Priesthood Manual 2008 Joseph Smith

[Teancum]

Good grief, how many pages and pages of whining and tongue clucking about polygamy not being mentioned are we going to be subjected to this week. If the countermos want a class why don't they create their own or better still..get a life of their own.

I see your tune rarely changes Juliann. Anyone who expressed concerns or challenges the status quo is still a whiner in your mind. So be it. I doubt I can persuade you differently. But if the discussion of such topics bugs you why post on threads that discuss it. I have not been here much in months but you are still singing the same song.

Best wishes.

BTW, I do think the disclosure is fair. The book is not going to focus on anything that is deemed irrelevent to us today. That is fine and I think the disclosure is a good one.

Personally though I would love to see an in depth historical manual and see it taught in a Church setting that is more friendly and open and where the difficult issue, and not just plural marriage, there are many others, can be discussed and debated. I think you would see less people become disaffected and angry when they decide to study on their own and they feel that the story they were taught was much different that they read in history tomes.

[Silver Dragonfly]

I do care about the member, and the current members and presenting a more full view of the history so there are not dissaffections when people run into stuff on their own and become upset that the Church did not do a better job and presented more "faithful"history and never dealt with the difficult issues. Why not discuss it in a Church setting where there could be some control and a friendly environment. Or would you rather have these things taught by Quinn and Vogel and the internet?

This is where I stand right now, Teancum.

I started posting on the White-Washed History thread last week, but it has become so long (19 pages) that I fear nobody is going to go all the way through it to answer any more questions, so I jumped in here.

Anyway, in my introductory posts, I pointed out this very problem. Those of us who learn of Joseph's polygamy outside of the official manuals are sometimes told that it is our own fault for not knowing these things on our own. Some even insist that it has always been taught, either in the manuals or in Seminary or through books available in the LDS library.

I have the opinion that a couple of lines in the introduction of the new manual is not going to count as 'teaching'. Just because it is mentioned and admitted to, however briefly, it doesn't mean that members like me are going to have a good foundation to start with in learning about the practice of polygamy, why it was expanded upon greatly by prophets after Joseph Smith, why it lasted as long as it did, and why it had to be suspended from practice when it was once believed and taught that it was the only way to enter the Celestial Kingdom. I am speaking from my own experiences in my particular ward, 20+ years, and I learned about Joseph's role in polygamy through a fairwiki article, not directly from any manuals provided by the Church.

My question relevant to the topic is: Why does it seem like Joseph Smith only introduced polygamy doctrinally, but never practiced it himself, and Brigham Young and those after him are portrayed as the ones who really took off with the doctrine and made it into necessary saving ordinances? From my limited point of view, as a regular run of the mill member, it seems that the image of Joseph Smith is far more protected than that of Brigham Young, John Taylor, or Wilford Woodruff.

My other question is: Why did Brigham have sex with a large portion of his plural wives and have many children by them, if Joseph didn't do the same?

I am concerned that the omission from the manual about polygamy and Joseph's specific involvement in it doesn't necessarily protect the Saints from learning troubling things, but it serves to bolster the opinion of some of the members that Joseph didn't practice polygamy himself, otherwise it would be in the manual.

At least, this is the approach I can see my mom making towards me when I tried to discuss Joseph's polygamy to her. She has been a member for as long as I have, and she staunchly denies that Joseph started practicing it himself, she believes it began with Brigham Young, and only as a necessity to provide for widows trekking out west to Utah. Even the new manual isn't going to raise much of an eyebrow to her because it doesn't say that any of the marriages performed during Joseph's time were marriages involving him personally.

This is what it does say:

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.

Does anyone else see the loophole? That looks to me like a protective shell over the Prophet.

Now, before anybody goes off on me too badly, please read some of my posts on the White-washed thread so you know where I'm coming from. I just spent an hour and a half talking with my Bishop yesterday on this very topic, and I came out of that feeling like I have no other option but to continue asking my questions here.

[why me]

This is also in the manual:

On June 10, 1844, Joseph Smith, who was the mayor of Nauvoo, and the Nauvoo city council ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor and the press on which it was printed. The Nauvoo Expositor was an anti-Mormon newspaper that slandered the Prophet and other Saints and called for the repeal of the Nauvoo Charter. City officials feared that this publication would lead to mob action. As a result of the action by the mayor and city council, Illinois authorities brought an unfounded charge of riot against the Prophet, his brother Hyrum, and other Nauvoo city officials. The governor of Illinois, Thomas Ford, ordered the men to stand trial in Carthage, Illinois, the county seat, and promised them protection. Joseph knew that if he went to Carthage, his life would be in great danger from the mobs who were threatening him.

