129 replies to this topic

[jskains]

Freedom, on 02 April 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

Why not?

That would require rejecting the entire Utah Church and the practice of temple marriages.

Eternal Celestial Marriages are attached to Section 132. If you believe Polygamy was NOT practiced by Joseph Smith, you reject:

Brigham Young as a Prophet,
Section 132 as doctrine,
The Temple Ceremonies as false and broken.

Just saying.

JMS

[Cobalt-70]

BCSpace, on 01 April 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Somehow I always knew about the doctrines surrounding plural marriage and the ban from an early age.  I knew that JS was plurally married.  I don't remember my parents teaching me those, but I do remember asking about them.  So I'd say the manuals and magazines in general probably have been doing a good job already.  The difference I think is that such has not been front and center and I don't think it unreasonable that they weren't.

While I knew that Brigham Young had plural wives, I was never taught that Joseph Smith had them, and was surprised when I found out. From church publications, you would assume that his only wife was Emma. Church publications don't say much, if anything, about Young's plural wives, either, but you can't live in Utah without knowing there was polygamy.

I never heard about seer stones, or about Smith's treasure hunting. I never heard about the Kirtland financial crisis. The list goes on and on. I did hear about the Mountain Meadows massacre, but only because it was taught in 4th grade history class, but even then, my Mormon public school teacher and probably my Mormon-written textbook as well, said that it was just an Indian attack on white emigrants. I never knew that Mormons, including stake presidents, were involved, or that southern branch of the Utah militia was the perpretrator. I hope that the curriculum at least teaches these basic elements of Mormon history. The church curriculum doesn't need to cover everything, but if you could at least teach the history without any serious, gaping holes like the above, I think you will have done a service to the youth of the church. It's better they find out in Seminary than on the internet, so that they don't experience the feeling of being manipulated by the church when they find out the whole story.

[Log]

Cobalt-70, on 03 April 2012 - 04:11 AM, said:

It's better they find out in Seminary than on the internet, so that they don't experience the feeling of being manipulated by the church when they find out the whole story.

Was that your experience?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Cobalt-70, on 03 April 2012 - 04:11 AM, said:

From church publications, you would assume that his only wife was Emma.

One of my favourite articles from what I always assumed was a Church publication, the December 1978 Ensign:

Quote

On 27 July 1842, the Prophet Joseph Smith recorded a revelation to the Whitneys on plural marriage ... In obedience to the command of the living prophet, Newel and Elizabeth Ann gave their daughter Sarah Ann in marriage to Joseph Smith. Nearly a year later, Joseph Smith dictated the general revelation about the eternity of marriage and the nature of plural marriage, and Newel asked to have his own copy, a providential request, since the first copy was destroyed.

[HiJolly]

LoL.  "and Newel asked to have his own copy, a providential request, since the first copy was destroyed."

Destroyed by Emma, who in a spate of fury threw it in the fireplace.  

HiJolly

[wenglund]

blooit, on 01 April 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

A close relative of mine works in the church public relations and marketing department. He said that, starting with seminary and institute curriculum, the church will be making revisions. He said that the outright intent of these revisions is to openly and honestly address controversial subjects in Mormon history so that youth and young adults are not surprised when they come across them. He specifically mentioned polygamy and the priesthood ban.

Very wise IMHO, and shows how things are continuing to move forward.

Assuming your relative is correct, I predict the changes will only animate rather than quail the critics.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Traela]

Cobalt-70, on 03 April 2012 - 04:11 AM, said:

While I knew that Brigham Young had plural wives, I was never taught that Joseph Smith had them, and was surprised when I found out. From church publications, you would assume that his only wife was Emma. Church publications don't say much, if anything, about Young's plural wives, either, but you can't live in Utah without knowing there was polygamy.

I never heard about seer stones, or about Smith's treasure hunting. I never heard about the Kirtland financial crisis.   *snip*

I learned about all of the above in Seminary, in the early '80s.

Any chance the revised curriculum will restore the 60 Seminary Mastery Scriptures that were taken out in one of the previous rounds?   I was rather shocked that my kids have to learn over a third fewer than I did.

[mnn727]

BCSpace, on 01 April 2012 - 10:03 PM, said:

Ostensibly, boards like this should fill that need but as you can see, they don't because conversations can be externally controlled even to the point of steering people away from what the Church actually teaches so you never can tell if you're getting the full and complete truth.

Like someone claiming all Church publications are doctrine when they are not.

[David T]

wenglund, on 03 April 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

Assuming your relative is correct, I predict the changes will only animate rather than quail the critics.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Elder Jensen went on record earlier stating the same thing, and that it is considered as part of 'The Rescue' initiative.

[cinepro]

Hamba Tuhan, on 03 April 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

One of my favourite articles from what I always assumed was a Church publication, the December 1978 Ensign:

Hmmm...the author of that article sounds familiar.  Where have I heard his name before...?

[wenglund]

David T, on 03 April 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

Elder Jensen went on record earlier stating the same thing, and that it is considered as part of 'The Rescue' initiative.

In case any here may not be aware of this initiative, here are links to several articles that talk about it:

http://mormon-chroni...for-rescue.html

http://mormon-chroni...culties-of.html

http://www.reuters.c...E80T1CM20120131

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 03 April 2012 - 11:16 AM.

