The First Vision and "Hiding History"

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I was talking about growing up. A typical Sunday School lesson on Joseph Smith did not include the topic of polygamy. And, as mentioned, the issue of polygamy was brought up many times in church as I grew up. 

To note also, I find D&C 132 to have been given given in order to establish the eternal importance of marriage, not polygamy. 

D&C 132 pertains to both topics.  From the header:

Quote

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage. 

Verse 1 also speaks of the Lord "justif{ying}" Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon "as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines."  Verses 61-66 also pertain specifically to polygamy.

I think the presence of polygamy in D&C 132 is hard to deny.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Verses 1-3 disagree with you.

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines— 2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter. 3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

I'd ssu that us part of the ooverall message on Section 132. There is no polygamist obligation for all for exaltation. There was for Joseph Smith and a few others, but not for you or me or over 99% of Latter-day Saints (God's covenant people) 

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

D&C 132 pertains to both topics.  From the header:

Verse 1 also speaks of the Lord "justif{ying}" Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon "as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines."  Verses 61-66 also pertain specifically to polygamy.

I think the presence of polygamy in D&C 132 is hard to deny.

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course polygamy is part of Section 132, just not the primary reason it was given. I view that reason was to set the "new and everlasting covenant" for all to enter. This covenant is for man and woman to be sealed together forever. This is a must for all whereas polygamy was / will be a must for a very few amount if people. All may enter into polygamist marriages so far as the Lord permits it but it having an obligatory nature was only to Joseph Smith and a few others.

That's how I read it. What do you say?

[JLHPROF]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your critique doesn't even make sense.  On the one hand, you assert that the Church has sought to keep the Saints in the dark ("obfuscate"), but here you are pointing to "members who failed to do as recommended above {namely, study the Restored Gospel}."  

So which is it?  Is the Church encouraging its members to study the Gospel on their own, or not?

It makes perfect sense.
The Church can and has both encouraged members to study the gospel on their own AND allowed or even provided incorrect beliefs to be held by its members who don't study.

For example - yes, the Church now acknowledges the seer stone Joseph used in translating the Book of Mormon.
Yet in the primary manual https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-5-doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history/lesson-5?lang=eng it is still just the Urim & Thummim.

So here we have children being taught that the Book of Mormon was translated with the Urim & Thummim.  
The Church does encourage personal study, but that doesn't change the source of the incorrect belief.  When these children become adults and either through personal study or anti-mormon efforts find out about seer stones that troubles them.  Two sentences in the Primary manual would resolve this particular point and prevent another generation growing up believing the incomplete narrative.
The same can be said of plural marriage, especially Joseph's involvement with it. 

Or more to my point and your point, many enter adulthood not having bothered to study (through no fault of the Church) and then find out what the Church taught them in Primary wasn't the full story.
The Church in my opinion bears some responsibility for a circumstance like this when they could easily teach of the Urim & Thummim AND the Seer stone.  
And the member that fails to heed the Church recommendation for study likewise bears some responsibility.  

I will not absolve the Church of their failure to correct incomplete/inaccurate teachings, or especially allowing false beliefs to be maintained as the most staunch defenders would have me do.
Nor will I absolve the members who fail to study as the critics would have me do for not realizing there was more to the story despite being told to study.

Quote

The Church has, by and large, worked hard to keep the teachings of the Church "pure."  Ironically, it has succeeded by, in large part, the efforts to "correlate" the Church's official manuals and materials, which is another gripe the critics crank out on a regular basis.

Agreed.  The problem with correlation is it has made some members afraid to read "non-correlated" material, despite the Church never insisting on such a limit.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Of course polygamy is part of Section 132, just not the primary reason it was given. I view that reason was to set the "new and everlasting covenant" for all to enter. This covenant is for man and woman to be sealed together forever. This is a must for all whereas polygamy was / will be a must for a very few amount if people. All may enter into polygamist marriages so far as the Lord permits it but it having an obligatory nature was only to Joseph Smith and a few others.

That's how I read it. What do you say?

