Polygamy And Dishonesty-

[thesometimesaint]

Tacenda:

Did it mention JS had a gun and fired back? Just curious about it. On the web they are saying two men were killed by JS. Is this in the manual?

I've known about the gun for over 40 years now.

http://www.mormonfortress.com/gun2.html

[KevinG]

Back in the pre-interwebz days when I converted I sought histories about the LDS Church. Somehow I knew about Joseph's polygamy prior to my conversion from an LDS friend teaching me about Mormonism. The missionaries freely discussed polygamy and blacks and the priesthood and women and the priesthood when I asked about those three issues (my biggest questions about the Mormons at the time). There were books and histories freely available to the public from the church that answered more of my questions in detail once I was baptized.

I don't buy the excuse that someone in the Church, even converts, are not exposed to these subjects. Unfortunately the small mob of devoted anti-Mormons are doing their best to put the wrong face forward by promoting the most salacious and out of context "Inquirer" style headlines to trap and shock people. It is a real live example of those standing in the great and spacious building and mocking those seeking the Gospel. Sadly as in Lehi's vision many become shamed and fall away.

[Mark Beesley]

If it is commanded of Joseph to raise up seed why not have children by these women?

It would probably be a mistake to limit the concept of raising up seed unto the Lord to the sole process of conceiving children in mortality, particularly given the nature of the sealing power.

[Mark Beesley]

Joseph Smith

Brrrrrzzzzzttttt.

Thanks for playing.

[DBMormon]

Back in the pre-interwebz days when I converted I sought histories about the LDS Church. Somehow I knew about Joseph's polygamy prior to my conversion from an LDS friend teaching me about Mormonism. The missionaries freely discussed polygamy and blacks and the priesthood and women and the priesthood when I asked about those three issues (my biggest questions about the Mormons at the time). There were books and histories freely available to the public from the church that answered more of my questions in detail once I was baptized.

I don't buy the excuse that someone in the Church, even converts, are not exposed to these subjects. Unfortunately the small mob of devoted anti-Mormons are doing their best to put the wrong face forward by promoting the most salacious and out of context "Inquirer" style headlines to trap and shock people. It is a real live example of those standing in the great and spacious building and mocking those seeking the Gospel. Sadly as in Lehi's vision many become shamed and fall away.

Kevin I agree with you very much.... with one exception..... polyandry. There is no or perhaps very very few obscure church sources where this is discussed . Anti's and apologetic yes but not church. I get it though, they still are not certain what to make of it themselves and in that case better to not say anything.

Edited September 14, 2012 by DBMormon

[divinenature]

Brrrrrzzzzzttttt.

Thanks for playing.

I am not sure what your comment means.

[KevinG]

Kevin I agree with you very much.... with one exception..... polyandry. There is no or perhaps very very few obscure church sources where this is discussed . Anti's and apologetic yes but not church. I get it though, they still are not certain what to make of it themselves and in that case better to not say anything.

Yes that was new to me. But in the context of a royal priesthood lineage and the sealings to men and children it makes sense and puts the lie to polygamy being about sex. I am convinced that the principle that Joseph and the Saints struggled to learn and implement was about sealing the family of man together not just couples. Joseph being the prophet at the head of this dispensation is rightly at the head of the family of this dispensation. Brigham's actions in sealing women to Joseph after his death underscores this.

I think the discomfort with discussing this issue has kept it quiet. While apologists try to create a framework to understand it the critics seek to shock people with it or question the motives of the prophet Joseph.

Edited September 14, 2012 by KevinG

[DavidB]

I am considered Born in the Covenant, and my family Church roots.go back to the days of Joseph Smith.

I was 25 and a RM when I first heard about Joseph Smith having a gun at Carthage.

I was much older than 25 when I learned of Joseph Smiths polygamy.

So yes, life long active members do not and are not exposed to some historical details.

[KevinG]

I am considered Born in the Covenant, and my family Church roots.go back to the days of Joseph Smith.

I was 25 and a RM when I first heard about Joseph Smith having a gun at Carthage.

I was much older than 25 when I learned of Joseph Smiths polygamy.

So yes, life long active members do not and are not exposed to some historical details.

