White-washed History And Full Disclosure?

[maxrep12]

Wenglund,

thanks for taking the time to create this thread. I haven't had a chance to read all 19 pages, but am enjoying the topic so far.

My estimation is that it is important to acknowledge that reasonable and good individuals can be both active members, as well as members who have legitimate concerns that have changed their level of church participation.

[Lee]

Lee! Heel! Stay!

Each of us has a different take on a variety of issues- we wouldn't be human if we all thought alike. What is milk to you might be meat to someone else. It is not your place or mine to determine who should choke on what.

It's obvious that something that bothers SD doesn't bother you in the slightest. It's very likely that the reverse is true, as well.

Silver Dragonfly (unlike certain notorious posers and frauds) has not behaved like an anti. Yes, she has concerns, but she has not apostatized and is looking for answers.

Attack dogs are the last thing she needs at the moment.

If you really want fresh meat that badly, I suggest you try tearing off Little Ricky's leg. He, at least, is a predator seeking to sow doubt and disaffection.

Not ment as an attack. My apology to all.

[Lee]

Clearly some people think it's a big deal. Who are you to tell other people what is important?

Well good for you.

Clearly some people think it's a big deal. Who are you to tell other people what is important?

No one.

I'm just amazed at that the fact that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy bothers so many people.

I wasn't aware of a white-wash to cover Joseph's polygamy.

[shephard]

I'm just amazed at that the fact that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy bothers so many people.

Well, it is more to it than that I think. He didn't just practice it, but he said God commanded him with an angel and a flaming sword. He ended up marrying girls as young as 14 and even being spiritually sealed to women who were alread married. And perhaps worse of all, when first questioned publicly, he lied about it.

Polygamy was part of ancient culture, which is why it was often tolerated in the Old Testament. But Joseph Smith reintroduced it as though it were a divine precept once lost. There has never been a reasonable exmplanation as to why it was reintroduced. The revelation bit is convenient for believers I suppose, but ultimately makes no sense at all. Still, what purpose did it serve? For something that caused the Church s much aggravation and heartache (Cowdery's jealousy and apostasy) you would think there was a positive side that made it all worth it. But it was short-lived, seemingly without any purpose at all. Didn't God know that a few years down the road the government would preclude the Church from practicing it anymore?

[wenglund]

Wenglund,

thanks for taking the time to create this thread. I haven't had a chance to read all 19 pages, but am enjoying the topic so far.

My estimation is that it is important to acknowledge that reasonable and good individuals can be both active members, as well as members who have legitimate concerns that have changed their level of church participation.

That is a good estimation, and one I hope we all will come to understand and accept--particularly since such acceptance may be requisite to amicably resolving the issue of the Church's and certain members respective choices regarding what has or hasn't been included in LDS missionary, Sunday School, and seminary lessons.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Deborah]

Polygamy was part of ancient culture, which is why it was often tolerated in the Old Testament. But Joseph Smith reintroduced it as though it were a divine precept once lost.

The problem is no one looks at it in the bigger picture and in the eternal purpose. They only look at it in terms of sex and lust and that just plain doesn't fit the times or the people who practiced it, or God's purpose for it.

I think of it in terms of a society in which there is unconditional love. There is no selfishness and no jealousy. Marriage is a covenant for all to attain exaltation and so all those women who otherwise have not found an eternal companion can be sealed to a worthy man and enjoy all the benefits and blessings of Celestial marriage. I think we make a big mistake when we look at plural marriage as just a function of meeting physical needs, when it was really a means as well of eliminating petty jealousies or selfishness. Has no one heard of the stories of the women who gave sister wives who were barren a child? That is total unconditional love and compassion. We do the same thing today but we call it surrogate pregnancy or adoption.

I think it is narrow-mindedness and selfishness and one's own lustful inclinations which paint such a negative picture of plural marriage. Perhaps mistakes were made by those who tried to practice this Law. But that doesn't negate the purpose or power of it in creating Celestial people who are shorn of unselfishness and jealousy and who have learned true service and unconditional love.

