Learning That Joseph Practiced Plural Marriage

[Calm]

(your inference assumes, for example, that plural marriage was required rather than merely allowed).

That is how I interpret this comment of the Lord to Joseph:

3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

[Calm]

Joseph drops out of the picture when it comes to actually implementing the doctrine.

Would you at least agree there is an implication that he is the one who has to authorize it for others as the highest "priesthood authority" of his time?

[blackstrap]

The Church could use an ombudsman that would have the authority to ask the Brethern why they choose to remain silent( muffled,vague,obscure) on the issue and then report to the curious member of the 'house subcommittee on member disaffection'

[Nevo]

Hi Cal,

You say that you interpret D&C 132:3 ("for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same") to mean that Joseph was required to practice plural marriage. I think this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of this verse. However, the Church encourages members to understand "the law" in this section as referring to eternal marriage covenant generally, rather than to plural marriage (source). So I'm not sure that most members would necessarily make the same association as you.

Would you at least agree there is an implication that he is the one who has to authorize it for others as the highest "priesthood authority" of his time?

Yes, I suppose a thoughtful, educated Latter-day Saint could "read between the lines" and conclude that Joseph Smith must have been somehow involved in the actual practice of polygamy as well as in promulgating the doctrines and principles associated with it. So I agree that Joseph's involvement (in some fashion) is implied if one ponders the issue of priesthood keys, but the grammar of the sentence relegates Joseph to a passive role: "a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime." It's misleading.

[Evangeline]

This section is very important. And plural marriage can be mentioned when studying this section. Nothing to be ashamed of. And a great lesson on sacrifice can take place. Imagine a sunday school class with a great teacher asking the class what sacrifice they are making today for god. And as the class responds...the teacher asks...how many of them would be a polygamist if the lord was felt to command that principle. Would the class be willing to make such a sacrifice and then tie it in to the early saints in nauvoo and in utah who were called to make such a sacrifice.

And then speak about joseph being a polygamist, risking his marriage to obey god. And the other women who agreed to be his polygamist wives and the sacrifice they felt compelled to make because they felt that god commanded the principle and received a testimony as such.

In my opinion, asking a question like this in a church class would be inappropriate. For one thing, it is a very personal question that no one should feel pressured to answer (especially because it is something that many in the church do feel uncomfortable discussing, particularly in public). For another thing, it is dealing with a hypothetical situation that is irrelevant to what God requires of us at this time.

I think a more appropriate and relevant question with regards to the idea of sacrifice (without soliciting everyone in the class to respond publicly unless they wish to), is whether or not we are willing to accept decisions made by our leaders and refrain from fault-finding and speculation as to their motives? Are we willing to sacrifice our own will in matters which we have no stewardship over?

Edited July 19, 2012 by Evangeline

[why me]

Yes, I suppose a thoughtful, educated Latter-day Saint could "read between the lines" and conclude that Joseph Smith must have been somehow involved in the actual practice of polygamy as well as in promulgating the doctrines and principles associated with it. So I agree that Joseph's involvement (in some fashion) is implied if one ponders the issue of priesthood keys, but the grammar of the sentence relegates Joseph to a passive role: "a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime." It's misleading.

You are right. It should be more plainly stated. And of course the teacher can mention the practice and Joseph's involvement if she or he so wishes. But the teacher would also need to know about Joseph's practice of polygamy. If the teacher does not know about the practice and certainly this can be the case, we have a problem. And if a student raises her or his hand to mention the practice and the teacher is surprised, we may have a small problem.

Edited July 19, 2012 by why me

[why me]

I think a more appropriate and relevant question with regards to the idea of sacrifice (without soliciting everyone in the class to respond publicly unless they wish to), is whether or not we are willing to accept decisions made by our leaders and refrain from fault-finding and speculation as to their motives? Are we willing to sacrifice our own will in matters which we have no stewardship over?

I think that some members of the class would be asking what provoked such a question because it would seem that this question needs an example to get the class interested. So, Joseph's polygamy would need to be mentioned, the women involved would need to be mentioned and the sacrifice they made. Some of these women originally said no and they needed a spiritual confirmation before they said yes. What example can this make?

[why me]

In my opinion, asking a question like this in a church class would be inappropriate. For one thing, it is a very personal question that no one should feel pressured to answer (especially because it is something that many in the church do feel uncomfortable discussing, particularly in public). For another thing, it is dealing with a hypothetical situation which is irrelevant to what God requires of us at this time.

I think that many people would answer something with time: church callings, church talks, home teaching, service etc. These are not very personal at all and they would seem benign when we think of polygamy. Now if the class took this direction with the question, the notion of sacrifice would seem superficial. But when polygamy is mentioned and the sacrifice that this would entail, the whole notion of sacrifice could take on a whole different meaning. Not to mention Isaac willing to sacrifice his son for God.

