Joseph Smith Polygamy

[ave maria]

Baloney! The Saints have been writing about and defending plural marriage since Nauvoo and those can be found on the library shelves. A couple of the books I mentioned were written in the 70s by BYU Press which means the researchers had ready access to the primary sources. When were you at BYU?

Again, Nighthawke, I never indicated that I didn't know about plural marriage, or that I didn't undertake additional research regarding it.

There were plenty of examples in my own family heritage to not be aware of it.

I think you're misunderstanding a distinction between what is actually authentically taught by the LDS Church regarding its own history and what is available for members to research.

[thesometimesaint]

Brackite:

Your right about Issac. My bad.

The Scriptures are silent on whether Jesus was married or not. and there is no official doctrine on it. But given that He was a Jew living in Isreal 2000 years ago.

Leads me to think that He was. Add in that He is called Rabbi, and Rabbis were required to be married, adds more. Add the Joseph(His earthly stepfather) was a faithful Jew, and fathers were to arrange for the maariage of their sons, adds even more. So to my mind He was mostly likely married.

Polygamy was practised by Jews in Europe clear up into the middle ages(perhaps beyond). The sisters Mary and Martha in the New Testament lived together, and did service to Jesus that would have been done ONLY by a wife. Not proof that Jesus was a polygamist, a strong indiction that He was. That is why I said Possibly.

Depends on where you lived at the time. In the Middle East or China, or Africa?Parts of Africa, and the Middle East practice polygamy even today. From what I understand its pretty well died out in China(maybe not in the most isolated parts).

America never really had much to do with polygamy. A few isolated pockets here and there. But I did not mention polygamy. Just the fact that age of consent to marry was much less than it is today. And in 19th Century America it was common for older men to marry much younger women

[Nighthawke]

Baloney! The Saints have been writing about and defending plural marriage since Nauvoo and those can be found on the library shelves. A couple of the books I mentioned were written in the 70s by BYU Press which means the researchers had ready access to the primary sources. When were you at BYU?

Again, Nighthawke, I never indicated that I didn't know about plural marriage, or that I didn't undertake additional research regarding it.

There were plenty of examples in my own family heritage to not be aware of it.

I think you're misunderstanding a distinction between what is actually authentically taught by the LDS Church regarding its own history and what is available for members to research.

And I think you're misunderstanding the mission of the Church which is to bring souls to Jesus Christ--how does teaching "Church history" accomplish that? Does your priest teach Roman Catholic history in his sermons on Sundays? What about the manuals--how much Roman Catholic church history is found within those pages? Can I look up the statistics for how many people were burned at the stake? Excommunicated for heresy? How many popes were married, committed adultery, stole property, et cetera, et cetera???

[mnn727]

I KNOW!! I HAVE THE ANSWER!!!

Lets change from a 3 hour block to a 6 hour block with 3 hours devoted to Church history and the Church requiring all investigators to complete at least 10 years of these classes before being baptised and also pass a comprehensive test with at least 95% correct, about the most obscure speculation or practice on the part of everyone ever having been a member. That way the Church could hold everyones hand throughout the process and no one would ever be confused again!

[ave maria]

All I'm saying is that if someone wants to learn more about plural marriage the resources are there. The information is there for anyone to read. That's how Fawn Brodie, Danel Bachman, Todd Compton, Carmon B. Hardy, Kathryn Daynes, et cetera wrote their books--by looking things up. Danel Bachman wasn't even in Utah when he put his thesis together but did most of his research via interlibrary loans. I live up in Canada and have had no problems getting my hands on documents, publications and so forth.

Noting, of course, that many of those sources you cite did not even exist when I was growing up in the LDS Church, and are more recent.

Baloney! The Saints have been writing about and defending plural marriage since Nauvoo and those can be found on the library shelves. A couple of the books I mentioned were written in the 70s by BYU Press which means the researchers had ready access to the primary sources.

Which books were those, exactly?

Of the authors you mentioned, only one, Fawn Brodie, had a work that was available at the time, and faithful LDS Church members were discouraged from reading it.

