26 replies to this topic

[treehugger]

At UVU Scott Gordon spoke on the history and development of FAIR and on what he labeled two quick examples of critics claims that the LDS Church is hiding information. The following is a transcript of what Gordon said:

Scott Gordon said:

Quote

Another common tactic [of anti-mormons] is to claim that the Church is hiding the information 2 quick examples. Many are upset when they learn that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage. Everybody knows Brigham Young practiced plural marriage, but if Joseph Smith did it that’s bad and the Church must be hiding it. Or they learn that Joseph Smith “may” have used a hat and a seer stone when translating the Book of Mormon. The typical claim is that the Church has been this or has been dishonest about it.

Here is a short list of where you can read about Joseph Smith’s marriages.
2007 “teachings of Presidents, Joseph Smith vii-xiii
Ensign, Aug 92 page 30,
Dec 78 page 42,
feb 77 page 48,
New Era dec 73 page 7,
DC section 132 1843 that talks about plural marriage.

As far as translation with a stone in a hat:
Ensign
Jan 97, page 36
Jul 93, page 61
Jan 88, page 6-13
Sep 77. page 79
Friend, Sep 74, page 7, that talks about that.

So you’ll also note the childrens magazine entry. That fact that you may not have heard about something in a Sunday school lesson does not mean it is hidden. Too many members believe the Church teaches history in Sunday School lessons, that is not what “we” do. We use examples from history to teach Gospel Principles.

A few things, Gordon claims very specifically that one can read about Joseph Smiths plural marriages. And he seems to assert that one will read about the "stone in a hat".

The following will be an analysis of the citations offered.

[treehugger]

The following addresses Gordons claim of reading about Joseph Smith plural marriage. I found the appropriate Ensign and word did a word search, the underlined part is Gordon citation and the black text is what is in the article and the red is an analysis of the text.

2007 “teachings of Presidents, Joseph Smith vii-xiii “This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime.”   This source does not indicate to the reader that Joseph Smith, himself, entered into, plural/polygamist marriages. This source only lets the reader know that "a number" of plural marriages were performed during Joseph Smith lifetime, but the source does not indicate who entered into those marriages

Ensign, Aug 92 page 30, “Her great trial came when the prophet revealed to Emma that they would be required to live the ancient law of Abraham—plural marriage. Emma suffered deeply hurt feelings because of it. While she agreed with this doctrine at times, at other times she opposed it. Years later, Emma is purported to have denied that any such doctrine was ever introduced by her husband. In later years, Emma apparently never spoke of the sacred ordinances they had received. She would have been under covenant not to do so.” This source is does better at indicating Joseph Smith may have entered into plural/polygmaist marriages, but the author flatly rejects Emma Smith's claim it never happened, thus it becomes who to believe; it is interesting that the author does not provide any evidence that Emma Smith "would have been under covenant" not to admit that Joseph Smith entered into plural/polygamist marriages.

Ensign jan 89 page 30, In Nauvoo, the Knight group faced and passed another great test of faith. The Prophet introduced several doctrines relating to the temple including the temple ceremonies and plural marriage, which some could not accept. ²⁰ But the Knights received the teachings. They helped to finish the temple and then performed baptisms for the dead. By early 1846, more than twenty adults in the Knight families had received their temple endowments and sealings. Four of Father and Polly Knight’s children entered into plural marriage. This source does not inform the reader that Joseph Smith, himself, entered into plural/polygamist marriages.

Ensign Dec 78 page 42, ” In obedience to the command of the living prophet, Newel and Elizabeth Ann gave their daughter Sarah Ann in marriage to Joseph Smith.”  A direct and straightforward acknowledgment.

Ensign feb 77 page 48, “Then, along with economic privation and an absent father, was for some the institution of plural marriage. Starting during Joseph Smith’s own lifetime but limited to a few dozen families until its official announcement in 1852, plural marriage brought a powerful new challenge to the equanimity of Latter-day Saint family life.”  
Once again, another source which does not inform the reader that Joseph Smith, himself, entered into plural/polygamist marriages. However, if based on this vague and nonspecific text, the reader is suppose to realize that Joseph Smith entered into plural/polygamist marriages, then, based on the following is the reader suppose to know and understand that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with  his plural/polygamist wives
… “In the words of Professor Eugene Campbell of Brigham Young University, “Many of the normal problems of marriage, such as finance, personality adjustment, sexual relationships, jealousies, child-rearing and discipline were all magnified in plural marriages.”

