Trib article about the church's recent changes of it's polygamy cartoons for Primary children.

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So what else from Doctrine and Covenants 132 should we toss out?

If it wasn't from God the RLDS were right this entire time and I would have to double-back again and endure their endless arguments, divisions, and lack of any significant progress. I would also have to accept as fact that we, with our dead, have been rejected and the Restoration ended at the death of Hyrum and Joseph.

No, there really is no alternative. Either the Church is true with it's stalwart pioneer "polygamists" doing what the Lord instructed or it's not. If this isn't the true Church, there is nothing else out there and I should just join some of the participants here in their rejection of God and any real significant purpose to life.

That I refuse to do.

There are many faithful LDS out there that don't believe polygamy was started with Joseph Smith. They think it was Brigham Young who started it. Jeremy Hoop, male lead in "Charly" and Michelle Stone. I like them both. But I don't know that I believe they're right on this.

Here's a couple of them: 

 

Edited February 24, 2025 by Tacenda

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Raingirl said:

Without it, there is no workaround for eternal marriage for widowers.  They would be doomed to a life without sex.  Can’t have that, can we?

There would be the possibility of having time only marriages with widows…unless I am misunderstanding your premises (if men could only be sealed once as women were, they would not be as attractive as mates to faithful never married, never sealed women…similar to how previously sealed women can find it difficult to remarry in the Church to never married, never sealed men).

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Fair enough, but anyone who believes that must contend with the fact that actual, real, live, flesh-and-blood human beings resulted from it.

Your point eludes me here.  If you have already addressed this, feel free to ignore.

[Buckeye]

5 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So what else from Doctrine and Covenants 132 should we toss out?

If it wasn't from God the RLDS were right this entire time and I would have to double-back again and endure their endless arguments, divisions, and lack of any significant progress. I would also have to accept as fact that we, with our dead, have been rejected and the Restoration ended at the death of Hyrum and Joseph.

No, there really is no alternative. Either the Church is true with it's stalwart pioneer "polygamists" doing what the Lord instructed or it's not. If this isn't the true Church, there is nothing else out there and I should just join some of the participants here in their rejection of God and any real significant purpose to life.

That I refuse to do.

It’s quite possible to believe the church’s core truth claims but not believe that every doctrine taught by church leaders has been truth revealed from God. I’ve been in that position for decades, held a recommend and leadership calling the entire time, raised 5 children in the church who have all served missions and married in the temple (or are planning to when they’re old enough). I’m far from alone. I’d wager every ward has multiple families like mine. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

19 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I really don't have a dog in this fight.  The fallout from Smith's and other leaders' polygamy continues to this day.  And it is anything but positive.

Yep, nothing good has come out of "Mormonism"- nothing but pure unadulterated evil. It should probably be outlawed- Gov. Boggs was ahead of his time.

😐

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

It’s quite possible to believe the church’s core truth claims but not believe that every doctrine taught by church leaders has been truth revealed from God. I’ve been in that position for decades, held a recommend and leadership calling the entire time, raised 5 children in the church who have all served missions and married in the temple (or are planning to when they’re old enough). I’m far from alone. I’d wager every ward has multiple families like mine. 

Again, I ask, what else from Doctrine and Covenants 132 should we toss? Or is it that we keep what you like (eternal marriage) but toss what you don't like (plural marriage)? 

Maybe we could have a Church wide vote on controversial issues and whatever the general membership decides should happen? 

[ZealouslyStriving]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

There are many faithful LDS out there that don't believe polygamy was started with Joseph Smith. They think it was Brigham Young who started it. Jeremy Hoop, male lead in "Charly" and Michelle Stone. I like them both. But I don't know that I believe they're right on this.

Here's a couple of them: 

 

You seem to think I am unaware of Michelle Stone and her recycled RLDS arguments (I hope she gives Richard and Pamela Price credit for doing the hard work). I will remind the board again that I was with the Restoration Branches for several years.

Edited February 24, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[CV75]

57 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, when I posted the opening statement I did feel funny calling it a cartoon and couldn't think of another word or phrase for it. So said it like the article's heading.

I'm not sure what else you could call it, considering the OP is about the SLT article!  

