Ok There Seems To Be A Problem With Polygamy In The Church's Past

[ERayR]

Just throwing a question out here, would women who had been sealed JS consider any subsequent children his, regardless of who the physical father was?

 

I would think that a probability rather than just a possibility.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

That isn't true either.

Yes, yes, it is... all DNA tests performed on suspected descendants have, in fact, come back negative. 

There are those who cannot be properly evaluated because technology has not caught up to that point yet- but of all tests able to be performed all are negative in relation to Joseph Smith.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[JLHPROF]

Last I heard, the results for Josephine Lyon Fisher were inconclusive. And she was the only one tested that had a strong claim to be Joseph's biological child in the first place.

 

Perego tested a lot of candidates who had weak to non-existent claims to be Joseph Smith's biological offspring. The fact that those tests came back negative—a wholly expected result—tells us nothing about whether or not Joseph fathered any children with his plural wives. And the results certainly don't establish that any of Joseph Smith's claimed plural wives lied about their relationship to him, as Alan falsely asserts.

 

It still boggles the mind that he claims dozens of faithful, lifelong, latter-day saint women ALL lied under oath but that Joseph Smith was incapable of lying in public about living a law in a revelation that people couldn't accept.

 

1 man telling white lies to protect a sacred principle or dozens of LDS women lying under oath for no real reason.

Where is the common sense?

[ERayR]

It still boggles the mind that he claims dozens of faithful, lifelong, latter-day saint women ALL lied under oath but that Joseph Smith was incapable of lying in public about living a law in a revelation that people couldn't accept.

 

1 man telling white lies to protect a sacred principle or dozens of LDS women lying under oath for no real reason.

Where is the common sense?

 

What boggles my mind is the prurient fascination with Josephs love life.

[Alan]

JLHPROF,

"for no real reason"; are you serious???

There was every reason to misrepresent the truth.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So I am getting the impression that some think that JS didnt have or practice polygamy.

[Alan]

That is certainly my position, but I am in the minority.

[Tacenda]

So I am getting the impression that some think that JS didnt have or practice polygamy.

My sister in law, who is stalwart, a temple worker and has a husband who's taught high school seminary for many years and college institute for years, they served as Mission President in Ireland and served a mission at Southern Virginia University (sp?) teaching institute...vaguely knew about JS' s polygamy when I told her I struggled with it, but didn't get specific, she had only read once that he was sealed to Helen Mar Kimball. That's all she knew, so who knows maybe alot of people think there were no marriages but only sealings.

[USU78]

I guess I'm ignorant.

 

I grew up when it was still discussed over the dinner table.

I grew up when the war with the ReOrgs over, specifically, JSJr's polygyny was still an open sore on relations between the two churches.

I grew up when Emma was reviled because, specifically, she had rejected and later lied about JSJr's polygyny.

I grew up when the affidavits, sworn statements, of JSJr's widows and their sealings for time to members of the 12 were a matter of common knowledge.

I grew up when JSJr testing several of the insiders over the issue of polyandry was common knowledge.

 

I do not understand when people say that none of this was disclosed to them; wherefore, they are entitled to bash the Church, leave in a huff, and bash the Church some more over the issue.

 

I didn't notice that left turn down the rabbithole.

[VideoGameJunkie]

A lot of people put value in the Joseph Smith polygamy issue, because people are always looking to bash the man the founded the Mormon church and translated the plates and had revelation that made D&C. If some people can't trust the man who did all that, they might not believe in the church being true.

[JLHPROF]

JLHPROF,

"for no real reason"; are you serious???

There was every reason to misrepresent the truth.

 

OK, I provided a VERY reasonable excuse for Joseph lying to keep polygamy secret.

Please provide a reasonable excuse for a couple dozen honorable LDS sisters to publicly lie under oath?  Did Brigham Young have their favorite pets at gunpoint?

 

It's an issue of reasonable belief.

I find it unreasonable to believe Joseph didn't lie but these women did.  It simply doesn't make any sense.

[JLHPROF]

So I am getting the impression that some think that JS didnt have or practice polygamy.

 

Yes, there are people of that belief, despite what every credible historian and record says to the contrary.

[mormonnewb]

I guess I'm ignorant.

 

I grew up when it was still discussed over the dinner table.

I grew up when the war with the ReOrgs over, specifically, JSJr's polygyny was still an open sore on relations between the two churches.

I grew up when Emma was reviled because, specifically, she had rejected and later lied about JSJr's polygyny.

I grew up when the affidavits, sworn statements, of JSJr's widows and their sealings for time to members of the 12 were a matter of common knowledge.

I grew up when JSJr testing several of the insiders over the issue of polyandry was common knowledge.

