Learning That Joseph Practiced Plural Marriage

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Your objection is noted but strikes me as off-topic for this particular thread, which I define as dealing with whether a typical active Church member could reasonably be expected to learn prior to late adulthood of Joseph's Smith's role in the commandment to practice plural marriage.

[wenglund]

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?

No. My goal was to correctly and authoritatively answer the question that was asked. For those who have even a modest capacity for comprehension, and who have a genuine desire to know the answer, and who aren't hypocritically looking to be offended, my goal was likely achieved.

I am not entirely certain what exactly your problem was, but since this issue is really none of your business, and since you come from a perspective of relative ignorance that appears to be cemented, I can't bring myself to care.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

If you follow this thread from the beginning, you will note that Doctrine and Covenants 132 -- part of the scriptural canon -- clearly establishes that the revelation to institute the practice came through Joseph Smith. And there have been quotes provided from other sources such as Sunday School gospel doctrine manuals.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Looks like an abbreviated schedule for spring/summer term. If you go to the offerings for fall, you find that several classes in Doctrine and Covenants are offered. Surely plural marriage would be discussed in this course in connection with the study of Section 132 and Official Declaration 2.

[Calm]

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.

Only three courses to choose from per semester....that is kind of sad. There are 15 standard total according the Institute website: http://institute.lds.org/courses/ Since Writings of Isaiah is not offered among them, though it was a religion class offered at BYU at least while I went there (taught by Victor Ludlow, it was my favourite religion course), that leaves two standard classes offered. Would take then 8 semesters to rotate through them or four years, but then not everyone would take 2 per semester so would miss half.

add-on: good to see more options available during fall and winter semesters. That makes 6 courses offered per year...still not great choice though.

Edited July 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Surely plural marriage would be discussed in this course in connection with the study of Section 132 and Official Declaration 2.

From the text:

President Wilford Woodruff, who was closely associated with the Prophet Joseph Smith, said: “Emma Smith, the widow of the Prophet, is said to have maintained to her dying moments that her husband had nothing to do with the patriarchal order of marriage, but that it was Brigham Young that got that up. I bear record before God, angels and men that Joseph Smith received that revelation, and I bear record that Emma Smith gave her husband in marriage to several women while he was living, some of whom are to-day living in this city, and some may be present in this congregation, and who, if called upon, would confirm my words. But lo and behold, we hear of publication after publication now-a-days, declaring that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with these things. Joseph Smith himself organized every endowment in our Church and revealed the same to the Church, and he lived to receive every key of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods from the hands of the men who held them while in the flesh, and who hold them in eternity.” (In Journal of Discourses, 23:131.)

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/doctrine-and-covenants-institute-student-manual/dc-in-131-132.asp

[Calm]

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

http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Introduction_of_eternal_marriage

[Deborah]

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.

I don't think it's the fact they didn't know but how they present their not knowing, usually in the form of the church is hiding this. Or whining about being kept in the dark. It would probably be different if a non-accusatory tone were used and one simply said "I didn't know that can you explain more."

In any case my question is always what did you base your testimony on before and how has that changed just because you learned something new. Does the something new negate any of the good things you knew before?

[Palerider]

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.

Too late.....

Already resolved.

[Jaybear]

Your objection is noted but strikes me as off-topic for this particular thread, which I define as dealing with whether a typical active Church member could reasonably be expected to learn prior to late adulthood of Joseph's Smith's role in the commandment to practice plural marriage.

Fair enough. I suppose my response would be that as the LDS Church does not make it a priority to teach members about the history, and purpose of Sec 132, and does nothing to honor, elevate or recognize the faithfulness, and sacrifices made by the early plural wives who engaged in the practice in secret, under threat of arrest and social condemnation, then no I would not reasonably expect most LDS members to have a clear understanding of this history.

People are busy. Not every has an interest in history.

[ERayR]

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

Well for one that person might learn there is a difference between marriage and sealing and then find out if it was a marriage or a sealing. That person might then consider the ramifications of those differences.

[Jaybear]

http://en.fairmormon...ternal_marriage

It was yes or no question.

