Joseph Smith's Polygamy

[Calm]

That's exactly my point....I was raised in the church from birth, spent every single Sunday of my life for the first 20-odd years in Primary, Young Men, seminary, etc. meetings and heard many, many stories and was taught many, many lessons regarding polygamy as practiced by Brigham Young and Parley Pratt and other pioneer mormons, but not one lesson on Joseph Smith polygamy. Likewise, I was taught in many lessons, exclusively, that Joseph Smith used a Urim and Thummin for translating purposes, with no mention of peep stones or the head-in-a-hat method of translation. Heck, they devote an entire school year to D&C and Church History in seminary, with lessons on these very subjects, except for some reason, they exclude certain facts, and these excluded facts are not exactly superfluous.

 

Reading your comment, how is it understandable that I wasn't taught these things because I didn't attend Institute? As an 8 through 18-year old, I was taught much about the practice of polygamy in the church, as well as the translation method using the Urim and Thummin, so why the subterfuge regarding Joseph Smith's polygamy or the true manner of translation? Why is a 17-year-old "seminary" mind only capable of handling Brigham Young's polygamy, but an 18-year old "Institute" mind suddenly capable of handling Smith's polygamy?

You are coming across as rather defensive (if I am reading you right) given that you are apparently interpreting my term "understandable" as "appropriate" as if somehow in my acceptance that you had not had the opportunity to be taught that I was approving that the opportunity to be taught in a church related setting was lacking. My apologies if you are just using my comments as a springboard (if so, could you make that more clear in the future so I am less likely to misread you as challenging my opinion as inappropriate).

In no way was I suggesting that 17 year olds or younger were incapable of handling JS's plural marriages while knowing of BY's.

Personally I wonder how anyone aware of the possibilty of polygyny in the world misses JS being involved in it when they read D&C 132 which is there for anyone who is old enough to read to come across, but I have been assured by enough people it happened to them that I accept it occurs (missing it seems to have little to do with intelligence or spirituality just in case anyone is thinking I am judging those who do not see it in the text like I do). So I for one am not sure why it was decided by some not to mention in the past. I assume it has something to do with plural marraige being practiced in mortality being a currently excommunicable offense and then not talking about it in teaching opportunities became traditional, but I am not privy to any curriculum discussions so it is only a guess.

[jkwilliams]

It's gonna be kinda funny when after this life, the whole "sticking to the manual" and controlling the info shared amongst the saints is going to prove to be one of the problems of our era. More and more are getting that though.

 

This shouldn't be that hard. When in doubt, tell the truth. 

[stemelbow]

This shouldn't be that hard. When in doubt, tell the truth.

So a couple weeks ago, I gave a talk in Sacrament that, I hear, many took issue with.

Here are the notes I used for the talk:

The Parable of the pet Tarantula

When I was a boy I had a pet tarantula. I played with him a lot. We had fun, he and I. One night I dreamed a dream. I dreamed of a creepy creature with a big hair caboose. I essentially dreamed of my future self. I dreamed of my tarantula and me. It was a great day, in my dream. He and I were playing around. And he crawled on my hand and went over the edge. I reached out and grabbed him and he began to fall and a grabbed him by that be hairy caboose, which was really hard to miss. He did not slap me. But I grabbed and he bit me, sank his chelicerae into my hand. Instead of me becoming spider man I withered away and died. He took on super powers and my evil desires and wreaked havoc across the globe. It was a terrible dark dream that became a recurring nightmare for me. The next day I awoke and felt refreshed having forgotten my dream. I went about my daily affairs. Then I decided to go get my pet and play with him. But as I looked in his cage I didn’t see my friend and my pet, but I saw a terrible hideous creature who was intent on chewing on me until I died. I didn’t see the interesting marvelous creature that I loved but I saw a creepy, icky monster.

