But polygamy hasn’t ended

This month’s Ensign contained an article by Elder M. Russell Ballard entitled “Sharing the Gospel With Confidence,” remarks originally delivered as part of a commencement address at Brigham Young University on August 13, 2009. In the article, Elder Ballard had this to say about discussing polygamy:
Our Church members have often allowed others to set the conversational agenda. An example is plural marriage. This ended in the Church as an official practice in 1890. It’s now 2010. Why are we still talking about it? It was a practice. It ended. We moved on. If people ask you about polygamy, just acknowledge that it was once a practice but not now and that people shouldn’t confuse any polygamists with our church. In ordinary conversations, don’t waste time trying to justify the practice of polygamy during Old Testament times or speculating as to why it was practiced for a time in the 19th century. Those may be legitimate topics for historians and scholars, but I think we simply reinforce the stereotypes when we make it a primary topic of conversations about the Church.
Rob Bowman has already done a post listing some of the reasons why polygamy is still fair game, most of which I would agree with. However, I would say that the number one reason I still feel polygamy is worth mentioning is because the church hasn’t stopped practicing it. According to current church policy, a living man can be sealed to more than one woman (living or dead) on account of death of or divorce from earlier wives.1 A famous example of this is apostle Dallin H. Oaks, whose first wife passed away in 1998. He re-married in 2000 and has referred to his second wife as an “eternal companion,” indicating a sealing to her as well. It seems reasonable to assume that Elder Oaks expects to be married to both women in the next life.
In contrast, living women do not have the same options; they cannot be sealed to more men after the death of or divorce from their previous husbands.2 Hence modern-day sealing policies mimic the 19th century order of plural marriage.
I think it’s reasonable to believe that if eternal marriage is true, even people living in a monogamous society ought to have the option of spending eternity with all of the spouses they loved. If both living men and living women could be sealed to multiple people, the sealing policies might technically still reflect something that could be called “polygamy,” but Mormons could rightly argue that the intention is to allow people to spend eternity with all of their loved ones rather than a theological commitment to the 19th century marriage order. However, so long as this discrepancy between men and women exists, one cannot avoid the conclusion that the polygamy that was practiced in the 19th century continues to be a theological reality for Mormons, a reality that the church expects to return to in the next life.
I think there is another reason why evangelicals are going to continue to bring up polygamy. Mormonism is a system that teaches its members to look for and question the problems with and theological gaps in traditional Christianity, for example:
  • Why are there no more prophets and apostles among Christians today?
  • Why are there so many competing churches and sects?
  • Why has there been no new Scripture? Are the heavens closed?
  • What happens to people who die without hearing the Gospel?
Those are all valid questions to ask, and Mormons believe that they have the answers to them. Mormons have also seen good pay-off from asking these questions in the number of traditional Christians who have converted to the LDS church.
In return though, evangelicals who address Mormonism tend to teach their audience to question the problems with Mormonism. Polygamy happens to be a very difficult issue—I would go so far as to say that it’s impossible to disclose all of the relevant details about polygamy and still craft its history into a faith-promoting narrative—and it’s a topic that has proven an effective tool in getting people to question the claims of the LDS church.
I wish things weren’t this way. I’d rather the message of Mormonism was not dependent on foundational challenges to traditional Christianity, and I’d rather evangelicals did not have to respond in kind.
Sadly, I don’t see an end to it any time soon.
————————
[1] See the 2006 Church Handbook of Instructions, p. 85.
[2] Ibid. A deceased woman may be sealed to more than one husband; ostensibly this is only so that she can choose which husband to be with, not so that she can live polyandrously in the next life. See p. 86 of the 2006 CHI for policies governing sealings to deceased women.

Comments

But polygamy hasn’t ended — 80 Comments

  1. That quote from Ballard contains two demonstrable mistakes. It didn’t end in 1890, it ended sometime around 1910. Of course we don’t know when it really ended because of the secrecy and lies surrounding its continued practice. It’s also demonstrable that polygamy is not a practice, it’s a doctrine. And no, let’s not play “Whack-a-Mormon-Doctrine” with silly definitions and semantic games. It’s in D&C 132 plain as day, and that means it’s a doctrine, not a mere practice.
    So, I don’t know how this is supposed to inspire confidence in those sharing the gospel when Ballard is either ignorant of the facts or just plain not telling the truth. Ignorance and lies rarely inspire confidence, and wasn’t that the point of the article?
    Now, to be fair, I do think that there are ways of inspiring Mormons to be confident in their message. And, I think that believers should have the confidence of their convictions to share what they believe with others. The problem is that this kind of stuff does not inspire confidence, it undermines it.
  2. Rob’s list is a good one, although I would quibble on some of the details.
    (There weren’t “several 13 and 14-yo’s,” there was Helen Mar Kimball at age 14. But there *were* several 17-or-unders, so the truth isn’t significantly better.
    And most post-Manifesto polygamy didn’t violate the Manifesto because the Manifesto doesn’t say “no more polygamy.” It says
    “Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise. . . . I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.”
    Since most of the post-Manifesto marriages took place place in Mexico, they would comply with the Manifesto. They would not comply with modern popular understandings of the Manifesto, but those understandings are wrong.)
    I think you’ve put your finger on the real issue, which is polygamy’s continuing role in Mormon theology. It has never been disavowed; it continues to be canon; it continues to exist as a post-life doctrine. All of these are significant. Elder Ballard’s statement that it’s all done and over with is disingenuous.
    (I also thought it was kind of funny that he called attention to the fact that Mormons have ignored Big Love and September Dawn.)
    On the broader level, I think that you’re right as well. LDS missionary effort is largely focused on highlighting the theological gaps in other denominations, and has been for a long time. Turn about is to be expected.
    Jack writes:
    “I wish things weren’t this way. I’d rather the message of Mormonism was not dependent on foundational challenges to traditional Christianity, and I’d rather evangelicals did not have to respond in kind.”
    Amen, sister.
    (Though really, I’d say it’s actually a case of both groups drawing on a more longstanding tradition. In their approach, Joseph Smith and early LDS missionaries simply copied the prevailing approaches of the time. There was a *lot* of attack-mode proselytizing during the Second Great Awakening — the anti-Catholic literature in particular is jaw-dropping — and both Mormons and Evangelicals seem to have picked up this idea.)
  3. In any case, it certianly wasn’t just “a practice.”
    The three-hour block of meetings is “a practice.” Bishop’s Youth Council is “a practice.” Not drinking Coca-Cola is “a practice.” Polygamy was commanded by God by revelation, and has a body of deeply theological doctrines attached to it, none of which have even been questioned by the Church.
