Polygamy And Dishonesty-

[DavidB]

Just one manual: Doctrine and Covenants Stories. Chapter 57 "The Prophet is killed: June 1844"

[Pahoran]

Just one manual: Doctrine and Covenants Stories. Chapter 57 "The Prophet is killed: June 1844"

Very good, and what does it say?

Regards,

Pahoran

[DavidB]

Very good, and what does it say?

Regards,

Pahoran

It does not mention Joseph shooting back.

Doctrine and Covenants Stories Chapter 57 "The Prophet is Killed: June 1844"

Edited September 27, 2012 by DavidB

[sdc999]

David,

In my sports activities, I'm used to the fact that I may sometimes have to sprint down the field to catch up with the ball. I don't usually expect to have to run anywhere to catch up with the goal posts.

My post was in response to your claim that:

You want to ask about the past? Okay; it's in History of the Church.

Naturally I can't produce every single manual from every single year since HC was published. But now it's your turn; instead of leaning back in your chair and demanding to be spoonfed, you get to do some research yourself.

You're the one making the accusation; so you get to either (1) prove it, or (2) retract it. CFR that there has ever been a time when the Church has "suppressed" or "hidden" the fact that Joseph had a gun. Primary sources only, please.

Regards,

Pahoran

Not intentionally jumping into your dispute but I will throw in what I believe to be a worthy observation. When I joined the church in 1993, much-much-much to my parents dismay, one of the questions (I asked a lot of questions) was about polygamy. The missionaries, my brother-in-law who baptized me, and the bishop ALL reponded with the same answer. 'It was instituted because many men died on the trek and women could not own land at the time.' Men could see to it that the widowed women could have land to raise their family. Now, these men were "the church" to me at this time of my life. This was how I explained it to my parents. No wonder they thought I was in a cult because they actually knew the history better than me and knew I was being 'lied' to. Now, did they lie on purpose - I do not believe so. Liberty Valence, : "When the legend becomes the fact, print the legend." But there has been so many times since then that I have sat in a classroom where misinformation was uttered and members - in the know - let it slide because it would not have put the best light on the story. I addressed this once with a high priest and he flat out told me that the young members were probably not ready to hear the real story.

So yes, when members of that stature suppress information, I believe that yes, they are men, but they are representitives of the church and in essence, 'the church' to younger, newer members.

[Pahoran]

It does not mention Joseph shooting back.

Doctrine and Covenants Stories Chapter 57 "The Prophet is Killed: June 1844"

Ah. So you're relying upon a comic-book representation of the events, for very young children, to bolster your (projected) accusation of "dishonesty."

Meanwhile, the Gospel Doctrine manual mentions it, as does the relevant Primary manual. It's also in the Seminary manual.

What an inefficient way to "suppress" the pistol -- by explicitly mentioning it in the materials that most members will see!

ETA: The comic book is adapted from D&C 135; the reason it doesn't mention the pistol is because John Taylor didn't mention it, either. A reasonable person might take the view that Taylor, who was badly wounded in the attack and only just survived, had thus earned the right to recount his own experience; there will be some, of course, who will insist that he should have told it their way.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited September 27, 2012 by Pahoran

[DavidB]

pahoran, you asked for one manual, I proved my point. You must continue to rail it against, that is fine.

My point is proven.

As for why the gun is not mentioned, you have no more authority or right than me to speculate; thanks for you opinion though.

And as best I can remember I do not recall using the term dishonesty.

[Pahoran]

pahoran, you asked for one manual,

And being unable to find one, you produced a comic book instead.

I proved my point.

Only if your point was something like, "During a period of time when all of the Church's actual teaching manuals mentioned the gun, a comic book didn't."

You must continue to rail it against, that is fine.

Must I? Really?

My point is proven.

And just what was it, again?

As for why the gun is not mentioned, you have no more authority or right than me to speculate; thanks for you opinion though.

Have another look at your comic book. See what it cites as its source down at the bottom of the page.

I don't usually understand "speculate" to mean "accept what a document says about itself," but maybe that's just me.

And as best I can remember I do not recall using the term dishonesty.

So just what was your point, then?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

pahoran, you asked for one manual, I proved my point.

