Grant Palmer Is At It Again...

[Calm]

I think what Monster is getting at is that members are generally counseled to avoid "anti-Mormon" materials. And when preparing lessons, in particular, they are counseled to avoid consulting any "not correlated" materials (source).

Preparing lessons for Church meetings is the only time I have ever heard any instructions to avoid consulting "not correlated" materials. Applying the counsel for a very limited situation to general behaviour is not an accurate portrayal of the counsel.

And avoiding "anti-Mormon" materials is a huge difference from avoiding "non church approved" materials as Monster claims.

Deseretbook itself is full of "non church approved" materials.

Monster's claim is a caricature of the actual position of the Church.

Edited February 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[california boy]

A sealing can occur between a man and a woman who were never married. JS was sealed to women who were married, but never sealed to their husband. Normally we think of these jointly, but they are actually two different things. Married is effective for mortality, sealing is post mortality. We can be sealed and married in the temple, but the sealing goes in effect after mortality. A woman is married to a non-member and he refuses to join the church. She meets a member, and they have a tactful agreement that they will be part of the same family in the afterlife. After they are deceased, it is possible that they can be sealed (under special conditions) in the temple. Women who never knew JS had themselves sealed to JS after he was deceased -- but this practice was stopped for obvious reasons. Give it some thought and it will become clear.

Thank you all for your responses. I think that I do understand the difference between being sealed and being married. I understand it has to do with continuing relationships after we die. Husbands are sealed to wives and children are sealed together as a family. I think that is correct anyway. If not perhaps someone can clarify for me.

I have to admit I actually know very little about who or how JS was sealed to other women so I have no real understanding about the actual circumstance of his purral marriages. But perhaps someone can help me with a few questions I have from reading this thread.

Are you all saying that JS only married other men's wives when the husband was unable or had not been sealed to their wives for eternity? Because aren't some of the women he was sealed to quite prominent leaders who should have been able to be sealed to their own wives?

And if he was only "helping others out" by being sealed to those who were not sealed to their husbands, how do you explain JS marrying the one that was 14 years old? I guess first I should ask if he in fact did get sealed to a 14 year old. By doing so, how is being sealed to someone so young necessary when one assumes that the young girl would eventually find someone to love and be sealed to her.

I am just trying to figure out how all of this fits together. I think I liked it better when I only knew that JS had multiple wives and Emma wasn't happy over the whole issue. It seems like it is much more complicated than that.

[Nevo]

Is it as bad as Palmer makes it out to be, I have no idea, but I do know the pattern that seemed to form in Nauvoo seems to be one that is repeated by other charismatic leaders throughout history. We just do not want to accept that our charismatic leader is the same as the rest. We want to believe ours is different even though the pattern is the same. If all these aspects about Joseph were applied to another religion we would immediately dismiss the whole shebang.

Hi Monster,

I would say a couple of things in response to your post. First, it isn't as bad as Palmer makes it out to be. Virtually all of Palmer's sources are highly problematic (that is to say, unreliable). No responsible historian would use the sources he does the way he does.

Second, I wholeheartedly agree with you that the Church as an institution needs to face up to the uncomfortable aspects of its history. There are already signs that It is beginning to do so.

Finally, to your point that "the pattern that seemed to form in Nauvoo seems to be one that is repeated by other charismatic leaders throughout history," I highly recommend Ronald Esplin's article, "The Significance of Nauvoo for Latter-day Saints," Journal of Mormon History 16, no. 1 (1990): 71-86; the whole issue is available for download here. I think Esplin's article offers valuable perspective for understanding some of the seemingly manic, self-destructive aspects of Joseph's Nauvoo program. Misguided or not, I think Joseph was trying to do something very important in Nauvoo.

Of course there are similarities between Joseph Smith and other charismatic religious leaders (particularly leaders of millenarian groups), but I don't think that's always a bad thing. Neal Chandler offered some provocative thoughts on this in his Sunstone piece, "Beyond a Shadow of Certitude: Field Notes from a Stupor of Thought" (February 2000). I think Joseph Smith was exactly what the Church needed to get it off the ground.

[ERayR]

As I read I see the mistake of mistaking sealings for marriage. Sealing is binding together but not necessarily as husband and wife. My children are sealed to me but I am not married to my children. I am sealed to my parents and again we are not married.

