Learning That Joseph Practiced Plural Marriage

[treehugger]

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?

Your apparent flippant disregard for where the person is coming provides great for a person not respond.

However, I will respond, though I do not have an issue with Joseph Smiths polygamy. When people learn about Joseph Smiths polygamy, in their later years, they likely it from the interwebs. Usually Joseph Smith polygamy is coupled with "Look what you don't know about the Church you gave years of your life too and 10% of your income....Why didn't you know about Joseph Smiths polygamy?"

Then the person goes to another part of the internets and asks about Joseph Smith polygamy, that person is met with acorn and ridicule and lead to believe that their failure to know Joseph Smith was a polygamist is due to their inability to dig up and read Church mags which predate their own birth, or they are lead to believe they lack comprehension, all in all the person with the question is lead to believe it is their own fault for not using resources which may not have even been available to them.

[Nevo]

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.

You've made this point a few times in this thread, but I don't think it is correct. Simply reading section 132 will not necessarily raise awareness that Joseph Smith was commanded to practice polygamy and that he, in fact, did so. This is not explicit anywhere in the revelation.

The only passage that provides even a hint of Joseph's polygamy is the command to Emma to "receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me" (v. 52)—and even in this case, someone ignorant of the historical context could think this referred to future polygamy.

[Scott Lloyd]

Growing up in the 1970's -- let me be an example of someone who didn't catch on. I had seminary but only once a week. The concept that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage himself went right over my head until I was 21, and then it still wasn't anything I learned at church but through my own extracurricular reading. You can call it ignorance, or not being well-read, or not being a good member, or whatever other thing you want to call it. I'm just saying cwald wasn't alone.

I'm not surprised in the least that you did not learn about it until 21. Most children and youth in the Church lack interest in such a topic and are not apt to gain greater interest until they gain commensurate maturity. (Twenty-one is quite a bit younger than 35, however.)

And there is not a thing wrong with extracurricular reading. I wish more adults in the Church would engage in it, although I would hope they would select trustworthy sources.

[USU78]

[Zakuska]

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

Probably the same way people react when they find out about Uriah, King David and Bathsheba. DId the fact that King David do all this make the church not true then? No.

Of course, Joseph Smith never sent anyone to the front lines to their death to secure the women. By all accounts many of Josephs wives came of their own accord.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Zakuska

[Scott Lloyd]

Are you sure you didn't hear it and just weren't interested in the subject at the time and therefore didn't pay attention? I have taught youth, and yes I did teach about plural marriage, and it is amazing how uncurious the youth were about this subject.

Hence, mathilde not catching on until age 21, I suppose.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Then the real question you need to resolve for yourself is the authenticity of Joseph Smith's divine calling and the revelations that came from God through him.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Reacting with concern is one thing; trying to blame others for what apparently was one's own earlier inattentiveness is quite another.

[thesometimesaint]

Treehugger:

The Bible, The Book of Mormon, and nearly ALL of D&C predate anyone alive today. Any adult who has spent more than a very few years in the Church should know about polygamy. Only a lack of interest or being asleep in Church meetings could possibly excuse such lack of knowledge.

Edited July 18, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Actually, I don't see that line of reasoning going on here. Rather, the message can be expressed thusly: Joseph Smith taught and practiced plural marriage because he was commanded to do so as per Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Your ruminations about sexual relations are quite off-topic, and as thread originator I ask you not to derail the thread.

[Calm]

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?

The current institute Church History manual as well as the one used prior to it starting in 1967 both mention Joseph practicing plural marriage, the older manual going into some detail about it. The current one lists at least one wife, Louisa Beemen, the previous one at least 5.

Considering the number of times I have mentioned this recently on threads dealing with the subject, it does not surprise me at all when people say they never knew a particular fact after years of being in church, etc.

Edited July 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[CV75]

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?

With this bunch, I think you had better define "earthly needs"...!

[Nevo]

The current institute Church History manual as well as the one used prior to it starting in 1967 both mention Joseph practicing plural marriage, the older manual going into some detail about it. The current one lists at least one wife, Louisa Beemen, the previous one at least 5.

Considering the number of times I have mentioned this recently on threads dealing with the subject, it does not surprise me at all when people say they never knew a particular fact after years of being in church, etc.

Hi Cal,

I spent close to a decade attending institute, both in Vancouver and in Toronto. I don't believe that the course that uses this particular manual (Church History in the Fulness of Times) was ever offered in either place.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I don't know of any authoritative instructional materials published by the church that would have led to that erroneous impression. The very notion is problematic: For Joseph Smith to teach others that they should practice plural marriage while not practicing it himself could have been deemed hypocritical.

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?

Yes, there is such content in current CES manuals. I believe calmoriah has citations and quotes at the ready; if not, I can provide links later.

[Calm]

Hi Cal,

I spent close to a decade attending institute, both in Vancouver and in Toronto. I don't believe that the course that uses this particular manual (Church History in the Fulness of Times) was ever offered in either place.