I'll go along with that.  The "new and everlasting covenant" necessarily involves marriage, both monogamous and polygamous.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Of course polygamy is part of Section 132, just not the primary reason it was given. I view that reason was to set the "new and everlasting covenant" for all to enter. This covenant is for man and woman to be sealed together forever. This is a must for all whereas polygamy was / will be a must for a very few amount if people. All may enter into polygamist marriages so far as the Lord permits it but it having an obligatory nature was only to Joseph Smith and a few others.

That's how I read it. What do you say?

D&C 132 verses 1&2 specify the reason the revelation was given.  Regardless of whether polygamy applies to us today, or is necessary for exaltation, or even if the entire section isn't about polygamy.
The REASON it was given was the question on polygamy.  Verses one and two make that completely plain.

• 1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—
  2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

That's the reason.  The Lord himself said that was the reason for this revelation/answer to the prayer.
 

 

[Darren10]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'll go along with that.  The "new and everlasting covenant" necessarily involves marriage, both monogamous and polygamous.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, it clearly involves both. I just see obe entering into it as a requirement for exaltation but it does not have to be polygamist. 

On a side note to me one of the most powerful doctrines in that section is the proclamation of damnation upon those who do not enter into it and live by it, free from the sin of murder. This damnation means that they'll be angels and not gods but still in the Celestial Kingdom. In other words, there will be damnation in the Celestial Kingdom. To me this one part of Section 132 helps place perspective on all scriptures and revelations regarding damnation and salvation. That God the Father wants nothing less than Exaltation for all of us and anything less is damnable. If we truly line our wills to the will of the Father (I still got a long way to go on that one) we too should take such a view. Jesus Christ showed us the way to the Father and through Him we can and will make it.  

Enough preaching though, this ain't church nor is it Sunday.

[Darren10]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

D&C 132 verses 1&2 specify the reason the revelation was given.  Regardless of whether polygamy applies to us today, or is necessary for exaltation, or even if the entire section isn't about polygamy.
The REASON it was given was the question on polygamy.  Verses one and two make that completely plain.

• 1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—
  2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

That's the reason.  The Lord himself said that was the reason for this revelation/answer to the prayer.
 

 

That's fine but why was Section 132 given for the world to have? I'm sure there were many prayers God answered to Joseph but are not to be given to the world (as of yet), so why 132?  So that everyone enters into polygamy? 

Also, Sunday School lessons for the youth don't typically focus on any scripture chapter or section. In Seminary however, where we would focus on chapters and sections, I remember polygamy being very much talked about. It was even talked about a lot outside of the official lesson since growing up outside of Chicago I (all of us youth actually)  got a lot of "oh, you're Mormon?" "How many wives are you going to have?" 

Edited November 22, 2017 by Darren10

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It makes perfect sense.
The Church can and has both encouraged members to study the gospel on their own AND allowed or even provided incorrect beliefs to be held by its members who don't study.

Okay.  I wonder how systemic this problem is.  My general sense is . . . not very.  Not much at all, in fact.

Quote

For example - yes, the Church now acknowledges the seer stone Joseph used in translating the Book of Mormon.
Yet in the primary manual https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-5-doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history/lesson-5?lang=eng it is still just the Urim & Thummim.

First, I fail to see the significance.  "Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term 'Urim and Thummim' to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters."  In any event, why is this a material issue?

Second, I wonder if it takes time to revise and update information in the Church's manuals, particularly regarding relatively minor issues.

Third, if this is the most notable example of the Church failing its members...

Quote

So here we have children being taught that the Book of Mormon was translated with the Urim & Thummim.  

Which is manifestly true.  And Joseph Smith also used a seerstone, which he sometimes called "Urim and Thummim."  And the entire process was "by the gift and power of God," which is the material point to be made.

Quote

The Church does encourage personal study, but that doesn't change the source of the incorrect belief.  

It's not incorrect.  It's incomplete.  And it's not "incomplete" in any material sense.

Quote

When these children become adults and either through personal study or anti-mormon efforts find out about seer stones that troubles them.  

