Polygamy Is Not The Issue. The Devil Is In The Details

[rodheadlee]

Another thing that bothers me is put yourself in JS position. Pretend you were JS and had to institute polygamy in the Church for the first time. How would you do it? What would your actions be? My friends would howl with laughter if I came up and told them I had been charged by God to enter into polygamy and bring it back to the Church. and they are not even members. Sad thing is I don't really have any friends in the Church.

[KevinG]

I gotta love people insisting on knowing the intimate details of a prophets life and revelations, only to declare he lied or obfuscated when they don't get the salacious details of what wasn't their business in the first place.

 

I'm sure there are a lot of things in their lives they keep private, for good reasons, and obfuscate or demure if someone else asks.  The standard they hold others to is hypocritical and unreasonable.

 

I have had the unfortunate experience of confiding in someone when confronted with revelation that I struggled to understand, only to have them fly off the handle, misjudge me and blab my business to every authority they could reach.  Fortunately in those cases the Bishop and High Councillors involved were inspired enough to pray about it, search the scriptures, and verify the revelations were in fact consistent with Gospel Doctrines and Policy, even though they were unorthodox to modern Saints.  I've learned to keep my mouth shut.  

 

“Should you receive a vision or revelation from the Almighty, one that the Lord gave you concerning yourselves, or this people, but which you are not to reveal on account of your not being the proper person, or because it ought not to be known by the people at present, you should shut it up and seal it as close, and lock it as tight as heaven is to you, and make it as secret as the grave. The Lord has no confidence in those who reveal secrets, for he cannot safely reveal himself to such persons” - Brigham Young

Edited November 10, 2014 by KevinG

[mormonnewb]

Are you familiar with Abraham's statement that Sarah was his sister (rather than his wife)? The Lord told him to say this because they would have killed Abraham, in order to save his life. BY told John Taylor, while he was on a special mission in Europe, to deny that the church was practicing polygamy (following JS example). Taylor disagree with Brigham but followed his counsel.

The Lord commanded no such thing. In fact, it was the Lord Himself who told the king that Abraham had lied to him. And to be clear, Abraham's lie wasn't considered a mark of faithfulness, but rather faithLESSness, because he should have trusted that God wouldn't lead him straightway into destruction after leaving his father's house on the Lord's command.

Edited November 10, 2014 by mormonnewb

[mormonnewb]

I gotta love people insisting on knowing the intimate details of a prophets life and revelations, only to declare he lied or obfuscated when they don't get the salacious details of what wasn't their business in the first place.

 

I'm sure there are a lot of things in their lives they keep private, for good reasons, and obfuscate or demure if someone else asks.  The standard they hold others to is hypocritical and unreasonable.

 

I have had the unfortunate experience of confiding in someone when confronted with revelation that I struggled to understand, only to have them fly off the handle, misjudge me and blab my business to every authority they could reach.  Fortunately in those cases the Bishop and High Councillors involved were inspired enough to pray about it, search the scriptures, and verify the revelations were in fact consistent with Gospel Doctrines and Policy, even though they were unorthodox to modern Saints.  I've learned to keep my mouth shut.  

 

“Should you receive a vision or revelation from the Almighty, one that the Lord gave you concerning yourselves, or this people, but which you are not to reveal on account of your not being the proper person, or because it ought not to be known by the people at present, you should shut it up and seal it as close, and lock it as tight as heaven is to you, and make it as secret as the grave. The Lord has no confidence in those who reveal secrets, for he cannot safely reveal himself to such persons” - Brigham Young

What about that BY quote tells us to mislead and lie to others? It says to SHUT UP! Just as we do now. To my knowledge, our current prophets don't go around telling the world falsehoods about what occurs in our temples. They simply don't talk about it.

If someone came to you and said, "I heard you Mormons do X in the temple." And X turned out to be exactly what we do. How would you respond -- by denying and denouncing X? "We would never do X. In fact, anyone who does X is an idolator and ungodly." Or would you simply refuse to answer? "What occurs in our temples is sacred and not something we discuss outside of that holy place." I'd choose Door #2, Monty! And I think that the early saints had the RIGHT to expect as much from their prophet.

[JLHPROF]

Does anyone really think an age difference of 10, 20 or even 30 years will make a difference in eternity? What if a guy wanted to marry a woman much older than him, would you look upon this in the same way when a dirty old man wants to marry a young woman?

 

It's funny how nobody ever complains about those 50+ year old women that married Joseph, taking advantage of that poor 38 year old guy...

But it's ok...he never had any children with them either. 

Edited November 10, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Grudunza]

I gotta love people insisting on knowing the intimate details of a prophets life and revelations, only to declare he lied or obfuscated when they don't get the salacious details of what wasn't their business in the first place.

