They only hide it because of political correctness. The Lard's annoyed know that women will be their handmaids in Heaven, pumping out legions of spirit babies.
1. They have two polygamists in the 12 (Oaks and Nelson--okay they will only be able to fully live the "Principal" after they croak, but still---- 2. It'd drastically curtail their income, since the temple wouldn't have nearly the same cachet.
This. It's part of the church's doctrine, they can't denounce it.
The most they can denounce is having two LIVING partners at the same time in 2016 because God hasn't allowed it at this time. That's the church's stance, so they can denounce that, but they can't denounce polygamy as a whole.
I think what the LDS church needs to do is gather up ALLLLLL the hard copies of the BoM, D&C etc, and from now on ONLY have an online version. That way they can quietly take out the "troublesome" passages as time goes by.
I read to my wife several passages from the JoD where monogamy is listed as the evil of their time, and what brought down the Roman Empire. There was no question about how evil monogamy was in their minds. Her response was that it was not in the "scriptures" so it is unreliable information. Then, She bore(d) me (with) her testimony that God was at the head of the church and that she had her trial of faith with polygamy and that she made it through with a stronger blah, blah, blah....
I read the comments section and was surprised to see that this was THE principal and seemingly the only one, that troubled some commenters, and was their only reason for leaving the church.
Maybe because she was a renowned LDS author before she went viral?
If she were to become more vocal and outraged by church practices, then she'd be called on the carpet.
The church would say to her that polygamy was renounced when it became outlawed in the late 19th century. But then she's referring to the eternal concept, in her recent work.
Mormons I've known will say they no longer believe in the concept of polygamy, with two fingers crossed behind their backs!
The article OP shares suggests the church itself is moving away from a patriarchal church to one based on "partnership" between sexes. That will be the day!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2016 07:19AM by Amyjo.
I've known who she is my whole life. I even had a copy of My Turn On Earth personally autographed to me in the late '70s. (I don't think my parents met her, but knew someone who knew her at the time.) I think I threw that out during the great purge when I threw a ton of cult related stuff out back when I was still active.
I really thought she was going to be exed all the time when I was younger.
I'm glad she is calling them out on polygamy, but I don't why she wants to play both sides. The summary in the web reference above includes this:
"In beautiful and loving ways, Carol Lynn shares reasons for seeing this conclusion about polygamy as an error of Brother Joseph’s as the most forgiving and healing stance toward it we can take, and one that she believes Joseph himself would agree with and encourage us to work to bring it to an end."
Seems disingenuous and illogical at best. I think of J Smith as Warren Jeffs, not some misunderstood hero.
"Carol Lynn shares reasons for seeing this conclusion about polygamy as an error of Brother Joseph’s"
Joseph Smith claimed that polygamy was a revelation from the mind and will of Jehovah given directly to him. The doctrine and practice of temple marriage is inescapably lumped in with plural marriage.
But Carol Lynn Pearson calls it a simple "error." If Joseph Smith could "err" on something that big, how can anyone trust any other "revelation" he produced?
TSCC could renounce (or at least end) eternal polygamy simply by saying that Monson had received revelation that it had ended.
Remember, modern revelation supersedes any revelation from the past.
I listened to the podcast and she never mentions polygamy coming from God. She makes it out to be JS sole idea. She says that although JS was a prophet he was also a man and made the mistakes that man makes. Polygamy being one of them.
"TSCC could renounce (or at least end) eternal polygamy simply by saying that Monson had received revelation that it had ended."
For the church to do that, they'd have to renounce and remove all of D&C 132 from the canon. But that would also remove the entire "scriptural" authority for eternal marriage as a whole. Since temple marriage and the concept of eternal families are two of the church's biggest draws, removing them would severely damage church growth.
"I listened to the podcast and she never mentions polygamy coming from God. She makes it out to be JS sole idea. She says that although JS was a prophet he was also a man and made the mistakes that man makes. Polygamy being one of them."
That's part of the cognitive dissonance of trying to remain even partly loyal to Mormonism: you cannot rationally believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and also believe that the "revelation on celestial marriage" was just a huge mistake. If Smith was a true prophet---meaning, if he received regular communications from God---then obviously, God should have told Smith that his whole idea of "plural marriage" was wrong from the beginning.
How can any Mormon believe that D&C 132 is bogus, but also believe that D&C 131 and D&C 133 are just fine? If you question the authenticity of any of it, you question ALL of it.
Joseph sure had a lot of "oops" moments. I'm not perfect either, but I don't recall any "Oops, I pressured another 14 year old into marriage and sex" or "Oops, I tried to assassinate the governor" or "Oops, I hoodwinked millions with bogus scriptures".
But who knows, maybe the Q15 will get right on that.
They can't renounce it. It's hard wired in to mormonism. She might as well demand they renounce the BOM while she's at it. It'll have the same chance of happening.
Women like Carol Lynn Pearson or Fiona Givens get lots of attention in the Mormon church, so they desperately want it to be "true" in some sense. Same with the remaining Mormon intellectuals like Richard Bushman, who is 85 years old, and...uh...anyone else? Maybe Claudia Bushman?
Mormons who are more vocal and better prepared enjoy asserting dominance over the lower people who are commanded to be there as a guaranteed audience. Not that they don't genuinely want to help other people, but that can be misguided as well.
And if Joseph Smith was wrong about polygamy, we have to open up the pandora's box and explore what else he was wrong about. That's why they can't ever flatly say that polygamy or anything else was just wrong. They can come close, but there are usually qualifying excuses (see Essay on race and the priesthood).
I share Historischer's frustrations with LDS liberals and intellectuals. What I realized is that the church they inhabit, or think is possible does not exist in typical Sunday meetings in the LDS Church. So little of what they promote trickles into the daily experience of rank & file LDS members. They have constructed a little self contained universe in which Mormonism is something completely different than the typical member's understanding. It may be a little different in various parts of the world, but by and large there is one way to be and believe in Mormonism. Otherwise you don't really fit in.
This is a big flaw that Professor Bushman seems to have transmitted to LDS leaders we see working on this subject. He has presented these fundamental flaws in Mormon history and theology as mere intellectual curiosities that are of little importance. However, these stories are foundational to major life decisions and everyday practices for many people in the LDS Church. Why go on a mission? Well, because you believe that the LDS Church is the one true church. If it's not the one true church and people can grow as close to the divine through other Christian practices, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or FSM worship, then why bother? Why rush to get married in the temple? Well the prophet says so, and families can be together forever per sec. 132 and polygamy.
At some point some of us realize they have been railroaded by this culture all their lives into doing some things that make them uncomfortable, or just bored in support of theological constructs based on whoppers and self interested revelations.
If one is making demands of the leadership, isn't that admitting that the governance structure of the LDS Church is broken? The prophet and the apostles can't really lead. Why continue to raise the right hand? Why not join any opposed and scream at GC?
At what point is it like multi-generational members of the KKK hoping the group will modernize and become less racist. You don't agree with anything the group stands for, but out of some generational loyalty you can't shake it off?
Now maybe the LDS Church will modify itself in order to survive decades from now--but I did not want to suffer waiting for them to adapt--maybe. It's not worth it.