BYU dumps employee's apologist page ....

[_Runtu]

I get the sense the church (and its leaders), really, REALLY, REALLY wants to distance itself from the weirdness, cruelty and primitive degradation that is polygamy.

But, its apologists members want to justify it, honor it, and even celebrate it as something wonderful and Godly.

I find it odd.

Why don't members sort of get a clue and stop praising something the leaders want to go away? Why make the church stand out as something bizarre and perverted when the church is desperately trying to be more accepted?

I just don't get it.

~dancer~

Here's the thing. One the one hand, the church does desperately want polygamy to go away. Witness the immediate denial of connection every time the polygamous folks show up in the news and the more subtle ways the practice is ignored in official teachings. At the same time, that's one thing the church is known for, so they have to have some way of justifying it, or they have to concede that the early leaders were depraved pervs. So, they set up unofficial apologetics, like FARMS, FAIR, etc., that are close enough to official to give the party line but separate enough for the church to deny official support. Then somebody like Engebretsen posts on an official website, and they boot him.

[_harmony]

I get the sense the church (and its leaders), really, REALLY, REALLY wants to distance itself from the weirdness, cruelty and primitive degradation that is polygamy.

But, its apologists members want to justify it, honor it, and even celebrate it as something wonderful and Godly.

I find it odd.

Why don't members sort of get a clue and stop praising something the leaders want to go away? Why make the church stand out as something bizarre and perverted when the church is desperately trying to be more accepted?

I just don't get it.

~dancer~

Here's the thing. One the one hand, the church does desperately want polygamy to go away. Witness the immediate denial of connection every time the polygamous folks show up in the news and the more subtle ways the practice is ignored in official teachings. At the same time, that's one thing the church is known for, so they have to have some way of justifying it, or they have to concede that the early leaders were depraved pervs. So, they set up unofficial apologetics, like FARMS, FAIR, etc., that are close enough to official to give the party line but separate enough for the church to deny official support. Then somebody like Engebretsen posts on an official website, and they boot him.

which tells me that Bro Engebretsen has much to learn about being an apologist.

[_truth dancer]

Yeah... but, here is the thing.

Just like the priesthood ban for those with African descent and black skin is now totally embarrassing and most members do not justify it in public, (although I am convinced the teaching is still alive and well since it has never been altered or negated), members need to stop celebrating and justifying polygamy if they want to appear normal.

Don't they realize how completely sick, degrading, and perverted polygamy is to most of the world? (All but some woman-hating fanatics).

I think some folks who have grown up in the church, who have been surrounded by the teachings of polygamy all their lives, do not realize how really sick this is to the rest of the modern, civilized world.

I'm sure the PR dept is on top of it (as evidenced by this article), but my gosh, the apologist members need to wake up and follow their leaders! :-)

~dancer~

[_harmony]

Yeah... but, here is the thing.

Just like the priesthood ban for those with African descent and black skin is now totally embarrassing and most members do not justify it in public, (although I am convinced the teaching is still alive and well since it has never been altered or negated), members need to stop celebrating and justifying polygamy if they want to appear normal.

Don't they realize how completely sick, degrading, and perverted polygamy is to most of the world? (All but some woman-hating fanatics).

I think some folks who have grown up in the church, who have been surrounded by the teachings of polygamy all their lives, do not realize how really sick this is to the rest of the modern, civilized world.

I'm sure the PR dept is on top of it (as evidenced by this article), but my gosh, the apologist members need to wake up and follow their leaders! :-)

~dancer~

But... but... but... that would mean that Joseph was... wrong. And so was Brigham and John and all the rest of the early leaders who crammed this despicable manmade doctrine down the members' throats. And that would mean that harmony, Beastie, TD and all the other critics who've spoken out against polygamy in the past were... right.

Not gonna happen, TD.

[_asbestosman]

How any person who loves his/her daughter would give her up to be the property of an other man is beyond my limited ability to comprehend. It is, moreover, morally reprehensible. She's not theirs to give away. She's not property. She's a human being with as legitimate a right to her own moral agency and happiness as her parents. She should not be sacrificed to satisfy the parents' warped sense of religious duty.

