Joseph Smith's Polygamy

[Bobbieaware]

You've worked it out for yourself, and that's great. I did exactly what you describe for many years until I couldn't do it anymore. Once that rationalization went, so did the rest of them. Yeah, I know, you think people like me never had a testimony to begin with.

Not true. People lose their very real testimonies all the time and the scriptures frequently attest to this fact.

I am reminded of an old friend (a non-member) who recently engaged me in a conversation that amounted to a desperate attempt to get me to become a hardened atheist like her. I asked what her atheism offered me? She said reality. I replied but it is a "reality" devoid of any lasting meaning for life; a "reality" that declares there is no loving God, no compassionate Savior, no remission of sins, no promise of healing and compensation for all those who suffered and died under brutal, unjust dictators, and no eternal marriage and families. In short, she offered me nothing but an 'eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die in oblivion' approach to life. I went on to say that life and existence are far too unlikely and miraculous to have occurred without the creative action of a living God. So I'll go on being a "fool" who chooses to believe there is something wonderful and eternally meaningful that underlies the reality of our existence. I'll go on in believing the admonition of Paul that faith, hope and charity endure forever in a universe of never ending justice, mercy and perfect love.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[jkwilliams]

Not true. People lose their very real testimonies all the time and the scriptures frequently attest to this fact.

I am reminded of an old friend (a non-member) who recently engaged me in a conversation that amounted to a desperate attempt to get me to become a hardened atheist like her. I asked what her atheism offered me? She said reality. I replied but it is a "reality" devoid of any lasting meaning for life; a "reality" that declares there is no loving God, no compassionate Savior, no remission of sins, no promise of healing and compensation for all those who suffered and died under brutal, unjust dictators, and no eternal marriage and families. In short, she offered me nothing but an 'eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die in oblivion' approach to life. I went on to say that life and existence are far too unlikely and miraculous to have occurred without the creative action of a living God. So I'll go on being a "fool" who chooses to believe there is something wonderful and eternally meaningful that underlies the reality of our existence. I'll go on in believing the admonition of Paul that faith, hope and charity endure forever in a universe of never ending justice, mercy and perfect love.

 

I doubt you're ever going to be an atheist, hardened or otherwise. 

 

As for the meaning of life, I don't see why an atheist can't find lasting meaning in life. We can make our own meaning, can't we?

 

And please don't imply that I think you or any other believers are "fools," as I do not believe that at all. You've worked out your faith, and that's great. Nothing foolish about it at all.

[ALarson]

God pretty much commanded the opposite at the end of section 132.

Yep!

[Bobbieaware]

I doubt you're ever going to be an atheist, hardened or otherwise. 

 

As for the meaning of life, I don't see why an atheist can't find lasting meaning in life. We can make our own meaning, can't we?

 

And please don't imply that I think you or any other believers are "fools," as I do not believe that at all. You've worked out your faith, and that's great. Nothing foolish about it at all.

My intent was to Inform readers that my friend thought I was a fool.

[jkwilliams]

My intent was to Inform readers that my friend thought I was a fool.

 

Well, she knows you best.

 

(Just kidding)

[VideoGameJunkie]

I believe in the scriptures, so I believe Doctrine and Covenants section 132 was from revelation and from God. It's one of the most important chapters of scripture that we possess and I believe it to be true at the time.

[why me]

I can't answer for anyone else, but for me, it was the secrecy and deceit, and what I consider coercion. 

Of course this is one interpretation. However, I do see a problem. Lets just say for the heck of it that an angel did appear to Joseph and threaten him. What was he to do with an uncooperative wife? Should he obey god or his wife? It is certainly being between a rock and a hard place. The secrecy can be explained by the mobs at the gate. If any wind blew their way about polygamy, there would certainly be a blood bath in nauvoo. So, secrecy was mandatory not just for joseph but for others who were practicing polygamy in nauvoo. Emma was not onboard with the polygamy. What should joseph have done? Disobey the angel and god or obey his wife? What would you do in his circumstances. I do believe that he tried to discuss it with her but got nowhere. And I am not sure about the coercion. Most of the women did receive a spiritual confirmation before they accepted. And it was this spiritual experience that convinced them to become plural wives. I don't think that these frontier women were fools and pushovers. They were quite strong willed.

