None means None

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

True.  But it's the internet that has made information much more accessible and which brought it to the attention of many more members.

One could dig and find the details before the internet.  But, I doubt anything regarding Joseph's polyandry was in any church materials that were published pror to the internet and now it's published by them in their essay and on lds.org.  

Yes, this information was conveniently not included in Church materials.
Yes, the internet has made information on Joseph and polygamy more readily available.

No, people who didn't know have nobody to blame but themselves for not picking up a book.  Religion is not limited to what you learn in Sunday School.  And it doesn't take digging.  It just takes actually caring enough about your religion to study it.

Edited February 7, 2016 by JLHPROF

[thesometimesaint]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

True.  But it's the internet that has made information much more accessible and which brought it to the attention of many more members.

One could dig and find the details before the internet.  But, I doubt anything regarding Joseph's polyandry was in any church materials that were published pror to the internet and now it's published by them in their essay and on lds.org.  

Knowledge is a good thing. How else do we expect to become like God? The internet certainly has been used for good and evil. If we use the internet to stimulate our search of primary documents, then it is fine. But I think we have to be really careful about pinning our faith on an Internet Blog whether by the Church or not. IE; Although I try to be very accurate, anything I post here is just my opinion, and may not represent actual Church doctrine.

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, this information was conveniently not included in Church materials.
Yes, the internet has made information on Joseph and polygamy more readily available.

No, people who didn't know have nobody to blame but themselves for not picking up a book.  Religion is not limited to what you learn in Sunday School.  And it doesn't take digging.  It just takes actually caring enough about your religion to study it.

I completely agree.  My Mother read every book she could find regarding Joseph Smith and church history, so I was aware of much prior to the internet as we discussed it and it was an interest we shared.  But, it did take some digging to find information and an interest strong enough to take the time to do so.  It was definitely not in many church publications or manuals, etc.  It was out there to find though.

I don't believe it's helpful to try to blame a lack of knowledge regarding any topic on others.  I'm just simply stating that the internet definitely has brought it to light for many more members today vs. how many knew the details years ago.

Edited February 7, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

49 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But, it did take some digging to find information and an interest strong enough to take the time to do so.  It was definitely not in many church publications or manuals, etc.  It was out there to find though.

To me digging implies doing primary research or reading academic articles - hunting the archives, reading early journals, Dialogue, Sunstone etc.

None of that was necessary.  Books about Joseph's polygamy have been published since the 19th century.
Some people were scared to read because they were considered "anti", and others weren't "official Church publications.  But the books (with varying degrees of accuracy and scholarship) were always around.

Books that required absolutely NO digging prior to the recent essays where people could have learned for themselves:
Here are just a few readily available books.
No Many Knows My History - 1945
Mormon Polygamy - 1989
Solemn Covenant - 1992
The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power - 1994
In Sacred Loneliness - 1997
More Wives Than One - 2001
Rough Stone Rolling - 2007

Quote

I don't believe it's helpful to try to blame a lack of knowledge regarding any topic on others. 

Anymore than it's helpful to blame a lack of knowledge on not being spoonfed.

[ALarson]

29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Anymore than it's helpful to blame a lack of knowledge on not being spoonfed.

Which I have not done here.

And I think we just have a different feeling regarding what digging deeper for information means.  I'm simply stating that a member could not learn these details by just attending church and sticking to church manuals, lessons, publications or talks given at GC or other church meetings.  Someone had to search on their own and be willing to devote time to reading and researching.

(And, also regarding the list of books you gave above...I agree that many active church members would avoid reading them & would even consider some of them to be anti, although I feel for the most part, they contain accurate information)

Edited February 7, 2016 by ALarson

[Jim Stiles]

I was just a kid in the 1970s (born in 1964), so there probably was a lot that I was not told.

[Jim Stiles]

I do not think any non-historian outside of the state of Utah knew who Fawn Brodie was back in the 1970s.

