"Joseph Smith and polygamy..."

[John Corrill]

Just had an interesting disucssion with a very good lifetime active forty-something LDS friend of mine. He said it was mentioned in his Sunday School class last week that "Joseph Smith was a polygamist". "I had never heard that in a church setting before. It's kind of a shocker when you hear it for the first time. My wife had never heard it either", was his observation to me. He and I have had brief discussions about this in the past, so he knew "something" was there in this regard, but he was always "afraid to look to look further" (his words).

Anyway, perhaps this is a new beginning for us as a church. I'm sure it won't happen as quickly as I would like of course, but perhaps the door to our "closet" is cracking open.

Personally, I wish President Hinckley would just give a conference talk about how Joseph Smith treated Eliza Partridge and the others and then proclaim, "everybody screws up in life, and this was Joseph's screw up". Then we'd be done with all the silence, the convoluted defenses, etc.

Anyway, just wanted to share. AND, I'm so relieved to hear that I was not the only one who spent a lifetime active in the church completely unaware that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. Nighthawke had nearly convinced this was the case...

EDIT: Does anyone know if this was in the manual or would this have been an ad hoc comment by the teacher?

[Scott Lloyd]

Just had an interesting disucssion with a very good lifetime active forty-something LDS friend of mine.  He said it was mentioned in his Sunday School class last week that "Joseph Smith was a polygamist".  "I had never heard that in a church setting before.  It's kind of a shocker when you hear it for the first time.  My wife had never heard it either", was his observation to me.  He and I have had brief discussions about this in the past, so he knew "something" was there in this regard, but he was always "afraid to look to look further" (his words). 

Anyway, perhaps this is a new beginning for us as a church.  I'm sure it won't happen as quickly as I would like of course, but perhaps the door to our "closet" is cracking open.

Personally, I wish President Hinckley would just give a conference talk about how Joseph Smith treated Eliza Partridge and the others and then proclaim, "everybody screws up in life, and this was Joseph's screw up".  Then we'd be done with all the silence, the convoluted defenses, etc. 

Anyway, just wanted to share.  AND, I'm so relieved to hear that I was not the only one who spent a lifetime active in the church completely unaware that Joseph Smith was a polygamist.  Nighthawke had nearly convinced this was the case...

EDIT:  Does anyone know if this was in the manual or would this have been an ad hoc comment by the teacher?

This has been discussed before here, and not too long ago.

The statement is in the teacher's manual for the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History course of study for this year. I would look up the reference again for you, but I lack the time and patience to do it just now.

As for it being a "new beginning," the same teacher's manual was in use four years ago and, unless there was a revision in the meantime, four years before that.

There are also statements regarding Joseph's practice of plural marriage in the Church Educational System student manuals for courses of study on the Doctrine and Covenants and on Church history.

[charity]

I have been a member of over 40 years, and can't remember the first time the fact was mentioned. So it was a long time ago. Where is your ward?

[Pahoran]

John "weasachurch" Corrill,

not that I would expect you to know this, but as everyone knows who relies upon LDS sources, it is and always has been the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ, publicly affirmed from the day that plural marriage was proclaimed to the world, that Joseph was a polygamist.

This fact has never been hidden in any "closet."

I didn't have to look very hard to find the following grating and annoying bit of drivel:

"us as a church"

The lady doth protest to much, methinks. Stop trying so hard to convince everyone you're a Latter-day Saint. It makes people wonder why you are so insecure about it.

Personally, I wish President Hinckley would just give a conference talk about how Joseph Smith treated Eliza Partridge and the others and then proclaim, "everybody screws up in life, and this was Joseph's screw up". Then we'd be done with all the silence, the convoluted defenses, etc.

Maybe you're right, but then we'd have to admit that Emma shares rather a lot of the guilt for this.

And that will just further infuriate the PC crowd.

Regards,

Pahoran

[juliann]

Would you guys just puuullleeeezzz get together and come up with one story? How many threads have we had just insisting that D&C 132 is only about polygamy? The next week everyone piles in saying polygamy was carefully hidden from them by "the church".

[t2t2]

Would you guys just puuullleeeezzz get together and come up with one story? How many threads have we had just insisting that D&C 132 is only about polygamy? The next week everyone piles in saying polygamy was carefully hidden from them by "the church".

Heh...why would you expect critics to act in unison when you can't even get active Mormons on this board to agree on section 132?

