Polygamy And Dishonesty-

[Lamanite]

So again, why does it matter so much to you to show Joseph "lied."

Because it is the truth. Because by accepting the truth it allows me to paint a portrait of my Prophet that is both divine and human. Because it points to Joseph's failures and thereby highlights his redemption. Because we owe it to Joseph not to whitewash his personal struggles. By so doing we diminish the redemptive nature of his experience. We need not pay excessive attention to his mistakes, but pretending there were none is dishonest and quite frankly extremely immature. So when in study of Joseph's life we will see that he occasionally fell short of his own personal values. When this happens, let us recognize that we too make consistent mistakes that violate our morals and values. Happily, we can all celebrate the divine truth that reconciliation and forgiveness can be found in Jesus Christ and Him crucified! Victoriously, Joseph left the world with a "conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men". We can't celebrate Joseph's redemption if we won't allow ourselves to accept the fact that he needed redemption in the first place.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited October 4, 2012 by Lamanite

[thesometimesaint]

Lamanite:

I know of only one person that was perfect and neither we nor Joseph Smith are that person. TTBOMK Joseph Smith never claimed to be perfect.

Personally I find it wonderful that God cared enough for us to allow us to serve him at all let alone have his authority in his Church.

[Deborah]

We need not pay excessive attention to his mistakes, but pretending there were none is dishonest and quite frankly extremely immature. So when in study of Joseph's life we will see that he occasionally fell short of his own personal values.

First of all no one is saying there were no mistakes and I think at least all of us here recognize that he had failings and he was the first to admit them. The question remains why is so important to beat the dead horse on this issue. How is continual digging into this giving a true portrait of one whom we recognize as human but who had a divine calling. Isn't it far more productive to point to all the positive things he gave us. I don't like this continual baring of a person's failings, especially when they aren't here to defend themselves. I think it is a way to justify one's own sins to always point out the failings of others.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Deborah

[juliann]

What made you think I don't have current books?

Your reliance on older ones.

Or that "current" automatically means "better?" It happens to be true about polygamy, since when I began to dig into it, maybe 7-8 years ago, I had a hard time finding books that weren't written either by the Church meaning sugar-coated and whitewashed, or by crazy people hell bent on destroying not just the lds church, but any church they decided fit their definition of bad, wrong, evil, etc.

Daynes, Compton, Hardy, Bradley and multiple authors were published 7-8 years ago. In fact, that is the time when academic interest began in earnest.

There were smart, objective books and papers that had been written, some of them written by professors at BYU. Just not as plentiful as they are now. But unless it's a current subject, which polygamy isn't, ordering somebody to get current books isn't necessarily good advice.

When most of the information and research we have has evolved within the past several years there is no excuse for not using that information and research. You are not giving any indication that you are aware of what has occurred.

I care very much about what they think. I wish more people in the Church cared about what they think. How wretched they were made by polygamy. You wouldn't defend it nearly so thoughtlessly if you did. I've read lots of books about women, and more of their journals than books. It was an obsession for a few years. I read fast. That adds up to a whole lot of reading about what they think, and how they felt, and how it really was. As opposed to how we get told it was. Really, you've drawn conclusions from facts not in evidence. And you're giving advice you obviously haven't taken. Since if you'd read any of the kind of books you're suggesting for me, your feelings about polygamy would be much closer to mine than they presently are.

You need to get to know the background of those you argue with before jumping to your own conclusions.

Anyone who objects to sexism, who doesn't object to polygamy, is in real danger of some kind of philosophical whiplash or something. You can't hold those two things in the same brain, side by side, for long. Something has to give. And your intellectually dishonest charge doesn't make any sense. I hope you don't think you can make a case that I've been that. If you do, I'd love to hear it.

You are again conflating issues. You also seem to be under the mistaken impression I am an advocate for polygamy itself. I suggest you look up my comments to those LDS who do. Further, anyone whose sole objective in looking into a historical practice is to justify their disdain of it is not going to be a reliable source. And I will suspend my judgment of intellectual dishonesty until you catch up with the current body of work (including Ulrich).

[Bikeemikey]

Innocence? Don't you mean ignorance?

True, I don't really know whether or not Joseph had more than one wife, although I've heard many people say he was sealed to many women, possibly because he thought that was necessary for them to be able to receive the celestial blessings they wouldn't be able to receive without a sealing to someone with the priesthood, but it's not anything I really need to know, either.

Whether or not he was, it doesn't affect me. It would be nice to know, though.

I guess if God ever considers it to be an important enough issue to tell me if Joseph had more than one wife, he'll let me know.