Joseph was sealed to others to whom he was not married (several men and probably several women). He was unquestionably married to more than one wife but he was also sealed to some to whom he was not married but bound as family.

[Verum]

A relevant little item:

http://dcpsicetnon.b...n-polygamy.html

A good post. I definitely agree that sex was not the driving force behind Joseph's polygamy, and its probably unfair and inaccurate for critics to draw that conclusions.

But to say that Joseph Smith did not likely have sex with the women he was married to is also a big stretch given the evidence and other reasons I have already mentioned. His motives behind polygamy are very complex and more to do with his understanding of scripture, his role as a prophet, his own character flaws, etc.

[LeSellers]

to say that Joseph Smith did not likely have sex with the women he was married to is also a big stretch given the evidence and other reasons I have already mentioned. His motives behind polygamy are very complex and more to do with his understanding of scripture, his role as a prophet, his own character flaws, etc.

All of that is true, except we are fully justified in claiming that Joseph only had marital relations with his wives, but that not all those who were sealed to him were "wives".

There has been a great difficulty in getting [this distinction] into the heads of [many people]. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger for a wedge and a pumpkin for a beetle.

Lehi

[Freedom]

The early church leaders interpreted the doctrine with what they knew, trying to reconcile the instructions in the revelations with their own limited world view. There are many examples of the church changing policy or interpretation of doctrine as they gain a better understanding of the scripture. A recent example is performing confirmations in sacrament meeting rather than during the baptism ceremony. I have heard the argument that the D&C is very clear on the purpose of marriage, however I counter this by asking how many devices do you own where you do not follow the manufacturer’s recommended parameters of use? To this day there are problems with how we practice the sealing ordinances and from time to time, the brethren change the policies in an attempt, I think, to reconcile these apparent discrepancies. The sealing ordinance is described as a blanket rather than a chain. We are all sealed together as one great family. In this context, being married is different than being sealed. We are sealed to our children and our parent, for example, but we are not married to them. Perhaps we are all to be sealed to each other under the new and everlasting covenant as Joseph understood it. If we look at the sealing ordinance as a chain linking us back to God we are going to have a problem if someone along the way is caste out. If, on the other hand, I am sealed to my wife and wives of other men, and they are sealed to other wives, then we are creating a web that envelopes everyone. This, I think, is how Joseph envisioned it.

[Freedom]

A good post. I definitely agree that sex was not the driving force behind Joseph's polygamy, and its probably unfair and inaccurate for critics to draw that conclusions.

But to say that Joseph Smith did not likely have sex with the women he was married to is also a big stretch given the evidence and other reasons I have already mentioned. His motives behind polygamy are very complex and more to do with his understanding of scripture, his role as a prophet, his own character flaws, etc.

he may have, but those women who were already married most probably did not. The evidence is quite clear to the contrary in my opinion.

[Darth_Bill]

Why are we spending time on the purpose of marriage and sealings. Is it because it was JS instead of BY? BY didn't have any issues knowing what the marriages were. I'm more than willing to concede that sealings aren't necessarily marriages. Is it really that we find discomfort thinking that JS considered these marriages in every sense of the word? I don't know why we are going down that road.

Ahhhh. Polyandry might be the issue....got it.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Darth_Bill

[Jaybear]

All of that is true, except we are fully justified in claiming that Joseph only had marital relations with his wives, but that not all those who were sealed to him were "wives".

Lehi

That strikes me as a reasonable statement.

I don't understand those people who consider it a big deal that Smith did or did not have sex with his wives.

The only relevant question should be whether the marriages were sanctioned by God. If so, then what they do in the bed, is not really our business.

Frankly, if couple is married, but not having sex, there probably something wrong.

I also don't understand those people have no problem with a man marrying more than one woman, but find it abominable that a woman would be married to more than one man.

I don't understand those people who have no problem with Smith taking another man's wife for himself for all eternity, but are appalled at the notion that he would share another man's wife in mortality.

[LeSellers]

I don't understand those people who have no problem with Smith taking another man's wife for himself for all eternity, but are appalled at the notion that he would share another man's wife in mortality.

Then you did not understand my post at all.

The women to whom Joseph was married (as part of the sealing) were his wives. Those to whom he was sealed, but not married, were not wives, neither in time nor eternity.

