Calm Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 We'll discuss my legal fees at a later time. With pleasure.
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) Henry Jacob's plight is very sad indeed. After Joseph was killed, he no longer had to share his wife. That is until Brigham sent him to England on a mission and took Zina as one of his wives. Tragic indeed, and in my opinion, in-excusable.This adds to why me's response (the very next post after the one I cite from you). Read my link and I know I've pointed this out to you before. A) Zina refused Joseph Smith, more than once, to enter into a sealing with him. B) It only *after* she herself heard the voice of God, in a dream, that she should enter into said sealing, that she consented. C) Henry Jacobs was present at the sealing seremony. D) Brigham Young sending Henry Jacobs off on a mission in order to get his wife, Zina, is reported to have been made in front of "hundreds" of people yet there is not one single coraborating report anywhere to sustain this rsumably public authoritarian creed by President Young against poor Henry Jacobs. E) It was Henry who chose not to return to Zina after his mission. Instead he remarried and eventually moved with his new wife to California. F) It was only after Henry left that Zina chose to move in with Brigham Young with whom she was polyanarously (sp?) married.Here's the article again to read. It's a very good reasearch-based presentation on Zina.http://www.fairlds.o...obs-smith-young Edited July 5, 2012 by Darren10 2
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 The priesthood manual on Joseph Smith listed his wife "Emma", no additional wives and no mention of Joseph's polygamy. When my 17 year old son (who is now a return missionary) asked our bishop (who had previously served in a stake presidency and had been a gospel doctrine teacher for many years) about Joseph's Polygamy the answer he got was Joseph had one wife, Emma, and that polygamy was started by Brigham Young. It turns out the bishop was only inadvertently lying because he knew nothing about Joseph having more than one wife. Of all the bishops I've ever had i'd say all of them knew of Joseph Smith's polygamy.Interesting story though.
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 With pleasure.Obviously you've not received my bill.
KevinG Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 I'm saying that her polyandrous relationship with Joseph Smith is likely never discussed in Relief Society.It did in my wife's RS class. Nobody left the church over it.
Calm Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Obviously you've not received my bill. Perhaps I just enjoy haggling....
treehugger Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 This adds to why me's response (the very next post after the one I cite from you). Read my link and I know I've pointed this out to you before. A) Zina refused Joseph Smith, more than once, to enter into a sealing with him. B) It only *after* she herself heard the voice of God, in a dream, that she should enter into said sealing, that she consented. C) Henry Jacobs was present at the sealing seremony. D) Brigham Young sending Henry Jacobs off on a mission in order to get his wife, Zina, is reported to have been made in front of "hundreds" of people yet there is not one single coraborating report anywhere to sustain this rsumably public authoritarian creed by President Young against poor Henry Jacobs. E) It was Henry who chose not to return to Zina after his mission. Instead he remarried and eventually moved with his new wife to California. F) It was only after Henry left that Zina chose to move in with Brigham Young with whom she was polyanarously (sp?) married.Here's the article again to read. It's a very good reasearch-based presentation on Zina.http://www.fairlds.o...obs-smith-youngYet her bio on lds.org makes no mention of Joseph smith.
Darren10 Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 Yet her bio on lds.org makes no mention of Joseph smith.Nope, apparently not.
why me Posted July 6, 2012 Author Posted July 6, 2012 By the way, my old Bishop finally looked on the FARMS website (whatever it is now called) and found their response to Compton's book and gained some knowledge about Joseph's marriages but only after I blew up and told my son that I was going to have a talk with the bishop about his lying and my son gave the bishop a heads up.He could only be lying if you knew that Joseph was a polygamist. If he didn't know, he couldn't be lying. You were over reacting a little. 2
KevinG Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 By all means lets scream at the Bishop and accuse him of lying. That will go a long ways towards becoming more Christlike. 1
KevinG Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) People don't study their history, don't attend Institute and Seminary, don't take advantage of free Church History sites and resources... but the LDS Church is hiding things from us.I get it.Try asking how many people are descended from polygamous lines in your ward meetings sometime. About 1/3 to 1/2 in a North American ward (depending on where you live) will probably raise their hands. Edited July 6, 2012 by KevinG
why me Posted July 6, 2012 Author Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) How about in the correlated lessons presented in Sunday School, Priesthood, Relief Society, and Seminary since this is where about 95% of the membership in the church gain their knowledge. Instead, the Church leadership decides to place the information in a place that only a small percentage of the church membership look so that people such as yourself can say "see, they don't hide it, it is right where you can find it if you know how to look for it".I would think that if the lessons were about polygamy or polyandry and polgyny (for calmoriah) , you would have a point. But since the lessons are not about polygamy, polyandry or polygyny (for calmoriah ) it may be tough to introduce it. How would you do it? How about this: Joseph Smith's wife emma, one of several of his wives, claimed that Joseph stuck his head in a hat while translating the book of mormon. Would that be okay? Please let me know so I can contact the writers of the manuals. Edited July 6, 2012 by why me 1
treehugger Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 It did in my wife's RS class. Nobody left the church over it.Was it discussed because the Church lesson plan/materials called for the discussion?
