The Church is growing so fast...

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

I think there are two issues. 

Joseph translating the Book of Mormon using the same stone he used, unsuccessfully, to search for buried treasure, rather than instruments given to him by an angel specifically for that purpose, makes the story less tenable for a lot of people.

But perhaps more damaging - The Church not being up front about Joseph using the same stone he used, unsuccessfully, to search for buried treasure, rather than instruments given to him by an angel specifically for that purpose, makes the Church look deliberately deceptive.

Its the perceived lack of honesty that’s important to me and other people, in my opinion.

 

I'm not sure I understand why this is important.  The stone is a tool and tools can be used for both good or bad.  You can watch General Conference on your TV, for example, or you could watch any number of really bad things.  I'm not wanting to debate anything here, but understand why some people see this as such an issue.

As an aside:

Joseph did use the U&T to start with, which were not given to him by the angel but were buried with the plates.  My understanding, and I'd have to reread some things to be certain, was that the U&T didn't fit right.  Like a pair of glasses on you or I that are too wide, made for someone bigger. 

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think that it's not just learning about the seer stones in a hat.  It's learning that the ancient translators that were preserved for years and years were not used (much or at all) to translate the Book of Mormon.  It's learning that the gold plates were not even present for much of the translation.  It's learning that Joseph actually did participate in treasure seeking (which is upsetting to many on its own), and not only that, he used the same method and the same seer stone that he later used to translate the Book of Mormon.  Then this leads to searching for more information....

Then they learn about the multiple first vision accounts.

They learn details regarding Joseph's and other's polygamy.

And there much more they learn that they feel was hidden from them or at the very least, was not taught to them.

So, it's not just as simple as learning that "Joseph used seer stones in a hat".

I firmly believe this is why the CES letter has seen such wide circulation and affected so many members.  It's a one stop place to find a flood of information that members seem starved for when they learn there is much they don't know.  I don't agree with many of the conclusions in that document....but it's a very easy read and all in one location for members who are desperately searching.

It's interesting, because I hear about all those things and kinds say so what.  I guess I've never looked to the church to teach history.  I've looked to the church to teach the gospel which to me is a separate issue than did Joseph did for treasure or not (and if he did it doesn't bother me as I did some pretty stupid things when I was a teenager).  Honestly, I really don't think church leaders in the past have had that great a grasp of history, but I'm not really sure I'd expect them to. 

It's interesting how two people can be presented with the same information and have two completely different reactions. 

[ALarson]

37 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It's interesting, because I hear about all those things and kinds say so what.  I guess I've never looked to the church to teach history. 

I know there are other members who feel as you do.  Some are simply not even interested much at all in church history but are only interested in what the current church looks like.  I think that's fine too.

However, I believe there are more members who do feel church history details are very important.  

Bottom line is that none of us can tell another person what should or should not matter to them or how it should or should not affect their beliefs.

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I know there are other members who feel as you do.  Some are simply not even interested much at all in church history but are only interested in what the current church looks like.  I think that's fine too.

However, I believe there are more members who do feel church history details are very important.  

Bottom line is that none of us can tell another person what should or should not matter to them or how it should or should not affect their beliefs.

I'm actually very interested in history.  I majored in history in college and have read extensively since then.  It's just that those particular issues, while they may be fascinating from a scholarly perspective, seem to have no bearing on my understanding of the gospel.  And, as I said, I'm not looking to the church to teach me history.

 

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Have you got anything other than the 1993* ensign article, such as a lesson manual?

*In the late 1980’s circa 500,000 copies of the Ensign were being distributed across an 8 million membership.

It's really hard to find online versions of old lesson manuals. I wish they were there. There's tons of stuff I'd love to look up. 

While the Ensign wasn't read by everyone, families were big in those days so you have to assume that ½ million magazines probably covered at least 3 - 4 million of the members. (Assuming many kids and most people being married) More significantly the topics would get discussed. So it reflects in a certain level normal levels of discussions. It's far from an ideal proxy for membership knowledge. By and large a significant portion of the membership simply won't be interested in history or theology beyond what they have to know. But it's hard to figure a better proxy. (You could point to manuals - but few people teach everything in the manual unless it's explicitly the focus on discussion which the seerstones wouldn't have been I'd imagine)

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I think that it's not just learning about the seer stones in a hat.  It's learning that the ancient translators that were preserved for years and years were not used (much or at all) to translate the Book of Mormon.

That's still debatable. We know for sure the spectacles were used for the 116 pages which is a fairly substantial part of the text. It's still debatable what was used after that period. All we have for sure are very late recollections claiming the spectacles weren't returned. 

I understand why people point to this, but it's not clear there's a substantial reason for the complaint (although I understand the emotional one).

