Joseph Smith Polygamy

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott:

Actually, your post enhances what I've said about the Church downplaying polygamy.  You didn't post the entire part of Lesson #31, did you?  Actually, the small part you quote is not even part of the lesson to be given in class -- rather, it is #6 (and last) in the "Additional Help" section.  And it says the teacher should only give that part if asked about it first.  So that the readers here have full disclosure of what you are talking about, here is the entire section from which you quoted just a snippet:

*************************

6. Plural Marriage

The following information is provided to help you if class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage. It should not be the focus of the lesson.

The Lord's purpose for commanding His people to practice plural marriage

In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Jacob taught: “For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife. … [but] if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things” (Jacob 2:27, Jacob 2:30). At various times throughout biblical history, the Lord commanded people to practice plural marriage. For example, He gave this command to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon (D&C 132:1).

The revelation to practice plural marriage in this dispensation

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.

The Church's position on plural marriage today

In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff received a revelation that the leaders of the Church should cease teaching the practice of plural marriage (Official Declaration 1, pages 291–92 in the Doctrine and Covenants; see also the excerpts from addresses by President Woodruff that immediately follow Official Declaration 1).

In 1998, President Gordon B. Hinckley made the following statement about the Church’s position on plural marriage: “This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. … If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1998, 92; or Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

******************************

So, Scott, I'm afraid the manual does not resolve the intentional downplaying of polygamy in Our Heritage.  All class members receive Our Heritage, whereas only the teacher gets the manual.  And it is unlikely the teacher will discuss polygamy since the manual instructs that the subject only be discussed IF first raised by a class member.  Thus, the manual is yet another example (among all the others cited in this post, like the Church Almanac, Our Heritage, the BY manual, etc.) of the efforts by the modern Church to distance itself from plural marriage, an embarrassing period in Church history that today's Brethren would rather not discuss (unless pushed, of course).

The gospel doctrine teacher's manual, as currently constituted, is very flexible in its content in that each lesson contains far more material than can be taught in one class period and the teacher is invited to pick and choose according to the needs of the class members. I frequently choose material from the "Additional Teaching Ideas" section in preference to what is in the main body of the lesson as I deem it desirable or necessary.

The material on plural marriage is there and candid and available for those who might need it or might be interested. It is not hidden. The instruction says it "should not be the focus of the lesson" and that is true, since it has little relevance in the lives of Church members today, who are not under the command to practice it.

For those who are troubled by the subject, the material is provided. Beyond that, there is a plethora of material -- some of it from Church-affiliated publishers -- for anyone who is interested. I still think allegations of a coverup are bogus.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott:

Actually, your post enhances what I've said about the Church downplaying polygamy.

[Scott Lloyd]

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...

Yes. They were long in the past by the time I served my mission 30 years ago.

As a district leader empowered to conduct pre-baptism interviews, I would not have signed off on any candidate whom I suspected was rushed through the conversion process.

Well, and in fairness, Latter-day Saints might baptize sooner than some denominations, but they do require a one-year waiting period following baptism before going through any temple initiation/endowment/sealing process.

So in that sense, the "waiting period" is somewhat similar. Newly baptized might go through "temple prep" classes, while catechumens and candidates in the Catholic Church might be going through RCIA.

Not exactly the same thing, but the prescribed waiting period, and the intent, is somewhat similar.

No, it is not exactly the same thing, but it is an apt comparison.

[Hemidakota]

Scot, what happens when the Savior returns and reenact plural marriages for the convience of those women who do not have the spouse to be sealed too?

[Scott Lloyd]

Scot, what happens when the Savior returns and reenact plural marriages for the convience of those women who do not have the spouse to be sealed too?

Source, please.

[Golden Tapir]

I think a Prudent JS would have openly mentioned / taught that any 'sealing' he did with other women (esp. wives of living husbands) would have been openly said to be Sexual OR non-sexual. Consideration for historical records and accuracy would clearly have indicated that Had JS been thinking ahead to later, possible mis-interpretations of his actions. Either the saints made & kept reliable records of things or not.

[Hemidakota]

Scot, what happens when the Savior returns and reenact plural marriages for the convience of those women who do not have the spouse to be sealed too?

Source, please.

Scott, I asked you question...

[Scott Lloyd]

Scot, what happens when the Savior returns and reenact plural marriages for the convience of those women who do not have the spouse to be sealed too?

Source, please.

Scott, I asked you question...

Yes. And I asked you for a source.

Your move.

