Polygamy

[TheBlackSheep]

Portia, that post was really patronizing. Just sayin'.

I just want to say... Hey less-than-enthusiastic-and-currently-active-Mormons, the way to honest, frank discussion and respect is not exactly this thread. Probably. I've been wrong.

[SMP]

I feel like this is a great place for this sort of discussion. We've got a variety of different view points and experiences. I give FPM the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are not trying to proselytize. The fact that there are faithful mormons who are willing to discuss these things is one reason I remain active in the church.

[TheBlackSheep]

Oh I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. I don't mean that this community or this forum are the wrong places for the discussion. I think they are great places, and great people to discuss it all with. I just meant that some of the ways that some of us have been talking about it are not going to get them the results that they want, in general.

[Marduk]

Oh yeah? Well, some of the people who have been using some of the ways have sometimes been talking about some of the things that might get someone in big trouble!

Sometimes.

[Whistler]

I'm... not really sure why the meta discussion was necessary. My problem is if Joseph Smith was indeed taking on other wives before having the sealing power, wouldn't God somehow punish him or protect the Saints? Or maybe the consequence to his possible indiscretions is that people later will doubt his prophetic role.

I'm not really sure what information I can believe (having seen reports of fictional accounts in 19th century newspapers, only for an article to be printed later saying it was a hoax); on the other hand, however many terrible things we can dig up about the LDS church's history, my faith is such that I could attribute it to human and not divine error.

[thebigcheese]

I'm not really sure what information I can believe (having seen reports of fictional accounts in 19th century newspapers, only for an article to be printed later saying it was a hoax); on the other hand, however many terrible things we can dig up about the LDS church's history, my faith is such that I could attribute it to human and not divine error.

On a related note, I'd be curious to learn more about the general ethics of that time period. Someone else alluded to this earlier in the thread. I mean, there are some obvious differences between then and now, like punching somebody in the face to defend your honor or whatever...which might get you arrested for assault in today's world. But what about other things? Could some of these primary sources be straight-up bull because the writers had no qualms with lying about somebody? Was sleeping around considered a gentleman's right in some places? How many of today's LDS standards were considered enforceable in the early church?

[Digit]

I don't think Andrew Jackson faced charges when he killed Charles Dicknson in a duel for insulting his wife. It's impressive though that he let Dickinson shoot him first, knowing that Dicknson was a good shot. Jackson killed Dickinson with Dickinson's bullet in his chest a few inches from his heart, too close to ever be removed while Dickinson was reloading.

[Katya]

I'm not really sure what information I can believe (having seen reports of fictional accounts in 19th century newspapers, only for an article to be printed later saying it was a hoax); on the other hand, however many terrible things we can dig up about the LDS church's history, my faith is such that I could attribute it to human and not divine error.

On a related note, I'd be curious to learn more about the general ethics of that time period. Someone else alluded to this earlier in the thread. I mean, there are some obvious differences between then and now, like punching somebody in the face to defend your honor or whatever...which might get you arrested for assault in today's world. But what about other things? Could some of these primary sources be straight-up bull because the writers had no qualms with lying about somebody? Was sleeping around considered a gentleman's right in some places? How many of today's LDS standards were considered enforceable in the early church?

Rough Stone Rolling is a good source for this sort of thing, because Bushman is a historian who specializes in the time period and area where the church was founded.

[thebigcheese]

Blast...I gave my copy of that book to my dad. Maybe I'll check the library.

[Friendly Post-Mo]

Whoa, dudes. I really don't know how to make myself much clearer that I started the discussion in an attempt to gain understanding (not to try to deconvert anyone). Sorry if my questions were hard.

And Portia, your response made me chuckle but for reasons I unfortunately can't relate.

Whistler, I think you gave the best answer to one of my earlier questions. You confirmed my suspicions that no matter what evidence might be presented about the goings on of the early church, most TBM's will rely on their personal spiritual experience. So, what happened in the early church doesn't really matter. This is exactly what I believed when I was TBM but since the subject is taboo (see the rest of this post) I was never really able to discuss this with anyone. So I just decided, "If God wants me to be Mormon, nothing else should matter."

[wired]

Whistler, I think you gave the best answer to one of my earlier questions. You confirmed my suspicions that no matter what evidence might be presented about the goings on of the early church, most TBM's will rely on their personal spiritual experience. So, what happened in the early church doesn't really matter. This is exactly what I believed when I was TBM but since the subject is taboo (see the rest of this post) I was never really able to discuss this with anyone. So I just decided, "If God wants me to be Mormon, nothing else should matter."

I don't have much time to add to this discussion, but I will respond to one part. You say "what happened in the early church doesn't really matter." I am not so sure that it "doesn't matter," as much as individuals are more willing to rely on their spiritual encounters than they are on historical reconstruction of events. Many modern Church members recognize they do not have a context or the complete story for many of the "icky" parts of early Church history; they do have a context and more of the story for their own revelation.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Additionally, attributing ugly spots in church history to human error seems far from an instance of cognitive dissonance - rather, it's a resonant theoretical paradigm that actually does a lot to reconcile seemingly conflicting evidence. If we have an understanding that leaders and members of the church have always been fallible and imperfect, and that we don't have to automatically believe every word a prophet says or assume every decision or action by a leader is based on direct revelation from God — well, then church history becomes interesting and enlightening rather than horrifying.

[wired]

Additionally, attributing ugly spots in church history to human error seems far from an instance of cognitive dissonance - rather, it's a resonant theoretical paradigm that actually does a lot to reconcile seemingly conflicting evidence. If we have an understanding that leaders and members of the church have always been fallible and imperfect, and that we don't have to automatically believe every word a prophet says or assume every decision or action by a leader is based on direct revelation from God — well, then church history becomes interesting and enlightening rather than horrifying.

and Sauron, the more I read your posts, the more I think we have almost identical religious and personal social views, but are diametrically opposed on political social views. We'll have to get lunch some time I'm visiting my in-laws in Southern Cal.

[krebscout]

I'm inviting myself to this lunch.

[Marduk]

Aww, I want to come! And Sauron and I actually have very similar political and social views!

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Let's do it!