Learning That Joseph Practiced Plural Marriage

[ERayR]

And every woman should ask her husband the same thing since if it about being with all the spouses one has loved through one's life, who have made mortality meaningful and therefore will add meaning to immortality, then it is just as likely that women will be eternally sealed to all their husbands in the CK. We are even doing the ordinances for all husbands if so desired after death. If these multiple sealings of a woman don't have eternal significance, then why would the sealings of a man have any more significance and instead he would simply choose the wife he desires to be with the most as the woman is forced to do by the concept of women being only allowed one eternal husband.

I don't know about that calmoriah will have to meditate on it a while.

[ERayR]

Libs:

Who hasn't at least heard that LDS practiced polygamy? Heck, Despite our near constant denials our modern day detractors claim we still practice it. I still get questions about how many wives I have.

What is to be gained by pressing the point that we used to practiced polygamy, even in Church meetings? Will it help me better relate to my wife and family. Will it help me be more like Christ? Quite frankly whether Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc.,etc., had one or a hundred wives it doesn't effect my salvation in the slightest.

How many wives I have and where is my horns.

[ERayR]

I recently attended a Lutheran Sunday School where they talked about the minister who had first brought Lutheranism to America. They even had a film production in docu/drama form to help explain it.

Apparently the minister had become overbearing in his demands on the parishioners who had come to America with him and had ended up committing adultery with several of his female parishioners. He was defrocked I believe and had to leave the parish. Was it the most spiritual meeting I have ever attended?

No, but it was quite refreshing to see a religion give an accurate account to it's members, warts and all, and allow them the benefit of making up their own minds as to how to archive the information rather than being strictly "faith promoting" to the point of whitewashing.

What was the point of the lesson?

[ERayR]

I asked my wife, and she didn't learn about it from church (Convert at 15). And it might not be the polygamy, but the polyandry that is the issue. You know, marrying men's wives after he sent them off on missions. That can be very messy. The devil, as it were, is in the details. I've hinted at it with my wife and she told me to stop. She knows she would leave the church if she knew the details, so I don't discuss it with her. She finds other things in church than I do.

You really ought to get things straight before condemning them. Nowhere that I know of says Joseph Smith married other men's wives. It says they were sealed to him. Sealing and marriage are not the same.

[ERayR]

I understand that this would be a flabbergasting thought. But I firmly believe it's so. Maybe they believe he may have lived it with possibly 2 wives or so, but not to the extent that he did. I remember reading into the night and in the wee hours of the morning, the "Work and the Glory" series, while my young children were in bed. In the book when it came to when Joseph Smith was commanded to live polygamy, it barely mentions that he may have lived it, it's very vague. The one or two friends that I've brought it up with, which I left most of the details out, didn't know the extent of it either.

You do know that the Work and the Glory series is fiction, right?

[selek1]

No. It is evidence that they perceive that their leadership is embarrassed by it and that they (the members) would sooner have it more openly taught (as a subject for understanding, not practise) without shame.

So- your only evidence that the Church is embarrassed by polygamy is innuendo you inserted into is a non-affiliated blog in which the author qualifies everything she says is merely her opinion?

Good Heavens- evidentiary standards don't get any more gold-plated than that one, do they?

Of course it overlooks the distinct possibility that the statement was made to qualifer her own intentions and position and had nothing to with what she perceives the brethren might feel.

Considering that she qualifies or prefaces every remark (except, obviously direct quotes) as her own opinion, this is far, far more likely than the sort of question-begging mind-reading you attempt and then attempt to impute to her.

[Calm]

I don't know about that calmoriah will have to meditate on it a while.

I am impressed by anyone who doesn't reject the idea outright.

[Palerider]

What was the point of the lesson?

As I recall they admired and showed as an example, the fortitude of those who in spite of the difficulties and hardships accrued because of this minister's disobedience, remained faithful.

They were just giving accurate historical background for their beginnings here in America, as I gathered it.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Palerider

[Palerider]

So- your only evidence that the Church is embarrassed by polygamy is innuendo you inserted into is a non-affiliated blog in which the author qualifies everything she says is merely her opinion?

Good Heavens- evidentiary standards don't get any more gold-plated than that one, do they?

Of course it overlooks the distinct possibility that the statement was made to qualifer her own intentions and position and had nothing to with what she perceives the brethren might feel.

Considering that she qualifies or prefaces every remark (except, obviously direct quotes) as her own opinion, this is far, far more likely than the sort of question-begging mind-reading you attempt and then attempt to impute to her.

You know selek, maybe you ought to find an icecube to hold against your brow and go cool off somewhere for awhile. Have you had your nap today?

Your reading an awfully lot into my remarks that I think you know isn't there.

