Mormon church now regards The Nauvoo Expositor as a “credible resource”

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I also think lying is a good thing if it is making a situation better for someone.

The problem here is whether or not it actually will make things better, we may be missing details in our judgment.  I find it one thing to lie about ourselves in positive terms so our loved ones won’t worry about us when they can do nothing to help and another where it might change the behaviour of others or even ourselves in less healthy ways.  For example, if we never share our concerns about a loved one’s weight or eating habits, but instead even act like we think they are healthy, are we supporting them wisely?  Of course you need to be very, very careful in offering any criticism and often it’s better to be neutral or such as finding a way to give a compliment that is completely honest if you don’t have the time or the relationship needed to offer constructive criticism in a useful, positive way, so you are more building up rather than hurting.

I think lying should be very limited and only used when there is no other option and it’s about hurting others.  If it’s about hurting oneself, we need to be very careful we are not just making excuses to avoid difficult situations we could handle, but just don’t want to.  I would never have lied to my mom about anything while she didn’t have dementia, for example, even though there might be tears, frustration, and too much of her telling me what she thought I should do rather than just letting me deal with it as I wanted (my parents were problem solvers and while Mom tried hard to help us in ways we wanted to be helped, she lacked some skills and also found it difficult to do nothing, which in my experience can be necessary to give us time to really figure out what the root of a problem is as acting too quickly may lead to us thinking we have solved something or should be able to solve it when we haven’t, adding complication and more confusion rather than helping).

The classic “does this make me look fat?” question….are you really making it better if you simply say no when it does?  If the person can’t change into something else, I wouldn’t criticize it and might instead compliment how the color works with skin color in some way or some other true positive thing to say if it looked like they needed a confidence builder and weren’t just fishing for a compliment.  If they did have the opportunity to change, I wouldn’t bluntly say it looked awful, but  likely say something like “it’s doesn’t work as well as the other outfits I have seen you in” or even “I don’t think it compliments your shape well”.  If I knew someone well enough (I would hope if they were asking my opinion on how they looked that I knew them well), if they have time to change and they have or can afford something new, I would be realistic, but try to do so in a way that helps them make better decisions in the future rather than just gives them the idea of wrongness (“yea, it does make you look heavier because that ruffle adds weight at the hips that isn’t there; that should go into the donation pile”).  

People generally don’t need to be told they are fat and there is nothing in the isolated info “you are fat” that’s useful imo, but they can be helped by comments that reinforce the healthier or more useful things about them.  Time and place is important.  Avoid embarrassment as much as possible, but don’t reinforce destructive behaviour if you can be there to help support change.  In discussions with my husband, whose weight can fluctuate with stress a lot, I tend to go to asking what he is having difficulty with in his life rather than telling him he needs to work more on getting on the treadmill or counting his calories since I know he uses the resources he has to control his weight, so there must be a reason why it’s happening rather than just not caring.  This last round has been lack of quality sleep and being unable to exercise due to problems with his shoulder.  I pushed him to take care of that sooner than later and he’s already looking less tired.

Iow, it’s all about context and there are often ways to work within the context to discuss things with others that don’t require lying, so it should never be seen as default or automatic, imo.

Edited August 5, 2025 by Calm

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not have its "own definition of lying."  Any dictionary definition will do quite well.

WRONG: it is right here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty?lang=ase

“Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (⁠Exodus 20:16⁠). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18⁠). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.”

 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Cite the date and page of the primary manual with that statement -- quoting it in context.  I never saw such a silly claim and I am now 84.

I already did but here it is again just for you:

 

https://archive.org/details/Primary5/page/n218/mode/1up

lesson 37

“Some enemies of the Church believed that if they got rid of Joseph Smith, the Church would fall apart. These men started a newspaper in which they told many vicious lies about Joseph Smith. The members of the Church were angry about these lies. Joseph Smith, who was mayor of Nauvoo at the time, called a meeting of the city council, which was composed of both Church members and nonmembers. The city council declared the newspaper a "public nuisance" and ordered the town marshal to destroy the printing press used to print the newspaper.”

It is page 228 of the pdf or page 211 of the document itself. The publishing date of this particular archived manual is 1997. 

 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What is clear is that it makes no sense at all to claim that the Expositor lied about Joseph's practice of polygyny after Brigham publicly acknowledged the practice. 

I agree,  but it wasn’t until about 2014 that the church formally acknowledged Joseph smith himself practiced polygamy with the publishing of the  gospel topics essay on the subject. Many members were not aware JS himself practiced it apparently. I know I didn’t and my family is packed with polygamists. They are very proud of it. 

