How do we make sense of John Taylor’s 1886 revelation, in the light of the Church’s stance that monogamy is the rule and polygamy is an exception? My response is that, first, one needs to keep in mind that dictated revelations (like the 1886 revelation, or even those in the Doctrine and Covenants), are not the unfiltered word of God. Second, one part of the process of weighing the validity of a revelation is the canonization process (a process that the 1886 revelation has not passed). Third, the text of the revelation is more ambiguous than it seems at first glance, and can be interpreted in similar ways to those I outlined in earlier posts in the series. Between these three points, Latter-day Saints are in a position to not see the 1886 revelation as binding on them to continue the practice of plural marriage.
First, the nature of revelations are imperfect. There are two components to the process of recording revelatory texts. First, there is the revelation itself, a process Joseph Smith described through statements like “you must study it out in your mind,” rather than simply asking with no thought beforehand (D&C 9:7-8), and that understanding comes “by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). Joseph Smith also described in one discourse that “Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure inteligence” and that it works by “expanding the mind enlightening the understanding & storeing the intellect with present knowledge.” Further, the “Spirit of Revelation” was characterized by “pure Inteligence flowing into you” and “sudden strokes of ideas.”[1] These are an indication of a mental engagement with the Spirit to discern the will of God rather than a word-for-word dictation by the Lord, whispered in the revelator’s ear. Then, in the second part of the process, the revelator works to capture the revelation that God disclosed to them in words through a written document, which is only an approximation of the revelation itself. I’ve covered this aspect of Joseph Smith’s revelations elsewhere in more detail (and watch for the next issue of Element for my article on the subject), as have other scholars, like Steven Harper. The implications of this is that the dictated revelations are filtered through human minds and bear the influence of that filter.
There is the story of Joseph Smith’s early 1830 revelation to obtain the Canadian copyright for the Book of Mormon that, while apocryphal, gets at the point I’m trying to explain. Joseph Smith and the early Latter Day Saint movement was under pressure for cash, and he hoped that they would be able to sell the copyright to get money. The missionaries went out, in accordance with the revelation, but were unable to secure the copyright. After their failure and return, David Whitmer recalled that Joseph Smith recorded another revelation that explained the failure by stating “Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil.”[2]
The same might be said of the 1886 revelation of John Taylor. President Taylor was caught between a rock and hard place, believing that plural marriage was a divine commandment he had a mandate to continue, while facing up to the hard reality that the institution of the Church would be destroyed if they continued to do so. I’m very sympathetic to the stress and pain that leaders of the Church like John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff experienced in that situation. I also believe that the revelations they recorded in the 1880s on the subject were heavily influenced by that difficult situation. Because of that, it is my belief that these revelations were not entirely of God, but were revelations that were “of man” as they did their best to work through their cognitive dissonance. The fact that the Church did, in the end, cease the practice of plural marriage is testament that the revelations did not hold up to the test of time. If God truly wanted them to continue the practice, He would have provided a way to do so as a Church, and He did not.