[ERayR]

As I recall they admired and showed as an example, the fortitude of those who in spite of the difficulties and hardships accrued because of this minister's disobedience, remained faithful.

They were just giving accurate historical background for their begginnings here in America, as I gathered it.

Then the ministers story was pertinent to the point of the lesson.

[selek1]

I would think that since he was defrocked, it would need to be mentioned since this caused a major problem within lutheranism. But i am sure that not all warts were mentioned.

It also relevant that this scandal took place some four hundred years ago.

It's always easier to discuss the sins of people who've been dead for fifteen generations. Proportionally, however, it's much harder to gather all the details for the sort of "warts and all" tell-all he is implying.

And especially as the revelation was accompanied by a a docudrama, we must assume that the writers took certain liberties with the narrative- both in omission and in summary (which are, according to critics, sins tantamount to denying the Holy Ghost- at least when done by Latter-day Saints).

It simply staggers the imagination that someone would presume- let alone proclaim- that the lesson told everything.

Aside from being a scurrilous non sequitor, Palerider's attack was a lesson in Sesame Street logic- "some of these things are not like the other, some of these things are kinda the same".

He asserts that his Lutheran brethren are "open and honest" because they tell the "warts and all"- and implies that the Mormons are not. No evidence is provided to verify the claim. This is argument by declamation. This is the "some of these things are not like the others" stage of the argument.

When we look at the details, however, we get to the "some of these things are kinda the same" stage. The Lutherans treating their history in exactly the same fashion as do the Mormons. Both are distilling the lifetime experiences of their forebearers down into a few salient facts and summaries. Both are presenting a correlated, "approved" summary of "what really happened." Neither summary is an exhaustive, scholarly treatise on the history.

But because Palerider seeks to bolster the Lutheran faith and deride the Mormon, the Lutheran effort is praiseworthy, while the Mormon effort is damnable.

As has been alleged all along, Palerider's complaints against the Mormon Church stem from his innate hostility, not from our conduct.

Edited July 23, 2012 by selek1

[yootaw]

But I was not raised in Utah amongst the mountains and temples. Maybe this environment is so different that a different expectation should occur.

I think that there may be something to this. I grew up in Idaho Falls, Id. I did know that men in the early church practiced polygamy, but did not learn that Joseph Smith practiced it until well into my 30's. It makes sense looking backwards that I should have connected the practice with Joseph, but I didn't. I'd be interested to see if others who learned about this late were also from the morridor.

Edited July 23, 2012 by yootaw

[Libs]

And of course, you can discuss this at church if you so wished. I see nothing wrong with a member wanting to discuss polygamy at church, especially with their friends. Or in class if the occasion warranted it.

(Trying to catch up)

Why me, you really don't think a hush would fall over the room, if someone tried to bring up polyandry and the issue of young wives in, say, a Gospel Doctrine class? I would actually be afraid to attempt this, because, for one thing, I don't think a lot of people know about those things, and for another, it might sound like I was just trying to stir the waters or something. I, honestly, would not feel comfortable bringing it up. I tried to discuss these things with my visiting teacher (who is a friend of mine) and I could tell she was very uncomfortable and really did not want to talk about it. She became very defensive. I have not brought it up, since. That was about four years ago, when I first left the church. I think she thought I was just believing a bunch of lies.

[Pahoran]

I asked my wife, and she didn't learn about it from church (Convert at 15). And it might not be the polygamy, but the polyandry that is the issue. You know, marrying men's wives after he sent them off on missions. That can be very messy. The devil, as it were, is in the details. I've hinted at it with my wife and she told me to stop. She knows she would leave the church if she knew the details, so I don't discuss it with her. She finds other things in church than I do.

How very loyal of you, to talk about your wife behind her back thus.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Libs]

Hi Libs, Nice to see you're still around.

Is it a coverup in the usual sense of the word?

Maybe not....but one doesn't want their new girlfriend knowing that at their age they were silly enough to poke ones finger in a light socket after being told not to by someone and yet were persuaded it would be o.k. by others. It opens one up to ridicule and threatens the relationship with the new girl.......

Hi PR...thank you for the response.

Okay, this is the thing, and you bring up exactly the problem I had with this whole issue. You believe Joseph Smith's polygamy and the surrounding details are embarrassing to the church, because, looking at it, in a certain light, it can be very shocking and disturbing. That is the way critics see it and most will describe it in the most unsavory terms. They see it that way, because they really believe that Joseph slept with all of these women and created this whole doctrine around his own sexual appetites. That's exactly what I thought, at first, until I started reading some apologetics on the subject...and truly there is another whole side to all of it that is fairly reasonable. Joseph may not have had relations with the wives of others or even many other of his wives. There certainly has not been proof in the way of offspring. It is suggested that many of these sealings were simply dynastic sealings, to seal whole families to the prophet. It has also been suggested that the whole sealing process was not fully understood, at that time. So, I am just saying, that this is all the more reason this subject needs to be more widely discussed, in church, IMO. If this is causing many members to stumble, and the church has reasonable explanations for a lot of it, why not discuss it?

