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

[KevinG]

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

Exactly. We aren't talking breakfast or confirmation of a typical marriage. We are talking about being put in a place of having to deny the practice publicly or face the destruction of the infant church. If someone asks me Intimate details of the temple, or even better tries to trap me into revealing something sacred I would definitely demure or obfuscate. I might even deny of it meant keeping something sacred out of the eyes of those who sought to destroy it.

I love the high and mighty morals of those who criticize the early prophets for lies, and who undoubtedly play a little faster and looser when it comes to their own congruency.

So critics of Joseph. Tell me about the lies you have told to protect others safety or feelings. Don't leave out details! Or you would be liars and therefore untrustworthy. Hold yourself to that standard you established. After all we are fellow saints and don't deserve to be lied to.

Edited November 10, 2014 by KevinG

[cinepro]

So critics of Joseph. Tell me about the lies you have told to protect others safety or feelings. Don't leave out details! Or you would be liars and therefore untrustworthy. Hold yourself to that standard you established. After all we are fellow saints and don't deserve to be lied to.

Is that really how it works when it comes to Prophets? Because if it isn't, it would definitely smack of desperation.

Ultimately, I think you have a pretty good response in the first paragraph. It should be enough to simply say "Yes, Joseph Smith lied about his polygamy (even to Emma), and whether or not it was okay, I'm okay with it.  Especially since he was right about what would happen if people found out."

Edited November 10, 2014 by cinepro

[stemelbow]

Exactly. We aren't talking breakfast or confirmation of a typical marriage. We are talking about being put in a place of having to deny the practice publicly or face the destruction of the infant church.

CFR

If someone asks me Intimate details of the temple, or even better tries to trap me into revealing something sacred I would definitely demure or obfuscate. I might even deny of it meant keeping something sacred out of the eyes of those who sought to destroy it.

Nobody is saying, at least it doesn't seem so to me, that lying is not reasonable or even acceptable in some cases.

I love the high and mighty morals of those who criticize the early prophets for lies, and who undoubtedly play a little faster and looser when it comes to their own congruency.

Nobody from what I can see is criticizing early prophets for lies per se. It is plainly fact that they lied about it. They may have good reason, thus my CFR above, but that does not mean they did not lie.

So critics of Joseph. Tell me about the lies you have told to protect others safety or feelings. Don't leave out details! Or you would be liars and therefore untrustworthy. Hold yourself to that standard you established. After all we are fellow saints and don't deserve to be lied to.

Who are you talking to, specifically?

[mormonnewb]

 

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."

 

 

Thanks.  I wasn't aware of the BofA version of events.  Here is the OT version:

 

Genesis 12

 

11 And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon:

12 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive.

13 Say, 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.

14 And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair.

15 The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house.

16 And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.

17 And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.

18 And Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?

19 Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.

 

20 And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had.

 

 

The BofA account doesn't seem to cover what happened after Abraham was instructed to tell this lie.  In fact, it doesn't talk anymore about what happened with Abraham and Sarai at all.  If I didn't know better, I'd think that someone threw it in there as a way to justify lying in other contexts.  But that's silly, so help me out with how to reconcile this with the OT account.

 

In the OT account, the text is silent as to whether God instructed Abraham to lie or whether Abraham did so on his own.  However, the context seems to make it clear that HF was opposed to the consequences of the lie -- Sarah being taken as Pharaoh's wife.  In fact, HF was so opposed to that union that he caused a plague on Pharaoh's house.  We don't know the extent of the suffering but we can guess that it was bad enough for Pharaoh to pass up whatever he had planned for Sarah and say, "You don't have to go home, but you gotta get the heck out of here!" (The ancient Egyptians were obviously big fans of rap music)

 

Most Christian commentators conclude that Abraham was in error in this instance (and in Genesis 20, when he repeats this same lie to Abemilech):

 

"There Abram dissembled his relation to Sarai, equivocated, and taught his wife and his attendants to do so too. He concealed a truth, so as in effect to deny it, and exposed thereby both his wife and the Egyptians to sin. The grace Abram was most noted for, was faith; yet he thus fell through unbelief and distrust of the Divine providence, even after God had appeared to him twice." Matthew Henry

 

 

 

"Say, I pray thee, that thou art my sister,.... Which though it was not putting a direct lie into her mouth, she being his sister in some sense, as appears from Genesis 20:12 yet it was done to conceal truth, and to deceive the Egyptians, and tended to endanger his wife's chastity, as well as showed great timorousness in him, and distrust of the divine care and protection of him; and upon the whole it must be criminal in him, and shows that the best of men are liable to sin ...."  Gill