Here are the authors you mentioned, and their publication dates:

Compton, Todd, "In Sacred Loneliness" (Signature Books, 1997)

Bachman, Danel W., "A Study of the Mormon Practice of Plural Marriage before the Death of Joseph Smith." (M.A. thesis, Purdue University, 1975)

B. Carmon Hardy, "Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage" (University of Illinois Press, 1992)

Daynes, Kathryn M., "More Wives than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 1840

[thesometimesaint]

mnn727:

[ave maria]

And I think you're misunderstanding the mission of the Church which is to bring souls to Jesus Christ--how does teaching "Church history" accomplish that? Does your priest teach Roman Catholic history in his sermons on Sundays? What about the manuals--how much Roman Catholic church history is found within those pages? Can I look up the statistics for how many people were burned at the stake? Excommunicated for heresy? How many popes were married, committed adultery, stole property, et cetera, et cetera???

Members coming into the Catholic Church have the history of the Catholic Church fully disclosed to them during the RCIA process.

You can go to the Catholic Encyclopedia website at http://www.newadvent.org and find out which popes were married, which had children, and so forth. I'm not aware of a place where that's misrepresented.

There's a distinction to be made here between "teaching" Church history and accurately representing it.

We're talking about student manuals for courses specifically dealing with church history, aren't we? And not just what's given from the pulpit? Although "official Church manuals" would have some bearing on that.

[Nighthawke]

Which books were those, exactly?

A couple of the books I listed in my first post on this thread:

Where can one find, as offered in an official capacity, anything about the history of polygamy (or much of the history of the lds church for that matter) and the wives, reasons, relationships, and facts of Smith's supposed divine revealtion in his practice of it.

Well, since you asked. Some might want to try their ward libraries. This is where I picked up "Mormon Sisters: Women in Early Utah", ed. Claudia L. Bushman which has several chapters re: plural marriage. It was originally published in 1976 and was recently re-released.

Some ward libraries have copies of the 1978 Brigham Young University Press book "Sister Saints", ed. Vicky Burgess-Olson. This book has numerous accounts of plural wives and an excellent overview of polygamy in the introduction.

Another good book is "A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History" printed by BYU Religious Studies Centre in 1997. Wherein she mentions her marriage to Joseph Smith. Her 1881 autobiography provides the following testimony:

I am thankful that [God] has brought me through the furnace of affliction & that He has condesended to show me that the promises made to me the morning that I was sealed to the Prophet of God will not fail & I would not have the chain broken for I have had a view of the principle of eternal salvation & the perfect union which this sealing power will bring to the human family & with the help of our Heavenly Father I am determined to so live that I can claim those promises.

- Helen Mar Kimball Smith Whitney, 30 March 1881.

Another one often found in ward libraries is "Women of Covenant: The Story of Relief Society" by Jill Mulvey Derr, Janath Russell Cannon and Maureen Ursenbach Beecher published in 1992 by Brigham Young University Press. This book is often quoted in the Ensign and women's conference talks.

One could also read the series: "Life Writings of Frontier Women" ed. by Maureen Ursenbach Beecher. Volume 7, which I just purchased, came out a couple of weeks ago.

Also recommended is "More Wives Than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System 1840-1910" by Kathryn M. Daynes. Dr. Daynes and Ben Bennion spoke about their upcoming book at the recent Mormon History Association which I was able to attend, Dr. Daynes was kind enough to autograph my copy of her book. BYU's History Department's Fall 2004 newsletter reports on several projects of Mormon history by Kathryn Daynes:

Kathryn Daynes continues her study of Mormon plural marriage in the nineteenth century. She is working on a book with Ben Bennion exploring various facets of polygamy throughout Utah entitled "Plural Wives and Tangled Lives: Polygamy

[AlvinMayker]

Read the story by Orson Scott Card, a completely faithful member of the church, "Saints" and tell me that JS didn't have sex with his, uh, brides....

Card based his fictional account on the journals of one his his ancestors that he found and copied doing research in a church library - He uses fictitious names in the book, but the tale is about Eliza R. Snow. If her journal upon which his writing was based was accurate, not only did she have sexual relations with Joseph, but she was carrying his baby when Emma pushed her down the stairs and the good "Doc" Bennet - Who was carrying on sexual shennanigans himself with the young girls of Nauvoo, went to work on her.

If the relationships weren't sexual, why all of the secrecy and sneaking around on Emma?

Why is section 132 so explicit about taking virgins to wife? Notice it doesn't say anything about platonic relations.

If these wifes were non sexual, why did the practice of polygamy that grew out of those initial unions produce so many children?

The desparate appeal saying that the women who thought they were carrying Joseph's children being "spiritual" offspring is the reflection of a character who will go to ANY lenghts to justify his investment in mormonism. Sad, really.