Where is the Scripture Story described as a manual? Here is a listing of the Primary manuals and I don't see it on the list:

http://www.lds.org/m...rimary?lang=eng

Nor does the online store describe any of the scripture stories books as manuals.

Don't exactly call it detailed either though that is of course subjective, it doesn't talk about them using a cane to attempt to shut the door or Brother Taylor's watch getting busted or Brother Richard's hiding Brother Taylor under the bed either...what it does say about Joseph's death:

By the afternoon of 27 June 1844, only Joseph, Hyrum,

John Taylor, and Willard Richards were still in Carthage

Jail. At about five o’clock, a mob of more than 100 men

stormed the jail. Some members of the mob shot at the

windows, and others ran past the guard and up the stairs

to the room where Joseph and his friends were.

The brethren tried to keep the door shut, but there

were too many people for them to defend themselves.

The mob pushed open the door and shot Hyrum Smith.

When Joseph saw that Hyrum was dead, he cried out,

“Oh, dear brother Hyrum!” The mob also shot John

Taylor, who was seriously wounded but not killed.

They did not shoot Willard Richards.

Doctrine and Covenants 135:1–2

After Hyrum and John Taylor were shot, Joseph Smith ran

to the window. He was hit by two bullets fired from the

doorway of the room and a third bullet fired from outside

the jail. He cried, “O Lord my God!” and fell out the

window. The Prophet was dead. He had given his life

for the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Edited September 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[DavidB]

Paharon keep railing, I provieed what you asked for, you do not what to accept that I provided what you asked, i understand why you must continue to fight against it. What i provided is published by the Church. But you can ridicule a Church publication if you want

[why me]

So yes, when members of that stature suppress information, I believe that yes, they are men, but they are representitives of the church and in essence, 'the church' to younger, newer members.

I don't think that they suppressed information. But they may not have known. Mormons do have their own folklore that is often repeated by members. Not much to do about this except to correct the folklore when given. But in the Institute manual it is very clear why polygamy was instituted. What I find amazing is how exmembers or critical members expect all members to everything about the church. All members should be experts in church doctrine and history. But this will never be possible. How to explain it? It would be like me asking a catholic priest about the Inquisition and getting an answer. I think would ask another priest and get a different answer. What should I do? Disparage the catholic church? Say that one priest is suppressing information?

Now, if the institute manual was saying the problem that you mentioned, I may be more concerned.

It does sound a little problematic if the manual were making such claims. If a church member gives the reason that your bishop and relative gave, I would correct them. Quite frankly the official reason is much more convincing. It came from god as a commandment. The institute manual says it well.

Edited September 27, 2012 by why me

[why me]

Paharon keep railing, I provieed what you asked for, you do not what to accept that I provided what you asked, i understand why you must continue to fight against it. What i provided is published by the Church. But you can ridicule a Church publication if you want

What did you prove? I have heard lds historians not mention it either. And some of these guys write the manuals. While others do include it. We have seen examples of this. So, what is the problem? By the way, who is the church? The lds people. And who writes the manuals? LDS people. I don't believe that the GA's are writing manuals but I could be wrong about this but members do. I woujld like it seen in all manuals. But it is up to the people in charge of that manual or book.

Quite frankly, there is nothing wrong in someone picking up a gun to defend himself and his friends against a mob set to kill them. It is an heroic act. Don't you agree? Especially, knowing that he only had six shots against a hundred black painted faced men.

Edited September 27, 2012 by why me

[Tacenda]

Duplicate

Edited September 27, 2012 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

What did you prove? I have heard lds historians not mention it either. And some of these guys write the manuals. While others do include it. We have seen examples of this. So, what is the problem? By the way, who is the church? The lds people. And who writes the manuals? LDS people. I don't believe that the GA's are writing manuals but I could be wrong about this but members do. I woujld like it seen in all manuals. But it is up to the people in charge of that manual or book.

Quite frankly, there is nothing wrong in someone picking up a gun to defend himself and his friends against a mob set to kill them. It is an heroic act. Don't you agree? Especially, knowing that he only had six shots against a hundred black painted faced men.

