The Arrogance of Knowing "The Church is True"

[_wenglund]

In short, the reason I see it that way is because the evidence and reasoning I found in favor of it being right far outweighed the evidence and reasoning that it was wrong.

Wade, what evidence and reasoning did you use (pro & con) ..just key deciding factors is all that I'm interested in.

To be honest, I don't exactly recall. It has been quite some time (several decades) since I briefly considered this 100-year-old moot issue. I suspect that were I interested in revisiting the subject I could probably think hard enough to recall some of the evidence and reasoning, but I am not. If it is still important for you to learn in greater detail my evaluative processes, perhaps you could pick an issue from the last decade or so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

To be honest, I don't exactly recall. It has been quite some time (several decades) since I briefly considered this 100-year-old moot issue. I suspect that were I interested in revisiting the subject I could probably think hard enough to recall some of the evidence and reasoning, but I am not. If it is still important for you to learn in greater detail my evaluative processes, perhaps you could pick an issue from the last decade or so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Why are Joseph Smith's character and behavior moot?

[_marg]

In short, the reason I see it that way is because the evidence and reasoning I found in favor of it being right far outweighed the evidence and reasoning that it was wrong.

Wade, what evidence and reasoning did you use (pro & con) ..just key deciding factors is all that I'm interested in.

To be honest, I don't exactly recall. It has been quite some time (several decades) since I briefly considered this 100-year-old moot issue. I suspect that were I interested in revisiting the subject I could probably think hard enough to recall some of the evidence and reasoning, but I am not. If it is still important for you to learn in greater detail my evaluative processes, perhaps you could pick an issue from the last decade or so.

You appear to be evasive. I don't understand what difference it makes what you thought years ago. You had no difficulty giving your current position on this.

If I ask myself the same question, what reasoning and evidence would I use to reach a conclusion regarding J. Smith and B. Young's polygamy practice, here's some of my reasoning.

Pro: -in societies with unequal distribution of wealth in which there is a high proportion of poverty, men who have the means to care for families, can take on more women as childbearing wives

-in societies in which the ratio of males to females is low, it would enable females to have children and the society benefits by increased population (if that is a benefit)

Con: -in societies in which the ratio of men to women is not inordinately much greater or fewer, polygamous relationships would create conflict and pressure on those males left single to seek women for a healthy sexual relationship and family

-the sexual well being, and the emotional benefit of an intimate relationship with a significant other would not be likely available to women in polygamous groups.




So assuming these are my key factors for justification of polygamy or not, and I look at the specifics of J. Smith and B. Young, I don't see a ratio of greater #'s of men to women, nor extreme povery in society at large in the society they lived in. I see unnecessary hardship placed on women, and in some cases men to practice a life style that's not adding value to the greater society at large and not even adding much value if any to the closed society they were members of.

So my conclusion is that polygamy as encouraged by J.Smith and B. Young had greater costs than benefits, to society at large and to the Mormon society they were members of.

I leave it to you to comment, as you wish.

[_wenglund]

In short, the reason I see it that way is because the evidence and reasoning I found in favor of it being right far outweighed the evidence and reasoning that it was wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm really curious as to what evidence and reasoning led you to believe that wedding teenagers and married women without the consent of Joseph's wife was right. I'm not asking so as to mock you, but I am wondering what reasoning and evidence you used.

Really, it's irrelevant. Since, to remain a member in good standing, you have to follow what the church tells you anyways.

Actually, it is your comment that is irrelevant to the question at hand (which, in case you have forgotten, is whether LDS view the prophet as infallible or fallible, and specifically how one may determine the rightness or wrongness of what the prophet says). In other word, the question is about evaluating rightness or wrongness, not how to stay in good standing.

The church doesn't allow this kind of reasoning.

I think you are projecting your own overlysimplistic/funmdamentalist view onto the membership of the Church. As an active member in good standing, myself, I have used this reasoning quite frequently in the Church, having learned it most from Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Joseph F Smith (particularly his experience landing at the Hawaiian Island as a young missionary). And, from my experience in various Wards and priesthood meeting, as well as in discussion at BYU, I have found that there are not a few members who use this reasoning as well--some of whom have left the Church based on their reasoning, and others who have grown in confidence about the verity of faith through the same.

