What If Polygamy Never Happened

[LifeOnaPlate]

I have no doubt that you and many within the Lds Church believe Smith was a prophet. But I would hope where we have information that exists to evaluate this claim that we would all agree it is better to base a decision on "what we know" as opposed to "things we don't know". And, from my experience with the Lds Church, there is a distinct and obvious culture of not examining, discussing, encouraging or making available factual historical information regarding polygamy that may cast doubt on Smith's promotion to being a prophet.

No offense, but I think if anyone is under-read on Mormonism, including plural marriage, it's likely you, based on assertions you have made on this board.

When I looked into the chronology of polygamy's development within the Lds Church, it became clear to me that this was not a command of God but a personal lifestyle choice for Smith. The historical documents and factual history reflects too many inconsistencies and raises so many questions that don't stand up to standards of reason.

I admit it is complex, but I have reached the opposite conclusion.

From it's illegal practice in Illinois (when supposedly church doctrine required obediance to the laws of the land),

You assume Joseph believed his form of marriage was restricted to laws of the land, or that he viewed plural marriage as the same as secular marriage.

Smiths public denouncement of it as publisher and editor of the church's Times & Seasons (while referring to the 1835 D&Cs which prohibited it) while privately practicing it even before he claims he received the supposed revelation in 1843, a revealtion that only singles out his current wife with destruction for not abiding to the command while he practiced it without informing her,

The rumors about spiritual wifery were not accurate descriptions of what JS was practicing. He denied spiritual wifery.

his directive to the illega destruction of the Expositor because of it's exposure of the practice,

The City Council voted on the measure, and just curious: was it just because it talked about spiritual wifery that the Expositor was deemed a public nuisance?

to his public denial of having more than one wife just weeks before his demise.

?

Add to that the changes to to the D&Cs at the turn of the century describing it as being revealed as early s 1831 only when it became clear the earlier timelines and claims were proving diffult to sustain.

No one was unequivocal on when it was revealed to Joseph, and from all the records, neither was Joseph.

It was if God had given a revelation to "test drive" for some 23 years (1831 -1854) .

1852 was when it was announced.

When I first met with missionaries and bishops in the Lds Church, bringing up these questions and issues was met with an almost preprogrammed and consistent response of either "I had never heard of those things" or "well we don't know much about that time".

Missionaries are there to talk about Jesus Christ and His gospel, not the gospel of Joseph Smith.

Why were these facts and documents so easy for me to find as a non-member but almost non-existant to these members. And then their response to my wife and daughter was the classic "well he's not ready to hear the gospel" answer!!!!!! In other words, the questioner becomes the problem as opposed to the questions.

You likely spent more time looking for them, is my guess.

My point is that this becomes a very hard sell, with full disclosure, to reasonable minds who are targeted for conversion. ANd again, isn't it best to make decisions on "what we know' as opposed to "what we don't know". Accordingly, that is why we find very little of this history provided in any 'official" church website but more of the distancing to the very history itself.

History vs. Gospel

So I don't think it becomes merely a difference of acceptance of Smith as a prophet, at least not until a full disclosure of all the facts available are understood. This is why I see polygamy as such a stumbling block for the Lds church and a noticiable desire to distance itself from it. Hence, i would conclude it would be far better off had it not happened. But I suspect, as I have said before, while in the greater majority outside this board, I am probably in the minority here!!!!

I see it as a problem largely because of ethnocentrism and the oft-used method of imputing motives.

[LifeOnaPlate]

"A man can be saved in the Celestial Kingdom with but one wife," Brigham Young Letterbook II:735

[Yme]

Thanks. When people are willing to acknowledge that I actually believe what I say I believe, I'm very grateful and deeply moved.

Your welcome.

Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know how much typical non-Mormon Americans are into historical research. My impression is Not a Whole Lot.

In any event, I do examine and discuss history.

You may have missed my point. My statement was directed to historical facts and information relative to a decsion to be made. Where there is no interest, there is probably no relative decision pending as well.

That's your judgment. It's not mine. And it's not that of others.