[why me]

Okay Why Me.

It's not personal.

Let's start here.

WRONG....this thread is about polygamy....not allowing black men and women access to the temple endowment....that is why I was banned. Get your facts together before you start slandering folks...especially me. I'm tired of your crap and condescending tone.

I was banned for talking about blacks and priesthood...and made the claim that the 1978 revelation was a sweeping change in church towards a more "liberal view" to allow black women and men access to the endowment...Selek said it wasn't it. I said it was...especially for the black LDS members, and especially for me since I am currently in a interracial marraige and understand the dilema. BANNED for race baiting. REALLY?

Blacks and the priesthood had nothing to do with polygamy at least as you mentioned it. What did the 1978 revelation have to do with polygamy? Also, there has been a pinned thread by a mod about race baiting, I believe. So you were entering into sharky waters when you began to mention it in a thread. Now if one wishes to talk about the ban and polygamy one can mention black pete and his taking many white wives without permission from the general authorities and the problems this caused the church readership when we consider the outside reaction if this were to be found out. But this would have nothing to do with Joseph Smith since it all happened after he was murdered.

People get banned from threads all the time. No biggy.

Edited July 19, 2012 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

And what have we learned so far? We have established that there are passing mentions of Joseph's practice of polygamy in two institute manuals and in a gospel doctrine teacher's manual. Meanwhile, the materials about Joseph Smith that most members have been exposed to—such as the Joseph Smith movie or the relatively recent Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith—say nothing about Joseph marrying multiple women. In fact, the latter source seems to go out of its way to omit this information: "The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime" (source).

Yes, "a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime." LOL. The Our Heritage manual, which most adult members of the Church were exposed to a decade earlier, similarly obfuscates: "While working on the translation of the Bible in the early 1830s, the Prophet Joseph Smith . . . learned that at certain times, for specific purposes, following divinely given laws, plural marriage was approved and directed by God. Joseph Smith also learned that with divine approval, some Latter-day Saints would soon be chosen by priesthood authority to marry more than one wife. A number of Latter-day Saints practiced plural marriage in Nauvoo, but a public announcement of this doctrine and practice was not made until the August 1852 general conference in Salt Lake City" (source).

True, an intrepid Latter-day Saint investigating the question of whether Joseph Smith ever practiced polygamy can find the answer from official Church sources, but the average member in the pews on Sunday will very rarely, if ever, encounter this information at Church—or, for that matter, in the Ensign or in Church media, etc.

We're just going to ignore Doctrine and Covenants 132 then?

And the CES manuals are more explicit.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Evangeline]

From the Gospel Doctrine manual, D&C and church history chapter 31:

6. Plural marriage

The following information is provided to help you if class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage. It should not be the focus of the lesson.

Also from Bernard:

From the D&C seminary manual section 132:

Note: Avoid sensationalism and speculation when talking about plural marriage. Sometimes teachers speculate that plural marriage will be a requirement for all who enter the celestial kingdom. We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation.

I get the sense from these manuals that the topic of plural marriage is a touchy subject for many and Church leaders would like us to tread carefully in how we bring it up and how much focus we give to it in our Sunday School lessons. Personally, I could ask many other questions on the Law of Sacrifice (referring to the hypothetical Sunday School topic mentioned) that would be more relevant to our day and that would encourage a more Spirit-filled discussion. What I'm partly trying to say is that being called as a teacher in church does not give us the mandate to push our favoured controversial topics on others.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Evangeline

[why me]

We're just going to ignore Doctrine and Covenants 132 then?

The teacher would need to know that Joseph was a polygamist and mention it in class. If the teacher does not know that Joseph was a polygamist, that section would have no meaning outside of brigham young and the practice of polygamy after joseph was murdered. To tell you the truth, I have no idea who knows that joseph was a polygamist and who doesn't. I would be afraid of shocking people if I would mention it in class.

[why me]

I get the sense from these manuals that the topic of plural marriage is a touchy subject for many and Church leaders would like us to tread carefully in how we bring it up and how much focus we give to it in our Sunday School lessons. Personally, I could ask many other questions on the Law of Sacrifice (referring to the hypothetical Sunday School topic mentioned) that would be more relevant to our day and that would encourage a more Spirit-filled discussion. What I'm partly trying to say is that being called as a teacher in church does not give us the mandate to push our favoured controversial topics on others.

But if we are discussing section 132 in class?

Edited July 19, 2012 by why me

[CASteinman]

But if we are discussing section 132 in class?

if we are discussing it in Church, it would be appropriate to discuss how Marriage -- under the right authority -- is eternal. In Church, it would not be appropriate to discuss plural marriage except to add the words of the Manifesto.

