Is The Church Being Completely Honest?

[SeekerB]

When I was younger, I bought a number of books, including the seven volume History of the Church collection.  I read it from vol 1 to vol 7.  A whole lot of what people claim is hidden is right in those books.  The church still publishes it, and other books on CDs and online sources.  You can read church magazines online at LDS.org back to the early 1900s.

 

It is also my understanding that access to historical records was more open in the past than is currently because of people like the Tanners who viewed them and only published out the most negative things, presenting them in negative, even deceitful ways.

 

The anti-mormon viewpoint is that the church is false and satanic and by hiding its true history, deceives the members.

 

The opposite view, that it is the restored gospel is the belief of the members and leaders.  It is more important for the members to receive teachings that help them live Christ-like lives than it is to know  every detail of church history.

Edited March 24, 2014 by SeekerB

[Walden]

I think you are confused on the purpose of "God's one and only true church".

 

To be blunt, I don't think you really understand the plan of salvation and how God does things at all, especially considering you use "god" instead of "God", indicating a total lack of respect for your Creator.

 

From what I remember, the LDS church has 3 purposes/missions, as follows:

1. Proclaim the Gospel
2. Perfect the Saints
3. Redeem the Dead

And yes, you are correct, despite half a lifetime of studying, praying, yearning, etc., I have difficulty with the LDS plan of salvation and/or understanding how the LDS God does things. And I don't see how being dishonest (essentially lying by ommission) helps the church's purpose of proclaimig the gospel or perfecting the saints, unless one accepts that the end justifies the means. Essentially, one must accept that dishonesty and/or deception are acceptable to God as long as they work to broaden his reach and/or expand his teachings....this idea doesn't cause me any grief, but it does paint a different picture of whether things such as deceipt or dishonesty can exist in the presence of God. If it does, well then I demure and withdraw my argument.

 

And I admit to a lack of respect for something that I do not believe exists, but out of respect for others on this board, I will try to remember to capitalize the word God.

[JLHPROF]

That certainly says something about Joseph's regard for the sanctity of marriage. If he thought the more women he was sealed to gave him a higher place in the Kingdom then he was sorely mistaken.

 

Now, that's not what I said.  Joseph had a high regard for the sanctity of marriage.  He just had a different definition of what constituted a valid marriage than the general public do (or than the church does today.)

In short, only valid eternal sealings were considered to be marriages.  Civil marriages were not.  That is not a disregard for marital sanctity.

 

And while I know you aren't LDS, to my view Joseph is going to get the highest place in the Kingdom regardless of how many wives he took.

[cdowis]

In short, only valid eternal sealings were considered to be marriages.  Civil marriages were not.  That is not a disregard for marital sanctity.

 

 

You are mistaken.  I would like to see a reference where the LDS church does not recognize civil marriage as "marriage".

 

Perhaps you want to rephrase.

[JLHPROF]

You are mistaken.  I would like to see a reference where the LDS church does not recognize civil marriage as "marriage".

 

Perhaps you want to rephrase.

 

No, you are mistaken.  Read my post again.  I never said the LDS church today didn't recognize civil marriages.  I said (to clarify) when eternal marriage was introduced in Nauvoo that Joseph (and others) no longer considered civil marriages as binding.

 

The church today 100% recognizes civil marriage as a valid marriage.

[Scott Lloyd]

When I was younger, I bought a number of books, including the seven volume History of the Church collection.  I read it from vol 1 to vol 7.  A whole lot of what people claim is hidden is right in those books.  The church still publishes it, and other books on CDs and online sources.  You can read church magazines online at LDS.org back to the early 1900s.

 

It is also my understanding that access to historical records was more open in the past than is currently because of people like the Tanners who viewed them and only published out the most negative things, presenting them in negative, even deceitful ways.

 

The anti-mormon viewpoint is that the church is false and satanic and by hiding its true history, deceives the members.

 

The opposite view, that it is the restored gospel is the belief of the members and leaders.  It is more important for the members to receive teachings that help them live Christ-like lives than it is to know  every detail of church history.

