Do The Essays Confirm "anti-Mormon Lies"?

[jkwilliams]

This is the stinkin' worst thing about the essays.  It's all true.  Nothing will change it.  No matter how hard one wishes it weren't. So many anti lies are true.  Now what do we have left to hold onto?  The good people, I guess so.  Or maybe there are closeted Atheists and it's a good place to raise a family, or there is service and parties and things to keep you out of trouble.  Or that's what religion is all about keeping people in line.  Now the church seems to be on a slippery slope with people that struggle with the anti lies being truth.  What do we have to hold onto?  Maybe if it'd just been taught at the beginning openly and outwardly so many wouldn't suffer.  I seriously think it causes so much pain, in myself, in others and their marriages and in families.  I think the church needs to humble apologize or get revelation before it gets out of control.  A prophet or leaders should lead.  Or get out of the way and let us just have God.  We need some guidance, STAT! 

 

Don't hold your breath. I wrote just the other day about how the problem with many people is that the church as an institution has lost their trust. When you believe in an organization enough to sacrifice your time, talents, and everything you have for it, you expect it to be straight with you. As you say, it's a big shock to a lot of people that things are not what they were told. It's not so much that people are having a crisis of faith but a crisis of trust. At least that's what I see.

[ALarson]

Don't hold your breath. I wrote just the other day about how the problem with many people is that the church as an institution has lost their trust. When you believe in an organization enough to sacrifice your time, talents, and everything you have for it, you expect it to be straight with you. As you say, it's a big shock to a lot of people that things are not what they were told. It's not so much that people are having a crisis of faith but a crisis of trust. At least that's what I see.

I know that I've mentioned a few times that I'm helping my Bishop prepare and teach the 5th Sunday lessons on the essays (at the request of our Stake President).  The one on the Priesthood ban went pretty well, but my Bishop is in agony over the upcoming one in August that is discussing polygamy.  He has told me that he is overwhelmed with members coming in with questions and doubts after learning about the essays from our first lesson and going online and reading the truth about Joseph Smith's polygamy.  He honestly just does not know how to present the facts regarding Joseph's polygamy and polyandry in a faith promoting manner.  I have told him that I have to opt out of this lesson because I agree.  How far does saying "God commanded him to do it" go with members who learn the details, lies and deceit that were involved? 

 

Many can keep their testimony of Joseph Smith in tact after learning the truth, but I have learned that many cannot.

[Tacenda]

I know that I've mentioned a few times that I'm helping my Bishop prepare and teach the 5th Sunday lessons on the essays (at the request of our Stake President).  The one on the Priesthood ban went pretty well, but my Bishop is in agony over the upcoming one in August that is discussing polygamy.  He has told me that he is overwhelmed with members coming in with questions and doubts after learning about the essays from our first lesson and going online and reading the truth about Joseph Smith's polygamy.  He honestly just does not know how to present the facts regarding Joseph's polygamy and polyandry in a faith promoting manner.  I have told him that I have to opt out of this lesson because I agree.  How far does saying "God commanded him to do it" go with members who learn the details, lies and deceit that were involved? 

 

Many can keep their testimony of Joseph Smith in tact after learning the truth, but I have learned that many cannot.

I'm a product of the church, and my aversion to anything unseemly. 

[jkwilliams]

I know that I've mentioned a few times that I'm helping my Bishop prepare and teach the 5th Sunday lessons on the essays (at the request of our Stake President).  The one on the Priesthood ban went pretty well, but my Bishop is in agony over the upcoming one in August that is discussing polygamy.  He has told me that he is overwhelmed with members coming in with questions and doubts after learning about the essays from our first lesson and going online and reading the truth about Joseph Smith's polygamy.  He honestly just does not know how to present the facts regarding Joseph's polygamy and polyandry in a faith promoting manner.  I have told him that I have to opt out of this lesson because I agree.  How far does saying "God commanded him to do it" go with members who learn the details, lies and deceit that were involved? 

