Is The Church Ashamed Of The Prophet Joseph Smith?

[JulieM]

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.

Got it! Thanks

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I was thinking somebody might bring up the RLDS Church, and I almost answered the argument in advance.

 

The RLDS survived indeed. But only by making accommodations that would have been wholly unacceptable to the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

Consider the substantial differences today between the Church of Jesus Christ and the Community of Christ. Are you saying other things should be jettisoned as well, besides plural marriage? How about the doctrine of exaltation, the eternal sealing of families?

 

Do you really want to go there?

[rongo]

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.

Another thought that occurs to me is that the waves of convert-immigrants of the 1850s, 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s ensured that the Church and then-polygamy was nothing like the FLDS of today (which is a common claim --- that if you want to see what Mormon polygamy is like, just look at the FLDS). I remember seeing a Dr. Phil episode where he interviewed some "lost boys" from the FLDS, and there was footage of men on ATVs patrolling the fenced in community of Dorado, Texas --- keeping outsiders out). This was the complete opposite of how European immigrant-converts were assimilated into 19th century Deseret/Utah Territory communities. 

 

In fact, I don't think the FLDS particularly welcomes converts ---- certainly not waves of them like in the 19th century.

Edited April 15, 2015 by rongo

[HappyJackWagon]

 

But you said the lectures were part of the canon.

 

Not according to the link you've provided here.

 

Did you read the link properly?

WHAT are you talking about? Lectures on Faith were a part of the D&C until 1921 and the D&C was accepted scripture in the church. It followed the pattern for canonization. It was presented by the leaders and voted on by the church and accepted. What is your logic for saying that parts of the D&C were not canon?

Although, on 2nd thought, perhaps I like your capricious exclusion of scripture. If I follow your example I can simply claim D&C 132 is not canon and it will be true to me. Ok. I'm with you.

[Teancum]

Have you looked at any of the links I gave here? Or are you determined to stick our fingers in your ears and hum? And then turn around and complain again and again about how you've been kept in the dark?

 

 

Some things are simply obviously wrong once you are willing to confront it and take a risk of what it may mean.

[carbon dioxide]

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.

 

It is true in a sense that they did give up.   Perhaps a sufficient number in the Church were not willing to fight and die and the Lord just gave up on the Church on continuing the practice.  I don't know why God did not do more to protect it like destroy a bunch of eastern US cities to keep the enemies occupied with other things.  I don't have a problem with the Church practicing polygamy and I don't have a problem with it not practicing it.  How it all ended does bring a bad taste in my mouth.  There are not too many issues in church history that brings some level of embarrassment to me but this is one that does.

[Teancum]

So the problem you have to solve for yourself is whether or not Joseph was a prophet who received divine revelation.

 

 

Yes well in this case the answer is a clear no.  And I have even prayed about it and got a no answer.  What should we do with that?

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

It's more than a guess.

 

Reasoned analysis. At least give me that much.

[Gray]

And I'll just say that the Church's survival into and thriving during the 20th century and beyond is due in part to the sacrifice of early Church members in obeying the commandment to practice plurality of wives.

 

I would say in spite of, not because of, but of course either position is a judgement call. 

[Buckeye]

I was thinking somebody might bring up the RLDS Church, and I almost answered the argument in advance.

 

The RLDS survived indeed. But only by making accommodations that would have been wholly unacceptable to the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

Consider the substantial differences today between the Church of Jesus Christ and the Community of Christ. Are you saying other things should be jettisoned as well, besides plural marriage? How about the doctrine of exaltation, the eternal sealing of families?

 

Do you really want to go there?

 

You said that survival required polygamy. I pointed to counter-examples. That's all. Perhaps the church would be weaker without the polygamy experience. Perhaps it would be stronger. I can't see a way to conclusively determine that. But to say the church would not have surived without polygamy is demonstrably false.

[Scott Lloyd]

Another thought that occurs to me is that the waves of convert-immigrants of the 1850s, 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s ensured that the Church and then-polygamy was nothing like the FLDS of today (which is a common claim --- that if you want to see what Mormon polygamy is like, just look at the FLDS). I remember seeing a Dr. Phil episode where he interviewed some "lost boys" from the FLDS, and there was footage of men on ATVs patrolling the fenced in community of Dorado, Texas --- keeping outsiders out). This was the complete opposite of how European immigrant-converts were assimilated into 19th century Deseret/Utah Territory communities. 

 

In fact, I don't think the FLDS particularly welcomes converts ---- certainly not waves of them like in the 19th century.

True.

 

This is just one of the reasons I believe plural marriage could not have continued in the Church longer than it did and lasted just long enough to accomplish the Lord's purpose -- to "raise up seed" unto him. The critical mass I talked about.

[Gray]

I may not understand all the reasons for it but If I believe God commanded it, then it was not a mistake at least of God's end.   It is clear to me that those who lived in the 19th century believed God commanded it.  The fact that mistakes were done by those who practice it has no reflection on the commandment itself.  Polygamy in my estimation would be hard to live and mistakes would occur.  It was unavoidable.

 

My view is based on observing the fruits of polygamy and coming to the conclusion that they were on balance negative, not positive. Everyone must judge for themselves. 

