Trying to control information sharing

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Understandable since Joseph's only real choice was to divorce Emma and he didn't want to do that. While you're completely right, I tend to cut him a bit of slack there. 

Well I suppose we all do.  So you're not alone.

[Jeanne]

Whether or not ward members are concerned about troubling issues shouldn't matter.  This church claims to be the one and only true church and has the Savior's name on it.

Truth should be above all..and the church would be better for it.  I know many people in my past and some even now are sitting in chapels with great concerns and being quiet about it..but yearn to discuss.  To them, Gospel Doctrine classes are a minefield..and hard to attend.

[Ouagadougou]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Transcripts of podcasts==awesome.  Who the hell wants to listen when you can read? 

http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/05/24/polygamy-questions-joseph-smith/

Dan Peterson interviews the Hales (http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/)

Two answers I find interesting.

First Laura:

I realize people get really defensive and upset when someone points out that the Church has hidden information from the members, or has tried to.  But it's true.  Is it better to hide information under the guise of "protecting the prophets"?  Does it protect anyone to try and hide it?  That is some backwards logic in my view.  We are better off telling people the truth and letting the chips fall where they may, I say.

She goes on:

Yeah for now.  (seriously I'm happy about this)

now Brian (responding to Dan's question):

I've noticed some locations are really behind the times on this.  Some still cry out things like heretic if it's brought up in Church.  Has anyone brought up polygamy and mentioned some details (like Joseph marrying teenagers, or other men's wives) and did not have someone get upset?  I haven't been successful.  These days it may not be the mention of polygamy so much as the devil's in the details.

I love it.  "what President Uchtdorf is reflecting is that the church can withstand scrutiny"

I still lament that it times past this wasnt' the case, but this is encouraging.

What do you all say?  Are we better off letting our members discuss troubling issues in Church?  Afterall Church is a place where we ought to share with each other the welfare of our souls.

Yes, the church and its members are better off discussing troubling issues IMO.  However, the church still tries to mantain a correlated narrative in order to stop members from doing their own research.  One thing I find interesting is that many of the "anti-Mormon lies" I thought were just attacks on the church when I was younger, are, in fact, historical facts.  For example, until I studied church history and other subjects, I never knew the following:

- JS and BY both drank and smoked

- JS practiced polygamy and polyandry

- JS used a seer stone in a hat

- 10 different versions of the First Vision

- BoA facsimiles are wrong

- Adam- God Doctrine

- Blood Atonements

- Temple ceremony based a lot on masonry

- No DNA evidence to support BoM

- No linguistic and/or archeological to support BoM

- Impossibiltiy of building a transoceanic vessel during Nephi's time

- King James Version Bible errors in BoM

- Many prophets/leaders married teenage girls as young as 15, when they were in their 50's 60's 

- Kingdom of God 

- JS used the seer stone to look for treasures

- And the list goes on and on

The essays are a good start for the church; however, the church doesn't take responsibility, IMO, for some of its past mistakes and doctrine.  Many just try to sweep these issues under the rug as they say:  "move along...just have faith...prophets are not infallible...it was just a different time...it's symbolic..."

Edited May 26, 2017 by Ouagadougou

[JulieM]

51 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Understandable since Joseph's only real choice was to divorce Emma and he didn't want to do that. While you're completely right, I tend to cut him a bit of slack there. 

What do you mean it was his "only real choice"?  He could have lived polygamy differently, couldn't he?  Why was it necessary for him marry other men's wives and young girls? I'll bet if he'd lived it like many members believe he lived it, Emma may have accepted it. (Would marrying older widows to take care of them with no relations involved NOT have been living the principle?)