    Ballard’s statement is completely dishonest.
  4. Jack when you said this:”I think it’s reasonable to believe that if eternal marriage is true, even people living in a monogamous society ought to have the option of spending eternity with all of the spouses they loved. If both living men and living women could be sealed to multiple people, the sealing policies might technically still reflect something that could be called “polygamy,” but Mormons could rightly argue that the intention is to allow people to spend eternity with all of their loved ones rather than a theological commitment to the 19th century marriage order.”
    I have to say that I whole heartedly agree, and this may be the my own personal heresy but I believe that is the actual end goal of the doctrine, I think that the “practice” we have fallen into is the problem with only men being allowed to have multiple sealings. I know of several cases when proxy temple work was being done for a couple only to find out that the women had been married previously married and had previously been sealed to that other husband, in none of the cases has any of the other sealing been “unsealed”. I also think it interesting as my aunt was previously married and sealed, but petitioned SLC for a negation of that sealing before she married my uncle, where it gets interesting is that in her letter that allowed her to be resealed they made a statement that there really is no breaking of seal, but in the case of infidelity of the husband she could be sealed to another; so technically my aunt is sealed to two men.
  5. Jack, I agree with you on all points (without accepting Bowman’s word as the last on historical details: but that is merely a quibble).
  7. David Clark, I just wanted to say that while I’d couch it in less harsh language, I actually agree with you here.
    I figured me actually agreeing with David constituted a moment of some note, and ought to be pointed out.
  8. @ Stephen: I actually spoke with my father yesterday about this issue, and he said that in the last several years the church has started doing this about 5 or 6 years ago. We are trying to locate any documentation of when this decision was made, or if it was just something that got put into practice without any fanfare.
  9. Doctrine by stealth, huh?
    I really wish the LDS Church would stop doing this. It’s like we have an instinctive cringe reflex or something. If we want to change the policy for implementing marriage doctrines, why not just change the freaking policy? Why creep around in a vaguely guilty fashion?
  13. Jack,
    Arguing that Mormons still practice polygamy because we have a faith-based “belief” that males can have multiple wives in the “next life” is like arguing that slavery still exists in America because children believe that Santa Claus is forcing elves to make toys.
    If “you” or another non-Mormon do not take our many of our beliefs seriously, then how can you claim that our current form of “polygamy” is really happening? In other words, you can’t have it both ways: you can’t accuse us of really truly practicing it, while at the same time calling it a crazy load of horse crap.
    This goes right along with people who have a problem with proxy baptisms. I don’t get it, these people seem to have no problem with Muslim suicide bombers believing they’ll get 40 virgins after death, or Scientologists believing they’ll get to live with the Aliens after death. Something about Mormons, though, just really gets to them for some reason.
    For some reason, Joseph Smith’s words come to mind: “They can leave the church, but they can’t leave it alone”. That still doesn’t explain people who have never been members though – weird.
  14. CF,
    Maybe this doesn’t mean anything to you. But to me, as a practicing Mormon, the idea of plural eternal marriage DOES matter – a lot.
    Are you really suggesting that everyone who has had more than one spouse in life is going to be told in heaven that they have to choose which one they love more?
    Think real hard about the implications before you answer this.
  15. Let me add a bit more to that…
    There really is a simple explanation to all of this: Mormons do not practice polygamy in the real world with respect to how the state defines it. We still have a belief in males permitted to have multiple wives in our version of Heaven.
    Did it officially end in 1890 or 1910? Who cares? Is Elder Ballard going to stand at the public pulpit and start teaching D&C 132 and believe that it wouldn’t be a massive PR mistake?
    I think it’s pretty obvious what Elder Ballard was referring to. There are still a lot of people that believe we still practice polygamy in the flesh. That’s what he was referring to. He’s no more “lying” about it, then a missionary withholds the Eternal Marriage discussions until an investigator has demonstrated they are serious about the church.
    If you want to have a beef with that, then good for you, but don’t be surprised when people start to sense there’s a deeper issue there. When you spend your time focused on being critical with so-labeled “crazy” Mormon theology and conveniently bypassing the theology of other “crazy” religions, people start to wonder what the real problem is. Not so much with Mormons, but within yourself.
  16. Seth,
    Of course it means something to me. I have been sealed in the Temple to my wife. God’s commandments and doctrine mean something to me. If I didn’t, I would have left this church years ago. If people disagree with it and cannot resolve it, I openly invite them to the exit sign.
    It’s almost impossible to believe that all of this would come as a surpise to a person who has been through the Temple, been sealed and lived a life as worthy member.
    If you were a devout, life-long, Mormon and you had been sealed to someone in the temple and you didn’t “know” how this all worked, and never had read D&C 132, by the time you got to the other side, there was obviously a problem there.
    Logically, you cannot be a full “practicing” Mormon if you have not “practiced” the doctrine of D&C 132.
  17. I think there are two questions here:
    1) Does the LDS Church practice polygamy? Answer: from an external (i.e. non-member’s) viewpoint, no, from an internal viewpoint, just not on the earth at the moment. Nothing really to get huffy about here: it’s like the Santa’s elves/slavery thing. Or like a non-member getting offended because Mormons don’t believe non-members’ marriages will last forever. Yeah, Mormons might hypothetically believe in polygamy, but nobody is actually married to two living women at the same time, so it is only interesting as something Mormons believe in, not as something Mormons actually do.
    2) Was polygamy, when practiced, “just a practice?” Answer: no. Like I said, the three-hour block is “a practice.” Polygamy was based on canonical scripture and handed down from the Church’s leader as a revelation from God.
    Even if the doctrine is no longer believed, and even if you de-canonized the entire D&C, it still would not be just “a practice” you could handwave away, because it was canonical and deeply embedded in theology, and the process of de-canonizing and renouncing the theology would be extremely relevant.
    The point is that there is definitely more at stake ecclesiatically and theologically then there would be with, say, doing away with ties at church.
  18. #2 Kaimi ~ I don’t know where Bowman gets the claim about JS’s wives being as young as 13. As for 14 year-olds, there is Helen Mar Kimball (as you pointed out) and Nancy Winchesterwas either 14 or 15 when Smith married her; the date of the marriage is uncertain.
    re: living women being sealed to more than one man ~ I’m not calling Stephen M. or anyone else a liar, but anecdotal evidence tends to go to the bottom of my totem pole unless I get it first hand, and so far I don’t know any living women who have been sealed to more than one husband. I do know a few widows who should have been sealed to their deceased husband and their new ones, but so far they haven’t been. I’ll feel better about these stories of living women being sealed to more than one man when the church changes the CHI to reflect that.