Edited February 24, 2025 by CV75

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Thank you, I should have been more detailed. I just wish it wasn't in anything for the children. But that's just me. 

Then as youth or young adults, they get shocked and feel betrayed because they were unaware of it.

Lack of awareness of Joseph Smith’s plural marriage did not help you from what I could tell over the years.  Granted, there was still the presence of Utah polygamy that you were aware of, so it’s not a perfect comparison. 

I am assuming your problem with the history of plural marriage based on what you have said before is acceptance of it may lead to more acceptance of abuse?  Or is it something else?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

There are many faithful LDS out there that don't believe polygamy was started with Joseph Smith. They think it was Brigham Young who started it. Jeremy Hoop, male lead in "Charly" and Michelle Stone. I like them both. But I don't know that I believe they're right on this.

I am not sure “faithful LDS” covers many when they start going down the road that there was a conspiracy with Brigham.  They may have originally been faithful LDS and may be faithful to certain practices and beliefs of the Restored Gospel, but “LDS” covers more than just the time period of Joseph Smith…and from what I have seen with the little research I have made into Stone’s ideas, she is ignoring evidence that does not support her ideas and putting some others together in unlikely ways…

But it’s not a unique practice as church leadership historically haven’t been precise in how history is presented either….understandably so as ‘history’ wasn’t done the same way in the 1800’s as it’s done now.  Plus later church leaders (1900s) were not unusual in idealizing the earlier era, they weren’t historians but clergy and lay clergy at that.  I think we got into trouble when certain leaders treated the idealization of Sunday worship as what should be practiced in every aspect of life, including historical, social, and scientific study and viewed other approaches as apostate or heretical and wanted all to support the dominant narrative as if it had always been the dominant narrative (such as treatment of evolution, evidence of varying ideas on it among earlier leaders was lacking in church curriculum for example…probably oversimplifying the issue here).

Edited February 24, 2025 by Calm

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then as youth or young adults, they get shocked and feel betrayed because they were unaware of it.

Lack of awareness of Joseph Smith’s plural marriage did not help you from what I could tell over the years.  Granted, there was still the presence of Utah polygamy that you were aware of, so it’s not a perfect comparison. 

I am assuming your problem with the history of plural marriage based on what you have said before is acceptance of it may lead to more acceptance of abuse?  Or is it something else?

I guess I think it's information that might confuse a child. 

[webbles]

53 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

There are many faithful LDS out there that don't believe polygamy was started with Joseph Smith. They think it was Brigham Young who started it. Jeremy Hoop, male lead in "Charly" and Michelle Stone. I like them both. But I don't know that I believe they're right on this.

I wish Jeremy Hoop would actually write something.  He's done several videos related to polygamy but I haven't found anything written.  The video format is not really great when dealing with polygamy.  It doesn't allow indicating the sources so it takes a while to figure out exactly what he is pointing to.  I've found a few cases of where he misread the original sources that give a different meaning than he said it had.

His argument that the William Clayton journals being doctored is an interesting one.  I hope the church releases them at some point so we can determine if they really are.  Currently, there are very few people who looked at the originals and they generally don't talk about it (because they signed some form of NDA).  And most of our information isn't from these people directly but from notes that they took and weren't supposed to be leaked.  So, determining if the journals are doctored right now is difficult.  For Hoop's theory, the journals have to be doctored.  There's a few other contemporary evidence of polygamy, but Clayton's journals are the best.

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Again, I ask, what else from Doctrine and Covenants 132 should we toss? Or is it that we keep what you like (eternal marriage) but toss what you don't like (plural marriage)? 

Maybe we could have a Church wide vote on controversial issues and whatever the general membership decides should happen? 

Not really addressing your comments, but I would love to see the D&C structured to separate out the parts that were given at different times rather than the combined version.  For example, Section 131 could have subsection A, B, and C, each with a different heading for time and place and especially context and source of info (was it dictation, was it an attempt at quoting, was it a summary from notes, was it edited and approved by the person receiving the revelation or published without that input or even after their death, etc).

From my view not all D&C sections were created equal.  We don’t accept the King Follett Discourse as canon for good reason.  Being able to differentiate between what was actually taught by our prophets from what was thought to be taught might make a difference imo.

https://doctrineandcovenantscentral.org/historical-context/dc-131/

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess I think it's information that might confuse a child. 