Some do, I suppose.  Some don't.  It didn't bother me.  Using an ancient artifact, under the direction and inspiration of God, to "translate" ancient records is materially indistinguishable from using an oval brown stone, under the direction and inspiration of God, to "translate" ancient records.

It is the "gift and power of God" part of the translation process that matters, not the specific details of how that process worked (most of which details we just don't have).

It is the reality of the plates and their authors that matter.

It is the teachings of the translated work that matters.

Quote

Two sentences in the Primary manual would resolve this particular point and prevent another generation growing up believing the incomplete narrative.

Well, no.  The "narrative" presented during the three-hour block will always be truncated.  There will always be details omitted.  There will always be room for people to publicly accuse the church of "hiding" or "lying" about X because detail Y was omitted from a church manual.

Quote

The same can be said of plural marriage, especially Joseph's involvement with it. 

Since when are primary children taught about the details of polygamy?

Quote

Or more to my point and your point, many enter adulthood not having bothered to study (through no fault of the Church) and then find out what the Church taught them in Primary wasn't the full story.

That will always be the case.  Primary lessons are never going to be exhaustive.  Details and further instruction and further study are the responsibility of the parents and, later, the individual.

Quote

The Church in my opinion bears some responsibility for a circumstance like this when they could easily teach of the Urim & Thummim AND the Seer stone.  

As you like.  Seems like nitpicking to me.

Quote

And the member that fails to heed the Church recommendation for study likewise bears some responsibility.  

Most, really.  These days there is no shortage of readily-available information about the Church and its teachings, practices and history.

Quote

I will not absolve the Church of their failure to correct incomplete/inaccurate teachings, or especially allowing false beliefs to be maintained as the most staunch defenders would have me do.

"Absolve?"  It's your responsibility to publicly criticize and find fault with the Church, is it?

Quote

Nor will I absolve the members who fail to study as the critics would have me do for not realizing there was more to the story despite being told to study.

I don't think it's our responsibility to "absolve" other members, either.  We should encourage each other.  Constructive criticism is helpful to some extent.

Quote

Agreed.  The problem with correlation is it has made some members afraid to read "non-correlated" material, despite the Church never insisting on such a limit.

Yes, well, we seem to be improving on that score.  Per Elder Ballard last year (emphases added):

Quote

In a General Authority training meeting, President Gordon B. Hinckley taught on the subject “keeping the doctrine pure and the Church on the right course.” He said, “We cannot be too careful. We must watch that we do not get off [course]. In our efforts to be original and fresh and different, we may teach things which may not be entirely in harmony with the basic doctrines of this the restored Church of Jesus Christ. … We had better be more alert. … We must be watchmen on the tower.”

As Church education moves forward in the 21st century, each of you needs to consider any changes you should make in the way you prepare to teach, how you teach, and what you teach if you are to build unwavering faith in the lives of our precious youth.

Gone are the days when a student asked an honest question and a teacher responded, “Don’t worry about it!” Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue. Gone are the days when students were protected from people who attacked the Church. Fortunately, the Lord provided this timely and timeless counsel to you teachers: “And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.”

This is especially applicable today because not all of your students have the faith necessary to face the challenges ahead and because many of them are already exposed through the Internet to corrosive forces of an increasingly secular world that is hostile to faith, family, and gospel standards. The Internet is expanding its reach across the world into almost every home and into the very hands and minds of your students.

You can help students by teaching them what it means to combine study and faith as they learn. Teach them by modeling this skill and approach in class.

President Harold B. Lee observed:

“We would remind you that the acquiring of knowledge by faith is no easy road to learning. It demands strenuous effort and a continual striving by faith. …

“In short, learning by faith is no task for a lazy man {or woman}. Someone has said, in effect, that such a process requires the bending of the whole soul, the calling up of the depths of the human mind and linking it with God—the right connection must be formed. Then only comes ‘knowledge by faith.’”

Knowledge by faith will produce a pure testimony, and a pure testimony has the power to change lives...

