The Philosophy Of Leaving The Church Over Historical Issues-Like What Is It?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

You haven’t studied this in much detail, have you. Throughout his life, Joseph Smith adamantly denied practicing polygamy, and the Church’s denials were canonized in the D&C. When William Law publically accused Joseph Smith of secretly teaching and practicing polygamy, Joseph Smith responded,

For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ; they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me.

Joseph Smith was effectively in a conspiracy with his clerks to create an exhaustive and comprehensive record which could be used prove he didn’t practice polygamy. That is one reason why Joseph Smith III and the reorganized church denied he practiced polygamy at all, and why the Brigham Young branch can’t definitively list who he married and on what dates.

or, crazy as it sounds:

He was actually telling the truth.

Edited January 19, 2012 by BookofMormonLuvr

[KevinG]

You haven’t studied this in much detail, have you. Throughout his life, Joseph Smith adamantly denied practicing polygamy, and the Church’s denials were canonized in the D&C. When William Law publically accused Joseph Smith of secretly teaching and practicing polygamy, Joseph Smith responded,

For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ; they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me.

Joseph Smith was effectively in a conspiracy with his clerks to create an exhaustive and comprehensive record which could be used prove he didn’t practice polygamy. That is one reason why Joseph Smith III and the reorganized church denied he practiced polygamy at all, and why the Brigham Young branch can’t definitively list who he married and on what dates.

I have studied this... and my conclusion is that while polygamy was kept secret it was probably deemed nobody elses business. Do you publish everything the Lord commands you to do including your intimate relations with your spouse?

The whole "the Church hides its history" argument is thin gruel at best given we are a journal and history keeping people.

[KevinG]

Lots of people get sealings mixed up with carnal knowledge. This is a huge mistake when trying to understand the LDS practice of the principle.

The two are distinct and while sometimes practiced together, are often separate too.

Of course if you want to be scandalized to the point of losing your faith you assume Joseph Smith was diddling underage girls while conveniently forgetting the purposes and practice of sealing and as a bonus covering the cake with an icing of presentism when it comes to marriagable age.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

If the, rather modern, claim the Joseph was merely "sealed" to these women is true- why all the claims that he fathered children? (all, btw, which so far have been proven false through DNA testing) Those women claimed to have had "marital" relations with him, so why the claim now that he didn't?

Edited January 19, 2012 by BookofMormonLuvr

[california boy]

I would assume it is because at this time, polygamy is not commanded by the Lord and they view it as not only adultery, but something more often involving apostasy.

FWIW, I don't agree with saying one sin is more "immoral" than another. It would depend on the situation---who was harmed for example.

Except for the fact that the church still practices a form of polygamy by allowing multiple wives being sealed in the temple for the next life. So it is in essence eternal polygamy, just not temporal polygamy. Does the church still teach that polygamy is an eternal prinicple that will be practiced in the next life? Or has that position changed. If not, then how immoral does God view polygamy really?

[KevinG]

If the, rather modern, claim the Joseph was merely "sealed" to these women is true- why all the claims that he fathered children? (all, btw, which so far have been proven false through DNA testing) Those women claimed to have had "marital" relations with him, so why the claim now that he didn't?

I believe many may have, but then again we don't know. If they were sealed to the Prophet according to the Principle outlined in the Bible and Doctrine and Covenants it is good in the sight of God.

If you want to leave Mormonism because you disagree that the Doctrines of the Church are from God then do it with haste. If on the other hand you want to be scandalized by a view of 19th century Mormon history awkwardly framed by 21st century Protestantism then you may want to rethink your reasons.

[Analytics]

I have studied this... and my conclusion is that while polygamy was kept secret it was probably deemed nobody elses business. Do you publish everything the Lord commands you to do including your intimate relations with your spouse? The whole "the Church hides its history" argument is thin gruel at best given we are a journal and history keeping people.

I do think there is a different between keeping something a secret because it is private, and literally creating a false record to be used to "prove" that you aren't breaking the laws of the church as canonized in the D&C.

Imagine Thomas S. Monson doing the same thing today. President Eyring announces that President Monson is guilty of secretely practicing polygamy. Monson calls Eyring a liar and excommunicates him without a church court. President Monson claims he can literally prove that he isn't involved in polygamy, because he had clerks in his constant employ, recording everything he said and did.

And it then turns out that President Monson really did have several dozen polygamous wives, and the reason his personal history indicates otherwise is because they were constructed to conceal the truth about how he was in violation of the laws of the church.

You might say that this behavior was President Monson's prerogative and whether or not he was obeying the laws of the church was nobody else’s business, but would you really say that he wasn't hiding his history because "we are a record keeping people"?

Edited January 19, 2012 by Analytics

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I believe many may have, but then again we don't know. If they were sealed to the Prophet according to the Principle outlined in the Bible and Doctrine and Covenants it is good in the sight of God.

If you want to leave Mormonism because you disagree that the Doctrines of the Church are from God then do it with haste. If on the other hand you want to be scandalized by a view of 19th century Mormon history awkwardly framed by 21st century Protestantism then you may want to rethink your reasons.

