Is The Church Being Completely Honest?

[strappinglad]

I have a father ( and a mother ) . They did not have me from 'natural' methods. Dad is still my Dad and will always be. Mom was sealed to him and I was sealed to them. Even if I wasn't sealed to him he would still be regarded as my Dad.

As a side note, I was about 14 when I was taught in seminary that Joseph was married to several women and sealed to many others, even after his death. My seminary teacher must have missed the " hide the inconvenient truth at all costs " memo.

[rockpond]

Because we don't know who and how many we can save so long as we continue to do our duty and reach out to others as rescuers. So we do the best we can with whomever we can.

But at the same time, we have a record of Nephi's vision to help us keep things in perspective so we don't panic or get overly discouraged or distracted when we see society at large loping off into unrighteousness paths such as the wholesale acceptance of gay marriage, Or when it starts to seem like the Latter-day Saints may soon be the only ones holding fast to standards of decency and morality. Or so that we're not overly eager to place blame on the Lord or His servants when we see some of our people falling into the snares of sophistry and falsehood laid by the church of the devil and those who subject themselves to it.

If you take a look at my posts, you'll note that I show little interest in placing blame. But that declining growth rate represents actual individuals in my ward, and yours, which makes it worth a bit of hand-wringing.

[Darren10]

I'm going to come right out and say it.  I've read Hales work, and he is wrong.  He is seeing what he wants to see and forcing the square peg into the round hole to make sure Joseph can be seen to live polyandry AND not offend peoples sensibilities.  He bends facts to fit his hypotheses instead of taking them at face value and the logical conclusions.

 

And I say again, regardless of whether Joseph actually fathered any children for these women to even think he MIGHT have fathered their child would required them to have had sex with him at least once.  It doesn't take DNA to prove sex.  It takes people thinking that he MIGHT be the father because they had sex with him.  If they never had sex they would never have claimed anything.

What you need to come out and say is that Hales uses, literally, ALL available documents in the world in order to reconstruct Joseph Smith's polygamy. Hales comes across to me as having no problem saying anything regarding Joseph Smith's polygamy so long as it is based upon actual historic documentations. He has an op[en invite for anyone, including and in particularly, Bushman, to provide any document so that he, Hales, may update his book and conclusions. Thus far, no documentation leading to any such updating has emerged.

What you also need to come out and say is that your pronouncement that he is wrong is not based upon any historic document available anywhere but upon the folktales you've been told, likely by those whose explicit agenda has been / s to discredit Joseph Smith and / or the LDS Church.

Once again, the one known declarative that Joseph Smith is the father of a child via a polygamous marriage is NOT known whether the mother meant Joseph Smith was the biological father or the father figure she wanted for her daughter. She did have issues with her husband and likely, very likely, saw Joseph Smith as a much better father for her daughter. You're inserting your own conclusion that the mother *meant* Joseph Smith might be the biological father of the daughter.

[Darren10]

Good point, and there are natural ways to avoid getting pregnant and Joseph was marrying wives in secret and probably didn't want a pregnancy.

That did not work with my first or fifth child.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Darren10

[JLHPROF]

What you need to come out and say is that Hales uses, literally, ALL available documents in the world in order to reconstruct Joseph Smith's polygamy. Hales comes across to me as having no problem saying anything regarding Joseph Smith's polygamy so long as it is based upon actual historic documentations. He has an op[en invite for anyone, including and in particularly, Bushman, to provide any document so that he, Hales, may update his book and conclusions. Thus far, no documentation leading to any such updating has emerged.

 

It is not the documentation he uses (it never is).  It's the conclusions he draws from all those documents.  He sees what he wants to see - systematically coming up with excuses why certain items are invalid, certain others are to be accepted, and alternate "possible meanings" for those that might be ambiguous.  His acceptance of all documentation is very clear.  And so is his bias.

 

 

What you also need to come out and say is that your pronouncement that he is wrong is not based upon any historic document available anywhere but upon the folktales you've been told, likely by those whose explicit agenda has been / s to discredit Joseph Smith and / or the LDS Church.

 

I don't consider Joseph having polyandrous sex to discredit him or the church.  That is your false traditions coming through.  I have no problem with a prophet of God doing these things and I believe he did them.  And I base my beliefs on common sense, not on folktales OR manipulated interpretations of documents.  I would consider Joseph entering into polygamy and not fulfilling the God given command concerning it to discredit him as a prophet far more.

