Storm over the Mormons - for Non-Mormons

[Katzpur]

But by itself, why would that be a bad thing? I think that adapting to changing times can still be reconciled with divine inspiration for prophecy. For example, maybe God in His infinite wisdom felt that His will was better served with Utah receiving statehood than it would be served by plural marriage in a territory.

Obviously that is my position. It's pretty much what Wilford Woodruff, President of the Church shortly after the "Manifesto" banning poligamy was issued, said. There was no attempt to pretend otherwise. As DeepShadow has pointed out, our detractors are not fond of looking at the overall picture, but only at the instances in which they see what appears to be external pressure being exerted on the Church resulting in change. Changes in policy do not take place because of external pressures -- ever. In terms of the poligamy issue, it wasn't even a matter of God caring whether Utah became a state or not. Rather, conditions which existed at the time of the manifesto clearly would have led to the eventual destruction of the Church. Seeing the Church destroyed was something God didn't want to happen. In terms of the lifting of the ban against Blacks holding the priesthood, if it had really been a matter of the Church just giving in to pressure from the general population, the revelation would have come a good 10-15 years before it did. By 1978, there was relatively little pressure being exerted on the Church with regards to racial issues.

 

[Autodidact]

Obviously that is my position. It's pretty much what Wilford Woodruff, President of the Church shortly after the "Manifesto" banning poligamy was issued, said. There was no attempt to pretend otherwise. As DeepShadow has pointed out, our detractors are not fond of looking at the overall picture, but only at the instances in which they see what appears to be external pressure being exerted on the Church resulting in change. Changes in policy do not take place because of external pressures -- ever. In terms of the poligamy issue, it wasn't even a matter of God caring whether Utah became a state or not. Rather, conditions which existed at the time of the manifesto clearly would have led to the eventual destruction of the Church. Seeing the Church destroyed was something God didn't want to happen. In terms of the lifting of the ban against Blacks holding the priesthood, if it had really been a matter of the Church just giving in to pressure from the general population, the revelation would have come a good 10-15 years before it did. By 1978, there was relatively little pressure being exerted on the Church with regards to racial issues.

They're slow, but eventually they succumb, especially when they can't win a basketball game to save their lives.

 

[Apex]

They're slow, but eventually they succumb, especially when they can't win a basketball game to save their lives.

She put you on ignore for a reason.

 

[SoyLeche]

They didn't want to live under a Mormon theocracy. They were concerned that the Mormons voted as a bloc as Smith told them to. They objected to Smith functioning as religious and political leader, Judge and Jury. They objected when he destroyed the Nauvoo Expositor.

That was well after Missouri.

 

[SoyLeche]

I don't think abolitionism had anything to do with it, and don't know where that myth got started. Slavery was practiced by the Mormons in Utah when they got there, so that makes no sense.

It probably got started with a document "drawn up at a mass meeting in Jackson County, Missouri, in July 1833" by the early opposition of the Mormons in Missouri - it's the only thing semi-close to a legal or secular-type complaint they had.

LDS FAQ: Mormons and Danites: The Historical Background in Missouri - The Mormon War in Missouri

Terry L. Givens thoughtfully explores this issue in his book, The Viper on the Hearth: Mormons, Myths, and the Construction of Heresy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997, pp. 40-59). He notes that critics have long had a vested interest in emphasizing nonreligious reasons for the persecution of the Latter-day Saints, and historians have also focused on causes of the conflict other than religious bigotry. However, Givens notes, even before the Missouri Wars began, "the hundreds of mobbers involved at the outset were good enough to commit their complaints to paper" (ibid., p. 44), referring to a document "drawn up at a mass meeting in Jackson County, Missouri, in July 1833" that shows the significance of religion in the minds of the mobbers. It begins with lip service to the notion of leaving the "grossest supestition" of Mormon religion out of the conflict, but quickly launches into attacks on LDS beliefs. The authors raise the specter of Mormon "swarms" invading their land, people "who do not blush to declare, and would not upon occasion hesitate to swear, that they have wrought miracles . . . and supernatural cures, have concourse with God and His angels, and possess and exercise the gifts of divination and of unknown tongues" (ibid., p. 44). There follows a brief reference to LDS antiabolitionist tendencies - the only attempt in the document to provide a legal reason for opposing the Mormons - followed by a reiteration of a religious attack on the Mormons. Givens writes, "Rather than mount a serious attack on Mormon racial views in a way that would lend legitimacy - or at least mitigate - their violent solutions [in the context of a pro-slavery state], the mobbers repeatedly invoke and caricature Mormon religious heterodoxy" (ibid., p. 44).

Or it could have even started here (from the same link):

Vandalism against LDS settlers first occurred in the spring of 1832. Coordinated aggression commenced in July 1833, after the article "Free People of Color" appeared in the Evening and the Morning Star. Even though the article was written to curtail trouble, it so outraged local citizens that more than 400 met at the courthouse to demand that the Mormons leave. When the Latter-day Saints refused to negotiate away or abandon lands they legally owned, some citizens formed a mob and destroyed the press and printing house, ransacked the Mormon store, and violently accosted LDS leaders. Bishop Edward Partridge was beaten and tarred and feathered. Meeting three days later, the mob issued an ultimatum: One-half of the Mormons must leave by year's end and the rest by April (1834).​

What was in the "Free People of Color" article that caused such outrage? It was said to be an invitation for free people of color to accept the Gospel and join the Saints, something quite offensive in a pro-slavery state.

