Learning That Joseph Practiced Plural Marriage

[Darren10]

It's from a fellow blogger I got the idea of asking for a sandwich to be made for me. He always asks the women bloggers on the webtsite to make him one.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Darren10

[Libs]

I used to post with someone like that....funniest guy ever! Whenever discussing politics, in the midst of heavy disagreement, he would tell the women posters to get back in the kitchen and make him a sandwich.

[Evangeline]

Scott, I know I am waaaay behind on this thread (just now got a chance to look at it again), but I have to say, yes, it was only four or five years, but I learned the specific information, about Joseph's polygamy, from the "antis". If I had truly been faithful (my Bishop warned me about anti sites, and I ignored his warning), it could have been years more, before I ever learned the full story. I do know many members who have spent a lifetime in the church, without really knowing the specifics of Joseph Smith's polygamy. That may sound amazing to you, but I really don't think it is all that uncommon, amongst your average, everyday Latter-day Saints.

I'm sure there are many members of other churches that do not know all the specifics of their church history either. Why do some consider it a mandate of the Church to make sure that we know everything there is to know?

[Libs]

I'm sure there are many members of other churches that do not know all the specifics of their church history either. Why do some consider it a mandate of the Church to make sure that we know everything there is to know?

Personally, I think this one is important, because Joseph Smith was the founder/prophet of this church. I don't think "everything" in LDS history is important, but there are a few issues that cause people to stumble.....especially, when they don't know about them upfront.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Libs

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, it appears the PDF link doesn't have page numbers either unfortunately. I think I might be better off ordering a paperback version. Thanks again to both of you!

Both History of the Church sets were on those old CD-ROM compilations such as Infobases. It was a sad day when those things went out of print. I still have mine at home and use it fairly often.

[why me]

I'm sure there are many members of other churches that do not know all the specifics of their church history either. Why do some consider it a mandate of the Church to make sure that we know everything there is to know?

This is where it becomes unfair. You are absolutely right about members of other churches not knowing the details of their history. But for some reason, according to the antis, lds church members should be experts in their history or know much about it. The main reason for this is that history is made by human beings who are imperfect. Thus, it can become useful in destroying faith. And this is why the critics brow beat it into members that the church is hiding its history and that the lds church is deceptive. It works for them.

[why me]

Personally, I think this one is important, because Joseph Smith was the founder/prophet of this church. I don't think "everything" in LDS history is important, but there are a few issues that cause people to stumble.....especially, when they don't know about them upfront.

I also think that if lutherans knew that martin luther was antisemitic and made some terrible remarks about jews, it may influence their understanding of the man. But also, martin luther lived hundreds of years ago. Most churches have distant histories and many of the membership are uninterested or they don't care about what happened so long ago.

The lds church has a short history and because of this, it has a greater impact on lds members.

Edited July 19, 2012 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott is under the impression that mormons are very studious. It may be true that they read the scriptures every day but that does not mean that they have the facilities to research the scriptures and critically think their way through the knowledge. This is not necessarily the case for the general mormon population. .

Be that as it may, I really don't see that it takes a genius IQ or a PhD to comprehend the message of Section 132, especially when it is spelled out right there in the header that it deals with plurality of wives and it is so obvious that it is Joseph Smith who is being directed to prepare his heart to receive the commandment.

[Libs]

Why Me, that may be so, but I was never a Lutheran, so I don't know how that information may have affected me. Also, I don't believe Martin Luther ever claimed to be a prophet of God.

If there are reasonable ways to explain Joseph Smith's polygamy (his sealings to young women and already married women)...and there ARE some reasonable ways to explain all of that, why not do it? Especially, if it is causing many members to stumble...and it is.

[Libs]

D & C 132 is pretty obscure, IMO.

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, it appears the PDF link doesn't have page numbers either unfortunately. I think I might be better off ordering a paperback version. Thanks again to both of you!

Eureka!

I found a good online site for History of the Church. It is provided by BYU Studies It has page numbers, and it is broken out into volumes.

Enjoy:

http://byustudies2.byu.edu/hc/hcpgs/hc.aspx

Edited July 19, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

D & C 132 is pretty obscure, IMO.

Then I suggest you read the introduction to Volume 5 of History of the Church, pp. xxx to xlvi.

Incidentally, the reason you should beware of anti-Mormon sources is that they are unreliable. They pick and choose half-truths wrenched from context to serve their adversarial agenda. They often give deceptively simple treatments to complex topics that require nuanced explanations. That may have been why your bishop counseled you to avoid them.

Again, don't be content with spoon feeding, but be judicious in your selection of and reliance on information sources.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

Why Me, that may be so, but I was never a Lutheran, so I don't know how that information may have affected me. Also, I don't believe Martin Luther ever claimed to be a prophet of God.

But the lutheran church is named after him. I don't think that it would matter much to you if you were lutheran. It was so long ago that such history no longer has that strong of an impact. And it would all be explained through context and the cultural norms at that time. The jews were not highly respected.

But mormons do not get such breaks. Their history is recent and in critic minds context and cultural norms do not play a role in their analysis.

[why me]

D & C 132 is pretty obscure, IMO.

It can be espeically if one uses the study guide. However, if one is a Russian member living in Moscow and has very little understanding of english, will that member be able to find a church source for Joseph's polygamy in their own language. And how much do the Russian members know of mormon history and Joseph's polygamy? This is why it needs to be mentioned in the manuals because these manuals are used throughout the church.