[jkwilliams]

Of course this is one interpretation. However, I do see a problem. Lets just say for the heck of it that an angel did appear to Joseph and threaten him. What was he to do with an uncooperative wife? Should he obey god or his wife? It is certainly being between a rock and a hard place. The secrecy can be explained by the mobs at the gate. If any wind blew their way about polygamy, there would certainly be a blood bath in nauvoo. So, secrecy was mandatory not just for joseph but for others who were practicing polygamy in nauvoo. Emma was not onboard with the polygamy. What should joseph have done? Disobey the angel and god or obey his wife? What would you do in his circumstances. I do believe that he tried to discuss it with her but got nowhere. And I am not sure about the coercion. Most of the women did receive a spiritual confirmation before they accepted. And it was this spiritual experience that convinced them to become plural wives. I don't think that these frontier women were fools and pushovers. They were quite strong willed.

Obviously, you see things differently than I do, but then I don't see any reason to argue with you over arguments I haven't made.

[why me]

Obviously, you see things differently than I do, but then I don't see any reason to argue with you over arguments I haven't made.

Well, you did use the words deceit and coercion, right? I needed to explain why these words may have been harsh and not on point with joseph and his actions. By using the words deceit and coercion, you did create an argument over these words when describing joseph and his actions.

[Guest]

As I said, I can speak only for myself. I got tired of rationalizing what Joseph Smith did. That's all.

John, I knew during my discussions by asking missionaries (19 and 20 year old's knew). Shortly after joining I found out much more while living in Germany buying Church books out of a Stationwagon attending Stake Conferences in Frankfurt in the late 70's and early 80's. In those books even learned about the gun Joseph had when murdered. Then in 1982, I return to America and suddenly these are all secrets that lifelong members never knew. So if it was ever a secret, the Church is publishing this an so many others things openly. How many did not keep the faith because it did not come out when "they" wanted it too? Now that the Church is doing what so many lost heart about...can we start filling the fonts again? Or will the discord then be over the water temperature?

[why me]

John, I knew during my discussions by asking missionaries (19 and 20 year old's knew). Shortly after joining I found out much more while living in Germany buying Church books out of a Stationwagon attending Stake Conferences in Frankfurt in the late 70's and early 80's. In those books even learned about the gun Joseph had when murdered. Then in 1982, I return to America and suddenly these are all secrets that lifelong members never knew. So if it was ever a secret, the Church is publishing this an so many others things openly. How many did not keep the faith because it did not come out when "they" wanted it too? Now that the Church is doing what so many lost heart about...can we start filling the fonts again? Or will the discord then be over the water temperature?

Well,  this is a good point and something that I also wrote about. We knew much in the past. The church's publishing arm was publishing books about many of the things that critics claim were being kept secret. It seems that many members did not read books. And yet, many certainly had libraries of lds books in their home. Now the church is 'being open' about many things that they were open about in the past. I think that the problem is really simple: this information was not in the  manuals. Thus, the problem since very few members seem to reading books. For example, if they would have read the biography of hyrum smith by o'driscoll, they would have learned much about the polygamy issue. This book was published in 2003 by church publishers.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Hyrum-Smith-A-Life-Integrity/dp/1570088578

Edited August 17, 2015 by why me

[jkwilliams]

Well, you did use the words deceit and coercion, right? I needed to explain why these words may have been harsh and not on point with joseph and his actions. By using the words deceit and coercion, you did create an argument over these words when describing joseph and his actions.

Well, you were talking about people being fools and pushovers, and I haven't said anything like that. I do think Joseph was deceitful in hiding his relationships from Emma. I don't know how to put that politely. And yes, I think he was coercive both in the way he approached women and the way he threatened Emma with destruction if she didn't go along. Harsh? Maybe.

[HappyJackWagon]

Well,  this is a good point and something that I also wrote about. We knew much in the past. The church's publishing arm was publishing books about many of the things that critics claim were being kept secret. It seems that many members did not read books. And yet, many certainly had libraries of lds books in their home. Now the church is 'being open' about many things that they were open about in the past. I think that the problem is really simple: this information was not in the  manuals. Thus, the problem since very few members seem to reading books. For example, if they would have read the biography of hyrum smith by o'driscoll, they would have learned much about the polygamy issue. This book was published in 2003 by church publishers.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Hyrum-Smith-A-Life-Integrity/dp/1570088578

If you're referring to Deseret Book as the church's "publishing arm" you would be incorrect. DB is a for profit company and it would be silly to assume that everything they publish is sanctioned as gospel by the church. They publish fiction, historical fiction, non-fiction, etc., which may have some draw for an LDS audience but a DB publication is not synonymous with a church publication.

