- Tim on When the Church Takes a Political Position, Election Eve Edition: “This would all be more convincing if the church vocally supported, say, specific immigration legislation or laws. Biden pushed forward something that would have allowed many immigrant spouses of U.S. citizens to get green cards–which would have been the perfect opportunity for the church to make a statement supporting family-friendly immigration reform–and instead the church stayed silent and LDS politicians fought to stop it. When it comes to general ideas the church sometimes says nice things but when it comes to supporting specific laws it’s clear which side they’re on.” Nov 4, 09:58
- on When the Church Takes a Political Position, Election Eve Edition: “I always found the whole “the church is right wing” accusations annoying. Never mind the fact that the church has partnered with the NAACP, an organization that has been perceived by some people as a “left wing” organization. Emphasis on the word “perceived” by the way. Would a purely GOP-aligned church ever even consider partnering with an organization that’s seen by it as a left-wing group? Highly doubtful. And yet, the church has partnered with the NAACP to do amazing things together, including promoting racial harmony, a very common ideal people on the left put a lot of work and emphasis on! That doesn’t sound like a church that wants to keep Republicans in office forever. That sounds like a church that thinks independently from all political parties! Isn’t it a shame how we’ve reached the point where some of us automatically assume the church is “secretly party X or party Y” just because they don’t align perfectly with our political assumptions we hold?” Nov 3, 18:42
- on When the Church Takes a Political Position, Election Eve Edition: “How do you know?” Nov 3, 10:45
- on When the Church Takes a Political Position, Election Eve Edition: “Thanks for the comprehensive overview. In addition to political engagement, I suspect something similar would apply to statements by the Church on various issues as well. “Why does the Church only care about issue X, but never does anything about Y” is always irritating, but especially when people ignore everything the Church has done and said about Y. I think putting a lot of resources behind low cost, accessible, worldwide education should count as a serious effort to combat global poverty, for example.” Nov 3, 10:22
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “Yes, indeed messy. Probably one of the reason why Smith’s close followers pushed for a different system, polygyny, around 1843 (thus DC 132 that year). But the point of this post is to note the many tricky issues around this topic including the theological issues that come up with claiming that Smith made that big of a mistake. It seems like we have to deal with that issue, and you don’t address it. And I’m NOT saying we should be practicing shared marriage! Plato says that the practices in his REPUBLIC of goods and wives in common may only be possible in heaven. Just like Smith scaled back shared goods to tithing because we were unable to accomplish goods in common, it’s pretty clear that marriages in common would be MUCH harder. But we have all these issues in our history including a bunch of statements from early leaders, which brings up a lot to talk about and to try to understand. So, yes, I do see that fact that shared marriage is more fair as being important when it comes to attempting to understand all this. I argue in my dissertation and forthcoming book that Smith’s male inner circle didn’t like sharing wives so they put on pressure to switch to polygyny (long story) which was solidified with DC 132. In 1843, Smith switched to marrying mostly single mostly single “women,” and I put that in quotes since a lot were teenagers. The ages of the wives dropped because of the switch away from shared marriage and I think we can rightly view wives being a lot younger as problematic. But again, I’m not saying we should be practicing shared marriage. ” Nov 1, 06:17
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “Share marriage isn’t polygamy, nor is it preferable to plain old marriage to me. I can’t see how it resolves the “common narrative” about polygamy. I would bet the most common belief about polygamy is that it was a mistake, not that it is some kind of eternal principle that could be reformed by widening the definition of marriage for a communal shared marriage you have advocated for. My ancestors didn’t practice shared marriage, but I don’t see how shared marriage is any better besides maybe that women could have multiple male sexual partners and that would be more equal? Sounds messy and more like polyamory.” Nov 1, 00:21
- on Church Education Expansion Under Ernest Wilkinson: “Ya’ll forgot to mention Wilkinson’s greatest accomplishment by far….he made his successor look like a genius success as a leader simply by comparison… there was no where to go but up! A bit tongue in cheek but likely very true …take it from the perspective of a guy who spent a 20+ year career in corporate America helping leaders increase their effectiveness.” Oct 31, 23:00
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “Anon, that’s a good point. Unconvinced/Mistake, you’re not really engaging with the OP. Your ancestors practiced polygyny not shared marriage.” Oct 31, 19:45
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “Why make it so complicated? Polygamy was wrong and continues to be wrong and trying to force the concept into a shared marriage doesn’t reform the past or make it right. It doesn’t really matter if Joseph Smith said it was gods will. You can look the mess it made and judge for yourself. It was terrible for Emma and the near 40 other wives. It was terrible for my ancestors that practiced it. It doesn’t need to be reformed, it should be left in the past.” Oct 31, 17:42
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “If fairness as currently practiced in the church is any indication of what will happen in eternity, plan kn their not being much of it.” Oct 31, 13:45