I think God has let us know this one already, via journals, biographies, historians, etc.

The only way not to know this is (once you have become interested in the topic) is to want to not find out.

Good gave us eyes and language. He has made it possible to know about JS as a practicing polygamist.

[Bikeemikey]

First of all no one is saying there were no mistakes and I think at least all of us here recognize that he had failings and he was the first to admit them. The question remains why is so important to beat the dead horse on this issue. How is continual digging into this giving a true portrait of one whom we recognize as human but who had a divine calling. Isn't it far more productive to point to all the positive things he gave us. I don't like this continual baring of a person's failings, especially when they aren't here to defend themselves. I think it is a way to justify one's own sins to always point out the failings of others.

It is not productive to point to only his failings or his successes - it is however essential to know about both if we want to understand him better as a human.

Most LDS only want to understand him as a prophet. Hence is human weaknesses are irrelevant.

The question is can we truly understand him as a prophet if we don't understand him as a human?

[KevinG]

I am not quite ready to concede that polygamy was a mistake or that keeping its details secret was lying.

I have read some contemporary journals as well as a great deal of history. I have prayed and sought answers to the issues. In my experience God did not condemn Joseph for his attempts to live a very difficult commandment. I think we owe the early members of the church more than to judge their actions and faith by the standards and appearences of a hormonal teenager in the 21st century.

[Lamanite]

First of all no one is saying there were no mistakes and I think at least all of us here recognize that he had failings and he was the first to admit them. The question remains why is so important to beat the dead horse on this issue. How is continual digging into this giving a true portrait of one whom we recognize as human but who had a divine calling. Isn't it far more productive to point to all the positive things he gave us. I don't like this continual baring of a person's failings, especially when they aren't here to defend themselves. I think it is a way to justify one's own sins to always point out the failings of others.

Perhaps It's just me Deborah, but I find that by placing Mormon theology under the microscope of historical context usually enhances its beauty. Much like the study of Middle Eastern cultures can enhance the teachings of our Savior. Consequently, this metaphorical microscope occasionally brings into view flaws and imperfections. I'm not "beat[ing] a dead horse" when I discuss my reaction and beliefs resulting from these historical revelations, I'm just attempting to further clarify and reconcile the historical record with my spiritual beliefs, inasmuch as is possible.

A healthy discussion of these historical events and how we fit them into our personal belief systems is healthy. To be sure, I was an am very critical of Josephs decision to withhold information (lie/dishonest) from Emma. So what? I've given consideration to all of the pressing issues of the time, both theological and social. And my own personal opinion thus far is that he intentionally lied to Emma about a lot of things. Accepting this fact says a great deal about Josephs relationship and responsibility to the doctrine of plural marriage. My current opinion on the matter also has a few other personally significant implications, many of which could be viewed as positive.

Why is it bad to have these conversations? I haven't made any irrational or baseless conclusions....so I guess I just can't see why the dialogue is unjustly harmful to anyone, even Joseph or Emma.

Also, I think your pointing to someone's attempt to justify their own sins as a reason for coming to certain conclusions is a reflection of a weak argument and a great example of a straw man.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Deborah]

Also, I think your pointing to someone's attempt to justify their own sins as a reason for coming to certain conclusions is a reflection of a weak argument and a great example of a straw man.

It's not the conclusions, it's the constant playing over and over of the same argument.

[juliann]

Why is it bad to have these conversations? I haven't made any irrational or baseless conclusions....so I guess I just can't see why the dialogue is unjustly harmful to anyone, even Joseph or Emma.

You are coming to conclusions by compiling scanty historical tidbits that are researched and put together by other people. Rigorously discussing those tidbits is one thing, merely parading the liar! banner is quite another. And even further away from historical study is your need to say the same thing over and over without adding any clarity. Once you announce your determination to call someone a liar what is the point of a "discussion"? Are you trying to convince others who realize that we don't know most of what happened and probably never will? (That was Bushman's conclusion on polygamy, BTW). Do you just want people to agree with you that saying liar is a fulfilling or necessary to understand polygamy itself? I get that you think Joseph was a liar. What I don't get is what is supposed to happen next beyond pages of yes he did no he didn't dueling opinion posts.

[Lamanite]

You are coming to conclusions by compiling scanty historical tidbits that are researched and put together by other people. Rigorously discussing those tidbits is one thing, merely parading the liar! banner is quite another. And even further away from historical study is your need to say the same thing over and over without adding any clarity. Once you announce your determination to call someone a liar what is the point of a "discussion"? Are you trying to convince others who realize that we don't know most of what happened and probably never will? (That was Bushman's conclusion on polygamy, BTW). Do you just want people to agree with you that saying liar is a fulfilling or necessary to understand polygamy itself? I get that you think Joseph was a liar. What I don't get is what is supposed to happen next beyond pages of yes he did no he didn't dueling opinion posts.

