Priesthood Manual 2008 Joseph Smith

[Daniel Peterson]

"When members lack answers, they should learn what Church leaders and reputable scholars have said and written. There is probably no charge against the Church that has not been adequately refuted by someone. When members canâ??t find answers on their own, they can turn to home and visiting teachers, quorum leaders, bishops, and stake presidents. If necessary, stake presidents can take questions to area presidencies or other authorities."

January 1995 Ensign, "I have a question" section, answered by Gilbert W. Scharffs, instructor and executive assistant, Salt Lake University Institute of Religion and publsihed by the Church.

I can't resist this one.

The quotation from Brother Scharffs certainly demonstrates mms's contention that bishops have the authority to declare The Position of the Church -- as do, if one reads the quotation the way mms plainly desires that we read it, stake presidents and area presidencies . . . and quorum leaders (e.g., second counselors in elders quorum presidencies, as well as elders quorum secretaries). And home teachers. And visiting teachers. Which means that essentially any active adult member of the Church has the authority to declare The Position of the Church. (And Brother Scharffs may even have intended, by "quorum leaders," to include second counselors in deacons quorum presidencies. Who knows? He didn't explicitly say otherwise.)

By demonstrating far more, when read as he wants us to read it, than mms actually wanted it to demonstrate, the quotation shows that it is transparently not supposed to be read as he wants us to read it.

But mms didn't highlight this portion of his quotation: ""When members lack answers, they should learn what Church leaders and reputable scholars have said and written."

To sum up: On historical questions, it's good to read historians. The Church has no official position on the overwhelming majority of historical issues. Bishops don't declare official Church positions on their own in any event. Bishops speak to local issues. Early nineteenth-century polygamy isn't a local issue for any living bishop, or for any living bishop's grandfather. Pastoral counsel given by a bishop to an individual ward member is not an Official Church Position. Ordination as a bishop does not confer knowledge of early nineteenth-century history.

[juliann]

Thank you very much for your interest Daniel. That's very comforting.

Do you feel that I should just stick to the channels of going through the Bishop for right now? I'm just trying to patiently wait for his response and see if I can get through all this in one piece.

He just said to contact him. Why aren't you even trying to get the information you claim to want?

[selek]

Patience is not my strong point, that's true. Thanks for stepping in, Selek. At least you remember me from the previous thread and know what I'm talking about.

I had not heard of MormonWiki, didn't even know there was such a thing. I do believe that he is interested in helping me and finding the answers with me. I just thought I would share my on-going adventure with those who knew me from the other thread. I've tried directing people there to read up on my background, but I guess it requires some patience to go through 19 pages to find where I came in.

I'm working through this the best way I can. Thanks for your prayers and support, Selek.

You're quite welcome.

In this thread, at least, you walked into a mine-field where tempers were already flaring.

Hope you brought your Kevlar !

The site I mentioned is carefully crafted to deceive- look as though it is Church based and supported (more of those ravening wolves we keep hearing about)- and that's probably what twigged your Bishop's antenna.

While personal threads are highly discouraged, you might consider starting a thread dedicated to this topic: One member's search for the truth through prayer, her priesthood leaders, and the imperfect members of the FAIR board.

I will point out one thing that caught my eye rather forcefully. You stated that you'd been in Primary callings for some time, which likely accounted for your ignorance (a fancy word for not knowing ) about certain topics.

I've seen this before in other wards- perhaps it's time you ask to be released from that calling so you can concentrate more fully on your own growth. In those other instances, the sisters in question were growing isolated from the ward and the fellowship of thier sisters-in-Christ.

Something else to consider, I would guess.

Hang in there, you're doing fine.

[Daniel Peterson]

Do you feel that I should just stick to the channels of going through the Bishop for right now? I'm just trying to patiently wait for his response and see if I can get through all this in one piece.

Candidly, I haven't read carefully through your summation of his counsel to you. I don't want to go against anything he's advised you, but I personally would think that there is nothing wrong with reading about the historical matters that trouble you or with contacting the "reputable scholars" that mms's source mentioned for whatever help they can give to you.