[shephard]

The problem is no one looks at it in the bigger picture and in the eternal purpose. They only look at it in terms of sex and lust and that just plain doesn't fit the times or the people who practiced it, or God's purpose for it.

Actually, that isnâ??t the problem at all. I am not referring to sex. I am asking what purpose was served with the reintroduction of polygamy. To say God has a purpose for it begs the question and assumes God was behind it.

I think of it in terms of a society in which there is unconditional love. There is no selfishness and no jealousy. Marriage is a covenant for all to attain exaltation and so all those women who otherwise have not found an eternal companion can be sealed to a worthy man and enjoy all the benefits and blessings of Celestial marriage.

Jesus said there is no marriage in the hereafter, so why would any Christian believe this paradigm had any real merit?

I think we make a big mistake when we look at plural marriage as just a function of meeting physical needs

Again, I am not doing that. I have said nothing about sex being the purpose. Iâ??m asking Mormons what that purpose was. Youâ??re telling me what it isnâ??t, not what it was.

it was really a means as well of eliminating petty jealousies or selfishness.

Youâ??re going to have a hard time selling that one. This is like saying drug dealers are really looking out for your health.

Has no one heard of the stories of the women who gave sister wives who were barren a child? That is total unconditional love and compassion. We do the same thing today but we call it surrogate pregnancy or adoption.

But Joseph Smith did not marry women because they were barren. Why did not marry women who were old and unlikely to find a companion to be sealed to in the eternities. Instead he picked out the cutest women, without regards to how young they were or whether or not they were already married.

I think it is narrow-mindedness and selfishness and one's own lustful inclinations which paint such a negative picture of plural marriage.

I think plural marriage should be judged on a case by case basis. Joseph Smith detailed much about his marriages that left plenty to judge him by. He lied about it, he married young girls and even women already married. What was unselfish and divine about that?

But that doesn't negate the purpose or power of it in creating Celestial people who are shorn of unselfishness and jealousy and who have learned true service and unconditional love.

Thatâ??s the purpose youâ??re offering? That it is powerful in creating unselfish, unjealous and celestial people? Youâ??re serious about this?

Since when is jealously a bad attribute? Jealousy is created through the practice of plural marriage, not monogamy. This is like saying doctors create diseases and viruses cure.

Oh, and according to the Bible, God himself is jealous.

[Olavarria]

The questian I have is: "Why are you joining a Church without doing any independant research"?

In my Singles ward, I'd say 5 out of 7 of the new converts were exposed to anti. One of them watched the Bible vs BoM movie and spent 6 hours at the Ex-Mormons 4 Jesus Center in Orange. Another recent convert watched the Jesus vs Joseph movie, spent some time at the Ex-Mormons 4 Jesus Center in Orange and even provided me a 5 page list of questians ranging from archeology, polygamy to priesthood bans.

Why did they end up getting baptized? The Holy Ghost tols them to and they humbly followed.

Anti is satanically inspired garbage and cant stand up to the whole truth.

It ain't the Churches job to train PHD's in American Religious History. We teach the essentials.

Correction, the real number is actually 4 out of 7: Tony,Ashley,Ashley(was baptized in a family ward but came to oue singles ward after beinga member for only a month, she was tought the New member discussions in our ward) and Kaylie

[Dale]

I am a member of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now called Community of Christ). Prior to my RLDS baptism and while LDS I was exposed to a lot of Anti-Restoration stuff. Rather than scaring me away from Book of Mormon belief it kept me open to it. Certainly I have a few significant differences with my LDS friends, but I still share beliefs in common with them. Basically all being exposed to Anti-Restoration trivia did was to help me form a few of my opinions. But it kept me out of Evangelicalism as I developed more differences with them.