Quote

It's learning that Joseph actually did participate in treasure seeking (which is upsetting to many on its own), and not only that, he used the same method and the same seer stone that he later used to translate the Book of Mormon.

While I understand why that's troubling, that's one that actually is pretty heavily discussed in the Ensign. Especially back during the Hoffman era when such things were heavily discussed in the press. It's also been in many of the manuals including the PoGP institute manual (Which many people owned as a kind of commentary - unfortunately so since they often were very problematic texts). I should note that it's not clear if the brown seer stone was used for treasure. I'd have to check but I believe that's controversial.

Quote

Then they learn about the multiple first vision accounts.

That one I'll confess I never understand why it bothers people.

Quote

They learn details regarding Joseph's and other's polygamy.

That one I think does shake people and is completely understandable. It's not like polygamy is hidden. (Heavens it's in D&C 132 and is heavily discussed in the History of the Church and almost any history of Nauvoo) But the details are troubling to people. And of course again most people don't do a lot of outside reading on the church.

 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

However, I believe there are more members who do feel church history details are very important.  

I disagree as they would be studying Church history in depth if they did.

[why me]

20 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Have you got anything other than the 1993* ensign article, such as a lesson manual?

*In the late 1980’s circa 500,000 copies of the Ensign were being distributed across an 8 million membership.

However there is an another problem. Even if the information was in the manual, it may not be taught by the teacher. It is up to the teacher what parts of the manual should be taught. For esxample, I know of the gospel doctrine teacher who said to the class that she never knew that joseph had a gun when in jail. However, she said that she saw it in the teacher's manual which has been there for quite some time since it was an 80s edition. Why was this fact ignored by many consecutive teachers? Likewise for section 132. Much is there and yet ignored.

[Marginal Gains]

20 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Have you got anything other than the 1993* ensign article, such as a lesson manual?

*In the late 1980’s circa 500,000 copies of the Ensign were being distributed across an 8 million membership.

 

1 minute ago, why me said:

However there is an another problem. Even if the information was in the manual, it may not be taught by the teacher. It is up to the teacher what parts of the manual should be taught. For esxample, I know of the gospel doctrine teacher who said to the class that she never knew that joseph had a gun when in jail. However, she said that she saw it in the teacher's manual which has been there for quite some time since it was an 80s edition. Why was this fact ignored by many consecutive teachers? Likewise for section 132. Much is there and yet ignored.

I’ll take that as a no.

[why me]

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

I’ll take that as a no.

In the manual that discusses 132, there is much there about polygamy and the history behind it. But many teachers ignore it. That was my point. If teachers would teach that part of the manual, no one could claim that they did not know that JS was a polygamist.

[Marginal Gains]

10 hours ago, why me said:

In the manual that discusses 132, there is much there about polygamy and the history behind it. But many teachers ignore it. That was my point. If teachers would teach that part of the manual, no one could claim that they did not know that JS was a polygamist.

No, that wasn’t your initial point, which was that the explanation of the seer stone in the hat was commonly available and discussed as far back as 1993. I asked for more references to which you tried to then talk about plural marriage. You’re still trying to avoid the original CFR I raised. I don’t blame you.

So let’s move on to plural marriage - What Church references do you have for the teaching that plural marriage started with Joseph Smith and that he was sealed to women who already had living legal husbands?

Change your attitude when you address other posters or you are going to be banned from every thread.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

No, that wasn’t your initial point, which was that the explanation of the seer stone in the hat was commonly available and discussed as far back as 1993. I asked for more references to which you tried to then talk about plural marriage. You’re still trying to avoid the original CFR I raised. I don’t blame you.

I can't speak for them, but there really are a lot of references which a quick google brings up including discussions in the Children's Friend of all places. "Even with the help of the Urim and Thummim and the seer stone, it wasn’t easy to translate the sacred record. It required the Prophet’s greatest concentration and spiritual strength."

Here's a few others from church magazines from before the recent push in 2015 on seer stones.

Mar 77 Did Joseph use the Urim and Thummim or the seer stone? Did he study the plates as he translated, or did they lay covered on the table? Did he dictate what the Lord said, or did he repeat the message in his own words? There is evidence that all of these might have been true.

Sept 77   On the means of translation Stevenson reported, “He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone.”

Aug 87 The memo says President Woodruff made some spontaneous comments to Elder James E. Talmage “in relation to the seer stone known as ‘Gazelem,’ which was shown of the Lord to the Prophet Joseph Smith to be some thirty feet under ground, and which he obtained by digging under the pretence of excavating for a well, as related in his own history.”

Jul 93 Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine.

Jun 94 Joseph’s use of a seer stone to see things that others could not see with the naked eye brought the second charge.

