In this concluding episode (part 3 of 3), we interview with John Lynch, Chairman of FAIR–the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research.
Within the segement, John Lynch discusses the most common issues faced by FAIR, and assesses (in his view) which issues do and do not have merit. John also discusses how members of the Church should treat those struggling in their faith. Finally, John Lynch provides some thoughts/insight into some of President Hinckley’s more controversial responses in his media interviews over the past several years (including Larry King Live, L.A. Times, etc.).
To listen directy to the podcast, click here.
Just a thought on Pres. Hinckley saying plural marriage is not “doctrinal.” My understanding is that the practice plural marriage today has no doctrinal basis; it is against our doctrine. Considering the audience and the medium, any qualified comments would have created questions or problems as it would require a more nuanced and involved conversation. Had he equivocated at all, or left any room for spin, the headlines the next day would have been “Mormon Church President Says Polygamy True,” “Mormons Still Quietly Practice Polygamy,” or “LDS Prophet: ‘Polygamy is True.’”
Can you imagine what any such comment would generate? Plural marriage has been mentioned–and only briefly and usually only to condemn those who still practice it–in only 11 Conference talks in the past 50 years. Why would Pres. Hinckley choose to start addressing the issue in an interview with the media? Why would he start expounding on the doctrine in that venue?
Keep in mind that many people think that Mormons are still polygamists or don’t know whether we are or not. I think the comment was prudent.
The only problem is that it’s not true to say “polygamy is not doctrinal”.
That would be a lie to say. It is deceiving. Polygamy is doctrinal, and is being practiced today (at least in the temples), and we believe (doctrinally) that it will be practiced in the hereafter. Thus polygamy is very, very, very doctrinal.
So yes, it is a complicated thing to answer, but I do not believe that the solution is to deceive. For God’s true church, and for God’s annointed leader–there must be a better answer. No? Isn’t that why we have a prophet, and direct revelation? To get help figuring out the tougher stuff?
I would agree, but only to a degree. I think the question was taken — or at least answered — from the view point of the practice of polygamy. It’s practice is not doctrinal. Period. That is true. People who today practice polygamy are not acting on a sound doctrinal foundation as the directing keys trump the theory or doctrine, so to speak. I personally don’t think the question was asked about a hypothetical or intellectual accedence to the doctrine; I think it was asked in the context of modern practices of polygamy and its association with the modern LDS Church. I can’t imagine it was an attempt to elicit a doctrinal discussion of LDS eschatology and current temple sealing practices.
Right–and just to be clear on my side, I am in no way condemning President Hinckley for his answer. I stink at “off the cuff” answers, and I don’t expect the prophet necessarily to be any better.
And I totally understand the nuances and implications of what you’re saying. I don’t believe that this is an easy/simple issue.
BUT…here’s what I am asking/saying….
1) I believe that there are a base set of teachings (past or present) that should be known before someone joins the church (so that there isn’t a shock/suprise later). For example, all blacks should know that for 150+ years, we denied the priesthood to blacks. I believe it is unethical to not let them know this up front. In the same vein, I believe that every investigator should know, up front, that we still believe in polygamy in heaven, and that we still practice it in the temple today. This is honest, and true–and material enough in my mind as to what I think people would want to know before joining.
2) So…the question is…if the prophet had the ability to prepare for the question–and he was gonna be completely open/honest/truthful…what would he say? I believe that ethically, he cannot simply dismiss the polygamy thing. In my mind/heart, at a minimum, he must be bold/open/honest/candid and say, “We do not practice polygamy, but we do continue to believe that in heaven it will be practiced”. To me, this is a “completely honest/open” answer. Anything short of this, in my feeling, is the type of spin that is not becoming of God’s church, or God’s prophet.
And again, this is only my opinion.
I think that, like my Mom and some others I’ve heard, President Hinckely uses “doctrinal” to mean “currently practiced or taught.”
“We do not practice polygamy today, but we believe that in heaven it will be practiced”
I’d modify this slightly to ” “We do not practice polygamy today, but we believe that in heaven it *may* be practiced”
I don’t think everyone in the CK will be polygamous, nor do I think it’s a teaching of the Church that it will be a necessity, hence the modal change from “will” to “may.”
It seems to me that a similar problem occurred today on Today. M* discussed Manhattan stake President Brent Belnap’s comment regarding whether the Church is the only path to God and Salvation. The problem is that these sorts of questions can’t be answered in soundbites. But that’s what the media demands. The conclusion ought be not to expect doctrine of any faith to be explainable in short soundbites. You’ll always distort it. So I think Pres. Hinkley was doing the best he could given the format.
It’d be nice to have had him give a long answer explaining the place of the King Follet Discourse, yet simultaneously explaining that the KFD isn’t canonical and that many significant LDS theologians reject the standard reading of it with respect to the Father, to get into the range of differences possible between Father and Son, to explain the nature of the Godhead in LDS thought so as to contextualize it. . . But at that point you have a long paper and not the two sentence answer Time magazine wanted.
It’s sad that the US media is driven by soundbite length answers. I think it is the reason we have so many difficulties in our society. But I don’t think it fair to criticize those who find themselves in those demands as Pres. Hinkley did.
whoops. Obviously I was referring to Pres. Hinkley’s controversial comments on deification and not polygamy. But the principle is the same.
I know many LDS who are convinced that plural marriage is not a requirement of exaltation. I have a close and trusted friend (a woman) who attended a church meeting in which a visiting Seventy asked the women in the room who believed they would have to let their husbands have additional wives in the next life to raise their hands (many did — btw, this meeting was in the 1980s, if I recall correctly). He then proceeded to tell them that there was no such doctrine and that it wasn’t true. Again, the difference of opinion stems from the fact that this is not a doctrine that has been clearly annunciated by the Brethren and then canonized. I believe there are plenty of quotes by earlier Church leaders and that if one carefully, thoughtfully, and prayerfully reads D&C 132 they would understand what the doctrine really is, but I also think there is a reason (likely reasons) that it is not declared or discussed by the Brethren today. I would hardly think that this will be in the near futrue a point that is clarified let alone brought up in the missionary discussions. I think it is perfectly acceptablethe to leave this issue out of the program for preaching the gospel (as was the case pre-1852 and post-1890).
As to the blacks and the priesthood issue, did Paul have to explain 4,000 yrs of God having only one chosen nation or family on the earth? Did Moses have to explain why God discriminated against 11/12ths of Israel when he gave the priesthood to only one tribe? Did Philip have to explain this to the Ethiopian eunuch before his baptism? I find precedent for not explaining this as you suggest.
However, having said all that, if the missionary feels this is important for a certain person to know, the investigator could be pointed to OD-1 and 0D-2 as a starting point. I simply don’t agree that it ought to be part of the standard lesson. That is a judgement call (on both of our parts) and ultimately the Brethren will have to answer themselves for their judgement calls in these matters. I am unwilling to say they are making a mistake (nor do I feel critical on these points) because i know that even if the Lord is displeased with their choice now htat He will somehow use it to bring about his purposes (I know that seems to be a blanket cop-out, but from a view point of faith it certainly is not).
