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

[Injeun]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Are you saying that the children of plural marriages did not build the structure that has permitted the Church to grow and prosper in a way unparalleled in the annuals of religion?

Because it was difficult and required sacrifice, it wasn't of God and was a mistake? Why? Because God never asks His people to pass through fiery trials?

So... because some among the Fundamentalists do wrong, we should lie and say it was not commanded of God and a mistake? Seems like a bit of an overreaction. Should we outlaw marriage altogether because some men have performed badly in the duties as husbands?

The Church continues to baptize at a good click, and baptism have began to grow again in the last couple of years in spite of easily accessible information. No, I think critics want the Church to admit it "made a mistake" because they perceive it as some type of victory in their crusade against the Restored Gospel. They would just move to another topic. The attacks won't cease as long as the Church claims exclusivity as the Lord's true Church.

👍

[Tacenda]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

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)

I distinctly remember this during a lesson or right before it, in RS the statement that we should be reading the church history and to work on our testimonies. It had to have been in the early 2000's. And btw, I actually took church history while attending the LDS Business College in the old building before I was married, and didn't hear it then either. I wonder if I did and wasn't listening. I probably didn't even want to take the course, but think it was required or something. And yes you're probably right on the extra focus on just Emma and Joseph. And funnily, in the early 2000's as well, I'd read the Work and the Glory series till clear into the night and couldn't put the book down. It mentioned just a skiff of his being commanded to live polygamy. But it went right over my head apparently. And then it was around 2005/2006 that all heck broke lose the fateful day of seeing the website on my computer of JS's wives.  

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It had to have been in the early 2000's.

It definitely was changing then, maybe even earlier though.  I wasn’t plugged into anything really beyond books, mainly older ones inherited from grandparents and parents when they moved and GospelLink, and what I saw on Sunday and Wednesday night and what handbooks and manuals I was reading in the library when I had nothing to do before 2001 when I went online after losing my talk religion partner, my son, when he went on a mission.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I'd vote it in. 😀

Which version?

[ZealouslyStriving]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Which version?

Take the parts where 2 or 3 out of 3 align and make a composite.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Take the parts where 2 or 3 out of 3 align and make a composite.

Canonized based on notes and likely paraphrases that may or may not be correct interpretations (maybe they align because the two note takers have similar expectations, not because they heard it correctly)?

I like it included in church study, but with an explanation of what it exactly is and not canonized.

I don’t believe the Church members should see such as binding scripture.

I don’t think we should see much scripture that way anyway, but as long as I am a minority and most members see scripture as binding, I think what is canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants should be at least proofed by the one giving the information and approved by them.

I would like scripture composed without close oversight of the person it originated with being classified as more as LDS apocrypha than canon.

I wonder what Brigham Young would have said if asked how we should treat the Priesthood Ban in the future, as revelation or something else.

Edited February 24, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Canonized based on notes and likely paraphrases that may or may not be correct interpretations (maybe they align because the two note takers have similar expectations, not because they heard it correctly)?

I like it included in church study, but with an explanation of what it exactly is and not canonized.

I don’t believe the Church members should see such as binding scripture.

I don’t think we should see much scripture that way anyway, but as long as I am a minority and most members see scripture as binding, I think what is canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants should be at least proofed by the one giving the information and approved by them.

I would like scripture composed without close oversight of the person it originated with being classified as more as LDS apocrypha than canon.

I wonder what Brigham Young would have said if asked how we should treat the Priesthood Ban in the future, as revelation or something else.

So if the JSPP turns up a revelation from Joseph that is extremely insightful but overlooked, we should not canonize it because Joseph isn't here to give the thumbs up?

What if the prophet says he received revelation that it should be canonized? Too bad, so sad?

[Dario_M]

6 hours ago, sunstoned said:

It is the opinion of Professor Richard Busman, Professor Emeritus of History at Columbia University and a noted author.  His work is well-researched and author.  what you and others might call polygamy, most people call adultery. 