I myself would advise you to avoid anti-Mormon propaganda. There are extremely competent and faithful Latter-day Saint historians who have given decades of attention to these issues.

[Momus]

Patience is not my strong point, that's true. Thanks for stepping in, Selek. At least you remember me from the previous thread and know what I'm talking about.

I had not heard of MormonWiki, didn't even know there was such a thing. I do believe that he is interested in helping me and finding the answers with me. I just thought I would share my on-going adventure with those who knew me from the other thread. I've tried directing people there to read up on my background, but I guess it requires some patience to go through 19 pages to find where I came in.

I'm working through this the best way I can. Thanks for your prayers and support, Selek.

http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page <---is the LDS site sponsored by the More Good Foundation. The .org is an anti site.

[selek]

http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page <---is the LDS site sponsored by the More Good Foundation. The .org is an anti site.

Thanks for the correction Mom(us) !

[Silver Dragonfly]

One more time....you are violating board policy. When you make things personal the discussion will get personal. You are complaining and I don't think it benefits you to pretend you are not.

Ok, I gotcha, Juliann. I was going on and on about a personal quest for truth and not talking about the topic at hand. I understand now. Sorry if I violated the rules by sharing my experience.

I really should have revived the other thread instead of starting up here. That probably would have helped quell the confusion by my posts.

I was not aware that going to the Bishop is only necessary after being unable to find the answers on my own. I went to him to try to discuss where I could get my answers, because I had been warned about anti-Mormon material out on the Internet and I was afraid to stumble across more things than I can handle. I went to him to get personal instruction on how to go about my search while maintaining my faith, and that is something I needed guidance in. I didn't know what resources to try until I asked on the board, and again, I was advised by many people to seek out the guidance of my Bishop. You are the only one who seems to think this was unfair of me to do this to him. So, if he is not there to help guide and direct us, and he is overwhelmed with stuff we need to take care of ourselves, why was the overwhelming advice on the other thread to go to the Bishop with my concerns? If I had taken your advice and skipped seeing the Bishop in an attempt to discover my own answers, wouldn't that have potentially led me to places I didn't want to go? Who should I trust to reveal to me the course I should take, if not the Bishop of the ward?

I feel that you are among those who would call me simple-minded, or accuse me of being too lazy to research on my own before coming to the Bishop with my tiny little problems that I could have solved all by myself if I would have just put more effort into it. Is that how you see everyone who visits the Bishop? Is there any just reason for wanting to seek a Bishop's counsel in your eyes? And what would those reasons be?

Once again, I do not understand why it is upsetting to you that people like me would seek to find our answers from within the Church like we are counseled to do. And many people do not believe it is wise to read books not published by trusted sources, or go surfing the Internet gobbling it all up, come what may. Besides, if the Church is telling it like it is, then I have a right to ask where to go to get the information, and I should be able to ask my Bishop about it since he is in charge of the ward. What seems petty and insignificant to you might be a great big deal to someone else. It's not really up to you to decide when it's proper to visit your Bishop and when you should deal with it on your own, and since you have never been a Bishop, I doubt you can fully understand what its like to have that mantle of responsibility, would you?

My Bishop is a pretty reasonable guy, and I feel it is proper to talk to him when there are questions regarding Church doctrine. And I wouldn't have met guys like Daniel Peterson, selek or pahoran if it hadn't been for this adventure, so I'm glad for that. But don't get mad at me just because my path of learning and discovery is different from what you would do.

And I do too believe this is well within the topic, since the whole controversy started with the new 2008 priesthood manual only briefly mentioning polygamy as it relates to Joseph Smith, and whether or not that was enough of a positive step forward for the Church in relating more information to us regarding his life and teachings. Is it still white-washed? Well, from reading the many responses, I guess it depends on whether it is viewed as a history manual or a religious teaching manual. I think it's both, but not all inclusive.

As to whether it is important that the Church reveal everything about Joseph Smith? I think in due time they will eventually. Whether it happens all at once or not is anybody's guess, but in order to avoid more situations like the one I am experiencing, it might be advisable to open the doors a bit wider. Sorry I had to waste too much time talking about myself in order to make that thought clear...

