New Gospel Topic Essays - Polygamy

[sunstoned]

And how! 

 

If someone told me that the Church would publish an essay on its website that acknowledges that plural marriage was illegal in Nauvoo, Joseph and the others practiced it in secret (and made dishonest public statements), Joseph did marry a 14 year old (oh, I'm sorry, "Someone who was a few months shy of her 15th birthday" ) and Joseph didn't tell his wife Emma about his sealings, I wouldn't have believed them.

Times are changing.  If a member would have published a similar article a few years ago, they would have probably been called into a court of love.  Now it is official, and I support it. The church is doing the right thing. 

[KevinG]

I think Elder Holland said it best after the GC when the mission age changes were announced.  "One miracle at a time!" 

Nice.

The lack of ability of the Church we masters to simultaneously correlate a gazillion documents should not be misread as conspiracy to obscure the truth. Of course it will be by some.

[KevinG]

Times are changing.  If a member would have published a similar article a few years ago, they would have probably been called into a court of love.  Now it is official, and I support it. The church is doing the right thing.

You mean Bushman snuck through?

[Scott Lloyd]

Yep...the manuals and websites are not always consistent. Plus in the past IMO there has been greater concern for giving the impression it is okay to practice plural marriage now due to the break off apostate sects who practice polygamy now. I think the balance has shifted due to the more global nature of the Church, though leadership as been cautious because of the potential harm caused by misconceptions about the current appropriateness of polygamy.

I also believe that some curriculum writers went overboard on caution but I've never had a family member or friend join an apostate group so perhaps I am more relaxed about it then I should be.

PS: when the first manual on the teachings of the Prophets (it was Brigham Young) came out only the non plural wives of BY were mentioned, iirc, his first wife having died young, he married his second wife after her death. Plus sermons were edited without that fact being noted to "wife" when he had said "wives". Both caused a lot of comment and after that manuals of those prophets who engaged in plural marriage didn't mention any wives, iirc.

What happened was that in subsequent manuals where the Church president had practiced plural marriage, that fact was acknowledged upfront without naming the wives.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[KevinG]

What happened was that in subsequent manuals where the Church president had practiced plural marriage, that at fact was acknowledged upfront without naming the wives.

If you don't include their home addresses and MDna haplotypes it's hiding history.

Edited October 23, 2014 by KevinG

[KevinG]

ok this one was over the top. Deleted out of an attack of good taste.

Edited October 23, 2014 by KevinG

[mormonnewb]

Mormon web,

A simple answer. I've been trolled. My history goes way beyond the 11,000 posts on this board. I've been active in online Mormon discussions from the time I got a 54 baud modem on my 20mb computer.

I've had people tell ask me about my Mormonism to my face, answered genuinely, then scream at me about how I was going to hell. On more than one occasion.

I've lost jobs because I've admitted I'm a mormon. To people in Wyoming no less.

And yet, other than saying I'm sometimes wary of a posters intentions, because written forums are so difficult to interpret, I do give genuine and accurate answers to any and all comers.

You were pretty quick to judge my human decency. How does your admonition apply to you?

 

I was WAY too quick to judge your decency.  I was wrong and I apologize.  I simply have a very knee jerk reaction to people being accused of being impostors because it happens to me so often.

 

And while I don't doubt your experiences with [choose your favorite expletive]s online, have you ever been engaged for 1,500 posts by a troll?  Such a person would not only have to be devoid of an actual life but would also really have a personal vendetta against you.  Think about it.  I thought you were a horrible person, and three posts later, I kind of like you.  So how does someone keep up their animosity towards a complete stranger for 1,500 posts?  No one hates you (or Mormonism) THAT much; unless, of course, they were at some point very much involved with either (in which case, you can probably expect them to keep up their hatred for 10 posts or 100 posts in the case of an ex-spouse).

 

Instead, I think the "troll card" is too often played to simply dismiss someone as being not worthy of a response.  After all, if the person is not honest about their very identity as a member of the faith, then why engage their questions?

 

Of course, the reason is because this is a discussion BOARD.  So even if you think that the poster is Satan himself, a faithful member might have the same (or a similar question) that is causing them to doubt the Restored Gospel.  They might be too faithful to articulate such a question and post it on a quasi-public discussion board, but the troll (or me) would have no such compunction.  And just as we constantly repeat our testimonies to one another at F&T meeting every month, it probably doesn't hurt to repeat our truths online (even if the question has been asked and answered 100 times in the past).

 

So hopefully, everyone can follow your lead and simply give people the benefit of the doubt.