[Ron]

And why is that? Have you personally done any detailed research on this? Do you know of any children proven to be Fathered by J.S. other than through Emma?

I haven't done much research other than surfing the web. I'm naturally skeptical of anything I read on the web. When I first read about the extent of JS Polygamy on an anti site I didn't believe it. It took a FARMS review of Todd Compton book to convince me. That why I'm asking the question here and not a board of ex-mormons.

My intuition and logic are screaming foul play. But I realize I can't always trust my intuition and logic, usually because I've overlooked a minor detail. I think thats why I posted here, part of me wants to validate my understanding but also deep down maybe I'm hoping someone can provide me with a specific fact or show me my logic flaws so I can see it correctly.

The shrinking of my testimony is not because of JS Polygamy alone. It was the salt in the wound. Prior to learning about JS polygamy I could see myself being comfortable as a liberal or free-thinking intellectual type mormon and going with the flow. Now I'm having trouble doing that.

Are you aware that Emma, to her dying day swore that Joseph was NOT married to anyone else, however she never claimed he was not 'sealed' to other women?

Are you aware of JSIII doing a very complete investigation and deciding that there was no proof that JS ever married other women, although due to the sealings he left the matter open for other people to decide for themselves?

I wasn't aware of either of these items. If there is any documentation online about this, please let me know and I'll take a look.

As far as you and your family not knowing JS was 'sealed' to other women, all I can say is that I was fully aware of it before I converted so the information is not hidden. Heck, A quick search at FamilySearch.com these days (not around when I converted) shows names and dates, out of 23 sealings 4 were done after his death proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that sealings were not always for the purpose of Earthly marriage.

I admit if I had been brought up knowing about all this then it would be a easier for me to accept right now.

Question, how come I missed the boat? I was baptized when I was eight, never missed church, graduated from Seminary. I then served a Full time mission and have attended church every week for 12 years and still attend every week with my family. I admit that during Sunday School and Priesthood I don't always pay attention, but somebody explain to me how I missed the fact that Joseph Smith married other mens wives and teenagers?

My wife is also a life long member and had heard about Joseph Smiths wives somewhere but didn't even close to know the full extent (and she still doesn't believe me when I tell her now).

My sister is what I would consider an ultra-Mormon, bishops wife, super active etc. My wife told her what I had said about JS's wives and she got a glazed look and said she had never heard of it, but that it made sense that if Polygamy was commanded then it would make sense that JS would practice it. She is a big time "Work and the Glory" fan. She promised to get back with my wife with more answers. She hasn't came back with any answers.

What could or should I have done differently to prevent myself from learning so late in life. Where in the church program or curriculum was I supposed to learn about these things?

Everyone mentions Helen Mar Kimbal, but how about Fanny Young who was a 60 year old widow at the time of sealing, you think that was all about sex? How about 59 year old never married before, Rhonda Richards?

***and I want to note here that I have nothing against older women, however women in the 1800's had hard lives and in old photo's most of them look it also. Somehow I just can't believe that a sealing to a 60 year old woman in the 1840's was all about sex.

I have to agree with you here. When I first heard about JS polygamy this is what I envisioned it probably was, old widows.

Personally, I believe you are doing yourself a grave injustice by assuming an attitude of "Guilty unless proven innocent", especially since it only took me about 5 minutes to look at dates of sealing and birth and death dates of every woman he was sealed to and death dates of any prior husbands on FamilySearch. Like JS's son JSIII I also can find NO evidence of any marriages - only sealings, however unlike you it would not bother me a bit.

When I looked at FamilySearch.com I got a different impression.

I can respect the fact that that JS polygamy doesn't bother you. Maybe its because you found out about it before joining the church and not so late in the game like I did.

I also think some people may adapt differently when they find out something new that they think somebody should have told them about. For instance, my first Temple experience was a total shocker. Deep down I felt betrayed by my parents and church leaders. I remember thinking "Mom, Dad why didn't somebody tell me about all of this?" My wife on the other hand, didn't have any problem at all and just went with the flow and never thought twice about it.

[Scott Lloyd]

I KNOW!! I HAVE THE ANSWER!!!

