Joseph Smith's Polygamy

[Calm]

One of two talks on polygamy at the Conference, this is an excellent presentation from Laura Hales:
 
http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2015-fairmormon-conference/joseph-smiths-polygamy-toward-a-better-understanding
 

On October 22, 2014, the past practice of polygamy by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made for colorful headlines in national media outlets for the third time in less than a decade.[1] This time the frenzy centered on the release of two essays written in conjunction with the Gospel Topics project.[2] Elder Snow, the Church Historian, explained the intent of this initiative: “There is so much out there on the Internet that we felt we owed our members a safe place where they could go to get reliable, faith-promoting information that was true about some of these more difficult aspects of our history.”[3]

Ten months after the release of these essays, the national press has quieted, losing interest after exhausting the mileage obtained from sensational soundbites. Among many in the Latter-day Saint community, however, the topic is proving to have a much longer shelf life, as some members wrestle with deep concerns and an inability to embrace and understand the Church’s relationship with polygamy.

Instead of acting as a much needed salve, the essays may have reopened a deep wound prevented from festering only by the thinnest of scabs—denial and neglect. Polygamy is a topic that has been mostly ignored, brushed aside, and minimalized in Church discourse for nearly a century. With the release of the essays, long-existing concerns about the practice of polygamy in the early Church and its enduring legacy have been pulled off the proverbial shelf and some members are re-examining their significance.

Not all members are equally troubled by this issue, though. Recently I was approached by an acquaintance who asked a simple and sincere question. “Why,” she asked “do people get angry about polygamy?” Another friend e-mailed me after hearing a news story about members leaving the Church over the issue and asked, “Why now? This information has been around for years.” In both cases, I did my best to explain the factors I see contributing to the distress felt by many members of the Church—both male and female—over this most painful topic.

I don’t remember when I first learned that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, but my knowledge of it expanded uncomfortably after reading Brian Hales’ overly comprehensive, 1500-page treatise on the topic. What I learned on those pages was informative, but also at times discomforting, disappointing, and even shocking. There were clandestine marriages, pretend husbands, young brides, already married brides, altogether too many brides, Abrahamic-like tests, and surprising interactions between Joseph, Emma, and his plural wives, coupled with a doctrine that I struggled to understand....

[cinepro]

There were clandestine marriages, pretend husbands, young brides, already married brides, altogether too many brides, Abrahamic-like tests, and surprising interactions between Joseph, Emma, and his plural wives, coupled with a doctrine that I struggled to understand.

 

Wow.  That's actually a really good summary of why people might have a problem with Joseph Smith's polygamy.  I won't say she doesn't understand the issue on those points!

[jkwilliams]

Wow.  That's actually a really good summary of why people might have a problem with Joseph Smith's polygamy.  I won't say she doesn't understand the issue on those points!

 

 

I think it's great that she acknowledges that there are legitimate reasons why people experience genuine shock and pain when they find out about this stuff. I wish I could agree with their take on polygamy, but I appreciate her expressing empathy for people who struggle with this. 

Edited August 13, 2015 by jkwilliams

[thesometimesaint]

From what she presented her "understanding" of the complex issue of polygamy in the early church is a mile wide and an inch deep.

[jkwilliams]

From what she presented her "understanding" of the complex issue of polygamy in the early church is a mile wide and an inch deep.

 

Really? I thought the Hales's research was held in high regard around here. Several friends I've met here and elsewhere have recommended their book quite enthusiastically. 

[thesometimesaint]

Really? I thought the Hales's research was held in high regard around here. Several friends I've met here and elsewhere have recommended their book quite enthusiastically. 

I haven't read the book. What I am responding to is the article she wrote in which she wrote.

"There were clandestine marriages, pretend husbands, young brides, already married brides, altogether too many brides, Abrahamic-like tests, and surprising interactions between Joseph, Emma, and his plural wives, coupled with a doctrine that I struggled to understand".

 

To be fair I have no desire for more than the one, and only, wife I had for the last 43 years. But can find no convincing argument that would preclude God from permitting it.

[jkwilliams]

I haven't read the book. What I am responding to is the article she wrote in which she wrote.

"There were clandestine marriages, pretend husbands, young brides, already married brides, altogether too many brides, Abrahamic-like tests, and surprising interactions between Joseph, Emma, and his plural wives, coupled with a doctrine that I struggled to understand".

 

To be fair I have no desire for more than the one, and only, wife I had for the last 43 years. But can find no convincing argument that would preclude God from permitting it.

 

It's certainly a very quick summary, but it's accurate and, as cinepro said, it explains perfectly why people have issues with Joseph's practice of polygamy. In the end, whether or not God permitted something, it doesn't mean it can't be troubling. I'm troubled by the slaughters the Israelites carried out in the Old Testament, but as you say, there's nothing precluding God from commanding it.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

To be fair I have no desire for more than the one, and only, wife I had for the last 43 years. But can find no convincing argument that would preclude God from permitting it.