I totally agree that President Hinckly is doing the best he can. I’d even add that I think he does a really good job.
But polygamy is doctrinal…plain and simple. If you ask almost any informed Mormon, or simply read the D&C and/or past statements by our prophets, they tell us so. It’s not practiced today, but it’s certainly doctrinal.
Clark–what I think you’re avoiding is the fact that at times, I believe that we sincerely and even intentionally want to downplay the doctrines that could turn people off–especially in front of a large audience. To borrow from Darth Vader, if you searched your soul, I think you’d know that this were true.
Polygamy is embarassing, so we want to downplay it, so we call it “not doctrinal”, even though it is doctrinal, and it will be practiced, and it is being practiced now in the temple.
And we do believe that only those who follow the Joseph Smith-inspired version of Mormonism/Christianity will live with God in the hereafter…but I believe that for tact or other reasons, we shy away from being that direct in front of others.
I understand why we do it, but I believe that it’s not an example of full honesty. I am not willing to make excuses for it, or say it’s ok. I think it’s an unfortunate side effect of us being imperfect people…but I don’t think it’s right or honest to do this.
I am 100% certain that President Hinckley/we could come up with very consice, direct, completely honest answers to these questions if he/we wanted to…but I believe that we don’t want to…largely out of embarassment or fear.
We could easily say….
“We believe polygamy will be practiced in the hereafter by some, but we do not practice it any longer on earth”
and
“We believe that Christianity as taught/practiced by the LDS Church is the only path whereby people will return to God’s presence”
…but I don’t think we are comfortable being this honest.
Again…just my view.
I don’t think plural marriage is avoided because of embarassment; perhaps you or many (if not most) LDS would feel that way, but I find it unlikely that Pres. Hinckley would be embarassed to discuss plural marriage. I am not embarassed or intimidated by it. I feel it is too sacred for the progressively sensually-oriented world, and it probably was in Joseph Smith’s day as well, and hence is not part of the current message to the world or (sadly, imo) to the Saints. To borrow a phrase, I am not scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible — and world history — is full of it.
Personally, I’m from the camp that allows for the possibility that polygamy was never doctrinal to begin with….if this turned out to be the case, it wouldn’t destroy my faith. I’m also, of course, open to it being God’s will, but I certainly don’t have a testimony of its truthfulness.
But, as you indicate, it is virtually undiscussed in today’s church. In fact, discussion of it seems to be avoided almost like the plague. In manuals and in conference talks it’s conspicuously absent. We talk of Joseph’s “wife” even though he had 30. To me, this isn’t honest.
And as you know, in the BY priesthood manual, we talk of Brigham’s “wife”, and there is virtually NO discussion of his polygamous wives, which also, to me, isn’t honest. It was much too important part of his life to completely omit it from a manual about his life and teachings. In fact, that presents a great opportunity to talk about it within the context of church–by actually mentioning it, and explaining it to the members.
I wish we would either denounce, or embrace our past…not avoid it, or try to cover it up. That’s one big difference between myself and some FAIR folks I’ve spoken with. I’m willing to admit that we’re likely just trying to avoid, or cover up, or deny certain things…..I sincerely believe that we are in some cases, and I’m ok with that. I’m not perfect, and I don’t expect perfection from everyone else either.
John: …I believe that we sincerely and even intentionally want to downplay the doctrines that could turn people off–especially in front of a large audience. To borrow from Darth Vader, if you searched your soul, I think you’d know that this were true.
Oh, I don’t deny that in the least. Indeed I think most of us as missionaries were taught to do this in the old discussions. Build on common ground. Rather than focus in on differences and bash, we downplay those somewhat and focus on what we can build upon. I’m not sure that’s always wise and I think we can go overboard.
I certainly agree that there is a strong element of that downplaying on Pres. Hinkley’s part. However I think the reason we do that is because of the complexities that come with the other issues.
Further, as I said, I think the issues really are more complex. While I take the KFD pretty straighforwardly, there are important theologians like Blake Ostler who don’t.
With regards to polygamy (you’re main point) I fully agree. Polygamy and the even more difficult issues related to it (such as young marriages and polyandry) are extremely problematic to us. We don’t want to talk about it the way we don’t like to talk about things in our own life we find uncomfortable.
Is it doctrinal? Well, once again I think the real answers are too complex for soundbites. But clearly many of the goofy bad apologetics you mentioned in this episode such as the 2% figure for polygamy come out primarily of being uncomfortable with it. We, as a people, want to minimalize it and its place. But the fact we can remarry when widowed pretty much brings with it the issue of polyagamy if there is marriage in the next world.
Sweet! Then it seems like we’re prety much in sync. I appreciate the dialogue! Very helpful to me indeed.
I find nothing that would make polygamy “doctrinal” other than when it was in place. Even so…the majority abstained so it couldn’t have been taken too seriously even then. Thus, the thundering threats to salvation from the pulpit. John, if there is temple “polygamy” then there is temple polyandry. When you do work for the dead all spouses are sealed to all spouses. So it is misleading to not mention that little problem with the theory that because men do not have to obtain a cancellation it equates to polygamy in the afterlife.
I don’t think that we will ever understand polygamy. I think we can make some good guesses…for instance, I tend to think it was useful for social bonding that was vital for this little beleaguered group to survive. Malina has done a fascinating study on early Christian theologians where this becomes clear. Religous affiliation is chosen according to your family/friend bonds…we tend to think that we create those social ties because of what we believe. Not so. Polygamy created a tightly knit group that may have been critical in helping the religion survive.
As for celestial polygamy…I think it is absurd. First, I think it is ridiculous to even contemplate what “eternal” marriage is. What would marriage be here without the earth bound components? Those are supposed to disappear and marriage has little meaning without those things. So what is “marriage”? We don’t even know yet we are worrying about how many people will be involved in what we don’t know about.
I dont’ care one way or another because I really do believe heaven is..heaven. That means I will not be miserable.
It is a numbers game to me. To advocate eternal polygamy means that we are upholding a theology that excludes men simply becuase of their gender. Unless there are going to be raids on neighboring galaxies…there are not enough women born to allow for celestial polygamy. Thus, to sustain this we have to start up with the “oh, women are more spiritual so more of them will be in the CK…” If we said that about men the roof would come off. Yet we feel free to slander men for no other reason than they are men. Or we get the “oh but looook at how many single women there are in the wards!”. OK…but don’t we believe in inviting *all* of humanity to the party? Mormons would not even be a fly speck on a timeline of humanity…we are inconsequential in the scope of history.
Thus, we come back to numbers. If you, John, are going to have your 27 “wives”…which men are you going to drive out? And if 27 is good…why not 300? Heaven is supposed to be bigger and better! We will eventually be down to two men with 300 billion wives in the CK. Works for *me* but I don’t think that is what the Lord intended when he said he loved all his children…men included.
It is absurd to carry polygamy into the eternities. And that says nothing about it being God ordained at the time it was God ordained.
