? 4 DCP: Will there be changes to the lesson manuals?

[Guest]

You are saying there is nothing in church history or teachings that could possibly justify a loss of faith.

In the eternal scheme of things, there is nothing in Church history or teachings that could possibly justify a loss of faith.

There is nothing, ultimately, that can justify mistaken views about the nature of reality in general.

From our limited point of view, however, there are plenty of genuine justifications (in the short term) for holding what are ultimately mistaken views about the nature of reality in general. Ancient peoples were justified, for instance, based on what they knew, in holding to a geocentric model of the universe (that is, it was not irrational to do so; it might even have been irrational not to do so). Even those who rejected the Copernican model of the solar system were rationally justified in doing so until the data and Kepler's laws made a heliocentric model tenable and revealed it to be superior.

From our limited point of view, given the limitations on our knowledge, I can understand why some find Mormonism difficult or impossible to believe. The data are ambiguous, and different people judge differently. Accordingly, I can agree that there are things in Church history and teachings that some intelligent and sincere people regard as justifying a loss of faith while, at the same time, I disagree that there are things in Church history and teachings that justify a loss of faith.

And I'm not inclined to say this many more times today.

If you want me to endorse your atheism and your departure from the Church, you will continue to be disappointed.

[_Seven]

Hi Daniel,
This is my first time to talk with you and I have some questions about your comments to Beastie. Please don't be too hard on me. I am just a former Chapel Mormon sharing my experience and don't come close to the intellect of many here.

[

Consider a situation in which you hear something about the behavior of X that seems very problematic. If you've already suspected that X is a bad person, and have had a number of negative encounters with him, you will be inclined to believe the worst of this latest report.

My overall opinion of Joseph Smith was very positive before I learned of his deception, adultery, lies to the church on plural marriage etc. I had never had a bad thought about the man. It was exactly the opposite. I had always honored and revered him my whole life. When I first had heard of his command to take Heber C. Kimball's wife, I was shocked and didn't believe it. Went to FAIR/FARMS before even reading a book on polygamy. After reading "In Sacred Loneliness" "Mormon Enigma" and "Mormon Polygamy" , my feelings about his character completley changed, but they had started out as positive as they could be. I read every article I could find on FARMS and FAIR to prove those books wrong.
Even went to the RLDS site to find hope that his character was not the sexual predator hungry for power that he had become to me.

If, on the other hand, you have had a very long and positive history of trusting relationships with X, you will be disposed to cut him some slack in a situation that is ambiguous but seemingly negative. You might say, for example, "I have known X for thirty years, and have always known him to be a kind and honorable man. I'm sure that, when we know all the facts, there will be a good explanation for this."

I had this long and positive trusting relationship toward Joseph Smith's character. I was fed nothing but the best of materials on the man my entire life. Never had seen an anti Mormon piece until the internet. I had always believed him to be honorable and gave him all the excuses I could before finally accepting the evidence I couldn't deny. What kind of explanation can be given on the evidence that is honest and honorable? In other words, evidence that doesn't make evil good and good evil and doesn't make God the demon.

Of course, such trust is not a blank check. Confidence in other humans is never -- or, at least, should never be -- infinite. X may, in fact, eventually turn out to have been a secret scoundrel, or, at least, to have committed a genuinely evil even if uncharacteristic act. But you tend to give him the benefit of the doubt because of your overall opinion of his character.

I still give him the benefit of the doubt. There is that very tiny possibility that the RLDS claims are correct and Brigham was the scoundrel that edited history for his own sexual power.

The only other option is to believe that God is the sexist and cruel immoral one in this and doesn't respect the tender hearts of His daughters. (which is in contradiction to the section in Jacob 2) I hope it is Joseph who was the abuser of women and not God. This doctirine is core to LDS faith and the only way to exaltation so it is a belief which a woman should hope is not of God.

This is my view with regard to Joseph Smith. My overall opinion of his character is very positive, though I certainly don't view him as either inerrant or perfect.

I never viewed him as perfect, even in my Chapel Mo. days. I did not imagine however, that he would have coerced women in the name of God to marry him in secret by deceiving the church and his very devoted first wife. I can even accept a Prophet of God who slips up and commits adultery, like he did with Fanny, as long as he isn't using God to justify it.

Why would these other postive traits about Joseph even matter to me when he violated some of the highest values and morals in marriage? Why would a woman even desire to remain in marriage to a man for eternity with these positive traits if he is breaking the most sacred covenants between husband and wife? My views of a good man are very different from those who defend his behavior I guess.