Yes...well adultery is when you cheat on your partner. But when you make an agreement with each other and  everyone agrees with that lifestyle...then...how is that adultery?

For example...if me and my boyfriend have an agreement that i can have sex with other men and my boyfriend is fine with it then.... how is that adultery?

Who are professor Busman and professor Emmeritus to judge other people who wanna practise polgamy?  

Edited February 24, 2025 by Dario_M

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So if the JSPP turns up a revelation from Joseph that is extremely insightful but overlooked, we should not canonize it because Joseph isn't here to give the thumbs up?

What if the prophet says he received revelation that it should be canonized? Too bad, so sad?

That would depend on how it was recorded…in his own handwriting would be different than one of his scribes and very different from some random person who we had no evidence of ever meeting Joseph.  Context matters to understanding revelation and its purpose, imo.

For example, the date for Louisa Beaman’s sealing is dependent on her brother…who was infamous apparently for misremembering dates.  Oh the other hand when he was asked about where the sealing took place, it looks like he gave decent and consistent info….that works if one goes with one of the later dates he gave as a possibility (a year later iirc than the official one).  The story of how Joseph went about starting plural marriage and therefore what he likely viewed its purpose at least originallybecomes significantly different if the later date is accepted and Louisa is not the first wife. (Leaving Fanny aside as an unknown, the first 5 or six women Joseph was sealed to were all pregnant except for the widow of his brother, this is not an accumulation of sex partners or even women to bear children of his own flesh and blood or for him to raise; it does create a family connection where there was none in five of the cases).

Quote

What if the prophet says he received revelation that it should be canonized? Too bad, so sad?

That would be important context and for our church would make it binding revelation if it was agreed upon by the 15, I believe.  Now if he said he believed it was revelation, I don’t see that as making it revelation.

Edited February 24, 2025 by Calm

[manol]

7 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Who are professor Busman and professor Emmeritus to judge other people who wanna practise polgamy?  

I think you make a valid point.  I do not think that judging one another is our job. 

Incidentally, the word "Emeritus" means that the person has retired but they still have the honorary title from their previous position.  So in this context the term "professor Emeritus" refers to Richard Busman, and means that he is actually retired, but is still honored as a "professor". 

[Dario_M]

4 minutes ago, manol said:

I think you make a valid point.  I do not think that judging one another is our job. 

Incidentally, the word "Emeritus" means that the person has retired but they still have the honorary title from their previous position.  So in this context the term "professor Emeritus" refers to Richard Busman, and means that he is actually retired, but is still honored as a "professor". 

Oh. Okay thank you for that information. I really thought that emeritus was somebody's last name. Especially because sunstoned was typing this  word "emeritus" with a capital letter. 

[Dario_M]

The people here in this reality show "Sister wives" practise pologamy. Well... they look like very decent people to me. Here:

 

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Dario_M said:

The people here in this reality show "Sister wives" practise pologamy. Well... they look like very decent people to me. Here:

 

The family no longer practice it. During the years of Covid, the family structure fell apart after Kody was very harsh on them being around one another if they had been exposed, especially with his children. But the real problem was when he took on a fourth wife, the woman in the video, Robyn. The first three wives were for marriage and the religious component. The fourth, he fell in love and the three wives saw it before their eyes the favoritism. If you have the time you could watch all seasons. The first wife to leave him found someone to love her back and they married. The other two are open to marrying, but not in a polygamous marriage. I was sad to see how the  family fell apart. But hope all of their children stay close and even all of them, for the children. Because at one time they were very happy living the polygamous life. I was quite envious because all of them were quite close and had a good life and the more the merrier. I'm sure there are still those families out there and don't look down on them. It's only when someone is forced to live that way and they don't honestly want to. 

Now it's only Robyn and Kody that are married, legally too. 

[CV75]

12 hours 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.