 

 

 

"If Abram is about to enter Egypt of his own accord, without any divine intimation, it is easy to understand why he resorts to a device of his own to escape the peril of assassination."  Barnes

 

 

 

"The counsel of Abram to her was true in words, but it was a deception, intended to give an impression that she was no more than his sister. His conduct was culpable and inconsistent with his character as a servant of God: it showed a reliance on worldly policy more than a trust in the promise; and he not only sinned himself, but tempted Sarai to sin also." Jamieson-Fausset-Brown

 

 

 

However, I concede that none of these commentators had the light and knowledge of the restoration to draw upon, so can you point me to prophetic counsel from modern-day prophets that declare why this lie was commanded by the Lord?

[Ham Clam]

I think the new essays are the first part of the Church coming to "deal with it" ... however that goes.

[KevinG]

I think the new essays are the first part of the Church coming to "deal with it" ... however that goes.

I for one do not plan to stand at the judgement bar, only to look over at the prophets of this dispensation standing on the right hand of God, and have to explain why I spent mortality murmuring about how they should have run the church better.

[mormonnewb]

So critics of Joseph. Tell me about the lies you have told to protect others safety or feelings. Don't leave out details! Or you would be liars and therefore untrustworthy. Hold yourself to that standard you established. After all we are fellow saints and don't deserve to be lied to.

 

For me to be in the position of JS, you need to level a SPECIFIC charge against me, to which I can tell you if I would respond truthfully or not.  No one on this board is criticizing JS for not clearing up every possible misunderstanding that could have occurred during his lifetime.  However, some of us (perhaps, only me) are saying that he was wrong to give an explicit factual misrepresentation to his very own followers, one that resulted in some of them forfeiting the very restoration that they had sacrificed everything to be a part of.  He was accused of polygamy and he said, "Polygamy?  No way!  Yuck!"

 

I'd like to think that if I was held captive by the ISIL and they asked me if I was a follower of Christ that I wouldn't say, "Jesus?  No way!  Yuck!"  However, given my fondness for having a head attached to my neck, I can see me lying in a moment of weakness.  However, that lie would not make me a hero of the faith, and it certainly wouldn't make me an "apostle."  Church history tells us that ALL of the original disciples (except Judas) were persecuted for their refusal to renounce their witness of the resurrected Christ.  Eleven of them were killed and John the Beloved was exiled to Patmos.  In fact, countless thousands of "rank and file" Christians met their deaths under about a dozen purges during the first few centuries of the Common Era.

 

So, to be blunt, I'm not impressed with the common justification that JS HAD to lie to "protect the Church."  History shows us that Christ is perfectly capable of protecting His own Church and that as His WITNESSES, we are commanded to go forth and testify of TRUTH (even when a few thousand Missourians might not like it).

 

And, by the way, the same can be said of Peter when he denied Christ three times.  The only difference is that almost no one tries to justify his actions -- especially not Peter.  He repented and proved himself particularly valiant in his later martyrdom.  So I'm not suggesting that JS was not a prophet or even that he was fallen. I'm simply asserting that ... in this one instance ... he was WRONG and that our desire to make him practically perfect in every way belittles the courage of the countless Christians who have paid the ultimate price to be WITNESSES of Christ.

[Silhouette]

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

I understand where you guys are coming from, but speaking as a convert, there actually ARE many things about the Church and Gospel that we weren't taught and never knew.

How can you look something up or read about it if you never knew the concept existed in the first place?

An example of this would be me and the ordinance of washing the feet, which came up on another thread somewhere. I forget whether it was on this forum or a different one, but

I just learned about it the past couple of weeks or so. How would I have known to look into it and find out for myself since I didn't even know LDS believed such a thing? Are we supposed to get random books or random websites and say, "Gee, I think I'll pick up this book and see if I can find out about some random thing in the Church."

Can't be expected to search out and learn a thing if you had no idea the thing even existed. It'd be like saying to ourselves, "I wonder if the Church believes in gollywonkers. I think I'll look that up."

It wouldn't occur to many of us to think there was more than what we've been taught.

I hope this makes sense.

[JLHPROF]

I understand where you guys are coming from, but speaking as a convert, there actually ARE many things about the Church and Gospel that we weren't taught and never knew.

How can you look something up or read about it if you never knew the concept existed in the first place?

