Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Joseph Smith Polygamy


Ron

Recommended Posts

Here is how it is going to be in sensitive threads, folks. You are not going to be allowed to come in and simply throw around your "opinions" or "experiences". If you are asked for documentation provide it or leave the thread.

Blink and Ave Maria, neither of you are going to last long here if you don't stop the provocative cojmments/complaints/personal anecdotes/accusations sans any evidence whatsoever. It is too easy to overwhelm those who hold different opinions with "dear diary" musings.

Link to comment
Feel free to support that with evidence from official LDS sources, if you'd like. I think the difference in our perspectives has been well established.

Are you saying Latter-day Saints are only allowed to study "official LDS sources."

Scott--

I've said exactly what I've meant, and I've meant exactly what I've said.

I've said nothing of the kind.

Link to comment
Here is how it is going to be in sensitive threads, folks. You are not going to be allowed to come in and simply throw around your "opinions" or "experiences". If you are asked for documentation provide it or leave the thread.

Blink and Ave Maria, neither of you are going to last long here if you don't stop the provocative cojmments/complaints/personal anecdotes/accusations sans any evidence whatsoever. It is too easy to overwhelm those who hold different opinions with "dear diary" musings.

I've provided plenty of documentation, Dunamis. People are, as usual, free to interpret it differently.

I've not complained. I've made an observation. In response to a challenge issued to me, I've responded to it. In response to mischaracterizations of my position, I've corrected them, and all, respectfully.

Link to comment

ave maria:

I don't believe I was being uncharitable in asking that people assume the responsibility of their own education. I knew about JS polygamy BEFORE becoming a member in 1971. I am the only living member of the church from my mother and fathers' marriage.

Even today most peoples marriages go unnoticed, and unnoted, by anyone except the participants, and a small piece of paper that sits in the records dept. somewhere. Let alone what happened one hundred and sixty odd years ago.

Much of the details JS polygamy are lost to history. Never to be recovered. We can speculate all we want. But that is all it is "Speculation". And it ultimately has NO bearing on my salvation how well JS did practiced polygamy. If JS was a Prophet of God(and I believe he was), and God commanded the practice of Polygamy(I believe he was). Then later God commanded us not to practice polygamy(I believe we were). I will do what God commands.

Link to comment

Anyone who purports to portray the LDS CHURCH as an organisation that "HIDES" things from it's member is either being untruthful or has fallen prey to yhe nefarious, and, unchristian Web-sites, which they so gullibly "swallow" without intelligent thought!!

UNLESS the LDS Church is different elsewhere, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT, then they MAY be right......but I can quite categorically state that has never been my experience!

They will not believe me anyway, they never do, as that would only make their mentors untruthful!!

NOW "OTHER" CHURCHES DO ACT DIFFERENTLY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD BUT THAT IS NOT MY PROBLEM.......SURE IT"S NOT!!!!

Link to comment
I'm confident that it if the general membership was surveyed then the majority would be just like us.

If I remember to, Sunday I will take a poll of my GD class. I'll let you know the result.

That would be great, I'd be interested to see the results. Along with the results please post what exactly the poll question(s) were and a description of how the questions were presented.

Link to comment
3.  I remember hearing about a DNA study to determine whether JS had any children with his plural wives, including Zina Huntington Jacobs.  The results were supposed to be out about now, but I have not seen any published findings.  I did read  somewhere (Sunstone?) that the preliminary DNA evidence has shown that the second son of Zina and Henry Jacobs, which some suspected was fathered by JS, was indeed fathered by Henry Jacobs.  I look forward to when the full report comes out.  If anyone sees it online, please link it for us.

The results are in. Zina's son, was not fathered by Joseph Smith.

See Here

T-Shirt

Link to comment
If the facts were presented in there entirety with no apologetic spin to the general membership it would be a huge shock to most.

I'm curious about what you would regard as "apologetic spin," Ron. Is there anything, for example, that has been presented on this topic during the past few days on this board that would, in your mind, fit this classification?

Link to comment
Anyone who purports to portray the LDS CHURCH as an organisation that "HIDES" things from it's member is either being untruthful or has fallen prey to yhe nefarious, and, unchristian Web-sites, which they so gullibly "swallow" without intelligent thought!!

Do you have a copy of the Brigham Young manual? Is it deceptive for the church to portray Brigham as a monogomist? Do you see anything in that manual that talks about Brighams feelings about interracial marriage? Or Adam God? Or the inhabitants of the moon?

Link to comment
Is there anything, for example, that has been presented on this topic during the past few days on this board that would, in your mind, fit this classification?

Scott:

Speaking only for myself (and not Ron), I refer you to my post above about the treatment of polygamy in the booklet Our Heritage: A Brief History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I can only attribute (i) the placing of polygamy out of historical sequence and (ii) the text being careful NOT to acknowledge that JS himself practiced polygamy, as as intentional attempt to "spin" the issue. Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Anyone who purports to portray the LDS CHURCH as an organisation that "HIDES" things from it's member is either being untruthful or has fallen prey to yhe nefarious, and, unchristian Web-sites, which they so gullibly "swallow" without intelligent thought!! 

Do you have a copy of the Brigham Young manual? Is it deceptive for the church to portray Brigham as a monogomist? Do you see anything in that manual that talks about Brighams feelings about interracial marriage? Or Adam God? Or the inhabitants of the moon?

Is that information pertinent to the purpose of the book?

That purpose being to teach basic doctrines and teachings?

The book was never intended to be a biography or even a history in any sense of the word. So no, I don't have a problem with what was included and what was not.