[clarkgoble]

14 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Yes, the church and its members are better off discussing troubling issues IMO.  However, the church still tries to mantain a correlated narrative in order to stop members from doing their own research.  One thing I find interesting is that many of the "anti-Mormon lies" I thought were just attacks on the church when I was younger, are, in fact, historical facts.  For example, until I studied church history and other subjects, I never knew the following:

- JS and BY both drank and smoked

- JS practiced polygamy and polyandry

- JS used a seer stone in a hat

- 10 different versions of the First Vision

- BoA facsimiles are wrong

- Adam- God Doctrine

- Blood Atonements

- Temple ceremony based a lot on masonry

- No DNA evidence to support BoM

- No linguistic and/or archeological to support BoM

- Impossibiltiy of building a transoceanic vessel during Nephi's time

- King James Version Bible errors in BoM

- Many prophets/leaders married teenage girls as young as 15, when they were in their 50's 60's 

- Kingdom of God 

- JS used the seer stone to look for treasures

- And the list goes on and on

The essays are a good start for the church; however, the church doesn't take responsibility, IMO, for some of its past mistakes and doctrine.  Many just try to sweep these issues under the rug as they say:  "move along...just have faith...prophets are not infallible...it was just a different time...it's symbolic..."

Some of those I don't think I agree with. (Transoceanic vessels were around at Nephi's time -- the polynesians aren't recent; BoA vignettes being "wrong" presupposes their function) The rest I confess I knew from a rather young age.

 

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

What do you mean it was his "only real choice"?  He could have lived polygamy differently, couldn't he?  Why was it necessary for him marry other men's wives and young girls? I'll bet if he'd lived it like many members believe he lived it, Emma may have accepted it. (Would marrying older widows to take care of them with no relations involved NOT have been living the principle?)

He was commanded to live polygamy and Emma didn't accept polygamy. There's no way to square that by merely living it differently. To say Emma would have accepted it misses the point that she didn't which was why he did things in secret. The only way for him to live it the way you suggest was to divorce Emma.

Edited May 26, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Anijen]

12 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

- JS and BY both drank and smoked

- JS practiced polygamy and polyandry

- JS used a seer stone in a hat

- 10 different versions of the First Vision

- BoA facsimiles are wrong

- Adam- God Doctrine

- Blood Atonements

- Temple ceremony based a lot on masonry

- No DNA evidence to support BoM

- No linguistic and/or archeological to support BoM

- Impossibiltiy of building a transoceanic vessel during Nephi's time

- King James Version Bible errors in BoM

- Many prophets/leaders married teenage girls as young as 15, when they were in their 50's 60's 

- Kingdom of God 

- JS used the seer stone to look for treasures

- And the list goes on and on

CFR on Joseph smoking and drinking, thank you. I am not doubting you I had not heard this and in fact there are good arguments that he abstained from such. 

The list above just show us that Heavenly Father uses humans, imperfect though they may be, as Prophets. These Prophets give us counsel and reproof to His people. As such, the message should be heeded. I have found that when I follow the messages of God's prophets I prosper more than when I ignore them.

Not to mention the many Prophets in Biblical scripture that were also less than perfect, yet God still used them.

[Ouagadougou]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Some of those I don't think I agree with. (Transoceanic vessels were around at Nephi's time -- the polynesians aren't recent; BoA vignettes being "wrong" presupposes their function) The rest I confess I knew from a rather young age.

 

When I was younger, there was no discussion of seer stones, JS polygamy, along with many other topics until the internet emerged.  IMO, the only reason the church wrote some of these essays is because their hand was forced to play that card.  In other words, with the information now available on the internet, the church has to come clean for damage control reasons.  

[Anijen]

1 minute ago, Ouagadougou said:

When I was younger, there was no discussion of seer stones, JS polygamy, along with many other topics until the internet emerged.  IMO, the only reason the church wrote some of these essays is because their hand was forced to play that card.  In other words, with the information now available on the internet, the church has to come clean for damage control reasons.  

I do not mean to sound so contentious, but I too have grown up in the church, and I do recall (before internet) that on occasion the church lessons did speak on many of these topics. I do not think the Church hid their past as you have implied. Perhaps these negative things were not brought up, that often, was simply because the gospel message is to inspire us, to make us better, yes, to bring us to Christ. If the Church consistently published all the negative aspects it would b detrimental to that goal. Now if the purpose of the church was to be a historian then your argument would be stronger.

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, Anijen said:

CFR on Joseph smoking and drinking, thank you. I am not doubting you I had not heard this and in fact there are good arguments that he abstained from such. 

The list above just show us that Heavenly Father uses humans, imperfect though they may be, as Prophets. These Prophets give us counsel and reproof to His people. As such, the message should be heeded. I have found that when I follow the messages of God's prophets I prosper more than when I ignore them.

