Learning That Joseph Practiced Plural Marriage

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I was going to pull out some of the 'gems' aimed at cjwald, but decided it would be a waste of time. Go ahead and have your 'faith-promoting' discussion.

[Damien the Leper]

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.

I'm speaking specifically of the publication Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy that is provided by Richard & Pamela Price and the Restoration Bookstore in Independence, MO.

[cwald]

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.

Well thank you.

I find it quite ironic that the locals here can call me names, be extremely rude and condensending...accuse me of "whimpering" and "whining", start a whole thread about me, and as soon I say something defensive or remotely pongiant towards the longtimers here, I'm the one who gets thread banned and chastized by the mods for making personal attacks. Why is that do you suppose? I just wish we all could play by the same rules. That doesn't happen. Why hasn't it been locked?

I will probably get accused of whining and wimpering for this comment too. Such is life.

Edited July 18, 2012 by cwald

[why me]

Well thank you.

I will probably get accused of whining and wimpering for this comment too. Such is life.

Cwald, I am going to give you some advice. This is a discussion board. People will discuss various issues. This thread is about something you claimed. And now people are discussing this claim. As you know, on the other board, I am usually put through the meat grinder. I do not complain about it. It comes with the turf. If you are treated as I am treated on that other board, I would think that your complaint is justified. Engage the people in dialogue and don't take it all so personal. At the end of the day, most people don't remember what they posted the day before. It is a day by day board as are most discussion boards.

[Hestia]

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.

No board nannying. If you think something is wrong use the report function.

[ERayR]

Well thank you.

I find it quite ironic that the locals here can call me names, be extremely rude and condensending...accuse me of "whimpering" and "whining", start a whole thread about me, and as soon I say something defensive or remotely pongiant towards the longtimers here, I'm the one who gets thread banned and chastized by the mods for making personal attacks. Why is that do you suppose? I just wish we all could play by the same rules. That doesn't happen. Why hasn't it been locked?

I will probably get accused of whining and wimpering for this comment too. Such is life.

And this isn't whining?

[Damien the Leper]

And this isn't whining?

Stop it...lol

[wenglund]

Go ahead and have your 'faith-promoting' discussion.

It was ever so charitable of you to give us permission.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

It was ever so charitable of you to give us permission.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You stop it too! lol

[BookofMormonLuvr]

i just remembered how pointless it is to participate here and why I stopped last year. I will log off now.

[cwald]

Okay Why Me.

It's not personal.

Let's start here.

Overall it's wise to play it cautiously than to dive in half-mindedly. However, I brought up your thread ban because you kept whimpering about having been banned and thus not being able to tell your story because you were banned. i thought it important to point out tha the thread in question was locked upon request and that you banned yourself from that thread after being warned to tone it down and then by creating a race baiting post. If it was so important to you to tell your story, why didn't you? Why haven't you until now (up until page 2)? This threads about you and the very topic you want to expound upon. So, pleae feel free to do so.

WRONG....this thread is about polygamy....not allowing black men and women access to the temple endowment....that is why I was banned. Get your facts together before you start slandering folks...especially me. I'm tired of your crap and condescending tone.

I was banned for talking about blacks and priesthood...and made the claim that the 1978 revelation was a sweeping change in church towards a more "liberal view" to allow black women and men access to the endowment...Selek said it wasn't it. I said it was...especially for the black LDS members, and especially for me since I am currently in a interracial marraige and understand the dilema. BANNED for race baiting. REALLY?

As far as this thread is concerned. I made a comment after treehugger posted a CFR from CAL showing how the apoligist mentioned, was not very correct about his references he cited in regards to the LDS church being open about JS polygamy and the stone and in the hat....It was like 7 of the 10 references or whatever, didn't even prove the apoligists point....and treehugger pointed it out. I agreed with him that the church did not do a very good job teaching about JS polygamy....let alone his polyandry. That thread was mysteriously locked. Why? Who requested it locked? And for what reason?

If this is such a great philisophical and faith promoting discussion...focused on my failure to understand JS polygamy until I was 35....why did we have to lock the original thread where polygamy being taught in church was being discussed...and continue the discussion here?

[cwald]

And this isn't whining?

I figured you would say that ERay. You are one top notch individual...

Why don't you discuss the topic, and quit making it personal?

You are out of the thread for continued rudeness.

[Damien the Leper]

I figured you would say that ERay. You are one top notch individual...

Why don't you discuss the topic, and quit making it personal?

It is obvious that he was being facetious. It wasn't him that made it personal...it was you who made it personal by posting what you have above.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Valentinus

[Tacenda]

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.

I thought JS approached God first to ask to reinstitute the principle.

[Scott Lloyd]

I thought JS approached God first to ask to reinstitute the principle.

No. He approached God to ask about the practice among the Old Testament patriarchs. I don't get the idea at all that he was seeking permission to engage in it himself. In fact, he quite strenuously resisted the idea and had to be threatened with destruction before he would comply.