[SlackTime]

Scot, what happens when the Savior returns and reenact plural marriages for the convience of those women who do not have the spouse to be sealed too?

Source, please.

Scott, I asked you question...

Yes. And I asked you for a source.

Your move.

Perhaps he just phrased it wrong and he was putting it forward as conjecture.

Meaning to ask:

Scot, what happens if, when the Savior returns He then re-establishes plural marriages for the convience of those women who do not have the spouse to be sealed too?

Of course this question isn't all that much better. Who among us is going to convict our Lord and Savior of sin. If He re-establishes polygamy for his own purposes, then He does, and I for one, if lucky enough to be there, will happily wave a palm branch while he does it.

[Hemidakota]

Scot, what happens when the Savior returns and reenact plural marriages for the convience of those women who do not have the spouse to be sealed too?

Source, please.

Scott, I asked you question...

Yes. And I asked you for a source.

Your move.

There is no move when you have didn't answer the question.

If the Savior commands a prophet to reinstate polygamy, he will follow through as Prophet Joseph Smith accomplished. Later, conspiring minds of the that era liberals, more or less lackeys of the evil one, did not have complete understanding of polygamy and took it to the Supreme Court have it outlawed.

What they failed to note, it was only temporarily halted due to the enactment of the law prohibiting polygamy. Not withstanding, the churchs ineffectiveness and vulnerabilities to fight back, then Savior reverse it to saved His Church. Always two forces at play here.

I think personal; Jesus the Christ has a grander purpose of polygamy than we can currently understand thanks to our mortal viewpoint.

For me, I will follow the Lord

[thesometimesaint]

Scott Lloyd:

One very small correction.

By definition it is Conservatives that are loathe to change, not Liberals.

Polygamy was most definitely a "Change" for Midwesterners of the mid 19th century.

Therefore Conservatives are "lackeys" of the evil one".

[Scott Lloyd]

Scot, what happens when the Savior returns and reenact plural marriages for the convience of those women who do not have the spouse to be sealed too?

Source, please.

Scott, I asked you question...

Yes. And I asked you for a source.

Your move.

There is no move when you have didn't answer the question.

If the Savior commands a prophet to reinstate polygamy, he will follow through as Prophet Joseph Smith accomplished. Later, conspiring minds of the that era liberals, more or less lackeys of the evil one, did not have complete understanding of polygamy and took it to the Supreme Court have it outlawed.

What they failed to note, it was only temporarily halted due to the enactment of the law prohibiting polygamy. Not withstanding, the churchs ineffectiveness and vulnerabilities to fight back, then Savior reverse it to saved His Church. Always two forces at play here.

I think personal; Jesus the Christ has a grander purpose of polygamy than we can currently understand thanks to our mortal viewpoint.

For me, I will follow the Lord’s commandments.

As will I.

I guess what I am saying is I am loathe to entertain or carry conjectural discussion very far on boards such as this, knowing the propensity of the unschooled (and the chronically antagonistic) to mistake conjecture for authoritative doctrine.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott Lloyd:

One very small correction.

By definition it is Conservatives that are loathe to change, not Liberals.

Polygamy was most definitely a "Change" for Midwesterners of the mid 19th century.

Therefore Conservatives are "lackeys" of the evil one".

I agree.

But I think you intended to address this post to Hemidakota, not me.

[thesometimesaint]

Scott Lloyd:

My apologies.

[Hemidakota]

Scott Lloyd:

My apologies.

It was not the conservatives that was quoted in the Contributor during that time. They simply used the term Liberals.

I stand corrected since I finally find the church stance with Polygamy under John Taylor:

The administration of John Taylor followed that of President Young.

During the former administration storm clouds had again gathered, which broke with great fury soon after John Taylor assumed the presidency. The Church and the world were again at variance, as they have always been, and must continue to be until the doctrines taught by the Redeemer are accepted and applied.

The marital relations of members of the Church were made the pretext for assault. Plural marriage, under certain restrictions, had been accepted as a proper relation of sexes. Laws were enacted by the congress prohibiting such marriages, and providing punishment for those who persisted in the practice. Prosecutions for violations of the law were frequent, the property of the Church was escheated to the Government, resulting in great suffering and financial loss.

The laws prohibiting plural marriage were regarded as unconstitutional and unjust by the Church, and their execution was bitterly opposed. Suits were carried to the Supreme Court, which upheld the law, and more vigorous steps were taken to enforce it. While this storm raged John Taylor stood immovable in his conviction that the anti-polygamy law was unjust, and died without making any concession. This was the outstanding feature of his administration.

