Nytimes: "it's Official: Mormon Founder Had Up To 40 Wives"

[Brian 2.0]

Gotcha.  What about my first question:

 

If new evidence came forth and you came to believe the Joseph did if fact engage in polygamy, would you then think polygamy was acceptable or would you think JS was in error?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes it does; because they didn't lie about it.

I think it easier to believe that JS lied about the practice than the sharrade that JS was telling the truth and he did not practice polygamy inlight of all the evidence he did.

 

I really don't have an isseu the JS lied about it. After all that is easier to explain than to say he didnt practice it all.

[JLHPROF]

Yes it does; because they didn't lie about it.

 

Well John Taylor in 1850 said: 

 

""We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting.... These things are too outrageous to admit of belief."

 

At the time he had 12 wives many of whom had children with him.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, I guess Joseph was a prophet because he didn't lie, but John Taylor wasn't a prophet because he did lie.

 

Maybe Joseph was the only one who was telling the truth when he said he didn't live polygamy.  Maybe he was lying like so many other prophets and apostles.

[Scott Lloyd]

A tour of BY's house without the mention of polygamy is akin to documentary on Clinton's presidency and leaving out the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Sure everyone knows about it, but it looks like you're trying to hide the big elephant in the corner.

If I were to visit, say, the Clinton presidential museum in Little Rock (a more appropriate comparison), I wouldn't care in the least nor feel the least bit deprived if I neither saw nor heard any mention of Monica Lewinsky. There are plenty of places I can go to search that out if I've a mind to.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, in the case of the sister missionaries we're talking about their purpose (among others) is to give history lessons.

I would describe their purpose as being to conduct tours of one of Brigham Young's homes and to take the occasion to bear witness of Christ and prophets.

[Calm]

Thank you.  I find inconvenient to be so illiterate.  Perhaps if they would take time to teach this in gospel doctrine class.

I don't need a brain, I have google.

[Calm]

A tour of BY's house without the mention of polygamy is akin to documentary on Clinton's presidency and leaving out the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Sure everyone knows about it, but it looks like you're trying to hide the big elephant in the corner.

I think it is closer to taking a tour of the White House…taking a tour of one building is nowhere close to talking about an entire time in a particular office.  I suppose they could include all the scandals that took place there, I am sure some of the tourists would prefer the juicy stuff to learning how the government operates, how the place is used to receive diplomats, etc.

 

However, if the rooms of the Beehive house were there for multiple wives and the building was built for the purpose of holding many of his families together, I am all for just saying that and I think it is a bit silly not to though I am open to hearing reasons from the volunteers and their instructors why they don't. They may have a very good reason not too.

Edited November 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[Alan]

Well John Taylor in 1850 said: 

 

""We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting.... These things are too outrageous to admit of belief."

 

At the time he had 12 wives many of whom had children with him.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, I guess Joseph was a prophet because he didn't lie, but John Taylor wasn't a prophet because he did lie.

 

Maybe Joseph was the only one who was telling the truth when he said he didn't live polygamy.  Maybe he was lying like so many other prophets and apostles.

 

If the John Taylor incident was recorded and reported accurately (we must remember that we have to rely on the testimony of enemies of the church for this information) then he was a liar. 2 Nephi 9:34 says "wo unto the liar for he shall be thrust down to hell". I hope Bro. Taylor repented.

 

John Taylor was not the President of the church at the time of the alleged denial. He hater became president by virtue of his seniority in the Twelve. The church has never had a prophet in the Joseph sense since 1844, and has been, and continues to be, under apostolic administration since that time.

 

But there is a further difference. We are not really relying on John Taylor to be truthful and honest in the same way as we are with Joseph. Taylor never claimed to see a vision of the Father and the Son, nor angels, nor translate an ancient record. We have to rely on Joseph's honesty in these things. If we are admitting that he lied in what some understand to be a matter of celestial importance, then we have to consider the possibility he was lying all along. Joseph's integrity is absolutely essential to his prophetic claim.

[Alan]

If new evidence came forth and you came to believe the Joseph did if fact engage in polygamy, would you then think polygamy was acceptable or would you think JS was in error?

 

 

 

It would depend on the nature of the evidence. If it was some journal entry or similar I would probably think Joseph was in error.

If it was a testimony from the Spirit that would be a different matter.

 

What would you do if evidence came forward that Joseph was not involved and actually preached against it?

Edited November 13, 2014 by Alan

[Brian 2.0]

What would you do if evidence came forward that Joseph was not involved and actually preached against it?