 

 

Once again, the one known declarative that Joseph Smith is the father of a child via a polygamous marriage is NOT known whether the mother meant Joseph Smith was the biological father or the father figure she wanted for her daughter. She did have issues with her husband and likely, very likely, saw Joseph Smith as a much better father for her daughter. You're inserting your own conclusion that the mother *meant* Joseph Smith might be the biological father of the daughter.

 

And once again I don't care about the whole "offspring" argument.  I concede that Joseph would rarely have been able to have relations, perhaps no more than once, with a plural wife (and that would explain no children).  What I don't accept is that the lack of children mean the marriages weren't consummated.  That is a straw man argument.  There is absolutely NO documentation that proves Joseph DIDN'T consummate his polyandrous marriages.  Given the morals of the time a polyandrously married woman would have wanted to defend her virtue under questioning and claimed the sealings were eternal only.  The lack of documentation that he had sex, or the expectation that there would be any is the major flaw in Hales work.

 

It's that same old argument atheists & believers participate in. "You can't prove there is a God"/"You can't prove there isn't a God".  It's ridiculous to have to prove that Joseph DID consummate his marriages.  It's far more probable given the absence of conclusive evidence than believing that he didn't.

Edited March 23, 2014 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

Good point, and there are natural ways to avoid getting pregnant and Joseph was marrying wives in secret and probably didn't want a pregnancy.

 

I don't know about "avoiding" pregnancy, but there is simple logic to be followed in Joseph's polyandrous relations:

 

1. A man is sealed to a wife in what is basically secrecy.

2. He and she leave the sealing and room together for the wedding night & consummate the marriage, perhaps even at her home.

3. Due to circumstances this is possibly the one and only time that these relations took place.

 

Now, is it reasonable to expect a historian 200 years later to be able to find documented evidence that these relations ever happened?  Really?

If my wife or your wife didn't get pregnant on their wedding night (and there were no honeymoon/hotel room documentation) would there be any evidence we consummated our marriage that night?

 

It's such a stupid argument.  And we're supposed to accept that it's more logical for Joseph to have married wives, with the Book of Mormon, the Bible and the Temple Marriage ceremony commanding that polygamy is only acceptable if an attempt to raise righteous seed/multiply and replenish the earth is involved, and for him to have never consummated said marriages.

 

Hales is simply stretching credulity by relying on a search for documents that never could and never would exist in the first place.

[cinepro]

Once again, the one known declarative that Joseph Smith is the father of a child via a polygamous marriage is NOT known whether the mother meant Joseph Smith was the biological father or the father figure she wanted for her daughter. She did have issues with her husband and likely, very likely, saw Joseph Smith as a much better father for her daughter. You're inserting your own conclusion that the mother *meant* Joseph Smith might be the biological father of the daughter.

 

Sometimes when someone says something that I didn't want them to say, I just pretend they said something different and I feel much better.

 

Glad to see it works for others too.

[cinepro]

cinepro will be delighted

 

...but not surprised.

[Darren10]

I don't know about "avoiding" pregnancy, but there is simple logic to be followed in Joseph's polyandrous relations:

1. A man is sealed to a wife in what is basically secrecy.

2. He and she leave the sealing and room together for the wedding night & consummate the marriage, perhaps even at her home.

3. Due to circumstances this is possibly the one and only time that these relations took place.

Now, is it reasonable to expect a historian 200 years later to be able to find documented evidence that these relations ever happened? Really?

If my wife or your wife didn't get pregnant on their wedding night (and there were no honeymoon/hotel room documentation) would there be any evidence we consummated our marriage that night?

It's such a stupid argument. And we're supposed to accept that it's more logical for Joseph to have married wives, with the Book of Mormon, the Bible and the Temple Marriage ceremony commanding that polygamy is only acceptable if an attempt to raise righteous seed/multiply and replenish the earth is involved, and for him to have never consummated said marriages.

Hales is simply stretching credulity by relying on a search for documents that never could and never would exist in the first place.

