New Essay: Peace And Violence Among 19Th Century Saints

[mormonnewb]

"that most Catholics are more willing to accept that their church has "messed up big-time" in the past."

There is a good chance that much of this distancing is due to distance, both in time and location. Have you been around Spanish Catholics much? NonAmerican Saints don't see to be as involved in LDS church history in my experience (Albertan Saints have their own niche due to colonisation and the current presence of LDS dominated towns by Lethbridge, including Cardston where the best temple in the world is). Closer to home mess ups seem to me to bother Catholics as much as they do LDS, I have been told by Catholic friends they cringe when reading of criminals identified as of their faith, especially if leaders in their community. There were reports of large numbers of Catholics going inactive (sorry, don't know what the proper term is, but leaving the faith may not work because in my understanding once baptised one is always a Catholic in the eyes of the Church even if not in communion....please someone correct me if wrong) during the reports of the priest child abuse scandal. I cannot imagine those who are devout Catholics not feeling personally wounded by such events.

I do believe that knowing their faith has been around so long as well as being the largest single Christian denomination (and second largest religious denomination after Sunnis though Sunnis do not have formal clergy so I think one might say Catholicism is the largest organised faith in the world ) has given Catholics a sense of security when dealing with others that LDS often don't have. There is a whole dimension of minority justification missing and news reports don't generally connect reports of miracles with the central organization but rather present those involved as more on the fringes while LDS have to deal with the First Vision and the plates as core events.

Good points. We are fairly close to our messes, but I wonder if there isn't something particular about our self-perception that creates these faith crises.

For example, many saints have been derailed by what they see as lecherous behavior on JS' part [whether or not true]. They become shaken to think that their beloved prophet could have had impure motives.

In the black community, we revere MLK. Yet, we don't have anyone converting to white because they learn about his infidelity. Nor do they become atheists as a result. Nor do we write books trying to find a way to justify King's improprieties on, say, "dynastic" grounds. We simply assume that if King David could succumb to adultery, deception and murder, ANYONE could fall short, even our beloved 20th century Moses.

In the context of MMM, some saints have been greatly dismayed that members of our church could have done such a thing. This seems to indicate that there is a perception among some saints that we Mormons were above the violence that was ubiquitous in the "Wild Wild West." I grew up watching westerns on my grandfather's knee and therefore, I see white Westerners (even Mormons) capable of darn near anything

Seriously, with all of the violence of the time, why would anyone of us think that Mormons didn't have ANY part of it?

Edited May 17, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Pahoran]

What is it with this constant need for the Church to be ALWAYS right (or at least, not very wrong) in the eyes of members?  I have never once heard one of my Catholic brothers try to defend or downplay, say, the Spanish Inquisition.  "Inquisition, schmission!  We asked a few questions. The reports of torture and compulsion were more myth than substance."

 

They actually own up to it, just as our Church leaders are trying to do.  Yet, as members, we can't just accept that "there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine.”  Pres. Uchtdorf, October 2013 GC

Yes, we are well aware that he said it.

And now it's high time for you and your fellows to recognise that that statement does not represent any kind of blanket confession to any and every anti-Mormon accusation ever made.

The fact remains that actual instances of violence by Mormons against others, in the 19th century or otherwise, are few and far between.

And when accusers have to turn to public statements by Church leaders as if that was "evidence" of actual secret Mormon crimes, they are admitting that they have no evidence to back up their accusations.

 

You sneer at those whom you imagine have "this constant need for the Church to be ALWAYS right (or at least, not very wrong) in the eyes of members."  I fail to see that that is any worse than having this constant need for the Church to be ALWAYS wrong (or at least, not very right) in the eyes of just bout everybody.

 

Hugh Nibley long ago lamented the tendency among Mormon intellectuals to take the cheapest and laziest way to gain intellectual "respectability" in the eyes of others: surrender to the world, and take the lead in mocking the Church.

 

And even to this day, we see that those with no backbone and no principles find it so easy to take this well-trodden, cheap and lazy path.

 

How sad.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rivers]

Seriously, with all of the violence of the time, why would anyone of us think that Mormons didn't have ANY part of it?

I suppose that many assume that members of God's one true church would be above all of that.

[Bikeemikey]

I must have had really rebellious seminary teachers. While I was in High School over 50 years ago, I was taught about The MMM and blood atonement. No one whitewashed anything. I knew that church leaders in the area were at fault and were deceptive and violent. Of course this was all before correlation .I did live in the wild west so we were used to some " questionable " practices in the area.

If by rebellious you mean teaching material that was not in the manuals then yes.

I have been through seminary, institute and years of sunday school and priesthood, served and mission and taught in seminary, institute, sunday school and elders quorum and have yet to find a lesson that is about the actual practice of polygamy either directly or indirectly.

