Is The Church Ashamed Of The Prophet Joseph Smith?

[Scott Lloyd]

not really. If no polygamy perhaps far more would have joined the Church, more men would have been faithful, and women too, for that matter; thus cancelling out any perceived bonus of having more strong members with polygamy. Perhaps by now we'd be 50 million members, and perhaps by 1875 we would have been 1 million strong. We'd never know, of course.

The Church was already under intense oppression and persecution even before the practice of plural marriage became widely known. I think you are fantasizing if you believe it could have survived under such conditions without making unacceptable accommodations.

[Scott Lloyd]

"Properly considered"? Do you even realize how you treat people on here?

Um...no, I IMPROPERLY considered the info

Maybe so, maybe not. The comments you make here don't really reflect a mastery of the subject.

[stemelbow]

To the extent that happens (if it happens), I would guess it's because people are apt to get nasty and hostile about it whenever the topic comes up.

 

This thread is a good example.

Whose being nasty and hostile, Scott? I haven't seen it. I've seen you condescend, but I don't consider that nasty and hostile behavior. Just not very polite.

The Church doesn't like to talk about, doesn't like it to be part of our regular Church meetings for some reason.

[Buckeye]

 

It amazes me, given how many people are converts, what the result is when you ask a class at church how many have polygamy in their heritage (ancestors). The impact was much more far-reaching than simply "raising up seed" --- that was part of it, but it had a strengthening impact that is still felt generations after it was discontinued. 

 

...

 

 

Statistically speaking, each new generation will necessarily include more persons with at least one LDS polygamous ancestor than in previous generations. However, the proportion of ancestors for such members will continue to go down. It's the same principle by which we can conclude that, if Abraham left any living seed, then all people today are literally his descendant. While that's true for Abraham, it's also true for anyone who lived as long ago as he and who left living seed. We're all the literal children of Cain as much as Abraham (even Brigham !)

 

Oddly enough, as a 4th generation member, I have 0 ancestors who were LDS polygamous. Neither do my kids because my wife is a 3rd generation member. But it's practically guarenteed that at some point one of my grandchildren or great-grandchildren will have such ancestors, as my children and grandchildren marry persons with such ancestors.

[Scott Lloyd]

Whose being nasty and hostile, Scott? I haven't seen it. I've seen you condescend, but I don't consider that nasty and hostile behavior. Just not very polite.

The Church doesn't like to talk about, doesn't like it to be part of our regular Church meetings for some reason.

Well isn't the reason obvious? It's a hot-button topic that tends to generate more heat than light in discussions.

 

And you misinterpreted my meaning. The nasty comments have not been toward other board participants but toward the Prophet Joseph Smith and, to a lesser degree, the Church in general.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

"Properly considered"? Do you even realize how you treat people on here?

Um...no, I IMPROPERLY considered the info

 

JulieM, take it from someone who's been here awhile, don't ever expect Scott to concede anything. If there's a difference between his view and yours, it's always you who needs more research/prayer/obedience. It's better just to move on.

 

 

... and whatever you do, don't make any 40 year predictions!

[stemelbow]

The Church was already under intense oppression and persecution even before the practice of plural marriage became widely known. I think you are fantasizing if you believe it could have survived under such conditions without making unacceptable accommodations.

What's unacceptable to you might be quite acceptable to plenty of others. Maybe the Church could have greatly benefited in many ways by making accommodations that you deem unacceptable but God deems acceptable.

[rongo]

 

Is that why the Church largely distances itself from polygamy whenever the topic comes up?

I don't. No matter what "the Church" does. 

 

I do think that waffling and dissembling on certain things has not been good (the essays are an attempt to undo this). I've always been open about these things, and haven't cared for some people in the Church's (including public affairs) Jack Nicholson immitation ("You can't handle the truth!").

[carbon dioxide]

The Church doesn't like to talk about, doesn't like it to be part of our regular Church meetings for some reason.

I think the reason is clear on this board.  People have been raise in an environment that polygamy is always wrong.  So God of course can't command or authorize polygamy.  For a while I thought that it should be a discussion that should be done in Church.  I thought the members would be able to handle it.  I really don't think that is the case.  Meetings should not have contention and end well.  I don't see how one can have a polygamy discussion in Church without people leaving upset.  Unfortunately the Church is still too weak to be able to handle subjects like this.

[JulieM]

Maybe so, maybe not. The comments you make here don't really reflect a mastery of the subject.

