The September 6

[rockpond]

Was that a "yes" to my question whether "you are saying that your statements here have been proven to the satisfaction of every real historian (based on actual documentation about which there is no dispute)?  I realize that Mike Quinn read everyone's diary while working at the Church archives, but was this the proven and documented result of his research?"

You seem to equivocate in your answer, and you also seem to misread what I write to suggest that I think that Quinn was not very good, which is completely false.  Quinn is very smart and I have tremendous respect for him.  That doesn't make his work free from error, but one must take a close look at the footnotes of selected works.

 

Is there anything that has been proven to the satisfaction of "every real historian"?

 

But, I think the really important question that JLHPROF raised is why didn't President Woodruff consider the first manifesto as a strong enough reason to stop polygamous sealings?  Why did he marry again after OD1?  I know that you've studied church history much more than I and so I am interested in your thoughts on that point.

[Calm]

The polygamist wives have all been excluded from the biographical timeline of each president for which a RS/Priesthood manual has been published.  First marriages/wives are mentioned but then nothing after that.

Besides names, do we know much of anything of monogamous wives from the same time period?

[rockpond]

Besides names, do we know much of anything of monogamous wives from the same time period?

 

Other than Emma, not really.

[thesometimesaint]

That's an interesting statement for you to make on this thread. The September 6 took that responsibility seriously and were ex'd/ disfellowshipped for it. It seems a tenuous position to say that we should take on the personal responsibility to learn of something like post-manifesto polygamy but then also say that it was appropriate for someone to be excommunicated for publishing a scholarly work on the subject. If nobody publishes anything, it gets though to study it.

 

The simple fact is I don't have a testamony of Church history. To me that seems a rather shallow source to base a testamony on. These were merely people trying their best to live according to the requirements of their faith. They were just as mortal, just as prone to error, to sin, to be just plain wrong as I am. It seems to me that if that weren't the case that any little bit of questionable, or negative information would percipitate a faith crisis. In effect throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I personally can't live like that.

 

Learn everything you can. Decide for yourself if the Church is for you. Live with the consequences of that decision. I made the decision to trust the Church for a whole lot more than just a few dollars worth of books. This was long before the internet. Nothing yet I've read in the hundreds of books, and on the internet, has changed my decision. I still stand by that decision.

 

I am sorry that the September 6 or anyone else feels that they know so much that they can tell the Church what it believes is ignorant trash(apostatize) from the Church. But it was/is their decision.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The polygamist wives have all been excluded from the biographical timeline of each president for which a RS/Priesthood manual has been published.  First marriages/wives are mentioned but then nothing after that.

This was true of the Brigham Young manual, but later manuals do mention some wives.  See Lorenzo Snow timeline:

 

1845 Enters into plural marriage, as then practiced in the Church, by marrying Charlotte Squires and Mary Adaline Goddard.

[Damien the Leper]

Actually, they can. That is the nature of an authorised interpreter.

 

Then I suppose the "same yesterday, today and forever" rhetoric is null. Either things stay the same or they don't. There is no gray area on this. The phrase cannot merely be a self-serving sentiment and theological or moral qualifier.

[rockpond]

The simple fact is I don't have a testamony of Church history. To me that seems a rather shallow source to base a testamony on. These were merely people trying their best to live according to the requirements of their faith. They were just as mortal, just as prone to error, to sin, to be just plain wrong as I am. It seems to me that if that weren't the case that any little bit of questionable, or negative information would percipitate a faith crisis. In effect throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I personally can't live like that.

 

Learn everything you can. Decide for yourself if the Church is for you. Live with the consequences of that decision. I made the decision to trust the Church for a whole lot more than just a few dollars worth of books. This was long before the internet. Nothing yet I've read in the hundreds of books, and on the internet, has changed my decision. I still stand by that decision.

 

I am sorry that the September 6 or anyone else feels that they know so much that they can tell the Church what it believes is ignorant trash(apostatize) from the Church. But it was/is their decision.

 

I don't have a testimony of church history either.  But I think we could learn from more open discussions about it within our church meetings (and probably reduce the impact of a lot of faith crises).  To imply that we're recommending that someone base a testimony on church history is a strawman.

