Joseph Smith's Polygamy

[JLHPROF]

 

 

Nowhere has polyandry been commanded by God (that I can find).

 

 

Deleted - oops, misread when tired...

Edited August 18, 2015 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

I would imagine most members aren't bothered that Joseph was a polygamist. It's the lying to his wife, the coercion, and the polyandry that are a bit shocking. 

 

When taken out of context, yes, those are shocking.

When understood correctly there is nothing more than a bit of uncomfortable false tradition getting in the way.

[JulieM]

Except D&C 132 of course.

Which verse commands a man to marry another man's wife?

Edited August 18, 2015 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

Which verse command a man to marry another man's wife?

 

Apologies.  I misread polyandry as polygamy.  That's what happens when you're exhausted.

[ttribe]

Apologies.  I misread polyandry as polygamy.  That's what happens when you're exhausted.

 

Yeah...I read your original post and thought to myself - "I know it's been a while since I did an in-depth study of 132, but how did I miss THAT?!"

[why me]

I would imagine most members aren't bothered that Joseph was a polygamist. It's the lying to his wife, the coercion, and the polyandry that are a bit shocking. 

But then again, I am not sure that it went down the way you say it did. For the record, emma loved joseph. And although this may have caused a problem, emma wore a locket of joseph's hair around her neck throughout her life. I think that this does say something about their relationship. But of course, I can understand why you may wish to paint a bleak picture. But for me, I tend to see the bigger picture of two people in love and of joseph having to tread carefully in not only obeying god but also making it right with his wife. And in terms of coercion, I think that if an angel appeared to me, informing me that I must do something or face destruction, I also may use it to convince women of my problem when it comes to plural marriage. Either I do it or I am dead. I think that the coercion comes from the angel. And yet, we find this also in the bible: coercive angels.

[why me]

Well, he had children born from about half of these marriages (56 children). But what do your questions have to do with why the subject of polygamy was absent from the manual for the year we taught about Brigham Young and his teachings?

However, how the church may handle its history has very little to do with the truth claims of the lds church. Either joseph was a prophet or he wasn't. It all comes down to that. It doesn't come down to how the modern church handles its history. For example, I don't think lutherans know a great deal about martin luther and some of the history that he was involved in in the creation of the lutheran church. For example, luther was extremely antisemitic and yet, I do believe that many lutherans are unaware of this. Also, luther sanctioned polygamy. Not to mention the religious wars that plagued europe between catholics and protestants. I also do not think that many catholics know their history very well either. Most churches focus on the here and now to build faith etc.

 

I also don't see a purpose to include polygamy in lds religious instruction. But of course, if I were to take a history class I do think that polygamy should be included. And certainly if the lds church reinstates polygamy, I do think that the past events when polyamy was practiced and why would be justified in the manual.

[why me]

You stated books published by the "church's publishing arm".

 

And yes, your answer to my CFR regarding the book on Hyrum Smith is a failure.  That book does not give "much" information about how Joseph lived polygamy and that was your claim.

It wasn't meant too. I listed it to inform you that polygamy when it comes to hyrum is mentioned. It is about the life of hyrum and not joseph. However, it does include that joseph practiced polygamy and it does include the reasons for section 132. And it does contain information that it was not only joseph that practiced polygamy in nauvoo. There were many others called to the principle of plural marriage. When we focus on polygamy why is it we only discuss joseph? Why not hyrum and his spiritual experience about it. And others who were also called to it. It seems that it was not such a secret in nauvoo if others were called to it.

 

But these facts are ignored by the critics but they want to make polygamy just a joseph thing and how he attempted to keep it secret. Well, if his brother were calling others to take plural wives and others accepted the principle and hyrum was also a polygamist, it seems that the word 'secret' may not be correct. I do think that church members who read that book in 2003, would have understood that polygamy was practiced in nauvoo by other members besides joseph and thus, the people in neighboring towns surrounding nauvoo may have reacted harshly if the principle was let out of the bag.

 

From the critics, I only get that joseph practiced polygamy, it was hidden from the members, emma was angry and joseph used the angel as coercion. Gone is hyrum, parley p. pratt and others. Also gone is how other members were preaching false doctrine about plural marriage who lived outside of nauvoo. So, I really just don't see it as a secret with joseph lurking around for other men's wives.