Granted it is my judgement. But to conlude it is not held by others would be very naive. There are thousands on message boards and many I have met personally who state they left the Lds chuch and quit believing Smith was a prophet upon learning this history of his polygamy. This is in addition to those who have sat through the missionary discussions and rejected the prophecy claim as well. While I am not debating who is right, my conclusion and judgement is held by many, many, many others. As is yours as well.

I agree that it's better to make informed decisions than uninformed decisions.

Good to hear.

Are you taking all of the relevant information into account? Would you and I agree on your answer to that question?

I believe I am taking into consideration all relevant information. Don't know whether we would agree on such but, given I could find nothing on the church website relating to these facts and found them relevant and you dont see the need for the Church to disclose such information, I suspect not!!

Why on earth do you expect to find detailed historical treatment of early plural marriage on the Church's website? No other historiographical treatises are found there.

Your are not really serious here, are you? (Or perhaps just selectively serious!!)

While not all history related to treatises, we find in the Church website a plethora of historical claims to the persecution and suffering of SMith, to his travels from NY to Nauvoo, to his conversation in the woods and receiving revelation. We see a disclosure of his murder in Carthage and the rioting mobs and the evil Expositor, but virtually nothing about his practice of polygamy. Considering that polygamy had a great deal to do with the Expositor coming into existence, its order to be destroyed and the opposition accompanying his demise, it became all too obvious to me why this polygamy history is conspicuously missing.

But scholarly works on the topic are available from such scholars as Danel Bachman, Scott Faulring, Richard Lloyd Anderson, Richard Bushman, and the like.

I have read Bushman, Brodie and Arrington & Bitton. None of which I believe speak officially for the Church. I have also read much of the source document cited where available.

[Daniel Peterson]

Granted it is my judgement. But to conlude it is not held by others would be very naive.

I've never said otherwise.

I believe I am taking into consideration all relevant information. Don't know whether we would agree on such but, given I could find nothing on the church website relating to these facts and found them relevant and you dont see the need for the Church to disclose such information, I suspect not!! . . .

Your are not really serious here, are you? (Or perhaps just selectively serious!!)

I'm entirely serious. I can't imagine why people imagine that the Church's website is the place to find serious historical scholarship.

I have read Bushman, Brodie and Arrington & Bitton. None of which I believe speak officially for the Church.

I don't see that it makes any difference at all whether or not they speak officially for the Church.

[Yme]

I've never said otherwise.

I'm entirely serious. I can't imagine why people imagine that the Church's website is the place to find serious historical scholarship.

I don't see that it makes any difference at all whether or not they speak officially for the Church.

I've never said otherwise.

That's your judgment. It's not mine. And it's not that of others.

???????

[Daniel Peterson]

???????

Others means "other people." As in, There are other people (besides me) who don't share your opinion. And some of them, by the way, are quite knowledgeable. (Just to ward off the claim that they don't share your opinion because they're ignorant of the facts.)

[Scott Lloyd]

???????

You rely too heavily on question marks. A string of them together does not give your message any greater verity than does a single one.

And a bunch of them together without any other form of text whatsoever does not make for articulate communication.

[Yme]

Others means "other people." As in, There are other people (besides me) who don't share your opinion. And some of them, by the way, are quite knowledgeable. (Just to ward off the claim that they don't share your opinion because they're ignorant of the facts.)

Fair enough.

But do you believe there are also "quite knowledgable" people who reject Smith as a prophet after investigating the Lds Church and its history?

[Yme]

You rely too heavily on question marks. A string of them together does not give your message any greater verity than does a singe one.

And a bunch of them together without any other form of text whatsoever does not make for articulate communication.

Well the one whom it was intended for seem to understand completely.

But I will take your "style points" criticism under advisement.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well the one whom it was intended for seem to understand completely.

But I will take your "style points" criticism under advisement.

I write and proofread for a living. Maybe it's an occupational malady on my part.

[Scott Lloyd]

Fair enough.

But do you believe there are also "quite knowledgable" people who reject Smith as a prophet after investigating the Lds Church and its history?

No doubt.