I have copies of Bible vs. the Book of Mormon, and Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith book/DVD. I am re-reading Floyd Mcelveen's book. I think the guy has a false assurance of salvation. (Matthew 7:21-23) His type's of concerns about my history are not my own.

[sunstoned]

The problem is no one looks at it in the bigger picture and in the eternal purpose. They only look at it in terms of sex and lust and that just plain doesn't fit the times or the people who practiced it, or God's purpose for it.

I think of it in terms of a society in which there is unconditional love. There is no selfishness and no jealousy. Marriage is a covenant for all to attain exaltation and so all those women who otherwise have not found an eternal companion can be sealed to a worthy man and enjoy all the benefits and blessings of Celestial marriage. I think we make a big mistake when we look at plural marriage as just a function of meeting physical needs, when it was really a means as well of eliminating petty jealousies or selfishness. Has no one heard of the stories of the women who gave sister wives who were barren a child? That is total unconditional love and compassion. We do the same thing today but we call it surrogate pregnancy or adoption.

I think it is narrow-mindedness and selfishness and one's own lustful inclinations which paint such a negative picture of plural marriage. Perhaps mistakes were made by those who tried to practice this Law. But that doesn't negate the purpose or power of it in creating Celestial people who are shorn of unselfishness and jealousy and who have learned true service and unconditional love.

While this view might be easer to accept, the reality is that polygamy, as practiced by the early leaders had nothing to do with caring for widows or women who lacked eternal companions. JS â??marriedâ? other menâ??s wives. He took teen-agers, as did Brigham Young. I have a really hard time finding any divine motives in these types of behaviors.

[selek]

I have a really hard time finding any divine motives in these types of behaviors.

We could say much the same about your tenure here.

And for all your posturing, your opinion does not dictate reality. Though I cheerfully admit there were exceptions to the rule, your statement, "While this view might be easer to accept, the reality is that polygamy, as practiced by the early leaders had nothing to do with caring for widows or women who lacked eternal companions." is not a defensible one.

It is merely the point at which you got tired of thinking and declared the subject closed.

Unfortunately, you are neither God nor the weighty center of the universe, and as a result, your conclusions are not binding upon the rest of us, nor do they necessarily reflect "the way things really are."

[John Williams]

We could say much the same about your tenure here.

And for all your posturing, your opinion does not dictate reality. Though I cheerfully admit there were exceptions to the rule, your statement, "While this view might be easer to accept, the reality is that polygamy, as practiced by the early leaders had nothing to do with caring for widows or women who lacked eternal companions." is not a defensible one.

It is merely the point at which you got tired of thinking and declared the subject closed.

Unfortunately, you are neither God nor the weighty center of the universe, and as a result, your conclusions are not binding upon the rest of us, nor do they necessarily reflect "the way things really are."

I suppose it matters little in the end what you or I think. Joseph's motivations are his alone, and given that he's not been on the planet for 160 years, we're unlikely to find out what he intended. All we have to go on are the written records of what happened, and it's unsurprising that we all interpret the same events differently. Even believers differ from each other, and critics don't necessarily see eye to eye.

Nobody's conclusions are binding, thankfully, so it's best to accept that we simply differ, sometimes passionately. So what?

[selek]

I suppose it matters little in the end what you or I think. Joseph's motivations are his alone, and given that he's not been on the planet for 160 years, we're unlikely to find out what he intended. All we have to go on are the written records of what happened, and it's unsurprising that we all interpret the same events differently. Even believers differ from each other, and critics don't necessarily see eye to eye.

Nobody's conclusions are binding, thankfully, so it's best to accept that we simply differ, sometimes passionately. So what?

I agree whole-heartedly. Given the absense of documentation and the spotty and biased nature of what little has survived, it is only reasonable to assume there will be different interpretations of the material colored largerly by our own world views.

On the other hand, smug assertions of correctness and superiority such as those espoused by "stoned", particularly when used to denigrate a great and revered leader such as Joseph Smith, offend me.

