sdc999 Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 Wow! Just to think a mere 20 years ago when I asked the question about polygamy from a bishop, missionaries, relatives, other important figures in church, I find out that they were just completely ignorant to the truth. Spreading folklore as if it were the gospel itself. Fast forward to about the 2004-2006 time frame when I began to question some of the many answers I had received from reputable sources within the church, they held fast to the folklore and refused to look at other possibilities. Fast forward again to Dec 15th, 2015, a few of those same people would still not be caught dead looking at this forum. It would make them too uncomfortable in really looking at the truth. They are comfortable in their ignorance.
Calm Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 Quote Spreading folklore as if it were the gospel itself. IOW, they are human.
VideoGameJunkie Posted December 16, 2015 Author Posted December 16, 2015 19 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: CFR, specifically that 'the church' taught that Joseph Smith never practised polygamy. Do you have amnesia from before the essay came out? No church manual or book ever mentioned Joseph Smith practiced and Joseph Smith got people to sign something saying he didn't practice it. That would be a cover up and a cover up is a lie. 1
sdc999 Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 10 minutes ago, Calm said: IOW, they are human. Indeed they are...... So you have a question about mormonism, don't trust that the answer you receive from a bishop or a missionary is correct? So how far up the line should one go to presumably receive accurate answers where the source can be trusted with their knowledge?
JLHPROF Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 (edited) 16 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Do you have amnesia from before the essay came out? No church manual or book ever mentioned Joseph Smith practiced and Joseph Smith got people to sign something saying he didn't practice it. That would be a cover up and a cover up is a lie. Absence of a teaching is not a denial of a teaching. The CFR was that "'the church' taught that Joseph Smith never practised polygamy." And I for one have no issue with anything you've posted here. This little blip in eternity cannot be what is used to judge eternal things. Besides VGJ, I though "love is all that matters". Edited December 16, 2015 by JLHPROF
sdc999 Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 21 minutes ago, Calm said: IOW, they are human. In addition. If a bishop is just 'human', why would anyone be encouraged to sit and be counseled by someone who doesn't possess knowledge on a particular subject? You want a guy that's just 'human' to sit and counsel a couple about marriage; Really? Financial matters? Sexual matters? Or, is it that when he accidentally gets something right, he is a man of God acting as such but when he goofs, oops, no accountability, he's just a 'human'. 2
Popular Post Hamba Tuhan Posted December 16, 2015 Popular Post Posted December 16, 2015 (edited) 29 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Do you have amnesia from before the essay came out? No church manual or book ever mentioned Joseph Smith practiced ... You mean like this 1978 Ensign article? Quote On 27 July 1842, the Prophet Joseph Smith recorded a revelation to the Whitneys on plural marriage ... In obedience to the command of the living prophet, Newel and Elizabeth Ann gave their daughter Sarah Ann in marriage to Joseph Smith. Of course, you didn't originally assert that Church publications failed to mention Joseph Smith's plural marriages; rather, you asserted confidently that the Church had claimed that 'Joseph Smith never practised polygamy'. Can you please provide an example of this statement (or one of the same essence) from a Church publication? Edited December 16, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan 5
Robert F. Smith Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 3 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Ya imagine if you had a Mia maid or laurel aged daughter. Would you be cool if an apostle asked to marry them and then sleep with your laurel daughter? And imagine if that apostle was 40 or 50 years older than her and already has other wives and even other teenage brides. Now imagine one of the apostles claims he thinks as much about choosing cows as he does about wives. That should paint a picture of how bad polygamy was. And I'm not even going into polyandry. Again, you insist on using the present tense and on using the most horrific terms as normal. Is that really how LDS apostles conduct themselves today? Of course not, but you insist on doing precisely what no professional historian or anthropologist would do -- put everything in the most gross and presentist terms. In his own time, for example, the bringing to an elderly King David a young vrigin to sleep with (I Kings 1:1-4) was seen as a compassionate act. One can make it out to be shocking and dirty because he sees it only in modern terms. What is truly shocking is that presentism warps all of history to suit its own modern value judgments -- something God would never do. Everything must be placed in proper historical context. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 26 minutes ago, sdc999 said: In addition. If a bishop is just 'human', why would anyone be encouraged to sit and be counseled by someone who doesn't possess knowledge on a particular subject? You want a guy that's just 'human' to sit and counsel a couple about marriage; Really? Financial matters? Sexual matters? Or, is it that when he accidentally gets something right, he is a man of God acting as such but when he goofs, oops, no accountability, he's just a 'human'. Well, maybe you need to find a Hindu guru, or a Roman Catholic priest, or another whom you imagine to be more than human. In LDS theology, all humans are human all the time. Never infallible. All are held to account by God for their actions. Human actions. All humans have free agency, and all are responsible for their actions. How does that seem odd? 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted December 16, 2015 Author Posted December 16, 2015 27 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: You mean like this 1978 Ensign article? Of course, you didn't originally assert that Church publications failed to mention Joseph Smith's plural marriages; rather, you asserted confidently that the Church had claimed that 'Joseph Smith never practised polygamy'. Can you please provide an example of this statement (or one of the same essence) from a Church publication? First hand experience. Every sunday school, young men, seminary, and institute teacher I had growing up all said Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy. Why would they all say the same thing?
