Is The Church Ashamed Of The Prophet Joseph Smith?

[Gray]

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.

 

It is my observation in my own life that a strong family requires two attentive parents. Logistically that doesn't work out if you have one man split among many households. 

 

Mathematically, polygamy also leaves many men unable to form families of their own, which would serve to weaken the church. Mathematically it also leads to younger and younger brides, as available women become scarce, which I view as a problem. The practice also necessitated deception from so many of its participants for various reasons. Monogamy didn't have any of those issues. 

[Calm]

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've seen discussions about Grace or the Atonement lead to contention....I am not sure how something is discussed means much about how godly something is.

Edited April 15, 2015 by calmoriah

[Buckeye]

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.

 

So why wouldn't that be true today as well? I pointed this out and you replied that it's unnecessary because we already have a "critical mass." But those or two totally different arguments. One is focused on the survival of the church, the other on providing better options for women. So again, if polygamy in 1880 helped women have more options, why not consider it for 2015?

[Calm]

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

It seems unlikely to me that God would remove a prophet for error and not make clear that error...is there anything in the scriptures or teachings of this sort that indicate this?  That God would remove a prophet without making clear that he was doing so and why?  We have a number of scriptures where prophets are condemned (Moses, Samuel off the top of my head).

Edited April 15, 2015 by calmoriah

[Mystery Meat]

It seems unlikely to me that God would remove a prophet for error and not make clear that error...is there anything in the scriptures or teachings of this sort that indicate this?  That God would remove a prophet without making clear that he was doing so and why?  We have a number of scriptures where prophets are condemned (Moses, Samuel off the top of my head).

 

I am not sure there is a perfect corollary. King David, while not a prophet, certainly fell from grace for the way he practiced polygamy and it was no secret.  

[Gray]

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.

 

I'm not sure how it would be possible to know whether or not that was the case. 

[Scott Lloyd]

It is my observation in my own life that a strong family requires two attentive parents. Logistically that doesn't work out if you have one man split among many households. 

 

There are other variables to be considered here. A righteous man in a plural marriage might actually be more attentive and loving than an unrighteous man in a monogamous marriage.

 

Mathematically, polygamy also leaves many men unable to form families of their own, which would serve to weaken the church.

 

Not necessarily. Not if the men unable to form families of their own would not be likely to bring strength to the Church in any case.

 

 

Mathematically it also leads to younger and younger brides, as available women become scarce, which I view as a problem. The practice also necessitated deception from so many of its participants for various reasons. Monogamy didn't have any of those issues.

 

What you are describing sounds like conditions is a closed society such as the FLDS.

 

As someone pointed out here earlier, due to the influx of immigrants and the eventual waning and ultimate discontinuance of the practice, that never happened in the Church.

 

I've already said that plural marriage as a practical matter, could not have continued longer than it did, and in fact lasted as long as it need to for providing the critical mass of faithful membership that was needed in the Church.

[Mystery Meat]

It seems unlikely to me that God would remove a prophet for error and not make clear that error...is there anything in the scriptures or teachings of this sort that indicate this?  That God would remove a prophet without making clear that he was doing so and why?  We have a number of scriptures where prophets are condemned (Moses, Samuel off the top of my head).

 

Samuel literally killed a guy and he did not lose his calling. Paul (Saul) participated in the martyrdom of a devout disciple of Christ. In the Lord's mind they were both qualified to serve. Imagine if the internet, facebook and Mormon Think were around back then.

[Scott Lloyd]

So why wouldn't that be true today as well? I pointed this out and you replied that it's unnecessary because we already have a "critical mass." But those or two totally different arguments. One is focused on the survival of the church, the other on providing better options for women. So again, if polygamy in 1880 helped women have more options, why not consider it for 2015?

The condition of allowing women more options made for the strengthening of the Church through the more rapid populating of it with faithful households.

 

I think you and I would both agree that plural marriage would be far from practical in the Church today for many of the reasons that have been given against it. For the temporary period that it lasted, it served a needed purpose.

[Gray]

There are other variables to be considered here. A righteous man in a plural marriage might actually be more attentive and loving than an unrighteous man in a monogamous marriage.

 

It doesn't matter how righteous or loving you are, no man can give proper time and attention to 30, 50, or 100 children. 

 

 

Not necessarily. Not if the men unable to form families of their own would not be likely to bring strength to the Church in any case.