Pretty much neutralizes lack of intelligence and "doesn't know the facts" as a contention on either side, doesn't it?

[LifeOnaPlate]

You rely too heavily on question marks. A string of them together does not give your message any greater verity than does a singe one.

And a bunch of them together without any other form of text whatsoever does not make for articulate communication.

you're such a writer.

[Scott Lloyd]

you're such a writer.

Psst. Don't tell anyone this, but I noticed a typo in the post to which you've responded.

I've gone back and fixed it now, so no one will know.

[Yme]

No doubt.

Pretty much neutralizes lack of intelligence and "doesn't know the facts" as a contention on either side, doesn't it?

Actually, I think it might be just the opposite.

Allow our own intellect to make a decision after all relevant facts and information are known or disclosed. If the history of Smith and polygamy are not to be feared, be open and candid about it in an official capacity. But if there is still a fear within the church that, as I believe Mr. Peterson alluded to earlier, such information would lead to further members apostisizing, say little about the history as is done now.

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, I think it might be just the opposite.

Allow our own intellect to make a decision after all relevant facts and information are known or disclosed. If the history of Smith and polygamy are not to be feared, be open and candid about it in an official capacity. But if there is still a fear within the church that, as I believe Mr. Peterson alluded to earlier, such information would lead to further members apostisizing, say little about the history as is done now.

Those who are interested have little trouble finding the information. Just because it is not imparted in the manner you think it should be does not mean it is inaccessible or unavailable.

[Daniel Peterson]

But do you believe there are also "quite knowledgable" people who reject Smith as a prophet after investigating the Lds Church and its history?

There probably are. But I was referring, in particular, to faithful professional LDS historians. There are, for reasons that should be obvious, relatively few non-Mormon professional historians who are as dedicated to LDS history (and, thus, as thoroughly knowledgeable about it) as LDS historians are. (And, for the record, I don't count a careful reading of the works of Jerald and Sandra Tanner, for example, as making one an expert in Mormon history.)

Allow our own intellect to make a decision after all relevant facts and information are known or disclosed.

We probably disagree about what constitutes all and precisely what is relevant.

Have you, by any chance, read Richard Lloyd Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses?

If the history of Smith and polygamy are not to be feared, be open and candid about it in an official capacity.

By "open and candid," I think you mean discussing it in detail on the Church's website, despite the fact that the Church's website is, on the whole, not at all designed for historiographical discussions.

I continue to find that puzzling. I don't understand why a Church that does not conceive itself and never has conceived itself as a kind of continuing graduate seminar in nineteenth century history should have to take a position on a non-essential historical issue "in an official capacity."

But if there is still a fear within the church that, as I believe Mr. Peterson alluded to earlier, such information would lead to further members apostisizing, say little about the history as is done now.

I was, as I think you know, talking about the Church's problematic relationship with schismatic polygamous sects. It is for that reason that the Church has downplayed the issue of plural marriage for several generations now.

[Scott Lloyd]

Fair enough, but his post still inaccurately downplays the role that polygamy has played, both historically and currently, in the Mormon church, and this largely goes to the point of this thread. Whether or not you believe polygamy ultimately helped or harmed the Mormon church, I don't think you can dispute that its influence, past and also present, has been tremendous.

My post was in follow-up to an assertion about a "public relations debacle" that polygamy allegedly presents to the Church today. I'm simply saying it's not that big of an issue for most potential converts.

My post did not address one way or the other whether polygamy has had a "tremendous" influence historically.

[Scott Lloyd]

You can take pretty much any idea and couch it in religious language and make it sound altruistic. And as a believer you naturally would do so. That doesn't change the fact that it could serve non-altruistic purposes, and you saying that it was altruistic then offering up its proponents' stated rationale as proof that it was altruistic is circular and ignores my initial point.

Whether or not "it could serve a non-altruistic purpose" is irrelevant to the doctrinal and scriptural concept, which is very much altruistic in theory.

I once had a correspondent on this message board make the rather laughable insinuation that I was championing polygamy in the Church as a means toward some sort of ethnic cleansing or "master race." Nonsense! The covenant of Abraham is that through him and his seed, all the nations (families) of the earth will be blessed by taking to them the opportunity to receive salvation and exaltation. You can't get more universally altruistic than that!