Juliann,
Just to make sure we’re on the same page, you saw this comment from me above, right?
“Personally, I’m from the camp that allows for the possibility that polygamy was never doctrinal to begin with….if this turned out to be the case, it wouldn’t destroy my faith. I’m also, of course, open to it being God’s will, but I certainly don’t have a testimony of its truthfulness.”
So please don’t think I’m arguing that I think polygamy is of God….or our future. Those are not my feelings, nor my desire at all.
But I AM arguing that from the church’s perspective, given the scripture, past statements from over 1/2 of the past prophets, past and current practices–there is little ground to credibly claim anything but that polygamy is doctrinal. Otherwise, not much remains salvageable as doctrine if something so fundamental can be dismissed.
So from the Church’s perspective, I’d love to hear your argument as to how the church can claim that polygamy is not doctrine, and still expect the general membership to take it seriously on anything else.
John
I think church members can still take the leadership seriously. We can look at President Hinckley comments and see that he had unauthorized, illegal polygamy on his mind and not serial polygamy which no faith[1] really even considers polygamy anyway. I think for just about any rule one can find an exception or play around with semantics until one emerges.
[1] With the possible exception of the LDS faith.
HOLD THE PHONE!!!!
BUSTED!!!!
at 10:10 into the podcast he calls talks about the book “By the hand of Mormon” and call the MALE author, Terryl Givens a WOMAN!
LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!! Givens is a MAN, you idiot!!
LYNCH you have never even cracked the book!!! You ASSumed the name TERRYL is a woman.
“If you read Givens latest book By the hand of mormon, for example She she did a fab job. I think SHE did a very good job at presenting against and for … In fact if you were to look at a work that openly kind of shows the arguments… HERS would possibly be a good role model.”
LONG PAUSE….
“buuuutttt aaahhhhhhh….. More specifically you know uhhh ahhh oh I lost my train of thought…”
Pass that guy the ketchup! He is tasting toe jam!
He continues calling he a she, “uhhh oh um one of the things SHE points out in HER book is I think is a very good point that she makes…”
Hey, John Dehlin, man LYNCH passed some stinky [stuff] by you didn’t he? Thanks for not catching his lie! AND thanks for CASTING his POD of LIES!
PP, I know several people who read the book and then wondered if Givens was LDS. I don’t think getting the author’s gender incorrect necessarily indicates he didn’t read it.
But then, we again see what kind of poster puts up gleeful capitals and accusations.
By the way, there’s a myth circulating that Dr. Givens is not LDS. This seems to be false; Dr. Givens is a member of the church. See, for example, this interview.
Mormon Fool, I actually find the current LDS determination to break up legal polygamous families in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa to be at least as troubling as any other aspect of the legacy of polygamy in the LDS church. Polygamous families in African countries where polygamy is legal are obeying the Manifesto; they are married according to the laws of the land. Why, then, should the Salt Lake leadership force these families to split up, and force husbands to abandon all but one wife, before baptism? Isn’t that intolerant and hateful?
My point here is that the current LDS denial of polygamy goes well beyond illegal polygamy. We have become determined to suppress polygamy even when it is legal, culturally accepted, and functional. This extreme seems to reflect something more than a rational policy, perhaps even a visceral fear of our own past.
Let’s say the Church granted exceptions to those living polygamy in certain countries. Would that apply only to natives or to those who would move there as well? What if a native polygamous family emigrates to Utah or California or France or Brazil? Shall they be allowed to practice it still? What if a male and two female natives emigrate seperately, meet in LDS wards in New York and want to marry? You can’t honestly ask the Church to go down that path.
A second issue relates to how plural marriage operated in Joseph Smith’s day. Each plural marriage had to be God-sanctioned, meaning approved by the Prophet himself. It was not a cultural practice that everyone just lived. The degree of control over the LDS practice did change from time to time over its history, but underlying it all is the idea of priesthood keys. If someone has entered into a polygamous life without correct priesthood authority or direction, why should the Church honor and accept it?
“why should the Church honor and accept it?”
Because we believe in “being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law”?
Me, hold on. The Manifesto resolves all of your questions. Polygamy isn’t allowed where it isn’t the law of the land, according to the Manifesto. So if people want to move to sub-Saharn Africa in order to live polygamously, they’d be able to–and good luck to them, too. But none of the other scenarios would be acceptable under the Manifesto.
You also should remember that nearly half of LDS adults lived in polygamous relationships at the height of the polygamy period. Each plural marriage had to be God-sanctioned in the same sense that all marriages have to be God-sanctioned among church members today: they always will be if you get the recommend.
Someone who got married according to the customs of their own country before they joined the church is always married without priesthood authority or direction. The church doesn’t dissolve all marriages at the point of conversion. It just asks people to go to the temple a year later. The poor folks in sub-Saharan Africa are being singled out in this.
Just a few comments in reaction to Juliann’s post.
1. I’m not sure that one could say that at least in the US the majority never were polygamous. I don’t have the book in front of me, but didn’t The New Mormon History have an article on that? I seem to recall that in many counties the rate was around 66% and in most was around 50% or higher. That doesn’t speak to Europe of course – but most there were new members. I’ll look it up when I get home.
2. The whole “judging by gender” seems a bit complex. There actually is evidence in cognitive science that some aspects of religiosity are inherited and women appear genetically to inherit it more than men. That’s a bit of justification for the old argument that more women will accept Christ. Yet the counter argument is that if it is genetic it’s a result of our fallen body and thus resolved by Christ’s atonement. The final argument is that most of the 1/3 who rejected God in the pre-existence were male and thus there is just inherently an inequality of gender. (That argument is an old one going back to the early 19th century polygamy apologetics) I’m not sure I buy it. But the point is I’m also not sure we can simply discount out of hand as silly the idea that genders are saved in equal amounts. (Yes I know the argument that more men will be saved due to more male children dying before 8 than females)
The point is that I don’t think we can say much to argue one way or the other ultimately
3. If we buy into sealings then I don’t see why polygamy wouldn’t be in heaven. I think the likely solution isn’t just eliminating polygamy (which seems inherently unjust for widows who remarry) but the expansion of it. i.e. right now living women can’t be sealed to multiple men. I expect that to change we a de facto adoption of polyandry. People for reasons I’ve never understood react more harshly to polyandry than polygyny. However I’m not sure that reaction can be justified as anything other than sexism inherent in our culture.
4. To eliminate polygamy in heaven seems to me to pretty much eliminate the whole significance of the sealing power.
5. People rejecting polygamy in heaven pretty much seem to be judging it based upon our instincts and behaviors here. I fully agree that as human beings it’s just not in our nature to be both polygamous and charitable and loving. I don’t think it can be done. But frankly that has more to do with our genetics than anything else. So I’m not prepared to judge how heaven is based upon that.
I know I wouldn’t want polygamy. But with a different body with different instincts, would I feel the same way? Would I intellectually want my wife to remarry if I died? Yes. Isn’t that a real embrace of at least some sense of polygamy? I don’t think I could live it in the least in life successfully. But that’s not to say that intellectually the ideal notion should be rejected out of hand.