Not to mention the many Prophets in Biblical scripture that were also less than perfect, yet God still used them.

True enough. Any person God uses will have many flaws so it shouldn't surprises to learn that prophets actually do have flaws. But accepting that idea as a theory is different than applying it to specific prophets, like Joseph Smith.

I'll look up references when I have some time but I'm at least certain Rough Stone Rolling (among other sources) tells about how Joseph and the others in Carthage drank wine the night before the martyrdom. There is also a story of Joseph teaching a sermon on the Word of Wisdom, after which he was seen riding his horse down the street with a cigar in his mouth. He was a paradox in many ways.

ETA- This is what FAIR says about the cigar story as reported by Amasa Lyman. Take it for what it's worth but this seems a bit dismissive of Lyman's claim simply because he had been previously excommunicated. I'm not sure if there are sources beyond the Lyman claim. https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Did_Joseph_Smith_appear_in_public_smoking_a_cigar_right_after_teaching_a_sermon_on_the_Word_of_Wisdom%3F

 

 

Edited May 26, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[JulieM]

23 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

He was commanded to live polygamy and Emma didn't accept polygamy. There's no way to square that by merely living it differently. To say Emma would have accepted it misses the point that she didn't which was why he did things in secret. The only way for him to live it the way you suggest was to divorce Emma.

I disagree.  Joseph didn't need to marry other men's wives or live polyandry.  Where was that commanded? 

And maybe he wouldn't have had to be living it secretly if he hadn't been with Emma's young housemaids behind her back (starting with Fanny).

So yes, it did matter how he lived it and it's still these details that are causing issues for members when they learn about them.

Edited May 26, 2017 by JulieM

[Ouagadougou]

23 minutes ago, Anijen said:

CFR on Joseph smoking and drinking, thank you. I am not doubting you I had not heard this and in fact there are good arguments that he abstained from such. 

The list above just show us that Heavenly Father uses humans, imperfect though they may be, as Prophets. These Prophets give us counsel and reproof to His people. As such, the message should be heeded. I have found that when I follow the messages of God's prophets I prosper more than when I ignore them.

Not to mention the many Prophets in Biblical scripture that were also less than perfect, yet God still used them.

JS "rode through the streets of Nauvoo smoking a cigar."

on page 161 (link below)

http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5731&context=etd

JS drank wine the day he was killed.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Word_of_Wisdom/Joseph_Smith_drank_alcohol_prior_to_the_martyrdom

[Ouagadougou]

19 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I do not mean to sound so contentious, but I too have grown up in the church, and I do recall (before internet) that on occasion the church lessons did speak on many of these topics. I do not think the Church hid their past as you have implied. Perhaps these negative things were not brought up, that often, was simply because the gospel message is to inspire us, to make us better, yes, to bring us to Christ. If the Church consistently published all the negative aspects it would b detrimental to that goal. Now if the purpose of the church was to be a historian then your argument would be stronger.

I provided you CFRs for your question. 

One problem with these negative aspects of the church is the hypocrisy.  I openly drink tea and get a lot of criticism for it (from LDS family and friends); however, I point out that JS and BY both drank alcohol; BY ran distilleries in Utah.  It's outrageous to think God cares so much about tea today as a requirement to enter the temple, when early prophets were drinking alcohol.  Apologists can label it "presentism" or the fact that the WoW wasn't fully in force at that time--but regardless of their claims--both JS and BY are essentially given a pass for their actions.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Whether or not ward members are concerned about troubling issues shouldn't matter.  This church claims to be the one and only true church and has the Savior's name on it.

Truth should be above all..and the church would be better for it.  I know many people in my past and some even now are sitting in chapels with great concerns and being quiet about it..but yearn to discuss.  To them, Gospel Doctrine classes are a minefield..and hard to attend.

Get them to sign up for mormondialogue! 

I don't see how SS class is a "minefield." Maybe if you try to go off-topic, but perhaps the issue is that it completely avoids the mines.

