"Joseph Smith and polygamy..."

[johndoe]

johndoe:

The Churchs claims on the long ago practice of polygamy are not the extreme.

I never said that they were.

"Don't want to admit"? We proudly proclaim that the Prophets of old were polygamists. We proudly proclaim that polygamy was sanctioned of God. We proudly proclaim that JS revealed it again; That under Gods direction we did and will someday practice it again. We proudly proclaim that revelation has not ceased and that polygamy is a true and everlasting principle. We proudly proclaim that revelation has been given that at the present time we do not PRACTCE polygamy.

I am aware of the official stance of the church. I am simply stating that the church does not go out of its way to bring polygamy up as a topic for discussion. How often is polygamy discussed in sacrament meeting?

At this late date is there any adult in the Church that does not know about pretty much ALL there is to know about polygamy?

What about an adult baptized last week? I think the majority, even long-term, don't know ALL there is to know about polygamy. I think most may know that it was practiced (and they should), but the details are unknown to many.

Why should a couple of 19 year old missionaries discuss polygamy. They have a hard time with getting people to read the Book of Mormon, and to pray.

I did not say that they should, simply that they don't.

The Church has gone to great expense to make the Scriptures available to all that are even remotely interested. We publish official books on our history. We publish periodicals telling what is happening in the Church today. We broadcast to the world our General Conferences, and other events. Our prophet even goes on national syndicated televison and gives interveiws.

The information is there, it is available. It is not the Churchs fault if people do not want to know.

I agree that the information is there. But if you feel that the church goes out of its way to make sure all members are completely informed about polygamy, then I would have to disagree. If any given members were discovered who were unaware of the past practice of polygamy, I doubt that this would be considered a problem by many leaders, nor do I think they would make a serious effort to educate said hypothetical members on the issue.

A perfect example is the Brigham Young manual. There is nothing in the bio there that would lead the reader to believe that he had more than 1 wife at a time. Some critics jump to the extreme conclusion that there is a conspiracy to hide everything related to polygamy and to deny it to the end. Some LDS jump to the equally extreme conclusion that there simply was no intentional effort to exclude reference to polygamy from this manual. I think both thoughts are wrong.

Should the church have included mention of polygamy in the manual? That is a separate topic that I have not touched on.

[Nailady870]

I for the life of me cannot imagine a person being a member of the church for, what, 30 years, and to not have studied enough on there own to discover the past of the church. Sounds to me either some of us are too lazy to seek out, on there own, no prompting, to learn, or simply believe that they will be spoon fed all there lives. That said, I don't expect much teaching about a long past practice. I know it was called of God and retracted by Him. I also know that the lesson manual which the writtings of President Brigham Young didn't say anything about his polygyist life either. Again, don't need it now. If I find myself being called into the office of Pres. Hinckley and he says we've just got word that we will again begin to participate in polygyny, I'dl expect it in next years manuals.

[dacook]

John Corrill:  It's interesting that in all the things you quoted from the Gospel Doctrine manual, not once did it mention that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.  Only that he wondered about it, had questions about it, etc.  Never does it say he had other wives.  Interesting....

Oh come on. Quit raising the bar. It's obvious from the context. If you can't see it you're being deliberately obtuse.

dacook (quoting the GD Manual quoting Joseph Smith): 

[Pahoran]

John Corrill,

I previously wrote:

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."

And in response, you cut and pasted your mantra du jour:

I have yet to find a single reference in church published literature that mentions a specific woman, other than Emma, being Joseph's wife.  If you find one, or two I'm interested.  Are Joseph's other wives less important than Emma?  Why don't we hear about them?  I'm really interested in your thoughts on this.

My thoughts are that an accusation of "secrecy" requires considerably more than "not publicised or explained to some anonymous apostate's satisfaction."