[Yme]

There probably are. But I was referring, in particular, to faithful professional LDS historians. There are, for reasons that should be obvious, relatively few non-Mormon professional historians who are as dedicated to LDS history (and, thus, as thoroughly knowledgeable about it) as LDS historians are. (And, for the record, I don't count a careful reading of the works of Jerald and Sandra Tanner, for example, as making one an expert in Mormon history.)

We probably disagree about what constitutes all and precisely what is relevant.

Have you, by any chance, read Richard Lloyd Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses?

By "open and candid," I think you mean discussing it in detail on the Church's website, despite the fact that the Church's website is, on the whole, not at all designed for historiographical discussions.

I continue to find that puzzling. I don't understand why a Church that does not conceive itself and never has conceived itself as a kind of continuing graduate seminar in nineteenth century history should have to take a position on a non-essential historical issue "in an official capacity."

I was, as I think you know, talking about the Church's problematic relationship with schismatic polygamous sects. It is for that reason that the Church has downplayed the issue of plural marriage for several generations now.

There probably are. But I was referring, in particular, to faithful professional LDS historians. There are, for reasons that should be obvious, relatively few non-Mormon professional historians who are as dedicated to LDS history (and, thus, as thoroughly knowledgeable about it) as LDS historians are.

I suspect because scholars outside the Lds Church believe this "history" only began in the 1800s. But there are many historians who have published works on the settlement of early america that include the role played by the mormon church and its settlements in the midwest and west. If you were referring to an "ancient history" as that claimed in the BOM, I think its pretty clear that the non-lds academic and scholarly community see no credible evidence or convincing scholarship to support an incredible claim of this history, ignoring the religious claim altogether.

(And, for the record, I don't count a careful reading of the works of Jerald and Sandra Tanner, for example, as making one an expert in Mormon history.)

Not sure what brought their names up. Do you find that they have had an impact with whatever works you are refering to?

We probably disagree about what constitutes all and precisely what is relevant.

Perhaps, but I do know the intellect never has a chance to do its job if the information is not offered or provided in the first place.

Have you, by any chance, read Richard Lloyd Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses?

I do not think so although I had been sent some information (book or pamphelet?) from a bil on the witnesses. And again, I don't doubt these individuals were at least convinced on what they thought they saw, some more convicted than others I gather. But for me, their testimonies are totally irrevelant. It would matter less if their were a thousand witnesses or none at all. If the BOM claim were true, we would undoubtedly have credible evidence of this history today. We simply do not and so I assume that is why the church puts so much emphasis on these witnesses to it members.

By "open and candid," I think you mean discussing it in detail on the Church's website, despite the fact that the Church's website is, on the whole, not at all designed for historiographical discussions.

Well given the role polygamy played in early church affairs and doctrine, there is absolutely nothing (for all intents and purposes) disclosed. It truly shows how the church wants to distance itself from this history, IMHO. But it goes even beyond that. I can remember getting copies of church lessons on the murder of SMith at carthage and the "slandering" Expositor. Nothing is ever said that it was polygamy that generated the Expositor or that polygamy was very much a part of inciting the public sentiment against SMith which led to his death. But I know we diagree on this.

I continue to find that puzzling. I don't understand why a Church that does not conceive itself and never has conceived itself as a kind of continuing graduate seminar in nineteenth century history should have to take a position on a non-essential historical issue "in an official capacity."

And I guess I continue to find it as being disingenous at least and perhaps even evasive.

I was, as I think you know, talking about the Church's problematic relationship with schismatic polygamous sects. It is for that reason that the Church has downplayed the issue of plural marriage for several generations now.

And i was questioning why the website only disclosed the monagamous marriages of past presidents. Seems like these schismatic sects already knew/know about polygamy or they would not be schisms! What could possibly be the fear of giving the polygamous wives the same respect the church gives to the monogamous wives unless there is continued fear of this history?