 

If you were not referring to DB, could you please supply a list of books the Church published that teach about the seer stone? This is a CFR. Put up the references or retract

[jkwilliams]

John, I knew during my discussions by asking missionaries (19 and 20 year old's knew). Shortly after joining I found out much more while living in Germany buying Church books out of a Stationwagon attending Stake Conferences in Frankfurt in the late 70's and early 80's. In those books even learned about the gun Joseph had when murdered. Then in 1982, I return to America and suddenly these are all secrets that lifelong members never knew. So if it was ever a secret, the Church is publishing this an so many others things openly. How many did not keep the faith because it did not come out when "they" wanted it too? Now that the Church is doing what so many lost heart about...can we start filling the fonts again? Or will the discord then be over the water temperature?

I'm not sure how this applies to me, as I never felt like the church had hidden anything from me. As I said, I just got tired of rationalizing things, that's all. I knew about all the gory details in my late 20s or thereabouts. I just stopped rationalizing it about 10 years later. You've worked it out, which is fine.

[ALarson]

For example, if they would have read the biography of hyrum smith by o'driscoll, they would have learned much about the polygamy issue. This book was published in 2003 by church publishers.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Hyrum-Smith-A-Life-Integrity/dp/1570088578

CFR that this book gives the details of how Joseph lived polygamy.  IIRC, it briefly mentions that Hyrum struggled with the principle of plural marriage but not much more.  I own this book and will try find it, but I do not remember it giving much detail about polygamy.

 

Please provide quotes from this book and page numbers.

 

Also, does this book discuss how Hyrum lived polygamy and give the names of his wives?  Please give references for that too since you claim it covered the "polygamy issue",

Edited August 17, 2015 by ALarson

[Guest]

Well,  this is a good point and something that I also wrote about. We knew much in the past. The church's publishing arm was publishing books about many of the things that critics claim were being kept secret. It seems that many members did not read books. And yet, many certainly had libraries of lds books in their home. Now the church is 'being open' about many things that they were open about in the past. I think that the problem is really simple: this information was not in the  manuals. Thus, the problem since very few members seem to reading books. For example, if they would have read the biography of hyrum smith by o'driscoll, they would have learned much about the polygamy issue. This book was published in 2003 by church publishers.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Hyrum-Smith-A-Life-Integrity/dp/1570088578

Ok, I will certainly buy that many members may not read, but this was taught in Siminary, college Siminary (all of the books which I own) and in Sunday School each time we covered the Bible, BoM and D&C. So are we to conclude, that they also did not pay attention. If this is the case it is not the fault of the Church if members don't read and don't attend Church, and if in attendance, don't listen. When does any of the responsibility fall upon the members of any faith to know what is being taught. We were never like the Catholic Church and teaching in Latin...we teach in the language of those in attendance. You say you got tired of defending it, which means at some point you knew. Also, I am not buying that those who grew up in the faith and served missions we all stupid and unaware and that only the internet Mormons really know the truth about Mormonism. My experience has been being a country boy Baptist growing up, is that for the last 36 years attending the LDS Church is that they are overwhelmingly more educated and more aware of their faith than those I grew up with...and as the Internet has allowed me to know more members across the English speaking world...even more so!

[rockpond]

Ok, I will certainly buy that many members may not read, but this was taught in Siminary, college Siminary (all of the books which I own) and in Sunday School each time we covered the Bible, BoM and D&C. So are we to conclude, that they also did not pay attention. If this is the case it is not the fault of the Church if members don't read and don't attend Church, and if in attendance, don't listen. When does any of the responsibility fall upon the members of any faith to know what is being taught. We were never like the Catholic Church and teaching in Latin...we teach in the language of those in attendance. You say you got tired of defending it, which means at some point you knew. Also, I am not buying that those who grew up in the faith and served missions we all stupid and unaware and that only the internet Mormons really know the truth about Mormonism. My experience has been being a country boy Baptist growing up, is that for the last 36 years attending the LDS Church is that they are overwhelmingly more educated and more aware of their faith than those I grew up with...and as the Internet has allowed me to know more members across the English speaking world...even more so!

 

I keep hearing this but I graduated from Seminary, completed all of the required BYU religion classes (and then some), and taught early morning seminary (including the D&C/Church History year) and I don't recall ever learning the details of Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy.

 

Could someone making this claim provide citations that we can read?  While I haven't read the current seminary/institute manuals cover to cover, I don't see it covered there nor do I see it covered in current curriculum.