For instance, if I come to the conclusion that the WoW was incorrect, it wouldn't matter. I still wouldn't be allowed to go to the temple.

So? Not everything that a member may deem wrong in what a prophet says will affect one's church standing. For example, a while back I attended a stake leadership meeting with Elder Ballard. He brought up the subject of reverence in the chapel, and mentioned that the Brethren had decided to encourage members and leaders to be more meditative and soft-spoken when entering and seating themselves in the chapel. And, while I could see the advantages of such a practice, I personally reasoned that the excited hugs and somewhat boistrous and joyful interactions among the members--particularly the children, even in the chapel, envoked a spirit of comradery, socialization, and love that I believed outwieghed the advantages of quite meditation. In other words, and to some extent, I felt the Brethren were wrong. As it was, I expressed that opposing view without feeling the least discomfort in doing so, and to this day my Church standing has been entirely unaffected by it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

To be honest, I don't exactly recall. It has been quite some time (several decades) since I briefly considered this 100-year-old moot issue. I suspect that were I interested in revisiting the subject I could probably think hard enough to recall some of the evidence and reasoning, but I am not. If it is still important for you to learn in greater detail my evaluative processes, perhaps you could pick an issue from the last decade or so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Why are Joseph Smith's character and behavior moot?

Why do you mistakenly suppose I was speaking generally about Joseph's character and behavior, rather than about a practice that was discontinued in the Church a century or more ago?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Why do you mistakenly suppose I was speaking generally about Joseph's character and behavior, rather than about a practice that was discontinued in the Church a century or more ago?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, generally when one says that Joseph's practice was "right," that speaks directly to his character and behavior. We weren't talking about the practice in the abstract. Or maybe I'm just uncharitably misreading the thread. ;-)

[_wenglund]

Why do you mistakenly suppose I was speaking generally about Joseph's character and behavior, rather than about a practice that was discontinued in the Church a century or more ago?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, generally when one says that Joseph's practice was "right," that speaks directly to his character and behavior.

Generally, people don't confuse the subject (the practice of polygamy) with the object (Joseph and Brigham Young).

We weren't talking about the practice in the abstract. Or maybe I'm just uncharitably misreading the thread. ;-)

Bingo. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Why do you mistakenly suppose I was speaking generally about Joseph's character and behavior, rather than about a practice that was discontinued in the Church a century or more ago?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, generally when one says that Joseph's practice was "right," that speaks directly to his character and behavior.

Generally, people don't confuse the subject (the practice of polygamy) with the object (Joseph and Brigham Young).

We weren't talking about the practice in the abstract. Or maybe I'm just uncharitably misreading the thread. ;-)

Bingo. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The question was about Joseph's practice (and Brigham's). Thus, they were the subjects (the practitioners), not the objects of the question.

Aw, never mind. It doesn't matter either way. You are content to let us wonder how you justify what these men did.

[_wenglund]

Why do you mistakenly suppose I was speaking generally about Joseph's character and behavior, rather than about a practice that was discontinued in the Church a century or more ago?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, generally when one says that Joseph's practice was "right," that speaks directly to his character and behavior.

Generally, people don't confuse the subject (the practice of polygamy) with the object (Joseph and Brigham Young).

We weren't talking about the practice in the abstract. Or maybe I'm just uncharitably misreading the thread. ;-)

Bingo. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The question was about Joseph's practice (and Brigham's). Thus, they were the subjects (the practitioners), not the objects of the question.

Actually, the question was about polygamy as practiced by Joseph and Brigham, clearly making polygamy the subject and Joseph and Brigham the object.

Aw, never mind. It doesn't matter either way. You are content to let us wonder how you justify what these men did.

You are correct. It doesn't matter. That was my earlier point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_marg]

You are correct. It doesn't matter. That was my earlier point.

You have not refuted (used reasoning and evidence) to support your counter to my claim that "current prophets speaking on behalf of God can not be wrong". When asked what means you use to evaluate what a prophet past or present might declare you said "reasoning and evidence" When asked to give your reasoning and evidence on one specific example of polygamy instigated by Smith and then Young, for which you have an opinion, you've not responded with any reasoning or evidence.

Your lack of response leads me to conclude that you don't use reasoning and evidence, and my point remains unrefuted by you.