sdc999 Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 I joined the Church in about 1976. I don't recall how I learned about polygamy. I think the missionaries who taught me the discussions might have taught me about it in some detail, or either they gave me reading assignments from the Doctrine and Covenants and I came across it in there, or a combination of both. I'm glad your missionaries were more knowledgable than mine. 1993 I got the ..... too many women, not enough men (they died on the way over), women needed to be protected, they couldn't own land.... yada yada. Elder Hull and Tombs were good at mowing my yard though and they loved our music collection. I guess I was gullible because I believed my toyota salesman. I guess I should have spoken to the Ford guy to learn that the toyota salesman may say anything to get me to buy in - even if it wasn't true. 1
ERayR Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Knowing what questions to ask is a big thing. And that goes for every aspect of our lives. I think there must have been a conspiracy to keep me down trodden because nobody taught me what questions to ask.
sdc999 Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 ERayR,Then you find yourself in the Robert Millet zone. ...don't answer the question they ask. Answer the question they should have asked.
thesometimesaint Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Maybe you can start by reading directly from Joseph: What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.”- Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, May 26, 1844, p. 411Oops, never mind. I have both the "History of the Church" and the "Comprehensive History of the Church" on my bookshelves. But I had more of the novice in mind when I said where to start. You know like the founding documents of the Church.
ERayR Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) ERayR,Then you find yourself in the Robert Millet zone. ...don't answer the question they ask. Answer the question they should have asked. Does that mean that when they ask about Joseph Smiths polygamy I answer with information about him being called of God by revelation so they can have a context for the answer? Edited November 13, 2014 by ERayR 2
Scott Lloyd Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) ERayR,Then you find yourself in the Robert Millet zone. ...don't answer the question they ask. Answer the question they should have asked.Those who repeatedly deride Millet for saying this would seem to denounce nuanced, informed explanation as opposed to the sensationalistic, often misleading quick answer. Condemn me for saying so, if you want, but I think I'll go with Millet on this. Edited November 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 3
Scott Lloyd Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) Arrington (Mormon Experience) made for an enjoyable read, imo. I liked his style better than Bushman's or any other historian on LDS stuff I've come across yet. Very informative and created a whole picture and an ongoing timeline in my mind better than anyone else.And there's a lot to be said for the student manual put out by the Church Educational System, Church History in the Fulness of Times. Augmented by the recent Gospel Topics essays, this would give a person, I should think, a very good foundational knowledge of Church history, a better one than most Church members display, particularly those who accuse the Church of hiding facts from them. Edited November 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Arrington (Mormon Experience) made for an enjoyable read, imo. I liked his style better than Bushman's or any other historian on LDS stuff I've come across yet. Very informative and created a whole picture and an ongoing timeline in my mind better than anyone else.Bushman is widely acclaimed, but his Rough Stone Rolling has its shortcomings. For one thing, he was over-eager to appease the critics in advance, so much so that he appeared to give greater credence to some source material than he ought to have. Every historian is selective in his use of sources, and its as possible to be not discriminating enough as it is to be too discriminating.
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Bushman is widely acclaimed, but his Rough Stone Rolling has its shortcomings. For one thing, he was over-eager to appease the critics in advance, so much so that he appeared to give greater credence to some source material than he ought to have. Every historian is selective in his use of sources, and its as possible to be not discriminating enough as it is to be too discriminating. Did he say this, or did you know what he was thinking? Seems like an easy way to dismiss some of his book--kind of like critics often appeal to the author being an apologist and in so doing not giving enough credence to the critic voice.
mfbukowski Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Every time this subject comes up, someone expresses that sentiment, and thus it must be clarified again: Generally speaking, people don't have a problem with the idea that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. It's the way he practiced it that people have a problem with (and generally don't know about). If you knew the details about the deception to Emma, and the ages and marital statuses (and living arrangements) of his wives and it didn't bother you, then good on you. But those are the things that people haven't generally known about, and generally get bothered about.Yes, I know, thank you. I thought that was clear from my previous post.