That the Church doesn't publish extensive and detailed biographies of Joseph's plural wives is not evidence of "secrecy." The Church also doesn't publish extensive and detailed biographies of most of its members, living or dead. Does that mean that the existence of all of us is a "secret?" By your logic, it must.

secret n 1 a : something kept hidden or unexplained  (Websters 7th, emphasis John Corrill)

Funny, that. It appears that you are emphasising that "unexplained" and giving it the broadest possible application, i.e. "not explained to some anonymous apostate's satisfaction" in order to justify the making of an accusation which you cannot otherwise plausibly claim to believe.

Furthermore, when I look for an impartial definition, I am unable to find the word "unexplained" appearing at all.

Why do you suppose that might be?

I notice that in your definition, there is no punctuation after the word "unexplained." I wonder why that might be? What aren't you telling us, John?

And what about what you are telling us? Look again at your definition, without the clever distraction of the highlighter pen:

"something kept hidden or unexplained"

The syntax demands that the "kept" applies to the "unexplained" just as much as to the "hidden." For something to be a secret, it is not enough that that something not be publicly announced on a daily basis, which is about the only definition on which your accusation could possibly work. It must be kept unexplained--i.e. there must be some ongoing measures in place to keep any explanations from being made.

So, what are they, and where are they?

Inquiring minds want to know!

BTW, I'd like to thank you for dropping your "weasachurch" mantra. I don't know if you noticed, but it was starting to get mildly annoying. I appreciate your efforts in this regard, and look forward to you staying on the wagon.

Regards,

Pahoran

[John Corrill]

dacook: Oh come on. Quit raising the bar. It's obvious from the context. If you can't see it you're being deliberately obtuse.

John Corrill: This is the point I'm trying to make via my obtusity: I agree with you that the manual saying that Joseph Smith wondered about, prayed about, inquired about polygamy, received a revelation about polygamy (even though it never says Joseph practiced polygamy) does allow one to infer that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.

But (and this is my point) it doesn't tell one single, itty-bitty, tiny thing about *how* Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. My whole *issue* is I would like to see a little bit of the *how*. We hear all the *hows* about Joseph's marriage to Emma. We hear ZERO about Joseph's marriage to anyone else....not even a name!!!!! Are these women not worthy to have their name mentioned for the faith they exibited or the trials they went through? Why, dacook, do we not EVER hear these women mentioned? I'm really hoping someone will take a stab at answering that question. I've asked several times on this thread to Scott, Pahoran, Juliann, etc. Why won't anyone answer this question? Please, help me understand....

dacook: Here is some history and context on the quote for you;

John Corrill: Thank-you for that. Yes, I was aware of it. Since you quoted it, I was just curious if you were aware of it's context. Thanks again.

Pahoran: The Church also doesn't publish extensive and detailed biographies of most of its members.

John Corrill: The church publishes extensively about Joseph's wife Emma. Why do Joseph's other wives never get mentioned? I'm not asking for equal treatment for them. I just wonder why they don't even get mentioned. Can you shed any light on this for me?

[1dc]

John Corrill: My own opinion is this [lack of knowledge about polygamy] is not the fault of the members, but rather the intention of the leadership. Obviously, they are pretty diligent in obscuring it as much as possible.

. . . why do you suppose we don't hear about these women. Are these wives less important than Joseph's wife Emma? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

You've been given plausible if not probable answers . . what's the problem with saying thank you and saying now you understand? Were you simply tuned out? Did you not understand them? Do you reject truth simply because it is inconsistent with your predisposition? How should we consider what you say you were never told if you pass over the written word so easily?

My SIL, with a tenure of nearly fifty years in the church, recently discovered (not in church literature, BTW) that Eliza Snow had been married to Joseph Smith.  Go figure....

I've heard our children pick personalities like their parents for spouses . . . guess that could apply even if you meant FIL . .

