Learning That Joseph Practiced Plural Marriage

[Jaybear]

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

Everything? Nah. Lets start with materiality. Since many people have left the Church, or choice not to join, after learning about the details of the practice, one can easily make the case, that this history is material to making an informed decision about whether to believe that Smith is a prophet.

[Nevo]

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

To quote the D&C institute manual you cited earlier, regarding v. 52: "No indication is given here or elsewhere of what the Lord had commanded the Prophet Joseph to offer to his wife, but the context seems to suggest that it was a special test of faith similar to the test of Abraham’s faith when the Lord commanded him to sacrifice Isaac. Beyond that, it is useless to speculate."

[Calm]

Okay, thanks. (to mrmandias...this thread is moving too fast, lol)

Edited July 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

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.

That sounds more like Reorganized info.

[why me]

I just wanted to say, that I have known a lot of people who didn't know about Joseph Smith's polygamy...or, at least, didn't know about the specifics. It's not really that rare. I guess we LDS are not very good at reading the D & C. I know I didn't read it all the way through, until I had been in the church for four or five years.

I wouldn't worry about it. It is not that unusual. However, whether or not Joseph was a polygamist or the church is not that forthcoming about it, does not lessen one's testimony of the book of mormon. We need to understand that the church is run by human beings who make mistakes. But this is not Joseph's fault nor the fault of the book of mormon. If one has a testimony of the book of mormon, it should not lessen that testimony. The 11 witnesses are a testament to what they saw and experienced. That hasn't changed.

[Calm]

To quote the D&C institute manual you cited earlier, regarding v. 52: "No indication is given here or elsewhere of what the Lord had commanded the Prophet Joseph to offer to his wife, but the context seems to suggest that it was a special test of faith similar to the test of Abraham’s faith when the Lord commanded him to sacrifice Isaac. Beyond that, it is useless to speculate."

Offered his wife in verse 51, not verse 52, that does not mean it is not relatively clear (granted this is in my opinion) about what Joseph was doing in verse 52. Edited July 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[why me]

To quote the D&C institute manual you cited earlier, regarding v. 52: "No indication is given here or elsewhere of what the Lord had commanded the Prophet Joseph to offer to his wife, but the context seems to suggest that it was a special test of faith similar to the test of Abraham’s faith when the Lord commanded him to sacrifice Isaac. Beyond that, it is useless to speculate."

Well, this is a little vague. But the intention is there. The point is: we do not know much about plural marriage and why it was practiced.

[Damien the Leper]

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.

Don't encourage the women, Mola. We don't want the critics to get the wrong impression.

[wenglund]

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.

That is one extremist (black/white) way of looking at it. A more reasonable way of viewing it, particularly for those of us whose business this actually is, is to suggest that the LDS Church wisely does not make it a priority to teach members about historical things that aren't pertinent to the lesson objectives--which objectives are geared towards fulfilling the stated mission of the Church, regardless of who or what they may honor.

My father fought in WWII, and served honorably and at great personal sacrifice. And, as much as I believe he is deserving of public recognition, particularly among his fellow saints, I don't view the Sunday curriculum, generally speaking, as the appropriate or best place for that recognition, though I may personally make mention in class where appropriate. The same holds true for the many challenges and honorable responses to those challenges made by my parents and sibling and ancestors.

Some of us have a great interest in history, though in its appropriate place and time.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Don't encourage the women, Mola. We don't want the critics to get the wrong impression.

I just maxed out on rep points. Oh bother.

[Nevo]

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.

There is definitely concealment going on when the Church commissions a feature-length movie about the Prophet that never so much as hints about any other wife than Emma, when biographical sketches of the Prophet in Church manuals and magazines invariably omit any reference to his plural wives, when the Church's Joseph Smith website is silent on the subject. I don't know how anyone can maintain that these omissions are accidental.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Nevo

[why me]

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.

Of course this is the point. Whether how one finds out that Joseph was a polygamist should not change one's testimony of the book of mormon. However, those who become disaffected are very close to David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and others from that time who had a problem with it. And they need to understand that.

[Damien the Leper]

I just maxed out on rep points. Oh bother.

Are you kidding me?!? You're a contributor! You have 50 freakin' points to give out! How could you possibly spend that much in one day?!? And the day is only half over!!