[Jim Stiles]

On 2/7/2016 at 3:19 AM, Russell C McGregor said:

...

First: There is not a shred of evidence for the "Old Joe's Libido" theory of Mormon polygamy. Not a shred. It fails at every turn to explain his proven actions. As such, it is a projection of the mind of the one uttering the accusation, and nothing else.

Perhaps you've read Matthew 12:34. But then again, perhaps you haven't. It's in the Bible, after all; and I've observed that EV's aren't very good at reading the Bible, especially anything that isn't in Romans or Galatians. I suggest you read that verse; it applies to you.

Joseph's actual speeches, writings and activities are on record, and they show overwhelmingly that he was motivated by actual religious conviction. That is the one and only explanation that can even begin to account for the totality of his actions.

Perhaps you've never experienced actual religious conviction, so you can't relate to it. However that may be, it is a real, observable phenomenon, and it was clearly the driving influence in Joseph's life.

...

Joseph Smith Jr. married his second wife, Fanny Alger, in 1835.  D&C 132 was written in 1843.

Quote

Rumors about Smith’s extramarital relationships with women had circulated for a decade before his 1841 plural marriage and the revelation sanctioning polygamy, recorded in 1843. The story repeated most often involved Fanny Alger, a young woman whom Smith employed in Kirtland, Ohio, in 1835 to help his wife Emma with housework. Several Mormon leaders claim that Fanny Alger was Smith’s first plural wife. (“Nauvoo Roots of Mormon Polygamy,” Dialogue, Vol.27, No.1, p.5-6.)

 

Edited February 8, 2016 by Jim Stiles

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said:

I was just a kid in the 1970s (born in 1964), so there probably was a lot that I was not told.

So why not stop waiting to be told things and find out for yourself. Read the Book of Mormon. Ask the Lord. Believe in Christ and He will show you that those are His words and this is His Church. 

Have faith in Jesus Christ and repent. Be baptized and receive the Holy Ghost. Then feast after every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

[Jim Stiles]

On 2/7/2016 at 3:19 AM, Russell C McGregor said:

...Second: Joseph admitted his treasure hunting activities in his own official history; you know, the one at which you keep waving your hand, but which you've never bothered to read. No accusation of "fraud" has ever been made to stick in that regard, despite the best (or worst) efforts of bigots and haters in every generation. Including in courts of law, in front of hostile (i.e. conservative Protestant) juries...

The only conviction that I am aware of was made in a bench trial without a jury.  Yes, he was convicted of being a disorderly person and an imposter.

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no68.htm

Quote

State of New York v. Joseph Smith.

    Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an impostor.

    Prisoner brought before Court March 20, 1826. Prisoner examined: says that he came from the town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowel in Bainbridge most of time since; had small part of time been employed in looking for mines, but the major part had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school. That he had a certain stone which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and had informed him where he could find these treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them. That at Palmyra he pretended to tell by looking at this stone where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds; that he had occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account of its injuring his health, especially his eyes, making them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having anything to do with this business.

    Josiah Stowel sworn: says that prisoner had been at his house something like five months; had been employed by him to work on farm part of time; that he pretended to have skill of telling where hidden treasures in the earth were by means of looking through a certain stone; that prisoner had looked for him sometimes; once to tell him about money buried in Bend Mountain in Pennsylvania, once for gold on Monument Hill, and once for a salt spring; and that he positively knew that the prisoner could tell, and did 'possess the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone; that he found the [word illegible] at Bend and Monument Hill as prisoner represented it; that prisoner had looked through said stone for Deacon Attleton for a mine, did not exactly find it, but got a p— [word unfinished] of ore which resembled gold, he thinks; that prisoner had told by means of this stone where a Mr. Bacon had buried money; that he and prisoner had been in search of it; that prisoner had said it was in a certain root of a stump five feet from surface of the earth, and with it would be found a tail feather; that said Stowel and prisoner thereupon commenced digging, found a tail feather, but money was gone; that he supposed the money moved down. That prisoner did offer his services; that he never deceived him; that prisoner looked through stone and described Josiah Stowel's house and outhouses, while at Palmyra at Simpson Stowel's, correctly; that he had told about a painted tree, with a man's head painted upon it, by means of said stone. That he had been in company with prisoner digging for gold, and had the most implicit faith in prisoner's skill.