SO that’s my parable perhaps so good it was one of the plain and precious truths lost form the Bible, type of stuff. As it was that little creature wasn’t going to bite me, because he hadn’t bitten me any time I had played with him before. I felt like he would because I thought he would…My perception was clouded. I’d say we’re all that way, going along with clouded perceptions. Paul says, “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”

It was intended for us to live in this world without being able to know all things. We know only in part, and sometimes that’s what gets us in trouble.

In 1968 Pres. Hugh B Brown of the 1St Presidency said:

I admire men and women who have developed the questioning spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent–if we are informed.— Hugh B. Brown

I hope that you will develop the questing spirit. Be unafraid of new ideas for they are the stepping stones of progress. You will of course respect the opinions of others but be unafraid to dissent—if you are informed.

"Now I have mentioned freedom to express your thoughts, but I caution you that your thoughts and expressions must meet competition in the market place of thought, and in that competition truth will emerge triumphant. Only error needs to fear freedom of expression. Seek truth in all fields, and in that search you will need at least three virtues; courage, zest, and modesty. The ancients put that thought in the form of a prayer. They said, 'From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth, from the laziness that is content with half truth, from the arrogance that thinks it has all truth—O God of truth deliver us'."

I wonder hwo Hugh B Brown admired and who he had in mind when he said this. N 1947 there was a member of the Church who had such a questioning spirit. Lowry Nelson was a professor of Sociology in Minnesota. He was contacted by a childhood friend who was the mission President for the Southern States Mission:

President Meeks:

He advised me that you spent some two years in Cuba making a study of rural com-

munities. Your study there would be very helpful to us. I would appreciate your

opinion as to the advisability of doing missionary work particularly in the rural

sections of Cuba, knowing, of course, our concept of the Negro and his position

as to the Priesthood,

Are there groups of pure white blood in the rural sections, particularly in the

small communities? If so, are they maintaining segregation from the Negroes?

The best information we received waa.that in the rural communities there was no

segregation of the races and it would probably be difficult to find, with any

degree of certainty, groups of pure white people.

Lowry Nelson:

Responds by saying he does not think it a good idea to go into Cuba and teach the racist doctrine of our Church. It’d be more harmful than helpful, suggesting it is a shame since the Church sans the doctrine could do much good for the people in Cuba.

Having a questioning spirit and not feeling satisfied, Lowry wrote to the 1st Presidency:

Asking whether the teachings from the Church were finalized, or crystalized, while explaining his disagreement.

The first Presidency responds affirming the teachings as being crystalized. Saying that which is taught and thought in the Church is true.

2 years later the First Presidency put out an official statement on race and the priesthood and in it confirmed again that the teachings, which today are said to be untrue, were true. Blacks were inferior, as many had taught, the 1st Presidency explains it is a matter of revelation.

In 1978 just months after the announcement of the lifting of the ban, E McConkie said

“And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving

people repented and got in line and believed in a

living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have

said, or what President Brigham Young or President

George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past

that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke

with a limited understanding and without the light and

knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and

precept upon precept. We have now had added a new

flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject,

and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all

the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.

It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody

ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978).

And so we have a doctrine taught consistently for many years by leaders of the Church that is now considered false.

Race and the priesthood essay:

“Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church…. the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else.”

In this case we learn that the perceptions held by leaders of the Church were wrong. This presents a good example of seeing through a glass darkly.

I don’t say this to condemn past leaders, for they were but products of their time. And they weren’t bad for speaking in darkness, speaking with limited understanding, as McConkie put it. Joseph Smith said:

“I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine."

Why is Joseph Smith’s statement so true? Well we all err in doctrine somehow. None of us sees everything or knows all things.

We face a pretty interesting paradox in this. We’re told to follow our leaders. We’re told to listen and obey. Sometimes we think we’re not to challenge or dissent. But we’re also told to dissent, if informed. BY purportedly suggested, “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way.”

We’re weaker if we don’t question and challenge.