    Didn’t a new CHI come out in 2010? Can anyone check on this?
    #13 & 15 CF ~ Arguing that Mormons still practice polygamy because we have a faith-based “belief” that males can have multiple wives in the “next life” is like arguing that slavery still exists in America because children believe that Santa Claus is forcing elves to make toys.
    This is one of the most strained analogies I have ever heard in my life, especially since I’ve never heard of a Santa mythos wherein the elves are the unwilling slaves of the Claus. :P
    If “you” or another non-Mormon do not take our many of our beliefs seriously
    Where did I ever indicate that I don’t take LDS beliefs seriously?
    you can’t accuse us of really truly practicing it, while at the same time calling it a crazy load of horse crap.
    Where have I ever called LDS beliefs “a crazy load of horse crap”?
    “They can leave the church, but they can’t leave it alone”. That still doesn’t explain people who have never been members though – weird.
    I thought you’d been around this blog long enough to know that I’m married to a Mormon and my daughter is a member of record with the church. That alone constitutes plenty of reason for me to be interested in a continued study of the church—so no, I won’t be “leaving the church alone” anytime soon. Frankly, I think I’d be an irresponsible parent if I didn’t keep tabs on the influences my daughter is being exposed to, and if she’s being taught that polygamy as practiced in the 19th century is coming back in the next life, I care.
    Besides that, I’ve always found the “they can’t leave the church alone” saying to be sadly lacking in perspective. The reason ex-Mormons can’t leave the church alone is because Mormonism isn’t just some “Sunday-only” religion; it’s a culture and a way of life. Ex-Mormons often feel that the Mormonism is still a part of their identity even though they no longer believe in or practice the religion just as Jews will often identify as Jewish even though they no longer believe in God or attend synagogue or anything.
    So no, ex-Mormons are not going to “leave the church alone” any time soon, and Mormons who tut-tut about that fact are only showing that they themselves don’t understand what their religion really is.
    I think it’s pretty obvious what Elder Ballard was referring to. There are still a lot of people that believe we still practice polygamy in the flesh. That’s what he was referring to. He’s no more “lying” about it, then a missionary withholds the Eternal Marriage discussions until an investigator has demonstrated they are serious about the church.
    If you want to have a beef with that, then good for you, but don’t be surprised when people start to sense there’s a deeper issue there. When you spend your time focused on being critical with so-labeled “crazy” Mormon theology and conveniently bypassing the theology of other “crazy” religions, people start to wonder what the real problem is.
    I didn’t accuse Elder Ballard of lying and I didn’t call LDS beliefs crazy. I’m truly baffled as to why this post seems to have offended you so much, CF.
  19. I thought you’d been around this blog long enough to know that I’m married to a Mormon and my daughter is a member of record with the church. That alone constitutes plenty of reason for me to be interested in a continued study of the church—so no, I won’t be “leaving the church alone” anytime soon. Frankly, I think I’d be an irresponsible parent if I didn’t keep tabs on the influences my daughter is being exposed to, and if she’s being taught that polygamy as practiced in the 19th century is coming back in the next life, I care.
    Indeed! And for those of us who are ex-Mormons, with few exceptions, we still have loved ones, friends, and relatives in the Church. I may no longer be a member, but my teenage little sister is, and I am extremely interested in what the Church teaches her.
  20. I have a hard time being too concerned about the issue. Our basic teaching is that family relationships continue (or, more precisely, can continue) beyond the grave, and since throughout history it has been common for people in even nonpolygamous societies to have multiple spouses, it is almost a corollary to the basic doctrine that polygamy in some way will be present in the afterlife. I just don’t see postmortal polygamy as that big of a deal.
    Jack said:
    Polygamy happens to be a very difficult issue—I would go so far as to say that it’s impossible to disclose all of the relevant details about polygamy and still craft its history into a faith-promoting narrative—
    I don’t disagree, but it’s only a serious problem if you believe that early Church leaders were perfect or close to it. The Old Testament is full of God’s leaders who did some incredibly stupid things, so if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did the same thing, so what? (I’m not saying they did, not at all. It’s just that God seems to have frequently chosen imperfect people to be his spokespersons, so that if our early Church leaders fell short in some respects, we shouldn’t be surprised.)
    Jack said:
    I’d rather the message of Mormonism was not dependent on foundational challenges to traditional Christianity
    How could it not be?
    David Clark said:
    So, I don’t know how this is supposed to inspire confidence in those sharing the gospel when Ballard is either ignorant of the facts or just plain not telling the truth.
    Kullervo added:
    Ballard’s statement is completely dishonest.
    Balderdash.
    Ballard said that polygamy ended as an official practice in 1890. That’s a true statement; it continued afterward as an unofficial practice.
    And the fact that polygamy is a practice and a doctrine doesn’t mean that Ballard was being disingenuous when talking about its practice. If Ballard were giving a talk on polygamy and ignored D&C 132, then I too might suggest he wasn’t being straight with his listeners. But the purpose of this talk was about a different issue, and there was no need here for him to go into a full explanation of the doctrine. For him to express an opinion that, when holding casual conversations with non-LDS folks in nonacademic settings, we should focus on our emphases today hardly seems like the stuff that should provoke charges of duplicity.
    CF said:
    Arguing that Mormons still practice polygamy because we have a faith-based “belief” that males can have multiple wives in the “next life” is like arguing that slavery still exists in America because children believe that Santa Claus is forcing elves to make toys.
    Huh?
    Jack asked:
    Didn’t a new CHI come out in 2010? Can anyone check on this?
    You probably know this much, but maybe not everyone else here does: Press reports late last year said that a new handbook coming out in 2010 would list care for the poor and needy as one of the four main purposes of the Church. To the best of my knowledge (and I haven’t asked anyone who would know), this hasn’t happened yet.
  21. Eric Said:
    Ballard said that polygamy ended as an official practice in 1890. That’s a true statement; it continued afterward as an unofficial practice.
    And the fact that polygamy is a practice and a doctrine doesn’t mean that Ballard was being disingenuous when talking about its practice.
    I know what you are trying to do Eric, but the problem is that this type of reasoning undermines confidence in people’s ability to share the gospel.
    What you said in a technical, legal sense is absolutely true. Now that I read it again it’s a statement that a PR spokesman would be proud to write and a lawyer would feel comfortable defending in court. Kudos on pointing this out.
    Here’s the problem, 99.9% of all church members cannot vet their statements through a PR spokesman and a lawyer (though Ballard can do both). Church members are already nervous enough that they will “say the wrong thing” when it comes to sharing the gospel. So yes, Ballard can thread the needle just so, and he has the tools at his disposal to say things that are technically true while making the best case for the church.
