Joseph Smith Polygamy

[ave maria]

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

[dacook]

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"

I have lived and attended church in Tennessee (4yrs), Wisconsin (5 yrs), California (4 yrs) and Utah (the rest of my life except 2 yrs in Japan.

I have to say there is a difference, in general, between Utah Mormons and members elsewhere. Even my wife commented on it independently after we came back to Utah after 13 years away.

mnn727's comment has some accuracy. I don't know all the reasons, but at least some I feel have to do with different levels of exposure to anti-Mormon stuff.

In Tennessee and Wisconsin we would regularly get attacked by local Christian denominations with anti literature left on our cars during church, on our doorstep, anti-videos circulating in the neighborhood, "learn the truth about Mormons" nights at local churches, etc.. We just had to learn to deal with it. This type of thing just hardly ever happens in Utah. I think that's one of the reason's UM's may be IN GENERAL more naive.

There was an anti-Mormon letter in the paper a few days ago. A woman I worked with was appalled. I just laughed.

(edited because I hit the wrong button and it posted before I finished)

[ave maria]

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

That's a mischaracterization of my words, and I'm calling you on it.

Can you cite precisely where I said that?

Here's what I said:

I don't recall how long you've been LDS, or how old you are, but certainly in my lifetime, it wasn't always taught that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, at least not to the extent that is known or acknowledged today (that Brigham Young did was indeed taught in my youth, but the exact number of wives might have been downplayed).

[Scott Lloyd]

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

[ave maria]

I'd say that's fairly forthcoming.  Why the sniping?

I was referring to the sly introduction of the word "complete" at a late stage in the discussion -- as if to leave yourself an avenue to say that what is in the CES manuals, however extensive it might be, does not count because it is not "complete," whatever you may define that to mean.

I'm not interested in such games.

Remove the word "complete" if you prefer.

Here, again, is the challenge as you issued it to me:

What's more I highly doubt you could show me anything from the official curriculum materials of the Church either present (they're virtually all availble on line at the Church's official Web site ) or past that would lead anyone intentionally to believe otherwise.

I believe I responded appropriately to that challenge, and did show you something "from the official curriculum materials of the Church either present. . .or past that would lead anyone intentionally to believe otherwise."

Or is your "out" the word "intentionally?" Then, you'd have to say that any omission of the material was inadvertent.

Characterizing an honest response to your statement as "games" is inaccurate.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

That's a mischaracterization of my words, and I'm calling you on it.

Can you cite precisely where I said that?

Here's what I said:

I don't recall how long you've been LDS, or how old you are, but certainly in my lifetime, it wasn't always taught that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, at least not to the extent that is known or acknowledged today (that Brigham Young did was indeed taught in my youth, but the exact number of wives might have been downplayed).

And to support that assertion, you quoted a CES manual in use today, not something from the supposed dark ages when the Church allegedly failed to teach that Joseph practiced polygamy. In so doing, you, ostensibly at least, ignored two other CES manuals that illustrate just the opposite of what you were contending. Yes, I know you say now that you intended to quote them as well. But one would never have known it from what you did post.

[ave maria]

Yes, I know you say now that you intended to quote them as well. But one would never have known it from what you did post.

Which is why I explained it in a subsequent post.

They were never intended to be in the same post. The previous one had a few citations from student manuals and other sources, and didn't include the Presidents of the Church student manual.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'd say that's fairly forthcoming.

[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"

I have lived and attended church in Tennessee (4yrs), Wisconsin (5 yrs), California (4 yrs) and Utah (the rest of my life except 2 yrs in Japan.

I have to say there is a difference, in general, between Utah Mormons and members elsewhere. Even my wife commented on it independently after we came back to Utah after 13 years away.

mnn727's comment has some accuracy. I don't know all the reasons, but at least some I feel have to do with different levels of exposure to anti-Mormon stuff.

In Tennessee and Wisconsin we would regularly get attacked by local Christian denominations with anti literature left on our cars during church, on our doorstep, anti-videos circulating in the neighborhood, "learn the truth about Mormons" nights at local churches, etc.. We just had to learn to deal with it. This type of thing just hardly ever happens in Utah. I think that's one of the reason's UM's may be IN GENERAL more naive.

There was an anti-Mormon letter in the paper a few days ago. A woman I worked with was appalled. I just laughed.

(edited because I hit the wrong button and it posted before I finished)

There is plenty of anti-Mormonism in Utah. Some of it is unique in its insidiousness because it comes from people who live among among us and are familiar with us as neighbors.

I don't like regional stereotyping of fellow Church members -- in Utah or anywhere else. I don't regard it as conducive to the unity we are commanded to have as people of God.

