Learning That Joseph Practiced Plural Marriage

[why me]

And verily I prophesy, that "Even were the Church to fulfill his petulant demands to every jot and tittle, yet shall Palerider sit upon his dark horse and hedge, nitpick, and browbeat the Saints for not being as enlightened as he is. Yeah, verily shall he needlessly trouble and worry the Saints as a dog over his bone until somebody gets fed up and bans his apostate rear-end".

And that was my point earlier with him. Most critics would not be satisfied with just a polygamy lesson. There is only one way that they would be satisfied: to have an one thousand page history of the saints book edited by the exmo foundation.

[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.

Since that is precisely what I thought your point was -- i.e. to put down the Church of Jesus Christ by contrast with the church of Martin Luther -- then it rather turns out that I did grasp it, doesn't it?

But, of course, the "status of the people involved" is quite relevant. The way Lutherans handle Luther's rabid anti-Semitism -- or, as Selek has pointed out, his endorsement of polygamy in his counsel to Henry VIII and the Elector of Hannover -- is not noticeably different to your whining criticism of the Lord's Church. Conversely, the way the Lutheran Church handled the dissemination of information about a long-dead Lutheran missionary to America is fully comparable to the way the LDS Church handles the dissemination of information about a long-dead LDS missionary (Addison Pratt, IIRC) to Hawaii.

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.

That is, of course, false.

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.

When you see me hanging around a Lutheran message board making hypocritical attacks upon the Lutheran Church, then you'll know that I've managed to grovel to your level.

I'm not arguing the point here whether LDS leadership has sinned or not. That's for another thread. I'm arguing that past and present leadership (although recently things may have changed slightly since the advent of the internet)have quietly repressed the subject of plural marriage as a topic of general teaching in the church's curriculum. I'd like to see a Gospel Doctrine lesson called, "Plural Marriage: It's origins and what it means to us today."

Really? And exactly what business is it of yours?

Okay, here it is:

Part 1: It was established by revelation.

Part 2: We don't do it any more.

Regards,

Pahoran

[treehugger]

Critics are critics and lessons on their pets will not assuage the critic.

Does anyone believe that Judas was truely concerned about feeding the poor when he criticized the woman from the materials she used to wash Christ feet? I see Judas as not being sincere, in his concern.

[wenglund]

Critics are critics and lessons on their pets will not assuage the critic.

Does anyone believe that Judas was truely concerned about feeding the poor when he criticized the woman from the materials she used to wash Christ feet? I see Judas as not being sincere, in his concern.

I don't know that it is my place to judge his sincerity, though I do question the hubris of thinking he was in a position to lecture the head of the Church about what should or shouldn't be done in his Church--a cautionary tale to would-be ark-steadiers.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

I don't know that it is my place to judge his sincerity, though I do question the hubris of thinking he was in a position to lecture the head of the Church about what should or shouldn't be done in his Church--a cautionary tale to would-be ark-steadiers.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Neither Jesus, nor Joseph were ark-steadiers.

Did that become a virtue when Brigham was your prophet.

[Closet Doubter]

As long as members continue to depend on the Sunday School curricula and Sacrament meetings alone to spoon feed them every portion of church history, practice and even doctrine they will fall away at the first strong wind of opposition then blame the church for their own apostasy.

You are close but a little off. As long as the Church refuses to openly discuss (in the appropriate lessons) some of the controversial issues forcing the inquisitive member to go to the internet, they will be blown away by the first strong wind of opposition however the Church forcing them to go to the internet is creating the strong wind. This site actually isn't much better than the NOM or Exmormon site. With Exmormon you can openly see the bitterness and you know not to believe everything you read. With NOM you see people trying to look at both sides and not doing a good job a lot of the time. Here, you see people with no calling to proclaim doctrine, trying to steady the arc because the leaders that officially carry the arc don't seem too inclined to steady it. The arc steadiers here often belitle the people that disagree with them and often cause me to think I would rather socialize with anti's than with these folks. Thank goodness I don't know any of these folks personally.

[ERayR]

You are close but a little off. As long as the Church refuses to openly discuss (in the appropriate lessons) some of the controversial issues forcing the inquisitive member to go to the internet, they will be blown away by the first strong wind of opposition however the Church forcing them to go to the internet is creating the strong wind. This site actually isn't much better than the NOM or Exmormon site. With Exmormon you can openly see the bitterness and you know not to believe everything you read. With NOM you see people trying to look at both sides and not doing a good job a lot of the time. Here, you see people with no calling to proclaim doctrine, trying to steady the arc because the leaders that officially carry the arc don't seem too inclined to steady it. The arc steadiers here often belitle the people that disagree with them and often cause me to think I would rather socialize with anti's than with these folks. Thank goodness I don't know any of these folks personally.