 

Many can keep their testimony of Joseph Smith in tact after learning the truth, but I have learned that many cannot.

 

I keep hearing from people that Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy is acceptable (maybe even faith-promoting) when understood in context, but I honestly can't figure out how. I feel for that bishop. 

[HappyJackWagon]

 

ALarson, on 21 Jul 2015 - 1:01 PM, said:

I know that I've mentioned a few times that I'm helping my Bishop prepare and teach the 5th Sunday lessons on the essays (at the request of our Stake President).  The one on the Priesthood ban went pretty well, but my Bishop is in agony over the upcoming one in August that is discussing polygamy.  He has told me that he is overwhelmed with members coming in with questions and doubts after learning about the essays from our first lesson and going online and reading the truth about Joseph Smith's polygamy.  He honestly just does not know how to present the facts regarding Joseph's polygamy and polyandry in a faith promoting manner.  I have told him that I have to opt out of this lesson because I agree.  How far does saying "God commanded him to do it" go with members who learn the details, lies and deceit that were involved? 

 

Many can keep their testimony of Joseph Smith in tact after learning the truth, but I have learned that many cannot.

I agree there is no way to adequately put lipstick on this pig to make it look less porky. It is what it is and a "faithful" spin won't change it. In fact it may make it worse.

 

The "God commanded it but we don't know why he didn't manage the implementation better to avoid abuse" is a poor argument and frankly lends itself to future grooming of women and youth in the church today. In other words, what would the bishop say to someone who came into his office and told him that a man in the ward, the SP or even the prophet, had approached/groomed them in the same way joseph groomed and propositioned his potential wives. It would NEVER be accepted. So if we take JS out of the equation and look at the same behavior by any other person we would denounce it.

 

Some will accuse this of "presentism" to which I may agree to an extent, but we must remember that this behavior was abhorent in 1840 too but it was kept secret long enough to get many people involved and culpible before it saw the light of day.

[jkwilliams]

I agree there is no way to adequately put lipstick on this pig to make it look less porky. It is what it is and a "faithful" spin won't change it. In fact it may make it worse.

 

The "God commanded it but we don't know why he didn't manage the implementation better to avoid abuse" is a poor argument and frankly lends itself to future grooming of women and youth in the church today. In other words, what would the bishop say to someone who came into his office and told him that a man in the ward, the SP or even the prophet, had approached/groomed them in the same way joseph groomed and propositioned his potential wives. It would NEVER be accepted. So if we take JS out of the equation and look at the same behavior by any other person we would denounce it.

 

Some will accuse this of "presentism" to which I may agree to an extent, but we must remember that this behavior was abhorent in 1840 too but it was kept secret long enough to get many people involved and culpible before it saw the light of day.

 

The thing I hear most often is that Joseph was between a rock (God's commandment) and a hard place (Emma), so he chose to lie to Emma in order to keep the commandment. My wife tells me that wouldn't fly in our marriage, for some reason.

[ALarson]

The thing I hear most often is that Joseph was between a rock (God's commandment) and a hard place (Emma), so he chose to lie to Emma in order to keep the commandment. My wife tells me that wouldn't fly in our marriage, for some reason.

I hear this too, but it still does not explain why he chose to marry teenage girls (some who were Emma's housemaids) and also why he went after other men's wives.  He could have still kept the commandment from God to live polygamy and not done either of these.  I would imagine that the teenage girls were especially hurtful for Emma.

 

And why so many (at least 33)?  How about just one?  Wouldn't that have counted for being obedient to God?

 

Those and many more are questions members ask when given the "rock and a hard place" predicament that Joseph claimed to be in.  It just doesn't add up (at least for me and others I've discussed it with).

 

Even if members eventually accept how Joseph lived polygamy, there's the polyandry that is even more difficult (and was not commanded or a part of D&C 132, IIRC).  Where's the history of polyandry ever being a commandment from God?