 

Knee jerkily yours,

[KevinG]

I had not noticed the 1000 posts and so was guilty of bad judgement myself regarding VGJ. You were correct there.

On the count of being decent, don't be too hasty. I may not be after all!

No harm done and I'm enjoying the interplay! I'm weird like that.

Thanks!

[SmileyMcGee]

History is repleat with accounts of those who could not rationalize it logically but did so with faith in God, and reassurance of the Holy Spirit.

And with healthy doses of intense social pressure...

[KevinG]

And with healthy doses of intense social pressure...

Sure, social pressure caused Zina Young to write her experiences in her journal. Social pressure is why Brigham Young had to scold the Saints for refusing to accept the principle. Social pressure is why the Utah territory had jails full of men who practiced polygamy.

Must have been terrible trying to fit in with the popular kids with three mommies.

[SmileyMcGee]

Sure, social pressure caused Zina Young to write her experiences in her journal. Social pressure is why Brigham Young had to scold the Saints for refusing to accept the principle. Social pressure is why the Utah territory had jails full of men who practiced polygamy.

Must have been terrible trying to fit in with the popular kids with three mommies.

That's some bullet proof reasoning...

Edited October 23, 2014 by SmileyMcGee

[Rivers]

I now have something to reference to people who think polygamy was instituted because there wasn't enough men to go around.

This article must be a very intense read for those who have been in the dark on this material. There's a lot to take in: Fanny Alger. Polyandry. Emma not knowing. Public denials. The fourteen-year old.

That's a lot to chew on. And it's all in one article.

I had a lot more time to digest this stuff when I first read Rough a Stone Rolling.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Rivers

[KevinG]

That's some bullet proof reasoning...

All the better for a drive by shot...

[KevinG]

I now have something to reference to people who think polygamy was instituted because there wasn't enough men to go around.

This article must be a very intense read for those who have been in the dark on this material. There's a lot to take in: Fanny Alger. Polyandry. Emma not knowing. Public denials. The fourteen-year old.

That's a lot to chew on. And it's all in one article.

I had a lot more time to digest this stuff when I first read Rough a Stone Rolling.

I don't think it will be as earth shattering as expected for most members. This stuff has been circulated widely and out of context on the web for over a decade. If anything it will add context for those who have heard it in its shock and awe presentation complete with character assassination embellishments.

Let's face it, you can't even read an ESPN article on the BYU football team without some eager soul unleashing tirades about Joseph and the Mormon cult in the comments section. If anything this is the church's opportunity to tell their side of the story.

Edited October 23, 2014 by KevinG

[HappyJackWagon]

"Joseph Smith’s sealings to women already married may have been an early version of linking one family to another. In Nauvoo, most if not all of the first husbands seem to have continued living in the same household with their wives during Joseph’s lifetime, and complaints about these sealings with Joseph Smith are virtually absent from the documentary record."

 

If they didn't have any complaints, why should you?

So, if "virtually" no husbands complained, that means some did.

"Most" husbands continued living with their wives means that some didn't.

[HappyJackWagon]

^{Can someone explain to me how Fanny Alger was a Plural Wife and not a mistress?}

 

^{The essay states that monogomous marriage was the only legal marriage in America at that time. Did he marry her illegally?}

^{We know the sealing keys from Elijah weren't received until 1836 though the Alger "dirty, filthy, affair" occurred in 1835 so we know it wasn't a sealing.}

 

^{At best, Alger would either be an illigitimate/illegal wife of "spiritual wife". Can someone help me understand this?}

 

 

^{edited to fix small font}

Edited October 23, 2014 by HappyJackWagon

[DBMormon]

From today's Deseret News story by Tad Walch:

 

But of course, according to Bill Reel, the Deseret News can't be trusted because the Church owns it.

CFR for where I said they can't be trusted because the Church owns it?  I'll wait.  I said biased not untrustworthy.   For being a reporter, the facts seem to evade your responses at times.

Edited October 23, 2014 by DBMormon

[ALarson]

^{Can someone explain to me how Fanny Alger was a Plural Wife and not a mistress?}

 

^{The essay states that monogomous marriage was the only legal marriage in America at that time. Did he marry her illegally?}

^{We know the sealing keys from Elijah weren't received until 1836 though the Alger "dirty, filthy, affair" occurred in 1835 so we know it wasn't a sealing.}

 

^{At best, Alger would either be an illigitimate/illegal wife of "spiritual wife". Can someone help me understand this?}

 

I am curious about this too (regarding Fanny Alger).  She was Joseph's first plural wife:

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Fanny_Alger

 

Any thoughts or input on this?  