Such as? (Sincere question as trying to understand the nuances of your position)

Edited February 24, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Yep, nothing good has come out of "Mormonism"- nothing but pure unadulterated evil. It should probably be outlawed- Gov. Boggs was ahead of his time.

😐

 

That is not what Sunstoned said.  It is not helpful to misrepresent criticism nor does it make your criticism of their criticism more credible.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

And it is anything but positive.

@Calm

That's what he said about the fruits of plural marriage, not I.

Edited February 24, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[ZealouslyStriving]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not really addressing your comments, but I would love to see the D&C structured to separate out the parts that were given at different times rather than the combined version.  For example, Section 131 could have subsection A, B, and C, each with a different heading for time and place and especially context and source of info (was it dictation, was it an attempt at quoting, was it a summary from notes, was it edited and approved by the person receiving the revelation or published without that input or even after their death, etc.)

I wouldn't object to making time and place of individual parts of the revelations more clear.

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

From my view not all D&C sections were created equal.  We don’t accept the King Follett Discourse as canon for good reason.

I'd vote it in. 😀

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Being able to differentiate between what was actually taught by our prophets from what was thought to be taught might make a difference imo.

 

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://doctrineandcovenantscentral.org/historical-context/dc-131/

Good article!

Edited February 24, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Tacenda]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then as youth or young adults, they get shocked and feel betrayed because they were unaware of it.

Lack of awareness of Joseph Smith’s plural marriage did not help you from what I could tell over the years.  Granted, there was still the presence of Utah polygamy that you were aware of, so it’s not a perfect comparison. 

I am assuming your problem with the history of plural marriage based on what you have said before is acceptance of it may lead to more acceptance of abuse?  Or is it something else?

I guess to a young child they might not understand that someone might marry more than one woman, as in JS's case. And for those that had never learned of it before and say they are age eleven might wonder why they hadn't been taught it before. It's opening a can of worms more or less. And maybe, just maybe, some of their parents might be aghast at it. They might even have not read the semi recent "Saints" books.

The only thing I heard growing up was about BY's polygamy and his marrying widows because they needed to be taken care of especially while crossing the plains. So I just sort of let it go. But I don't remember hearing it as a young child. More or less I was oblivious to it until while on vacation (I was maybe 18 or 19) with my sister and her husband in Hawaii, someone asked if we were polygamist because we're from Utah. Then it kind of stuck out in my brain on the origins but I never really researched it. Not until I was on the computer and saw in my late forties the website listing JS's wives come up and then my seeing the ages etc. and that some were married already and that's when my life changed, not for the better really. But understand that the church really did want us to read our church history back then, and even coupled that with having a strong testimony and to always work on it. But I'd always think, I don't need to do that I already believed it no matter what. So it probably would have helped had I known it at least as a teen or slightly earlier. But I do see the church is trying..

To answer your question, finally, I think some evil men might start churches up after reading about JS's plural marriages. But the first I saw how evil it was, was while taking piano lessons and my teacher had the book, "Escape" by Carolyn Jessop and I had seen it lying on the table by the piano and she may have told me about it (I didn't last long as a student, dummy me for trying to learn piano in my older age, it didn't work when I was an eight year old, haha). It was probably right around learning the truth of JS's polygamy. And that led me to reading books or listening to podcasts of the atrocities that occurred in some of the break off non LDS groups such as the FLDS and the Kingston group. So I do tend to think of the bad fruit of polygamy from those things.   

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I wouldn't object to making time and place of individual parts of the revelations more clear.

I'd vote it in. 😀

 

 

I remember during my faith crisis, going to Nauvoo with my husband and sitting in the exact spot, I think, and saw the reenactment of the King Follett Discourse. I'd have to check and see if they still do this. I was surprised it was portrayed for all to see. I thought it might have been more hidden. But thought transparency was good. But nothing in each of the homes or presentations otherwise showed that JS was a polygamist. Or had plural marriages. So that was too bad, because I'd think the wives should have been included and respected for what I think was a sacrifice along with Emma's sacrifice. Just as I think they should have left BY's portrait on the wall with all of his wives in the Brigham Young home. Maybe they put it back? I remember as a child seeing it and then many years later going there and it not being there anymore. Or talked about. 

