Forget Joseph Smith, what about Lorenzo Snow's polygamy?

[KevinG]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

It's naïve to think apostles and prophets haven't strictly avoided this issue on several occasions.  Since it is a tough topic and certainly to many people one without a clear answer, it's no wonder apostles and prophets, who too see through a glass darkly, can't adequately answer the issues raised concerning polygamy.  I don't blame them, but as I said, it's naïve to think they don't avoid it purposefully.  They certainly don't want to have to address it these days. 

If by "strictly avoided" you mean not using every class period and church publication to discuss in detail the intricacies of Joseph's marriages which we may or may not have accurate contemporary information about, to the detriment of discussing the basics of the Gospel Principles in Sunday School, Institute, and Missionary lessons.  Then yes.  They avoided it.

[stemelbow]

Just now, KevinG said:

If by "strictly avoided" you mean not using every class period and church publication to discuss in detail the intricacies of Joseph's marriages which we may or may not have accurate contemporary information about, to the detriment of discussing the basics of the Gospel Principles in Sunday School, Institute, and Missionary lessons.  Then yes.  They avoided it.

Not only that, but nary a mention at all in nearly all of the manuals and official publications.  To think it hasn't been avoided is naïve.  But it is a difficult topic for many people, so I don't necessarily blame them.  I think they too realize they have no added light and knowledge to help those who struggle with it. 

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Not only that, but nary a mention at all in nearly all of the manuals and official publications.  To think it hasn't been avoided is naïve.  But it is a difficult topic for many people, so I don't necessarily blame them.  I think they too realize they have no added light and knowledge to help those who struggle with it. 

Calling it naive is generous. .

Edited December 18, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

To think it hasn't been avoided is to be intellectually dishonest or lazy.

I wouldn't say that across the board, but it's most likely true for many people. 

[KevinG]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Not only that, but nary a mention at all in nearly all of the manuals and official publications.  

That is not true.  As a convert I had access to the information (pre-internet) and as a member I had very good access to it through books and Institute.  What is intellectually dishonest and lazy is the attempt to blame the LDS Church leaders and teachers for lack of knowledge on the subject.

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

To think it hasn't been avoided is to be intellectually dishonest or lazy.

No kidding.

1. The meaning of celestial marriage in D&C 132 has been changed from its original definition of plural marriage to one of monogamous temple marriage.  I believe we have J. Reuben Clark to thank for that redefinition.  So when we talk about it in Church, we talk about it as temple marriage, not as plural marriage--which is what it originally meant.

2. The only place plural marriage could possibly come up in the Gospel Doctrine class is in Church History when we get to D&C 132--but there the manual specifically advises the teacher to not bring up the subject.  Not only that, the suggested reading for the class only goes up to verse 19 or so; in order to avoid having them read on into the Law of Sarah and other such testimony jarring niceties.

 

Doesn't sound like avoidance to me . . .

 

[KevinG]

5 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

No kidding.

1. The meaning of celestial marriage in D&C 132 has been changed from its original definition of plural marriage to one of monogamous temple marriage.  I believe we have J. Reuben Clark to thank for that redefinition.  So when we talk about it in Church, we talk about it as temple marriage, not as plural marriage--which is what it originally meant.

2. The only place plural marriage could possibly come up in the Gospel Doctrine class is in Church History when we get to D&C 132--but there the manual specifically advises the teacher to not bring up the subject.  Not only that, the suggested reading for the class only goes up to verse 19 or so; in order to avoid having them read on into the Law of Sarah and other such testimony jarring niceties.

 

Doesn't sound like avoidance to me . . .

 

Purposes of This Course

Rather than taking a sequential or section-by-section approach, the lessons in this course focus on major themes taught in the Doctrine and Covenants and Church history. They are designed to help you:

1. 1. 

   Teach the doctrines, ordinances, and covenants of the restored gospel, which are necessary for individuals and families to come unto Christ and inherit eternal life.

2. 2. 

   Teach the ongoing history of the restored Church ofJesus Christ.

3. 3. 

   Invite the Spirit into the class.

4. 4. 

   Help class members understand and love the scriptures.

5. 5. 

   Help class members apply gospel truths in their lives.

6. 6. 

