why me Posted July 5, 2012 Author Posted July 5, 2012 There is substanital lack of information on this website:http://www.lds.org/c...nts/leaders.jspIf you click on Significant Events it shows the marriages of several presidents of the church but has left off many . For instance, if you click on Joseph Smith it has his wife as Emma. But when you click Brigham Young there is no wife listed. And several presidents after him are left blank, until you get to George Albert Smith and from then on it lists the wives again. Pretty interesting I believe. I don't know why they just didn't just leave all the wives unlisted, because it seems odd to any outsider.However, when I clicked on Joseph Smith and polygamy, the site says exactly what it says. Leaders of the lds church practiced polygamy including Joseph. I do believe that people are in charge of the websites. I have no idea why it is as it is. But I wouldn't suggest a cover up. I would suggest personal choice when writing up the webpage.
Nevo Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Let me try this again: married women who marry other men are engaged in polyandry. Not the men. If the man is married, he is engaged in polygamy. So, Joseph was not a polyandrist but a polygamist. But the married women were engaged in polyandry. The married women needed to consent to marry joseph and as such, they engaged in polyandry.That's not quite right.Polygamy = multiple marriagesPolygyny = multiple wivesPolyandry = multiple husbandsBy definition, a "polygamous," "polygynous," or "polyandrous" relationship includes both men and women.
ERayR Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 ERayR:True, but my motives were a little less religious. It was to be with my new girl friend. Your not the first nor last, but it worked. Mormondom's guerrilla warriors.
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 For Joseph Smith's polyandrous sealings to be discussed in a seminary class would be an extraordinary and extremely rare occurrence. I am quite sure that more than 99.99 percent of seminary students have never heard of Zina Jacobs.However, I am reliably informed that the new Book of Mormon curriculum, due out in 2013, will deal with the polygamy issue with unprecedented openness.Isn't Zina Jacobs talked about in Relief Society?And what of her?http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-zina-and-her-men-an-examination-of-the-changing-marital-state-of-zina-diantha-huntington-jacobs-smith-youngIs there some terrible truth about her for the LDS to hide?
Jaybear Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Let me try this again: married women who marry other men are engaged in polyandry. Not the men. If the man is married, he is engaged in polygamy. So, Joseph was not a polyandrist but a polygamist. But the married women were engaged in polyandry. The married women needed to consent to marry joseph and as such, they engaged in polyandry.It seems to me that if a women is openly married to two men, then all three are "engaged in"/"practicing" polyandry.Polygamy is something that you can't engage in or practice by yourself.
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) It depends how you define "practicing polygamy." Joseph F. Smith still cohabited with his plural wives after 1890, as did most Church leaders.From Wikipedia:"In 1906, Smith was brought to trial on a charge of unlawful cohabitation with four women in addition to his lawful wife; he pleaded guilty and was fined $300, the maximum penalty then permitted under the law."From your wiki link we can link to the "Second Manifesto" which reads:The "Second Manifesto" was announced at the general conference of the church held on April 6, 1904. At a public meeting, Smith announced that he would like to read an "official statement" that he had prepared so that his words "may not be misunderstood or misquoted". Smith read:Inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural marriages have been entered into, contrary to the official declaration of President Woodruff of September 24, 1890, commonly called the manifesto, which was issued by President Woodruff, and adopted by the Church at its general conference, October 6, 1890, which forbade any marriages violative of the law of the land, I, Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent, or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I hereby announce that all such marriages are prohibited, and if any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any such marriage, he will be deemed in transgression against the Church, and will be liable to be dealt with according to the rules and regulations thereof and excommunicated therefrom.JOSEPH F. SMITH,President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[5]So, *as president ofthe LDS Church, did he practice polygamy? I'm not asking when he went to rial for illegally cohabitating with other women but *as president, did he practice polygamy. While I did intend "practice" to mean "enter into" (new) polygamous marriages, I'm willing to entertain the notion that *as president*, did Joseph F. Smith cohabitate with polygamous wives? I really don't know the answer though I'm sure I can quickly find out if I searched it. Edited July 5, 2012 by Darren10
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 I joined at 17 didn't attend seminary, how was I to know (polyandry)Beats me.