Here is another potential way to address the issue. Start another SS class on controversial issues and the Church essays. This way Gospel Doctrine Class is not hijacked. The Church could experiment with such a class in California or someplace. I tend to think this type of thing might cause hot heads which are not conducive to the usual spirit of Church. That would be the type of class I would probably be very involved in... It seems I tend to live on the edge - or think there anyway.... My mind seems to always reach out to the next thing to understand. However, being that the Church actively dissuades private study groups, I doubt this type of thing is going to fly.

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Get them to sign up for mormondialogue! 

I don't see how SS class is a "minefield." Maybe if you try to go off-topic, but perhaps the issue is that it completely avoids the mines.

Here is another potential way to address the issue. Start another SS class on controversial issues and the Church essays. This way Gospel Doctrine Class is not hijacked. The Church could experiment with such a class in California or someplace. I tend to think this type of thing might cause hot heads which are not conducive to the usual spirit of Church. That would be the type of class I would probably be very involved in... It seems I tend to live on the edge - or think there anyway.... My mind seems to always reach out to the next thing to understand. However, being that the Church actively dissuades private study groups, I doubt this type of thing is going to fly.

I may suggest some of your ideas to my current LDS friends.  I wish I had known about this board before...would it be a bad thing for this Board to advertise in wards?  A full sheet on a bulletin board?? Apparently, some GD classes bring up things or maybe conversations steer away..and all kinds of people are sitting on their hands and biting their nails itching to ask things that they have read. Edited to add:  It is a shame that somehow members are expected to know some things but not allowed for discussion.  Not understanding this at all..a great opportunity for different levels of spirituality to encourage and learn from eachother..wouldn't this make missionaries more valuable in wards??

Edited May 26, 2017 by Jeanne

[clarkgoble]

43 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I disagree.  Joseph didn't need to marry other men's wives or live polyandry.  Where was that commanded? 

And maybe he wouldn't have had to be living it secretly if he hadn't been with Emma's young housemaids behind her back (starting with Fanny).

So yes, it did matter how he lived it and it's still these details that are causing issues for members when they learn about them.

We don't know the details of what happened with Fanny. I personally think he'd brought it to Emma before that and Emma had rejected it. My point is that there's no evidence Emma ever would have accepted it. By the time those requirements were given in D&C 132 Emma was already at the point of rejecting polygamy. At that time Joseph's only choice was to divorce her, which he didn't want to do. 

Now we can dispute counterfactuals of what he could have done years earlier. But that presupposes Joseph hadn't tried and that Emma would have accepted it. There's just no real evidence for that. I think the best interpretation is that Joseph, like most of the men he told about it, didn't want to practice polygamy. Joseph appears to have believed it was required of him despite not wanting to do it. Yet he was given an Abrahamic like test in his eyes. That he chose Emma might have been wrong, but given his love for Emma and she for him I'm not about to judge him over it. I don't know what I'd have done in those circumstances.

So to me, the events that justifiably trouble us all are already in large part the result of Emma and Joseph's choices. It's just not as simple as some make it out, as if there were some practice that would have resolved everything in a way that would bother no one. There's good reason to be uncomfortable with what he did. I certainly am. But I think saying there was an easy alternative is less obvious.

Edited May 26, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

He was commanded to live polygamy and Emma didn't accept polygamy. There's no way to square that by merely living it differently. To say Emma would have accepted it misses the point that she didn't which was why he did things in secret. The only way for him to live it the way you suggest was to divorce Emma.

I think we should cut Emma some slack. 

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

We don't know the details of what happened with Fanny. I personally think he'd brought it to Emma before that and Emma had rejected it. My point is that there's no evidence Emma ever would have accepted it. By the time those requirements were given in D&C 132 Emma was already at the point of rejecting polygamy. At that time Joseph's only choice was to divorce her, which he didn't want to do. 

I absolutely do not follow your reasoning here.  What good would it have done for Joseph to divorce Emma after he'd already married over 30 women/girls?

Why do you believe his only choice was to live polygamy as he lived it or divorce Emma?

He didn't have to marry her housemaids who she loved like daughters.  He didn't have to marry other men's wives to restore polygamy (live polyandry).  No wonder she rejected what he was secretly practicing!

And, what evidence is there that Joseph told Emma about living polygamy prior to him being with Fanny?  