[mnn727]

I don't like regional stereotyping of fellow Church members -- in Utah or anywhere else. I don't regard it as conducive to the unity we are commanded to have as people of God.

Its not stereotyping, it's plain observation.

I put "IN GENERAL" in bold and underlined it sheesh!

[Ron]

mnn727:

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

Unfortunately (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.

That's great mnn727 that you were able to find out about everything before joining the church. My opinion is that you are unique in that sense.

I don't think that all or even most converts are simimlar. On my mission in Canada I helped over 20 people join and I'm not aware of any of them ever questioning or knowing about Polygamy at all. I'm glad they didn't ask because I would have been untruthful in my answer (unknowingly). Our approach as missionaries was to divert them from touch questioning and direct them back to the basics using a "resolve concerns" methodology. We would never have encouraged individual study.

There seems an element of church culture that encourages studying only from church approved sources.

Based on your comments mnn727 it doesn't seem like you have the ability to understsand me on this issue because you were a convert and learned about everything before joining.

What I should ask is there anyone who grew up in the church who can explain to me how and where I missed the boat? Was there a particular class or lesson that I missed? I'm having trouble believing that I missed it just because I'm a certain type of Mormon. I'd like to know specifically what different approach I should have had to avoid this crisis later in life.

Also, my original question. Can someone point out a flaw in my assumption in the following statement: If Joseph Smith hadn't meant for his Polyandry to involve marital relations then there should be some evidence of of Joseph "clearing the air" that they weren't so he could "avoid the appearance of evil".

[Bertram]

Can /would anyone let me know when they first read about men of God practising plural marriages/many wives/polygamy in Holy Scriptures?

[dacook]

There is plenty of anti-Mormonism in Utah. Some of it is unique in its insidiousness because it comes from people who live among among us and are familiar with us as neighbors.

This is true, but it's a different type. As you say, more insidious. Also more "under the radar". A lof of people in my ward aren't really very aware of it, except peripherally. They don't have to deal with it directly if they don't want to, surrounded by fellow-believers as they are.

I don't like regional stereotyping of fellow Church members -- in Utah or anywhere else. I don't regard it as conducive to the unity we are commanded to have as people of God.

Yes, but...there are differences. Living outside Utah then coming back is a bit of culture shock. My wife grew up totally in Utah and didn't believe this until she came back after 13 years out of state.

We do not go around belittling anyone or even mentioning this to anyone. I agree stereotyping is bad, but...there are some general differences in prevailing attitudes, etc..

[truth dancer]

Hi Bertram...

Can /would anyone let me know when they first read about men of God practising plural marriages/many wives/polygamy in Holy Scriptures?

The first I recall I was about 10 years old or so.

I put OT polygamy in the same class as slavery. My opinion at the time was that it happened long ago and society has learned that it is not right. I also believed Jesus made it very clear in the NT that it was wrong and unholy.

~dancer~

[Scott Lloyd]

There is plenty of anti-Mormonism in Utah. Some of it is unique in its insidiousness because it comes from people who live among among us and are familiar with us as neighbors.

This is true, but it's a different type. As you say, more insidious. Also more "under the radar". A lof of people in my ward aren't really very aware of it, except peripherally. They don't have to deal with it directly if they don't want to, surrounded by fellow-believers as they are.

I don't like regional stereotyping of fellow Church members -- in Utah or anywhere else. I don't regard it as conducive to the unity we are commanded to have as people of God.

Yes, but...there are differences. Living outside Utah then coming back is a bit of culture shock. My wife grew up totally in Utah and didn't believe this until she came back after 13 years out of state.

We do not go around belittling anyone or even mentioning this to anyone. I agree stereotyping is bad, but...there are some general differences in prevailing attitudes, etc..

Fair enough.

[phaedrus ut]

Are you aware that until the early to mid 1900's that the average age of girls getting married was 14 and that the legal age in many states until WW2 was 12 or 13? I believe there are still 3 states left wheere a girl can get married at 14 with parental permission. Here is a link to a website that shows the age of sexual consent around the world today-- some places are as low as 12 years old!! http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

Does no one study history anymore?

Hmm, studying history huh? The early to mid 1900's the average age was 14! Wow what a great statistic! Care to share a reference for that?

Let's imagine that every bride during this era is not 14 years old but various ages. For every 15 year old bride there would have to be a offsetting 13 year old bride, for every one of 16 years the offset would be 12 to get a average of 14. Lets take this further if there was a 22 year old bride it would require to 10 year old bride to make the average 14, and a 30 year old bride would require 2 six year old brides as a statistical offset.