Thanks,

-Smac

[cinepro]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think this is a key point that too many fail to understand. As pertaining to our worship services, we teach (or are expected to teach) Church history not for its own sake but to give context to doctrinal principles and motivational instruction. Whenever our approach gets too academic (and I emphasize again that I’m talking here about Sabbath worship services) we run the risk of neglecting or departing from that end goal. 

I think in principle that sounds good, and it worked up until the internet was invented.  

But in 2017, we need to decide whether Church is going to be the first place that LDS go to learn the history and have invigorating discussion about Church stuff, or the last. 

Because with all due respect, focusing on giving people warm, spiritual feelings for three hours to the exclusion of "Church history" isn't working anymore.

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Because with all due respect, focusing on giving people warm, spiritual feelings for three hours

I'd totally attend that church - where is it?

[blueglass]

When I search on josephsmith.net for Fanny Alger I get "no results"

I think we can agree that a search for Fanny Alger on the entire LDS.org website up until fall 2014 yielded "no results".

Elder Ballard didn't discuss the JSP 1832 first vision footnote on the history of cellophane tape which is scandalous.  8 leaves are still missing from the excision.

Edited November 22, 2017 by blueglass

[Jeanne]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If you think you know it all then the scripture is fulfilled and pride goeth before the fall.

The Lord commands us to search the scriptures and to be ever searching for truth from the best sources we can find. It is in the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and fills our General Conference talks.

I admit I am a bit gobsmacked by the idea that you thought your primary teachers knew it all. Even if they did could they convey it completely to a bunch of rambunctious children.

Oh wow...you know I didn't study scriptures much as a young girl.  I should have...it was not a mandatory thing in my home.  I opened up scriptures when they were assigned in classes and seminary.  But when I reactivated in my adult years...I studied my heart out.  There was  a time when people would come to see me at work and my desk was  opened up to lined scriptures in the B of M...with a Bible too just next to it where I studied and brought together (I thought)..the full understanding of the 12 Tribes and all that went with it.  I give myself an E for effort.  I would not eat until I read at least 2 chapters before every meal...(hey...it works if you are hungry)...and that is what I mean about a thirst for knowledge.  I was keeper...trust and JS just took that it one big swipe and threw it all away.

[Nevo]

As I have read more about the Arrington era, I have been interested (and gratified) to learn that that the the Church's current commitment to openness and transparency had advocates within the Church hierarchy even in the early 1970s.

Several apostles and first presidency members were consistently supportive of the work of the History Division. At the time of Leonard Arrington's call in January 1972, for example, Howard W. Hunter "told him that the Church needed a professionally trained historian and some new histories. The Church was mature enough, Elder Hunter said, that its history should be more open in its approach than it previously had been. He did not believe in suppressing information or hiding documents that were part of our history, and it was in the best interest of the Church to cooperate with scholars in doing honest research."*

James Allen recalled being called to a meeting in May 1974 where he was told that "Church leaders were concerned that the numerous changes in the Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Mormon were worrying Church members. Further, we were told, the First Presidency felt that it would be unwise and improper for the Church to suppress or ignore these matters and that some carefully worded articles should be published. This led to a discussion of other matters as well and, as a result, a few of us were asked to write articles for the Ensign that would deal with various sensitive historical issues in away that could help Church members. I was asked to write an article on changes in Church teachings and practices. This was truly a sensitive issue; and over the next five years, the article went through several evaluations by Correlation and by General Authorities. It was ultimately approved by Elder Bruce R. McConkie and others and published in the Ensign in July 1979."

While a handful of apostles (notably Ezra Taft Benson) took issue with James Allen and Glen Leonard's 1976 The Story of the Latter-day Saints, others privately praised it—including, again, Elder Hunter. Leonard Arrington later observed: "Despite the inevitable wide-ranging diversity of views, the presiding quorums agreed early in church history to maintain a public posture of unanimity so as to minimize dissent and factionalism within the general membership. If any particular person expresses a strong feeling about a particular matter, his views will normally prevail through the courtesy of the others."

When we discuss "the Church" hiding history, I think it's important to recognize that not all leaders agreed with that approach. Harold B. Lee, Spencer W. Kimball, Howard W. Hunter, Gordon B. Hinckley (and Bruce R. McConkie) were among the early supporters of the greater openness that we now enjoy.

