The prophet is perfect?

[SaidNobody]

I'm going to be honest SaidNobody-You're fairly new and you don't have a ton of posting history. But I can't decide if the things you say are a play on your username or if you mean these things. A quick search will give you plenty of information on BY's involvement in MMM.

Anon70, don't let the name mislead you. I was part of old NOM. I wasn't allowed to join with my old name. I've done a fair amount of research on mmm. It is a point of Shame for me. As I had to accept that my religion did engage in justify that behavior. But last time I researched it Brigham Young was not part of the event. But rather help cover up the part of John D. Lee, whom many believe move to Lee's ferry in the Grand Canyon.

If new evidence has appeared that connects to Brigham Young as a initiator of that event, I hadn't seen it yet. I believe he was the one who started many of the rumors that they claim to be part of Hans Mill Massacre. And other things like that.

[Jeffret]

Actual experts on the history and sociology of marriage will explain to you that there are lots of variations on marriage throughout human history and communities. In all these variations, some form of plural or polygamous marriage is most prevalent.

Of course, the prevalence of something or its tradition does nothing to establish that it is correct or better.

[SaidNobody]

Actual experts on the history and sociology of marriage will explain to you that there are lots of variations on marriage throughout human history and communities. In all these variations, some form of plural or polygamous marriage is most prevalent.

Of course, the prevalence of something or its tradition does nothing to establish that it is correct or better.

Not to call myself an expert, but it's a favorite subject of mine. Yes, I am aware marriage has taken many shapes over the years. Not to say that one is particularly better then another. Whether slaver/master, master/mistress, man/wife, man/wives, woman/husband, woman/husbands, sultan/herd, mining crew/hooker, etc, etc,.

But, traditions are not just about gender and numbers. They are rituals, respect, dominance, role playing, etc.

Point it, regardless of genders and numbers, in general, marriage is a dying institution. . . . . in modern civilization.

[Palerider]

I was never asked to do something that offended my conscious.

Having served in a couple of Bishopric, Elders quorum presidencies and as HP group leader, I've had numerous occasions where I've been told to do or say things that went against my conscience.

For instance the time a sister came to me to ask if she could have a temple recommend even though she didn’t pay her tithing. She lived and met all other church requirements except this one.

She and her inactive husband lived on a very limited budget and he refused to allow her to pay a tithe (on her own money) even though she had approached him numerous times. She feared pursuing it further because in most cases he was a fair man and she didn’t want to rock the marriage.

I discussed her predicament with the SP and was told to relay the response that she needed to go back to her husband and keep asking...and no...she couldn't have the recommend.

I sheepishly rehearsed the SP's answer with her and she tearfully nodded and left the interview. I highly doubt she re-approched her husband. She didn't come back for another interview.

So there one sits....Caught between a sister's overbearing husband who's trying to make financial ends meet and a "letter of the law" bureaucratic SP who wants to make brownie points with SLC.

I'm sure some presumptive TBM out there would say she just needed to have more faith....

I always used to think the church really wasn't about the money.....but you know,... it is about the money.

Can you really and honestly imagine the Savior refusing this woman's request? "No, I'm sorry my dear, we're a pay to play dispenser of salvation. That "freely given" stuff is just Biblical nonsense.

Regarding Mountain Meadows, I think others have already addressed the need for extended research on that account.

[SaidNobody]

I was never asked to do something that offended my conscious.

Having served in a couple of Bishopric, Elders quorum presidencies and as HP group leader, I've had numerous occasions where I've been told to do or say things that went against my conscience.

I can see where that would have upset you. It has been years I have been in such a position. I remember once there was an sexual assault charge against a father and a priesthood leader bailed him out. I went head to head with him and he insisted the man was innocent. He asked me to trust him for now.

The man was separated from his family. There was a charge, but the alleged victim couldn't support the story. The man dies a couple years later from a heart attack. The daughter that made the charges made the case more widely known and it made clear she had a hyper sense of boundaries. Apparently, when the father had given a younger daughter a hug, his hands had brushed the side of her chest. And he had put a hand in her knee once as he talked to her. (Her own story.)

My point is, I wouldn't have just complied. I would have fought for justice, without just rolling over. That SP would have had to justify his case to me. I can follow direction, but not blinding. We unify around concepts of righteousness, not kingship.

I've never had a problem when authority simply over ran righteousness. I had to stand up against a few cases, but the people I worked with would submit to righteousness before authority.

[Red Ryder]

Anon70, don't let the name mislead you. I was part of old NOM. I wasn't allowed to join with my old name.