[1dc]

John Corrill: . . But (and this is my point) it doesn't tell one single, itty-bitty, tiny thing about *how* Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. My whole *issue* is I would like to see a little bit of *how*. We hear all *hows* about Joseph's marriage to Emma. We here ZERO about Joseph's marriage to anyone else....not even a name!!!!! Are these women not worthy to have their name mentioned or the faith they exibited or the trial they went through. Why, dacook, do we not EVER hear these women mentioned? I'm really hoping someone will take a stab at answering that question. I've asked several times on this thread to Scott, Pahoran, Juliann, etc. Why won't anyone answer this question? Please, help me understand....

John Corrill: The church publishes extensively about Joseph's wife Emma. Why do Joseph's other wives never get mentioned? I'm not asking for equal treatment. I just wonder why they don't even get mentioned. Can you shed any light on this for me?

1. Make a timeline from 1825 to 1845 . . shortly before JS was married to Emma until he died.

2. Go find that list of marriages (from THE most logical place they woud be found) and you'll find Emma was about 1827 (from memory) and put that on the timeline.

3. Mark out important events in Church history regarding the restoration, what led up to them, and who was constantly in JS's life at that time.

4. You get the idea, yet? Keep going with other events as told from different sources. Hint . . it works quite a bit like those who've actually turned their hearts to their fathers and done something about it.

If you want to understand history you need to put it and yourself in context with what was going on . . that's how people learn . . we've already seen what happens when people only hear some of the highlights . .

History is not saving doctrine . . Emma's role (for most of us) is primarily as the one who shared most of JS's adult life with its marvelous events and terrible persecutions while being so close to so many important events in the restoration.

History won't be agreed to by everyone simply because we only have fragments of what actually happened. That's why they say history is made by those who write it as much as (or more than) those who lived it.

[1dc]

1dc: Hmm . . I went to the first Church web site indexing current and previously published books and other material which I knew would have such information and found a list of wives on my very first search there.

John Corrill: Could you post a link or reference. I'm very interested in reading it. Thanks.

Umm . . where does the Church store and publish marriage (more properly) or sealing records? The Church keeps a book which submitters should make worthy of all acceptation (far too many don't set that type of standard for their work). Many of those records have been published in books used by LDS members for generations.

Truly sad if a long-term LDS member doesn't know where to find such information in both electronic and paper form.

1dc:  Similar information is available in at least 3 or 4 collections at the site.

John Corrill:  Could you post a link or reference.  I'm very interested in reading it.  Thanks!

Yes, I could. If you can't find the site with all of those clues, what's the point?

1dc:  Not to mention books and news of the Church to be found at Deseret Book.

John Corrill:  Could you post a link or reference.  I'm very interested in reading it.  Thanks!!

Surely you can google Deseret Book to find their web site and drop relevant key words into the search box. The digest on Compton's book was there as well as a response to Krakauer's book by Turley from the Church (some of which I believe also used to be on the main site when it was news). Both include some limited history and names.

1dc:  I'd be surprised if there was not a bunch of info at BYU as well (internet and hard copy)

John Corrill:  If you find anything, could you post a link or reference.  I'm interested in reading it.  Thanks!!!

1dc:  Not home to try a search at Church News archives.

John Corriill:  If you find anything, couild you post a link, or reference.  I'm interested in reading it.  Thanks!!!!

Look . . I can make an obtuse point as well as you. I didn't go to BYU.edu (though you might find something linked from articles in relevant FAIR topical guide entries), I'm still not home, and back to being more direct as at the outset, you should do your own study if this is what interests you. Not as helpful when it's coming back in your direction, is it?

If you go back and look at the math on how many/few times D&C 132 might be covered in 30 years, it's pretty obvious that unless you were both present and paying attention at each opportunity or doing your own research you *could* miss places where your curiousity should have been peaked and/or answered. Now think about how many more truly important aspects of Christ's good news might also have been missed and not yet applied in life.

PS - if you truly need help finding the information and it truly is that important to you, PM me.