 

Your final statement is really frustrating for me to read after all we've discussed here.  The September 6 produced scholarly works.  I don't know the back story for each of them but my understanding (for those I do know about) is that they did not apostasize.  They did not say that what the church believes is "ignorant trash".  The researched particular subjects that were of interest to them (something you just suggested that we should all take the personal responsibility to do) and they were excommunicated or disfellowshipped for it.

[rockpond]

This was true of the Brigham Young manual, but later manuals do mention some wives.  See Lorenzo Snow timeline:

 

1845 Enters into plural marriage, as then practiced in the Church, by marrying Charlotte Squires and Mary Adaline Goddard.

 

Are there any others besides the Snow manual?  I can't recall any.  And my guess is that they included it with President Snow (the latest publication) because people have been pointing out the glaring omissions in previous manuals for a number of years (especially in the BY manual that is a bit comical in how they redacted all his teachings about plural marriage).

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Are there any others besides the Snow manual?  I can't recall any.  And my guess is that they included it with President Snow (the latest publication) because people have been pointing out the glaring omissions in previous manuals for a number of years (especially in the BY manual that is a bit comical in how they redacted all his teachings about plural marriage).

 

Joseph Smith - No mention of plural wives (mentions Emma)

 

Brigham Young - No mention of plural wives (mentions first two wives - though second marriage came after first wife died).

 

John Taylor -  No wives mentioned. Includes:"This summary omits many important events of his life, including his marriages and the births and deaths of his children, to whom he was devoted."

 

Wilfred Woodruff (2004) - No wives mentioned. Includes:"It also omits many important events in President Woodruff’s personal life, such as his marriages and the births and deaths of his children."

 

Lorenzo Snow - "1845 Enters into plural marriage, as then practiced in the Church, by marrying Charlotte Squires and Mary Adaline Goddard."

 

Joseph F. Smith - No wives mentioned. Includes:" This summary omits some important events in his personal life, including his marriages (plural marriage was being practiced in the Church at that time) and the births and deaths of his children, to whom he was devoted."

 

Heber J Grant - No wives mentioned. Includes:"It also omits many important events in President Grant’s personal life, such as his marriages and the births and deaths of his children."

 

George Albert Smith - Includes marriage

 

David O McKay - Includes marriage

 

Harold B Lee - Includes both monogamous marriages

 

Joseph Fielding Smith - Includes all three monogamous marriages

 

Spencer W. Kimball - Includes marriage

 

Edited to add:

 

Also see here: http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/leaders.jsp where Joseph Married Emma, marriage is not a significant event for other polygamist prophets, and then starting with George Albert Smith marriages are once again listed.

Edited October 4, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[ERayR]

Are there any others besides the Snow manual?  I can't recall any.  And my guess is that they included it with President Snow (the latest publication) because people have been pointing out the glaring omissions in previous manuals for a number of years (especially in the BY manual that is a bit comical in how they redacted all his teachings about plural marriage).

 

The evidence for this guess is what?

[rockpond]

The evidence for this guess is what?

 

None.  That's why it's a guess.

[thesometimesaint]

Then I suppose the "same yesterday, today and forever" rhetoric is null. Either things stay the same or they don't. There is no gray area on this. The phrase cannot merely be a self-serving sentiment and theological or moral qualifier.

 

Just depends on what stays the same. I can stay the same in my love for my children, and still expect them to learn, to grow, to do different things.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The evidence for this guess is what?

From FAIR:

 

The next manual in the instructional series–Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith–includes this clarifying statement in the “Historical Summary” of President Smith’s life:

This book is not a history, but rather a compilation of gospel principles as taught by President Joseph F. Smith. However, in order to put the teachings in a historical framework, the following list is provided to summarize some of the milestones in his life that have most immediate relationship to his teachings. This summary omits some important events in his personal life, including his marriages (plural marriage was being practiced in the Church at that time) and the births and deaths of his children, to whom he was devoted.¹⁰

This explanation, which is almost certainly directed at detractors of the Brigham Young manual, clarifies that the purpose of the series is not biographical or historical, but didactical. Other Church publications that are historical discuss the subject of plural marriage and its practice among the Latter-day Saints in the nineteenth century.¹¹

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Was that a "yes" to my question whether "you are saying that your statements here have been proven to the satisfaction of every real historian (based on actual documentation about which there is no dispute)?  I realize that Mike Quinn read everyone's diary while working at the Church archives, but was this the proven and documented result of his research?"

