Teach children about plural marriage?

[JAHS]

55 minutes ago, Senator said:

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

Apparently it is what God wanted church members to do at the time it was practiced. 

Ha!  If only that sentence was included in the lesson.

That was in the lesson. Maybe not in those words.
"A few years later, the Lord told Joseph to marry other women."
"The Lord told Joseph that His people should only be in plural marriages if He commands it." (Which he did in D&C 132)

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

That was in the lesson. Maybe not in those words.
"A few years later, the Lord told Joseph to marry other women."
"The Lord told Joseph that His people should only be in plural marriages if He commands it." (Which he did in D&C 132)

Should be careful there. False doctrine. Read D&C 132. He was only allowed to marry virgin women. God got very specific about virginity in there. Virginity was clearly very important. Thankfully all the plural marriages were to unspoiled virgins and….

*reads who Joseph Smith married*

…….oh boy. Joseph going to hell.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

That was in the lesson. Maybe not in those words.
"A few years later, the Lord told Joseph to marry other women."
"The Lord told Joseph that His people should only be in plural marriages if He commands it." (Which he did in D&C 132)

I didn't read the whole lesson, but this is a bit worrisome as some might be led to believe this is the true way to God. And start up polygamy or join a group that lives it. I think the church should have kept silent about it for self preservation, honestly. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Should be careful there. False doctrine. Read D&C 132. He was only allowed to marry virgin women. God got very specific about virginity in there. Virginity was clearly very important. Thankfully all the plural marriages were to unspoiled virgins and….

*reads who Joseph Smith married*

…….oh boy. Joseph going to hell.

Apparently you missed these verses:

"41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery."

 

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think polygamy is often used/exploited by critics of the Church (utually former Latter-day Saints) for its "shock value." 

It has shock value exactly because it is shocking. Especially as one drills into the sordid way Joseph and crew lied about it and practiced it by taking young wives, deceiving his wife and taking other men's wives' as a plural wife. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Ironically, these same critics are often totally on board with sex outside of marriage, using mind-altering substances, and so on.  Such folks want to at once feign the role of pearl-clutching moralists when it comes to polygamy, and then at the same time bragging up if-it-feels-good-do-it hedonism as to casual sex, booze, MJ, etc.  This FB statement from John Dehlin was . . .

This is a pretty broad brush and patently unfair. I know a number of disaffected members, myself and my wife among them that certainly do not fall into your sordid attempt to paint disaffected members and mostly hedonistic humans participating in all sorts of debauchery.  But there is a difference between what consenting adults decide to do in their relationships and a so called prophet using his religious authority to convince women to marry him as well as his successors teaching such a practice was necessary for exaltation.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

 

 

Boy, the "Ex-Mormon community" sure sounds . . . not pleasant.

More broad brushing. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Anyhoo, polygamy is part of our doctrine and our history.  I think we need to teach it in context.  For that matter, i think we also need to teach about animal sacrifice, as that too can be difficult for modern kids to grasp.  We should also teach about and caution against presentism.

Presentism has nothing to do with it. Polygamy was repulsive to the Victorian standards of 1840 USA as well. 

As for the the way the church present this for children, it is pretty awful and paints poor Joseph as really sad that God commended him to do something so awful and horrible. Sure. 😏  Just more whitewashing and dissembling  the church seems to excel at.  Personally though, I think stories about this for young children are not necessary. But yes teach it to young teens up and teach it honestly.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Apparently you missed these verses:

"41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery."

 

Those verses are about polyandry plural marriage though. Nothing in there about a man marrying multiple women. Just two bros sharing a wife. Possibly having some brother-husband time together on the side. You know, manly stuff!

Also God got really misogynistic in there. When women break the law…….destroyed! Adultery? Destroyed! Not letting your husband take another wife? Oh you better believe you are getting destroyed. If you are a man who commits adultery…….not destroyed? Huh…..

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, blackstrap said:

Mature minds often have difficulty with the doctrine and behaviors regarding polygamy. What age group are these current lessons aimed at ? 

They are written for Children. Think Illustrated Book of Mormon Stories.