An example of this would be me and the ordinance of washing the feet, which came up on another thread somewhere. I forget whether it was on this forum or a different one, but

I just learned about it the past couple of weeks or so. How would I have known to look into it and find out for myself since I didn't even know LDS believed such a thing? Are we supposed to get random books or random websites and say, "Gee, I think I'll pick up this book and see if I can find out about some random thing in the Church."

Can't be expected to search out and learn a thing if you had no idea the thing even existed. It'd be like saying to ourselves, "I wonder if the Church believes in gollywonkers. I think I'll look that up."

It wouldn't occur to many of us to think there was more than what we've been taught.

I hope this makes sense.

 

It makes perfect sense.

But to join a Church famous for polygamy and not bother to read a word about said polygamy because it was in the past just smacks of negligence.

I mean, if a friend tried to get you to join the Ku Klux Klan and you were unfamiliar with the organization, wouldn't you at the very least google them?

Or the Masons?

 

I realize that investigators certainly don't get told everything upfront and they aren't likely to get much in the lesson manuals either.  But I wouldn't commit to any organization I didn't at least know the background.

[ERayR]

It makes perfect sense.

But to join a Church famous for polygamy and not bother to read a word about said polygamy because it was in the past just smacks of negligence.

I mean, if a friend tried to get you to join the Ku Klux Klan and you were unfamiliar with the organization, wouldn't you at the very least google them?

Or the Masons?

 

I realize that investigators certainly don't get told everything upfront and they aren't likely to get much in the lesson manuals either.  But I wouldn't commit to any organization I didn't at least know the background.

 

Are you comparing the LDS Church to the KKK?

[Silhouette]

It makes perfect sense.

But to join a Church famous for polygamy and not bother to read a word about said polygamy because it was in the past just smacks of negligence.

I mean, if a friend tried to get you to join the Ku Klux Klan and you were unfamiliar with the organization, wouldn't you at the very least google them?

Or the Masons?

I realize that investigators certainly don't get told everything upfront and they aren't likely to get much in the lesson manuals either. But I wouldn't commit to any organization I didn't at least know the background.

I don't know, really. I personally didn't feel the need to look any further than what I was being taught. But then I had a personal revelation that the Church was true before I ever called it and had my first discussion. And maybe I am weird or something, but polygamy has never bothered me.

Joseph's methods of going about it don't bother me either. If he was unrighteous in his methods, that's on his soul, not mine, and Heavenly Father will deal with him. It's not my business.

But I do see where you are coming from about some converts needing to investigate the background of an organization before getting involved in it. Maybe I didn't do so because I already knew the Church was true, and that was enough for me.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Silhouette

[mormonnewb]

It makes perfect sense.

But to join a Church famous for polygamy and not bother to read a word about said polygamy because it was in the past just smacks of negligence.

I mean, if a friend tried to get you to join the Ku Klux Klan and you were unfamiliar with the organization, wouldn't you at the very least google them?

Or the Masons?

 

I realize that investigators certainly don't get told everything upfront and they aren't likely to get much in the lesson manuals either.  But I wouldn't commit to any organization I didn't at least know the background.

 

I agree, which is why I suspect that converts have far less problems with "feeling lied to," especially recent converts (with Internet access).  Before joining the Church, I knew all about the issues with polygamy, the BoA, the succession crisis, blacks in the priesthood, etc.

 

However, I wouldn't necessarily expect a lifelong member to have conducted such an investigation, particularly, not after two decades of primary, YM/YW, seminary, a mission, BYU, etc.  Such a person has every reason to be confident that they've been introduced to all of the major events/doctrines of their religion.  This is particularly true when many of them have been raised with warnings about reading "anti-Mormon" materials.  I don't blame them for wanting to stay within the safe confines of Church literature.  Nor do I blame them for feeling somewhat betrayed when they learn that the Church literature (that they have been exposed to) has major omissions or even inaccuracies.

 

I do wish they would realize that it is likely that no one ever INTENTIONALLY deceived them.  For example, the missionaries who taught me that polygamy was instituted to remedy the shortage of men didn't do so because they wanted to trick the newb.  They simply repeated what they had been taught.  And I would be willing to bet that their teacher was doing the same thing, and so on, and so on.  And even when it comes to those who are knowledgable about the actual history, there is still a legitimate question of how much detail one should include.  This is a question that even plagues secular historians.  There simply isn't room enough to include everything that is known about, say, the Nauvoo period.