[Douglas Hunter]

I myself would advise you to avoid anti-Mormon propaganda. There are extremely competent and faithful Latter-day Saint historians who have given decades of attention to these issues.

Avoid anit-stuff to be sure but you don't need to limit yourself to Mormon historians either. If I had questions such as yours I would go to historians with good reputations who do not have a "dog in the fight" so to speak. History as you know is a matter of context so reading a variety of good historians from within and without the Church could be an interesting exercise.

[Silver Dragonfly]

http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page <---is the LDS site sponsored by the More Good Foundation. The .org is an anti site.

Thank you for the link. I didn't know that there was an anti site with the same name. That could have been bad.

[Silver Dragonfly]

You're quite welcome.

In this thread, at least, you walked into a mine-field where tempers were already flaring.

Hope you brought your Kevlar !

I guess I caught the eye of at least one temper!

The site I mentioned is carefully crafted to deceive- look as though it is Church based and supported (more of those ravening wolves we keep hearing about)- and that's probably what twigged your Bishop's antenna.

While personal threads are highly discouraged, you might consider starting a thread dedicated to this topic: One member's search for the truth through prayer, her priesthood leaders, and the imperfect members of the FAIR board.

I just may do that! I was wondering about how to continue on with the White-washing thread, but it got so long I hated to add to it and bring it all forward again, though it is a topic worth exploring in Mormonism.

I will point out one thing that caught my eye rather forcefully. You stated that you'd been in Primary callings for some time, which likely accounted for your ignorance (a fancy word for not knowing ) about certain topics.

I've seen this before in other wards- perhaps it's time you ask to be released from that calling so you can concentrate more fully on your own growth. In those other instances, the sisters in question were growing isolated from the ward and the fellowship of thier sisters-in-Christ.

Something else to consider, I would guess.

Hang in there, you're doing fine.

Yeah, I've been in Primary mostly for about 14 years. I got some breaks from it, but not like a whole year's worth or anything, so I could sit in Gospel Doctrine and catch up on history lessons. It probably would have been helpful, but if Joseph's polygamy isn't even mentioned much in that class, I still would be dependent upon myself to find out more about it, and that probably wouldn't happened unless I had some sort of questioning or doubting moment, and as I have said before, I didn't have a reason to question what I was taught by way of general consensus in my particular ward, or through the teachings directly. I only began to question when I reached outside of the Church resources, and that's how the whole thing started. If the Church took a look at how many members were leaving the Church without even bothering to get their questions answered from within the Church, they might start putting out that information sooner, and through the proper teaching of it from our leadership in each ward, rather than take the chance that we will fall upon it sooner or later and then ask our questions at that time. Some people may never fall on it by chance like I did, and what will become of them? Do they really have the same opportunity to base their faith in the Gospel that I do? If they never learn of these things on their own, is the Church going to make sure they will learn it in class? Probably not, because it's seen as the lesser of the two evils, don't muddy the waters, don't bring up potential troublesome topics, don't cause any discomfort or doubts.

From Thomas Monson:

Remember that faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other.

Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: â??I propose to stay with my faith, with the faith of my people. I know that happiness and contentment are there, and I forbid you, agnostic, doubting thoughts, to destroy the house of my faith. I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept Godâ??s word. I wasnâ??t with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it.â?

This spoke to me for many years, and kept me on the straight and narrow when I thought I might question or challenge the idea of having to share my husband with many wives in the eternities. I just tried to shove it out of my mind, and tell myself that God wouldn't require polygamy to be exalted.

Now I discover that Joseph taught it, practiced it, expected others to practice it, that Brigham Young expounded on it, practiced it openly and with gusto, and that others believed that it was necessary to gain exaltation, and I didn't learn that from within the Church. I knew Brigham Young practiced polygamy, but not having been exposed to the teachings contained in the Journal of Discourses, I didn't know what his beliefs were on the subject. And in the manual that came out about Brigham Young's teachings, his multiple wives were not mentioned, nor the requirement of practicing polygamy for exaltation. Was he wrong to teach this and was Joseph wrong to teach this? Is this why it isn't presented in the manual?