Edited August 18, 2015 by why me

[why me]

Books published by members... like Quinn and Brodie?

 

But yeah, it's my fault for not seeking out this information that I was told was "anti".  I shouldn't have believed my parents, teachers, and leaders.  And, unfortunately, during my first 40 years in the church I was too busy getting an education, graduating from early morning seminary, serving a mission, attending BYU, starting a career, dating my wife, having children, attending church 3 hours per week, serving in numerous callings like EQ presidencies, seminary teacher, YM pres, and a number of Bishoprics.

 

How was it that I didn't have time to go out and find books to teach me about stuff that I was taught didn't exist?!

 

Clearly it was all my fault that I didn't learn these things until my 40's.

It may just be. Let me put it this way. If I want to find out about catholic history, I am not going to go to the vatican site nor to catechism class because I am not going to get much history. I need to go to the library or book shop and buy a book on catholic history. And I will then read one author's interpretation on catholic history. So, I will then need to read more books on catholic history to make a careful judgement about it.  Why should the lds church be any different? Members need to read books critically from a wide range of sources and make a careful judgement of the information.

 

Catholic history is not a pretty picture at all. But for a catholic it all comes to down to peter being the first pope and the succession of popes up to the present time and the meaning of the eucharist.

 

However, if I lived in Utah where church published books are plentiful, I will then read information from members who wrote these books and see what they included and what they didn't include in their books. And question it. However, all this has nothing to do with the truth claims of the lds church. It all comes down to the book of mormon and who wrote it. All the rest is just fluff.

 

Quinn and brodie are historians with particular interpretations of the history that they are writing about. They are not gods. It does seem that critics or exmembers do think of them as such.

Edited August 18, 2015 by why me

[jkwilliams]

Well just as I was powering down you wrote this...popular on my website is to question Church policy. This is what I mean...when I express any doubt of differing opinions about many thinks, I am ignored, and you get rep points. Such is the norm on websites. Once I become an unbeliever, I sure I will make new friends. Then I am often called out for spelling and sentence structure, and none ever answer PM's almost ever. One friend suggested that pain Medication for my back may be affecting my writing. The reality is that due to my back injury almost everything I read or write with my dyslexia fingers and eyes is done on an IPad held by my thumb on my raised legs to remove the difficultity in my lower back. When I can get to Church...when the pain is bearable people don't take to me because they think I am semi-active and loosing my testimony. True is I am a believer in all that matters, hold a recommend, love all here and at Church...even though this is the case have not had a calling in three years; since the accident. So, I don't PM anyone anymore, and say little at Church. So yes John you are popular here. I embarrass myself by coming here...but I like the company. Hope I spelled everything right...I typed as slowly as I could, it took three attempts.

 

You know I have always considered you a friend, and I certainly don't think you have embarrassed yourself here. I just wasn't sure what you meant by your "popular" comment.

[sjdawg]

When taken out of context, yes, those are shocking.

When understood correctly there is nothing more than a bit of uncomfortable false tradition getting in the way.

I don't buy this argument.   We can't disregard dishonesty as being taken out of context or label it as "uncomfortable false tradition".  I think the evidence is fairly clear that early LDS members lied about polygamy.   Similarly, I can make no justification for polyandry but I will grant you that that this one is often argued away as a false tradition.  

[jkwilliams]

I don't buy this argument.   We can't disregard dishonesty as being taken out of context or label it as "uncomfortable false tradition".  I think the evidence is fairly clear that early LDS members lied about polygamy.   Similarly, I can make no justification for polyandry but I will grant you that that this one is often argued away as a false tradition.  

 

The argument here is that, if one person is able to resolve these issues successfully, everyone else should, too. 

[teddyaware]

I don't buy this argument.   We can't disregard dishonesty as being taken out of context or label it as "uncomfortable false tradition".  I think the evidence is fairly clear that early LDS members lied about polygamy.   Similarly, I can make no justification for polyandry but I will grant you that that this one is often argued away as a false tradition.  