 

If the evidence seemed reliable and refuted the mounds of evidence for it currently, then I'd say "Kudos, Joseph!"  because while I currently believe JS practiced polygamy, I actually don't believe God instructed him to do so.

 

But I actually don't believe God instructed him to do a lot of things.

 

And I actually don't really believe in God.

 

Basically... I'm probably not the best person to ask that question.

[Alan]

If the evidence seemed reliable and refuted the mounds of evidence for it currently, then I'd say "Kudos, Joseph!"  because while I currently believe JS practiced polygamy, I actually don't believe God instructed him to do so.

 

But I actually don't believe God instructed him to do a lot of things.

 

And I actually don't really believe in God.

 

Basically... I'm probably not the best person to ask that question.

 

So why are you bothered?

 

The fact is there is evidence Joseph wasn't involved in anything other than sealings. And there is certainly irrefutable evidence that he preached against polygamy, and so did Hyrum. So I guess that's "Kudos Joseph" then.

[Brian 2.0]

The fact is there is evidence Joseph wasn't involved in anything other than sealings. And there is certainly irrefutable evidence that he preached against polygamy.

 

I understand that.   I just think the evidence that he did engage in it is plentiful and reliable enough tip the scales in probability in the direction that he did practice it.

 

but hey... anything's possible.

[Scott Lloyd]

You really don't see how silly your responses are do you?  To expect tour guides in the home of the most famous polygamist in history who  is more famous for his polygamy than any other accomplishment, to expect them not to mention it is ridiculous.

I mean, let's tour the Alamo but not talk about the battle.  Let's tour the Whitehouse but not mention the president and first lady. 

 

When asked why Brigham Young had multiple homes, with numerous living areas there should be no hesitancy in owning up to history.  Of course missionaries are there to bring others to Christ.  But a tour of the temple discusses the basic uses of temples.  A tour of the holy land is going to focus on the life of Christ.  Why should a tour of Brigham Young's home leave out the most well known part of his home life?

Nobody is asking for a sermon on plural marriage from these guides/missionaries.  Just enough openness to include the fact that the home was populated by many wives, not one.

 

It's completely ridiculous.

I never said it shouldn't be mentioned in a tour of the Beehive House.

 

What I was contesting was your notion that the primary role of a missionary is to teach people about Church history or to answer lurid questions.

 

I think I've documented what the primary role of a missionary is.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it is closer to taking a tour of the White House…taking a tour of one building is nowhere close to talking about an entire time in a particular office.  I suppose they could include all the scandals that took place there, I am sure some of the tourists would prefer the juicy stuff to learning how the government operates, how the place is used to receive diplomats, etc.

 

However, if the rooms of the Beehive house were there for multiple wives and the building was built for the purpose of holding many of his families together, I am all for just saying that and I think it is a bit silly not to though I am open to hearing reasons from the volunteers and their instructors why they don't. They may have a very good reason not too.

While that was one of it's purposes, it was built to serve as the executive mansion for the Territory of Utah. A number of well-known 19th century figures were received and entertained there and the adjacent Lion House, which was built a couple of years later, including Mark Twain, P.T. Barnum, Tom Thumb, etc.

 

Brigham Young was not the only Church president to have resided there. Lorenzo Snow did (as depicted in the movie "Windows of Heaven") and Joseph F. Smith.

 

It is not large enough to have ever accommodated more than a fraction of President Young's plural wives and their children.

 

I think the last time I took a tour there was on an elementary school field trip, and I don't remember any studied effort to cover up the fact of President Young's plural marriages. So this may be a lot of anecdotal ado about nothing.

 

But again, it has been a long time for me. Maybe I should go back for another tour.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

I think the last time I took a tour there was on an elementary school field trip, and I don't remember any studied effort to cover up the fact of President Young's plural marriages. So this may be a lot of anecdotal ado about nothing.

 

But again, it has been a long time for me. Maybe I should go back for another tour.

 

Perhaps.  I would hazard a guess that if nobody on the tour brings up the plural marriages the guides won't.  And if somebody does bring up the subject, there will be no information given about it.

 

The anecdotal experiences might be just that, but I have been through the Beehive house half a dozen times, toured the St. George home, the ranch home at This Is The Place Park, and eaten at the Lion House.  Not a single guide/host has ever mentioned plural wives (except the one time someone asked the missionary at the Beehive house).

They may not be intentionally hiding anything, but they sure aren't providing a complete picture of his home life.