Edited July 21, 2015 by ALarson

[Nevo]

Joseph Smith's polygamy is a difficult subject. No question about it. I don't think the facts are quite as damning as many suppose but I still wouldn't want to have to defend every detail of it in front of a church audience. The essays, I think, do a fair job but they could be better. If I were teaching the lesson, I would stick to these basics: Joseph Smith was a prophet; he was trying his best to be obedient to a commandment of God; he and Emma loved each other deeply and this was a great trial for them; we don't know all the reasons for it, but the practice of polygamy ultimately blessed the Church. 

Edited July 21, 2015 by Nevo

[HappyJackWagon]

I hear this too, but it still does not explain why he chose to marry teenage girls (some who were Emma's housemaids) and also why he went after other men's wives.  He could have still kept the commandment from God to live polygamy and not done either of these.  I would imagine that the teenage girls were especially hurtful for Emma.

 

And why so many (at least 33)?  How about just one?  Wouldn't that have counted for being obedient to God?

 

Those and many more are questions members ask when given the "rock and a hard place" predicament that Joseph claimed to be in.  It just doesn't add up (at least for me and others I've discussed it with).

 

Even if members eventually accept how Joseph lived polygamy, there's the polyandry that is even more difficult (and was not commanded or a part of D&C 132, IIRC).  Where's the history of polyandry ever being a commandment from God?

But if you believe the story about the angel and the flaming sword, Joseph was already taking plural wives. Some were young. Some were married. But God wanted him to do more, hence the threat from the angel. So really it is God's fault Joseph did these things. He held off as long as he could until he was forced into it.

 

It reminds me a little bit of an episode of Supernatural where the angel manipulated Dean to go against his conscience. Fortunately for Dean, he didn't fall for it.

[jkwilliams]

Joseph Smith's polygamy is a difficult subject. No question about it. I don't think the facts are quite as damning as many suppose but I still wouldn't want to have to defend every detail of it in front of a church audience. The essays, I think, do a fair job but they could be better. If I were teaching the lesson, I would stick to these basics: Joseph Smith was a prophet; he was trying his best to be obedient to a commandment of God; he and Emma loved each other deeply and this was a great trial for them; we don't know all the reasons for it, but the practice of polygamy ultimately blessed the Church. 

 

I think that is definitely the best that can be said on the subject from a faithful perspective. Leave it to you be the voice of moderation and reason.

[ALarson]

Joseph Smith's polygamy is a difficult subject. No question about it. I don't think the facts are quite as damning as many suppose but I still wouldn't want to have to defend every detail of it in front of a church audience. The essays, I think, do a fair job but they could be better. If I were teaching the lesson, I would stick to these basics: Joseph Smith was a prophet; he was trying his best to be obedient to a commandment of God; he and Emma loved each other deeply and this was a great trial for them; we don't know all the reasons for it, but the practice of polygamy ultimately blessed the Church. 

I agree with this being the best approach. I'm going to copy your post for my Bishop to read if that's ok with you.

 

However, I'm not convinced that polygamy "ultimately blessed the church".  I know what you mean, of course.  But to me, "ultimately" means even today and IMO that's certainly not happening. I tend to believe that even the leaders (or many) wish Joseph had lived polygamy differently and not lived polyandry at all now that the facts are coming out.  I doubt the leaders feel that members leaving over this are an ultimate blessing for the church today. 

Edited July 21, 2015 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

I agree with this being the best approach. I'm going to copy your post for my Bishop to read if that's ok with you.

 

However, I'm not convinced that polygamy "ultimately blessed the church".  I know what you mean, of course.  But to me, "ultimately" means even today and IMO that's certainly not happening. I tend to believe that even the leaders (or many) wish Joseph had lived polygamy differently and not lived polyandry at all now that the facts are coming out.  I doubt the leaders feel that members leaving over this are an ultimate blessing for the church today. 