 

I don't see any reason to think that was the case. 

 

 

What you are describing sounds like conditions is a closed society such as the FLDS.

 

As someone pointed out here earlier, due to the influx of immigrants and the eventual waning and ultimate discontinuance of the practice, that never happened in the Church.

 

I've already said that plural marriage as a practical matter, could not have continued longer than it did, and in fact lasted as long as it need to for providing the critical mass of faithful membership that was needed in the Church.

 

Polygamy in Nauvoo required a lot of deception from those living the practice - it was kept secret from outsiders, most of the members and from Emma for a time. And then again in the latter days of polygamy the practice required a great deal of deception of government agents attempting to discover who was a polygamist and who was not. Converts from oversees were also kept in the dark about it until they arrived in Utah. Monogamy would have required no deception. 

 

My responses in blue, thanks.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Gray

[Calm]

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).

If it was easier to have joined the Church back then, perhaps it would have been easier to have left it as well (one did not have to have a strong of faith to join a church that practiced something one was naturally uncomfortable with and therefore joining without as strong of a conviction might lead to more members with less conviction joining and therefore more in the long run moving on to something else that appealed to them later on).

 

I think it is all speculation and no one can know for sure save that what was reported by those who wrote about it.  I know for my great... grandmother, she believed the plural marriage made her a better person and their family stronger in the faith, but she also reported being mocked and pitied for it by other women in the community (though she had her own prejudices as she said it was not the polygynously married women whose homes were in a poor state or whose families were suffering from neglect, but the snooty monogamous women's).

Edited April 15, 2015 by calmoriah

[Buckeye]

The condition of allowing women more options made for the strengthening of the Church through the more rapid populating of it with faithful households.

 

I think you and I would both agree that plural marriage would be far from practical in the Church today for many of the reasons that have been given against it. For the temporary period that it lasted, it served a needed purpose.

 

Socially speaking, yes, re-introduction of polygamy would be a disaster today. But legally speaking, I wouldn't be surprised to see the law allow it in the next 10 years (between adults of course). If that's true, and if you are correct that polygamy is a net strength to the church, then the church should at least weigh that positive against the negatives of social pressure. That is, unless you think the church doesn't need any more strength today.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not sure how it would be possible to know whether or not that was the case. 

One possible indicator would be the number of temple-endowed women vs. temple-endowed men during the time period in question.

 

I recall a few years ago having figures that showed the number was higher for women, but I wouldn't be able at the moment to put my hands on those numbers.

[Calm]

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.

 

Polygyny at the time of Jacob would seem to have encouraged them to assimulate into the greater immediate more worldly community as opposed to separate themselves into a covenant people, the opposite of what was going on in the modern church....will have to go back and reread it as this is off the top of my head.

Edited April 15, 2015 by calmoriah

[Gray]

One possible indicator would be the number of temple-endowed women vs. temple-endowed men during the time period in question.

 

I recall a few years ago having figures that showed the number was higher for women, but I wouldn't be able at the moment to put my hands on those numbers.

 

If you happen to find them, I'd be interested to know. But I know you're fielding a lot of responses, so no rush on my account. 

[ALarson]

The condition of allowing women more options made for the strengthening of the Church through the more rapid populating of it with faithful households.

 

And again, you don't know this.  As someone else (or many) posted, there most likely would have been more join the church and remain with the church if it wasn't for the fact that polygamy became a part of the early church.  How many left over this?  Men and women?

 

And, how many would have joined the church if it didn't include accepting polygamy?  There may have been even more faithful households if more wanted to join.

 

Bottom line is that your argument is not really that convincing, but you're entitled to your opinion and to believe it.

Edited April 15, 2015 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

You know, back at the beginning of this thread I stated:

 

There has been a definite change in the way Joseph is talked about among members.  Whether its source is the Church itself I couldn't say.  But if you don't think Joseph is spoken about differently by members today than he was 50, 100, 150 years ago you probably haven't been paying attention.

 

Goodness knows I've received enough negative response from members on this site for expressing what was a standard view of the Prophet Joseph 100 years ago.

 

To which was quickly responded:

 

 
CFR, if you please, regarding your last statement ("I've received enough negative response from members on this site for expressing what was a standard view of the Prophet Joseph 100 years ago.").