Lets change from a 3 hour block to a 6 hour block with 3 hours devoted to Church history and the Church requiring all investigators to complete at least 10 years of these classes before being baptised and also pass a comprehensive test with at least 95% correct, about the most obscure speculation or practice on the part of everyone ever having been a member. That way the Church could hold everyones hand throughout the process and no one would ever be confused again!

Nah, you would still have some of the inattentive or the occasional attenders claiming in later years that the Church had snookered them.

[Scott Lloyd]

We're talking about student manuals for courses specifically dealing with church history, aren't we? And not just what's given from the pulpit? Although "official Church manuals" would have some bearing on that.

But the CES manual for the Church history does talk about Joseph's plural marriages.

You looked it up. Remember?

[ave maria]

We're talking about student manuals for courses specifically dealing with church history, aren't we?  And not just what's given from the pulpit?  Although "official Church manuals" would have some bearing on that.

But the CES manual for the Church history does talk about Joseph's plural marriages.

You looked it up. Remember?

Yes.

As I said, when I post that information, we can all take a look and see whether or not we believe it's clear and complete.

[Nighthawke]

Read the story by Orson Scott Card, a completely faithful member of the church, "Saints" and tell me that JS didn't have sex with his, uh, brides....

Card based his fictional account on the journals of one his his ancestors that he found and copied doing research in a church library - He uses fictitious names in the book, but the tale is about Eliza R. Snow. If her journal upon which his writing was based was accurate, not only did she have sexual relations with Joseph, but she was carrying his baby when Emma pushed her down the stairs and the good "Doc" Bennet - Who was carrying on sexual shennanigans himself with the young girls of Nauvoo, went to work on her.

If the relationships weren't sexual, why all of the secrecy and sneaking around on Emma?

Why is section 132 so explicit about taking virgins to wife? Notice it doesn't say anything about platonic relations.

If these wifes were non sexual, why did the practice of polygamy that grew out of those initial unions produce so many children?

The desparate appeal saying that the women who thought they were carrying Joseph's children being "spiritual" offspring is the reflection of a character who will go to ANY lenghts to justify his investment in mormonism. Sad, really.

Oh yes let's do read the fictional "Saints" for our "historical facts".

You're obviously not familiar with "Emma and Eliza and the Stairs", by Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, Linda King Newell, and Valeen Tippetts Avery. The Historians Corner ed. by James B. Allen, BYU Studies, vol. 22 (1982), Number 1 - Fall 1982.

"...produce so many children"??? And the evidence would be- more fictional tomes? Sad, really.

[Rollo Tomasi]

But the CES manual for the Church history does talk about Joseph's plural marriages.

Scott:

I just went to ldsces.org and looked at the relevant Institute manuals, and while there is discussion of polygamy, it's not very much and certainly doesn't go into the detail the we've seen on this thread alone (and polyandry is never mentioned). It seems to gloss over it, imo.

The best detail about JS practicing polygamy in the Level 324-325 manual is this:

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

"President Wilford Woodruff, who was closely associated with the Prophet Joseph Smith, said: 'Emma Smith, the widow of the Prophet, is said to have maintained to her dying moments that her husband had nothing to do with the patriarchal order of marriage, but that it was Brigham Young that got that up. I bear record before God, angels and men that Joseph Smith received that revelation, and I bear record that Emma Smith gave her husband in marriage to several women while he was living, some of whom are to-day living in this city, and some may be present in this congregation, and who, if called upon, would confirm my words. But lo and behold, we hear of publication after publication now-a-days, declaring that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with these things. Joseph Smith himself organized every endowment in our Church and revealed the same to the Church, and he lived to receive every key of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods from the hands of the men who held them while in the flesh, and who hold them in eternity.'

[UteFan]

I've been struggling with this issue as well.  The thing that bothers me is even if the marriages were non-sexual.  Would the lord really take away someones mortal wife and give it to the prophet?

There may not have been any actual "taking away", at least not in every case.

It was common practice in early days to seal whole families to the church leaders.

Is this really the case? I read something wehre Joseph Smith asked Brigham Young to give up his wife in a Isaac like "test". BY passed the test but was very distraught about it. If it was just they were sealing whole families to church leaders its not much of a test.

[Scott Lloyd]

But the CES manual for the Church history does talk about Joseph's plural marriages.

Scott:

I just went to ldsces.org and looked at the relevant Institute manuals, and while there is discussion of polygamy, it's not very much and certainly doesn't go into the detail the we've seen on this thread alone (and polyandry is never mentioned). It seems to gloss over it, imo.