If I had just seen my brother shot in the face I probably would have done the same. It was out of a heat of passion. His senses left him or take that back, it was self defense. I still had never heard the story quite like it's told in this thread. The last time was in primary but without the details. Interesting that it wasn't mentioned in adult classes so much. Edited September 27, 2012 by Tacenda

[sdc999]

I don't think that they suppressed information. But they may not have known. Mormons do have their own folklore that is often repeated by members. Not much to do about this except to correct the folklore when given. But in the Institute manual it is very clear why polygamy was instituted. What I find amazing is how exmembers or critical members expect all members to everything about the church. All members should be experts in church doctrine and history. But this will never be possible. How to explain it? It would be like me asking a catholic priest about the Inquisition and getting an answer. I think would ask another priest and get a different answer. What should I do? Disparage the catholic church? Say that one priest is suppressing information?

Now, if the institute manual was saying the problem that you mentioned, I may be more concerned.

It does sound a little problematic if the manual were making such claims. If a church member gives the reason that your bishop and relative gave, I would correct them. Quite frankly the official reason is much more convincing. It came from god as a commandment. The institute manual says it well.

I agree that the correction should be made, but what I am saying is that often times, these falsities are all too often told to investigating or newer members whom, for the sake of arguing, are like unto a child looking to the parents and relying on their testimony until one can stand on their own. Then, as time passes and the truth is learned (sometimes years later), a betrayal effect is often set into motion and that shakes the foundation of one's testimony. "if i were 'lied' to about issues when I joined the church, what else am I being told that is not true?" This begins many a journeys down a path to which can be very painful. Oh, I've heard the 'well, their testimony must not have been very solid anyways' excuse. I would buy into that argument if members were only leaving after a couple of years, but lately, there have been more and more 'high profile' members leaving.

You mentioned the manual. Great example of what I am saying. I would like to ask if anyone read their new car's manual prior to purchasing a car? Most relied on a little investigating and also upon a basic trust with their car salesman (yes, I know, an oxymoron right there : trust - car salesman). I don't know of any missionary that says go read the manuals. They do say go read on page 38 and 47 and then ask them how it makes them feel.

There is a teacher's teacher class in the church. I know because my wife taught it several times. She taught teachers how to be teachers. Members should be taught how to handle questions by investigators -NOT the Robert Millet way. 'Don't answer the question they asked, answer the question they should have asked." That screams manipulation! Anwer them honestly and if you don't know the answer, tell them you will investigate and get back to them.

I mentioned polygamy because it is probably the most famous thing that the church is associated with that the outside world is familiar with. Members should have an answer - the right answer and not folklore!

[Arbiter]

The lying is the bigger issue for sure. The main difference between polygamy and adultery is honesty. In polygamy, you take an additional spouse with the consent of the existing spouse. In adultery you take without asking and keep it secret.

You'll find many comments in this thread, by posters who seem to be devoted members of the church, fully justifying lying about polygamy.

It is true that Joseph writes, in D & C 132:61, that "if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent ... then is he justified."

This is called The Law of Sarah -- this idea that early Mormon men contemplating polygamy didn't take a second, or third, etc., wife without the consent of the previous wife/wives. Nice idea of course. Then you get down to verses 64 & 65, where you can read that " ... if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her ... if she receive not this law ... she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah ..."

Always reminded me of the Salem witch trials, where they threw the accused into the river, with rocks tied to her feet, to judge her guilt or innocence. If she didn't drown, that meant Satan had helped her, which meant she was guilty as charged. So they fished her out of the river and burned her at the stake. If she did drown, well, that meant she was innocent. Worked well for the men in charge of course, but for the women they threw into the river, not so much. Since either way, they were dead.

[Arbiter]

Do you mean emma? Emma knew of the polygamy but she wavered between consent and withdrawing consent. What was joseph to do? If the commandment comes and the wife is not always on board, what should he have done?

I think he might have considered questioning if what he thought was a revelation might have been garden variety temptation to cheat on his wife instead.

[Arbiter]

A problem for whom? Even if it was indisputably documented and proven as much as human beings possibly can that President Monson lied about [name an LDS doctrine, practice, public controversy], this would have zero bearing on the benefit of the restored priesthood keys that were and are exercised in my behalf. I've seen too much!

This is close to how I feel. That the over-arching, genuine goodness of the church, and the powerful influence for good it exerts not only in the world at large, but in the lives of individual members, trumps Joseph Smith's failings, both real or imagined. However -- we are told over and over that a prophet will never lead us astray. That they will never lie to us.