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I absolutely do not follow your reasoning here.  What good would it have done for Joseph to divorce Emma after he'd already married over 30 women/girls?Why do you believe his only choice was to live polygamy as he lived it or divorce Emma?

My assumption is Emma didn't want to live polygamy. Joseph was given a command he had to live polygamy or be taken away. There are clear claims of that by Joseph although people are of course free to disbelieve him. Given that choice he could stay with Emma and practice polygamy without her knowing or he could leave Emma and practice polygamy in the open.

Now you can of course reject my presuppositions. While it's possible he never even broached the subject with Emma and that had he she would have welcomed the idea, I don't see any evidence for that and considerable reason against it. Given that we don't know what private conversations Emma and Joseph had prior to the Fanny Algers marriage there's no way to definitively know.

You are assuming he started the polygamy in secret. But that's just as much of an assumption as my assumption he did it only after telling Emma. Do I have evidence for it? No. Do you have evidence for your view? No. At best I can say it would make little sense for him to marry Fanny in secret if he thought it was what God commanded since he'd told Emma about the other commands. If he thought it a legitimate command from God then the most sensible thing would be for him to talk to his soul mate about it. But I fully admit I might be wrong in that. We just don't know for sure.

I will say that had Emma accepted it early on that Joseph's later actions almost certainly would have been done differently. I think most of the things we object to would never have arisen had it all been done in the open.

[RevTestament]

25 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I may suggest some of your ideas to my current LDS friends.  I wish I had known about this board before...would it be a bad thing for this Board to advertise in wards?  A full sheet on a bulletin board?? Apparently, some GD classes bring up things or maybe conversations steer away..and all kinds of people are sitting on their hands and biting their nails itching to ask things that they have read. Edited to add:  It is a shame that somehow members are expected to know some things but not allowed for discussion.  Not understanding this at all..a great opportunity for different levels of spirituality to encourage and learn from eachother..wouldn't this make missionaries more valuable in wards??

I have discussed my varying interpretations with my family in scripture reading. Sometimes it got a little animated, but it doesn't seem to have destroyed their testimonies. Our oldest two are out on missions right now, and our youngest will be leaving soon. They both told us on Mother's Day that they are having much success simply following the spirit and knocking doors - this is in California mind you. I have tried also to stress traditional Christian interpretations of the scriptures, and why I don't accept them, in the hopes that this would better prepare them for their missions. Obviously, they will often be encountering traditional interpretations with investigators they come in contact with.

My guess is most of the things you are talking about pertain to Church history, and tbh, this is not my forte. Unfortunately, there is such a diversity of stories, that I tend to lose interest. It leads me nowhere fruitful, and the Lord has never given me any inspiration concerning Church historical matters. I consider myself to be a scripturian, so if your friends have questions pertaining to scripture, I'll be glad to try to answer them.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Yes, the church and its members are better off discussing troubling issues IMO.  However, the church still tries to mantain a correlated narrative in order to stop members from doing their own research.  One thing I find interesting is that many of the "anti-Mormon lies" I thought were just attacks on the church when I was younger, are, in fact, historical facts.  For example, until I studied church history and other subjects, I never knew the following:

- JS and BY both drank and smoked

- JS practiced polygamy and polyandry

- JS used a seer stone in a hat

- 10 different versions of the First Vision

- BoA facsimiles are wrong

- Adam- God Doctrine

- Blood Atonements

- Temple ceremony based a lot on masonry

- No DNA evidence to support BoM

- No linguistic and/or archeological to support BoM

- Impossibiltiy of building a transoceanic vessel during Nephi's time

- King James Version Bible errors in BoM

- Many prophets/leaders married teenage girls as young as 15, when they were in their 50's 60's 

- Kingdom of God 

- JS used the seer stone to look for treasures

- And the list goes on and on

The essays are a good start for the church; however, the church doesn't take responsibility, IMO, for some of its past mistakes and doctrine.  Many just try to sweep these issues under the rug as they say:  "move along...just have faith...prophets are not infallible...it was just a different time...it's symbolic..."

I remember back in 2012 when I first posted on this board, if I had mentioned all these bullets, I'd have been banned. Might even happen now. But I guess when faithful members post like Laura Hales, etc. Then it's great!

