Some more thoughts on polygamy

[_Ray A]

Did your view of polygamy play a role in why you left the Church?

Just curious...

Polygamy bothered me enormously, even as a TBM. You may, or may not, recall that I wrote about D. Michael Quinn's Dialogue essay on LDS Plural Marriages between 1890-1904.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/quinn_polygamy.shtml

Combining this with the aversion I already felt to polygamy, was definitely a huge factor. I went inactive for three months after reading that essay, but I never told anyone of the reason I was inactive, except my then wife. I was on the high council at the time, and naturally stopped going to HC meetings. I later met with a member of the stake presidency and asked to be released, but accepted a calling as PEC secretary, as the bishop was a good friend of mine, but a terrible organiser, so I felt I could help him, not out of a feeling of "duty", but friendship. I revised many of my views, and shifted to "liberal beliefs", but the full reasons I later left altogether were more complex than just one factor, though this was a big one. On a side note, my bishop-friend got very curious about my views, and asked me to read some of the literature I was reading, but I warned him it could damage his orthodox beliefs. He kept pressing me to "reveal" what I was reading, so I referred him to several articles. Later on, he wanted to read more, and without my referral he got on to the Tanners' books, and several months later asked to be released as a bishop, appeared at Church for his release by the stake presidency, then walked out after Sacrament. He has never been back.

I think polygamy is a complex historical issue, and I don't see it in black and white terms. I believe Joseph Smith could have been wrong, and I don't believe a president cannot be wrong. If this was the case, no provision would have been made in D&C 107 for the removal of a president in the case of error, but it was not done because those who objected, like Rigdon, Cowdery, Whitmer, Harris and others, were in no position to try Joseph Smith for error.

22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church. 23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling. 24 And they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.....

79 And the Presidency of the council of the High Priesthood shall have power to call other high priests, even twelve, to assist as counselors; and thus the Presidency of the High Priesthood and its counselors shall have power to decide upon testimony according to the laws of the church.
80 And after this decision it shall be had in remembrance no more before the Lord; for this is the highest council of the church of God, and a final decision upon controversies in spiritual matters.
81 There is not any person belonging to the church who is exempt from this council of the church.
82 And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;
83 And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him.
84 Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness.

This doesn't correlate with the idea that a Church president can never be wrong, or rather lead the people astray. It is the duty of the Twelve and Quorums of Seventy to provide checks and balances, and perhaps in the early days of the Church these checks and balances did not function properly. Only my speculation. President Kimball was the first Church president to enact the proper roles of the Quorums of Seventy.

[_asbestosman]

Why discount the firsthand accounts? And what manner in which they are told bothers you?

I dislike the spin of how manipulative it sounds to me goes against everything else I know from the church. It's easier to reject the spin on those accounts than it is to reject all the rest of everything for the church.

First-hand accounts are not necessarily accurate even if it was written by a faithful member. Take my spin of what my EQ president did last week. Upon further reflection it appears that I misunderstood him. So did people misunderstand Joseph? Perhaps, or perhaps they misunderstood what God wanted Joseph to do. Or maybe something else. I place less stock in the accuracy of accounts that are not canonized, even if those things are generally useful such as Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith or whatnot.

[_Runtu]

Why discount the firsthand accounts? And what manner in which they are told bothers you?

I dislike the spin of how manipulative it sounds to me goes against everything else I know from the church. It's easier to reject the spin on those accounts than it is to reject all the rest of everything for the church.

Have you read Compton's book? If not, you should. The man bent over backward to be fair to Joseph and give him the benefit of the doubt. Spin might account for one or two of the narratives, but all of them?

First-hand accounts are not necessarily accurate even if it was written by a faithful member. Take my spin of what my EQ president did last week. Upon further reflection it appears that I misunderstood him. So did people misunderstand Joseph? Perhaps, or perhaps they misunderstood what God wanted Joseph to do. Or maybe something else. I place less stock in the accuracy of accounts that are not canonized, even if those things are generally useful such as Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith or whatnot.

Again, one person may have misunderstood Joseph, but not dozens over many years.

I like you abman, but denial is not a good thing.

[_Sethbag]

I liked Abman's earlier post. Abman, I admire the way you're speaking plainly about the apologetic responses and such. It shows that you know they are hard to swallow, but if you wish to remain a believing member, you're kind of stuck with them. And you acknowledge that. I don't know why it is that you feel you must remain a faithful member, but I'm glad to see that you recognize and acknowledge the price that is to be paid.

[_asbestosman]

Again, one person may have misunderstood Joseph, but not dozens over many years.

I like you abman, but denial is not a good thing.

I would like to ask a potentially personal question if I might. Feel free to ignore it or whatever. How do the faithful LDS you know (parents, etc.) deal with it?

[_asbestosman]

I liked Abman's earlier post. Abman, I admire the way you're speaking plainly about the apologetic responses and such. It shows that you know they are hard to swallow, but if you wish to remain a believing member, you're kind of stuck with them. And you acknowledge that. I don't know why it is that you feel you must remain a faithful member, but I'm glad to see that you recognize and acknowledge the price that is to be paid.

I also tend to believe that the real apologists (the guys who publish in FARMS like DCP) have much better responses than mine. I suspect that they remain silent on those points because they know that the responses are utterly useless to convincing those who see things differently. But why, you ask, haven't they told me anything about it? 1) I haven't done my homework 2) I'm not even struggling with it right now and 3) I might blab it to you guys which would just create useless aggrivation to all.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Asbestosman...

I know this was to Runtu but... :-)

I would like to ask a potentially personal question if I might. Feel free to ignore it or whatever. How do the faithful LDS you know (parents, etc.) deal with it?

I do not know of any believing members outside the message boards who know about Joseph Smith, or even have a tiny glimpse of who he really was ahd what he did. Virtually everyone I personally know believes the SS version of truth... ya know, the faith promoting one! :-)

Those who I know who have found out are no longer faithful or believing members.

~dancer~

[_Ray A]

I also tend to believe that the real apologists (the guys who publish in FARMS like DCP) have much better responses than mine. I suspect that they remain silent on those points because they know that the responses are utterly useless to convincing those who see things differently. But why, you ask, haven't they told me anything about it? 1) I haven't done my homework 2) I'm not even struggling with it right now and 3) I might blab it to you guys which would just create useless aggrivation to all.

There is actually a FARMS Review reply to Compton's book: http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/display ... iew&id=290

[_asbestosman]

Virtually everyone I personally know believes the SS version of truth... ya know, the faith promoting one! :-)

Funny. That's the same version of the truth I believe. Truth 1.0 :-) (well, I think I may have had an upgrade to version 1.1, but it's still compatible).

[_Sethbag]

Again, one person may have misunderstood Joseph, but not dozens over many years.

I like you abman, but denial is not a good thing.

I would like to ask a potentially personal question if I might. Feel free to ignore it or whatever. How do the faithful LDS you know (parents, etc.) deal with it?

I know this was addressed specifically at Runtu, but I'll give my side of it too. My parents and other faithful LDS I know just don't much about it. Actually my dad knows some of it, but my mom doesn't, my siblings don't, my mother-in-law doesn't, etc. They don't know, and they don't want to know. And they won't read about it. My dad, who does know some of this stuff, just says he doesn't get it, but that God was OK with it, and someday we'll know why. It's lame, as you acknowledged earlier. But he's committed to being in the church, and satisfying himself with lame apologetic excuses is one price he has to pay for that commitment.