Jan 97 Martin Harris related of the seer stone: “Sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin” 

Jan 13 In the stone box containing the gold plates, Joseph found what Book of Mormon prophets referred to as “interpreters,” or a “stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light” (Alma 37:23–24). He described the instrument as “spectacles” and referred to it using an Old Testament term, Urim and Thummim (see Exodus 28:30). He also sometimes applied the term to other stones he possessed, called “seer stones” because they aided him in receiving revelations as a seer.

There are others which while not talking about Joseph's seer stones normalizes them.

Mar 87 After the people of Limhi emigrated to Zarahemla and joined the church established there, Mosiah translated these plates through the use of “interpreters,” or seer stones, divinely preserved and empowered for just such a purpose.

Apr 90 Fits me with Spirit to my mortal eye to form a retina of Light that is a seer-stone of the world.

While we don't have easy ways to search old manuals, so most are 2015 or later. But it is discussed in the seminary manual before the 2015 push on the seer stone issue.

2013 D&C Seminary Manual In addition to the Urim and Thummim, the Prophet used a seer stone in the translation process.

It then quotes the talk by Elder Maxwell quoted above from the Ensign that discusses Joseph's use of the seer stone

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism which was heavily pushed and available online (it still is) talked about it in various entries

"Most reports state that throughout the project Joseph used the "Nephite interpreters" or, for convenience, he would use a seer stone (see CHC1:128-30). Both instruments were sometimes called by others the Urim and Thummim. "

"Joseph Smith's father was reputed to be one of these treasure-seekers, and Joseph Smith himself had found a stone, called a seer stone, which reportedly enabled him to find lost objects."

Mormon Doctrine by McConkie which was hugely influential in the 20th century (818) talked about it. He actually quotes Doctrines of Salvation on the seer stone.  That was other widely read and hugely influential book. In it Joseph Fielding Smith wrote (3.225) "We have no record of the Prophet having the Urim and Thummim after the organization of the Church. Statements of translations by the Urim and Thummim after that date are evidently errors. The statement has been made that the Urim and Thummim was on the altar in the Manti Temple when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken of, however, was the seer stone which was in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days. This seer stone is now in the possession of the Church."

 I honestly saw very, very few people growing up who didn't have both those books. (I can't speak to whether they read them of course - but that's true of church magazines or even often the scriptures). The stones were also discussed heavily in The History of the Church and B. H. Robert's Comprehensive History of the Church. 

[Guest]

On August 18, 2017 at 3:51 PM, stemelbow said:

Growing up (late 80s early 90s) it was really common to exclaim the Church is the fastest growing religion in the world.  Then as the years went on we started to learn that wasn't true.  So it started to dissipate.  By now it's never said, at least not from what I hear.  But not too many Sunday's ago a member of our ward said, "we have over 15 million members strong".  I thought in my head, well that's a pretty loose interpretation

Thank you.

I edited some of your post, and I have replied before, but I wanted to make another another point. My Ward has had experienced a lot of growth. True some are move-ins, but we have for the last year had more than one covert baptism each month. Our investigators class is always overflowing. It is easy too and often done so to look at numbers worldwide, but this gospel is not like other faiths, or like Billy Grarham crusades were hundreds if not thousands answer altar calls, where names are not taken down. The true Gospel of Jesus Christ goes forth one at a time, where those names "are" taken down, as scripture requires, so that each member can be properly ministered too. Most of the Evangelical types of Churches count attendance, if they count at all. Certainly our way takes longer, and counts each one as individuals, as they should be. But even still, we don't do so by average attendance, which varies, based on sickness, age, or lulls in attendance. Our Ward my be unique, but I doubt it. 

My guess is that due to the world of the Internet that uses and false anti-Mormon websites, and other factors  may have an effect, but it would seem that all Churches (and they do) suffer because of many factors. Usually in times of trouble people often turn to "Faiths of all kinds", and when such events pass, they usually turn back to the world for answers. Also we are not a Faith that teaches and requires serious commitment, and not one who requires little certainly makes a difference. If we adopted a program that only requires that just showing up, and few if any commitments, or counted membership just due to an altar call, we would be like many other Churches have very serious numbers to report. A process that many might hope for, but as the Prophet Joseph Smith said, (too paraphrase) "A Church that does not call for the sacrifice of all things, never has the power necessary for the salvation of it's members". Either way, yes we are different, yes "unto whom much is given, much is required", but if we are not different, if we are just like everyone else, then why exist? Anyway, no more from me on this topic. I sometimes think what I say matters, but my guess is that it is not the case. An idea that becomes clearer as I age. Sometimes I am embarrassed for wading into the pool at all, but on this topic, no more. 

[why me]

15 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

No, that wasn’t your initial point, which was that the explanation of the seer stone in the hat was commonly available and discussed as far back as 1993. I asked for more references to which you tried to then talk about plural marriage. You’re still trying to avoid the original CFR I raised. I don’t blame you.