Well said -- except that my opinion is that, if anything, the archival records of the Church are more open today than ever before in history, this because of the development of greater professional quality in the acquisition, storage and dissemination of such records and because of technological development and expenditure of resources in making said records more accessible.

 

I say this from the standpoint of one who has journalistically covered the Church History Department for going on three decades now.

[Darren10]

Brian Hales says right in the video you linked that he believes that Joseph Smith was the biological father of Josephine Lyon Fisher ("Sylvia later does become pregnant, I believe by Joseph, and has a daughter, Josephine . . .").

 

Hales provides several arguments to support this view in his book, Joseph Smith's Polygamy. While acknowledging that "a few words" of Josephine Lyon Fisher's 1915 statement regarding her mother's deathbed confession that she (Josephine) was Joseph Smith's daughter "are somewhat ambiguous and could possibly be interpreted to mean that Josephine was to be the Joseph Smith's daughter only in eternity, without implying an actual paternal connection," Hales goes on to note the following:

 

• "If no biological connection existed between Josephine and Joseph Smith, it is strange that Sylvia would wait until her deathbed to dramatically reveal to Josephine that the Prophet was her father only in eternity."

• "Theologically, if Josephine were sealed as a daughter to Joseph Smith but was unrelated genetically, then Sylvia’s other offspring born after the Prophet’s death would share the same status. Yet none of those children reported a similar revelation from their dying mother. . . . After the martyrdom, dozens of women were also sealed to Joseph by proxy. All the children born to them—scores of offspring—would share the same relationship as Josephine with the Prophet, if she were not his biological daughter. And under the law of adoption as then practiced by Brigham Young, many Church members were subsequently adopted to Joseph Smith. To be sealed as one of his descendants was unexceptional. It conferred no unique or unusual status, required no special deathbed announcement, had no reason to be kept secret during most of the child’s lifetime, and would not have been a matter of interest to Church historians."

• "In 1886, future BYU president George H. Brimhall recorded: 'Went to Spanish Fork . . . Evening had a talk with Father Hales, who told me that it was said that Joseph Smith had a daughter named Josephine living in Bountiful, Utah . . . . Soon the contemporaries of the Prophet Joseph will be all gone.'"

   

• "Similarly, in 1905, Angus Cannon, president of Salt Lake Stake, wrote this report concerning an interview he had with Joseph Smith III: 'Before we parted . . . I said, “Joseph, you have asked where is the issue in evidence of your father’s having married plural wives.” I will now refer you to one case where it was said by the girl’s grandmother that your father has a daughter born of a plural wife. The girl’s grandmother was Mother [Patty] Sessions, who lived in Nauvoo and died here in the valley. She was the grand-daughter of Mother Sessions. That girl, I believe, is living today in Bountiful, north of this city. I heard Prest. Young, a short time before his death, refer to the report and remark that he had never seen the girl, but he would like to see her for himself, that he might determine if she bore any likeness to your father. Joseph hereupon said, “Did you ever go and see her?” “No sir, I did not.” “Then there is where you have not done what you ought to have done. You should have gone to see her for yourself, and so satisfied your own mind.” I said, “The woman is now said to have a family of children, and I think she is still living.[”] He replied, “I have heard of that case, but have understood that the girl was born more than a year after my father’s death. I said, “I think you are mistaken or have been misinformed regarding this girl, for I have been told that her grandmother, Aunt Patty Sessions, asserts that the girl was born within the time after your father was said to have taken the mother.”'" 

(Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy, 3 vols. [salt Lake City: Kofford Books, 2013], Kindle edition, locations 1549-1590.)

 

There is substantial evidence, then, that Joseph's marriage to Sylvia Sessions Lyon included sexuality. However, Hales maintains that this was a case of "ceremonial polyandry" rather than "sexual polyandry" since Sylvia was apparently separated from her legal husband Windsor Lyon at the time of her "religious marriage" (sealing) to Joseph Smith. According to Hales, "if a civilly married woman who participated in a second, religious marriage, then ceased intimacies with her legal spouse because the religious marriage superseded the civil, even without a legal divorce, she would not be practicing sexual polyandry." It is clear, however, that Sylvia resumed "intimacies" with Windsor Lyon after Joseph's death because she bore two sons by him in 1847 and 1848. I understand Hales's reasons for distinguishing between "ceremonial" and "sexual" polyandry (he believes the latter goes against church doctrine), but I think this distinction is lost on most observers. However the participants themselves saw it, the Joseph Smith-Sylvia Lyon marriage was technically polyandrous. And the marriage apparently produced a child.