Thus, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt in the matter of plural marriage.

Would you mind sharing what you mean here?

[_Nightingale]

PP:
"Most of his adult life has been devoted to defending Mormonism. If he quit now, the repercussions from family, friends, community, and work(BYU) might be too much for him to handle.

Understanding that he has much more to lose than most members helps one understand his reasoning."


Understanding that he believes in Mormonism also "helps one understand his reasoning".


Mind-reading is not an exact science, as far as I know. That is why in most cases when the word "liar" is thrown about so freely (as it is frequently by some exmos) it is bound to be an incorrect conclusion. If you say that someone is lying and your only "proof" turns out to be essentially that you can read their minds or are supposedly an expert in deciphering body language, intent or their written words, that's pretty lame. Projection also comes into play very often, it seems. It's useful in sorting out what's really going on if we can avoid seeing someone else's point of view solely through our own; i.e., many people who lose faith in Mormonism have or expect problems with LDS family members. This could even keep them from announcing their disbelief. However, this is not a universal and the associated feelings and decisions that some exmos have can't be imputed to every single member who stays in, silently disbelieving, or worse, projected onto those who emphatically reiterate their belief.

I too dislike the LDS insistence that Mormonism is true so there is no justification for leaving. However, in light of what they believe, it's hardly surprising that they would feel that way. I can remember when I told the bishop (with whom I had a good relationship) that I was leaving Mormonism to go back to my previous church (EV) (so, hardly surprising that I found Mormonism wasn't for me). He looked shocked and said "But you've been to the temple!" I had no idea that that was a Really Big Deal to him - that he had a firm belief that despite my reservations about some of the doctrines, once I'd been to the temple "all would be revealed" so to speak. That is why he never answered my questions as he thought something miraculous would happen for me at the temple and that would Trump all questions and struggles and doubts. I think he would say that he understood why I was leaving but not that it was justified. Yes, in a global way that irks me as it indicates a lack of understanding, empathy, compassion and can feel like judgement. But I understand from within his framework of belief why he would feel that way. To his credit, he never actually said it aloud so yes, this is my interpretation of what he was thinking and I could certainly be wrong. He did pay me the, to me, high compliment of saying, in our last conversation, "I know you are a Christian woman". I embrace that giant step towards ecumenism, my preferred approach to all matters of faith!

It's easier in many ways for non-LDS Christians to find a place for themselves in the wide range of denominations out there, rather than the general one-size-fits-all approach of Mormonism (in the former you go where you fit, in the latter you have to fit where you go, which is mandated). That's why if a member of one denomination changes to another, it's not seen the same way as it is when you leave the Mormon Church. With the non-LDS (Protestant) denoms, you are not seen to be leaving the church even if you go to a completely different denom because "the church" is seen to be the "worldwide body of believers" and not a single denom or a particular congregation to which you have been assigned.

What I'm saying is there is no parallel really for me to try and understand the LDS viewpoint on this and obviously it arises from their foundational doctrine that there is only one true church and they are it. I guess the only parallel would be if someone leaves a non-LDS denom and becomes an atheist. Would a Christian say there is no justification for that? Perhaps. But some of us could at least say we understand. That is about the best you could hope for, I think.

Sorry to tangent off. But hey, anything goes around here, right?!

[_Jersey Girl]

1833, a law was passed in Illinois against the practice of bigamy(more than one spouse).

Smith and some of his inner circle were practicing polygamy and polyandry in Nauvoo.

They weren't legal marriages. He and his inner circle weren't bigamists. If indeed the unions were more than "spiritual", they would have been guilty of adultery, not bigamy.

Surely you can put up a better argument than that.

Or not.

If these were not legal marriages and they were not anything more than spiritual, then why do Mormon authors like Bushman and Compton as well as the LDS church use the term POLYGAMY to describe smith's associations with these women?

Put on your trifocals and look up the definition of the word.

Because, Porter, I think you are misusing the terms. That's why. Now...this is EXACTLY what I'd like to see go on...on this board. I think you're misusing the terms and you think they're interchangeable. You haven't "looked them up" but I will. And then we'll see.

Get it? Get why I'm here yet?

Greeeeat. Now quiet the crickets by answering my question, K?

How long do we need to wait while you "look it up"?

I will be offline for a while today, so take your time :)

Porter,

Here is my position stated as clearly as I possibly can. The following are MY definitions, not formal definitions. Later, I can find resources and we'll see if they back up what I have to say. I'm going to use "man" and "woman/women" as playing specific roles not because they each cannot take on alternating roles, but because it just makes the presentation of my ideas less complicated.