I have yet to find a lesson that teaches about JS and his polygamous relationships.

I am very happy that this is changing and it is not simply rebellious teachers that teach extra-manual curriculum that cover these things.

The current trend of the church is positive and transparent in regards to its education of historically neglected topics.

[Nevo]

The fact remains that actual instances of violence by Mormons against others, in the 19th century or otherwise, are few and far between.

 

There may have been relatively few acts of violence, but they weren't far between during the Mormon Reformation/Utah War era. As William P. MacKinnon notes, "the loss of life approached the 157 fatalities that contemporaneously earned Utah's eastern neighbor the enduring label 'Bleeding Kansas'" (MacKinnon, ed., At Sword’s Point, Part 1: A Documentary History of the Utah War to 1858 [Norman, OK: Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008], 296). 

[Calm]

If by rebellious you mean teaching material that was not in the manuals then yes.

I have been through seminary, institute and years of sunday school and priesthood, served and mission and taught in seminary, institute, sunday school and elders quorum and have yet to find a lesson that is about the actual practice of polygamy either directly or indirectly.

I have yet to find a lesson that teaches about JS and his polygamous relationships.

I am very happy that this is changing and it is not simply rebellious teachers that teach extra-manual curriculum that cover these things.

The current trend of the church is positive and transparent in regards to its education of historically neglected topics.

The current Institute Church History manual and the previous one (Barrett's) both mention Joseph Smith's plural marriage, though the current one isn't much detail...talks about Louisa Beaman sp? as being the first known for sure wife IIRC. I never took a class that used either text so I don't know how it might have been taught, but students would have least encountered it if they read the text as supposed to. Edited May 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[mormonnewb]

Yes, we are well aware that he said it.

And now it's high time for you and your fellows to recognise that that statement does not represent any kind of blanket confession to any and every anti-Mormon accusation ever made.

The fact remains that actual instances of violence by Mormons against others, in the 19th century or otherwise, are few and far between.

And when accusers have to turn to public statements by Church leaders as if that was "evidence" of actual secret Mormon crimes, they are admitting that they have no evidence to back up their accusations.

 

You sneer at those whom you imagine have "this constant need for the Church to be ALWAYS right (or at least, not very wrong) in the eyes of members."  I fail to see that that is any worse than having this constant need for the Church to be ALWAYS wrong (or at least, not very right) in the eyes of just bout everybody.

 

Hugh Nibley long ago lamented the tendency among Mormon intellectuals to take the cheapest and laziest way to gain intellectual "respectability" in the eyes of others: surrender to the world, and take the lead in mocking the Church.

 

And even to this day, we see that those with no backbone and no principles find it so easy to take this well-trodden, cheap and lazy path.

 

How sad.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

Some of us insist on this "well-trodden, cheap and lazy path" because it produces less brittle testimonies. MMM (which the Church has admitted to, by the way) has been the catalyst for many faith crises. Saints have been crushed to learn that members of THEIR Church could engage in such savagery. But why? Most American school children learn how our beloved country has committed countless atrocities against others? It doesn't cause us to fly to, say, Sweden in mass. We love and take pride in our country, while still accepting that "there have been times when citizens and leaders of this country have made mistakes ...."

On the other hand, perhaps we wouldn't have such enduring love for our country if we had been taught since birth that "the country is perfect, but the people are not." Or if every time someone had mentioned slavery or the slaughter of the Native Americans, a "faithful" citizen had risen to call them anti-American. Or if we attempted to minimize the harm by reminding people that we were less barbarous than the Spanish conquistadors who landed in South and Central America.

Perhaps, that explains why the Church is taking such special effort to provide a more balanced view of its own history. Just a hunch ...

[mormonnewb]

I suppose that many assume that members of God's one true church would be above all of that.

Why? When have God's people ever been free of sin?

[Rivers]

Why? When have God's people ever been free of sin?

Well, there were those people in the city of Enoch.

 

You actually do make some very good points.  Why should it be damaging to faith to know that past church members screwed up?  It has no bearing in the thruthfulness of the gospel.

[Danzo]

If by rebellious you mean teaching material that was not in the manuals then yes.

I have been through seminary, institute and years of sunday school and priesthood, served and mission and taught in seminary, institute, sunday school and elders quorum and have yet to find a lesson that is about the actual practice of polygamy either directly or indirectly.

I have yet to find a lesson that teaches about JS and his polygamous relationships.

I am very happy that this is changing and it is not simply rebellious teachers that teach extra-manual curriculum that cover these things.

The current trend of the church is positive and transparent in regards to its education of historically neglected topics.