We've had this discussion before but when is it appropriate for the Church to teach members about these things? Primary, YM/YW, single adulthood, age 25? Or is it the job of the parents to bring up these concepts when they think their children can understand them?

My opinion is it is up to the family to be the primary instructors of their children and give information about anything when they feel inspired to do it. In my case as a convert (age 21) my friend who was the descendant of a polygamist and pioneer was quite open with me about his family history.

Perhaps the institutional church who have done a marvelous job of making things available on the web in recent years and in publications and museums prior to that should not be blamed - but family and member missionaries could step up and be more open to difficult or awkward questions? I am not pleased at all with the members who pooh pooh polygamy or treat it as a social welfare program for the pioneers.

Edited September 14, 2012 by KevinG

[Calm]

I guess that I am thinking that any class that this manual is taught can be taught to us adults too. The manual is great. The section on the martyrdom of Joseph is great. I never knew that the mobs attempted to come up the stairs and Joseph shouted them down. And then they came back later fully loaded.

It can be, anyone who has internet can just read it for themselves, but many aren't aware because they haven't gone looking for it and that is not inherently wrong or ignorant. No one is aware of everything available to them.

[Calm]

Did it mention JS had a gun and fired back? Just curious about it. On the web they are saying two men were killed by JS. Is this in the manual?

There is even a picture of it, pages 281-2. Edited September 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

I am considered Born in the Covenant, and my family Church roots.go back to the days of Joseph Smith.

I was 25 and a RM when I first heard about Joseph Smith having a gun at Carthage.

I was much older than 25 when I learned of Joseph Smiths polygamy.

So yes, life long active members do not and are not exposed to some historical details.

Don't feel bad, I was 44 before I knew of both of these. Do you think it's because I live in Utah?

[Deborah]

Don't feel bad, I was 44 before I knew of both of these. Do you think it's because I live in Utah?

I always wonder why it matters that you know something like this. I don't even remember when I learned about it but it's not something I ever thought about. Many people don't seem interested in history until they need an excuse for leaving the church. I would suspect that they even heard about these things at some point but because they weren't interested it just passed over their minds and they totally forgot. How on earth can the church present every little tidbit of history so that everyone is pleased and doesn't feel the church is hiding something. Do people even know what history is and how detailed it can be. All we can hope to do as a church is present the principles and trust the members will be curious enough to do some studying from correct sources on their own.

[Calm]

Don't feel bad, I was 44 before I knew of both of these. Do you think it's because I live in Utah?

I think it is more likely because you weren't interested in history and possibly the D&C.

[thesometimesaint]

Tacenda:

Don't feel bad, I was 44 before I knew of both of these. Do you think it's because I live in Utah?

D&C132 has been there for 169 years, and the gun story for almost as long.

[USU78]

The simple fact and it is accepted by both sides as documented fact, is that Joseph Smith did not always answer truthfully about his polygamy.

So now that not always answering honestly about polygamy is settled....let us now begin the "it is not a lie if ________" or alternatively "it is not dishonest if ______"

If, by "polygamy," the questioner means "A" . . . and plural marriage per Section 132 is something quite different from "A," how is it lying to answer truthfully that one is not living in polygamy? Yes, they were parsing words. Yes, that is irritating especially in public officials. BUT when one is a potential defendant in a criminal proceeding, one answers quite carefully in order not to make admissions against one's own interest that one does not want being held against him.

Sorry if the legalese bothers you, but maybe it's time to grow up and live in an adult world where there are, sometimes, very bad people who want to do you harm. Abimelech and Abraham's Pharaoh were two such people. The guys trying to get to JSJr were also such people.

[DavidB]

I always wonder why it matters that you know something like this. I don't even remember when I learned about it but it's not something I ever thought about. Many people don't seem interested in history until they need an excuse for leaving the church. I would suspect that they even heard about these things at some point but because they weren't interested it just passed over their minds and they totally forgot. How on earth can the church present every little tidbit of history so that everyone is pleased and doesn't feel the church is hiding something. Do people even know what history is and how detailed it can be. All we can hope to do as a church is present the principles and trust the members will be curious enough to do some studying from correct sources on their own.

Condescended post there.

Primary children are taught the history of Joseph Smith martyrdom - were are taught all details of the event but for Joseph shooting back - why are all the other historical details taught to children but the gun is left out.