[ALarson]

I keep hearing this but I graduated from Seminary, completed all of the required BYU religion classes (and then some), and taught early morning seminary (including the D&C/Church History year) and I don't recall ever learning the details of Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy.

 

Could someone making this claim provide citations that we can read?  While I haven't read the current seminary/institute manuals cover to cover, I don't see it covered there nor do I see it covered in current curriculum.

I think there are a few times polygamy was mentioned (with a few details but not all of them that we now know) either in institute manuals or the Ensign.  Some seem to have had seminary teachers who covered it more thoroughly.  But, my experience mirrors yours. 

 

I do think that there's more now in the current seminary manuals.  Nevo has posted some of the quotes.  

Edited August 17, 2015 by ALarson

[jpv]

Sorry if this seems I am getting off topic, but this seems to me to be an example of exactly what is wrong with the church today and in the recent past.

I've long since quit going to temples in the Salt Lake Valley--I usually end up leaving irritated to the point of anger at the irreverent "social hall" atmosphere. Fast and testimony meeting in my married student ward is an exercise of modern day Rameumptom...

The point is when Elder Holland said not too long ago about the want for a convinient God--I think he was speaking not only about those outside the church with regards to social issues--but about a good number of the church membership who seem to be on cruise control and coasting. Where is the "working out [of our] salvation with fear and trembling"? The church becomes a social thing for many members, just another watered down version of Christianity. What are the odds that the family members of sun stoned even bothered to click the links he posted? How is this willful ignorance the fault of the church?

I can't remeber the last time I've been 100% comfortable with my faith and spirituality. The Church of Jesus Christ constantly makes me uncomfortable. It pushes my limits, constantly has me questioning where I stand and my personal progression. The more I see of this board, the more and more I'm inclined to believe those posting questions are probably closer to where they should be spiritually than they themselves would be willing to think.

Back to the topic--my big issue happens to be polyandry. For me, it really is trying to fit the square in the round hole. I just can't figure it out. But also for me, the Book of Mormon is the single biggest anchor that refuses to let me lose my faith. And so I place the issue of Polyandry on the shelf--not forgotten--but with the understanding that it isn't enough to make me question the divine calling of Joseph Smith. Just my 2 cents

 

Brian Hales has excellent sources and explanations related to polyandry (as satisfying as any can be about polygamy).  I'm happy to let you borrow my books of his if you want to look further into it.  http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/faq/sexual-polyandry/

 

I

[why me]

Well, you were talking about people being fools and pushovers, and I haven't said anything like that. I do think Joseph was deceitful in hiding his relationships from Emma. I don't know how to put that politely. And yes, I think he was coercive both in the way he approached women and the way he threatened Emma with destruction if she didn't go along. Harsh? Maybe.

Of course you are going by that joseph was not a prophet and not getting his orders from god.  So, I  can understand your attitude. If one doesn't believe that joseph was a prophet, then of course, one puts a different twist on it. I  think that when polygamy is discussed one must understand that the women involved were not saps but strong minded frontier women who were not pushovers. Many had spiritual experiences confirming the principle of polygamy before they consented. But you do seem to ignore such experiences by these women.

 

Did joseph threaten emma with destruction or did god? Now that is the question.

[jkwilliams]

Of course you are going by that joseph was not a prophet and not getting his orders from god.  So, I  can understand your attitude. If one doesn't believe that joseph was a prophet, then of course, one puts a different twist on it. I  think that when polygamy is discussed one must understand that the women involved were not saps but strong minded frontier women who were not pushovers. Many had spiritual experiences confirming the principle of polygamy before they consented. But you do seem to ignore such experiences by these women.

 

Did joseph threaten emma with destruction or did god? Now that is the question.

I stopped rationalizing before I stopped believing he was a prophet. Just saying.

[rockpond]

I keep hearing this but I graduated from Seminary, completed all of the required BYU religion classes (and then some), and taught early morning seminary (including the D&C/Church History year) and I don't recall ever learning the details of Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy.

 

Could someone making this claim provide citations that we can read?  While I haven't read the current seminary/institute manuals cover to cover, I don't see it covered there nor do I see it covered in current curriculum.