In some way I'm trying to better understand why some people resist what I consider pretty evident. Why kick against the pricks when there is no real downside to admitting Joseph was dishonest with Emma? I persist because I just don't understand the aggressive resistance.

My view of history is based on individual historical records that I use to create the most honest and complete picture I can. I thought that is what you're supposed to do. I don't think the record about certain marriages and the circumstances surrounding them is as scanty as you would have us believe. I doubt Brian Hales, Compton, Smith, Newell would believe the same as it pertains to certain marriages and elements of polygamy. For what it's worth I completely agree that there are some things we will just never know.

For the record, I do think Joseph lied about certain things for certain reasons. I don't think he deserves to be labeled a liar if it implies that it was habitual and part of his character. Also, I agree with with Bushman that the genesis for polygamy is not supported by any original or primary sources. Additionally, there are many aspects of polygamy that just can't be understood with a lot of confidence. But some things are very clear and supported by not only primary and secondary sources.

Anyway, it seems that the reply to my liar banner is simply, "history doesn't support that opinion." To which I would reply, "I think it does."

I can't wait for Hales' books to come out.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[thesometimesaint]

Lamanite:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here. If I am please forgive me and explain how JS wouldn't have known about polygamy just from reading the Bible. Is the Bible not a Primary Source?

[Lamanite]

Lamanite:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here. If I am please forgive me and explain how JS wouldn't have known about polygamy just from reading the Bible. Is the Bible not a Primary Source?

He was definitely influenced by the Bible. Just like he was influenced by BoM passages on the subject. Regarding the modern beginnings of Polygamy and Joseph's "revelation" Brian Hales writes:

Authors who approach Nauvoo plural marriage are faced with many ambiguities and deficits in the historical record. Joseph

Smith dictated only the revelation that is now Doctrine and Covenants 132, never expounded the topic in public except to

deny its practice, and does not refer to it explicitly in his personal writings. The only polygamy insider and journal-writer friendly to the Prophet who left a contemporary record is William Clayton.3 Four men (John C. Bennett, Oliver Olney, William Law, and Joseph H. Jackson) left contemporary writings, but all were dissenters who had their own, hostile perspectives on Joseph Smith and polygamy. In addition to these five men, a few sources contemporary with the three years between Joseph's 1844 death and the 1847 trek west provide additional, but also limited, insights.

Beyond these sources, everything learned about Joseph Smith's polygamy comes from later recollections, which are subject to important

limitations.

When considering these later sources with their inherent "limitations" we do not need to automatically reject the sources accuracy and relevance, it simply means that we need to factor in multiple variables as we attempt to build an honest and accurate picture.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited October 5, 2012 by Lamanite

[cursor]

Please note, Lamanite, that in your quoted text above you're missing a line (bolded) from the source (top of page 216):

Authors who approach Nauvoo plural marriage are faced with many ambiguities and deficits in the historical record. Joseph Smith dictated only the revelation that is now Doctrine and Covenants 132, never expounded the topic in public except to deny its practice, and does not refer to it explicitly in his personal writings. The only polygamy insider and journal-writer friendly to the Prophet who left a contemporary record is William Clayton. Four men (John C. Bennett, Oliver Olney, William Law, and Joseph H. Jackson) left contemporary writings, but all were dissenters who had their own, hostile perspectives on Joseph Smith and polygamy. In addition to these five men, a few sources contemporary with the three years between Joseph's 1844 death and the 1847 trek west provide additional, but also limited, insights.Beyond these sources, everything learned about Joseph Smith's polygamy comes from later recollections, which are subject to important limitations.

https://www.dialogue..._V42N04_221.pdf

[Lamanite]

Please note, Lamanite, that in your quoted text above you're missing a line (bolded) from the source (top of page 216):

Thank you cursor. my cut and paste must have missed that text. I should have provided a link though.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[KevinG]

I love it when people I disagree with assume I'm uninformed.

Its almost as much fun as when people tell me what my religion "really believes".

[Calm]

Lamanite, where does assuming JS lied to Emma take us (it is an assumption I am quite comfortable with)?

I have a few ideas bit I am wondering where you intend to go with it so will give you first chance.

Edited October 5, 2012 by calmoriah

[Lamanite]

Lamanite, where does assuming JS lied to Emma take us (it is an assumption I am quite comfortable with)?