I do not care that "stoned" has his/her/their own opinion- I simply object to Jovian pontifical pronouncements that cannot stand the light of scrutiny or require the presence of a laugh track.

[Deborah]

Nobody's conclusions are binding, thankfully, so it's best to accept that we simply differ, sometimes passionately. So what?

But that is the point, so why is it worthy to ascribe all kinds of scurrilous and deceitful motives to a man one never knew, especially when those who did know him remained faithful to his teachings to the point of giving up all they had and suffering privation and even loss of life to follow those teachings. This is the question I ask myself: do I listen to all the speculation about Joseph's character and motivations or do I look at the actions of those who actually associated with him and knew him personally? Even many of those who left the church came back and even those who didn't were not able to deny the marvelous events they had witnessed.

[John Williams]

But that is the point, so why is it worthy to ascribe all kinds of scurrilous and deceitful motives to a man one never knew, especially when those who did know him remained faithful to his teachings to the point of giving up all they had and suffering privation and even loss of life to follow those teachings. This is the question I ask myself: do I listen to all the speculation about Joseph's character and motivations or do I look at the actions of those who actually associated with him and knew him personally? Even many of those who left the church came back and even those who didn't were not able to deny the marvelous events they had witnessed.

I would ask the same question: why is it worthy to ascribe all kinds of good and honorably motives to a man one never knew? People who knew him well often had opposite opinions of him.

We all look at the same evidence. It's not somehow dishonorable to reach very different conclusions, is it? I suspect that my conclusions are quite incompatible with yours. Again, so what?

[selek]

I would ask the same question: why is it worthy to ascribe all kinds of good and honorably motives to a man one never knew? People who knew him well often had opposite opinions of him.

We all look at the same evidence. It's not somehow dishonorable to reach very different conclusions, is it? I suspect that my conclusions are quite incompatible with yours. Again, so what?

JW, it would seem to me that the difference is actually rather profound.

Those who insist on denigrating Joseph Smith (especially here) have a motive (and usually a rather selfish one) for doing so.

They are not generally content to agree to disagree, but are here specifically to attack and destroy another persons faith not only in Joseph, but in the Savior whom he served.

In life and in law, the distinction between aggressor and victim is crucial. Those of us who have a testimony of the Church and the Restoration are not the aggressors. We are not the ones attempting to undermine another person's faith.

I beleive it can be fairly stated that the LDS offer to share what they know. It is the other side which demands we accept their interpretations. The LDS side of the equation (by and large) is much more inclined to "live and let live". We do not dedicate our ministry, our time, or our life's blood to tearing down other churchs or other faiths.

That difference is absolutely stark and binding.

[Teancum]

The problem is no one looks at it in the bigger picture and in the eternal purpose. They only look at it in terms of sex and lust and that just plain doesn't fit the times or the people who practiced it, or God's purpose for it.

I think of it in terms of a society in which there is unconditional love. There is no selfishness and no jealousy. Marriage is a covenant for all to attain exaltation and so all those women who otherwise have not found an eternal companion can be sealed to a worthy man and enjoy all the benefits and blessings of Celestial marriage. I think we make a big mistake when we look at plural marriage as just a function of meeting physical needs, when it was really a means as well of eliminating petty jealousies or selfishness. Has no one heard of the stories of the women who gave sister wives who were barren a child? That is total unconditional love and compassion. We do the same thing today but we call it surrogate pregnancy or adoption.

I think it is narrow-mindedness and selfishness and one's own lustful inclinations which paint such a negative picture of plural marriage. Perhaps mistakes were made by those who tried to practice this Law. But that doesn't negate the purpose or power of it in creating Celestial people who are shorn of unselfishness and jealousy and who have learned true service and unconditional love.

If the women needed a good church member to provide them a temple marriage then what about polyandrous marriages that the women already had a good priesthood hubby?

And why not have plural marriage today. There are a lot of active single women in the Church that remain that way due to lack of men that can take them to the temple.

[Teancum]

We could say much the same about your tenure here.

