Learning That Joseph Practiced Plural Marriage

[CV75]

Okay...I was a crappy Mormon. Thanks. Now answer my question.

If the question is why a life-long actively participating member of the LDS Church doesn’t find out about Joseph Smith’s polygamy until he’s 35 years old, I would say it is because he is somehow incredibly isolated from the conversations that commonly take place about it within LDS families and wards.

If the question is why a seminary teacher doesn’t find Joseph Smith’s polygamy in the Church History curriculum for youth, it is because there are far more relevant teachings that prepare the youth to handle and benefit from the types of conversations mentioned above.

[Deborah]

what pecentage of the LDS membership do you figure, of the actual active LDS members know the DETAILS of JOSEPH SMITH's poligamy. Let alone his polyandry?

Quite a lot actually. I can't tell you how many times we discussed this in RS.

[Palerider]

Are you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

It's a sincere question. I only ask, because much of our understanding about this principle depends upon latter-day scripture and revelation. See, for example, Jacob 2: 27, 30 and Doctrince and Covenants 132:1.

If, however, you are going to insist on prooftexts from the Bible alone, we may not get very far, since we as Latter-day Saints reject the notion that God's word is contained exclusively in the Bible.

My name is still on the records of the church, but I am disaffected. I am very familiar with the LDS "scriptures" having been a member all of my life and served a mission, been married in the temple, and served in various leadership positions.

You are correct that I would find it impossible to use "scriptures" that are in question as proof texts concerning "doctrines" that are in question.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Please Scott...you can do better to help those who doubt and struggle. That answer is insulting.

Struggling? Or who has already left? The issue is that you are not owning up to your own short comings. It has been shown that you cannot blame the church for this one. Simply you were not paying attention. What more do you want?

Nope. I just didn't know any better. I was faithful and shelved all my doubts. It was never an issue. ..until I learned the details.

I wish the other thread had not been locked...I thought it was a pretty fair discussion. I doubt this one will be.

Faithful, yet never read any thing other than the BoM. Ok.

I am with Scott. When I was in high school the church was on a pretty low rung of importance to me. Yet some how I still managed to read about JS polygamy. It is in the D&C. IT is taught regularly. You might argue that you were never taught about JS being sealed to several people including other men. But to claim you did not know about JS polygamy after 35 years tells me that you just flat out were not paying attention. Or you were conveniently sick every time it was brought up in church or seminary. I learned about it in the 9th grade for heaven sake. Good luck with your narrative. It just is not convincing dude.

[Anijen]

I find it interesting that those perhaps who have lost their faith or weakened their testimonies because they did not know Joseph practiced polygamy, but at the same time knew that Brigham Young did.

For those that served missions, married in the temple etc and have felt betrayed to learn of Josephs polygamy yet accept Brigham's is a bit ingenuous.

That would be like accepting that BY was allowed to practice polygamy and then polygamy was later taken away that is okay and we all knew that.

But somehow throwing in Joseph practiced polygamy, then it changes ones religious view?

Edited July 18, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[treehugger]

Struggling? Or who has already left? The issue is that you are not owning up to your own short comings. It has been shown that you cannot blame the church for this one. Simply you were not paying attention. What more do you want?

Faithful, yet never read any thing other than the BoM. Ok.

I am with Scott. When I was in high school the church was on a pretty low rung of importance to me. Yet some how I still managed to read about JS polygamy. It is in the D&C. IT is taught regularly. You might argue that you were never taught about JS being sealed to several people including other men. But to claim you did not know about JS polygamy after 35 years tells me that you just flat out were not paying attention. Or you were conveniently sick every time it was brought up in church or seminary. I learned about it in the 9th grade for heaven sake. Good luck with your narrative. It just is not convincing dude.

No, joseph Smiths polygamy is not taught regularly.

This whole discussion it truely fascinating, only for the fact that so many of are adamant that your experience means everyone else's experience must and can only be like your own.

I did not learn about Joseph Smiths polygamy till much later in my life. It is quite reasonable for someone to initially react with concern of never knowing about. If, on my mission, I did hear about joseph smith being a polygamist it was not from someone who was friendly towards missionaries.

