[Pappanoon]

(Sorry for the length on this one. I got a bit carried away.)

My problem with the changes we see in the church isn’t that changes exist. For example, the church obviously changed a lot during Joseph Smith’s time. I would also say that things changed a lot during the time of Christ. To some extent, that’s the whole reason they came to earth in the first place – to change things.

My problem comes in the nature of the changes. In the time of JS and Christ the changes we’re progressive. They added to our cannon of knowledge and new things to think about. IMO, most of the changes made today are digressions – they are taking things away rather than adding more. The changes to the temple ceremony is a classic example of this. Those changes mostly involved removing things and lowering expectations (e.g. no longer covenanting to “obey” the law of consecration but rather to “accept” it). For me, those changes don’t mean that it was once true and is no longer true. For me it would be like ripping out the book of Alma from the Book of Mormon. Would the book still be true? Of course. That’s not the issue. The real question would be whether it contained more truth or less truth than it did before. (If the BOM doesn’t work for you, pick any “true” book and the analogy still applies.)

These kinds of changes are even noticed by non-Mormon scholars. For example, Professor Harold Bloom, a non-Mormon scholar of religion from Yale University once stated,

“It has become somewhat of a commonplace to observe that modern Mormonism tends to reduce itself to another Protestant sect, another Christian heresy, while the religion of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Parley and Orson Pratt and other leading early Mormons was a far more radical swerve away from Protestant tradition.” (The Annual David P. Gardner Lecture, Kingsbury Hall, University of Utah, November 15, 1990)

Notice that this guy isn’t really attacking Mormonism or the LDS church. He’s simply stating that there is a difference between early Mormonism and modern Mormonism – a difference that seems to be moving us away from the (IMO) great stuff taught by JS and others. For those who truly love the gospel (e.g. me), and like the “radical” stuff Joseph Smith taught (me again), this can become kind of depressing. Regarding some issues, either they were right then or they are right now, but not both. Trying to reconcile the various points of disagreement is difficult to say the least.

Elder B. H. Roberts once made an observation about this problem that likely applies to many people on this forum:

“Suppose your youth receive their impressions of church history from ‘pictures and stories’ and build their faith upon these alleged miracles [and] shall someday come face to face with the fact that their belief rests on falsehoods, what then will be the result? Will they not say that since these things are myth and our Church has permitted them to be perpetuated …might not the other fundamentals to the actual story of the Church, the things in which it had its origin, might they not all be lies and nothing but lies? … [Some say that] because one repudiates the false he stands in danger of weakening, perhaps losing the truth. I have no fear of such results. I find my own heart strengthened in the truth by getting rid of the untruth, the spectacular, the bizarre, as soon as I learn that it is based upon worthless testimony.” (Defender of the Faith: The B. H. Roberts Story, p. 363)

Elder Roberts’ insight seems to have proven prophetic. He seems to describe well what is happening among many Latter-day Saints today (including many of us here).

As I see it, the real problem here isn’t that changes are being made. It is that most (all?) of the changes are taking things away rather than adding more. They are reducing our level of gospel understanding rather than increasing it. If you will permit me one scripture that may be applicable:

“For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.” (2 Nephi 28:30, underline added)

If this passage is true, it kinda makes me wonder just how the Lord would go about taking away even that which we have.

[Pappanoon]

just me wrote:

But when I read the accounts of the sister wife locked out in the snow who froze to death, or one of Parley P. Pratt’s wives whose sister wives refused to share with her (she taught all the Pratt children and never received payment) or the wives of BY whose hearts were broken because they were neglected or Jacob Huntington who felt like he had to give up his wife to 2 prophets and was so lonely or the man who was made a eunich because a leader wanted his beloved it paints a pretty sorry picture. Add that to the fact that only the first/legal wife has any legal recourse in case of divorce and Utah had like the highest divorce rate in the country.

