Learning That Joseph Practiced Plural Marriage

[selek1]

I'm so sorry you couldn't grasp the point of the post. The status of the people involved is irrelevant. My point is the way the Lutheran Church handled the dissemination of information ( some of which reflected poorly on themselves) in this particular class.

Pure equine extrement straight from the source.

Pahoran grasped the point of the post perfectly. He posted a precise counter-example and demonstrated how it applied to your reasoning.

The LDS church doesn't seem even to be able to fearlessly disseminate information regarding behavior (plural marriage) for which that they claim they have valid reason.

The operative words in that statement are "doesn't seem". That takes the argument purely into the realm of opinion, not fact.

As demonstrated, however, you are a hostile witness and you characterizations are (at best) biased by your hostility.

In point of fact, you have yet to demonstrate factually that there is any systemic or even wide-spread difference between the LDS and Lutheran churches in their handling of history and historical data.

You continue to argue by declamation instead of reason, and by sneering instead of fact.

Here's one more apples-to-apples comparison for you.

You claim that the LDS Church is ashamed of its teaching and practice of polygamy, and seeks to hide this facet of history.

Yet the Lutheran Church is equally ashamed of its own teachings and practice along the same lines. In fact, one is hard-pressed to find a single authoritative statement from the Lutheran Church vis-a-vis polygamy within the last five decades. And that despite the fact that polygamy was endorsed- and even recommended by their founder.

When we discover that Luther was also a virulent and hostile anti-Semite, it becomes rapidly apparent that- contrary to your assertion- the Lutheran Church is going to extraordinary lengths to "white-wash" its history rather than discussing it frankly.

Once again, for every finger you point at the Mormon Church, there are at least three more pointing back at your Lutheran friends.

The Lutheran Church is just as guilty of "cover-up", "omission", and "historical revision" as are the Mormons.

The difference is you don't have an axe to grind with the Lutherans.

Edited July 23, 2012 by selek1

[Palerider]

I think that the lds get this kind of lesson when early history is discussed. For example, members know that many left the church at the time of JS and yet, against the odds, many stayed and remained faithful despite great hardships and difficulties.

No, not regarding plural marriage. Remember the OP was in essence questioning the way or how one learns about polygamy. Why do so many members end up learning about it through non-LDS avenues?

With "correlation" setting the topics for discussion, it seems to me the church will never do a full Gospel Doctrine lesson on all aspects of plural marriage, it's underlying doctrine and how Joseph introduced it.

[why me]

No, not regarding plural marriage. Remember the OP was in essence questioning the way or how one learns about polygamy. Why do so many members end up learning about it through non-LDS avenues?

With "correlation" setting the topics for discussion, it seems to me the church will never do a full Gospel Doctrine lesson on all aspects of plural marriage, it's underlying doctrine and how Joseph introduced it.

The problem is: the correlation does not apply. In a lds context, polygamy was not a sin and Joseph did not commit a sin. The lutheran minister did commit a sin. Where is the correlation? What we know from the D&C is that Joseph was chastised by the lord in a couple of occasions. This is discussed by the lds.

But what is the correlation between lds polygamy and the lutheran minister committing a sin?

[Palerider]

Hi PR...thank you for the response.

Okay, this is the thing, and you bring up exactly the problem I had with this whole issue. You believe Joseph Smith's polygamy and the surrounding details are embarrassing to the church, because, looking at it, in a certain light, it can be very shocking and disturbing. That is the way critics see it and most will describe it in the most unsavory terms. They see it that way, because they really believe that Joseph slept with all of these women and created this whole doctrine around his own sexual appetites. That's exactly what I thought, at first, until I started reading some apologetics on the subject...and truly there is another whole side to all of it that is fairly reasonable. Joseph may not have had relations with the wives of others or even many other of his wives. There certainly has not been proof in the way of offspring. It is suggested that many of these sealings were simply dynastic sealings, to seal whole families to the prophet. It has also been suggested that the whole sealing process was not fully understood, at that time. So, I am just saying, that this is all the more reason this subject needs to be more widely discussed, in church, IMO. If this is causing many members to stumble, and the church has reasonable explanations for a lot of it, why not discuss it?

Excellent point Libs. Can't argue with that one. Wouldn't want to.

[Palerider]

The problem is: the correlation does not apply. In a lds context, polygamy was not a sin and Joseph did not commit a sin. The lutheran minister did commit a sin. Where is the correlation? What we know from the D&C is that Joseph was chastised by the lord in a couple of occasions. This is discussed by the lds.

But what is the correlation between lds polygamy and the lutheran minister committing a sin?