[webbles]

19 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I agree,  but it wasn’t until about 2014 that the church formally acknowledged Joseph smith himself practiced polygamy with the publishing of the  gospel topics essay on the subject. Many members were not aware JS himself practiced it apparently. I know I didn’t and my family is packed with polygamists. They are very proud of it. 

When did the church stop acknowledging that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy?  I don't recall the church ever saying that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy.  They might not have mentioned (like they did with several of the prophets in the Prophet manuals), but I don't think they ever denied it.

The Work and the Glory series (remember that one?) was really popular for a while and it talks about polygamy in Joseph's day.  Yes, it was really whitewashed but it links polygamy with Joseph.

I think you might be confusing the issues with polyandry, young wives, etc.  I would expect most members to not have known about the more complicated issues around polygamy.

Joseph's polygamy even shows up in the Ensign every now and then.  For instance, in the September 1973 Ensign, it said in an article about Eliza Snow - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1973/09/eliza-r-snow-first-lady-of-the-pioneers?lang=eng:

Quote

Many of the experiences Eliza had yearned for as a woman had been denied her or thwarted. Her beloved husband, the Prophet Joseph Smith, had been cruelly murdered after only two short years of marriage.

 

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

When did the church stop acknowledging that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy?  I don't recall the church ever saying that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy.  They might not have mentioned (like they did with several of the prophets in the Prophet manuals), but I don't think they ever denied it.

The Work and the Glory series (remember that one?) was really popular for a while and it talks about polygamy in Joseph's day.  Yes, it was really whitewashed but it links polygamy with Joseph.

I think you might be confusing the issues with polyandry, young wives, etc.  I would expect most members to not have known about the more complicated issues around polygamy.

Joseph's polygamy even shows up in the Ensign every now and then.  For instance, in the September 1973 Ensign, it said in an article about Eliza Snow - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1973/09/eliza-r-snow-first-lady-of-the-pioneers?lang=eng:

 

The ensign article is a very brief mention. Similar to the 1978 article mentioning the seer stone.
 

did the church teach it in correlated lesson material though? I taught Sunday school for years, attended for years, graduated seminary and was force fed church history at home too. I’m not the only one who didn’t know about Joseph smith practicing polygamy. Teaching it? yes, but no mention in my memory of him practicing it.
 

I wonder why the “teachings of the prophet:Joseph smith” manual don’t mention anything about his many marriages. I could not find one single reference. They did write about the martyrdom but failed to explain what the expositor said about his practicing polygamy. 
 

anyway- I’m probably the only member who is in their fifties who never heard about it until the essay came out. Just goes to show no one listens in church lol. 
 

Edited August 5, 2025 by Notatbm

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

The ensign article is a very brief mention. Similar to the 1978 article mentioning the seer stone.
 

did the church teach it in correlated lesson material though? I taught Sunday school for years, attended for years, graduated seminary and was force fed church history at home too. I’m not the only one who didn’t know about Joseph smith practicing polygamy. Teaching it? yes, but no mention in my memory of him practicing it.
 

I wonder why the “teachings of the prophet:Joseph smith” manual don’t mention anything about his many marriages. I could not find one single reference. They did write about the martyrdom but failed to explain what the expositor said about his practicing polygamy. 
 

anyway- I’m probably the only member who is in their fifties who never heard about it until the essay came out. Just goes to show no one listens in church lol. 
 

Assuming you are in your fifties, most teens in the 1980s would figure if a prophet taught something, they were practicing it. That is a sign of not having been /needing to be force-fed. How much really needed to be spelled out?

I joined the Church while in college (1975, age 18) and figured it out (that Joseph was/must have been practicing it). The Book of Mormon, which I read right away, explained it. The first time I read and prayed about the Book or Mormon, I was 13 years old, and I am no prodigy.

I think the nuances brought up in today's essays and Saints series would have been difficult to get across in 80s language/culture to seminary students, and it took a good while for the Church to summon the resources (financial and scholarly) to give the topic a fair historical shot. Unlike the negative material I found in the college library about it, which books had been in print for decades with some citations from the 1800s. Curious minds find out. I think the history that is coming out as a result of time, technology, finances and well-educated and disciplined historians is wonderful.

In any case, it is easy to veer away from what is spiritually significant. Spiritual signifiance differs from person to person, but they are the ones veering even while others don't.

[Notatbm]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

Joseph's polygamy even shows up in the Ensign every now and then.  For instance, in the September 1973 Ensign, it said in an article about Eliza Snow - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1973/09/eliza-r-snow-first-lady-of-the-pioneers?lang=eng:

 

This is also similar to the viscious lies mention in my earlier post. A significant difference is that it was in a correlated Sunday school manual which you stated you had taught from yourself. If the teacher does not catch it while prepping a lesson and teaching it, how is one supposed to expect the membership at large to catch a line in a magazine article from 1973? Many apologists like to point to the mention in either the friend or ensign in 1979?? Ish about the seer stone as if that amounts to the church “teaching” it. 
 

no one sees these articles, and of those who do they don’t remember it.  I Was alive and could read and had both the friend and ensign in my home for these mentions and I don’t remember them. 
 