    So let’s suppose that the average member says just what Ballard says to a non-member. The non-member goes home does a quick Google search and studies up on Mormon polygamy for an hour and then gets back to his/her member friend. He/she says, “Hey, that polygamy thing is a doctrine, not a practice.” Now what does the member say? Will you be there to provide reasoning to show that the statement is technically/legally true? And how convincing do you think this will be to the average non-member? My guess is that the answer provided won’t be satisfying and that bad experience will undermine their confidence in sharing the gospel.
    Bottom line: legalistic and technical reasoning might make for entertaining “high-five” moments in the bloggernaccle, but in real life they rarely if ever are satisfying.
  22. Eric,
    I forgot one more thing. Will you be there to explain that the statement is technically true that polygamy officially ended in 1890 but that it unofficially and illegally continued to be practiced after that? And how do you think that will go over when sharing the message?
  23. I don’t disagree, but it’s only a serious problem if you believe that early Church leaders were perfect or close to it.
    That’s a pretty lame, tired tactic. Classic false dichotomy. Polygamy is a problem because the details of polygamy and the Church’s changing attitude toward it cast a problematic light on some of the Church’s truth-claims, especially regarding divine revelation and the reliability and trustworthiness of the Church and its leaders.
    It’s not a problem for you because you are determined to believe the Church’s truth claims no matter what.
    Ballard said that polygamy ended as an official practice in 1890. That’s a true statement; it continued afterward as an unofficial practice.
    And the fact that polygamy is a practice and a doctrine doesn’t mean that Ballard was being disingenuous when talking about its practice. If Ballard were giving a talk on polygamy and ignored D&C 132, then I too might suggest he wasn’t being straight with his listeners. But the purpose of this talk was about a different issue, and there was no need here for him to go into a full explanation of the doctrine. For him to express an opinion that, when holding casual conversations with non-LDS folks in nonacademic settings, we should focus on our emphases today hardly seems like the stuff that should provoke charges of duplicity.
    Please. It’s an obvious mischaracterization of polygamy within Mormonism and Ballard knows better. That’s called “dishonesty.”
  24. What you said in a technical, legal sense is absolutely true. Now that I read it again it’s a statement that a PR spokesman would be proud to write and a lawyer would feel comfortable defending in court. Kudos on pointing this out.
    Not this lawyer. Intentional misrepresentation is a kind of fraud.
  25. I don’t know, Kullervo. Is this intentional misrepresentation, or is it more a case of putting forth the most favorable argument in the brief?
  26. You tell me. But I wouldn’t want to lie in a brief, that’s for damn sure.
    Polygamy is/was clearly not merely a practice. Ballard is clearly implying that it was. Eric’s argument that Ballard is only talking about polygamy as a practice and simply not addressing the theology and doctrinal implications of it at all is a strained argument at best.
    Ballard says “This ended in the Church as an official practice in 1890. It’s now 2010. Why are we still talking about it? It was a practice. It ended. We moved on.” The intent is to suggest that polygamy is no longer relevant to Mormonism and is not worth talking about except as a curiosity by academics and historians, which is not true.
    By suggesting that polygamy was a mere practice, he implies that it was not anything more. Otherwise the statement does not make sense.
  27. David Clark told me:
    I know what you are trying to do Eric,
    Maybe, maybe not.
    David Clark said/asked:
    So let’s suppose that the average member says just what Ballard says to a non-member. The non-member goes home does a quick Google search and studies up on Mormon polygamy for an hour and then gets back to his/her member friend. He/she says, “Hey, that polygamy thing is a doctrine, not a practice.” Now what does the member say? Will you be there to provide reasoning to show that the statement is technically/legally true? And how convincing do you think this will be to the average non-member? My guess is that the answer provided won’t be satisfying and that bad experience will undermine their confidence in sharing the gospel. … Will you be there to explain that the statement is technically true that polygamy officially ended in 1890 but that it unofficially and illegally continued to be practiced after that? And how do you think that will go over when sharing the message?
    Of course, I’m not going to be there. And I have no interest in spending my time defending the technical truth of statements.
    From what I can tell, Ballard was talking about the everyday situation where someone talks to a neighbor, friend or co-worker about his/her faith. Under such circumstances, I have found, people don’t give a rip about the details we discuss in the bloggernacle. When I’ve said something along the line that polygamy isn’t something we practice in our church these days, that’s satisfying enough to the people I’ve talked to. When I talk about my faith, I talk about how I believe the church helps me to be a better person — and that’s the sort of thing real people care about in addition to the things they may be curious about, such as what goes on in temples or if it’s really true that we don’t drink coffee or tithe our income. In real life, I’ve never been asked about 19th-century history. (If inquirers were to ask, though, I’d give an honest answer: Yes, our early church leaders sometimes had dozens of wives, some of them quite young.)
    And, frankly, I’d be shocked if any of my non-LDS friends came to me and started parsing the differences between practice, policy and doctrine. That’s the stuff the bloggernacle, not real life, is made of.
    Kullervo told me:
    It’s not a problem for you because you are determined to believe the Church’s truth claims no matter what.
    Don’t tell me what I think or believe, and I won’t presume to tell you what you think or believe, OK?
    I agree with you that polygamy is a problematic issue in the church’s history, and I can fully understand why it’s disturbing to some people. I don’t for a second suggest that the ways I’ve resolved (more or less) the issue for myself would be, or should be, satisfying to anyone else.
  28. And, frankly, I’d be shocked if any of my non-LDS friends came to me and started parsing the differences between practice, policy and doctrine. That’s the stuff the bloggernacle, not real life, is made of.
    Let’s assume you are right. Don’t you find it odd that to defend Ballard’s remarks as honest you had to parse it out using distinctions that a non-member couldn’t and wouldn’t make (again assuming you are right)? How is that not doublespeak and intent to deceive?
  29. Anyone attempting to give a simple and concise message is going to be accused of dishonesty by people who see more nuance in the topic.
  30. I agree with Seth. I think an application of Occam’s Razor here would do us some good. What would be the simplest explanation? For the case we are discussing it would be that when Ballard used the word practice he was using it very broad and general way, nuance is a thing for philosophy journals not public addresses.
  31. Kind of like Gordon B. Hinckley’s remark about “bring what you have and let us add to it.”
    Now, to die-hard Evangelicals – steeped in Evangelical theology – this sounded rather outrageous. They knew full well that Mormonism is not just a “mere upgrade” on what they have. It’s not simply “Christianity Plus.” And they knew they’d have to give up quite a bit of treasured doctrine in order to make the wrenching switch over to the LDS Church. To them, Hinckley’s remarks were, at best, trivializing, and at worst deceptive about what a change would mean.