If it's not incorrect teaching, then why leave it out? And if it is incorrect teaching, why was it taught to thousands of Mormons in Utah for 60+ years? This is what confuses me as a member of the Church. Everyone wants to excuse the decision to not include it in the manual, but by not including it, it paints a totally different picture of the Prophet and the organization of the Church, and what is required to obtain exaltation. Isn't that what we are all after here? The teachings that will lead us to reunion with Heavenly Father? Why leave out such important doctrine in a book about Joseph Smith's teachings?

I really do want answers. (Despite what Juliann thinks of me). I think I've done a good job keeping this post on topic anyway.

[mms]

Candidly, I haven't read carefully through your summation of his counsel to you. I don't want to go against anything he's advised you, but I personally would think that there is nothing wrong with reading about the historical matters that trouble you or with contacting the "reputable scholars" that mms's source mentioned for whatever help they can give to you.

Isn't it the case that she is free to disregard her Bishop's counsel, and even go about disseminating FAIRwiki articles about JS's polygamy and reject his counsel to the contrary, even if such dissemination sewes seeds of doubt among the ward members, without consequence? After all, the Bishop was simply speaking for himself and not the church as it concerned her and her situation, right? So, if you like his (your Bishop's) advice, SD, take it. If not, feel free to disregard it, as he is not speaking to you with any authority, apparently. News to me, but since DCP is a Bishop, he would certainly know if he were actually able to counsel with the authority of the Church when speaking to ward members who come to him with questions.

If your Bishop calls you in and asks you why you ignored his counsel and have been discussing JS's polygamy with ward members and disseminating FAIRwiki articles, just give him DCP's telephone number, so that he (DCP) can counsel him on what his (your Bishop's)authority is as a Bishop (with what authority DCP would counsel your Bishop, I don't know--DCP's name-dropping notwithstanding).

DCP hasn't said anything to deserve that. Enjoy your suspension. ~ Mods

[mms]

Duplicate post.

[Pahoran]

This spoke to me for many years, and kept me on the straight and narrow when I thought I might question or challenge the idea of having to share my husband with many wives in the eternities. I just tried to shove it out of my mind, and tell myself that God wouldn't require polygamy to be exalted.

Now I discover that Joseph taught it, practiced it, expected others to practice it, that Brigham Young expounded on it, practiced it openly and with gusto, and that others believed that it was necessary to gain exaltation, and I didn't learn that from within the Church. I knew Brigham Young practiced polygamy, but not having been exposed to the teachings contained in the Journal of Discourses, I didn't know what his beliefs were on the subject. And in the manual that came out about Brigham Young's teachings, his multiple wives were not mentioned, nor the requirement of practicing polygamy for exaltation. Was he wrong to teach this and was Joseph wrong to teach this? Is this why it isn't presented in the manual?

If it's not incorrect teaching, then why leave it out? And if it is incorrect teaching, why was it taught to thousands of Mormons in Utah for 60+ years? This is what confuses me as a member of the Church. Everyone wants to excuse the decision to not include it in the manual, but by not including it, it paints a totally different picture of the Prophet and the organization of the Church, and what is required to obtain exaltation. Isn't that what we are all after here? The teachings that will lead us to reunion with Heavenly Father? Why leave out such important doctrine in a book about Joseph Smith's teachings?

Because the book is, again, not a manual about "what Joseph said then." It's really about "what Joseph teaches us."

Your question proposes a false dilemma.

You seem to assume that either Plural Marriage is correct and therefore should always be taught, or else it is incorrect and thus should never be taught.

You seem to not have considered the third alternative, namely that it was a requirement that applied to a particular time and place.

When it applied, it was certainly incumbent upon all Church members to at least sustain the practice if not enter into it themselves.

When it ceased to apply, then it became improper for the Church to teach it; because the only purpose of teaching any behavioural principle is to enjoin its obedience.

