Killing Joseph Smith To Save Mormonism

[mormonnewb]

I was just reading another article about someone leaving the Church with the feeling that they had been "lied to."  In this case, it was over the issue of polygamy -- that they had attended countless hours of primary, young men's, seminar and even served a mission and had never known about JS' polygamy.  Over the last few years, the Church has made great strides to become more transparent about so-called "difficult issues" as evidenced by the most recent article on the BoA translation process.  However, we have yet to address JS' polygamy and I'm not sure that we really can given that we've pretty much deified JS.  For some members, the slide to apostasy starts on the slippery slope of JS' polygamy (yes, I thought that was poetic as well).

 

Fortunately, Mormonnewb to the rescue.  My solution: We acknowledge JS as a fallen prophet starting in the Nauvoo period.  Stop flailing about and clawing your eyes out and hear me out:

 

For one, trying to justify JS' polygamy is simply too difficult (which might explain why the Church doesn't even talk about it).  After all, even JS tried to keep it hidden.  Also, why would HF require the saints to engage in a practice that would later almost destroy the Church?  Doesn't it just seem more likely that JS, like almost every other man who has ever had such power over a community, got carried away with that power?

 

Second, if JS was a fallen prophet, he would be in very good company.  In fact, he would be perfectly in line with the Biblical mold of a prophet -- faithful servant plucked from obscurity but eventually, he proved HUMAN.  In fact, when I was investigating the Church, this was the greatest evidence to me of JS' prophetic mantel -- that he messed it up at some point.  That puts him in company with the likes of Noah and Moses and in no way diminishes his earlier works, just as Noah's drunkenness and Moses' temper didn't negate them as prophets.  The ancient Jews didn't throw out the Ten Commandments just because Moses was prohibited from reaching the promised land, so why should the BoM and restoration be affected by JS' fall?

 

Third, and this might be most important, acknowledging JS' fall would bolster the current prophets' claims that they are in line with the Lord's will.  I often hear that the Lord will remove a prophet should he ever lead the Church astray.  However, since this has never happened in our current paradigm, it seems like a hollow statement.  It's the Mormon equivalent of "If I'm lying, may the Lord strike me dead.  (Pause)  I'm still alive so I must be telling the truth."  On the other hand, if the narrative was that Lord will remove a prophet if he ever leads the Church astray like He removed Joseph, well that puts some teeth in the concept of a "heavenly veto" for Church leadership.

 

Who's with me on this one? (Ducking for cover)

[JLHPROF]

You'd better duck.  I hardly know where to begin.

 

1. Polygamy was not a mistake as it was given directly from God by recorded revelation that is still canon.  (That young man needed to read his D&C 132 before claiming he was lied to - it's right in the scriptures).  The same revelations continued with Brigham Young and John Taylor, until Wilford Woodruff received a revelation instructing that they stop.  But still, never called a mistake in any divine communication.  So Joseph wasn't fallen as a prophet.

 

2. Moses & Noah had sins.  Joseph had sins.  None of them were recorded as fallen prophets.  They still held their priesthood and calling.

 

3. The scriptures clearly state that IF God had to remove a prophet out of his place as you state in your third point, that he would still have power to name his successor.  So if Joseph fell (which he didn't) he would still have been able to name Brigham his successor.  That way the chain of authority remains unbroken.  If a prophet fell and no successor was named by him another restoration would be needed.

 

Joseph was never fallen and still stands at the head of this dispensation (and will judge us at some point).

Edited July 15, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

So throw out all the teachings received once a revelation on plural marriage was claimed to take place?

[JLHPROF]

So throw out all the teachings received once a revelation on plural marriage was claimed to take place?

 

Well considering the introduction to D&C 132 states : Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831, that eliminates pretty much everything outside the first principles.

[mormonnewb]

So throw out all the teachings received once a revelation on plural marriage was claimed to take place?

 

Not all of them.  God still used Moses after his transgression.  We could just do away with the ones that have been overturned by later prophets.

[mnn727]

Also, why would HF require the saints to engage in a practice that would later almost destroy the Church?

 

To separate the wheat from the chaff and to see who would follow Him when things got tough.

Brigham Young once said (paraphrased) "I know many a man willing to die for his religion, but how many are really willing to live for his religion, especially when times are tough."

 

 

For I will raise up unto myself a pure people, that will serve me in righteousness.” (D&C 100:16.)

Edited July 15, 2014 by mnn727

[Brian 2.0]

I'm pretty sure the church will issue an essay on JS Polygamy. Only a matter of time on that.

[Bowtiemenace]

The whole idea that it was a mistake because Joseph "gave into his lusts" is completely ridiculous. I think 1/4 of his wives were over 60 (like over 80 now.) and he had sex with very few.