    But to normal Evangelicals in the USA, it’s a perfectly reasonable statement. Most religiously affiliated families in the USA are not ideologues who are heavily wedded to Five Point Calvinism and vitally invested in matters of theological difference. To them, Hinckley’s remarks were entirely appropriate. For them, moving to Mormonism could very well be taking their vague and non-committal notion of Christianity and “upgrading” it to the message of Mormonism.
    Since these “indifferently affiliated” types constitute – by far – the majority of the world’s religious population, Hinckley was not being dishonest in his remarks. He was simply sending a message tailored for the majority of people out there.
    But an inevitable result was that it would be a very poor fitting message for SOME religious folks out there.
  32. Anyone attempting to give a simple and concise message is going to be accused of dishonesty by people who see more nuance in the topic.
    Way to obfuscate and blow smoke, Seth!
  33. David Clark asked me:
    Let’s assume you are right. Don’t you find it odd that to defend Ballard’s remarks as honest you had to parse it out using distinctions that a non-member couldn’t and wouldn’t make (again assuming you are right)? How is that not doublespeak and intent to deceive?
    I didn’t parse. I have no reason to assume dishonesty on Ballard’s part and merely tried to be a good listener/reader and tried to understand what he was saying from his point of view.
    I agree with Chase O’s and Seth R.’s analyses of 12:56 and 1:04 p.m.
    You’re free, of course, to attribute the same motives to me that you attribute to Elder Ballard. If you want to find dishonesty in me or Ballard, you’ll certainly find it. But that doesn’t mean it’s there.
  34. Chase and Seth,
    You both seem to be arguing that we are wanting more nuance and depth out of Ballard and pooh-pooh on us for wanting more nuance. That’s precisely backwards, I want less nuance, legalism, and technicalities from Ballard and more open and honest communication. Especially if you are arguing that this was mean for general consumption.
    Let’s go back to my original complaint, that Ballard said two things that are demonstrably false. Here’s the first one:
    An example is plural marriage. This ended in the Church as an official practice in 1890.
    The only way to interpret this as being truthful is to assume it is nuanced, technical, and legalistic. Here’s how you might say it in a plain and un-nuanced way: “An example is plural marriage. This ended in the church as a practice in 1904.” Now it’s obvious why he doesn’t say that, even though it’s a simple and truthful statement; members would have to be taught about post manifesto polygamy as soon as they figure out that 1904 is 14 years after OD 1. So, for him to be telling the truth, he has to be doing the nuancing.
    Here’s the other one:
    If people ask you about polygamy, just acknowledge that it was once a practice
    Here’s a simple way to say it (sans nuance) and be true: “If people ask you about polygamy, just acknowledge that it is an official doctrine of the church, that it was once practiced, but it no longer is practiced.” Not nuanced, not technical, not legalistic. For his original statement to be true you have to understand how “practice” and “doctrine” have been intertwined in ways that only Mormons understand. I think most people would understand the expanded statement, and it’s true based on how most people understand the terms “doctrine” and “practice.” Of course, it’s obvious why he doesn’t say that, because most people don’t want to join a church where polygamy is still an official doctrine. The original statement relies on a nuanced equivocation between how Mormons use the term “practice” and how the vast majority of all non-Mormons use the term “practice.”
  36. Actually, stating that polygamy ended as an official church practice in 1890 isn’t dishonest at all. It’s not comprehensive, but it is a true statement.
    It ended officially at that time.
  37. But on the “we no longer practice it” thing… yeah, not really inclined to argue this one. I’ve never liked the tendency to distance ourselves from this stuff.
  38. Actually, stating that polygamy ended as an official church practice in 1890 isn’t dishonest at all. It’s not comprehensive, but it is a true statement.
    A statement can be true and yet dishonest at the same time. Nobody is arguing the technicality here. But by appealing to the technicality and ignoring the rest, the implication is that there is no rest. That’s the whole stated intent of Ballard’s argument: to lay the discussion of polygamy to rest in the context of sharing the gospel. And his tactic for doing so is to use a technically true statement to obscure a problematic reality.
    The doctrinal implications of polygamy are material for anyone investigating the Church.
  39. The context of the statement doesn’t render it dishonest either.
    Ballard here states no more nor less than what he offers. The fact that secret unofficial plural marriages took place for a few years afterward is not really pertinent to the point he is making. It doesn’t really shed much light for the reader on what Ballard was talking about – the official LDS stance.
    What I object to was how this true statement was combined with OTHER statements to represent something I consider to be either untrue, or simply ignorant of the modern reality of LDS marriage doctrine.
  40. And the continuation of plural marriages in secret is not even really relevant to the objection I raise:
    That plural marriage is still an active part of our theology.
    This is a tangential argument. Ballard’s overall article may be disingenuous. But that one statement was not.
  41. Seth,
    Since these “indifferently affiliated” types constitute – by far – the majority of the world’s religious population, Hinckley was not being dishonest in his remarks. He was simply sending a message tailored for the majority of people out there.
    Your argument that this is directed to the majority of indifferently affiliated only works for indifferently affiliated American Evangelicals, and they are a tiny percentage of the world’s Christians.
    It doesn’t work because the majority of the world’s Christians are Eastern Orthodox and Catholic. And the “indifferently associated” in those camps still know enough to realize that what Hinckley was saying can’t possibly be true.
    Take the EO, they say, pretty much without fail, the Nicene Creed every Sunday, even the “indifferently affiliated” who bother to show up. It’s part of who they are. Well, it doesn’t take too long talking to Mormons to figure out that Mormons deny and sometimes even ridicule the Nicene Creed. So, how can Mormonism be simply adding to their basic beliefs when they will be told to jettison one of their most cherised ones (known even by the “indifferenly affiliated”) with extreme prejudice?
    Take the Catholics. They are going to say the Nicene Creed or the Apostles Creed every Sunday, even the “indifferently affiliated” when they bother to show up. If they say the Nicene Creed then they are in the same boat with the EO (though they say the filioque, causing extreme gastric distention amongst the EO). If they say the Apostle’s Creed then they have to give up their cherished belief in “the Holy Catholic Church” which they interpret to be either the Roman church or the spiritual church of Christians who confess the creeds. Again, even the “indifferently affiliated” are going to know these creeds with even the most minimal of Sunday attendance. But, they will be asked to jettison their beliefs in favor of apostacy and restoration.