[Smith]

Smith: You didnt try too hard, have a look here:

http://www.byubroadcasting.org/programaz/?letter=83

Go down the page a little and you will find Sixth Wife.....

John Corrill: Thank you Smith! When Juliann mentioned it, since we had been talking about Joseph Smith, I wondered if if might be in regards to his polygamy, but it's not. I'm still hoping though...

Smith: I am curious as to what you were taught about the "Surplus of Women" explanation for polygamy.....and if thats what you were taught...who taught it to you?

John Corrill: I don't remember being taught anything about polygamy. I knew it happened in Utah, probably because of the Lion House, etc. but I have no recollection of ever being taught or discussing the reasons for polygamy.

John,

Yes the programme was about someone who was not a wife of JS but it was all about polygamy and how this women experienced it. OK, maybe not ALL about it, there were other themes but its not called 6th wife for nothing

Next, I dont think it was me that asked the second question you answered but thanks for answering anyway.

[Dunamis]

There was a recent thread giving an informal poll of ward members who knew about certain aspects of Joseph Smith and polygamy that indicated this was known to a majority. Does anyone have something similar to offer if you think otherwise? We have a group who continually starts threads complaining about the same problems. This becomes board slamming unless you provide new information.

We have a group who says the church hides, suppresses or is not responsible enough in providing information that they think is necessary. We have another group who says this information is available to anyone who wants to look for it.

If there is nothing else to be provided move on.

[John Corrill]

Dunamis: There was a recent thread giving an informal poll of ward members who knew about certain aspects of Joseph Smith and polygamy that indicated this was known to a majority. Does anyone have something similar to offer if you think otherwise?

John Corrill: I would also like to mention my informal 2003 poll of Temple Square missionaries, both elderly couples and young sisters. None knew ANY details of Joseph Smith's polygamy ie a name of a plural wfe; age of a plural wife; marital status of a plural wife when they married Joseph. My poll results showed that a slight majority of the missionaries were aware that Joseph Smith was involved in polygamy in some way, but beyond that, they knew nothing.

Dunamis: We have a group who continually starts threads complaining about the same problems. This becomes board slamming unless you provide new information.

John Corrill: I think if you look at my original post, I was not complaining. In fact, I was almost giddy that Joseph Smith's polygamy was actually mentioned in Sunday School!!!! I have been hoping for a long time that the church would be more open about Joseph Smith's polygamy, and viewed this event as progress for which the chuch should be congratulated!!!

Dunamis: We have a group who says the church hides, suppresses or is not responsible enough in providing information that they think is necessary. We have another group who says this information is available to anyone who wants to look for it.

John Corrill: Well, yes. I have asked multiple times on this thread for someone to provide a reference in church published literature to a specific wife of Joseph Smith. Thus far, we have nothing. Perhaps that is the answer to the conundrum you have hightlighted. I"m still hopeful someone will be able to find such a reference.

[charity]

John, you said there is nothing published? I think you must be nit picking at the definition of "published." There is an official Church site, where on 2 clicks you can get a complete list of Joseph Smith's plural wives, names, ages, etc. If you are ignoring the answer to the request you made, what is your purpose? To try to increase confusion? Tsk tsk.

[cinepro]

Here's the story behind the quote. I'm sure this would make for an intersting footnote in a Gospel Doctrine lesson:

Joseph Smith was not directly involved in the "excommunication" of the rebellious Pratts on 20 August 1842. He was walking a tightrope, secretly courting both thirty-eight-year-old Eliza R. Snow and seventeen-year-old Sarah Ann Whitney, while fighting extradition to Missouri as "an accessory to an assault with intent to kill" former governor Lilburn W. Boggs. Smith was also at odds with his long-time friend and counselor Sidney Rigdon over a [p.32] reputed polygamous proposal on 9 April 1842 to Rigdon's unmarried daughter Nancy.6 George W. Robinson, a prominent Nauvoo citizen married to another of Rigdon's daughters, wrote to James A. Bennett, a New York friend to the church, on 22 July that "Smith sent for Miss Rigdon to come to the house of Mrs. [Orson] Hyde, who lived in the under rooms of the printing-office" (Bennett 1842, 245-47). According to Robinson, Nancy "inquired of the messenger

[t2t2]

John, you said there is nothing published? I think you must be nit picking at the definition of "published." There is an official Church site, where on 2 clicks you can get a complete list of Joseph Smith's plural wives, names, ages, etc. If you are ignoring the answer to the request you made, what is your purpose? To try to increase confusion? Tsk tsk.