You seem to equivocate in your answer, and you also seem to misread what I write to suggest that I think that Quinn was not very good, which is completely false.  Quinn is very smart and I have tremendous respect for him.  That doesn't make his work free from error, but one must take a close look at the footnotes of selected works.

I find it ironic on the one hand that freedom says that anyone pre-1985 that didn't know of church sanctioned plural marriages post manifesto is "willfully ignorant" and on the other hand we have one of the boards best scholars who is not sure that they happened.

[rockpond]

From FAIR:

 

The next manual in the instructional series–Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith–includes this clarifying statement in the “Historical Summary” of President Smith’s life:

This book is not a history, but rather a compilation of gospel principles as taught by President Joseph F. Smith. However, in order to put the teachings in a historical framework, the following list is provided to summarize some of the milestones in his life that have most immediate relationship to his teachings. This summary omits some important events in his personal life, including his marriages (plural marriage was being practiced in the Church at that time) and the births and deaths of his children, to whom he was devoted.¹⁰

This explanation, which is almost certainly directed at detractors of the Brigham Young manual, clarifies that the purpose of the series is not biographical or historical, but didactical. Other Church publications that are historical discuss the subject of plural marriage and its practice among the Latter-day Saints in the nineteenth century.¹¹

 

Thanks.  I guess I can elevate it to a hypothesis or at least an educated assumption now.  

[thesometimesaint]

I don't have a testimony of church history either.  But I think we could learn from more open discussions about it within our church meetings (and probably reduce the impact of a lot of faith crises).  To imply that we're recommending that someone base a testimony on church history is a strawman.

 

Your final statement is really frustrating for me to read after all we've discussed here.  The September 6 produced scholarly works.  I don't know the back story for each of them but my understanding (for those I do know about) is that they did not apostasize.  They did not say that what the church believes is "ignorant trash".  The researched particular subjects that were of interest to them (something you just suggested that we should all take the personal responsibility to do) and they were excommunicated or disfellowshipped for it.

 

No they weren't. It was the conclusions that they drew from that research that got them into trouble. It is one thing to say that BY, or anyone else, practiced polygamy. Researching into how they personally responded to and adjusted to those marriages is fair game(some did better than others). Going onto claiming that because BY, or anyone else, practiced polygamy is/was fallen from their authority is quite another. Over a hundred years later I see little to no relevance between polygamy and how I am to treat my one and only wife. At best it is an interesting side note. Also the fact of BY polygamy won't make one iotas worth of difference when I come before God for in judgemnet.

[ERayR]

None.  That's why it's a guess.

 

deleted

Edited October 4, 2013 by ERayR

[rockpond]

No they weren't. It was the conclusions that they drew from that research that got them into trouble. It is one thing to say that BY, or anyone else, practiced polygamy. Researching into how they personally responded to and adjusted to those marriages is fair game(some did better than others). Going onto claiming that because BY, or anyone else, practiced polygamy is/was fallen from their authority is quite another. Over a hundred years later I see little to no relevance between polygamy and how I am to treat my one and only wife. At best it is an interesting side note. Also the fact of BY polygamy won't make one iotas worth of difference when I come before God for in judgemnet.

 

Polygamy is an "interesting side note"?  It's a church doctrine.  The doctrine remains intact we just don't practice it for this brief period between 1945 and the millennium.

 

I haven't ever suggested that polygamy should teach you how to treat your wife.  This is a strawman that you keep bringing up.

 

As for what the September 6 may have claimed that you feel qualifies them as having apostatized, please cite actual statements.  Because from a strictly scholarly perspective I think it might be an appropriate conclusion to look at President Woodruff (who publicly proclaimed that he would not be allowed to lead the church astray, authorized the manifesto as a revelation from God to end the practice of polygamy, and then disregarded it) and suggest that perhaps he was "fallen".

 

From of faith perspective (which is MY perspective) I prefer to look at it with a bit more nuance and think that there might have been more to it (thus my question to Brother Robert Smith above).

