Joseph Smith Polygamy

[Rollo Tomasi]

I think the Church learned its lesson.

Scott:

Live and learn, I guess. But I wonder how well the Church has learned its lesson when I see booklets like Our Heritage being issued in Gospel Doctrine class, which I believe contains an intentional and misleading treatment of Joseph Smith and polygamy. I just wish the "spin doctors" at COB would put down their pens, collect themselves, and just write the truth about JS and early polygamy (and polyandry), regardless of whether it's embarrassing. The fact is, polygamy IS a big part "our heritage," one that early saints were willing to die for or go to prison for. So long as the Church feels the need to "spin" embarrassing episodes such as this, it will be viewed as "whitewashing" its history.

As this is my 10th post of the day, I bid you adieu, and wish you luck on your lesson.

[Bikeemikey]

polygamy was practiced.

lots of sex was ofcourse had

75%of the world has practiced polygamy at some point. i don't like it but that doesn't mean its wrong.

you can not prove polygamy is so it is not a valid criticisim against the church or the prophets.

it maybe however something you personally don't like.

thats fine too.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, I don't see it that way.

[maxrep12]

As for the "rising generation," I don't agree with you that they are too stupid to know about Brigham Young's practice of plural marriage, perhaps the characteristic for which he is most famous among the population generally.

Scott,

shame on you for implying that I think the rising generation is "stupid" . I never stated anything of the sort. I think somebody missed there one o'clock nap!

So tell me, where are the young ones learning about BY's many wives?

[Scott Lloyd]

As for the "rising generation," I don't agree with you that they are too stupid to know about Brigham Young's practice of plural marriage, perhaps the characteristic for which he is most famous among the population generally.

Scott,

shame on you for implying that I think the rising generation is "stupid" . I never stated anything of the sort. I think somebody missed there one o'clock nap!

So tell me, where are the young ones learning about BY's many wives?

You're kidding, right?

Is this a trick question?

Where do they learn that Davy Crockett wore a coonskin cap or that George Washington was the first president of the United States?

From books, school, encyclopedias, popular culture, movies, TV, parents, family history, LDS Church histories (both Church- and non-Church-published), ambient chatter.

And if they are somehow out of range of all these sources, they have the omi-present anti-Mormon to fall back on.

[SlackTime]

As for the "rising generation," I don't agree with you that they are too stupid to know about Brigham Young's practice of plural marriage, perhaps the characteristic for which he is most famous among the population generally.

Scott,

shame on you for implying that I think the rising generation is "stupid" . I never stated anything of the sort. I think somebody missed there one o'clock nap!

So tell me, where are the young ones learning about BY's many wives?

You're kidding, right?

Is this a trick question?

Where do they learn that Davy Crockett wore a coonskin cap or that George Washington was the first president of the United States?

From books, school, encyclopedias, popular culture, movies, TV, parents, family history, LDS Church histories (both Church- and non-Church-published), ambient chatter.

And if they are somehow out of range of all these sources, they have the omi-present anti-Mormon to fall back on.

Now, now Scott, don't go assuming things.

In our "politically correct" nation, many things I learned about American history HAVE been redone, so maybe they have a point.

-Ed

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the Church learned its lesson.

Scott:

Live and learn, I guess. But I wonder how well the Church has learned its lesson when I see booklets like Our Heritage being issued in Gospel Doctrine class, which I believe contains an intentional and misleading treatment of Joseph Smith and polygamy.

Your accusation about intent to mislead loses its credibility when one understands that the teacher's manual for that same gospel doctrine course includes this paragraph in a discussion on plural marriage:

In this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to practice plural marriage. The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him, including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by this command, but they obeyed it. Church leaders regulated the practice. Those entering into it had to be authorized to do so, and the marriages had to be performed through the sealing power of the priesthood.

[mnn727]

Finding the "nitty gritty" among the many years spent in church is like finding a needle in a hay stack

Or you could just spend 2 minutes on FamilySearch.com

But hey thats hidden away on that internet thingie that no one has access to.

[Dunamis]

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 .

This should prove Packer's point. Although what you heard "as a youth" is true, how useful is it? I am weary of these never ending dogpile threads, folks. Real weary. I read lots and lots of rhetoric and little else. Clean it up or we are going to ban polygamy threads until you are all a little more well-read so that historical documents can be discussed and/or debated rather than the ever rising din of moral indignation. Anybody can do that. And it's not useful.