Mahoneymoriancumer Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Maybe you can start by reading directly from Joseph: What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.”- Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, May 26, 1844, p. 411Oops, never mind. I don't take great offense if Joseph was not totally forthright in how polygamy was revealed. I ask myself the question, "Would I have done any better?" If you truly believe the principle was inspired, how do you approach your wife and others and broach this subject? We place Joseph in a sphere of almost god-like existence, yet he was a 30-something farmboy leading a group of thousands in city planning, state building and instruction that boggles the mind. I am not looking to excuse Joseph in misleading publicly on the topic of plural marriage, but could any of us do better? 3
cinepro Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) I don't take great offense if Joseph was not totally forthright in how polygamy was revealed. I ask myself the question, "Would I have done any better?" If you truly believe the principle was inspired, how do you approach your wife and others and broach this subject? We place Joseph in a sphere of almost god-like existence, yet he was a 30-something farmboy leading a group of thousands in city planning, state building and instruction that boggles the mind. I am not looking to excuse Joseph in misleading publicly on the topic of plural marriage, but could any of us do better? I am not the standard to which I hold Joseph Smith (or any other person to). I hold their claims to the standard which they are claiming to meet. For example, I have a friend who has not been faithful to his wife. But I hold Neil Andersen to a higher standard because of what he teaches, so I would judge Elder Andersen more harshly on the topic (and I'm sure he would pass that judgement in every way - it's only an example!) That being said, if an angel with a drawn sword appeared to me and told me I had to marry other women (including the young women who my wife had hired to work around our house), and if my wife didn't agree to it I should do so behind her back, I would tell the angel to do his worst since I would rather die than inflict that upon my wife. (Likewise, I wouldn't murder my son if I thought God was telling me to, but that's a different discussion...) Edited November 13, 2014 by cinepro
ERayR Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 I am not the standard to which I hold Joseph Smith (or any other person to). I hold their claims to the standard which they are claiming to meet. For example, I have a friend who has not been faithful to his wife. But I hold Neil Andersen to a higher standard because of what he teaches, so I would judge Elder Andersen more harshly on the topic (and I'm sure he would pass that judgement in every way - it's only an example!) I do not judge Elder Andersen, Joseph Smith, you nor anyone else but I do accept Josephs claim as a prophet. So if he did it wrong that is between him and God. It leaves me a lot more time to concentrate on other things. 1
phaedrus ut Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Some books that come to mind:Joseph Smith: The First Mormon (1977)Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith (1984; 2nd ed.,1994)In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (1997)Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (2005)Those books are for "balanced insight." The mere fact of Joseph's polygamy has been discussed in numerous books and articles (including church manuals and magazines). So to be a well read Mormon someone should have read a book, Mormon Enigma, that got the authors officially banned from speaking at any church meeting and was officially attacked by church leaders. And then follow that up with Compton's book which was subjected to multiple polemic, ad hominem attacks in FARMS/BYU reviews by Richard Anderson, Scott Faulring, and Danel Bachman. That sounds reasonable. 1
Calm Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 And that goes for every aspect of our lives. I think there must have been a conspiracy to keep me down trodden because nobody taught me what questions to ask.I see experience as teaching us the most important questions to ask given that it is what isn't taught me that I often need to figure out more than what is (my parents' way of doing things didn't work for me, but it took me awhile to start asking first "why isn't this working" and then "what if their answer isn't the right one for me" and then "what is the right one for me" and I needed to ask all three and more before I even came close to coming up with workable answers. We can't learn what is most important to ourselves by listening to what others say is most important to them. At best they can give us ideas to explore. I think it is important to seek out teachers that do that for us, but if we rely totally on others for ideas we will never create something new.
Calm Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) And there's a lot to be said for the student manual put out by the Church Educational System, Church History in the Fulness of Times. Augmented by the recent Gospel Topics essays, this would give a person, I should think, a very good foundational knowledge of Church history, a better one than most Church members display, particularly those who accuse the Church of hiding facts from them.I agree, it is a very good basic starting reference work. I like it to refer to even now if I get confused about what happened when. The previous texts, can't remember the name but I think at least the first volume was by Berrett and maybe the second one, were excellent as well but a bit out of date (the info on the MMM while extensive had a few mistakes in it that the Turley, etc. book corrected, the Ensign article might have corrected them even). Didn't have pictures though and visuals can help to remember the text…just so long as they don't replace it. Edited November 13, 2014 by calmoriah
Calm Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Did he say this, or did you know what he was thinking?Seems like an easy way to dismiss some of his book--kind of like critics often appeal to the author being an apologist and in so doing not giving enough credence to the critic voice.He probably answers the question in this podcast. http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/mbr-richard-bushman-joseph-smith-rough-stone-rolling/ I think in his intro in the book (lost my copy, so I can't check, sorry) he talks about trying to write a book that both believers and nonbelievers could be comfortable with. And I believe he later on said that he wasn't as successful as he hoped to be.