[treehugger]

The most widely known single fact about Mormons is that we practiced polygmay during the 19th century. So I'm a little skeptical about people who say they have lost their testimony upon hearing that Joseph Smith had plural wives. That said, I doubt that Joseph Smith had plural wives. The question is a matter of history and subject to revision. There is no doctrine at stake because polygamy is clearly sanctioned by D&C 132 not to mention the Old Testament.

My opinion that Joseph Smith probably was monogamous is based largely on DNA research by Ugo Perego. To date we have found no descendants of Joseph Smith through any woman other than Emma Hale Smith. By contrast other well known polygamists have many descendants through many women. Genghis Khan is the uber example. There are more than 15 million men with Genghis Khans Y-chromosome or 0.5% of the total male population of planet Earth. History clearly shows, that polygamous males have more children than monogamous males.

The current preponderance of evidence says that Joseph Smith's reproductive history is indistinguishable from that of a monogamist. That strongly suggests that Joseph Smith's sex life was either monogamous and nearly monogamous. Three plural wives would be a stretch. 33 is preposterous. That means 90% of the allegations of polygamy by Joseph Smith are lies. Any single allegation has a 0% to 10% probability of being true and 90% to 100% probability of being false.

Actually, dough, as I brought up in another thread, if vague ambiguos non-specific quotes prove Joseph Smith was a polygamist; then the same non-specific type quotes prove Joseph Smith had sexual relations with his plural wives.

Scott Gordon offered the following source as proof that Joseph Smith was a polygamist Ensign feb 77 page 48,

From that article is: “Then, along with economic privation and an absent father, was for some the institution of plural marriage. Starting during Joseph Smith’s own lifetime but limited to a few dozen families until its official announcement in 1852, plural marriage brought a powerful new challenge to the equanimity of Latter-day Saint family life.”

… “In the words of Professor Eugene Campbell of Brigham Young University, “Many of the normal problems of marriage, such as finance, personality adjustment, sexual relationships, jealousies, child-rearing and discipline were all magnified in plural marriages.”

So from Gordons own faulty proofs, we must assume that Joseph Smith was a polygamist and he had sexual relations with his plural wives.

Edited July 18, 2012 by treehugger

[treehugger]

Let's apply some of reasoning going on in this thread....

Brigham Young was a polygamist, therefore Joseph Smith was too. Now let's apply the rationale to something else

Brigham Young had sexual relations with his plural wives, therefore Joseph Smith had sexual relations with his own plural wives.

[Deborah]

Brigham Young had sexual relations with his plural wives, therefore Joseph Smith had sexual relations with his own plural wives.

And your point is....?

[USU78]

Did somebody give you to understand that you were forbidden to read any but specified passages in the scriptures? How sad if that's the case. But if that happened to me, my intellectual curiosity is such that it would be the very thing to motivate me to look at the passages that weren't specified.

The mind boggles at what would have happened if he had found out about Jephthah and his daughter.

[wenglund]

Poor answer.

Inane reaction.

And it is not irrelevant to many church members.

If so, then they don't correctly understand the Church/gospel very well or have inadvertently supplanted their own private gospel for that of Christ's. Knowledge of Joseph's sealings more than a century and half ago, should have entirely no bearing on people coming to Christ and becoming like him (which is the intent and purpose of the Church/gospel). Engaging in wrongful and counter-product blame and demanding the Church give priority to impertinent issues in their Sunday curriculum, would be deferring to wrongheadedness to the detriment of one and all. It would insipidly suggest that the people who are flunking the test of faith know better what is relevant and what should be taught than those excelling in faith and who have been called of God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Please don't misunderstand me, I have no qualms at all accepting that people may not have been cognoscent of Joseph's sealings even after decades in the Church. My issue isn't with their not knowing, but with there reaction when the finally found out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 18, 2012 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

treehugger:

Let's apply some of reasoning going on in this thread....

Brigham Young was a polygamist, therefore Joseph Smith was too. Now let's apply the rationale to something else

Brigham Young had sexual relations with his plural wives, therefore Joseph Smith had sexual relations with his own plural wives.

Yes let us DO apply some logic.

