Joseph Smith's Polygamy

[Tacenda]

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.

Yesterday I listened to the latest podcast on Mormon Matters. D. Michael Quinn was one of the church historians speaking. The topic was JS's seer stones. Quinn mentioned how some, or many church leaders at the time, didn't know a lot of the nitty gritty in church history. Pres. Hinckley told Michael that he, Michael, was a lot more knowledgeable on those things than himself. The other church historian said much of it wasn't available even if the leaders had tried. So I don't appreciate those that blame the regular member for not knowing everything.

[Calm]

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.

The Church History in the Fullness of Times does have limited information on plural marriage. The previous manual had more info. Will have to check it to see if it was more than glancing though. I didn't take the class because I was more interested in Old Testament. I bought it mid90s for personal research. JS's plural marriages are at least mentioned, so minimal awareness should be present if one took those classes and as such claiming the Church hide information [Walden's claim**** if I understood him correctly] to avoid even that level seems to be taking that a bit far even if it wasn't required teaching in the obligatory classes of seminary and Sunday School and the subject might only come up if a teacher thought it appropriate to point out information in Sec 132, which probably wasn't often.

I am not claiming the more difficult details were taught. If they were, it would have been solely based on the teacher providing them, not the curriculum from what I've seen. I know some did from reports, but probably not widespread.

****" 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.

 

The divisiveness of Smith's polygamy, for me, was not that he practiced it, but that the church went to such lengths to hide it.". (it would appear he is not speaking about detailed information, but any information)

Edited August 18, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

The other church historian said much of it wasn't available even if the leaders had tried. So I don't appreciate those that blame the regular member for not knowing everything.

That would have been stuff like information from the JSP project.

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

I think the issue of motivation is interesting. For someone to spend the time reading and researching they must be motivated to spend the time. It may be harder to find this motivation to spend more time on church focused activities when already spending tremendous amounts of time in church related activities like callings. If I'm serving as bishop, working 50 hours a week, commuting 45 minutes each way, spending 20 hours a week on church stuff, finding additional time to study outside materials becomes less important.

 

To study church history a person must be dissatisfied with their current understanding or level of education. This dissatisfaction could be caused by curiousity and simply realizing your not happy with a current level of understanding, but it could also be a dissatisfaction with realizing the story you've been taught is incorrect. Without a natural curiousity about church history (which is not essential for salvation) or a recognition that the church-taught history is incorrect, I wonder what would cause dissatisfaction to the degree that I would spend hours reading and researching something I didn't realize was a problem.

 

Eventually that dissatisfaction occurred and I was blamed for it. I'm also blamed for not being dissatisfied earlier. It's a no win situation.

[jkwilliams]

Yesterday I listened to the latest podcast on Mormon Matters. D. Michael Quinn was one of the church historians speaking. The topic was JS's seer stones. Quinn mentioned how some, or many church leaders at the time, didn't know a lot of the nitty gritty in church history. Pres. Hinckley told Michael that he, Michael, was a lot more knowledgeable on those things than himself. The other church historian said much of it wasn't available even if the leaders had tried. So I don't appreciate those that blame the regular member for not knowing everything.

 

I was criticized recently for writing on my blog that I thought there wasn't a conscious effort to conceal anything but that most manual writers (and probably the leadership) were unaware of the more troubling stuff. A sort of standard narrative took hold, and many of us just accepted it.

[HappyJackWagon]

I was criticized recently for writing on my blog that I thought there wasn't a conscious effort to conceal anything but that most manual writers (and probably the leadership) were unaware of the more troubling stuff. A sort of standard narrative took hold, and many of us just accepted it.

I think that's partially true but it is definitely true that some knew these issues. As evidenced by the smattering of ensign articles written by general authorities going back to the early 70's it's clear people like Elders Hunter & Nelson had this information yet the standard narrative didn't change. I am left to assume 1 of 2 things happened at that point.

 

1- The church didn't read or accept the Ensign articles written by knowledgable general authorities and the authorities didn't push for a more correct narrative   or

2- The church did read and know the information in the Ensign articles and the information shared by some GA's like Nelson and Hunter, but purposely chose not to pursue making that information more widely accessible until now.

 

The JS Papers project covers much of this and has been ongoing for a number of years now. It takes time to get this information out so I'm glad the church is pursuing this course now, even though they seem to have purposely avoided it in the past.