Interesting to know. Are you sure it just isn't that you weren't interested in the subject so ignored the offering (though this would be very surprising knowing you now.) Would be good to know how widespread it was. I am pretty sure it was offered in Calgary. The manual itself was available for purchase by anyone through Church Distribution, as a side note. Edited July 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[treehugger]

Actually, I don't see that line of reasoning going on here. Rather, the message can be expressed thusly: Joseph Smith taught and practiced plural marriage because he was commanded to do so as per Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Your ruminations about sexual relations are quite off-topic, and as thread originator I ask you not to derail the thread.

Doug the avenger brought up Jospeh Smith and sexual relations with plural wives, more to doughs point the lack of evidence for sexual relations. As, you are the thread originator, and given that you did not censor dough, then we are all rightly to assume that you as the thread originator where fine with that discussion.

So are you just instructing me not to discuss it or are you telling everyone not to discuss it?

Nevertheless, the point is has been made about incoherent reasoning being to prove jospeh smith was a polygamist. I will abide by your request and not discuss the matter you have expressed is a derail.

Edited July 18, 2012 by treehugger

[Jaybear]

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-

Don't mean to be rude, but what you claim is obvious strikes me as meaningless pablum. It also comes across as condescending. Was that your goal?

[Jaybear]

Actually, I don't see that line of reasoning going on here. Rather, the message can be expressed thusly: Joseph Smith taught and practiced plural marriage because he was commanded to do so as per Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Your ruminations about sexual relations are quite off-topic, and as thread originator I ask you not to derail the thread.

If Smith had only married one or two others, I can see why one might believe that he practiced polygamy only because he "commanded." Once that total passed 20, that claim becomes much too far fetched. Polygamy to Smith, was obviously not a bitter pill to swallow.

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting to know. Are you sure it just isn't that you weren't interested in the subject so ignored the offering (though this would be very surprising knowing you now.) Would be good to know how widespread it was. I am pretty sure it was offered in Calgary. The manual itself was available for purchase by anyone through Church Distribution, as a side note.

And it still is available through Church Distribution.

And it can be accessed online.

[Calm]

Polygamy to Smith, was obviously not a bitter pill to swallow.

IIRC, it was four years between his first attempt and his second. While the number of his wives ultimately indicates a full acceptance of the principle, I think how he went about it demonstrates it was an acceptance that was slow in coming.

[Verum]

I don't know of any authoritative instructional materials published by the church that would have led to that erroneous impression. The very notion is problematic: For Joseph Smith to teach others that they should practice plural marriage while not practicing it himself could have been deemed hypocritical.

Yes, there is such content in current CES manuals. I believe calmoriah has citations and quotes at the ready; if not, I can provide links later.

If it is only discussed on the CES institute manual, than that would explain why someone would not know about it until there 20's or 30's. For example, I went straight from high school to my mission so I never attended institute.

I found one current reference to polygamy in the current Sunday school manual that is in the section about "questions on plural marriage" that stated that Joseph obeyed the law. But that is all. I can't find anything in the seminary manuals, but it could be there. Hopefully someone can provide links.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Reacting with concern is one thing; trying to blame others for what apparently was one's own earlier inattentiveness is quite another.

You know, I was thinking about this thread. But one thing came up that I must ask. Some people have claimed at not knowing that JS was a polygamist. OK since we have determined that the church does indeed teach about this aspect of JS. I am wondering what the critics want us to do now?

[Calm]

I don't know of any authoritative instructional materials published by the church that would have led to that erroneous impression. The very notion is problematic: For Joseph Smith to teach others that they should practice plural marriage while not practicing it himself could have been deemed hypocritical.

Yes, there is such content in current CES manuals. I believe calmoriah has citations and quotes at the ready; if not, I can provide links later.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Initiation_of_the_practice/Joseph_Smith_practiced_plural_marriage

The Barrett manual starts on page 520 and goes to 527, IIRC (just looked it up) so please don't ask for the whole citation, lol.

[Jaybear]

IIRC, it was four years between his first attempt and his second. While the number of his wives ultimately indicates a full acceptance of the principle, I think how he went about it demonstrates it was an acceptance that was slow in coming.

In this chronology, are you assuming that his relationship with Fanny was a marriage?

[Nevo]

Interesting to know. Are you sure it just isn't that you weren't interested in the subject so ignored the offering (though this would be very surprising knowing you now.) Would be good to know how widespread it was. I am pretty sure it was offered in Calgary. The manual itself was available for purchase by anyone through Church Distribution, as a side note.

Believe me, if I had heard of a Church history class being offered, I would have been the first to sign up. It probably has been offered at some point in one or more of the Alberta institutes, but I don't think it is regularly taught anywhere in Canada. (Of course, most students who attend an institute class don't read every word of the manual either.)

BTW, I notice that the Edmonton institute's fall course offerings are listed here. "Church History in the Fulness of Times" is not among them.