Nevo Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) So to be a well read Mormon someone should have read a book, Mormon Enigma, that got the authors officially banned from speaking at any church meeting and was officially attacked by church leaders. And then follow that up with Compton's book which was subjected to multiple polemic, ad hominem attacks in FARMS/BYU reviews by Richard Anderson, Scott Faulring, and Danel Bachman. That sounds reasonable. The Church Newsroom article claimed that "much of what you'll find in the essays on polygamy has been published in diverse sources and known among long-term and well-read members, historians, and Church leaders for many years." In context, "well-read" here seems to be mean well-read on church history subjects (as opposed to, say, particle physics or economic theory). I think the statement is accurate. Long-term members who have pursued an interest in church history and have read broadly on the subject will have encountered most—if not all—of the books I mentioned. Someone who has not read Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling or Mormon Enigma, or, for that matter, No Man Knows My History, simply does not qualify as "well-read" in my view. Those are all must-read books for anyone professing to be a serious student of LDS history and Joseph Smith. Edited November 13, 2014 by Nevo
Scott Lloyd Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Did he say this, or did you know what he was thinking? I was offering my observation as a reader of the book. I thought this would have been clear from context. Seems like an easy way to dismiss some of his book--kind of like critics often appeal to the author being an apologist and in so doing not giving enough credence to the critic voice. I wasn't dismissing the book, I just said it had its shortcomings, as does any book that is not perfect. And that is far different from what antagonists do when they disparage the Church's "apologists," as you ought to be able to understand.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) He probably answers the question in this podcast. http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/mbr-richard-bushman-joseph-smith-rough-stone-rolling/ I think in his intro in the book (lost my copy, so I can't check, sorry) he talks about trying to write a book that both believers and nonbelievers could be comfortable with. And I believe he later on said that he wasn't as successful as he hoped to be. Thank you. That's what is in my memory as well. I wasn't disparaging Dr. Bushman -- for whom I have great respect -- or his book. I think stemelbow viewed my post with a chip-on-the-shoulder mentality. Edited November 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) I was offering my observation as a reader of the book. I thought this would have been clear from context. Alright so where in the book does he indicate that he was trying to appease critics? I'm curious because as you may or may not know many critics lambast his book as being not willing to consider the critical voice enough. I wasn't dismissing the book, I just said it had its shortcomings, as does any book that is not perfect. And that is far different from what antagonists do when they disparage the Church's "apologists," as you ought to be able to understand. Fair enough. I suggested it would be an easy way to dismiss part of his book--meaning not the whole thing. Edited November 13, 2014 by stemelbow
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Thank you. That's what is in my memory as well. I wasn't disparaging Dr. Bushman -- for whom I have great respect -- or his book. I think stemelbow viewed by post with a chip-on-the-shoulder mentality. Not really. Just curious about your statement. Wondered what lead you to think that.
Calm Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) My husband thought that as well, that he tried too hard to appear neutral. Said he used too many "wiggle" words instead of coming right out and saying Joseph saw this vision or had this revelation. Again, don't have my copy so I can't provide a quote, but I think he used stuff like "Joseph claimed…" I wasn't of that opinion, but I automatically write that way myself a lot of the times. Edited November 13, 2014 by calmoriah 1
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 My husband thought that as well, that he tried too hard to appear neutral. Said he used too many "wiggle" words instead of coming right out and saying Joseph saw this vision or had this revelation. Again, don't have my copy so I can't provide a quote, but I think he used stuff like "Joseph claimed…" I wasn't of that opinion, but I automatically write that way myself a lot of the times. Same here.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Alright so where in the book does he indicate that he was trying to appease critics?I'm curious because as you may or may not know many critics lambast his book as being not willing to consider the critical voice enough. Fair enough. I suggested it would be an easy way to dismiss part of his book--meaning not the whole thing.At this point, I'm wondering if you saw calmoriah's excellent response post to your response to me.
Recommended Posts