This is in the martyrdom section of the manual. I have to say that the manual is giving some aspects of the past. I will again take my hat off to the book.

[smac97]

I could care less about the rabid critics especially the ones from other Christian groups. I do care about the member, and the current members and presenting a more full view of the history so there are not dissaffections when people run into stuff on their own and become upset that the Church did not do a better job and presented more "faithful"history and never dealt with the difficult issues.

Such folks need to get a grip. Earnest study of the Restored Gospel necessarily includes more study than what can be contained in the 3-hour block on Sundays.

If a person doesn't want to devote much time to studying church history, fine. But don't blame the Church for it.

Why not discuss it in a Church setting where there could be some control and a friendly environment. Or would you rather have these things taught by Quinn and Vogel and the internet?

Historical issues are discussed in Church. But addressing each and every hobby horse topic is not feasible. At all.

The Church works hard to make sure the lessons taught cover the essential doctrines of the Restored Gospel. In the main, I think the Church's curriculum does a fine job of that.

Am I satisfied with learning just what is presented to me during the 3-hour block? Nope. This is why I devote personal time to additional study.

Those of my fellow Latter-day Saints who choose not to spend additional time in gospel study can hardly blame the Church for that decision.

-Smac

[Calm]

At least, this is the approach I can see my mom making towards me when I tried to discuss Joseph's polygamy to her. She has been a member for as long as I have, and she staunchly denies that Joseph started practicing it himself, she believes it began with Brigham Young, and only as a necessity to provide for widows trekking out west to Utah. Even the new manual isn't going to raise much of an eyebrow to her because it doesn't say that any of the marriages performed during Joseph's time were marriages involving him personally. estions here.

How does your mother interpret this verse in 132?:

52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

[Teancum]

Actually, it could readily be argued that D&C 132 is superceded in practice by the Manifesto.

The principle is eternal, even if the practice is not.

Nonetheless, your duck didn't answer my question.

CFR that eternal marriage is rooted in polygamy, rather than the other way around.

Straight answers and citations, please!

D&C 132 is the section that institutes plural marriage and simultaneously instituted eternal marriage. The opening to D&C 132 states that the principle of plural marriage was known as early as 1831, an obcious reference to Joseph's likely marriage to Fanny Alger. But the sealing power was not restored till 1835 and this plural marriage came first. Also, D&C 132 comes before D&C 131 in chronology and practive where celestial marriage is defined as eternal marriage.

Perhaps the two can be bifurcated and independent of each other and that was certainly done via the manifesto and the abandonment of the practice of polygamy. However in the chronology of Church History plural marriage came at least at the same time as eternal marriage and likely before and clearly the 19th century leaders meant Plural eternal marriage when the said celestial marriage.

I do not disputes the today we define celestial marriage differently but that it a redefinition and not the original.

[why me]

Does anyone else see the loophole? That looks to me like a protective shell over the Prophet.

Now, before anybody goes off on me too badly, please read some of my posts on the White-washed thread so you know where I'm coming from. I just spent an hour and a half talking with my Bishop yesterday on this very topic, and I came out of that feeling like I have no other option but to continue asking my questions here.

I think that the below is a beginning. Also, it does not say that JS did not practice polygamy. But it does mention that a number of such marriages were performed. I think that it is a good start and if one uses their imagination, it can imply that JS was one of the few that practiced it.

The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. ..

Also, the nature of JS's involvement in plural marriage is here:

http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=145

[Teancum]

Missed the last hundred years or so of lesson manuals, huh?

The Church teaches (and has taught) that eternal marriage, not polygamy, is essential for exaltation.

You keep dodging this issue. Final warning: CFR that eternal marriage has it's roots in polygamy rather than the other way 'round.