 

I think its been proposed that plural marriage was a misunderstanding of the adoption stuff. They thought you had to be more physically related to the prophet than figuratively. I don't know how good the case for that is though.

[Buzzard]

I have at least one 4th great grandfather who had three wives. (Israel Barlow) I apologize to no one for his plural marriages, nor do I think I have to. Plural marriage was ordained of God for the saints in the 19th century, and they were blessed for their obedience.

Now, having said that, I think that plural marriage as practiced by JS was different from the way it was practiced by BY and certainly different than the way it is practiced by apostate groups today. While JS had intimate relations with a few of his plural wives, for the majority, including the infamous 14 year olds and the cases of polyandry, the marriage was closer to what we would call an adoption. I know some disagree, and there have been contentious threads on this subjects before, but this is how I see it. Feel free to disagree.

One final note. If your friend reached adulthood without knowing that JS had more than one wife, he either paid very little attention in seminary or showed almost no intellectual curiosity at all. I was probably aware of the fact by the time I was 14, knew the number of wives by the time I graduated high school, and studied and settled in my mind the controversial aspects of JS's polygamy in my twenties and thirties. 

[teddyaware]

I was just reading another article about someone leaving the Church with the feeling that they had been "lied to."  In this case, it was over the issue of polygamy -- that they had attended countless hours of primary, young men's, seminar and even served a mission and had never known about JS' polygamy.  Over the last few years, the Church has made great strides to become more transparent about so-called "difficult issues" as evidenced by the most recent article on the BoA translation process.  However, we have yet to address JS' polygamy and I'm not sure that we really can given that we've pretty much deified JS.  For some members, the slide to apostasy starts on the slippery slope of JS' polygamy (yes, I thought that was poetic as well).

 

Fortunately, Mormonnewb to the rescue.  My solution: We acknowledge JS as a fallen prophet starting in the Nauvoo period.  Stop flailing about and clawing your eyes out and hear me out:

 

For one, trying to justify JS' polygamy is simply too difficult (which might explain why the Church doesn't even talk about it).  After all, even JS tried to keep it hidden.  Also, why would HF require the saints to engage in a practice that would later almost destroy the Church?  Doesn't it just seem more likely that JS, like almost every other man who has ever had such power over a community, got carried away with that power?

 

Second, if JS was a fallen prophet, he would be in very good company.  In fact, he would be perfectly in line with the Biblical mold of a prophet -- faithful servant plucked from obscurity but eventually, he proved HUMAN.  In fact, when I was investigating the Church, this was the greatest evidence to me of JS' prophetic mantel -- that he messed it up at some point.  That puts him in company with the likes of Noah and Moses and in no way diminishes his earlier works, just as Noah's drunkenness and Moses' temper didn't negate them as prophets.  The ancient Jews didn't throw out the Ten Commandments just because Moses was prohibited from reaching the promised land, so why should the BoM and restoration be affected by JS' fall?

 

Third, and this might be most important, acknowledging JS' fall would bolster the current prophets' claims that they are in line with the Lord's will.  I often hear that the Lord will remove a prophet should he ever lead the Church astray.  However, since this has never happened in our current paradigm, it seems like a hollow statement.  It's the Mormon equivalent of "If I'm lying, may the Lord strike me dead.  (Pause)  I'm still alive so I must be telling the truth."  On the other hand, if the narrative was that Lord will remove a prophet if he ever leads the Church astray like He removed Joseph, well that puts some teeth in the concept of a "heavenly veto" for Church leadership.

 

Who's with me on this one? (Ducking for cover)

One day the world is going to learn the Prophet Joseph Smith did nothing wrong in the eyes of the Lord; and on that day all his enemies and detractors will learn, much to their shame and sorrow, that they projected their own lustful and iniquitous hearts onto an innocent man. The Prophet was living in obedience to a higher law the Lord Himself commanded him to obey. Because most of the world's people do not at all comprehend the mysteries of God, in their ignorance they will continue to slander and condemn him until, much to their utter shock and astonishment, the Lord sets them straight. Mark my words...

[Calm]

I'm pretty sure the church will issue an essay on JS Polygamy. Only a matter of time on that.

I suspect they are waiting to make sure nothing more can be gleaned from the JSPs before putting it up so that it will be as complete as possible.

[why me]

I was just reading another article about someone leaving the Church with the feeling that they had been "lied to."  In this case, it was over the issue of polygamy -- that they had attended countless hours of primary, young men's, seminar and even served a mission and had never known about JS' polygamy.  Over the last few years, the Church has made great strides to become more transparent about so-called "difficult issues" as evidenced by the most recent article on the BoA translation process.  However, we have yet to address JS' polygamy and I'm not sure that we really can given that we've pretty much deified JS.  For some members, the slide to apostasy starts on the slippery slope of JS' polygamy (yes, I thought that was poetic as well).