   Encourage class members to teach and edify one another.

7. 7. 

   Help class members understand the importance of their day in the history of the Church—that they have inherited a great legacy and that they can find joy in their responsibility to continue to move forward the work of the Lord.

And of course this scary and nefarous warning to avoid all unoffical sources: (oh wait it doesn't say that... it says you probably won't have time in class to cover it all, and that the purpose of the class will be fulfilled by sticking to the curricula...  duh!)

 

How to Use This Manual

This manual is a tool to help you teach the doctrines of the gospel from the scriptures and Church history. It has been written for youth and adult Gospel Doctrine classes and is to be used every four years. Additional references and commentaries should not be necessary to teach the lessons. Elder M. Russell Ballard said:

“Teachers would be well advised to study carefully the scriptures and their manuals before reaching out for supplemental materials. Far too many teachers seem to stray from the approved curriculum materials without fully reviewing them. If teachers feel a need to use some good supplemental resources beyond the scriptures and manuals in presenting a lesson, they should first consider the use of the Church magazines” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1983, 93; or Ensign, May 1983, 68).

Review each lesson at least a week in advance. When you study the reading assignment and the lesson material early, you will receive thoughts and impressions during the week that will help you teach the lesson. As you ponder the lesson during the week, pray for the Spirit to guide you. Have faith that the Lord will bless you.

Each lesson in this manual contains more information than you will probably be able to teach in one class period. Seek the Spirit of the Lord in selecting the scripture accounts, questions, and other lesson material that will best meet the needs of class members. Keep in mind the ages, interests, and backgrounds of class members.

[KevinG]

Plenty of information on Plural Marriage here:  But with the polite reminder that it isn't the focus of the lesson...

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-31-sealed---for-time-and-for-all-eternity?lang=eng

The following information is provided to help you if class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage. It should not be the focus of the lesson.

Poor avoidance indeed.

[KevinG]

12 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

2. The only place plural marriage could possibly come up in the Gospel Doctrine class is in Church History when we get to D&C 132--but there the manual specifically advises the teacher to not bring up the subject.  

 

I did the CFR for you above.  I call false on your assertion that the manual specifically advises the teacher "not to bring up the subject."

[stemelbow]

Hey KevinG,

I don't know if you're trying to make the case that it's been avoided or if you're trying to argue against it.  If you are trying to pose an argument against the leaders have avoided it, you have failed miserably.  If you are trying to support the notion it's been largely avoided, you have nicely supported that. 

 

What you call "plenty of information" is nothing more than attempted avoidance, as the information listed is an attempt to downplay and steer any attempts to talk about it in a different direction. 

[KevinG]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Hey KevinG,

I don't know if you're trying to make the case that it's been avoided or if you're trying to argue against it.  If you are trying to pose an argument against the leaders have avoided it, you have failed miserably.  If you are trying to support the notion it's been largely avoided, you have nicely supported that. 

 

What you call "plenty of information" is nothing more than attempted avoidance, as the information listed is an attempt to downplay and steer any attempts to talk about it in a different direction. 

Wow.  Thanks for clearing up my own thoughts for me.  

Not.

I do not argue that the topic has not been "avoided" .  I do argue that avoided is too a strong word for "left for appropriate times and places".  But the implication that it has been hidden from church members or the public is false.  

If those who feel cheated over not learning enough about LDS polygamy in Sunday School had simply availed themselves of free or low cost LDS published materials in the last century, they could have been better informed.  I remember our Institute director at a college I attended begging us to come to class, invite non-LDS friends, and working diligently to share the details of Church History with us.

[KevinG]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 

What you call "plenty of information" is nothing more than attempted avoidance, as the information listed is an attempt to downplay and steer any attempts to talk about it in a different direction. 

The issue I have with most who are critical of this is WHY the discussion is steered.

In most cases it is one of a few reasons:

1. Not to distract from lessons on more important subjects to the contemporary audience.  We don't need to know the nitty gritty of polygamy to learn about how we should honor marriage and be sealed for eternity in the 21st century.

2. To avoid contention and misinformation being spread by teachers and/or students not equipped to get into the historical details that are sometimes questioned or not complete.