So let’s move on to plural marriage - What Church references do you have for the teaching that plural marriage started with Joseph Smith and that he was sealed to women who already had living legal husbands?

Change your attitude when you address other posters or you are going to be banned from every thread.

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/32493_eng.pdf?lang=eng

 

See page 334. It is clear that Joseph was a polygamist and as such it should be taught in class but is it? It does mention that Joseph was married to several women. But no names are mentioned, which is as it should be. People are allowed to buy books that deal with histories of the church from various bookshops including Desseret. It was the RLDS that denied that JS was a polygamist and not the LDS church, which is more or less mentioned by Woodruff in the D&C manual.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by why me

[Calm]

"But no names are mentioned, which is as it should be"

Why should no names be mentioned?

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/19/2017 at 3:10 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

No.  That is an unrelated secularization process full independent of any denomination.  America has not yet bought fully into that European attitude, but it is inevitable here as well.

Do you believe Europe's problem might have something to do with the widespread fatalism and pessimism that have resulted from the two world wars? We don't have that in the US.

[why me]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

"But no names are mentioned, which is as it should be"

Why should no names be mentioned?

Too many. However, members can look them up if they wish to know more. The manual also states that some of them were in Utah. This is gotten from the Woodruff quotation from the student manual of the D&C. linked above.

Edited September 20, 2017 by why me

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you believe Europe's problem might have something to do with the widespread fatalism and pessimism that have resulted from the two world wars? We don't have that in the US.

Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me -- a malaise of sorts.

[ALarson]

4 hours ago, why me said:

Too many. However, members can look them up if they wish to know more. The manual also states that some of them were in Utah. This is gotten from the Woodruff quotation from the student manual of the D&C. linked above.

There is not much information given on Joseph's polygamy in that manual.... only one and even that is very vague.  "A few women"?  No one could read that and get a realistic picture of Joseph marrying over 30 women.  And the women's names very definitely need to be a part of the discussion.  You say there are "too many"?  That's a ridiculous reason to give to keep them nameless and faceless.   They all have incredible stories to tell too and should be named.

This is the only thing mentioned about Joseph' polygamy in this manual that I could find:

Quote

No indication is given here or elsewhere of what the Lord had commanded the Prophet Joseph to offer to his wife, but the context seems to suggest that it was a special test of faith similar to the test of Abraham’s faith when the Lord commanded him to sacrifice Isaac. Beyond that, it is useless to speculate. However, Emma was given additional counsel from the Lord, including commandments to “receive all those that have been given to her husband” (D&C 132:52) to obey the voice of the Lord (see v. 53), to “abide and cleave unto” the Prophet (v. 54), and to forgive him of his trespasses (see v. 56). The Lord also gave her warnings against rejecting these commandments and promises for keeping them. President Wilford Woodruff, who was closely associated with the Prophet Joseph Smith, said: “Emma Smith, the widow of the Prophet, is said to have maintained to her dying moments that her husband had nothing to do with the patriarchal order of marriage, but that it was Brigham Young that got that up. I bear record before God, angels and men that Joseph Smith received that revelation, and I bear record that Emma Smith gave her husband in marriage to several women while he was living, some of whom are to-day living in this city, and some may be present in this congregation, and who, if called upon, would confirm my words. But lo and behold, we hear of publication after publication now-a-days, declaring that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with these things. Joseph Smith himself organized every endowment in our Church and revealed the same to the Church, and he lived to receive every key of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods from the hands of the men who held them while in the flesh, and who hold them in eternity.”

From that, members could just continue believing that Joseph married a few older widows to help them out.  That paragraph does nothing to teach what really occurred with polygamy in Nauvoo.  

If a teacher sticks to using the church essays on this topic when teaching about polygamy, they could lead some excellent discussions.  But not just the information from the manual above.

If that's an example of you showing that the church has always taught about polygamy, it's not a very good one, IMO

Edited September 20, 2017 by ALarson

[clarkgoble]

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If that's an example of you showing that the church has always taught about polygamy, it's not a very good one, IMO

The Church has always taught about polygamy because D&C 132 and OD1 are in the D&C and are supposed to be read every 4 years. Now you do have a point that they don't get into the details. However I think there were pretty good reasons for that given that their main worry in the 20th century were apostate polygamous groups like the Allreads, the FLDS and then they were shocked by the Manti group in the 90's that (according to stories at the time that some dispute) they were breaking into the temple to do polygamous sealings. So their focus was avoiding that very real problem of apostasy that some Mormons fell into.

