The polygamy "whitewash" continues ...

[cinepro]

A common catalyst for the transition from "believing Mormon" to "doubting Mormon" seems to be the shock of discovering aspects to Mormon history that were previously unknown.

A frequent complaint from lifelong, adult members that become "doubters" is that they didn't know about Joseph Smith's polygamy, or the papyri discovery of the 60's, or Joseph's face-in-the-hat translation method, or any of another uncomfortable tidbits that seem bothersome. Some seem especially bothered that these "core" issues were glossed over in discussing related matters.

In response, believing members often place the blame on the doubter's lack of initiative in learning these things, usually implying that the information has been presented through normal LDS channels, and most intelligent members get the information and aren't bothered by it.

But I think this article is a good example of the critic's complaint, and while I'm not surprised, I'm certainly disappointed. I could understand the editing if Bathsheba had done something wrong, and they wanted to present her in a kinder light, but this seems to have been done out of embarassment for the past, and for a Church that is so hopped up on using "history" as a foundational support for it's many claims, perhaps more care could be taken in matters such as this.

I don't understand the pre occupation with polygamy. In past times the Lord required it and who knows He may require it in the future, I don't know.

docrick, can I go out on a limb and guess that you are a man?

[t2t2]

As for charges of a whitewash, I would agree that they are quite hollow considering the fact that the Ensign article cites a longer version that does discuss polygamy and which the reader can access easily enough.

This is what the Japanese always say to critics of their textbooks which wipe clean any mentions of personal accountability or blaim for the horrendous acts which occurred.

[USU78]

Not to mention that polygamy is still practiced to some degree in the LDS Church today -- as we all know, a widower (already sealed to his 1st wife) can be married and sealed for eternity to a 2nd wife (so long as she hasn't already been sealed to another man)[.]

The Horror!

That's it, guys, we need to make sure, if our wives die before we do, that we get a cancellation of sealing from our dearly departed before remarrying in the Temple.

I mean . . . every other Christian religion requires that, right?

[yaanufs]

That's it, guys, we need to make sure, if our wives die before we do, that we get a cancellation of sealing from our dearly departed before remarrying in the Temple.

I don't see the joke. If you die and your wife wishes to marry again in the temple she will have to do what you are just making light of.

[t2t2]

I mean . . . every other Christian religion requires that, right?

??

Um... they don't marry for eternity. At least not officially. Nor would they assume that if marriage DOES carry on (many do) that it would do so with multiple partners.

[USU78]

I mean . . . every other Christian religion requires that, right?

??

Um... they don't marry for eternity. At least not officially. Nor would they assume that if marriage DOES carry on (many do) that it would do so with multiple partners.

My congratulations for grasping the irony.

[Golden Tapir]

QUOTE (USU78 @ Jun 28 2005, 10:30 AM)

That's it, guys, we need to make sure, if our wives die before we do, that we get a cancellation of sealing from our dearly departed before remarrying in the Temple.

I don't see the joke. If you die and your wife wishes to marry again in the temple she will have to do what you are just making light of.

er ... not quite. I understand there is a 'marriage for time only' option available for Temple Marriages. Surviving females are presented with a choice of whom to be sealed to that males are not.

btw- I'm going through a horrendus process trying to be released from a sealing to my first wife. 'It's like pulling Hen's teeth'.

[t2t2]

Sometimes responding on this board is tough without knowing the basic belief sets held by every other member.

[Scott Lloyd]

As for charges of a whitewash, I would agree that they are quite hollow considering the fact that the Ensign article cites a longer version that does discuss polygamy and which the reader can access easily enough.

This is what the Japanese always say to critics of their textbooks which wipe clean any mentions of personal accountability or blaim for the horrendous acts which occurred.

This is a stupid comparison.

The practice of plural marriage in the early days of the Church is not comparable to "horrendous acts" committed by belligerants in World War II. Nor do the curriculum materials of the Church in general or the Ensign in particular "wipe clean any mentions" of the practice of plural marriage. The very revelation commanding its practice is in the scriptural canon of the Church.

[truth dancer]

I think it is a really tough call for the church.

IMO...I don't think there is any issue that makes the church look bad more than polygamy, nor is there any other issue that would keep people from joining the church. So to write anything that suggests the church was (still is) involved in it could be detrimental to missionary work and the desire to create a good public image.

On the other hand not disclosing the truth of it all, certainly does seem like they are presenting a false history and is rather misleading ....IMO.

It is sort of a no win situation...

~dancer~

[t2t2]

This is a stupid comparison.

That was s stupid comment. wow! That was easy!

I was comparing the disclaimers - not the acts.

The Japanese say "Hey....just because we don't mention it doesn't mean we're covering anything up. You can find all you want to know in countless books on the subject!"

Um - yeah. Sound familiar?

The very revelation commanding its practice is in the scriptural canon of the Church.

Are you saying that there are commandments to practice plural marraige in D&C?

[Scott Lloyd]

This is a stupid comparison.

That was s stupid comment. wow! That was easy!

I suppose so, in that it required about as much thoughtful deliberation as your Japanese-textbook comparison.

I was comparing the disclaimers - not the acts.

The Japanese say "Hey....just because we don't mention it doesn't mean we're covering anything up.  You can find all you want to know in countless books on the subject!"

Um - yeah.  Sound familiar?

You were implying that the Church "wipes clean" any mention of polygamy in its past. That is either stupid or dishonest. In opting for the former, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

The very revelation commanding its practice is in the scriptural canon of the Church.

Are you saying that there are commandments to practice plural marraige in D&C?

The revelation instituting its practice in this dispensation is in the Doctrine and Covenants.

[yaanufs]

All we need now is a Hitler reference/accusation to really get this thread cooking.