Robert F. Smith Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: That seems like an easy way to erase the dark history of the church while ignoring the victims. That seems like an easy way to ignore the point she was making, which you entirely missed.
VideoGameJunkie Posted December 16, 2015 Author Posted December 16, 2015 9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Again, you insist on using the present tense and on using the most horrific terms as normal. Is that really how LDS apostles conduct themselves today? Of course not, but you insist on doing precisely what no professional historian or anthropologist would do -- put everything in the most gross and presentist terms. In his own time, for example, the bringing to an elderly King David a young vrigin to sleep with (I Kings 1:1-4) was seen as a compassionate act. One can make it out to be shocking and dirty because he sees it only in modern terms. What is truly shocking is that presentism warps all of history to suit its own modern value judgments -- something God would never do. Everything must be placed in proper historical context. The 1850s are not like biblical times. They're latter-days. Was marrying other men's wives still okay back in the 1800s or is it just as wrong as it would be today? 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 (edited) 29 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: First hand experience. Every sunday school, young men, seminary, and institute teacher I had growing up all said Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy. Why would they all say the same thing? No clue. I don't even know that they did say those things. My experiences have been totally opposite. One of my earliest Church memories is of being taught that the RLDS church (now Community of Christ) came into existence because people rejected the Prophet's practice of plural marriage. And when I was doing Institute as an undergrad, we spent several weeks discussing Nauvoo-era polygamy. But maybe, even if you are accurate, you shouldn't conflate the statements of your Sunday school teachers with official Church pronouncements and then claim the former as evidence that the Church has lied? Edited December 16, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan 3
JLHPROF Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 6 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: The 1850s are not like biblical times. They're latter-days. Was marrying other men's wives still okay back in the 1800s or is it just as wrong as it would be today? Well, do we believe in eternal marriage? They're all dead now regardless of when they lived or how old they were when they married. So I think we can easily say "problem solved" as they go forward into the eternities as families. Debating issues that are completely a result of our mortal prejudices when we are talking about eternal relationships seems silly and naive.
JLHPROF Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 10 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: First hand experience. Every sunday school, young men, seminary, and institute teacher I had growing up all said Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy. Why would they all say the same thing? Ignorance.
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted December 16, 2015 Popular Post Posted December 16, 2015 2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Negative credibility is the church lying about Joseph Smiths polygamy for years before the current essays. What about credibility there? I was baptized in 1950 and always knew that Joseph Smith and the brethren were polygynists. Heck my own ancestors were often polygynists. I am unaware of any lies by the LDS Church authorities about that, or any other sort of deception on that score. Everywhere I went, Mormons were always known for their polygyny in the past, and it was frequently joked about by non-Mormons. You seem to be the only one who didn't get the word. 5
Robert F. Smith Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 12 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: The 1850s are not like biblical times. They're latter-days. Was marrying other men's wives still okay back in the 1800s or is it just as wrong as it would be today? So the 1850s are the same as today? Is that your professional historical opinion, on which most non-Mormon historians would agree? I know of none who share that view. Secondly, I notice that as soon as your deceptions are found out, you immediately change the subject or the goal posts. How about telling us what Brian Hales has disclosed about the subject, and whether you agree with him -- agree with his facts, and his conclusions. Or take issue with him, and why. That is what real historians do. They carry on a learned discussion based on facts and the interpretation of facts. Why do you reject that approach?
readstoomuch Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 (edited) I call upon all the threads that have discussed Joseph Smith and polygamy. They all discuss the same information ad nauseum. i mourn for yet another dead horse to be beaten mercilessly. oh presentism rear thy ugly head again. one final point. I think these men (and women) wanted to be sealed to a number of other families. Wilford wasn't trying to pawn his daughter off, he was trying to be sealed to men he loved and respected. I think it is fine to say blech like a toddler about polygamy, but don't judge every one who has ever practiced polygamy. I am personally descended from polygamy (didn't know it until 6 months ago). Edited December 16, 2015 by readstoomuch Forgot don't 2
Robert F. Smith Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 9 minutes ago, readstoomuch said: I call upon all the threads that have discussed Joseph Smith and polygamy. They all discuss the same information ad nauseum. i mourn for yet another dead horse to be beaten mercilessly. oh presentism rear thy ugly head again. one final point. I think these men (and women) wanted to be sealed to a number of other families. Wilford wasn't trying to pawn his daughter off, he was trying to be sealed to men he loved and respected. I think it is fine to say blech like a toddler about polygamy, but don't judge every one who has ever practiced polygamy. I am personally descended from polygamy (didn't know it until 6 months ago). Finally got around to reading your genealogy?