The same could be said of you, of course. I have studied this topic and read much on it (including what you sent me again). Do I have it mastered? Probably not, but who does? You seem to insult anyone who disagrees with you which from what I've seen hasn't been very affective for you.

[Buckeye]

Well isn't the reason obvious? It's a hot-button topic that tends to generate more heat than light in discussions.

 

I fully agree with this. Even tangential reference to polygamy can derail an entire class. I've seen it many times. That's one reason I'm very doubtful about the practice coming from God. Supposedly he is the author of peace, not contention. Since polygamy nearly universally leads to contention, I'm doubtful it's from him.

[HappyJackWagon]

CFR that the Lectures on Faith were ever part of the scriptural canon.

"The Lectures were the "doctrine" portion of the Doctrine and CovenantsThe Lectures were included as the "doctrine" portion of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants (the revelations comprised the "covenants" portion). The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." [2]

While the Lectures on Faith were at one time included in the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed from the 1921 edition (along with other items; for more information see D&C Textual Changes) that were not considered official revelation and binding doctrine by the church."

http://en.fairmormon.org/Doctrine_and_Covenants/Lectures_on_Faith/Removed

[Scott Lloyd]

Statistically speaking, each new generation will necessarily include more persons with at least one LDS polygamous ancestor than in previous generations. However, the proportion of ancestors for such members will continue to go down. It's the same principle by which we can conclude that, if Abraham left any living seed, then all people today are literally his descendant. While that's true for Abraham, it's also true for anyone who lived as long ago as he and who left living seed. We're all the literal children of Cain as much as Abraham (even Brigham !)

 

Oddly enough, as a 4th generation member, I have 0 ancestors who were LDS polygamous. Neither do my kids because my wife is a 3rd generation member. But it's practically guarenteed that at some point one of my grandchildren or great-grandchildren will have such ancestors, as my children and grandchildren marry persons with such ancestors.

But plural marriage ensured the survival of the Church in the crucial period when it was undergoing intense oppression and struggling to survive through the rigors of frontier settlement, all the while endeavoring to spread the gospel message in Europe, the British Isles and elsewhere.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

JulieM, take it from someone who's been here awhile, don't ever expect Scott to concede anything. If there's a difference between his view and yours, it's always you who needs more research/prayer/obedience. It's better just to move on.

 

 

... and whatever you do, don't make any 40 year predictions!

Thanks Buckeye! I'm realizing that. Some aren't here to learn or discuss, but just to preach and judge. That's ok and I'm now aware of where he falls. Funny about the predictions

[Sleeper Cell]

 

 

I ask this question sincerely. If you're arguing that polygamy must have been true or Joseph would have been removed from his place, how can you be so sure that he wasn't? Can you know for sure that God didn't remove Joseph? Or if God chose to remove Joseph do you know HOW he would do it?

So God removes Joseph for polygamy and allows Brigham Young to replace him?   

Edited April 15, 2015 by Sleeper Cell

[Scott Lloyd]

"The Lectures were the "doctrine" portion of the Doctrine and CovenantsThe Lectures were included as the "doctrine" portion of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants (the revelations comprised the "covenants" portion). The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." [2]

While the Lectures on Faith were at one time included in the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed from the 1921 edition (along with other items; for more information see D&C Textual Changes) that were not considered official revelation and binding doctrine by the church."

http://en.fairmormon.org/Doctrine_and_Covenants/Lectures_on_Faith/Removed

But you said the lectures were part of the canon.

 

Not according to the link you've provided here.

[Buckeye]

But the plural marriage ensured the survival of the Church in the crucial period when it was undergoing intense oppression and struggling to survive through the rigors of frontier settlement, all the while endeavoring to spread the gospel message in Europe, the British Isles and elsewhere.

 

That's a fine opinion, but there's no way to test it. No control group.

 

Oh wait, there are control groups. Consider the RLDS - they rejected polygamy and they survived. Or consider the pre-Nauvoo LDS church - they survived oppression and frontier life without the support of polygamy. Or consider the 7th day adventists, scientologist, moonies, and other recently-added faiths. Somehow they each survived oppression without needing polygamy.

[carbon dioxide]

So God removes Joseph for polygamy, only to replace him with Brigham Young?   

And then John Taylor.

[Teancum]

And I'll just say that I agree with Grey and believe that polygamy was a monumental mistake that nearly destroyed the Church.

 

 

You know what is amazing is Scott and other down the line believers can spin things to make it look like it is all good.