[JLHPROF]

No they weren't. It was the conclusions that they drew from that research that got them into trouble. It is one thing to say that BY, or anyone else, practiced polygamy. Researching into how they personally responded to and adjusted to those marriages is fair game(some did better than others). Going onto claiming that because BY, or anyone else, practiced polygamy is/was fallen from their authority is quite another. Over a hundred years later I see little to no relevance between polygamy and how I am to treat my one and only wife. At best it is an interesting side note. Also the fact of BY polygamy won't make one iotas worth of difference when I come before God for in judgemnet.

 

I want to be clear that it is not the fact of BY or JS polygamy that changes your judgement day experience.  The history is important because it leads us to better understand the origin, practice, and impact of the doctrine.  It's not about the dates, records, historians or research, but about why and how God chose to institute the practice and his expectations place on how those families "treated" each other as a result.

 

We read the history to understand the doctrine.  We need to understand the doctrine because God expects us to understand and study the things He cares enough to give us by revelation (just as we still study the Mosaic law cultures of the Old Testament and Book of Mormon). 

 

And it impacts "how I am to treat my one and only wife" because the majority of understanding concerning the celestial family structure, eternal marriage, and the teachings we have today on spousal relations all had their origins in the doctrinal teachings and revelations that brought about plural marriage.

[thesometimesaint]

Polygamy is an "interesting side note"?  It's a church doctrine.  The doctrine remains intact we just don't practice it for this brief period between 1945 and the millennium.

 

I haven't ever suggested that polygamy should teach you how to treat your wife.  This is a strawman that you keep bringing up.

 

As for what the September 6 may have claimed that you feel qualifies them as having apostatized, please cite actual statements.  Because from a strictly scholarly perspective I think it might be an appropriate conclusion to look at President Woodruff (who publicly proclaimed that he would not be allowed to lead the church astray, authorized the manifesto as a revelation from God to end the practice of polygamy, and then disregarded it) and suggest that perhaps he was "fallen".

 

From of faith perspective (which is MY perspective) I prefer to look at it with a bit more nuance and think that there might have been more to it (thus my question to Brother Robert Smith above).

 

Polygamy is a fact. It was practiced. It no longer is. How it was practiced is now effecting my life is at best an interesting side. Unless I suddenly decide to join the FLDS it really doesn't effect me in the slightest.

 

The purpose of the manuals is to teach me through example how to treat my wife, and others. They weren't designed to teach me history. I'm self centered enough to know when something has any real importance to me, and when it doesn't.

 

No member has ever been disciplined by the Church for researching and writing about any subject they want. IE; You can go to BYU today and study, learn about, research, and publish anything you want about Evolution. The Church won't object. What they will object to is if as a conclusion of your research you state there is no God, or call into question the mission or truth claims of the Church.

 

From Pasul Tescano himself.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Six

 

The actual reason was insubordination in refusing to curb his sharp criticism of LDS Church leaders' preference for legalism, ecclesiastical tyranny, white-washed Mormon history, and hierarchical authoritarianism that privilege the image of the corporate LDS Church above its commitment to its members, to the teachings and revelations of Joseph Smith its founding Prophet, and to the gospel of Jesus Christ.^[12] In 2007, Toscano wrote that he lost his faith "like losing your eyesight after an accident" and that he regrets that LDS Church leaders have disregarded his criticisms of what he considers the Church's growing anti-intellectualism,homophobia, misogyny, and elitism.^[13]

 

From my perspective President Woodruff didn't lead the Church astray. He simply didn't know how to impliment the elimination of its practice while taking care of his responsibilities. Something very common inside and outside the Church.

 

I'm all for nuance. But lets not get so bogged down in the details(nuance) that we forget to see the overall picture.

[thesometimesaint]

I want to be clear that it is not the fact of BY or JS polygamy that changes your judgement day experience.  The history is important because it leads us to better understand the origin, practice, and impact of the doctrine.  It's not about the dates, records, historians or research, but about why and how God chose to institute the practice and his expectations place on how those families "treated" each other as a result.

 

We read the history to understand the doctrine.  We need to understand the doctrine because God expects us to understand and study the things He cares enough to give us by revelation (just as we still study the Mosaic law cultures of the Old Testament and Book of Mormon). 