Sorry, maybe I should have explained that more clearly. By "correlation" I'm talking about the church's correlation department that sets out the course of study for the church worldwide. They are very unlikely to have this as I explained before as a topic for Gospel Doctrine. Does that help?

Edited July 23, 2012 by Palerider

[why me]

Sorry, maybe I should have explained that more clearly. By "correlation" I'm talking about the church's correlation department that sets out the course of study for the church worldwide. They are very unlikely to have this as I explained before as a topic for Gospel Doctrine. Does that help?

What about this:

In modern times, the Lord said, “Now, I, the Lord, am not well pleased with the inhabitants of Zion, for there are idlers among them; and their children are also growing up in wickedness.” (D&C 68:31.) We do not rear children just to please our vanity. We bring children into the world to become kings and queens, priests and priestesses for our Lord.

To Frederick G. Williams, the Lord said, “You have continued under this condemnation;

“You have not taught your children light and truth, … and that wicked one hath power, as yet, over you, and this is the cause of your affliction …

“If you will be delivered you shall set in order your own house, for there are many things that are not right in your house.” (D&C 93:41–43.)

Turning to Sidney Rigdon, the Lord charged, “Verily, I say unto my servant Sidney Rigdon, that in some things he hath not kept the commandments concerning his children; therefore, first set in order thy house.” (D&C 93:44.)

And then the Lord said, “What I say unto one I say unto all; pray always lest that wicked one have power in you, and remove you out of your place.” (D&C 93:49.)

How sad if the Lord should charge any of us parents with having failed to teach our children. Truly a tremendous responsibility falls upon a couple when they bring children into the world. Not only food, clothes, and shelter are required of them, but loving, kindly disciplining, teaching, and training.

http://www.lds.org/liahona/1978/08/train-up-a-child?lang=eng&query=sidney+rigdon

This can be a wonderful lesson on how lds leaders have sinned...no one is perfect....etc, etc....

[Palerider]

What about this:

In modern times, the Lord said, “Now, I, the Lord, am not well pleased with the inhabitants of Zion, for there are idlers among them; and their children are also growing up in wickedness.” (D&C 68:31.) We do not rear children just to please our vanity. We bring children into the world to become kings and queens, priests and priestesses for our Lord.

To Frederick G. Williams, the Lord said, “You have continued under this condemnation;

“You have not taught your children light and truth, … and that wicked one hath power, as yet, over you, and this is the cause of your affliction …

“If you will be delivered you shall set in order your own house, for there are many things that are not right in your house.” (D&C 93:41–43.)

Turning to Sidney Rigdon, the Lord charged, “Verily, I say unto my servant Sidney Rigdon, that in some things he hath not kept the commandments concerning his children; therefore, first set in order thy house.” (D&C 93:44.)

And then the Lord said, “What I say unto one I say unto all; pray always lest that wicked one have power in you, and remove you out of your place.” (D&C 93:49.)

How sad if the Lord should charge any of us parents with having failed to teach our children. Truly a tremendous responsibility falls upon a couple when they bring children into the world. Not only food, clothes, and shelter are required of them, but loving, kindly disciplining, teaching, and training.

http://www.lds.org/liahona/1978/08/train-up-a-child?lang=eng&query=sidney+rigdon

This can be a wonderful lesson on how lds leaders have sinned...no one is perfect....etc, etc....

I agree.

But the issue I thought we were discussing on this thread (regardless of whether a person agrees with plural marriage or not or thinks it's sinful or righteous under the right circumstances) is how the church approaches (or doesn't) the topic of plural marriage. How is the information disseminated? How do members learn of the principle?

I'm not arguing the point here whether LDS leadership has sinned or not. That's for another thread. I'm arguing that past and present leadership (although recently things may have changed slightly since the advent of the internet)have quietly repressed the subject of plural marriage as a topic of general teaching in the church's curriculum. I'd like to see a Gospel Doctrine lesson called, "Plural Marriage: It's origins and what it means to us today."

Edited July 23, 2012 by Palerider

[Libs]

I'd like to see a Gospel Doctrine lesson called, "Plural Marriage: It's origins and what it means to us today."

I would love to see that.

[why me]

I agree.

But the issue I thought we were discussing on this thread (regardless of whether a person agrees with plural marriage or not or thinks it's sinful or righteous under the right circumstances) is how the church approaches (or doesn't) the topic of plural marriage. How is the information disseminated? How do members learn of the principle?

The problem came with your analogy of the lutheran minister committing a sexual sin and the plural marriages of Joseph Smith. And then telling us how the lutherans freely discuss what happened with this minister. But I see no analogy with plural marriage. I then presented where the lds do talk about imperfections of past leaders thereby showing that the lds also have such readings and lessons as the lutherans do. Do you understand?

