Darth J's "One-Minute Answers..." - Polygamy entry

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_Wiki Wonka
_Emeritus
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:19 am

Darth J's "One-Minute Answers..." - Polygamy entry

Post by _Wiki Wonka »

Hi Darth,

I'd like to challenge the following assertion that you made in your "One-Minute Answers to Apologist Assertions:" (http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... =1&t=16554)

Darth J wrote:
"Polygamy doesn't matter/ancient history/why do people still bring up polygamy/blacks not having the priesthood/[insert troublesome aspect of Mormon history here]?"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy/Purpo ... l_marriage


I have examined the FAIR Wiki article that you used to support your assertion. You will note at the bottom left of the page "This page was last modified on 4 September 2010, at 12:17." The article has not been modified since that time.

Could you please show me which phrases/paragraphs in the article you used to support the following:

1) An assertion that "Polygamy doesn't matter"
2) An assertion that polygamy is "ancient history"
3) Apologists asking "why do people still bring up polygamy?"
4) A tie-in with "Blacks not having the priesthood"

Best regards,
WW
We cannot gauge the worth of another soul any more than we can measure the span of the universe. Every person we meet is a VIP to our Heavenly Father.
President Uchtdorf, April 4, 2010

FairMormon Answers Wiki
_Joseph
_Emeritus
Posts: 3517
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 11:00 pm

Re: Darth J's "One-Minute Answers..." - Polygamy entry

Post by _Joseph »

Go online and listen to the live interviews of Gordon Hinckley. He used those excuses.
"This is how INGORNAT these fools are!" - darricktevenson

Bow your head and mutter, what in hell am I doing here?

infaymos wrote: "Peterson is the defacto king ping of the Mormon Apologetic world."
_Manfred
_Emeritus
Posts: 191
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:32 am

Re: Darth J's "One-Minute Answers..." - Polygamy entry

Post by _Manfred »

Joseph wrote:Go online and listen to the live interviews of Gordon Hinckley. He used those excuses.

Darth J didn't cite President Hinckley as his source.
_keithb
_Emeritus
Posts: 607
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:09 am

Re: Darth J's "One-Minute Answers..." - Polygamy entry

Post by _keithb »

Wiki Wonka wrote:Hi Darth,

I'd like to challenge the following assertion that you made in your "One-Minute Answers to Apologist Assertions:" (http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... =1&t=16554)

I have examined the FAIR Wiki article that you used to support your assertion. You will note at the bottom left of the page "This page was last modified on 4 September 2010, at 12:17." The article has not been modified since that time.

Could you please show me which phrases/paragraphs in the article you used to support the following:


Let me try to respond, even though I'm not Darth J.

1) An assertion that "Polygamy doesn't matter"


This is the implication that I read into the concluding paragraph, even though this exact sentence is nowhere stated in the article. To quote:

Plural marriage can be a difficult historical fact for people to understand, both members and nonmembers alike. Trying to fully understand the purposes behind such a commandment in today's mindset can also make this subject difficult. It is important to note that we do not have all the historical information surrounding the inception and implementation of the practice. Rather than trying to understand the Lord's purposes in retrospect on a limited scope, one should remember the above scripture in Jacob. Other benefits, although potentially advantageous, are not given as reasons by the Lord.


How I interpret this final paragraph,by rephrasing each of the sentences, is: 1. We don't understand polygamy 2. We can't understand polygamy with our "modern sensibilities". 3. We don't have (or perhaps there doesn't exist?) enough information for people to really understand and/or accept polygamy in the context of what the modern church and modern world would intrinsically understand to be morally acceptable behavior. 4. Rather than trying to try and come to a moral/logical understanding of why the church would every practice polygamy, it's better to read the scriptures. 5. Maybe something supporting polygamy will show up in the future that will make more sense than the rest of the article FAIR has written about the subject.

I think that sentence 4 above is particularly close to saying that "polygamy doesn't matter" without saying it explicitly.

2) An assertion that polygamy is "ancient history"


All of the parts of the article that deal specifically with the practice of polygamy are written in the past tense and as something that only existed in the 19th century church. As examples,

Why would the Lord have commanded the 19th century Saints to implement plural marriage?


What purpose(s) did polygamy accomplish?


. . . any other "reasons" which we attach, in retrospect, to plural marriage . . .


It was . . . It served . . . Polygamy was . . . Polygamy created . . .


To me, the purpose of referring to polygamy so many times in the past tense is clear -- the FAIR apologists wish to distance the modern church from the practice of polygamy and write it off as something only "19th century Saints" practiced (see above). However, this largely ignores the modern church's continued affiliation with the practice, both in the cannonized scripture of the D&C and in temple ordinances.

3) Apologists asking "why do people still bring up polygamy?"


I concede the point that, in this particular article, there is no specific complaining by apologists about people continuing to "bring up polygamy". However, the importance of polygamy, especially as it relates to the practices of the modern church, is clearly downplayed in the FAIR article, a point that I have demonstrated above with my response to your point 2.

4) A tie-in with "Blacks not having the priesthood"


I agree here. There is no connection stated in the article between blacks not being able to hold the priesthood until 1978 and the justification for practicing polygamy in the church, other than the justification for both practices is, in my experience, nearly the same and is explored in my response to your point 1 (i.e. We don't know why God did it. He just did it, and we should trust him).

Best regards,
WW


In summary, I am not sure if these are the exact citations and lines of reasoning that Darth J would use from article to defend his position, so I will defer the final argument to him on this matter. Also, I limited my discussion to the article cited above and did not consider other articles about polygamy on the FAIR site as possible sources of the sentiments expressed by Darth J.
"Joseph Smith was called as a prophet, dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb" -South Park
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Darth J's "One-Minute Answers..." - Polygamy entry

Post by _Darth J »

The previous response is correct: I was using the FAIR wiki as an example, not the one and only source, of the kinds of assertions being made.

Having said that, from the entry at issue:

Plural marriage can be a difficult historical fact for people to understand, both members and nonmembers alike. Trying to fully understand the purposes behind such a commandment in today's mindset can also make this subject difficult. It is important to note that we do not have all the historical information surrounding the inception and implementation of the practice. Rather than trying to understand the Lord's purposes in retrospect on a limited scope, one should remember the above scripture in Jacob. Other benefits, although potentially advantageous, are not given as reasons by the Lord.


We shouldn't try to understand it, we should just accept that it happened and move on in the faith. That is, of course, what is being suggested here, since FAIR's mission statement on the main page of its wiki is:

Our mission is to provide well-researched answers to challenging questions within a faithful context


And the Dallin H. Oaks quote from the entry:

It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we're on our own. Some people [have] put reasons to [commandments] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong.


It doesn't matter why. It just matters that we accept that the Church is true. The wiki article explicitly says so:

We often obey when we do not understand why a command has been given—we only know that it has been given.
(Italic in original)
Post Reply