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Transcripts of podcasts==awesome.  Who the hell wants to listen when you can read? 

http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/05/24/polygamy-questions-joseph-smith/

Dan Peterson interviews the Hales (http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/)

Two answers I find interesting.

First Laura:

I realize people get really defensive and upset when someone points out that the Church has hidden information from the members, or has tried to.  But it's true.  Is it better to hide information under the guise of "protecting the prophets"?  Does it protect anyone to try and hide it?  That is some backwards logic in my view.  We are better off telling people the truth and letting the chips fall where they may, I say.

She goes on:

Yeah for now.  (seriously I'm happy about this)

now Brian (responding to Dan's question):

I've noticed some locations are really behind the times on this.  Some still cry out things like heretic if it's brought up in Church.  Has anyone brought up polygamy and mentioned some details (like Joseph marrying teenagers, or other men's wives) and did not have someone get upset?  I haven't been successful.  These days it may not be the mention of polygamy so much as the devil's in the details.

I love it.  "what President Uchtdorf is reflecting is that the church can withstand scrutiny"

I still lament that it times past this wasnt' the case, but this is encouraging.

What do you all say?  Are we better off letting our members discuss troubling issues in Church?  Afterall Church is a place where we ought to share with each other the welfare of our souls.

I think Pres. Uchtdorf having no issues with the history being completely open might have something to do with being related by marriage to Michael R. Ash. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Ash

[Jeanne]

35 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I have discussed my varying interpretations with my family in scripture reading. Sometimes it got a little animated, but it doesn't seem to have destroyed their testimonies. Our oldest two are out on missions right now, and our youngest will be leaving soon. They both told us on Mother's Day that they are having much success simply following the spirit and knocking doors - this is in California mind you. I have tried also to stress traditional Christian interpretations of the scriptures, and why I don't accept them, in the hopes that this would better prepare them for their missions. Obviously, they will often be encountering traditional interpretations with investigators they come in contact with.

My guess is most of the things you are talking about pertain to Church history, and tbh, this is not my forte. Unfortunately, there is such a diversity of stories, that I tend to lose interest. It leads me nowhere fruitful, and the Lord has never given me any inspiration concerning Church historical matters. I consider myself to be a scripturian, so if your friends have questions pertaining to scripture, I'll be glad to try to answer them.

It makes a huge difference..I am sure..in testimonies when get things upfront.  Hope your sons are safe, well and happy!  Thank you for your offer to help...I may be in touch.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Jeanne

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Get them to sign up for mormondialogue! 

I don't see how SS class is a "minefield." Maybe if you try to go off-topic, but perhaps the issue is that it completely avoids the mines.

Here is another potential way to address the issue. Start another SS class on controversial issues and the Church essays. This way Gospel Doctrine Class is not hijacked. The Church could experiment with such a class in California or someplace. I tend to think this type of thing might cause hot heads which are not conducive to the usual spirit of Church. That would be the type of class I would probably be very involved in... It seems I tend to live on the edge - or think there anyway.... My mind seems to always reach out to the next thing to understand. However, being that the Church actively dissuades private study groups, I doubt this type of thing is going to fly.

I'm sure your not alone Rev, in fact I remember sitting in plenty of SS classes where there was always that guy that knew more than the rest of us. I think that guy, is all of you on here lol! You who speak so openly here, but I bet you have to bite your tongues constantly in Sunday School class.

 

[BlueDreams]

8 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Transcripts of podcasts==awesome.  Who the hell wants to listen when you can read? 

http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/05/24/polygamy-questions-joseph-smith/

Dan Peterson interviews the Hales (http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/)

Two answers I find interesting.

First Laura:

I realize people get really defensive and upset when someone points out that the Church has hidden information from the members, or has tried to.  But it's true.  Is it better to hide information under the guise of "protecting the prophets"?  Does it protect anyone to try and hide it?  That is some backwards logic in my view.  We are better off telling people the truth and letting the chips fall where they may, I say.