 

You reasoning is sound and things remain circumstantial. I wonder how much legal disarray in Nauvoo influenced the "fluid" determination of divorce status? Regardless, I realize the circumstances over Jyons is compelling but it does seem that there really is nothing explicitly solid over her "mothering" Joseph Smith's daughter.

[MiserereNobis]

No, but then again, I am not proclaiming that I am am gods one and only true representative here on earth, that mankind can only receive full salvation through me, that followers must obey my rules, or that followers must donate 10% of their earnings and their time, talent and efforts to my cause.

 

I hold a higher expectation of gods one and only true church on earth.

 

you use "god" instead of "God", indicating a total lack of respect for your Creator.

 

I'd like to add that I am also dismayed by his total lack of respect for apostrophes.

 

[Stone holm]

Or they just screwed up royally. But since I'm not LDS, I shouldn't speak so strongly about the practice.

No. There is always some fumbling with new concepts. The Lord gives flashes of insights which we have to fill in the blanks, sometimesou get it right sometimes wrong. We didn't have a St Augustine to go through and purge things and burn manuscripts, etc.

[MiserereNobis]

We didn't have a St Augustine to go through and purge things and burn manuscripts, etc.

 

Hmm.  I've never heard that St. Augustine burned manuscripts.  Do you mind elaborating?

[Storm Rider]

St. Augustine?  Are you thinking of St. Jerome who was responsible for the translation of the Vulgate Bible into Latin. I don't recall him burning copies of manuscripts held to be scripture by some.  Do you have a reference?

[Damien the Leper]

Now, that's not what I said.  Joseph had a high regard for the sanctity of marriage.  He just had a different definition of what constituted a valid marriage than the general public do (or than the church does today.)

In short, only valid eternal sealings were considered to be marriages.  Civil marriages were not.  That is not a disregard for marital sanctity.

 

And while I know you aren't LDS, to my view Joseph is going to get the highest place in the Kingdom regardless of how many wives he took.

 

So his civil marriage to Emma wasn't valid? Got it. Therefore, Emma could have been righteously sealed to any other man, despite being married to Joseph, had Joseph not been sealed to her first. I'm glad that's cleared up now.

 

Also, I hadn't implied that how I responded is what you said.

[Damien the Leper]

No. There is always some fumbling with new concepts. The Lord gives flashes of insights which we have to fill in the blanks, sometimesou get it right sometimes wrong. We didn't have a St Augustine to go through and purge things and burn manuscripts, etc.

 

Someone needs to do their history.

[JLHPROF]

So his civil marriage to Emma wasn't valid? Got it. Therefore, Emma could have been righteously sealed to any other man, despite being married to Joseph, had Joseph not been sealed to her first. I'm glad that's cleared up now.

 

It's not a popular idea, but it is historically referenced as the perspective at that time, abt 1843.  It is recorded that once eternal marriage sealings were introduced to the residents of Nauvoo if they no longer wanted to be with their civil spouses they could be sealed to the person of their choosing even without a civil divorce.  (And it continued into the Utah period too).

 

It also does explain polyandry since even in Joseph's polyandrous marriages he was the only sealed husband.  The other earthly marriage was not seen as any kind of barrier to their sealing.

 

But to be VERY clear - it is no longer the Church teaching in any way (hasn't been for well over a century).  The Church today highly esteems all marriages.

[Damien the Leper]

It's not a popular idea, but it is historically referenced as the perspective at that time, abt 1843.  It is recorded that once eternal marriage sealings were introduced to the residents of Nauvoo if they no longer wanted to be with their civil spouses they could be sealed to the person of their choosing even without a civil divorce.  (And it continued into the Utah period too).