3. To keep the class on a particular subject from being hijacked.

But the same paragraphs above that ask instructors not to get sidetracked give additional resources for that very subject.

Again a lousy job of hiding things.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, KevinG said:

Wow.  Thanks for clearing up my own thoughts for me.  

Not.

I do not argue that the topic has not been "avoided" .  I do argue that avoided is too a strong word for "left for appropriate times and places".  But the implication that it has been hidden from church members or the public is false.  

If those who feel cheated over not learning enough about LDS polygamy in Sunday School had simply availed themselves of free or low cost LDS published materials in the last century, they could have been better informed.  I remember our Institute director at a college I attended begging us to come to class, invite non-LDS friends, and working diligently to share the details of Church History with us.

The issue, as I understood it was have leaders and the Church officially avoided the topic?  I say yes, they have.  and it seems obvious.  I guess you can quibble about word choice.  That's fine.  But, it wasn't clear what you were trying to say, so I commented.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, KevinG said:

The issue I have with most who are critical of this is WHY the discussion is steered.

In most cases it is one of a few reasons:

1. Not to distract from lessons on more important subjects to the contemporary audience.  We don't need to know the nitty gritty of polygamy to learn about how we should honor marriage and be sealed for eternity in the 21st century.

Maybe, but maybe not.  That's a pretty good guess, in terms of why the topic is avoided, or pick a synonym if you like.  But ti's obvious those who lived it felt, largely it was divinely inspired so much so it was a blessing and was instituted to teach and enlighten.  We avoid it, it seems because there is nothing to gain from it.  The message then is conflicting. 

11 minutes ago, KevinG said:

2. To avoid contention and misinformation being spread by teachers and/or students not equipped to get into the historical details that are sometimes questioned or not complete.

Yep.  No doubt.  But that may not be a bad thing, like we tend to want it to be. 

11 minutes ago, KevinG said:

3. To keep the class on a particular subject from being hijacked.

But the same paragraphs above that ask instructors not to get sidetracked give additional resources for that very subject.

Again a lousy job of hiding things.

I haven't used the word "hiding".  Avoiding topics does not mean hiding them.  Interesting though, the difficulty with polygamy is apparent.  The bigger problems come, though, when people actually learn how it was practiced.  THat is was practiced is one thing, but what went on in the personal lives of our former leaders can be quite troubling.  The one sad part of this point is we aren't free to discuss openly the welfare of our eternal souls at Church lest we offend or hurt someone else's feelings.  Church is something far less than it seems like it was meant to be. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, KevinG said:

The issue I have with most who are critical of this is WHY the discussion is steered.

In most cases it is one of a few reasons:

1. Not to distract from lessons on more important subjects to the contemporary audience.  We don't need to know the nitty gritty of polygamy to learn about how we should honor marriage and be sealed for eternity in the 21st century.

2. To avoid contention and misinformation being spread by teachers and/or students not equipped to get into the historical details that are sometimes questioned or not complete.

3. To keep the class on a particular subject from being hijacked.

But the same paragraphs above that ask instructors not to get sidetracked give additional resources for that very subject.

Again a lousy job of hiding things.

https://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/leaders.jsp.

ETA:  Look at the Significant Events category.  It leaves all the polygamist wives out, won't list any wives for the prophets that lived polygamy, except for JS, they include Emma at least.  And lists the monogamous wives only.  Like these other women didn't exist!

Took me awhile to find this, I have posted it throughout my time on this board, had to go back through my posts to find it.  Usually can  find it quickly on LDS.org.  Maybe the church employees made it more difficult to find now. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/us/mormon-leader-joseph-smiths-34-wives-inspire-utah-artist.html

I like what this woman did to assure the wives of JS are not forgotten, too bad the church couldn't do the same.  It's rather a pitiful shame.  And I don't want to hear that they must hide it for fear of some members out there that might want to leave the church and practice it again.  Poor excuse.

 

Edited December 18, 2015 by Tacenda

[Danzo]

Oh good, 

I think this thread has moved on from the myth that Joseph Smith's Polygamy has been hidden from the church.

Now we are getting to what emphasis the church should place on Joseph's Polygamy, a much better topic for discussion.

 

How much emphasis should the church place on Joseph's polygamy?