With all due respect, I think you may be looking at this very one-sidely. Yes, the types of things you talk about above have occurred…no doubt. But again, that’s no different than monogamy. For every bad story you have about polygamous marriages, I bet I can provide ten equally bad stories about monogamous marriages. (Then again, I would have more to choose from.) However, and here’s my real point, I’ll bet you that for every negative story you have about a polygamous marraige I can provide a positive story about a polygamous marriage. It’s just not as one-sided as you claim. There are some great horror stories and there are some great success stories as well…just like in monogamy.

The real issue in either polygamy or monogamy isn’t the form of marriage itself. Rather, it’s how the people involved practice that form of marriage. If they do it the way it was intended to be done, with love, parience, understanding, unselfishness, etc. then I’m guessing things tend to work out pretty well. If they do it with selfishness, unrighteous dominion, jealousy, cruelty, etc. then I’m guessing there will be problems. But this is true for either polygamy or monogamy.

If you haven’t done so before, you may have a real eye-opening experience if you were to visit a few different polygamous families I know. However, I would definitely recommend some more than others. I doubt that you would be “converted” but I’m guessing your opinion about the practive in general might change dramatically.

[Pappanoon]

jmb275 wrote:

IMHO, much of his behavior, post 1830, can be viewed and understood in this light.

The BoM is something I still cannot completely explain away, so I have considered the possibility that The BoM is what it claims to be, but Joseph quickly fell into error after its publication and subsequent formation of the church. After all, that’s why the 3 witnesses left, not too mention many many others. In this vein, most of what occurred after 1830 becomes rather irrelevant, to be taken on its own merit alone. But that’s just an idea.

Your comments about post 1830 revelations is interesting. I’ve attached a Word doc showing when each revelation in the D&C was published. It’s interesting to see how it hit a pinnicle and then declined after 1831. Is this because JS didn’t receive as many revelations after this time or because he simply didn’t share as many of his revelations with others after this time? I think most of those that knew him well would say it was the latter. Who knows?

[Pappanoon]

swimordie wrote:

Belated welcome, Pappanoon!!

Your intro sounds like many, many great contributors here. You will definitely feel at home.

You said something in your intro that I think I will try to start as a thread: why so many “open-minded” people, like your friends, can’t “stay lds”.

I’m not sure I said they were “open minded.” The reality is that some are and some aren’t – just like everyone else I know.

[Pappanoon]

just me wrote:

However, I do not see how polygamy requires the same sacrifice of men as it does women. It is not a “great equalizer.” It actually creates classes of people. Women are prizes. The more power and “authority” a man has the more wizes (LOL that was a typo but I’m leaving it) he gets.

Having been happily married for almost 25 years myself, that part of it seems quite clear to me. Just the “honey-do” list alone could kill even the most valiant of husbands.

Seriously though, if it just involved the sexual part of things, I might agree with you. But having known many polygamists myself, there’s a whole lot more to it than just the sex part. Just think of your monogamous marriage. (Actually don’t know if you’re married or not.) What are the most difficult aspects of a monogamous marriage? I think every problem a couple has in monogamy would only be aplified in polygamy. They wouldn’t necessarily be different problems. I think they would be mostly the same problems, just magnified.

As I read what I’m writing it sounds like I’m heavily in favor of “the principle.” It really doesn’t sound all that fun to me either. But I do feel like most people don’t look at all of the aspects of it. As George Q. Cannon put it:

“The opinion which some entertain who take their views from the slanderous reports published about us is that we are a licentious people, who take wives to gratify lust. Such persons, if reasonably honest, are soon made to reflect and to modify their views by asking them a few questions. A prominent gentleman with whom I recently conversed, entertained that opinion. I said to him, after conversing a little while: Sir, you believe the People of Utah are bad and licentious, and that they degrade women by their system of plural marriage. Let me ask you, if their purposes were only sensual, have they any occasion in this day to marry women? Could they not accomplish sensual ends much easier, cheaper and without creating any especial remark by not marrying women and not caring for and educating and legitimatizing their children? There are practices which prevail in society and which are not unpopular if a certain degree of secrecy be observed which a licentious people could avail themselves of, without the trouble, care, expense and responsibility of marriage. What is the crime of which the people of Utah are accused? It is of marrying women! It is not that of seducing or debauching them. … Not one word of condemnation, nor penalty of any character, is proposed for the seducer, or the vile betrayer of female innocence; he is to walk up to the polls and vote unchallenged; but the man who marries women, and maintains them honorably and virtuously, sustaining family and parental relations in all purity and sacredness, is to be disfranchised and visited with other pains and penalties! You will perceive, therefore that the “Mormon” people are either not a licentious people or they are the most foolish in the world. “

I think he makes a couple of decent points.