Lehi

[Freedom]

Why are we spending time on the purpose of marriage and sealings. Is it because it was JS instead of BY? BY didn't have any issues knowing what the marriages were. I'm more than willing to concede that sealings aren't necessarily marriages. Is it really that we find discomfort thinking that JS considered these marriages in every sense of the word? I don't know why we are going down that road.

Ahhhh. Polyandry might be the issue....got it.

I would not be concerned at all if Joseph had relations with other women with whom he was married. The fact remains that there were many sealing that did not involve marriage. Most of Joseph's were of this nature.

[Darth_Bill]

I would not be concerned at all if Joseph had relations with other women with whom he was married. The fact remains that there were many sealing that did not involve marriage. Most of Joseph's were of this nature.

I ask this out of ignorance, but how is this distinction made? Is that documented. I fully understand the difference, but is there something that actually denotes that...or are we assumin'?

[Nevo]

I ask this out of ignorance, but how is this distinction made? Is that documented. I fully understand the difference, but is there something that actually denotes that...or are we assumin'?

I'm afraid they're just making this up. The women that were sealed to Joseph Smith in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage were, in fact, wives.

[Jaybear]

Then you did not understand my post at all.

The women to whom Joseph was married (as part of the sealing) were his wives. Those to whom he was sealed, but not married, were not wives, neither in time nor eternity.

Lehi

I was not addressing you with that comment.

I thought that was patently obvious since: (1) I said I agreed with your comment; and (2) I was expressly referring to "those" people, not "you".

[Pahoran]

We will never know for sure about what was going on with Joseph, but putting Palmer's conclusions aside I ask myself would a practical god and one that I would want to have an affiliation with be involved with all this craziness? Why would I want to worship a God that I do not even share the same values with.

IOW, if God is good, then He must agree with you.

I see.

Believers can make ad hominem attacks on the critics all they want but the fact remains there is much smoke, and where there is smoke there tends to be fire.

This is known as "The Gossip's Creed."

Regards,

Pahoran

[LeSellers]

I was not addressing you with that comment.

I thought that was patently obvious since: (1) I said I agreed with your comment; and (2) I was expressly referring to "those" people, not "you".

Okeh, it just confused me, that's all.

Lehi

[Cobalt-70]

Sealings were different in this day than today. Men were sealed to men in a father son role and women were sealed to men in both capacities. There was a concept of eternal increase and a desire to be together for eternity. This was very early in the process and the concept of sealings was not fully developed by the prophet. I also think that women were sealed to more than one man as a wife, but others will need to confirm that.

Someone needs to do some serious research on this issue, but as far as I can tell, the modern Mormon notion of "sealing" did not arise until after Smith's death. I don't think parents were sealed to children, or proxy sealings were done, until 1846 under the direction of Brigham Young. To Smith, "sealing" was primarily associated with having one's calling and election made sure. One could be "sealed" to one's exaltation. Also, "sealing" involved the ability to secure the salvation of one's ancestors by performing baptisms for the dead. (i.e., what is "sealed" on earth is sealed in heaven). If someone thinks they can prove me wrong, I'd be interested to hear.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Monster]

What's the inevitable?

The inevitable is that those members who remain blissfully ignorant of all the troublesome aspects of Mormonism are going to have it smack in front of them one way or another. By ignoring the critics questions it does not prepare the general membership for the information avalanche that is coming. Those on this board may have studied the issues and are content with the answers they get but the average member is still ignorant of most of the issues. YOu can not hide information easily in todays world.

[Monster]

Preparing lessons for Church meetings is the only time I have ever heard any instructions to avoid consulting "not correlated" materials. Applying the counsel for a very limited situation to general behaviour is not an accurate portrayal of the counsel.

And avoiding "anti-Mormon" materials is a huge difference from avoiding "non church approved" materials as Monster claims.

Deseretbook itself is full of "non church approved" materials.

Monster's claim is a caricature of the actual position of the Church.

Of course members believe they should avoid negative information on the church. Whether it is the actual position of the church or not may be in question, but it is the common belief.

[why me]

The inevitable is that those members who remain blissfully ignorant of all the troublesome aspects of Mormonism are going to have it smack in front of them one way or another. By ignoring the critics questions it does not prepare the general membership for the information avalanche that is coming. Those on this board may have studied the issues and are content with the answers they get but the average member is still ignorant of most of the issues. YOu can not hide information easily in todays world.