 

[Autodidact]

It probably got started with a document "drawn up at a mass meeting in Jackson County, Missouri, in July 1833" by the early opposition of the Mormons in Missouri - it's the only thing semi-close to a legal or secular-type complaint they had.

LDS FAQ: Mormons and Danites: The Historical Background in Missouri - The Mormon War in Missouri
Or it could have even started here (from the same link):

How does a statement that people had trouble with their anti-abolitionists tendencies support an argument that they objected to their supposed abolitionist tendencies?

 

[DeepShadow]

Right. Every time the Mormon leadership adopts the precise change that people are advocating for, it's just coincidence. It's pure coincidence that they got a revelation to stop the practice of polygamy just in time for Utah to be accepted as a state. It's just a random chance that they happened to extend priesthood to African-american males after years of agitation, pressure, and losing basketball seasons. Those Mormons picketing Mormon square were just wasting their time--the prophet would have gotten the exact same revelation without them.

Your straw-man bears no resemblance to my actual position. For someone who wants to be heard on these issues, you suck at listening.

 

[lunamoth]

I have not ready this whole loooooooong thread, but I don't see why it is supposed to be some kind of smoking gun that the Mormon Prophets have been guided by the Holy Spirit in how they relate to other people and society as a whole. Situations change so the way of God's will also changes. The goal is always the same.

2c

 

[Zephyr]

I have not ready this whole loooooooong thread, but I don't see why it is supposed to be some kind of smoking gun that the Mormon Prophets have been guided by the Holy Spirit in how they relate to other people and society as a whole. Situations change so the way of God's will also changes. The goal is always the same.

2c

Is god's will subordinate to current society?

 

[lunamoth]

Is god's will subordinate to current society?

Why do you say that?

 

[SoyLeche]

How does a statement that people had trouble with their anti-abolitionists tendencies support an argument that they objected to their supposed abolitionist tendencies?

If I were to venture a guess I'd say that the "anti" is a typo by Lindsey. The book he is referencing is available to "Search Inside" at Amazon.com. Search for "abolitionist" and you can read a couple pages of it. Givens actually agrees with you that the slavery issue wasn't at the heart of the persecution, but I think you can hardly say that it had little to do with it given that it was one of the main non-religious pretenses that was offered.

Givens actually supports the same idea that I was trying to get at with the Smoot example. The problems that the Missourians had with the Saints were mostly religious in nature. The secular and legal reasons they came up with were merely justifications for their actions.

On Amazon you can go back and forward 2 pages from the reference to the word you searched. I'd suggest searching for "abolitionist", then going to page 44, then back one page to 43 then reading through 46. If you search for "antiabolitionist" you can get a reference on page 46 that will allow you to read until 48.

It's actually kinda fun to see what words you can search for to read an entire book this way

 

[Zephyr]

Why do you say that?

Why else would god conveniently change his mind when society deems his older teachings unacceptable?

 

[lunamoth]

Why else would god conveniently change his mind when society deems his older teachings unacceptable?

My answer is in my first post. You are the one putting this particular spin on it.

You seem to be looking at the turns in the road and mistaking them for the destination.

 

[Magic Man]

Why else would god conveniently change his mind when society deems his older teachings unacceptable?

Yes, it is rather convenient and coincidental that "Oh, it just so happens that God told me [blank] is OK, now that society has decided the same thing".

 

[DeepShadow]

Welcome to "correlation/causation fallacy, round 2"

 

[Watchmen]

They're slow, but eventually they succumb, especially when they can't win a basketball game to save their lives.

Can you provide some support for your claim that the LDS Church gave blacks the priesthood so it could win a basketball game?

 

[Zephyr]

Welcome to "correlation/causation fallacy, round 2"

It is quite the coincidence.

 

[DeepShadow]

It is quite the coincidence.

It's NOT a coincidence. It's a correlation. You are assigning causation. I could do the same thing by saying that we should buy TV's for people in certain third-world contries to help them control overpopulation, because in those countries, having a TV is strongly correlated with fewer kids. It's never a coincidence that two things follow each other this way, up and down and up again. It's a correlation without a known causation.

OTOH, it's also "coincidental" that the church has (repeatedly) taken a stand on things that turned out to be...wrong. Not that many years ago, when repressed memories were all the rage, the church tood a very firm stand against therapies that dredged up previous abuse. Critics had a field day, portraying the church as flying in the face of science/mental health and even going so far as to say the church was part of a coverup. That time, society found out the hard way that repressed memories were not what they appeared to be, and the church's advice on the matter turned out to be well ahead of its time.

Picking only the times the church changed is one-sided. Leaving aside revelation, it could be said that the church tends to insulate against social change. When changes turn out to be bad, such insulation can be a good thing. When changes turn out to be necessary, the church eventually comes around.

 

[cardero]

Any religion that advises the revelation that God is no longer offended by homosexuality should have better reasons than the explanations of why He was offended in the first place.

 

[DeepShadow]

Any religion that advises the revelation that God is no longer offended by homosexuality should have better reasons than the explanations of why He was offended in the first place.

Good point!

As a complete tangent, did you know I nominated you high priest of RF?