As others said, the history was always there for those who were interested. The Church had within their pushed official books things that discussed it such as Joseph's History of the Church (not terribly good as objective history, but it does discuss such things) and B. H. Robert's history. While not officially published by the Church, Arrington's The Mormon Experience was fairly well read and available, especially in the Mormon corridor (Utah, Idaho, Arizona). Arrington had been the Church Historian. His Brigham Young biography also went through that too.

Honestly though polygamy is so strongly associated with Mormonism in the popular mind that it seems hard to believe people who cry ignorance. Ask almost any person about Mormonism and they'll bring up polygamy.

Again we don't have access to old manuals, so it's harder to say much there. But again a brief trip to lds.org finds lots of stuff.

Feb 77 Starting during Joseph Smith’s own lifetime but limited to a few dozen families until its official announcement in 1852, plural marriage brought a powerful new challenge to the equanimity of Latter-day Saint family life.

Apr 79 The same revelation explained the circumstances under which plural marriage would be permitted under priesthood direction. Because of the controversial nature of this principle, the Prophet initially taught it only to a few of his closest associates. Historical evidence suggests that he understood the principle as early as 1831 while working on an inspired revision of the Bible in Kirtland.

Dec 79 In obedience to the command of the living prophet, Newel and Elizabeth Ann gave their daughter Sarah Ann in marriage to Joseph Smith. Nearly a year later, Joseph Smith dictated the general revelation about the eternity of marriage and the nature of plural marriage, and Newel asked to have his own copy, a providential request, since the first copy was destroyed.

Apr 80  A revelation on the “Eternity of the Marriage Covenant and Plural Marriage” (D&C 132) was recorded, giving fuller meaning to the “new and everlasting covenant” which had been mentioned as early as 1831. The Prophet had explained the doctrine to a few, and plural marriages had been performed in 1841.

Nov 89 In Nauvoo, the Knight group faced and passed another great test of faith. The Prophet introduced several doctrines relating to the temple, including the temple ceremonies and plural marriage, which some could not accept.

Mar 93 In 1856, the new Republican party had adopted as one plank in its national political platform a pledge to eliminate “those twin relics of barbarism—polygamy and slavery.” Legislation to punish Church members for the practice of plural marriage was passed in 1862.  In the early 1870s, United States President Ulysses S. Grant was adamant that the Mormons must be brought into line. 

Jun 93 [Joseph F Smith] later married five other wives (living as they did during the days of the Church’s practice of plural marriage): Julina Lambson, Sarah Ellen Richards, Edna Lambson, Alice Ann Kimball, and Mary Taylor Schwartz.

Oct 95 The primary catalyst of the opposition was a crusade against the Church’s practice of plural marriage. This drive attracted nationwide attention through sensational journalism, and individuals involved in other social and legal reform movements adopted the crusade as an objective. This resulted in a series of laws against plural marriage passed by the U.S. Congress between 1862 and 1887

Jan 99 More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued 

Aug 99  29 Aug. 1852: Public announcement of plural marriage made, Salt Lake City.

Jul 12 However, in biblical and more modern times, polygamy (or plural marriage) has been practiced when God has directed it for specific purposes (see Jacob 2:27, 30). This is why Church leaders selectively authorized some plural marriages in the 19th century for about 50 years.

That was off just the first page of hits at lds.org excluding those from 2015 or later. 

People making these claims that the Church didn't teach these sorts of things are just on extremely shaky ground. Further, as I noted, polygamy is associated with Mormons. If it's a troubling issue for people they could since the internet became popular around 1997 spend two seconds searching for information. 

The seminary manual from 2013 discusses it fairly clearly and points out Joseph learned about it during the JST work in 1831. The Church History Institute manual from 2003 even names some of Joseph's wives.

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The Church has always taught about polygamy because D&C 132 and OD1 are in the D&C and are supposed to be read every 4 years. Now you do have a point that they don't get into the details.

Yes, that is my point and gratefully that is slowly changing.

I do disagree that polygamy has always been "taught" by the church.  I absolutely has not been "taught" from my experience.  I have personally not been in a classroom situation where we discussed polygamy (other than in the recent 5th Sunday discussion our ward had on the polygamy essay which was excellent).  And most all lessons given on D&C 132 are on celestial or eternal marriage, not on polygamy.  I have found that many members have not even read that section in its entirety.

The year we studied Joseph Smith, there were instructions NOT to bring up or discuss polygamy because it did not apply to latter days:

Quote

This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.

No discussion on polygamy, but this book was to cover the "teachings of Joseph Smith"?

I do agree that the information (vague usually) was always there to find.  But, IMO.....it was not taught (in my experience over my lifetime).

Some has said they learned some about polygamy in seminary when they were growing up or it was at least briefly mentioned and they had a vague idea that Joseph practice polygamy.  But no details and no real discussion on polygamy during the Nauvoo era.  I do believe that members know Joseph had some plural wives (some still believe they were older widows or not for this world as in the example that JLHPROF gave.)