I have mentioned about other topics that I’d the church wanted us to know it, they would teach it. Whatever the topic it would be in the manual and it would be a talking point. It would also be taught in conference… whatever topic the leadership wants us to know about. Look how much they mention tithing, missions, covenant path, etc. now look how many mentions of polygamy. Probably very close to zero in conference. 

Edited August 5, 2025 by Notatbm

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Assuming you are in your fifties, most teens in the 1980s would figure if a prophet taught something, they were practicing it. That is a sign of not having been /needing to be force-fed. How much really needed to be spelled out?

I joined the Church while in college (1975, age 18) and figured it out (that Joseph was/must have been practicing it). The Book of Mormon, which I read right away, explained it. The first time I read and prayed about the Book or Mormon, I was 13 years old, and I am no prodigy.

I think the nuances brought up in today's essays and Saints series would have been difficult to get across in 80s language/culture to seminary students, and it took a good while for the Church to summon the resources (financial and scholarly) to give the topic a fair historical shot. Unlike the negative material I found in the college library about it, which books had been in print for decades with some citations from the 1800s. Curious minds find out. I think the history that is coming out as a result of time, technology, finances and well-educated and disciplined historians is wonderful.

In any case, it is easy to veer away from what is spiritually significant. Spiritual signifiance differs from person to person, but they are the ones veering even while others don't.

I graduated in 1995 and in my stake we were taught that JS had 30+ wives in seminary.  I don't remember it being a surprise for any of the kids in the class.  I remember it because the topic has come up so often here on this board that I've discussed it often.  Not because it was at all shocking or surprising to me.

[Notatbm]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Assuming you are in your fifties, most teens in the 1980s would figure if a prophet taught something, they were practicing it. That is a sign of not having been /needing to be force-fed. How much really needed to be spelled out?

I don’t think stuff needs to be force fed. Just doing the “feeding” would be sufficient. The rollout of the gospel topics essays was proof enough the church hid, obfuscated, avoided, denied etc tons of stuff. Tons of people were ambushed by the info in that doc dump.
 

I grew up in a home that was all Mormon all the time and much of this was news to me. We had a library in my dad’s study with his own invented Dewey decimal system to track it. Mormon doctrine front and center.
 

Anyway when the essays came out I read all of em. My takeaway after was what the heck is all this? I ran some concerns by my parents ( bishop, stake president, temple workers) and both thought I found a trove of anti Mormon propaganda. I had to show them online where it was. We never discussed it again so I have no idea what they thought of the whole thing. 

[MrShorty]

4 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Even if they seem to conflict, each is valid for the stage of spiritual growth it's meant to address.

I understand the sentiment, and mostly agree with it. The problem I see is that we sometimes use this to excuse or rationalize some pretty awful beliefs and practices. Slavery and racial segregation leap to mind. The argument goes something like God recognizes that the church would not/ could not survive if it treated a group of people as their equals so, under the guise of Biblical curses, He implements (or allows) the church to restrict those people from full participation in the church. I've said before in this group that this can lead me down the slippery slope where, if God can tolerate slavery and racism, then maybe He can tolerate same sex romance or gender transitions or who knows what else.

This is one of those places where I find real conflict between the part of me raised in a high demand religion and the laissez-faire part of me. The high demand side of my wants to insist, along with Nephi, that "God cannot look upon [some] sin with the least degree of allowance" and tries to identify what sins and evils that God must speak out against no matter what level of preparation people have experienced. The laissez-faire side of me insists that God can redeem anyone from any sin or evil because God is just merciful in that way.

Again, I agree with the overall notion that God meets us where we're at and helps us grow from there, but I think it really only works for "good, better, best" kinds of things ("we're not ready for full consecration, but maybe we can try tithing until then"). I think we need to be careful of the slippery slope that leads to justifying and rationalizing real evil under this kind of belief that God accepts us wherever we are at and is infinitely patient with the pace (or lack thereof) of growth.

Sorry for the tangent. Resume your regular discussion.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

The ensign article is a very brief mention. Similar to the 1978 article mentioning the seer stone.
 

did the church teach it in correlated lesson material though? I taught Sunday school for years, attended for years, graduated seminary and was force fed church history at home too. I’m not the only one who didn’t know about Joseph smith practicing polygamy. Teaching it? yes, but no mention in my memory of him practicing it.
 