All faiths have troublesome aspects. How many catholics are being inundated with their troublesome aspects of catholic history? Not many and there is nothing about an avalanche that is coming. And certainly within catholic history there are troublesome aspects, likewise for most faiths. Why is mormonism so different that every aspect of mormon history needs to be studied over and over again by its members? Why is mormonism so different that a member should be required to study church history to prepare them for the internet and critic interpretations? And will the critics be happy with lds interpretations or will they be moaning that something has been excluded or the interpretation is wrong?

[why me]

Of course members believe they should avoid negative information on the church. Whether it is the actual position of the church or not may be in question, but it is the common belief.

What faith encourages its members to read what the critics are saying about their church? I know of no church that says to its members to read anti sites or critic sites as an educational experience. Are catholics searching out the history of the popes? Or the political-economical relations that the church had during the middle ages being searched out by devout catholics?

One can say this for any faith. I know of no member of any other faith that is doing this. However, for the lds critics who say that all is hidden, are hoping that as members search their church's history, they will have doubts and leave the church since it is only by bringing up the past, they can cast doubt.

Edited March 1, 2012 by why me

[why me]

But to say that Joseph Smith did not likely have sex with the women he was married to is also a big stretch given the evidence and other reasons I have already mentioned. His motives behind polygamy are very complex and more to do with his understanding of scripture, his role as a prophet, his own character flaws, etc.

Why did Joseph marry or was sealed to so many women within a two year period? Was it to have sex or was their a possible other reason? Have you ever tried to have sex with 33 women in two years and since they were his wives, more than once and yet, still claim to be a prophet? Is it possible? And what about the women? No one claimed to be slighted or abused or that Joseph Smith was lustful etc. Could this be possible if Joseph was having sex with all these women within a two year period, plus his wife? Something is amiss.

[why me]

A good post. I definitely agree that sex was not the driving force behind Joseph's polygamy, and its probably unfair and inaccurate for critics to draw that conclusions.

But to say that Joseph Smith did not likely have sex with the women he was married to is also a big stretch given the evidence and other reasons I have already mentioned. His motives behind polygamy are very complex and more to do with his understanding of scripture, his role as a prophet, his own character flaws, etc.

Joseph had no problem with emma becoming pregnant from the sexual activity. Reason would apply that his wives wouldn't either. Joseph seems to have had great luck: to find 11 witnesses that would never question or deny their testimony of the book of mormon expeience, to find a woman (emma) who believed in his prophethood so much so, that she taught her children from the book of mormon after JS was murdered and not to get any of his other wives pregnant, if he were sexually active with them. Not to mention a STD.

Also, we need to remember that some of his wives before saying yes, had a powerful spiritual experience that convinced them that it was a true principle. Otherwise they would have declined.

Edited March 1, 2012 by why me

[Monster]

All faiths have troublesome aspects. How many catholics are being inundated with their troublesome aspects of catholic history? Not many and there is nothing about an avalanche that is coming. And certainly within catholic history there are troublesome aspects, likewise for most faiths. Why is mormonism so different that every aspect of mormon history needs to be studied over and over again by its members? Why is mormonism so different that a member should be required to study church history to prepare them for the internet and critic interpretations? And will the critics be happy with lds interpretations or will they be moaning that something has been excluded or the interpretation is wrong?

The difference is the Mormon church is an intense organization. What I mean is it requires much effort and devotion. When an organization requires this much it needs to be accurate. When it is not and the members find out they tend to fall harder than say the catholics as you say which in general tend to take their religion as not so absolute. Also I would tend to think their are many Catholics over the past 500 years that leave the faith over history issues. To say that they are all happy with the past is not realistic. Also the Catholics have acknowledged their past and made course corrections to some degree to adjust. The best the Mormon church can do is stop practicing in public an offensive doctrine yet still believe it, and the leaders never disavow it as wrong then and now.

I am not defending the Catholic church in any way I am just saying there is little comparison with Mormons. It is apples and oranges.

Critics will most likely not be satisfied with the interpretations the church gives. Mainly this is because in the critics mind it is and exercise in nuance to arrive and the required interpretation. In the critics mind Occam's Razor applies. The simplest answer is most likely the correct one. No nuance or manipulation required. Just connect the dots and it is rather obvious.