I am afraid you are the one who is close but not quite there. Almost anyone who is going to be blown away by any wind of opposition will be blown away wherever the wind comes from even if it is a well done Sunday School lesson. It is seldom where it comes from but if it offends their modern affluent sensibilities.

[wenglund]

Neither Jesus, nor Joseph were ark-steadiers.

They also weren't anti-Mormons. So?

Did that become a virtue when Brigham was your prophet.

No. It was never a virtue.

Do you have any other inane/irrelevant questions for me while your at it?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You are close but a little off. As long as the Church refuses to openly discuss (in the appropriate lessons) some of the controversial issues forcing the inquisitive member to go to the internet, they will be blown away by the first strong wind of opposition however the Church forcing them to go to the internet is creating the strong wind.

Some tests of faith are a good thing--even given the risks. Growth and strength often comes through resistance. In fact, being tested in faith is one of the purposes of earth life.

Tests of faith are also a good way of determining where are loyalties and weaknesses lay so we can reorient if necessary and sure things up and become strong.

If some people are being blown away by strong winds of gospel irrelevancies and others are not, this may give good reason for those who have been blown away to introspect and look for causes within rather than without. A good place to start is to check if one's rudder and sails are firmly set and centered towards Christ and that one is relying upon the compass and beacon of the Holy Ghost, rather than focused elsewhere and trusting in the internet arm of flesh.

This site actually isn't much better than the NOM or Exmormon site. With Exmormon you can openly see the bitterness and you know not to believe everything you read. With NOM you see people trying to look at both sides and not doing a good job a lot of the time. Here, you see people with no calling to proclaim doctrine, trying to steady the arc because the leaders that officially carry the arc don't seem too inclined to steady it. The arc steadiers here often belitle the people that disagree with them and often cause me to think I would rather socialize with anti's than with these folks. Thank goodness I don't know any of these folks personally.

The abundance of endearing humility, warmth, charity, open-mindedness, tolerance and acceptance in your post couldn't help but underscore your undeniably fair judgments of others, and it has placed you well beyond even the slightest suspicion of hypocrisy. Nicely done.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Deborah]

You are close but a little off. As long as the Church refuses to openly discuss (in the appropriate lessons) some of the controversial issues forcing the inquisitive member to go to the internet, they will be blown away by the first strong wind of opposition however the Church forcing them to go to the internet is creating the strong wind.

Seriously? Then how do you explain all of us who remained faithful upon learning some of the "controversial issues." Those who are looking for an excuse will leave and those who have a genuine testimony will work through it with study, faith and prayer.

[CASteinman]

Here, you see people with no calling to proclaim doctrine, trying to steady the arc because the leaders that officially carry the arc don't seem too inclined to steady it. The arc steadiers here often belitle the people that disagree with them and often cause me to think I would rather socialize with anti's than with these folks. Thank goodness I don't know any of these folks personally.

I seriously have no idea what you are talking about here. What ark steadying do you see? Seems to me you may not really understand the concept of "ark steadying" given how close your opening sentence comes to that:

"As long as the Church refuses to openly discuss (in the appropriate lessons) some of the controversial issues forcing the inquisitive member to go to the internet, they will be blown away by the first strong wind of opposition however the Church forcing them to go to the internet is creating the strong wind."

[mathilde]

Seriously? Then how do you explain all of us who remained faithful upon learning some of the "controversial issues." Those who are looking for an excuse will leave and those who have a genuine testimony will work through it with study, faith and prayer.

What a nice and tidy perspective.

I had a genuine testimony. I wasn't looking for an excuse. I am still trying to work through it and in a way looking for a reason to stay. Your statement here is something I've heard before. It is empty.

[CASteinman]

I had a genuine testimony. I wasn't looking for an excuse. I am still trying to work through it and in a way looking for a reason to stay. Your statement here is something I've heard before. It is empty.

How did you lose a genuine testimony?

You seem like my friend who heard that story about getting more bees with honey than with vinegar... but she didn't want bees so out came the vinegar. Still friendliness would probably help your encounters with people.

Edited July 24, 2012 by CASteinman

[mathilde]

What do you mean by "genuine"? As in you think that anyone who loses a testimony did not have a genuine one in the first place?

[Libs]

This conversation is getting a bit contentious. Most people here are putting out some good points and, bottom line, a loss of testimony can probably be attributed to any number of things or "all of the above".