 

Can you really look at the history of polygamy and *not* see that there was some deception and obfuscation?  What they did and whether they had reason or justification is on them, and how we interpret that in light of our times and limited understanding is on us, sure, but the point of this thread seems to be discussing things about polygamy that make us uncomfortable, or that we need to work through.  I've acknowledged already that there may have been good reasons to be deceptive or obfuscate about polygamy.  But it's something I need to work through... we all do... to find the way(s) to reconcile the deception and difficulties involved with polygamy as part of the history of our chosen faith.  Supposing that there was no deception doesn't seem like a positive way to come to terms with that, though.  As mormonnewb said, we don't need prophets to be perfect, and I would augment that to add that I don't need our history to be perfect or sanitized or faith-promoting or whatever...  I find more depth in the faith to know the failings and errors and dark aspects of our history, and it's more real and meaningful to me that way... but I also can't pretend to see gummy bears and rainbows in everything from our past.  

[JLHPROF]

Can you really look at the history of polygamy and *not* see that there was some deception and obfuscation?  What they did and whether they had reason or justification is on them, and how we interpret that in light of our times and limited understanding is on us, sure, but the point of this thread seems to be discussing things about polygamy that make us uncomfortable, or that we need to work through.  I've acknowledged already that there may have been good reasons to be deceptive or obfuscate about polygamy.  But it's something I need to work through... we all do... to find the way(s) to reconcile the deception and difficulties involved with polygamy as part of the history of our chosen faith.  Supposing that there was no deception doesn't seem like a positive way to come to terms with that, though.  As mormonnewb said, we don't need prophets to be perfect, and I would augment that to add that I don't need our history to be perfect or sanitized or faith-promoting or whatever...  I find more depth in the faith to know the failings and errors and dark aspects of our history, and it's more real and meaningful to me that way... but I also can't pretend to see gummy bears and rainbows in everything from our past.  

 

Of course they lied about polygamy.  And I have no problem with that whatsoever.  They were chased out of Illinois either way, and casting pearls before swine is never a good idea.

As for lying to the members of the Church?  Who do you think were the ones doing most of the chasing?  Disillusioned members. Polygamy was only revealed to those who could be trusted until such time as the saints were in a place where it didn't matter if all the saints could be trusted.

[thesometimesaint]

Had those women been married instead to other active worthy single LDS men, would it not have produced righteous seed?

 

Who knows?  I sure don't. What we have is now old history of good but fallible men and women, doing the best they knew how to under what you and I would consider very trying circumstances.  I am very bless with one very wonderful wife. I have no desire for the return of polygamy in my life time.

[stemelbow]

Ok so I do bad things when I "teach" elder's quorum, I guess. Sweet passive young elder's tend to get angry and aggressive when I teach. I might just have to ask not to teach anymore.

I was the instructor yesterday and the text brought up 1840s Nauvoo and women in the Church. Questions were asked, and I answered some. The guys were going crazy as not one of them had heard about some of the supposed sealings of Joseph Smith. There were many angry dogmatic claims about knowing the real details of polygamy, when in fact they had no clue. one chimed in challenging that his wife is smarter than us all and she had said that polygamy was necessary to save the old ladies whose husbands had died in these Nauvoo years. I decided to just point out some sources for people to consult on the matter and moved on.

Just wanted to point out in conjunction with the OP many in the Church put the topic aside, not really considering the actual events, pretending all is well in Zion. The details which is really the difficult part are ignored. Too bad because history is to be a great instructor to us.

[thesometimesaint]

That only works if there are the same number of "active worthy single LDS" men and women.  I don't have any numbers for the 1800s, but if it was anything like today there were probably more "active worthy single LDS" women than men.

 

Every "active worthy single LDS" man has at least a mathematically possibility to marry an "active worthy single LDS" woman.  The reverse is not the case unless you practice polygamy.

 

-guerreiro9

 

Demographics don't work that way. Even starting out with an equal number of active worthy single men and women because of differential birth rates the total number of men would over the period of several generations outstrip the total number of women.

[JLHPROF]

Ok so I do bad things when I "teach" elder's quorum, I guess. Sweet passive young elder's tend to get angry and aggressive when I teach. I might just have to ask not to teach anymore.

I was the instructor yesterday and the text brought up 1840s Nauvoo and women in the Church. Questions were asked, and I answered some. The guys were going crazy as not one of them had heard about some of the supposed sealings of Joseph Smith. There were many angry dogmatic claims about knowing the real details of polygamy, when in fact they had no clue. one chimed in challenging that his wife is smarter than us all and she had said that polygamy was necessary to save the old ladies whose husbands had died in these Nauvoo years. I decided to just point out some sources for people to consult on the matter and moved on.