[mrmandias]

Something interesting has emerged from the comments here.

I'd say I knew Joseph Smith was polygamous when I was pretty young. But looking back on it, I'm not sure. What I did know when I was young was that the the early Church leadership was polygamous. Which is and was extremely common knowledge among Mormons and non-Mormons. I may have just assumed that Joseph Smith was polygamous because I saw no reason to distinguish him from the rest of the early church leadership.

Similarly I see some commenters here who don't think D&C 132 proves anything because it doesn't specifically state that Joseph practiced polygamy. However, it does reveal a doctrine of polygamy as a righteous law, and it never occurred to me on reading it that Joseph Smith wouldn't have practiced it.

So if some people learned about polygamy but were never specifically told that Joseph practiced it, it may have been because their friends/family/teachers/leaders were like me and never thought that a pointed reference to Joseph was necessary. No deliberate deception or concealment at all. To us, saying 'the early church practiced polygamy as a doctrine revealed by Joseph Smith and, oh, by the way, Joseph Smith practiced it' would be like saying 'the early church leaders were men. Joseph Smith too.'

Edited July 18, 2012 by mrmandias

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't think it's the fact they didn't know but how they present their not knowing, usually in the form of the church is hiding this. Or whining about being kept in the dark. It would probably be different if a non-accusatory tone were used and one simply said "I didn't know that can you explain more."

In any case my question is always what did you base your testimony on before and how has that changed just because you learned something new. Does the something new negate any of the good things you knew before?

This gets to the heart of the matter.

Sometimes I wonder why I even post when Deborah posts what I am thinking and does it better than I could.

[mrmandias]

People are busy. Not every has an interest in history.

Too true, but the remedy isn't to blame one's ignorance on other people.

[Calm]

It was yes or no question.

Just providing my reason for "yes".

[why me]

I just saw this on a thread that is now locked.

cwald wrote:

Up until he was 35, did cwald never read Doctrine and Covenants 132?

I ask, because I find it enigmatic that a reader of average-or-better comprehension could read that section and not get the message that Joseph not only received a revelation commanding that plurall marriage be instituted in this dispensation but that he taught it to others and practiced it himself.

This is probably not too surprising when we put in context. The church does not teach that Joseph was a polygamist. True, it is on the lds.org website but never is it discussed in class. And when the D&C is learned in sunday school and that section comes up, the polygamy of Joseph is not discussed. So, it wouldn't be that surprising that cwald did not know about it.

Now, of course, if one has a testimony of the book of mormon, it should not matter if Joseph was a polygamist. But the problem comes when anti sites tell the member that it should matter and that the church has lied and covered it up and presents a very convincing case for it. There is the problem. But really it should not matter at all. What the church chooses to tell and not tell does not have anything to do with whether the book of mormon is true or not. That depends on testimony.

[Calm]

Similarly I see some commenters here who don't think D&C 132 proves anything because it doesn't specifically state that Joseph practiced polygamy.

You don't see this as specifically saying Joseph practice plural marriage? (Not arguing, just curious about your POV)

52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

Edited July 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[why me]

Maybe if the other thread had not been locked you would understand why I was an active Mormon, mission, seminary, EQP etc etc who did not learn about JOSEPH'S SMITH'S pologamy and polyandry.

This is understandable. However, what is not understandable is your reaction to it. If you had a testimony of the book of mormon, felt the spirit, and felt at home in the lds church, it should not matter if Joseph was a polygamist or not. What matters is if you believe that the book of mormon is what it says it is: a second testimony of Christ. The problem comes when a person allows Joseph's polygamy to destroy their testimony even after reading faith promoting material that may explain it.

[ERayR]

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.

OOPS you missed the expectation to be spoon fed every thing.

[Jaybear]

Too true, but the remedy isn't to blame one's ignorance on other people.

That happens all the time.

The question becomes whether the party with the knowledge owed a duty of disclosure to other.

The LDS church has no "legal" duty of disclosure.

Whether the LDS Church has a moral duty of disclosure is completely subjective. There is no right answer, except for those who a firm opinion.