1. Bigamy: A man and woman take out a marriage license and get married either by a "government" official or clergy. While still married to that woman, the man seeks out another woman, takes out another marriage license and marries her with or without the knowledge of the first woman and can do that multiple times. In other words: Misuses of legal instruments and fraud.

2. Polygamy and all it's sub-categories: A social condition where a man cohabitates or at least is engaged in intermittent cohabitation with multiple women including sexual relations. No marriage licenses or at least no more than on marriage license involved. In other words: No misues of legal instruments that involve fraud.

Can a polygamist be a bigamist? Yes, if there are multiple marriage licenses involved.

I see Bigamy as a crime of fraud.
I see Polygamy as a social phenomena that doesn't necessarily include a crime of fraud.

When you claim that Joseph Smith violated bigamy law, I don't see how that fits. Did Joseph Smith and his "inner circle" take out multiple marriage licenses?

The potential for a polygamist is to have multiple life and sexual partners.

The potential for a bigamist is to take those marriage licenses to commit FRAUD for example: You take one licence to your employer and use it to enroll in "plan a" health coverage plan with a certain provider. You take the next license to your employer and this time you choose "plan b" health coverage with another provider.

That's my best demonstration as non-academically as it is presented.

[_beastie]

No, Daniel, of course I don't want you to endorse my atheism. What I want is a realistic assessment of the situation. No LDS who is fully aware of all the controversial elements of church history continues to believe because of those things - he or she continues to believe IN SPITE of these things.

And that is the realistic assessment that is so lacking in the hubris of many internet apologists. For example, the topic that interests me most, the Book of Mormon's setting in Mesoamerica - you would think that, by the way some internet apologists and believers act, that it's those who reject this possible setting as realistic are the ones who are whackos, flying in the face of science and logic. Or how some internet apologists act as if being troubled by Joseph Smith' polyandry or other behavior is ridiculous and a sign of projected perversity. Or how some pretend that being troubled by the past horrifically racist statements of past prophets is silly "presentism" and expecting prophets to be "perfect".

It's fine that some people continue to believe in spite of these things. That's human nature. We all do that to some extent. What isn't fine is when they act as if they continue to believe due to their superior academic background or superior reasoning. In reality, you, and all the others, believe in these things for reasons that have nothing to do with academia or logic at all. You do your best to feel intellectually better about believing in the things you believe by using academia or logic, but it often ends up very strained. And then those who offer these strained apologia insist that those who reject it as strained are silly and stupid.

It's fine for people to believe in strange things. It's not just fine for them to pretend the rest of the world is strange for not agreeing with them.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Your reference to the genetic testing makes less sense the more I think about it, if you were talking only about the polyandrous unions. Genetic testing as yet to identify an offspring of Joseph Smith from any of his plural wives, including the ones with only him as a husband. Yet you seem to agree it's a given Joseph Smith had sex with them. So I'm entirely confused as to your point with the testing.

Suppose that Joseph Smith had lots and lots of sex with sixty women. We know that he was capable of fathering children, since he had children by Emma. Yet suppose that no other women appear to have had any children fathered by him.

This would be -- it is -- exceedingly puzzling.

So perhaps something has to give. Perhaps he didn't have lots and lots of sex with sixty women. Suppose he had no sex except with Emma. That would solve the problem, but it probably isn't true.

Nonetheless, decreasing the amount of sex and/or the amount of women certainly moves us toward an easier explanation of why there don't appear to be any verifiably non-Emma-borne Joseph Smith descendants out there yet.

The question was asked about the already-married women. In my opinion, assuming that Joseph Smith didn't have lots and lots of sex with those women moves us toward an easier explanation of why there don't appear to be any verifiably non-Emma-borne Joseph Smith descendants out there yet. In fact, assuming that Joseph Smith didn't have sex with those women at all moves us even closer.

Thus, when the question was asked whether I thought Joseph Smith had sex with those already-married women, I answered that I thought it possible that he did not, because that would be consistent with the fact that no verifiably non-Emma-borne Joseph Smith descendants have yet been identified.

1. Joseph Smith had sex with his nonpolyandrous wives.
a - genetic testing has not yet identified offspring from those wives
2. Joseph Smith may not have had sex with his polyandrous wives and the fact that genetic testing has not yet identified offspring from polyandrous wives supports that contention.

You see my confusion? Just what does the testing prove or not prove to you?

Pending future discoveries, it seems to indicate that Joseph Smith was not having lots of sex with lots of women.