I have a few ideas bit I am wondering where you intend to go with it so will give you first chance.

I distinctly remember reading the various versions of the First Visions for the first time and being amazed at how important repentance and forgiveness was to Joseph. At that moment I identified with him in a very special way. I posted recently,

"By accepting the truth I am able to paint a more complete portrait of my Prophet, one that is both divine and human. Because it points to Joseph's failures it naturally highlights his redemption. Because we owe it to Joseph not to whitewash his personal struggles. By so doing we diminish the redemptive nature of his experience. We need not pay excessive attention to his mistakes, but pretending there were none is dishonest and quite frankly extremely immature. So as we study Joseph's life we inevitably find that he occasionally fell short of his own personal values. When this happens, let us recognize that we too make consistent mistakes that violate our own morals and values. Happily, we can all celebrate the divine truth that reconciliation and forgiveness can be found in Jesus Christ and Him crucified! Victoriously, Joseph left the world with a "conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men". We can't celebrate Joseph's redemption if we won't allow ourselves to accept the fact that he needed redemption in the first place."

As far as dealing with Joseph's dishonesty with Emma, for me It highlights the intensity of the social and religious pressures he was under- from at least 1841-44. It informs my own personal beliefs regarding devotion to family and Church. (Something as simple as where do I draw the line between family time and how many meetings I attend on Sunday.) It also puts giant exclamation points around Polygamy, Eternal Families, Dynastic Families, the Endowment, and 2nd Anointing. The lengths he went to implement and bestow these blessings on us is mind blowing. If lying to Emma helped with this mission then I appreciate and understand him all the more. All these things point to the serious dedication he had to himself, his Church, and its doctrine and theology. By rejecting the fact that he lied to Emma and others robs Joseph of his dedication and humanity. I've been led to a higher appreciation of the Nauvoo era and how it has affected me and my family.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited October 5, 2012 by Lamanite

[USU78]

She disagreed. She agreed. He did it. She changed her mind. He had already committed to it. She went into rages. He kept her in the dark as to the particulars. She lied to herself. She lied to others. She should be forgiven. To the extent he misled her from the untenable position she put him in, he should be forgiven.

So what's yer beef?

[Lamanite]

She disagreed. She agreed. He did it. She changed her mind. He had already committed to it. She went into rages. He kept her in the dark as to the particulars. She lied to herself. She lied to others. She should be forgiven. To the extent he misled her from the untenable position she put him in, he should be forgiven.

So what's yer beef?

After having time to digest the whole situation I have no beef. However, as a convert, when I find out that my Prophet snuck around writing love letters, marrying and sleeping with other women without divulging this info to his wife....it's pretty irritating. His actions seem to contradict his calling as a Prophet. Once given some time, understanding, love, and in a weird way forgiveness was once again extended to my Prophet. And ultimately, as I've said before, a complete study of Nauvoo era Mormonism has deepened my love for both the Prophet and his Church.

It is extremely bothersome however when those of us who have a normal reaction to such a volatile and divisive situation are marginalized. It is a fact that this very issue nearly undid the ENTIRE Church and drove many away! Even Hyrum balked at the doctrine and how Joseph was going about things. Eventually he came around, but it is evidence that this issue was not something to be taken lightly. And if Hyrum resisted and pushed back, why not some of us too? So lets not treat it like it was a small thing that is not worthy of angst.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited October 7, 2012 by Lamanite

[Calm]

What love letters are you talking about?

[Lamanite]

What love letters are you talking about?

I'm including his marriage proposals and his letter to Sarah Ann. I know the Whitney letter is not accepted by most apologists as a "love letter" but I accept it as such. Now, just say if you disagree with me and we can get on with the substantive issues of your request for reply and my response.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[cursor]

I, for one, have always been bothered by Joseph Smith's [questionable] introduction of polygamy AND [in particular] polyandry. I have VERY serious difficulty accepting his God-authorized justification of the same.

Big UP!

[brainburn]

Matters of honesty are not strictly binary. Whether there are examples of binary "lies"? I don't know but regardless, it would seem that the dishonest or misleading attitudes or behaviors should matter in some sense.

[DavidB]

She disagreed. She agreed. He did it. She changed her mind. He had already committed to it. She went into rages. He kept her in the dark as to the particulars. She lied to herself. She lied to others. She should be forgiven. To the extent he misled her from the untenable position she put him in, he should be forgiven.

So what's yer beef?

Didnt you post something in the looking glass trial threads, that if Joseph lied his entire character should be questioned? Would not the same apply to polygamy?