mfbukowski Posted May 17, 2011 Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) The background: Some YSA in a Milan (Italy) institute class have come across the issue of polygamy/polyandry on the internet. Specifically the account of Joseph Smith proposing and marrying women while their husbands are away on missions. The YSA were rightfully shocked by this information and were soon directed to the Stake President for answers by the institute teacher. Unfortunately the Stake Presidency did not have the answers so they contacted the Area Presidency for comment. The Area Presidency unfortunately sent a communication back to the YSA rebuking them for wanting to know about this information. The short of the story is that the YSA are now very lost and are perceiving this as a cover up. I am in a position to assist the Institute teacher in Milan by providing some information. I realize that there are resources on FAIR, etc. But what I am asking is if there are some good materials available in Italian that might help in this situation?I am happy for this tread to debate the issue of church history and its affect in a multi language setting but my first priority is to help the Milan YSA. If the brains trust out there can help it would be appreciated.ThanksPaddyDon't have time to read the thread right now, so this has perhaps been suggested, but Brian Hales is the BEST I have ever seen on this!Here is a link to a thread where he discusses this; also it seems he is on "Mormon Scholars Testify"- and I am sure he would helpThe thread starts with some criticism of Hale's form of testimony on Mormon Scholars, which is of course a non-issue to his scholarship on polygamy/ polyandry.The bottom line is that we weren't there- and no one can know what was in these individuals hearts at the time this was going on. Edited May 17, 2011 by mfbukowski
Alla Posted May 17, 2011 Posted May 17, 2011 If you think that the church is truly open about Joseph Smith's polygamy, then why do we continue to hear over and over and over about how this little nugget of history has become a stumbling block for people's testimonies. If the church was truly open about it, then why does it cause such a shock and why is it such a common refrain among those doubting the church.I think it is because we don't know everything. I mean we don't have all facts. If there are no facts but lot's of hearsay, then it is better not to talk too much about it. I don't have to know what other people think that truth might be. I want to know the truth(FACTS).Do we have as many facts as we have hearsay?But again even if I had facts it would not affect my testimony-things that Lord has revealed to me. I believe that everything what Joseph Smith taught is true. I believe all those principles very deeply. I don't like some things that prophets of OT did. But it is my judgement and it can be wrong. But witness of the Holy Ghost is never wrong. I believe that it was God Who long time ago revealed to me that HE IS. And I believe that it was the same God Who revealed to me that Joseph Smith is His prophet, and that Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is His Church.Facts are not supposed to be foundation of my faith. Facts are not supposed to destroy may faith. That is what I decided. 1
cinepro Posted May 17, 2011 Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) What an awful Church you belong to. How do you bear staying in as a "professed member"?If the Church's statistical reports are any indication, once a person has been baptized the requirements to be counted as a member (professed or otherwise) are abysmally low. That being the case, I bear the same as everyone else: I appreciate the good parts, deal with the bad parts, and ignore or laugh at the silly parts. Edited May 17, 2011 by cinepro
LeSellers Posted May 17, 2011 Posted May 17, 2011 If you think that the church is truly open about Joseph Smith's polygamy, then why do we continue to hear over and over and over about how this little nugget of history has become a stumbling block for people's testimonies. If the church was truly open about it, then why does it cause such a shock and why is it such a common refrain among those doubting the church.Because no one reads the scriptures. It's in, and blatantly so, sec 132, fer cryin' in a bucket!!!So much so that there are people who actually believe the section is all about plural marriage, rather than celestial marriage. Lehi
Minos Posted May 17, 2011 Posted May 17, 2011 OP is asking a clear question not asking for mockery. Troublemakers have been banned from thread.