I think I tried to do just that but you may have posted this before I made the attempt.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have the opinion that a couple of lines in the introduction of the new manual is not going to count as 'teaching'. Just because it is mentioned and admitted to, however briefly, it doesn't mean that members like me are going to have a good foundation to start with in learning about the practice of polygamy, why it was expanded upon greatly by prophets after Joseph Smith, why it lasted as long as it did, and why it had to be suspended from practice when it was once believed and taught that it was the only way to enter the Celestial Kingdom.

SD, I have read a few of your posts but not all.

I'm just curious as to whether you are acquainted with the passage in the Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:27, 30, and, if so, what your take is on it as it pertains to the purpose of instituting and then discontinuing plural marriage in the early part of this gospel dispensation.

[Calm]

clearly the 19th century leaders meant Plural eternal marriage when the said celestial marriage.

If this was always so, then only those plurally married would have been sealed, yet there were many nonplural marriages that were sealed under the order of celestial marriage right from the beginning, IIRC.

[Teancum]

Still ducking, and weaving, eh? So you, rather than the Church, speak authoritatively for these men?

Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part--and is good so far as it goes--and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith ... [common background on Joseph Smith, skipped here] ... he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him; and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that doctrine.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.28 - p.29, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878

As before stated no man can obtain the benefits of one law by the observance of another, however faithful he may be in that which he does, nor can he secure to himself the fullness of any blessing without he fulfills the law upon which it is predicated, but he will receive the benefit of the law he obeys. ... I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned, I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that. ...

Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.31, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.268 - p.269, Brigham Young, August 19, 1866

But one thing I will name, and that is in regard to plural marriage. A great many men say--"Oh, well, I can get along, I can live, and I believe I shall only have one wife." Well, that is your privilege, nobody compels you to take more than one; but with the commandment of the Lord before us like a blaze of light, can we disregard it and serve him acceptably? If we can, then why not retain those laws and commandments in heaven, and not send them down here to earth? These commandments are sent for our good, for our salvation and exaltation. Here is a woman who, in speaking of celestial marriage, says, "It will do very well for others, but it will not do in my house;" "it may do very well for somebody else, because her feelings are not quite so fine as mine, she has been differently raised from what I have." I do not know that the Lord will pay any particular respect as to how we are raised, and how fine and delicate our feelings may be, or how coarse and uncultivated they may be. I believe that if we submit to the law of heaven, that law has power to refine us and to fit us for immortality and eternal life. That is my opinion. Now hear this good sister, she says--"It will not do for me, I am not going to submit to it." Another sister says--"I am willing to submit to the law of Christ." Let these two sisters come together and talk over the law of marriage, and see whether their spirits will run together. They will no more run together than water and oil will unite. ... I am thankful for this privilege of saying a few words. I hope I have done no harm, and that I have not said anything that is contrary to the will of God, or to the feelings of the pure in heart, for they are just as sacred to me as the law of God, and I do not want to unnecessarily offend the ungodly; but I am not so particular to spare or shield them. I want to tell the truth, and bear a faithful testimony. I have been in this Church about forty-three years--almost from the beginning, for I was baptized into the Church on the 31st of October, 1831, and ordained the same day and sent to preach the Gospel, and more or less, most of the time since, I have been engaged in that work.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.16, p.236, Orson Hyde, October 5, 1873

[jadams_4242]

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menu...contentLocale=0

I have just skimmed through the priesthood manual for 2008. I read the section on JS's ministry. I found that much was left out, ie: polygamy etc. Do you think that such omissions give the antis dry wood to burn? In my opinion it would have been wonderful to see a much more open manual.

Problem: should members who know more about the history of JS keep quiet when details left out of the manual are noticed by those members in priesthood meeting?

Edit. I made a small blunder here. Polygamy is in the manual. I read on an anti site that polygamy was not mentioned. I skimmed through the manual and read the Life and Ministry section. I missed the mentioned of polygamy toward the end of the chapter. It is also mentioned in the introduction. Lesson: don't believe or take with a grain of salt what is written on an exer board. My blunder.

I was just going to say even if it were not mentioned, my elders quorum would have discussed this issue anyway.

[Scott Lloyd]

My question relevant to the topic is: Why does it seem like Joseph Smith only introduced polygamy doctrinally, but never practiced it himself, and Brigham Young and those after him are portrayed as the ones who really took off with the doctrine and made it into necessary saving ordinances? From my limited point of view, as a regular run of the mill member, it seems that the image of Joseph Smith is far more protected than that of Brigham Young, John Taylor, or Wilford Woodruff.