[John Corrill]

Scott: This has been discussed before here, and not too long ago.

John Corrill: I must have missed that. I'll see if I can find iit. Thanks for the tip.

Scott: I would look up the reference again for you, but...

John Corrill: Not to worry. I found it. It's not quite as exciting as I thought. It's not in the main part of the lesson but in the supplementary info, and there is instructions to use it " if class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage.". It seems the "don't ask, don't tell" paradigm is still in place. Darn! So if someone doesn't already know enough to ask a question (like me for 35 years) then the question never comes. VERY clever!! Never-the-less, hopefully it's a crack. Hey, at least the unknowing teacher might get curious. We can hope....

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Cur...$x=#LPTOC3

Scott: ...the same teacher's manual was in use four years ago and [maybe] four years before that.

John Corrill: I would be very curious to know what the previous manual(s) said; if it is the same, etc. If someone has an older manual, would you please, please, please have a look. Does it make any reference to "Joseph Smith" practicing polygamy?

Pahoran: ...it is and always has been the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ, publicly affirmed from the day that plural marriage was proclaimed to the world, that Joseph was a polygamist...

John Corrill: Very, VERY, VERY SLICK and TRICKY use of words there Pahoran. I think you've outdone...even you I mean that as a compliment...

Pahoran: This fact has never been hidden in any "closet."

John Corrill: Except for the thirty-five years BEFORE "plural marriage was proclaimed to the world". Remember? Anyway, I would like to keep this thread about TODAY'S secrecy and denial of JS's polygamy and how we as a church can find a more healthy way of dealing with it. Another thread about the secrecy of JS's polygamy while he was practicing it would also be fun. Please do start one. Cheers!

Pahoran: Stop trying so hard to convince everyone you're a Latter-day Saint.

John Corrill (quoting scripture): For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the ahead to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

Pretty good stuff there, wouldn't you say? The whole chapter is worth reading. Okay, so maybe I'm just one inflamed nerve ending, never-the-less, that is still part of the body, which apparently serves *some* purpose. I love the scriptures

http://scriptures.lds.org/1_cor/12/21#21

Pahoran: ...we'd have to admit that Emma shares rather a lot of the guilt for this.

John Corrill: Yes, this is a good example of the "convoluted defenses" I was talking about.

As always, hope you are well...

[cinepro]

The only mention I can remember hearing was our teacher quipped that "Eliza Snow was married to two prophets, and the sister of one..." but he didn't expand on that.

Also, as I've mentioned elsewhere, we had a talk in Sacrament Meeting a few weeks ago where it was revealed that Oliver Cowdery was ex'd for practicing polygamy. Apparently, sometime in the early 30's, Joseph had mentioned to him that polygamy would be making a comeback, and the story is that Oliver jumped the gun and shacked up with a woman without official sanction. Reading up on the subject, it looks like the speaker's source was a much later talk by Brigham Young, there aren't any contemporary accounts of this happening.

But there was no mention of Joseph's concurrent practice.

The last time we studied D&C in GD, they had a special "guest" teacher for section 132, and he basically gave a long, eloquent talk about eternal (monogamous) marriage, with no class discussion and very little reference to the actual words in the section.

[1dc]

So if someone doesn't already know enough to ask a question (like me for 35 years) then the question never comes. VERY clever!! Never-the-less, hopefully it's a crack. Hey, at least the unknowing teacher might get curious. We can hope....

An interesting position . . . I've been a member for a similar time frame and remember many lessons which taught of Joseph being concerned about introducing the principle (and literally forced to do so) and that members of the 12 and a few other leaders (High Council?) were been both aware and practicing the law for many years before Sec. 132 was penned.

What I'm trying to understand is why anyone would assume these leaders would not have heeded God's commands to live the principle as it was revealed to them? It seems obvious to me the Lord's point of introducing it was so that His leaders would make a choice to live it or not be leaders in His Church. Why in the world would anyone assume that didn't start with Brother Joseph?

As to particulars about Joseph being in the closet . . We don't have much of a formal library of religion materials (not counting books on CD-Rom) . . everything we've collected and kept over 30 years fits on less than 48 inches of shelf space and one resource takes up about 1/4 of that . That particular resource is a set of Illustrated Stories from Church History my wife and I purchased in the late 70s for use in raising our children. Volume 8 says that the Prophet Joseph (listed first among several given by name) practiced the law of plural marriage before the general body of the Church had been told of it. For goodness sakes, its in children's books and yet we complain about not being told about something we might study for ourselves?