Second, the fact that “some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil,” has led the Church to put in place guardrails of common consent and quorum agreement to limit the ability of a charismatic leader guiding the Church astray. In the Doctrine and Covenants, it is stated that “And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith” (D&C 26:2; 28:13). The ability of Latter-day Saints to receive revelation and then manifest whether they feel that the revelations of Church leadership is the word of the Lord is a safeguard in the Church’s structure that increases the likelihood that any document being accepted as binding is genuinely inspired. As J. Reuben Clark put it, “The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.”[3]
When it comes to accepting new texts into the canon, this process has generally been followed. For example, in 1835, a group of Church leaders gathered to examine the Doctrine and Covenants and concluded that it was “necessary to call the general assembly of the Church to see whether the book be approved or not by the authorities of the church, that it may, if approved, become a law unto the church, and a rule of faith and a practice unto the same.” At a conference on 17 August 1835, the book was presented by Oliver Cowdery to the general assembly of the Church, then voting proceeded by quorums and groups, followed by the entire Church membership present.[4] Likewise, President Joseph F. Smith stated that: “No revelation given through the head of the church ever becomes binding and authoritative upon members of the church until it has been presented to the church and accepted by them.”[5] We see this being followed in the procedures used to canonize the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835, the Pearl of Great Price and additional sections of the Doctrine and Covenants in 1880, the addition of two accounts of visions to the scriptures in 1976, and both Official Declarations.[6]
Likewise, among the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency, consensus is required for something to be accepted as policy or official doctrine to prevent any individual prophet, seer, and revelator from going rogue. For example, in the 1860s, when Orson Pratt and Brigham Young clashed over doctrinal ideas, the First Presidency issued a proclamation that stated, “No member of the Church has the right to publish any doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, without first submitting them for examination and approval to the First Presidency and the Twelve.”[7] And in the 1950s, when Joseph Fielding Smith was pushing anti-evolution rhetoric on members of the Church, President J. Reuben Clark responded indirectly in a talk at BYU, where he stated that “only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church.” He added that even then, “There have been rare occasions when even the President of the Church in his preaching and teaching has not been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’” His observation was that this was best detected when “a subsequent President of the Church and the people themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’”[8] Because of this very concern, Elder Neil Andersen taught that “There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many.”[9]
The 1886 revelation has not passed these tests. As the First Presidency observed in 1933,
since this pretended revelation, if ever given, was never presented to and adopted by the Church or by any council of the Church, and since to the contrary, an inspired rule of action, the Manifesto, was (subsequently to the pretended revelation) presented to and adopted by the Church, which inspired rule in its term, purport, and effect was directly opposite to the interpretation given to the pretended revelation, the said pretended revelation could have no validity and no binding effect and force upon Church members, and action under it would be unauthorized, illegal, and void.[10]
The revelation never received approval from church leadership as a group, subsequent prophet-presidents, or the general membership of the Church. Because of this, it is not a document that should be treated as authoritative by members of the Church for guidance in leading their lives or institution.
Third, even if we accept the revelation as valid and worthy of following for guidance, the text of the revelation is more ambiguous than it seems at first glance. Rather than explicitly stating “plural marriage” or “polygamy,” the revelation obliquely refers to “the New and Everlasting Covenant”, “observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments”, and states church members “must do the works of Abraham.”[11] As I discussed in my reflections on sections 131 and 132, “Even though the contexts in which these documents emerged and were canonized were ones in which plural marriage was treated as the commandment from God, the wording is ambiguous and easily applicable to eternal monogamous marriages as well as plural ones.” And, as I stated in my reflections on some of John Taylor’s other revelations,
Given that monogamy is the rule today, the statement that church leaders must “conform to My law” would have the opposite meaning when it comes to marriage status that it did in the 1880s. The same could be said about what it means to be “keeping the commandments,” as required for exaltation according to Section 76. Today, monogamous marriage is the commandment that must be kept to receive exaltation rather than plural marriage.
Thus, the wording of John Taylor’s 1886 revelation is open to interpretation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while John Taylor’s 1886 revelation has been cited by some as a mandate for the continuation of plural marriage, a careful evaluation shows that it need not—and indeed should not—be seen as binding on Latter-day Saints today. Recognizing the inherently human element in receiving and recording revelations reminds us that not all revelatory texts are direct, unfiltered words from God. Furthermore, the lack of canonization and the absence of Church-wide acceptance through the established processes of common consent underscore that the 1886 revelation never attained the status of official, authoritative doctrine. Finally, the revelation’s ambiguous wording allows for interpretations that align with the Church’s current emphasis on monogamous marriage as the norm. Together, these points provide faithful, doctrinally sound reasons for understanding the 1886 revelation as a historical artifact rather than a continuing obligation.
For other posts in this series, please visit the “Chad Nielsen on Plural Marriage” page.
Footnotes:
[1] Joseph Smith Sermon, June 27, 1839.
[2] David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (Richmond, MO: By the author, 1887), 31.
[3] Clark, J. Reuben. “When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?,” in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought Vol. 12, No. 2, 68-81, https://prophetsseersandrevelators.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/when-are-church-leaders-words-entitled-to-the-claim-of-scripture-by-j-reuben-clark-jr/.
[4] See “Minute Book 1,” p. 98, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed September 6, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minute-book-1/102.