I view nothing from a Protestant point of view, and it is fairly laughable that you would accuse me of such. I don't disagree with the D&C, where they are actual revelations. I do disagree with "revelations" "hidden away in a desk" until 1852 and publsihed under the name of a man who vehemently denied such practice and teachings, and was dead, and thus not in a position to confirm or deny the claim. I think God will understand my high degree of skepticism.

[Analytics]

or, crazy as it sounds: He was actually telling the truth.

Possible. If you think Joseph Smith was an honest man, you are forced to concede he wasn't practicing polygamy and the whole thing was pinned on him by the apostate Brigham Young.

[altersteve]

I've always thought Joseph denied having more than one wife because, to him, he was telling the truth. In his eyes, he had only one spouse, Emma. He may have been sealed to other women, but he never saw himself as being "married" to any of them.

Thus, I don't think he told the whole truth, but I don't think he flat-out lied, either.

[KevinG]

I'm I really reading this correctly? You don't believe Joseph received revelations on the Principle and that it was made up later by Brigham? Then why the Woodruff Manifesto?

My remark about Protestantism and Presentism was more general commontary and not aimed diretly at your head- sorry about that.

[Craig Paxton]

As an aside Craig,

I find it extremely ironic that you as a person who seems to be opposed to certain types of authoratative organized religion, would use a Guy Fawkes mask as your icon.

Ironic? I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are joking? Guy Fawkes IS the emblem of opposition to authoritative figure heads and IS the symbol adopted by public protest movements...thus making him the perfect avatar for me. Are you really sure you understand who Fawkes was?

I know his history well and don’t even need to turn to wiki…this is what I understand about Guy Fawkes.

In 1605 Fawkes and a group of Catholic co-conspirators attempted to blow up the House of Parliament with the aim of assassinating the Protestant “authoritative figure head”, King of England, King James the I. But what he was really seeking was to overthrow a repressive authoritative Monarchy and yes restore his right to practice his own Catholic faith. He was seeking religious freedom (at least his version of it where all worshiped his one true god).

Obviously his attempt failed, he was caught and was set to be hung…but …while attempting to escape…he fell and broke his neck. Because of his attempt to blow up parliament the English still celebrate Guy Fawkes day on November 5^th by setting bon fires, lighting firecrackers and burning Fawkes in effigy in celebration. What was once a celebration to remind the English people of what happens to those who oppose the power of the king has over time morphed into something quite different from its intended purpose…many British now view Fawkes sympathetically as a freedom fighter.

In modern times his mask (from the public protest movie “V is for Vendetta”) has also become the symbol of the underdog, seeking to throw off any form of authoritative repression. I believe that this is also why you will see members of the Occupy Wall Street movement wearing Guy Fawkes masks at their public protests.

While I don’t personally have any evil or illegal designs against any authority figure within the LDS church…I do feel the need to hold their feet to the fire to scrutinize their truth claims. Hey somebody has to do it…

[KevinG]

I've always thought Joseph denied having more than one wife because, to him, he was telling the truth. In his eyes, he had only one spouse, Emma. He may have been sealed to other women, but he never saw himself as being "married" to any of them.

Thus, I don't think he told the whole truth, but I don't think he flat-out lied, either.

That is the impression I got... or that it was nobody's business and God preferred he keep it private. Again Bushman does a good job of laying it out without judgement or promoting it. Something more people should do when discussing this sensitive and misuderstood subject.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I'm I really reading this correctly? You don't believe Joseph received revelations on the Principle and that it was made up later by Brigham? Then why the Woodruff Manifesto?

My remark about Protestantism and Presentism was more general commontary and not aimed diretly at your head- sorry about that.

Yes, I believe the claim of Joseph's polygamous practices and teachings was invented out of whole cloth by BY and other leading men of the church. The Manifesto was merely a ploy to keep the US Government of the back of the church. They realized the gig was up and received a "revelation" to end it.

[KevinG]

You do know that Protestantism was the more rebellious flavor (see Henry VIII) at that time in history and that Fawkes wanted to put Catholic authority back at the head of the state? Fawkes was advocating and fighting for a more authoratative state.

I get a chuckle every time I see the Fawkes masks at protests.

...and V for Vendetta is probably the cultural reference that most modern protesters get. Sadly.

Here is an interesting view on the Fawkes masks and humorous (rough language warning) http://www.cracked.com/article_18606_8-historic-symbols-that-mean-opposite-what-you-think.html

Edited January 19, 2012 by DaddyG

[Uncertain]

I don't know why early church history has to be a legitimate source of evidence though. As a missionary, I don't know if you served or not, you shared Moroni's promise and said if they had faith in Christ, made some decision of it and then pray and ask God he will tell you if its legitimate

I did serve a mission and I am certainly familiar with Moroni's promise. I do not believe personal spiritual expericnes are a reliable means to obtain universal truth. I happen to think there are very strong arguments against the idea a person can learn how the universe really is on the basis of personal spiritual experiences. But that is a debate for another thread. For the sake of argument I will assume personal spiritual experiences are a good means to learn universal truth. How does this counter my point? Finger print evidence may be a very good reason to suspect a person committed a crime this does not mean DNA evidence is not also evidence. Similarly even if we assume personal spiritual experiences are a good means to learn truth this does not mean other sources of evidence don’t exist or are not useful. Like for example how a person or institution behaves. In fact the scripture explicitly teach as much. While John chapter one does indeed teach we can pray and gain wisdom from God. The Bible also teaches how a person behaves is good evidence regarding claims to divine inspiration.

