Valerie Hudson of FAIR is a liar

[_Joseph Antley]

I don't think Valerie was "lying" when she said the FLDS have no relation to us. Only a very cynical mind would conclude that, I think.

[_harmony]

I don't think Valerie was "lying" when she said the FLDS have no relation to us. Only a very cynical mind would conclude that, I think.

"lying" depends on knowledge. With imperfect knowledge, the statement is simply wrong. With knowledge of the antecedents, the statement becomes intentionally deceptive.

[_malkie]

I don't think Valerie was "lying" when she said the FLDS have no relation to us. Only a very cynical mind would conclude that, I think.

Do you think that she was just honestly mistaken - that she was unaware of the history?

by the way, Mr Ant, I noticed your return a couple of months ago - you've been "away" for a while, if I'm not mistaken. Welcome back (belatedly). I'm sure I'm not the only one happy to see you again.

[_Joseph Antley]

I don't think Valerie was "lying" when she said the FLDS have no relation to us. Only a very cynical mind would conclude that, I think.

Do you think that she was just honestly mistaken - that she was unaware of the history?

I think she meant something different than the posters here are interpreting her to have meant. Probably "relation" wasn't the best word, but I think what she meant is that Warren Jeffs nor the FLDS are affiliated with or involved in the LDS Church, nor have their people been for nearly a century. I don't think she meant that historically we're unrelated.

by the way, Mr Ant, I noticed your return a couple of months ago - you've been "away" for a while, if I'm not mistaken. Welcome back (belatedly). I'm sure I'm not the only one happy to see you again.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

[_malkie]

I don't think Valerie was "lying" when she said the FLDS have no relation to us. Only a very cynical mind would conclude that, I think.

Do you think that she was just honestly mistaken - that she was unaware of the history?

I think she meant something different than the posters here are interpreting her to have meant. Probably "relation" wasn't the best word, but I think what she meant is that Warren Jeffs nor the FLDS are affiliated with or involved in the LDS Church, nor have their people been for nearly a century. I don't think she meant that historically we're unrelated.

It's a real pity, then, that DN's editors did not think to challenge the statement, if on no other grounds than that it was open to misinterpretation. And, in spite of your "cynical mind" comment, I don't think it takes a lot of cynicism, much less any ill will (lest some think it), to interpret it according to a plain reading - that is, an apparent attempt to dissociate the LDS from the FLDS.

[_cafe crema]

Was Kristen McMain married prior to becoming Sister Oaks.

I assume not since Elder Oaks refers to her as his eternal companion.

And if she was previously married the the sealing couldn't have been cancelled because.......

[_jon]

Some potential insight into Hudson:

'The Restored Gospel teaches that the term “God” means an exalted woman and an exalted man married in the new and everlasting covenant.'

'LDS doctrine teaches that men and women are equals before the Lord and before each other.'

'Eve was created second...not because she was derivative of Adam: she was created second to highlight that the giving of the gift of the First Tree was the gift to be given by women in the Great Plan.'

'Eve, then, was not the worst among women; Eve was the best among women! She was the most courageous, the most full of faith.'

'Some have erroneously felt that the Church and its male leaders preside over the members’ families, and that somehow that means that men are to rule over women. Nothing could be further from the truth.'

'I understand now that women are that they might have joy (2 Ne 2:25).'

All quotes taken from that bastion of exclusivity;
Mormon Scholars (mostly alive, some dead) Testify.

[_DarkHelmet]

Was Kristen McMain married prior to becoming Sister Oaks.

I assume not since Elder Oaks refers to her as his eternal companion.

That brings up the question, if a man and woman are sealed in the temple and the man dies, if she remarries does she have 2 husbands? If not, does she get to choose which husband to spend eternity with? Maybe trade up?

[_harmony]

I assume not since Elder Oaks refers to her as his eternal companion.

That brings up the question, if a man and woman are sealed in the temple and the man dies, if she remarries does she have 2 husbands? If not, does she get to choose which husband to spend eternity with? Maybe trade up?

Women can't be sealed to 2 husbands.

[_MsJack]

I don't believe #1 makes Hudson a liar any more than saying that there is "no relation" between the Southern Baptist Convention and Westboro Baptist Church would make one a liar. "Relation" isn't the best choice of words because (in both cases) the two churches grew out of the same general religious movement; however, also in both cases, the two churches have no current affiliation with one another, seldom (if ever) enter into dialogue with one another, and operate today completely independent of one another. Clearly, that's what Hudson meant.

I don't believe #2 makes Hudson a liar; the article says she addresses D&C 132 in her presentation and Jacob 2 does give some leeway to argue for monogamy as a rule. I don't know whether she addresses the church's current sealing policies, which certainly do seem to throw a wrench in this theory. But having a theory that does a poor job of interacting with and explaining all of the evidence isn't necessarily the same as lying.

I say this as someone who has been critical of Hudson's arguments in my online comments many times before. My most recent comment criticizing her arguments was made a few days ago here.

That brings up the question, if a man and woman are sealed in the temple and the man dies, if she remarries does she have 2 husbands? If not, does she get to choose which husband to spend eternity with? Maybe trade up?

Living women cannot be sealed to more than one man.

Can a widow have a sealing to her first husband broken in favor of being sealed to her second husband? I don't know. I've heard anecdotal evidence both ways. But if she really loves both her late husband and her new love interest, it would still be a terrible situation to be in.

Deceased women can be sealed to any husbands they were married to in real life, but I think there are some rules and limitations governing this as well.