[Scott Lloyd]

And again, I don't doubt these individuals [book of Mormon witesses] were at least convinced on what they thought they saw, some more convicted than others I gather. But for me, their testimonies are totally irrevelant. It would matter less if their were a thousand witnesses or none at all. If the BOM claim were true, we would undoubtedly have credible evidence of this history today. We simply do not and so I assume that is why the church puts so much emphasis on these witnesses to it members.

I'll leave it to Daniel to respond to this post in its entirety as he sees fit, but I find the above statement astounding! How can you claim a desire to process all relevant information and so blithely dismiss the eyewitness testimony of these men?

First take a look at Richard Lloyd Anderson's work, and then we can determine whether your claim about there being no credible evidence for the Book of Mormon can be taken seriously.

[Yme]

In case you are wondering, Heber J. Grant was the last Church president to practice plural marriage. I believe he had 3 wives.

I'll leave it to Daniel to respond to this post in its entirety as he sees fit, but I find the above statement astounding! How can you claim a desire to process all relevant information and so blithely dismiss the eyewitness testimony of these men?

First take a look at Richard Lloyd Anderson's work, and then we can determine whether your claim about there being no credible evidence for the Book of Mormon can be taken seriously.

I'll leave it to Daniel to respond to this post in its entirety as he sees fit, but I find the above statement astounding! How can you claim a desire to process all relevant information and so blithely dismiss the eyewitness testimony of these men?

First take a look at Richard Lloyd Anderson's work, and then we can determine whether your claim about there being no credible evidence for the Book of Mormon can be taken seriously.

It really should not be astounding at all. Let's assume that these witnesses saw some type of plates, be it tin, aluminum or even gold. I will grant you that they saw something. But just as we have seen with the papyri for the BOA, Smith may have needed no plates at all for an inspired revelatory translation of an existing history. It really does not matter how it was reduced to writing after all these years.

What really matters is "did this history ever exist in the first place"? If the history never existed, the claims of the BOM are purely fictional. The story of the witnesses would be merely "sound bites" to the actual geographical, archaeological, anthropological or even historical evidence of the existence of massive and sophisticated hebrew cultures here in north america up to about 600 ad. (But they would be fascinating sound bites, at that, if the history was true!!!) Then "poof", the cities, people and cultures became extinct quicker than T-Rex. There is simply no credible nor convincing evidence for the history claim contained within the BOM that would generate even a dosing interest from our scholarly and academic community. If there is or has been, perhaps the Lds scholars who have spent time researching this history can demonstrate who, and what institutions, in the secular academic and scholarly community they have convinced!! I mean lets be serious here, can we find anywhere on this globe where a respectable academic institution provides any history class discussing the city of Zarahemla or any of the Nephite, Jaradite, Lamanite or Mukelite cultures in North America??

So again, the witnesses are totally irrelevant to the substantiation of the BOM history claim. But I will grant you that they may be very relevant for the continued faith of many members within the Lds Church. So I do recognize thier importance for spiritual purposes of many members.

[why me]

I think you're really, really stretching if you're going to try to turn the fact that scores if not hundreds of people who knew him left testimonials to his kindness, sincerity, humility, dedication, etc., into evidence against him.

And, by the way, when I speak of Jessee's collection of The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, I have reference, for the most part, to things that he didn't write for publication, that cannot plausibly be considered part of any "performance" for the public. They provide, I think, a real mirror into his soul -- and that soul seems to be sincerely devout. I understand that this is a subjective judgment, but we form judgments of the character of others all the time. We have no choice but to do it, and our success in business, in life, and so forth, depends upon our ability to do it. I've devoted a considerable amount of effort to getting to know Joseph (so far as it's possible to do at this distance), and I'll have to be convinced that I'm an unusually poor judge of character.

I believe that your point is often missed by the critics. When judging a life, a person should attempt a holistic view of that life. When critics see JS, they usually stress the negatives in his character and say: Look here and read this! SEE, JS was a charletan!! Of course when we put any life under a close scrutiny, we will find flaws. But when we see a life through a holistic lens, we can come to a better judgement of that life. And JS certainly had fine points and good points to his character and these far out weigh the negatives. JS never consider himself righteous but he was 'god-fearing.'