[Calm]

Eventually that dissatisfaction occurred and I was blamed for it. I'm also blamed for not being dissatisfied earlier. It's a no win situation.

It would help, imo, if you made less absolute statements because not everyone blames you for not studying beforehand (I don't and know a number of other apologists who don't). Absolute statements such as these will cause defensivesness, especially if they are coupled by blaming the Church for the results of that lack of interest. There is a difference in a situation where someone tried hard to find the information and couldn't (a situation that was probably true for most members outside of the US and Canada...the biggest church library and institute libraries I've seen were in Canada, both were absolutely massive) and someone who didn't try and therefore didn't find. Whether the Church should have put resources to ensure material was available can be debated; in the second I find it problematic that the Church is condemned at all. In those cases it was never really given the opportunity.

Note: I am not claiming here that more than miminal information was distributed by the Church officially. There was information available with effort through Deseretbook publications like the History of the Church set, Journal of Discources, stuff published through BYU, etc for English speakers. (I am thinking of stuff advertised through Deseretbook catalogs in 70s and 80s, preinternet...books I wanted to buy but didn't because I would rather buy children's, mysteries and speculative fiction).

Edited August 18, 2015 by calmoriah

[ALarson]

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.

 

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for why me to come through.  His attempt to answer my CFR was a failure as we were not even discussing Hyrum Smith and he claimed the book he named had much written about the details of Joseph's polygamy.  I own the book he mentioned and I know it does not contain any of the details. 

 

Here is Nevo's response to why me's constant repeated posts about how numerous the church publications were in the past containing the true church history (Nevo is responding to why me's similar posts about the seer stone, but it applies here too):

 

 

Nevo Quote:

This is a terrible apologetic argument and I wish people would stop using it. Paul Malan got it right:

 

 

Needle: 150 words from a 38-year-old article in an official Church magazine.

Haystack: 150 years of sermons, art, film production, and culture that celebrate a striking, blue-eyed demigod reading from gold plates the way a third-grader reads Harry Potter. (Which is to say, not with a rock in a hat.)

Plot twist: You don’t even know there is a needle to look for until someone blames you for not finding it.

 

https://medium.com/@...et-dc236fb81723

 

 

Edited August 18, 2015 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

I think that's partially true but it is definitely true that some knew these issues. As evidenced by the smattering of ensign articles written by general authorities going back to the early 70's it's clear people like Elders Hunter & Nelson had this information yet the standard narrative didn't change. I am left to assume 1 of 2 things happened at that point.

 

1- The church didn't read or accept the Ensign articles written by knowledgable general authorities and the authorities didn't push for a more correct narrative   or

2- The church did read and know the information in the Ensign articles and the information shared by some GA's like Nelson and Hunter, but purposely chose not to pursue making that information more widely accessible until now.

 

The JS Papers project covers much of this and has been ongoing for a number of years now. It takes time to get this information out so I'm glad the church is pursuing this course now, even though they seem to have purposely avoided it in the past.

 

Oh, there were definitely a few people out there who knew the issues, but what I'm saying is that I don't think that there was some broad campaign of covering things up. I do think there were some who felt like members needed to be "protected" from troubling information, which explains why Mark Hofmann was able to sell his fake documents. But generally speaking, I think most people accepted the standard narrative, and those who knew better didn't feel like it was necessary to share. You and I seem to agree that the church's failure to talk about these issues has caused problems today.

[HappyJackWagon]

It would help, imo, if you made less absolute statements because not everyone blames you for not studying beforehand (I don't and know a number of other apologists who don't). Absolute statements such as these will cause defensivesness, especially if they are coupled by blaming the Church for the results of that lack of interest. There is a difference in a situation where someone tried hard to find the information and couldn't (a situation that was probably true for some members outside of the US and Canada...the biggest church library and institute libraries I've seen were in Canada, both were absolutely massive) and someone who didn't try and therefore didn't find. Whether the Church should have put resources to ensure material was available can be debated; in the second I find it problematic that the Church is condemned at all.

It looks like we have a different understanding of what an "absolute statement" is.

 

I said "

Eventually that dissatisfaction occurred and I was blamed for it. I'm also blamed for not being dissatisfied earlier. It's a no win situation.