    Arad Stowel sworn: says that he went to see whether prisoner could convince him that he possessed the skill he professed to have, upon which prisoner laid a book upon a white cloth, and proposed looking through another stone which was white and transparent, hold the stone to the candle, turn his head to book, and read. The deception appeared so palpable that witness went off disgusted.

    McMaster sworn: says he went with Arad Stowel, and likewise came away disgusted. Prisoner pretended to him that he could discover objects at a distance by holding this white stone to the sun or candle; that prisoner rather declined looking into a hat at his dark coloured stone, as he said that it hurt his eyes.

    Jonathan Thompson says that prisoner was requested to look for chest of money; did look, and pretended to know there it was; and that prisoner, Thompson, and Yeomans went in search of it; that Smith arrived at spot first; was at night; that Smith looked in hat while there, and when very dark, told how the chest was situated. After digging several feet, struck upon something sounding like a board or plank. Prisoner would not look again, pretending that he was alarmed on account of the circumstances relating to the trunk being buried, [which] came all fresh to his mind. That the last time he looked he discovered distinctly the two Indians who buried the trunk, that a quarrel ensued between them, and that one of said Indians was killed by the other, and thrown into the hole beside the trunk, to guard it, as he supposed. Thompson says that he believes in the prisoner's professed skill; that the board which he struck his spade upon was probably the chest, but on account of an enchantment the trunk kept settling away from under them when digging, that notwithstanding they continued constantly removing the dirt, yet the trunk kept about the same distance from them. Says prisoner said that it appeared to him that salt might be found at Bainbridge, and that he is certain that prisoner can divine things by means of said stone. That as evidence of the fact prisoner looked into his hat to tell him about some money witness lost sixteen years ago, and that he described the man that witness supposed had taken it, and the disposition of the money:

    And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty. Costs: Warrant, 19c. Complaint upon oath, 25 1/2c. Seven witnesses, 87 1/2c. Recognisances, 25c. Mittimus, 19c. Recognisances of witnesses, 75c. Subpoena, 18c. - $2.68.

 

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/1826Trial/1826Trial_Hill.html

[Raingirl]

4 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

I was just a kid in the 1970s (born in 1964), so there probably was a lot that I was not told.

Interesting.

Earlier in this thread you made a very specific claim about something you remembered from the '70s (for which a CFR was issued, with no response from you).

[Anakin7]

    Relying on The Kandorian Sith Lords Tanners I see - responses to there polemics - http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/Tanners.htm 

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

             Anakin7

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Interesting.

Earlier in this thread you made a very specific claim about something you remembered from the '70s (for which a CFR was issued, with no response from you).

Technically possible. He could have been 15 in 1979.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Anakin7 said:

    Relying on The Kandorian Sith Lords Tanners I see - responses to there polemics - http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/Tanners.htm 

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

             Anakin7

Do you believe there was no trial or that the information above is not accurate?

[Anakin7]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do you believe there was no trial or that the information above is not accurate?

    Did not say there was no trial or it was inaccurate, just relying on the interpetation therof by Tanners. I guess we can condem Peter and Paul as well.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

              Anakin7

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

    Did not say there was no trial or it was inaccurate, just relying on the interpetation therof by Tanners. I guess we can condem Peter and Paul as well.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

              Anakin7

I think the portion quoted above, was not written by the Tanners (unless I'm not reading it correctly).  Which part of the quote do you find inaccurate?