New Era dec 73 page 7, “The great prophet Elias, whom Joseph Fielding Smith says is Noah (See Answers to Gospel Questions [Deseret Book Co.: 1957], vol. 3, p. 138), appeared and bestowed upon their heads the keys of the dispensation of Abraham, or in other words, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie says in Mormon Doctrine (2nd ed. [Bookcraft: 1966], p. 219.), the keys of celestial and plural marriage. Again, not indication that Joseph Smith entered into plural/polygamist marriages.

DC section 132 1843 that talks about plural marriage. Apparently the position is, that it is self evident in Section 132 that Joseph Smith was a polygamist or had entered into plural marriages.


Granted Gordon may have been limited by time, but only one of the citations he lists specifically addresses Joseph Smith entering in plural marriages. As for the rest, they are dubious at best, they do not provide the read with the knowledge that Joseph Smith entered in to plural marriages.

Edited by treehugger, 17 July 2012 - 07:48 PM.

[cwald]

I was a faithful lds member my whole life (mission, seminary EQP etc) and I didn't learn about joseph smith's pologamy until I was 35 years old...let alone polyandry.  Why not?

Because I didn't read "anti Mormon" websites or FAIR journals?

[treehugger]

Concerning the stone in hat translation method:

Ensign
Jan 97, page 36, presumbably the article is "By the Gift and Power of God". First the term "hat" does not appear in this issue of the Ensign. As for the article the terms "seer stone", "divine insturmentalities" and "Urim and Thummim" are mentioned, but there is no indication of Joseph Smith placing his face in a hat.

Jul 93, page 61;
The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:
“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

Jan 88, page 6-13; presumed article "A New Prophet and a New Scripture: The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon" hat is not mentioned, but Urim and Thummim is. But no face in hat method.

Sep 77. page 79 presumed article "“By the Gift and Power of God” "“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light. And in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe. And when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God and not by any power of man. The characters I speak of are the engravings on the golden plates from which the book was translated.” ¹¹

Friend, Sep 74, page 7, presumed article "A Peaceful Heart"  No mention of a hat. Seer Stone and Urim and Thummim mentioned.

So only 2 out of 5 claimed sources indicate Jospeh Smith placed his face in a hat.  Once again, Gordon may have been limited by time, but clearly he provides references which do not support his claim.

[cwald]

BTW Treehugger...thank for answering the CFR.  

[Palerider]

treehugger, on 17 July 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

At UVU Scott Gordon spoke on the history and development of FAIR and on what he labeled two quick examples of critics claims that the LDS Church is hiding information. The following is a transcript of what Gordon said:

Scott Gordon said:



A few things, Gordon claims very specifically that one can read about Joseph Smiths plural marriages. And he seems to assert that one will read about the "stone in a hat".

The following will be an analysis of the citations offered.

I find it extremely interesting that all of the source dates are post 1971, which was when the revised edition of Fawn Brodie's No Man KNows My History was published. It was first published in 1945 I believe.

Frankly at this point the cat was out of the bag regarding Joseph and the translation methods and plural marriage as well. So for the previous 25 years or so Brodie's book had been starting to take a toll on the general Mormon psyche.

The Church had attempted to warn it's membership away from reading it but with the reprinting of the revised edition I think they realized they were going to have to start addressing the issues and attempt to shape them to their own favor.

As Bushman notes:

In 2005, LDS scholar Richard Bushman published a highly-regarded biography of Smith entitled Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling which has frequently been compared to Brodie's work. In his book, Bushman noted that Brodie's "biography was acknowledged by non-Mormon scholars as the premier study of Joseph Smith"^[10] and called Brodie "the most eminent of Joseph Smith's unbelieving biographers."^[11] Bushman wrote in 2007 that Brodie had "shaped the view of the Prophet for half a century. Nothing we have written has challenged her domination. I had hoped my book would displace hers, but at best it will only be a contender in the ring, whereas before she reigned unchallenged."^[12]

Edited by Palerider, 17 July 2012 - 08:20 PM.

[ERayR]

cwald, on 17 July 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

I was a faithful lds member my whole life (mission, seminary EQP etc) and I didn't learn about joseph smith's pologamy until I was 35 years old...let alone polyandry.  Why not?

Because I didn't read "anti Mormon" websites or FAIR journals?