Those of us who are old timers knew about the polygamy of JS because it was openly discussed in classes and in the ensign. It was no secret. However, the church moved away from the narative in and around the late 80s. However, there is no way that polygamy can be considered a mistake because if the church ever admitted to it being a mistake, it would also have to negate the spiritual experiences of the future plural wives when they prayed over the principle. I have no idea why some members continue to negate these spiritual experiences that the women received before they accepted to be joseph's plural wife.

 

Anyway, here is an ensign article about JSs polygamy from what back when:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/09/joseph-smiths-reputation?lang=eng

 

We also had a wonderful church historian by the name of Leonard Arrington who kept us rather informed about church history.

[Bowtiemenace]

Yeah. Nothing about JS wives seems secretive at all. Its not emphasized or talked about that much now, but its in D&C and we have all the Ensign articles online now.

I'm 16 years old. I've known about Joseph Smith's polygamy since I was 8 or 9 at least, and Hyrum Smith's since even younger, because I'm related to Hyrum. Anyways, it seems that for the most part its Utah cultural Mormons and non-critical thinkers who get shaken by JS polygamy, because everybody else knows about it. 

[Guest]

Not all of them.  God still used Moses after his transgression.  We could just do away with the ones that have been overturned by later prophets.

But Moses was also a polygamist. The who were polygamist have there name liked to God's throughout scripture. In fact any who accept Christ become the "seed of Abraham"...at least according to Galatians.

[AndyDnom]

joseph smith will judge us one day? what is that based on?

[Brian 2.0]

Yeah. Nothing about JS wives seems secretive at all. Its not emphasized or talked about that much now, but its in D&C and we have all the Ensign articles online now.

I'm 16 years old. I've known about Joseph Smith's polygamy since I was 8 or 9 at least, and Hyrum Smith's since even younger, because I'm related to Hyrum. Anyways, it seems that for the most part its Utah cultural Mormons and non-critical thinkers who get shaken by JS polygamy, because everybody else knows about it.

I think for many now the devil is in the details. I knew about polygamy somewhere in my teens but it was explained with the "always old windows" "never had sex with any" explanations. Those turned out to not be the case.

But it was the little things and details that really rubbed the wrong way (polyandry, Emma not knowing sometimes, Fanny, etc.) that were new and troubling. Reading In Sacred Loneliness is a much different experience than simply learning that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[mormonnewb]

Those of us who are old timers knew about the polygamy of JS because it was openly discussed in classes and in the ensign. It was no secret. However, the church moved away from the narative in and around the late 80s. However, there is no way that polygamy can be considered a mistake because if the church ever admitted to it being a mistake, it would also have to negate the spiritual experiences of the future plural wives when they prayed over the principle. I have no idea why some members continue to negate these spiritual experiences that the women received before they accepted to be joseph's plural wife.

 

Anyway, here is an ensign article about JSs polygamy from what back when:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/09/joseph-smiths-reputation?lang=eng

 

We also had a wonderful church historian by the name of Leonard Arrington who kept us rather informed about church history.

 

LOL!  The article you linked to had ONE reference to ONE of JS' plural wives (and I have to use the Find function on my browser to get to that).

[Bikeemikey]

That's an interesting model!

[mormonnewb]

Yeah. Nothing about JS wives seems secretive at all. Its not emphasized or talked about that much now, but its in D&C and we have all the Ensign articles online now.

I'm 16 years old. I've known about Joseph Smith's polygamy since I was 8 or 9 at least, and Hyrum Smith's since even younger, because I'm related to Hyrum. Anyways, it seems that for the most part its Utah cultural Mormons and non-critical thinkers who get shaken by JS polygamy, because everybody else knows about it. 

 

I don't have to tell you this, but you are an exceptional young man.  I don't think it would be fair to hold most of the Church's membership up to your level of knowledge and comprehension.

 

For people without your lineage, curiosity and intellect, it does come as a great surprise, unfortunately.  And even for those of us who know about it, accepting that it was of God is not a no-brainer.

[Pahoran]

Who's with me on this one? (Ducking for cover)

Rather a lot of apostates. You've got loads of company.

Regards,

Pahoran

[escott3564]

joseph smith will judge us one day? what is that based on?

The one reference that comes to mind is from Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses:

 

“No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith…every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, Junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are… [Joseph Smith] reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. Many will exclaim”Oh,that is very disagreeable!…But it is true.”LDS PROPHET Brigham Young,JoD, vol.7,p.289-91.