Link to comment

lds8n't,

Give me a"GOOD" web-site.....just in case the LDS Church have hidden it from me!!! <_<

I helped you out earlier, so you owe me one!

Those moon men.....are they the ones that were captured and are hidden in a silo somewhere? Were they the ones that were 3 metres (10 feet) tall?

Of course those little men are from Mars.....aren't they?

My Friend ELVIS lives in a London Doubledecker Bus on the Moon. He is due to ring me to-night and I will ask him about it! :unsure:

Where can I purchase the "Brigham Young manual"? :P

Link to comment
The book was never intended to be a biography or even a history in any sense of the word.

ST:

You are incorrect. The first section of the manual is a historical outline of BY's life, from birth to death. It includes the date of his marriage to his first wife (and names her); it also contains the date for this first wife's death; it also contains the date of BY's marriage (as a widower) to his second wife (and gives her name); there is no mention of his subsequent 20 or 30-odd marriages. The clear implication, imo, based on what is put in the manual's historical outline concerning his marital status (and, more importantly, what is omitted), is that BY was a monogamist (or at least downplays his polygamy). The Church decided to put BY's first two monogamous marriages in the history part of the manual -- it should have kept those out unless it was also willing to put in the polygamous marriages; otherwise, it is misleading to the reader as it relates to the marital status of BY, imo.

Link to comment
The book was never intended to be a biography or even a history in any sense of the word.

ST:

You are incorrect. The first section of the manual is a historical outline of BY's life, from birth to death. It includes the date of his marriage to his first wife (and names her); it also contains the date for this first wife's death; it also contains the date of BY's marriage (as a widower) to his second wife (and gives her name); there is no mention of his subsequent 20 or 30-odd marriages. The clear implication, imo, based on what is put in the manual's historical outline concerning his marital status (and, more importantly, what is omitted), is that BY was a monogamist (or at least downplays his polygamy). The Church decided to put BY's first two monogamous marriages in the history part of the manual -- it should have kept those out unless it was also willing to put in the polygamous marriages; otherwise, it is misleading to the reader as it relates to the marital status of BY, imo.

Well, I don't see it that way. It IS rather well known in and among the members of the Church that Brigham was a polygamist, so the "cover-up" is awfully weak. I have yet to hear anyone recommend the book as a history in the church or consider it so. It was used for priesthood and relief society lessons on basic topics of faith and principle.

Link to comment
Is there anything, for example, that has been presented on this topic during the past few days on this board that would, in your mind, fit this classification?

Scott:

Speaking only for myself (and not Ron), I refer you to my post above about the treatment of polygamy in the booklet Our Heritage: A Brief History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I can only attribute (i) the placing of polygamy out of historical sequence and (ii) the text being careful NOT to acknowledge that JS himself practiced polygamy, as as intentional attempt to "spin" the issue. Just my opinion.

As you indicated RHT, the question was posed to Ron. You are free to weigh in of course, but I think your answer lacks relevance to the context in which I posed the question. What I had in mind was this:

Over the course of the past few days, a number of people have pointed out in this and, perhaps, other threads that little is known about the nature of Joseph's plural marriages, that at least some of them likely were sealings for eternity only, without application in mortality, and that in the 19th Century it was not uncommon for women to be married at a very young age.

I was curious as to whether Ron would consider the above to be "apologetic spin" as opposed to being clarifying context essential to a proper understanding of the facts.

As for the Our Heritage book, I am familiar with your opinion of it and have no interest in engaging you in discussion of it at the moment.

Link to comment

The Church paid a price for editorial negligence with the BY manual. It was not intended as a history, and that's clear to anyone who reads the manual; however, if the editors mentioned two wives in the timeline, they should have made some reference to his polygamous wives as well, if only to silence the yapping critics before they started.

That said, I get tired of those who criticize a general survey of church history, small or large, because it doen't cover their pet topic in sufficient detail. If you want a discussion of polygamy, there are plenty of books and articles that cover it in detail. Don't look for thorough treatment of any historical topic in a general history or Institute manual, and especially don't look for it in a Priesthood/Relief Society manual. If you do, you'll invariably be disappointed, and if you complain, you'll betray your ignorance.

Link to comment

Well, I don't see it that way. It IS rather well known in and among the members of the Church that Brigham was a polygamist, so the "cover-up" is awfully weak. I have yet to hear anyone recommend the book as a history in the church or consider it so. It was used for priesthood and relief society lessons on basic topics of faith and principle.

The rising generation is being taught from the new manual. They don't have the background that their parents had in regard to BY's polygomous wives.

Ron,

I came late to the thread, but would like to echo the fact that the majority of members,IME , were/are not aware of Josephs relationships with women. I have to grin when the comment is made that you must be an ignorant slacker to have not learned these truths during your tenure as a member. Some apologists like to list all the sources where church history is available. The truth of the matter is that if you examined all the church related books and publications that did not fully disclose Joseph's wives along with their ages and marital status, you would have a stack of books exponentially taller than the scant pile of information put out by church friendly publications that brought any of the less faith promoting facts to life. By sheer volume of the faithful information available, one can see why polished history is the history that members are familiar with. Additionally, there are so many books that deal with church topics outside of history that the average member has no time to read everything that has been printed on church subject matter. Finding the "nitty gritty" among the many years spent in church is like finding a needle in a hay stack <_< .

Let us not forget brother Packers admonition, "All that is true is not very useful" and that we are to "Teach faith promoting history". I remember hearing as a youth that to read anything anti mormon was spiritual pornography :P .

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...