[Dunamis]

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.

Almost without fail, you leave a trail of posters asking you to defend your opinions with something more than an "explanation". You do not need to be disrespectful to be provocative. If you want to argue with the moderators you can do it from the queue.

[Scott Gordon]

Question for the board: When did you first hear of Heber C. Kimball's Abrahamic test, the one where Joseph asked for his wife?

It is written about in one of the "Work and the Glory" Novels. I believe it is volume 6. Those novels are the best selling books in the church.

Scott

[gtaggart]

Just a few quotes I found by searching www.lds.org, using the words "polygamy" and "plural marriage." Not an exhaustive list, but I'm tired (of reading about cover-ups), so I stopped looking (emphasis added):

One of the Prophet

[Scott Gordon]

I view this whole thread as similar to the claims that the Catholic church doesn't teach about the illegitimate children of popes during their Sunday school classes.

What about the Bishop of Salzburg who had 15 children? When is that taught in Sunday School? (I was just there and it is taught in the Salzburg history video--so it must be true!) How about Martin Luther and his teachings on plural marriage. He taught that it was OK. Of course he taught that some groups should be put to death. When is the last time that was taught in church?

I also see that the early beliefs about Jews that were held by both the protestents and the Catholics aren't taught during Sunday School. Why is that? Don't you think they should have special classes on that during church???

What about the crusades? Are the number of people murdered during the crusades taught in church, or does the church "hide" that from its people?

Now that I think about it....I think that all of the protestant churches should itemize how many people were killed during the protestant reformation. I believe that should be taught to everyone before they are allowed to be baptized. The Catholics need to have a class detailing each and every abuse case before anyone is allowed to join that church.

The southern Baptist church needs to have a long class talking about how they were organized for no other reason except to keep blacks out.

--------------------------------------------------

Now everyone knows these demands are ridiculous. Those things are not current practice or accepted practice of their faiths. But for some reason, they think this should be required of the LDS church.

Of course the argument I hear next is this is the case because the LDS claim to be inspired while their own churches don't make the same claim. Hogwash. They need to give their own denominations more credit.

Plural marriage is not a current practice in the LDS church. The church wants to discourage it from being a current practice. They don't want to give anyone any ideas. They already struggle with people leaving the church to practice plural marriage with the non-LDS groups in Utah, Arizona, Canada, and now Texas.

Everybody needs to get off their high horse and realize that no church is going to broadcast what they currently don't want going on. They have enough trouble trying to teach the things they want people to follow. People spend more hours watching television than they spend in church.

Church isn't a history class. It is a place to try to help people to better themselves.

[Ron]

Scott thats an interesting comparison...

But for someone in my position right now justifying the church not being up front about Polygamy by comparing to other religious cover ups does not make me feel much better (other than making me skeptical of other religions also).

I could just as easy be a Catholic right now and if I'd idolized the Popes my entire life and learned harsh truths later in life that would make me mad also especially if I couldn't find much evidence that it was taught in the Catholic curriculum.

It would probably be a good thing for any religion to make sure that their dirty laundry from the past has been fully disclosed and is taught to the general membership. Its not fair to just expect someone to accept whatever comes up when they happen to find out through surfing the internet of through the grapevine.

[ave maria]

I view this whole thread as similar to the claims that the Catholic church doesn't teach about the illegitimate children of popes during their Sunday school classes.

Catholics don't have Sunday School, but I understand the comparison you're trying to make.

I have heard about the realities of the Catholic Church's history, as well as it's present difficulties, from the pulpit, however, on more than one occasion (I apologize if that's anecdotal; I can't provide anything here to substantiate it, but I expect other Catholic posters would say the same).

I've in general found the Catholic Encyclopedia to be fairly forthcoming, and the RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults) process tends to be open to anyone asking any sort of question they'd like, and getting an honest answer. That process itself lasts several months, during which there's ample time for a person to raise any topic they'd like.

Any Catholic can go online right this minute and get information from the Catholic Encyclopedia website on (1) married popes, and popes who had children, (2) the Crusades, (3) the Spanish Inquisition, and any of a number of other topics. Further, a Catholic can inquire about these things of a priest, and generally get a pretty good answer, and if the priest can't answer, they can generally point the person in the direction of someone or someplace they can.

If anything, it was one of the things that surprised me most--that Catholics can openly question--and criticize--the Church and/or its leaders, past or present, without much fear of recrimination. I've even heard it done from the pulpit.