A favorite quote from this section: "Do not reject anything because it is new or strange, and do not sneer nor jeer at what comes from the Lord, for if we do, we endanger our salvation." - Brigham Young

Perhaps we could all try becoming a little more responsible for our own education and salvation and avoid labeling ourselves as victims of "not knowing enough".

[juliann]

John Corrill: Not to worry. I found it. It's not quite as exciting as I thought. It's not in the main part of the lesson but in the supplementary info, and there is instructions to use it " if class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage.". It seems the "don't ask, don't tell" paradigm is still in place. Darn!

Yeah. Except it is "Don't ask and don't watch TV" ! But of course we are not to be trusted to block that channel so the deacons picked up our TVs with fast offerings last month. We might see the play they are continually replaying on BYUTV, The Sixth Wife. But maybe you can't count. Darn!

[John Corrill]

Juliann: We might see the play they are continually replaying on BYUTV, The Sixth Wife.

John Corrill: This sounded very interesting. I tried to find some info about it on the KBYU website, but was unsuccessuful. Can you tell me a little more about it?

Thanks!

[TruthFirst]

whats irritating to sit here and read is that someone will come and say...wow...I've been a member for several decades and I never even heard that about Joseph Smith until just now.

Then someone pipes in and says "the church isnt hiding anything !!" it says such and such right here in this book, see ? !"

then they feel like they've won the argument and proved the church free of guilt.

Well, Im sorry but while the church m,ay not be "technically" hiding it in the closet, it becomes insanely obvious that they are definately not putting forth any effort to explain it, teach it, account for it, or even acknowledge the details of it.

You look at the book "Our Heritage" ...you find very little on polygamy...You read a book such as "Church History for the Family" ...again...very very little. You can read a handful of other all encompasing church histories....and the subject is almost non existant.

Then, in contrast you go and read the journal of discourses, you read countless sermons about polygamy, and you realize that the government was trying to shut it down for 50 years....not just at the end part of it.....and you read what an extruciating trial it was for the saints and leaders to live in that day...when almost on a daily basis they had to deal with this issue. It was no small matter. it was pretty much THE issue. The mormons were hated....a mean at a level of unmitigated putrid disgust !!

Today we have this verysame hateful disgusting feeling toward those folks hiding down in St. George or wherever who are still practicing it.

Funny how much hate we can have toward the very idea of Polygamy....yet it was a part of our own history. It was brought to us as "the true order of marriage" it was brought to us as an actual part of the Gospel plan.

One thing is for sure...while I havnt got to the bottom of it yet....there is most definately, something, or somethings about polygamy that the church doesnt want people thinking about on a daily basis.

something is definately wrong with the way polygamy is handled in todays teachings and it is clear that the truth in this instance, didnt come first.

[rameumptom]

I remember waaaayyyy back in seminary learning about Joseph and polygamy. They told the story of the angel and the sword commanding him to practice it, or else.

They told of Hyrum trying to share the revelation with Emma, and her rejecting it.

They didn't go into details of his plural marriage beyond mentioning some of the names of women he had been sealed to (Eliza R Snow, for example).

So, we're talking almost 30 years ago it was being taught.

And I see it aaallll the time on these boards.

So much so, you'd think the LDS taught nothing BUT polygamy! Oh, and Adam-God theory, too....

Gary

[t2t2]

I don't think I heard that Joseph Smith actually practiced polygamy until my mission. I knew that he instituted it. That he didn't want to. That Emma was unhappy with the idea. But I remember being shocked that he had and that such was well known in some circles - not in others.

But that's not surprising. I could probably count on 1 hand the number of times polygamy came up in church during my youth - outside of we teenagers discussing it (along with a LOT of ignorance) on our own.

[dacook]

Time to lighten up.

From a much earlier thread;

Q: What did Emma and Joseph's other wives have in common?

A: Prophet Sharing!