 

I do not understand when people say that none of this was disclosed to them; wherefore, they are entitled to bash the Church, leave in a huff, and bash the Church some more over the issue.

 

I didn't notice that left turn down the rabbithole.

 

It may have been common knowledge in your day.  It may even be common knowledge now, but in my three years in the Church, I have not heard ONE single mention of JS' polygamy.  In 500 HOURS of sacrament meetings, gospel principles, gospel doctrines, EQ, etc., not ONCE has anyone even mentioned (even in passing) JS' polygamy.  Now, maybe it's such common knowledge that no one need talk about it.  However, if someone joined MY ward during the last three years, their "ignorance" of the subject would have to be somewhat excused.

 

In fact, I just took a look at the Church's recent statement about polygamy in early Utah.

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng

 

The Church is clear to state that the practice was instituted as the result of a "revelation to Joseph Smith."  However, it never states whether JS participated in the practice and to what extent.  I will concede that one could reasonably assume that JS participated in the practice, but would it have been a crime against nature (or brevity) to take the 6-10 extra words to say so?

 

Also, I think some members are caught off guard by the NUMBER of wives.  And numbers do add important context.  In evaluating the sincerity of, say, a thief's claim that he stole to feed his hungry children, it does matter whether he stole a loaf of bread or a bread truck.  Ironically, the number of JS' wives actually works to bolster the claims that his motives were more celestial than physical because no man in his right mind would even fathom that he could carry on 33 simultaneous extramarital affairs.  But, be that as it may, the Church's essay gives no context to JS' polygamy, other than a vague inference that it likely occurred.

 

I find it even more interesting that the essay explicitly limits its larger discussion of the practice to the Utah years.  It seems to be going out of its way to exempt JS from the conversation.

 

I'm not arguing that the Church has been "hiding" important information from members.  The information has long been available for the curious saints (or those who grew up where such information was "common knowledge").  Nor am I suggesting that knowledge of JS' polygamy is particularly "important."  However, I am not going to dismiss the claims of those who feel that they have not been told the "whole truth" by the Church because they haven't.  And, in the end, I'm not sure it's my place to say "how much truth" they were entitled to.

 

It varies from person to person.  For example, a woman who marries a man only later to discover that, say, he had an STD 30 years ago, might be very upset and hurt that she had not been told (even though, she never asked the question specifically or thought to look up his medical records, which were conveniently located in an unlocked file cabinet in his home office).  Another woman might not be at all upset upon making the same discovery, because it was a long time ago and doesn't affect any aspect of their CURRENT relationship.  To each her own.  But I would be very slow to condemn the mad wife because "it was common knowledge" that her hubby was promiscuous in college and she should have "assumed" that he contracted an STD, like all of his contemporaries.

[ERayR]

It may have been common knowledge in your day.  It may even be common knowledge now, but in my three years in the Church, I have not heard ONE single mention of JS' polygamy.  In 500 HOURS of sacrament meetings, gospel principles, gospel doctrines, EQ, etc., not ONCE has anyone even mentioned (even in passing) JS' polygamy.  Now, maybe it's such common knowledge that no one need talk about it.  However, if someone joined MY ward during the last three years, their "ignorance" of the subject would have to be somewhat excused.

 

 

In the immortal words of Hilary Clinton;  What difference, at this point, does it make?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Interesting, I just thought it was common knowledge that JS practiced polygamy. I don't think a case could be made that JS didn't practice it. And further more why is it an issue if he did but not for BY?

[mormonnewb]

In the immortal words of Hilary Clinton;  What difference, at this point, does it make?

 

I answered your question in the rest of the post.  I might not matter to you or to me, but I don't think it's proper for me to say whether it SHOULD matter for someone else.

[Guest]

That is certainly my position, but I am in the minority.

Of course he did.

[JLHPROF]

Interesting, I just thought it was common knowledge that JS practiced polygamy. I don't think a case could be made that JS didn't practice it. And further more why is it an issue if he did but not for BY?

 

There is one major theory that the very few nonbelievers draw from called the Cochranite theory (http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Cochranites) and fully explained in this book (http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Fought-Polygamy-Polygamous/dp/1891353055/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1409858557&sr=8-1&keywords=joseph+smith+fought+polygamy).

 

The problem is, the theory has been disproved and dismissed by every credible historian as bad and biased history.  And to date I've never read another scholarly theory, just people saying "I don't believe" despite the evidence.

[Tacenda]

I guess I'm ignorant.

 

I grew up when it was still discussed over the dinner table.

I grew up when the war with the ReOrgs over, specifically, JSJr's polygyny was still an open sore on relations between the two churches.

I grew up when Emma was reviled because, specifically, she had rejected and later lied about JSJr's polygyny.