The best detail about JS practicing polygamy in the Level 324-325 manual is this:

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

"President Wilford Woodruff, who was closely associated with the Prophet Joseph Smith, said: 'Emma Smith, the widow of the Prophet, is said to have maintained to her dying moments that her husband had nothing to do with the patriarchal order of marriage, but that it was Brigham Young that got that up. I bear record before God, angels and men that Joseph Smith received that revelation, and I bear record that Emma Smith gave her husband in marriage to several women while he was living, some of whom are to-day living in this city, and some may be present in this congregation, and who, if called upon, would confirm my words. But lo and behold, we hear of publication after publication now-a-days, declaring that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with these things. Joseph Smith himself organized every endowment in our Church and revealed the same to the Church, and he lived to receive every key of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods from the hands of the men who held them while in the flesh, and who hold them in eternity.'” (In Journal of Discourses, 23:131.)

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

And here's what I found in the Institute 341-343 manual:

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

"The law of celestial marriage, as outlined in this revelation, also included the principle of the plurality of wives. In 1831 as Joseph Smith labored on the inspired translation of the holy scriptures, he asked the Lord how he justified the practice of plural marriage among the Old Testament patriarchs. This question resulted in the revelation on celestial marriage, which included an answer to his question about the plural marriages of the patriarchs.

"First the Lord explained that for any covenant, including marriage, to be valid in eternity it must meet three requirements (see D&C 132:7): (1) It must be “made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise.” (2) It must be performed by the proper priesthood authority. (3) It must be by “revelation and commandment” through the Lord’s anointed prophet (see also vv. 18–19). Using Abraham as an example, the Lord said he “received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word” (v. 29). Consequently, the Lord asked, “Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it” (v. 35).

"Moreover, Joseph Smith and the Church were to accept the principle of plural marriage as part of the restoration of all things (see v. 45). Accustomed to conventional marriage patterns, the Prophet was at first understandably reluctant to engage in this new practice. Due to a lack of historical documentation, we do not know what his early attempts were to comply with the commandment in Ohio. His first recorded plural marriage in Nauvoo was to Louisa Beaman; it was performed by Bishop Joseph B. Noble on 5 April 1841. During the next three years Joseph took additional plural wives in accordance with the Lord’s commands.

"As members of the Council of the Twelve Apostles returned from their missions to the British Isles in 1841, Joseph Smith taught them one by one the doctrine of plurality of wives, and each experienced some difficulty in understanding and accepting this doctrine. Brigham Young, for example, recounted his struggle: “I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin.”

"After their initial hesitancy and frustration, Brigham Young and others of the Twelve received individual confirmations from the Holy Spirit and accepted the new doctrine of plural marriage. They knew that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God in all things. At first the practice was kept secret and was very limited. Rumors began to circulate about authorities of the Church having additional wives, which greatly distorted the truth and contributed to increased persecution from apostates and outsiders. Part of the difficulty, of course, was the natural aversion Americans held against “polygamy.” This new system appeared to threaten the strongly entrenched tradition of monogamy and the solidarity of the family structure. Later, in Utah, the Saints openly practiced “the principle,” but never without persecution."

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

So, I agree, it's out there for any student of Church history, but not much detail (and it completely ignores polyandry).

You act as though this is all there is. That's not even all that I cited.

And it rebuts AM's claim that the Church does not teach about Joseph's practice of plural marriage.

These are CES survey courses. It goes without saying that they cover a lot of ground without going into extensive detail on any one thing.

As has been written here, tomes of material are available, from Church-affiliated publishers and others on plural marriage in the Church.

[mnn727]

What could or should I have done differently to prevent myself from learning so late in life.

Ron, please do not take this as a personal attack upon you as it is not meant that way. However IN GENERAL I find that there are 2 types of Mormons.

1. Those that take responsibilty of researching their religion

and

2. Those that expect to be spoon fed everything through Church sources

Unfortunatley (AGAIN IN GENERAL) I have found that there tends to be many more of the 2nd type in areas of high LDS population and among lifetime members. Perhaps those of us that are converts take our conversion process more seriously than some that grow up in the Church.

Again I am speaking in general and not about specific individuals as there are many exceptions in every case.

[Scott Lloyd]

We're talking about student manuals for courses specifically dealing with church history, aren't we?

[Scott Lloyd]

What could or should I have done differently to prevent myself from learning so late in life.