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

@Calm

That's what he said about the fruits of plural marriage, not I.

But not “Mormonism”.

[ZealouslyStriving]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I remember during my faith crisis, going to Nauvoo with my husband and sitting in the exact spot, I think, and saw the reenactment of the King Follett Discourse. I'd have to check and see if they still do this. I was surprised it was portrayed for all to see. I thought it might have been more hidden. But thought transparency was good. But nothing in each of the homes or presentations otherwise showed that JS was a polygamist. Or had plural marriages. So that was too bad, because I'd think the wives should have been included and respected for what I think was a sacrifice along with Emma's sacrifice. Just as I think they should have left BY's portrait on the wall with all of his wives in the Brigham Young home. Maybe they put it back? I remember as a child seeing it and then many years later going there and it not being there anymore. Or talked about. 

I think it was downplayed because of an unhealthy obsession with trying to get along with the religious right. Hopefully, we have learned that they don't want us on their playground and we go back to being unapologetically unique. But, alas, trying to cuddle up to progressives seems to be the new obsession in many parts of the Church. We seem to easily forget we are sent to teach the world, not be taught by it.

Edited February 24, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[webbles]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I remember during my faith crisis, going to Nauvoo with my husband and sitting in the exact spot, I think, and saw the reenactment of the King Follett Discourse. I'd have to check and see if they still do this. I was surprised it was portrayed for all to see. I thought it might have been more hidden. But thought transparency was good. But nothing in each of the homes or presentations otherwise showed that JS was a polygamist. Or had plural marriages. So that was too bad, because I'd think the wives should have been included and respected for what I think was a sacrifice along with Emma's sacrifice. Just as I think they should have left BY's portrait on the wall with all of his wives in the Brigham Young home. Maybe they put it back? I remember as a child seeing it and then many years later going there and it not being there anymore. Or talked about. 

Now that the church owns the Joseph Smith properties in Nauvoo, they do mention polygamy.  I visited Nauvoo after the purchase and I thought to myself that Joseph Smith III is spinning in his grave over what is being said in his house.  Back when the RLDS/Community of Christ owned the properties, there was no way polygamy would ever be mentioned.  That's probably why you didn't hear anything about polygamy.  The other buildings that the church did own doesn't make much sense to discuss polygamy.  Most of the polygamy events happened in the Joseph Smith properties (especially the Red Brick Store).

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

But not “Mormonism”.

What we have as "Mormonism" comes directly from the stalwart women and men who faithfully practiced plural marriage. We can speculate all day long if it would have gone the same without it (which I don't believe), but the fact is that it didn't and we have what we have because of the sacrifices and faithfulness of "polygamists".

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But understand that the church really did want us to read our church history back then

I don’t think they cared that much about us actually studying church history in the 80s and early 90s if the Church manuals for institute are indicative.  

My husband took church history at BYU in the mid 70s and the manual for each semester was about twice as thick as the next version, Church History in the Fullness of Times, which covered both semester (so at least 4 times the text).  Polygamy for Joseph Smith was barely mentioned (his supposed first wife, Louisa Beaman, who likely wasn’t first in really as her brother had a bad memory with dates) in the later volume.  It was much more detailed in my husband’s earlier texts including Emma’s troubles with it.  

That may be one reason there was a significant drop in official discussion of Joseph’s plural marriages…Emma was being rehabilitated during that time iirc, her reputation changing to devoted, ever faithful wife, leader of the RS, Elect Lady and Joseph devoted husband (which I think they both were, but those were only some of the sides of their relationship)

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I think it was downplayed because of an unhealthy obsession with trying to get along with the religious right.

I think it was more likely in response to the Sexual Revolution (at least in terms of speeding up the distancing that started in order to get statehood, etc).  The Church was definitely not supportive of the kind of sexual experimentation that went along with that and if we had continued to heavily portray polygamy as God given and even better at times than monogamy, that could have easily been modified as supportive of less traditional sex models in general.

I think the religious right didn’t have a significant presence in our list of trying to get along until perhaps the ERA, but I could be wrong.  I am going off of memory and prior to the ERA, all I remember was talking about the antimormon efforts of the more conservative Evangelicals.

Edited February 24, 2025 by Calm