From the statistics i've seen concerning 19th century marriages the average age of the groom was 21-22 and on average the bride was 1-2 years younger. Marriages of teens was rare and generally only occured with a expecting child.

Phaedrus

[Bertram]

truth dancer,

In case I misunderstand, are you saying that the OLD TESTAMENT is in ERROR?

That which occurred was not acceptable to God?

Sorry for querying this but I do not wish to misconstrue your post!

[USU78]

Adam was at very least a serial polygynist, according to some. Google Lilith.

Here's one fun link:

Scary? Nah.

[SlackTime]

I also believed Jesus made it very clear in the NT that it was wrong and unholy.

I would really love to get this scripture reference! Somehow I missed it every time I've read the new testament.

-Ed

[truth dancer]

Hi Bertram...

In case I misunderstand, are you saying that the OLD TESTAMENT is in ERROR?

That which occurred was not acceptable to God?

I was trying to share my recollection of how I felt when I learned of polygamy as a child.

As I recall, my understanding (based on non LDS teachings) was that polygamy was similar to slavery... a practice that was cultural and when Jesus came he made sure everyone knew it was totally wrong....

I no longer believe that God is a person/man who speaks to humans. I believe the OT is an attempt by leaders of various nomadic tribes to connect with God (and make sense of their world) just as all other myth is an attempt to answer the difficult questions by various peoples.

So, I personally don't think God has anything whatsoever to do with polygamy..

Hope that clarifies it...

~dancer~

[Orange Zodiac]

truth dancer,

In case I misunderstand, are you saying that the OLD TESTAMENT is in ERROR?

That which occurred was not acceptable to God?

Sorry for querying this but I do not wish to misconstrue your post!

I just started a thread that talks about this issue. Perhaps I should have posted it here.

Where in the Old Testament do you see God commanding someone to take more than one wife? Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham because she did not believe that God was capable of lifting her barrenness. Jacob was tricked into marry Leah and his third and fourth wifes were given to him by his first two wives out of jealous competition. David and Solomong married to form political alliances as was the custom of their day. It was not something God commanded and the Book of Mormon even goes so far as to call it an abomination in his sight. So please show me where in the OT that God commanded anyone to take a second wife? True he may have allowed some of the prophets to have a second or third or fourth wife but it was not his commandment to them to do so and I think you would be hard pressed to find any scriptural evidence that would support God making this a general recommendation for all of his people.

[truth dancer]

Hey ST...

I would really love to get this scripture reference! Somehow I missed it every time I've read the new testament.

1 Tim 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Remember, in response to a question, I was sharing my understanding at the time I learned of polygamy. I understand my teachings at the time were not in line with LDS doctrine. I do understand the arguments LDS's have for these scriptures.

While they do not ring true for me I have heard them and get the position.

~dancer~

[SlackTime]

Hey ST... 

I would really love to get this scripture reference! Somehow I missed it every time I've read the new testament.

1 Tim 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Remember, in response to a question, I was sharing my understanding at the time I learned of polygamy. I understand my teachings at the time were not in line with LDS doctrine. I do understand the arguments LDS's have for these scriptures.

While they do not ring true for me I have heard them and get the position.

~dancer~

No need to argue. You said that Jesus had spoken out on polygamy. Then you give me a quote by Paul. And that quote is specific as to its application not a denunciation of polygamy in general, and could be taken to mean that a Bishop needs to not have too many "home" problems to deal with.

It really doesn't fit what you described. That is; Christ's denunciation of polygamy.

-Ed

[Bertram]

truth dancer,

AND there's more!!

Just a little more clarification:

God does not "speak" to man!!....so you "threw" out the OT!!!

So, who spoke to whom, in the New Testament??.....If God spoke to man there.....will you also "throw" out the NT???

[truth dancer]

Hi Ed...

No need to argue.

Hmmm not sure to what you are referring. I'm trying to respectfully respond to your comment.

You said that Jesus had spoken out on polygamy.

No... Lets be clear.... I said, "As I recall, my understanding (based on non LDS teachings) was that polygamy was similar to slavery... a practice that was cultural and when Jesus came he made sure everyone knew it was totally wrong...."

I described what I was taught and what my understanding was as a child given non lds beliefs. I shared scriptures that were taught to me as a child, regarding the importance of only having one wife.

It really doesn't fit what you described. That is; Christ's denunciation of polygamy.

Again, I was not trying to argue or defend a position. I was responding to Bertram, and sharing (to the best of my memory) my understanding as a ten year old, from teachings I received from NON LDS sources.

Hope that clears things up for you.

~dancer~