That doesn't mean we can't talk about it or refer to it or mention it. But we must not teach it.

Therefore, in a manual intended to convey Joseph's teachings that apply to us, Plural Marriage rightly belongs in a footnote.

Let's review something from the New Testament.

Matthew 19:

16

[Pahoran]

Isn't it the case that she is free to disregard her Bishop's counsel, and even go about disseminating FAIRwiki articles about JS's polygamy and reject his counsel to the contrary, even if such dissemination sewes seeds of doubt among the ward members, without consequence? After all, the Bishop was simply speaking for himself and not the church as it concerned her and her situation, right? So, if you like his (your Bishop's) advice, SD, take it. If not, feel free to disregard it, as he is not speaking to you with any authority, apparently. News to me, but since DCP is a Bishop, he would certainly know if he were actually able to counsel with the authority of the Church when speaking to ward members who come to him with questions.

If your Bishop calls you in and asks you why you ignored his counsel and have been discussing JS's polygamy with ward members and disseminating FAIRwiki articles, just give him DCP's telephone number, so that he (DCP) can counsel him on what his (your Bishop's)authority is as a Bishop (with what authority DCP would counsel your Bishop, I don't know--DCP's name-dropping notwithstanding).

Mms,

do you have any intention of getting a clue any time soon?

Would you be so kind as to stop nagging and harassing a poster we value far more than we would twenty of you?

Silver Dragonfly's agency is untrammelled by her bishop's counsel, which does not represent "the position of the Church" on any subject.

Still, she would be wise to follow it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mms]

Post deleted

The topic is the Priesthood manuel not eveybody's lives. If it doesn't get back on topic it will be closed. mms you are suspended there is no excuse for your sneering personal swipe.

[mms]

Post deleted

The topic is the Priesthood manuel not eveybody's lives. If it doesn't get back on topic it will be closed. mms you are suspended there is no excuse for your sneering personal swipe.

Why was Selek not suspended for stating that I will spend an eternity in hell? The mods mentioned that this was his second offense today and it is clearly far more of a "sneering personal swipe" than what I have stated. Indeed, according to the scriptures, his personal swipe was as severe a personal swipe as can be made.

Bye.

[Daniel Peterson]

Isn't it the case that she is free to disregard her Bishop's counsel, and even go about disseminating FAIRwiki articles about JS's polygamy and reject his counsel to the contrary, even if such dissemination sewes seeds of doubt among the ward members, without consequence? After all, the Bishop was simply speaking for himself and not the church as it concerned her and her situation, right? So, if you like his (your Bishop's) advice, SD, take it. If not, feel free to disregard it, as he is not speaking to you with any authority, apparently. News to me, but since DCP is a Bishop, he would certainly know if he were actually able to counsel with the authority of the Church when speaking to ward members who come to him with questions.

If your Bishop calls you in and asks you why you ignored his counsel and have been discussing JS's polygamy with ward members and disseminating FAIRwiki articles, just give him DCP's telephone number, so that he (DCP) can counsel him on what his (your Bishop's)authority is as a Bishop (with what authority DCP would counsel your Bishop, I don't know--DCP's name-dropping notwithstanding).

Very helpful. I now have a much better idea as to how seriously to take you and how much time to spend on trying to converse with you.

[Daniel Peterson]

Yeah, I've been in Primary mostly for about 14 years. I got some breaks from it, but not like a whole year's worth or anything, so I could sit in Gospel Doctrine and catch up on history lessons.

This sort of thing happens more often than it should -- women (good women; it's really something of an implicit tribute to them) serving in Primary so long that they have very few adult interactions. Since serving as a Relief Society president in Egypt shortly after we were married, for example, my wife has been in Primary and Young Women almost all of the time. Fortunately, in the student ward to which I'm now assigned, there are no children or youth.

If they never learn of these things on their own, is the Church going to make sure they will learn it in class? Probably not, because it's seen as the lesser of the two evils, don't muddy the waters, don't bring up potential troublesome topics, don't cause any discomfort or doubts.