[5] Joseph F. Smith in the Reed Smoot Trial, 1904, cited in Richard S. Van Wagoner, Steven C. Walker, and Allen D. Roberts: “The ‘Lectures on Faith’: A Case Study in Decanonization,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, v. 20, No. 3, p. 74, https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N03_73.pdf.
[6] See “Minute Book 1,” p. 98, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed September 6, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minute-book-1/102; Deseret Evening News, 11 Oct. 1880, p. 2, col. 4, https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/details?id=23172309; See N. Eldon Tanner, “The Sustaining of Church Officers,” CR April 1976, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1976/04/the-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng; See https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng. See also https://archive.timesandseasons.org/2020/09/come-follow-me-and-the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world/index.html.
[7] 1865 Proclamation of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, Millennial Star Vol. 27 (Oct. 21, 1865), 663, https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/MStar/id/8488/rec/2.
[8] Clark, J. Reuben. “When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?,” in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought Vol. 12, No. 2, 68-81, https://prophetsseersandrevelators.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/when-are-church-leaders-words-entitled-to-the-claim-of-scripture-by-j-reuben-clark-jr/.
[9] Neil Andersen, “Trial of Your Faith,” in Conference Report, October 2012, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng.
[10] Published in the Deseret News, Church Section, June 17, 1933. See also Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. James R. Clark (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft Inc., 1971), 5:315-330.
[11] “Revelation given to John Taylor, September 27, 1886, copied from the original manuscript by Joseph F. Smith, Jr., August 3,1909,” John Taylor Papers, Church History Library.
Comments
16 responses to “Monogamy is the Rule, Part 4: Guardrails”
Very well written. Thank you for the work that you put into writing this.
Yep. Very good work here.
In all of this series, you seem to ignore that LDS widowers currently can remarry in the temple without getting their earlier temple marriage annulled, while LDS widows cannot. How is this not an acknowledgment that polygamy still has a degree of acceptance in the church? This is a genuine question.
Gadianton Rocker, you’re not incorrect in pointing that out. Right now, though, it’s more a matter of focus. The two things I’m focused on arguing are,
1) plural marriage is not a requirement for exaltation, and
2) if monogamy is the norm in this life for Church members, we should expect that it will be the norm in the next life too, even among the exalted.
Yes, there were times when polygamy was practiced and yes, the Church had left open a back door approach to setting up plural marriage in the eternities. But those will ultimately be minority cases.
Thanks for your message, Chad. There’s obviously no harm in normative theorizing, as long as we recognize it as such.
In all of this analysis of yours, I cannot help but wonder if you are conflating the attainment of celestial glory with exaltation. Widtsoe and a few others seemed to think that these are different, with the idea that there are degrees within the celestial kingdom, with the highest only relating to exaltation. I’m certainly not saying that that’s how it is. However, I would think that you would need to address this possibility, since it potentially reconciles some of the supposed inconsistencies in the doctrine over time.
Out of curiosity, in what ways do you think I’m conflating celestial glory with exaltation? In my mind, I am differentiating them and trying to argue that polygamy is not only unnecessary for entry into the Celestial Kingdom in general, but that it’s not necessary for exaltation – the fullness of salvation, the highest glory possible in the Celestial Kingdom, etc.
It’s awful hard to reconcile that position with what previous prophets have said. You can cherry-pick quotes, take quotes out of context, and read too much into so-called ambiguities to reach your conclusions. However, at the end of the day, this method of argumentation is unpersuasive. It feels like LDS Apologetics 301.
I don’t think it’s that hard, especially when “what previous prophets have said” includes the statements from David O. McKay and Spencer W. Kimball that I’ve mentioned earlier in the series. I also don’t understand why you would want to argue that polygamy is essential to exaltation at this point in the Church’s history. That’s well over a century of people in the Church that you’re trying to deny exaltation to, Gadianton Rocker, let alone everyone else who will be involved in the Church in the future.
After reflection upon your writings and this discussion, I think your core problem is being able to distinguishing between normative and positive statements.