5 out of 6 fundamentalists would agree. (Just Kidding- Please don't call for a CFR)

 

Of course fundamentalists believe the practice is God sanctioned and that the LDS abandonment is only temporary, that they are the protectors of the practice until it is brought back officially. It's interesting stuff.

[thesometimesaint]

It's certainly a very quick summary, but it's accurate and, as cinepro said, it explains perfectly why people have issues with Joseph's practice of polygamy. In the end, whether or not God permitted something, it doesn't mean it can't be troubling. I'm troubled by the slaughters the Israelites carried out in the Old Testament, but as you say, there's nothing precluding God from commanding it.

 

I'm not doubt her sincerity, and it certainly needs further clarification. I don't believe that there is a single verse in any Scripture that hasn't given some people to have issues. I have issues with slavery in the Scriptures. Why single out polygamy? Most commonly when I have been asked about polygamy it is just to bash the LDS. I didn't say commanding it. I said permitting it. I think people have been using God as an excuse to do all types of evil things for a very long time now. But it is definitely on the list of things I intend to ask God about when I meet him in the next life.  

[jkwilliams]

I'm not doubt her sincerity, and it certainly needs further clarification. I don't believe that there is a single verse in any Scripture that hasn't given some people to have issues. I have issues with slavery in the Scriptures. Why single out polygamy? Most commonly when I have been asked about polygamy it is just to bash the LDS. I didn't say commanding it. I said permitting it. I think people have been using God as an excuse to do all types of evil things for a very long time now. But it is definitely on the list of things I intend to ask God about when I meet him in the next life.

 

I said "commanding" because the Old Testament tells us that God commanded the slaughters and punished those who didn't fully obey. I find that deeply troubling, along with a lot of other stuff in the scriptures.

 

As for polygamy, the church members I know who are troubled by it are upset because they feel the way it was practiced was manipulative, self-serving, or coercive; and they are upset that what the church is saying now is completely at odds with what has been presented for generations. 

[thesometimesaint]

5 out of 6 fundamentalists would agree. (Just Kidding- Please don't call for a CFR)

 

Of course fundamentalists believe the practice is God sanctioned and that the LDS abandonment is only temporary, that they are the protectors of the practice until it is brought back officially. It's interesting stuff.

 

I'm certainly not a Fundamentalist LDS or otherwise. That being said It is in our Scriptures that it is for God to decide. I'm just happy that he hasn't decided to re-institute its earthly practice yet.

[HappyJackWagon]

I'm certainly not a Fundamentalist LDS or otherwise. That being said It is in our Scriptures that it is for God to decide. I'm just happy that he hasn't decided to re-institute its earthly practice yet.

I think it was Joseph F Smith who said polygamy would be reinstituted as soon as it was legal. It may soon be legal and it will be interesting to see if the church follows early teachings or continues to keep it all in the past. If they do reinstitute it I've already made up my mind what I'll do.

[stemelbow]

Wow.  That's actually a really good summary of why people might have a problem with Joseph Smith's polygamy.  I won't say she doesn't understand the issue on those points!

the Church should be happy most members aren't paying a whole lot of attention to what Brian and Laura are putting out regarding polygamy, though. Most critics view the two of them as mere apologists who are only trying to support the Church because of things like "eternity only" sealings and the like.

Once a member starts looking into it "discomforting, disappointing, and even shocking" often is the nicest way of putting his/her reaction.

[thesometimesaint]

I said "commanding" because the Old Testament tells us that God commanded the slaughters and punished those who didn't fully obey. I find that deeply troubling, along with a lot of other stuff in the scriptures.

 

As for polygamy, the church members I know who are troubled by it are upset because they feel the way it was practiced was manipulative, self-serving, or coercive; and they are upset that what the church is saying now is completely at odds with what has been presented for generations. 

 

As I said people have been blaming God for their own evil actions for a long time now.

 

I just don't see it that way. Even leaving God out of the equation these were all people of legal age to consent to marry. They could have told Joseph, Brigham, or whomever to take a hike if they didn't want to marry them. Nothing in our doctrine requires agreement to marry to an undesirable, for whatever reason, suitor.

[ttribe]

As I said people have been blaming God for their own evil actions for a long time now.

 

I just don't see it that way. Even leaving God out of the equation these were all people of legal age to consent to marry. They could have told Joseph, Brigham, or whomever to take a hike if they didn't want to marry them. Nothing in our doctrine requires agreement to marry to an undesirable, for whatever reason, suitor.

 

This strikes me as naive.

[stemelbow]

As I said people have been blaming God for their own evil actions for a long time now.

 

I just don't see it that way. Even leaving God out of the equation these were all people of legal age to consent to marry. They could have told Joseph, Brigham, or whomever to take a hike if they didn't want to marry them. Nothing in our doctrine requires agreement to marry to an undesirable, for whatever reason, suitor.

Blaming God for polygamy is a bad idea. Best to think it was just made up by Joseph. But the same could be said of the priesthood ban and MMM (which I think we'd all agree was just men's evil hearts).