 

In fact, even the four Gospels are not complete historical records.  One writer clearly states as much (something about all of the books of the world not being able to contain the deeds of Christ).  The Gospel writers were actually editors, who had to make hard decisions about what to include and what to leave out.  We should probably afford Church editors the same editorial discretion.

 

Of course, this might be easier to do if we didn't perpetuate the myth that the Church acts in all respects in perfect unison with God's will.  If we realized that the Church is like any human institution -- filled with well-meaning people who make mistakes.  In that way, when we find an error in a Church publication, we'd be less likely to come to the conclusion that it was a conspiracy from malevolent and all-knowing Church leaders.  And we'd be more likely to chalk it up to an error we'd encounter in dealing with our local bank, an airline or a government agency ("Oh, wow!  They screwed up.  What else is new?").

Edited November 10, 2014 by mormonnewb

[JLHPROF]

Are you comparing the LDS Church to the KKK?

 

Of course not.  Just saying people should be responsible enough to read up on an organization before joining it.

[cinepro]

I agree, which is why I suspect that converts have far less problems with "feeling lied to," especially recent converts (with Internet access).  Before joining the Church, I knew all about the issues with polygamy, the BoA, the succession crisis, blacks in the priesthood, etc.

 

 

I agree with everything you said, but I need to add one thing.

 

I don't know what the level of "academic" teaching (meaning teaching about the scriptures and Church history that places people and events in the context of their times) has been for Sunday School, Seminary etc. in the past, but whatever it was, it's only getting worse.

 

For example, I substituted for my son's fourth year seminary class a few weeks ago.  The lesson was on Sidney Rigdon's conversion during the "Lamanite Mission", and his subsequent trip to New York to meet Joseph Smith.  The lesson focused on D&C Section 35.  But what struck me was the class had very little knowledge about where these events were taking place, what years we were talking about, and who these people were.  The lessons are almost totally focused "principles", using the scriptures as more of a glorified quote book.

 

So while I covered the principles in the manual, I also taught a lot about the history, the people and the places.  We talked about the Lamanite mission, we talked about what it meant to the Church to have Sidney Rigdon and his followers join ("It would be like missionaries baptizing 20 million people in China, and the Church leaders in Salt Lake City realizing that the majority of the Church now lives in China").

 

I didn't expect much feedback (the kids pretty much sat there comatose), but a few days later my son said there had actually been some comments on how the lesson was really interesting.  And it just breaks my heart because every lesson about Church history should be "really interesting", because it is really interesting!

 

And this isn't a criticism of the regular teacher.  He's a really good teacher (and a good guy in general).  He just chooses to focus more on the principles part of the lesson.  But I can see how students might be expecting to be learning about certain things when they really aren't.

[cdowis]

Of course not.  Just saying people should be responsible enough to read up on an organization before joining it.

 

I read the Book of Mormon, prayed about it, and God told me it was true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet.  I was responsible in making my decision.

 

I now have "read up" on the history of the church, found out what the antis have to say about it, but never lost my testimony.

I have been responsible in my decision, in the Lord's way.

 

Before I joined the church, I was curious about polygamy and ask the missionaries about it.  They gave me some advice that I still use today == >

"Don't worry about it."

Edited November 11, 2014 by cdowis

[cdowis]

 

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."

 

 

It is truly a sad thing to see such deep and profound ignorance of the scriptures in those who express doubts about the church and its teachings.  And they speak with such absolute certainty about things they know nothing about.

Edited November 11, 2014 by cdowis

[mormonnewb]

It is truly a sad thing to see such deep and profound ignorance of the scriptures in those who express doubts about the church and its teachings.  And they speak with such absolute certainty about things they know nothing about.

 

Well, perhaps you can alleviate my woeful ignorance by explaining the seeming contradiction between the OT account in which HF is none too pleased with Abraham's lying and actually works to undermine his plans by telling Pharaoh the truth and the BofA account in which HF encourages the lie.  Given that we don't hear anything else about the matter in the BoA account, do we have modern revelation that gives us more detail as to why HF gave Abraham an instruction that He later went on to contradict by thwarting the effect of that instruction?

 

Ignorantly yours,

[Glenn101]

 

Most Christian commentators conclude that Abraham was in error in this instance (and in Genesis 20, when he repeats this same lie to Abemilech):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, I concede that none of these commentators had the light and knowledge of the restoration to draw upon, so can you point me to prophetic counsel from modern-day prophets that declare why this lie was commanded by the Lord?

 

I don't need to. You have the scriptures from the Book of Abraham which explains it, at least in the case of Pharoah. (But it actually was not a lie.) We have had no further revelation on the matter as far as I know.