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

John Dehlin just did a podcast called

Mormon Church Now Teaching Polygamy to Children: Is it Grooming? | Ep. 1974

I wouldn't call in grooming; just teaching history. But of course "grooming" is a better shock word to get attention.

I would not either but the idea is it teaches kids at a young age to submit to a religious authority even when that authority is telling you to do something that screams out against your internal morals. Did you listen to the podcast?

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

If we don't teach it, we're hiding things- if we do we're grooming.

Tell me again why we give 💩💩 what our haters think?

Nah it really is not quite as simplistic as you want to make it. But I do expect this from you.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

Apparently it is what God wanted church members to do at the time it was practiced. 

Or maybe not and Joseph just told them that.

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I would not either but the idea is it teaches kids at a young age to submit to a religious authority even when that authority is telling you to do something that screams out against your internal morals. Did you listen to the podcast?

100 percent! Currently watching a new documentary on the FLDS on Hulu. And it's devastating. I hope young children are not being taught this history. Let them be innocent.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Senator said:

But this is not what the lesson is just doing. The intent is also to imbue doctrinal principles. Such as obedience to the Lord's commands through the prophet, regardless of the difficulty.

This. All. Day. Long.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I knew about it as a kid and it was no big deal because it was just family history (my grandmother has an “auntie”).  Since we got asked “how many wives does your dad have” a couple of times, it was a good thing we knew.

I think to teach I would use our family stories, if they live in Utah take them to the gravesites.  I don’t tend to be very fond of church stories for kids, but scripture stories are okay.  This seems to follow that style….but boy, does it leave stuff out and make it appear that even though it was hard it typically worked out fine for the families.  I would definitely supplement with first a brief summary of how some people messed it up just as happens today with monogamy and share some examples.  I might even include one story from my great great grandmother to show how easy it is to slip into an us vs them POV instead of loving our neighbours where she ranted some about how the monogamist wives looked down on the polygamist wives as poor things while she saw the monogamist women were lazy homemakers who couldn’t even be bothered to sweep their front steps.

I knew about polygamy is a child as well. It is always a puzzlement to me when people say they never knew. It is right there in D&C 132.

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Nah it really is not quite as simplistic as you want to make it. But I do expect this from you.

The second part of my post was a bit much- I will make a correction. 🙏

[Tacenda]

Just now, Teancum said:

I knew about polygamy is a child as well. It is always a puzzlement to me when people say they never knew. It is right there in D&C 132.

 

I'm surprised at my being so naive on the subject. I doubt very much they discuss much on D&C 132 or back then anyway, in Gospel Doctrine class. And apparently my family wasn't that great at scripture reading. And I was in many callings that took me out of Gospel Doctrine. Because I was unaware of JS living polygamy/polyandry up until I was in my forties!!

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, Teancum said:

They are written for Children. Think Illustrated Book of Mormon Stories.

They are in the style of the other scripture story books they have been using since 80s iirc as I am pretty sure I bought them for my son, at least the BoM one.  They also had videos of them.  They don’t fill in the details as much as illustrated stories did (I had several argu….discussions with junior primary kids about what people actually said and did in the scriptures because of the commercial products).

They are no more indoctrinating than any other scripture or sermon imo.  It is wise imo for a parent to first read them just like the scriptures with the child a couple of times and talk about how obedience to what others call commandments and good principles is best performed….praying for confirmation this is what God wants you to do, especially if something seems wrong to you; talking to those you trust to get their POV; teaching your kids that even though you want the best for them, sometimes you make mistakes and church leaders are the same way, etc.

Edited December 17, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

doubt very much they discuss much on D&C 132 or back then anyway

There was usually counsel to steer discussion away from plural marriage iirc in teacher’s manuals back then as not the topic for the lesson, etc, so I doubt it got more than a line if that in the student Sunday School little pamphlets for the reading assignments, but if you read the section including the heading as you were supposed to do for that week’s lesson, it is surprising to me so many didn’t register that Joseph practiced it.

Edited December 17, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Senator said:

Do you think this lesson was an exercise for children to engage in critical thinking?   To come to their own conclusions?
I'm not trying to incriminate, but spur thought, and I appreciate your input.