Edited July 19, 2012 by why me

[Deborah]

If I had truly been faithful (my Bishop warned me about anti sites, and I ignored his warning), it could have been years more, before I ever learned the full story.

So? What difference does it make if you have a true testimony of the things you already know? We honor our Founding Fathers for what they did to establish this nation. In recent years there have been those who for some reason feel it important we know all the "dirty" little secrets of their personal lives, and yes they present those things in the most negative manner. Does knowing these things change anything about what these men did and the sacrifices they made? In my view their human weaknesses make the things they accomplished more amazing and show the hand of God.

First and foremost history is a matter of interpretation. The church has always been careful about talking about past events unless they can corroborate the information. Critics don't care about that. They throw out bits and pieces with the hope of destroying faith. Not only that but we don't always know the full story or the motivation behind certain things even if we can corroborate the facts of something.

I'm always reminded of the delightful movie "Galaxy Quest" where the aliens took a fictional show as fact and built their civilization around it. I have the feeling this is what too many people have done in taking events out of context and putting together a picture that is in itself a piece of fiction.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Deborah

[Nevo]

Be that as it may, I really don't see that it takes a genius IQ or a PhD to comprehend the message of Section 132, especially when it is spelled out right there in the header that it deals with plurality of wives.

You and dougtheavenger should talk. He read Section 132 and didn't think it said anything about Joseph Smith's polygamy.

[ERayR]

So now those who do not know are disobedient.

Nope but they are at least like me. Lazy

[mathilde]

Be that as it may, I really don't see that it takes a genius IQ or a PhD to comprehend the message of Section 132, especially when it is spelled out right there in the header that it deals with plurality of wives and it is so obvious that it is Joseph Smith who is being directed to prepare his heart to receive the commandment.

What was in the header before the 1981 version of the LDS scriptures?

It should not take a "genius IQ or PhD to comprehend the message of Section 132" but I don't agree that just because the header spells out that the section deals with plurality of wives means that we can immediately understand that Joseph Smith took plural wives in his lifetime. There's a difference. And in reading the text of 132, one can infer it, but it is not clear. It is not spelled out. Preparing his heart to receive a commandment does not necessarily equate to having many wives.

[Tacenda]

What was in the header before the 1981 version of the LDS scriptures?

It should not take a "genius IQ or PhD to comprehend the message of Section 132" but I don't agree that just because the header spells out that the section deals with plurality of wives means that we can immediately understand that Joseph Smith took plural wives in his lifetime. There's a difference. And in reading the text of 132, one can infer it, but it is not clear. It is not spelled out. Preparing his heart to receive a commandment does not necessarily equate to having many wives.

I believe you're right. One needs to know the reason behind why Joseph Smith put that section in the D&C. I believe it was that he had difficulty with Emma accepting the commandment to have plural wives. Emma wasn't having any of it and threw the written revelation in the fire. Of course there was a copy elsewhere. Also, Emma maybe chided Joseph and asked if he can have extra wives why can't she? So in the D & C 132 it describes where she isn't to have another husband but him.

[Nevo]

One needs to know the reason behind why Joseph Smith put that section in the D&C.

Actually, Section 132 wasn't added to the D&C until 1876. It replaced Section 101 (1835), which had declared "we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

[why me]

It should not take a "genius IQ or PhD to comprehend the message of Section 132" but I don't agree that just because the header spells out that the section deals with plurality of wives means that we can immediately understand that Joseph Smith took plural wives in his lifetime. There's a difference. And in reading the text of 132, one can infer it, but it is not clear. It is not spelled out. Preparing his heart to receive a commandment does not necessarily equate to having many wives.

This has an easy solution. The Ensign can have articles dealing with controversies. For example, there can be an article about Joseph Smith and polygamy and why it was practiced. Or there can be a great question and answer section that can handle such topics like there was in the good ol' days. There are ways to educate the membership. Also, there can be more articles on the translation process complete with the head in the hat interpretation.

The Ensign used to be exciting. But now, it has become a little bland. Just an opinion.

[why me]

I believe you're right. One needs to know the reason behind why Joseph Smith put that section in the D&C. I believe it was that he had difficulty with Emma accepting the commandment to have plural wives. Emma wasn't having any of it and threw the written revelation in the fire. Of course there was a copy elsewhere. Also, Emma maybe chided Joseph and asked if he can have extra wives why can't she? So in the D & C 132 it describes where she isn't to have another husband but him.

The idea that emma will be destroyed is in that section. The question of why can be a great starting point. Also, the word destroyed is also in the bible, referring to individuals who rebel against god. I believe that it was hyrum who gave it to emma because joseph knew her reaction. On the upside, she still believed her husband to be a prophet and believed the book of mormon to be the word of god.

[Tacenda]

Actually, Section 132 wasn't added to the D&C until 1876. It replaced Section 101 (1835), which had declared "we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

That is neither here nor there. I just made mention of the reasons he felt it needed to be in the scriptures. I know it was recorded in 1843. In 1835 polygamy wasn't known to exist. But Joseph knew of the revelation since 1831.

[why me]

That is neither here nor there. I just made mention of the reasons he felt it needed to be in the scriptures. I know it was recorded in 1843. In 1835 polygamy wasn't known to exist. But Joseph knew of the revelation since 1831.

You tell him T. He tried to do the shock and awe on you but I am glad that it didn't work. My hat goes off to you.....

[Tacenda]

You tell him T. He tried to do the shock and awe on you but I am glad that it didn't work. My hat goes off to you.....