On Sweeping Polygamy under the Rug

[Redefined]

Sorry, but I need some clarification here: Are fellow LDS forbidden from learning about plural marriage?

I'm sure you can predict this answer since even in this very last hour cinepro has been trying to demonstrate how the church isn't forthright about the practise. And So, No I was only ever taught that Joseph Smith had one wife. . . Emma Smith. . . and I know it isn't unique to my situation.

[Redefined]

A worthy pursuit. Why don't you go read a Halloween story with them?

Why thank you for being so concerned! Maybe you can stick with these suggestions for yourself, as I am not asking for suggestions from you about what to do with my time.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm sure you can predict this answer since even in this very last hour cinepro has been trying to demonstrate how the church isn't forthright about the practise.

And has been rather unsuccessful in the attempt, as you will see if you've been following my responses to him.

And So, No I was only ever taught that Joseph Smith had one wife. . . Emma Smith. . .

I, on the other hand, had no trouble learning that Joseph Smith not only received the revelation instituting plural marriage, but obeyed the commandment to teach it and live it himself. Checkmate.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why thank you for being so concerned! Maybe you can stick with these suggestions for yourself, as I am not asking for suggestions from you about what to do with my time.

Maybe I can do what with these suggestions?

Oh, pardon. I misread it the first time.

[divinenature]

LOL I'm off to the ward party.....

I think it is probably right that the church leave it to the individual to discover and learn about the polygamist history of the church. It causes a lot more cognitive dissonance that way. It really changed my life and helped me realize that my foundation was shaky. So yeah, I think it is probably being handled exactly how it should be.

Swept under the carpet, but peeking out just a smidge.

[Redefined]

And rather unsuccessful in the attempt, as you will see if you've been following my responses to him.

I, on the other hand, had no trouble learning that Joseph Smith not only received the revelation instituting plural marriage, but obeyed the commandment to teach it and live it himself. Checkmate.

I wasn't aware we were playing a game.

The avoidance of the topic has been already acknowledge. It has been said the reason church members don't hear about the practise is because it is insignificant information that isn't needed in the pursuit of living the gospel. I think that a marriage is a significant event in the life of a person, but the church only mentions Joseph Smith's marriage to Emma Smith in that timeline. And he is the most significant leader of them all. If anything, this history should have a significant place dedicated to it within church lessons.

[stux]

Is it the intent of this exercise to prove that the Church hides the fact of plural marriage in its history? If so, how do you account for the following items under "Significant Events" when you click on John Taylor's profile?

Maybe the editors need to put cinepro on the payroll as consultant so they can better measure up to his expectations and would be less apt to be subject to his second-guessing.

Cinepro is right. It's disingenuous to say that those biographical sketches are forthcoming in regards to Polygamy. Joseph Smith's sketch has no mention... at all, yet they include events that are less then significant, please. Are those biographical sketches just milk before meat?

Honestly I have trouble with people claiming the church is necessarily ashamed of the practice, but I recognize they are also not as forthcoming as many here have claimed. Polygamy remains a stumbling block for many members and for those learning of the church. I think it's fair to say that the church attempts to be the least forthcoming as they can afford to be in order to avoid discussion about plural marriage. One can then make the conclusion that they are ashamed, but I have seen no evidence of the church being "ashamed" of the practice of plural marriage. They just want to avoid discussion about it if they can.

[stux]

I wasn't aware we were playing a game.

The avoidance of the topic has been already acknowledge. It has been said the reason church members don't hear about the practise is because it is insignificant information that isn't needed in the pursuit of living the gospel. I think that a marriage is a significant event in the life of a person, but the church only mentions Joseph Smith's marriage to Emma Smith in that timeline. And he is the most significant leader of them all. If anything, this history should have a significant place dedicated to it within church lessons.

Heres a quick little analogy I just thought of

Suppose you had a brother that was kind, loving, beautiful in every way in your eyes, but misunderstood by the world and all who initially see him. He has some conditions, some deformities and at first glance is not a sight that would inspire or be envied, but a sight that would shock and scare many causing them to flea and spread lies and rumors that were simply untrue. Overtime as people as people got to know you they would see your honesty and catch glimpses of your brother, so rejected by the world. When you felt comfortable with those visitors and friends you would even show him how wonderful your brother really was, not ashamed that he is your family. Some would see what you see in him while some you considered friends would become fearful and flee.

I see no evidence the church has been or is ashamed of polygamy. I do see evidence and have found that it is cautious in introducing polygamy and teaching about it. Its kind of like a dead brother too, there really is no reason to bring it up often especially at church, but they cannot avoid it as it is a part of them and the history of the church.

[DanGB]

None of the biographical sketches on this page mentions any of the marriages of the presidents of the Church, plural or otherwise. The information on President Wilford Woodruff, however, does include the fact that after much pondering and prayer he received the revelation discontinuing the practice of plural marriage.