I grew up when the affidavits, sworn statements, of JSJr's widows and their sealings for time to members of the 12 were a matter of common knowledge.

I grew up when JSJr testing several of the insiders over the issue of polyandry was common knowledge.

 

I do not understand when people say that none of this was disclosed to them; wherefore, they are entitled to bash the Church, leave in a huff, and bash the Church some more over the issue.

 

I didn't notice that left turn down the rabbithole.

My SIL is in her sixties.  And lived in Utah her entire life, how did she miss the memo?  Some families discuss more than others I guess.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Tacenda

[Calm]

"I find it even more interesting that the essay explicitly limits its larger discussion of the practice to the Utah years.  It seems to be going out of its way to exempt JS from the conversation."

Generally speaking, plural marriage as practiced in Nauvoo was different than in the Utah Era and so it makes sense given the complicated nature of the topic to have two essays rather than one and I suspect they will wait until they are confidant they won't have any additional materials uncovered due to the JSPP before issuing the one on his time period.

Since JS was dead by the time they got to Utah, it seems hardly surprising to me he would not be mentioned in a topic on Utah plural marriage.

[saemo]

I guess I'm ignorant.

 

I grew up when it was still discussed over the dinner table.

I grew up when the war with the ReOrgs over, specifically, JSJr's polygyny was still an open sore on relations between the two churches.

I grew up when Emma was reviled because, specifically, she had rejected and later lied about JSJr's polygyny.

I grew up when the affidavits, sworn statements, of JSJr's widows and their sealings for time to members of the 12 were a matter of common knowledge.

I grew up when JSJr testing several of the insiders over the issue of polyandry was common knowledge.

 

I do not understand when people say that none of this was disclosed to them; wherefore, they are entitled to bash the Church, leave in a huff, and bash the Church some more over the issue.

 

I didn't notice that left turn down the rabbithole.

I grew up in the same type of household. In a family with Mormon polygamy in our history. It was viewed and presented as a righteous and higher calling sort of thing, almost stoic in some ways.

 

The shock was learning that Smith's polygamy was neither righteous or a higher calling sort of thing but a usual and common lust. I didn't leave in a huff, it was more like, I discovered there was a shiny patina that hid the ugliness beneath.

Edited September 10, 2014 by saemo

[JLHPROF]

I grew up in the same type of household. In a family with Mormon polygamy in our history. It was viewed and presented as a righteous and higher calling sort of thing, almost stoic in some ways.

 

The shock was learning that Smith's polygamy was neither righteous or a higher calling sort of thing but a usual and common lust. I didn't leave in a huff, it was more like, I discovered there was a shiny patina that hid the ugliness beneath.

 

It's amazing how two people can come across the exact same historical information and interpret it so differently.  Personally I saw nothing lustful or ugly about the prophet Joseph and his practice of Plural Marriage.  The usual complaints I have resolved to my satisfaction, and I prefer to judge Joseph by his fruits - the Church, the scriptures, the priesthood, eternal families, the list goes on and on.

To me, there is no way Joseph was anything other than a prophet of God, and while not perfect, pretty much as close as we mortals can achieve.

[ksfisher]

 

 

The shock was learning that Smith's polygamy was neither righteous or a higher calling sort of thing but a usual and common lust. I didn't leave in a huff, it was more like, I discovered there was a shiny patina that hid the ugliness beneath.

 

It would be polite if you could phrase this more as your opinion rather than it coming off as if you are stating it as a fact.  And, if you do believe it to be a fact, could you please supply some evidence to back this up.

[Tacenda]

In the immortal words of Hilary Clinton;  What difference, at this point, does it make?

HUGELY!  In case you didn't see the numbers and reasons for testimony fall out.  One of the top is church history and finding out late in life that Joseph Smith had 33 or more wives and some were married and some were in their teens. 

 

Now does that make a difference to you?  Probably not.  But does it make a difference to me and countless others?  You bet it does.  I'm looking forward to the Gospel Topic about Nauvoo Polygamy that was suppose to come out, at least I thought it was on the list.  Partly for selfish reasons and that for my family and friends to know and maybe understand why I may not have a current TR or why I'm as weird as all get out now.  It affected me so much so that I feel harmed by learning of it late in life.  I feel harmed, want me to say it again, I feel harmed by the lack of the details left out of the article on LDS.org.  It left out details and I think it was on purpose, IMNSHO. 

 

ERayR, I'd have to look it up and I think I've brought this up before, but I swear, when I first commented on this board we duked it out about JS's unions being either marriages or sealings, I specifically remember you saying they were sealings only, am I wrong or have you changed your mind about this, or have I really gone batty?