cinepro Posted May 17, 2011 Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) I think a third/fourth way would be a change in how one perceives the polygyny/polyandry in general as well in that particular context, iow a paradigm shift on polyandry or a change of understanding on what sealings meant to Joseph and what he was trying to accomplish by them and why he chose to do things the way he did.Just to be clear, the specific issue isn't just that Joseph Smith practiced some form of polyandry (sealings and/or marriage to women with living husbands), but also the allegations that he approached women while their husbands were thousands of miles away serving missions for the Church.That being said, how many proposals are we talking about here? According to the FAIR Wiki, there was Miranda Hyde (sealed to Joseph while Orson was on a mission to Jerusalem), and Sarah Pratt while Orson was in England.Were there more than these two, or did Joseph limit his absentee-husband proposals to women with husbands named "Orson"? Edited May 17, 2011 by cinepro
Duncan Posted May 17, 2011 Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) Just to be clear, the specific issue isn't just that Joseph Smith practiced some form of polyandry (sealings and/or marriage to women with living husbands), but also the allegations that he approached women while their husbands were thousands of miles away serving missions for the Church.That being said, how many proposals are we talking about here? According to the FAIR Wiki, there was Miranda Hyde (sealed to Joseph while Orson was on a mission to Jerusalem), and Sarah Pratt while Orson was in England.Were there more than these two, or did Joseph limit his absentee-husband proposals to women with husbands named "Orson"?As I recall in at least with Miranda Hyde, Orson, Joseph and Miranda all sat down together and Orson was fine with the arrangement, this is according to the Myrtle Hyde Stevens (IIRC) biography on Elder Orson Hyde Edited May 17, 2011 by Duncan
Paddy Posted May 17, 2011 Author Posted May 17, 2011 Thank you to all that have provided contructive advice and links to resources. And also to those that PMed me. I wil definitely be following up on this. I think that this is an example where these message boards are at their best. Thanks again. Paddy
dougtheavenger Posted May 17, 2011 Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) The background: Some YSA in a Milan (Italy) institute class have come across the issue of polygamy/polyandry on the internet. Specifically the account of Joseph Smith proposing and marrying women while their husbands are away on missions. The YSA were rightfully shocked by this information and were soon directed to the Stake President for answers by the institute teacher. Unfortunately the Stake Presidency did not have the answers so they contacted the Area Presidency for comment. The Area Presidency unfortunately sent a communication back to the YSA rebuking them for wanting to know about this information. The short of the story is that the YSA are now very lost and are perceiving this as a cover up. I am in a position to assist the Institute teacher in Milan by providing some information. I realize that there are resources on FAIR, etc. But what I am asking is if there are some good materials available in Italian that might help in this situation?I am happy for this tread to debate the issue of church history and its affect in a multi language setting but my first priority is to help the Milan YSA. If the brains trust out there can help it would be appreciated.ThanksPaddyUgo Perego, a geneticist, found no descendants of Joseph Smith through any woman other than Ema Smith. Several cadidates, including Fanny Algres son's male descendants were ruiled out. http://www.josephsmithjr.org/the-news/60-smith-descendants-other-wives Edited May 17, 2011 by dougtheavenger
bookofmormontruth Posted May 17, 2011 Posted May 17, 2011 If the Church's statistical reports are any indication, once a person has been baptized the requirements to be counted as a member (professed or otherwise) are abysmally low. That being the case, I bear the same as everyone else: I appreciate the good parts, deal with the bad parts, and ignore or laugh at the silly parts.CFR the "good parts".
Calm Posted May 17, 2011 Posted May 17, 2011 CFR the "good parts".Perhaps another thread so as not to take this one off the rails again.
Pahoran Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 I'm confident that would not be the case. May as well ask me if a murderer is acting under the God of Abraham. The answer is, "no".God stayed Abraham's hand, seems to be a point that is lost on Mormons. I don't see that happened with Joseph Smith's lust.What "lust?" That is an unrighteous judgement for which you have no basis.No, I'm saying Jesus taught that marriage is between one man and one woman and any marriage outside of that is adultery. I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, not Joseph Smith.As such, God has created me with reason and scripture advices that I test the siprits. Reason tells me, God isn't going to send an angel of light to command anyone to adultery.Polygamy is not adultery. We know that because we follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, not the Manichaeism of Augustine.You lack of understanding of scripture is showing. But I believe this conversation has been done before.Mormons will always defend the adultery of Joseph Smith in any way they can, is the final outcome of it every time.I can only pray the enlightened people of Milan will be led to truth, with good chances they will be, as the people of Milan have never been known to take "all is well" for an answer to anything.I'm sure the good people of Milan are well aware that the medieval Augustinian church gave them Banco Ambrosiano and Il Crack Sindona.Regards,Pahoran
cinepro Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 (edited) CFR the "good parts".My post should not be construed as an actual claim that the Church actually has parts good, bad and/or silly. I am only suggesting the possibility that such might exist, and if it did, I would appreciate, ignore or mock them. Edited May 18, 2011 by cinepro
jskains Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 or Couldn't make up my mind...Huh..http://lds.org/search?query=Polygamy〈=engDishonest much?
jskains Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 How about this:http://lds.org/scriptures/tg/marriage-plural?lang=engHuh... Dishonest much?