 

I guess I'll have to look for Nevo's quotes.  This is all that I could find in the D&C/CH student manual:

 

Explain that the Prophet Joseph Smith was reluctant to begin the practice of plural marriage. He stated that he did not begin the practice until he was warned that he would be destroyed if he did not obey (see “Plural Marriage,” Historical Record, May 1887, 222). Because of a lack of historical documentation, we do not know about Joseph Smith’s early attempts to comply with the commandment. However, by 1841 the Prophet had begun to obey the commandment and to teach it to some members of the Church, and over the next three years he married additional wives in accordance with the Lord’s commands. The Prophet Joseph Smith’s obedience to the Lord’s commandment to practice plural marriage was a trial of faith for him and his wife Emma, whom he loved dearly.

 

And the lesson came with this warning:

 

Seminary and institute curriculum materials are provided as the main resources to help you prepare and teach effective lessons. You may use additional resources, such as Church magazines, as you support students’ understanding of the scripture block. Other resources should not be used to speculate or sensationalize lesson topics or to teach ideas that have not been clearly established by the Church. Even if something has been published before, it may not be appropriate for use in the classroom. Choose lesson materials wisely so lessons can build students’ faith and testimonies.

 

Along with a second warning, later in the chapter, to avoid speculation as to whether or not polygamy was required for exaltation.

[HappyJackWagon]

I guess I'll have to look for Nevo's quotes.  This is all that I could find in the D&C/CH student manual:

 

Explain that the Prophet Joseph Smith was reluctant to begin the practice of plural marriage. He stated that he did not begin the practice until he was warned that he would be destroyed if he did not obey (see “Plural Marriage,” Historical Record, May 1887, 222). Because of a lack of historical documentation, we do not know about Joseph Smith’s early attempts to comply with the commandment. However, by 1841 the Prophet had begun to obey the commandment and to teach it to some members of the Church, and over the next three years he married additional wives in accordance with the Lord’s commands. The Prophet Joseph Smith’s obedience to the Lord’s commandment to practice plural marriage was a trial of faith for him and his wife Emma, whom he loved dearly.

 

And the lesson came with this warning:

 

Seminary and institute curriculum materials are provided as the main resources to help you prepare and teach effective lessons. You may use additional resources, such as Church magazines, as you support students’ understanding of the scripture block. Other resources should not be used to speculate or sensationalize lesson topics or to teach ideas that have not been clearly established by the Church. Even if something has been published before, it may not be appropriate for use in the classroom. Choose lesson materials wisely so lessons can build students’ faith and testimonies.

 

Along with a second warning, later in the chapter, to avoid speculation as to whether or not polygamy was required for exaltation.

Great disclaimer. 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.

[KevinG]

I'd sure like to see an official statement that says we should only study from approved sources.  

 

Other than this one:

 

D&C 88:118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

 

I've seen enough bad teaching and speculation in the LDS classrooms that a disclaimer to stick to the lesson is not an unwise warning.  But if you want to believe it exists to keep people from inconvenient truth then that is entirely your right.  

Edited August 17, 2015 by KevinG

[ALarson]

I guess I'll have to look for Nevo's quotes.  This is all that I could find in the D&C/CH student manual:

 

Explain that the Prophet Joseph Smith was reluctant to begin the practice of plural marriage. He stated that he did not begin the practice until he was warned that he would be destroyed if he did not obey (see “Plural Marriage,” Historical Record, May 1887, 222). Because of a lack of historical documentation, we do not know about Joseph Smith’s early attempts to comply with the commandment. However, by 1841 the Prophet had begun to obey the commandment and to teach it to some members of the Church, and over the next three years he married additional wives in accordance with the Lord’s commands. The Prophet Joseph Smith’s obedience to the Lord’s commandment to practice plural marriage was a trial of faith for him and his wife Emma, whom he loved dearly.

 

And the lesson came with this warning:

 

Seminary and institute curriculum materials are provided as the main resources to help you prepare and teach effective lessons. You may use additional resources, such as Church magazines, as you support students’ understanding of the scripture block. Other resources should not be used to speculate or sensationalize lesson topics or to teach ideas that have not been clearly established by the Church. Even if something has been published before, it may not be appropriate for use in the classroom. Choose lesson materials wisely so lessons can build students’ faith and testimonies.

 

Along with a second warning, later in the chapter, to avoid speculation as to whether or not polygamy was required for exaltation.

I agree that there are still not many details given about Joseph's polygamy in any lesson material.  But at least it's mentioned. 

 

I remember the year we had The Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith for a lesson manual.  Plural marriage wasn't even mentioned as one of his teachings and the only reference to it was in the Introduction where it states not to discuss it because it's not pertinent to members today (or something along those lines).

Edited August 17, 2015 by ALarson