[Pappanoon]

One thought that has occurred to me regarding polygamy is that it seems to require exactly the same sacrifices and attributes required to live the united order. For example, if we could rid ourselves of selfishness, unrighteous dominion, greed, jealousy, coveting, unbridled passion, etc. – all things I see as being a prerequisites to living the united order – would we still have a problem with polygamy? If so, why? What is it that would bother us so much about it under these circumstances? (Assume for a moment that it was actually commanded of God. Then answer that question.)

Taking this one step further, if we believe these kinds of attributes are required in order to live in the celestial kingdom (or heaven in general), then would we find polygamy as repugnant there as we do here?

Just thoughts…

[Pappanoon]

Some thoughts…

I personally like to break this issue down into four separate parts: ignorance, belief, faith, and knowledge. However, my definitions of these vary a bit from the norm.

Ignorance = No awareness of something. For example, you can’t have belief, faith or knowledge of anything you’ve never heard of before or have no awareness of in any way.

Belief = Believing that something’s true with no real evidence or justification to believe it. You “just believe.” This is what many religious folks would refer to as faith. I think Faith is more than this. The scriptures don’t talk about faith this way. I don’t know why we should.

Faith = Not knowing that something is true, but believing that it is true based on some evidence or reasonable arguments. Alma basically taught, “Don’t just believe this blindly. Try this experiment to see if it works.” Likewise, Hebrews 11:1 says “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” I have difficulty interpreting either of those definitions as “blind faith.” I also like what B.H. Roberts said about faith (part of which is in my signature):

“I maintain that ‘simple faith’ — which is so often ignorant and simpering acquiescence, and not faith at all — but simple faith taken at its highest value, which is faith without understanding of the thing believed, is not equal to intelligent faith, the faith that is a gift from God, supplemented by earnest endeavor to find through prayerful thought and research a rational ground for faith — for acceptance of truth; and hence the duty of striving for a rational faith in which the intellect as well as the heart — the feeling — has a place and is a factor.” (B.H. Roberts on the Intellectual and Spiritual Quest, Seventy’s Course in Theology, vol. 5)

I also think faith has a lot to do with hope or desire. What do you hope is true? Generally you will pursue what you hope for to see if you can get it. Hope generates action. Action generates substance or evidence. Which in turn, increase your faith or belief in something. To me, that fits pretty well.

Knowledge = This is a tough one. “Know” is a pretty tough word for me. I don’t think there’s a whole lot that we really “know.” I know that I think and that I feel and therefore that I exist. Beyond that, everything is just different levels of faith to me. I like the thoughts of the philosopher William James when he said that things are “true in so far forth,” meaning, everything we claim to know is subject to change based on new information. However, you have no choice but to go with the greatest amount of evidence at any given time. You have to follow your evidence-based faith in order to do anything at all in this life. (Case in point: Once, after a particularly thought-provoking metaphysics class in college, I told my brother that I couldn’t prove that he actually existed. He simply replied, “How about if I come over there and pop you one in the face. Then tell me whether or not you think I exist.” The point was well-taken. )

In reality, most of what we claim to know is really just faith. I’ve never been to Australia. I don’t know (first hand) that it exists. Yet I believe in (have faith in) all of the evidence I’ve seen and heard that suggests that such a place actually exists. I have so much faith in it that I would get on a plane and travel there fully believing that I’ll find it. Yet, it is all faith…just accompanied by a high level of substance and evidence.

I think faith in religion should work basically the same way.

FWIW, that’s what I think.