Primary Children are taught about Hauns Mill, and many other horrible things that happened to the early Saints - all these things are just a history lesson. Children of the Church grow up under the very distinct impression that Joseph Smith and the early Saints did nothing to upset their enemies other than claim a religion.

It is incredibly condescending and a flippant disregard of the person to suggest that it is the lazy member who does not know and that the Church is not for history lessons, yet the Church does teach history and a very whitewashed history..

Edited September 14, 2012 by DavidB

[DBMormon]

Yes that was new to me. But in the context of a royal priesthood lineage and the sealings to men and children it makes sense and puts the lie to polygamy being about sex. I am convinced that the principle that Joseph and the Saints struggled to learn and implement was about sealing the family of man together not just couples. Joseph being the prophet at the head of this dispensation is rightly at the head of the family of this dispensation. Brigham's actions in sealing women to Joseph after his death underscores this.

I think the discomfort with discussing this issue has kept it quiet. While apologists try to create a framework to understand it the critics seek to shock people with it or question the motives of the prophet Joseph.

No need to explain, I have worked it out in my own head, barring no new evidence of stuff arises. Just see it as a issue not discussed in the church sources.

[DavidB]

If, by "polygamy," the questioner means "A" . . . and plural marriage per Section 132 is something quite different from "A," how is it lying to answer truthfully that one is not living in polygamy? Yes, they were parsing words. Yes, that is irritating especially in public officials. BUT when one is a potential defendant in a criminal proceeding, one answers quite carefully in order not to make admissions against one's own interest that one does not want being held against him.

Sorry if the legalese bothers you, but maybe it's time to grow up and live in an adult world where there are, sometimes, very bad people who want to do you harm. Abimelech and Abraham's Pharaoh were two such people. The guys trying to get to JSJr were also such people.

Well thanks for the insults.

Polygamy per section 132 means the same thing polygamy means to the law or in its common usage...next witness counselor.

Edited September 14, 2012 by DavidB

[USU78]

Well thanks for the insults.

Polygamy per section 132 means the same thing polygamy means to the law or in its common usage...next witness counselor.

I'm thinking you're thinking of JSJr only here . . . there was a whole generation, the generation that were children during the crossing or were born in Utah territory, my great-grandparents' generation, who did exactly what I'm talking about here.

The insults to JSJr and the attacks on his integrity and that of those surrounding him are attacks on real people's relatives: my grandparents' parents. One of my great grandfathers went to prison as a cohab. I find his parsing and his surrendering of himself for arrest, trial, conviction, and incarceration to be heroic.

I find JSJr and those surrounding him to be heroic. Parsing and all. And it does matter what was in the questioner's head when he asks the question: if I know that an affirmative answer actually distorts truth, I may be misleading in my negative answer, but I do not lie.

[KevinG]

Don't feel bad, I was 44 before I knew of both of these. Do you think it's because I live in Utah?

Oh man don't start another Utah Mormon discussion. Scott will come in and scorch our ears!!!

[DavidB]

Usu you have not demonstrated that polygamy per 132 means anything different than what polygamy means.

You keep making claims without presenting any evidence.

[KevinG]

...and what does polygamy mean in D&C 132? Temple sealings or marriage with physically intimate relations?

Breaking it down on a case by case basis there seem to be a lot of sealings without sexual relations - but critics would have us believe that these sealings indicate Joseph Smith Jr was a randy fellow who boinked anything that moved. (in the case of a recent editorial).

[USU78]

...and what does polygamy mean in D&C 132? Temple sealings or marriage with physically intimate relations?

Breaking it down on a case by case basis there seem to be a lot of sealings without sexual relations - but critics would have us believe that these sealings indicate Joseph Smith Jr was a randy fellow who boinked anything that moved. (in the case of a recent editorial).

Exactly. These folks were trying to avoid successful prosecutions against them, along with unfriendly press stories and the violence they all too often precipitated.

Folks in that era called it "The Principle," and contrasted it in their own minds and among themselves with the dirty-minded harem-fantasizing going on amongst the Goyim.

[why me]

Don't feel bad, I was 44 before I knew of both of these. Do you think it's because I live in Utah?

I think so.