  (President Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, April 1922, Afternoon Session, p.37-38)

[Scott Lloyd]

Scot, what happens when the Savior returns and reenact plural marriages for the convience of those women who do not have the spouse to be sealed too?

Source, please.

Scott, I asked you question...

Yes. And I asked you for a source.

Your move.

Perhaps he just phrased it wrong and he was putting it forward as conjecture.

Meaning to ask:

Scot, what happens if, when the Savior returns He then re-establishes plural marriages for the convience of those women who do not have the spouse to be sealed too?

Of course this question isn't all that much better. Who among us is going to convict our Lord and Savior of sin. If He re-establishes polygamy for his own purposes, then He does, and I for one, if lucky enough to be there, will happily wave a palm branch while he does it.

Having just yesterday taught a gospel doctrine lesson on the Second Coming, I would say at that point the Sherems and the Korihors of the earth will be a thing of the past and there will be no sophistries or half-truths brought among the Saints "to interrupt their rejoicings" (Giddonah's phrasing in Alma 30:22).

[Hemidakota]

If anyone looked back in church history dealing with Polygamy, there was only three-percent of the membership who indulged in this practice.

[SlackTime]

If anyone looked back in church history dealing with Polygamy, there was only three-percent of the membership who indulged in this practice.

You might want to kinda lose that one. It's kinda a meaningless statistic, and it's been fairly well shot down. Let's just pretend we didn't say it ok?

-Ed

[Scott Lloyd]

If anyone looked back in church history dealing with Polygamy, there was only three-percent of the membership who indulged in this practice.

There were probably more. I think that figure is out of date.

But I'm certain the critics on the board will hasten to enlighten us.

[Golden Tapir]

If anyone looked back in church history dealing with Polygamy, there was only three-percent of the membership who indulged in this practice.

anyone who believes the church :

1) is an accurate keeper of statistics (was at that time)

2) Releases them beyond the top leadership,

Raise Your Hands!

[Hemidakota]

If anyone looked back in church history dealing with Polygamy, there was only three-percent of the membership who indulged in this practice.

You might want to kinda lose that one. It's kinda a meaningless statistic, and it's been fairly well shot down. Let's just pretend we didn't say it ok?

-Ed

CR, April 1962, Second Day-Morning Meeting, Elder Nathan Eldon Tanner

Polygamy was officially outlawed more than seventy years ago and less than 3% of the Mormon community ever indulged in it.

Why? When it was given at General Conference. Do you have a reference or latter to correct this statement by the church?

[SlackTime]

If anyone looked back in church history dealing with Polygamy, there was only three-percent of the membership who indulged in this practice.

You might want to kinda lose that one. It's kinda a meaningless statistic, and it's been fairly well shot down. Let's just pretend we didn't say it ok?

-Ed

CR, April 1962, Second Day-Morning Meeting, Elder Nathan Eldon Tanner

Polygamy was officially outlawed more than seventy years ago and less than 3% of the Mormon community ever indulged in it.

Why? When it was given at General Conference. Do you have a reference or latter to correct this statement by the church?

For the statistic to hold up you must.

1. Use the entire population of the church at the time including children of record (which was the practice of the church at the time, the practice was changed in the 60's)

2. Count only the men practicing polygamy as polygamists (so the wives involved in the polygamy were not counted)

A more meaningful statistic would be: What percentage of marriage eligible men in the church practiced polygamy? The best estimate I've read was 40%. And no I don't recall the source off-hand.

To me this 3% statistic, while true, is meaningless, and paints a picture that is misleading. The 40% statistic is clearer.

-Ed

[Hemidakota]

Oh brother...I guess any record statistical is inadequent to you? You must be a member of the church who has access to these records and seemed to know more than they? I highly doubt it.

Go figure....I am done.

[SlackTime]

Oh brother...I guess any record statistical is inadequent to you? You must be a member of the church who has access to these records and seemed to know more than they? I highly doubt it.

Go figure....I am done.

I admit, statistics are fairly meaningless to me. But I also don't feel a need to minimize the practice of polygamy.

In 1982 Marvin J. Ashton defined a lie as:

[Bertram]

Golden Tapir,

As a renowned reviewer, and I assume with allied qualities of research, I would presume that you must have attempted to assess the statistics of what is an apparent vital curiosity to posters on this thread!

Have you made such an attempt...if not, then your somewhat flippant post, might just diminish your standing as a competent reviewer!

Please don't let me down.

Give me a more reasoned breakdown on the stats.