Do The Essays Confirm "anti-Mormon Lies"?

[Mars]

First of all "kings" was a typo- It should have been "kinds".

 

Yes- warningings against anti-mormon lies came through loud and clear in conference. Therefore, if something sounded bad and was unknown by leaders or teachers it was dismissed as anti mormon lies. Are you taking the position that difficult history like JS polygamy/polyandry etc was readily accepted by the brethren in GC and the church membership in general? If so, your experience is very different than mine.

 

As an experiment try going into your ward next Sunday and talk about seer stone in a hat, joseph smith polygamy, multiple first vision accounts, racism in the church (priesthood ban) and see if you don't get considerable push back. Please return and report.

 

1. if they were loud and clear, i think you should be able to point to them and state exactly what's wrong. 

 

2. no, i'm not arguing that everyone was like "oh ok, i've heard this, let's move on."  i don't want to trivialize people's hardships with learning this information.  i want to combat the narrative that i often see wherein the church is a sly dog just trying to pull a fast one on its members.  i hardly consider the tanners, and in some respects fawn brodie's book, to be these bastions of honest truth seekers who only published what was credible, vetted, and honest in its sources.  as a result, i don't see the essays as confirming what they originally said.  i see the essays as the product of natural questions, years of research, and an attempt to (wisely, imo) reverse course on the positive spin the church has seemed to love.

[jkwilliams]

I can't recall if anyone ever told me that these things were "anti-mormon lies".  The problem that I had with these issues is that the truth stood in contrast to what I had been taught all my life...

 

JS didn't use the U&T to translate the Book of Mormon.

 

JS didn't actually follow his own revelation on plural marriage.

 

No evidence that God wanted black people prohibited from the priesthood and the temple.

 

Prophetic teachings on the reasons for the ban are incorrect.

 

The Manifesto wasn't universally accepted by church leaders as a revelation ending polygamy.

 

Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it. When you're told specific and repeated stories and teachings about the way things were or are in the church, you accept that as truth. Anything contrary would, logically, be a lie, wouldn't it?

[Mars]

I can't recall if anyone ever told me that these things were "anti-mormon lies".  The problem that I had with these issues is that the truth stood in contrast to what I had been taught all my life...

 

JS didn't use the U&T to translate the Book of Mormon.

 

JS didn't actually follow his own revelation on plural marriage.

 

No evidence that God wanted black people prohibited from the priesthood and the temple.

 

Prophetic teachings on the reasons for the ban are incorrect.

 

The Manifesto wasn't universally accepted by church leaders as a revelation ending polygamy.

 

i think this is fair.  some of these match my personal experience where i was taught A and discovered B.

[Joshua Valentine]

Are you implying that MMM was ordered (authorized) by God?

I make no claim to knowing the entire Bible, but Josephs polygamy and MMM seemed perpetrated in a deplorable manner quite different than anything commanded by God in the Bible.

Except that such, and worse were authorized in the Bible.

[mnn727]

The downfall of my belief came when I discovered a chart of Joseph Smith, Jr. married to 33 (?) wives, some married to other men and some extremely young, IMO. I got up and went outside and saw my neighbor across the street. I went over and chatted and then told her what I ran onto by accident online. She told me it was all anti lies. Her mother was anti and told her many things, probably some on the essays. MMM was one I discovered soon after, they just kept coming and my world changed.

Why does it surprise you that men have failings? Only Christ was perfect.

Look at some of the things Biblical Prophets did.

[ALarson]

Are you implying that MMM was ordered (authorized) by God?

I make no claim to knowing the entire Bible, but Josephs polygamy and MMM seemed perpetrated in a deplorable manner quite different than anything commanded by God in the Bible.

 

This has been discussed at length on here (most especially whether or not God has ever commanded anyone to live polygamy prior to that claim by Joseph).  

 

From what I can tell, the only place where a man is specifically asked to marry another wife is with the Hebrew law of a levirate marriage and even then, only in very specific instances. (Wife of a brother who has no children, etc.).  This is not the same as how Joseph lived polygamy.

 

In other instances where polygamy is mentioned in the Bible, there is no record of it being commanded by God that I have been able to find.  And nowhere have I found where polyandry was commanded by God.

Edited July 17, 2015 by ALarson

[carbon dioxide]

Anti-Mormon lies are still "lies" in my view.  Even if they are correct on the basic subject matter, their conclusions they arrive at from them I still do not agree with. 

Edited July 17, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[ALarson]

Why does it surprise you that men have failings? Only Christ was perfect.

Look at some of the things Biblical Prophets did.

That's becoming a very tiresome argument.  How Joseph lived polygamy is not the same way that Biblical Prophets ever did. 

 

No one expects Joseph to have been perfect, but when one learns that he married 14 year old girls (and other teenagers who were housemaids to Emma) and that he married other men's wives, that's shocking.  Especially knowing that most of this was done behind Emma's back. Maybe you already knew the details of how Joseph lived polygamy, but I believe the great majority of members were unaware of them until now (and even most may still not know about them.)

[Sleeper Cell]

I've never understood why anyone thinks that's a good argument. 

It is a reasonable argument when addressed to someone who criticizes and/or rejects Joseph Smith because of his behavior, yet has no problem accepting the Biblical prophets  despite their similar (and even worse) behavior.