 

And it impacts "how I am to treat my one and only wife" because the majority of understanding concerning the celestial family structure, eternal marriage, and the teachings we have today on spousal relations all had their origins in the doctrinal teachings and revelations that brought about plural marriage.

 

Why God chose to institute polygamy in the early Church is given in Scripture. To raise up seed to him. I think that while important for those that were commanded to practice it. To us today it isn't important. See the example of King David. It wasn't the fact that David practiced polygamy, God would have given him more wives, but how he treated Uriah that was important.

 

Not really. Take out the poygamy parts of D&C 132 and it reads essentially the same.

[JLHPROF]

Why God chose to institute polygamy in the early Church is given in Scripture. To raise up seed to him. I think that while important for those that were commanded to practice it. To us today it isn't important. See the example of King David. It wasn't the fact that David practiced polygamy, God would have given him more wives, but how he treated Uriah that was important.

 

Not really. Take out the poygamy parts of D&C 132 and it reads essentially the same.

 

To raise up seed to him. - OK, so what does that mean, does it just mean raising righteous children because we do that in monogamy, how is this raising a righteous seed accomplished and what does that have to do with requiring plural marriage, was plural marriage just an issue of quanitity of righteous children, and what were the other blessings connected with this law as per D&C 130:20-21, and what blessings were revoked along with the law as per D&C 58:32 and were they necessary to my salvation and those of my "seed", and if the "blessings of Abraham" that I'm promised in my marriage come from my posterity D&C 132:30-34, am I limiting my blessings, and what about my wife, what blessing does she lose from not be alowed to live the "Law of Sarah" D&C 132:65 because every law comes with a blessing...

 

So this most basic doctrine on plural marriage teaches us about raising our children, fulfiling God's commandments, the marriage covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, genealogy, and more.  And the prophets taught many other principles that would be for our edification.

[thesometimesaint]

To raise up seed to him. - OK, so what does that mean, does it just mean raising righteous children because we do that in monogamy, how is this raising a righteous seed accomplished and what does that have to do with requiring plural marriage, was plural marriage just an issue of quanitity of righteous children, and what were the other blessings connected with this law as per D&C 130:20-21, and what blessings were revoked along with the law as per D&C 58:32 and were they necessary to my salvation and those of my "seed", and if the "blessings of Abraham" that I'm promised in my marriage come from my posterity D&C 132:30-34, am I limiting my blessings, and what about my wife, what blessing does she lose from not be alowed to live the "Law of Sarah" D&C 132:65 because every law comes with a blessing...

 

So this most basic doctrine on plural marriage teaches us about raising our children, fulfiling God's commandments, the marriage covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, genealogy, and more.  And the prophets taught many other principles that would be for our edification.

 

I don't know what it means. I would assume that because many of todays Church leaders have polygamists in their ancestry. That at some point God figured that was what he wanted.

[savedbygrace]

I am an ignoramous but who exactly were the Sept 6? This is a really interesting thread, but I feel I barely know the story. However, from an outsiders POV, it would appear that while the LDS church does not practice polygamy, it seems from these posts it still does in the form of sprirtual wifery as a Temple ritual. If women are being sealed then surely polygamy is still practiced. Another point that occurred to me is that if SSM becomes legal and polygamy might be legalised on the back of that via a challenge to the law by fundamentalist Mormons, wouldn't it be ironic if such an important  LDS principle is re-established by fundamentalists and not the mainstream church. Would they not feel justified in thinking that they were right all along and the LDS church has been mistaken by moving away from the doctrine. If polygamy becomes legalised is it possible that some members might feel that now that the way had been cleared, that they were duty bound to practice this principle?.And what might be the implications for 20th century women who are a far cry from the women of the 19th century ?

[rockpond]

Regarding those who practiced post-manifesto polygamy, you stated:

 

These were merely people trying their best to live according to the requirements of their faith. They were just as mortal, just as prone to error, to sin, to be just plain wrong as I am.

 

So it's okay to say that they were prone to error and sin here on this public message board behind a pseudonym.  But with respect to Brother Toscano, it's not okay to say what you believe those errors actually might be?  Is that the line between faithful membership and apostasy?

 

I'm just trying to understand your view on this since you've kinda vaguely accused the "6" (or some/one of them?) of stating that BY was a fallen prophet as a result of his practice of polygamy.