Hmmm…
I regret that I haven’t had a lot of time to read and post lately about Mormonism. Then again, maybe I don’t. It’s been peaceful. There has been more time for movies, music, sleep, clear thinking, SCHOOL WORK, etc.
LOL. I’m an idiot, cuz I’ll now be returning into the world of Mormon discussion & criticism this weekend with another podcast recording.
Anyway . . . One thing that I notice here on this comment section is something that I notice all too often at places like FAIR.
This is the inevitability of the failure of Mormon apologetics.
I just get a sense that the way the LDS faith is headed is so shady. I mean seriously. Of course it’s false, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. I see it as a downward spiral that is inevitable.
Tal Bachman recently wrote about this here:
http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/view.php?bn=exmobb_recovery&key=1130829190&replies=20
But not being upfront aobut it is only making the issue worse. It’s like letting a child’s poopy pants just stay that way. It’ll create a rash, and fester, and attract flies, etc.
Example:
Once the RLDS faith finally moved away from not allowing for people to think that JS was ever a polygamist, at least that was a step in the right direction.
The RLDS statement now reads:
Today, Community of Christ acknowledges that there is no conclusive evidence that unquestionably links Joseph Jr. to polygamy. But the church acknowledges that there is a body of circumstantial evidence from sermons, diaries, newspaper articles, personal testimonies, and even specific historical events that could be interpreted as pointing directly to Smith as the author and practitioner of polygamy.
Community of Christ encourages its members to explore all issues pertaining to its story in an open atmosphere. Doing so allows each person to draw their own conclusions based on how they weigh the evidence.
Outsiders to the Mormon faith not only see it strange for the polygamous past, weird Book of Mormon, garment lines through thin white shirts, strange ceremonies when googled on the Internet, BUT . . . they also see hypocrisy.
The couplet, “The members aren’t perfect, but the church is” simply doesn’t hold water when you don’t tell the truth about your past.
Joseph Smith wasn’t trustworthy. If you want to debate that to death, that’s your choice. The fact of the matter is that they LDS faith today IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY. They [the brethren] consistently mislead faithful members, sincere investigators, and possibly even themselves about so many aspects of their own past.
Jesus (whether he was the savior or not) taught about hypocrisy. He taught about lying, and deceiving. Once you are caught in a tangled up web of deception, there’s not many ways out. Continuing to deceive will only perpetuate the lie that much further.
May the truth be with you
-Hyrum
sorry about the typos. my mind goes much faster than my fingers can type. i have projects and assignments, so i can’t proof-read often.
again, i apologize.
I’m glad Hyrum is here to put it all straight. I soooo look forward to reading his posts.
On another not, RT and JD: are you saying that if a temple is built in a country where polygamy is legal that the Church should then issue plural marriage sealing recommends for that temple? This is such a large can of worms. I don’t know the actual rationale for the current policy, but it really isn’t that hard to imagine the complications that such momentous policy exceptions based on regional issues would create.
What you propose — that PM be allowed in countries where it is not prohibited by law — was a practice that brought about the Second Manifesto which prohibits plural marriage in any location in the Church. This manifesto was issued by the only man on earth who can say that PM shall or shall not be allowed. You can’t focus merely on the First Manifesto. The concept of keys and continuing revelation are still in play. It’s really that simple.
Me, the reason I focus on the first Manifesto is that it’s the only one for which the status of revelation was claimed. The others were issued as bureaucratic statements with no claim of revelation.
With respect to the claim that allowing regional exceptions is a can of worms, that may be true. But it’s a difficulty that became inevitable when the church became global. Pretending that the issues in sub-Saharan Africa are the same as the issues at Short Creek is just harmful and blind to the reality of differences in cultures and social systems.
Those who married polygamously in Mexican states and in Canada in the 1890s and early 1900s were breaking the laws of the land.
Strictly speaking, the Second Manifesto simply affirmed the Woodruff Manifesto. It didn’t say anything the Woodruff Manifesto hadn’t already said.
TO “ME”
I guess I’m just confused with the nature of your posts. You seem to be so irritated by a dissenting opinion that you resort to saying things like:
“I look soooo forward to his posts.” Or, “I’m glad Hyrum is here to put it all straight.”
The types of attitudes of people in the FAIR camp seem to not have an umbrella that covers a scope of non-believers. Obviously, their goal is to “defend Mormonism.” But I don’t think this is what Dehlin is going for. This is why Sunstone and Dialogue are so neat, they accept believers and non-believers and everything in between. They give equal time and consideration to all. How neat is that?
This kind of attitude is so great. It’s quite compelling to accept all people. Some early Mormon beliefs had this is mind. Some of my favorite quotes about this follow:
1. Hugh B. Brown -
I hope that you will develop the questing spirit. Be unafraid of new ideas for they are the stepping stones of progress. You will of course respect the opinions of others but be unafraid to dissent if you are informed. Now I have mentioned freedom to express your thoughts, but I caution you that your thoughts and expressions must meet competition in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth will emerge triumphant. Only error needs to fear freedom of expression. Seek the truth in all fields, and in that search you will need at least three virtues: courage, zest and modesty. The ancients put that thought in the form of a prayer. They said, “From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth, from the laziness that is content with half truth, from the arrogance that thinks it has all truth – O God of truth, deliver us. (BYU Devotional, 1958)
2. Joseph Smith -
I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. (History of the Church, vol. V, pp. 498, 499)
3. Joseph Smith
I ask, Did I ever exercise any compulsion over any man? Did I not give him the liberty of disbelieving any doctrine I have preached, if he saw fit? (Documentary History of the Church, vol. VI, 273-274)
4. Joseph Smith
It looks too much like the Methodists, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have a creed which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine. The high counsel undertook to censure and correct Elder Brown, because of his teachings … Whether they actually corrected him or not, I am a little doubtful, but don’t care. (Documentary History of the Church, Vol. VI, 273- 274, as quoted in Alma P. Burton, Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 106, 107)
5. David O. McKay (I believe)
Ours is the responsibility … to proclaim the truth that each individual is a child of God and important in his sight; that he is entitled to freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly; that he has the right to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. In this positive declaration, we imply that organizations or churches which deprive the individual of these inherent rights are not in harmony with God’s will nor with his revealed word. (124th Annual Conference, p. 24)
If you don’t enjoy what I post, I understand. If you don’t want to discuss it, don’t. If you don’t like to discuss anything that gets uncomfortable then that’s just cowardly. I am not accusing you of that, but I would hope that’s not the case. If you don’t want to discuss anything with non-believers or Exmormons, that’s dumb.
May the truth be with you
-Hyrum
So from the Church’s perspective, I’d love to hear your argument as to how the church can claim that polygamy is not doctrine, and still expect the general membership to take it seriously on anything else.