I just want to say, for myself, (and I have said this before), I do not lay blame on the church for my apostasy. That has been my choice/my decision and I do take responsibility for it. I only offer the above suggestions as possibly being of some help to people like me. I don't offer it as an excuse.

I don't think I am really done with the church, whether the church makes those changes or not. Still working through some things. It does help, a little, to talk about it here, sometimes. But, I know it must be difficult (and frustrating), for someone who has a rock solid testimony, to understand people who struggle so. And, sometimes, we lash out, because it's frustrating from this end, as well. Very.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Libs

[Storm Rider]

What a nice and tidy perspective.

I had a genuine testimony. I wasn't looking for an excuse. I am still trying to work through it and in a way looking for a reason to stay. Your statement here is something I've heard before. It is empty.

Mathilde, I would ask you who is empty now? The Gospel is about learning to trust in God even when the world is against you and you think you stand alone. It teaches us that put our trust in the arm of flesh, in our own understanding, that we fail every time. It teaches us that God uses us to accomplish his work of saving mankind; understand that fully. He uses us; we are weak, broken tools to fulfill his work. Read the Old Testament and the New Testament and understand how frail were the prophets of God and the first Apostles. They were each men whose faith was tested and they all sinned.

Too often prophets and apostles are put on pedestals of perfection, after all, they are men of God. Shouldn't they be much better than I? Why does God allow these to have weaknesses; shouldn't they have already proved their strength and become great? Peter sat at the feet of the Master Teacher for three years. He say countless miracles at Jesus' hand. Yet, when it became hard he actually denied the Christ, not once but three times. Who does that? Surely this could not be a prophet and an apostle? Not just any old apostle, but the first Apostle of the Church.

God has always used men, in all their weakness, and made them strong. They each came and come with their own set of foibles and sins. None has been perfect nor have they yet become perfect. They have been just like you and they have fought for their faith, held to the rod, and have been called to serve God.

One of the gifts of the Spirit is learning to forgive ourselves as well as to forgive others. When filled with the Spirit we see the goodness in others. Joseph was a man, but he did great things, Brigham likewise. Build your testimony on the sure knowledge that Jesus is the Christ; he is the head of the Church. Forgive the shortcomings of those who also strive to follow Christ and love them for their desire to be a tool in God's hands. I wish God could use perfect people to do his work, but they don't exist. Until they are found, he will have to use people just like you and me. We just have to be willing to serve, willing to love, willing to believe, willing to pray, and willing to have faith.

[why me]

You are close but a little off. As long as the Church refuses to openly discuss (in the appropriate lessons) some of the controversial issues forcing the inquisitive member to go to the internet, they will be blown away by the first strong wind of opposition however the Church forcing them to go to the internet is creating the strong wind. This site actually isn't much better than the NOM or Exmormon site.

The problem that I have is with the word controversial. I never found polygamy controversial until the critics told me it was. Likewise for MMM, first vision accounts etc. I never found them controversial until the critics told me that they were. And then when I saw them as controversial I suddenly realized that they were not controversial at all and that the critics got it wrong by using controversy, which is of course their strategy: to have members believe that such things are controversial.

This site is great because we discuss issues like polygamy and other things and attempt to show people that there is no controversy.

[Tacenda]

It just dawned on me why I have a problem with polygamy. It's because I don't believe it was a commandment to Joseph. I believe he may have thought it was. This IMO is where he was fallible and acting as a man. In order for me to believe in a just God, this is how I must believe. That is probably why I've struggled to move past this subject for so long. And please, if anyone has a bone to pick, please CFR a scripture where the Lord commands it in the Bible please.

[why me]

What a nice and tidy perspective.

I had a genuine testimony. I wasn't looking for an excuse. I am still trying to work through it and in a way looking for a reason to stay. Your statement here is something I've heard before. It is empty.

I said in an earlier post that a testimony does not depend on polygamy or MMM or any other issue that the critics claim are controversial. It actually depends on our relationship to the spirit when he confirmed the truthfulness of the book of mormon after praying about it. Or a testimony depends on other spiritual experiences that we may have had as church members. But it doesn't depend on other things that the critics say are controversial. It depends on our own relationship to the spirit.

As I have shown polygamy is mentioned in the summary for section 132. It reads:

Section 132

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded 12 July 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, and also the plurality of wives (see History of the Church, 5:501–7). Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

At anytime a member or teacher can discuss this in class when necessary. It is not secret. In fact, if I were the teacher I may take it as an opportunity to discuss early polygamy at the time of Joseph Smith. And you can also ask the teacher about it. Now of course, I have no idea just what a given teacher would know about it...but you can bring it up in class not to form contention (tone of question or statement) but to form knowledge.