I certainly am not arguing that polygamy is essential for exaltation. I’m just saying that there is plenty of material from prophets saying that it is, which you are trying to wriggle your way out of with disingenuous analysis.
With your quotes from McKay and Kimball, again, you cherry pick and take quotes out of context. For example, I think it is well known that McKay tacitly approved of polygamy by tolerating those in the church who were in polygamous marriages from before the Manifesto, and even a few after. The writings of Clare Middlemiss, McKay’s long-time secretary, suggest that at least she saw herself as being wed to McKay. Other secretaries of his have expressed similar feelings.
I think it comical when some so loosely interpret prophets’ writings to reconcile them with current thinking. We preach the obvious need for a restoration after the Apostacy, and yet we pretend that all is well in zion while dismissing vast parts of prophets’ teachings like those of Brigham Young and John Taylor. It’s intellectually dishonest, if not worse.
I feel like you’ve misunderstood what I’ve said in a few instances. At no point have I tried to say that there will be no polygamy in heaven. I’ve only been trying to state that polygamy is not a requirement for exaltation. I.e., there will be both exalted polygamists and exalted monogamists. So, at this point, if you’re “not arguing that polygamy is essential for exaltation”, I’m a little confused as to what we’re actually arguing over.
In the case of McKay tacitly approving of polygamy, I have no problem with that, and that fact does not undermine any of my arguments. Like I said, I have not tried to say that there will be no plural marriage in the celestial kingdom. What I have said is that you have to follow God’s commandments to become the type of person who inherits exaltation. At the time Brigham Young and John Taylor wrote, it could be argued that plural marriage was seen as a commandment, as you have pointed out. That has changed since then. While there is a backdoor way to become a polygamist in the afterlife through circumstances and sealings, does that change the possibility that monogamists can also gain exaltation in this day and age?
Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor talked about the polygamy commandment being an eternal principle that never would be removed. So either they were wrong or the later prophets were wrong. Either way, someone is wrong, and either one arguably breaks the chain of prophetic authority/credibility to some degree. You can’t have it both ways, as you are attempting to do. If JS, BY, and JT would have been more equivocal with the polygamy commandment, your argument might have had a chance, but alas. If JS, BY, and JT were incorrect, then the well has been poisoned, requiring another bona fide restoration. As Hinckley has said numerous times (and I paraphrase), it is either all right or all wrong, there is no middle ground. From my perspective, you are searching for a middle ground that either does not exist or has not been articulated satisfactorily.
Prophetic infallibility is not something the Church has officially embraced. I am fine with JS, BY, and JT being wrong on this. And stating that “it is either all right or all wrong, there is no middle ground” is too rigid of thinking, even if Hinckley had said that specifically. It’s a mindset that sets people up for failure because humans, including prophets, are fallible and more nuanced than that allows latitude for. It will lead to disillusionment.
I’m still confused as to what exactly you stand for and what your goals in this discussion are, Gadianton Rocker. You start out by trying to examine whether what I’m arguing makes room for polygamy. When I say that it does, but that I’m stating that monogamists (the majority of Church members) can also hope for exaltation, you state that I’m conflating the attainment of celestial glory with exaltation, which would seem to carry the underlying assumption that exaltation is only possible for polygamists.
When I make it clear that I’m only arguing that monogamists can attain exaltation too, and that I’m not arguing against there being polygamy in the celestial kingdom, you continue to poke at making room for polygamy in the modern church but state “I certainly am not arguing that polygamy is essential for exaltation.”
And yet, when I reiterate again that I’m only arguing that monogamists can attain exaltation too, and that I’m not arguing against there being polygamy in the celestial kingdom, you respond that it’s a black-or-white situation where you either have to believe that polygamy is required for exaltation or believe that the Church is false.
There’s a chance I’m wrong, but beyond the immediate effort to discredit what I’m saying, those two options make it feel like you’re either a fundamentalist Mormon who is indeed arguing that polygamy is essential for exaltation (in direct contradiction to what you’ve said) or an ex-Mormon arguing that the Church is false. I can tell you’re committed to whatever position you’re coming from and don’t intend to change. And that’s okay – I can respect that. But I think that it does need to be pointed out that there is an underlying difference in worldview between us about the degree of latitude God allows His prophets to operate within and His tolerance for error, and that seems to be what we’re really disagreeing over.