If we follow and not question or challenge, we are lacking integrity. We are stealing from ourselves our best opportunities to grow. We are also robbing the whole of the group the opportunity to change, learn and grow.

Pres. Hugh B Brown, “Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of ideas, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression… This free exchange of ideas is not to be deplored as long as men and women remain humble and teachable. Neither fear of consequence or any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. … We must preserve freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it.”

Religion begets Dogma –

Dogma begets error

And error begets the kind of strain we need in life.

A saying, For Catholics, the Pope is infallible, but nobody believes it. For Mormons the prophet is fallible, but no one believes it.

The parable of the pot roast:

Young couple gets married. The wife wants to make a tasty roast. She cuts off the two ends and throws those pieces of meat away. The husband asks, “why did you cut off the ends and throw those pieces of meat away. That’s good meat.” Wife: “ oh dear, that’s how you make a roast.”

“why?”

“that’s just how you do it?”

“what does it do for the roast. Why do you do it?”

“that’s just how you do you it”

How do you Know?”

“My mother always did that way and that’s how you do it”

He goes to his mother-in-law and asks why. She says the same, “that’s how you do it”. He learns she learned it from her mother. He goes to grandma.

“Your’ daughter and granddaughter cut off the ends of the roast to cook it saying that’s how it’s supposed to be done. Why?”

“Oh my. When I made roast I used the same pot. The roasts were always a little too big to fit so I cut off the ends. But certainly there’s no other reason to do it other than that.”

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.Alma 32

Curious of your and other people's thoughts.

[jkwilliams]

So a couple weeks ago, I gave a talk in Sacrament that, I hear, many took issue with.

Here are the notes I used for the talk:

Curious of your and other people's thoughts.

 

Absolutely agree that it is good to question and challenge. Of course, look where it got me.

[stemelbow]

Absolutely agree that it is good to question and challenge. Of course, look where it got me.

I see that. As it turns out, living with integrity sends each of us all over the place. That's just not discouraging to me, though. It's how it should be. The Church is not God's priority as we too often like to think it is, it seems His priority is every one. I think He'll send people in every direction for their benefit and His own. In the end, He just wants to see us again, happy and healthy. Who cares if we're in or out of the Church, I say. He knows what He needs from each of us.

[jkwilliams]

I see that. As it turns out, living with integrity sends each of us all over the place. That's just not discouraging to me, though. It's how it should be. The Church is not God's priority as we too often like to think it is, it seems His priority is every one. I think He'll send people in every direction for their benefit and His own. In the end, He just wants to see us again, happy and healthy. Who cares if we're in or out of the Church, I say. He knows what He needs from each of us.

 

Amen to that.

[stemelbow]

Amen to that.

ok...so with that said, do you see what about my talk, at least from the notes, caused a fuss in my ward? I think I kinda get it, but just curious if others feel the same.

Thanks in advance. Sorry to bother, if it be a bother.

[jkwilliams]

ok...so with that said, do you see what about my talk, at least from the notes, caused a fuss in my ward? I think I kinda get it, but just curious if others feel the same.

Thanks in advance. Sorry to bother, if it be a bother.

 

Oh, definitely I could see how talking about challenging the priesthood ban might not go over well in your ward.

[stemelbow]

Oh, definitely I could see how talking about challenging the priesthood ban might not go over well in your ward.

No doubt that was a problem to some, but it seems the bigger problem to some was that I recommended challenging the norm and dissenting from teaching even today if informed. The mindset is so much about controlling information it's hard to get out of that. The mindset of sticking to the manual, don't veer from what we're told is deeply ingrained in Church world, these days. But, I think we'll benefit in shedding ourselves of that.

Edited August 18, 2015 by stemelbow

[jkwilliams]

No doubt that was a problem to some, but it seems the bigger problem to some was that I recommended challenging the norm and dissenting from teaching even today if informed. The mindset is so much about controlling information it's hard to get out of that. The mindset of sticking to the manual, don't veer from what we're told is deeply ingrained in Church world, these days. But, I think we'll benefit in shedding ourselves of that.