Brigham Young was in fact a polygamist. It's a Non sequitur to demand that Joseph Smith must of necessity therefore have been a polygamist too. Each must of necessity rely on independent information.

Brigham Young did have sex relations with his wives. No one has ever denied that, and that fact has independent confirmation IE; Offspring of those wives.

It is a matter of conjecture if Joseph Smith did have sexual relations with anyone other than Emma. IE; No offspring other than by Emma. Personally it wouldn't bother me if he did have sexual relations with his other wives. As the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and D&C allow for it.

[mrmandias]

I was in my 30's when I learned about Joseph SMith's polygamy. By itself, it didn't bother me much as polygamy certainly was no secret to me. I did, on the other hand, find polyandry to be troublesome.

I think the troublesome parts are the polyandry and the suggestion of secrecy from Emma. I don't know anyone who isn't bothered by Utah polygamy who is bothered by Joseph's polygamy per se.

[Jaybear]

Please don't misunderstand me, I have no qualms at all accepting that people may not have been cognoscent of Joseph's sealings even after decades in the Church. My issue is with their not knowing, but with there reaction when the finally found out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What is the correct way for a Mormon to react upon finding out that Joseph Smith took other men's wives as plural wives?

[KevinG]

I don't normally give someone a hard time about what they did or did not catch in their Mormon education unless they lead with the fact that they are a sixth generation Mormon, Seminary Graduate, Returned Missionary or held High Callings in the Church.

I am often amazed at those who present their Mormon credentials as an appeal to their own authority then proceed to wax ignorantly about the actual doctrines, history and practices of the church.

That is when i will push back on the anti-mormon myths like "no one taught me about..." or "apologists are all mean..." or "you are responsible for my testimony and you are ruining it..."

Funny that I (a convert, no mission and a few leadership callings) knew about most of these hidden scandals and mysteries prior to my baptism as they came up with my Mormon friend and the missionaries during my lessons. One of my first purchases was the journal history of the church which was most illuminating. I also understand that I am responsible for seeking God and my relationship with Him.

Edited July 18, 2012 by KevinG

[CV75]

What is the correct way for a Mormon to react upon finding out that Joseph Smith took other men's wives as plural wives?

With an open mind, understanding that there is more than one side to any story, and that sometimes it takes time to understand what is really involved. Some will be grounded in a strong testimony while they do this, and some will not.

[wenglund]

What is the correct way for a Mormon to react upon finding out that Joseph Smith took other men's wives as plural wives?

Not that it is any of your business, the correct reaction is to recognize that Joseph's personal relationships over 150 years ago have absolutely nothing to do with our coming to Christ and becoming like him nowadays through the restored gospel, and in relation thereto accord those personal relations little or no mind, but focus instead on what is pertinent to the gospel and what works in growing spiritually in faith. Obviously.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

What is the correct way for a Mormon to react upon finding out that Joseph Smith took other men's wives as plural wives?

Further research and an effort to understand why in the context of the gospel, the priesthood and the church. To stop trying and deny your own testimony of the gospel after the first revelation that the Saints were peculiar and human is not wise or prudent.

I am grateful i continued to learn from church curricula, descendants of those who practiced the principle, (scary music) apologists and by asking God for understanding. I now have a greater understanding of the principle and why many people were sealed to Joseph. I can stand in front of Brigham at the judgement seat and say I accept the principle in faith and understand God's reasoning for instituting it in your time. I can also say I retained my faith in the Kingdom of God on earth and did my best to fulfill my own mission not allowing any excuses to abandon my call.

[Verum]

My understanding growing up was that Joseph had one temporal wife, Emma, but may have been sealed to other women in the Nauvoo temple. I thought that it was just a ceremony used to bind them through the abrahamic covenant, but Joseph did not co-habitate or have sexual relations with any of them. In other words, other than the temple ceremony itself, they were not viewed as wives in the temporal sense.

Even this explanation though came through discussions with my own friends and family in my late teens, not through church or seminary. Yes, D&C 132 was taught, but only the doctrine is discussed and not its context. If the church curriculum even today changes the Brigham Young priesthood manual's reference to Brigham's wives to wife, of course the curriculum would be lacking any mention of Joseph's participation in polygamy while I was growing up. I am not sure it is mentioned anywhere today. Does anyone have a reference? Not just the doctrine of 132, but a reference in current CES materials that Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy and/or polyandry?