  42. Oh gosh David, the illustration I made is even stronger OUTSIDE the US.
    Catholics in France, Buddhists in Japan, Eastern Orthodox in Russia… indifferently-affiliated is even MORE of a reality in those places than it is in the US. Most of the people Mormon missionaries deal with are people who are not die-hards in their own faiths. Or even particularly educated about them.
    In fact, I’d wager the vast majority of the world’s Catholics don’t even know what the Nicene Creed IS.
  43. Seth, I am indifferent to the polygamy-in-secret thing; I don’t think that’s the dishonest part. The fact that polygamy is atill a live theological doctrine (or even if it merely once was) is extremely relevant.
    Ballard’s statements imply–and are clearly meant to imply–that polygamy was merely a practice, nothing more, and are thus not significant to the modern investigator.
    That’s a material misrepresentation of Mormon theology. Ballard knows it is. And he is advocating using it as part of the dialogue of “sharing the gospel,” i.e., trying to get people to join the Church.
    That’s a knowing material misrepresentation in an attempt to convince someone to join the Church. That’s textbook fraud.
  44. Yeah, but that’s not the point I was responding to. As you know, I don’t like this article from Ballard much for similar reasons to those you state.
    I was just responding to David’s “bullet-point lies” presentation.
  45. I’ll support Seth on that, I often knew more about the Catholic Church than 95% of the people I met on my mission. Most of the Brazilians could not even tell me about Vatican 2 even though it was a BFD for the Catholics, but that did not stop them from claiming catholicism as their religion.
  46. One quick comment concerning my feelings on Ballard’s remarks: Ballard was giving counsel meant to deal with people who (from his perspective) were expressing an unhealthy interest in polygamy or incorrect notions about it. My opinion is that he swung the pendulum too far in the other direction, giving an answer that oversimplified the issue and downplayed it too much.
    I think that the answer David Clark proposes in #34 (“If people ask you about polygamy, just acknowledge that it is an official doctrine of the church, that it was once practiced, but it no longer is practiced.”) is a more accurate short answer to the question. The truth of the matter is that leaders would rather not have to acknowledge to outsiders that polygamy is a doctrine of the church because it’s a PR nightmare, but they aren’t willing to take the steps to completely gut it from the church’s theology. Which leaves them stuck between a rock and a hard place, so to speak.
  47. The dishonesty, or whatever you want to call it, is in LDS attempts to pretend that polygamy is not still an active doctrine in the modern LDS Church. Because it is.
    I think we’d actually be in a stronger position if we simply owned it and gave strong reasons for why our ownership of it is not reprehensible, but actually laudable.
  48. Seth and Chase,
    I am glad that you have declared all pretty much all Christians (especially those outside the US) ignorant and/or stupid. Kudos gentlemen!
    Seth,
    Which post was my bullet-point lies presentation?
  49. David, I’m glad to see that you consider being uninformed about one’s own religious affiliation to be the equivalent of “stupid.”
    How did you arrive at this rather interesting conclusion?
  51. Seth,
    “ignorant and/or stupid” was what I said. Learn to read complete sentences.
  52. The dishonesty, or whatever you want to call it, is in LDS attempts to pretend that polygamy is not still an active doctrine in the modern LDS Church. Because it is.
    I think we’d actually be in a stronger position if we simply owned it and gave strong reasons for why our ownership of it is not reprehensible, but actually laudable.
    Agreed, 100%. Mormonism is unique. Why not just own that?
  53. I was not making any assumption as to that David, I was merely pointing out that you practicing ethnocentricism when you think that all other people take theological study as seriously as we do in the States. You are making several assumptions about education and desire of those outside the US. Most people are more concerned about if they are going to eat that day than about the intricacies of religious creeds.
  55. David, how did you arrive at the conclusion that people who are uninformed of their own religions are generally “ignorant?”
    And how did you conclude that I consider “pretty-much all Christians” to be such?
    And while we’re at it, did you have anything particularly useful to contribute here at all? Or are you just bitter that I shot your point down?
  58. Chase:
    From Merriam-Webster:
    ethnocentrism: characterized by or based on the attitude that one’s own group is superior.
    I argue that other Christian groups have enough basic understanding of their own beliefs to figure out that Mormonism is incompatible with their own beliefs. You say that most of these same people (especially the ones living outside the U.S.) are too ignorant to know this stuff. Yet, I’m the one who is guilty of ethnocentrism. That’s rich.
  59. David, how did you arrive at the conclusion that people who are uninformed of their own religions are generally ignorant?
    Seth, you admit that your and Chase’s position is that people in other religions are generally uninformed about their own beliefs. And since “uninformed” = “ignorant” that’s pretty much what you two are arguing. I would also like to point out that I DON’T think people in other religions are so ignorant that they can’t figure out that joining Mormonism is not just adding on to their previous beliefs. Yet somehow, even though I assert that people are MORE informed than you and Chase argue, I am asserting they are ignorant. WTF?
    And how did you conclude that I consider pretty-much all Christians to be such?
    Oh, I don’t know Seth, how about when you said this:
    Catholics in France, Buddhists in Japan, Eastern Orthodox in Russia… indifferently-affiliated is even MORE of a reality in those places than it is in the US. Most of the people Mormon missionaries deal with are people who are not die-hards in their own faiths. Or even particularly educated about them.
    In fact, I’d wager the vast majority of the world’s Catholics don’t even know what the Nicene Creed IS.
    And while we’re at it, did you have anything particularly useful to contribute here at all? Or are you just bitter that I shot your point down?
    Still waiting on that one, which point of mine did you shoot down? As for my contributions here, if Jack thinks my contributions suck she can let me know and I will gracefully go away. But thanks for your concern Seth.
    Sure sign that your argument sucks – make it about the messenger.
    I invite you to point out all the mistakes I made in post #34, I’m generally interested in seeing where I argued incorrectly.
    And, for the record, why do you have such personal animus towards me? You seem to have made it a point to single me out for disdain and scorn.
  60. Who said anything about “other” religions?
    Where exactly did I exempt Mormons from this general rule David? Re-read my comments. Where did I say that Mormons were superior on this score?
    Most human beings are ignorant of their own religion because they’ve got a lot of other legitimate concerns on their minds. This is not a statement of superiority or inferiority. It is just an acknowledgment that people are busy and have to devote their attention to a lot of things. Not everyone is a theologian, or even a religious blogger. Nor do most people have that level of knowledge about their religion or the religion of others. I don’t feel in any way superior to these people. A lot of them are a LOT smarter than me in general. But that doesn’t mean they’ve given a lot of thought to subjects like polygamy, the Nicene Creed, or what jihad really means.
    David, I was actually trying to be polite here. I didn’t agree with a point you made, and stated so quite civilly.
