lol -- yeah, "an 1890 'manifesto'" did "officially dispense with polygamy", but the Church didn't. That was the point. Duh. Case closed, indeed.
As I recall, that was all that was claimed....
Some Church members followed the practice for about a 50-year period until 1890, when it was officially stopped.
Case still closed.
Uggghhh. How can we do this? Somebody please get a clue. It looks terrible to continue to make inaccurate states about our polygamous past in the very same textual breath that we ask for accuracy (and even imply potential legal action for innacuracy). Polygamy was "officially" continued until 1904. Duh. Everyone knows this, right, BC? We were all taught this in Seminary, right?
I seem to recall hearing about Apostle Smoot in cemetary yes. Didn't you graduate?
lol -- yeah, "an 1890 'manifesto'" did "officially dispense with polygamy", but the Church didn't. That was the point. Duh. Case closed, indeed.
As I recall, that was all that was claimed....
Some Church members followed the practice for about a 50-year period until 1890, when it was officially stopped.
Case still closed.
You seriously cannot see the difference between claiming that a "manifesto" dispensed with polyamy and saying that "some church members folowed the practice" until it was "officially stopped" in "1890"? There is no disputing what the manifesto said, and NPR points out what it said, but then says that the Church is "not as clean as Mormon leaders suggest" -- hmmm, wonder what Mormon leaders are suggesting? Possibly that it was "officially stopped" in "1890"? Again, duh. It appears you simply cannot handle the fact that the obvious reality has been pointed out not only by NPR, but the well regarded Shipps and Bushman. Deal with it.
You seriously cannot see the difference between claiming that a "manifesto" dispensed with polyamy and saying that "some church members folowed the practice" until it was "officially stopped" in "1890"? There is no disputing what the manifesto said, and NPR points out what it said, but then says that the Church is "not as clean as Mormon leaders suggest" -- hmmm, wonder what Mormon leaders are suggesting? Possibly that it was "officially stopped" in "1890"? Again, duh. You simply cannot handle the fact that the obvious reality has been pointed out not only by NPR, but the well regarded Shipps and Bushman. Deal with it.
I've already dealt with it several times. The Church was indeed waiting to see how the constitutionality of banning plural marriage would play out. Also, can you tell me where most plural marriages after 1890 were performed? Honestly, over the time period in question, a 14 year wind down does not seem unreasonable to me at all. Not volunteering the information while also not making it inaccessible is not unreasonable either seeing as how we haven't practiced plural marriage like that for many years.
So, I take it you disagree with this statement by NPR:
"The Mormon abandonment of polygamy is also not as clean as Mormon leaders suggest."
This has been my argument from the beginning--the Church is "suggest[ing]" something that is not true. NPR and I agree on this. You, and no doubt others who under no circumstances will concede that the Church misleads in any way shape or form, will disagree.
beastie wrote:Too bad NPR doesn't have a wider audience.
Totally agree. I listen daily.
I take issue with Shipps' date, though. I'm honestly not sure where 1919 comes from. I am not aware of any living plural marriages being contracted that late by the mainstream LDS Church. Of course there were still LDS polygamists living at that time (Heber J. Grant, for example.) So if she means people were still living in polygamous relationships 1919 may be a little too early. Again, unclear on where she got that date. Seems like a shot in the dark.
I thought the date was 1924. Perhaps the first several times could be thought of as dress rehearsals.
"The Mormon abandonment of polygamy is also not as clean as Mormon leaders suggest."
This has been my argument from the beginning--the Church is "suggest[ing]" something that is not true. NPR and I agree on this. You, and no doubt others who under no circumstances will concede that the Church misleads in any way shape or form, will disagree.
I don't think the Church is suggesting any such thing. If you want to research it, it's there. But being there does not make the Church any more or less true.
mms wrote:Polygamy also survives in Mormon theology, in the Mormon concept of the afterlife, according to Richard Bushman, a Mormon and visiting professor in Mormon studies at Claremont Graduate University in California.
"A man can be sealed [in eternal marriage] to two women if one of them dies and he marries again," Bushman explains. "There's sort of an implicit heavenly plural marriage that is still authorized and acknowledged. So at the very best we're caught in kind of an ambiguous situation, and people probably pick that up."
Kudos to Bushman for acknowledging this ongoing, albeit limited, practice of a form of polygamy in the modern LDS Church (of course, it's a bit more complicated than Bushman reveals: in addition to a widower, a civilly divorced man (whose sealing to his ex-wife remains) can also be sealed to a second living woman; in contrast, a living woman (widowed or civilly divorced) cannot be sealed to more than one man at any given time).
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