I believe you are mistaken. If you look under the tab "Significant Events" you will find the marriages and name of wife for each prophet who practiced monogamy, beginning w George Albert Smith Jr. Then look at the same tab for all prvious prophets (who all practiced polygamy) and, other Emma Smith, there is no mention of any marriages nor wives! Why would the church not give equal recognition to all these women as being significant if polygamy was such a sacred blessing?

[aka]

...... I have expressed the conviction that the command to practice it was necessary for the Church to reach critical mass in numbers whereby it could survive oppression and be poised to fulfill the mission to carry the gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue and people.

I'm interested learning the reasons why polyandry was included as a means of achieving the "critical mass" goal. I've always had trouble reconciling its practice by Joseph Smith and would appreciate learning how others have developed a confort level with the concept.

Thank you.

[Redefined]

Heres a quick little analogy I just thought of

Suppose you had a brother that was kind, loving, beautiful in every way in your eyes, but misunderstood by the world and all who initially see him. He has some conditions, some deformities and at first glance is not a sight that would inspire or be envied, but a sight that would shock and scare many causing them to flea and spread lies and rumors that were simply untrue. Overtime as people as people got to know you they would see your honesty and catch glimpses of your brother, so rejected by the world. When you felt comfortable with those visitors and friends you would even show him how wonderful your brother really was, not ashamed that he is your family. Some would see what you see in him while some you considered friends would become fearful and flee.

I see no evidence the church has been or is ashamed of polygamy. I do see evidence and have found that it is cautious in introducing polygamy and teaching about it. Its kind of like a dead brother too, there really is no reason to bring it up often especially at church, but they cannot avoid it as it is a part of them and the history of the church.

One should be able to talk about their "misunderstood brother" to those of its fold. . . especially if he was such a significant part of the founders life. I have said before, it can be argued that it ultimately led to his imprisonment in Carthage (destroying the printing press in an attempt to keep his "misunderstood brother" from being exposed.) Maybe they can say that Joseph had such a reverance for this practise that he was willing to lay down his life to not have it mocked. . . members would understand wouldn't they? Members wouldn't mock the sacred. So I understand how, as Scott Lloyd mentioned, the swine should be kept from having this particular pearl, but the members aren't the enemy.

[Deborah]

Why would the church not give equal recognition to all these women as being significant if polygamy was such a sacred blessing?

Because they weren't significant. Emma was. Emma was there from the beginning and was in a position of great influence. Any other wives were in the background, except for Eliza R. Snow who was a wife in name only and who later became a wife of Brigham young and likewise played a part in church history.

[selek]

One should be able to talk about their "misunderstood brother" to those of its fold. . . especially if he was such a significant part of the founders life. I have said before, it can be argued that it ultimately led to his imprisonment in Carthage (destroying the printing press in an attempt to keep his "misunderstood brother" from being exposed.) Maybe they can say that Joseph had such a reverance for this practise that he was willing to lay down his life to not have it mocked. . . members would understand wouldn't they? Members wouldn't mock the sacred. So I understand how, as Scott Lloyd mentioned, the swine should be kept from having this particular pearl, but the members aren't the enemy.

Nor is polygamy hidden from them.

The historical practice is recounted in our books, our official lesson plans, our published materials, and on our website.

The information is there for the sighted to see and the learned to ponder.

[staccato]

Because they weren't significant. Emma was. Emma was there from the beginning and was in a position of great influence. Any other wives were in the background, except for Eliza R. Snow who was a wife in name only and who later became a wife of Brigham young and likewise played a part in church history.

Joseph's wives were insignificant? I'm sure they would be thrilled to hear that.

[selek]

A better analogy still might be my grandfather's service in World War II and my uncle's service in Vietnam.

Both are a matter of public record, both had high points and low, both had moments of secret pride and of secret shame, and both are recounted in our family history- yet neither man allows it to define them.

If asked, they will discuss it honestly and frankly- but they do not wear their uniforms every day of the year, nor do they insist that it dominate every conversation.

It is acknowledged, and when the subject is raised, discussed frankly.

But they do not wear their honor on their sleeves.

Would you insist on characterizing their treatment of their military service as "sweeping it under the rug" or insinuate they automagically had something to hide?

Only a fool would do so...

[Redefined]

Joseph's wives were insignificant? I'm sure they would be thrilled to hear that.

I think that I'm gonna go purchase In Sacred Lonliness now for a night of tribute. . . i'll be sure to have some tissues on hand.

[stux]

A better analogy still might be my grandfather's service in World War II and my uncle's service in Vietnam.

Both are a matter of public record, both had high points and low, both had moments of secret pride and of secret shame, and both are recounted in our family history- yet neither man allows it to define them.

If asked, they will discuss it honestly and frankly- but they do not wear their uniforms every day of the year, nor do they insist that it dominate every conversation.

It is acknowledged, and when the subject is raised, discussed frankly.