If you married a woman already married to another man and consumated that marriage at a hotel after getting sealed, wou.dn't you and / or her write it down? Wouldn't you feel weird about it? Wouldn't you speak to lthers about it? The woman to her husband? The woman to a sister, father, mother? Where are these documents? Any of them? A journal entry? A disgrunted parent? You in you own post admittedly base your conclusion, which turned accusational on this very thread against Joseph Smith, based on assumption.

Temple marriage does NOT teach that polygamy is good only to pruduce seed/multiply. Nor does the Bible teach that. Furthermore, it is not sexual polygamy which I am debating nor concerned with but sexual polyandry. Please get things straight as you're already basing your historic view of Joseph Smith on assumptions.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Sometimes when someone says something that I didn't want them to say, I just pretend they said something different and I feel much better.

 

Glad to see it works for others too.

And your source regarding Joseph Smith and his supposed daughter from a polygamous marriage?

[Darren10]

JLHPROF;

For the second time on this thread I'll post the Interpreter's Round Table discussion focusing specifically on Joseph Smith and his polygamy. Hales comes in right around the 36:25 mark. At what point does he stretch the truth? Where does he attempt to ram a square peg into a round hole?

Pay close attention to right around the 50 minute mark. Why would Hakes get such praise if he were only manipulating history to fit his own view? And I do need to retract a portion off an earlier post of mine. It's not bushman Hales is seeking documentation but Compton.

Now, while you may have no agenda I believe the sources you rely upon to view Joseph Smith do afterall, you, like Fannie Brodie portray sexual polyandry as something "essentially undeniable" without ANY evidence it ever happened. And not just with Joseph Smith but from anyone practicing "sealing-only" polyandry.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/special-roundtable-discussion-polygamy/

Edited March 23, 2014 by Darren10

[cdowis]

I don't know about "avoiding" pregnancy, but there is simple logic to be followed in Joseph's polyandrous relations:

 

1. A man is sealed to a wife in what is basically secrecy.

2. He and she leave the sealing and room together for the wedding night & consummate the marriage, perhaps even at her home.

3. Due to circumstances this is possibly the one and only time that these relations took place.

 

Now, is it reasonable to expect a historian 200 years later to be able to find documented evidence that these relations ever happened?  Really?

If my wife or your wife didn't get pregnant on their wedding night (and there were no honeymoon/hotel room documentation) would there be any evidence we consummated our marriage that night?

 

It's such a stupid argument.  And we're supposed to accept that it's more logical for Joseph to have married wives, with the Book of Mormon, the Bible and the Temple Marriage ceremony commanding that polygamy is only acceptable if an attempt to raise righteous seed/multiply and replenish the earth is involved, and for him to have never consummated said marriages.

 

Hales is simply stretching credulity by relying on a search for documents that never could and never would exist in the first place.

 

The issue here is your logic based on your assumptions.  You conflate "sealing" with "marriage" which you then define as having been consummated.  Your assumption is based on your own personal experience.

 

Your logic is flawed ==>>  sealing == ,marriage, ergo consummation.  And you cap off it all off by "argument by silence", admiting that you have not a shred of "documentation" (proof)  for that assumption.

 

You refuse to allow that this situation  is certainly unique, but, using "simple logic", you forcefully use your own personal experience as proof of your assertion.

 

Here is simple logic ==>>  a sealing is a sealing is a sealing.

Edited March 23, 2014 by cdowis

[Damien the Leper]

Were the rules of plural marriage always set in stone or did they change with the times?

 

This was a sincere question. I was only ever taught that a man could be sealed and married to a woman who was either not married or widowed. Was this not the case? What are the consistent rules concerning plural marriage from the beginning or were there none?

[JLHPROF]

This was a sincere question. I was only ever taught that a man could be sealed and married to a woman who was either not married or widowed. Was this not the case? What are the consistent rules concerning plural marriage from the beginning or were there none?

 

I don't know that the rules were consistent from the beginning.  But a better way of phrasing your statement would be that a man could only be sealed and married to a woman who was not already SEALED.  At that time civil marriage wasn't given a lot of validity, and in none of Joseph's polyandrous marriages was the woman already sealed as an eternal wife to these men.  Joseph simply didn't view their civil marriages as barriers to his marrying them.  Now if they were sealed to their husbands I doubt Joseph would have courted them.