    You’re the one who started escalating this trying to paint me as some sort of jigoistic bigot. True, I was stupid to take you up on it. But lets have no illusions here about who started making this personal on this particular thread.
    Maybe I should have gone with my first gut impulse after your post #48 and told you to “kiss my butt” and simply left it there. It would have saved time.
  61. I had far too many thoughts on the subject to spam you with them here, so I wandered off into my own little slice of Outer Blogness:
    The basics: Mormon polygamy remains a problem because
    1. It was at the heart of all religious doctrine for over 80 years
    2. Where most Christians believe we will be with all of our loved ones in Heaven in a sexless state of bliss that transcends human flesh (making marriage irrelevant), Mormons believe in heaven people will (a) have bodies and (b) be shagging with them
    3. This makes people incredibly squeamish about the thought of God, multiple spouses, and their granny shagging
    4. It also makes for incredibly confusing speculation about the nature of God, gender roles, and the function of marriage in the afterlife
  62. @ David,
    I must apologize for my use of the incorrect term, it has been a long while since I had my sociolgy class, what I was trying to mean by it was that you can not reify our culture onto others, by assuming that they way we view things is the same the world over. All Seth and are trying to say is that assuming that they are as deeply involved in religion as we are here is dangerous assumption to make.
    @ Kullervo I am perfectly willing to be surprised, as I like to think myself a hermeneutisist.
  63. One could rightly say that polygamy is not _active_ doctrine. It’s not in the baptism interview or temple recommend interview questions. It’s not currently preached by the brethren. It’s not taught at general conference.
    Even when polygamy was practiced in the 19th century, there were plenty of temple-recommend holders and endowed members who didn’t practice polygamy.
    Today, you could tell your bishop and stake president that you believe there will not be polygamy in the next life, and they would likely still sign your temple recommend. It’s just not currently a _binding_ doctrine.
    And, in the case of divorce, living women can get sealed to a second husband while an ex-husband is still living without a cancelation of the previous sealing. They stopped the “temple divorce” (except in rare cases) long ago. There began to be too many divorces in the church to get the first presidency to be involved in every request for cancellation of sealing.
    I have to side with Elder Ballard on this. Polygamy on earth has ended. Polygamy in the hereafter is a doctrinal belief, but belief in a future existence of polygamy is not binding on anyone in the here and now.
    Why do people get so worked up over non-binding LDS doctrines?
    And, any possible future world participation in polygamy will surely be voluntary on the part of the participants. Is God going to force unwanted relationships in the Celestial Kingdom? I don’t think so.
    Another point, the extreme confidence of anti-polygamists (polygamy deniers? :-) that there won’t or can’t be polygamy in heaven also concerns me. As if people are trying to bind God one way or another based on our prejudices. Are we trying to tell God that he can’t allow Abraham, Jacob (and Moses and others) to keep their multiple wives if they are willing and those wives are willing to stay with them in the eternities?
    Conversely is anyone suggesting that God would deny Dinah and Bilhah entry to the Celestial Kingdom if
    they don’t want to stay with Jacob, but otherwise are worthy of Celestial glory?
    I think that, _by definition_, no one is going to be unhappy in the Celestial Kingdom. Therefore, the questions about whether there will be polygamy, or there won’t be in Heaven, whether it’s mandatory or optional, whether everybody is in a polygamous union, or only some, it’s all moot at this point. A specific belief on those points is just not mandatory for LDS today.
  64. Oops, that should have been Bilhah and Zilpah, not Dinah.
    And what about Isaac? Didn’t he have only one wife? His dad was a polygamist, his sons were polygamists. Did he get short-changed?
    Or did Abraham and Jacob think Isaac was smart for having only one wife?
    In support of my previous comment about our prejudices, here’s a quote I saw at Mormonmentality.org
    More than one presumed “theological problem” comes only from the lack of respect with which God treats our prejudices.
    – Nicolás Gómez Dávila
    (Escolios a un Texto Implícito: Selección, p. 247)
    http://don-colacho.blogspot.com/2010/07/1463.html
  65. “I think that, _by definition_, no one is going to be unhappy in the Celestial Kingdom.”
    Then why does Enoch report God to be weeping?
  66. Seth: That conversation did not take place inside the Celestial Kingdom. The CK doesn’t exist yet, as the Earth hasn’t been celestialized yet.
  67. Are you saying there were never any Celestial kingdoms prior to now? Or that there will never be another fallen earth after this?
    Why wouldn’t God be sad for those people?
  68. Anyway, my point was that the exalted humans, the ones who get to stay married (that top rung of the 3 divisions in the CK) are promised that all tears will be wiped away, all hurts mended, etc. The CK is to be a place of glory, felicity and joy that surpasses all understanding.
    My understanding is that Christ will heal all hurts, and correct all misunderstandings.
    Everyone (except the sons of Perdition) will be purified, no matter which of the 3 kingdoms they end up in. Everyone will have either repented, or paid for their sins by the time Christ presents the kingdom spotless to Heavenly Father. Even those in the TrK or TlK will be purified and perfect within their sphere and place. Everyone will acknowledge in the Final Judgement that the Lord’s judgements are just. Everyone will be in agreement with the Father and the Son.
    Given that God’s will for our eternal destination is for our own highest good, and if eternal polygamy (among the exalted ones) is Heavenly Father’s will, and if all the exalted ones will have modified their own wills and opinions to conform with Heavenly Father’s will (ie, being one with God and Christ), then everyone will be on the same page, and we don’t have to worry about the marriage arrangements in the CK.
    IE, whatever the marriage arrangements are, they will be according to Heavenly Father’s will, and all the participants will be in agreement with Heavenly Father. If there is polygamy, the inhabitants of the CK will be in agreement with it. If there is no polygamy, everyone will be fine with it too. All CK participants will have their feelings healed and understandings enlightened to the eternal correctness of whatever the eternal arrangements are.
    Since polygamy hasn’t been preached since long before Correlation, how it’s going to work out is pretty much just speculation. As I mentioned above, at this point polygamy is essentially a “non-binding doctrine.” Maybe that’s the “more honest” verbal short-cut that some people are looking for: “non-binding doctrine.”
    There are probably a LOT of things in the gospel that are true, but just aren’t taught anymore, or are not mandatory for baptism or a temple-recommend.
    I would say that for anyone, of any Christian sect, it’s logically improper to say with certainty that there “can’t” or “won’t” be polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom. (Insert standard comparison of the LDS TrK with the sexless and unmarried picture of mainstream Protestant’s Heaven.)
    The Evs and Pents ought to be on-board with the idea of “non-binding doctrine.” Most of them don’t go over the various creeds or points of Calvinism and Trinitarianism with their converts before baptising them. Just “accept Christ as your Savior”, and “poof” you’re “saved”. Arguing over the details is optional.