————-
What do you see that would qualify it as “doctrinal” in a strict sense? Has anyone ever considered Biblical polygamy doctrinal just because it was sanctioned at a particular moment? I always assumed it to be doctrinal..until I started looking. Again, what is there beyond the 19th century calls to action when they considered themselves to be under commandment? What we do have is a very official statement from the First Presidency (under Pres Grant) separating what has to be conflated to make sense of the doctrine theory…
Celestial marriage–that is, marriage for time and eternity–and polygamous or plural marriage are not synonymous terms. Monogamous marriages for time and eternity, solemnized in our temples in accordance with the word of the Lord and the laws of the Church, are Celestial marriages.”James R. Clark, _Messages Of The First Presidency_, 5:329.
Juliann: Clark, I am also going off the top of my head but I do not recall anything that would go over 40%…so I would say the majority did not participate. Another factoid that should make one pause is that there were as many monogamous bishops as polygamous. Higher offices did increase…but to not hold bishops responsible to this commnandment should be considered. (I think this is from Daynes).
Clark: The point is that I don’t think we can say much to argue one way or the other ultimately
Juliann: That is my point…we *can’t* argue one way or another without eventually being blocked. But we do…and we only argue the polygamy angle. Why?
Clark: 4. To eliminate polygamy in heaven seems to me to pretty much eliminate the whole significance of the sealing power.
Juliann: Why? Does anyone even *entertain* the idea that the sealings of women to multiple men will be maintained? Of course not. Again, we break the very rule we make. It goes back to we can’t argue one way or another…but we do. But never for the obvious polyandry going on. (I agree with you that there is obvious sexism going on). A sealing is a sealing. How can we uphold one and dispense with another and then claim sealings mean anything?
Clark: I know I wouldn’t want polygamy.
Juliann: Again, I think eternal marriage will be so far removed from anything we are imagining that it is absurd to contemplate it based on earthly experiences. I couldn’t care less one way or another. I do care about consistency, however.
I also expect this rather odd practice of sealing live men to multiple women and dead women to multiple men to equalize.
Another factoid that should make one pause is that there were as many monogamous bishops as polygamous. Higher offices did increase…but to not hold bishops responsible to this commnandment should be considered. (I think this is from Daynes).
Daynes writes: “Local leaders (stake presidencies and bishoprics) were generally also in plural marriage” (More Wives Than One, p. 72). She cites to Bitton and Arrington’s Mormon Experience, p. 204, which states that most bishops and stake presidents were polygamists.
Polygamy Porter,
You are correct. I did refer mistakenly to Terryl using female pronouns. That was an error. Frankly, I am surprised I did not commit more mistakes after more than 2 hours of interview.
“Terrel” is the common spelling. Terryl is not as common (see http://www.behindthename.com/php/search.php?nmd=n&terms=Terryl). I once dated a young woman named Terry (Theresa) which apparently cemented the name Terry as a female name in my mind. I have occassionally had a difficult time not associating the less common spelling “Terryl” with a female derivation. I regret the error and extend my apologies to Dr. Tarryl Givens in the event that any offence was perceived.
Thank you for correcting me.
John L.
Daynes writes: “Local leaders (stake presidencies and bishoprics) were generally also in plural marriage” (More Wives Than One, p. 72). She cites to Bitton and Arrington’s Mormon Experience, p. 204, which states that most bishops and stake presidents were polygamists.
———
Thanks for the cite. What I must be remembering is the “most”. Not *all*. I find that significant. I will put down my mouse before I make any other off the cuff guesses without checking.
I type much too fast. The correct spelling is T”e”rryl.
John L.
John,
Sorry, but I don’t buy that.
In my view, you did not read the book. You were doing what most mo’pologists do, pulling bits and pieces from this book and that work to attempt to sound credible. I really do not see HOW you could have read HIS book and yet mistakenly referred to him as a woman.
Time for honesty John, do you own his book?
Have you READ it?
Or like I said, were you just reusing rote references from his book that you had read in other mo’pologetic works?
I really thought you would bring some of your own ideas to this pod cast, it appears you did not.
Hi John,
if plural marriage is doctrinal, as you have stated in your podcast as well as in this commentary,
why don’t the Mormons start a equal rights campaign, like e.g. gays do for several years to promote homosexual marriage?
If plural marriage is doctrinal, and you only don’t practice it, because state laws prohibit you to do so, why don’t you fight for your rights?
As far as I have read, the church spent lots of money in anti-gay-right campaigns. Would that money not be more usefully spent in pro-poligamy-right campaigns?
Why is the church not true to its own true doctrines?
From my perspective, I rather feel that the church has doctrinally abandoned plural marriage, and they are ashamed of the topic, so they hide it under the carpet instead of solving the issue, even if that meant breaking with past doctrines.
Greets,
Christopher.
Thanks for joining the conversation, Christopher!
Those are interesting questions.
I hope you don’t misunderstand my position. I have no personal testimony of polygamy, past or present. I would be fine if I were to learn someday that it was never God’s will or commandment.
I do believe that the church would have a hard time claiming to members that it wasn’t doctrinal today–because they’d have too much backtracking and explaining to do. The members might too easily say, “well…if they were wrong then, what are they wrong about now?” So they’re basically stuck with it, and without it simultaneously.
I also wouldn’t be surprised to find out that among the bretheren even, there was not unity of position on this point (vs. a monolithic “shame” of which you speculate).
Anyway, it sure is a curious topic, one for the ages, eh?
JOHN
You just made a statement that is too cool. I’ve been thinking a lot about it lately. Of course my conclusion is that they’re in deep water because of the rectro-active changes and all, but you said it like this:
So they’re basically stuck with it, and without it simultaneously.
TOO COOL. It’s true. The church is stuck with everything they’ve done. It follows them. Everything Joseph did, and Brigham, and the hiearchy, all of them! From day one to now. I mean . . . having African Americans have to stand by and watch white guys baptize their kids, just on the basis of their skin color. And then when a black person asks the authorities, there isn’t really a better answer than – “God said so.”
Well, I suppose I wish them well with that crazy answer.
-Hyrum
Nice post from ZLMB that is worth posting here….
http://p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm77.showMessage?topicID=438.topic
“I listened to #3 tonight. What a great interview! Even if Lynch did mistakenly think that the author of “By the Hand of Mormon” was female. Amazing to me that Polygamy Porter made such a big deal out of such a little thing. Possibly to throw people off topic in regards to the good stuff that came out of the interview.
Lynch (sp?) was very up front and made great efforts, at least in my opinion, to answer all of the questions put to him with a good deal of candor and honesty. I’m looking forward to other interviews and have relayed info. about the mormonstudies website to others. Thanks for your good work.
I hope that some of the died in the wool cynics/skeptics are taking the time to listen to these podcasts too.
Regards,
MG”
The post from another BB said:
I hope that some of the died in the wool cynics/skeptics are taking the time to listen to these podcasts too.
As much as I wanna leave Mormonism aside, I love Dehlin’s podcast. He does a wonderful job. Of course I don’t agree with Lynch, and who knows if he read the book that he misquoted the author’s gender?
I did want to discuss my feelings about what Dehlin spoke of in regards to Richard L. Bushman.
This is a post I made on another board about his book:
Richard Bushman is credited as telling more than the average apologist would regarding Joseph Smith history.