In Institute, however, it would probably be more appropriate to discuss that history.

[Evangeline]

But if we are discussing section 132 in class?

I'm sorry, why me. I misread your earlier post. I was being a bit reactive to your proposed question for the participants in the Sunday School lesson and I thought you were talking about a lesson specifically on the law of sacrifice.

As for a lesson dealing with D&C 132, I would carefully follow the directions given by the Church leaders:

6. Plural marriage

The following information is provided to help you if class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage. It should not be the focus of the lesson.

[cwald]

Blacks and the priesthood had nothing to do with polygamy at least as you mentioned it. What did the 1978 revelation have to do with polygamy? Also, there has been a pinned thread by a mod about race baiting, I believe. So you were entering into sharky waters when you began to mention it in a thread. Now if one wishes to talk about the ban and polygamy one can mention black pete and his taking many white wives without permission from the general authorities and the problems this caused the church readership when we consider the outside reaction if this were to be found out. But this would have nothing to do with Joseph Smith since it all happened after he was murdered.

..

Exactly...That was my point. I don't really care about polygamy much, and can't understand why this thread is even an issue as far as I'm concerned...but it sure turned into a cwald bash...it had nothing to do with my getting thread banned as Duncan accused...and I don't really understand why Duncan would say otherwise except he is just going out of his way to being rude and a jerk.

Whatever, but I'm not interested in participating in this kind of "discussion."

Darren10, on 18 July 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

Overall it's wise to play it cautiously than to dive in half-mindedly. However, I brought up your thread ban because you kept whimpering about having been banned and thus not being able to tell your story because you were banned. i thought it important to point out tha the thread in question was locked upon request and that you banned yourself from that thread after being warned to tone it down and then by creating a race baiting post. If it was so important to you to tell your story, why didn't you? Why haven't you until now (up until page 2)? This threads about you and the very topic you want to expound upon. So, pleae feel free to do so.

Sorry Duncan...Polygamy had nothing to do with it. Not really interested.

Edited July 19, 2012 by cwald

[Nevo]

We're just going to ignore Doctrine and Covenants 132 then?

And the CES manuals are more explicit.

Like I said here, I disagree with your statement that "Doctrine and Covenants 132, if read, would have at least raised the awareness that it was Joseph Smith who received the revelation, conveyed the teaching to others and set the example by practicing it himself." The revelation mentions Abraham and David and Solomon having many wives but nowhere does it explicitly mention Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy. It is hinted at in v. 52, but the allusion would probably not be obvious to a lot of readers.

You're right that it is more explicit in two of the institute manuals, but most members do not read institute manuals. The fullest discussion is in the Church History in the Fulness of Times manual, but I doubt even most college-age Latter-day Saints are acquainted with this manual, let alone the general membership.

[selek1]

The Church could use an ombudsman that would have the authority to ask the Brethern why they choose to remain silent( muffled,vague,obscure) on the issue and then report to the curious member of the 'house subcommittee on member disaffection'

In response to the incessant whining and refusal to take personal responsibility for one's own education and salvation, the Church is instituting a program to deliver critical facts in suppository format and have hired a new ombusdman to adminster the program.

Edited July 19, 2012 by selek1

[Scott Lloyd]

The teacher would need to know that Joseph was a polygamist and mention it in class. If the teacher does not know that Joseph was a polygamist, that section would have no meaning outside of brigham young and the practice of polygamy after joseph was murdered. To tell you the truth, I have no idea who knows that joseph was a polygamist and who doesn't. I would be afraid of shocking people if I would mention it in class.

I guess I have in mind the individual learner, a faithful Latter-day Saint of college age or beyond, who comes upon Doctriine and Covenants 132 in the course of her regular scripture study. As I read the section, it seems to me it would be very hard not to get the intended meaning that the revelation is directled explicitly to the Prophet Joseph (not Brigham Young; there's no mention of him here).

It is given in the context of Joseph having prayed to understand the plural marriage practiced by the ancient patriarchs (see verse 1).

Joseph is directed to prepare his heart to receive what he is about to be given. This doctrine is new to him, especially the content about the plurality of wives. In that context, Emma is directed to receive those who are about to be given to her husband, Joseph. Again, nothing here about Brigham Young. This is a message to Joseph, something he has been told to prepare his heart to receive.

The reader of this section notes in the heading a reference to History of the Church, vol. 5, pp. 501-507. Going there, the reader sees a copy of what is now D&C 132. She sees a footnote that reads: "For a treatise on the date of publication and authorship of this revelation, see Introduction to this volume."