I have yet to have a lesson about section 132 without having the topic come up.

[Pahoran]

Some of us insist on this "well-trodden, cheap and lazy path" because it produces less brittle testimonies.

Or non-existent testimonies.

 

MMM (which the Church has admitted to, by the way) has been the catalyst for many faith crises.

Not among those who know how to think.

And what do you mean by "admitted to?" Believe it or not, I actually heard about the MMM before you mentioned it, and I don't recall the Church having ever "admitted" that that crime was ordered or authorised by the central leadership of the Church. Or that it was compatible with any LDS doctrines, then or ever.

Which, in case you didn't know, are the two accusations that have been consistently made by those whose faithful fellow-traveller you are, and the main points in contention.

 

Saints have been crushed to learn that members of THEIR Church could engage in such savagery.

Which Saints? Where?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

There may have been relatively few acts of violence, but they weren't far between during the Mormon Reformation/Utah War era. As William P. MacKinnon notes, "the loss of life approached the 157 fatalities that contemporaneously earned Utah's eastern neighbor the enduring label 'Bleeding Kansas'" (MacKinnon, ed., At Sword’s Point, Part 1: A Documentary History of the Utah War to 1858 [Norman, OK: Arthur H. Clark Company, 2008], 296).

Pointing to the Utah War as being somehow indicative of the general level of extralegal violence during the early Mormon settlement period is a little like pointing to the bombing of Pearl Harbor as an indication of how dangerous Hawaii can be in December.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bikeemikey]

The current Institute Church History manual and the previous one (Barrett's) both mention Joseph Smith's plural marriage, though the current one isn't much detail...talks about Louisa Beaman sp? as being the first known for sure wife IIRC. I never took a class that used either text so I don't know how it might have been taught, but students would have least encountered it if they read the text as supposed to.

Like I said I am happy that the incremental changes that have been occurring over time are increasing in pace.

[Bikeemikey]

I have yet to have a lesson about section 132 without having the topic come up.

Not saying it hasn't come up, I'm saying it hasn't been originated from the manual.

[Calm]

Not saying it hasn't come up, I'm saying it hasn't been originated from the manual.

Joseph's plural marriages are mentioned in the Institute D&C Sec 132 manual, though briefly, that has been around since the 80's I think.

https://www.lds.org/manual/print/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-132-138/section-132-marriage-an-eternal-covenant?lang=eng

Edited May 19, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Like I said I am happy that the incremental changes that have been occurring over time are increasing in pace.

So you agree that it has been mentioned in manuals and thus potentially taught in lessons (assming the teacher doesn't assume to skip over it which is certainly possible given the level of discomfort many members have with the topic for various reasons) in the past and the difference is that now there is greater detail being given (the two church history manuals I mention cover the current year back to late 60's I believe)?

I am a bit confused over what you are concluding at this point.

PS: the Teacher's manual actually refers to plural marriage quite a bit though it makes the point it is to prepare the teacher for questions that arise rather than being the focus of the lesson:

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-instructors-guide-religion-324-325/eternal-marriage-lesson-51-section-132-official-declaration-1?lang=eng

Edited May 19, 2014 by calmoriah

[Bikeemikey]

So you agree that it has been mentioned in manuals and thus potentially taught in lessons (assming the teacher doesn't assume to skip over it which is certainly possible given the level of discomfort many members have with the topic for various reasons) in the past and the difference is that now there is greater detail being given (the two church history manuals I mention cover the current year back to late 60's I believe)?

I am a bit confused over what you are concluding at this point.

PS: the Teacher's manual actually refers to plural marriage quite a bit though it makes the point it is to prepare the teacher for questions that arise rather than being the focus of the lesson:

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-instructors-guide-religion-324-325/eternal-marriage-lesson-51-section-132-official-declaration-1?lang=eng

In my original post I was commenting that in my experience as a teacher in the church I have never had a manual that covered polygamy. I'm happy that this is changing, and doubly happy that the pace of change is accelerating.

[frank_jessop]

Not among those who know how to think.

It is just astounding how deliberately insensitive and insulting your are towards fellow Saints who struggle or who have struggled.

Which Saints? Where?

Regards,

Pahoran

No doubt, your query is most likely a set up just for you to respond with your often used "No real Saint" fallacy. Mormonweb might respond with a name but very likely your retort would be "So and so isn't a real Saint, therefore no real Saints 'have been crushed to learn that members of THEIR Church could engage in such savagery."

I happen to agree with you that the Church, as best as I have read, has not taken responsibility for the MMM. In the most recent essay, the Church admits that local leadership is responsible. But the actions of a local leader shouldn't necessarily be considered an action of the Church.