 

It also does explain polyandry since even in Joseph's polyandrous marriages he was the only sealed husband.  The other earthly marriage was not seen as any kind of barrier to their sealing.

 

But to be VERY clear - it is no longer the Church teaching in any way (hasn't been for well over a century).  The Church today highly esteems all marriages.

 

But it is still an inconsistency whether there had been established 'rules' or not. Also, was there ever any revelation on what constituted solid rules on the subject? Just curious.

 

I'm glad I wasn't around for the utter disaster of the Nauvoo period.

[cdowis]

It's not a popular idea, but it is historically referenced as the perspective at that time, abt 1843. 

 

CFR

 

It is recorded that once eternal marriage sealings were introduced to the residents of Nauvoo if they no longer wanted to be with their civil spouses they could be sealed to the person of their choosing even without a civil divorce.  (And it continued into the Utah period too).

 

Please elaborate. By making this assertion, it is important to distinguish *living with someone*, having intimate relations with them, and eternal sealing with no intimate physical relations.  You have failed to make that distinction.

 

It also does explain polyandry since even in Joseph's polyandrous marriages he was the only sealed husband.  The other earthly marriage was not seen as any kind of barrier to their sealing.

 

But thou hast claimed that the temporal marriage was "not binding".  You are very sloppy in your use of your terms -- marriage, sealing, binding, barrier, etc.  Please be clear on what you are saying.  Can a man sealed to a married woman have intimate relations with her?  A simply yes or no will suffice.  You are implying that the answer is "yes".  

 

I am familiar with the concept of "sister wives" -- sealed but no intimate relations.  That is the term that, to me, clarifies the relationship. 

 

 

[JLHPROF]

 

It's not a popular idea, but it is historically referenced as the perspective at that time, abt 1843. 

 

CFR

 

Mormon Polygamy by Van Wagoner

Pg 42 - Smith viewed as invalid those marriages not sealed by his blessing...Claiming sole responsiblity for binding and unbinding marriages on earth and in heaven, he did not consider it necessary to obtain civil marriage licenses or divorce decrees.

 

Pg 46-47 - quoting John D. Lee - "About the same time the doctrine of 'sealing' was introduced...the saints were given to understand that their marriage relations with each other were not valid...If their marriage had not been productive of blessing and peace, and they felt it oppressive to remain together, they were at liberty to make their own choice, much as if they had not been married."

and quoting Increase McGee - "it is now the woman's privilege to choose whom she sees fit; if she likes the one she had been living with, she can keep him; if not, she is at liberty to ship him and take another;"

 

and of course Brigham Young's discourse on divorce teaches similar principles.

 

 

It is recorded that once eternal marriage sealings were introduced to the residents of Nauvoo if they no longer wanted to be with their civil spouses they could be sealed to the person of their choosing even without a civil divorce.  (And it continued into the Utah period too).

 

Please elaborate. By making this assertion, it is important to distinguish *living with someone*, having intimate relations with them, and eternal sealing with no intimate physical relations.  You have failed to make that distinction.

 

I have previously stated that as far as "intimate relations" go any expectation to find proof for or against is ridiculous given both the secrecy and the culture of the time.  As such I refuse to either speculate or dismiss such possibilities.  And for me personally, I think that while there may have been sealings where eternity was the focus, the ceremony as revealed from heaven would have been for time and eternity.

 

As far as a Utah reference, the story of Parley P. Pratt's last wife Eleanor Maclean(?) would be an example.  She was still legally married when she was sealed to Parley.  Parley was subsequently shot and killed by her legal husband. 

WIKIPEDIA  - Parley P. Pratt

On November 14, 1855, she and Pratt underwent a "celestial marriage" sealing ceremony in the Endowment House. She was the twelfth woman to be sealed to Pratt. For religious and cultural reasons Eleanor McLean considered herself unmarried at the time of her sealing to Pratt, but she had not legally divorced from Hector.  At the time it was very common for couples to split up and not get legally divorced, especially if one moved several states away.

 

It also does explain polyandry since even in Joseph's polyandrous marriages he was the only sealed husband.  The other earthly marriage was not seen as any kind of barrier to their sealing.