[HappyJackWagon]

I am curious about this too (regarding Fanny Alger).  She was Joseph's first plural wife:

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Fanny_Alger

 

Any thoughts or input on this?  

I just started a new thread on this so I don't highjack this one.

[JLHPROF]

I just started a new thread on this so I don't highjack this one.

 

And I responded. 

[Tacenda]

Now that the Essay is out, why not add in the names of the polygamist wives of Joseph Smith, they deserve that much respect, they more than anyone had the most faith. 

 

Here is a podcast that outlines each wife and gives recognition. 

 

http://feministmormonhousewivespodcast.org/

 

Lindsay is the one that produced this and she's spent 3 years on it.  It's filled with stories and valuable insight into these women's lives.  Lindsay also gets into Utah polygamist wives as well. 

[cinepro]

I think what he is saying is that we need to go back and update all occurrences of polygamy in all church publications RIgHT NOW! Of course if he were really concerned he'd be sending corrections to the church curricula correlation department I stead of sarcastic posts on MD&D.

Get to it Brother Cinepro. I expect a full list of needed corrections in the Church Education System departmental inbox by Sunday!

 

 

Uh, no, you totally missed the point.

 

The web site I linked to consists of short bios for all the latter day prophets.  Included in those bios is a timeline of "Significant Events", including their birthdays and (if applicable), the day they died.

 

Now, imagine you are the person who is preparing this page.  You are faced with three types of marriage situations that could show up in the "Significant Events":

 

1. A prophet who practiced plural marriage (more than one wife at a time).

2. A monogamous prophet (only one wife in his entire life).

3. A serially polygamous prophet (sealed to more than one woman, but only after the previous one died).

 

How would you note their marriages in "Significant Events"?  Would you note them at all? 

 

The solution that was reached is as follows:

 

Joseph Smith - only list marriage to Emma (no mention of any additional wives)

 

Brigham Young through Heber J. Grant - make no mention of any marriages

 

George Albert Smith - Thomas S. Monson - List their marriage dates.  If a prophet was sealed to more than one woman, but not at a time, list each one but note that the previous one had died.

 

From a doctrinal standpoint, there is no reason to list Joseph Fielding Smith's three wives, but not Lorenzo Snow's nine. 

 

It is also illogical to only list Emma Smith, since she wasn't even the first woman Joseph was sealed to.  The current format only makes sense if you are trying to hide the fact that Joseph Smith - Heber J. Grant practiced polygamy.  It's been like this for years, so it's not like something that has been recently noticed.

[pogi]

Now that the Essay is out, why not add in the names of the polygamist wives of Joseph Smith, they deserve that much respect, they more than anyone had the most faith. 

 

No doubt.  As the essay points out however, there is some question as to the exact number and names of all of his wives.  

Edited October 23, 2014 by pogi

[KevinG]

Uh, no, you totally missed the point.

 

The web site I linked to consists of short bios for all the latter day prophets.  Included in those bios is a timeline of "Significant Events", including their birthdays and (if applicable), the day they died.

 

Now, imagine you are the person who is preparing this page.  You are faced with three types of marriage situations that could show up in the "Significant Events":

 

1. A prophet who practiced plural marriage (more than one wife at a time).

2. A monogamous prophet (only one wife in his entire life).

3. A serially polygamous prophet (sealed to more than one woman, but only after the previous one died).

 

How would you note their marriages in "Significant Events"?  Would you note them at all? 

 

The solution that was reached is as follows:

 

Joseph Smith - only list marriage to Emma (no mention of any additional wives)

 

Brigham Young through Heber J. Grant - make no mention of any marriages

 

George Albert Smith - Thomas S. Monson - List their marriage dates.  If a prophet was sealed to more than one woman, but not at a time, list each one but note that the previous one had died.

 

From a doctrinal standpoint, there is no reason to list Joseph Fielding Smith's three wives, but not Lorenzo Snow's nine. 

 

It is also illogical to only list Emma Smith, since she wasn't even the first woman Joseph was sealed to.  The current format only makes sense if you are trying to hide the fact that Joseph Smith - Heber J. Grant practiced polygamy.  It's been like this for years, so it's not like something that has been recently noticed.

I was wrong you didn't want it fixed now, you wanted it fixed yesterday. Got it!

[DBMormon]

CFR for where I said they can't be trusted because the Church owns it?  I'll wait.  I said biased not untrustworthy.   For being a reporter, the facts seem to evade your responses at times.

Strange..... I never heard back.  Either CFR or an apology for misquoting me.....