Should they incorporate it into a 14th article of faith and have the children recite it every week in primary?

Does it need to appear in the temple recommend interview?

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Oh good, 

I think this thread has moved on from the myth that Joseph Smith's Polygamy has been hidden from the church.

Now we are getting to what emphasis the church should place on Joseph's Polygamy, a much better topic for discussion.

 

How much emphasis should the church place on Joseph's polygamy?

Should they incorporate it into a 14th article of faith and have the children recite it every week in primary?

Does it need to appear in the temple recommend interview?

Well, probably not everywhere you listed, but the place I mentioned, yes.

[busybee]

20 hours ago, Walden said:

Yes, you are right, the dozens of Sunday School teachers, several Priesthood teachers and 3 seminary teachers and the Institute teacher that I had are all to blame, there can be absolutely no fault found with the church, ever.

Would you seriously argue that prior to the internet age, the common knowledge of the majority of church members regarding the polygamy practiced by Joseph Smith was equivalent to their knowledge and the lessons they learned in Sunday School regarding the polygamy practiced by Brigham Young? 

I just don't understand why people would need a church lesson to teach them that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. He was the one who received the revelation wasn't he?? Why would anyone think that he DIDN'T follow the instructions he was given. It just stands to reason that he would. Well for someone with a bit of common sense anyway.

[HappyJackWagon]

41 minutes ago, busybee said:

I just don't understand why people would need a church lesson to teach them that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. He was the one who received the revelation wasn't he?? Why would anyone think that he DIDN'T follow the instructions he was given. It just stands to reason that he would. Well for someone with a bit of common sense anyway.

Quote

D&C 132

3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

 

I must not have any common sense whatsoever. Everyone who agrees with that statement may give me a rep point.

You must remember that this revelation was received late in Joseph's life and then not added as scripture until after Brigham Young had died when the competing/opposing D&C scripture about monogamous marriage was removed. I don't recall reading anything in the canonized version of Joseph Smith history about him practicing polygamy. I may have missed it. I don't recall reading about it in the recent Priesthood/Relief Society manual focused on Joseph Smith. Remember, celestial plural marriage was a BIG deal. It was essential for salvation, yet no mention in one of the more recent manuals. Curious.

I suppose someone could also read a verse like D&C 132:3 and think that Joseph  shared a principle which was later put into practice by Brigham Young or other leaders. After all, telling someone to "prepare thy heart" indicates that there may be some time between reception of the commandment and implementation, but Joseph died shortly after. So, telling people they have no common sense because they didn't know something is like saying a person is an idiot for not knowing calculus. They just don't know it. No use calling them stupid or lacking in common sense.

I'll also note that Joseph taught the principle of the restoration of animal sacrifice. Since he taught this should we assume he practiced it, or is it reasonable to think that principle was never enacted and that the teaching is now ignored because it wasn't really essential? Or would it lack common sense to not be aware that JS practiced animal sacrifice (I'm not claiming he did, just making a point).

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

No offense, Calm, but it's kinda a tragedy that some would argue for openness and forthrightness about polygamy when very little is said about it at all, and most of the marriages aren't mentioned.  That is mentioning 6", or maybe 7" of Joseph's wives and "some on Emma's unhappiness" doesn't really speak to openness and forthrightness.  And to think other manuals, courses and such were even far less open about it all.  7 pages out of hundreds to address such a widely debated, concerning, misunderstood and to most troubling topic isn't really doing it justice, I'd say. 

Given that the claim was there was no way anyone would learn from a manual about JS plural marriages at all, it seems to me you are shifting the goal posts tremendously.  I never claimed that the material was sufficiently covered for anyone wanting to know as much as possible about it or even become comfortably familiar with the issue.  It is a starting place, like most basic history courses coverage.

The Church History manual both past and present (I prefer the past) did not go into what I consider would be sufficient detail for any important subject.  It was meant as an overview, not an indepth commentary and point by point description.

For that you need books dedicated to the specific subject, which are more appropriate for personal study than an Institute course covering 150-85 years of history.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Calm

[busybee]

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I must not have any common sense whatsoever. Everyone who agrees with that statement may give me a rep point.