[Teancum]

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

 

Wow

 

A whole thread is needed on this. Yes they were. Quite clearly.

[Scott Lloyd]

You said that survival required polygamy. I pointed to counter-examples. That's all. Perhaps the church would be weaker without the polygamy experience. Perhaps it would be stronger. I can't see a way to conclusively determine that. But to say the church would not have surived without polygamy is demonstrably false.

If I say "survived as we know it today," would that pass muster with you?

[Scott Lloyd]

Wow

 

A whole thread is needed on this. Yes they were. Quite clearly.

I don't get that from the link.

[Gray]

And I'll state that we are looking at an eternal principle based on mortal perspectives.  No wonder we get it wrong.

 

I can agree with that statement, no matter what the topic

[Teancum]

I don't know that you've properly considered the content in the links I gave you.

 

If you have, you are entitled to your opinion. But this material at least shows that a plausible case can be made to the contrary.

 

 

And this is the crux of it. Apologists start with the premise that the Church and JS is what is claimed and as long as it is plausible then they win.  This seems like a pretty low bar to me.

[Scott Lloyd]

My view is based on observing the fruits of polygamy and coming to the conclusion that they were on balance negative, not positive. Everyone must judge for themselves. 

Quickly establishing a large number of righteous households in the Church so it could operate from a position of strength in obeying the Lord's commandment to take the gospel to the world is quite a substantial positive. It would take a lot of negative to outweigh that.

[Scott Lloyd]

And this is the crux of it. Apologists start with the premise that the Church and JS is what is claimed and as long as it is plausible then they win.  This seems like a pretty low bar to me.

Well, I've dealt with this before.

 

Plausibility is all that's needed to keep the question so that one can go to the Lord in prayer and seek a spiritual witness. That's all the Church is trying to do. So long as we keep the question open, we've won.

[Buckeye]

If I say "survived as we know it today," would that pass muster with you?

 

Sure, but that would lead to a meaningless conclusion. It's like saying, "if Jimmy hadn't experienced X he would not be the same person he is today." That statement may be true. Jimmy is a reflection of the things he has experienced. But that doesn't mean that "X" should be viewed as a positive just because it played a part of Jimmy's life. "X" could have been polio, having a child die, competing in the olympics, cheating on his wife, or (for this post) engaging in polygamy at the command of Brigham. The fact that Jimmy's makeup is a result of "X" doesn't tell us anything about whether Jimmy would be better off if "X" hadn't happened.

[stemelbow]

It's more than a guess.

 

Reasoned analysis. At least give me that much.

I'd give it to ya, I just haven't seen it. What makes you think that the Church survived because of polygamy? We'd have to know that it would have not survived without practicing polygamy--something that seems to me to be unknowable, at this point.

[JulieM]

Quickly establishing a large number of righteous households in the Church so it could operate from a position of strength in obeying the Lord's commandment to take the gospel to the world is quite a substantial positive. It would take a lot of negative to outweigh that.

How do you know that couldn't have been accomplished without living polygamy? There may have been thousands more converted to the church if there wasn't the horror and repulsiveness attached to it because of polygamy (back then and still today).

[Buckeye]

Quickly establishing a large number of righteous households in the Church so it could operate from a position of strength in obeying the Lord's commandment to take the gospel to the world is quite a substantial positive. It would take a lot of negative to outweigh that.

 

If this is true, then why don't we see that pattern in other dispensations? The early xtian church, Lehi's group, the Jaredites, etc - none of them were commanded to engage in polygamy in order to build a "position of strength." In fact, at least with Lehi's group, they were expressly commanded not to.

 

Edit to add: under this logic, anything that causes opposition to the church can be judged good, regardless of the harm done to the institution, families, or the world. Consider the racial priesthood ban. That certainly caused opposition. Was that part of some grand plan to place the church in a position of strength? If so, I propose the church reintroduce animal sacrifice as soon as possible. Heaven knows we could use some more opposition just for the sake of opposition.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Buckeye

[stemelbow]

Quickly establishing a large number of righteous households in the Church so it could operate from a position of strength in obeying the Lord's commandment to take the gospel to the world is quite a substantial positive. It would take a lot of negative to outweigh that.

So when you say, "quickly establishing a large number of righteous households in the Church" what reason would you give that there would not have been a "large number of righteous households in the Church" if polygamy was not practiced?

[Scott Lloyd]

Sure, but that would lead to a meaningless conclusion. It's like saying, "if Jimmy hadn't experienced X he would not be the same person he is today." That statement may be true. Jimmy is a reflection of the things he has experienced. But that doesn't mean that "X" should be viewed as a positive just because it played a part of Jimmy's life. "X" could have been polio, having a child die, competing in the olympics, cheating on his wife, or (for this post) engaging in polygamy at the command of Brigham. The fact that Jimmy's makeup is a result of "X" doesn't tell us anything about whether Jimmy would be better off if "X" hadn't happened.

So you're saying, then, that there's a lot about the Church of Jesus Christ today that is dispensible? Things like the doctrine of the eternal family unit, sealings, the plan of happiness, exaltation -- basically everything that was reavealed to the Church after the Kirtland and Missouri periods?

 

Because that's what the RLDS threw out.