(Get it; profit/prophet)

[thesometimesaint]

John Carroll:

D&C: 132

"Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501

[charity]

Why should the Church leaders make a big deal about polygamy today? It isn't a commandment that is in force, at this time. If you say we ought to be given talks at General Conference, or have whole Gospel Doctrine lessons about it, then shouldn't the Church leaders make a big deal about the United Order, which is a commandment also not in force at this time? Oh, I forgot. We are hiding it. Shh, everybody, don' t say anything or else an anti-Mormon may start holding up signs on Temple Square during conference time that say, "Why don't they tell you about the United Order!" or "Joseph Smith, false prophet, he practiced the United Order!"

But that's different, you say? Why? Polygamy was a commandment of God. The United Order was a commandment of God. The reason we aren't living both today is because of the weakness of people, both in and out of the Church, and God released us from the requirement to live both.

Do we hate the polygamous groups in southern Utah? We had better not hate anyone. Should we feel disgust about their practice of polygamy? Since they are breaking God's law about sexual purity, we can have the same feeling about them as we do about anyone else breaking that particular commandent, athletes who brag about thousands of sexual partners, movie stars who live with a series of "fiances," next door neighbors who leave their marriage partner for someone else , presidents of the U.S who. . . You get the picture.

I would suggest that any member of the Church who has feelings of unease about the issue take the fall back position: God is perfect, I am not. My understanding of God's laws is still imperfect, too. I trust that at some time in the futue I will have a perfect understanding, and then everything will be all right.

[t2t2]

Why should the Church leaders make a big deal about polygamy today? It isn't a commandment that is in force, at this time. If you say we ought to be given talks at General Conference, or have whole Gospel Doctrine lessons about it, then shouldn't the Church leaders make a big deal about the United Order, which is a commandment also not in force at this time?

1. Mentions of the United Order are not editted out of journal stories the church publishes.

2. Polygamy IS still a doctrine. If many men WERE married for all time and all eternity to multiple wives then you know that polygamy exists in heaven - right? Connect the dots. If something is a part of heaven, at least for some, is that not something you would be concerned about?

3. You talk about other elements that are no longer practiced...why not polygamy? It would be like saying "Since we no longer practice the Law of Moses there's no need to talk about it in church." That's true, I suppose. And yet I bet the Law of Moses comes up at least 10 times a week in various lessons and classes.

[charity]

t2t2,

Why is this so bothersome to you? If I die first, I would expect my husband to marry again, and maybe even for eternity as well as time. That would mean in Heaven he would have 2 wives. I will be perfect then, so I won't have to worry about petty jealousies.

If you are a member of the Church, then you accept all God's laws. If this is one of them, your job is to learn to love the law. For a member of the Church, opposition to the law of polylgamy, is not opposition to Church leadership, or any particular prophet, it is opposition to Heavenly Father.

And if you aren't a member, and don't accept Heavenly Father's laws anyway (or at least, what we LDS believe them to be) then frankly, it is none of your business.

[bickertonite]

http://www.restorationbookstore.org/articl...fp-vol1/toc.htm

Here's a different PoV on whether JS was directly involved or ever introduced polygamy.

But I would like to share this quote:

"I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives.... I am innocent of all these charges.... What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."

[thesometimesaint]

t2t2:

"1. 1. Mentions of the United Order are not editted out of journal stories the church publishes.

I can go down to my local LDS bookstore and read/buy as many books, jounals, stories on polygamy as I want. My personal library contains some. Your point is?

"2. Polygamy IS still a doctrine. If many men WERE married for all time and all eternity to multiple wives than you know that polygamy exists in heaven - right? Connect the dots. If something is a part of heaven, at least for some, is that not something you would be concerned about?"

The United Order IS still a doctrine. It is still a part of Heaven. Your point is?

"3. You talk about other elements that are no longer practiced...why not polygamy? It would be like saying "Since we no longer practice the Law of Moses there's no need to talk about it in church." That's true, I suppose. And yet I bet the Law of Moses comes up at least 10 times a week in various lessons and classes."

The Law of Moses also contained animal sacrifice in the Temple/Tabernancle. Tell me again why we do not practice animal sacrifice? Bet you'd be wrong.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott: This has been discussed before here, and not too long ago.

John Corrill: I must have missed that. I'll see if I can find iit. Thanks for the tip.

Scott: I would look up the reference again for you, but...

John Corrill: Not to worry. I found it. It's not quite as exciting as I thought. It's not in the main part of the lesson but in the supplementary info, and there is instructions to use it " if class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage.".

It is in a section of the lesson called "Additional Teaching Ideas."