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Jaybear:Started attending Institute classes to be with a new girl friend.A most excllent reason to attend. LOL!!!
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 For Joseph Smith's polyandrous sealings to be discussed in a seminary class would be an extraordinary and extremely rare occurrence.I thought it was normal though it may be from my perspective. I spoke openly about polygamy and polyandry with teenaged members of other wards. They seed to have known at least as much as I did about it.
KevinG Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 More evidence to support my theory that apostacy comes of willful ignorance combined with parents and Seminary teachers with their heads buried in the sand.I knew about polygamy and blacks and the priesthood before I even took the discussions. Pre-internet even.
Nevo Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Isn't Zina Jacobs talked about in Relief Society?And what of her?http://www.fairlds.o...obs-smith-youngIs there some terrible truth about her for the LDS to hide?I don't know if Zina Jacobs's polyandrous sealing to Joseph Smith is ever talked about in Relief Society (I've never attended a Relief Society class), but I rather doubt it.Is there some terrible truth about Zina's marriage to Joseph Smith for the LDS to hide? I don't know about "terrible" but there are some unsettling aspects to the story, don't you think?Anyway, I only mentioned Zina Jacobs because her name was the first that came to mind. I could just as easily have named Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, or Marinda Hyde, or any of the others.
KevinG Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) My wife presented a lesson on Zina Diantha Huntington, Jacobs, Young, Smith in relief society a couple of years ago. She even got some inside scoop on the woman through a journal copy owned by a descendant and presented it as part of her lesson. This all done by a convert in Georgia. The church is doing a lousy job hiding its history. Edited July 5, 2012 by KevinG 2
treehugger Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Anyone who doesn't know that LDS practiced but no longer practice polygamy is in serious need of eye glasses.This is a deliberate diversion.The OP is about Joseph Smith, who translated the plates which translation is know today as the "Book Of Mormon". Many members of the LDS Church do not know of Joseph Smith's polygamy nor the uncomfortable accepted details (polygamist marriages to women who were legally married to other men) of the polygamist marriages.
yootaw Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Let me try this again: married women who marry other men are engaged in polyandry. Not the men. If the man is married, he is engaged in polygamy. So, Joseph was not a polyandrist but a polygamist. But the married women were engaged in polyandry. The married women needed to consent to marry joseph and as such, they engaged in polyandry.
KevinG Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Beecher, Maurine Ursenbach, ed. "'All Things Move in Order in the City': The Nauvoo Diary of Zina Diantha Huntington jacobs." BYU Studies 19 (Spring 1979):285-320. Young, Zina D. H. "How I Gained My Testimony of the Truth." Young Women's Journal 4 (Apr. 1893):317-19. Zina Card Brown family collection, LDS Archives. FOUR ZINAS: A STORY OF MOTHERS AND DAUGHTERS ON THE MORMON FRONTIERMARTHA SONNTAG BRADLEY ANDMARY BROWN FIRMAGE WOODWARDHardbound. 533 Pages. / 1-56085-141-4 / $34.95Go to town.
yootaw Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Sorry, I'm on my phone, hit three wrong button. How is the above a useful distinction? He was in polyandrous (sp?) relationships that he initiated.