Edited July 23, 2012 by Libs

[ERayR]

(Trying to catch up)

Why me, you really don't think a hush would fall over the room, if someone tried to bring up polyandry and the issue of young wives in, say, a Gospel Doctrine class? I would actually be afraid to attempt this, because, for one thing, I don't think a lot of people know about those things, and for another, it might sound like I was just trying to stir the waters or something. I, honestly, would not feel comfortable bringing it up. I tried to discuss these things with my visiting teacher (who is a friend of mine) and I could tell she was very uncomfortable and really did not want to talk about it. She became very defensive. I have not brought it up, since. That was about four years ago, when I first left the church. I think she thought I was just believing a bunch of lies.

Yes I do. That is not the place for that discussion. I think you may have had some misconceptions about the subject.

[selek1]

Your reading an awfully lot into my remarks that I think you know isn't there.

For someone who spends so much time mind-reading. one would think you'd be better at it. Even a flipped coin is right half the time- yet you are consistently (and insistently) wrong on every occasion.

Also, considering that it is you who insists on reading your own ideological agenda into the statements of innocent bloggers , one would worry that you might choke on your own hypocrisy.

[Pahoran]

I recently attended a Lutheran Sunday School where they talked about the minister who had first brought Lutheranism to America. They even had a film production in docu/drama form to help explain it.

Apparently the minister had become overbearing in his demands on the parishioners who had come to America with him and had ended up committing adultery with several of his female parishioners. He was defrocked I believe and had to leave the parish. Was it the most spiritual meeting I have ever attended?

No, but it was quite refreshing to see a religion give an accurate account to it's members, warts and all, and allow them the benefit of making up their own minds as to how to archive the information rather than being strictly "faith promoting" to the point of whitewashing.

Thank you for that experience. Now, for whatever it may be worth, here is mine.

I once had an online argument with a Lutheran who was bringing up all the usual anti-Mormon claptrap about what terrible people Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were. I asked whether he wasn't operating under a double standard, and pointed out that Martin Luther was a fairly rabid anti-Semite.

The Lutheran got rather angry and insisted that I was maligning Luther. He insisted that Luther didn't hate Jews at all, he just took issue with "their lies." I pointed out his plan to make Jews into second-class citizens and forcing them into manual labour only. He just got madder and reiterated his (rather easily discredited) claim about "their lies."

So when it came to the actual founder of his church, at least one Lutheran was inclined to be defensive.

Then again, I once attended a fireside where a faithful LDS member from Hawaii described the rather questionable behaviour of the first LDS missionary to the Hawaiian islands.

So when we compare apples with apples (founders with founders) and oranges with oranges (early missionaries with early missionaries) we find that Pasty Writer's cherry-picked Lutherans don't actually come out ahead of any Latter-day Saints.

Regards,

Pahoran

[selek1]

As much as I'd like there to be a time for discussion about JS polygamy in a church like atmosphere, so that it is authoratative, I think it will hurt so many women and men's testimonies, and may even put them on a path much like I've had to go on. I'm seriously thinking this is why it's not discussed. People on this thread scoff at the idea that members don't know such things, but I, with every fiber of my being, believe they're wrong.

And we thank you for your opinion- but we are not swayed by it.

You have consistently failed to back up your opinion with fact, with reason, or with objective evidence.

Until you do so, we are under no obligation to genuflect, let alone to concede the point.

Simply stomping your feet, balling your fists, and shouting "Is too!" doesn't work for the average two-year-old. So why should it work for a fifty-odd year old grown woman who claims to be a life-long member of the Church?

Insisting that the world is flat doesn't controvert the evidence- no matter how deeply you cherish the idea.

So why should we ignore what we know to be true in favor of what you'd prefer to be true?

It may be more out there, in the mission field where mormons get bashed by non lds people and they bring it up more. Or families talk about it more since the subject came up more often. I don't know, but in my neck of the woods, it's not brought up, seldom if ever that JS had 33 wives, and some were married to other men. My neck of the woods being a suburb near Salt Lake City, Utah.

Which- even if we take your word for it- proves only that "it's not brought up". It says nothing about why "it's not brought up": You keep making the intuitive leap that it's because the Church is embarrassed or fearful- but you have no evidence to back up that assumption.

Ironically, however- if the testimonies offered on this board are any indication- it is not "polygamy" or "polyandry" that "hurts" testimonies, but rather the shock and awe approach favored by critics.

Discussed thoughtfully and in context, no Latter-day Saint need fear "polygamy" nor any aspect of how it was practiced.