Edited February 8, 2016 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

To be fair, as far as I can determine, most members of my ward have no idea about details concerning Joseph's polygamy.  They couldn't tell you one woman other than Emma that Joseph was married to.  They couldn't tell you one woman that Brigham was married to.  Not a big deal but you can rest assured they can tell you many many other things that the Church has taught them about Brigham and Joseph.  Conveniently some materials put out by the Church excised polygamy from quotes or emphasized teachings (and let's face it polygamy is only one, albeit a big one).  This is why people feel deceived in all of this.  People largely had no reason, in their minds, to research the details of polygamy because to them the Church was telling them what they needed to know.  When they start to learn about the details from others, I get why they feel deceived.  It's happened.

Some people react differently, sure.  Some of us were at least somewhat informed already.  But many still don't want to hear about it and have effectively shut their ears to it all.  When their ears open, I fear for the result.  As it hasn't proven pretty to date. 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

To be fair, as far as I can determine, most members of my ward have no idea about details concerning Joseph's polygamy.  They couldn't tell you one woman other than Emma that Joseph was married to. 

This is true and I had first hand experience with this when I helped our Bishop teach our ward members about the new church essay during a 5th Sunday discussion.  

We found that many had a vague impression that Joseph may have lived polygamy.  But if he did, they believed it was to marry older widows who had lost their husbands in mob attacks on the church.

If anyone could name one of his wives, the only one named (from ward member's responses) was Eliza R. Snow.  But most didn't know she was actually one of Joseph's wives while he was alive and thought she was sealed to him after his death.

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

Joseph Smith Jr. married his second wife, Fanny Alger, in 1835.  D&C 132 was written in 1843.

 

Yes, but the first revelations on plural marriage were received during the translation of the Bible and the mission to the Lamanites, around 1832, 3-4 years before he married Fanny.

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

The only conviction that I am aware of was made in a bench trial without a jury.  Yes, he was convicted of being a disorderly person and an imposter.

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no68.htm

 

Yes, and Christ was convicted of a very similar crime.  Interesting.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

To be fair, as far as I can determine, most members of my ward have no idea about details concerning Joseph's polygamy.  They couldn't tell you one woman other than Emma that Joseph was married to.  They couldn't tell you one woman that Brigham was married to.

 

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

 We found that many had a vague impression that Joseph may have lived polygamy.  But if he did, they believed it was to marry older widows who had lost their husbands in mob attacks on the church.

If anyone could name one of his wives, the only one named (from ward member's responses) was Eliza R. Snow.  But most didn't know she was actually one of Joseph's wives while he was alive and thought she was sealed to him after his death.

 

This is very sad.  The faith of these wives of the prophet should be honored.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, but the first revelations on plural marriage were received during the translation of the Bible and the mission to the Lamanites, around 1832, 3-4 years before he married Fanny.

Well, we do not know that for sure (as you seem to state above), unless you have a record of Joseph stating that he received the revelation then. If you do, I would really like to read it. 

Here's what the essay states regarding this (using words "suggest" and "about that time"):

"The revelation on plural marriage was not written down until 1843, but its early verses suggest that part of it emerged from Joseph Smith’s study of the Old Testament in 1831. People who knew Joseph well later stated he received the revelation about that time."

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

Edited February 8, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This is very sad.  The faith of these wives of the prophet should be honored.

I agree that it is sad, but more members are learning the truth regarding how polygamy (and also polyandry) were lived by Joseph.  The essay was a real eye opener for the many members who have actually read it and then done some studying on their own.  I think it's great that these were written and published on lds.org.  

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, we do not know that for sure (as you seem to state above), unless you have a record of Joseph stating that he received the revelation then. If you do, I would really like to read it.

Here's what the essay states regarding this (using words "suggest" and "about that time"):

"The revelation on plural marriage was not written down until 1843, but its early verses suggest that part of it emerged from Joseph Smith’s study of the Old Testament in 1831. People who knew Joseph well later stated he received the revelation about that time."

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

You are also forgetting WW Phelp's Lamanite revelation.
Admittedly an after the fact recollection, but if true it adds one more evidence.

Edited February 8, 2016 by JLHPROF