And for all your posturing, your opinion does not dictate reality. Though I cheerfully admit there were exceptions to the rule, your statement, "While this view might be easer to accept, the reality is that polygamy, as practiced by the early leaders had nothing to do with caring for widows or women who lacked eternal companions." is not a defensible one.

It is merely the point at which you got tired of thinking and declared the subject closed.

Unfortunately, you are neither God nor the weighty center of the universe, and as a result, your conclusions are not binding upon the rest of us, nor do they necessarily reflect "the way things really are."

Is this not an personal attack?

I thought the mods frowned on that.

[Daniel Peterson]

I would ask the same question: why is it worthy to ascribe all kinds of good and honorably motives to a man one never knew? People who knew him well often had opposite opinions of him.

An excellent compilation of materials on this topic (with an accompanying CD that contains far more than the book itself could contain) is Mark McConkie's Remembering Joseph: Personal Recollections of Those Who Knew the Prophet Joseph Smith.

I don't believe it to be true -- not even close -- that, among those who "knew him well," there was anything remotely like an even division of opinions between those who thought Joseph good and those who thought him evil.

[Teancum]

An excellent compilation of materials on this topic (with an accompanying CD that contains far more than the book itself could contain) is Mark McConkie's Remembering Joseph: Personal Recollections of Those Who Knew the Prophet Joseph Smith.

I don't believe it to be true -- not even close -- that, among those who "knew him well," there was anything remotely like an even division of opinions between those who thought Joseph good and those who thought him evil.

I think it was a mixed bag. Certainly many of Joseph's closest followers eventually turned against him. William Law, Mclellin, David Whitmer, other Whitmenrs, the many of the Johnson family and even Sydney Rigdon.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think it was a mixed bag. Certainly many of Joseph's closest followers eventually turned against him. William Law, Mclellin, David Whitmer, other Whitmenrs, the many of the Johnson family and even Sydney Rigdon.

As I say, I don't think the division of opinion approached parity.

And, of course, people like William McClellin, David Whitmer, the other Whitmers, Sidney Rigdon, etc., continued for the duration of their lives, very vocally and publicly, to affirm Joseph Smith's calling as a prophet.

[John Williams]

An excellent compilation of materials on this topic (with an accompanying CD that contains far more than the book itself could contain) is Mark McConkie's Remembering Joseph: Personal Recollections of Those Who Knew the Prophet Joseph Smith.

I've read that book.

I don't believe it to be true -- not even close -- that, among those who "knew him well," there was anything remotely like an even division of opinions between those who thought Joseph good and those who thought him evil.

Never suggested there was. One need not think him "evil" to not believe he was a prophet of God.

[Teancum]

As I say, I don't think the division of opinion approached parity.

And, of course, people like William McClellin, David Whitmer, the other Whitmers, Sidney Rigdon, etc., continued for the duration of their lives, very vocally and publicly, to affirm Joseph Smith's calling as a prophet.

I did not know McClellin continued to believe. I though Whitmer and Rigdon believed he was a fallen prophet. We know Law certainly did.

And I agree. Those who left him were less them those that stuck with him but there were still a large number of close defectors.

[Daniel Peterson]

Never suggested there was. One need not think him "evil" to not believe he was a prophet of God.

I was responding to this: "I would ask the same question: why is it worthy to ascribe all kinds of good and honorably motives to a man one never knew? People who knew him well often had opposite opinions of him."

I believe you posted that.

I was responding to the idea of people who knew him well ascribing bad and dishonorable motives to him.

[Daniel Peterson]

I did not know McClellin continued to believe.

He remained close to the Whitmers and continued to affirm his belief in the Book of Mormon.

I though Whitmer and Rigdon believed he was a fallen prophet.

That was certainly David Whitmer's position. He strongly disagreed with the theological and ecclesiological development of Mormonism after roughly 1837. But he always expressly and vocally declared his belief that Joseph was a genuine prophet.