 

In Matthew 7, the Saviour warned his disciples sacred things (the deeper mysteries of the kingdom of God) often have to be kept from the knowledge of the world, lest those sacred things be desecrated by the spiritually ignorant and the Church suffer brutal persecution. Before the saints were established in the Rocky Mountains, it was necessary to take measures to keep the deeper Gospel principle of celestial plural marriage under wraps to prevent mockery of the practice and protect the Church from persecution.

 

Well, in spite of attempts to prevent that particular Gospel pearl from being cast before swine, word of the practice eventually got out and the Prophet Joseph Smith and his brother were soon murdered, or. as the Saviour put it, they were "trampled under foot." I wonder why this well-known teaching of Christ -- that sacred pearls should not be cast before swine -- is rarely brought up in discussions where it's said the Church has been "dishonest?" When it comes to a particularly sensitive and even dangerous to practice principle like celestial plural marriage, it only stands to reason the leaders of the Church would have applied the Saviour's warning and tried to keep a sacred but easily misunderstood practice from the knowledge of the world. 

 

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. (Matthew 7)

Edited August 18, 2015 by teddyaware

[Calm]

 

How was it that I didn't have time to go out and find books to teach me about stuff that I was taught didn't exist?!

 

I am not suggesting it was not difficult to find books...just addressing the issue of time.

I am curious how many hours, if any, you spent watching TV or playing games on the computer during this time period.

[jkwilliams]

In Matthew 7, the Saviour warned his disciples sacred things (the deeper mysteries of the kingdom of God) often have to be kept from the knowledge of the world, lest those sacred things be desecrated by the spiritually ignorant and the Church suffer brutal persecution. Before the saints were established in the Rocky Mountains, it was necessary to take measures to keep the deeper Gospel principle of celestial plural marriage under wraps to prevent mockery of the practice and protect the Church from persecution.

 

Well, in spite of attempts to prevent that particular Gospel pearl from being cast before swine, word of the practice eventually got out and the Prophet Joseph Smith and his brother were soon murdered, or as the Saviour put it, they were "trodden under foot." I wonder why this well-known teaching of Christ -- that sacred pearls should not be cast before swine -- is rarely brought up in discussions where it's said the Church has been "dishonest?" When it comes to a particularly sensitive and even dangerous to practice principle like celestial plural marriage, it only stands to reason the leaders of the Church would have applied the Saviour's warning and try to keep a sacred but easily misunderstood practice from the knowledge of the world. 

 

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. (Matthew 7)

 

Apparently, some people have a rather low opinion of Emma Smith.

[jkwilliams]

I am not suggesting it was not difficult to find books...just addressing the issue of time.

I am curious how many hours, if any, you spent watching TV or playing games on the computer during this time period.

 

A lot of people aren't interested in the details of history, especially if they trust that the church is telling them what they need to know. I remember being warned against "gospel hobbies," and I would imagine that at least a few people would have considered deep study of church history to fall into that category. 

 

The bottom line is that the church did not go out of its way (until now) to make the troubling information available, so it's not surprising that many people didn't know about it. Seems a little unfair to imply that members who didn't know the issues were lazy or distracted by computer games and TV.

[Calm]

 

Never in any Sunday School lesson, nor through 4 years of seminary (taught by some of the most esteemed and educated members of our ward via church education-published manuals) was it taught that Joseph Smith was a practitioner of polygamy. If it had been taught, it would not have made a lick of difference regarding our opinions of Joseph Smith, as we had already digested any number of odd things about a man who, one must admit, was at least peculiar, if not outright odd.

Just curious...did you take Institute classes?

[jkwilliams]

Just curious...did you take Institute classes?

 

You just made me realize that, although I fulfilled the 14 credits of required religion classes at BYU, the subject of Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy never came up other than the general statement that section 132 allows for the practice. I knew Joseph Smith had practiced polygamy from the time I was quite young, but I didn't know any of the details until I was in my late 20s or so. 

[teddyaware]

Apparently, some people have a rather low opinion of Emma Smith.

 

There can be no doubt but that the commandment to practice plural marriage was an "Abrahamic" trial by fire that virtually all struggled with, but some struggled with it more than others. And that's only to be expected considering the fact that God was commanding imperfect men and women to practice something that only perfect and holy heavenly beings can accomplish without much soul-searching, tribulation and angst.