[Libs]

I am subscribed to Joanna Brooks' blog called "Mormon Girl". I was just reading her latest entry and low and behold it has to do with this very subject.

The entire article is very good and interesting, but this, in particular, caught my eye.

I’m of the mind that people should learn complicated family stories from family, not from strangers. We need to hear this stuff at home, in church, in seminary, and I hear that up at Church headquarters, the wheels are turning to make that possible. Which is wonderful news.

Has anyone else heard anything about this? I hope it's true.

How do you deal with the real history on Joseph Smith?

[why me]

I'd like to see a Gospel Doctrine lesson called, "Plural Marriage: It's origins and what it means to us today."

I am sure that I can give many titles to the lessons you would like to see: MMM and its role in shaping lds history. The Racism of Brigham Young and its impact on American Cultural Norms. The Problematic Book of Abraham and its relevance for today.

How am I doing?

Plural marriage means very little for us today. Perhaps you can give us a sample lesson on it? I would be interested in how you would teach it.

[why me]

Has anyone else heard anything about this? I hope it's true.

How do you deal with the real history on Joseph Smith?

Yes, we have discussed it on this forum. We believe that it comes from ElderJensen's comments about people leaving the church and why.

[Tacenda]

I agree.

But the issue I thought we were discussing on this thread (regardless of whether a person agrees with plural marriage or not or thinks it's sinful or righteous under the right circumstances) is how the church approaches (or doesn't) the topic of plural marriage. How is the information disseminated? How do members learn of the principle?

I'm not arguing the point here whether LDS leadership has sinned or not. That's for another thread. I'm arguing that past and present leadership (although recently things may have changed slightly since the advent of the internet)have quietly repressed the subject of plural marriage as a topic of general teaching in the church's curriculum. I'd like to see a Gospel Doctrine lesson called, "Plural Marriage: It's origins and what it means to us today."

Oh, that could work. Does anyone know of someone who works for the church correlation dept? Maybe this lesson could be put in for the D&C rotation coming up!

[why me]

Oh, that could work. Does anyone know of someone who works for the church correlation dept? Maybe this lesson could be put in for the D&C rotation coming up!

I don't think palefinder would tolerate this being a lesson once every four years. Which brings up another question: how often should we be taught about polygamy and joseph smith? Once a year...twice a year...in every manual there should be one lesson about? In seminary...in institute...gospel doctrine...gospel essentials....how often should we now teach polygamy?

And then of course, it won't stop there. The critics want the lds membership to memorize their history...everything that they consider controversial should be taught and memorized and discussed. We will be experts on church history. Of course, most other religions tend to ignore their history but not us...we will memorize it to satisfy the critics and at the end of year, we will have an exam.

I think that this may be a great idea. The critics will be happy and those who leave the church will have no excuses any more since all history would have been taught to them. No more hiding behind the church hides its history.

[why me]

Oh, that could work. Does anyone know of someone who works for the church correlation dept? Maybe this lesson could be put in for the D&C rotation coming up!

I don't think palerider would tolerate this being a lesson once every four years. Which brings up another question: how often should we be taught about polygamy and joseph smith? Once a year...twice a year...in every manual there should be one lesson about? In seminary...in institute...gospel doctrine...gospel essentials....how often should we now teach polygamy?

And then of course, it won't stop there. The critics want the lds membership to memorize their history...everything that they consider controversial should be taught and memorized and discussed. We will be experts on church history. Of course, most other religions tend to ignore their history but not us...we will memorize it to satisfy the critics and at the end of year, we will have an exam.

I think that this may be a great idea. The critics will be happy and those who leave the church will have no excuses any more since all history would have been taught to them. No more hiding behind the church hides its history.

Edited July 23, 2012 by why me

[Palerider]

The problem came with your analogy of the lutheran minister committing a sexual sin and the plural marriages of Joseph Smith. And then telling us how the lutherans freely discuss what happened with this minister. But I see no analogy with plural marriage. I then presented where the lds do talk about imperfections of past leaders thereby showing that the lds also have such readings and lessons as the lutherans do. Do you understand?

Absolutely.

Poor Pahoran and his sidekick selek drew the same analogy but the type of the minister's problems had nothing to do with the point I was making. He could have been stealing potatoes from the cellar for all I care. If they read into the story any comparison to Joseph Smith that's their problem, not mine.

If one reads my post carefully I state quite clearly that it's the fact that:

"it was quite refreshing to see a religion give an accurate account to it's members, warts and all, and allow them the benefit of making up their own minds as to how to archive the information rather than being strictly "faith promoting" to the point of whitewashing.", that is important to me. I don't mention Joseph anywhere in the post.