 

 

This thread has ballooned in size to 23 pages and half of them feature current members of the Church posting negative comments about the way Joseph was viewed by members 100-150 years ago.

Mostly due to polygamy of course.

But back when polygamy was still considered righteous (and not "a mistake") by members, say 100-150 years ago, Joseph was considered righteous for restoring and living it.

Today many members posting on this board are stating here that it was a mistake and Joseph was dishonest, selfish, deceptive, coercive, stole wives, married children, etc, etc.

 

What more evidence do we need of a change in view of the Prophet Joseph by many members?

The Church may not be ashamed, but there are certainly many members who no longer revere the man, just the bits of the restored gospel they agree with.

[Scott Lloyd]

My responses in blue, thanks.

Most polygamous households did not have "30, 50 or 100  children." More than two or three wives was the exception, as I understand it.

 

Plural marriage was not widely practiced in the Nauvoo period. It was revealed by then and introduced to a tight circle of the Prophet's associates but did not get going in earnest until the Utah period.

[Calm]

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?

Those who practiced plural marriage, especially those with larger numbers of wives than the typical 2, tended to be leaders in the faith community, thus with close ties to the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm afraid I'll have to disengage from this thread. Too many separate conversations to deal with, and I have other things that require my attention.

 

I may or may not return later.

[Calm]

 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.

And a more financially secure husband, which was the apparent motivateion for many immigrant women (see Daynes' research as I mentioned before).

[Buckeye]

 

 

What more evidence do we need of a change in view of the Prophet Joseph by many members?

The Church may not be ashamed, but there are certainly many members who no longer revere the man, just the bits of the restored gospel they agree with.

 

It all depends on how large the "bits" are. I'm ashamed of some things my parents did, yet I still revere them and hold to the significant amount of true teachings and examples they supplied me. I can't imagine why I would give more deference to Joseph than to my own parents. After all, I'm sealed to them, not him. As with some many debates in the church, the issue seems to be whether we are allowed to hold on to the baby while throwing out the bathwater, or whether we have to hold our noses and pretend the bathwater is pure glacier runoff.

[jackson20]

I have so many questions . It would be great to actually have well thought out responses--- backed by scripture . 

 

Question:...... Joseph Smith stated that without the ordinances and authority of the priesthood "no man" can see the face of God and live (D & C 84:21, 22).  He also said that he saw God in 1820 (Joseph Smith 2:17).  Joseph Smith, however, never received any priesthood until 1829 (D&C 13).  How did he see God and survive?  In which was he in error: his revelation in D & C 84:21, 22 or his experience in the grove? 

 

The more I research JS from Mormon sources the more I find he contradicts himself.  Mormons can look this up in their own Church history which verifies his statements.

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Today many members posting on this board are stating here that it was a mistake and Joseph was dishonest, selfish, deceptive, coercive, stole wives, married children, etc, etc.

 

What more evidence do we need of a change in view of the Prophet Joseph by many members?

The Church may not be ashamed, but there are certainly many members who no longer revere the man, just the bits of the restored gospel they agree with.

 

Members then and members now have problems with Joseph as evidenced by multitudes of defections. He had many qualities worthy of praise but also many actions which appear vile. The church identifies some of those actions and offers no explanation other than, "Joseph was good because we say so". The church has a terrible record in propping Joseph up and praising him as the man who has done more for mankind save Jesus himself while burying dirty details of his life. It's no wonder people are left scratching their heads and coming to their own conclusions.

[JLHPROF]

I have so many questions . It would be great to actually have well thought out responses--- backed by scripture . 

 

Question:...... Joseph Smith stated that without the ordinances and authority of the priesthood "no man" can see the face of God and live (D & C 84:21, 22).  He also said that he saw God in 1820 (Joseph Smith 2:17).  Joseph Smith, however, never received any priesthood until 1829 (D&C 13).  How did he see God and survive?  In which was he in error: his revelation in D & C 84:21, 22 or his experience in the grove? 

 

The more I research JS from Mormon sources the more I find he contradicts himself.  Mormons can look this up in their own Church history which verifies his statements.

 

Joseph's statement on "seeing God and living" refers to the presence of God.

The first vision was a vision - God is more than capable of withholding some of his glory from our view.

However, having God's physical presence is entirely different as the scriptures show.

 

Absolutely zero contradiction.

Edited April 15, 2015 by JLHPROF