Is The Church Ashamed Of The Prophet Joseph Smith?

[Mystery Meat]

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.

 

I think this is spot on.

[Scott Lloyd]

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).

Asked and answered.

 

The odds were already stacked against the Church even without polygamy. What it did was to establish the strength of numbers.

[stemelbow]

Asked and answered.

 

The odds were already stacked against the Church even without polygamy. What it did was to establish the strength of numbers.

What do you mean? "The Strength of numbers"? What makes you think the numbers would have been less without polygamy?

[rongo]

I don't get that from the link.

You need to concede this point, Scott. LoF were canonized the same way that D&C 137 and 138 were in the 1970s. And, they were removed in 1921, with Elder Talmage heavily behind it (probably mostly because of the Godhead confusion in, what is it, Lecure 5?). 

 

I think that it is clear to anyone who reads LoF and is familiar with Joseph Smith's writings and revelations that LoF are not Joseph Smith's work. The language and theology is different in places.

[Mystery Meat]

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.

 

I liked your first two sentences and for that reason gave you a rep point. I don't support the rest.

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

That there were not enough righteous and valiant men to go around. Women would have had to settle for less or nothing at all.

 

I thought I already explained this.

[Mystery Meat]

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

 

Funny how this statement could go both ways.

[Scott Lloyd]

What do you mean? "The Strength of numbers"? What makes you think the numbers would have been less without polygamy?

Asked and answered.

 

See above.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

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.

Scott, I see that you are avoiding this. Can you please explain your contention that the Lectures were NOT a part of the D&C? If not, conceding the point is also acceptable.

[JulieM]

Funny how this statement could go both ways.

Oh, I agree.

[Mystery Meat]

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.

 

Teacum, I have grown to like you. Truly. Since our interactions have become more cordial as of late, I hope you will allow me to point out the bolded portion of your comment. Since you complain from time to time about people misunderstanding you on this board. The bolded statement is a good reason why. You could have worded this so much different, not to mention respectfully, and still gotten the point (which is fair) across.

Edited April 15, 2015 by lvjd66

[JulieM]

That there were not enough righteous and valiant men to go around. Women would have had to settle for less or nothing at all.

 

I thought I already explained this.

There could have been MORE righteous and valiant men (and women) if polygamy wasn't practiced by the church. More may have joined and those who left over polygamy may have stayed. The issue of polygamy is still having this affect today on the church.

[Senator]

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.

Nonsense. The church has never been stronger than it is today.

[Scott Lloyd]

You need to concede this point, Scott. LoF were canonized the same way that D&C 137 and 138 were in the 1970s. And, they were removed in 1921, with Elder Talmage heavily behind it (probably mostly because of the Godhead confusion in, what is it, Lecure 5?). 

 

I think that it is clear to anyone who reads LoF and is familiar with Joseph Smith's writings and revelations that LoF are not Joseph Smith's work. The language and theology is different in places.

I'm going by this from the link provided by HappyJackWagon:

 

 

The Church said that they were removed because they had never been presented to or accepted by the membership as being anything other than theological lectures or lessons

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons".^[6] This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith. b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine. c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants.^[7]

 

 

I take it from this that they were not canon because they were not revelations and they were never presented to and accepted by the Church as being other than theological lessons (roughly equivalent to Church lesson manuals of today).

 

But maybe we are arguing semantics. At this point, I'd just as soon drop the matter.

[Buckeye]

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.

 

Yes, there certainly are many things that are dispensible. Missionary age limits, gender-based priesthood restrictions, 3-hour block schedules, use of water instead of wine for sacrament, absolute prohibitions on alcohol consumption, etc. But just because some things are temporary doesn't mean all things are. Eternal families, plan of happiness, exaltation are all teachings that I've seen lead to growth in members. They come closer to God through embracing those teachings. So I fully expect them to stay around.

 

As for RLDS, I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure they believe in families continuing after this life, a plan of happiness, and growth towards a state of being as close to God's as possible. Pretty much all xtians believe those things. Not just us.