His most recent work can be found here:
http://deseretbook.com/store/product?sku=4936049
TBMs are beginning to say that “the church” isn’t afraid of it’s history simply on the basis that Bushman’s book is available at Deseret Book.
Here’s my initial thought on his stuff. I talked about it in a podcast. If any of you are familiar with him or the book, please post a reply.
My early thoughts on the book:
A TBM relative of mine that outwardly respects my decision to leave the church, says that he is interested in reading this book. He stated that because Bushman was a keynote speaker at the Library of Congress, that this book would be more objective. Here is a link to the audio of his Library of Congress visit:
http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,510-1-3067-1,00.html
(I listened to the first and second day of this conference I took notes I’ll probably post on my website)
I picked up the book and started reading as much of it as possible. I will finish it during the holiday season.
The impression I’m getting is one of a little bit more honesty, but he is deceiving. I don’t mind or care to point fingers too much. It’s admirable that he addresses some of the “controversial issues.”
But, I just keep getting the impresson that Bushman’s purpose is becoming pretty apologetic in nature.
The feeling I get from the book is that Bushman is trying to push a “SMALLVILLE-LIKE” quality of Smith. Smallville is a television series about Clarke Kent as a teenager. He is realizing his powers as a superhero, but doesn’t quite understand them. There are mistakes and mishaps, but overall he is honest and trying to figure out what’s going on with his body. I see this through Bushman’s book about Smith. Kind of like he’s trying to push an attitude of, “prophets can have a pubescent-prophet-period.” (Excuse the pun.)
My not-so-eloquent review is that it’s really crap that is covered in fried ice cream.
You just can’t get around the fact that the Book of Abraham is false. Joseph wrote in his journal over a period of weeks that HE WAS ACTUALLY TRANSLATING IT.
You can’t get around that fact that Joseph was “intimate” with various women and girls, all in God’s name.
Bushman can make excuses, but when it boils down, it’s hard to do the impossible, which is: Prove the veracity of Smith’s claims.
It’s impossible.
PS. If you wanna quick read of Bushman type writing, read REMINI’S book on Smith. It’s great. It’s like the cliff notes on Bushman’s book, but by a non-member. The book is here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067003083X/102-3022657-1197715?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance
“Bushman can make excuses, but when it boils down, it’s hard to do the impossible, which is: Prove the veracity of Smith’s claims.
It’s impossible.”
Since your argument is that JS lied, then the onus is on you to disprove his claims, not for the believers to prove them.
Besides, I have seen nothing from you that disproves JS’s claims. He claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon from the plates. How exactly do you explain the BoM? Its complexity, its consistent internal geography, the statements of the witnesses (never retracted), etc etc. I could go on and on.
If JS lied, then the BoM is a lie. Prove it.
SAM
You said:
If JS lied, then the BoM is a lie. Prove it.
I’ll try to keep the spirit of debate instead of contention. LOL.
It’s extremely simple to see the through the ‘veracity’ of the BOM. Plagiarism, anachronisms, its origins, etc.
People don’t turn black or white based on their obedience to a prophet. Followers of the law of Moses aren’t baptized as Christians.
I will have more time after this semester ends to send you more information regarding the BOM if you’d like. Apologists like Van Hale and Richard Bushman have both voiced their belief that the BOM is not historical at all.
The most damning evidence of the BOM is what does exist. JS claims to have translated the BOA and the Kinderhook Plates. The Book of Abraham is the most blatant example of JS’s false claims that has ever surfaced.
In response to your question – I will be Christ-like and return with a question:
PROVE TO ME THAT THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM IS “TRUE.”
-Hyrum
John said:
“I do believe that the church would have a hard time claiming to members that it wasn’t doctrinal today–because they’d have too much backtracking and explaining to do. The members might too easily say, “well…if they were wrong then, what are they wrong about now?” So they’re basically stuck with it, and without it simultaneously.”
Actually, this opinion is shared by a famous German politician named Adolf Hitler.
Here is a quote from his book “My struggle” (Mein Kampf). It is amazing to see many parallels between him and Joseph Smith, the only difference being that Smith was a religious leader, and Hitler a political leader.
“Even in this point we can learn from the catholic church. Although its doctrine contradicts in some points,partly unnecessarily, the exact sciences, it is not willing to change even a syllable of its doctrines. The church has correctly recognized that its strength lies not in an adaption to current scientific results, which are ever changing, but in a rigid adherence to once defined dogmas, which lead to the characteristic of dogmatic faith.
Therefore, it is nowadays stronger than ever.
It is predictable, that in when times change, the catholic church itself will remain the calm pole and will obtain more and more blind adherence.”
Hitler later applies these principles to his dogma of national socialism, which shall not be changed, even if some of the “articles of faith” might be out of date and rather be adjusted.
Hyrum,
Sorry if I sounded rude when I said “prove it.” That was not my intent. It was simply to say that it is easy to throw accusations around, but far harder to prove them.
“It’s extremely simple to see the through the ‘veracity’ of the BOM. Plagiarism, anachronisms, its origins, etc.”
I don’t think it is so easy. People have tried for over a hundred years and they have been unable to do so. Would you care to share any examples? Where did JS plagarize from, what are the anachronisms, etc?
If this is what you think passes for proof, I will be quite happy staying in the Church. I have not only a spiritual witness of the BoM, but I believe that such things as chiasmus in the BoM (Alma 36 for example), the hebraisms, such as the use of Jershon, Nahom, nhr, etn, etc, the witnesses of the plates and the angels (none of which changed their stories) are a wonderful second witness to the veracity of the book. No RFM or Anti-Mormon has ever been able to adequately explain these things, so they ignore them.
By the way, JS never claimed to translate the Kinderhook plates. I think it is a non-issue. If JS had seen the Kinderhook plates and thought there was something there, he would have bought them. I mean he paid over $4000 (in 1840s money) for the mummies and papyrus that became the Book of Abraham. The fact is he saw the plates maybe twice and never did anything substantive with them.
Sam
I never implied that people need to leave the church based on the historicity of the BOM. You said:
If this is what you think passes for proof, I will be quite happy staying in the Church.
There is only proof that the BOM is FALSE. It’s somewhat ironic that you ask me to prove this. It is SO MUCH HARDER TO PROVE its veracity. So again, I return with a question:
Prove that it’s true!
It’s much harder than proving that it’s false.
Back to my original discussion:
Has anyone read part or all of Bushman’s book? What’s your take?
Hyrum,
How are the things that I cited proof that the BoM is false? They are evidences of its truthfulness. You neglected to answer them in any substantive fashion.
I an not quite sure why I am having this conversation, but I will try. I have given you several things from the BoM that are evidences of its truthfulness and you have returned with “there is only proof that it is false.” Which is now proven false.
Sorry that you won’t look at the facts or argue on the merits. If you won’t, I don’t really have the time to discuss it with you.
Sam
You said:
I an not quite sure why I am having this conversation, but I will try.