[mormonnewb]

And just so we don't get bogged down in an argument about just polygamy, JS began embarking on other questionable paths during those last year.  For example, he was becoming increasingly interested in power by the Nauvoo period.  His attempt to run for President, ascension to the President Pro Tem of the World (I think that was the title), and his holding just about every ecclesiastical and political chief title in Nauvoo shows possible signs of being power hungry.

 

And, by the way, I don't say this to condemn this great man because NO man in history has ever handled this level of power correctly; and JS did better than most.  But POSSIBLY, some of his later actions/revelations were clouded by his humanity.  Certainly, modern prophets don't hold to many of these later revelations (or at least, I haven't heard them taught in my short tenure).

Edited July 16, 2014 by mormonnewb

[strappinglad]

Mention the word Mormon to pretty well ANYONE and the word association will invariably be ' polygamy' . How any member of the church could know that polygamy was practiced by the early church leaders and members and then deny that Joseph started it and also practiced it , is beyond me. I too await the essay on JS and polygamy and hope that it is all laid out as clearly as possible and then published in future manuals. That said, knowing human capacity to not pay attention, in 20 years there will arise some yahoo who will claim never to be told of this aspect of Church history and be" SHOCKED, SHOCKED I SAY " when told the truth.

[Tacenda]

And just so we don't get bogged down in an argument about just polygamy, JS began embarking on other questionable paths during those last year.  For example, he was becoming increasingly interested in power by the Nauvoo period.  His attempt to run for President, ascension to the President Pro Tem of the World (I think that was the title), and his holding just about every ecclesiastical and political chief title in Nauvoo shows possible signs of being power hungry.

 

And, by the way, I don't say this to condemn this great man because NO man in history has ever handled this level of power correctly; and JS did better than most.  But POSSIBLY, some of his later actions/revelations were clouded by his humanity.  Certainly, modern prophets don't hold to many of these later revelations (or at least, I haven't heard them taught in my short tenure).

I'm listening to a very interesting podcast that goes over a lot of your post, if you or anyone is interested.  It's a MS podcast with Jim Bean, here's the intro:

 

#487: An Outsider’s View of Joseph Smith — Alex Beam’s “American Crucifixion: The Murder of Joseph Smith and the Fate of the Mormon Church”

 

In this episode we interview Alex Beam: author of “American Crucifixion: The Murder of Joseph Smith and the Fate of the Mormon Church.” Alex provides an extremely insightful and compelling “outsider’s view” of Joseph Smith’s final years in Nauvoo, along with his murder and legacy.

 

http://mormonstories.org/alex-beam-american-crucifixion-the-murder-of-joseph-smith-and-the-fate-of-the-mormon-church/

[Bowtiemenace]

 

 

 

 

 

 

it does come as a great surprise, unfortunately.  And even for those of us who know about it, accepting that it was of God is not a no-brainer.

You're right, and I shouldn't have made it sound like it was a no-brainer thing or that it was easy. Most of my family is intellectuals, so I got a little bit different story of the gospel than most people i'd assume. The fact that I was raised with that information and had a father who critically read the scriptures (like that D&C section) made it not so much of an adjustment for me. I can see how this would be hard for most though.

 

An interesting thing to read would be Peter Kreefts Argument From Conscience. (I don't know who originally formulated the argument.)

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/conscience.htm

 

In essence he's saying, only God can determine absolute morality, so we can only make moral judgement about a religion from self-consistency. (In a way that argues for the existence of God.) Polygamy does seem self-consistent with doctrine.

 

I'd also recommend reading some Brian C. Hales. He's done a lot on the Polygamy issue. Richard Bushman is great too. 

 

Another good thing to check out would be Daniel C. Peterson's Mormonstories youtube video. He talks quite a bit about his historical point of view on the subject and his hopes for apologetics on the issue. I'd also recommend reading some stuff about Paul Revere. He had two wives, just not at the same time. This is because so many women died from childbirth back then. It made me think. If there was some genetic configuration that could best perpetuate the kingdom of God, then why not try to have that configuration. So Polygamy could be because of that. And like I said before, there's the lineage misunderstanding proposal. 

 

There's much more about polygamy than I've mentioned here (I know this, because I've done very little research on the subject and I almost always turn up something new the more I research.) Keep searching and I hope you find the answers your looking for.

 

For people without your lineage

I just want to point out that my lineage does not make me better than anyone else. Plus Hyrum has something like 15,000 descendants. Probably at least 1 descendant in every stake in the US. He had lots of kids and lots of wives, so its not all that special. Especially considering that there are only 14 million mormons and fewer in the US. I hope that doesn't sound offensive in any way, but I always like to straighten it up that it doesn't really mean anything. Only actions mean stuff and we have free will. Nobody should feel superior or inferior, because of lineage and nobody is superior or inferior because of lineage.