I think I've spoken here before about Stanley Kimball's notion of the three levels of the gospel -- A, B, and C. Maybe, when I get some time, I'll try to find that and paste it here.

Was he wrong to teach this and was Joseph wrong to teach this? Is this why it isn't presented in the manual?

No, no, and no.

If it's not incorrect teaching, then why leave it out?

Because these manuals are not historical textbooks, but practical compilations for living the gospel in our time.

And if it is incorrect teaching, why was it taught to thousands of Mormons in Utah for 60+ years?

Your dichotomy is too simple.

This is what confuses me as a member of the Church. Everyone wants to excuse the decision to not include it in the manual, but by not including it, it paints a totally different picture of the Prophet and the organization of the Church, and what is required to obtain exaltation. Isn't that what we are all after here? The teachings that will lead us to reunion with Heavenly Father? Why leave out such important doctrine in a book about Joseph Smith's teachings?

Because the practice of plural marriage is not required of us for exaltation or for a reunion with Heavenly Father. The manuals are about what is required.

[sunstoned]

Again, where might that best be done, and how--in lessons designed for growth in faith unto salvation, and/or in Church history books and apologetic material? Why?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

A good question Mr. Englund, and one that I see no clear answer for. I believe as far as open and full disclosure of its history goes, the church is truly stuck between a rock and a hard spot. With the advent of the information age, full disclosure is just a couple of clicks away. What type of class or course or fireside could be constructed that could discuss the unvarnished history of the church in a faith promoting way? How deep would the discussions have to go? If polygamy was discussed, someone would want to know about 15 year old Fanny A. or some of the other teen agers. Or maybe polyandry would be brought up and then the questions about why other menâ??s wives were taken, and why the lies and deception and the attempts to cover it up. How could (Iâ??m really not trying to be facetious here) the church control this type of discussion? Who would they get to teach this type of class? I have been lurking on this board for two years and have heard all the apologetic arguments, many are being rehashed on this very thread, and while some of the people here are accomplished debaters, debate is seldom instruction. The bulk of the apologetic arguments I see here are too convoluted and complicated to be taken seriously by the rank and file.

This is why I am of the opinion the church is in a hard position. If it tries to openly address its history, it risks exposing things that many members were unaware of. Kind of like opening a Pandoraâ??s Box. If it remains quite, then it will continue to lose members who do their own research and then become frustrated that the church is being secretive. What to do?

[Teancum]

Since it is apparent that Silver Dragonfly does not intend to address my question, I will pose it again, this time to the general audience of the message board.

Having once accepted that Brigham Young, John Taylor and others practiced plural marriage as part of their duties as prophets of the Lord, why should one then be upset to learn that Joseph Smith also practiced plural marriage, even if one has never heard that fact expressed before in Sunday School? Doesn't it make sense that a prophet would be required to live what he taught to others?

How about it, Ric? mms? Teancum? Care to field that one?

I have always asked the same question. I have known that Joseph had plural wives like Brigham almost as long as I can remember. What I did not know were the details, nothing of polyandry nor that Joseph seemed to, at least to me, use his power to coerce some women, of which some were very young, to marry him. I could relate other things such as this about other church history issues. I learned more details about many things as I attempted to defend them. Thus I understand why some can become dissillusioned as they do research.

[Daniel Peterson]

I have been lurking on this board for two years and have heard all the apologetic arguments

It's a gross error to suppose that "all the apologetic arguments" have been made on this board, or even that those that have been mentioned here have been fully developed and exhibited here.

By far, most of the most serious "apologists" never participate on message boards at all.

[Teancum]

If you like one-sidedly hostile propaganda, the critics are great.

On the other hand, if you really want to know history, balanced, serious, professional scholarship is the way to go. And, fortunately, Mormonism has produced such historical scholarship in considerable abundance (e.g. Alexander, Hedges, Anderson, Backman, Underwood, Bennett, Allen, Arrington, May, Peterson, Madsen, Jessee, Derr, Morris, Harper, Ashurst-McGee, Bushman, Bitton, Walker, Turley, Leonard, etc., etc.).