What about the Bishop of Salzburg who had 15 children? When is that taught in Sunday School? (I was just there and it is taught in the Salzburg history video--so it must be true!)  How about Martin Luther and his teachings on plural marriage. He taught that it was OK.  Of course he taught that some groups should be put to death. When is the last time that was taught in church?

I also see that the early beliefs about Jews that were held by both the protestents and the Catholics aren't taught during Sunday School. Why is that? Don't you think they should have special classes on that during church???

What about the crusades? Are the number of people murdered during the crusades taught in church, or does the church "hide" that from its people?

Now that I think about it....I think that all of the protestant churches should itemize how many people were killed during the protestant reformation. I believe that should be taught to everyone before they are allowed to be baptized. The Catholics need to have a class detailing each and every abuse case before anyone is allowed to join that church.

As above. Another distinct difference is that the Catholic Church in general doesn't go out soliciting new members in the same way that the LDS Church does, and they don't commit people to baptism in an abbreviated period of time. If anything, people pretty much have to knock down the doors of the Catholic Church to come in.

The southern Baptist church needs to have a long class talking about how they were organized for no other reason except to keep blacks out.

--------------------------------------------------

Now everyone knows these demands are ridiculous. Those things are not current practice or accepted practice of their faiths. But for some reason, they think this should be required of the LDS church.

I do perceive a difference, as noted. I'd be interested in the perspective of other non-LDS in this regard.

Of course the argument I hear next is this is the case because the LDS claim to be inspired while their own churches don't make the same claim. Hogwash. They need to give their own denominations more credit.

Addressed elsewhere. The Catholic Church definitely considers itself to be the true Church of Jesus Christ, with Jesus Christ at the head, with inspired leadership. I've never known it to claim otherwise.

Plural marriage is not a current practice in the LDS church. The church wants to discourage it from being a current practice. They don't want to give anyone any ideas. They already struggle with people leaving the church to practice plural marriage with the non-LDS groups in Utah, Arizona, Canada, and now Texas.

Everybody needs to get off their high horse and realize that no church is going to broadcast what they currently don't want going on. They have enough trouble trying to teach the things they want people to follow. People spend more hours watching television than they spend in church.

Now I think you're getting to something substantive. I don't envy the LDS Church's position in that they have something that was given as a sanctioned practice, if not doctrine, that is not currently legal, and they do have political and social considerations. I don't disrespect them for making a firm stand about being completely dissociated with the present practice of polygamy. I do believe someone else noted that it might make the faith less attractive to prospective converts, too, and that point is well taken. But when there's a fair amount of attrition going on right now because people are discovering things they believe should have been more clearly or adequately disclosed, it's a problem.

Church isn't a history class. It is a place to try to help people to better themselves.

Well, but in fairness the (LDS) Church does address history in the context of certain lessons in various meetings, as well as Seminary, Institute, and Church college religion courses.

Your point is still taken.

[thesometimesaint]

ave maria:

The Jews have the longest conversion wait, a full year. If the length of time was the only consideration then why aren't we all Jewish?

Mexico was probably the last country to legally abolish the Inquistion in 1917.

I haven't heard of too many Protestants being burned at the stake lately. But who knows? Maybe the Catholics still practice it in secret.

Don't you see how easily this stupid game can be played. Our understanding of what the Lord really expects of us changes. Get over it.

[Nighthawke]

2. My problem with Brigham isn't that he participated in polygamy. For me, it's Brigham's timing that I object to. He introduced it to the rank and file of the church only after they'd removed themselves from any outside support that would have been available. It's that he forced it onto an isolated people that would have found it incredibly difficult to remove themselves from a situation not of their own choosing, given the choice. Many of those Saints didn't sign on for polygamy, and from the journals I've read, they were dismayed and upset at the way it was sprung on them. Maybe they didn't deserve any better, but I know personally of several who wouldn't have made the journey, had they known their trek to Zion included the expectation that they'd live as plural wives and polygamous husbands.

Against my better judgment I'll post a response to Blink:

"Mormon" women are not so ignorant as some suppose.

[Scott Lloyd]

Another distinct difference is that the Catholic Church in general doesn't go out soliciting new members in the same way that the LDS Church does, and they don't commit people to baptism in an abbreviated period of time. If anything, people pretty much have to knock down the doors of the Catholic Church to come in.

On my mission there were no "abbreviated" baptismal commitments. In fact, some of the people I taught had been investigating the Church for years.