The type of sin the minister was involved in was as I have said before irrelevant to me.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Palerider

[Palerider]

I am subscribed to Joanna Brooks' blog called "Mormon Girl". I was just reading her latest entry and low and behold it has to do with this very subject.

The entire article is very good and interesting, but this, in particular, caught my eye.

Has anyone else heard anything about this? I hope it's true.

How do you deal with the real history on Joseph Smith?

Wouldn't that be a step in the right direction!

[wenglund]

Wouldn't that be a step in the right direction!

There is good reason that the Lord hasn't inspired his leaders to call non-educators/instructional designers and people who don't get what the gospel is really about to construct the Church's curriculum.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Palerider]

I don't think palefinder would tolerate this being a lesson once every four years. Which brings up another question: how often should we be taught about polygamy and joseph smith? Once a year...twice a year...in every manual there should be one lesson about? In seminary...in institute...gospel doctrine...gospel essentials....how often should we now teach polygamy?

And then of course, it won't stop there. The critics want the lds membership to memorize their history...everything that they consider controversial should be taught and memorized and discussed. We will be experts on church history. Of course, most other religions tend to ignore their history but not us...we will memorize it to satisfy the critics and at the end of year, we will have an exam.

I think that this may be a great idea. The critics will be happy and those who leave the church will have no excuses any more since all history would have been taught to them. No more hiding behind the church hides its history.

Just teach it when the D&C is in rotation and section 132 is being discussed. If that's every 4 years then so be it. Just be thorough.

"I think that this may be a great idea. The critics will be happy and those who leave the church will have no excuses any more since all history would have been taught to them. No more hiding behind the church hides its history."

Truly, I think you're on to something here.

[Palerider]

There is good reason that the Lord hasn't inspired his leaders to call non-educators/instructional designers and people who don't get what the gospel is really about to construct the Church's curriculum.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What many seem to forget is that much of the Gospel is about truth telling. "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

Let's not just tell the part of the story we want to tell and only from our point of view. Let's tell the truth....all of the truth. What will stand will stand and what will fall will fall.

[ERayR]

I would love to see that.

Why? Plural marriage is no longer a practice of the church.

[Palerider]

Why? Plural marriage is no longer a practice of the church.

But it IS the doctrine of the church. It has never been rescinded as doctrine or denounced. The class is called "Gospel Doctrine". So teach it.

[wenglund]

What many seem to forget is that much of the Gospel is about truth telling. "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

Let's not just tell the part of the story we want to tell and only from our point of view. Let's tell the truth....all of the truth. What will stand will stand and what will fall will fall.

You continue to unwittingly make my case. The gospel is about coming to Christ and becoming like him. "Truth" is but one of several means to achieving that end, though only in so far as those "truths" are relevant to that end. Not all "truths" will free us from chains of sin and spiritual death and free us to become like Christ. In fact, some "truths" may distract us from that end, and perhaps enslave us in counterproductive obsessions--as the case may be. This is a "truth" that you seem incapable of getting--which is, in part, why you and others like you haven't been called to the important task of constructing the curriculum for the Church. This is a position which needs to be filled by people who know what they are doing and know what the Church is all about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tacenda]

But it IS the doctrine of the church. It has never been rescinded as doctrine or denounced. The class is called "Gospel Doctrine". So teach it.

The critics have a "hay day" with the fact that the church has left D&C 132 in the scriptures. They will continue to until it's no longer there. Therefore the need for the church to discuss it when the D&C is being taught. The church needs to own it. The only reason, and it's a good one, that they may have left it alone is that some people have gone on to live the principle when they delved into it and then started believing it needs to be lived now, for their salvation. The Manti, Utah group for instance. So I see where the church is apprehensive.

[KevinG]

I don't have enough time in Priesthood class to discuss the basics of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it is. For a very practical reason subjects like our history and culture need to be handled in seminary and institute or special firesides not during Sunday School. Even better they need to be discussed in families and with friends.

Having said that the effort to get the Joseph Smith papers and other historical sources published and available to scholars is commendable and positive. I don't know of another church as active in recording and disseminating all of its history than the LDS Church. If one wants to learn about polygamy they have only to see exhibits in the Church history museum or pick up a book on the subject from Deseret or other publishers.

One of my favorite responses to those who accuse us of "hiding" the fact that Joseph defended himself with a pistol in Carthage is to give the critic directions to the exhibit in the history museum where the pepper box pistol is displayed next to the pocket watch with the bullet hole.

Despite the protests of those relatively uninformed that we somehow don't reveal our history and beliefs as well as we could - the problem seems to be a problem only for those whose families failed to teach them adequately or who did not take advantage of the multiple publications and classes available through official and church allied sources.