As a run-of-the-mill member, I have never had the perception that Joseph Smith only introduced plural marriage but never practiced it.

The question that occurs to me, though, is this: If one accepts that Brigham Young and John Taylor, as prophets and servants of God were required to practice plural marriage, why should it be upsetting to you that Joseph Smith, also a prophet and servant of God, would be under the same requirement? Especially considering the fact that it was he who received the revelation commanding it in this dispensation and who taught the principle to others. Doesn't it make sense that he should set the example by obeying the commandment himself?

[Lightbearer]

Did it ever occur to anyone that the reason Plural marriage is not "openly taught" in the Priesthood and Relief Society Manuals is that as of 1890 it is a non issue for Latter-day Saints? What purpose would it serve to give a detailed account (if we even have accurate historical data)? Could it be that the Brethern may be more afraid that it will be construed by members and enemies alike that we are recommencing the practice or that it gives more credibility to the apostate cults that practice polygamy today? I think it is wisdom in the Lord that we do not go into details. Personally I have heard about plural marriage since I was a youth and I was never offended by it. I did not think it was "hidden" by the Church and I did not feel "betrayed" that they did not mention it in primary. If you have lived in 20th century American society you have heard of it and that cannot be denied. Why should we bring up in Church every accusation leveled at us by Anti-Mormons? We are not obligated to prove anything. Moroni said that Joseph's name would be had for both good and evil among all nations and people. Perhaps the reason President Hinckley talked about the First Vision and Joseph Smith story in Conference was to reaffirm his testimony and faith in the Prophet Joseph so that the members and all people would know where he and all faithful LDS stand or should stand.

[gmormon]

why me and smac--

Thanks for your info.

There is an LDS chapel in my town. But, I'm afraid the experience of going to get a copy might turn into some sort of joke...

"Baptist walks into an LDS chapel and says, 'I'd like a Priesthood manual, please...'"

I don't know where it'd go after that.

Seriously, though, I probably will go pick one up. I do so hate to read off a screen.

Best.

CKS

I haven't checked but it wil probably be available electronically at LDS.org

[Silver Dragonfly]

How does your mother interpret this verse in 132?:

52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

She only has to deal with the D&C verse if it is part of that day's lesson, and Church History is only reviewed every four years. It's not exactly pounded into our brains that Joseph began the practice of polygamy and had as many as 33 wives, including 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball. That's the part she doesn't know anything about. As far as believing that Joseph had any wives beside Emma, she cites:

"What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one."

This is what she said to me when I brought up polygamy to her. Should I take the time to point out in the introduction of the new manual where it talks about Joseph's involvement in polygamy?

Her argument is not known fully to me, I will have to ask her.

My point is that Church History is not uniformly taught in every ward, and sometimes polygamy is glossed over to spare the feelings of some. I don't know what people think when they are faced with D&C 132. I can only state what I think about it, and that's only after reading the fairwiki article that opened my eyes. She (and others) may draw a completely different conclusion without that information. And my Bishop has advised me not to share that article with anyone else, because there's no need to sow the seeds of doubt among others before they are ready. I'm not even supposed to be talking to my mom about this, so I don't know how I'm going to be able to answer the question.

I'm really kind of confused about it too, because if it isn't useful to teach about it in the manual, why is it still included in the D&C?

It seems as though I can't get my answers from the Church, and that I'm muddying the waters just by asking the questions. My Bishop seems to be overly concerned that I'm going to be printing off fairwiki articles and distributing them all over the ward. ( He specifically asked me not to do that, which I thought was strange, but I said ok) The longer this goes on, the more I have a tendency to think that the Church is trying to protect us from doubting the sincerity and calling of Joseph Smith.

I really wouldn't have a problem accepting Joseph as a human either, if I could be given that information through the Church, instead of being protected from it. Sometimes I feel that the Church doesn't trust us enough to believe in Joseph's calling as Prophet, so they leave out the stuff they feel is 'unimportant and irrelevant' to the purpose of creating the belief. But I can't believe that Joseph was this perfect person and never made any mistakes. Why doesn't the Church round out the story of Joseph's life with a few downfalls and missteps that he might have taken? It just makes him sound like some sort of super hero when they leave that stuff out...