[Alan]

Freedom, on 02 April 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

Why not?

Because he said he didn't and was consistent in this claim. I took the view some time ago that Joseph was an honest man. Therefore, if he publicly stated he had only one wife and was not involved in polygamy, that is good enough for me. I believe he was telling the truth.

[Pa Pa]

blooit, on 01 April 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

A close relative of mine works in the church public relations and marketing department. He said that, starting with seminary and institute curriculum, the church will be making revisions. He said that the outright intent of these revisions is to openly and honestly address controversial subjects in Mormon history so that youth and young adults are not surprised when they come across them. He specifically mentioned polygamy and the priesthood ban.

Very wise IMHO, and shows how things are continuing to move forward.

Good for them!

[Cobalt-70]

Log, on 03 April 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

Was that your experience?

No. I'm not saying that I wasn't manipulated like everyone else, but I never felt betrayed, perhaps because I understand the Mormon instinct to paint over the warts.

[sweetpotatoh]

I think it is a great idea to have these things taught in Seminary. My Mother talked to me about JS's polygamy and the priesthood ban. I feel like it was a part of our heritage and everyone knew about it. LOL. Oh to be young and naive. What shocked me was an institute class I took about Joseph Smith and the instructor talking about peep stones and his belief in folk magic. That jolted me. I prayed to have a confirmation of my testimony and received one again. I didn't worry about it any more because I understood that I just didn't know everything and didn't need to. In time I would learn and come to an understanding.

I have talked to my daughters about polygamy and the ban. I also have talked to them about same sex attraction and prop 8. I don't know how parents and their children can avoid these subjects or just not be aware of them.

I was teaching a Elders Quorum one time and I mentioned that Joseph Smith was a polygamist (I thought everyone knew about it.) LOL. There were some objections and down right denials from members of the quorum. I changed the subject but before I did I recommended Rough Stone Rolling and if they have any more questions consult it or the Bishop.   LOL. The Bishop is a good friend of mine and he never said anything to me about members coming to him to discuss Joseph's polygamy. Dang, plot foiled.

[Cobalt-70]

Alan, on 03 April 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

Because he said he didn't and was consistent in this claim. I took the view some time ago that Joseph was an honest man. Therefore, if he publicly stated he had only one wife and was not involved in polygamy, that is good enough for me. I believe he was telling the truth.

He said he didn't, and was consistent in his public statements. But in private, he admitted to his closest followers that he practiced polygamy. And, of course, his wives were fully aware that he practiced polygamy. If you say that Smith would never tell a lie, then you make liars out of an awful lot of faithful Mormons.

Edited by Cobalt-70, 03 April 2012 - 02:23 PM.

[Cobalt-70]

HiJolly, on 03 April 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

LoL.  "and Newel asked to have his own copy, a providential request, since the first copy was destroyed."
Destroyed by Emma, who in a spate of fury threw it in the fireplace.  

It wasn't really in a state of fury. According to Smith's scribe William Clayton, who recorded the original manuscript, Emma pestered Joseph about the revelation, and kept asking if she could destroy the original manuscript, with the implication that by doing so, it would be rescinded. Finally, Clayton said that Joseph relented and let her destroy the original "to get rid of her annoyance." So if Clayton was remembering it right, there was a bit of deception going on against Emma, and the destruction was a more deliberative process than Emma just getting mad and throwing it into a fire.

[Alan]

Cobalt-70, on 03 April 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

..... then you make liars out of an awful lot of faithful Mormons.

That is true, and I do think they were either mistaken or not telling the truth.

[jskains]

Alan, on 03 April 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

That is true, and I do think they were either mistaken or not telling the truth.

But again, that would require that Brigham Young, D&C 132, Temple Marriage, etc. is all a lie.

I rather think the more likely event is Joseph Smith feared backlash and kept it quiet. Otherwise we followed the wrong guy and we should be members of the RLDS/CofC group.

JMS

[Alan]

jskains, on 03 April 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

But again, that would require that Brigham Young, D&C 132, Temple Marriage, etc. is all a lie.

I rather think the more likely event is Joseph Smith feared backlash and kept it quiet. Otherwise we followed the wrong guy and we should be members of the RLDS/CofC group.

JMS

Not so. Eternal marriage has nothing to do with polygamy.
The existence of D&C 132 does not prove that Joseph was a polygamist. Just days before his death Joseph stated publicly "I had not been married scarely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives...... What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."
So he was either a liar or he was telling the truth. I choose to believe he was not a liar.

The problem as I see it is that we are looking at the evidence through 21st century glasses, knowing how plural marraige played out in the church in Utah. We assume that sealings equate to marriages because that is the vocabulary we use today. 37 years ago my family joined the church and after a year we went to the temple. I was sealed to my parents but have never considered that to be a marriage. When men and women are sealed together we automatically assume that is a marriage but I think in many instances in the early days of the restoration we would be wrong. I do not doubt that a number of women were sealed to Joseph. I believe there is evidence that some men were too. But these sealings were just that; and not marriages.
So Joseph was really telling the truth and so was Emma.