As for the actions being inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Church, well, that just appears to presentism on your part - or of the sources cited in the essay; we would have to ask the Saints of the day who committed the MMM what was Doctrine, and if Blood Atonement was Doctrine of its day.

[Tacenda]

Well, there were those people in the city of Enoch.

You actually do make some very good points. Why should it be damaging to faith to know that past church members screwed up? It has no bearing in the thruthfulness of the gospel.

They did more than screw up.

[Senator]

I have yet to have a lesson about section 132 without having the topic come up.

 

As I recall it was just last year, and the subject didn't come up.

[Danzo]

Not saying it hasn't come up, I'm saying it hasn't been originated from the manual.

 That is because it comes from the text.

I usually find the text to be more important than the manual

[Danzo]

As I recall it was just last year, and the subject didn't come up.

Maybe no one actually read the section.

[Nevo]

Joseph's plural marriages are mentioned in the Institute D&C Sec 132 manual, though briefly, that has been around since the 80's I think.

https://www.lds.org/manual/print/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-132-138/section-132-marriage-an-eternal-covenant?lang=eng

 

Interestingly, this chapter doesn't explicitly state anywhere that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. It only hints at it obliquely (Hyrum offering to read the revelation to Emma).

 

The new Presidents of the Church institute manual is completely silent on the subject of Joseph Smith's polygamy—although it devotes half a page to Joseph's love of wrestling, jumping at the mark, stick pulling, etc. Brigham Young's polygamy is likewise not mentioned. The manual does note that John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow, and Joseph F. Smith practiced plural marriage.

 

The Church History in the Fulness of Times institute manual contains the most detailed description of Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy that I have seen in a church manual, but it's still pretty vague: "Due to a lack of historical documentation, we do not know what his early attempts were to comply with the commandment in Ohio. His first recorded plural marriage in Nauvoo was to Louisa Beaman; it was performed by Bishop Joseph B. Noble on 5 April 1841. During the next three years Joseph took additional plural wives in accordance with the Lord’s commands."

 

The new Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual is also short on specifics: "The Prophet Joseph Smith was reluctant to begin the practice of plural marriage. He stated that he did not begin the practice until he was warned that he would be destroyed if he did not obey (see “Plural Marriage,” Historical Record, May 1887, 222). Because of a lack of historical documentation, we do not know about Joseph Smith’s early attempts to comply with the commandment. However, by 1841 the Prophet had begun to obey the commandment and to teach it to some members of the Church, and over the next three years he married additional wives in accordance with the Lord’s commands. The Prophet Joseph Smith’s obedience to the Lord’s commandment to practice plural marriage was a trial of faith for him and his wife Emma, whom he loved dearly."

 

For whatever reason, Joseph Smith's polygamy continues to be largely ignored in the curriculum. It's not hard to see how a person could spend decades faithfully attending Church meetings and not have the slightest awareness of any of the potentially objectionable aspects of the Prophet's practice of plural marriage. Hopefully someday there will at least be a Gospel Topics page to benefit members seeking reliable "official" answers to the standard criticisms. 

[Calm]

In my original post I was commenting that in my experience as a teacher in the church I have never had a manual that covered polygamy. I'm happy that this is changing, and doubly happy that the pace of change is accelerating.

I thought you meant all manuals, not just the ones for classes you taught. My mistake, sorry.

There will likely be a lot of manuals that still won't cover it, the Nursery one belong the most obvious.

Edited May 19, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Interestingly, this chapter doesn't explicitly state anywhere that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. It only hints at it obliquely (Hyrum offering to read the revelation to Emma).

I thought this was quite clear:

"President Wilford Woodruff, who was closely associated with the Prophet Joseph Smith, said: “Emma Smith, the widow of the Prophet, is said to have maintained to her dying moments that her husband had nothing to do with the patriarchal order of marriage, but that it was Brigham Young that got that up. I bear record before God, angels and men that Joseph Smith received that revelation, and I bear record that Emma Smith gave her husband in marriage to several women while he was living, some of whom are to-day living in this city, and some may be present in this congregation, and who, if called upon, would confirm my words. But lo and behold, we hear of publication after publication now-a-days, declaring that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with these things. Joseph Smith himself organized every endowment in our Church and revealed the same to the Church, and he lived to receive every key of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods from the hands of the men who held them while in the flesh, and who hold them in eternity.” (In Journal of Discourses, 23:131.)"

"Hopefully someday there will at least be a Gospel Topics page to benefit members seeking reliable "official" answers to the standard criticisms"

I am anticipating it given one postNauvoo was written. I can understand if by chance they are working up to it or perhaps waiting to see if anything new gets hinted at in the JS Papers Project.

Edited May 19, 2014 by calmoriah