Edited August 18, 2015 by teddyaware

[jkwilliams]

There can be no doubt but that the commandment to practice plural marriage was an "Abrahamic" trial by fire that virtually all struggled with, but some struggled with it more than others. And that's only to be expected considering the fact that God was commanding imperfect men and women  to practice something that only perfect and holy heavenly beings can practice without much soul-searching, tribulation and angst.

 

I have my doubts.

[HappyJackWagon]

Since Happy and others are so enamored with Calls for Reference.  It's your turn...

 

Show me an official statement that says "we should only study from approved sources".  (Quoting HJW)

First, my CFR has been ignored by Why Me repeatedly for something he claimed was published by the church. This can be documented if he's correct.

 

On the other hand I said " It has always been made very clear to me that I should only teach from approved sources and I should only study from approved sources. This confirms that same general counsel which has led to me know knowing many sticky issues until later in life when I decided I needed to stop following that counsel."

 

At no point did I claim the church published something to this effect nor did I claim this was spoken in conference. While I suspect there is documentation out there that would make my point, I'm not going to spend my time looking for it to fulfill your CFR for something I never claimed. "It has been made very clear to me" refers to lessons at church, seminary and at home, for which there is no documentation.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

 

My point: Members today need to sit down and read books published by members and not just skim the web for anti mormon information.

Actually, this is exactly what is causing the problem for the church. Members ARE reading. They're finding material they were previously unaware of. They're finding information which they had been told was anti-mormon lies. Members are reading and finding this information. This is the problem. Quoting a non-church published book from 2003 is hardly proof that the church has always made this information available.

 

My problem is I decided I could no longer trust the church's narrative. People said I lacked faith for not completely trusting, but others say I was naive for trusting for so long. Kind of a no win situation. So I read and found a great deal of information. I devoured the books and information. As I would share that information, leaders would claim the information was anti-mormon and again question my faithfulness for simply not trusting the church's narrative.

 

NOW the church begins releasing it's own information, confirming the anti-mormon lies I had discovered earlier. People tell me I should have always known and that the church has never discouraged personal study and seeking. In my experience this is simply not true. Not even close.

 

What I find offensive is

 

1- People acting like I should have always known this information even when it was contrary to the traditional narrative taught regularly at church. Blaming me for trusting the church is harmful, disengenuous, and dismissive.

2- When I find the information I'm treated as a pariah for not trusting the church enough. I'm told the information I find is incorrect

3- When the information is finally confirmed by the church they act like the details just don't matter. "There's nothing to see here. Move along." The same people who claimed the info as anti mormon lies are the first to say "Oh, yeah, I've always known that."

4- When the information is finally confirmed the church acts like a- it didn't know any better, or b- they followed a "faithful" narrative to build faith of the members

 

The institutional church needs to admit the mistake of obfuscating the true narrative so that self-righteous members stop following their lead and blaming the victims who have been lied to.

 

Bottom line. I found this information before the church started coming clean with essays. It's the reaction of the church and many members that is most harmful as they blame me for not finding the information earlier because of my crime of trusting hte church.

[Calm]

Seems a little unfair to imply that members who didn't know the issues were lazy or distracted by computer games and TV.

Not what I was implying. There is nothing wrong with watching TV or playing games. My husband has a nightly ritual of a few hours to wind down to sleep. Not my choice, I prefer reading fiction.

But one makes choices about what one devotes resources to, including time. If one does make the claim of not having any/enough time to pursue because of other things the Church is telling us to do, I do think that examining actual time usage to see if that is a valid claim is legitimate. I chose TV and computer games as the most common solitary activities that would be most easily switched out. Activities that involve other people are more difficult to switch interests on...not many people would want to switch a ball game or off roading for a book club.

So the question was only about whether rockpond was actually prevented from studying by a life already full of church promoted activities. It did not seek to judge whether choosing TV or other personal activity was a less valued choice than putting that time into personal study. I think unless one finds such rejuvenating or relaxing, it might even lead to an unhealthy balance in one's life. We need time to relax to get recharged and how one chooses to do that is best left to the individual.