I haven't even clicked on that link.  I'm just answering the question in the OP, and was responding to your reply based on that question and not on the link-

Is this a good idea or harmful to teach them about [plural marriage] when they are so young?

While I think it's a good idea to teach children about plural marriage, that doesn't mean that I think there are no good or bad ways to go about it.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Should be careful there. False doctrine. Read D&C 132. He was only allowed to marry virgin women. God got very specific about virginity in there. Virginity was clearly very important. Thankfully all the plural marriages were to unspoiled virgins and….

*reads who Joseph Smith married*

…….oh boy. Joseph going to hell.

Yes, it is very weird to me that if Joseph really wanted to fool around with any woman he wanted, including other men’s wives (outside of Fanny, the first women he was sealed to were pregnant or widows, which is another weirdness), he would include that part in his counterfeit scripture. (Just in case someone misunderstands, I do not believe it is fake scripture, I think he actually got revelation…exactly what is less certain to me, but 132 is likely how he conveyed it to others).

Edited December 17, 2024 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

For that matter, i think we also need to teach about animal sacrifice, as that too can be difficult for modern kids to grasp. 

Beyond its theological meaning, which most adults and even many Jews don't fully understand, or what a blood oath or a blood atonement is. I was shocked as an adult to learn the Temple was sacrificing animals all day, every day. They weren't burning them, they were cooking them, and most domestic meat consumed by the population came from religious sacrifices. Not only, but especially during key festivals and rituals. Meat in ancient Israel was often a sacred commodity as having them available for animal sacrifice were central to Jewish life. Various types of sacrifices, including burnt offerings, peace offerings, and sin offerings. These sacrifices often involved domestic animals like sheep, goats, cattle, and some birds. Once the rituals were completed, portions of the meat were typically given to the priests and the people who brought the offering, and the leftover parts might be burned as offerings to God.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Pyreaux

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think polygamy is often used/exploited by critics of the Church (utually former Latter-day Saints) for its "shock value."  Ironically, these same critics are often totally on board with sex outside of marriage, using mind-altering substances, and so on

Or maybe the problem critics have is the lack of consent all around with Joseph’s practice of polygamy. Lies to his wife. Lies to church membership. The “lord” threatening Emma with destruction if she doesn’t get on board. Marrying the teenagers (his foster daughters?) that live in his household. Marrying people already married to others. But keep on pointIng out the “irony” lol. 

Edited December 18, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[blackstrap]

One does not have to go to polygamy to be told that one should follow the command of God even if one is told to do something that really goes against one's moral beliefs. The story of Nephi and Laban in the first chapters of the BoM brings that message clearly. IIRC Hugh Nibley tells the story of one of his foreign students ( Arab I think ) asking why Nephi even hesitated to kill Laban. In his culture , the action would have been seen as not only acceptable but required .

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

IIRC Hugh Nibley tells the story of one of his foreign students ( Arab I think ) asking why Nephi even hesitated to kill Laban. In his culture , the action would have been seen as not only acceptable but required .

My memory confirms this (Arabic student).

Edited December 18, 2024 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Or maybe the problem critics have is the lack of consent all around with Joseph’s practice of polygamy. Lies to his wife. Lies to church membership. The “lord” threatening Emma with destruction if she doesn’t get on board. Marrying his teenagers (his foster daughters?) that live in his household. Marrying people already married to others. But keep on pointIng out the “irony” lol. 

"mock lol* Or maybe your "truth" is possibly the lie. Emma never said she was unaware of any wives of Joseph. 132 seems to be about her own marriage, about her remaining faithful, etc. There's no proof for or against whether these were a marriage with sexual implications, or just as a sealing. Some definitely were not. As an ex-member, you should know, history isn't necessarily as clear as we like it to be for teaching purposes, though that wouldn't stop you.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Emma never said she was unaware of any wives of Joseph.

What do you think of the story of the mock sealing to two young women he was already sealed to so Emma wouldn’t get upset when she opened up enough to choose his wives for herself?