At no point did I say EVERY person blamed me. I said I was blamed. This is factually true. If you read it as an "absolute statement" describing everyone then I think that's a result of you reading into it with your own bias.

 

ETA: This blame occurs daily on this site so I'm not sure how useful it is to pretend the blame is rare or limited to just a few people.

Edited August 18, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[HappyJackWagon]

Oh, there were definitely a few people out there who knew the issues, but what I'm saying is that I don't think that there was some broad campaign of covering things up. I do think there were some who felt like members needed to be "protected" from troubling information, which explains why Mark Hofmann was able to sell his fake documents. But generally speaking, I think most people accepted the standard narrative, and those who knew better didn't feel like it was necessary to share. You and I seem to agree that the church's failure to talk about these issues has caused problems today.

But it really doesn't need to be a "broad campaign" of cover up. All it takes is the Q15 stating that "this information will not be helpful to the testimony of our members. Please don't include it in the curriculum." Done. We know many knew the info yet it was not included in curriculum which means it necessarily was withheld. There may have been competing factions of those who wanted the info out there and those who didn't, but we see which side won out at that point in time.

 

The Q15 or at least the First Presidency would have been involved in making a decision about how much info to share. They also were involved with Mark Hoffman and purchasing materials they thought might be damaging to the church. So while it isn't necessarily a broad campaign to cover up, there was certainly intent to keep problematic information in the background

[jkwilliams]

But it really doesn't need to be a "broad campaign" of cover up. All it takes is the Q15 stating that "this information will not be helpful to the testimony of our members. Please don't include it in the curriculum." Done. We know many knew the info yet it was not included in curriculum which means it necessarily was withheld. There may have been competing factions of those who wanted the info out there and those who didn't, but we see which side won out at that point in time.

 

The Q15 or at least the First Presidency would have been involved in making a decision about how much info to share. They also were involved with Mark Hoffman and purchasing materials they thought might be damaging to the church. So while it isn't necessarily a broad campaign to cover up, there was certainly intent to keep problematic information in the background

 

I guess I'm less sure that the FP and the 12 necessarily knew about this stuff enough to say, "Please don't include it in the curriculum." According to Leonard Arrington, there were a few in the FP and 12 who didn't want controversial issues aired in church publications, but I don't know if that was a widespread feeling among the leadership. It's kind of ironic that, had they allowed Arrington to continue his program of a more open and accurate history, the problems that have arisen with the advent of the Internet may have been avoided.

[Calm]

At no point did I say EVERY person blamed me. I said I was blamed. This is factually true. If you read it as an "absolute statement" describing everyone then I think that's a result of you reading into it with your own bias.

ETA: This blame occurs daily on this site so I'm not sure how useful it is to pretend the blame is rare or limited to just a few people.

I am not suggesting the blame is rare. I assumed based on past posts you did not mean everyone, but I have encountered individuals who make that claim and it is possible that you may discuss this with others who have as well so they may assume that is also your approach if you haven't made it clear it isn't. Your comment is ambiguous enough it can be read either way. I am suggesting making it unambigious to avoid as much as possible defensiveness that may be triigered as much by how you say something as what you are trying to say. It is a simple modification to help increase understanding. I would suggest doing it as much as possible to develop the habit so you are less likely to forget when it is actually needed (which you may not be aware of).

I based my suggestion on the change of reception over time of my own comments in some areas since I have altered my writing to avoid possible absolutist interpretations (though I still forget at times). Get into fruitless debates less and less accusations of closedmindness, etc. are thrown at me.

It won't remove all and depending on what else you choose to change or not, it may have an insignificant impact, but if being blamed is interfering with what you want to discuss, it might be helpful.

Edited August 18, 2015 by calmoriah

[jkwilliams]

I am not suggesting the blame is rare. I assumed based on past posts you did not mean everyone, but I have encountered individuals who make that claim and it is possible that you may discuss this with others who have as well so they may assume that is also your approach if you haven't made it clear it isn't. Your comment is ambiguous enough it can be read either way. I am suggesting making it unambigious to avoid as much as possible defensiveness that may be triigered as much by how you say something as what you are trying to say. It is a simple modification to help increase understanding. I would suggest doing it as much as possible to develop the habit so you are less likely to forget when it is actually needed (which you may not be aware of).