But if time is available, it is only the first ingredient. Finding quality resources to study in the past was more difficult, even in the early days of the internet. Some training on how to do research would save a lot of time, knowing how to make use of the reference section of the library for literature searches and awareness of interlibrary loans to get books or journals if one was not able to afford buying them. I did choose personal study and reading over tv watching a lot of the time, but my interest was more other faiths and science and even though I worked with interlibrary loan as a page for my first job, I never made use of the system. Never felt the need. Wasted a lot of time on less worthwhile books even then because I didn't think to check reviews of books first. In the off times I studied LDS church history, I knew librarians chose the books that were on the shelf and I assumed in most cases they would not be a good resource since everywhere but Utah antibooks dominated the shelves...that was rather stupid of me. Bottomline was I didn't put much effort into planning my church study as I could have. That was my own fault as I had done research and worked in the library so if I had taken a more concious approach rather than just browsing to see what interested me that week, I would have been able to make use of a lot more material. Lack of interest in history kept me at the grazing level though. My own choice. I am not bothered by the result. Am a bit for other faiths. Otoh, I put massive effort into study of sleep medicine to the point where my doctors were asking if I had a medical background so I am confidant if I had been as driven to find out about church history, I would have.

[jkwilliams]

 

Bottom line. I found this information before the church started coming clean with essays. It's the reaction of the church and many members that is most harmful as they blame me for not finding the information earlier because of my crime of trusting hte church.

 

Yes, this is what I see: no matter what you do, it's your fault. You didn't know about these issues? Your fault. You find the issues troubling? Your fault. That's what I mean about the pointlessness of placing blame. What matters is that people have discovered information that is troubling to them. How they found out is far less important than why they are troubled. 

[jkwilliams]

Not what I was implying. There is nothing wrong with watching TV or playing games. My husband has a nightly ritual of a few hours to wind down to sleep. Not my choice, I prefer reading fiction.

But one makes choices about what one devotes resources to, including time. If one does make the claim of not having any/enough time to pursue because of other things the Church is telling us to do, I do think that examining actual time usage to see if that is a valid claim is legitimate. I chose TV and computer games as the most common solitary activities that would be most easily switched out. Activities that involve other people are more difficult to switch interests on...not many people would want to switch a ball game or off roading for a book club.

So the question was only about whether rockpond was actually prevented from studying by a life already full of church promoted activities. It did not seek to judge whether choosing TV or other personal activity was a less valued choice than putting that time into personal study. I think unless one finds such rejuvenating or relaxing, it might even lead to an unhealthy balance in one's life. We need time to relax to get recharged and how one chooses to do that is best left to the individual.

But if time is available, it is only the first ingredient. Finding quality resources to study in the past was more difficult, even in the early days of the internet. Some training on how to do research would save a lot of time, knowing how to make use of the reference section of the library for literature searches and awareness of interlibrary loans to get books or journals if one was not able to afford buying them. I did choose personal study and reading over tv watching a lot of the time, but my interest was more other faiths and science and even though I worked with interlibrary loan as a page for my first job, I never made use of the system. Never felt the need. Wasted a lot of time on less worthwhile books even then because I didn't think to check reviews of books first. In the off times I studied LDS church history, I knew librarians chose the books that were on the shelf and I assumed in most cases they would not be a good resource since everywhere but Utah antibooks dominated the shelves...that was rather stupid of me. Bottomline was I didn't put much effort into planning my church study as I could have. That was my own fault as I had done research and worked in the library so if I had taken a more concious approach rather than just browsing to see what interested me that week, I would have been able to make use of a lot more material. Lack of interest in history kept me at the grazing level though. My own choice. I am not bothered by the result. Am a bit for other faiths. Otoh, I put massive effort into study of sleep medicine to the point where my doctors were asking if I had a medical background so I am confidant if I had been as driven to find out about church history, I would have.

 

Sorry for reading more into what you said than was meant. I was thinking of the old "lazy and intransigent" accusation that's been thrown around. When I was at my most devout in the church, I was commuting from Orem to Salt Lake on the bus, and I would read the scriptures on the way to work and the teachings of the prophets on the way home. I wanted to understand and live the gospel, and studying outside histories of the church wasn't part of that. But then I discovered the church history library on the first floor of our building, and I started reading down there on my lunch hours. I felt really fortunate to have access to that place, but had I been working somewhere else, I wouldn't have learned a lot of what I did. Thus, I never felt I was "lied" to because I knew a lot of the troubling stuff at least 10 years before things fell apart.