I’m not quite sure either, because I never brought it up. You did, when you said:
How exactly do you explain the BoM? Its complexity, its consistent internal geography, the statements of the witnesses (never retracted), etc etc. I could go on and on.
Originally I started this thread asking for thoughts on Richard Bushman’s book, but you redirected the discussion to Joseph Smith’s book.
Sam, I respect your belief of the BOM, that is your choice. I expect you to respect my disbelief as well. Every time I read it, I get the feeling in my heart, and confirming thoughts in my mind through study – that it’s gibberish.
If you would like a review of the BOM from someone who had time to articulate a great critical piece on it, visit here:
http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.book%20of%20mormon%20review.pdf
One section of this review is something that resonates well with me. I agree with it wholeheartedly. It states:
If you would like an exhaustive take on it by me, I’ll be happy to get back to you when I have time to devote to such a goofy task. I admit, the BOM has done something good for me in my life. I read it aloud quite a bit in Spanish, and it helped to memorize phrases about war, and 19th century word-plays on history and God. I also realized out in the mission field, that it was filled with errors, anachronisms, etc.
So, again – I started this thread asking for thoughts on Richard Bushman’s book, but you redirected the discussion to Joseph Smith’s book.
-Hyrum
Hyrum,
The one thing I’ll add is that it’s generally accepted that it’s impossible to prove a negative (that Santa or Martians doesn’t exist….that Joseph didn’t see God) even if the claim is quite absurd. This, of course, doesn’t prove that these things do exist, or do happen, but it’s much easier to demonstrate that something is valid, than isn’t valid (generally, from a philosophical perspective).
So it is just plain fact/reality that your job is gonna natively be much harder than a believer’s–regardless of the merits.
My 2 cents.
John
John
Of course I can’t PROVE that pink unicorns don’t exist. But like you said, it’s sure not impossible to demonstrate that something is or is not valid. Because Mormonism is so new, is well documented, and quite hypocritical from my perspective, I see that it’s much easier to “disprove” than common Christianity. Its origins and fundamental nature set up quite the pedastal that it does not deserve. Lehi, being a Jew isn’t going to burst out with Greek, French, or even 19th century phrases.
http://scriptures.lds.org/jacob/7/27#27
Joseph Smith isn’t going to be trusted by any normal Christian when he sobs to his father in law telling him that he never could “see” with peepstones, and then turn around and use this as a “traslation technique.”
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1993.htm/ensign%20july%201993.htm/a%20treasured%20testament.htm
Denying children of God blessings, priveliges, etc. because of the color of their skin, and calling this doctrine – that’s outright blasphemy.
http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/5/21#21
Requiring men to take up more than one sexual partner at a time in God’s name, that’s blasphemy too.
http://scriptures.lds.org/1_tim/3/2#2
And what about stating that God told Abraham to lie about his wife and commanded polygamy, etc etc etc?
http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/2/25#25
Smith’s adaption of theology is definitely easy to disprove. I point to three facsimiles, and Joseph’s “translations” of them:
http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_1
http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_2
http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_3
It’s difficult to get away from Gordon B’s statements regarding the Black & White nature of the church. It should have been put more into a grey area, but they said, “It was or it wasn’t. It’s true or it’s not. This happened the way we say it did, or it didn’t.”
So my two cents are that it’s painted itself into a corner.
-Hyrum
Hyrum,
A couple of comments made by you before I even got into this:
“I just get a sense that the way the LDS faith is headed is so shady. I mean seriously. Of course it’s false…”
“The fact of the matter is that they LDS faith today IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY.”
“Bushman can make excuses, but when it boils down, it’s hard to do the impossible, which is: Prove the veracity of Smith’s claims.”
You weren’t asking for opinions on Bushman’s book; you were bashing my religion. Sorry I thought I should step in and defend it.
I don’t have time to explain all your well-worn anti-Mormon arguments. The only one that came close to the BoM (which has to be false if JS is false) is the ‘adieu’ thing. JS translated the BoM into English and used what he thought was an appropriate word. It was in well use in the English language at the time. Look up Jeremiah 10:22 in the KJV of the Bible. See ‘bruit?’ French word in the Bible. So I guess we throw out the Bible? Of course not.
As for the facsimiles, the Book of Abraham was not translated from these. Joseph Smith’s interpretation of the scenes in these facsimiles get proven more correct all the time.
Long story, so check out http://www.fairlds.org or http://www.jefflindsay.org to answer your questions. I am sure you won’t have any problem going there since your knowledge of JS being a false prophet is so certain.
Sam
You said:
You weren’t asking for opinions on Bushman’s book; you were bashing my religion.
Just because I know the church is not true, does not necessarily mean that I am “bashing your religion.” If someone were to read the book of Mormon and see that “there is only one true church and all others are from the devil” – they could make a jump and say that Mormonism is “bashing their religion.” We know this would be extreme.
I was a part of the Mormon Church for a long time. I paid tithing to LDS Inc. along with a tenth of my life out on a mission. So, do I have a right to opinionate one way or the other? SURE I do! Of course we have different conclusions Sam. You choose yours and I’ll choose mine!
You said:
Check out http://www.fairlds.org or http://www.jefflindsay.org to answer your questions. I am sure you won’t have any problem going there since your knowledge of JS being a false prophet is so certain.
I’ve visited those sites often. As for website recommendations . . . hmmm, there are so many out there I could refer you to regarding Mormonism. One informative one about the founder of the current LDS Church is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young
You also said:
As for the facsimiles, the Book of Abraham was not translated from these. Joseph Smith’s interpretation of the scenes in these facsimiles get proven more correct all the time.
This has got to be the oddest reasoning I’ve heard in some time.
Good luck apologizing for Joseph’s actions while not simultaneously defending what these guys believe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLDS
To conclude:
I guess I’ll choose to take a break from this board for a while. I’m not sure Dehlin was going for a “Come here only if you have nice things to say about Mormonism.” But if the majority of the posters here want drive the comments in this direction, then I suppose that is what will happen. Meaningful discussion is a good thing. Coming to an understanding that people can be of a different opinion is a good thing. Dehlin’s shows have a certain quality about them that try to let a fair story be told. The recent posters can’t seem to let that be the attitude here. I am not saying that you shouldn’t post why you feel the way you do. Of course I understand it will conflict with the way I see things. But shouldn’t you be okay seeing other people posting how they feel?
Joseph Smith said you should:
It looks too much like the Methodists, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have a creed which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine. The high counsel undertook to censure and correct Elder Brown, because of his teachings … Whether they actually corrected him or not, I am a little doubtful, but don’t care. (Documentary History of the Church, Vol. VI, 273- 274, as quoted in Alma P. Burton, Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 106, 107)
May the truth be with you! Adios! or should I say, adieu?
-Hyrum
“Just because I know the church is not true, does not necessarily mean that I am “bashing your religion.””
No that’s right. But when you come on here and instead of engaging in reasonable discussion spout off with “Joseph Smith is a liar” and “the Church is false” you ARE bashing the religion.
“If someone were to read the book of Mormon and see that “there is only one true church and all others are from the devil” – they could make a jump and say that Mormonism is “bashing their religion.” We know this would be extreme.”