You must remember that this revelation was received late in Joseph's life and then not added as scripture until after Brigham Young had died when the competing/opposing D&C scripture about monogamous marriage was removed. I don't recall reading anything in the canonized version of Joseph Smith history about him practicing polygamy. I may have missed it. I don't recall reading about it in the recent Priesthood/Relief Society manual focused on Joseph Smith. Remember, celestial plural marriage was a BIG deal. It was essential for salvation, yet no mention in one of the more recent manuals. Curious.

I suppose someone could also read a verse like D&C 132:3 and think that Joseph  shared a principle which was later put into practice by Brigham Young or other leaders. After all, telling someone to "prepare thy heart" indicates that there may be some time between reception of the commandment and implementation, but Joseph died shortly after. So, telling people they have no common sense because they didn't know something is like saying a person is an idiot for not knowing calculus. They just don't know it. No use calling them stupid or lacking in common sense.

I'll also note that Joseph taught the principle of the restoration of animal sacrifice. Since he taught this should we assume he practiced it, or is it reasonable to think that principle was never enacted and that the teaching is now ignored because it wasn't really essential? Or would it lack common sense to not be aware that JS practiced animal sacrifice (I'm not claiming he did, just making a point).

 

Would you care to explain verse 52 of the same section? How can anyone still think he didn't practice polygamy after reading that? 

Not having common sense doesn't make a person stupid. It makes them someone without common sense. A very common condition these days, it would appear. And comparing common sense to calculus is comparing apples to peanuts.

[Calm]

I am okay with using the term "avoided" to describe the past general behaviour in the majority of teaching and speaking opportunities.  I do think many are uncomfortable with how to teach it while teaching it is not now acceptable, even if they are comfortable with the history themselves.  I find "hidden" or "lying" or "denying" way too extreme though because there is the occasional information given, including as I've pointed out the standard introductory material for anyone interested enough in Church History to take the Institute course or read the manual.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Calm

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Given that the claim was there was no way anyone would learn from a manual about JS plural marriages at all, it seems to me you are shifting the goal posts tremendously.  I never claimed that the material was sufficiently covered for anyone wanting to know as much as possible about it or even become comfortably familiar with the issue.  It is a starting place, like most basic history courses coverage.

The Church History manual both past and present (I prefer the past) did not go into what I consider would be sufficient detail for any important subject.  It was meant as an overview, not an indepth commentary and point by point description.

For that you need books dedicated to the specific subject, which are more appropriate for personal study than an Institute course covering 150-85 years of history.

Fair enough.  That's what I get from sticking my head in late and commenting.  I thought the discussion was more about whether the details of how polygamy was practiced by Joseph Smith were covered.  It doesn't seem like we'd get a full details in a Church manual.  And I agree, unless a class or book is dedicated to the topic we shouldn't expect to see it.  But it'd be nice, for the sake of openness, if the Church actually published the details for those who seek them. 

[Calm]

I find the lds.org essay the best approach since I don't see it as appropriate for the Church to put out an indepth history book...the Joseph Smith Papers which has the documents is one thing, as soon as they start putting in commentary about implications and other analysis, you have the problem of some readers assuming because it is put out by the Church, it is the absolute truth and then if documents come to light that we didn't have that puts a different slant on things...problems.  I prefer the way they have done it with an essay that introduces most aspects of the topic and then has extensive footnotes for those who want to do more study, including a footnote for what I believe is the best current text out there, the Hales 3 volume work (not because I agree with all of his conculsions, I actually have strong disagreements in some of his reasoning such as his justification iirc, but because it is the best for documents on the subject so if people actually read and study them for themselves they can come to their own conclusions without worrying too much about the bias of the author colouring intepretation in ways they wouldn't normally have interpreted things).

Edited December 18, 2015 by Calm

[consiglieri]

6 hours ago, KevinG said:

Plenty of information on Plural Marriage here:  But with the polite reminder that it isn't the focus of the lesson...

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-31-sealed---for-time-and-for-all-eternity?lang=eng

The following information is provided to help you if class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage. It should not be the focus of the lesson.

Poor avoidance indeed.

"If class members have questions" means you aren't supposed to bring it up yourself.

Looks like avoidance to me.