Since not having had sex with those already-married women would, if true, mean that he was having less sex with fewer women, and since having less sex with fewer women seems more compatible with the currently-known DNA results than does the notion that he was having more sex with more women, the currently-known DNA results seem to lend at least some credence to the possibility that he was not having sex with those already-married women. It's not proof, but it's a hint in one direction rather than another.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I too dislike the LDS insistence that Mormonism is true so there is no justification for leaving. . . .I guess the only parallel would be if someone leaves a non-LDS denom and becomes an atheist. Would a Christian say there is no justification for that? Perhaps. But some of us could at least say we understand. That is about the best you could hope for, I think.

Nightingale, I appreciate what I choose to regard as your defense of me against PP's casual charge of dishonesty.

However, at the risk of appearing ungrateful, I want to point out that, if you take me to be saying that I don't "understand" why some leave, you have misread me completely.

[_Daniel Peterson]

What isn't fine is when they act as if they continue to believe due to their superior academic background or superior reasoning. In reality, you, and all the others, believe in these things for reasons that have nothing to do with academia or logic at all. You do your best to feel intellectually better about believing in the things you believe by using academia or logic, but it often ends up very strained. And then those who offer these strained apologia insist that those who reject it as strained are silly and stupid.

You were doing pretty well until you reached the passage above. Then, ironically, you insinuated that those who don't agree with you are silly and stupid. We believe against the facts, in spite of logic, on the basis of strained reasoning and self-deception.

Having made such an insinuation, you're in no position whatever to demand that anybody else grant the rationality of your position (even though, in fact, I do, and have repeatedly said so).

It's fine for people to believe in strange things. It's not just fine for them to pretend the rest of the world is strange for not agreeing with them.

If that's aimed at me, what we have here is a total failure to communicate.

[_aussieguy55]

Could there have been other factors for no as yet descendants from these women? Maybe timing was such he did not make love with these women during the three day ovulation period reducing chances of falling pregnant? What was the health like of the children he had with emma? Didn't one have mental health problems?

[_Daniel Peterson]

This is my first time to talk with you and I have some questions about your comments to Beastie. Please don't be too hard on me. I am just a former Chapel Mormon sharing my experience and don't come close to the intellect of many here.

Seven, I apologize, but I'm going to have to be very brief. I've spent far too many hours on this message board over the past three days, largely wasting my time with certain implacable critics who, candidly, merit my attention far less than your obviously sincere questions do. But the fact is that I've got several pressing projects hanging over me, and I need to get on with them.

I regret that the question of plural marriage destroyed your positive feelings for Joseph Smith; I agree that the origins of plural marriage present exceptional problems.

Thus, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt in the matter of plural marriage.

Would you mind sharing what you mean here?

What I mean is that I believe him to have been a true prophet. I believe this on the basis of a number of lines of reasoning. One of those that I prefer involves the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon (on whom the classic book is Richard Lloyd Anderson's Investigating the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, though some other recent materials, such as the new book on Oliver Cowdery edited by John Welch and Larry Morris, are also exceptionally valuable). I cannot get around the Witnesses. No counterexplanation for their claims seems to me even remotely plausible. Another involves the Book of Mormon itself. No counterexplanation for it strikes me as even remotely plausible, either. (I've published a fair amount on this. Much of it, but not all, is available on the FARMS or Maxwell Institute website.) Another superb recent book is John Welch, ed., Opening the Heavens. Some really stunning material.

I also believe him to have been sincere. Again, I have several bases for my conviction that he was sincere. One of those bases is his personality, as it is revealed in, for example, Dean Jessee's collection of The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith. These are writings that were never designed for publication. They are quite revealing. If he was not a sincere believer, I'm simply incapable of distinguishing sincerity from insincerity in anybody.

Finally, I believe the testimonies of scores of people who knew him very well that he was a good man. Many of these testimonies are included in Mark McConkie's recent book, Remembering Joseph.

It seems to me that you've bought into a very dark reading of Joseph's behavior at the origins of plural marriage. I don't think the sources compel so dark a reading, though I freely grant that they allow it. That's why I say that what we bring to the data deeply influences how we read it. Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling offers a much more positive reading of the situation. I'm aware that some wish to dismiss him as a mere Mopologist spin-artist. They're free to do that, of course. But he is universally recognized (by reasonable observers, anyway, in and out of the Church) as a premiere American historian, and a very bright, sensitive, intelligent, competent, and honest man.

I hope that this helps. But if, as is likely, it doesn't, at least you should understand a bit better where I'm coming from.