For me, the pretty irrefutable evidence that Joseph Smith lied his head off about polygamy and not just to Emma, forces me to consider the possibility that maybe he wasn't all that he claimed to be, or that his devoted followers claimed he was, both then, and now. Everything I've ever learned about honesty, and integrity, most of which I learned in the church, will not allow me to ignore such a glaring contradiction. But believe me, I miss my old blindness. You just have no idea.

[Arbiter]

I don't think that they suppressed information.

You're very naive.

[Tacenda]

This is close to how I feel. That the over-arching, genuine goodness of the church, and the powerful influence for good it exerts not only in the world at large, but in the lives of individual members, trumps Joseph Smith's failings, both real or imagined. However -- we are told over and over that a prophet will never lead us astray. That they will never lie to us.

For me, the pretty irrefutable evidence that Joseph Smith lied his head off about polygamy and not just to Emma, forces me to consider the possibility that maybe he wasn't all that he claimed to be, or that his devoted followers claimed he was, both then, and now. Everything I've ever learned about honesty, and integrity, most of which I learned in the church, will not allow me to ignore such a glaring contradiction. But believe me, I miss my old blindness. You just have no idea.

I've an idea, it's like losing an identity.

[Arbiter]

So polygamy is an eternal principle?

It was certainly presented that way. Now, we excommunicate people who practice it. Then, It was presented as essential to achieving the highest level of the celestial kingdom. We mean mere temple marriage today when we say "celestial marriage." Joseph invented that phrase to describe what we now use the phrase "plural marriage" to describe.

The early saints were taught that plural marriage was as essential to exaltation as baptism. Men who had no taste for it at all were pressured into it. Women read the famous law of Sarah and felt they too had no choice. People who make sacrifices like that don't give up the thing they sacrificed for easily, often for generations. I have no sympathy for the likes of Warren Jeffs. But the rogue fundamentalist groups out west have a point when they say that Wilford Woodruff sold out the prophet Joseph and the mainline church of today is out of line. I don't know much about them other than that. But on that one thing, they do have a point.

[thesometimesaint]

Arbiter:

Nope.

Polygamy is still in our D&C. Though it never was binding on all of the Church. Wilford Woodwruff did no such thing. It is right there in the Book of Mormon that polygamy is to be at Gods' command. The default position of the Church is Monogamy. President Woodruff asked the Lord what to do.

[Arbiter]

Arbiter:

Nope.

Polygamy is still in our D&C. Though it never was binding on all of the Church. Wilford Woodwruff did no such thing. It is right there in the Book of Mormon that polygamy is to be at Gods' command. The default position of the Church is Monogamy. President Woodruff asked the Lord what to do.

Not sure what you mean by "binding." Or "default position." Today, marriage in the church is certainly monogamous. We don't practice plural marriage anymore. But if you're saying I'm wrong about my assertion that it was taught, when the revelation was first shared, as essential for exaltation, you're wrong. It was. I mean, baptism isn't "binding." You don't have to get baptized. If however, you want to be exalted, you get baptized.

I know all about what the Book of Mormon says about polygamy. As well as what the D & C, and the guy who got the revelation about it in the 1800's say about it. Joseph Smith presented it, first to a few, and then to the entire church, as an ordinance essential for exaltation. Trust me on this. Better yet, check for yourself.

[Tacenda]

Arbiter:

Nope.

Polygamy is still in our D&C. Though it never was binding on all of the Church. Wilford Woodwruff did no such thing. It is right there in the Book of Mormon that polygamy is to be at Gods' command. The default position of the Church is Monogamy. President Woodruff asked the Lord what to do.

Arbiter speaks the truth.

[thesometimesaint]

Arbiter:

It's pretty easy really. Only a small fraction of Church members were asked to be polygamous. The blessings of the Celestial Kingdom were/are open to all members not just the polygamous ones.

We practice monogamy until/unless God commands otherwise. Even in the days of polygamy monogamy was the norm. It never was mandatory for more than a small fraction of the members even when first introduced. In fact JS excommunicated members who became polygamous without consent.

Baptism is binding without it you can not enter Heaven, if you are over the age of accountability.

I have many times. You are simply wrong. From the days of JS to BY to WW to today polygamy has never been mandatory for exaltation.

[thesometimesaint]

Tacenda:

No. he/she doesn't.