It isn't the job of the Church to teach graduate seminars in Mormon history, and the priesthood/Relief Society manuals are not historical textbooks. But there are great resources, readily available.

I am not sure that anyone is asking for graduate courses in mormon history. But in my opinion it is the job of the Church to present a more balanced history then it does in its seminary, institute, SS and priesthood manuals. It also ought to disclose a more balanced history to investigators before they make a major commitment that requires huge sacrifices and major cultural changes. That really does not seem to much to ask or expect for an Church that will ask for the consecration of everything from a member.

[Teancum]

You might be missing my point. Here is a ready opportunity for stake members to learn about the broader, more detailed or even the potentially troubling aspects of Church history that there is not time to cover in Sunday School. Yet only a tiny minority are availing themselves of it. How many of the non-attenders will one day claim the Church betrayed them because it kept them in the dark, while they forget or ignore the fact that they had this opportunity and didn't take advantage of it?

If they pass on the opportunity they should not complain.

However on stake does not make a Church practice. If the Church offers this Church wide and people ignore it your point may be valid.

[sunstoned]

Since it is apparent that Silver Dragonfly does not intend to address my question, I will pose it again, this time to the general audience of the message board.

Having once accepted that Brigham Young, John Taylor and others practiced plural marriage as part of their duties as prophets of the Lord, why should one then be upset to learn that Joseph Smith also practiced plural marriage, even if one has never heard that fact expressed before in Sunday School? Doesn't it make sense that a prophet would be required to live what he taught to others?

How about it, Ric? mms? Teancum? Care to field that one?

Itâ??s not the simple Scott.

Brigham Young, John Taylor and others did practice polygamy. They did it openly, and outside of the one instance of BY and Zina Huntington Jacobs Young, they did not practice polyandry. Which means they did not take other menâ??s wives., at least men who were still alive, and active members of the church. As mentioned, the later prophetâ??s practice of the principle was for the most part in the open. They did not hide it from their first wife, and they did not lie to the press or the membership of the church about it.

What I believe Silver Dragonfly is getting at is not so much the fact that JS practiced polygamy, but that the information on how Joseph practiced polygamy/polyandry is not being acknowledged much less being addressed.

[Daniel Peterson]

I am not sure that anyone is asking for graduate courses in mormon history. But in my opinion it is the job of the Church to present a more balanced history then it does in its seminary, institute, SS and priesthood manuals. It also ought to disclose a more balanced history to investigators before they make a major commitment that requires huge sacrifices and major cultural changes. That really does not seem to much to ask or expect for an Church that will ask for the consecration of everything from a member.

What, exactly, do you have in mind?

Devoting more of our curricular time to Church history? Perhaps de-emphasizing the Bible or the other scriptures in order to make room for more serious and academic treatment of historical issues? Value-neutral discussions of the case against Joseph Smith's integrity? A week or two devoted to Fanny Alger, and perhaps another week or two dedicated to the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

I'm genuinely not sure what you want.

I really will have to find that thing about Stanley Kimball, I guess. It seems continually relevant.

Some of my own views on the general issue here are illustrated by ancient Greek, classical Chinese, and medieval Islamic examples and set out in an article that I wrote with a colleague in the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages here at BYU: David B. Honey and Daniel C. Peterson, â??Advocacy and Inquiry in the Writing of Latter-day Saint History,â? BYU Studies 31 (Spring 1991): 139-179.

As I've said many times before, including this thread, I would love Latter-day Saints to have a deeper understanding of their history. I think it would do immense good, and that it would ward off much evil. Whether it's practicable for that to be accomplished, or even approached, via Church curriculum, however, seems to me extremely dubious.

What I believe Silver Dragonfly is getting at is not so much the fact that JS practiced polygamy, but that the information on how Joseph practiced polygamy/polyandry is not being acknowledged much less being addressed.

And several of us have been responding that there has been quite a bit written and published on this, and that none of what has been published has been hidden from anybody.

Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling is a relatively recent case in point.