I wonder why the “teachings of the prophet:Joseph smith” manual don’t mention anything about his many marriages. I could not find one single reference. They did write about the martyrdom but failed to explain what the expositor said about his practicing polygamy. 
 

anyway- I’m probably the only member who is in their fifties who never heard about it until the essay came out. Just goes to show no one listens in church lol. 
 

The "Teachings of the Prophet" series doesn't mention polygamy for pretty much anyone.  I remember discussions around how sermons were edited to remove polygamy.  Brigham Young's book has no mention of his polygamy.  It mentions his first wife and second wife but those weren't polygamous as his first wife died before he married his second wife.  I believe the only one that has any mention is Lorenzo Snow and possibly because he married his first two wives within months of each other.

The mention of the Expositor in the "Teachings of the Prophet: Joseph Smith" says it "slandered the Prophet and other Saints and called for the repeal of the Nauvoo Charter" which it did.  Ignore all of the polygamy parts of the Nauvoo Expositor and it definitely slandered him.  The polygamy part in the Nauvoo Expositor was not the biggest worry for Joseph.  It was the repeal of the Nauvoo Charter.  If Nauvoo looses the ability to do habeus corpus, then Joseph is going to have serious problems.  He used/misused that ability multiple times to stay safe.

I have had Sunday School lessons that talked about his polygamy.  One of the more fun ones was a Jeopardy game that included a few of the lesser known details.  Not many people could answer those.

I know the old Institute manual talks about Joseph's polygamy in regards to section 132.  See page 334 - https://archive.org/details/DoctrineAndCovenantsStudentManual/page/n349/mode/2up

Quote

I bear record before God, angels and men that Joseph Smith received that revelation, and I bear record that Emma Smith gave her husband in marriage to several women while he was living, some of whom are to-day living in this city, and some may be present in this congregation, and who, if called upon, would confirm my words.

There's also the "History of the Church" books.  They've been reprinted multiple times and I believe Deseret Book always had them.  My family had the whole collection.  When I was bored on Sunday, I would read through those.  They are old but were not ignored.  The Institute manual references them several times (look at 327 in the above manual).  The beginning of Volume 5 has a long section on D&C 132 and does talk about Joseph have multiple wives.  You can read the entire volume at https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/60736/pg60736-images.html.  Here's one quote:

Quote

He cited several instances of Joseph having had wives sealed to him, one at least as early as April 5th, 1841, which was some time prior to the return of the Twelve from England.

 

[webbles]

42 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

This is also similar to the viscious lies mention in my earlier post. A significant difference is that it was in a correlated Sunday school manual which you stated you had taught from yourself. If the teacher does not catch it while prepping a lesson and teaching it, how is one supposed to expect the membership at large to catch a line in a magazine article from 1973? Many apologists like to point to the mention in either the friend or ensign in 1979?? Ish about the seer stone as if that amounts to the church “teaching” it. 
 

no one sees these articles, and of those who do they don’t remember it.  I Was alive and could read and had both the friend and ensign in my home for these mentions and I don’t remember them. 
 

I have mentioned about other topics that I’d the church wanted us to know it, they would teach it. Whatever the topic it would be in the manual and it would be a talking point. It would also be taught in conference… whatever topic the leadership wants us to know about. Look how much they mention tithing, missions, covenant path, etc. now look how many mentions of polygamy. Probably very close to zero in conference. 

I agree that polygamy isn't a big thing the church wants to talk about.  And I think the church is right.  How does knowing that Joseph practiced polygamy have an impact on my own salvation?  How does knowing that Brigham Young practiced polygamy have an impact on my salvation?  But tithing, covenant path, missions, all of those have a direct impact on my own life.  I would absolutely love to have a good lesson on polygamy but I would absolutely hate to do it in church.  That is not where it belongs.

I absolutely love learning about the gritty details of the church.  Mountain Meadow Massacre?  Sign me up.  Specific dates on when Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith might have begun their relationship?  Awesome (the new details that Don Bradley discovered on when then relationship was discovered is really cool).  Reading the Expositor and discussing what it actually meant to them?  I'm ready.  But none of this fits in a church setting.  They are history lessons.  Church is NOT a history class.

I understand that people feel blindsided when they learn these things and maybe the church should have been more aware of that.  But these gritty details are not things that are needed for our own salvation so I can understand why the church didn't feel like it should "waste" resources on them.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Just doing the “feeding” would be sufficient

The Scriptures are pretty high exposure and have been as long as I have lived as I was expected to read them in seminary and it was tracked…Especially since for decades we are supposed to read them once every four years and most kids and adults I talked to were committed to reading all but the OT cover to cover.  

Some of the more obscure parts of the Old Testament are likely less expected to be personal study reading and likely are skipped in Seminary.  I read them for my Institute classes, but can’t remember if required.

In the heading of Section 132 pre 1981 (I am referring to my scriptures I got when 8, so 1966) it states “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…The Prophet’s inquiry of the Lord —– He is told to prepare himself to receive the new and everlasting covenant…”

Perhaps I wouldn’t have read that as a kid as meaning God was telling Joseph to marry additional wives if I wasn’t already aware of it, but since I see commandments given in order for us to live them, it seems like the natural interpretation to me.  I suppose I might have wondered if he had time enough to do it if I assumed the revelation first occurred in 1843, but given it’s the Prophet, I an guessing if I noticed the dates I also would assume he would have followed through relatively quickly.

In 1981, the headings were redone and this section then had the same beginning up to “plurality of wives”, but then drops the rest and instead has a History of the Church reference, which I would expect few would look up preinternet days (I might have if I still lived with my parents who had the volumes) followed by “Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrine and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.”

While less explicit imo, it still would be a case of why wouldn’t Joseph live a commandment that God gave?  Especially when it was clear he had plenty of time to do it if he had been aware of the doctrine since 1831.  Since he died in 1843, that’s over ten years of opportunity.

Currently it’s “evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831.”  Don’t know when that was changed.  It’s more accurate imo, so a good change.  But again, the previous version has a quite strong implication that Joseph acted on the revelation, imo.

And while I don’t have the seminary manuals from back then, the Institute manuals at least by mid 70s, if not before, had mention of Joseph practicing plural marriage, though the one used when I was at BYU was much more detailed than the one following, Church History in the Fulness of Times.  I have looked up both numerous times to provide exact pages, so not going to do it this time.

All college aged youth in the Church are meant to take Institute and read the texts cover to cover, so I see that pretty correlated and strongly encouraged (more so for those of us at the BYUs who had grades dependent on reading them) lesson material.

Edited August 6, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, webbles said:

They've been reprinted multiple times and I believe Deseret Book always had them…When I was bored on Sunday, I would read through those.  They are old but were not ignored. 

Same here as in the family library, though I was less systematic reading them as I was more interested in the Bible than I was modern church history.  They had a nice boxed paperback set in the BYU bookstore while I was there.  Unfortunately I was hung up about asking my parents for any money as a student, so never bought anything for fun.  By the time my husband got his Ph.D in 85, it was on a collection of LDS books cd that was one of our few luxury purchases, iirc.  Now how many read them that way….

Edited August 6, 2025 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, Notatbm said:

... I agree,  but it wasn’t until about 2014 that the church formally acknowledged Joseph smith himself practiced polygamy with the publishing of the  gospel topics essay on the subject. Many members were not aware JS himself practiced it apparently. I know I didn’t and my family is packed with polygamists. They are very proud of it.  [Bold/emphasis added by Kenngo1969.

Really?  Hmmm.  Well, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith was published in 2007, sooo ... 

Courtesy of Google Gemini:

Does the "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith" manual published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reveal that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy? Since the fact that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy is not well known in certain circles of the Church of Jesus Christ, does the manual attempt to minimize the fact that Smith practiced polygamy?

The manual "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith" published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does mention that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage. It explains that the practice was instituted by revelation and was a "severe trial of faith" for him and his wife, Emma.

Regarding the second part of your question, whether the manual attempts to minimize the fact that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, the answer is more nuanced. The manual presents the topic within the context of Latter-day Saint theology and history. It states that Joseph Smith was commanded by God to institute the practice and that he did so reluctantly. While the manual doesn't go into extensive detail about the complexities and difficulties of the practice, it does acknowledge it as a part of his life and ministry.

It's important to note that the Church has also published more in-depth resources, such as the "Gospel Topics Essays," which provide a more comprehensive discussion of polygamy, including the number of wives Joseph Smith had and the challenges associated with the practice. These essays are available on the Church's official website and are intended to provide greater transparency and historical context for members and the public.

 

What year was "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith" published?

The manual "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith" was published in 2007. It was used as the curriculum for the Church's adult Sunday School classes during 2008 and 2009.

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

The problem here is whether or not it actually will make things better, we may be missing details in our judgment.  I find it one thing to lie about ourselves in positive terms so our loved ones won’t worry about us when they can do nothing to help and another where it might change the behaviour of others or even ourselves in less healthy ways.  For example, if we never share our concerns about a loved one’s weight or eating habits, but instead even act like we think they are healthy, are we supporting them wisely?  Of course you need to be very, very careful in offering any criticism and often it’s better to be neutral or such as finding a way to give a compliment that is completely honest if you don’t have the time or the relationship needed to offer constructive criticism in a useful, positive way, so you are more building up rather than hurting.

I think lying should be very limited and only used when there is no other option and it’s about hurting others.  If it’s about hurting oneself, we need to be very careful we are not just making excuses to avoid difficult situations we could handle, but just don’t want to.  I would never have lied to my mom about anything while she didn’t have dementia, for example, even though there might be tears, frustration, and too much of her telling me what she thought I should do rather than just letting me deal with it as I wanted (my parents were problem solvers and while Mom tried hard to help us in ways we wanted to be helped, she lacked some skills and also found it difficult to do nothing, which in my experience can be necessary to give us time to really figure out what the root of a problem is as acting too quickly may lead to us thinking we have solved something or should be able to solve it when we haven’t, adding complication and more confusion rather than helping).

The classic “does this make me look fat?” question….are you really making it better if you simply say no when it does?  If the person can’t change into something else, I wouldn’t criticize it and might instead compliment how the color works with skin color in some way or some other true positive thing to say if it looked like they needed a confidence builder and weren’t just fishing for a compliment.  If they did have the opportunity to change, I wouldn’t bluntly say it looked awful, but  likely say something like “it’s doesn’t work as well as the other outfits I have seen you in” or even “I don’t think it compliments your shape well”.  If I knew someone well enough (I would hope if they were asking my opinion on how they looked that I knew them well), if they have time to change and they have or can afford something new, I would be realistic, but try to do so in a way that helps them make better decisions in the future rather than just gives them the idea of wrongness (“yea, it does make you look heavier because that ruffle adds weight at the hips that isn’t there; that should go into the donation pile”).  

People generally don’t need to be told they are fat and there is nothing in the isolated info “you are fat” that’s useful imo, but they can be helped by comments that reinforce the healthier or more useful things about them.  Time and place is important.  Avoid embarrassment as much as possible, but don’t reinforce destructive behaviour if you can be there to help support change.  In discussions with my husband, whose weight can fluctuate with stress a lot, I tend to go to asking what he is having difficulty with in his life rather than telling him he needs to work more on getting on the treadmill or counting his calories since I know he uses the resources he has to control his weight, so there must be a reason why it’s happening rather than just not caring.  This last round has been lack of quality sleep and being unable to exercise due to problems with his shoulder.  I pushed him to take care of that sooner than later and he’s already looking less tired.

Iow, it’s all about context and there are often ways to work within the context to discuss things with others that don’t require lying, so it should never be seen as default or automatic, imo.

Good points here Calm. 

I think I'd like a person to tell me the truth, and then I'd be able to trust them better. And maybe everyone will lie about things to make sure not to offend, but the truth can help although it could be a tough pill to swallow for some. So you're right about things needing to be put in context and things needed to help if there's a need and something is unhealthy or destructive.

[webbles]

17 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Really?  Hmmm.  Well, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith was published in 2007, sooo ... 

Courtesy of Google Gemini:

Does the "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith" manual published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reveal that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy? Since the fact that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy is not well known in certain circles of the Church of Jesus Christ, does the manual attempt to minimize the fact that Smith practiced polygamy?

The manual "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith" published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does mention that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage. It explains that the practice was instituted by revelation and was a "severe trial of faith" for him and his wife, Emma.

Regarding the second part of your question, whether the manual attempts to minimize the fact that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, the answer is more nuanced. The manual presents the topic within the context of Latter-day Saint theology and history. It states that Joseph Smith was commanded by God to institute the practice and that he did so reluctantly. While the manual doesn't go into extensive detail about the complexities and difficulties of the practice, it does acknowledge it as a part of his life and ministry.

It's important to note that the Church has also published more in-depth resources, such as the "Gospel Topics Essays," which provide a more comprehensive discussion of polygamy, including the number of wives Joseph Smith had and the challenges associated with the practice. These essays are available on the Church's official website and are intended to provide greater transparency and historical context for members and the public.

 

What year was "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith" published?

The manual "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith" was published in 2007. It was used as the curriculum for the Church's adult Sunday School classes during 2008 and 2009.

I think Gemini is wrong.  I don't believe the "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith" mentions that he practiced it.  I also don't see anything about a "severe trial of faith".  In the index, there is a "Plural Marriage" section with two references.  They say:

Quote

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. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church.

Quote

As commanded by God, he also taught the doctrine of plural marriage.

So it just says he taught it but never explicitly mentions he practiced it.  So some one (like Notatbm) might have read that and not understood it as practicing it himself.

[webbles]

I was curious if this was really the first time that the church's website cited the Expositor and it isn't.  The Saints Volume 1, published 7 years ago, cites the Expositor multiple times in the Chapter 43.  It also cites from the Warsaw Signal which definitely published lies about Joseph Smith and is definitely anti-mormon.

I count 4 references to the Expositor and 6 references to the Warsaw Signal.

 

Edited to add: It even directly cites John C. Bennett's expose in chapter 39.

Edited August 6, 2025 by webbles

[blackstrap]

Let's see ... I first found out that Joseph not only taught about polygamy but also practiced it, umm

a little over 60 years ago in seminary. The discussions then centered around how many wives he had. Mind you, there were polygamists (apostate   😈    ) living within 40 miles of me so that may have been an influence on the topic.  

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

The classic “does this make me look fat?” question….are you really making it better if you simply say no when it does? 

The best response is to refuse to answer the question unless it is reframed into something more positive.

[Calm]

On 8/5/2025 at 10:12 PM, blackstrap said:

Let's see ... I first found out that Joseph not only taught about polygamy but also practiced it, umm

a little over 60 years ago in seminary. The discussions then centered around how many wives he had. Mind you, there were polygamists (apostate   😈    ) living within 40 miles of me so that may have been an influence on the topic.  

I learned it iirc around 6 or 8, so a few years under 60.  My grandmother talked about her auntie. We visited family gravesites with several wives buried next to each other and their husband in SL when we went there for funerals and visiting great aunts on Mom’s side and my great grandmother and the extended family on my Dad’s side.  And the discussion expanded back to Nauvoo.  One of my ancestors was Theodore Turley.  Iirc, he was the great great etc. that lived across the street from Joseph and would sit on his own front porch at times to hear Joseph teach.

Got the question ‘how many wives does your father have’ and ‘how many horns on his head’ from kids in the neighbourhood once they knew we were Mormon at least by age 9 when we were in Illinois (don’t remember any anti stuff as earlier in California and it was mostly just curiosity in Illinois as well) and the conversation then expanded more at home (my dad was not into car trips as we could fly for free, so no trips to Nauvoo while living there, but plenty of talk).  Pretty sure we talked about what had happened in Nauvoo in church, may ask my older brother who was in seminary iirc towards the end of our stay.

We actually had our Primary in a Masonic Hall, which I thought was really odd.  I am not sure it was because of past history though.

Edited August 7, 2025 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

I think lying should be very limited and only used when there is no other option and it’s about hurting others.  If it’s about hurting oneself, we need to be very careful we are not just making excuses to avoid difficult situations we could handle, but just don’t want to.

The problem with the idea of lying is that we use the word in many different ways - most of which are inconsistent with the actual meaning of the idea. Consider the following:

Johnny is getting ready to go to school in the morning. He is in a hurry, and he forgets his homework on the kitchen table. When he gets to school, afraid of telling the teacher that he forgot it, he tells the teacher that his dog ate his homework. What Johhny doesn't know, is that because he dripped some bacon grease onto his homework while it was on the table, as soon as he left, his dog did, in fact, pull his homework down, and ate it.

The point of this little anecdote is to point out the fact that lying has nothing to do with what is actually factually true or false. It is instead entirely centered on what we believe. In this example, Johnny is making a statement that is both factually true - and a lie at the same time. In fact, if Johnny were to say that his homework is at home forgotten on the kitchen table, he would be telling both the truth and relating a factually false statement. Generally people like to think that the things that they believe are factually true, and that they disbelieve those things that are factually untrue - but the reality is that in any particular situation, the degree to which our beliefs reflect truth can be completely accidental.

The LDS definition quoted by @Notatbm has its own issues in this regard: 

On 8/2/2025 at 1:12 AM, Notatbm said:

Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

This isn't a good definition of lying - because it focuses on the factuality of the statement instead of the intentions of an alleged liar. A better definition is this - lying occurs when we lead people to believe something that we do not believe ourselves. From this perspective, the question of lying is really ambiguous in the context of the discussions that we sometimes like to engage. The question about whether my wife's choice of clothing is unflattering could have a lot of different responses depending on the context. And some of those responses, while not factually accurate, aren't necessarily lies either - because the necessary intention isn't there.

In the case of polygamy, the moment we engage the question from the perspective of factual truth versus untruth - that is the moment that we have already moved away from answering the question. In this thread, we see that we get an illicit movement that goes even further. When we start by assuming that our beliefs are absolute truth, and then claim that any statements that disagree with that truth as lies, we have at least two degrees of separation from the real question of whether or not something is a lie. It is difficult to respond to these kinds of arguments - because there isn't a real foundation for the discussion.

Rather, if we want to discuss the question of lying with regard to polygamy among early LDS members, our investigation should be about what they believed versus what they said. Within more recent Mormonism we run into a related problem - especially with modern Mormonism (which I would subjectively place with Joseph Fielding Smith), in that there are sometimes deeply held beliefs that I tend to believe are inconsistent with factual truth. And when we find things that are believed (that are wrong), this isn't an indicator of lying. It is only a lie when someone teaches something that they don't actually themselves believe. To put this into perspective - it's possible, I think, for a certain political leader to absolutely believe something about the 2020 election. And even though that belief is factually untrue, if they really believe it, then to talk about that belief as truth isn't a lie - because they aren't trying to convince us to believe something that they do not believe. It doesn't make the claims factually true either.

Inevitably, this is the reason why discussions about lying aren't particularly useful or helpful. They are almost always polemical (and this thread isn't an exception to this rule). They are intended to invoke emotional responses rather than rational consideration. And they are almost always misguided.

Anyway, you can now return to your regular programming.

Edited August 6, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[Calm]

17 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Inevitably, this is the reason why discussions about lying aren't particularly useful or helpful. They are almost always polemical (and this thread isn't an exception to this rule). They are intended to invoke emotional responses rather than rational consideration. And they are almost always misguided.

 

I thoroughly agree.  

added:  My personal view measures lying by intent rather than content and I see that intent on a spectrum dependent on the purpose of intentionally providing what one believes is inaccurate information.  I have known cases where inaccurate information was intentionally provided in order to produce a more realistic understanding.  For example, with a few relatives who tended to run paranoid about financial or medical issues for some reason, I and others of my family might leave out some significant details so as to avoid them focusing on the wrong thing or believing something was problematic long term when the likelihood was even if something was serious, it could be resolved pretty quickly.  Is the intent in these cases to mislead or more accurately inform when the details may be inaccurate, but the conclusion intended to be drawn is seen as the truth)?

Of course, in these cases what is seen as “more realistic” can be in the eye of the beholder.  Someone might believe a financial scheme is bulletproof and leave out what others would see as red flags because they see those details as misleading….and they might be right, but more likely end up causing others to lose money on poor investments.  I do think whenever using this kind of reasoning to justify lying by omission or even outright intentional misinformation, we need to be sure we are not doing it to make things easy and err on the side of caution rather than default assuming it’s always best to “protect” others from making the wrong choices because we believe they won’t be able to judge a situation reasonably.  The only common use of this type of lying I would see typically appropriate is the tales of reassurance we may share with children and those who exist in an equivalent state, such as a parent telling a child they will never leave them when every parent knows at the very least they will die at some point in the future.  I know spouses who often didn’t shared medical concerns with their partner (including one not telling the other they were having surgery until the day before) until forced to who justify this by saying they didn’t see any need for the worry and they didn’t see the need for the partner to be involved.  I see that as more avoidance and protecting oneself from having to engage another’s feelings rather than protecting the other, since if something does go wrong, they have robbed their loved one of the opportunity to prepare.

All that to say this subject isn’t as black and white as some would like to portray it, but also isn’t as greyish as others want it to be, imo.

Edited August 7, 2025 by Calm

[CV75]

16 hours ago, Notatbm said:

I don’t think stuff needs to be force fed. Just doing the “feeding” would be sufficient. The rollout of the gospel topics essays was proof enough the church hid, obfuscated, avoided, denied etc tons of stuff. Tons of people were ambushed by the info in that doc dump.
 

I grew up in a home that was all Mormon all the time and much of this was news to me. We had a library in my dad’s study with his own invented Dewey decimal system to track it. Mormon doctrine front and center.
 

Anyway when the essays came out I read all of em. My takeaway after was what the heck is all this? I ran some concerns by my parents ( bishop, stake president, temple workers) and both thought I found a trove of anti Mormon propaganda. I had to show them online where it was. We never discussed it again so I have no idea what they thought of the whole thing. 

LOL – I love your terms for "proof enough" and the perceptions supporting them. There are tons people of all kinds.

Your home doesn’t sound very “all Mormon all the time” to me, if that conveys some level of empathy for your discomfited attitude about it.

OK, those essays were first published over 10 years ago. No other historical work by the Church or study and conversation since then has offered any further information or context for you?

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

LOL – I love your terms for "proof enough" and the perceptions supporting them. There are tons people of all kinds.

Your home doesn’t sound very “all Mormon all the time” to me, if that conveys some level of empathy for your discomfited attitude about it.

OK, those essays were first published over 10 years ago. No other historical work by the Church or study and conversation since then has offered any further information or context for you?

from my post: “I grew up in a home that was all Mormon all the time”

That was 40 + years ago  and is not the home I have now nor will it ever be. 

as for you opinion about my perception of “proof enough,” well too bad. Works for me. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

from my post: “I grew up in a home that was all Mormon all the time”

That was 40 + years ago  and is not the home I have now nor will it ever be. 

as for you opinion about my perception of “proof enough,” well too bad. Works for me. 

Yes, that's the home i was talking about.