BYU Responds to the New York Times Article

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: BYU Responds to the New York Times Article

Post by _sock puppet »

Arrakis wrote:From the Welch link:
In addition, the BYU Studies website also features many links to reference works such as the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published by Macmillan in 1992. It is also available free. This semi-official publication of the Church, produced under the auspices of Brigham Young University


How is something "semi-official"? It's either official or it's not.

Room for plausible deniability of that which looks foolish now or in the future. Until it does, it's official.
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: BYU Responds to the New York Times Article

Post by _Themis »

Kishkumen wrote:
I suppose the problem is not that the Church hides this material, but that they put it in places the vast majority of the members will never look.


It is certainly a problem, but the bigger one is the material itself.

Worse yet, members have no way to contextualize the information when they do find it.


I think they do. It's just not the one the church would want. This is why apologetic works hard to create ones like Joseph the reluctant hero.
42
_Megacles
_Emeritus
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:43 am

Re: BYU Responds to the New York Times Article

Post by _Megacles »

Arrakis wrote:How is something "semi-official"? It's either official or it's not.


I do not know about that, Arrakis. There are a great deal of government contractors here in the US that are often referred to as "quasi-government agencies." I would imagine this to be similar.

Themis wrote:I hate pictures like this. Is he really going to be reading a book while trying to walk in the snow and cold.


I know what you are saying, but I still think it is kind of a neat photo (even if it was a publicity stunt, Bazooka). It speaks to me because, when I am surrounded by nature and silence I feel closer to God.

Kishkumen wrote:I suppose the problem is not that the Church hides this material, but that they put it in places the vast majority of the members will never look.


It is for that reason that this New York Times article excites me. I think it brings to light something that some of us already knew--your statement above--but the church may not have been aware of the magnitude of the situation until now. I hope this helps incite positive change!
Sincerely,
/\/\EGACLES
_Tim the Enchanter
_Emeritus
Posts: 734
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:33 pm

Re: BYU Responds to the New York Times Article

Post by _Tim the Enchanter »

From the link:

John W. Welch wrote:On Joseph Smith's introduction and practicing of polygamy, for example, see the 1992 Encyclopedia articles on "Plural Marriage," and "Smith, Joseph." The article on plural marriage (polygamy) mentions Fanny Alger, hostilities, inner conflicts, challenges, regulation of this ordinance, Emma, and says that Joseph "set the example." The biographical entry on "Smith, Joseph: The Prophet" devotes a good-sized paragraph to Joseph's introduction of plural marriage as early as 1841, with "his first recorded plural wife, Louisa Beaman" that year. That paragraph ends with the statement, "During his remaining [three] years, he married at least twenty-seven others."


How are the two bolded parts compatible? Why mention Fanny Alger in connection with plural marriage (polygamy) if Joseph Smith's first recorded plural wife was Louisa Beaman? If Joseph Smith's marriage to Fanny Alger was "unrecorded," how is it a plural marriage at all? It must have been recorded in some way otherwise it wouldn't even be known about.
There are some who call me...Tim.
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: BYU Responds to the New York Times Article

Post by _Fence Sitter »

Tim the Enchanter wrote:
How are the two bolded parts compatible? Why mention Fanny Alger in connection with plural marriage (polygamy) if Joseph Smith's first recorded plural wife was Louisa Beaman? If Joseph Smith's marriage to Fanny Alger was "unrecorded," how is it a plural marriage at all? It must have been recorded in some way otherwise it wouldn't even be known about.



If Fanny Alger was a plural wife, why was God still sending angels with flaming swords, years after Fanny, to convince Joseph Smith to practice polygamy?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_Maxrep
_Emeritus
Posts: 677
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:29 am

Re: BYU Responds to the New York Times Article

Post by _Maxrep »

Fence Sitter wrote:
Tim the Enchanter wrote:
How are the two bolded parts compatible? Why mention Fanny Alger in connection with plural marriage (polygamy) if Joseph Smith's first recorded plural wife was Louisa Beaman? If Joseph Smith's marriage to Fanny Alger was "unrecorded," how is it a plural marriage at all? It must have been recorded in some way otherwise it wouldn't even be known about.



If Fanny Alger was a plural wife, why was God still sending angels with flaming swords, years after Fanny, to convince Joseph Smith to practice polygamy?

That is a great observation.
I don't expect to see same-sex marriage in Utah within my lifetime. - Scott Lloyd, Oct 23 2013
_Megacles
_Emeritus
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:43 am

Re: BYU Responds to the New York Times Article

Post by _Megacles »

Fence Sitter wrote:If Fanny Alger was a plural wife, why was God still sending angels with flaming swords, years after Fanny, to convince Joseph Smith to practice polygamy?


Fence Sitter, is that the only thing you find troubling about the response by BYU Studies?

In your opinion, is the fact that the university acknowledges the New York Times article at all not enough to lend it at least some measure of laudation?
Sincerely,
/\/\EGACLES
_ludwigm
_Emeritus
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am

Re: BYU Responds to the New York Times Article

Post by _ludwigm »

Fence Sitter wrote:If Fanny Alger was a plural wife, why was God still sending angels with flaming swords, years after Fanny, to convince Joseph Smith to practice polygamy?
Because JS and BY were reluctant...


According to http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/viewQuestion.aspx ... 7e72cfb683 (When and why did the Church once practice polygamy?):
"Joseph Smith received the revelation about plural marriage as early as 1831 in answer to his inquiry concerning the appropriateness of revered prophets and patriarchs who had more than one wife. Joseph was reluctant to introduce the practice and did so only after divine warning."
- Would You be reluctant after divine warning?

According to http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/viewQuestion.aspx ... 88c6428247 (Who was Brigham Young?):
"He was also taught the principle of plural marriage, which he accepted after much reluctance and considerable thought and prayer."
- Would You show reluctance to fly a JumboJet into Burj Khalifa Tower ( برج خليفة‎ ) after considerable thought and prayer?


I always had one question - after reading these LDSFAQs:

How many wives would have had JS and BY without that reluctance?
100? 200?
Or 1000 like Solomon? (You know he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines )
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
_kairos
_Emeritus
Posts: 1917
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: BYU Responds to the New York Times Article

Post by _kairos »

"Take me to heaven and what do i see, Joseph Smith and a happy polygamous fam-i- ly !

Take me to hell and what do i see, celibate popes chasing after me"

words spoken in general conference(also found in Morg encyclopedia of smoke, mirrors and bulls**t) by the SEMI-prophet,seer and revelator

thomas, i really do need some more wives, monson
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: BYU Responds to the New York Times Article

Post by _why me »

Bazooka wrote:
That's it. That's the only mention of Fanny Alger. It's worth noting that the claim by the authors of the article is that the relationship with Fanny Alger was a plural marriage - yet that's impossible as the sealing keys had not at that point been restored. It's a really poor article in terms of treating the subject of plural marriage with honesty and integrity. I hope this isn't the best example of what BYU Studies is producing.


If I search the official website of the Lutheran Church I am not going to find much on past doctrines, nor on history that is not faith promoting. It is however up to scholars to write on such things. And there are certainly many protestant, religious and secular scholars doing this. It is not a church's responsibility to engage in historical debate. But interested parties can.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith
Post Reply