I was a member my whole life and came from a semi-active family, didn't go on a mission when I was young, didn't attend seminary and I knew about Joseph Smith and polygamy before I was 17.

Edited by ERayR, 17 July 2012 - 08:21 PM.

[calmoriah]

treehugger, on 17 July 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

Concerning the stone in hat translation method:...
So only 2 out of 5 claimed sources indicate Jospeh Smith placed his face in a hat.  Once again, Gordon may have been limited by time, but clearly he provides references which do not support his claim.

The accusations he is referring to include the stone not being mentioned, not just the face in the hat.  Two sources may only mention the hat, but the stone is mentioned....which was his point.

[Palerider]

ERayR, on 17 July 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

I was a member my whole life and came from a semi-active family, didn't go on a mission when I was young, didn't attend seminary and I knew about Joseph Smith and polygamy before I was 17.

So my question would be:

From whom did you learn about polygamy? Was it from a class you were taking?  Your Bishop?  A sacrament talk?  Reading an Ensign?

[treehugger]

calmoriah, on 17 July 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

The accusations he is referring to include the stone not being mentioned, not just the face in the hat.  Two sources may only mention the hat, but the stone is mentioned....which was his point.

As i understand it the  accusation Gordon is addressing is "stone in a hat", so it seems to me Gordon is addressing the method of a stone being in a hat, and not the use of a stone and the use of a hat separately.

[calmoriah]

treehugger, on 17 July 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

As i understand it the  accusation Gordon is addressing is "stone in a hat", so it seems to me Gordon is addressing the method of a stone being in a hat, and not the use of a stone and the use of a hat separately.

No, I know from Scott himself that the accusations he was addressing were the claims that neither the seerstone itself nor the face in the hat was talked about.  He might not have been perfectly clear about what he was addressing (though it seems clear to me), but that was his intent.

And in my experience at FAIR I can offer my support that accusations of hiding the use of a seerstone are not unusual.  They often go into attacks on Joseph using folkmagic for treasure hunting, etc.

Edited by calmoriah, 17 July 2012 - 08:47 PM.

[Evangeline]

Palerider, on 17 July 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

So my question would be:

From whom did you learn about polygamy? Was it from a class you were taking?  Your Bishop?  A sacrament talk?  Reading an Ensign?

A similar question was asked in a poll on here recently and 96 people answered it (although I think Kenngo was having some fun with it).    Have a look if you haven't already:

http://www.mormondia...-sealings-from/

According to the admittedly unscientific poll, most people heard about polygamy (or multiple sealings) from either an LDS class, lesson or missionary discussion OR from LDS family or friends (or historical family journals).

Edited by Evangeline, 17 July 2012 - 08:50 PM.

[ERayR]

Palerider, on 17 July 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

So my question would be:

From whom did you learn about polygamy? Was it from a class you were taking?  Your Bishop?  A sacrament talk?  Reading an Ensign?

It was common knowledge and I don't really remember where it came from.  Probably from family discussions during family get together s.  My family was not all that active but they were believers.  The neighbors were quite interesting too.  Our closest neighbor was a Kimball.  Totally inactive and had no use for the church but was quite proud of being a nephew of J. Golden.  When J. Golden or Spencer W. came for stake conferences they would always call on our neighbor.  By the way the neighbor had a male donkey he named Heber C.  As I said I don't know where the information came from but it wasn't some big secret.

In those days there was no Ensign.

Edited by ERayR, 17 July 2012 - 08:59 PM.

[treehugger]

calmoriah, on 17 July 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

The accusations he is referring to include the stone not being mentioned, not just the face in the hat.  Two sources may only mention the hat, but the stone is mentioned....which was his point.

treehugger, on 17 July 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

As i understand it the  accusation Gordon is addressing is "stone in a hat", so it seems to me Gordon is addressing the method of a stone being in a hat, and not the use of a stone and the use of a hat separately.

calmoriah, on 17 July 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

No, I know from Scott himself that the accusations he was addressing were the claims that neither the seerstone itself nor the face in the hat was talked about.  He might not have been perfectly clear about what he was addressing (though it seems clear to me), but that was his intent.

And in my experience at FAIR I can offer my support that accusations of hiding the use of a seerstone are not unusual.  They often go into attacks on Joseph using folkmagic for treasure hunting, etc.

I am re-listening to Gordon (40:00minutes in). He states "hat and a seer stone". At 41:08approx, he states "as far as the translation with a stone in the hat" he then shows a slide title "Translation with a Hat". During his presentation at UVU he is addressing using a stone in a hat method.