Ron, please do not take this as a personal attack upon you as it is not meant that way. However IN GENERAL I find that there are 2 types of Mormons.

1. Those that take responsibilty of researching their religion

and

2. Those that expect to be spoon fed everything through Church sources

Unfortunatley (AGAIN IN GENERAL) I have found that there tends to be many more of the 2nd type in areas of high LDS population and among lifetime members. Perhaps those of us that are converts take our conversion process more seriously than some that grow up in the Church.

Again I am speaking in general and not about specific individuals as there are many exceptions in every case.

While I tend to agree with almost all of your posts, as a lifelong Church member and Utah resident, I reject and somewhat resent the stereotyping in the second part of this one mmn727.

[John Corrill]

Truthdancer: Also a website you may want to check out: www.wivesofjosephsmith.com

Nighthawke: Why is it a good website?

John Corrill: It's a good website because it doesn't defend OR criticize Joseph Smith. It lets those who were involved with Joseph Smith in polygamy tell what happened in their own words, without commentary or interpretation. Without defense or criticism. I find this unique. Most websites (and posters on this very thread) seem bent on defending or tearing down Joseph Smith. The website Truthdancer mentioned does neither. It gives readers a brief introduction to Joseph Smith's polygamy, with the words of the wives themselves, with copious references on where to go for further information.

Nighthawke: It's sole purpose is no different than any other anti-Mormon website: to cause members of the Church to fall away and investigators to back away.

John Corrill: I have seen TBM posters on various message boards both applaud and criticize the website www.wivesofjosephsmith. I have seen posters at RFM applaud and criticize the same website. With such mixed reception from "both sides of the fence", lableing it "anti-Mormon" seems harsh.

You might consider the possibility that the website is an honest attempt to appropriately inform people like myself and Ron, who get blindsided by this information after years and years of hearing nothing about from any other source.

[mnn727]

Are you aware that Emma, to her dying day swore that Joseph was NOT married to anyone else, however she never claimed he was not 'sealed' to other women?

Are you aware of JSIII doing a very complete investigation and deciding that there was no proof that JS ever married other women, although due to the sealings he left the matter open for other people to decide for themselves?

I wasn't aware of either of these items. If there is any documentation online about this, please let me know and I'll take a look.

From http://www.cofchrist.org/seek/faq.asp

What position does Community of Christ take on Joseph Smith Jr.'s alleged involvement in polygamy?

As a policy, Community of Christ does not take positions on issues of history. We do however place great confidence in sound historical methodology as it relates to our church story. We believe that historians and other researchers should be free to come to whatever conclusions they feel are appropriate after

[mnn727]

What could or should I have done differently to prevent myself from learning so late in life.

Ron, please do not take this as a personal attack upon you as it is not meant that way. However IN GENERAL I find that there are 2 types of Mormons.

1. Those that take responsibilty of researching their religion

and

2. Those that expect to be spoon fed everything through Church sources

Unfortunatley (AGAIN IN GENERAL) I have found that there tends to be many more of the 2nd type in areas of high LDS population and among lifetime members. Perhaps those of us that are converts take our conversion process more seriously than some that grow up in the Church.

Again I am speaking in general and not about specific individuals as there are many exceptions in every case.

While I tend to agree with almost all of your posts, as a lifelong Church member and Utah resident, I reject and somewhat resent the stereotyping in the second part of this one mmn727.

I call's them as I see's them.

That is why I was very specific of saying "IN GENERAL"

[dacook]

I've been struggling with this issue as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

What could or should I have done differently to prevent myself from learning so late in life.

Ron, please do not take this as a personal attack upon you as it is not meant that way. However IN GENERAL I find that there are 2 types of Mormons.

1. Those that take responsibilty of researching their religion

and

2. Those that expect to be spoon fed everything through Church sources

Unfortunatley (AGAIN IN GENERAL) I have found that there tends to be many more of the 2nd type in areas of high LDS population and among lifetime members. Perhaps those of us that are converts take our conversion process more seriously than some that grow up in the Church.

Again I am speaking in general and not about specific individuals as there are many exceptions in every case.

While I tend to agree with almost all of your posts, as a lifelong Church member and Utah resident, I reject and somewhat resent the stereotyping in the second part of this one mmn727.

I call's them as I see's them.

That is why I was very specific of saying "IN GENERAL"

OK, I appreciate the qualifier.