 

I have mixed feelings about polygamy. On the one hand, I honor my ancestors for doing what they thought was right, despite how difficult it was. On the other hand, our family history is full of tales of sorrow resulting from plural marriage. Then again, I wouldn't be here if it weren't for plural marriage. Definitely mixed feelings.

[Nevo]

I agree with this being the best approach. I'm going to copy your post for my Bishop to read if that's ok with you.

 

Sure, that's fine. I think the essays and the new seminary and institute manuals all more or less follow that template.

 

However, I'm not convinced that polygamy "ultimately blessed the church".  I know what you mean, of course.  But to me, "ultimately" means even today and IMO that's certainly not happening. I tend to believe that even the leaders (or many) wish Joseph had lived polygamy differently and not lived polyandry at all now that the facts are coming out.  I doubt the leaders feel that members leaving over this are an ultimate blessing for the church today.

 

What I had in mind was the following paragraph from the main plural marriage essay:

 

"Plural marriage [resulted] in the birth of large numbers of children within faithful Latter-day Saint homes. It also shaped 19th-century Mormon society in many ways: marriage became available to virtually all who desired it; per-capita inequality of wealth was diminished as economically disadvantaged women married into more financially stable households; and ethnic intermarriages were increased, which helped to unite a diverse immigrant population. Plural marriage also helped create and strengthen a sense of cohesion and group identification among Latter-day Saints."

 

But I know what you mean. It is obviously more of a stumbling block than a blessing today, but I think that's partly because we're so removed from it now. Members in the 1880s, for example, would have viewed it much differently. Plural marriage wasn't an aberration to them; the need for secrecy and discretion was tacitly understood and accepted. Nothing in Joseph Smith's behavior was beyond the pale. Now polygamy tends to be lumped together in many people's minds with marital infidelity and child molesting. Hence, HappyJackWagon's comments about "grooming."

[Calm]

There is a quote about Joseph saying plural marriage would be the toughest test for the Saints to endure, iirc.  (I can look it up later if someone needs a reference.)  I think that continues to be true.   I don't know why this particular test is given any more than I know why a specific person has to endure cancer or poverty or other hardships.  I don't see much difference ultimately in how we end up resolving it in our heads and what we are willing to live with in faith, but perhaps that is just because of my own particular way of looking and the world.  Life doesn't make a lot of sense in the here and now, if we expect sense we will have to wait for the Lord to tell us in the next life I believe how it all ties together and the why and how of it.

[jkwilliams]

There is a quote about Joseph saying plural marriage would be the toughest test for the Saints to endure, iirc.  (I can look it up later if someone needs a reference.)  I think that continues to be true.   I don't know why this particular test is given any more than I know why a specific person has to endure cancer or poverty or other hardships.  I don't see much difference ultimately in how we end up resolving it in our heads and what we are willing to live with in faith, but perhaps that is just because of my own particular way of looking and the world.  Life doesn't make a lot of sense in the here and now, if we expect sense we will have to wait for the Lord to tell us in the next life I believe how it all ties together and the why and how of it.

 

I don't believe that Joseph's behavior automatically disqualifies him from being a prophet of God. That said, it's much easier to understand when you don't see him as a prophet. So, I understand it's a difficult issue, but one I'm glad I don't have to struggle with.

[Nevo]

If I set aside my reservations about how Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage in a few instances, I confess that, amid the tragedy and pathos, I find something heroic about it too. He showed tremendous courage and faith in the face of overwhelming odds. As one of the essays notes, "The challenge of introducing a principle as controversial as plural marriage is almost impossible to overstate." It cost him several close associates, nearly cost him his marriage to Emma, and eventually cost him his life.