But they do not wear their honor on their sleeves.

Would you insist on characterizing their treatment of their military service as "sweeping it under the rug" or insinuate they automagically had something to hide?

Only a fool would do so...

A better analogy yes, but I am sure if you were making a biographical sketch you would certainly make note of that service. Something completely ignored in the sketch of significant events in the Life of Joseph Smith on the church's website. Less then forthcoming, yes, trying to hide it, no.

[dblagent007]

The problem with polygamy is not just that it was practiced, but how it was practiced. Frankly, it was disgusting. JS was sneaking around behind Emma's back marrying a lot of the most desirable young women in the area. He had no problem telling the little lasses tales like an angel will kill him if he doesn't marry them or they and their entire family will be guaranteed exaltation if they just agree to marry him. He also had no problem making up lies to destroy the reputations of those that rejected his advances. There was nothing holy or inspiring about the way JS practiced polygamy.

After JS died but before polygamy was publicly announced, the missionaries flat out lied and told people that Mormons don't practice polygamy. People would join the church and travel to Utah only to discover the deception.

Once polygamy was openly announced, its practice was a bit less offensive. There were still problems though, like when Heber C. Kimball issued an order that missionaries could no longer marry the women they converted before they got back to Salt Lake because the only ones left for him and the other general authorities to marry were ugly!

The manifesto was nothing more than a ruse. The leaders were back to lying to the public and practicing it in private.

The whole thing was disgusting and wrong - lock, stock, and barrel. There is no way that a being having the attributes of God, at least as I was taught them in Church, would have sanctioned what these people were doing. No way.

It's really not that hard to figure out why the Church doesn't want anything to do with it.

[DanGB]

Because they weren't significant. Emma was. Emma was there from the beginning and was in a position of great influence. Any other wives were in the background, except for Eliza R. Snow who was a wife in name only and who later became a wife of Brigham young and likewise played a part in church history.

So you're saying that women in a monogamous marriage were viewed as significant but women in a polygamous marriage (other than Emma, who left the Church), were seen as insignificant by the Church! That seems like a unjust insult to all the Church members with polygamous history in their family tree.

[Zakuska]

1882 Age 74 United States Congress passed the Edmunds bill, making plural marriage a felony and prohibiting polygamists from voting, holding public office, or performing jury duty.

Hey... thats all I have to do to get out of Jury Duty?!

Where do I sign up!

[Deborah]

Joseph's wives were insignificant?

Speaking historically of course. Also speaking historically how many wives of famous men are given barely a passing mention in the history books except in rare cases, such as Abigail Adams, who played a significant part in her husband's political thought.

[Deborah]

So you're saying that women in a monogamous marriage were viewed as significant but women in a polygamous marriage (other than Emma, who left the Church), were seen as insignificant by the Church! That seems like a unjust insult to all the Church members with polygamous history in their family tree.

Grow up. How many women in monogomous marriages are named in the history books?

[O-Brother]

In my opinion, there is no reason for the Church to hang on to polygamist history. First, we don't practice it now so dwelling on it serves no purpose. Discussing the issue can upset wives and create conflict and if- that's a big IF - the Lord did bring polygam back in OUR time, how many of us would be prepared to embrace it? It's not that people wouldn't tolerate multiple wives, after all we even have same-sex marriage nowadays so having more than one wife shouldn't be a shock to anyone.

Our modern women would not tolerate polygamy whereas most LDS women in the 1800's did. What LDS woman do you know today who would look forward to being one of many wives in THIS Church?

Like President Hickley said during an interview, "that's behind us now."

[notHagoth7]

Why would we teach about a principle we no longer follow? Our mission in Church lessons is to Perfect the Saints, where would a history lesson about a no longer used practice fit that mission?

How about:

The same reason Abraham and Moriah still merits discussion and reflection.

And Noah and the ark.

And Nephi going back to get the plates.

And Daniel in the lion's den.

Etc., etc.

Not because we expect the same challenges/requests, but because we honor that level of faith and certainty, and seek to emulate it.

Even if it should express itself in a much different manner, in response to much different requests.

[DanGB]

Grow up. How many women in monogomous marriages are named in the history books?

You kinda jump around a lot huh. That's ok, sorta fun w ya!

Anyway here is the Churchh website I was referring to again:

http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/leaders.jsp

As you will find, the ALL the prophets wives who married in a monogamous marriage are described as a "significant event". And the women married under polygamy (the wives of all prophets before George Albert Smith Jr.) are conspicuously not mentioned at all.

So yes, in "growing up" (your honor), I can say that "all" wives of prophets in monogamous marriages are mentioned and treated as significant by the Church.

Whereas, and too my point, the Church gives no recognition nor respect to the wives of polygamous prophets. Why, because on an official and public website the Church want to distance itself from a practice it claims internally was commanded by God. I just think of it was God's command, why run and hide from it with respect to all these loyal women\wives?