But you do seem to have a personal stake in the issue being discussed, enough to argue your point of view. We have 170-some years of historical record documenting facts, falsehoods and opinions about the former practice of plural marriage. Whatever "fallout" you might attribute to it, the leaders' practice of it, or anyone's abuse of it is dwarfed by the continued growing and strengthening of the Church. So the Church remaining strong and bad PR are not the issue, but your personal response to the history.

[Dario_M]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The family no longer practice it. During the years of Covid, the family structure fell apart after Kody was very harsh on them being around one another if they had been exposed, especially with his children. But the real problem was when he took on a fourth wife, the woman in the video, Robyn. The first three wives were for marriage and the religious component. The fourth, he fell in love and the three wives saw it before their eyes the favoritism. If you have the time you could watch all seasons. The first wife to leave him found someone to love her back and they married. The other two are open to marrying, but not in a polygamous marriage. I was sad to see how the  family fell apart. But hope all of their children stay close and even all of them, for the children. Because at one time they were very happy living the polygamous life. I was quite envious because all of them were quite close and had a good life and the more the merrier. I'm sure there are still those families out there and don't look down on them. It's only when someone is forced to live that way and they don't honestly want to. 

Now it's only Robyn and Kody that are married, legally too. 

Is that so? I didn't knew that. I haven't seen all the seasons. I have seen a few ones. Sister wives was on the Dutch television you know. So that's why i knew about it. 

These kind of family's are just so heartwarming to watch. You just forget the stigma and taboo about plural marriage when you see a happy family like they are. Right? 

[Peacefully]

I think a revelation to practice polyandry would have gone over like a lead balloon in Old Testament times and in the Restoration. My gut tells me that polygamy is man-made and not from a fair and loving God. God just made the best of a bad situation because the work needed to move forward. Gospel according to Peacefully:) 

How we teach the children is important and tricky. Teach them the truth but on their level. No need for cartoons. 

 

Edited February 24, 2025 by Peacefully

[ZealouslyStriving]

34 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Is that so? I didn't knew that. I haven't seen all the seasons. I have seen a few ones. Sister wives was on the Dutch television you know. So that's why i knew about it. 

These kind of family's are just so heartwarming to watch. You just forget the stigma and taboo about plural marriage when you see a happy family like they are. Right? 

They started out good, then Kody went off the deep end.

There are really good fundamentalist families out there. 

[MustardSeed]

20 hours ago, Injeun said:

It is apostasy

No it’s not.  Respectfully.  It might be uncomfortable for you to hear me say that I don’t believe everything the prophets do and say are dictated by God, but IMO its not apostasy- or maybe by your definition it is.  So that would be your opinion which is fine.  

[MustardSeed]

17 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Are you saying that the children of plural marriages did not build the structure that has permitted the Church to grow and prosper in a way unparalleled in the annuals of religion?

Because it was difficult and required sacrifice, it wasn't of God and was a mistake? Why? Because God never asks His people to pass through fiery trials?

So... because some among the Fundamentalists do wrong, we should lie and say it was not commanded of God and a mistake? Seems like a bit of an overreaction. Should we outlaw marriage altogether because some men have performed badly in the duties as husbands?

The Church continues to baptize at a good click, and baptism have began to grow again in the last couple of years in spite of easily accessible information. No, I think critics want the Church to admit it "made a mistake" because they perceive it as some type of victory in their crusade against the Restored Gospel. They would just move to another topic. The attacks won't cease as long as the Church claims exclusivity as the Lord's true Church.

The truth is we don’t know where the church would be without polygamy.  It might be stronger now- there is no way to know. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

The truth is we don’t know where the church would be without polygamy.  It might be stronger now- there is no way to know. 

Quite.

What we DO know is that the Church is extraordinarily successful.

That is what we DO know- and plural marriage was part of that.

[Tacenda]

58 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I think a revelation to practice polyandry would have gone over like a lead balloon in Old Testament times and in the Restoration. My gut tells me that polygamy is man-made and not from a fair and loving God. God just made the best of a bad situation because the work needed to move forward. Gospel according to Peacefully:) 

How we teach the children is important and tricky. Teach them the truth but on their level. No need for cartoons. 