[JLHPROF]

DEL

Edited March 23, 2014 by JLHPROF

[rockpond]

This was a sincere question. I was only ever taught that a man could be sealed and married to a woman who was either not married or widowed. Was this not the case? What are the consistent rules concerning plural marriage from the beginning or were there none?

I'm not aware of any rules that were written down other than section 132. I think that prior to the Brigham Young days, Joseph Smith was probably just trying to figure out what God expected of him with respect to polygamy and the sealing ordinance more generally.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Sanpitch]

Yes, you missed a lot.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-zina-and-her-men-an-examination-of-the-changing-marital-state-of-zina-diantha-huntington-jacobs-smith-young

The linked article gives a very thorough description of the events behind Zina, Joseph smith, Brigham Young, and Henry Jacobs.

I've read most of your reference and am still left with the same question, why is Henry charged with deserting Zina.  Brigham called him on a mission, is that desertion??  From Todd Compton's book, In Sacred Loneliness,  page 88  "...the following day the next crucial event affecting Zina and Henry's marriage took place.  Though Henry was halfway across Iowa driving a covered wagon for his wife and two sons, one of them newborn, through danger and privation, at this difficult time, of all times , he was suddenly sent away on a mission."  

 

You say I missed a lot.  Did you miss a lot?

Edited March 23, 2014 by Sanpitch

[Stone holm]

This was a sincere question. I was only ever taught that a man could be sealed and married to a woman who was either not married or widowed. Was this not the case? What are the consistent rules concerning plural marriage from the beginning or were there none?

The practices concerning sealings evolved as the Brethren came to better understand the principle.

[readstoomuch]

Polygamy, and polyandry specifically may be the most difficult apologetic issue that the LDS Church faces. No one really knows how many women Joseph had relations with. I am not sure we will ever know. The lack of children, and I don`t know of too many successful contraceptives in 1843, always is something to at least keep in mind. Sure, the lack of opportunity is the strongest explanation. I do think that the sealing principles were way more important to him then the sex itself. My opinion, take it for what it is worth. I also think there is good evidence or at least good enough evidence that there were relations with plural wives. As far as polyandrous wives, there was a case in Turner`s BY biography where a woman that was sealed to him (supposedly for eternity only) wouldn`t have sex with her husband. If I remember right I thought her husband was trying to get BY to clarify to his wife that it was a eternal only sealing. I think there was a principle in polyandry that the woman was monogamous to one man only. There is also the tradition that there were sealings for time and eternity and eternity only. You end up reading all of the sources and then deciding for yourself. I think Hales brings all of the information as well or better than anyone. A book that gets left out is Brodie Revisited.

I think the Church`s first responsibility is to teach the gospel of Christ. As that is being taught, though it could be brought up that JS was a polygamist, there are more than one versions of the First Vision, there are theories about the Book of Abraham, Adam-God theory was taught in some form, etc. Then references could be provided within the lessons to larger articles at LDS.org. That way people wouldn`t feel betrayed and if not gone over in too much detail, then it hopefully wouldn`t plant doubts in those who aren`t questioning.

[Scott Lloyd]

If you take a look at my posts, you'll note that I show little interest in placing blame. But that declining growth rate represents actual individuals in my ward, and yours, which makes it worth a bit of hand-wringing.

I said we do the best we can with whomever we can.

[rockpond]

I said we do the best we can with whomever we can.

We appear to be in agreement then.

[Abulafia]

Readstoomuch, the problem I have with that, is that polygamy, according at least to LDS practice at the moment, is very much a reality for the afterlife.

I think investigators have a right to know this. It is a fundamental and unique belief at the moment.

[Abulafia]

Investigators should also be taught from the start that the history of Joseph as contained in canon, is hagiography.

I learned off by heart the canonical account of the first vision. It is so misleading, simplistic and fails to account for the complexity of the way he reinterpreted his experience as time went on.

The recent essay was good, but somehow that needs to filter through to investigators.

[thesometimesaint]

Readstoomuch, the problem I have with that, is that polygamy, according at least to LDS practice at the moment, is very much a reality for the afterlife.

I think investigators have a right to know this. It is a fundamental and unique belief at the moment.

 

Section 132 of D&C has never been repealed. If someone doesn't know that there isn't much the Church can do about it.

 

Its practice is not fundamental, it has always been at God's discretion.