, “go and sin no more.” It floored me when she is not at all repentant about her job (compared it to people who work at casinos) but then said she was trying to get a temple recommend. She knows church is a place for sinners, but unrepentant sinners? Good question. She thinks God wants her to be stripper and go to church. Hmmm. She’s trying, and I applaud her for that, but jeez. No sign of cog dis.
It was weird, but no other good sessions for that time slot.
SilentDawning, I think it’s great that you’re trying so hard. I worry a little about burnout. Do what you can, but also don’t run faster than you have strength. I remember that BoredInVernal did the Niblets. It was a bloggernacle awards that we did on Mormon Matters, and Wheat & Tares. Steve Evans threw a fit and didn’t appreciate the work she did. So we went a year without Niblets. I thought it was a cool project, changed the title to Wheaties (which matched our blog theme) and picked up the torch. I’ve been doing it ever since. I also fully realize that if I don’t do it, it won’t get done. I think it is appreciated, but I don’t see anyone racing to help me either, so it’s one of those things I must do if I want to keep it alive. And if I change my mind (which is ok), it will probably get dropped.
I have a hard time letting go of things I know will get dropped. But I also know that I must keep myself sane. Some of the old timers here remember me. It was hard to step away from StayLDS for a while, but I was juggling too many torches, and had to let some go for a few years so I didn’t get burned. I’m back, but I don’t know that I can participate as much as I did in the past. And that’s ok. I’ll help where I can. I’ll drop off if I need to. This site is in good hands, and good to see Hawkgrrl, Ray, On Own Now, and others who have picked up the torch in my absence (or kept carrying it without resting!) I’ll do what I can, but I’m not going to be a martyr either. To thine own self be true. Once again, don’t run faster than you have strength. It’s ok to take a break if you need it. It sounds like it’s a tough emotional burden, and if people drop the ball, don’t over-react is all I’m saying. I get frustrated when people don’t pull their weight too, and I’m trying to do better. Don’t be too hard on them or yourself.
All Mormons are cafeteria Mormons on certain points. Some with diet Coke, some with wearing garments–I just happen to have some different beliefs about the scriptures. Once again, I’m appalled at Abraham for trying to kill his son, and him sending Hagar out in the wilderness to die. Circumcision was a pagan practice long before Abraham. I reject these things as God-Inspired. I feel a bit like creating a Thomas Jefferson Bible where I throw out the stuff I don’t like and keep the stuff I do. I know that’s heretical, but it’s my life, my belief system, and I’ve got free agency to believe as I choose. It’s good not to be trammeled, as Joseph Smith would say. If polygamy stinks to high heaven, abandon it like the CoC. A prophet is only a prophet when he is speaking as a prophet, and the CoC has rejected lots of Joseph’s revelations and kept others. It’s not unprecedented, although I freely admit that people in the LDS pews would think my views were heretical, hence the name. But I have free agency to believe what I want, and I’m exercising it. I reject the notion that “it’s all true or it’s all false.” Nothing in life is that simple, so why follow that piece of bad advice?
Let’s not forget that the original Declaration on Marriage (section 101) was de-canonized in favor of adding 132. The Lectures on Faith were decanonized. Brigham Young refused to canonize the Book of Abraham–that wasn’t canonized until after his death. The CoC never canonized 132, Lectures on Faith, Abraham, and de-canonized Baptism for the Dead. Use your free agency. Hold fast to that which is good. Jettison the rest. You don’t see most Christians saying “Women should be silent in church”, or justifying slavery or polygamy even though those are canonized in the Bible. You don’t see people selling daughters for marriage, but the Law of Moses regulates lots of things. Scriptures change. You have your free agency. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or praiseworthy, seek after those things. But don’t pierce your slave’s ear to show he’s yours forever, even though that’s biblical. Slavery is just plain crap, and not God inspired at all.
It’s your belief system. Be responsible for it.
In Judaism, the Midrash (Hebrew: מדרש; plural midrashim) is the body of homiletic stories told by Jewish rabbinic sages to explain passages in the Tanakh. Midrash is a method of interpreting biblical stories that goes beyond simple distillation of religious, legal, or moral teachings. It fills in gaps left in the biblical narrative regarding events and personalities that are only hinted at.[1] The purpose of midrash was to resolve problems in the interpretation of difficult passages of the text of the Hebrew Bible, using Rabbinic principles of hermeneutics and philology to align them with the religious and ethical values of religious teachers.
Steve Veazey, current president of The Community of Christ publicly acknowledged that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, reversing a century of RLDS position on the subject. There’s a video on the official CoC website, but I didn’t find it quickly. I swear I did a post on it a while back, but my website crashed, and some of my posts aren’t available. (I need to check my backup copy.) I don’t understand why anyone is discounting “secondary” sources as unreliable. If they’re good enough for Richard Bushman, they’re good enough for me.
I’ve never heard anything about D&C 132 in BY’s hand. I’d like a reference on that if you have one. Otherwise, that sounds suspect to me. There are many who claim that Emma burned the original D&C 132. Why would she keep it if she was opposed to it? Bushman documents Emma being aware of some of Joseph’s marriages (Eliza R. Snow, the Partridge sisters). If you’d like references, I can look them up in Rough Stone Rolling. Have you read Todd Compton, Newell Bringhurst, Bushman, Richard Van Wagoneer, George D. Smith, Brian C. Hales or Don Bradley? I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming.
Rock Waterman notwithstanding, I think his arguments aren’t at all persuasive, nor does he have the credibility of any of the authors I just listed.
Mr. Richard, I see what you are saying, but I’m not sure I quite agree with a few things. It sounds like you have been highly influenced by Rock Waterman’s “Pure Mormonism” blog. I like Rock, but he loses me with this idea that Joseph never practiced polygamy. As you said, it’s just not true, and Denver Snuffer doesn’t support Rock’s interpretation. I did a post on Denver’s interpretation of polygamy. In short, Denver believes that Joseph was commanded to practice it, but Brigham Young misinterpreted D&C 132. See
http://www.wheatandtares.org/12877/snuffers-take-on-polygamy/ (If you’re interested, I did a review of Denver’s book at
http://www.wheatandtares.org/13160/why-snuffer-got-exed/ As to your point about Palmer’s position vs Waterman’s position (what you said isn’t quite Snuffer), well I don’t view them as mutually exclusive. Frankly, there are things that cause me to question some of the foundations of Mormonism. If you read John Hamer’s book “Scattering of the Saints” you can see that various branches of Mormonism broke off even while Joseph was alive. For example, the Whitmers never accepted Joseph’s claim of priesthood authority via John the Baptist and Peter/James/John. The started their own church that still believed in the Book of Mormon, but they had big problems with the priesthood authority introduced in 1833-4. THey wanted original 1830 Mormonism. Of course, the RLDS Church had issues with Nauvoo-era theology (especially baptism for dead and temple endowments), so they live pre-1840 theology. It’s quite easy for me to see why some question foundational claims.
Both Waterman and Snuffer claim that Mormonism has changed over the years. That’s not at all hard to document. It has changed. Snuffer says that the 1890 Manifesto was a monumental change, and certainly it was. Of course, this is the reason fundamentalists have broken off. So that’s not a hard proposition at all.
I don’t think these 2 positions are mutually exclusive at all. I can easily support both positions.