But for sake of your position, even if he were speaking of each seperately, his citations still fail. The slide title is "Translation with a hat", as was shown above, only two of the citations on this slide actually mention a hat. It is clear from his presentation that he was not separating the two.

[Palerider]

ERayR, on 17 July 2012 - 08:58 PM, said:

It was common knowledge and I don't really remember where it came from.  Probably from family discussions during family get together s.  My family was not all that active but they were believers.  The neighbors were quite interesting too.  Our closest neighbor was a Kimball.  Totally inactive and had no use for the church but was quite proud of being a nephew of J. Golden.  When J. Golden or Spencer W. came for stake conferences they would always call on our neighbor.  By the way the neighbor had a male donkey he named Heber C.  As I said I don't know where the information came from but it wasn't some big secret.

In those days there was no Ensign.

Hilarious regarding the male donkey.

I'm sure it probably wasn't hidden in the usual sense that we think of things, especially among the Mormons themselves. My problem is that it (plural marriage) isn't included and taught as a general part of the curriculum even though it has been "mothballed" for the time being.

It seems to me that if it is as great a principle as Joseph maintained it was, that the church would glorify and venerate it and all of it's dimensions. After all the more wives one has the greater their kingdom, is that not so? Or if a wife can find herself a man more righteous than another hasn't she the right to have herself re-sealed to the more righteous man?

Why not celebrate it rather than just stop talking about it?

Edited by Palerider, 17 July 2012 - 09:22 PM.

[Palerider]

Evangeline, on 17 July 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

A similar question was asked in a poll on here recently and 96 people answered it (although I think Kenngo was having some fun with it).    Have a look if you haven't already:

http://www.mormondia...-sealings-from/

According to the admittedly unscientific poll, most people heard about polygamy (or multiple sealings) from either an LDS class, lesson or missionary discussion OR from LDS family or friends (or historical family journals).

Thanks Evangeline,  I'll check that out.

[calmoriah]

treehugger, on 17 July 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

I am re-listening to Gordon (40:00minutes in). He states "hat and a seer stone". At 41:08approx, he states "as far as the translation with a stone in the hat" he then shows a slide title "Translation with a Hat". During his presentation at UVU he is addressing using a stone in a hat method.

But for sake of your position, even if he were speaking of each seperately, his citations still fail. The slide title is "Translation with a hat", as was shown above, only two of the citations on this slide actually mention a hat. It is clear from his presentation that he was not separating the two.

His citations, even as you claim if only two of them confirm his claims, demonstrate that the Church is not hiding it as it has been cited, which is what he claimed.  Can we at least agree on that?

Edited by calmoriah, 17 July 2012 - 09:28 PM.

[ERayR]

Palerider, on 17 July 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

Hilarious regarding the male donkey.

I'm sure it probably wasn't hidden in the usual sense that we think of things, especially among the Mormons themselves. My problem is that it (plural marriage) isn't included and taught as a general part of the curriculum even though it has been "mothballed" for the time being.

It seems to me that if it is as great a principle as Joseph maintained it was, that the church would glorify and venerate it and all of it's dimensions. After all the more wives one has the greater their kingdom, is that not so? Or if a wife can find herself a man more righteous than another hasn't she the right to have herself re-sealed to the more righteous man?

Why not celebrate it rather than just stop taliking about it?

The church, any church, to be effective in the lives of its people needs to spend its time and resources on what is pertinent and current.  Polygamy has not been either for over 100 years so why should it be front burner.

[calmoriah]

Quote

My problem is that it (plural marriage) isn't included and taught as a general part of the curriculum

It is taught in the curriculum through the Institute class that deals with Church History as has been pointed out multiple times.  Since it is part of the history of the Church and not currently practiced this makes sense.

Edited by calmoriah, 17 July 2012 - 09:37 PM.

[calmoriah]

Quote

After all the more wives one has the greater their kingdom, is that not so? Or if a wife can find herself a man more righteous than another hasn't she the right to have herself re-sealed to the more righteous man?

CFR on both claims please.....and yes, I know the actual quotes and the context given, in this case I am CFRing because I am wondering if you do as well as I think it is important to provide such context anyway.

add-on:  never mind, the OPer has declared this subject off topic.

Edited by calmoriah, 17 July 2012 - 10:23 PM.