But some people just want to watch the world burn....

[why me]

(Trying to catch up)

Why me, you really don't think a hush would fall over the room, if someone tried to bring up polyandry and the issue of young wives in, say, a Gospel Doctrine class? I would actually be afraid to attempt this, because, for one thing, I don't think a lot of people know about those things, and for another, it might sound like I was just trying to stir the waters or something. I, honestly, would not feel comfortable bringing it up. I tried to discuss these things with my visiting teacher (who is a friend of mine) and I could tell she was very uncomfortable and really did not want to talk about it. She became very defensive. I have not brought it up, since. That was about four years ago, when I first left the church. I think she thought I was just believing a bunch of lies.

I would agree about polyandry. That would take quite an explanation and it would lead the discussion away from the topic. But polygamy would be different. Also, I think that tone becomes very important. As a direct question, it can cause a problem. However, in a topic about sacrifice of the early members and what would test their faith, polygamy would be an interesting thing to mention. It all depends on context and relevance.

But you do bring up an interesting point which I think is true for many members. Is it possible to bring things up in class that may be controversial? What is strange is that I believe that people know more than we may think. Some have read Rough Stone Rolling, some have searched the web looking for information about JS. And some have read internet sites where it is discussed in a very doubt casting way.

It is just that no one wants to mention it because all believe that no one else knows. And yet, I think that many do.

[Palerider]

Then the ministers story was pertinent to the point of the lesson.

Yep.

[why me]

I asked my wife, and she didn't learn about it from church (Convert at 15). And it might not be the polygamy, but the polyandry that is the issue. You know, marrying men's wives after he sent them off on missions. That can be very messy. The devil, as it were, is in the details. I've hinted at it with my wife and she told me to stop. She knows she would leave the church if she knew the details, so I don't discuss it with her. She finds other things in church than I do.

Does your wife have a testimony of the book of mormon? And if so, why would polyandry affect her testimony? What I find interesting is just how weak a lds testimony is. The first surprise and the testimony seems to evaporate into thin air. All churches have devils in their details but I know of no other church where members can leave the fold as easily as in the lds church.

Also, I am sure that the way you bring up polyandry might just be like this: Darling, do you know that your prophet was a sex maniac? That he was sealed to other men's wives? Do you know that he was also marrying teenage girls...do you sweetheart. I don't want to give you the details but you really should search out these sites to read more.

[why me]

It also relevant that this scandal took place some four hundred years ago.

I was also going to mention this too. Time heals all wounds. Also, it would be interesting if antilutheran sites are also hounding this into the lutheran faithful on the internet. I would think that most lutherans who have left the church couldn't care less because no matter what church they join, there will be imperfect history and people.

But for the lds, the critics make much into a scandal and a shock and awe experience. There is such a consorted effort to get people out of the church and into oblivion that it can cause me to wonder.

[why me]

As I recall they admired and showed as an example, the fortitude of those who in spite of the difficulties and hardships accrued because of this minister's disobedience, remained faithful.

They were just giving accurate historical background for their beginnings here in America, as I gathered it.

I think that the lds get this kind of lesson when early history is discussed. For example, members know that many left the church at the time of JS and yet, against the odds, many stayed and remained faithful despite great hardships and difficulties.

[Palerider]

Thank you for that experience. Now, for whatever it may be worth, here is mine.

I once had an online argument with a Lutheran who was bringing up all the usual anti-Mormon claptrap about what terrible people Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were. I asked whether he wasn't operating under a double standard, and pointed out that Martin Luther was a fairly rabid anti-Semite.

The Lutheran got rather angry and insisted that I was maligning Luther. He insisted that Luther didn't hate Jews at all, he just took issue with "their lies." I pointed out his plan to make Jews into second-class citizens and forcing them into manual labour only. He just got madder and reiterated his (rather easily discredited) claim about "their lies."

So when it came to the actual founder of his church, at least one Lutheran was inclined to be defensive.

Then again, I once attended a fireside where a faithful LDS member from Hawaii described the rather questionable behaviour of the first LDS missionary to the Hawaiian islands.

So when we compare apples with apples (founders with founders) and oranges with oranges (early missionaries with early missionaries) we find that Pasty Writer's cherry-picked Lutherans don't actually come out ahead of any Latter-day Saints.

Regards,

Pahoran

I'm so sorry you couldn't grasp the point of the post. The status of the people involved is irrelevant. My point is the way the Lutheran Church handled the dissemination of information ( some of which reflected poorly on themselves) in this particular class.

The LDS church doesn't seem even to be able to fearlessly disseminate information regarding behavior (plural marriage) for which that they claim they have valid reason.

Better luck next time....

Oh, and I thought of a little play on your name as well but out of respect for the board rules I chose not to stoop to your level.