[Golden Tapir]

On my mission there were no "abbreviated" baptismal commitments. In fact, some of the people I taught had been investigating the Church for years.

SLloyd: Ever hear of "Baseball Baptisms"? there was a thread here abt them...

[Blink]

2. My problem with Brigham isn't that he participated in polygamy. For me, it's Brigham's timing that I object to. He introduced it to the rank and file of the church only after they'd removed themselves from any outside support that would have been available. It's that he forced it onto an isolated people that would have found it incredibly difficult to remove themselves from a situation not of their own choosing, given the choice. Many of those Saints didn't sign on for polygamy, and from the journals I've read, they were dismayed and upset at the way it was sprung on them. Maybe they didn't deserve any better, but I know personally of several who wouldn't have made the journey, had they known their trek to Zion included the expectation that they'd live as plural wives and polygamous husbands.

Against my better judgment I'll post a response to Blink:

"Mormon" women are not so ignorant as some suppose.

[Orange Zodiac]

Both were imprisoned for contempt of court for refusing to testify against their husband.

I assume these were polygamist wives. If these women had testified against their husbands what would have been their fate? How would they have been better off with their husband in jail? Would the courts have provided for them while their husbands could not? Would the imprisonment of their husbands granted a bill of divorcement to them?

[Bertram]

Funny how some people try to quantify Faith!!

Who ever thought that you have to go through a probationary period before you obtain a testimony of the Gospel? You have to be taught EVERY doctrine of the "church" before you can have FAITH IN GOD".

TIME PERIOD for instruction? 1 year? 2 years? 3 years? 4 years?

Where in "any" scripture is this type of dosh printed?

What time period of "nit-picking" occurred when the Saviour said: "FOLLOW ME" to those simple fishermen?

How long had He "instruted them" prior to his invitation?

I say again there are persons on this Board whose only intent is to "sow discord among the Brethren"!!

Happily we have been very quick to spot them, because they are so blatantly obvious in their purpose!!

The plain knowledge is that we are all unique, and each of us will respond in our own individual way. Some will gain in Faith and testimony in a short time, some will require a little longer, and, some will require a very much longer time period.

Anyone who tries to re-write human nature or God's way is is to be pitied!

I asked one of those proponents of this theory if they had been taught or discussed each and every tenet, teaching or doctrine of the church they were converting to? Was anything not revealed or made known to them prior to joining?

DID I GET AN ANSWER?

You must be joking, I did not receive a sqeak!!

The reason I asked those questions?

Because the poster very blatantly accused the TRUE CHURCH of that very same practice of "HIDDEN DOCTRINE.

That is why it is so easy to identify deceivers!

PS:....Maybe if we knew the length of the "road to Damascus" we could extrapolate the length of time Saul/Paul took?

[Bertram]

lds8n't,

Your comment re women/wives afraid to testify against their husbands!!

I hope I am reading your post incorrectly!

If not, I sincerely hope that you are not advocating that women, in fear, should not take the courageous path and stand up for themselves?

Unfortunately, and sadly, too many women today feel that the guilt is there's if they are in a violent marriage.

The TRUE CHURCH treats all women as individuals and as the wonderful mothers of our little children AND would never ever ask or expect them to be anything else.

[Golden Tapir]

(unfortunately) In many cases, one family member can prevent/prohibit the introduction of adverse testimony/evidence by another family member; this is referred to as (familial) 'Priviledge'. SOME of our courts (judges), who function mostly on the basis of legal precedent, are attempting to dislodge this doctrine.

It is rooted in the theory that courts should not interfere into the business of a household.

[Orange Zodiac]

If not, I sincerely hope that you are not advocating that women, in fear, should not take the courageous path and stand up for themselves?

Where did I say I was advocating these women not testifying against their husbands? I was merely pointing out an alternate explanation for why these women may have remained silent other than how it was portrayed in the originating post of those examples. Just because we would like to think these women would stand up against their husbands if they felt it was immoral or that they were being abused? Why don't the women who are caught up in FLDS testify against their husbands? Because they worry about retribution and they worry about who will take care of them if their husbands are jailed. Why do we assume these pressures were not present in BY's time? I think they would be more pronounced given the harsh conditions of the day and the fact that they would be going against the practice of the major social and political power in the region. I think it is possible that they may have realized that cooperating with the court would do little to ease their plight and could cause them increase suffering.