 

Well, just think of it as your ward members not being afraid to question and challenge you.

[Thinking]

Well, just think of it as your ward members not being afraid to question and challenge you.

 

During my active years I happened to be in the same ward as John Tvedtnes. If there was ever a question in GD class that the teacher couldn't answer, the class members would start to look in John's direction (usually on the back row with his shoes off). To his credit, he didn't act condescending while giving his opinion. I don't remember anybody ever questioning him.

[jkwilliams]

During my active years I happened to be in the same ward as John Tvedtnes. If there was ever a question in GD class that the teacher couldn't answer, the class members would start to look in John's direction (usually on the back row with his shoes off). To his credit, he didn't act condescending while giving his opinion. I don't remember anybody ever questioning him.

 

I think every ward has at least one guy like that whom everyone views as the authority. In my ward in Utah, Lael Woodbury was the go-to guy in the ward for settling doctrinal discussions. One of the high priests said, "Not many wards can say that they have Elohim's word for it on doctrinal issues." Then I realized Brother Woodbury had played Elohim in the 1970s-era temple film.

[Calm]

Current: "Additional references and commentaries should not be necessary to teach the lessons."

Former: "It is not necessary or recommended that members purchase additional commentaries or reference texts to support the material in the text. Members are encouraged to turn to the scriptures that have been suggested for further study of the doctrine."

The former statement is a little stronger as far as restricting sources, IMO.

Thanks. It is that way in most of the manuals on my shelf, iirc, It still never led me to believe I was wrong for using additional materials in my personal study and development as a teacher but that additional reading was definitely not needed to become a great teacher and that scriptures were essential. That statement was reassurring when I chose not to devote my limited resources and time to studying that way. It just didn't make sense to me that DB published references by our church leaders themselves that would have fallen outside this instruction if interpreted as a "thou shalt not". (I never saw Deseretbook as part of the Church, but rather a possession of the Church, never saw it as part of the Church approved process, so that probably helped.) I didn't see it as likely that leadership themselves would participate in something that contradicted what they were teaching by writing and allowing to be published additional commentaries.

I get that others' experiences and environment led them to interpret this differently. Not judging them in any way if they did or do; just saying the text itself is reasonably interpreted in other ways (I know enough reaonable people who interpret it like me to judge that interpretation as one of the valid options).

Edited August 18, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

From my experience of attending institute, I wasn't taught any details regarding how Joseph lived polygamy, only that he did take on a few plural wives (older widows that he was sealed to). Maybe some institute teachers did get into more details about how many wives Joseph actually had (and their ages being as young as 14 years old), but I would think that was rare if at all. I also doubt that his polyandry was discussed in institute classes, but hopefully more is being covered now with the release of the essays.

The text of the last couple of decades definitely didn't provide much more than acknowledgment. Iirc it lists the name and likely date of the first for sure plural wife, Louisa Beamon, and nothing else I can remember (will try to remember to check the previous text that my husband was taught from). The only way a student would learn more from the class itself was if the teacher knew more and chose to teach it. No reason to assume this happen for many/most.

Thankfully that is changing and our kids won't be having this conversation with their kids.

Edited August 18, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I once had a roommate who started yelling at me because I told him I wasn't happy with the lesson as it was in the manual and was going to use some other material to make for a more interesting lesson. He told me I had no right to "stray from the manual," as these lesson manuals had been carefully prepared by the Brethren through the inspiration of the spirit. He got pretty angry, so I just walked out the door and worked on my lesson in the library.

So even that extreme reaction didn't change your mind...thus demonstrating one did not have to think that way.

[jkwilliams]

So even that extreme reaction didn't change your mind...thus demonstrating one did not have to think that way.