 

I'm reminded of something Richard Bushman said in his great BYU Studies article, "The Character of Joseph Smith":

 

Looking back now, we can see the necessity of having such a forceful and unyielding person at the opening of the last dispensation. Joseph was repeatedly asked to carry out incredibly difficult errands for the Lord. Like Frodo's in Lord of the Rings, Joseph's assignments were impossibly difficult—like translating the gold plates or building the city of Zion. These tasks would have defeated the most experienced and well-connected men. They were assigned to Joseph when he had nothing. Yet he simply went and did them. He let nothing stand in the way. For years the Church existed almost entirely in his mind. He had to compel it into existence by sheer force of will. That effort required a man of rock-hard determination."

 

Joseph hesitated at first. His first attempt was disastrous. When he made a second attempt, years later—having in the interim come face-to-face with death and sensing that his remaining time was short—he knew well the dangers that awaited. But he pressed ahead boldly—"fearlessly pursuing the essential, regardless of the cost" as Ronald Esplin once put it. Esplin then continued:

 

In all of this, he was committed to doing what God required of him—his duty as he understood it—whatever the cost. "The object with me is to obey & teach others to obey God in just what he tells us to do," he taught several months before his death. "It mattereth not whether the principle is popular or unpopular. I will always maintain a true principl even if I Stand alone in it." . . .

 

Inevitably plural marriage brought complications into the Prophet's life and into the Church, as he knew it would. No explanation for its introduction works as well as the simple one: he believed God required it of him and of the Saints. Even so, he would not have introduced it then, given other priorities and the certainty of difficulties accompanying it, except that he believed God required it then (Ronald K. Esplin, "The Significance of Nauvoo for Latter-day Saints," Journal of Mormon History 16 [1990]: 79–80).

 

Toward the end of his life, he admitted to a friend that he was "worn out" with polygamy. But he stayed the course. As he lay dying outside Carthage jail, one of his assassins, William Vorhees, taunted him: "You are the damned old Chieftain. Now go see your spiritual wives in hell!"

Edited July 22, 2015 by Nevo

[jkwilliams]

I can't go there with you, Nevo. Lying to your wife is not heroic. It's cowardly.

[Nevo]

I can't go there with you, Nevo. Lying to your wife is not heroic. It's cowardly.

 

Today I was re-reading the British OT scholar Gordon Wenham's discussion of Genesis 22:

 

The opening comment, "God tested Abraham" warns the reader that the coming narrative will strain Abraham's faith and obedience to the uttermost in order to reveal his deepest emotional attachment. Is he willing to love God with all his heart, mind, and soul? Does he trust and obey simply because it pays him to do so? . . . Though the comment, "God tested Abraham" alters the reader's view of what follows, it must not obscure the awful situation Abraham found himself confronted with—torn between his faith in the divine promises and the command that promised to nullify them, between his affection for his only surviving son and heir and his love for God. . . .

 

Without delay, "early in the morning," Abraham straightway saddles his donkey and calls two of his servant lads and Isaac to leave. Then when they are ready to go, he suddenly goes to cut wood for the sacrifice—not the most sensible order of proceeding. Can he not think clearly, or was he trying to hide the nature of his journey until the last possible moment to avoid awkward questions from those left behind, such as Sarah? Or is cutting wood the most painful part of the preparations, which he must leave until the last possible moment? . . .

 

The last stage of the journey is also to be the hardest and the loneliest. For the final climb to the mountaintop, Abraham and Isaac must go on alone, Isaac now carrying the wood on his back which hitherto the donkey had carried. As Abraham had tried to avoid telling the rest of his household back in Beersheba, he now avoids giving a full explanation to the two most trusted servants who had accompanied him thus far. He simply but enigmatically states, "Stay by yourselves...so that we can worship and return." . . .

 

Whatever his innermost feelings, Abraham presses on up the mountain alone with his son Isaac in silence. He may have succeeded in concealing the real purpose of the journey from his household and from his servants up to this point, but now Isaac breaks the silence with a question that pierces to the heart of the situation, "My father...where is the sheep for the burnt offering?" Its innocent naivete makes it the more poignant. How can Abraham avoid saying the unspeakable truth? His reply may be construed as a masterpiece of pious evasion, "God will provide himself a sheep for the burnt offering, my son."

— Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (WBC 2; Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1994), 113–114.

 

Many will say that Abraham's behavior here is monstrous and inexcusable. Furthermore, they may add, it was cowardly of him to hide his intentions from his wife, his servants, and his son. How could anyone ever contemplate such a revolting act and place obedience to God above the well-being of their family? What kind of God would ever demand such a thing? Certainly no being worthy of worship.

 

Others, however, read the story differently. Perhaps even see in Abraham's loving trust toward God, mirrored in the loving trust Isaac places in him, something admirable, even heroic, under the circumstances, while not discounting his human weakness and vulnerability (which lends the story much of its poignancy).

Edited July 22, 2015 by Nevo

[carbon dioxide]

I agree with this being the best approach. I'm going to copy your post for my Bishop to read if that's ok with you.

 

However, I'm not convinced that polygamy "ultimately blessed the church".  I know what you mean, of course.  But to me, "ultimately" means even today and IMO that's certainly not happening. I tend to believe that even the leaders (or many) wish Joseph had lived polygamy differently and not lived polyandry at all now that the facts are coming out.  I doubt the leaders feel that members leaving over this are an ultimate blessing for the church today. 

If members are leaving over this, perhaps this is a way the Lord sifts the committed from the pretenders. God has asked people to do a lot of things throughout history.  Many trials far worse than people sitting in a nice house reading accounts on the mistakes of Joseph Smith practicing polygamy.  Many of whom would not do much better if it was them in that position instead of Joseph.  If members can' handle this, what will they do when God expects something from them that is really hard.

[jkwilliams]

Today I was re-reading the British OT scholar Gordon Wenham's discussion of Genesis 22:

 

 

Many will say that Abraham's behavior here is monstrous and inexcusable. Furthermore, they may add, it was cowardly of him to hide his intentions from his wife, his servants, and his son. How could anyone ever contemplate such a revolting act and place obedience to God above the well-being of their family? What kind of God would ever demand such a thing? Certainly no being worthy of worship.

 

Others, however, read the story differently. Perhaps even see in Abraham's loving trust toward God, mirrored in the loving trust Isaac places in him, something admirable, even heroic, under the circumstances, while not discounting his human weakness and vulnerability (which lends the story much of its poignancy).

 

As I said earlier, Joseph's behavior does not disqualify him from being a prophet. But I am hard-pressed to find anything heroic about concealing his relationships with other women from Emma. The analogy to Abraham is a good one in that how one views Abraham's actions ultimately depends on one's view of the Bible as the word of God. Believers see the sacrifice of Isaac as a difficult (if not impossible) test from a loving God. Unbelievers might see it as a cruel game played by a capricious God.

 

In the same way, how one approaches Joseph usually depends on one's view of the Mormon enterprise. To me, pretty much every claim Joseph made is demonstrably false (YMMV), so I tend to view his life from that perspective. Years ago, I asked Dale Broadhurst how he reconciled what Smith and Rigdon were doing. I've never forgotten his response: "They were doing two things at once: trying to build the Kingdom of God on Earth, and running a scam." That is the best answer I can come up with, as well, and every piece of evidence I am aware of fits with that answer.

 

You see Mormonism as the restoration of God's true church, so you see Joseph's life from that perspective. A while back someone brought up a quote from (IIRC) Alexander Doniphan saying that Joseph had refused a plea bargain for a short sentence because he didn't think his followers would wait for him. I thought that was a fascinating bit of information from a well-known, sympathetic source, but you dismissed it out of hand. I'm not saying you were wrong, just that how we interpret the record--and what we accept as part of the record--depends ultimately on how we see the Mormon enterprise as a whole.