KevinG Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 This is a deliberate diversion.The OP is about Joseph Smith, who translated the plates which translation is know today as the "Book Of Mormon".Huh? Re-read the OP. It is definately about polygamy and Joseph Smith.Many members of the LDS Church do not know of Joseph Smith's polygamy nor the uncomfortable accepted details (polygamist marriages to women who were legally married to other men) of the polygamist marriages.They should get out more. Rough Stone Rolling is a great source the church failed to suppress. Not surprising since the topic has been secreted into our official histories, our web site, our institute manuals and most shockingly our scriptures. 1
why me Posted July 5, 2012 Author Posted July 5, 2012 By definition, a "polygamous," "polygynous," or "polyandrous" relationship includes both men and women.The complaint by the critics is Joseph's polyandry. It is not Joseph's polyandry. It is the wives of other men who consented to marry Joseph. They practiced polyandry. and their relationship was polyandrous. That was my point. It does not fall on joseph but the women who consented to take a second husband.
why me Posted July 5, 2012 Author Posted July 5, 2012 Sorry, I'm on my phone, hit three wrong button. How is the above a useful distinction? He was in polyandrous (sp?) relationships that he initiated.Polyandry is when a woman takes on a second husband. Polygamy is when the man takes on a second wife. So, joseph was polygamous. But the married women were polyandrous. It falls on the women who agreed to marry a second husband. So, if the church were to cover this it would sound something like this: Certain lds women entered into a polyandrous relationship with Joseph Smith after receiving inspiration to do so.
ERayR Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Huh? Re-read the OP. It is definately about polygamy and Joseph Smith.They should get out more. Rough Stone Rolling is a great source the church failed to suppress. Not surprising since the topic has been secreted into our official histories, our web site, our institute manuals and most shockingly our scriptures.The old adage: If you want to hide something well do it in plain sight. 1
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 I don't know if Zina Jacobs's polyandrous sealing to Joseph Smith is ever talked about in Relief Society (I've never attended a Relief Society class), but I rather doubt it.I think she is mentioned and the fact that she was Henry's wife and then Brigham young's wife is not unkown or unmentioned.Is there some terrible truth about Zina's marriage to Joseph Smith for the LDS to hide? I don't know about "terrible" but there are some unsettling aspects to the story, don't you think?If you listen to the critics it sounds utterly disturbing. If you look at the historical evidences than it's nothing more than two people who loved each other, fell apart but still loved each other.Anyway, I only mentioned Zina Jacobs because her name was the first that came to mind. I could just as easily have named Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, or Marinda Hyde, or any of the others.And terrible truths about them for the LDS Church to hide?
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 My wife presented a lesson on Zina Diantha Huntington, Jacobs, Young, Smith in relief society a couple of years ago. She even got some inside scoop on the woman through a journal copy owned by a descendant and presented it as part of her lesson. This all done by a convert in Georgia. The church is doing a lousy job hiding its history.Oh, the nerve of your wife!!! /sarc off 1
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Beecher, Maurine Ursenbach, ed. "'All Things Move in Order in the City': The Nauvoo Diary of Zina Diantha Huntington jacobs." BYU Studies 19 (Spring 1979):285-320. Young, Zina D. H. "How I Gained My Testimony of the Truth." Young Women's Journal 4 (Apr. 1893):317-19. Zina Card Brown family collection, LDS Archives. FOUR ZINAS: A STORY OF MOTHERS AND DAUGHTERS ON THE MORMON FRONTIERMARTHA SONNTAG BRADLEY ANDMARY BROWN FIRMAGE WOODWARDHardbound. 533 Pages. / 1-56085-141-4 / $34.95Go to town.Oh, the nerve of BYU Studies!!! /sarc off 1
Jaybear Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 The old adage: If you want to hide something well do it in plain sight.In this case, Smith's polygamy is neither in plain side, nor buried in the back yard. Its been placed in the bottom drawer, where people will come across it if they know where to look,and on occasion when they are looking for something else.
ERayR Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 In this case, Smith's polygamy is neither in plain side, nor buried in the back yard. Its been placed in the bottom drawer, where people will come across it if they know where to look,and on occasion when they are looking for something else.Baloney. As I have posted elsewhere I came from a small Idaho town and a semi-active family and I knew. And I didn't even have to go searching.
Recommended Posts