 

I'm pretty stubborn.

[stemelbow]

Well, just think of it as your ward members not being afraid to question and challenge you.

Sure, if they wanted to come and talk to me, I'd be quite happy to discuss disagreements. That's what I want.

[Calm]

So a couple weeks ago, I gave a talk in Sacrament that, I hear, many took issue with.Here are the notes I used for the talk:Curious of your and other people's thoughts.

What did you expect the reaction to be? Given your experience here, it seems to me a realistic expectation would have included some people getting upset due to you going into detail with the Lowry stuff and for me, I would not intentionally upset people in SM even as I was trying to get people to look at a belief in a new way. I like most of your talk, I don't really have any issue with it for myself. I just think it would have been more effective in most wards if you had left out the Lowry section and focused on positive encouragement. I think by using that example more were likely to allow themselves to become defensive and tune out your teaching rather than absorb it.

As far as veering from the manual, I would like to know how they mean that. You aren't required to teach everything in the manual so you can avoid subjects you disagree with easily enough. I think short directional aside pointing to accurate information when it is a wellestabished history now (such as the Marsh story) is acceptable to many as keepin to the manual based on my own experience. It is taking significant time to teach something not referred at all to in the manual or scriptures that trouble most in my experience and it does me as well in most cases. I can see departures if it is noticed a student or students need something else focused on but still can't see any topic appropriate to teach in church not having some mention in some manual or magazine to build upon. If someone has an idea for an exception, would be intersting to hear.

[stemelbow]

What did you expect the reaction to be? Given your experience here, it seems to me a realistic expectation would have included some people getting upset due to you going into detail with the Lowry stuff and for me, I would not intentionally upset people in SM even as I was trying to get people to look at a belief in a new way. I like most of your talk, I don't really have any issue with it for myself. I just think it would have been more effective in most wards if you had left out the Lowry section and focused on positive encouragement. I think by using that example more were likely to allow themselves to become defensive and tune out your teaching rather than absorb it.

I didn't mention the positive feedback. I got quite a bit of, "we really needed that"'s and other such comments. I'm not sure I'd change it, per se. I know my bishop expected something of the sort from me. he's come around on me in many ways. I figure if I gave up on the points I wanted to make, leaving out the Lowry stuff, I'd be selling something other than the point I really felt needed to be made.

As far as veering from the manual, I would like to know how they mean that. You aren't required to teach everything in the manual so you can avoid subjects you disagree with easily enough. I think short directional aside pointing to accurate information when it is a wellestabished history now (such as the Marsh story) is acceptable to many as keepin to the manual based on my own experience. It is taking significant time to teach something not referred at all to in the manual or scriptures that trouble most in my experience and it does me as well in most cases. I can see departures if it is noticed a student or students need something else focused on but still can't see any topic appropriate to teach in church not having some mention in some manual or magazine to build upon. If someone has an idea for an exception, would be intersting to hear.

I can agree with most of this. I think many have taken the sticking to the manual far more literally and strictly than others.

[Walden]

You are coming across as rather defensive (if I am reading you right) given that you are apparently interpreting my term "understandable" as "appropriate" as if somehow in my acceptance that you had not had the opportunity to be taught that I was approving that the opportunity to be taught in a church related setting was lacking. My apologies if you are just using my comments as a springboard (if so, could you make that more clear in the future so I am less likely to misread you as challenging my opinion as inappropriate).

In no way was I suggesting that 17 year olds or younger were incapable of handling JS's plural marriages while knowing of BY's.

Personally I wonder how anyone aware of the possibilty of polygyny in the world misses JS being involved in it when they read D&C 132 which is there for anyone who is old enough to read to come across, but I have been assured by enough people it happened to them that I accept it occurs (missing it seems to have little to do with intelligence or spirituality just in case anyone is thinking I am judging those who do not see it in the text like I do). So I for one am not sure why it was decided by some not to mention in the past. I assume it has something to do with plural marraige being practiced in mortality being a currently excommunicable offense and then not talking about it in teaching opportunities became traditional, but I am not privy to any curriculum discussions so it is only a guess.