 

Right? Thank you! If we're needing cartoon teaching, that child is not old enough to understand!

[MustardSeed]

52 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Quite.

What we DO know is that the Church is extraordinarily successful.

That is what we DO know- and plural marriage was part of that.

My life is wildly successful , I can confidently say. I also do know that the painful and destructive parts that I’ve experienced are part of the story. Those parts have made me who I am. I suspect there’s a good chance I could be even more successful now than I am if those painful and destructive parts didn’t occur.   
I will add that there are also things that I have done that I’m not proud of. They also make me who I am. I am confident that if I had not done those things, I would be a better person today.  But who knows?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

 

How we teach the children is important and tricky. Teach them the truth but on their level. No need for cartoons. 

 

I wouldn’t call them cartoons, but illustrations telling a very simplified story with a short paragraph paired with each picture, a not unusual children’s adaptation of an adult book.  My kids liked  them growing up.  I liked them because they stuck to scripture for the most part and avoided adding story elements, dramatizing them to make them more interesting as I found some of the privately produced Illustrated Scriptures version did (I had some arguments with my primary kids over what the scriptures actually said because of those) and all of the ‘children’s version of the Book of Mormon’ books I have come across so far.  I bought copies for all my kids a couple of years to help teach scriptures in Primary (they are quite inexpensive).  Depending on their age, they would take turns reading the paragraphs under each picture.  They were much easier for them to read and understand than the scriptures themselves.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/children/scripture-stories-for-children?lang=eng

I recommended them to a missionary who had a hard time reading who wanted to feel more at home with the Book of Mormon.  The Church didn’t recommend using the “easy to read” versions produced privately, iirc, because typically things were added that were the author’s interpretation, so they put out their own versions.

The Doctrine and Covenants/Church History version was different because it wasn’t scripture stories but a brief history illustrated history of the early church.  I used it for my own personal study because I was really weak in church history and it provided an overall framework to set the more familiar stories in.  This is the version I used.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-stories?lang=eng

I also think (pure speculation) the leadership wasn’t too happy with the Illustrated Scriptures company that used former and to be missionaries looking like missionaries going door to door to sell what was in my mind a quite expensive product (we had a couple of kids stay at our home while they earned money for a mission this way).  I know a lot of families that bought them when they probably couldn’t really afford them, wanting to give their kids a good start on the scriptures.  The Church’s versions were a couple of bucks for each book and $5 for the video (which was like a filmstrip that turned itself rather than animated action).

If you are not familiar with them, please read them before making an opinion about them.

Edited February 24, 2025 by Calm

[Peacefully]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wouldn’t call them cartoons, but illustrations telling a very simplified story with a short paragraph paired with each picture, a not unusual children’s adaptation of an adult book.  My kids liked  them growing up.  I liked them because they stuck to scripture for the most part and avoided adding story elements, dramatizing them to make them more interesting as I found some of the privately produced Illustrated Scriptures version did (I had some arguments with my primary kids over what the scriptures actually said because of those) and all of the ‘children’s version of the Book of Mormon’ books I have come across so far.  I bought copies for all my kids a couple of years to help teach scriptures in Primary (they are quite inexpensive).  Depending on their age, they would take turns reading the paragraphs under each picture.  They were much easier for them to read and understand than the scriptures themselves.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/children/scripture-stories-for-children?lang=eng

I had illustrated Book of Mormon and bible stories for my kids and they were great. I just think we can explain polygamy without a picture story. Just explain it in a way they understand and move on. Just my 2 cents:) 

[Frank11]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

I had illustrated Book of Mormon and bible stories for my kids and they were great. I just think we can explain polygamy without a picture story. Just explain it in a way they understand and move on. Just my 2 cents:) 

Thank God I don't have to explain all this to my 9-year-old daughter. Now she would still ask me why Joseph Smith introduced polygamy, at the latest when she becomes a teenager, she will first ask an AI like ChatGPT and then just confront me with the result.