Did your old NOM name start with the letter K? Back when the board was set up it was getting spammed with users with names all starting with K. It was easier to block all new users with K than 100's of IP addresses. If you want your name changed send Captain Salty a PM. He can change it.

[Jeffret]

Point it, regardless of genders and numbers, in general, marriage is a dying institution. . . . . in modern civilization.

Actually it seems to be pretty popular. There are over 60 million married couples in the U.S.A. That seems to constitute a high degree of popularity.

It's so popular that some people in our country have recently spent millions of dollars for the right to join into the institution.

[SaidNobody]

Point it, regardless of genders and numbers, in general, marriage is a dying institution. . . . . in modern civilization.

Actually it seems to be pretty popular. There are over 60 million married couples in the U.S.A. That seems to constitute a high degree of popularity.

It's so popular that some people in our country have recently spent millions of dollars for the right to join into the institution.

Roughly, the "never been married" rates for women have doubled in the last 30 years. The divorce rate is roughly 70%. Modern marriage is more like Swingfest than actual, commit for life type relationships. Not that I have a solution for it, but marriage doesn't really exist like it used to.

[Jeffret]

Roughly, the "never been married" rates for women have doubled in the last 30 years. The divorce rate is roughly 70%. Modern marriage is more like Swingfest than actual, commit for life type relationships. Not that I have a solution for it, but marriage doesn't really exist like it used to.

You've got a whole bunch of unwarranted assumptions there. You're working under the assumption that marriage used to be some pure, ideal, "commit for life type relationship" and now things have changed and that's not longer the case. The reality is quite different. Marriage has never really been a strongly "commit for life type relationship". In the case of Henry VIII, when the one didn't give him what he wanted, he killed her off and got another. And another. That was admittedly a little unique because the common, acceptable pattern was to just keep a mistress, or two, or ten on the side. Like King David did. And if she was already married, well just send the husband off to war. Or on a mission.

If you want to learn about the actual traditions and practices of marriage in history, it would be worth checking out the actual experts. An excellent place to start would be Stephanie Coontz, a recognized expert on the topic. Her book The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap
is a great starting point. This one looks particularly interesting: Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage.

It is quite true that marriage doesn't exist like it used to. Marriage used to be primarily about property rights. The father transferred his property rights to the husband. The woman was merely the property. Lots of our traditions around marriage, particularly weddings, still hark back to that form of marriage. For men who didn't have the wherewithal to own property, marriage wasn't really an option. The more prestigious their position, the more important this transaction became. With kings it could unite realms.

As Coontz notes, love revolutionized marriage. Also the idea that women aren't property.

I'm glad that marriage has dramatically changed and that it doesn't really exist like it used to. It would be great if those changes could spread throughout the whole world.

[Give It Time]

I can tell you, research has shown women aren't as happy in marriage as men. As far as marriage being an important factor in longevity, it's true for men and makes no difference for women. The longevity factor for women is a tight group of female friends. A group that is nearly life long.

I think some marriages are extremely toxic and need to end, or never should have happened in the first place. I think some marriages are not necessarily bad, but are certainly comatose. In fact, I've said several times, I'm jaded on marriage, but I've found I'm not. I hold marriage very sacred. I think if a marriage isn't beautiful or even good, then questions need to be asked. Answers may not be rosy. I've realized in my championing whole, happy, equal marriages that it's people being able as a society to make marriages such as that the norm, i am jaded about.

I believe one of the things this time in history will go down as the time when these old conventions were examined. I think it's a good thing to look at an entity or an idea and actually ask ourselves if this is working and if if is working for the greatest good of all concerned? I think if traditional marriage weren't broken we wouldn't be seeing these changes happen. It is a shifting that will take several generations, to be sure, but I think we'll eventually come up with structures (intentional plural) that will better suit the greatest good for all.

[Mormorrisey]

I'm glad that marriage has dramatically changed and that it doesn't really exist like it used to. It would be great if those changes could spread throughout the whole world.

Having daughters, I second this.

I haven't read Coontz's work, but given that Canada and the U.S. generally share the same cultural trends, and just reading the title of her book, I would agree that the "norms" of marriage have NEVER existed, except in fantasy. I taught a course some years ago on the history of the family, and that was the main point of the class. That family/marriage norms have never been "normal" throughout the history of the institution, and that includes the very romanticized and idealized 1950s. And the vast majority of historians and social geographers are in agreement over this fact, at least in the Canadian context.