If you don’t fall into either of those camps, I would sincerely love to hear how you reconcile the problems you’ve been pointing out.
Again, you’re confusing normative and positive statements in your first paragraph.
You talk of latitude, and yet JS, BY, and JT gave no latitude to anyone concerning polygamy, nor did they think that God had any tolerance for dissent on this issue. So yes, we are disagreeing over whether they had latitude from God and whether they gave latitude to others. At least JT’s biography makes it seem like JS thought that polygamy was a black-and-white issue, when JT originally expressed to JS his reservations over polygamy. You are trying to insert a degree of flexibility that just did not exist then, nor does it really exist now.
We might pay lip service to the fallability of our leaders, but the stronger subtext in the church is infallibility, even among local and regional leaders, not just General Authorities. Have you ever spent time with an actual General Authority? I would be surprised if more than a handful genuinely think that they or other GAs are fallible, let alone an apostle. If they think it, they certainly don’t act like it. In short, it seems to me like you are drinking the Kool-Aid.
I have no goals with this discussion, and I am not committed to anything but honesty. I am trying to look at reality — going back to my distinction between normative and positive statements that you struggle with. I am squarely in the positivist camp; death to all propaganda. (And I am a faithful member of the church, so please come down from your high horse.) I embrace the complexity of the situation, no more, no less.
This Times and Seasons blog used to be all about trying to cut through the propaganda to get to a more sophisticated, nuanced version of the truth that is coherent and genuine. That’s at least what this blog used to stand for in its early days. It would appear that the blog’s purpose is shifting to apologetics. In short, I’m trying to engage in the merits of your arguments, but you obviously are reluctant or unable to reassess your core assumptions in light of good-faith feedback. I would encourage you to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and to analyze reality. It’s your choice to change or not, but you are doing a disservice to this blog and what it originally stood for by continuing to push this brand of apologetics.
I understand that to some degree I am trying to create a middle space that you don’t think exists and that there may be some articulation of things that don’t align with your observations, especially when it comes to flexibility on the point at hand. And yes, I do agree and understand that often there is a subtext of prophetic infallability in the Church.
Writing is a way that I process things and I wanted to come into this series to find a way to weave a more sophisticated, nuanced version of the truth that is coherent than I’ve seen in the past. I get that it isn’t working for you.
As far as feedback goes, I believe that I did say, “If you don’t fall into either of those camps, I would sincerely love to hear how you reconcile the problems you’ve been pointing out.” You’ve indicated that you don’t fall into those camps and are a faithful member of the church. So, I really would love to hear you articulate how you see things on this topic and maintain your faithful status!
Thank you for reiterating the invitation, Chad. I’ll do my best to articulate my thoughts on these points.
I accept that God might be fickle, play favorites, and have a change of mind every once in a while, or even constantly. That does not stop God from being God (in a Platonic sort of way). I accept that I might not actually like God when I meet God (or now), even though I think that I love God (for the life and freedoms that I have been given, among other things), and I think that God loves me; I am fine with God not actually liking me if that is the case. By the way, I don’t think we are required to like God, just like Israel who wrestled with God, as long as we don’t dismiss God’s existence and role in life. If God wanted polygamy in the past, fine, but that does not stop God from being a bad person, and I am free to think that, and God is fine that I think that; God won’t hold it against me.
I think it is a mistake for us to shift away from our Abrahamic roots and focus solely on Christ; Christ focused on God and God’s will, and so should we. Christ played a key role in the Plan of Salvation, but it was God’s plan, and we shouldn’t forget that, even if it means that the rest of the world doesn’t see us as Christians.
I often have in mind that God kicked out a third of the heavenly host for being against agency and favoring strict obedience. These thoughts end up giving me an allergic reaction to most talk of obedience and so-called unity.
I accept that Christ might not actually like the current arrangement of the church when he comes to Earth again (or now), as a dark-skinned, anti-institutional, non-English speaker. (Visions of Dostoevsky’s “The Grand Inquisitor” often come to mind.) I accept that there might not ever be a second coming of Christ and “end of days,” and it does not really matter if there is or there isn’t, to be frank. I’ll live my life the best I can, and if I don’t make it to exaltation, I am perfectly fine with that.