[jkwilliams]

If members are leaving over this, perhaps this is a way the Lord sifts the committed from the pretenders. God has asked people to do a lot of things throughout history.  Many trials far worse than people sitting in a nice house reading accounts on the mistakes of Joseph Smith practicing polygamy.  Many of whom would not do much better if it was them in that position instead of Joseph.  If members can' handle this, what will they do when God expects something from them that is really hard.

 

If members are leaving, it may not be that they are disappointed or upset over Joseph's practice of polygamy but rather that they are just learning about it now. I don't blame people for feeling that the church was not straight with them.

[HappyJackWagon]

If members are leaving over this, perhaps this is a way the Lord sifts the committed from the pretenders. God has asked people to do a lot of things throughout history.  Many trials far worse than people sitting in a nice house reading accounts on the mistakes of Joseph Smith practicing polygamy.  Many of whom would not do much better if it was them in that position instead of Joseph.  If members can' handle this, what will they do when God expects something from them that is really hard.

I accidentally gave you a rep point on this and can't figure out how to take it back. So I'll comment instead.

 

It's not necessarily an issue of being angry at JS or the betrayal of trust when church leaders systematically obfuscate the history. For many it is simply coming to the realization that JS isn't everything the church claims. This means individuals have to come to their own conclusions, accepting both the good and bad about JS and sometimes the bad seems to outweigh the good. These conclusions are often reached after significant study and prayer. As long as the church continues to make the mistake of resting the validity of the church on JS, his significant character flaws will continue to cause people to wonder about his actual role in God's plan.

[ALarson]

I accidentally gave you a rep point on this and can't figure out how to take it back. So I'll comment instead.

 

It's not necessarily an issue of being angry at JS or the betrayal of trust when church leaders systematically obfuscate the history. For many it is simply coming to the realization that JS isn't everything the church claims. This means individuals have to come to their own conclusions, accepting both the good and bad about JS and sometimes the bad seems to outweigh the good. These conclusions are often reached after significant study and prayer. As long as the church continues to make the mistake of resting the validity of the church on JS, his significant character flaws will continue to cause people to wonder about his actual role in God's plan.

I agree.

 

For me, I could almost come to terms with how Joseph lived polygamy at first.  I knew in my heart that it was wrong and then just told myself that this just meant he was human and made mistakes too.  Then I learned about the polyandry and I could not believe he'd do this (go after other men's wives).  That's more than just slipping up and making a few bad choices or mistakes.

 

Once members learn about this, many then delve into more church history and learn about other facts that they knew nothing about previously.  So, most don't just leave over Joseph's polygamy, but it's what causes them to search deeper.

[jkwilliams]

I agree.

 

For me, I could almost come to terms with how Joseph lived polygamy at first.  I knew in my heart that it was wrong and then just told myself that this just meant he was human and made mistakes too.  Then I learned about the polyandry and I could not believe he'd do this (go after other men's wives).  That's more than just slipping up and making a few bad choices or mistakes.

 

Once members learn about this, many then delve into more church history and learn about other facts that they knew nothing about previously.  So, most don't just leave over Joseph's polygamy, but it's what causes them to search deeper.

 

Yep. I knew about the polygamy/polyandry issues for many years. It was when I stopped rationalizing them that I stopped rationalizing everything else, and it was all over pretty quickly.

[Storm Rider]

Yep. I knew about the polygamy/polyandry issues for many years. It was when I stopped rationalizing them that I stopped rationalizing everything else, and it was all over pretty quickly.

 

This same argument could be used against many of the OT prophets.  Men do some really crappy things and yet he uses these atrociously weak vessels to do great things.  What has made it easy for me to be a LDS, a Christian, and a disciple of Christ is that I find it difficult to begin finding faults with prophets when I so clearly see myself in the mirror.  More importantly, I am forced to acknowledge that even in my weakness our Father in Heaven has used me to serve his children. 

 

Once we understand who we are in the sea of humanity; we acknowledge our own sinful natures, then it is all clear sailing after that into repentance and faith.  It is really odd how a minor change in perspective can change our entire view.