[mms]

No amount of history will be sufficient to the critics unless it is crafted to convey a negative impression of the Church. No discussion of polygamy will suffice unless it paints Joseph as a lecherous predator.

These people do not care about the education of the Church- at the very core, they are agitating for the Church to teach their propoganda and will settle for nothing less.

I am critical, but do not view myself as "[t]hese people", as you might, Selek. I think that the way "critics" is thrown around is not helpful. Certainly, there are some critics that would not be satisfied without a presentation that "paints Joseph as a lecherous predator." However, there are some who would be very satisfied with an apologetic presentation, such as that found throughout Rough Stone Rolling. It is the utter lack of presentation that is disconcerting.

[Scott Lloyd]

It seems as though I can't get my answers from the Church, and that I'm muddying the waters just by asking the questions. My Bishop seems to be overly concerned that I'm going to be printing off fairwiki articles and distributing them all over the ward. ( He specifically asked me not to do that, which I thought was strange, but I said ok) The longer this goes on, the more I have a tendency to think that the Church is trying to protect us from doubting the sincerity and calling of Joseph Smith.

Your bishop has responsibility for the spiritual welfare of not only you but all members of the ward. If he thinks, mistakenly or not, that you are going to be dispersing the article throughout the ward, it is reasonable for him to want to prevent that if he thinks the article contains information that some in the ward might not be spiritually or intellectually prepared to receive. After all, if it was upsetting to you, he would be justified in thinking it might have a similar effect on others.

That said, I don't perceive an effort on the part of the Church to hide the fact that plural marriage was taught and practiced by the Prophet Joseph Smith. I won't deny that the Church is selective in what it includes in its curricula, especially for Sunday classes, but that is not the same thing as suppressing or deceiving, especially when fuller information is readily available -- including information in Church-published sources -- to those who are interested in it.

[wenglund]

I think we may be approaching this issue from the wrong direction, so I hope you don't mind me posting my question again:

One of the fundamental principles of effective instructional design (and this applies to secular as well as religious instructional material) is to structure the content of the lesson so as to meet the lesson objective(s). With that in mind, wouldn't it make more sense to first accertain what the objective(s) of the lesson manual is, as well as for each of the individual lessons, before judging whether certain content (historical or otherwise) should have been included or not?

In other words, rather than letting sentements about content dictate what should be included in the manual, let the objectives be the determinate.

Think of it this way: while it may be interesting and helpful for people to know about first-aid, would it make sense to include discussion of first-aid in a course on home buying?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Teancum]

Such folks need to get a grip. Earnest study of the Restored Gospel necessarily includes more study than what can be contained in the 3-hour block on Sundays.

If a person doesn't want to devote much time to studying church history, fine. But don't blame the Church for it.

Historical issues are discussed in Church. But addressing each and every hobby horse topic is not feasible. At all.

The Church works hard to make sure the lessons taught cover the essential doctrines of the Restored Gospel. In the main, I think the Church's curriculum does a fine job of that.

Am I satisfied with learning just what is presented to me during the 3-hour block? Nope. This is why I devote personal time to additional study.

Those of my fellow Latter-day Saints who choose not to spend additional time in gospel study can hardly blame the Church for that decision.

-Smac

Yep Smac the ole it is their fault not the Church's. The funny thing is that when they do what you criticize them for not doing and they end up with valid questions and concerns it is always their fault. But you miss my point. During Church time is not the only place a member shoulcd study. They should do a lot of study on their own. But the Church could take steps to avoid the shock or disillusionment that some feel when the find facts of history that were never even mentioned and yes, sorry,even glossed over and ignored.

Do you honestly think those who come here and say "Hey I was shocked about polyandry and post manifesto polygamy. Pres Hinckley just said the other day it stopped in 1890 but that is really not the case," Or "what about that Missouri period. Yes the saints were harshly treated but wow they did some pretty rotten things too. I thought it was all the enemies fault," Or how about William Law, I thought he was a scoundrel but maybe it was ok fro him to be upset when Joesph asked for his wife's hand in marriage." Or "It really does seem like maybe some laws were broken with the Kirtland Bank deal."

So some member says I want to learn more about history then they do an have a number of eye openers and for whatever reason they don't handle it as well as others maybe yourself included. But of course it it their fault. Maybe they never should have read history in the first place.