Just wanted to point out in conjunction with the OP many in the Church put the topic aside, not really considering the actual events, pretending all is well in Zion. The details which is really the difficult part are ignored. Too bad because history is to be a great instructor to us.

 

And this is exactly why many of us have no sympathy when people cry "I never knew".  You tried to teach/discuss the subject and were shut down by people who will never reference the sources you provided or pick up a book.  You tried to inform your class of Joseph Smith's marriages.  They wouldn't listen.  Then when they read it on the internet from some anti and out of context they will experience a faith crisis.

 

I am sorry to those that disagree, but ignorance of Church History and Doctrine really is a choice, regardless of what is written in the lesson manuals.  People won't listen even when they are taught.

[wenglund]

4: again why is a revelation required to conclude he may have lied about the angel. Do you seek a revelation to determine if others who claim God told them to take on additonal wives are telling the truth?

 

In other words, why seek out God on matters of godliness when men are presumably smart enough to figure it all out on their own? What need have we of God?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cdowis]

In reply to cdowis... Re: D&C 101. From Fairmormon: "The available evidence suggests that Joseph Smith supported its publication

While some have suggested that the article was published against Joseph's wishes or without his knowledge, the available evidence suggests that he supported its publication."

 

Fairmormon is not an authoritative source.  He is merely expressing his personal opinion, and I would be delighted to discuss this with him in this forum.

 

Fairmormon authors are just "us" and if you are going to quote him as a source, bring him over here to discuss it in the forum.

It remained in the D&C for nine years until Joseph's death (and for decades thereafter). Are there references to him opposing it or wanting it removed? He may not have specifically written it, but there's a tacit endorsement, at least.

 

"Nine years", "tacit approval".  

 

 "Argument from silence" a logical fallacy.  The very fact that it was removed is more significant than how long it stayed in publication.  There are many reasons that could be suggested on why the change was not made until years later.

 

Do not have the sources, but I remember it was discussed in my BYU religion class that JS was absent when this section was written.  It was not a revelation, but a statement of belief, and JS did indeed oppose it when he returned, but he had alot on his plate.  It would have been very dangerous and disruptive to make the change.

 

There is sufficient evidence that he practiced and taught polygamy to a select few, which is much more evidence than "tacit approval".

 

I already said earlier that a reason to lie about polygamy to protect the Saints may have been justified. It's still a lie or deception, though, which makes it a bit difficult to process. And your suggestion that the use of the word "advocating" is a deliberate or careful obfuscation may indeed be the case, but it's still obfuscation.

 

OK, so you would have prefered to give the enemies the weapon they needed to have the church completely destroyed. We had a living prophet at the head, and that was his guidance.   The destruction of the Expositor incident was all about polygamy, and protecting the church.

 

I guess we will simply agree to disagree.

Edited November 10, 2014 by cdowis

[wenglund]

In relation to the restored gospel, the title of this thread is correct, polygamy isn't the issue. Instead, it is coming unto Christ and becoming like him. 

 

As such, those who lose faith in the gospel because of polygamy don't correctly or adequate;y grasp what the gospel is really all about.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Grudunza]

Alright, where is an authoritative, not just "us" reference that JS opposed D&C 101?

And how are you reading into what I said that I would have preferred to give enemies the weapon to destroy the church? I'm acknowledging deception was involved with polygamy, not saying it wasn't justified.

[stemelbow]

And this is exactly why many of us have no sympathy when people cry "I never knew".  You tried to teach/discuss the subject and were shut down by people who will never reference the sources you provided or pick up a book.  You tried to inform your class of Joseph Smith's marriages.  They wouldn't listen.  Then when they read it on the internet from some anti and out of context they will experience a faith crisis.

 

I am sorry to those that disagree, but ignorance of Church History and Doctrine really is a choice, regardless of what is written in the lesson manuals.  People won't listen even when they are taught.

I agree. It's very frustrating to hear the "I didn't know and was never taught" thing for me.

[cinepro]

It makes more sense if you take the description of animals to refer to the breeding stock of his herds so that he could rebuild them once he was done as opposed to saving elephants and grasshoppers.

 

It always makes more sense if you ignore what the Bible says and just redo the story in a way that makes more sense .

[sethpayne]

 

 

One thing I notice you do is project your own biases into a different time and paradigm.  That can cause some distortion.

 

And no one else EVER does that around here.

 

[The Nehor]

It always makes more sense if you ignore what the Bible says and just redo the story in a way that makes more sense .

True, but this part screams exaggerration. I edited it in my Bible.