jskains Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 Wait wait... here is an official LESSON:http://lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-31-sealed-for-time-and-for-all-eternity?lang=eng&query=plural+marriageA whole SECTION on Plural Marriage... Wow..JMS
frankenstein Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 (edited) This is great that you have the desire to help out. I am sure there are great resources and information to share with these youth to give them "broader perspectives". These men who had their wives sealed to Joseph Smith remained friends with the Prophet so it had nothing to do with "sexual relationships" that our enemies desperately try to peg it as.Unfortunately, in "crisis of faith" matters a good dose of reading the Book of Mormon, prayer and fasting etc.. are the only means to turn a "crisis of faith" into an increase of faith. It is also important to validate what they are going through and not be afraid to talk about the issue. But once they feel they have been "heard", the basic fundamentals should be implemented and then let them "wrestle with their faith" after all we can do for them.IF such was the case, as you have posisited and as Lehi has stated, wouldn't it be easier for the Church to give such as the response, rather than seemingly assert that the YSA should be ashamed for asking such questions?I have thought about this issue quite a bit in the last two days. I can not determine what would be more harmful, the Church to have an official answer or the Church to ignore the questions from its members.edited: Opps, I forgot this is the Social Hall. Edited May 18, 2011 by frankenstein
jadams_4242 Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 It didn't affect my testimony. It didn't affect many people's testimonies. I was an atheist. But one day God gave me a revelation. I felt Holy Ghost and I became a believer in instance. I actually KNEW at that moment that there was God. That was very powerful witness of the Holy Ghost. No matter what people say about God it will never affect what happened that day when God reveiled something wonderful to me.The problem that some people never had testimony, they only said that they had. Some people had testimony but they started to have doubts:"what if that was just my imagination, or hallusination?" They become overwhelmed with what people say.But I do not believe everything what people say. I will accept facts. But I know now that those who say negative things about our prophets actually do not have as many facts as thay claim they do. keep on tract to continue receiving confirmations of everything in the church; attend baptisms, attend temple often. stay active and prayerfull; keep searching also for your answers in all things; you "WILL" find them as the lord sees fit. he "WILL" give you answers.
bookofmormontruth Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 Perhaps another thread so as not to take this one off the rails again. No worries, I wasn't being serious. Just seeing if he could actually say something "good".
bookofmormontruth Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 (edited) IF such was the case, as you have posisited and as Lehi has stated, wouldn't it be easier for the Church to give such as the response, rather than seemingly assert that the YSA should be ashamed for asking such questions?I have thought about this issue quite a bit in the last two days. I can not determine what would be more harmful, the Church to have an official answer or the Church to ignore the questions from its members.edited: Opps, I forgot this is the Social Hall.The problem is, we don't know the full story or why the area President acted the way he did. On the surface, it sounded like he acted too harshly.But maybe there is another side to this and his story? Maybe this isn't the first issue coming from this YSA? Maybe one of the kids is known as a pot stirrer and then gets everyone around him all worked up. We really don't know. Edited May 18, 2011 by bookofmormontruth
mfbukowski Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 If the Church's statistical reports are any indication, once a person has been baptized the requirements to be counted as a member (professed or otherwise) are abysmally low. I've seen worse.I used to be a member of a church that the only requirement was to show up once a year.
ebeddoulos Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 It is somewhat amazing that anti-Mormons continue to use this argument against Joseph Smith.The church has not hid the fact that Joseph Smith had multiple wives. Any of the various histories of the church will attest to that. There are records which indicate that Joseph may have been sealed to as many as 34 women, whose average age at the time of marriage was 27 years and 4 months. It is also well attested that between June 15, 1828 and November 17, 1844, Joseph and Emma had eleven children. Two were adopted and one was born after Joseph was martyred. In 16 years Emma bore 9 children. Joseph, to put it crassly, did not shoot blanks.Now if Joseph had sexual relations with these women as anti-Mormons insist and since Joseph was virile, it follows that there should be off-spring from that congress. However, DNA testing has been done and within the scope and limitations of current science, it appears that Emma is the only wife with whom Joseph had children. The only licentiousness here is in the dirty little minds of the anti-Mormons. 4
TAO Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 Hmmm... all of these posts, alot of contention, but you know whose I think is the best? Cdowis's.Really, as he said... there is no better advice to say or things to think about, then simply, if God commanded you to do something, would you do it?Through small and simple things, the Lord confounds the wise, and bringeth to past the salvation of many souls.I don't see why people don't see - the Lord's ways are small, and mysterious... and it's hard to understand why he does things sometimes. But it brings to past great things.Have you ever wondered, after tripping, why you tripped? Would you have thought about tripping, if you hadn't tripped? No, and you might lose thinking about other things as well.The Lord had a purpose behind polygamy and the way it was done, and I really don't think we should condemn Joseph for doing as God commanded. Because, 'when God commands, and a man obeys, that man will always be right'.So the question then becomes, when God asks you to do something hard, something unexpected, something very very difficult for you to do, will you do it? We must learn and prepare ourselves to say yes. For when the Lord calls, there will be no waiting. He is there for us, let's be there for him.
mfbukowski Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 Huh..http://lds.org/search?query=Polygamy〈=engDishonest much?Yean, get used to it. There's a lot of that going on here.
Recommended Posts