So we will have to just disagree. The Church will continue to lose good members until they figure out how to deal with this. I think books like Bushmans book is good as well as places like Mormon Stories where you have a member who was disillusioned but has seemed to reconcile his faith presenting an open discussion about these things. Or people will go to Sunstone or Dialogue. They certainly should not come here where they are insistently berated for doing that you said they should do in the first place.

[mms]

She only has to deal with the D&C verse if it is part of that day's lesson, and Church History is only reviewed every four years. It's not exactly pounded into our brains that Joseph began the practice of polygamy and had as many as 33 wives, including 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball. That's the part she doesn't know anything about. As far as believing that Joseph had any wives beside Emma, she cites:

This is what she said to me when I brought up polygamy to her. Should I take the time to point out in the introduction of the new manual where it talks about Joseph's involvement in polygamy?

Her argument is not known fully to me, I will have to ask her.

My point is that Church History is not uniformly taught in every ward, and sometimes polygamy is glossed over to spare the feelings of some. I don't know what people think when they are faced with D&C 132. I can only state what I think about it, and that's only after reading the fairwiki article that opened my eyes. She (and others) may draw a completely different conclusion without that information. And my Bishop has advised me not to share that article with anyone else, because there's no need to sow the seeds of doubt among others before they are ready. I'm not even supposed to be talking to my mom about this, so I don't know how I'm going to be able to answer the question.

I'm really kind of confused about it too, because if it isn't useful to teach about it in the manual, why is it still included in the D&C?

It seems as though I can't get my answers from the Church, and that I'm muddying the waters just by asking the questions. My Bishop seems to be overly concerned that I'm going to be printing off fairwiki articles and distributing them all over the ward. ( He specifically asked me not to do that, which I thought was strange, but I said ok) The longer this goes on, the more I have a tendency to think that the Church is trying to protect us from doubting the sincerity and calling of Joseph Smith.

I really wouldn't have a problem accepting Joseph as a human either, if I could be given that information through the Church, instead of being protected from it. Sometimes I feel that the Church doesn't trust us enough to believe in Joseph's calling as Prophet, so they leave out the stuff they feel is 'unimportant and irrelevant' to the purpose of creating the belief. But I can't believe that Joseph was this perfect person and never made any mistakes. Why doesn't the Church round out the story of Joseph's life with a few downfalls and missteps that he might have taken? It just makes him sound like some sort of super hero when they leave that stuff out...

Silver Dragonfly presents an example from which many here could learn a whole lot. She has legitimacy because she did not enter this board the way I did a few months ago by rattling off multiple issues causing me concern (I sort of think some made far too much of my initial post, but whatever). You can cry all day long that people "should have known," but that will not change the fact that they do not know and they do not know for very good and legitimate reasons. This Bishop is reacting like most probably would. There is a huge problem with the amount of concern about sharing factual truths with others. After all, it was a fairwiki article she brought to him -- an article that took a faith promoting look at the facts and cleared up some inaccuracies. Yet, I have no doubt that most Bishops would respond the same way. We must ask ourselves why we are so concerned with people knowing the arguments against us and the best arguments against the arguments against us.

[selek]

This is more ducking and weaving, Teancum. You are false on two specifics: first, the Journal of Discourses is not a canonical work of the Church, and second, the excerpts you provided predate the Manifesto which released the Latter-day Saints from the necessity of practicing plural marriage.

Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part--and is good so far as it goes--and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith ... [common background on Joseph Smith, skipped here] ... he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him; and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that doctrine.

This comment regards those specifically called to practice it. There was never a universal requirement for polygamy in the Church. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous. Those called to practice polygamy are under obligation to practice it or lose out on their eternal reward. Those not called are subject to different conditions of the law, and will not be penalized.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.28 - p.29, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878

As before stated no man can obtain the benefits of one law by the observance of another, however faithful he may be in that which he does, nor can he secure to himself the fullness of any blessing without he fulfills the law upon which it is predicated, but he will receive the benefit of the law he obeys. ... I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned, I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that. ...

And President Smith seems to agree with me.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.31, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

Again referring to those who are called to practice it, rather than mankind as a whole.