Going to that introduction the reader finds a discussion by B. H. Roberts about the circumstances under which this revelation came to be, Joseph's efforts to obey the commandment to take other wives, Orson Pratt affirming that Joseph, not Brigham, was the author of the revelation, the incident of Hyrum trying unsuccessfully to get Emma to accept the revelation, etc.

This is all material that a Latter-day Saint earnestly obeying counsel to read and study the scriptures would be exposed to, all from official sources.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

Exactly...That was my point. I don't really care about polygamy much, and can't understand why this thread is even an issue as far as I'm concerned...but it sure turned into a cwald bash...it had nothing to do with my getting thread banned as Duncan accused...and I don't really understand why Duncan would say otherwise except he is just going out of his way to being rude and a jerk.

Cwald, this thread is not about you at all. It is about polygamy. You should be happy that you generated a thread. This thread is not about you but about what you said on a different thread that was closed.

I am trying to help you out here but it isn't easy because you taking it all personally and this makes it very difficult. Go with flow. As strange as this may seem I am actually agreeing with your comment that scott posted.

Go with the flow and back me up.

Edited July 19, 2012 by why me

[why me]

I guess I have in mind the individual learner, a faithful Latter-day Saint of college age or beyond, who comes upon Doctriine and Covenants 132 in the course of her regular scripture study. As I read the section, it seems to me it would be very hard not to get the intended meaning that the revelation is directled explicitly to the Prophet Joseph (not Brigham Young; there's no mention of him here).

And most likely, the member will head to the internet to research that section and get a few critic sites that explain it in their own faith doubting ways. And then they head to lds.org and not get much information about it at all when it comes to polygamy or polyandry. Then they head back to critic sites and experience shell shock from all the information that they did not know.

And if they are lucky they find FAIR. But if not, they are perhaps in trouble.

[Scott Lloyd]

Like I said here, I disagree with your statement that "Doctrine and Covenants 132, if read, would have at least raised the awareness that it was Joseph Smith who received the revelation, conveyed the teaching to others and set the example by practicing it himself." The revelation mentions Abraham and David and Solomon having many wives but nowhere does it explicitly mention Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy. It is hinted at in v. 52, but the allusion would probably not be obvious to a lot of readers.

You're right that it is more explicit in two of the institute manuals, but most members do not read institute manuals. The fullest discussion is in the Church History in the Fulness of Times manual, but I doubt even most college-age Latter-day Saints are acquainted with this manual, let alone the general membership.

Please see my reply to Why Me. I don't believe the average Church member reader is as obtuse as you seem to think.

And if Church members are unwilling to read what is available to them (free of charge now, if they get it on line) they are hardly in a position to blame the Church for their deficiency in knowledge.

That has been my essential point throughout this thread.

[Evangeline]

The reader of this section noted in the heading a reference to History of the Church, vol. 5, pp. 501-507. Going there, th reader sees a copy of what is now D&C 132. She sees a footnote that reads: "For a treatise on the date of publication and authorship of this revelation, see Introduction to this volume."

Going to that introduction the reader finds a discussion by B. H. Roberts about the circumstances under which this revelation came to be, Joseph's efforts to obey the commandment to take other wives, Orson Pratt affirming that Joseph, not Brigham, was the author of the revelation, the incident of Hyrum trying unsuccessfully to get Emma to accept the revelation, etc.

This is all material that a Latter-day Saint earnestly obeying counsel to read and study the scriptures would be exposed to, all from official sources.

I was thinking about that reference in the heading that refers to the "History of the Church." Most (or is it all?) headings for each section in the Doctrine and Covenants tell us to go there for further context.

However, I will admit I don't have this publication and I haven't looked it up. I do have BH Roberts' "Comprehensive History of the Church," and have used that. Could someone please tell me where I can get the publication referred to in the D&C?

[Scott Lloyd]

And most likely, the member will head to the internet to research that section and get a few critic sites that explain it in their own faith doubting ways. And then they head to lds.org and not get much information about it at all when it comes to polygamy or polyandry. Then they head back to critic sites and experience shell shock from all the information that they did not know.

And if they are lucky they find FAIR. But if not, they are perhaps in trouble.

It goes back to what I said previously about one's responsibility to be judicious in the selection of trustworthy sources.

Isn't that really what it's all about -- personal responsibility? Don't be content just to be spoonfed everything, but at the same time, don't lap up every piece of anti-Mormon sophistry that is served up.

I've said it before: I find it remarkable how an individual who could not be bothered to break the seal on a CES manual suddenly develops a voracious appetite for all manner of anti-Mormon trash.

[Calm]

http://ia600505.us.archive.org/6/items/HistoryOfTheChurchhcVolumes1-7original1902EditionPdf/hoc.pdf