Mind telling us which site and what clicks? I'd like to see what it says. Thanks!

T

[cinepro]

It's this site:

http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/site

Click on the "Resource Center" -> "Questions". Under "Restoration", you can read about how Joseph restored Old Testament polygamy. There's a brief discussion of Joseph's wives, and even mention that some still had legal, living husbands.

Also, if you click on the "Life of a Prophet" -> "Joseph and Emma", you can read about Emma's trial with Polygamy, and how it affected their marriage to have Joseph married to many of her good friends and women who shared their home with them.

[cinepro]

Hahaha...just kidding.

It's actually this one:

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp

Search for "Joseph Smith" (mother "Lucy Mack")

...and you'll get a list of 24.

[Brackite]

Hello Charity,

You wrote:

Why is this so bothersome to you?

[charity]

Thanks for your concern, Brackite. It is my understanding from reading the scriptures that David was condemned not because he had wives which had been given to him by the Lord, but because he had taken another man's wife, and had the man killed. As for Solomon, his sin was in having wives which were idolaters and which resulted in his fall into idolatry. And Jacob? The promise of Abraham comes through Jacob's offspring with 4 wives.

Now, about the same spirit which possesses you. . . You are right. So I think I will be fine (providing, of course, I can obey the commandments and endure to the end) as long as I accept plural marriage in theory, even though I might have a little difficulty actually living it. But since when did we only get credit for living commandments which were no problem? Don't most of us have to struggle with different commandments? But we struggle through, and become stronger.

[TruthFirst]

Brackite,

I am not sure that I'm understanding the specific meaning of your statement here :

Heavenly Father does Not love Polygamy. The Lord God states in Jacob 2:23-24 in the Book of Mormon for a man to have many wives and concubines is an abomination in His sight. Here is the scriptural Passage of Jacob 2:23-24:

(bold emphasis mine)

Specifically, I'm seeing this as contradictory to what then actually transpired between 1842 and 1890. I'm wanting help seeing how this idea works in harmony with said timeline.

Thanks

[thesometimesaint]

Brackite:

Keep reading you'll find it.

[iknowthischurchistrue]

Earlier someone posted the link for Sunday school lesson 31:

Lesson 31 "Sealed... for time and all eternity"

This lesson is about eternal marraige The lesson says nothing about polygamy. In the teachers manual (link above) At the bottom of the page is additional teaching ideas. The last of six additional teaching ideas is plural marraige just in case "class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage" They use this section to distance themselves as much as possible from the doctrine of plural marraige, with the final paragraph from Gordon Hinckley:

In 1998, President Gordon B. Hinckley made the following statement about the Church

[thesometimesaint]

iknowthischurchistrue:

I don't know of any mainstream church that prohits remarriage on the death of a spouse. What happens in the next life is between the believers and God.

[John Corrill]

Cinepro: It's this site: http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/site

John Corrill: Sheesh, you had me going there for a second!!!

[cinepro]

John Corrill: Sheesh, you had me going there for a second!!

[Kozaru]

Hahaha...just kidding.

It's actually this one:

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp

Search for "Joseph Smith" (mother "Lucy Mack")

...and you'll get a list of 24.

The official LDS Familysearch page in question.

Yes, but everyone here tells me that these were only "sealings", even though the page you referenced (an LDS page, no less) calls them marriages.

Which one is it?