Back to the original post, I think many members just refuse to wrestle with this dichotomy. Truly, "once the prophet speaks, the debate is over." I think many members in this area think this way. But then again, as I look at the demographics of our ward, it struck me this Sunday that the only people who are left in the ward I attend are middle class, older, white and VERY conservative. To me, that's the group who will be grateful to blindly follow upper middle class, older, white and VERY conservative leaders.

[blazerb]

Here are a couple of other problematic quotes. FIrst, from Bruce R. McConkie:

It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent.

We can either shut up or get in line. This is not about building unity. It's about control.

Second from Dallin H. Oaks:

I also said something else that has excited people: that it’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true, because it diminishes their effectiveness as a servant of the Lord. One can work to correct them by some other means, but don’t go about saying that they misbehaved when they were a youngster or whatever. Well, of course, that sounds like religious censorship also.

It's a problem to put anyone off limits for criticism. But then Oaks acts like a person can correct someone in some other way. But the church has no mechanisms for working behind the scenes, at least not for most of us. We're stuck in the "shut up or get in line" mode. We can't bring up concerns with local leaders. Even in the best case, the concerns never get expressed to anyone who could make a change. They will stay local.

[SaidNobody]

Here are a couple of other problematic

It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent.

All I can think of is that there is a different perception a membership or participation. I heard this sort of language to. But it never stopped me from debating or arguing its influence in our life. I left a long time ago. Sometimes my reasons are a little foggy. But I never felt that I was leaving my religion even though my perceptions and perspectives have changed.

We were constantly reminded that even if someone held a higher office than us that they did not hold a higher priesthood than us. Even the president of the church who has the highest office doesn't hold a higher priesthood. That in many situations we are equals. While he has the position to speak for the church he does not superseded my own intuition and understanding for my life.

[SaidNobody]

Here are a couple of other problematic

It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent.

All I can think of is that there is a different perception on membership or participation. I heard this sort of language to. But it never stopped me from debating or arguing its influence in our life. I left a long time ago. Sometimes my reasons are a little foggy. But I never felt that I was leaving my religion even though my perceptions and perspectives have changed.

We were constantly reminded that even if someone held a higher office than us that they did not hold a higher priesthood than us. Even the president of the church who has the highest office doesn't hold a higher priesthood. That in many situations we are equals. While he has the position to speak for the church he does not superseded my own intuition and understanding for my life.

[Hagoth]

Even the president of the church who has the highest office doesn't hold a higher priesthood. That in many situations we are equals.

OK, I want everyone to stand up when I enter the room!

[Palerider]

Even the president of the church who has the highest office doesn't hold a higher priesthood. That in many situations we are equals.

OK, I want everyone to stand up when I enter the room!

O.K. Hagoth.....you got me on that one. Good thing I wasn't drinking milk at the time I read it....

[Palerider]

Here are a couple of other problematic quotes. FIrst, from Bruce R. McConkie:

It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent.

We can either shut up or get in line. This is not about building unity. It's about control.

Second from Dallin H. Oaks:

.....because it diminishes their effectiveness as a servant of the Lord.... One can work to correct them by some other means....

First off, Oaks is essentially saying, "Crap, now you've spooked all the rest of the horses" when he remarks about "effectiveness". The more you point out that someone is "wrong" the less inclined other people are to follow them and we can't have that now can we...that would mean members are out there THINKING for themselves!

Secondly, you are correct in thinking that no common member gets the opportunity of effectively correcting one of the upper echelon demi-gods. That suggested pathway doesn't really exist and Oaks knows it. If it did exist, what Bishop or SP would have the cajones to try to implement it? The reality is that the demi-gods don't want to hear or deal with that stuff and they make it abundantly clear to Bishops and SPs that it's in their best interest to settle those issues on the local level. And local leaders are only too happy to do so, after all they exist in a dichotomous world of fearing the brethren while adoring them at the same time.

[SaidNobody]

Even the president of the church who has the highest office doesn't hold a higher priesthood. That in many situations we are equals.

OK, I want everyone to stand up when I enter the room!

Smh. Seeking honors among men.

Just because people stand doesn't mean that he has more authority in your life than you.

[Hagoth]

Just because people stand doesn't mean that he has more authority in your life than you.

Actually, he has zero authority in my life, but I know a few million people who seem to think differently. And that's the problem.

[SaidNobody]

Just because people stand doesn't mean that he has more authority in your life than you.

Actually, he has zero authority in my life, but I know a few million people who seem to think differently. And that's the problem.

From where I'm sitting, he is still a major influence in your life.