 

But the fact, the evidence, and yes evidence is important on this issue and it is abundant, is that the 19 century LDS leaders fought tooth and nail to keep polygamy alive and well. They defended it almost to the death.  Polygamists were imprisoned,  John Taylor died in hiding and on and on. The Church would never give it up!  If it did it would be in apostasy.

 

Yet sadly for the 19th century LDS Church and its apostles and prophets the might and power of the United State Government proved more powerful than the might of the LDS God to preserve plural marriage.  Rather than to be destroyed.... and yes the LDS Church would have been destroyed... President Woodruff even acknowledged this....they gave up.

 

Yet Scott views this as good and a testimony builder.

 

Amazing.

[rongo]

Statistically speaking, each new generation will necessarily include more persons with at least one LDS polygamous ancestor than in previous generations. However, the proportion of ancestors for such members will continue to go down. It's the same principle by which we can conclude that, if Abraham left any living seed, then all people today are literally his descendant. While that's true for Abraham, it's also true for anyone who lived as long ago as he and who left living seed. We're all the literal children of Cain as much as Abraham (even Brigham !)

 

Oddly enough, as a 4th generation member, I have 0 ancestors who were LDS polygamous. Neither do my kids because my wife is a 3rd generation member. But it's practically guarenteed that at some point one of my grandchildren or great-grandchildren will have such ancestors, as my children and grandchildren marry persons with such ancestors.

That's a good point that I had never thought of before.

 

In my stake, I keep running into descendants of John Hess (my ancestor who had six wives). One of them was one of my young women's presidents, and we used to tease each other because she was through the 16 year-old wife (the other five were in their sixties). I countered that I was through the first wife . . .

 

I do think that the spiritual heritage and effect on the subsequent generations of the Church is one of strength. Part of this might be because of the forced sacrifice and the galvanizing effect of the world vs. the Church. 

[carbon dioxide]

That's a fine opinion, but there's no way to test it. No control group.

 

Oh wait, there are control groups. Consider the RLDS - they rejected polygamy and they survived.

The "RLDS" survived and what has it turned into.  They are a stagnant church that has changed so much that Joseph Smith would hardly recognize any of it. 

[Buckeye]

Thanks Buckeye! I'm realizing that. Some aren't here to learn or discuss, but just to preach and judge. That's ok and I'm now aware of where he falls. Funny about the predictions

 

To be fair, Scott does have his virtues too. He's pretty well versed in church history. And by working at the DN he is plugged into some circles that no one else here can. He reliably (almost) always falls on the side of whatever the church is (currently) teaching, but IMO that's not so bad. So take him as a good source of information, but don't expect to ever change his mind. In fact, there's only one poster on this board who is more stubborn that Scott  ... a certain cad from Ohio who likes sheep.

[JulieM]

But plural marriage ensured the survival of the Church in the crucial period when it was undergoing intense oppression and struggling to survive through the rigors of frontier settlement, all the while endeavoring to spread the gospel message in Europe, the British Isles and elsewhere.

Who for the most part, were lied to about the saints living polygamy in Utah (even by John Taylor). But many did join and come out to Utah from Europe. That much is true.

[Scott Lloyd]

I fully agree with this. Even tangential reference to polygamy can derail an entire class. I've seen it many times. That's one reason I'm very doubtful about the practice coming from God. Supposedly he is the author of peace, not contention. Since polygamy nearly universally leads to contention, I'm doubtful it's from him.

See Matthew 10:3-4.

 

34 Think not that I am come to send ^apeace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

 36 And a man’s ^afoes shall be they of his own ^bhousehold.

 37 He that ^aloveth father or mother ^bmore than me is not worthy of me: and he that ^cloveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

 38 And he that taketh not his ^across, and followeth after me, is not ^bworthy of me.

 

 

Much of the truth that Christ brings is resisted by the world.

 

It would be foolish indeed to reject something from God as being not of God merely because it makes some people angry.

[stemelbow]

But plural marriage ensured the survival of the Church in the crucial period when it was undergoing intense oppression and struggling to survive through the rigors of frontier settlement, all the while endeavoring to spread the gospel message in Europe, the British Isles and elsewhere.

But as it is, you don't know if the Church would have survived without polygamy because what was real and was lived, at that time, was polygamy. We can't go back and change what happened. it happened. But to pretend that we know polygamy ensured the survival of the Church is nothing but a guess. You simply don't now if it would have survived without polygamy.