As any gospel doctrine teacher knows, each lesson in the manual contains far more material than can be presented in a typical 40-minute class period. Material under "Addtional Teaching Ideas" is just as apt to be chosen by a teacher as is the material in the main part of the lesson. Any teacher has the prerogative to draw from it according to his/her inspiration and the needs of the class.

Case in point: Last Sunday I devoted 19 minutes -- roughly half the class time -- to the showing of a video presentation on Zion's Camp. And we devoted substantial attention to a time line of the events in the Missouri period of Church history. Both of these items were drawn from the "Additional Teaching Ideas."

The manual states with good reason the material on plural marriage "should not be the focus of the lesson." The practice was long ago discontinued and it is only relevant to Church members today as a matter of historical interest. Sunday School time is scarce enough that a teacher needs to be judicious about how it is used.

It seems the "don't ask, don't tell" paradigm is still in place.  Darn!  So if someone doesn't already know enough to ask a question (like me for 35 years) then the question never comes. 

Pardon, but I don't believe the average adult member of the Church is that ill-informed. There are plenty of places and opportunities to learn about plural marriage in early Church history, including the Church Educational System student manuals that I mentioned.

And the manual as currently constituted was in print before it was distributed for use this year. I know, because I had occasion to look up this very passage in the on-line version on the Church Web site well over a year ago.

[Scott Lloyd]

whats irritating to sit here and read is that someone will come and say...wow...I've been a member for several decades and I never even heard that about Joseph Smith until just now.

Then someone pipes in and says "the church isnt hiding anything !!" it says such and such right here in this book, see ? !"

then they feel like they've won the argument and proved the church free of guilt.

Well, Im sorry but while the church m,ay not be "technically" hiding it in the closet, it becomes insanely obvious that they are definately not putting forth any effort to explain it, teach it, account for it, or even acknowledge the details of it.

Sorry, but you'll have to spell this one out for me.

If information on a subject is contained in the curriculum materials of the Church, how is it "insanely obvious" that the Church is hiding the information?

[Smiley]

I'm 17 and I know that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. I didn't think this was new? Whats the issue?

[Pahoran]

John "weasachurch" Corrill,

I previously wrote:

...it is and always has been the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ, publicly affirmed from the day that plural marriage was proclaimed to the world, that Joseph was a polygamist...

And you responded:

Very, VERY, VERY SLICK and TRICKY use of words there Pahoran.  I think you've outdone...even you    I mean that as a compliment...

No doubt. I'm sure that in the circles you move in, "SLICK and TRICKY use of words" is very highly regarded.

However, I must decline the comment. My "use of words" was neither "slick" nor "tricky." It was merely truthful. A technique you should try sometime.

I wrote:

This fact has never been hidden in any "closet."

And you responded:

Except for the thirty-five years BEFORE "plural marriage was proclaimed to the world".  Remember?

Then you immediately contradicted yourself with:

Anyway, I would like to keep this thread about TODAY'S secrecy and denial of JS's polygamy

I'm sorry, what "TODAY'S secrecy and denial of JS's polygamy" is that?

The "secrecy and denial of JS's polygamy" that is fabricated by a few anti-Mormon liars?

Because it is not a secret and it is not denied.

And at no time in your lifetime, or in the living memory of any person on this forum, has there ever been any "secrecy and denial of JS's polygamy."

Just so you know.

and how we as a church

I'm sorry, what church is that? The church of Murphy, Palmer, Southerton and Corrill?

can find a more healthy way of dealing with it.

I don't know about your church, but my church has a perfectly healthy way of dealing with it. I suggest you go steady some other ark.

And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

And neither can the ingrown toenail say to the head, I have no need of thee. Which raises the question: when was the last time you sustained the leaders of the Church in any meaningful way?

You previously wrote:

Personally, I wish President Hinckley would just give a conference talk about how Joseph Smith treated Eliza Partridge and the others and then proclaim, "everybody screws up in life, and this was Joseph's screw up". Then we'd be done with all the silence, the convoluted defenses, etc.

To which I responded:

Maybe you're right, but then we'd have to admit that Emma shares rather a lot of the guilt for this.

So now you come back with:

Yes, this is a good example of the "convoluted defenses" I was talking about.

I absolutely agree. To exonerate Emma of any guilt for what Eliza Partridge went through would require a convoluted defense indeed.

Regards,

Pahoran