[Analytics]

The website visittemplesquare.com says:

 

Come visit the wonderful attractions on the thirty five acres of Temple Square located in downtown Salt Lake City. Tour historic buildings and see what life was like back in 1856 in Brigham Young's home, Listen to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir "America's Choir" and hear the legacy and history of the Mormon people. Come see how the Salt Lake Temple was built and why it took Forty Years to complete. See the artifacts of Mormon culture and history in the Museum, and search information on your ancestors. These are just a few of the wonderful attractions located at Historic Temple Square.

http://www.visittemplesquare.com/attractions

 

Does anyone think "seeing what life was like back in 1856 in Brigham Young's home" can be done without any mention of polygamy?

 

Perhaps the real point is different than what I quoted above; perhaps seeing what life was like in Brigham Young's home has nothing to do with it.  Perhaps the website's invitation should be updated to say the following:

 

Come visit the official representatives of Jesus Christ on the thirty five acres of Temple Square located in downtown Salt Lake City.  Jesus' representatives will invite you to come unto Jesus Christ and become converted to His restored gospel.  To come to the Savior you must have faith in Him unto reprentance and make the necessary changes to bring your life into agreement with His teachings.  Jesus' representatives will help you develop such faith by teaching you the restored gospel through the Spirit and inviting you to commit to live according to its teachings.  Keeping this commitment prepares you for the covenant of baptism and confirmation and the percious gift of the Holy Ghost.  You are to put of the "natural man" and become a Saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord.

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps.  I would hazard a guess that if nobody on the tour brings up the plural marriages the guides won't.  And if somebody does bring up the subject, there will be no information given about it.

 

The anecdotal experiences might be just that, but I have been through the Beehive house half a dozen times, toured the St. George home, the ranch home at This Is The Place Park, and eaten at the Lion House.  Not a single guide/host has ever mentioned plural wives (except the one time someone asked the missionary at the Beehive house).

They may not be intentionally hiding anything, but they sure aren't providing a complete picture of his home life.

This Is the Place Heritage Park is not a Church-operated facility.

 

The Lion House is not a place where you go to learn about history. It is essentially a restaurant and reception center. I'm not surprised nobody mentions polygamy there, or anything about history, for that matter. Who would you expect to do it? Food servers? Cashiers?

[Analytics]

This Is the Place Heritage Park is not a Church-operated facility.

 

The Lion House is not a place where you go to learn about history. It is essentially a restaurant and reception center. I'm not surprised nobody mentions polygamy there, or anything about history, for that matter. Who would you expect to do it? Food servers? Cashiers?

 

If a restaurant is themed after a family who used to live in its building, it would seem appropriate to both recognize the details of the family that are both interesting and important.  I’d be inclined to honor the wife (wives) of that family on the menu.  The inside-front page could have a couple of paragraphs describing the family, and then menu items could include things like:

 

Miriam’s Meatloaf

Mary Ann’s Angel-Haired Posta

Lucy’s Lasagna

Augusta’s Short Ribs

Harriet’s Halibut

Etc.

[DBMormon]

Either you'll embrace it and be completely happy with it, or you won't be exalted to have to worry about it anyway.

Nite Nite,

Melanie

I find this quite offensive as it poses it as an either or.  Either you live happily with polygamy or be satisfied with not being exalted.  That too me is offensive binary thinking when this issue is way more complicated.

[Brian 2.0]

I find this quite offensive as it poses it as an either or.  Either you live happily with polygamy or be satisfied with not being exalted.  That too me is offensive binary thinking when this issue is way more complicated.

 

It does sound harsh, but the same is true for a lot of things if you really believe the doctrine.

 

"Either you live happily accepting Christ as your Savior or be satisfied with not being exalted"

"Either you live happily accepting Joseph Smith was a true Prophet or be satisfied with not being exalted"

"Either you live happily accepting baptism is necessary or be satisfied with not being exalted"

 

A lot of the doctrine is binary:  "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

 

Why can't polygamy be one of those things as well?

[DBMormon]

It does sound harsh, but the same is true for a lot of things if you really believe the doctrine.

 

"Either you live happily accepting Christ as your Savior or be satisfied with not being exalted"

"Either you live happily accepting Joseph Smith was a true Prophet or be satisfied with not being exalted"

"Either you live happily accepting baptism is necessary or be satisfied with not being exalted"

 

A lot of the doctrine is binary:  "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

 

Why can't polygamy be one of those things as well?