  69. Don’t rule it out Bookslinger.
    Brigham Young considered it a pretty darn binding doctrine when he was asked to do it.
    And there are no guarantees of what will or will not be required of us in the future.
  70. Seth, you lawyer, you. Yes, you’re right, it was a binding doctrine _back in those days_. Forgive me for not qualifying it with _today_ and _here in mortality_.
    There was a time when disallowing women to speak in church (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/14/34-35#34 ) was also a binding doctrine, as was not eating pork, and stoning adulterers and unruly children.
    I don’t think we should be ashamed of the changing doctrine, or its change from binding to non-binding or vice versa. (eg, WoW went from non-binding to binding.) Mainstream Christendom has done it for a millennium plus some centuries, going back, at least, to that stuff about baptism for the dead. Oh wait, how about which day of the week was called the “Sabbath”? That goes back even further. Changing it to Sunday went strongly against the “perpetual” wording that Moses used.
    (Ok, I can hear it now “but baptism-for-the-dead was a _practice_ and not _doctrine_. Heh heh.)
    Personally, I think there will be polygamy in that top rung of the CK.
  71. My opinion is that he swung the pendulum too far in the other direction, giving an answer that oversimplified the issue and downplayed it too much.
    You have a good point there. D. Michael Quinn’s paper on Polygamy/Plural Marriage some years ago pointed out there was some confusion on practicing Polygamy outside the US, specifically the LDS colonies in Northern Mexico. And, Spencer Kimball was quoted as saying it was Joseph F. Smith that closed the gate on Polygamy.
    But, if we also recoil at Polygamy too much: Remember that one of the titles of the Christ is “Son of David”.
    Anyone want to tell me how many wives he had?
  74. Rocks and glass houses.
    Yeah right. I don’t support polygamy either as a legal right or a theological practice, and I’m not responsible for the actions of every person under the sun who styles themselves “Christian.”
  75. I mean, I can put up a website called “Mormonbestiality.com” but that doesn’t mean Mormons have a bestiality problem.
  76. @ Kullervo, 73: Baloney. “binding” versus “non-binding” doctrine does indeed exist in protestant christianity. You may call it by another name, such as “required” or “minimum” or “necessary”. Or play it down with “there’s no wide consensus on that.”
    Evidence: various protestants recognize each others’ baptisms and legitimacy in claiming to be Christian even though doctrines vary from church to church.
    There are certain doctrines wherein Mormonism differs from various branches of protestant christianity. Those doctrines are considered necessary or binding by the protestants in order for a church to rightfully claim to be “christian.” Many protestants call us non-christian because we don’t meet those minimum or “binding” doctrines.
    In fact, when converts join protestant churches, they may be required to make committments or statements of basic faith to meet membership requirements. And even in cases/churches where admission is no more than just a rubber stamp, later statements may get the convert ejected.
    Yet, between the various branches of protestantism, there are plenty of differences in doctrines, while many or most of those differences don’t rise to the level of causing one group to be labeled non-christian by another (ie, as long as they meet the binding minimums.)
    And, one thing I’ve learned from you protestant religious scholars, is that there are plenty of “higher doctrines” that ya’ll talk about, study, and write about, that aren’t “forced” (or “binding” or “required for good standing”) on the rank-and-file members of your own churches. IE, members of your own churches aren’t required to subscribe to or make verbal or other committments to those “higher” doctrines.
    Moreover, private disagreement would not even jeopardize a member’s standing. And if public disagreement did, they could move over to a different denomination, keep on disagreeing with _your_ higher doctrines, but still be in good standing with their new christian church.
    Does _your_ church officially subscribe to “Arminianism” or whatever-the-opposite-is? And if your church does, one way or the other, are converts to your church required to “sign on” to it? If not, and they later publicly disagree with your church’s official Arminianism-versus-whatever stance, do they keep good standing? If they can publicly disagree to an “official” position (in regards to doctrine) of the church and still retain good standing, then I’d say the doctrine is “non-binding.”
    Are there any (other) theological doctines in your church/denomination which have official status but with which members, or even local clergy, are allowed to disagree (publicly or privately)?
  77. This innocent Saturdy Evening Post cover made me think of Jack and this thread. It’s funny, kind of how Jack labeled an LDS painting as “Ninja wives of Jesus” or something like that. You have to be thinking of LDS polygamy to think the caption is funny. Here’s the direct link:
    https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTyr9X2UqDSNAmJuUNbRoKt5InmI8NvJcK3pNZKe8gfLoIsLgC93_B-QwwI972SamUGy_9-uZHZBHk9fjSQNk7zkcBMjJzt03Zej6ACF4v9AGxANB4GuMK6LDec0MNPYrVm5sGaOAHGw/s1600-h/Making+Faces.jpg
    And here’s the web page it’s located on.
    http://americangallery.wordpress.com/category/hunter-frances-t/
    What appears to be the caption probably was not intended that way, but still. Jack: What’s your snort-retort to that painting+caption?
  78. Jack,
    So YOU are the arbiter of who is and is not Christian?
    Who knew.
  79. So YOU are the arbiter of who is and is not Christian?
    On some issues, yes. When it comes to whether or not someone is a “Christian,” there’s always two questions for me: the taxonomic question (Can the person/group be categorized as a Christian for the purposes of religious study) and the spiritual question (Do I personally believe this person is a follower of Jesus Christ?). When it comes to Christian polygamists, most of them are at least solidly in the first camp. They’re taxonimically classified within the umbrella of Christianity and there’s no reason to try and put them anywhere else.
    Are these people actually Christians in the second sense of the term? I don’t know and that’s generally not my place to judge. I suspect that some of them are sincere believers who have been led astray by a poor understanding of the biblical practice of polygamy and some of them are wolves in sheep’s clothing. I had quite a bit of personal interaction with a group of Christian polygamists years ago; they’d actually started out as an LDS splinter group, but had disavowed Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon by the time I got to know them. From what I knew of them, I sincerely came to doubt their status as true believers.
    But my skepticism on whether or not Christian polygamists are true believers is really quite beside the point. You alleged that I’m a hypocrite for critiquing Mormons on this matter because there are Christian polygamists out there as well. But I don’t support Christian polygamy in any way, shape, or form; not theologically, not politically, not anything. I have quite a few critiques of the so-called “Christian polygamy movement;” I simply haven’t ever blogged about them. So there’s no glass houses and stones here.
Categories:

Related Post:



0 коментарі:

Post a Comment

ClobberBlog | Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity