When Do You Believe Latter Day Polygamy Began?

[Zakuska]

Easy Charity... God simple put up with it.

Even though he Gave the law which governed it, And made it punishable by death to not fufill the law of the leverite.

[Gillebre]

Free Agent,

What I'm saying is go ahead and be honest and don't hide anything about the Church - but at the same time, forget the dorks who messed up and proclaim the truth anyway.

We have a responsiblity to share the truth we know and love, but at the same time, make sure we don't bring people farther from their Father in Heaven.

[Free Agent]

Kilgore - Trout

If you see my earlier post to Deborah regarding President Hinckley you'll see I don't fault him for not sharing our entire history on national tv, but when a representative of the Church, President Hinckley or anyone else is on national tv, I would expect honest answers. For so many of us here, it all comes down to what our definition of certain words are, in this case, the definition of the word honesty. Additionally, part of our 3 fold mission is to Proclaim the Gospel. Not just parts of the gospel, the GOSPEL. Last I checked, polygamy is still in D&C.

Free Agent

[Bernard Gui]

Nice try Deborah:-) I've been to services too many times with my wife to think Jesus is more a focus of topic at your church than Joseph and Brigham are:-)

Horse puckey.

Bernard.

[Free Agent]

Gillebre -

Who are the dorks that messed up? You're not insinuating Joseph Smith or the Prophet are you?

Free Agent

[Neighbor]

Neighbor,

Don't know why you find it surprising that we still talk about polygamy in our church. Why? Because its uncomfortable? It's true, it happened. So there are splinter groups that still practice it. They aren't a part of the Mormon Church, I know that. We don't practice it today. But I'm wondering why you think it can't be true or a commandment of God. It's in the D & C, still practiced in the temples today (sealings to multiple women). I have never said I was against polygamy, just the fact that we don't share the whole truth of it.

Gillebre

First, I'm sure you support the latest revelation of marriage being one man and one woman.

Is that a true revelation of God?

Second, Jesus taught from the beginning that it was one man and one woman, till death parts them. That is consistant throughout the Bible.

Third, God commanded the kings of Israel to have but one wife - they disobeyed God and it destroyed the nation. Why do you think the precepts and commandments and economy of God changed when all the prophets of the bible, including Balaam who was pagan, affirm the nature of the word of God as everlasting?, that He doesn't say something is a commandment one day and then change it fifty years later:-)

I can go on, but suffice it to point out that I Enoch and Jesus affirm there is no marriage in heaven, nor among the angels. So if you believe Adam was an angel with many wives before he came here, then you just are not knowledgeable about the Scriptures as were the Sadusees.

[Neighbor]

Horse puckey.

Bernard.

I think it's horse puckey too!:-) It should be about no one but Jesus Christ.

[kilgore_trout]

Kilgore - Trout

If you see my earlier post to Deborah regarding President Hinckley you'll see I don't fault him for not sharing our entire history on national tv, but when a representative of the Church, President Hinckley or anyone else is on national tv, I would expect honest answers. For so many of us here, it all comes down to what our definition of certain words are, in this case, the definition of the word honesty. Additionally, part of our 3 fold mission is to Proclaim the Gospel. Not just parts of the gospel, the GOSPEL. Last I checked, polygamy is still in D&C.

Free Agent

How much history and doctrine must be presented by the church before you would consider an answer truthful? If I quote one verse out of Section 132, must I quote the entire section? If someone were to ask if the church practices polygamy, then I would say "no". That is a good honest answer. What needs to be elaborated?

Why must the church explain it's history in minute detail in perpetuity? I can understand that your feelings were hurt when someone told you that what you said was wrong. That, however, does not mean that you were wrong because the church lied to you.

[Connolly]

When did the church begin to move west?

Correctly answer this question and you will answer the first question.

[Free Agent]

Kilgore Trout

My feelings weren't hurt because I shared the information wrongly with someone. I didn't mean to give that impression. However, my feelings have been hurt, for lack of better words. I don't want to get into it; I think its pretty obvious. I thought one way for several years about polygamy and had the way that I felt validated through many lessons, talks, etc. Then I find out otherwise, and it is something I can't quite come to terms with. When people have questioned me in the past about the church and polygamy, the questioning usually doesn't stop at "do you guys practice polygamy?" but evolves into others like why and when and I feel obligated to share those particulars.

Connolly -

Answer me this question - when we talk about the church moving west, what do you believe the majority of members of the church take that to mean

a) East coast westward

Missouri/Nauvoo to the Great Salt Lake

I think 9 out of 10 would choose b, IMO

Free Agent

[kilgore_trout]

Kilgore Trout

My feelings weren't hurt because I shared the information wrongly with someone. I didn't mean to give that impression. However, my feelings have been hurt, for lack of better words. I don't want to get into it; I think its pretty obvious. I thought one way for several years about polygamy and had the way that I felt validated through many lessons, talks, etc. Then I find out otherwise, and it is something I can't quite come to terms with. When people have questioned me in the past about the church and polygamy, the questioning usually doesn't stop at "do you guys practice polygamy?" but evolves into others like why and when and I feel obligated to share those particulars.

I can easily see how several points of view may be validated from church lessons and talks, mostly because these sources are usually very general and vague. The historical record is not fact as we may think. It is made up of recollections, story telling and a liberal amount of interpretation. The history of the church as told by generations of Mormons is much the same as the stories told about the founding of the country. Histories such as these are idealized and used promote faith. Mormon histories promote faith in the religion. American histories promote faith in the country.

The other problem is that history is a constantly moving target. It is forever being re-written and re-interpreted. The church doesn't present it's teachings that way. Which version of the history should they present? Brodie? Bushman? B.H. Roberts?

If you look at the current curriculum, the history of the prophets is only used as far as some story or event highlights a gospel principle. The core of these manuals is not to teach historical events.

[Gillebre]

What I refer to FA (I'm making a generalization of those who inadvertently confuse ppl on doctrine), are people (whoever they are, whatever sources you use) who one way or another, for whatever reason, fail to give a complete telling of the topic.

That may be missionaries giving someone the discussions, or some hokey website that thinks they have the facts.

I would clarify my statement, I don't refer to anyone in particular.

[Irondukesteve]

It either happened in 1831 onwards. And if it didnt then:

1) Oliver Cowdery was right and Joseph committed adultery

2) The multiple sources saying Joseph encouraged the polygamous marrying of native americans in 1831 are all wrong.(unlikely)

[moriancamur]

Thankyou for your honest and open question Free Agent, and you too ironduke for your honest answer.

Many of the answers show lack of genuine thought, just following the line. Its as though individual thought and responsibility is thrown away in favour of following a prophet regardless of whether it is contrary to Gods will. Its offensive to Free Agent to think he/she will not find this problematic. The present church line on polygamy is a lie, it is unequivocably proven in history and in church doctrine. Its a spin. Should be better than that. At least BY said what he thought regardless of consequence.

I didn't know this stuff till I found it out from less than savoury sources. It would have been better to have learned it from the church in a more balanced way. THe church omits controversy from the lessons. Why would I go and search for facts elsewhere when I believe the church will tell the truth? I live in England, no one knows this stuff, there's virtually no media interest in it as you probably have. So there is no fair critisism of anyone for not knowing.

In this case I can understand Hinckleys response however. The practice was secretly performed among a select few until the move west. It was only in 1843 that it was put before the church and it was not generally practised openly until the move West. I therefore believe the answer to be technically honest in this case.

The question Free Agent puts forward is nevertheless correct in sentiment. The church as a whole, including the leaders have not been open and honest in dealing with the problematic areas of polygamy. This I suggest is becomming more urgent as the internet reveals those very facts in a far worse context to unwary mormons and investigators, destroying faith without any sensible honest support. Other mormons with their head in the sand just put it down to classic mormon answers such as "are you worthy"? etc. How about "How do you respond to the question are you honest when your churcg lies about its past and you believe it"?

[Lachoneus]

Don't know why you find it surprising that we still talk about polygamy in our church. Why? Because its uncomfortable? It's true, it happened. So there are splinter groups that still practice it. They aren't a part of the Mormon Church, I know that. We don't practice it today. But I'm wondering why you think it can't be true or a commandment of God. It's in the D & C, still practiced in the temples today (sealings to multiple women). I have never said I was against polygamy, just the fact that we don't share the whole truth of it.

For 26 years I was the ultimate member missionary. I cannot be that now and not feel compelled to share the whole truth if I am asked certain questions by either investigators or fellow members. I won't gloss over inconvenient issues because it may drive someone away. That compromises my integrity.

Just my thoughts,

You cannot share what you do not have.

[Lachoneus]

But why is he saying polygamy started when "our people went west".

He isn't saying that.

Larry King: Now the big story raging in Utah -- before we get back to morals and morals, is -- the big story, if you don't know it, is polygamy in Utah; there's been major charges. The governor, Mike Leavitt, says that there are legal reasons why the state of Utah has not prosecuted alleged polygamists. Leavitt said plural marriage may be protected by the First Amendment. He is the great-great-grandson -- is the governor -- of a polygamist. First tell me about the church and polygamy. When it started it allowed it?

Gordon B. Hinckley: When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale.

Notice that President Hinckley is responding to the question "When it allowed it?" He clearly uses the word "permitted" in responding to King's question about when was it "allowed." Polygamy was not allowed/permitted among the general membership of the church until after it was announced in 1852.

Polygamy was never practiced publicly by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) prior to 1852, when Brigham Young, the second Prophet and President of the Mormon Church, directed Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt to publicly state the practice and the reasons for it.

See here.

Like I said in my prior post, you can't share what you do not have. It is important to remember that just because we learn one thing new about a topic does not mean we have a complete understanding of the topic.

edited for spelling

[It occurs to me . . .]

When on a show like Larry King, it is better to answer in short, easy to digest sound bites.

Yes, and it's even better if those short sound bites happen to be true. That's always a plus.

When did the church begin to move west?

Correctly answer this question and you will answer the first question.

That's quite an interesting tactic to use in order to justify his comments. By this definition, are you implying that they began to practice polygamy the minute they left New York?

The other problem is that history is a constantly moving target. It is forever being re-written and re-interpreted. The church doesn't present it's teachings that way. Which version of the history should they present? Brodie? Bushman? B.H. Roberts?

If you look at the current curriculum, the history of the prophets is only used as far as some story or event highlights a gospel principle. The core of these manuals is not to teach historical events.

Whichever of these three historians they use, they would still agree on the fact that polygamy was practiced in Nauvoo. Why doesn't President Hinckley's interview meet these basic accepted facts of church history?

[It occurs to me . . .]

He isn't saying that.

Notice that President Hinckley is responding to the question "When it allowed it?" He clearly uses the word "permitted" in responding to King's question about when was it "allowed." Polygamy was not allowed/permitted among the general membership of the church until after it was announced in 1852. See here.

Like I said in my prior post, you can't share what you do not have. It is important to remember that just because we learn one thing new about a topic does not mean we have a complete understanding of the topic.

edited for spelling

Come on! The exact same quote could be used to explain polygamy in Nauvoo. "they permitted it on a restricted scale. " No amount of twisting on your part is going to change these facts. Polygamy was permitted on a restricted scale in Nauvoo, and it was permitted on a restricted scale in Utah, The scale was obvioulsy a lot wider in Utah, but it was never "open to the general membership" as far as anyone who wanted to could do it. There always had to be permission given by higher authority.

I'm amazed at how far members are willing to twist and turn in order to justify these statements. Wouldn't it be easier just to say that, yes he mispoke at that time?

[kilgore_trout]

Come on! The exact same quote could be used to explain polygamy in Nauvoo. "they permitted it on a restricted scale. " No amount of twisting on your part is going to change these facts. Polygamy was permitted on a restricted scale in Nauvoo, and it was permitted on a restricted scale in Utah, The scale was obvioulsy a lot wider in Utah, but it was never "open to the general membership" as far as anyone who wanted to could do it. There always had to be permission given by higher authority.

I'm amazed at how far members are willing to twist and turn in order to justify these statements. Wouldn't it be easier just to say that, yes he mispoke at that time?

Now you're speaking of the things President Hinckley "could" have said. The sound bite about practicing polygamy after moving out west is true and I believe ample evidence for that statement has been provided in the previous posts. We're starting to go in a circle here.

The church's current stance on polygamy is in no way a lie. Here it is:

President Gordon B. Hinckley stated the following about polygamy in the Church's October 1998 general conference:

â??I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law. They know they are in violation of the law. They are subject to its penalties. The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter.

"If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of thelaw of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, 'We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law' (Articles of Faith 1:12).â?

According to your thinking, every statement about polygamy should be prefaced with a time line and history lesson. Why should we continually make statements about doctrines we no longer practice?

See more church statements here:

LDS News Room

[charity]

This whole discussion is so sad. So how many people are going to end up at the judgement with some kind of story like this: "I would have been a valiant Saint. I would have followed all the commandments. I would have read the thousands of words of counsel and instruction You gave me in the scriptures, and in General Conference talks, and in talks and instructions by local leaders. And I would have prayed and let You give me personal words and ideas to follow. But you see, President Hinckley said these 12 words on a TV show, and I just figured I couldn't follow Your commandments anymore after that. "

Esau lost his inheritance because of a bowl of breakfast mush. Thomas B. Marsh lost his inheritance because of a cup of cream. And how many are going to lose their inheritances because of 12 words on a TV show?

[Deborah]

Nice try Deborah:-) I've been to services too many times with my wife to think Jesus is more a focus of topic at your church than Joseph and Brigham are:-)

And I'll wager I've been to a lot more than you. The emphasis is always on Jesus Christ. Even lessons from the prophets focus on the principles Christ taught. I think people hear what they want to hear and filter out the rest.

[It occurs to me . . .]

The sound bite about practicing polygamy after moving out west is true

No, It's not. No matter how bad you wish it were true, simply saying it is, doesn't make it so.

Polygamy started and was permitted in Nauvoo!

The church's current stance on polygamy is in no way a lie. Here it is:

Since this thread is not about the church's current stance, I don't see how this pertains to the discussion.

[It occurs to me . . .]

This whole discussion is so sad. . . . .

how many are going to lose their inheritances because of 12 words on a TV show?

I would suspect none. I don't think anyone here is implying that they are losing their inheritance or their testimonies over this.

[Deborah]

I have had those moments as well where something I thought was a certain way wasn't. I did not blame "The Church" for not teaching correctly, but rather decided people who were telling me certain things were misinformed and I needed to find out what was true. It led me to my own study and prayer.

I really don't understand this whiny attitude some have, especially when it comes to polygamy, which had to be handled carefully when it was practiced because of the persecution. Why on earth would we treat it even less carefully today when it is still such a hot topic, especially when it isn't even a part of our current practice. To explain the practice of plurality of wives fully you must have an understanding of eternal marriage and exaltation. To give a mere history of the practice does not do it justice and does not explain why in certain instances it was allowed. Sunday church services or missionary discussions are NOT the appropriate time or place to get into a history of something that is no longer practiced. Those forums are to teach principles of the gospel as taught by Christ and help people gain a testimony. There are other forums, including classes at BYU and Institute, where the history can be discussed in greater detail.

D&C 132 is there for all to read. If "The Church" wanted to hide polygamy they would edit that section. Furthermore much of the history, in particular as it pertains to Joseph Smith, is vague and inaccurate. So Joseph practiced polygamy. I frankly thought this was common knowledge when I became a member. I am truly surprised at the amount of ingnorance some members of the church have but then I don't blame it on the church and neither should they.

[Neighbor]

I have had those moments as well where something I thought was a certain way wasn't. I did not blame "The Church" for not teaching correctly, but rather decided people who were telling me certain things were misinformed and I needed to find out what was true. It led me to my own study and prayer.

I really don't understand this whiny attitude some have, especially when it comes to polygamy, which had to be handled carefully when it was practiced because of the persecution. Why on earth would we treat it even less carefully today when it is still such a hot topic, especially when it isn't even a part of our current practice. To explain the practice of plurality of wives fully you must have an understanding of eternal marriage and exaltation. To give a mere history of the practice does not do it justice and does not explain why in certain instances it was allowed. Sunday church services or missionary discussions are NOT the appropriate time or place to get into a history of something that is no longer practiced. Those forums are to teach principles of the gospel as taught by Christ and help people gain a testimony. There are other forums, including classes at BYU and Institute, where the history can be discussed in greater detail.

D&C 132 is there for all to read. If "The Church" wanted to hide polygamy they would edit that section. Furthermore much of the history, in particular as it pertains to Joseph Smith, is vague and inaccurate. So Joseph practiced polygamy. I frankly thought this was common knowledge when I became a member. I am truly surprised at the amount of ingnorance some members of the church have but then I don't blame it on the church and neither should they.

So how many have read the accounts of the families ruined by polygamy? How many have looked into the accounts of "The lost boys"? How many have looked into the abuse of women in polygamy? Rotten, rotten, rotten, and if it were to be accepted as doctrine today it would lead to more rottenness than before because people are more wicked today.