I based my suggestion on the change of reception over time of my own comments in some areas since I have altered my writing to avoid possible absolutist interpretations (though I still forget at times). Get into fruitless debates less and less accusations of closedmindness, etc. are thrown at me.

It won't remove all and depending on what else you choose to change or not, it may have an insignificant impact, but if being blamed is interfering with what you want to discuss, it might be helpful.

 

The thing I keep coming back to is that many people blame members for not knowing things that the church didn't publicize. Often those who express the belief that the church ought to share such information are told they are "lazy and intransigent" and shouldn't expect the church to "spoon-feed" them. Now that the church is sharing the information, are we supposed to believe that the church now agrees with the lazy and intransigent and has decided to spoon-feed the members? HJW is right: for struggling members, it really doesn't matter what the church does, as they will still be blamed either way.

[stemelbow]

The thing I keep coming back to is that many people blame members for not knowing things that the church didn't publicize. Often those who express the belief that the church ought to share such information are told they are "lazy and intransigent" and shouldn't expect the church to "spoon-feed" them. Now that the church is sharing the information, are we supposed to believe that the church now agrees with the lazy and intransigent and has decided to spoon-feed the members? HJW is right: for struggling members, it really doesn't matter what the church does, as they will still be blamed either way.

I'm trying to figure out who you're quoting, jk. No doubt there are members who call others lazy and intransigent, but I'm not sure their argument should be summed up quite like you have. Just curious.

[jkwilliams]

I'm trying to figure out who you're quoting, jk. No doubt there are members who call others lazy and intransigent, but I'm not sure their argument should be summed up quite like you have. Just curious.

 

I'm just summarizing what I've heard here and elsewhere, but I am happy to be corrected if I'm misunderstanding others' positions. 

[rockpond]

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.

 

I'm not asking about history.  I was referring to the implementation of a principle that is still a part of our canon.  Joseph's introduction and practice of polygamy most certainly does have something to do with the truth claims of the church.

[rockpond]

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.

 

I don't play computer games.  Can't stand 'em.  And I don't watch a lot of TV.  It's been rare that I've ever had a cable/satellite TV subscription in my home.

 

But, yes, I have had pastimes.  And you're right -- it isn't about whether or not I had time to go out and research these topics.  I probably could have.

 

The point is this:  Why would I go out and study something like Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy when I wasn't even taught that such a thing existed.  Why would I even have a though to go look for a book on it?

 

When I taught lessons, the manuals specifically told me NOT to go look elsewhere.  Then, after decades in the church, when I finally did look elsewhere and learned the details that the church had seen fit to leave out of the curriculum, I lost trust in those leaders and felt betrayed.

[stemelbow]

I'm just summarizing what I've heard here and elsewhere, but I am happy to be corrected if I'm misunderstanding others' positions.

It's hard to correct if I don't know who's position we're talking about. But I do agree there's a problem on this matter, no doubt.

[jkwilliams]

It's hard to correct if I don't know who's position we're talking about. But I do agree there's a problem on this matter, no doubt.

 

The thing is, I am not one of those people who felt lied to, but I certainly can understand why they feel that way. Yet people here say that these members are mistaken, that the church isn't to be blamed at all for not sharing the more sordid details of church history. No, it's the member's fault for not studying more diligently.

 

In the same way, it's the member's fault if any of this stuff bothers them. According to some folks, only self-righteous, judgmental people would have a problem with a church leader having sex with other women behind his wife's back; only fault-finders would think it inappropriate for a married 38-year-old church leader to tell teenage girls that their secret marriage to him will guarantee their families a place in heaven; and only bitter apostates would think there's something wrong with a married man secretly marrying other men's wives. 

[thesometimesaint]

David of Bible fame took Saul's wives, and God apparently would have given him more. 

[HappyJackWagon]

David of Bible fame took Saul's wives, and God apparently would have given him more. 

Of course David was a fallen prophet...so...

[jkwilliams]

Of course David was a fallen prophet...so...

 

I don't recall David being commanded to take plural wives, either.

[thesometimesaint]

Of course David was a fallen prophet...so...

 

He took Saul's wives before Bathsheba. He wasn't fallen until after his affair with Bathsheba.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't recall David being commanded to take plural wives, either.

 

According to the Bible God would have given David more. Moreover Biblical polygamy can not be denied.