Interesting podcast. I'm no expert in polygamy, I've never really had much of a concern or interest in it so have only casually studied it from time to time over the years. Something that came to me as I was listening to the podcast earlier today is that the church as a body as a whole did not get much time to settle down with polygamy as a culture. The period of time it was practiced actively was, at best, 60-70 years. It was demographically always a minority of marriages in the state. And there's a pattern of obvious dissonance or uncertainty about it from its beginning with JS...who may have done it out of belief that it was what he was commanded to do. Others can of course interpret history differently, but I read it as uncertainty and hesitance that was ebbed by a general attitude at the time that focused on following his convictions no matter the consequence. So in a single individual's life time, polygamy quietly started, reached its height, and then fell away. That's not a lot of time. And in the midst of that they were heavily marginalized by the larger society for the practice. In Reeves' book he makes a pretty solid case that such practice was one of the big reasons they could make a case to strip them of their "white" status. It led to negative portrayals and attitudes that made it difficult to work in the outside world. I also remember reading a journal entry about a young woman who entered polygamy in UT who talked about her friends/family's discomfort with the thought, assuming she didn't have to because she had opportunities for monogamy at her age and health. As it began to fall, it was also ended by a prophet who received revelation that polygamy could do irreparable harm to the church if it wasn't ended (or something like that), and led to jailing and hiding of families to continue this odd command. None of this bodes, "acceptable alternative lifestyle" for the time, but more like "accepted and uncertain alternative lifestyle that may place you at risk with the outside world." After its ending mormons still weren't magically accepted into mainstream society and as monogamy again became it without the minority practice, the general discomfort that had always been there to some extent would have probably reasserted itself. There's still unanswered questions about it today. And the acceptability with the outside communities and the church at the time was feasibly still tentative in someways. Heck, even when I was young and barely entering the first discussion boards online....the vitriol against mormons at the time was astounding. Considering, I don't think it necessarily was a guise. The people who would have directed the policy would have some of their formative years directly effected by the anti-polygamy moves that blanketed a general anti-mormon public stance and fervor. 

In short I was thinking that the answer to the question of why and why would this be seen as protecting the prophets could simply be that the discomfort and dissonance with polygamy never fully settled and never had time to do so.

I also find it interesting that the level of transparency that the church is working with now was tied to the commencement of the internet and probably electronics in general. Just as, for a time, the knowledge that JS had ordained black men to the priesthood and such was lost within a few decades and presumed to be the default since the commencement of the church. Collection and synthesis of historical information has come in spurts for LDS community. We collected and wrote down, but my sense is that the synthesis of what was written didn't happen as effectively until later in our history and far more rapidly and efficiently just in the last decade or so.  

Quote

She goes on:

Yeah for now.  (seriously I'm happy about this)

 

There is literally no evidence that the cat is willing to go back in that bag.

 

Quote

I've noticed some locations are really behind the times on this.  Some still cry out things like heretic if it's brought up in Church.  Has anyone brought up polygamy and mentioned some details (like Joseph marrying teenagers, or other men's wives) and did not have someone get upset?  I haven't been successful.  These days it may not be the mention of polygamy so much as the devil's in the details.

Maybe it's how you state it or just your ward?? My little brother had a discussion about this in either his seminary or sunday school class a little while back. Using the gospel topics essays. It didn't take throw back. Pockets of inertia and reticence are bound to exist with any change in dialogue.  

 

Quote

What do you all say?  Are we better off letting our members discuss troubling issues in Church?  Afterall Church is a place where we ought to share with each other the welfare of our souls.

I have mixed feelings about it. I'm okay addressing it, but I don't think I would really want to have that all the time. Polygamy isn't that interesting for me. Some of it I wonder if the discomfort is tied more with having clean, simply, straight forward families. Having these messy relationships isn't something that comes easily for mormons nowadays. But there are others that take more energy out of me, such as on race. I want to see it be addressed, but the simple fact is that it would make some funky dynamics at church. I already played "race expert" for a good chunk of college because of lived experience. I don't mind it....sometimes I enjoy prodding at old conceptions. But I want a place to heal and bond again without controversy and painful growth and weird comments. And there's other minorities that are not comfortabl with that role. There's also other people who just wouldn't care as much....particularly in areas where polygamy exists openly now or where there's just more important issues at hand. 

I don't know what that balance would look like. But those would be a few of my concerns. 

 

With luv,

BD