why me Posted July 6, 2012 Author Posted July 6, 2012 Why me's link doesn't actually say anything about Joseph Smith's polygamous marriages to teenagers or other men's wives. And that web page has only been in existence for a little over a year and a half. As far as I know, the first quasi-official Church acknowledgment of Joseph Smith's polyandrous relationships was in the Introduction to volume 2 of Joseph Smith's journals, published by the Church Historian's Press in November 2011.Nevo, I have made a suggestion that the people who write the correlation materials, teaching materials, lesson materials etc should allow the critics, exmormons, malcontents etc the opportunity to edit them before they are published. I think that his would solve much of the problem. This way, the critics, cannot complain about what information is left out. What do you think of this idea? If you think that it is a good idea, I will fly it by the people in charge. 1
ERayR Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 Nevo, I have made a suggestion that the people who write the correlation materials, teaching materials, lesson materials etc should allow the critics, exmormons, malcontents etc the opportunity to edit them before they are published. I think that his would solve much of the problem. This way, the critics, cannot complain about what information is left out. What do you think of this idea? If you think that it is a good idea, I will fly it by the people in charge.Can't think of any reason why they would reject it.
why me Posted July 6, 2012 Author Posted July 6, 2012 Was it discussed because the Church lesson plan/materials called for the discussion?I think that every lesson in Relief Society should discuss polygamy, polygyny, and polyandry just in case the principles are reinstated. I also think that the church should hence forth stress this aspect of its history to the membership as a whole. It is expecially important that seminarians learn these principles. This way, critics cannot complain that the church avoids such issues. I also made a suggestion that the exmormons, critics and malcontents can edit the manuals before they are published. What do you think of this idea?
KevinG Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 Was it discussed because the Church lesson plan/materials called for the discussion?I would have to ask my wife. The RS presidency was gratified she carefully and tastefully delved into that part of Zina's life and the challenges she had with her faith in God when tested.It was certainly not discouraged and there were ample materials available on the subject of her marriages.
why me Posted July 6, 2012 Author Posted July 6, 2012 Can't think of any reason why they would reject it. Me either. The lds church can be the only church to allow exmembers and malcontents the opportunity to have influence in what is taught during meetings and lessons. Now that I think about it, there should be more talks about these subjects in sacrament meetings. With this correlated effort of education, we should make the members obsolutely sick of the topics so that they can ask themselves why are we learning about polygamy, polyandry and polygny over and over again and how is this leading us closer to god? My purpose for starting this discussion was to show the critics and interested parties that polygamy and joseph's role in it is on lds.org. They should be celebrating. Instead, many are still complaining.
KevinG Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 I think that every lesson in Relief Society should discuss polygamy, polygyny, and polyandry just in case the principles are reinstated. I also think that the church should hence forth stress this aspect of its history to the membership as a whole. It is expecially important that seminarians learn these principles. This way, critics cannot complain that the church avoids such issues. I also made a suggestion that the exmormons, critics and malcontents can edit the manuals before they are published. What do you think of this idea?We would be accused of hiding it in our books.
ERayR Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 We would be accused of hiding it in our books.Some of the critics do seem to have trouble reading. At least reading for comprehension.
KevinG Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 Some of the critics do seem to have trouble reading. At least reading for comprehension.It really does stun me that people who profess to be so interested in LDS Church history were so ignorant of it when they were members. As a convert and even as a Methodist friend of an LDS boy I was fascinated with his religion and family history. I was deeply interested in issues with race and the LDS church. I was fascinated at the prospect of living prophets and priesthood. Once I was baptized I could not get enough of church history.I guess familiarity can breed contempt. I do know families that won't discuss anything they feel is unpleasant or controversial. I think it is a great shame and a dysfunctional response to difficult questions that can breed inactivity or apostacy. It is certainly NOT LDS doctrine or policy to keep our kids or converts ignorant of our history.
Darren10 Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) Try asking how many people are descended from polygamous lines in your ward meetings sometime. About 1/3 to 1/2 in a North American ward (depending on where you live) will probably raise their hands.Also, I do believe Mitt Romney's one of them. What a poor situation to hide polygamy. Come to think of it, he doesn't talk much about his polygamist ancestors, does he? Hmmmmm.... Edited July 6, 2012 by Darren10
ERayR Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 Also, I do believe Mitt Romney's one of them. What a poor situation to hide polygamy. Come to think of it, he doesn't talk much about his polygamist ancestors, does he. Hmmmmm.... I am under the impression he has a multitude of other very pressing issues. I wonder though does he have an obligation to make sure every voter knows this?
Nevo Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) It is certainly NOT LDS doctrine or policy to keep our kids or converts ignorant of our history.No, not ignorant of the First Vision, or of the restoration of the priesthood, or of Haun's Mill, or of the 1856 handcart companies—but the Church has made it a practice to avoid teaching its members about the more controversial aspects of its history. Even in the Internet age, most Latter-day Saints are still unaware of Joseph Smith's youthful scrying, his secret polygamy, his failed attempt to translate the Kinderhook Plates, his secret anointing as king, etc. None of those things made it into the Joseph Smith movie shown at Temple Square or into the Church's most recent historical primer for youth and adults, Our Heritage.Speaking to Church educators in 1985, Dallin H. Oaks stated: "The fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it. . . . some things that are true are not edifying or appropriate to communicate." Elder Oaks was echoing Boyd K. Packer's earlier counsel that "some things that are true are not very useful. . . . The writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment. . . . Teaching some things that are true, prematurely or at the wrong time, can invite sorrow and heartbreak instead of the joy intended to accompany learning. . . . The scriptures teach emphatically that we must give milk before meat. The Lord made it very clear that some things are to be taught selectively, and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy. It matters very much not only what we are told but when we are told it."As per the principles laid down by Elders Oaks and Packer, the Church has generally taught a very selective, highly sanitized version of its history to its members. Only in recent years has it showed a greater willingness to confront controversial aspects of that history. Edited July 6, 2012 by Nevo
Recommended Posts