[why me]

It just dawned on me why I have a problem with polygamy. It's because I don't believe it was a commandment to Joseph. I believe he may have thought it was. This IMO is where he was fallible and acting as a man. In order for me to believe in a just God, this is how I must believe. That is probably why I've struggled to move past this subject for so long. And please, if anyone has a bone to pick, please CFR a scripture where the Lord commands it in the Bible please.

I think that we also need to see the women involved and the spiritual experiences they had about plurality of wives before accepting Joseph proposal. Many had a spiritual experience that convinced them that the principle was true. Lucy Walker is one example. How to rationalize the spiritual experiences of the women involved?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Divine_manifestations_to_plural_wives_and_families

Edited July 24, 2012 by why me

[why me]

An example here we have the Whitneys:

Elizabeth and Newel K. Whitney

Wrote one biographer: When Joseph saw that he [Newel Whitney] was doubtful concerning the righteousness of this celestial order he told him to go and enquire of the Lord concerning it, and he should receive a testimony for himself’…This is typical of the way Smith dealt with initial resistance to plurality. And as so often happened, Newel and Elizabeth received a revelation.^[15]

Elizabeth recorded:

…We pondered upon [the doctrine of polygamy] continually, and our prayers were unceasing that the Lord would grant us some special manifestation concerning this new and strange doctrine. The Lord was very merciful to us; He revealed unto us His power and glory. We were seemingly wrapt in a heavenly vision, a halo of light encircled us, and we were convinced in our own minds that God heard and approved our prayers…Our hearts were comforted and our faith made so perfect that we were willing to give our eldest daughter [sarah Ann Whitney], then only seventeen years of age, to Joseph, in the holy order of plural marriage…laying aside all our traditions and former notions in regard to marriage, we gave her with our mutual consent.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Divine_manifestations_to_plural_wives_and_families

What to do about such a spiritual experience? There are others who experienced strong spiritual experiences about the principle.

[CASteinman]

It just dawned on me why I have a problem with polygamy. It's because I don't believe it was a commandment to Joseph. I believe he may have thought it was. This IMO is where he was fallible and acting as a man. In order for me to believe in a just God, this is how I must believe. That is probably why I've struggled to move past this subject for so long. And please, if anyone has a bone to pick, please CFR a scripture where the Lord commands it in the Bible please.

I don't think that's exactly the problem you are having.

I think the problem is that you feel it is hypersexual, immoral and unbecoming of anyone who would claim to be spiritual. I bet there are lots of people who would feel the way you do. I believe that some of those people around Joseph who apostatized over this issue felt it was disgusting and intolerable -- so this has been a complaint right from the start.

As for a command -- a man who was already married and whose married brother died was commanded to take that man's wife and marry her. Not only that, he was also commanded to have children by her if possible.

But I am confused. How does plural marriage make God unjust in your view?

Edited July 24, 2012 by CASteinman

[Tacenda]

I think that we also need to see the women involved and the spiritual experiences they had about plurality of wives before accepting Joseph proposal. Many had a spiritual experience that convinced them that the principle was true. Lucy Walker is one example. How to rationalize the spiritual experiences of the women involved?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Divine_manifestations_to_plural_wives_and_families

I read over these, food for thought for sure.

[why me]

But I am confused. How does plural marriage make God unjust in your view?

When people search about polygamy on critic sites they get a very slanted version of it. And what is always missing from critic interpretations are the spiritual experiences of the people involved before they accepted the practice as being true. These spiritual experiences are extremely important in discussing this principle because the experiences were so strong. It seems as if the lord knew that there would be problems with this principle and he needed to give the women and families involved a very strong confirmation. And when this happened, the people involved could not deny it.

[why me]

I read over these, food for thought for sure.

I think Tacenda that these experiences are overlooked by the critics because they cannot be reasonably explained. There were too many such experiences. But who am I to claim that these experiences were false? I cannot do so. These experiences seem so real to the people involved and so convincing. And they needed convincing that is for sure.

Here is lucy walker:

Lucy describes the answer she later received while alone:

My room became filled with a heavenly influence. To me it was in comparison like the brilliant sun bursting through the darkest cloud…My Soul was filled with a calm, sweet peace that I never knew. Supreme happiness took possession of my whole being. And I received a powerful and irristable testimony of the truth of the marriage

covenant called ‘Celestial or plural mariage.’

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Divine_manifestations_to_plural_wives_and_families

Now that is quite powerful. What can i say about this experience to refute it? Nothing because it is firsthand and her's alone.