 

But thou hast claimed that the temporal marriage was "not binding".  You are very sloppy in your use of your terms -- marriage, sealing, binding, barrier, etc.  Please be clear on what you are saying.  Can a man sealed to a married woman have intimate relations with her?  A simply yes or no will suffice.  You are implying that the answer is "yes".  

 

I am familiar with the concept of "sister wives" -- sealed but no intimate relations.  That is the term that, to me, clarifies the relationship. 

 

No, I didn't claim that the temporal marriage was not binding.  I have claimed that Joseph and his contemporaries didn't view it as binding - see the above reference.  I think I have been very clear on that fact.

Can a man sealed to a married woman have intimate relations with her - I am saying the answer is yes.  In the days of Joseph the view is that the man she is sealed to is her husband in the eyes of God and there can be no sin in them having relations.  She is his wife.

 

Edited March 25, 2014 by JLHPROF

[rockpond]

The Church today highly esteems all marriages.

Well, you have to put some qualifiers on that... The Church does not "highly esteem" gay marriages or polygamous marriages. The Church highly esteems all one man, one woman marriages. And if you are a church member, it is only highly esteemed when accompanied by a sealing. And if you are a church member in the United States the sealing must also be the civil marriage or else you are definitely not "highly esteemed".

Just to be clear.

[JLHPROF]

Well, you have to put some qualifiers on that... The Church does not "highly esteem" gay marriages or polygamous marriages. The Church highly esteems all one man, one woman marriages. And if you are a church member, it is only highly esteemed when accompanied by a sealing. And if you are a church member in the United States the sealing must also be the civil marriage or else you are definitely not "highly esteemed".

Just to be clear.

 

Wow.  Who knew God had revealed so many rules about the conditions under which marriage is to be "esteemed"? 

 

I guess I should say the Church highly esteems all civil marriages but only if between one man and one woman so long it is legal according to the local government AND as long as if the participants are members it is accompanied by a temple sealing but if not they're not members then they're still ok.  Better?

 

All other marriages just aren't approved by God but under those conditions they're good.

 

I think I prefer Joseph's simpler version of polygamous marriage - easier to understand...

[cdowis]

 

 

 

You do realize that John Lee's biography was not written by John Lee himself and published after his death.  Standing alone, It is a questionable and  unreliable source. 

 

I don't see how Parley P. Pratt adds to your narrative, except to add speculation to your assertions.  Yes, he was sealed, yes her  husband killed him after he rescued her from a physically abusive relationship.

 

Van Wagoner adds nothing to your accusation that we do not already know.  JS was sealed to married women and did not consider it necessary for them to have  a divorce-- because It was a sealing,  for eternity only.

 

His opinion that JS  considered the temporal marriage binding was his personal opinion, giving not a shred of evidence for this conclusion and you have also failed to give any.

 

Thank you for revealing your agenda, by admitting that you are making the accusation that the church used the sealing ceremony to give cover for having intimate relations with a married woman.  It is now very clear why you were trying to be so clever in how you were wording your assertion.

 

I  give you the last word.

Edited March 26, 2014 by cdowis

[Storm Rider]

Well, you have to put some qualifiers on that... The Church does not "highly esteem" gay marriages or polygamous marriages. The Church highly esteems all one man, one woman marriages. And if you are a church member, it is only highly esteemed when accompanied by a sealing. And if you are a church member in the United States the sealing must also be the civil marriage or else you are definitely not "highly esteemed".

Just to be clear.

 

You seem to be putting a different perspective on what the Church teaches.  What the Church teaches is that Exaltation is one a solitary, single-person approach to.  Exaltation is the process whereby disicples of Christ realize their eternal potential to fully reflect the glory of God. We believe that this potential is only achieved through the sealing of husband and wife; priest and priestess in one eternal oneness with God. 

 

Individuals may obtain the Terrestial and Telestial glories, but to obtain the Celestial Kingdom one must enter into an eternal marriage. 