[Pappanoon]

I think part of the problem here is that ETB is just lumping too much into one argument. For example, if he would have focused just on the restoration of the gospel then I think his argument would have been stronger. If the BOM actually does come from God then it says a lot about Joseph Smith and the restoration story in general. In addition, it IMPLIES a lot about the church today and it’s leadership. However, it clearly doesn’t follow that all objections to the church can be overcome by the truthfulness of the BOM alone.

A couple of issues to consider…

A) To say that the current church leadership must be true prophets because the BOM is true would be similar to claiming that the Jewish Pharisees were true servants of God because the Ten Commandments were true.

Likewise, to assume that the current church leadership must be true prophets because JS was a true prophet falls apart in the same manner. (i.e. Moses was a true prophet therefore the Jewish Pharasees were true servants of God.)

C) I believe JS himself would say that the fact that the BOM is from God and that he’s a true prophet doesn’t mean he’s infallible. For example, he made it pretty clear that a prophet is not always a prophet and that he made mistakes all the time.

D) Likewise, even if the current leadership of the church is composed of true prophets of God, it doesn’t follow that they have done everything right and make no mistakes whatsoever. It’s funny, we say that all the time, but when it comes down to it, most LDS seem to still want to believe that they are infallible. In addition, there are plenty of scriptural examples of those called of God doing things that weren’t always correct or even accepted of God.

That said, I think the point ETB was trying to make is still a good one. He just took it too far. I think most of us here would agree that if the BOM really came from God, that would be a fairly significant thing and would probably say a lot about JS. It would also have an impact on the attention that should be given to both the current leadership of the church and to the church itself. If the BOM is true, then all of these things become potentially very significant and are likely worthy of some of our attention. That’s really not too far of a stretch and I think that’s probably the point ETB was trying to make.

[Pappanoon]

questioning89 wrote:

So I was reading Mormon Doctrine and was reading talks by other leaders about the nature of God. Im not going to lie, I am very uncomfortable with the idea that God had a God, and that God had a God etc. I am very uncomfortable with the idea that God “became” God. I mean in my opinion it goes against the scriptures, and really no longer makes him the Almighty God. What do you guys think?

Just a thought…have you asked yourself why you believe what you believe about God? From where did you get your defintiion of what it means to be “almighty?” It seems to me that most of us come up with an image of God that sounds good to us, but few of us really ask why we believe what we believe other than it sounds good to us.

When it comes down to it, I think there are really only four possible places that you can learn anything about God. They are: 1) personal revelation, 2) scriptures, 3) other inspired people, and 4) temple ordinances. I’ve never been able to come up with a fifth option. Maybe one of you can do so. Plus, some of you probably reject one or more of these sources, which limits us even more.

Most of what we believe about God originated from St. Anselm and other Christian philosophers, who defined God as “that than which no greater can be conceived.” From this basic definition, which, by Anselm’s own confession did not come from any of the sources mentioned above, came the entire notion that God must be this untouchable “Almighty God” that sits on the top of a topless throne and is so large he fills the universe but so small he can dwell in your heart, etc. To some extent, all of the creeds and the way modern Christianity in general views God stemmed from this basic philosophical creation of God, not from the scriptures themselves.

That said, it is actually this view of God (the view that He must be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, incorporeal, etc.) that causes so many of the philosophical quandries that tend to lead many people away from belief in God. For example, how can a god who is all good, all powerful, all knowing, and created everything from scratch (ex nihilo) allow evil to exist? Or, put another way, why would He create anything that had the potential of even remotely becoming evil?” There’s no real good answer for this when you view God the way most of the western world views him. It’s only when you start to limit God in various ways that this (and other) problems are ovecome.

When all is said and done, there’s no real evidence that Joseph Smith created his definition of a “limited God” in order to overcome these philosophical quandries. But, wherever he got his definition, the end result is that his view of God as not necessarily being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, incorporeal etc. addresses the problem of evil and other philosophical issues rather nicely. In the LDS view, God did not create anything from “nothing.” He just manages what already existed to the best of His ability. Nor is he able to do “anything.” Nor can he be in more than one place at one time. The list goes on and it really works fairly well.

Anyway, there’s obviously a lot more to this than I’ve conveyed, but I hope this helps a bit.

[Author]

Posts