Edited July 18, 2012 by Verum

[Vance]

I had three close friends, all RMs (80s), college grads, tell me on three separate occasions that polygamy was started to care for the women who lost their husbands to Mormon persecution.

And the point is that they had heard about polygamy. Thanks for verifying my point.

[KevinG]

I cannot remember where I first learned of it within a year of being baptized but...

There are multiple references to Joseph being ordered to accept the principle by an angel weilding a sword. Including the Journal History of the Church, Lorenzo Snow, etc. This web site has compiled some...

http://www.i4m.com/think/history/angel_sword.htm

"The Prophet Joseph Smith there and then explained to me the doctrine of plurality of wives; he said that the Lord had revealed it unto him, and commanded him to have women sealed to him as wives; that he foresaw the trouble that would follow, and sought to turn away from the commandment; that an angel from heaven then appeared before him with a drawn sword, threatening him with destruction unless he went forward and obey the commandment."

"He further said that my sister, Eliza R. Snow, had been sealed to him as his wife for time and eternity. He told me that the Lord would open the way, and I should have women sealed to me as wives. This conversation was prolonged, I think, one hour or more, in which he told me many important things."

"I solemnly declare before God and holy angels, and as I hope to come forth in the morning of the resurrection, that the above statement is true."

- Prophet Lorenzo R. Snow, sworn affidavit.

[KevinG]

I can predict where this goes next and I have a question?

Polygamy to provide for the earthly needs of widows is acceptable - I can be a Mormon.

but

Polygamy to link families in a royal priesthood is not acceptable - I cannot be a Mormon.

Is this the case for some?

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't like to see a piling on of those who claim to have missed the statements about JS and polygamy.

It's not my intent to pile on.

Different individuals have different degrees of cognizance in what they learn and when. I get that. I'm inclined to be easygoing regarding when someone learned about this or that aspect of Church history -- except when there emerges a vindictive, victimhood, why-wasn't-I-told-earlier mentality. At such time, I must point out that canonized scripture -- which every Latter-day Saint is admonished to read and study regularly and continually -- includes content even a cursory reading of which indicates that the divine commandment in this dispensation to practice plural marriage originated through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

That, coupled with the selections from Church curriculum materials that have been quoted in this thread lead to a compelling conclusion that an individual's lack of knowledge about Joseph Smith's role with regard to plural marriage is more likely attributable to that individual's own inattentiveness or lack of interest over the course of time than it is to any supposed "cover-up" or dereliction on the part of the Church.

Polygamy itself as practised in the early church was well stated in the church manuals etc. but mostly had reference to BY's days. Not much was said about JS except by innuendo. Polygyny was 'never' mentioned in polite company.

Be that as it may, 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. A reader with further questions could then find trustworthy sources to get more information: details; recorded history; what can be known sorted out from what is mere speculation, innuendo, slander, etc.; which questions cannot be definitively answered until further light is forthcoming, and so forth. Even the heading to Section 132, which I quoted earlier, contains a citation to a History of the Church reference where more information can be obtained.

And if one accepts Brigham Young as a prophet, then I submit that those who accept his practice of plural marriage as a matter of course but feel shock and revulsion when learning that it was actually Joseph who introduced the practice in this dispensation have not thought the matter through carefully.

I do know from experience that for an idea to actually register it has to be mentioned if not EMPHASIZED several times ,especially in a group format . It is a fact that people can be in an organization for many years and not know all the history thereof. Instead of railing on them because they "should have known" ,we could be showing a more Christlike attitude and help them up after they have been " floored" . As an educator,I was often taught that when a class arrives,you got what you got.My job was to take them from where they are and move them up as best I could. Same concept applies here ,I hope.

No argument with that, except to say that, as explained above, I cannot accept a direct or implied shifting of blame to others when it is likely attributable to the individual's own earlier lack of attention or effort.

And when one gets into, say, his late 20s or early 30s, it is high time to take responsibility for one's own learning, it seems to me.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

Polygamy and polyandry weren't a mystery to our household growing up.

PS- I didn't even graduate from seminary either!