Edited September 20, 2017 by ALarson

[clarkgoble]

28 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I do disagree that polygamy has always been "taught" by the church.  I absolutely has not been "taught" from my experience. 

If and only if you don't consider the Church magazines to be teaching. Individual teachers may not teach it even when it's in the manual but that's quite a different issue.

Quote

I have found that many members have not even read that section in its entirety.

You can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink. If people refuse to do any study on their own of the very materials the Church says you should regularly study that's hardly the Church's fault.

Quote

The year we studied Joseph Smith, there were explicit instructions NOT to bring up or discuss polygamy.

Are you referring to this?  "This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage."

Don't you find it odd that to argue the Church didn't teach something you refer to a paragraph in the required manual that actually does discuss it? A bit ironic, no?

Quote

I do agree that the information (vague usually) was always there to find.  But, IMO.....it was not taught (in my experience over my lifetime).

Many of the quotes from that first page of hits were not vague. Further again if anyone was troubled they could easily do further research on their own including via books like Church History in the Fulness of Times that are in the ward library. Amazon has been around since 1994 so saying the books weren't easily available might have been true in the 80's but isn't now. For the pre-internet era though as I mentioned Mormon Doctrine, Gospel Doctrine and Doctrines of Salvation were extremely influential and widely read. Both discuss the issue. The Church actually sold and pushed a collection of small books of Doctrines of Salvation and Gospel Doctrine that many (most?) members had in the 70's and 80's.

Mormon Doctrine: "In the early days of this dispensation, as part of the promised restitution of all things, the Lord revealed the principle of plural marriage to the Prophet. Later the Prophet and leading brethren were commanded to enter into the practice, which they did in all virtue and purity of heart despite the consequent animosity and prejudices of worldly people. After Brigham Young led the saints to the Salt Lake Valley, plural marriage was openly taught and practiced until the year 1 890. At that time conditions were such that the Lord by revelation withdrew the command to continue the practice, and President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto directing that it cease."

"As early as 1832 the Lord revealed to the Prophet the doctrine of celestial marriage, including also the principle of plurality of wives. [...] At a still later date, temple endowments and other ordinances were revealed - all of which are a necessary prelude to the performance of an eternal marriage, a marriage between one man and one woman, or between one man and more than one women, as the case may be. After these things the practice of celestial marriage, including plurality of wives, was commanded. In 1 843 the previously revealed doctrine of celestial marriage (including plurality of wives) was recorded for the first time; added truths were also stated in the revelation as finally recorded, as for instance a reference to the fact that the keys of sealing now had been given and also special instruction to Emma Smith relative to plural marriage."

Doctrines of Salvation "Of course there was no doctrine of plural marriage in the Church in 1835, but Orson Pratt said (I get this from my father who was his missionary companion) that the Lord did reveal to Joseph Smith, before 1835, and before 1834, and as early as 1832, the doctrine of plural marriage."

Gospel Doctrine: "I can positively state, on indisputable evidence, that Joseph Smith was the author, under God, of the revelation on plural marriage. On this subject, we have the affidavit of William Clayton, private secretary of Joseph Smith, that he wrote the revelation as it was given through the lips of the prophet and that he himself sealed to Joseph Smith as a plural wife, Lucy Walker, at Joseph Smith's own residence, on May i, 1843. This lady is still living, in Salt Lake City, and is willing to testify at any moment to this fact. Following are some of the names of young ladies who were sealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, as testified to under oath by themselves this during the lifetime of the prophet: Eliza R. Snow, Sarah Ann Whitney, Helen Mar Kimball, Fanny Young (sister to Brigham Young), and Rhoda Richards (sister to Willard Richards who was with the prophet at his martyrdom in Carthage jail). All these noble women have testified, under oath, giving names and dates, that they were sealed during his lifetime, to the Prophet Joseph Smith. These facts have been published in Jenson's Historical Record, and in the Deseret News, in years past; and I know, by the established and virtuous character of these noble women, that their testimonies are true."

Edited September 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The Church has always taught about polygamy because D&C 132 and OD1 are in the D&C and are supposed to be read every 4 years. Now you do have a point that they don't get into the details. However I think there were pretty good reasons for that given that their main worry in the 20th century were apostate polygamous groups like the Allreads, the FLDS and then they were shocked by the Manti group in the 90's that (according to stories at the time that some dispute) they were breaking into the temple to do polygamous sealings. So their focus was avoiding that very real problem of apostasy that some Mormons fell into.