[why me]

From the official Church Sunday School manual Our Heritage, chapter 8:

Persecution Continues

While working on the translation of the Bible in the early 1830s, the Prophet Joseph Smith became troubled by the fact that Abraham, Jacob, David, and other Old Testament leaders had more than one wife. The Prophet prayed for understanding and learned that at certain times, for specific purposes, following divinely given laws, plural marriage was approved and directed by God. Joseph Smith also learned that with divine approval, some Latter-day Saints would soon be chosen by priesthood authority to marry more than one wife. A number of Latter-day Saints practiced plural marriage in Nauvoo, but a public announcement of this doctrine and practice was not made until the August 1852 general conference in Salt Lake City. At that conference, Elder Orson Pratt, as directed by President Brigham Young, announced that the practice of a man having more than one wife was part of the Lord’s restitution of all things (see Acts 3:19–21).

But if you notice it is mentioned that in Nauvoo it was practiced. But the problem comes with the lack of detail about joseph smith being sealed to other women. The correction could be said this way:

Persecution Continues

While working on the translation of the Bible in the early 1830s, the Prophet Joseph Smith became troubled by the fact that Abraham, Jacob, David, and other Old Testament leaders had more than one wife. The Prophet prayed for understanding and learned that at certain times, for specific purposes, following divinely given laws, plural marriage was approved and directed by God. Joseph Smith also learned that with divine approval, some Latter-day Saints would soon be chosen by priesthood authority to marry more than one wife. Eventually, Joseph began to practice plural marriage. His first polygamous wife was Fanny Alger. Eventually, he would be sealed to 32 other women. A number of Latter-day Saints practiced plural marriage in Nauvoo, but a public announcement of this doctrine and practice was not made until the August 1852 general conference in Salt Lake City. At that conference, Elder Orson Pratt, as directed by President Brigham Young, announced that the practice of a man having more than one wife was part of the Lord’s restitution of all things (see Acts 3:19–21).

This little correction would satisfy the critics and cwald.

[Calm]

This is probably not too surprising when we put in context. The church does not teach that Joseph was a polygamist.

Correction, see references in this thread to various lesson manuals. The Gospel Doctrine D&C teacher's manual includes a reference if the teacher feels it is relevant, though it is not in the student version. At least two Institute manuals teach this and the Our Heritage has a reference to plural marriage in Nauvoo.

While not specifically stating Joseph was among those who practiced it, it is strange to me to think that he was instructing others while not participating himself:

While working on the translation of the Bible in the early 1830s, the Prophet Joseph Smith became troubled by the fact that Abraham, Jacob, David, and other Old Testament leaders had more than one wife. The Prophet prayed for understanding and learned that at certain times, for specific purposes, following divinely given laws, plural marriage was approved and directed by God. Joseph Smith also learned that with divine approval, some Latter-day Saints would soon be chosen by priesthood authority to marry more than one wife. A number of Latter-day Saints practiced plural marriage in Nauvoo, but a public announcement of this doctrine and practice was not made until the August 1852 general confer- ence in Salt Lake City. At that conference, Elder Orson Pratt, as directed by President Brigham Young, announced that the practice of a man having more than one wife was part of the Lord’s resti- tution of all things (see Acts 3:19–21).

http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35448_eng.pdf?lang=eng

add-on: I agree the additional information would make it clearer.

Edited July 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

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.

I thought all the non-members knew it. When self identifying as a Mormon the first two questions were: How many wives do you have and where is your horns.

Edited July 18, 2012 by ERayR

[mrmandias]

You don't see this as specifically saying Joseph practice plural marriage? (Not arguing, just curious about your POV)

The argument was made upthread that the verse you quoted was vague. I don't see it as vague, but it never occurred to me to think that this whole big revelation on polygamy didn't apply to one J. Smith either.

What I was trying to do was understand the point of view of people who know about early Church polygamy but didn't think it applied to Joseph; or who knew that Joseph revealed polygamy but didn't think he practiced it; and show them that some (most) church members don't share those assumptions and so their failure, if any, to specifically teach that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy was not deceptive or ill-intentioned.