Learning That Joseph Practiced Plural Marriage

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Or an excuse to leave when one has already been moving in that direction.

In fact (from anecdotal evidence) I suggest that most don't join because they like their faith that they currently have. Most don't care about polygamy. I find those that bring it up most of the time are those that are already critical of the church.

[why me]

Or an excuse to leave when one has already been moving in that direction.

That's right. Joseph's polygamy should have no effect on one's testimony of the book of mormon. We need to see the witnesses as an example. Although some disagreed with polygamy, they did not become enemies of the church or lose their testimony of the book. They died with their testimony on their lips.

[Scott Lloyd]

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, ...

It should be noted here that not long after the release of the above-mentioned movie, there was a motion picture made for commercial theatrical release called "Emma Smith: My Story." It used the same principal cast members, same sets, unused footage shot for the earlier film. It was made by the same producer and, as I recall, same script writer. In every particular, it could be regarded as a sequel to the earlier film except for the fact that it was not sponsored by the Church. And it did talk about Joseph being commanded to practice plural marriage and what a hardship it was for him and Emma.

The fact that the Church cooperated with the production of this later film, to the point of providing footage, sets, actors, etc. argues against the notion that it is into concealment. It is business as usual: selective emphasis that is aligned with the mission of the Church, which, in the apparent best judgment of the Brethren, does not include discussion of polygamy, due to the sensationalistic nature of the topic and its propensity to distract from the Church's central message.

Again, those with an interest can seek further information about plural marriage on their own from sources aplenty with the full blessing of the Church, but they should not expect the Church to devote scarce resources to providing a platform for it.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[wenglund]

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.

In accordance with the principles of effective instructional design, the purpose of the Church lesson material isn't to avoid accusations (strained or otherwise), but to convey information intended to better the students, and ultimately enable them to become like Christ. The trained professionals writing the curriculum for the Church understand this, and have thus crafted the lesson material accordingly.

The critics and even certain well-meaning members, in their relatively ignorant bliss, don't get this, which is why they mistakenly give so much attention to the accusations.

However, apologetics is very well suited to addressing the issue and the accusations.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mrmandias]

But the D&C does not address the historical part of JS polygamy. We know the doctrine is there but ALL members should be well informed that Joseph had more than a dozen wives. If you can't handle the information...then you're going to have to find your own way of coping with the reality.

1. I don't see why it matters that the D&C does not address the actual historical practice. God commanded JS to practice polygamy. Why would anyone assume that he didn't? I've been trying to be nice, but if you're going to push on this, I will be blunt: the mindset that is aware of early Church polygamy and D&C 132 but still needs to be told that JS actually practiced polygamy is ignorant, unthinking, deliberately blind, and foolish. I see no need to cater to it.

2. I don't see why the number of wives matters. As the Marchioness said about the miraculous 7-mile walk of St. Denis after his decapitation, 'on such a journey it is the first step that counts.' Or if its more to your taste, substitute the anecdote told about Churchill and any other number of people who propositions a young woman for $1 million and when she accepts starts to haggle her down on the theory that 'we've already established what you are, now we're just discussing price.' I suppose it matters to some people, who knew that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy but feel like the Church is practicing deception since the 15th Article of Faith doesn't spell out how many wives he had and what their blood types were, but such a view is irrational and there's no accounting for irrational views. It doesn't desolate me that the Church hasn't preempted irrational views, since their name is legion.

I'd say polygamy is important but not that important, so it is properly addressed in some ways and in some venues, but not in all ways or in all venues.

[Scott Lloyd]

The evidence suggests that we are [politically correct], at least on some things.

What it suggests to me is that we do our best not to tick people off, but when it comes to values and standards that are non-negotiables, the Church, subject to divine guidance, won't budge.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

Again, those with an interest can seek further information about plural marriage on their own from sources aplenty with the full blessing of the Church, but they should not expect the Church to devote scarce resources to providing a platform for it.

The church should acknowledge it where it needs to be acknowledged but the church does not need to dwell on it. The point is that your own life would be much easier with a little more acknowledgement by the church. The point is to avoid critics to make the claim that the church hides its history and lies to its members.

Edited July 18, 2012 by why me

[Darren10]

I would like a CFR on this aspect of the above statement:

At various times throughout biblical history, the Lord commanded people to practice plural marriage. For example, He gave this command to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon (D&C 132:1).

The revelation to practice plural marriage in this dispensation

I don't recall (I'll check for sure tomorrow) the Lord ever specifically commanding anyone to take more than one wife.

Was it done? Yes. Was it commanded by the Lord? Not so sure on that one.....