[bryan jones]

I think it is a really tough call for the church.

IMO...I don't think there is any issue that makes the church look bad more than polygamy, nor is there any other issue that would keep people from joining the church.  So to write anything that suggests the church was (still is) involved in it could be detrimental to missionary work and the desire to create a good public image.

On the other hand not disclosing the truth of it all, certainly does seem like they are presenting a false history and is rather misleading ....IMO.

It is sort of a no win situation...   

~dancer~

How about the LDS church tell the complete truth and let the members and potential converts process the info and make decisons based on the truth ; not sugar-coated and white washed versions of church history?

Potential converts have a right to know what they are getting into. They have a right to know about Joseph Smith's and BY's not so favorable practices. Hiding and whitewashing these things is a recipe for disaster once some members discovers the truth. Missionaries don't give the whole story of mormonism. They give the "familes are forever" version which seems to sell better.

[USU78]

All we need now is a Hitler reference/accusation to really get this thread cooking.

Which would be the functional equivalent of:

This is what the Japanese always say to critics of their textbooks which wipe clean any mentions of personal accountability or blaim for the horrendous acts which occurred.

The Rape of Manchuria was as horrific as haShoah, though on a different scale.

[t2t2]

I suppose so, in that it required about as much thoughtful deliberation as your Japanese-textbook comparison.

That post was stupid.

I'm getting better at this.

You were implying that the Church "wipes clean" any mention of polygamy in its past. That is either stupid or dishonest. In opting for the former, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

False dichotomy. I learned that phrase here (or least how to use it in every post, if possible). Eternal progression indeed.

That's what this whole thread is about. I'm saying that the church, when it prints articles where polygamy WAS mentioned, edits out the mentions.

Have you been reading this post at all? What part of of this are you saying is not true? That they did indeed leave the polygamy references in and we, just...um...didn't see them?

The revelation instituting its practice in this dispensation is in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Why don't you take a poll of members here and see how many agree with you.

[juliann]

Not to mention that polygamy is still practiced to some degree in the LDS Church today -- as we all know, a widower (already sealed to his 1st wife) can be married and sealed for eternity to a 2nd wife (so long as she hasn't already been sealed to another man), but a widow (already sealed to her first husband) cannot do the same with her 2nd husband (can only marry him "for time"). Case in point: Dallin Oaks, who often refers to his 2nd wife, Kristin, as his eternal companion.

More of your whitewashed snowjob, Rollo? What we know is that all marriage partners of our ancestors are sealed when their temple work is done. I can marry 10 men and after I'm dead my daughter could seal me to all of them. Why they make distinctions is probably a carry-over but the reality is that everyone is ultimately sealed to everyone..and the LDS belief is that all ordinances will be done for everyone in earth time.

Next snowjob?

[Opaline]

Here is the new website from our church on Joseph Smith

http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/site/JosephSmith

I hope the church isn't finished with this website yet because it appears he was monogamous. Why not honor all the other wives who sacrificed for him with the restoration of polygamy.

With the internet, members are likely to come across some negative information eventually. Wouldn't the church rather have them informed with their side of the history and the righteous purposes behind it?

[t2t2]

I can marry 10 men and after I'm dead my daughter could seal me to all of them. Why they make distinctions is probably a carry-over but the reality is that everyone is ultimately sealed to everyone..and the LDS belief is that all ordinances will be done for everyone in earth time.

So let's assume she does this. Are you married to all these men for eternity?

[juliann]

Polygamy is still a major piece of LDS doctrine. Unless you think Brigham Young had his wives revoked from him - you believe polygamy exists in the eternities. That's LDS doctrine.

It's BIG doctrine.

Then there should be multiple references to "eternal polygamy" within the last year alone. Please produce even one and end the debate.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it is a really tough call for the church.

IMO...I don't think there is any issue that makes the church look bad more than polygamy, nor is there any other issue that would keep people from joining the church.

[SlackTime]

The revelation instituting its practice in this dispensation is in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Why don't you take a poll of members here and see how many agree with you.

I agree. Let's see what the scripture heading says:

SECTION 132

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501

[yaanufs]

Here is the new website from our church on Joseph Smith

http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/site/JosephSmith

  I hope the church isn't finished with this website yet because it appears he was monogamous.

Typing "polygamy" into the site search engine produces zero hits.

How intriguing.

"wives" = no hits.

"wife" = 14 hits.

[juliann]

So let's assume she does this. Are you married to all these men for eternity?

The term is sealed. I don't think "marriage" will look anything like what you are projecting. With a theology that demands "perfect love" I have a lot more trouble imagining a situation in which God has special people he loves bestest a lot more than I have trouble imagining us in a huge family group. In the early days, men were being sealed to men. Are they going to be "married for eternity"? When you figure out what it even means get back to me.

[Scott Lloyd]

You were implying that the Church "wipes clean" any mention of polygamy in its past. That is either stupid or dishonest. In opting for the former, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

False dichotomy. I learned that phrase here (or least how to use it in every post, if possible). Eternal progression indeed.

That's what this whole thread is about. I'm saying that the church, when it prints articles where polygamy WAS mentioned, edits out the mentions.

You made a comparison of the Church to Japanese who, you say, "wipe clean" any mention of World War II atrocities. The logical conclusion to be drawn from that is that you are claiming the Church wipes clean any mention of polygamy in its past. That is a conspicuously false claim; ergo it is either stupid or dishonest.

The revelation instituting its practice in this dispensation is in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Why don't you take a poll of members here and see how many agree with you.

Are you really that unfamiliar with the Doctrine and Covenants? Or are you presuming to interpret our own scripture for us?

Never mind. I am concluding this dialogue for its distinctively unproductive character.