I don’t know where they would get that message in the BoM, so yea it would be pretty extreme. And although we believe this is the true Church, it doesn’t preclude other churches from having a lot of truth. Our Church respects other faiths. We do not get the same in return much of the time.
This forum was to discuss the interview with Mr. Lynch, especially the questions about the doctrine of polygamy. You chose to make it into a “Mormonism isn’t true and Joseph Smith was a fraud.”
Don’t get upset because someone called you on it.
A few brief notes.
“People don’t turn black or white based on their obedience to a prophet.”
Actually, if we’re sticking with the Bible, as you like to, they do
Numbers 12:10-11 10 When the cloud went away from over the tent, Miriam had become leprous,as white as snow. And Aaron turned towards Miriam and saw that she was leprous. 11 Then Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my lord, do not punish us for a sin that we have so foolishly committed.
She (and Aaron) had criticized Moses for marrying a Cushite (and therefore presumably African) woman and challenged his authority. Therefore, she was turned so “leprous” she was white
“Apologists like Van Hale and Richard Bushman have both voiced their belief that the BOM is not historical at all.”
I’ve had personal interaction with Van on the matter, but what citation or proof can you offer that Bushman rejects the historicity of the BoM?
I know I’m not following the thread too well and would have rather just emailed (sorry I couldn’t find the where to email)
I would just like to say that this show was great! Thanks John for providing me some positive mormonism in my life. Something open, honest and interesting.
I don’t go to church anymore. It just makes me either bored or depressed. I wish I had a better reason like some of the historical issues that are brought up on your show, but I haven’t delved into them as deep as your guests have. I find their analysis fasinating(sp?).
You’re show is a diamond. It gives me some new and interesting things to hear. And it brings back that element of church that I did miss in my life, leaving out the parts of it that I hated. So keep up the good work.
Some people on this blog have made comments that polygamy is not a doctrine of the Mormon Church. Thank you John Dehlin for being so honest and asking for honesty from the church regarding this issue. Polygamy is an eternal Mormon doctrine. But some LDS women today do not believe that polygamy is an eternal doctrine in their church, the very idea of sharing their husband with other women into eternity repulses them. However, the early Mormon prophets clearly taught that Plural Marriage is a requirement for Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom (see http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/required.htm and http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech9b.htm#Essential to Salvation. In my 1891 D&C there is a footnote to section 132 verse 63: where it says that polygamy is “for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men…” the footnote reads, “that is, the souls or spirits of men to be born in heaven. Verse 19, 30″ (to see an image of this from my 1891 D&C go to http://www.geocities.com/exmormon2000/soulsmen.html). This clearly shows that polygamy is in fact considered an eternal LDS doctrine that must be practiced in heaven by the GODS. Joseph Smith created the belief in finite male gods that reproduce like humans, and therefore, it was necessary for the future Gods to have multiple wives in the eternal worlds, so that they may give birth to billions of spirit children to send to their own planets they organized from eternal matter.
Some Mormon women I’ve talked to, after being confronted with the evidence in LDS history, doctrine, and scripture, tell me they believe that they will be magically transformed in heaven so that they will not mind becoming one of many obedient plural wives to their husband in heaven. Why these women subject themselves to such mental degradation is beyond me? But what is more disturbing to me is that they plan on teaching this to their daughters. I say to all LDS women reading this, the Mormon polygamy doctrine is man-made sexism. You are special and important and you are not the means to the end of Man. Hold your head up high and respect yourself, and reject this misogynistic fantasy known as Mormon polygamy.
John Lynch, you said that Joseph’s money digging isn’t a big issue for you. It’s not a big issue to know that Joseph used to swindle people out of their money by looking into a hat and staring at a rock (like a crystal ball) to discern where buried treasure is in the ground; then claiming to find buried gold plates in the ground and translate them with the very same stone? There’s nothing in the least suspicious with that picture? Isn’t that like God choosing a known magician who pulls rabbits out of hat to be his prophet and wanting us to believe that this same magician pulled a new Bible out of the same hat?
John Lynch, you said the different First Vision versions are easily explained. Is that really true? In episode 2 (http://mormonstories.org/?p=92)of Dehlin’s podcast with Grant Palmer, Palmer discusses the legendary development of the First Vision that can’t just be dismissed by comparing it to two witnesses at a traffic accident etc. There’s more to it than that John. You can actually see the legend develop step by step. You can see the progression in Joseph’s thinking by examining his scriptures and revelations together. For example, in 1830 the Book of Mormon (BoM) is published that teaches there’s one God not two or three Gods. Then in 1832 Smith wrote that only Jesus appeared to him. Both these documents match his monotheistic thinking at that time. What the LDS scriptures taught can be compared to the dates with the First Vision versions below. As Joseph came to see God less as a single being and divide the godhead into different Gods his writings reflect these changes. Why is that if you reject a legendary development? Is this just coincidence? Follow the dates chronologically and notice how the doctrine of the Godhead changes as each new scripture he adds to the canon influences his reworking of the First Vision. “LonF” is abbreviation for Lectures on Faith:
1830:
BoM = Monotheistic.
1835
LonF = Binitarian 1837: Changes BoM (Godhead changes)
Here are the main First Vision versions, the date of the account, and who is said to have appeared. Compare these dates with the scripture additions above:
1832:
Only Jesus
1834:
Angel
1835:
2 unidentified persons
1838: (published 1842)
official version today
How can the apologist just ignore this obvious legendary development? Can any thinking person dismiss this evidence? For links and more details explaining this information see my essay at http://www.geocities.com/exmormon2000/godhead.html.
In regards to the Bushman book “Rough Stone Rolling.” I have read sections of it and think it is great as well. It is a monumental move to a more honesty history. But this book does not have the church seal of approval on it like other histories. Why not? Keep in mind that Palmer’s book was sold by Deseret book for a long time before it was yanked and he was disfellowshipped for telling the truth. And there is a difference between Deseret book selling Bushman’s book and the church quoting its controversial aspects in Mormon lesson manuals and LDS leaders reading it out loud in Gospel Doctrine class. If the latter starts happening I guarantee people will be disciplined, testimonies will falter, and Bushman himself may end up disfellowshipped like Palmer. Well, maybe not disfellowshipped, since I’m sure he had some church leaders proof read his manuscript and back him so that he could feel safe before publishing.
Thank you John Dehlin for pressing the issue of how most Mormons just seem to dismiss the exmormon as some kind of sinner; and thank you John Lynch for being honest that the main reason most people leave the church is because of a violation of trust and how active LDS should ideally deal with those who are leaving. And about that, the LDS temple interview actually contains the following question that Latter day Saints must answer correctly to be considered a devout Mormon:
Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual? See http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/recommend.shtml.
Therefore Mormons vow not to sympathize or affiliate with exmormons like me who oppose church teachings like the seed of Cain, polygamy, and the historicity of the BoM. So, John Lynch and John John Dehlin, just a question, how can the LDS member show compassion when they are taught to fear and shun honest souls like me?