[jkwilliams]

As I said people have been blaming God for their own evil actions for a long time now.

 

I just don't see it that way. Even leaving God out of the equation these were all people of legal age to consent to marry. They could have told Joseph, Brigham, or whomever to take a hike if they didn't want to marry them. Nothing in our doctrine requires agreement to marry to an undesirable, for whatever reason, suitor.

 

The point is that other people struggle with it. It's easy to say "I don't see it that way" but another thing entirely to understand that other people do see it that way. If I were trying to keep people in the church, I'd certainly want to know why this bothers them and how I could help them resolve their issues. You seem to suggest that only people who want to "bash the LDS" have issues with this. I can tell you I hear from members of the church all the time who are troubled by this. They want to figure this out, not to bash the church.

[stemelbow]

The point is that other people struggle with it. It's easy to say "I don't see it that way" but another thing entirely to understand that other people do see it that way. If I were trying to keep people in the church, I'd certainly want to know why this bothers them and how I could help them resolve their issues. You seem to suggest that only people who want to "bash the LDS" have issues with this. I can tell you I hear from members of the church all the time who are troubled by this. They want to figure this out, not to bash the church.

Shutting people up for crossing established lines is our best skill in Church.

"you mean you have a problem with polygamy? Well see ya when I see ya then because it's God's Church and Joseph was a prophet. there's no denying that. you have a testimony, don't ya? then stop asking stuff." May sound decent to someone as a response, but to the person who feels slighted, it only adds to the problem.

[rockpond]

They could have told Joseph, Brigham, or whomever to take a hike if they didn't want to marry them. Nothing in our doctrine requires agreement to marry to an undesirable, for whatever reason, suitor.

 

#presentism

[rockpond]

One of two talks on polygamy at the Conference, this is an excellent presentation from Laura Hales:

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2015-fairmormon-conference/joseph-smiths-polygamy-toward-a-better-understanding

 

 

Thanks for sharing this Cal... what a great statement of compassion by Sister Hales.  This is the kind of language I've been asking/searching for from fellow members and leaders alike with respect to some of our challenging issues:  not an agreement with the doubt/question, but an unconditional acknowledgement of why it is troubling.

[CV75]

One of two talks on polygamy at the Conference, this is an excellent presentation from Laura Hales:

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2015-fairmormon-conference/joseph-smiths-polygamy-toward-a-better-understanding

I think JS-H 1:33 is an encouragement from God to have faith in the work that began with Joseph Smith, no matter how bad things may look to those not so commissioned. Evil will be spoken of him and his successors, and facts will be received without sufficient faith in God’s work, “the fundamental principles of our religion” or its “appendages” to ward off a failed struggle. But we are certainly given all we need to overcome our struggles.

 

“…God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.”

Edited August 13, 2015 by CV75

[jkwilliams]

Thanks for sharing this Cal... what a great statement of compassion by Sister Hales.  This is the kind of language I've been asking/searching for from fellow members and leaders alike with respect to some of our challenging issues:  not an agreement with the doubt/question, but an unconditional acknowledgement of why it is troubling.

 

Exactly. I'm glad Sister Hales said what she did, as she can say it without getting jumped on.

[Senator]

Among many in the Latter-day Saint community, however, the topic is proving to have a much longer shelf life, as some members wrestle with deep concerns and an inability to embrace and understand the Church’s relationship with polygamy.

Instead of acting as a much needed salve, the essays may have reopened a deep wound prevented from festering only by the thinnest of scabs—denial and neglect. Polygamy is a topic that has been mostly ignored, brushed aside, and minimalized in Church discourse for nearly a century. With the release of the essays, long-existing concerns about the practice of polygamy in the early Church and its enduring legacy have been pulled off the proverbial shelf and some members are re-examining their significance.

 

 

It's funny how things tend to "come around".

 

I can remember many moons ago when I was arguing on this forum for the need for polygamy having a greater presence in our church discourse. I was thoroughly instructed by some of the "pillars" here that the current level of (non)discussion was exactly how it should be. I even remember being mocked with the "needing more cow-bell" parity.

[jkwilliams]

It's funny how things tend to "come around".

 

I can remember many moons ago when I was arguing on this forum for the need for polygamy having a greater presence in our church discourse. I was thoroughly instructed by some of the "pillars" here that the current level of (non)discussion was exactly how it should be. I even remember being mocked with the "needing more cow-bell" parity.

 

Yeah, I was thinking today about how people say it's not the church's responsibility to teach accurate history, that people who are upset at not being taught the history are asking for everything to be spoon-fed to them. Does that mean the church now thinks it should teach accurate history and spoon-feed it to members?

Edited August 13, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Zakuska]

Yeah, I was thinking today about how people say it's not the church's responsibility to teach accurate history, that people who are upset at not being taught the history are asking for everything to be spoon-fed to them. Does that mean the church now thinks it should teach accurate history and spoon-feed it to members?

 

Yeah I remember that. That was on that one thread talking about the "Church's" willful pathological lieing about every thing it teaches.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Zakuska