In my opinion it was a practice that was tolerated for a time by the Lord but not desired by Him. Niether is it a higher law, but actually a lower practise.

Expanding on Scott Lloyd 's #33, it is modern-day revelation that we know the Lord commanded men to take plural wives. In fact, your last sectence is a parculiar position to take although I find it somewhat common. If plural wives was not from God than it ould be adultery, correct? We know from the Law given to Moses that adulterers should be stoned yet Moses himself had plural wives and they bore him his children. How does the two go together: that adulterers should be stoned andthat plural wives was not from God and thus adulterous? Latter-day revelation clears things up nicely.

Now, while biblically-speaking we cannot conclude that God commanded men to take plural wives but we do know God granted King David multiple wives for his righteousness. The prophet nathan said:

7 ¶And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I ^aanointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

(2 Samuel 12)

If the Lord gave unto David multiple women "into [his] bossom" doesn't that mean that his multiple wives came directly as a blessing from God? And why so? Because King David was up to that point in his life, an extremely good man and a true man of God. Moses and Abraham were as well. The Bible does not say exactly why exactly polygamy was practiced or why it began but neither does it say exatly why it ended. But true to the nature of the Bible, what other reason could there be than from divine revelation?

[Darren10]

I have three close friends, all colleges educated, RM (80s), who on three separate occasion told me that polygamy was started to care for the widows who husband died crossing the plains.

I was quite surprised at the level of ignorance they displayed on the subject, as I expected that missionaries would have been taught about the practice to answer the inevitable questions.

I have since learned that this was common misconception among Mormons.

That's my experience as well.

[why me]

It should be noted here that not long after the release of the above-mentioned movie, there was a motion picture made for commercial theatrical release called "Emma Smith: My Story." It used some the same principal cast members, same sets, unused footage shot for the earlier film. It was made by the same producer and, as I recall, same script writer. In every particular, it could be regarded as a sequel to the earlier film except for the fact that it was not sponsored by the Church. And it did talk about Joseph being commanded to practice plural marriage and what a hardship it was for him and Emma.

That is good. But the joseph smith movie should have had the polygamy also. It would have made the movie a more sharing movie with nonmembers. Now, one cannot share this movie with nonmembers because it gives too much of a goody to shoe picture of Joseph Smith and it leaves out the polygamy issue. And if I am not mistaken it also leaves out the picking up the pistol and firing it into the mob before he headed to the window.

[ERayR]

That's my experience as well.

Over my many years I have heard that and several other reasons for polygamy. The one I have decided I like best and it works for me is: God commanded it.

Edited July 18, 2012 by ERayR

[Calm]

The one I have decided I like best and it works for me is: God commanded it.

John Widtsoe would agree with you.

[KevinG]

I am amazed at all the families, wards and stakes that manage to keep sixth generation, high priests from knowing the truth about their history while keeping them from institute manuals, church histories, books and other information. That's quite the conspiracy going on.

Someone must have dropped the ball when this poor convert accessed this information long before I heard my first AOL dial-up tone.

I'm still not buying what is being sold here. it sounds like a student whining that a question wasn't fair because it wasn't on the review sheet. It was only in the lectures and the book.

[Damien the Leper]

The evidence suggests that we are, at least on some things.

Any faith that has Jacob 2 on the books can't credibly respond 'man up, pansy' to everything.

No disrespect but the 'man up, pansy' made me laugh. Thank you.

[Damien the Leper]

1. I don't see why it matters that the D&C does not address the actual historical practice. God commanded JS to practice polygamy. Why would anyone assume that he didn't? I've been trying to be nice, but if you're going to push on this, I will be blunt: the mindset that is aware of early Church polygamy and D&C 132 but still needs to be told that JS actually practiced polygamy is ignorant, unthinking, deliberately blind, and foolish. I see no need to cater to it.

2. I don't see why the number of wives matters. As the Marchioness said about the miraculous 7-mile walk of St. Denis after his decapitation, 'on such a journey it is the first step that counts.' Or if its more to your taste, substitute the anecdote told about Churchill and any other number of people who propositions a young woman for $1 million and when she accepts starts to haggle her down on the theory that 'we've already established what you are, now we're just discussing price.' I suppose it matters to some people, who knew that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy but feel like the Church is practicing deception since the 15th Article of Faith doesn't spell out how many wives he had and what their blood types were, but such a view is irrational and there's no accounting for irrational views. It doesn't desolate me that the Church hasn't preempted irrational views, since their name is legion.

I'd say polygamy is important but not that important, so it is properly addressed in some ways and in some venues, but not in all ways or in all venues.