__________________________________________

* All quotations come from James B. Allen, "On Writing Church History: Personal Reflections on Writing, Publishing, and Republishing The Story of the Latter-day Saints," Journal of Mormon History 41, no. 1 (January 2015): 45–63. See also, "Balancing Faith and History: A Conversation with James B. Allen."

Edited November 22, 2017 by Nevo

[SeekerB]

23 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Joseph Smith had been sealed to 30+ women.

This didn't seem to bother the saints here in Utah. In the early days, it was common to have themselves sealed to Joseph Smith. Eventually church leaders decided the practice should be stopped.

[HappyJackWagon]

25 minutes ago, SeekerB said:

This didn't seem to bother the saints here in Utah. In the early days, it was common to have themselves sealed to Joseph Smith. Eventually church leaders decided the practice should be stopped.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't know better.

The 30+ women were "married" polygamously/polyandrously to Joseph. So despite his carefully worded denials about having multiple spiritual wives, he most definitely did. Many reported having spousal relations with him. They weren't simply sealed to him after his death. You know that, right?

They used to also do sealings of adoption where men were sealed to Joseph but that practice was later discontinued. Is that what you were thinking of? Those are 2 very different things yet still illustrate the variations in sealing practices.

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It makes perfect sense.
The Church can and has both encouraged members to study the gospel on their own AND allowed or even provided incorrect beliefs to be held by its members who don't study.

For example - yes, the Church now acknowledges the seer stone Joseph used in translating the Book of Mormon.
Yet in the primary manual https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-5-doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history/lesson-5?lang=eng it is still just the Urim & Thummim.

So here we have children being taught that the Book of Mormon was translated with the Urim & Thummim.

First off that's unhelpful because primary isn't the only education these kids get. The seer stone is mentioned in other manuals especially Seminary. Second I think a problem with Church is of course the problem of teachers who often aren't well informed. If you only rely on Church and your "in the air" preconceptions you're apt to be misled in things the Church isn't as focused on. (Like the nuances of history) 

Now I think there are enough erroneous often silly expectations that the Church should do something about it. Thankfully it appears to be doing so. However I think it a bit much to blame the Church for this when, as you note, the church has encouraged members to study on their own. Yet most members don't even do the minimal amount asked such as the readings for Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society along with the Church magazines. It's kind of like the kid who never studies or does his homework blaming the school for his ignorance.

Don't get me wrong, I think there's plenty the Church is at fault for broadly speaking. I think it worried too much about people with weak testimonies who might be hurt by information when they should have focused more on why such people would be hurt by such information. That is there was a caution I think unhelpful for their goals. However all indications are that Elder Oaks and company have changed this after years of trying. We might still have a ways to go, but we're definitely headed in the right direction IMO.

[UtahTexan]

of all the emails I get asking questions, polygamy is the most-asked.

I tell people this:  There are two possibilities with polygamy: It was from God.....or, it was not from God.

If from God, then who am I to dispute it?

If not, then it was a mistake.  If a mistake, does that make Joseph less of a prophet?  No.  Jonah made mistakes, Moses made mistakes, Peter made mistakes, and I could go on.  

So, I do not concern myself with it.  

[SeekerB]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't know better.

I am very much aware of Joseph Smith's marriages. It doesn't bother me, but it seems to bother you.

The 30+ women were "married" polygamously/polyandrously to Joseph. So despite his carefully worded denials about having multiple spiritual wives, he most definitely did. Many reported having spousal relations with him. They weren't simply sealed to him after his death. You know that, right? 

Yes I know this. I'm sure that Joseph did have spousal relations with some of his wives. I certainly hope so, anyway.

They used to also do sealings of adoption where men were sealed to Joseph but that practice was later discontinued. Is that what you were thinking of? Those are 2 very different things yet still illustrate the variations in sealing practices. 

Yes, this is what I was thinking of. Many of the same people who had themselves sealed to Joseph were very aware of his polygamy.