[KevinG]

What about that BY quote tells us to mislead and lie to others? It says to SHUT UP! Just as we do now. To my knowledge, our current prophets don't go around telling the world falsehoods about what occurs in our temples. They simply don't talk about it.

If someone came to you and said, "I heard you Mormons do X in the temple." And X turned out to be exactly what we do. How would you respond -- by denying and denouncing X? "We would never do X. In fact, anyone who does X is an idolator and ungodly." Or would you simply refuse to answer? "What occurs in our temples is sacred and not something we discuss outside of that holy place." I'd choose Door #2, Monty! And I think that the early saints had the RIGHT to expect as much from their prophet.

 

Can you really look at the history of polygamy and *not* see that there was some deception and obfuscation?  What they did and whether they had reason or justification is on them, and how we interpret that in light of our times and limited understanding is on us, sure, but the point of this thread seems to be discussing things about polygamy that make us uncomfortable, or that we need to work through.  I've acknowledged already that there may have been good reasons to be deceptive or obfuscate about polygamy.  But it's something I need to work through... we all do... to find the way(s) to reconcile the deception and difficulties involved with polygamy as part of the history of our chosen faith.  Supposing that there was no deception doesn't seem like a positive way to come to terms with that, though.  As mormonnewb said, we don't need prophets to be perfect, and I would augment that to add that I don't need our history to be perfect or sanitized or faith-promoting or whatever...  I find more depth in the faith to know the failings and errors and dark aspects of our history, and it's more real and meaningful to me that way... but I also can't pretend to see gummy bears and rainbows in everything from our past.  

 

They did obfuscate and it was justified.  I never claimed otherwise.

 

When someone asks you something that is none of your business and you demure, do you call it lying?

[stemelbow]

They did obfuscate and it was justified.  I never claimed otherwise.

 

When someone asks you something that is none of your business and you demure, do you call it lying?

if someone asks me if I'm married I simply answer even if it's none of their business.

"Did you eat breakfast today? "

"well, I uh , nah I mean there was some food sitting on the counter but I didn't eat that food"

Or I could just answer, "that's none of your business".

If I did eat breakfast and didn't want people to know, should I just politely decline to answer or give the run-around leaving them to wonder if I really did eat breakfast?

Or probably more to the point would be.

"Did you eat breakfast"

"no" when I actually did.

Seems dishonest to me.

[thesometimesaint]

if someone asks me if I'm married I simply answer even if it's none of their business.

"Did you eat breakfast today? "

"well, I uh , nah I mean there was some food sitting on the counter but I didn't eat that food"

Or I could just answer, "that's none of your business".

If I did eat breakfast and didn't want people to know, should I just politely decline to answer or give the run-around leaving them to wonder if I really did eat breakfast?

Or probably more to the point would be.

"Did you eat breakfast"

"no" when I actually did.

Seems dishonest to me.

 

Please explain in detail your marital relationship with your spouse. If you don't answer, or answer in general statements are you lying?

[cdowis]

It always makes more sense if you ignore what the Bible says and just redo the story in a way that makes more sense .

 

Yeah, the entire universe was all created in seven days.  The earth was the first creation, and the sun and stars were then created.

Edited November 10, 2014 by cdowis

[stemelbow]

Please explain in detail your marital relationship with your spouse. If you don't answer, or answer in general statements are you lying?

I don't see how not answering would be lying, nor would I say answering general statements is lying. But if I'm so asked and I say, "well, who said I'm married? I ain't married at all" when I am married, well that's lying, even if I feel like I have a good reason to lie.

[Glenn101]

ame="cdowis" post="1209438424" timestamp="1415627557"]

The Lord commanded no such thing. In fact, it was the Lord Himself who told the king that Abraham had lied to him. And to be clear, Abraham's lie wasn't considered a mark of faithfulness, but rather faithLESSness, because he should have trusted that God wouldn't lead him straightway into destruction after leaving his father's house on the Lord's command.

Abraham Chapter 2:

" 21 And I, Abraham, journeyed, going on still towards the south; and there was a continuation of a famine in the land; and I, Abraham, concluded to go down into Egypt, to sojourn there, for the famine became very grievous.

 

 22 And it came to pass when I was come near to enter into Egypt, the Lord said unto me: Behold, Sarai, thy wife, is a very fair woman to look upon;

 

 23 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see her, they will say—She is his wife; and they will kill you, but they will save her alive; therefore see that ye do on this wise:

 

 24 Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live.

 

 25 And it came to pass that I, Abraham, told Sarai, my wife, all that the Lord had said unto me—Therefore say unto them, I pray thee, thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake, and my soul shall live because of thee."