To those FAIRistas who answer in the affirmative, you disgust me.

Children aren't property--they're liabilities (although any cash they earn is mine until they turn 18--I think).

Would it be wrong to allow someone to adopt your child?

Would it be wrong to allow your child to make the decision herself? At what age would it be appropriate?

By the way, I see nothing wrong with polygamy if it is conscensual. I'm not sure that 14 is old enough to give consent, but then again I am not exactly an expert on human development. I'm not sure why 18 is a magic age and whether there isn't sufficient variability that someone who's almost 15 couldn't make the cut. I heard that 16 year olds can get married. And yet I would consider them too young to give consent. Then again, I think 21 is too young for marriage.

[_Runtu]

Yeah... but, here is the thing.

Just like the priesthood ban for those with African descent and black skin is now totally embarrassing and most members do not justify it in public, (although I am convinced the teaching is still alive and well since it has never been altered or negated), members need to stop celebrating and justifying polygamy if they want to appear normal.

Of course. You must remember that these apologetics sites are not aimed at outsiders. They are aimed at church members who are doubting and troubled.

Don't they realize how completely sick, degrading, and perverted polygamy is to most of the world? (All but some woman-hating fanatics).

Apparently, they don't, given the arguments I've seen over the years. They act as if it's other people's fault if they don't embrace polygamy, racism, etc.

I think some folks who have grown up in the church, who have been surrounded by the teachings of polygamy all their lives, do not realize how really sick this is to the rest of the modern, civilized world.

How could anything that is part our heritage be sick or perverted?

I'm sure the PR dept is on top of it (as evidenced by this article), but my gosh, the apologist members need to wake up and follow their leaders! :-)

~dancer~

Couldn't agree more. That's why I think this "More Good" thing will backfire (and already has, come to think of it).

[_Rollo Tomasi]

But... but... but... that would mean that Joseph was... wrong. And so was Brigham and John and all the rest of the early leaders who crammed this despicable manmade doctrine down the members' throats. And that would mean that harmony, Beastie, TD and all the other critics who've spoken out against polygamy in the past were... right.

Not gonna happen, TD.

You are dead on. As far as I know, the Church institution has never admitted being wrong about anything (or apologized for anything) -- I think this is due to the fear of undermining the tacit belief that the Brethren would never be allowed to lead the Church astray (and possibly undercut the blind obedience of many TBM's).

[_Yoda]

What I'd like to ask Engebretson, is that if polygamy is not so bad, would he be willing that his daughters participated in it?

Anyone doubt what his answer would be?

I already know the answer. A while back, I asked on FAIR if members were asked to give their 14 year old daughter to the prophet to be his wife (without the consent of the prophet's lawful wife), would they consent?

Only one member said no. Everyone else said they would.

OMG! I missed that thread! Who were some of the fundies who said yes?

[_Jason Bourne]

I get the sense the church (and its leaders), really, REALLY, REALLY wants to distance itself from the weirdness, cruelty and primitive degradation that is polygamy.

But, its apologists members want to justify it, honor it, and even celebrate it as something wonderful and Godly.

I find it odd.

Why don't members sort of get a clue and stop praising something the leaders want to go away? Why make the church stand out as something bizarre and perverted when the church is desperately trying to be more accepted?

I just don't get it.

~dancer~

I agree.

The LDS Church and the top leaders really wishes polygamy would just go away (even though we still have it for eternal temple sealings for men who lose a wife and re-marry). They are the most anyi polygamy group around.

[_Runtu]

What I'd like to ask Engebretson, is that if polygamy is not so bad, would he be willing that his daughters participated in it?

Anyone doubt what his answer would be?

I already know the answer. A while back, I asked on FAIR if members were asked to give their 14 year old daughter to the prophet to be his wife (without the consent of the prophet's lawful wife), would they consent?

Only one member said no. Everyone else said they would.

OMG! I missed that thread! Who were some of the fundies who said yes?

Honestly, I don't remember who said what (it was at least 18 months ago). Rollo might remember. We were both rather astounded at the response.