[cdowis]

Well, perhaps you can alleviate my woeful ignorance by explaining the seeming contradiction between the OT account in which HF is none too pleased with Abraham's lying and actually works to undermine his plans by telling Pharaoh the truth and the BofA account in which HF encourages the lie.

 

May I suggest that perhaps the Articles of Faith may give us the proper place of the Bible in LDS teachings.

 

 Given that we don't hear anything else about the matter in the BoA account, do we have modern revelation that gives us more detail as to why HF gave Abraham an instruction that He later went on to contradict by thwarting the effect of that instruction?

 

In General Conference we are counseled to "doubt our doubts" when we have a crisis of faith, when we find ourselves being  critical of the prophets.  

 

http://youtu.be/ziq8zatPjlY?list=PLClOO0BdaFaNmUqc3ItZJgiuQC9AuoGVo

 

Ignorantly yours,

 

Read the scriptures, listen to General Conference.  

Edited November 11, 2014 by cdowis

[Glenn101]

Well, perhaps you can alleviate my woeful ignorance by explaining the seeming contradiction between the OT account in which HF is none too pleased with Abraham's lying and actually works to undermine his plans by telling Pharaoh the truth and the BofA account in which HF encourages the lie.  Given that we don't hear anything else about the matter in the BoA account, do we have modern revelation that gives us more detail as to why HF gave Abraham an instruction that He later went on to contradict by thwarting the effect of that instruction?

 

Ignorantly yours,

 

 

Please show us where God says that He was none too pleased with Abraham??? I have searched in vain for such a pronouncement, but nowhere do I find God reproaching Abraham concerning this affair. And just what plans of Abraham are you talking about? To have his wife taken from him forever???

And maybe you are not understanding that bit of scripture correctly.

So God tells Abraham to tell Pharaoh and the rest of the Egyptians that Sarah was his sister (daughter of his father but not the daughter of his mother). By doing so, the Egyptians do not kill Abraham out of hand but actually give him gifts because of Sarah. Then, before Pharaoh does any mischief, the Lord informs Pharaoh of his mistake. Abraham leaves Egypt a much richer man than when he entered, with Sarah, and safely.

So what plans of Abraham were thwarted???

 

And after all that has been said, let's get back to the point. We do not have enough information to make a judgement call on Abraham in the case of Abimilech or Pharaoh. Or Moses when he told another Pharaoh that the Children of Israel just wanted to go into the desert to worship their God when they had no intention of returning, or the children of Israel borrowing gold, silver, and jewels from their neighbors when there was no intent of returning to repay. God was in that mix also. And I am not about to  argue the point with Him.

 

But I do have a testimony that God the Father does live, and that Jesus is His Son and atoned for our sins.

 

Now, that brings us back to Joseph Smith and polygamy. Polygamy is irrelevant to us right now. And the only thing that we need to ascertain about Joseph Smith is his prophetic calling. Was he a prophet called of God? Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints actually the Church of Jesus Christ? Is it the restored Gospel. We cannot look back and use history to ascertain if any of the prophets that we have found to have had some problems were actually prophets. we are seeing through that glass too darkly.

 

The only way to make such a discovery is the way the Lord ordained.

[mfbukowski]

I don't know, really. I personally didn't feel the need to look any further than what I was being taught. But then I had a personal revelation that the Church was true before I ever called it and had my first discussion. And maybe I am weird or something, but polygamy has never bothered me.

Joseph's methods of going about it don't bother me either. If he was unrighteous in his methods, that's on his soul, not mine, and Heavenly Father will deal with him. It's not my business.

But I do see where you are coming from about some converts needing to investigate the background of an organization before getting involved in it. Maybe I didn't do so because I already knew the Church was true, and that was enough for me.

same here

[stemelbow]

Well, perhaps you can alleviate my woeful ignorance by explaining the seeming contradiction between the OT account in which HF is none too pleased with Abraham's lying and actually works to undermine his plans by telling Pharaoh the truth and the BofA account in which HF encourages the lie.  Given that we don't hear anything else about the matter in the BoA account, do we have modern revelation that gives us more detail as to why HF gave Abraham an instruction that He later went on to contradict by thwarting the effect of that instruction?

 

Ignorantly yours,

I don't know that it directly answers your question, but to put some context and light into the scriptures in question I'd suggest reading Authoring the Old Testament; Genesis through Deuteronomy by David Bokovoy

http://gregkofford.com/products/authoring-the-old-testament-1

It seems to me the way the scriptures have gotten to us, at least to the degree we can stipulate they did get to us, might suggest we're going to see some contradiction.