[why me]

There is definitely concealment going on when the Church commissions a feature-length movie about the Prophet that never so much as hints about any other wife than Emma, when biographical sketches of the Prophet in Church manuals and magazines invariably omit any reference to his plural wives, when the Church's Joseph Smith website is silent on the subject. I don't know how anyone can maintain that these omissions are accidental.

They aren't. And that is the fault of men and women who are working for the church. They seem to be a little shy about Joseph's polygamy. Why? I have no idea. That movie you mentioned has done more harm than good and this is why I tend to give those who become disappointed a break. It is not their fault but the fault of others.

[Calm]

There is definitely concealment going on

Avoidance I will grant you, but concealment....they are doing a bad job if it is mentioned elsewhere, don't you think?

I don't know how anyone can maintain that these omissions are accidental.

If one believes that the Church is involved enough in the editing of the movie, SS manuals and magazines, then why aren't they just as involved in the editing of the lds.org website and Institute manuals as well as the strong hint in the Our Heritage manual and the headings in the D&C. If the omissions aren't accidental, then neither are the inclusions.

Edited July 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Are you kidding me?!? You're a contributor! You have 50 freakin' points to give out! How could you possibly spend that much in one day?!? And the day is only half over!!

Give me an hour and I'll get some more. It's 50 points in 24 hours...and I am very generous with my points making a point to max out every day.

I want people to feel good about their posts....plus it is embarrassing to be so high myself above the more substantive posters like Robert K. Smith and volgadon.

[Damien the Leper]

That sounds more like Reorganized info.

I don't think that is even Reorganized info. I wouldn't know where to start with that mess he is proposing.

[wenglund]

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.

There are reasonable and logical answers, and those that aren't, regardless whether the opinions are firm or not.

There are also people for whom this is their business and whose opinions ought to count, and then there are people like you whose business this isn't, but who simply wish to exploit the least opportunity to criticize the object of their prejudice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

Too true. But after the age of about 9 months most of us would rather spoon feed our selves.

[why me]

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.

The new Joseph Smith movie was an opportunity to show the membership that Joseph was a polygamist. But they dropped the ball and went with a Joseph and Emma story. This was a mistake of immense proportions. The movie should have shown that aspect of Joseph's life. That omission was a big mistake.

More members know that polygamy was practiced by the saints in Utah but less know about the polygamy of Joseph Smith.

Edited July 18, 2012 by why me

[Damien the Leper]

They aren't. And that is the fault of men and women who are working for the church. They seem to be a little shy about Joseph's polygamy. Why? I have no idea. That movie you mentioned has done more harm than good and this is why I tend to give those who become disappointed a break. It is not their fault but the fault of others.

To avoid any confusion or disillusionment, perhaps the church should force more accurate information to be displayed.

[why me]

To avoid any confusion or disillusionment, perhaps the church should force more accurate information to be displayed.

Now this is the point. There is nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to polygamy. The church acts like we need to be ashamed of the practice. We don't. In fact, that part of our history would be very popular in africa where polygamy has more respect. Nothing to be ashamed of at all. I think that we should shout it out for all to hear: the mormon church practiced polygamy because god commanded the sacrifice and as a godly people, the saints made the sacrifice and obeyed God's will.

Edited July 18, 2012 by why me

[wenglund]

There is definitely concealment going on when the Church commissions a feature-length movie about the Prophet that never so much as hints about any other wife than Emma, when biographical sketches of the Prophet in Church manuals and magazines invariably omit any reference to his plural wives, when the Church's Joseph Smith website is silent on the subject. I don't know how anyone can maintain that these omissions are accidental.

The omissions, or rather that non-mentions, aren't accidental. They are a function of practicality and pertinence to fulfilling the objectives of the listed materials, and not "concealment."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

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.

Misread sorry.

Edited July 18, 2012 by ERayR

[why me]

The omissions, or rather that non-mentions, aren't accidental. They are a function of practicality and pertinence to fulfilling the objectives of the listed materials, and not "concealment."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But it can be read that way. And that is the point. There would be nothing wrong with a mention of Joseph's polygamy at the opportune moment. Then, there would be no accusations of concealment.