As others said, the history was always there for those who were interested. The Church had within their pushed official books things that discussed it such as Joseph's History of the Church (not terribly good as objective history, but it does discuss such things) and B. H. Robert's history. While not officially published by the Church, Arrington's The Mormon Experience was fairly well read and available, especially in the Mormon corridor (Utah, Idaho, Arizona). Arrington had been the Church Historian. His Brigham Young biography also went through that too.

Honestly though polygamy is so strongly associated with Mormonism in the popular mind that it seems hard to believe people who cry ignorance. Ask almost any person about Mormonism and they'll bring up polygamy.

Again we don't have access to old manuals, so it's harder to say much there. But again a brief trip to lds.org finds lots of stuff.

Feb 77 Starting during Joseph Smith’s own lifetime but limited to a few dozen families until its official announcement in 1852, plural marriage brought a powerful new challenge to the equanimity of Latter-day Saint family life.

Apr 79 The same revelation explained the circumstances under which plural marriage would be permitted under priesthood direction. Because of the controversial nature of this principle, the Prophet initially taught it only to a few of his closest associates. Historical evidence suggests that he understood the principle as early as 1831 while working on an inspired revision of the Bible in Kirtland.

Dec 79 In obedience to the command of the living prophet, Newel and Elizabeth Ann gave their daughter Sarah Ann in marriage to Joseph Smith. Nearly a year later, Joseph Smith dictated the general revelation about the eternity of marriage and the nature of plural marriage, and Newel asked to have his own copy, a providential request, since the first copy was destroyed.

Apr 80  A revelation on the “Eternity of the Marriage Covenant and Plural Marriage” (D&C 132) was recorded, giving fuller meaning to the “new and everlasting covenant” which had been mentioned as early as 1831. The Prophet had explained the doctrine to a few, and plural marriages had been performed in 1841.

Nov 89 In Nauvoo, the Knight group faced and passed another great test of faith. The Prophet introduced several doctrines relating to the temple, including the temple ceremonies and plural marriage, which some could not accept.

Mar 93 In 1856, the new Republican party had adopted as one plank in its national political platform a pledge to eliminate “those twin relics of barbarism—polygamy and slavery.” Legislation to punish Church members for the practice of plural marriage was passed in 1862.  In the early 1870s, United States President Ulysses S. Grant was adamant that the Mormons must be brought into line. 

Jun 93 [Joseph F Smith] later married five other wives (living as they did during the days of the Church’s practice of plural marriage): Julina Lambson, Sarah Ellen Richards, Edna Lambson, Alice Ann Kimball, and Mary Taylor Schwartz.

Oct 95 The primary catalyst of the opposition was a crusade against the Church’s practice of plural marriage. This drive attracted nationwide attention through sensational journalism, and individuals involved in other social and legal reform movements adopted the crusade as an objective. This resulted in a series of laws against plural marriage passed by the U.S. Congress between 1862 and 1887

Jan 99 More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued 

Aug 99  29 Aug. 1852: Public announcement of plural marriage made, Salt Lake City.

Jul 12 However, in biblical and more modern times, polygamy (or plural marriage) has been practiced when God has directed it for specific purposes (see Jacob 2:27, 30). This is why Church leaders selectively authorized some plural marriages in the 19th century for about 50 years.

That was off just the first page of hits at lds.org excluding those from 2015 or later. 

People making these claims that the Church didn't teach these sorts of things are just on extremely shaky ground. Further, as I noted, polygamy is associated with Mormons. If it's a troubling issue for people they could since the internet became popular around 1997 spend two seconds searching for information. 

The seminary manual from 2013 discusses it fairly clearly and points out Joseph learned about it during the JST work in 1831. The Church History Institute manual from 2003 even names some of Joseph's wives.

 

The original edition of Church History in the Fullness of Time (published around 1990 iirc had Louisa Beaman listed at least.  I will try and remember to check for others.  Iirc, the manual used previously (my husband had it in college, Barrett iirc) had more info.

[ALarson]

37 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Are you referring to this?  "This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage."

Don't you find it odd that to argue the Church didn't teach something you refer to a paragraph in the required manual that actually does discuss it? A bit ironic, no?

No where there does it even specifically state that Joseph lived polygamy or encourage a discussion on polygamy (it's stating why it is not to be discussed) . 

And, that was in the introduction of the book, not in one of the lessons that was to be taught.  Also, my wife was in the RS presidency that year and in her stake meeting discussing this manual, she was told by the SP that he had received strict instructions to not allow any discussion of polygamy during that year (he referenced the introduction's instructions) and to immediately stop any that start within the sisters.

So no, polygamy has not always been taught and discussions have not been encouraged at church....quite the opposite.

Of course, I can only give my experiences.  But, I never had a lesson discussing polygamy in all of the years of growing up in the church and I was very active.  