While he was working on the New Translation of the Bible, it was common for Joseph Smith to go to the Lord in prayer and ask about this or that point. Quite often, such inquiries were the catalyst for new revelation. That was the case with the revelation on celestial marriage and plurality of wives.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I figured you would say that ERay. You are one top notch individual...

Why don't you discuss the topic, and quit making it personal?

I will make the same request of you.

[Calm]

No. He approached God to ask about the practice among the Old Testament patriarchs. I don't get the idea at all that he was seeking permission to engage in it himself. In fact, he quite strenuously resisted the idea and had to be threatened with destruction before he would comply.

In support:

D&C 132: 1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wivesand concubines—

2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlastingcovenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

D&C 132:1–2. “Inasmuch As You Have Inquired of My Hand”

“From this introductory statement it is evident that the Prophet had made the question of marriage a subject of earnest prayer, as he did with matters concerning which he was perplexed and desired to know the truth. He did not understand how the Patriarchs, and David and Solomon could find favor with the Lord, while living in a manner contrary to . . . modern moral standards, and he asked the Lord for light. Elder B. H. Roberts ( Hist. of the Church, Vol. V., Intr., p. 29) suggests that it was in the year 1831, when the Prophet was studying the lives of the Patriarchs in the Old Testament, in the course of his Bible revision, that he was led to offer the prayer referred to in the first verse, and received the answer contained in this Section, though it was not then committed to writing.” (Smith and Sjodahl, Commentary, p. 821.)

http://institute.lds...-in-131-132.asp Edited July 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[cwald]

I will make the same request of you.

Surely you jest....this entire thread has been nothing but personal...you should know....you authored it.

[Scott Lloyd]

In support:

http://institute.lds...-in-131-132.asp

What? There's something about Joseph and plural marriage in the CES manual? Call Security. Somebody left the door unlocked again.

[Scott Lloyd]

Surely you jest....this entire thread has been nothing but personal...you should know....you authored it.

No. I'm in earnest.

A specific post you made was the jumping-off point, but the thread is about the notion of whether the Church can rightly be blamed for individuals' delay in learning that Joseph Smith received the revelation and commandment about plural marriage, taught it to others and obeyed it himself.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

Why don't you discuss the topic, and quit making it personal?

I tried to do this (see post #51) but you didn't reply.

[cwald]

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.

Yes. I am isolated from the LDS wards and LDS family members.

I agree with your second paragraph....I think that was kind of the point treehugger was making all along. I think many in the church have that attitude which is treehugger's point about the church not doing a good job educating people about JS's polygamy let alone his polyandry.

[Nevo]

the thread is about the notion of whether the Church can rightly be blamed for individuals' delay in learning that Joseph Smith received the revelation and commandment about plural marriage, taught it to others and obeyed it himself.

And what have we learned so far? We have established that there are passing mentions of Joseph's practice of polygamy in two institute manuals and in a gospel doctrine teacher's manual. Meanwhile, the materials about Joseph Smith that most members have been exposed to—such as the Joseph Smith movie or the relatively recent Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith—say nothing about Joseph marrying multiple women. In fact, the latter source seems to go out of its way to omit this information: "The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime" (source).

Yes, "a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime." LOL. The Our Heritage manual, which most adult members of the Church were exposed to a decade earlier, similarly obfuscates: "While working on the translation of the Bible in the early 1830s, the Prophet Joseph Smith . . . 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" (source).

True, an intrepid Latter-day Saint investigating the question of whether Joseph Smith ever practiced polygamy can find the answer from official Church sources, but the average member in the pews on Sunday will very rarely, if ever, encounter this information at Church—or, for that matter, in the Ensign or in Church media, etc.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Nevo

[Calm]

In fact, the latter source seems to go out of its way to omit this information: "The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime" (source).

I guess I am too used to the idea that a teacher generally does what he teaches his students before he becomes a teacher as well as sometimes while he is a teacher. It would not occur to me while reading how Joseph taught others and marriages were then performed that he would refrain from participating in what he was requiring of others....or that the Lord would give him a pass while demanding it of others. There is also the concept of the Prophet being an example to others, so to me it is just natural to assume that Joseph taught by example in this case. Edited July 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[Nevo]

It would not occur to me while reading how Joseph taught others and marriages were then performed that he would refrain from participating in what he was requiring of others....or that the Lord would give him a pass while demanding it of others.

Sure, that's a reasonable inference when one is aware of the historical background (your inference assumes, for example, that plural marriage was required rather than merely allowed). But that's not where the statements themselves point. They agree that the doctrine of plural marriage was revealed to Joseph Smith in the early 1830s, and that Joseph Smith taught the doctrine to others. But then, just when it would be natural to say something about the Prophet's practice of plural marriage, we instead get a vague generalization framed in the passive voice: "a number of [plural marriages] were performed." Joseph drops out of the picture when it comes to actually implementing the doctrine.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Nevo