[Calm]

I've read that there would have been more children born if the women hadn't been in polygamous relationships. Is that true?

Only if they had been married.  (the same number of women plurally married will produce slightly less children than monogamously married, but given the reality was that there would have likely been less women married at the time due to having to wait until older to be married, that iirc actually removed the expected difference).

 

Immigrant women who were married into plural marriage tended to be married earlier than those who married monogamously.  It also allowed for women who had no family to support them to gain financial security in a way that wasn't normally available (many women were arriving from overseas without family).

 

See Kathryn Daynes' research on how plural marriage contributed to the upward economic movement of women at the time.

[rongo]

That there were not enough righteous and valiant men to go around. Women would have had to settle for less or nothing at all.

 

I thought I already explained this.

I think that this explanation comes close to the erroneous "polygamy started because there were more women than men and they married them to help them cross the plains." 

 

Polygamy consolidated righteous fatherhood. Ideally. Most members did not participate in it (Journal of Discourses talks routinely place participation at about 10% of the Church), but those who were authorized were seen as being "most worthy." There were exceptions (everyone can come up with some horror stories), of course. We wouldn't do any better in our day, and would probably do much worse. 

 

My ancestry has some horror stories and storybook polygamous marriages (including three wives who got along very well and were very satisfied living it, based on their journals). 

[Buckeye]

That there were not enough righteous and valiant men to go around. Women would have had to settle for less or nothing at all.

 

I thought I already explained this.

 

If that's the case, then judging by current trends in LDS singles wards it's high time to reintroduce the principle.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Scott, I see that you are avoiding this. Can you please explain your contention that the Lectures were NOT a part of the D&C? If not, conceding the point is also acceptable.

I wasn't avoiding it. I didn't see it until I went back just now and looked.

 

Please see my response to Rongo.

[Scott Lloyd]

If that's the case, then judging by current trends in LDS singles wards it's high time to reintroduce the principle.

The critical mass was reached long ago.

[Buckeye]

I'm going by this from the link provided by HappyJackWagon:

 

 

I take it from this that they were not canon because they were not revelations and they were never presented to and accepted by the Church as being other than theological lessons (roughly equivalent to Church lesson manuals of today).

 

But maybe we are arguing semantics. At this point, I'd just as soon drop the matter.

 

'Canon' is simply what the membership votes on. Revelation means something that purports to come from God. Our canon includes both revelation (e.g., Section 1) and non-revelation (e.g., Section 134). In 1921 the church leadership decided to remove the LoF because they were not revelation (official reason) and because they conflicted with other church teachings (unofficial reason). But there never was a dispute that LoF were part of the canon for nearly 100 years. They came in by a vote. They were dropped by a vote.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

The critical mass was reached long ago.

 

But that's not the rationale you just provided. Most recently you defended polygamy on the ground that there weren't enough men for the women. That's equally true today.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think that this explanation comes close to the erroneous "polygamy started because there were more women than men and they married them to help them cross the plains." 

 

No, it's not a bit like it.

 

According to raw population figures, there was roughly an equal ratio of men to women. But that's not saying all the men were equal in terms of their commitment, faithfulness, etc.

 

Polygamy consolidated righteous fatherhood. Ideally. Most members did not participate in it (Journal of Discourses talks routinely place participation at about 10% of the Church), but those who were authorized were seen as being "most worthy."

 

That's what I'm saying. Why are you contradicting me?

[Calm]

  Deut 25:5-10 gives a clear instruction of when a person might be commanded to practice it.  It is not addressed to an unmarried brother by any brother married or single. 

And the Jews certainly understood it that way as it was one of the reasons used to argue against forbidding polygyny among European Jews in the middle ages.

[Scott Lloyd]

But that's not the rationale you just provided. Most recently you defended polygamy on the ground that there weren't enough men for the women. That's equally true today.

That's a mischaracterization.

 

What I said was that there were likely more righteous and valiant women than men. What plural marriage did was give a woman the option of marrying a more righteous man rather in a plural marriage rather than settling for something less in a monogamous one.