[carbon dioxide]

That's becoming a very tiresome argument.  How Joseph lived polygamy is not the same way that Biblical Prophets ever did. 

 

The Old Testament is hardly a text that gives detailed information on how those who practiced polygamy lived it.  In most cases, we just know the man had more than one wife.  That is it.  I don't know how you can make concrete conclusions based on hardly any information given in the Bible.  In addition, Joseph Smith really had nobody to show him the ropes on how to live it.  Bible prophets grew up with it and it was common enough that they had role models to learn from.  Joseph Smith had none of that.  He had to go by trial and error under an atmosphere of persecution and other problems.  

 

What is shocking to you in 2015 may not have been shocking to those involved in the 1840s.  They understood things a lot better than we do today.  Joseph Smith did get sealed to other men's wives.  My feeling is if these wives were ok with it, their husbands were ok then if we are shocked about it it is only because we don't understand the details.  Not that what was done was wrong.  The problem is more with US than Joseph Smith.

[ALarson]

It is a reasonable argument when addressed to someone who criticizes and/or rejects Joseph Smith because of his behavior, yet has no problem accepting the Biblical prophets  despite their similar (and even worse) behavior.

This is not a good argument.  Would you accept this kind of an excuse from one of your teenage kids who was caught stealing (that others had done it or even worse)?

 

Can you name a Prophet in the Bible who was commanded by God to live polyandry?  How about polygamy?

[KevinG]

One word...

 

Context.

[jkwilliams]

It is a reasonable argument when addressed to someone who criticizes and/or rejects Joseph Smith because of his behavior, yet has no problem accepting the Biblical prophets  despite their similar (and even worse) behavior.

 

It's the tu quoque fallacy, only with God.

[ALarson]

In addition, Joseph Smith really had nobody to show him the ropes on how to live it. 

How about God who he claimed was commanding him to live it?  How about the angel with the flaming sword?  

[jkwilliams]

One word...

 

Context.

 

I'm trying to imagine a context when it's OK to sleep with another woman without your wife's knowledge or consent. 

[ALarson]

What is shocking to you in 2015 may not have been shocking to those involved in the 1840s.  They understood things a lot better than we do today.  

So then why did Joseph live polygamy and polyandry in secret and behind Emma's back (for the most part).  Why did he publicly deny living polygamy even to the members of the church if it was so understood back then vs. today?

[carbon dioxide]

How about God who he claimed was commanding him to live it?  How about the angel with the flaming sword?  

Does God work that way?  Does God tell us how to do everything or does he let us learn for ourselves by trial and error?   Did Joseph Smith make mistakes.  Yes.  All of would have made mistakes had it been us instead of him.  Do people blow out of proportion the level of his mistakes.  I believe they do. 

Edited July 17, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[jkwilliams]

So then why did Joseph live polygamy and polyandry in secret and behind Emma's back (for the most part).  Why did he publicly deny living polygamy even to the members of the church if it was so understood back then vs. today?

 

Sacred, not secret.

[KevinG]

I'm trying to imagine a context when it's OK to sleep with another woman without your wife's knowledge or consent. 

 

No you aren't.  You are trying to find evidences to justify your finding fault with the Mormons.

 

The essays put events in historical and doctrinal context.  Even if you disagree with the actions or judgement of the parties involved, it is an attempt to balance the "pollyanish" faith promoting versions with the "shock and awe" critical versions.

[KevinG]

Sacred, not secret.

 

Despite the dripping sarcasm you hit on one of the keys here.

[mnn727]

Until the essays were published I had never heard any authority say that Joseph Smith had 30+ wives. I had read such information from unapproved books and in later years from anti-Mormon internet sites.

Never go to FamilySerch.org and put in some names? I did back a long time ago.

 

This information was hidden in plain sight I guess.

[ALarson]

Despite the dripping sarcasm you hit on one of the keys here.

So were Brigham Young's polygamous and polyandrous marriages less sacred than Joseph's?  

Edited July 17, 2015 by ALarson

[mnn727]

One thing I was thinking about is that the essay is quite candid about Joseph using his seer stone to look for treasure. In pretty much everything I can find in LDS publications until now, his employment with Josiah Stowell is described as reluctant, and no mention is made of the seer stone. In every case, there seems to be an effort to distance Joseph from the endeavor and point everything toward Stowell. I think that's why that particular essay may be jarring to some members.

Russell M Nelson spoke of the seer stone in the hat in GC a couple years back

[ALarson]

Does God work that way?  Does God tell us how to do everything or does he let us learn for ourselves by trial and error?   Did Joseph Smith make mistakes.  Yes.  All of would have made mistakes had it been us instead of him.  Do people blow out of proportion the level of his mistakes.  I believe they do. 

You said there was "nobody" to show Joseph "the ropes" regarding how to live polygamy and I gave you two examples of who was there.  God and the angel with the flaming sword.

Edited July 17, 2015 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

No you aren't.  You are trying to find evidences to justify your finding fault with the Mormons.

 

The essays put events in historical and doctrinal context.  Even if you disagree with the actions or judgement of the parties involved, it is an attempt to balance the "pollyanish" faith promoting versions with the "shock and awe" critical versions.

 

Well, it's nice to know someone out there can tell me what I'm thinking. Kind of a neat trick.

 

I'm not finding fault. I'm genuinely curious about the context that justifies lying to your spouse about whom you're sleeping with. You said that it makes sense in context.