Matthew 7:15-17

15. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17. Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

(bold added by me)

So your own scriptures agree with me that a person’s behavior can be used as evidence regarding claims to be inspired by a loving just God. Therefore church history is a legitimate source of evidence regarding claims to divine inspiration. Again I am not claiming church history should necessarily lead someone to leave the church I am only claiming it is a legitimate exercise to use the behavior of a person or institution as evidence regarding claims to divine inspiration. I am somewhat surprise you disagree.

Let’s go back to my example: I have two persons claiming to be inspired by a perfectly moral and loving God Jane and Joe. Jane is a spotless example of loving charity engaging all day every day in selfless service to her fellow men. Joe on the other hand seems to be a vicious sociopath spending his time hunting down and torturing innocents to death. Are you prepared to argue Joe has an equal chance of being inspired by God as Jane? After all if we can’t use behavior as evidence regarding claims to divine inspiration Joe’s habit of torturing infants to death cannot be used as evidence regarding his claims.

Best,

Uncertain

[KevinG]

Yes, I believe the claim of Joseph's polygamous practices and teachings was invented out of whole cloth by BY and other leading men of the church. The Manifesto was merely a ploy to keep the US Government of the back of the church. They realized the gig was up and received a "revelation" to end it.

I just noticed you are RLDS - that makes more sense (your beliefs about Joseph and polygamy) although I disagree with that conclusion.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I just noticed you are RLDS - that makes more sense (your beliefs about Joseph and polygamy) although I disagree with that conclusion.

I would expect nothing less.

[KevinG]

I would expect nothing less.

[Nevo]

I've always thought Joseph denied having more than one wife because, to him, he was telling the truth. In his eyes, he had only one spouse, Emma. He may have been sealed to other women, but he never saw himself as being "married" to any of them.

Well, if he was having intercourse with them, I hope he saw himself as being married to them.

[Sky]

No serious scholar disputes or denies the fact that Joseph Smith was involved with polygamy. Not even the Church disputes it. The few that do, if there are any, are on the fringes. It is not mainstream thinking. Those that believe otherwise are profoundly mistaken. It is an uncomfortable reality, but if it helps, I still believe Joseph was a true prophet.

[Uncertain]

Is this the same god who killed the couple who cheated on their tithing in the new testament? Moral loving God? Here is the deal: I find Joseph to be between a rock and a hard place with polygamy. His first known plural wife was Fanny. He then waited several years before going on a sealing spree for a period of two years. Why? Could it be pressure from god to implement polygamy and if so, what should Joseph have done if Emma was not on board. Disobey god? And say to god, sorry but emma does not want me to do it? And how would god respond: Okay lets forget about it.

To understand Joseph we wil need to see what happens when prophets disobey god in the old testament or in the new testament if people disobey him. Many critics mock the threat of the sword by the angel when it comes to JS's polygamy. And yet, in the bible the sword threat is mentioned quite often.

I do not want to get caught up in a debate concerning specific historical talking points. I am well aware of the various critical arguments based on church history and the apologetic responses. I see no point in rehashing them here. My only point was addressing the topic of this thread and that is the philosophy behind using church history as evidence pro or con regarding the church. It is my contention how a person or institution behaves is perfectly legitimate evidence regarding their claims to divine inspiration. Do you agree or disagree? In fact as I have shown above the scriptures apparently agree with me.

Now personally I think there are much better apologetic responses to how early polygamy was practiced than the one you give here which I see as circular it assumes JS really was directed by God to practice polygamy. This is exactly what the critics are disputing why should anyone assume this?

Best,

Uncertain

[BookofMormonLuvr]

No serious scholar disputes or denies the fact that Joseph Smith was involved with polygamy. Not even the Church disputes it. The few that do, if there are any, are on the fringes. It is not mainstream thinking. Those that believe otherwise are profoundly mistaken. It is an uncomfortable reality, but if it helps, I still believe Joseph was a true prophet.

Well, THAT'S surprising. Even the LDS Church doesn't deny it???? I am shocked.

For a good look at why I don't believe Joseph practiced or taught polygamy, please see:

http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm

[Sky]

For a good look at why I don't believe Joseph practiced or taught polygamy, please see:

http://restorationbo.../jsfp-index.htm

Well, you and your tiny Restoration Branch are free to believe that. I can't convince you otherwise. But you are wrong. It's a historical fact.

[altersteve]

Well, if he was having intercourse with them, I hope he saw himself as being married to them.

There's no evidence that he had intercourse with any of them.