 

Attempting to qualify different forms of marriage enters onto undefined grounds. We teach the pathway to the Celestial Kingdom; we do not teach a gospel less than that as a goal or objective. If someone wants to magnify their calling as a disciple of Christ, this is the path. If they don't then there are a host of paths that may guide them. This is sure path; not an only path, but one that is assured if followed. 

[rockpond]

You seem to be putting a different perspective on what the Church teaches.  What the Church teaches is that Exaltation is one a solitary, single-person approach to.  Exaltation is the process whereby disicples of Christ realize their eternal potential to fully reflect the glory of God. We believe that this potential is only achieved through the sealing of husband and wife; priest and priestess in one eternal oneness with God. 

 

Individuals may obtain the Terrestial and Telestial glories, but to obtain the Celestial Kingdom one must enter into an eternal marriage. 

 

Attempting to qualify different forms of marriage enters onto undefined grounds. We teach the pathway to the Celestial Kingdom; we do not teach a gospel less than that as a goal or objective. If someone wants to magnify their calling as a disciple of Christ, this is the path. If they don't then there are a host of paths that may guide them. This is sure path; not an only path, but one that is assured if followed. 

 

I was responding to the statement that the Church "highly esteems" all marriages.  I understand Exaltation and was not even speaking of that topic.  Are you disagreeing with me?  Do you believe that the Church highly esteems gay marriages and polygamous marriages performed post 1904?

 

And, a civil marriage between two otherwise worthy church members (here in the U.S.) will lock them out of the opportunity to be sealed for a year.  I don't think that their civil marriage is being "highly esteemed".  Do you agree or disagree?

[Abulafia]

You do realize that John Lee's biography was not written by John Lee himself and published after his death.  Standing alone, It is a questionable and  unreliable source. 

 

I've read that book.  It is fascinating.   As I understand it, it was dictated by him.   Surely there are many faith promoting sources that are written by clerks on behalf of leaders.  Does that in itself make them unreliable?

Just trying to understand why you would think it is unreliable based on what you have written

[JLHPROF]

You do realize that John Lee's biography was not written by John Lee himself and published after his death.  Standing alone, It is a questionable and  unreliable source. 

 

I don't see how Parley P. Pratt adds to your narrative, except to add speculation to your assertions.  Yes, he was sealed, yes her  husband killed him after he rescued her from a physically abusive relationship.

 

Van Wagoner adds nothing to your accusation that we do not already know.  JS was sealed to married women and did not consider it necessary for them to have  a divorce-- because It was a sealing,  for eternity only.

 

His opinion that JS  considered the temporal marriage binding was his personal opinion, giving not a shred of evidence for this conclusion and you have also failed to give any.

 

Thank you for revealing your agenda, by admitting that you are making the accusation that the church used the sealing ceremony to give cover for having intimate relations with a married woman.  It is now very clear why you were trying to be so clever in how you were wording your assertion.

 

I  give you the last word.

 

Well done.  In true "academic" style you simply dismiss the provided references as invalid for various reasons.

I provided 5 references:

1. Van Wagoner's informed historians interpretation of events

2. John D. Lee's historical memory

3. Increase Mcgee's historical memory

4. Wikipedia entry (with sources) showing Parley P. Pratt married his last wife without her getting a legal divorce because she considered herself unmarried religiously.

5. Brigham Young's discourse referring to the non-necessity of civil divorces when sealing.

 

You are correct there may be some issues with these references - however they are multiple references which for me is enough to show the viewpoint that civil marriages weren't important in those days.  It is no longer the Church view but it was believed historically.

 

I don't belive the Church was using the sealing ceremony to "cover" anything.  I simply don't accept that the sealing ceremony (other than the parent/child one) is anything less than a marriage. 

In those days if you were sealed in the temple to a wife you are married in the eyes of God, with or without a civil marriage.

If Joseph Smith was sealed to a wife they were married.  And if they were married then relations were allowable (whether or not they actually occurred I don't believe can be determined).  I do not believe or accept the notion of "sealed but not married".  I find that to go against both logic and doctrine.

 

Thank you for giving me the last word.  I hope I used it well. 

[Tacenda]

JLHPROF, I think the ref's you provided would be admissible in a court of law, but I'm no lawyer.