[stemelbow]

I agree with everything you said, but I need to add one thing.

 

I don't know what the level of "academic" teaching (meaning teaching about the scriptures and Church history that places people and events in the context of their times) has been for Sunday School, Seminary etc. in the past, but whatever it was, it's only getting worse.

 

For example, I substituted for my son's fourth year seminary class a few weeks ago.  The lesson was on Sidney Rigdon's conversion during the "Lamanite Mission", and his subsequent trip to New York to meet Joseph Smith.  The lesson focused on D&C Section 35.  But what struck me was the class had very little knowledge about where these events were taking place, what years we were talking about, and who these people were.  The lessons are almost totally focused "principles", using the scriptures as more of a glorified quote book.

 

So while I covered the principles in the manual, I also taught a lot about the history, the people and the places.  We talked about the Lamanite mission, we talked about what it meant to the Church to have Sidney Rigdon and his followers join ("It would be like missionaries baptizing 20 million people in China, and the Church leaders in Salt Lake City realizing that the majority of the Church now lives in China").

 

I didn't expect much feedback (the kids pretty much sat there comatose), but a few days later my son said there had actually been some comments on how the lesson was really interesting.  And it just breaks my heart because every lesson about Church history should be "really interesting", because it is really interesting!

 

And this isn't a criticism of the regular teacher.  He's a really good teacher (and a good guy in general).  He just chooses to focus more on the principles part of the lesson.  But I can see how students might be expecting to be learning about certain things when they really aren't.

Just to clarify, when I say it is frustrating to hear it, this is just the type of thing I have in mind. The materials we study from, and I'll continue to steal Givens' word on this, are deplorable. That is perhaps the most frustrating thing about hearing "I was never taught and was lied to".

On top of that, it's frustrating to hear because it also means people aren't reading what I'd consider important material.

[CV75]

My issue and likely the issue of other LDS who are bothered by "polygamy" is rather with the details of how it was practiced, not the practice itself. 

For Example - what bothers me and others are the following details...

“Speaking at general conference soon after the Manifesto was given, President George Q. Cannon reflected on the revelatory process that brought the Manifesto about: “The Presidency of the Church have to walk just as you walk,” he said. “They have to take steps just as you take steps. They have to depend upon the revelations of God as they come to them. They cannot see the end from the beginning, as the Lord does.” “All that we can do,” Cannon said, speaking of the First Presidency, “is to seek the mind and will of God, and when that comes to us, though it may come in contact with every feeling that we have previously entertained, we have no option but to take the step that God points out, and to trust to Him.” https://www.lds.org/topics/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng#53

 

I think each of us at some point must decide whether it is easier to trust God or to be bothered. From Elder Ballard’s recent talk, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/stay-in-the-boat-and-hold-on?lang=eng :

 

“Sometimes faithful Latter-day Saints and sincere investigators begin to focus on the “appendages” instead of on the fundamental principles. That is, Satan tempts us to become distracted from the simple and clear message of the restored gospel. Those so distracted often …become focused, even preoccupied, with less important practices or teachings.

 

“Others may focus on the questions and doubts they experience.”

 

“The important questions focus on what matters most—Heavenly Father’s plan and the Savior’s Atonement. Our search should lead us to become kind, gentle, loving, forgiving, patient, and dedicated disciples.”

[Teancum]

A revelation is required when knowledge about an event cannot be obtained reliably from any other source. That is why the church advises us to get our own revelation pertaining to Joseph being God's prophet and the BoM being God's dealings with a people in the Americas. Can you prove that Joseph didn't see an angel? No. Can you prove that he did? No. You weren't there at the time and even if you were scriptures and eye witnesses recount that one could be right there and not experience the event. It seems that there were only 2 people at the event. Joseph was asked and affirmed that it did happen. We could ask the angel I guess. Anyone else upon whose witness we can rely?

I also have to ask myself whether the the person claiming fantastic supernatural intervention that they are the only person privy to can be trusted. To make that decision I have to look at other things they do. I don't give any other religious leader who claims God told them to take more wives or do some other odd sexual practice when they claim God told them to because their claims seem far to self serving and because of other odd strange things they do. Based on how joseph rolled out plural marriage I don't give him a pass either. Thus I determine it was a false teaching and a large mistake. Why Joseph did it, whether he believed it really from God I have no way to determine it.