[mms]

Yep Smac the ole it is their fault not the Church's. The funny thing is that when they do what you criticize them for not doing and they end up with valid questions and concerns it is always their fault. But you miss my point. During Church time is not the only place a member shoulcd study. They should do a lot of study on their own. But the Church could take steps to avoid the shock or disillusionment that some feel when the find facts of history that were never even mentioned and yes, sorry,even glossed over and ignored.

Do you honestly think those who come here and say "Hey I was shocked about polyandry and post manifesto polygamy. Pres Hinckley just said the other day it stopped in 1890 but that is really not the case," Or "what about that Missouri period. Yes the saints were harshly treated but wow they did some pretty rotten things too. I thought it was all the enemies fault," Or how about William Law, I thought he was a scoundrel but maybe it was ok fro him to be upset when Joesph asked for his wife's hand in marriage." Or "It really does seem like maybe some laws were broken with the Kirtland Bank deal."

So some member says I want to learn more about history then they do an have a number of eye openers and for whatever reason they don't handle it as well as others maybe yourself included. But of course it it their fault. Maybe they never should have read history in the first place.

So we will have to just disagree. The Church will continue to lose good members until they figure out how to deal with this. I think books like Bushmans book is good as well as places like Mormon Stories where you have a member who was disillusioned but has seemed to reconcile his faith presenting an open discussion about these things. Or people will go to Sunstone or Dialogue. They certainly should not come here where they are insistently berated for doing that you said they should do in the first place.

This blame argument is so tired (I contributed to wearing it out). The facts are what they are and people do not know what they do not know and are making life-altering decisions and feeling somewhat deceived. We must deal with the situation as it is, not as we would like it to be. Or we can choose not to deal with it, as I think William Schryver says he does (he sees it as the separating of the wheat from the tares and does not even try to talk people out of leaving when they are disturbed at learning history of which they were unaware). I think the Church would rather deal with it than ignore it. I think it has more work to do.

[wenglund]

I see that no one seems interested in engaging my repeated question, so I will move on to respond to this:

Silver Dragonfly presents an example from which many here could learn a whole lot. She has legitimacy because she did not enter this board the way I did a few months ago by rattling off multiple issues causing me concern (I sort of think some made far too much of my initial post, but whatever). You can cry all day long that people "should have known," but that will not change the fact that they do not know and they do not know for very good and legitimate reasons. This Bishop is reacting like most probably would. There is a huge problem with the amount of concern about sharing factual truths with others. After all, it was a fairwiki article she brought to him -- an article that took a faith promoting look at the facts and cleared up some inaccuracies. Yet, I have no doubt that most Bishops would respond the same way. We must ask ourselves why we are so concerned with people knowing the arguments against us and the best arguments against the arguments against us.

I don't know that that is the concern. Rather, the concern is over what may be the best venue for such "arguments". You and others seem to be of the opinion that missionary, Sunday School, priesthood/Relief Society, and seminary lessons should become courses in apologetics and "innoculations", where others of us see those lessons as best reserved for salvific material, and that places such as this, and/or in the official/unofficial histories of the Church, are better for apologetics/innoculation.

Now that this is straightened out, perhaps we can now move on to discussing why one venue may be preferred over another--which may tie in nicely to my previously asked question. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[selek]

This blame argument is so tired (I contributed to wearing it out). The facts are what they are and people do not know what they do not know and are making life-altering decisions and feeling somewhat deceived. We must deal with the situation as it is, not as we would like it to be. Or we can choose not to deal with it, as I think William Schryver says he does (he sees it as the separating of the wheat from the tares and does not even try to talk people out of leaving when they are disturbed at learning history of which they were unaware). I think the Church would rather deal with it than ignore it. I think it has more work to do.

Of course. Because the anti's and the posers really do have our best interests at heart, after all.

MMS, for all your false piety, you are an ark steadier and a fraud and nothing more.

There is a link near the beginning of this thread about how to contact the correlation committee to provide input and pursue changes. There have always been ways to investigate one's doubts and concerns without stooping to criticism and blame.

Instead of pursuing any of those options, you have chosen to hide behind your anonomyity and bash the Church on a number of public message boards.

Instead of doing something constructive, you wear your victimhood on your sleeve and crusade against the Church rather than for it.

THAT'S why you got the welcome you did.

So by all means, continue your sacred quest- fight until you think you've vanquished the dragon. You'll have all eternity in hell to ponder the number of innocent windmills you accosted.

We really do need a foot-dusting smilie.