 

Brian, I disagree.  Let's take the three premises

 

1.) Christ - I agree that we each must make a decision to progress and hence become "Christlike".  To all in this life or the next, I think Christ's reality will be of certitude to all.For those who are "willing" to progress and sacrifice, they will naturally follow the risen Lord.  I agree in the end this binary

 

2.) Joseph Smith - I don't think my acceptance of Moses, Joseph Smith, Noah directly affects my relationship with Christ.  I simply don't think in the next life Christ will say do you accept me as your redeemer?  "yes"  well I can't let you pass unless we get your acceptance on all those I sent.  Do you believe in moses as a prophet? Nope.  Well sorry.  You can't be exalted.  Personally I think it is a non issue.  In that I don't see the periphery issues even being made important in the next life.  Do you accept Christ, are you willing to change, are you willing to press forward? great interview done

 

3.) Ordinances offered by the son of God to those willing to change and press forward will be happily accepted and I see little discussion on the other side of who is authorized to give them.  Binary ... yes but less connect to truth in a earthly institution

 

I don't think 1 second of the good baptist's next life will be spent convincing him Joseph was a prophet, do you see what I am saying.  We create a narrative and framework but I see that being different from the actual way the next life works.

[Brian 2.0]

 

3.) Ordinances offered by the son of God to those willing to change and press forward will be happily accepted and I see little discussion on the other side of who is authorized to give them.  Binary ... yes but less connect to truth in a earthly institution

 

I don't think 1 second of the good baptist's next life will be spent convincing him Joseph was a prophet, do you see what I am saying.  We create a narrative and framework but I see that being different from the actual way the next life works.

 

On Ordinances...  Do you believe that anyone who desires to be exalted must be sealed to a spouse?  That that is a requirement?  If so, they what is it a stretch for someone to say that anyone who desires to be exalted must engage in plural "celestial" marriage?

 

This is all of course granting the assumption that polygamy is true doctrine and necessary for exaltation.  As we are granting the assumption that baptism is a true ordinance necessary for entrance into the celestial kingdom.  Polygamy may very well not be a true doctrine or necessity and this is all moot.

[JLHPROF]

2.) Joseph Smith - I don't think my acceptance of Moses, Joseph Smith, Noah directly affects my relationship with Christ.  I simply don't think in the next life Christ will say do you accept me as your redeemer?  "yes"  well I can't let you pass unless we get your acceptance on all those I sent.  Do you believe in moses as a prophet? Nope.  Well sorry.  You can't be exalted.  Personally I think it is a non issue.  In that I don't see the periphery issues even being made important in the next life.  Do you accept Christ, are you willing to change, are you willing to press forward? great interview done

 

 

I disagree.  There is a false doctrine that many seem to believe that once upon the other side of the veil it will be "Me and Christ and nobody else".

There will always be many people above you on the ladder and many people below you on the ladder.

I firmly believe that just as "no man cometh to the father except by me" also "no man cometh to the son except through his priesthood head".  And for this dispensation that's Joseph Smith.

 

Why we should think that we will cross the veil and be able to walk right into Christ's presence is a mystery to me?

There's a reason the old tradition has St. Peter at the gates of heaven.  As head of that dispensation he judged all the early Christians before allowing them into Christ's presence.  Joseph will do the same for our dispensation.  Moses will do the same for his.

 

So, no, you won't be exalted unless you accept your priesthood head.  Joseph will introduce us into Christ's presence.  Christ will introduce us into the Father's presence.  Exaltation is becoming a God, like our Father and joining with the Eloheim. 

[DBMormon]

I disagree.  There is a false doctrine that many seem to believe that once upon the other side of the veil it will be "Me and Christ and nobody else".

There will always be many people above you on the ladder and many people below you on the ladder.

I firmly believe that just as "no man cometh to the father except by me" also "no man cometh to the son except through his priesthood head".  And for this dispensation that's Joseph Smith.

 

Why we should think that we will cross the veil and be able to walk right into Christ's presence is a mystery to me?

There's a reason the old tradition has St. Peter at the gates of heaven.  As head of that dispensation he judged all the early Christians before allowing them into Christ's presence.  Joseph will do the same for our dispensation.  Moses will do the same for his.

 

So, no, you won't be exalted unless you accept your priesthood head.  Joseph will introduce us into Christ's presence.  Christ will introduce us into the Father's presence.  Exaltation is becoming a God, like our Father and joining with the Eloheim. 

then we simply disagree.

[JLHPROF]

then we simply disagree.

 

So what else is new?