I accept that Joseph Smith was inspired, saw God and Jesus during the First Vision, and translated the Book of Mormon, among other wonderous events. I believe that the Book of Mormon is true in the sense that BOM prophets talked about the record’s truthfulness: As a real record that actually existed. Saying that it is “the most correct of any book on earth” means nothing because that assumes that there are or have been significantly correct books on Earth before. Despite all of this, it must be acknowledged that JS had severely flawed character traits, just like the rest of us, if not much, much worse. We should not ignore those flaws or excuse them, and we need to figure out for ourselves how that impacts our faith in what came after the Restoration.
Just like the difference between like and love, I support my church leaders without necessarily agreeing with them, which is as it should be on account agency. I also try to signal to others in the church that there is room for disagreement within the church and still be an active member, which I see as a Christ-like thing to do because he himself was a bit a trouble-maker. I am tired of members trying to silence others during Sunday School meetings and other auxiliary meetings because “there are investigators in the room,” as if the church’s sole purpose is to bring in new members like a huge MLM scam, not to help those who already are members. While I commend you for continuing to engage with me over the past few days, your eagerness to dismiss early on my views as the ranting of an FLDS or ex-Mormon hints that you might have silencing tendencies. Be that as it may, our leaders are nothing more than average people who are subject to pride, jealousy, greed, lust, rage, etc. I think it is a mistake to put them on a pedestal (from D&C 135 to the near constant sychophantic citations President Nelson in virtually all talks nowadays), or any other human for that matter, since we all are looking through a glass darkly.
Concerning polygamy, I suspect that JS simply was horny, he made up polygamy being the will of God in order to justify it, and BY, JT and others went along with it, perhaps because they too were horny or they sincerely were trying to be obedient after being taken in by JS on this point, I don’t know. Regardless, if anything was done to manipulate or abuse vulnerable people, God will hold them accountable, regardless of whether it formally was accepted as doctrine, or maybe God won’t, who knows. I have to admit that it does matter to me whether God holds them accountable if they had bad intentions, but I won’t be surprised if he doesn’t (going back to that love/dislike relationship I referred to earlier). One thing is certain: I’ll do my best to keep my daughters away from the likes of JS, BY, and JT if we happen to make it to heaven.
I think the church’s emphasis on obedience over truth and kindness makes vulnerable populations in our congregations (now and the past) susceptible to abuse. Women and polygamy quickly come to mind, although there are many other examples from recent history, like the Indian Placement Program, the Victorian notion that masturbation is self-abuse, and a “commandment” from a mission president to marry within a year of getting home. I think many of us are victims of abuse but we might not admit it or see it, and we end up passing on the abuse to others. This is where the “cult” moniker seems somewhat apropos. Our emphasis on obedience makes it somewhat difficult to be critical thinkers (i.e., distinguishing between normative and positive statements). To put a fine point on it, I think discrimination against women in the church is an abomination, and no right-thinking person should tolerate it for a second longer (and anyone who says there is no discrimination is either ignorant or a complete liar).
Lastly, and most importantly for this conversation, I don’t think that armchair historians who don’t think like historians, ask questions like historians, or have the training of historians should pretend like they know what they are talking about when discussing history. They obfuscate more than they clarify by replacing genuine inquiry with endless fact generation when grasping at some foregone conclusion, much like many historians in the 1980s and before. This type of research is passé and in bad form. In short, the army of armchair LDS historians gives serioius LDS scholarship a bad reputation. As I’ve heard others say, “Consider sticking to biotech and hand bells.”
There’s a lot of what you say there that I actually do tend to agree with (though not everything). Thank you for sharing.
Speaking of silencing tendencies, as to your statement that “As I’ve heard others say, ‘Consider sticking to biotech and hand bells,’” it’s decent advice, though I’m unlikely to follow it. But, also, we are able to check IP addresses, so I am able to tell when it’s truly “others” or the same person. Though, quoting a comment on another site that never went live is also a bit of a giveaway too.