I can agree with your statements to an extent. However, to diminish the practice to 'important but not that important' is a little perplexing in light of D&C 132 and the fact that polygamy was constituted as an eternal doctrine.

Perhaps I should be blunt: "Yeah, it happened and we know it happened but there really isn't anything important see here. Lets move along..." is an irresponsible and reprehensible position to take.

I stand by the church practice and refuse to sanitize or soften/deaden the blow of the ultimate reality of the situation.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am amazed at all the families, wards and stakes that manage to keep sixth generation, high priests from knowing the truth about their history while keeping them from institute manuals, church histories, books and other information. That's quite the conspiracy going on.

Someone must have dropped the ball when this poor convert accessed this information long before I heard my first AOL dial-up tone.

How could we have left the door unlocked on that one? Good thing it was so long ago or heads would roll at the Church police.

[mrmandias]

I can agree with your statements to an extent. However, to diminish the practice to 'important but not that important' is a little perplexing in light of D&C 132 and the fact that polygamy was constituted as an eternal doctrine.

Perhaps I should be blunt: "Yeah, it happened and we know it happened but there really isn't anything important see here. Lets move along..." is an irresponsible and reprehensible position to take.

I stand by the church practice and refuse to sanitize or soften/deaden the blow of the ultimate reality of the situation.

We might have to agree to disagree. Part of where I'm coming from is that I think polygamy might not be an eternal practice and that I believe the modern church to which I belong doesn't teach it as an eternal practice (though it isn't foreclosed either). So the fact that Church doesn't offer a full-throated and full-throttle defense of polygamy strikes you as inconsistent with the doctrine on polygamy but it strikes me as potentially a *revelation* of the Church doctrine on polygamy.

[mrmandias]

No disrespect but the 'man up, pansy' made me laugh. Thank you.

Thanks, it was meant to.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Moderators:

Why is this thread being allowed to continue? The whole premise is to personally attack the intelligence or sincerity (can't determine which) of a member of the board. The resultant pile on is unbecoming of the board.

[ERayR]

Moderators:

Why is this thread being allowed to continue? The whole premise is to personally attack the intelligence or sincerity (can't determine which) of a member of the board. The resultant pile on is unbecoming of the board.

Neither. just disagreeing with his dogmatic conclusions.

[Scott Lloyd]

Moderators:

Why is this thread being allowed to continue? The whole premise is to personally attack the intelligence or sincerity (can't determine which) of a member of the board. The resultant pile on is unbecoming of the board.

Actually, the premise is to challenge the notion that the Church is to blame for people not learning until late in adulthood that it was Joseph who received the revelation and commandment to teach and practice plural marriage in this gospel dispensation.

And, as thread originator, I think the ensuing discussion has been rather productive. I vote to keep it going a while longer.

[Damien the Leper]

We might have to agree to disagree. Part of where I'm coming from is that I think polygamy might not be an eternal practice and that I believe the modern church to which I belong doesn't teach it as an eternal practice (though it isn't foreclosed either). So the fact that Church doesn't offer a full-throated and full-throttle defense of polygamy strikes you as inconsistent with the doctrine on polygamy but it strikes me as potentially a *revelation* of the Church doctrine on polygamy.

I can agree with you to agree to disagree.

[Damien the Leper]

Actually, the premise is to challenge the notion that the Church is to blame for people not learning until late in adulthood that it was Joseph who received the revelation and commandment to teach and practice plural marriage in this gospel dispensation.

And, as thread originator, I think the ensuing discussion has been rather productive. I vote to keep it going a while longer.

I second the vote. Is there a way to incorporate the fallacies proposed in "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy"?

[why me]

I second the vote. Is there a way to incorporate the fallacies proposed in "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy"?

And of course, joseph did fight polygamy. He did not want to practice it. After Fanny and the problem that this caused his marriage he stopped it. But then, 8 or so years later he had to restart the principle even though he knew that problems this would cause in his marriage. There was no reason to start this practice again unless he felt that the god was pressuring him to do so. And so, within a two year period he began to be sealed to many women as a man in a hurry. How to explain this? And then we have the spiritual experiences of the women involved.

[why me]

Moderators:

Why is this thread being allowed to continue? The whole premise is to personally attack the intelligence or sincerity (can't determine which) of a member of the board. The resultant pile on is unbecoming of the board.

This is a discussion board and we are discussing the topic. I see no pile on but I do see people discussing the topic in a very faith promoting way. And we are also engaged with a couple of critics. Nothing wrong with this thread.

Edited July 18, 2012 by why me