 

Sorry for the confusion regarding my tone, I was not attempting to be combative/defensive. Internet is tricky when trying to convey tone, but I have always admired your thoughtfulness on this board, so there is certainly no hostility.

 

With regard to D&C 132, we were not taught in seminary or Aaronic priesthood classes back then that this revelation was based in principles that had previously been revealed to Joseph Smith, and certainly we were never taught that Smith had in fact been practicing polygamy prior to the publishing of the revelation in 1843 (or that he had practiced it at all). I believe that the LDS church modified the heading of this chapter in 2013 to add the following: "Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831." 

 

Genuine question here....Are there people on this board who attended seminary or Aaronic priesthood or Young Women's in the 1980s who were taught that Joseph Smith was a polygamist? Likewise, were they taught the varying translation methods? Were these things taught and discussed in Mormon youth settings in other areas?

Edited August 18, 2015 by Walden

[Calm]

Looking at the heading in my husband's missionary Triple (1970s), the heading states that Joseph is to prepare himself to recieve the covenant, plurality of wives only when commanded and commandment to Emma Smith, wife of the Prophet.

It never occurred to me that I remember that this meant Joseph only was given the revelation but didn't practice it. Verses 3, 4, 5 and 52 reinforced my interpretation for me.

For some reason, even knowing of plural marriage in the Church, others didn't read it that way. Don't know why.

Perhaps most who didn't read it in the same way are younger or post 1980 converts and used the 1981 version which heading is vaguer but states the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation were known to Joseph since 31. (Still that verse 52...since the section is talking about marriage and refers to those virtuous and pure, I assumed what Emma was to receive that Joseph was given was wives.).

Edited August 18, 2015 by calmoriah

[Okrahomer]

Genuine question here....Are there people on this board who attended seminary or Aaronic priesthood or Young Women's in the 1980s who were taught that Joseph Smith was a polygamist?

I attended LDS Seminary in the '70's, and the answer is: I was taught about it; however, I may be a bit of an anomaly. I have previously "come out of the closet" on this board as a descendant of Mormon polygamists. Since my folks are enthusiastic family historians, the fact that there were polygamists on my mother's side dating from their time in Nauvoo, made Joseph's polygamy a fact of life. There was no attempt to "blame it on Brigham." Since my mother was my Seminary teacher, It was also mentioned there. Edited August 18, 2015 by Okrahomer

[Calm]

70s and taught it in San Fran area. Not historians, but Grandma talked about her Auntie and we knew it went back to Nauvoo with Mom's family who lived across the street from the Prophet. (Theodore Turley who had three plural wives in Nauvoo).

Edited August 18, 2015 by calmoriah

[jkwilliams]

70s and taught it. Not historians, but Grandma talked about her Auntie and we knew it went back to Nauvoo with Mom's family who lived across the street from the Prophet.

 

I knew Joseph practiced it from my youth, but we were always told it was an act of charity to support widows and such. I had no idea about polyandry or concealing the marriages from Emma. 

[carbon dioxide]

 

Genuine question here....Are there people on this board who attended seminary or Aaronic priesthood or Young Women's in the 1980s who were taught that Joseph Smith was a polygamist? Likewise, were they taught the varying translation methods? Were these things taught and discussed in Mormon youth settings in other areas?

I can't remember way back then specific lessons but I can say that as a teenager during those years the understanding that Joseph Smith was a polygamist among myself and others in my family and friends was about the same level as the knowledge that Ronald Reagan was president.  We did not know all the details however.  I think one really has to have their head buried in the sand if they did not know.  The manifesto was in our scriptures.  If that was about ending the practice then obviously the practice had to have started somewhere.  It would not take much digging to know it started by Joseph.