I actually believe it's still not really encouraged (it remains somewhat of an uncomfortable or taboo topic still).  Try bringing up the word during a lesson on Joseph Smith.  Yes, there are the essays and they are being more utilized, but we will have to see how many actual discussions or lessons are written and then taught for the members to teach, receive and discuss.  That remains to be seen, IMO.  For sure more and more members are becoming more informed and aware of how it was lived.  That's a good thing too.  The essays are a huge step in the right direction.

Also, I try not to get into the blame game.  I understand why it was not taught for so many years and why it is still a sensitive topic.  I acknowledge the information was always there for anyone who wanted to dig, research and study it.  But that's quite different from claiming that "the church has always taught about polygamy".

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by ALarson

[clarkgoble]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

The original edition of Church History in the Fullness of Time (published around 1990 iirc had Louisa Beaman listed at least.  I will try and remember to check for others.  Iirc, the manual used previously (my husband had it in college, Barrett iirc) had more info.

I remember it being in a lot of the manuals in the 80's and 90's when I was young. There were tensions of course since that was the time when you had the Oaks/Packer disagreements over teaching such things. But towards the end of his life apparently Packer came around to Oak's view. But even ignoring the controversial issue situation, manuals in many ways were better. There was a two week class for PH & RS on The King Follet Discourse as I recall. If I wasn't so swamped I'd go up to the BYU Library and scan in a bunch of the pages on the old manuals since the topic comes up so often. Alas I'm behind in so much. (I can post here just because I do a minute here and a minute there)

45 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No where there does it even specifically state that Joseph lived polygamy or encourage a discussion on polygamy (it's stating why it is not to be discussed) . my".

It wants just relevant doctrines, true, but everyone had that manual and it spends a whole paragraph on it. It's disagree it doesn't say Joseph lived polygamy. It said he learned about it in 1831 and that he taught it and there were many marriages. i.e. he lived it. I'd have a hard time believing someone who read that and came away thinking Joseph didn't live polygamy.

Quote

So no, polygamy has not always been taught and discussions have not been encouraged at church....quite the opposite.

I certainly agree polygamy hasn't been discussed at church. I actually pretty well agreed with that until people started leaving over the issue at which point I thought an inoculation strategy was wise. But again you are taking "teach" to simply mean lessons in Church. I think that's an unfair criteria.

Quote

Try bringing up the word during a lesson on Joseph Smith. 

I've mentioned it regularly during the times I taught from the manual. Of course I didn't get into the nuances. I've not taught Sunday School in my current ward, but back in my singles ward it was regularly discussed when D&C 132 was taught and when the martyrdom was taught.

Quote

 I acknowledge the information was always there for anyone who wanted to dig, research and study it.  But that's quite different from claiming that "the church has always taught about polygamy".

Well you didn't have to really dig. You just had to read the Ensign or take an Institute/Seminary class. That's why I don't think I agree with your use of "teach."

Also, while it wasn't in the Joseph Smith manual, it certainly was in the manuals for other figures like John Taylor, Joseph F. Smith or Wilfred Woodruff. Again they don't get into the details and there's not a whole lesson dedicated to the topic. But if you did the readings you'd know they were practicing it.

I just don't think you can say the Church never taught they practiced polygamy. It's overwhelmingly the case they did. Now bring up polandry or teen brides and I'll fully agree with you. But the only way to make it through Church not knowing there was polygamy was to actively put your head in the sand. 

Edited September 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[why me]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

There is not much information given on Joseph's polygamy in that manual.... only one and even that is very vague.  "A few women"?  No one could read that and get a realistic picture of Joseph marrying over 30 women.  And the women's names very definitely need to be a part of the discussion.  You say there are "too many"?  That's a ridiculous reason to give to keep them nameless and faceless.   They all have incredible stories to tell too and should be named.

This is the only thing mentioned about Joseph' polygamy in this manual that I could find:

From that, members could just continue believing that Joseph married a few older widows to help them out.  That paragraph does nothing to teach what really occurred with polygamy in Nauvoo.  

If a teacher sticks to using the church essays on this topic when teaching about polygamy, they could lead some excellent discussions.  But not just the information from the manual above.

If that's an example of you showing that the church has always taught about polygamy, it's not a very good one, IMO

Several women are several women. How many are several? In a teaching manual, the names of the women are not that important. What is the teacher supposed to do with the names of the women? Introduce them on the whiteboard? When it comes to history, one must read books about the history that one wants to read. Of course, the church could write a 1000 page history book that could be studied in sunday school for those who are interested in history. But now we have the JSP and among other things. Members could go there for more information. Does the catholic church have their entire history on their official vatican web page? Or does the lutheran church? I don't think so. Why should the lds church publish the comprehensive church history book? So, critics could disagree with the interpretation of the facts?