For Scottie et, al, JS was just a con artist and yet if JS was a con artist, he failed miserably. His dream failed if this dream was based on his own glory. For after all, he died in a frontier prison at the hand of a mob at a very early age. No greater personal failure than that for a con man.

But as a prophet, he was a great success not for himself but for God. Many con men quit before such failure can take hold. And for JS's con to succeed he needed more than himself to enact it. And yet, these 'accomplices' never blew the whistle. Why? And that question is a giant bedbug for the critics.

Measure on personal success....JS was a failure as con artist. But an immense success as prophet. He endured to the end because of this prophethood and not because he was a con man.

[Scott Lloyd]

It really should not be astounding at all. Let's assume that these witnesses saw some type of plates, be it tin, aluminum or even gold. I will grant you that they saw something. But just as we have seen with the papyri for the BOA, Smith may have needed no plates at all for an inspired revelatory translation of an existing history. It really does not matter how it was reduced to writing after all these years....

So again, the witnesses are totally irrelevant to the substantiation of the BOM history claim. But I will grant you that they may be very relevant for the continued faith of many members within the Lds Church. So I do recognize thier importance for spiritual purposes of many members.

The fact is no critic has been able to come up with a persuasive naturalistic explanation for the experience of the witnesses, as Daniel Peterson has explained so well in this FAIR Conference presentation from a few years ago:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...e_Theories.html

For you to dismiss the Book of Mormon as a fraud, you have to have some way to account for what the Book of Mormon witnesses experienced, other than that to which they repeatedly gave testimony, which they never denied.

Through this whole thread, I haven't seen any demonstration that you have given thorough consideration to both sides of these matters. In fact, you have followed the anti-Mormon script to the letter.

Which tells me you are no more enlightened than the poor, benighted Mormons you claim are being defrauded because the Church doesn't provide an in-depth discussion of polygamy on its Web site.

[T-Shirt]

I will grant you that they saw something.

Do you grant that they actually saw an Angel and heard the voice of God? Or, did they make that part up?

T-Shirt

[Yme]

The fact is no critic has been able to come up with a persuasive naturalistic explanation for the experience of the witnesses, as Daniel Peterson has explained so well in this FAIR Conference presentation from a few years ago:

Why would anyone really care to? I am sure there are many compelling reasons for some to believe that these witnesses actually saw what they say they saw. But they did not see the City of Zarahemla or any of the people, places or cultures mentioned in the BOM. These witnesses may have a purpose in the promotion of your faith. But they are truely IRRELEVANT to the history claim in the BOM. If the history ever existed it would have done so whether theses witnesses saw the plates or not!

For you to dismiss the Book of Mormon as a fraud, you have to have some way to account for what the Book of Mormon witnesses experienced, other than that to which they repeatedly gave testimony, which they never denied.

I dont know what you mean by fraud. I certainly dismiss it as a record of history simply because there is no credible and convincing evidence of this history. And if the history never existed, I would be well justified to dismiss it as being anything it claims to be. If there is credible and convincing evidence, provide it and let me know who, outside of faithful Lds, it has convinced of its historical claims. Remember, one can be an atheist and be convinced of many of the people, places and cultures mentioned in the Bible.

Through this whole thread, I haven't seen any demonstration that you have given thorough consideration to both sides of these matters. In fact, you have followed the anti-Mormon script to the letter.

Which tells me you are no more enlightened than the poor, benighted Mormons you claim are being defrauded because the Church doesn't provide an in-depth discussion of polygamy on its Web site.

Well I will admit that I don't believe that Smith was a prophet or that the BOM history ever existed. There are many teachings of the Lds church I cannot support, but there are many I can. I but I gave a full open mind on the claims of the Lds Church years ago when I met with missionaries and members of my wifes church. I spent a very long time listening, reading investigating and asking questions. I was even told "far more than most" from my wifes family. It simply was never very convincing to me with all the historical issues I found. I suspect you reached a different conclusion.

But I don't think I have made any statements that other rationale and reasonable minds would not agree with.