VideoGameJunkie Posted December 16, 2015 Author Posted December 16, 2015 13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: So the 1850s are the same as today? Is that your professional historical opinion, on which most non-Mormon historians would agree? I know of none who share that view. Secondly, I notice that as soon as your deceptions are found out, you immediately change the subject or the goal posts. How about telling us what Brian Hales has disclosed about the subject, and whether you agree with him -- agree with his facts, and his conclusions. Or take issue with him, and why. That is what real historians do. They carry on a learned discussion based on facts and the interpretation of facts. Why do you reject that approach? Who is Brian Hales?
VideoGameJunkie Posted December 16, 2015 Author Posted December 16, 2015 11 minutes ago, readstoomuch said: I call upon all the threads that have discussed Joseph Smith and polygamy. They all discuss the same information ad nauseum. i mourn for yet another dead horse to be beaten mercilessly. oh presentism rear thy ugly head again. one final point. I think these men (and women) wanted to be sealed to a number of other families. Wilford wasn't trying to pawn his daughter off, he was trying to be sealed to men he loved and respected. I think it is fine to say blech like a toddler about polygamy, but don't judge every one who has ever practiced polygamy. I am personally descended from polygamy (didn't know it until 6 months ago). I agree it wasn't all about sex. Wilford Woodruff sealed 400 of his dead ancestors to him. Google it I'm too lazy to look for my source, but the point is it wasn't just about sex to some of them. I also read that after Joseph Smith's death, women were still being sealed to him. I think eventually they figured out the whole wife and husband sealing, and children to parents, and made the necessary changes.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 1 hour ago, sdc999 said: Wow! Just to think a mere 20 years ago when I asked the question about polygamy from a bishop, missionaries, relatives, other important figures in church, I find out that they were just completely ignorant to the truth. Spreading folklore as if it were the gospel itself. Fast forward to about the 2004-2006 time frame when I began to question some of the many answers I had received from reputable sources within the church, they held fast to the folklore and refused to look at other possibilities. Fast forward again to Dec 15th, 2015, a few of those same people would still not be caught dead looking at this forum. It would make them too uncomfortable in really looking at the truth. They are comfortable in their ignorance. On second thought, are you suggesting that the folklore and ignorance you discovered in all these people is simply their failure to accept the anti-Mormon interpretation of polygyny? What exactly was that ignorance and folklore which you are now condemning? The details. By the way, most Mormons would never bother with this forum. That may be wisdom in them, and a desire not to exhibit the spirit of contention. Most Mormons are better off not being here. They probably have better things to do. I am only here because I have been concerned with this broad subject matter all my life, and I learn a great deal from others here. Dealing with this material at the Sunday School level is adequate for most. Others wish to plumb the depths.
strappinglad Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 Having been in this church for 60+ years I will state that I don't recall a time when I did NOT know that Joseph practiced polygamy. I did read section 132 of the D&C . I read some of the History of the Church volumes. I read the Journal of Discourses . I read the Church History text in Seminary. Now, it is conceivable that some leaders may not have been as informed as I and may have mis-taught about Joseph's polygamy. We often teach what we know as fact when what we 'know' may not be the whole story. Also, from what I have read, marriage in the frontier in the early 1800's was a different situation than marriage in the 1950's. Just like marriage now is not treated the same by society than it was in the 1950's. Heavens, I just watched a video about strange actions of people, one of which was falling in love with and marrying a TREE ! I shudder to think of how marriage will be viewed by society 50 years from now. 3
readstoomuch Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 16 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Finally got around to reading your genealogy? Yep. Temple work had been done and the other side were not members. Decided to look at that work and they were pretty early polygamists.
sunstoned Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: Again, you insist on using the present tense and on using the most horrific terms as normal. Is that really how LDS apostles conduct themselves today? Of course not, but you insist on doing precisely what no professional historian or anthropologist would do -- put everything in the most gross and presentist terms. In his own time, for example, the bringing to an elderly King David a young vrigin to sleep with (I Kings 1:1-4) was seen as a compassionate act. One can make it out to be shocking and dirty because he sees it only in modern terms. What is truly shocking is that presentism warps all of history to suit its own modern value judgments -- something God would never do. Everything must be placed in proper historical context. I'm not sure using behaviours from the OT is really much of rational. God was used as an excuse for a lot of terrible things that were committed by tribes of Israel.
Recommended Posts